You need to look at the history of the church, because there's documentation
from the church and its members regarding the authenticity that Joseph DID in
fact have posterity from other women, there is no question there. In fact, I
have a good guy friend who's a product of it. I also lived in Provo and knew a
selected few women who found they were direct decendants from Joseph Smith after
doing geneological research, and get this, they WERE from other women.All I'm saying is that you need to look beyond what people have told you and
into the lives of those who are products of this practice, whether good or bad
in this dispensation and/or before Christ fulfilled all laws. Don't be a
teacher to people if you aren't knowing the facts.And I agree with
the guy above who says we need to get out there and help people, after
responding to this discussion. This includes assisting members AND non-members,
aside from teaching the gospel of Christ as a missionary in your ward.
Plural marriage is still part of the doctrine of the LDS church. See D&C Section
132. We believe in it, we just don't practice it. The vast majority of these
ladies were sealed to Joseph as his spiritual wives and nothing more. Joseph was
sealed to Helen Mar Kimball at her father's insistence. He wanted her to be
associated with the Prophet into the eternities. It has nothing to do with sex
and lust. Nobody complains about Hugh Hefner but they would do if he married the
girls. We're all hypocrites!
Polygamy was illegal before the Edmunds Act.Polygamy was always
illegal whenever and wherever the Mormons practiced it. It was even illegal in
Canada and Mexico as they only recognize marriages that are legal in the
person's home country. John Taylor, the third president of the church, claimed
that he believed in keeping all the laws of the United States "except
one"--i.e., "The law in relation to polygamy." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 20,
page 317)Most of Joseph Smith's polygamous marriages occurred in
Illinois in the early 1840s. The Illinois Anti-bigamy Law enacted February 12th,
1833 clearly stated that polygamy was illegal.
All families contain oppression and wrongdoing. I'm sure of it. Can a woman
be happy in polygamy? It's very subjective. At least they may experience
solidarity instead of loneliness, if it works for them individually.So what does polygamy offer women?Isaiah 4 shows the Lord's mercy
to proud young things that will be redeemed one day. To the women, who are the
ones to feel the bitter, sharp end of (society's and the Lord's} reproach, the
Lord has provided a way back, a promise of a righteous husband, even if these
men are in the minority to the repentant women. "In that day the Branch of the
Lord shall be beautiful and glorious" I believe that strict
monogamy laws increase the plight of women, the opposite to what the politically
correct would have us believe. Too many broken homes are caused by this
unrealistic standard. Let liberals do what they want for their all
important sex-lives but please don't let them structurally reform society any
more in ways that weaken family bonds. People fall in love all the time. Get
over it, we are polygamous.
The first polygamist presented in the bible is a murderer...Lamech. While God may have tolerated the polygamy of multiple patriarchs, that does
not mean he condoned such but merely that He had bigger fish to fry.
all us regular folks know you all want to bring back polygamy. as soon as the
fed govt changes the marriage contract to simple civil unions, and marriage
doesn't matter anymore, then you can "marry" as many women or men as you want.
They won't be legal contracts, but you'll have your sacred word "marriage" and
can do with it as you please.hows that sound?
so God commanded (in the old testament) or at least tolerated, or maybe somebody
just wrote about it - we should be polygamists. God commanded, or at least
tolerated, or maybe somebody just wrote about it - a lot of things in the old
testament. Should they all be restored - how about we all go out for a jolly
stoning of the adulterers next door! Oh, better yet let's cut off a couple of
hands while we are at it.... invade a country ask everybody to convert and when
they do circumcise them, and then kill them all.It we want to restore the
old testament then you really ought to think about not living under the
You: That may be (IS) true, he was called to the apostleship in 1838. Do you
also disregard statements made by current apostles when you don't like what they
say, just because they are not president/prophet of the church or president of
the quorum of twelve? Btw, there are similar quotes made by John Taylor, who WAS
the prophet at the time.Me: It was a personal journal entry, not
even meant for the public. Do I need to review every apostle's private journals
now? Silly.The next prophet can and does provide new direction. John
Taylor can say whatever he wants (some quotes attributed to him are of iffy
origin, btw), but the next guy can propose a change (ie 1978 priesthood). The
control is the sustaining vote of the FP, 12 and the membership.To
accept something as doctrinally authoritative requires the approval of the FP
and 12, plus a sustaining vote of the membership. To accept something as
scriptural requires the same, but explicitly presented as future canon.Other statements can be good counsel (usually are), and interesting for
reflection and study, and even personal adoption. But for doctrine, see above.
To Anti-PC Infidel,Bad assumption. I have my PhD and am worthy of
it, unlike this professor at BYU who has sacrificed intellectual integrity for
>I think your PhD should be revoked.And you should keep yours. Oh,
wait. You haven't earned one, I assume...
Arkad,"It has actually been quite often translated as wives,
especially where the context points this out."Yes, and as you
Mormons are fond of pointing out, the Bible has NOT been translated
correctly!Yet, oddly, you invoke these "uncorrect" translations only
when it suits you.The context of 2 Samuel 12 provides no definitive
connotations or denotations supporting the translation as "wives", especially
when "concubines" (which is another mistranslation) are referred to throughout
the stories of the old testament. Nowhere in the OT do authors mistakenly refer
to concubines as "wives". Similarly, no author would use "wives" if they were
including "concubines" as well as daughters, female servants and slaves, as part
of the "household" of David.Moreover, most of the translations you
cited did not use the original Greek Septuagint, and simply propogated the
erroneous translation, just as the foreign language translations you refer to
are based on some other English translation and not on original Greek or
Masoretic texts.You are wrong, my confused friend. Admit it and
remove your embarrassment.
Wow! Arkad is good at Googling stuff!Did you actually read the
Septuagint as you claimed, or not, Arkad?Do you actually know how to
read Greek or not, Arkad? If so, why didn't you catch the abominable blunder of
posting the wrong Greek text and the wrong "translation", and that by an old
"scholar" that is the first one to come up on Google?You are a
fraud, Arkad, and no amount of your pretending will convince anyone otherwise
because you have already lied and been fundamentally wrong!
Arkad,Are you trying to get us to believe anything you have to
comment now, after your horrible lie was revealed?I trust the
Anonymous who has cited the correct verses in the Septuagint because it is
obvious Anonymous reads Greek.It is also obvious YOU DON'T! and are
only googling stuff to try and APPEAR as something you are not!Go
away and stop deceiving people.
When the whacks can't get any whackier. Sheesh!
"Unlike in past ages, in today's society, sex and marriage have become
uncoupled; sex and reproduction have become uncoupled, she observed. "Through
no-fault divorce, we have a rival to monogamy called serial polygamy," she
said."Excuse me, Professor (choke), but most LDS apologists (the
so-called Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship) insist that Joseph Smith
never consummated most of his plural marriages, thereby uncoupling sex and
marriage! And claims that Joseph fathered children by other women than Emma have
been passionately attacked, thereby uncoupling marriage and sex and reproduction
by Joseph Smith himself!I thought Joseph Smith lived in a "past
age", and not in today's society?I think your PhD should be revoked.
RE to Arkad and Duped Readers:You said: "The operative word is
γυναῖκας, which everyone knows means
women"Everyone knows? It has actually been quite often translated
as wives, especially where the context points this out. In 2 Samuel 12 Nathan
is referring to David's adultery and uses a word which can alternatly be
translated wifes or women. Since the subject is sexual intercourse with a woman
the following translations have chosen wifes:New American Standard
BibleGods Word TranslationKing James VersionAmerican King
James VersionAmerican Standard VersionBible in Basic EnglishDouay-RheimsDarby Bible TranslationEnglish Revised VersionWebsters Bible TranslationWorld English BibleYoung's Literal
TranslationThe Geneva Bible also uses the word wives.I
could also point out many versions in Spanish & Portuguese which use the word
wives.Apparently the overriding consensus on how to translate this
word is "wives".
Arkad, you have been gutted, cleaned, and mounted by a superior intellect!
To Anonymous | 1:21 p.m."The Lord holds Himself responsible to
reveal the understanding for the laws He requires His children to do. When those
laws or practices are recinded so is the understanding. No one knows what it is
like to be commanded by God to live the law of polygamy. The fact is God has
asked people to live it, people that most mainstream religions believe to be
prophets, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David...etc. It is obvious from the posters
that the understanding for this law has been taken from the earth. Until that
understanding is restored, there will be nothing but lies, secrets, guesses,
darkness and confusion."David Koresh said the same thing when he
wanted to have relations with multiple female followers. Reverend Jim Jones said
the same thing when he wanted to have several different partners in The People's
Temple.You can always justify cultish practices by appeal to
ignorance or lost knowledge. It works to fool the gullible, but it never works
to fool thinking persons who have a sense of decency and morality.
Now, having thoroughly dispatched Arkad and the other pseudo-scriptorians and
FARMS nincompoops, I will repeat:NOWHERE in the Old or New
Testaments does God command, endorse, or approve of polygamy!I defy
anyone to prove otherwise!
Arkad,Are you SURE you actually read the Septuagint? It doesn't look
like you did.
Joseph Smith was commanded to restore the Church of Jesus Christ. He knew as
early as 1832 of the principle of plural marriage, but he did not reveal it nor
did he want to reveal it because...well...look at how people react. But
eventually an angel came to him with a sword in hand commanding him to preach it
or die. This is the "dispensation of the fulness of times" as Paul
prophesied would come. With that every principle and doctrine ever taugh in any
dispensation has to be restored to the earth, including plural marriage. I for one see it as a great sifter which makes people use FAITH to
follow the Lord. But we live in a Faithless world, where people rely on man more
The Lord holds Himself responsible to reveal the understanding for the laws He
requires His children to do. When those laws or practices are recinded so is
the understanding. No one knows what it is like to be commanded by God to live
the law of polygamy. The fact is God has asked people to live it, people that
most mainstream religions believe to be prophets, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,
David...etc. It is obvious from the posters that the understanding for this law
has been taken from the earth. Until that understanding is restored, there will
be nothing but lies, secrets, guesses, darkness and confusion
RE to What's the big deal? (7:16)I agree with you. Polygamy was
never easy! Genesis 29&30 will show you that 11 of the 12 tribes were named
after a specific point in the conflict between Rachel and Leah. For example
Naphtali's name (The wrestlings of God have I wrestled with my sister) was
chosen because Rachel said "With great wrestlings have I wrestled with my
sister, and I have prevailed".To have each wife naming children
after their conflict with another wife... I wouldn't want to come home to that!
John Pack Lambert,Rather than waste time responding to each of your
comments, let me just summarize: You have no clue what you are talking about.
This is not a Christian article.
Arkad said, You are just as dishonest about what the Septuagint as you are about
the KJV. You need to remember that people on this board are literate and have
access to copies of many different versions of the Bible.Apparently
they were educated by the frauds at FARMS. You erroneously give the Greek
Septuagint for what became the actual 2 Kings 12:8 rather than the 2 Samuel
12:8, perhaps thinking nobody would notice, or perhaps because YOU didnt
notice!Here is the correct Septuagint text:8.
καὶ ἔδωκά σοι
τὸν οἶκον τοῦ
κυρίου σου καὶ
τοῦ κυρίου σου
ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ σου
καὶ ἔδωκά σοι
Ιουδα καὶ εἰ
operative word is γυναῖκας, which
everyone knows means women NOT wives, just as οἶκον
means household, not house. Thus, this verse is referring to the women of the
household, which does NOT mean plural wives!Also as everyone knows,
Sir Lancelot C.L. Brentons (1851) is old, outdated, and wrong more often than it
is right!The name Satan means deceiver. You are a deceiver. Shall we
give you your correct name?
That may be true, but he was called to the apostleship in 1838. So do you also
disregard statements made by current apostles when you don't like what they say,
just because they are not president/prophet of the church or president of the
quorum of twelve? Btw, there are similar quotes made by John Taylor, who WAS
the prophet at the time.
Oh, I see the Mormon apologetic argument now: as long as you don't have sex with
them, it is OK to be married to as many women as you want.But if you
never have sex with your "wives", you cannot possibly procreate, right?But why doesn't the same standard apply for same-sex marriage? Mormons are
claiming same-sex marriage is immoral because it is not "natural" and does not
procreate!If that is why same-sex marriage is bad, then Joseph
Smith's non-sexual, non-procreating "marriages" were just as bad as same-sex
marriage.Which is it going to me, Mormons? Is "traditional" marriage
approved of God because it "procreates"? If so, then Joseph Smith's marriage
were not approved by God.Or are you going to stick with your
argument that Joseph Smith's "marriages" were good and approved by God even
though he never "consummated" them? If so, then marriage must have other
purposes and justification, right? Then what is wrong with same-sex marriage
being justified for all the same reasons Joseph Smith's plural marriages were
You date your WW quote from 4/21/1879.He was not church
president/prophet until 18871898, and not sustained as church president until
1889.He was not even president of the Quorum of the 12 until October
1880.I think your quote is largely irrelevant.
One good and wonderful thing about president Gordon B. Hinckley was that he
worked on keeping the perversion down within the LDS church. He was a man of
great morals, strength and good standing in every way against sin and
perversion, and he did not covet other women. He loved his wife with all his
heart and spoke continuously good and kind things of her to the end, who indeed
is his only companion for all eternity. He was the way all men should be. God
bless Gordon B. Hinckley for who he was and the wonderful legacy of good morals.
We miss him so very dearly.
What is with you people? Quit surrounding your lives around adultery. I
guarantee you, and coming from a large polygamist family myself, that there is
much more to life then your sleep sac and committing adultery. Much of what you
people write on here is ludicrous and nonsense. I suggest you folks get some
"Polygamy was in the Old Testement. In the Aof F we state that we believe in
living the law of the land. Therefore when polygamy became illegal we
stopped."So if the government makes a law against baptisms, the
church will stop performing them in order to obey the law of the land??? God is
not governed by man.Wilford Woodruff stated in his journal on
4/21/1879 "God says, 'We shall be damned if we do not obey the law.'
Congress says, 'We shall be damned if we do.' It places us precisely in the
same position that it did the hebrews in the fiery furnace, and Daniel in the
den of lions. Our enemies have pursued the same course and made it a law of
offense to obey one of the laws of our God. Now who shall we obey? God or man?
My voice is that we obey God. So say I as an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ,
I will not desert my wives and my children and disobey the commandments of God,
for the sake of accommodating the public clamor of a nation steeped in sin and
ripened in the damnation of hell."
My great-great grandmother is the only ancestor of mine who practiced polygamy,
but her daughter took her husband and family into the colonies to be near her.
My grandfather was born in Pacheco Mexico while they were there, as were his 4
older sisters. They all remember their grandmother well, and that polygamist
marriage was one of great love and affection between all. There was NO abuse
that any of them knew of, and their grandmother chose to enter into that
marriage as a mature, full-of-her-senses, woman. There are a few posters who
claim there is NEVER such a relationship when polygamy is involved, but they
speak without evidence to support it. I'm glad that polygamy is not an LDS
practice today. The haterd of the world is its challenge, more-so than the
practice itself when done correctly.
all the best prophets were polygamists... Moses, Abraham, Joseph Smith, Brigham
Young... I got no problem with it. I wouldn't be surprised if Jesus was married
as such... Most men cringe at the idea, not because multiple partners hasn't
occurred to them, but because of how the women would all fight and combine
against you as a husband, and the logistical nightmare of caring for so many
kids. Things are stressful enough nowadays without adding that to the mix... yet
it's amazing nowadays how many young swinging men who remain unmarried to their
many domestic partners leave behind a string of children and feel no obligations
at all to them. At least polygamy left the philanderer with no excuses...
nowadays the opposite's going on... so what' more dysfunctional?
YOU: By the way, most LDS polygs did not marry widows or for the lack of men. If
anything the frontier west had less women then men.ME: That was
because on the frontier in general, explorers and men came alone. For Mormons,
they brought their families. If you read about the handcart companies, it is
clear that many more men died under the cold conditions than did women.YOU: Also women begin menstration much earlier now then even 50 years ago. So
under age marriages were not common.ME: I don't know about menstral
cycles or 50 years ago, abut 160 years ago your last statement is inaccurate.
The 1850 census records show that for those who had been married in the previous
year (non-Mormons, fyi), the most common age for women was 18-19. 3% of the new
brides were 15 or younger. In my wife's own non-LDS family, she has a
great-great grandmother who married a 25 year old at age 14 (in the 1840s).Compared to today, the marriage age for women/girls was much younger.We'd call some "underage" today, but at the time, they were legal aged.
First, Bushman is not an official church historian. You undercut your
credibility by stating this.I have read "Rough Stone Rolling" more
than once. He never says that Joseph consummated a marriage with a woman married
to another man and challenges the notion that he consummated his marriages with
most of his other wives.As you say, Bushman is tough to argue
with.And there is no evidence whatsoever that JS fathered any
children other than with Emma. DNA has proven this in EVERY testable case! Brodie's conjectures regarding paternity have been entirely overturned
as has her primary theses.What was it you said about twisting,
To the 1:33 commentator, Brother Bushman never says that Joseph
consumated a marriage with a woman married to another husband. He takes
specific exception at Comptons assumption that Joseph consumated his marriages
with most of his wives. However there was at least one of Joseph's wives
who did testify later before a court of law that she had been wife to Joseph "in
very deed". If you want a better answer go investigate what they have to
say at FAIR.
Ten Commandments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaGo read the truth
and get a life all you lawbreakers. Stop making up lies and being so self
Hey, John Pack Lambert, What's the problem buddy? Please stop your funny
comments before I bust my gut open from laughing. Polygamy my son, is what it
takes to make a real man.
Re: Anonymous | 3:51 p.m.I'm a woman, and the idea of polygamy
doesn't bother me in theory. I can't say I'd be jumping for joy upon being asked
to live it, and it certainly wouldn't be easy, but the idea of it, under the
proper circumstances (i.e., when it's explicitly commanded by God), doesn't
bother me. It wasn't easy to get to that point, it used to really bother me a
lot. But over time, with prayer and study, I came to realize that when practiced
the way it was originally designed, and when favored by God, it's not the great
evil that many make it out to be. It wouldn't be my ideal
relationship, but I can understand enough to know that after this life, things
will be different. We will be different. I think that in the next life, we won't
be so concerned with selfish ideas of yours and mine, but that we'll all be so
excited to be together in our family units for eternity that the means of
getting there aren't going to be important anymore.
Yes, people should obey the 10 commandments and not commit adultery, and stop
coveting thy neighbors wife. It is a wicked people who do such things.
The people of God obey his laws.
To Sarah at 11:48, I think some of these people set up google news
searches for Mormonsim, or polygamy and when they find an article they come and
comment, normally with only a minimal amount of reading the article.
To the 6:02 commentator, with the exception of Sister Johnson who is
not mentioned, few debate the AGES given by Compton. However, there are
other questions. First, if Joseph Smith had been single and married a
14-year-old girl would this have been scandalous at the time. The answer is a
resounding NO. 30 some year old men marrying teenage girls was a common
occurance in frontier America at the time. Secondly, is there any
evidence that Helen Mar Kimball ever had sex with Joseph Smith? The answer here
is a resounding NO. Joseph Smith largely entered into this marriage to cement
his connection with the Kimball family. Would he have had sex with her at an
older age? Well, I do not know, but there is NO EVIDENCE he ever did, and there
is plenty of evidence that there were many of Joseph's wives he never consumated
his marriage with so people are arguing from false premises. Lastly,
but hardly leastly, 14-year-olds are not pre-pubescent, so some of the extreme
rhetoric against Joseph Smith is TOTAL LIES.
To the 5:02 commentator, "underage" according to whom. Not according
to the laws of the land they lived in. You can not retroactively accuse people
of statutory rape, since it is only a crime where there is a stuate broken, and
Joseph Smith never violated a statue according to age. Lastly, you need
to read Thomas Alexander's biography of Wilford Woodruff, published by Signature
Books, where he argues that although President Woodruff married women under the
age of 18 he never had sexual relations with them until they reached that age.
If you are consistent in accepting anything by Signature Books as ture, than you
have to recognize the validity of this work, or do you only accept stuff from
signature books when it furthers your anti-Mormonism?
To the 3:21 commentator, Did you read any of the article? Kathryn
Daynes is a WOMAN. I know this wil blow your world-view, but it is true.
Have some of you commentators ever bothered to read paragraph nine? I higly
doubt it. The men did not have to have sex with their wives to be guilty,
merely taking a sick child from the home of a wife for a ride was considered a
violation of the law. These men violated the law by acknoledging their
children and treating them as such. It would have been ok if they had ignored
them and given them nothing, but by giving them full standing as children, by
caring for them as such, it was these actions that violated the law. It
is because the law was so unjust that people resisted it for so long and os
to the 8:15 commentator, Your claims fail to be supported by actual
events. It was the people of Utah, lead by men who were polygamoists, who gave
women the firht to vote, and it was the Federal Government in trying to take
this right away who destroyed that right. When the women's vote was
restroed in 1896, it was polygamists like John Henry Smith who helped restore
it. If you think polygamy is about male-domination and exploitation of
women, go read Sister Daynes book to learn the truth.
What you have to remember is that those who entered into polygamy had done so
by making covenants before God to live with each wife they married that included
the command to multiply and replentish the earth. What was greater, the
law of man of the covenants they had entered into. Polygamy is not a
universal evil. To say that casting the additional wives aside and acting as if
the covenants to treat them in ever sense as wives made in the house of the Lord
were of non-effect is easy for some 21st-century non-believer to say, but
impossible for those who had made the covenants to do, and should be seen in
this context by every member who has made and tries to keep sacred covenants,
which is all members of the Church because you make covenants at baptism.
I see many are saying that Joseph Smith was an adulterer on this post? I'm
planning on looking into his many wives later.Why are some men so
intent on proving and backing polygamy for themselves on here? Is it because you
have grown bored with your own wife, so now you think it is time that God let
you have a another round of excitement? How do your wives feel about the
preaching you are doing? Are they as well bored with you and daydream about some
younger and more affectionate guy? I mean to say, there are many woman in our
very public schools, and some others who are out about who have families and end
up committing adultery with some younger guy. So-- please don't tell me that
woman don't have feelings for other men as well. It must be there polygamist
side. Those polygamist woman must have also daydreams of there own prince
charming who just wants them ONLY. I think being around women I know a little
bit about how they think.
What moral relativism is used to reconcile D&C 132 with this quote from Emma
Smith?"we raise our voices and hands against John C. Bennett's
'spiritual wife system', as a scheme of profligates to seduce women; and they
that harp upon it, wish to make it popular for the convenience of their own
cupidity; wherefore, while the marriage bed, undefiled is honorable, let
polygamy, bigamy, fornication, adultery, and prostitution, be frowned out of the
hearts of honest men to drop in the gulf of fallen nature."
My earlier comments (10:46 & 11:06) were directed toward Anonymous (8:38; 8:40 &
Polygamy was nothing new. It was done back then and it was practiced when Joseph
Smith was alive. If you want to question Joseph for the commandment he recieved
from God then question God and ask him why he let Abraham and Issac and all
those other people who had more tha one wife. Not everyone could have a second
wife just be cause they wanted one. They were chosen by the leaders and they had
to be able to have the means to feed and shelter them. In other words they had
to have the money. If you dont understand why polygamy was practice do not
critize it. Or better yet get the bible and try to figure it out before you make
your mind up about something you dont even know or cant even begin to
Greek Septuagint 2 Kings 12:7-8:12:7 και
και δικασω υμας
υμιν την πασαν
υμιν και εν
και οι υιοι
προς κυριον και
μωυσην και τον
πατερας ημων εξ
αυτους εν τω
Translation by Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton (1851)7 And Nathan said to
David, Thou art the man that has done this. Thus says the Lord God of Israel, I
anointed thee to be king over Israel, and I rescued thee out the hand of Saul;
8 and I gave thee the house of thy lord, and the wives of thy lord
into thy bosom, and I gave to thee the house of Israel and Juda; and if that had
been little, I would have given thee yet more.
The law states that if someone steals they should repay what was stolen, in some
cases there are harsher punishments. In other words the law clearly condemns
stealing. In the case of plural marriage the OT states that you
should treat both wives equally. It doesn't say that you shouldn't do it nor
does it require a divorce. In fact polygamy is actually approved in 2 Samuel.And by the way, who are you to make broad claims about who has read and
who hasn't read the Greek Septuagint? I for one have read the Septuagint.
Guess what? You are just as dishonest about what the Septuagint as you are
about the KJV.You need to remember that people on this board are
literate and have access to copies of many different versions of the Bible.Septuagint 2 Kings 12:7-8 (Septuagint has 1,2,3&4 Kings rather than 1&2
Samuel and 1&2 Kings so 2nd Kings Septuagint is comparable to 2 Samuel KJV):"Thus says the Lord God of Israel... and I gave thee the house of thy
lord, and the wives of thy lord into thy bosom"
Yippers, and the lies continue....
[quote] "Through no-fault divorce, we have a rival to monogamy called
serial polygamy," [/quote]Nofault divorce is nothing now. We
have cohabitation and a societal glorification of victim status among single
parents and the dismissal of the importance of the title mother and father when
it pertains to childcare. For many, Marriage is no longer seen as a
means to protect and provide for children--instead it is all about a sexual
relationship... which is a tragic misappropriation of the whole point of why
marriage has societal value at all. Adding gays to the mix will only
make "marriage" more meaningless, because it completely divorces children from
the relationship altogether, and places paramount a physical sexually-preferred
relationship above all other considerations. Not that gays won't use it as a
claim to gain access to children... that's been their point all along. In a way
its their biological imperative. Sadly in all of this, the children
I must respond, to those who do not believe Joesph Smith practiced polygamy.
With limited space I can not quote all the journal entries from my ancestors, so
I will quote only two. My 3rd Great Grand Uncle Benjamin F. Johnson: 'first of
April, 1843, the Prophet (J.S.)came to Macedonia to hold a meeting..he said
'come Bennie let us have a walk'...Here as we sat, he began to tell me that the
Lord had revealed to him that plural marriage was according to his law. He was
required to take other wives and wanted to my sister Almira for one of them.' of
course he goes on to write when this took place.Finally my GG Grand
Mother, niece to Benjamin wrote:'In conclusion I declare myself a living witness
to the fact Joseph Smith the Prophet not only taught but also practiced plural
marriage, any one to the contrary notwithstanding.'They way the way
early Mormons practice plural marriage is so much different than those of the
FLDS and others of today. After reading so many journals and personal histories
I know there was love within the family unit of these marriages.
Now we have some polig coming on here posting as Noor Saffiyah...lol! You people
need to come clean and stop this silly business, this is not funny. You
polygamist men always post as women, children and now some Islamic dude. Please
quit this absolute abuse and nonsense.
Fredd,It was quite common n centuries past for one to be betrother
or married to another without actually consummating the marriage until of an age
to actually do so.In the 19th century, there were many brides (my
grandmothers included who were 'under-age[something that didn't exist
then[).One way in which the shortage of females was handled in
the frontier was with the practice of 'mail order brides'.
RE: A single LDS woman,If there are that many 40+ LDS women out
there who can't find a husband because they won't lower their standards, then
their standards are ridiculously high and unreasonable-and you leave alot of LDS
men out there with no wife since they couldn't possibly ever reach the lofty
heights they are expected to.Time to come back down to earth!!
Mormons are nuts!
To Anonymous---Islam does not condone terrorism, the murder of
Westerners, or wives, or FGM (is an African practice done by a small number of
Africans).It does not allow for the mistreatment of wives either!Islam does allow for polygamy (four wives MAX!!!)if you can treat them equally
in love and provisions. If not, then it isn't allowed. It is practiced rarely
in the Islamic world as a result!!What man does and what his
religion tells him to do can be two very different things. It's called free
will, has nothing to do with God!!Please do not speak about that
which you know nothing about. "...We could use the same
fallacious argument about any religion:If Islam is false than their
ordinances have no strength in the next life which would mean that there really
isn't any polygamy or terrorism or mutilation of females.If Islam is
true than they know exactly what they are doing and the ordinance is not only
valid but also proper, and Allah (God) has commanded Westerners to die, and
Islamic men to take multiple wives and to kill the disobedient ones, and for
women to be mutilated."
I have a decent job, keep a clean house, find myself to be nice enough in looks,
have a good sense of humor, etc etc.....tried marriage and he ended up going to
jail for physical and mental abuse on my daughter and myself. So we moved, and
went on with life. The men that are single, usually, especially at my age, are
single for a reason.Considering the situation in the world, I
remember the scripture talking about 7 women going to one man saying they will
provide for themselves...just let them have his name...I am
gradually gaining an appreciation for this, although I know many women who are
very happy with their single life....It was not intended to be this
way in life...but we have messed up the original Plan for happiness in the
world.Polygamy is not the issue, selfishness, deceit and infidelity
You guys make no sense whatsoever, and your so called religion is a mass of
confusion, and you all tell historical lies. It is sad to see how confused
Mormons truly are. Get some stable help folks.
I guess it's better to be a teenaged plural baby mama than a plural wife...hmmmm
I'm astonished at how many "experts" there are on this topic. One individual
gives a speech, and the "experts" continue to pile on. Objectivity, ...
where art thou?
If LDS men remain sealed to all women they marry and an LDS woman can only be
sealed to one man; if the woman is unsealed to the first husband to marry her
2nd husband, wouldn't the 1st husband no longer be sealed to her????? Or will
the two men share the woman? Isn't that a concept.
It's amazing to read the spin about this. No objectivity from the appologists.
FARMS is alive and well today. Unfortunately for those who should know better.
Someone asked why non LDS people come to the DesNews and comment. I had read
many things on anti web sites etc. When these opportunities to post began i
found this to be a much greater place to get a range of beliefs and to hear
faithful LDS defend them. It is very educational. By the way, most LDS polygs
did not marry widows or for the lack of men. If anything the frontier west had
less women then men. Also women begin menstration much earlier now then even 50
years ago. So under age marriages were not common.
3:17 p.m.How can you live with your twisting, distortion and
lies?Go back to school. Read Bushman's biography, "Rough Stone
Rolling". I would recommend you read some other reliable history, but you are so
blind you would dismiss them out of hand. But Bushman is tough to argue with. He
is the official church historian. And HE says you are wrong. there are PLENTY of
documents establishing exactly what I stated.I pity you and your
What "A Single LDS Woman" comments on is somthing I have thought about for a
long time. There truly are many, many awesome LDS women out there with little
chance of being a wife and a mother in a LDS home. My wife has many friends and
former college roommates and missionary companions that are approaching 40 and
are still single.Most of them are amazing women and I am at a loss
as to why they are still alone and approaching 40 years old. It is not that they
don't desire wifehood and motherhood, they do. They just are not going to give
up thier standards. I beleive there just aren't enough LDS men willing to live
by the standards the church teaches, and they are the "odd-man out" so to speak.
I have wept for thier them. I was 30 before my first child was born and I
remember the joy I felt that day.The sorrow that these dear sisters
must feel realizing that they probably will never be anyones loved wife or that
they will never be a "mom" is truly heartbreaking for me.
Oh, wow. Where to begin...First of all, every single claim of Joseph
Smith being the father of a child outside of his marriage to Emma has been
proven false through DNA testing aside from one woman's child, and they can't
prove that because the DNA went down through the mother's side of the family
since then. That is the only unproven case, and there are heavy suspicions on
that child as well because of certain descrepancies.There is not one
shred of proof in any document that shows without question that Joseph Smith
ever consumated a single marriage that was not with Emma. Not one single
document. He very well may have, but we have no way to prove it until we die and
ask them in person.In instances where the woman already had a
husband, those were temple sealings only, because their husband was not a member
of the church. There are multiple first-hand accounts proving this.The "new and everlasting covenant" is not plural marriage it's temple
marriage. That includes monogamous ones. If you're legally married,
it's not adultery. Joseph Smith was legally married to each woman in question.
FYI- In the days of polygamy in the church many men did not have plural wives.
The men that did were called to do so because they could financially provide for
additional women who had no other resources and they were worthy, righteous men.
Every account I have read in my family tells of the anquish suffered by the
husband when asked to take another wife. Also an underage wife was the
norm in the 19th century. It wasn't uncommon for a 14, 15 or 16 year old to be
1. Many men are sexually polygamous by nature. Most women aren't. God gave
humankind a way to compensate for this. It has been rejected by Western
civilization.2. Because of #1 above, 74% of divorces are instituted by
women, showing monogamous marriages aren't working for them or their men.3. More than one single mom has commented that they'd prefer having a
full-time husband and part-time lover to their status as single moms without any
man at all to help with finances and raising kids(except maybe a lover on the
side that cares nothing about their children--and/or a bedside toy).4. Are
children better off with an absentee father than they would be with a good man
who loves them to emulate and receive support from? Anecdotal evidence suggests
fatherless children are many times more prone to aberrant or criminal behavior
than children with bona fide father figures.Never hear any
discussion about any of these.
I agree with your last sentence whole-heartedly. You probably didn't intend it
the way it's written, but so be it.
...of a "principle of God" that makes me say, "Even if there is a god, I'll say,
No Thanks!" I cannot even fathom an eternity of living under such laws and
regulations. When I'm dead, I hope I am dead. Insanity forever, ad infinitum
makes me nauseated at the thought.
Thank you for your comment. You are a HERO on this blog, and one who seems to
truly be knowledgeable with the true facts.
Polgamy is one of the things that help my testimony to be strong in this
church.One of the scriptures that we as LDS saints use a lot is in
Acts 3 : 21 where it speaks of a "restoration " of "ALL" things ever spoken of
God Holy Prophets.As has been noted by other pologmy was given to ancient
prophets therefore , for ALL things to be restored - it would also need to be
restored. It does not say for how long though.I know of no other
church who has had pologamy in there background and therefore cannot claim to
have answered this scripture.... therefore to me it is a positive and helps to
build not tear down my testimony of the Restoration of ALL things.
I am not interested in controversy, th Book of Mormon is a testimony of the
atonement of the Savior by his Grace and Mercy, and I hope we will always engage
each other with both grace and mercy. I am also keenly aware we must be of one
heart, before we can ever be of one mind. My faith does not depend on Joseph's
personal life. I know the restoration is the work of Jesus Christ, and in him I
have all faith.
As a single LDS woman, I see a side of pologmy that many people to not grasp.
There are many wonderful smart amazing women out there who will never have the
opportunity to ever have an intimate relationship with a man or know the joy of
giving birth or to know the wonder of knowing that she is loved.There are many single mothers out there who would love to be able to have the
priesthood in their home and the financial support that comes from having a
husband.Polygamy was in the Old Testement. In the Aof F we state
that we believe in living the law of the land. Therefore when polygamy became
illegal we stopped.Yes, men are sealed to more then one woman in the
temple BIG DEAL!!!! there not living it here on earth so get over it and let God
deal with it.
Why does the Church practice this? How can this be explained as anything other
than a continuation of the principle?The New and Everlasting
Covenant of [plural] Marriage must be understood holistically. According
to D&C132, those who righteously enter into [plural] marriage shall pass
by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory
in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a
fulness and A CONTINUATION OF THE SEEDS forever and ever.You see,
like any good breeder of cattle, Joseph Smiths conception of exaltation insists
that the all-powerful, all-knowing God progresses, not by learning more, or
gaining more power, but by breeding more offspring! As every breeder knows, one
male can impregnate many females, which is what LDS doctrine says God has done
in order to populate many worlds with his [spirit] children. LDS leaders
silence those who talk about a heavenly mother not because the respect her, but
because there are MANY such mothers in Gods Celestial harem!The
Church could not change the policies you cite unless they changed all that
doctrine and the concept of exaltation.
My mother loved Polygamy. She was the 22nd child in her family, and had many
nieces and nephews to play with...a lot of aunts and uncles who loved her. She
was 26 when she wrote to and then married a lonely widower whose wife had died
and had left 3 children. My mother loved raising those 3 children, along with
her own, and those older children helped us throughout the years. Her parents were happy. The 1st wife chose her first cousin from Norway, to be
the 2nd wife. But, when the church said to quit practicing it, They did, and she
was very true to that as well. She was a very strong-willed person, as were my
Grandfather and Grandmother.There is a time and place, and living
out in the lonely desert of New Mexico at the time of her growing up, it was the
right time. Now it is not...because we believe in obeying the laws of the land,
and it is not necessary at this time, for survival and companionship...like it
I would like to be sealed to all 3 of my dead husbands who fathered 8 children
with me. I was the only woman they ever new. One died in a car accident, one
died of cancer, and the last one i have out lived. They are mine and belong to
jonny,There are several claims by women that Joseph was the father
of their children. Only 5 had any real substance to them. We may never really
know for sure on those 5.Even the well-regarded LDS Historian,
Richard Bushman, concludes with no doubt whatsoever that Joseph Smith not only
married a score of women or so, but consummated most of those marriages, even
though some of those women were simultaneously married to other men! That is
what interests me, the fact that LDS history is not just filled with plural
wives, but PLURAL HUSBANDS as well! Yet there is no doctrinal or scriptural
support, nor any revelations authorizing such a thing!Even if you
believe Joseph received a revelation (Doc&Cov132) wherein God commanded him to
take multiple wives under the "New and Everlasting Covenant of [plural]
Marriage", these marriages to women who were already married to other men
completely violates even that so-called revelation! No matter how you try to
spin polygamy, these "polyandrous" marriages in which Joseph Smith was a party
can be interpreted in no other way than that Joseph Smith committed adultery
multiple times. Period.
Joseph Smith NEVER fathered any other children other than with EMMA HALE SMITH.
Don't listen to all these liars who mke up stuff to suit themselves. The church
is full of LIARS!
I hear many members say that marital relationships will all be worked out in the
next life by a just and loving God. I agree with this which is why it makes no
sense whatsoever that women in the church cannot also be sealed to multiple men.
The church goes to great lengths to require a woman to get the permission from a
former husband to break that sealing in order to be sealed again. A man does not
have to do that. If the former husband has died the woman has no ability to be
sealed upon remarriage. The man of course can. I apologize if I am the only one
that finds this pactice to obviously be a continuation of the law of plural
marriage.And Jonny - it makes no difference whether or not JS
fathered children with his plural wives. The fact, that many members either
don't know or deny, is that he had many plural wives. Both the early and current
church has made that perfectly clear. It is not at issue - except for people
like you who for some reason can't accept it.
what children did joseph father, other than to Emma?
Sorry, my last comment was supposed to stop at "What part of NOWHERE can't you
people understand?"The rest accidentally snuck in there from a
previous commenter who was grossly mistaken.
Are you two kidding? It is a FACT that Joseph Smith had multiple wives. The
exact number is the only thing in dispute. Just google something like "Joseph
Smith AND wives AND FARMS" to pull up articles by the church research branch at
BYU for articles documenting, explaining, and defending this. You can also find
this documented through the Church's own online geneology rewources. The early
LDS Church went to great lengths to document and defend Joseph Smith's polygamy
as well when the early Reorganized Church claimed this was a practice started by
Brigham Young. They thought Brigham Young was a false prophet and used polygamy
as evidence. But the LDS Church quickly and easily proved that Joseph Smith
started and widely practiced it.It is interesting how some members
blanket deny something just because it doesn't sit well with them.
Exodus 21:10 "And if he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her
duty of marriage, shall he not diminish". You completely
misinterpret this passage. It does not say God commands any man to take multiple
wives. Notice the word "If..." In Exodus22:1, god supposedly says,
"If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall
restore five oxen..."If we interpret this scripture YOUR way, we
must conclude that God has commanded and approves of stealing oxen!Your logic is flawed.I repeat, there is NOWHERE in the Old
Testament OR in the New Testament where polygamy is commanded, endorsed, or
approved by god.NOWHERE!What part of NOWHERE can't you
people understand? Deuteronomy 21:15 "If a man have two wifes, one
beloved, and another hated..."As you (and everybody else can see)
plural marriage is mentioned... Maybe you prefer another word to "regulations"
but without a doubt these scriptures provide guidelines for plural marriages.
To Re: LDS Practice It Today,"If the LDS Church is false than their
ordinances have no strength in the next life which would mean that there really
isn't any polygamy.If the LDS Church is true than they know exactly
what they are doing and the ordinance is not only valid but also proper."We could use the same fallacious argument about any religion:If Islam is false than their ordinances have no strength in the next life
which would mean that there really isn't any polygamy or terrorism or mutilation
of females.If Islam is true than they know exactly what they are
doing and the ordinance is not only valid but also proper, and Allah (God) has
commanded Westerners to die, and Islamic men to take multiple wives and to kill
the disobedient ones, and for women to be mutilated.Perfectly
I have heard many reasons why the LDS Church practiced plural marriage in the
past. But I have never heard an answer as to why it continues (in a different
form) today. So rather than labeling me angry or anti, I would genuinely like to
gain a better understanding for the Church's current sealing practices.The fact is that today when an LDS man loses his wife to death or divorce, he
is allowed to be sealed to an additional wife while maintaining the sealing of
the first wife. This can be repeated upon further death or divorce resulting in
an LDS man being sealed to multiple wives (I know several LDS men who are sealed
to multiple wives - this practice is indisputable). However, an LDS woman must
break the sealing of a previous husband upon death or divorce if she wants to be
sealed to another man. Many LDS men today are sealed to more than one wife. No
LDS woman is sealed to more than one husband.Why does the Church
practice this? How can this be explained as anything other than a continuation
of the principle of plural marriage within the bounds of the law?
Anon said: "You have not read these verses in the original Greek from the
Septuagint. If you did, you would find the meanings are not what you have
portrayed. God has NEVER commanded or approved of polygamy."I don't
believe you have ever read 2 Samuel in the original Greek as well... Because it
was originally Hebrew. It was then translated into Greek, Latin, and English
among other languages.
Brigham Young is the one who started polygamy. Some try to blame Joseph Smith
but it was Brigham.
The response was made at 7:31 AM that "I think that the Lord is going to honor
ALL of those familial relationships in the next life, so long as each spouse
involved chooses to do so and goes through the necessary steps to obtain it".
I agree. I am simply stating (not in anger) the fact that LDS men
are allowed to be sealed to multiple wives while LDS women can only be sealed to
one man at a time. The practice of plural mariage continues to the extent that
the Church legally can. Why else would the Church allow men to be sealed to
multiple wives and women only to one man? I am not placing a judgment on that.
To me it is about honesty and transparency. PR attempts by the Church
continually try to distance the modern church from plural marriage. No mention
of ANY of JS or BY plural wives in our manuals for example. While the reality is
that every week LDS men are being sealed to an additional wife in the case of
death or divorce. Plural marriage is both a current and eternal practice. That
is fine - but let's be honest.
Wow, there is some "Major Emotional Baggage", being vented here today!
I do not believe Joseph Smith had more wives than Emma. He had no children with
anyone but Emma, and there are only blood decendants of Hiram that are with the
Utah church.There has been some atibution to Joseph that may have
originated with others.I think of the Cambelites who practiced polygamy,
some coverted to the restoration, brought polygamy to movement, and it took on a
life of its own.I believe Joseph was commanded to translate the Book of
Mormon, and restore the priesthood. I believe he did other things he was not
commanded to do.I believe he was the first prophet of the resoration, just
as believe David was the King of Israel.
The law of polygamy is gone. So using it as an example for today - now, is not
relevant. It is no more!!! Our ancestors lived it because they were asked to.
They needed too because mothers without husbands couldn't go down to 7-11 and
get a little job. In our families the women and children had been left when
their husbands died.
The age of marriage in the 19th Century, was considerably younger than now. A
Comparison can't take place. My grandmother, not LDS, just turned 15 when she
married my grandfather, 26 at the time. In researching genealogy, it was a
common practice then. A woman was literally an old maid if not married by
19.Another part of history related to marriage was the population of
the brothels in the 19th Century. Where do you think all of these women came
from? Every mining camp, cow town, even the US Capital. The laws at the time
made it so that a woman couldn't be an owner of property. If she was unmarried,
she could continue to live with her parents or enter the profession. Only so
many seamstresses or laundresses were needed and that didn't provide a good
living.So, which was better, a marriage to a loving man in a
religious community, or living a life of a provider of services to 8 to 15 men a
day?You can't apply today's thinking to practices of yesteryear.
The Options were different. The FLDS do not practice polygomy, how the Mormon
Church practiced it.
Since you continue to state only the GREEK is correct. You fail to understand
that Prophets of God have maintained that as far as the English translation of
the Bible that the King James Version is the most correct into English. With
that in mind I will emphatically state that the King James Version states that
Pologamy was authorized by the Lord to Abraham, Moses, Jacob, Isaac, David and
Solomon. In fact, the Lord has recognized it when it is in his good graces to
do so.Your argument based on the translation of Greek which some
scholars believe may NOT be true. Until the Hebrew text is known I suggest you
really look at it. Even the Jewish portions of the Bible they use have pologamy
as a way of life for some prophets.
I pray we can all get along and allow all men to worship (or not worship)
according to the dictates of their own concience. Let them worship how, where,
or what they may. The Lord would have us be this way, living without fear of
abuse or ridicule. We as Latter-day Saints need not defend our religious
concience; we deserve, as Americans, to be left alone so long as we are not
breaking any laws. And so far as I can see, we are not currently breaking any
laws. So don't bicker with us over doctrines. You can choose to believe or
not, and that is fine with me; just take your meanspiritedness somewhere other
than the pages of our Church-owned newspaper.
the REAL LDS faith does NOT practice plural marriage any more that ended 1890
Manifesto.why does the world frown on this practice and yet grin and snicker over Adultery, Fornication, and Homosexuality?American laws should be reconstructed parents no consent, no contracts,
or any types of promises legal woman must be 21 no exceptions woman
must be mature, and sound mind NO welfare, No medicaid, No foodstamps,no
tax benefits, no assistance that can benefit the parents only the children as
long as they are married this sure would reveal the true intentions of the
man wouldn't it.....
To Big Love Justin - I sense a lot of anger in your comments. Additionally, as
one of those 74 percenters, I was a woman with two children whose husband felt
that it was ok to beat me, should I have stayed until he killed me to satisfy
your one man one woman for life ideal? The Lord does not expect us to stay in
unhealthy or unsafe situations. Yes, I agree, too many throw away marriages
that can be fixed, but too many stay until they are dead. Now back
to the subject of this article, polygamy CAN be evil if not practiced pursuant
to God's instructions. I recall Solomon, didn't he have a number of wives?
To ultra-secular courts: ultra-religious, fanatical fables, fiction, and
fallacious rethorical devices are irrelevant inside ultra-secular courts.Debater's or writer's boilerplates notices as previously stated.
The way its been explained to me was that polygamy was instituted so that more
women could be taken care of.to Anonymous | 5:56 p.m. May 25, 2009
We all sin. The people in the old testament sinned, we sin...only Christ
was perfect. If God wanted only perfect people for prophets, the Bible would be
If the LDS Church is false than their ordinances have no strength in the next
life which would mean that there really isn't any polygamy.If the
LDS Church is true than they know exactly what they are doing and the ordinance
is not only valid but also proper.It is either one or the other, you
can't have it both ways. Either way your anger is illogical.
To 7:35 p.mWho ever said I accept "prophets" of god?
To Yello,You have not read these verses in the original Greek from
the Septuagint. If you did, you would find the meanings are not what you have
portrayed.God has NEVER commanded or approved of polygamy.
Mr/Miss Anonymous at 5:56 is simply a Biblical ignoramus. The Old Testament is
EXCEPTIONALLY clear that God did from time to time command some of His children
to enter in to polygamous relationships.Anyone who can open a book
and read can see that.
To 8:00,Hagar was not given to Abraham by God. She was "given" by
Sarah. It was Sarah's idea. Later in the story, God faults Abraham for listening
to his wife instead of to him. In fact, the great divide between the offspring
of Hagar and the offspring of Sarah is the seed of the conficts in the world
today.God has NEVER commanded or condoned polygamy. NEVER, NEVER,
Re: Anonymous 4:10You stated:"Neither Exodus21:10 nor
Deuteronomy21:15 contain "regulations on plural marriage." Plural marriage is
not mentioned."Thi is the text of the Law:Exodus 21:10
"And if he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of
marriage, shall he not diminish". Deuteronomy 21:15 "If a man have
two wifes, one beloved, and another hated..."As you (and everybody
else can see) plural marriage is mentioned... Maybe you prefer another word to
"regulations" but without a doubt these scriptures provide guidelines for plural
marriages.Why do you lie under an anonymous name when anybody who is
interested can search these scriptures for themselves?
What about when Abraham was given Hagar since Sarah was baren? God condoned that
one. The law is monogamy; it is apparent that polygamy has its place as an
exception in circumstances that call for it. (Wait for God to let you know.) I'm
glad I'm not in charge of calling for it. I don't think I could live that way.
Anon said: "NOWHERE in the Old Testament can you find God commanding or
approving of a polygamous marriage. NOWHERE! But you CAN find God commanding
"Thou shalt not commit adultery".2 Samuel 12:1-8 states: 1
And the Lord sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him,
There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor....
8 And I gave thee thy masters house, and thy masters wives into thy bosom, and
gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I
would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.vs 1 God
sent Nathan the prophetvs 8 Nathan speaking a a prophet in the voice of
God to David, saying God gave him "thy Master's wives..."But David
wanted more than was given him and thus the rebuke in the next few verses.
...so, by getting remarried after a divorce or the death of a spouse, the LDS
are practicing polygamy? I guess that means that half of the Earth's population
is practicing polygamy, too. Three-fourths of those who are widowed or divorced
remarry. When a man truly loves his first wife, and she dies, and
then he remarries, and truly loves his second wife, why should he get to heaven
and have to choose which family he loves more? What kind of a Father in Heaven
would make people choose between their families and cast aside the rest? Do you
think it's just the LDS men who aren't going to be put in that position? I think
that the Lord is going to honor ALL of those familial relationships in the next
life, so long as each spouse involved chooses to do so and goes through the
necessary steps to obtain it.
I am on your side, but it is usually acknowledged that (re: Numbers ch. 12)
Moses' earlier marriage to the Ethiopian was in the past and was probably
dissolved or not in force by that time. Bills of divorcement were not common in
those days.As for Anonymous @ 5:56, your intrepretations are quite
distorted, if not altogether wrong.You accept prophets of God, you
say they sin? We ALL sin. That is the point. This does not negate the call nor
the pronouncements. If that is what you have to defend your point of view, then
I have no problem in rejecting your opinions.In my opinion, your
logic and justifications are faulty.And as an added request, please
show where in the OT God has condemned plural marriages in general.To the debate 6:52: I agree! Plural marriage was not a party. It was dang
stinkin' hard work for all involved.To re: In Sacred Loneliness
5:56: Compton may have be off in some of his intrepretations, but he was being
forthright and honest. If he was wrong (and I believe he was in some important
cases), it was not an attempt to deceive.
I grew up in the rural area of Michigan, and I am the only member of The Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. Just giving background to what I am
typing. My sister in law's sister met this man who was the local Navy recruiter
said he was separated. They have a relationship, she gets pregnant. He gets
back with wife. Even though they keep dating. He even takes the child to his
house to his wife(they had one child) for visitations. This goes on for years,
while he is still married. She gets pregnant again. This finally gets his wife
to divorce him. My point is, how much different is this from polygamy? And
funny thing is once he was divorced from his wife, they tried to have a normal
relationship and it fails. They both are married to other people and only see
each other when its his time to have them for visitation. Or how about this, man
has 21 children from 20 different woman, cannot afford to pay child support.
This is in my local news recently.
Compton is pretty close. The evidence is solid on 28 wives. The additional 5
from Compton lack documentation and are possible, but impossible to confirm. For
example, Nancy Winchester.Why mention only Emma and 7 others if we
should honor each one? You will recognize that Compton used the term
"dynastic" for marriages that occurred to link families together and typically
did not involve conjugal relations.How many children did Joseph
father from those other 7 wives you listed? None. He was certainly able, given
that Emma gave birth to their youngest son 5 months after Joseph's death.The first purpose of these plural marriages was not sex, and often did
not involve it at all.
Why would anyone want to be a polygamist? Imagine all those mothers-in-law! Good
Please check Numbers chapter 12. It totally blows away what you have written.
Direct from God's mouth - God accepts Moses and reviles Aaron and Miriam for
criticizing Moses for a polygamous marriage
Tells us why shoud we believe anything Todd Compton writes?There is
no honor in intentionally decieving others.
To Arkad,"Abraham was polygamous" - Abraham was also a liar and a
thief. Just because he was a polygamist does not mean God commanded it or
endorsed it. The same is true for Issac, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses. You have
shown NOWHERE in scripture where God commanded or endorsed their polygamy.
NOWHERE!You say these men were "righteous"... But in EVERY case,
scriptures contain record of the SINS of these men - for example, Numbers 20
records Moses' blasphemy and sin against God.Neither Exodus21:10 nor
Deuteronomy21:15 contain "regulations on plural marriage." Plural marriage is
not mentioned. 2 Samuel also records oter "prophets" making false prophecies,
and the "prophet" Nathan making several mistakes. His endorsement of David's
harems is NOT the command or endorsement of God for polygamy.None of
the Genesis citations you give supports your empty claim. I repeat, NOWHERE in
the Old Testament does God command or approve of polygamy.You have
Anonymous:You claim that nowhere in the Old Testament has God
commanded or approved of polygamous marriage.1) Abraham was
polygamous2) Issac was polygamous3) Jacob was polygamous4)
Joseph was polygamous5) Moses was polygamousThese men were all
righteous men and well regarded by God. (David and Solomon both committed sin
by marrying idolatrous women.)In Exodus 21:10; Deuteronomy 21:15 The
Lords Prophet Moses is explaining the 10 commandments (given in Exodus 20) and
providing the regulations on plural marriage. In 2 Samuel 12:8 The Lords
Prophet Nathan is explaining to King David that The Lord gave David many wives,
however (as explained in vs 9) David sinned in wanting that which had not been
given him (adultery). See also: Genesis 16:1-11; Genesis 25:1;
Genesis 29:28; Genesis 30:4,9 & 26; 2 Samuel 2:2; 2 Samuel 5:13; 2 Samuel
12:7-9; Isaiah 4:1.
Anybody who wants to understand polygamy should read the book "In Sacred
Loneliness" by Todd Compton. This book recognizes the 33 wives of Joseph Smith
Jr.Emma Hale - 22 years oldFanny Alger - 16 years oldSarah Ann Whitney - 17 year oldFlora Ann Woodworth - 16 years oldLucy Walker - 17 years oldSarah Lawrence - 17 years oldHelen Mar
Kimball - 14 years oldNancy Winchester - 14 years oldHow dare
we ignore these young women and pretend they never married Joseph. To do so
would be a dishonor to their memories.
I suggest you read B. Carmon Hardy's Solemn Covenant, Richard Van Wagoner's
Mormon Polygamy: A History, Sarah Barringer Gordon's the Mormon Question, or,
relating to Joseph Smith, Todd Compton's In Sacred Loneliness.I have
read In Sacred Loneliness and other books. One thing you have neglected to
mention is some of the accounts of the polygamous wives of Joseph Smith
recounting angelic manifestations convincing them plural marriage was true.
Reference Lucy Walkers account of an angel appearing to her. Several of Josephs
plural wives also had remarkable spiritual gifts. When I read this I told myself
there is something going on here that all anti-polygamist fail to mention about
Mormon Polygamy. You know these things are in the book but you only point out
the negative side of what you have read. Why must you do that. Withholding
information about the sacred and not allowing people to make a fair judgment on
My dream is to have every single one of those polygamist men have to share their
wives with other men. Then we'll see how "wonderful" the principal was. It first
of all wasn't fair, sexist and abusive. Women got married, got knocked up and
left on their own for most of the time. They were used. Like I say, if women
could have as many husbands as they wanted, we would see how quickly those
polygamists would see how unkind the whole thing was. People deserve better than
to be in concubines.
NOWHERE in the Old Testament can you find God commanding or approving of a
polygamous marriage. NOWHERE!But you CAN find God commanding "Thou
shalt not commit adultery".
I'm really curious. What motiviates all these anti-mormon folks to read deseret
news, ldstoday, or whatever to find articles like this and make some comment
about how wrong Joseph Smith was for example? Are they doing it because they
think God will reward them for speaking the "truth"? Are they doing it because
they feel mormons are preventing them from "marrying" someone of the same sex,
or some other sin? Are they just trying to destroy anything that speaks against
their choices. Are they bitter about something? What is it? Please, someone
All my great grand pappys had multiple wives and each time they would get one a
little bit younger then the last one and it was tasty for their new adventure.
Then one of my grand pappys would be gone for a long period of time doing
missionary work while his wives worked the farm and attended to the squealers
and he return back home with a new wife. Now that was the life.
TO: 10:54 a.m. May 25, 2009Polygamy is NOT for the
ISSUES OF: POLYGAMY & DEMOCRACY ("COMMON CONSENT")QUOTE:..."To
have any influence, we have to pay tribute to all of the Caesars that rule in a
democracy," she said. "For better or worse, we have met our Caesars, and they
are us."CAN A SECULAR CHURCH-STATE "DEMOCRACY" IMPLY "COMMON
With the passage of Same-Sex Marriage, polygamy will soon become legal. There
will be no reason to stop it. If polygamy is legalized it will mean that bigamy
will not longer be a crime. See how many of our laws are intertwined. Anyway who says that polygamy will be 1 man and multiple women. It
could go the other way! Just think ladies this could be a good thing or a
nightmare beyond belief.
I think those who have written the present emails have no idea about History of
the US let alone the LDS Church. My great Grandfather was a plygamous, he also
was a great man who helped bring in the Handcart Company. One of his wives
decided she wanted out of that Polygamous marriage, she was granted a divorce,
and then he turned around and performed the marriage when she married another
man. He also did not live with both women at the same time according to family
history. As a woman, I am not strong enough to live polygamy, I have been
married to the same man for 65 years. However in during the victorian time of
the 1800's women did not work out of the home, a polygamous marriage many times
was to provide support for the woman, and that only. So those of you who do not
understand history or want to, you had better get educated as to what is really
historical. You who are not members of the LDS church, have no idea what you
are talking about.
Polygamy is bashed and bashed ad naseum, yet infidelity and adultery are readily
forgiven if not celebrated throughout most of society. Apparently it is OK to
cheat on your spouse, have multiple sex partners, and range the earth like an
alley cat, yet it is totally abhorent that someone be openly married to more
than one person. Where is all of this energy to bash infidelity, sexual
perversion, and the destruction of marriage? I also wonder how the debate would
go if it were one woman and several husbands.
"no one here, was there | 9:51 a.m. May 25, 2009 No one alive today was
present for what took place in the 18th century. So all your conjecture stated
as fact is about as smart as the cat that had a squirrel come up behind it,
while the cat was looking for the squirrel in front of it. Funny to watch. Point
is this: You can only see the present and look in front of you to the future.
YOU WEREN'T THERE. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. STOP BOTHERING US
WHO KNOW IT ALL. oops, didn't mean to let that slip out. FOR ALL YOU
WHO COMMMENTED: GO GET A LIFE. Go do some good instead of prattling on making
comments in a cyber environment. Get out and do some good somewhere."You mean all of us here who commented on the article like YOU did?Oops....
It's sad that few people have even a remote idea why Joseph Smith, Brigham Young
and others were inspired to take on polygamy. Read the bible and tell me that
God was angry with Abraham and others for having many wives. He was not. In fact
he condoned it. I know that scares people. I had a hard time
understanding this revelation at first. For those who say Joseph Smith was
merely trying to satisfy sexual desires consider this: There was no such thing
as birth control in any form back then and he only had offspring from Emma...
That's more than a coincidence to me. Also read and study church history. Truman
G. Madson will tell you in his lectures what an incredibly hard thing it was for
such a people with such conservative values. Polygamy served it's
purpose at that time as it did in the time of Abraham and others. A loving God
condoned it under his law to help women (many were widows) as well as build the
kingdom. Please truly study the journals of those involved, before denouncing
No one alive today was present for what took place in the 18th century. So all your conjecture stated as fact is about as smart as the cat that
had a squirrel come up behind it, while the cat was looking for the squirrel in
front of it. Funny to watch. Point is this: You can only see the present and
look in front of you to the future. YOU WEREN'T THERE. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU
ARE TALKING ABOUT. STOP BOTHERING US WHO KNOW IT ALL. oops, didn't mean to let
that slip out. FOR ALL YOU WHO COMMMENTED: GO GET A LIFE. Go do
some good instead of prattling on making comments in a cyber environment. Get
out and do some good somewhere.
Why is the fact that the LDS Church continues the spiritual practice of plural
marriage rarely addressed? Today, LDS men who have either divorced or lost their
wife through death can be sealed to another wife while retaining the sealing of
the former wife. This can and does result in one LDS man having multiple wives
spiritually sealed to him. Several of our general authorities have more than one
wife sealed to them. However, LDS women cannot be sealed to more than one man. I
am not criticizing this but it amazes me that every time a plural marriage
thread comes up this is not discussed. The LDS Church believes in this principle
and practices it today AS FAR AS THEY ARE LEGALLY ALLOWED TO. And before someone
jumps on here and blanket denies this please do a little research. I have
several active LDS friends who are sealed to more than one woman. Also, Cats is right that it was very easy for women in polygamous relationship
to get a divorce and the rate was actually very high. But JS and BY DID state
numerous times that it was an eternal principle and a celestial requirement.
Quit making up stuff.
Luke 12: 51 "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay;
but rather division:"How can this be, that the Son of God, whose
very name is the Prince of Peace, said that he came not to unite, but to divide?
Not to bring together, but to cause divisions?He WILL bring peace
to all who choose to follow him, but first the wicked will be separated from the
righteous and it is this "separating" that will cause contention, even often
father against son, mother against daughter, son against daughter and even
husband against the wife.Everyone will choose what they think of
Christ. Even if you choose not to choose you still have made a choice.Polygamy is right only when God commands it. If He commands it, it is right.
If He doesn't, it is most assuredly wrong. Will He command it again? That is
up to Him.
Was polygamy EVER God's will?The Old Testament has depictions saying
it was.Joseph Smith said it was.The Book of Mormon says
it can be.And yet, many people say that it absolutely, positively
could NEVER be, primarily lumping their arguments under the banner of "it's just
too much to expect".Foolish thinking.A person with faith
in God, REAL faith, does whatever is asked of him by God. Abraham being willing
to literally kill his own son is a perfect example of "weird but correct".
True, Abraham was stopped by the angel but he was WILLING to carry out the
sacrifice and IT WAS ACCOUNTED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.The problem
is that many of you think that God asks nothing but easy milk-and-cooky
decisions.But here is what Christ said of our mortal existence:Matthew 10:34-35 - "Think NOT that I am come to send peace on earth: I
came NOT to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance
against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law
against her mother in law.""Hard" doesn't equal "wrong".
I read of a survey conducted recently in Israel. More than half stated that in
Israel marriage should come under control of the state. Ironically, the
majority of those who answered in that way, also said they personally would
never choose to marry at all. People seem to overlook that the attack on
polygamous marriage is not the end of the secularist's battle - no, in fact all
traditional marriage ideals remain permanently under review.
Polygmy is good because it is God's commandment to man. Joesph Smith and
Bringham Young are great examples of the blessings of plural marriage. Today if
the Mormon church would have honored the comandment for plural marriages, and
had confidence in the Lord's will, the Mormon church would be a thousand times
successful and millions of more people would be saved. Always follow and obey
the Prophet Joseph Smith and you will never go wrong.
It's too bad that the government ever got involved in marriage in the first
place. Marriage should have stayed an event for the churches. If that were the
case, Mormons would never have given up polygamy and would be seen today as the
same type of cult the FLDS are. We wouldn't have been having these dumb
arguments about what God said or says. We wouldn't care who marries who. We
could concentrate on issues that count... like killing everybody else who
doesn't believe like we do. Get it?
Have you ever read a book on polygamy that wasn't published by Deseret Book or
CES? Most of what you said in your post is flat wrong. You need to engage in
the scholarship before making a comment. I suggest you read B. Carmon Hardy's
Solemn Covenant, Richard Van Wagoner's Mormon Polygamy: A History, Sarah
Barringer Gordon's the Mormon Question, or, relating to Joseph Smith, Todd
Compton's In Sacred Loneliness. In those books you will find that 1) the 5-10%
estimate was wrong; 2) that Joseph Smith and others married underage girls; 3)
that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young stated on several occasions that their
followers needed to enter polygamous unions to inherit the celestial kingdom.
And much, much, more. I suggest you start reading some serious scholarship on
the subject before making a comment. You might be interested to know that all
of these books have received major historical awards in the profession.
Reader comments BYU professor speaks on LDS polygamy BUT:"DNA/RNA POLYGAMOUS BEHAVIORAL GENES"Signed: Debater
GB there was no flood and no way to keep two of every species on earth. We still
haven't successfully documented all of life on earth. Jew took the flood story
during their Babylonian captivity. Read the story of Gilgamesh.
It's clear the negative nabobs of humanity have no understanding of TRUE
polygamy as instituted by God.All we get from them now is
profligated false notions and information about it, and historical
inaccuracies,mixed with theor own supposedly learned and
progressive view of how things should be,a reflection of their own
twisted views of polygamy, womanahood, marriage, equality,...not
helped by a liberal media promoting a corrupted version of it.I
guess where you find true doctrines of God you will always find opposition.
Re Cats...oh sure! Polygamy has been the same through out time. It has always
been abusive. Don't kid yourself unless you have lived in a polygamist
relationship, AND please don't speak unless you know how polygamy truly is.
Also, men are good for covering their tracks for you mindless ones out there who
know nothing about polygamy! History is reported from A MANS POINT OF VIEW on
polygamy and never a woman's.
The "serial polygamy" of today where men and women live together for awhile and
then move on leaving millions of single mothers requiring support from the state
is far worse than that of 19th Century polygamy. Today's "serial polygamy"
causes much more harm to women and children than LDS polygamy of over a century
ago. It is even more harmful than the FLDS polygamy of today. It is so common
today that we don't even see it or even care.
Re: Not condoning polygamyThere are people who would not exist were it not
for rape or incest, I hope that fact wouldn't cause people to question the
morality of those.Re: Big Love Justin When laws were changed
allowing women to initiate divorce, the suicide rate among women dropped 20%.
While there are, in general, benefits to a child who has married parents, I do
not believe they outweigh the drawbacks of a suicidal or dead mother.
Put this article in the tribune so some of the rest of us can comment.
My grandfather would often say he was proud to be a polygamist child. He would
add how happy they were as a family.It should have been noted that
many Husbands/fathers left the U.S. and traveled to Mexico, so they could be
with all their wives and children. There in Mexico within the Mormon Colonies
they provided love and peace for all their children. Plural marriage
was not a gospel principle easy to live, not every husband or wife lived it
perfectly, it demanded true love, the love the Apostle Paul and for the LDS that
Moroni taught. For pure love, suffereth long, is kind, envieth not, is not
provoked, thinkth no evil.My Great Grandmother, who was the second
wife wrote: "There was no jealousy or enmity between us. We loved and enjoyed
each other. Learned to depend on each other."Through reading many
journals I can firmly state the Polygamy lived by my ancestors have no
resemblance to the way the FLDS or many others who now practice polygamy live.
Like a monogamous marriage, plural marriage can work well or it can
end in divorce. Is it immoral no I don't think so.
One of the things that often gets overlooked when people are criticizing the
revelation to cease polygamy is that the members of the LDS church were already
making plans to pick up and move out the country a second time. They had their
debts closed, their homes and businesses ready to shut down at a moment's
notice, food stored up, a plan to leave, and even a place to go. They'd left the
country to live their lives as God told them to once before, and they were ready
and willing to do it again. It wasn't like they had to stay put and take the
abuse if they didn't feel it was what they were supposed to do. Their parents
had left their homes and started over a number of times, and they were prepared
to do it themselves. The only reason they DIDN'T leave was because the prophet
and his apostles prayed for direction, and the answer they received was to stay
put and to stop practicing polygamy. Funny how critics don't ever
seem to acknowledge the plans that were in place, or the fact that the Mormons
were used to moving.
It is interesting how SOME but few men of the LDS church still defend polygamy.
There are still deviates drawn to this religion of abuse.
Polygamy is true for the man who indulges.
Polygamy was never sanctioned by God. Some women once had the wool pulled down
darn hard over their eyes.Only men sanctioned it for their fleshy
I'm no fan of polygamy, but it must be pointed out that the polygamy of today is
a far cry from the polygamy of the 19th century. What goes on in the Jeffs
situation is really sick and cannot be compared in any way to the polygamy that
was strictly controlled over a hundred years ago. Those who fight polygamy, as
it is practiced today, confirm this.In the 19th century only about
2%-5% of the membership practiced it. One had to be called to the practice and
couldn't just do it at will. There were no arranged marriages and no underage
marriages. In addition, divorce laws strongly favored women. It was very easy
for a woman to get out of a polygamous marriage. It was very difficult for a
man to get out of one because it was considered that he had responsibilities to
his wife and children. Unlike the FLDS culture, no women in 19th
century Utah were forced into polygamous marriages. Neither Joseph Smith or
Brigham Young EVER taught that polygamy was necessary to enter the Celestial
Kingdom.You can see the two situations are quite different.
POLYGAMY: IF TRUE (AGREEABLY TRUE), MARK WITH AN (X): FACTS OR FICTION
(QUASI-FACTS OR QUASI-FICTION)( ) ASYMMETRIC HUMAN RIGHTS( ) ASYMMETRIC EQUAL RIGHTS( ) ASYMMETRIC HUMAN DIGNITYBASED ON ASYMMETRIC LAWS.SIGNED: DEBATER
Interesting article, especially the part describing the prosecutor's, defense
attorney's, and judge's statements/positions. I wish the article had described
more of the trials.To Big Love Justin @11:31 - I have similar
suspicions about Noah. It seems suspiciously convenient that he just happened
to receive a revelation about building an ark just before a flood came. His
"revelation" would have been much more believable if its timing hadn't coincided
so perfectly with world events.I'm being facetious (in case that's
not obvious). The Lord helps people survive in the world they live in. I don't
think the timing of the ark revelation or the polygamy revelation has to be
disconnected from world events for it to be authentic.
Polygamy is so gone, or should be. I get nauseated hearing about it all of the
First, polygamy today is not sanctioned by God. Only when it is, has it
flourished and been acceptable to him. Prophets of old were given God's blessing
in polygamy. We must keep this in perspective.The FLDS have
perverted the practice and we are now seeing the shocking details of abuse and
inequality as "men" lived their own definition of it. The LDS have a history of
it, but no desires to revive it. It is not an institution that is
compatible with today's society. We must do all we can to destroy any
maladaptive behaviors (homosexuality included) in order for future generations
to have a fighting chance at normalcy.
but I was stunned to find out in my adult life that without it, I wouldn't be on
this Earth.Say what you will about polygamy, but that fact alone has
certainly altered my perception of the practice. The question of
polygamy is can there be a fair, consenting relationship among all involved. It
must be very difficult, to say the least.
Polygamy is not a question of morality. It's a question of women's equality
rights. There is no equality in a relationship where there is one man and
several women fighting for his emotional and sexual attention, and his financial
support for them and their children. Only the first wife is protected legally,
the remainder are merely concubines in his harem, and cannot benefit from the
man's health insurance, dental benefits, life insurance, spousal pension,and an
equal division of property on his death. This is why the UN has condemned
polygamy as a contravention of women's rights which also harms their children
because polygamy impoverishes them. Polygamy comes from the dark ages when women
had no rights and were mere chattels to be traded among men. It's way past time
this shameful practise was kicked into the garbage can of history where it
belongs. The year is 2009 AD, not 2009 BC.
Once Gay/Lesbian marriage is accepted into law, polygamy is not far behind. The
same arguments that are used to sanction gay marriage can also be used for
polygamy. I say we are a progressive society. Anyone disagree?
The issue here is that Polygamy is oppressive and wrong. To sympathize with the
painful consequences of this corruption is understandable. Children and women
are the victims frankly...both during and after polygamy. But consequences are
to be dealt with, no?The Warren Jeffs modern-day scandal is
now being shown for how sick and controlling polygamy can be.A son of this
guy has written a book on the atrocities they suffered.I find it odd
that the LDS church had "prophetic revelation" as soon as the US Marshall's
cracked down on the polygamy. It is foolish to believe they (either LDS or
FLDS)are the "one-true church" GOOD POINT made in this article:
Divorce...Remarriage is indeed "SERIAL POLYGAMY". Which is rampant in
Evangelical Christianity. The stats are no different than those in mainstream
culture. The benefits and sanctity of One Man-One Woman for
life...are well documented. Too bad so many women (who now initiate 74% of
all divorces) have bought into the lie that divorce is for the better. There are evil forces at work. The enemy has gotten "in the house" of