There is a Polyandry Thread on MAD

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

liz3564 wrote:But wouldn't that undermine the principle of plural marriage just as much?

I don't think so -- right now, it's all just policy anyway (since D&C 132, the real 'doctrine' on the subject, did not foresee the Manifesto). It can be looked at as a temporary suspension consistent with present-day understanding that polygamy has ceased in this life, and any changes will be done after the return of Christ.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
_Yoda

Post by _Yoda »

Rollo Tomasi wrote:
liz3564 wrote:But wouldn't that undermine the principle of plural marriage just as much?

I don't think so -- right now, it's all just policy anyway (since D&C 132, the real 'doctrine' on the subject, did not foresee the Manifesto). It can be looked at as a temporary suspension consistent with present-day understanding that polygamy has ceased in this life, and any changes will be done after the return of Christ.


Interesting. I agree with your logic here. I hadn't thought about it that way. :)
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

MormonMendacity wrote:Do you think that they'll never change D&C 132? I often wonder if removing it and then reverting back to the original Book of Commandments declaration wouldn't be better.

I don't see that happening. It's one thing to change policy, quite another to wipe out doctrine. Also, D&C 132 provides the basis for eternal marriage in general (as well as polygamy), so it can never be done away with, in my opinion.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
_Brackite
_Emeritus
Posts: 6382
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:12 am

Post by _Brackite »

Brackite wrote:
liz3564 wrote:Dale has an interesting perspective on this one, and has weighed in on it before. I actually brought this topic up in the Fellowship Forum on FAIR about a year ago. At that time, I was unaware of the Law of Adoption.

It seems like the apologetic stand on this is that Joseph may have misinterpreted this Law of Adoption. He was trying to seal everyone to him because he thought that was the only way they would all be together in the Celestial Kingdom. Later, Brigham Young corrected this, stating that worthy priesthood holders could be sealed to their wives and children and the Law of Adoption was not needed.

I'm sure I'm muddling my facts, so anyone who has done research on this, please feel free to jump in with the proper time frames, etc.


Hi liz3564,

Dale is a member of the Community of Christ Church (formally known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). Dale has a different perspective and view about Jospeh Smith and his getting married and/or sealed to other women, than does the traditional Utah LDS Church's perspective and view of Joseph Smith and his marriages to his plural wives. A lot of the LDS Apoligsts on the 'FAIR'/MA&D Board believe in Dale perspective and view of Joseph Smith and his getting married and/or sealed to other women, even though they are members of the Utah LDS Church. The following is from Todd Compton, from his Book titled, 'In Sacred Loneliness.' Here it is:

Sexuality in Joseph Smith's Plural Marriages

Joseph Smith's first wife, Emma, allegedly told the wife of Apostle George A. Smith, Lucy, that Joseph Smith's plural wives were "celestial" only, that he had no earthly marital relations with them. "They were only sealed for eternity they were not to live with him and have children." Lucy later wrote that when she told this to her husband:

He related to me the circumstance of his calling on Joseph late one evening and he was just taking a wash and Joseph told him that one of his wives had just been confined and Emma was the Midwife and he had been assisting her. He [George A. Smith] told me [Lucy Smith] this to prove to me that the women were married for time [as well as for eternity], as Emma had told me that Joseph never taught any such thing.



Because Reorganized Latter Day Saints claimed that Joseph Smith was not really married polygamously in the full (i.e., sexual) sense of the term, Utah Mormons (including Smith's wives) affirmed repeatedly that he had physical sexual relations with them—despite the Victorian conventions in nineteenth-century American culture which ordinarily would have prevented any mention of sexuality.

For instance, Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner stated that she knew of children born to Smith's plural wives: "I know he had six wives and I have known some of them from childhood up. I know he had three children. They told me. I think two are living today but they are not known as his children as they go by other names." Melissa Lott Willes testified that she had been Smith's wife "in very deed." Emily Partridge Young said she "roomed" with Joseph the night following her marriage to him, and said that she had "carnal intercourse" with him.

Other early witnesses also affirmed this. Benjamin Johnson wrote "On the 15th of May ... the Prophet again Came and at my hosue [house] ocupied the Same Room & Bed with my Sister that the month previous he had ocupied with the Daughter of the Later Bishop Partridge as his wife." According to Joseph Bates Noble, Smith told him he had spent a night with Louisa Beaman.

When Angus Cannon, a Salt Lake City stake president, visited Joseph Smith III in 1905, the RLDS president asked rhetorically if these women were his father's wives, then "how was it that there was no issue from them." Cannon replied:

All I knew was that which Lucy Walker herself contends. They were so nervous and lived in such constant fear that they could not conceive. He made light of my reply. He said, "I am informed that Eliza Snow was a virgin at the time of her death." I in turn said, "Brother Heber C. Kimball, I am informed, asked her the question if she was not a virgin although married to Joseph Smith and afterwards to Brigham Young, when she replied in a private gathering, 'I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that.'"

Cannon then mentioned that Sylvia Sessions Lyon, a plural wife of Smith, had had a child by him, Josephine Lyon Fisher. Josephine left an affidavit stating that her mother, Sylvia, when on her deathbed, told her that she (Josephine) was the daughter of Joseph Smith. In addition, posterity (i.e., sexuality) was an important theological element in Smith's Abrahamic-promise justification for polygamy.

(Todd Compton, In Sacred Lonelinesss)


While Todd Compton does believe that Joseph Smith had sexual relationships with most of his plural wives, he does Not believe that the main reason why Joseph Smith entered into Polygamy was just because Joseph Smith wanted to have sex with multiple women. Todd Compton believed that the main reason why Joseph Smith entered into Polygamy was because of his Theological beliefs. That is what I also believe too. The followoing is also from Todd Compton, Book titled, 'In Sacred Loneliness.' Here it is:

The Number of Joseph Smith's Wives

Though thirty-three is less than forty-eight, it is still a remarkably large, polygamous family. One may wonder why Smith married so many women when two or three wives would have complied with the reported divine command to enter polygamy. However, the church president apparently believed that complete salvation (in Mormon terminology, exaltation, including the concept of deification) depended on the extent of a man's family sealed to him in this life. Benjamin Johnson, a brother of Smith's plural wife Almera, wrote:

The First Command was to "Multiply" and the Prophet taught us that Dominion & powr in the great Future would be Comensurate with the no [number] of "Wives Childin & Friends" that we inheret here and that our great mission to earth was to Organize a Neculi [nucleus] of Heaven to take with us. To the increace of which there would be no end—


The emphasis on increase echoes the Abrahamic promise, in which God promised Abraham that his posterity would be as plentiful as the dust of the earth, the stars in the sky, and the sands of the seashore (Gen. 13:16, 16:10, 17:6, 18:18, 22:17). Early Mormons taught that the doctrine of plural marriage was revealed to Smith "while he was engaged in the work of translation of the Scriptures," and historian Danel Bachman concludes that it was specifically the translation of Genesis, the Abraham passages, that caused Joseph to pray about polygamy in February 1831 and receive his first revelations on the topic. The example of Abraham and the Abrahamic promise are prominently mentioned in the LDS church's Doctrine and Covenants (D&C 132), the officially canonized revelation on polygamy and exaltation.

The idea that one had to be sealed to one's family nucleus in this life probably depended on another biblical passage, Matthew 22:30, in which Jesus states that "in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage." Smith apparently interpreted this to mean that one had to create one's "extended family," one's kingdom, by marriage while on earth. Orson Pratt, in a discourse given in 1859, taught this explicitly.

(Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness.)
_Yoda

Post by _Yoda »

Hi Brakite!

Thank you for providing this research.

After reading this, this really sounds to me like Joseph misinterpreted A LOT of things.

There are just too many instances that don't add up.

I'll go into more detail on my other polygamy thread tomorrow.

Thanks again!

:)
_truth dancer
_Emeritus
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm

Post by _truth dancer »

Hi Brackite...

:-)

While Todd Compton does believe that Joseph Smith had sexual relationships with most of his plural wives, he does Not believe that the main reason why Joseph Smith entered into Polygamy was just because Joseph Smith wanted to have sex with multiple women. Todd Compton believed that the main reason why Joseph Smith entered into Polygamy was because of his Theological beliefs.


Well... yes and no. :-)

Throughout history there have been many cult/relious/political leaders who have claimed God was at the helm of owning women and girls or using women and girls for their sexual purposes.

The reality is, some men have needed an excuse for hurting women, treating them poorly, and using them for their sexual pleasure. The "God said" excuse is a popular one. Joseph Smith's need and excuse is nothing new. He is one in a long list of powerful guys who have convinced themselves that they are special and God wants them to spread their seed or own women.

Perhaps Joseph Smith thought sleeping/owning women was doctrinal... yes, if one reads the Bible he/she would understand that in Biblical days, rich men owned women, had harems, slaves, concubines, etc. etc. etc. Women were used like animals for sex and servitude.

But most God fearing men and women of the 19th century did not interpret the horrors of the Old Testament as something in which they should engage. Why did Joseph?

I think it much more likely that Joseph Smith (along with many, many other powerful men over the years), wanting to sleep with multiple women and justified it with the Bible.

One can pretty much justify any horrific thing with the Bible, and the "God said" excuse in nonsense. (IMHO)! LOL!

I just really have a difficult time when folks excuse Joseph Smith's behavior when, if it occurred in anyone else it would despised as it always is. In other words, if my neighbor did what Joseph Smith did, he would be in jail in a second and NO ONE would be justifying his actions because my neighbor thought they were Biblical.... ya know? Why does Joseph Smith get a free pass?

~dancer~

Add on... just to clarify, I'm not saying you are giving Joseph Smith a free pass... I'm saying those who support polygamy and Joseph Smith's behavior give him a free pass. :-)
_Yoda

Post by _Yoda »

Another question I would like to add to the mix...and maybe some of the more learned TBM's can answer this question for me.....Why is it so important for us to "raise up seed" to God?

That is always given as the excuse for God intermittently sanctioning polygamy to begin with. Can't "righteous seed" be raised in monogamous relationships? I'm sorry...I just don't understand this.

And I'm not being fecicious here. I'm serious.

How can a God who is loving and wants the best for His children even intermittently submit his daughters to this type of abuse?
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

Post by _Dr. Shades »

liz3564 wrote:That is always given as the excuse for God intermittently sanctioning polygamy to begin with. Can't "righteous seed" be raised in monogamous relationships? I'm sorry...I just don't understand this.


You're right. As I've stated a few times in the past, polygamy led to less "seed" than monogamy. This is because in polygamy, a woman has access to a man's sperm 100/x% of the time, where x is the number of wives the man has. Consequently, the greater the chance he'll "miss" her fertile days.

So polygamy produces less children per woman than does monogamy.

Not only that, but it reduces the number of males contributing to the gene pool, resulting in a far greater chance of genetic defects.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"

--Louis Midgley
Post Reply