Was polygamy out in the open?

[_ajax18]

We had a speaker in Church today proclaim that plural marriage was practiced out in the open. He says the Church was transparent about it and that there were no secrets. I found that hard to believe. Without dogpiling on this with a lot of attempts to satisfy personal motives of vengeance, I'd like to get the facts of what really happened. What does he really mean by transparent, is it transparent in the way church finances are transparent?

[_Daheshist]

Was the Church "transparent" about plural marriage?

Well, from 1832 until his death Joseph Smith practice polygamy. Many would argue he practiced adultery; since the great majority of the females he had sex with he did not support financially, and they did not live under his roof. He did boff the Lawrence sisters, who did live with him. He did so behind the back of Emma. At the same time, Joseph Smith publicly declared he had only ONE wife, and he called polygamy a false and damnable doctrine, and excommunicated anyone who preached it in public.

In 1852 Brigham Young came out and said "Ok, we are polygamists!" The Church was TRANSPARENT about it from 1852 until 1890, when the Church said "We are no longer authorizing polygamy" and in FACT....THAT WAS A LIE!!! Church presidents merely 'ordained' other men to seal polygamist couples together, at least to 1907, and in some cases beyond that.

Church finances are KEPT SECRET from the Membership. Why? The Brethren won't say, and if you ask, you're risking a Church Court merely for asking. THE REAL REASON is that the General Authorities (all of them are related to each other by blood or marriage except for a small few) make HUGE "fees" from Church owned businesses supported by Tithing money; in addition to their quite nice salaries (also a secret). Church leaders know that if the Members knew how much money these men were making from Church Tithing, it would create problems. And the Brethren don't like problems.

We had a speaker in Church today proclaim that plural marriage was practiced out in the open. He says the Church was transparent about it and that there were no secrets. I found that hard to believe. Without dogpiling on this with a lot of attempts to satisfy personal motives of vengeance, I'd like to get the facts of what really happened. What does he really mean by transparent, is it transparent in the way church finances are transparent?

[_Jason Bourne]

Was the Church "transparent" about plural marriage?

Well, from 1832 until his death Joseph Smith practice polygamy. Many would argue he practiced adultery; since the great majority of the females he had sex with he did not support financially, and they did not live under his roof. He did boff the Lawrence sisters, who did live with him.

Dah,

This is the celestial forum. Supposed to keep it cleaner here.

Church finances are KEPT SECRET from the Membership. Why? The Brethren won't say, and if you ask, you're risking a Church Court merely for asking.

I believe Church finances should be open. I have brought this up to my church leaders and there was no mention of a church court.

THE REAL REASON is that the General Authorities (all of them are related to each other by blood or marriage except for a small few) make HUGE "fees" from Church owned businesses supported by Tithing money; in addition to their quite nice salaries (also a secret). Church leaders know that if the Members knew how much money these men were making from Church Tithing, it would create problems. And the Brethren don't like problems.

Can you provide some evidence of this extraordinary claim?

[_Inconceivable]

We had a speaker in Church today proclaim that plural marriage was practiced out in the open. He says the Church was transparent about it and that there were no secrets. I found that hard to believe.

He doesn't know, or he's lying. It can't be both.

If he doesn't know, there will be a time in his life when he will find himself at a crossroads.

If he's lying, he's the reason why so many eventually find themselves at the crossroad.

Polygamy is not beautiful, wholesome and virtuous no matter how much lipstick gets slapped on it. The truth about polygamy has never been transparent in the church. Even when it was practiced out in the open.

[_Daheshist]

Jason,

Let me reiterate, if you wrote a letter to the First Presidency and said, "I think you should make Church finances public!" you'll get a call from your bishop, who will say "Let it drop!" If you don't, he'll 'counsel' you to cease. If you disobey that counsel, my friend, I guarantee you you're on your way to a Church Courst.

Each of "The Brethren" sit on Boards of the many Church-owned businesses. Everyone else, everyone, of every religion and non-profit organization, who sits on Boards of Directors get "fees" for this. For example, the Christian Research Institute has "Boards of Directors" who meet quarterly for an hour. Each of them receives about $100,000 a year for those four meetings. No joke!

The Brethren sit on the Boards of many Church-owned business.
Do you think that the Brethren refuse such fees? I don't think so. I have been "told" that they make "huge" fees. Could it be mere "rumor" without foundation?

Granted. Maybe, but I don't think so. A person who has nothing to hide...HIDES NOTHING. The Brethren are hiding Church finances.

There have been dozens of dozens of cases where Mormon bishops have covered-up cases of incest and child-molestation and rape, and many of the victims in the past 10 years have decided to SUE THE CHURCH, and the Church has LOST many of these cases when juries discover that the Church has an unwritten policy to "cover-up" all cases of sex-abuse if the perpetrators are bishops or high counsellors or stake presidents.

The victims in these cases have been awarded huge financial awards, sometimes in the tens of millions of dollars. The Church responds by saying essentially "We're broke! We can't afford these judgments!" So, the judges order the financial statements to be made public to discover if Church attorneys are being truthful, or...LYING!! (They are of course...lying).

The Church has been ordered by judges in these cases to reveal its financial statements, and the Church is spending MILLIONS (not thousands---MILLIONS) in court to try to prevent that from happening. WHY DO YOU "THINK" THE CHURCH WANTS TO KEEP ITS FINANCES SECRET? Do the math.

Was the Church "transparent" about plural marriage?

Well, from 1832 until his death Joseph Smith practice polygamy. Many would argue he practiced adultery; since the great majority of the females he had sex with he did not support financially, and they did not live under his roof. He did boff the Lawrence sisters, who did live with him.

Dah,

This is the celestial forum. Supposed to keep it cleaner here.

Church finances are KEPT SECRET from the Membership. Why? The Brethren won't say, and if you ask, you're risking a Church Court merely for asking.

I believe Church finances should be open. I have brought this up to my church leaders and there was no mention of a church court.

THE REAL REASON is that the General Authorities (all of them are related to each other by blood or marriage except for a small few) make HUGE "fees" from Church owned businesses supported by Tithing money; in addition to their quite nice salaries (also a secret). Church leaders know that if the Members knew how much money these men were making from Church Tithing, it would create problems. And the Brethren don't like problems.

Can you provide some evidence of this extraordinary claim?

[_Daheshist]

Jason,

Let me reiterate, if you wrote a letter to the First Presidency and said, "I think you should make Church finances public!" you'll get a call from your bishop, who will say "Let it drop!" If you don't, he'll 'counsel' you to cease. If you disobey that counsel, my friend, I guarantee you you're on your way to a Church Courst.

Each of "The Brethren" sit on Boards of the many Church-owned businesses. Everyone else, everyone, of every religion and non-profit organization, who sits on Boards of Directors get "fees" for this. For example, the Christian Research Institute has "Boards of Directors" who meet quarterly for an hour. Each of them receives about $100,000 a year for those four meetings. No joke!

Why do Board Members get so much money? Because, in profit and non-profit organizations, Board Members are the senior donators/senior investors. But, in the Mormon Church, the investors are tithing-payers. True, the Brethren pay tithing too. But, do they get "fees" for being on Boards of various Church-owned businesses? If they do NOT, that would be unusual. If they refuse these fees, YOU'D HEAR ABOUT IT. But, if they got HUGE FEES, and did not wish Members to know that, you can be sure they would HIDE ALL CHURCH FINANCES...which is exactly what they do!

The Brethren sit on the Boards of many Church-owned business.
Do you think that the Brethren refuse such fees? I don't think so. I have been "told" that they make "huge" fees. Could it be mere "rumor" without foundation?

Granted. Maybe, but I don't think so. A person who has nothing to hide...HIDES NOTHING. The Brethren are hiding Church finances.

There have been dozens of cases where Mormon bishops have covered-up cases of incest and child-molestation and rape, and many of the victims in the past 10 years have decided to SUE THE CHURCH, and the Church has LOST many of these cases when juries discover that the Church has an unwritten policy to "cover-up" all cases of sex-abuse if the perpetrators are bishops or high counsellors or stake presidents, or formerly were in these positions.

The victims in these cases have been awarded huge financial awards, sometimes in the tens of millions of dollars. The Church responds by saying essentially "We're broke! We can't afford these judgments!" So, the judges order the financial statements to be made public to discover if Church attorneys are being truthful, or...LYING!! (They are of course...lying).

The Church has been ordered by judges in these cases to reveal its financial statements, and the Church is spending a TONo money in court to try to prevent that from happening. WHY DO YOU "THINK" THE CHURCH WANTS TO KEEP ITS FINANCES SECRET? Do the math.

[_Jason Bourne]

Let me reiterate, if you wrote a letter to the First Presidency and said, "I think you should make Church finances public!" you'll get a call from your bishop, who will say "Let it drop!" If you don't, he'll 'counsel' you to cease. If you disobey that counsel, my friend, I guarantee you you're on your way to a Church Courst.

This is quite different than what you said before. Still I highty doubt a member would get a church court for even a letter asking. Perhaps if you made a huge public issue about it Church Discipline could result.

Each of "The Brethren" sit on Boards of the many Church-owned businesses. Everyone else, everyone, of every religion and non-profit organization, who sits on Boards of Directors get "fees" for this. For example, the Christian Research Institute has "Boards of Directors" who meet quarterly for an hour. Each of them receives about $100,000 a year for those four meetings. No joke!

You are out of touch. Hinckley, shortly after becoming Church Pres made all GAs drop off any boards of any company, church owned or not.

The Brethren sit on the Boards of many Church-owned business.
Do you think that the Brethren refuse such fees? I don't think so. I have been "told" that they make "huge" fees. Could it be mere "rumor" without foundation?

Well they don't sit on boards any more but even when they did you know nothing about what they make. Nor do I.

Granted. Maybe, but I don't think so. A person who has nothing to hide...HIDES NOTHING. The Brethren are hiding Church finances.

I would prefer that they open the books.

There have been dozens of dozens of cases where Mormon bishops have covered-up cases of incest and child-molestation and rape, and many of the victims in the past 10 years have decided to SUE THE CHURCH, and the Church has LOST many of these cases when juries discover that the Church has an unwritten policy to "cover-up" all cases of sex-abuse if the perpetrators are bishops or high counsellors or stake presidents.

You said bishops were perpetrators of it. Also, while I think there are cases where Mormon bishops bungled when abuse was involved I do not think it was malicious or intentional. I think it was more that they did not know how to handle it and were not trained in such things. Big mistake by the Church. The Church does better with these now and has an abuse hot line for bishops to call when such cases arise so they can get guidance on what to do

[_zzyzx]

"A person who has nothing to hide...HIDES NOTHING. The Brethren are hiding Church finances."

This is the same foolishness spouted by those who say 'if you aren't doing anything wrong, agree to a search warrant'.

Niether one holds water.

Many who are honest and have nothing to hide do not parade all their doings in front of others. Has nothing to do with honesty or integrity or hiding anything. Has to do with 'it's none of your damn business'. Very simple really.

Many of the former corporate director/board positions of General Authorities have been done away with because of the appearance of impropriety and (quite possibly) actual impropriety. Top church leaders do get a living allowance/stipend. It is a lot more than many members make each year. Remember, many LDS members live in poor countries so that isn't saying much. The leaders do OK to much better than average for many of their flock.

Polygamy was not 'out in the open' at any time during the life of Joseph Smith. He did not even receive the Keys for sealing families until 1836 but married Fannie Alger a few years before that happened. Is that living in adultery? He did not have Emmas permission for the plural marriage. Isn't that against the D&C charge that the first wife give her permission? As for 'if a man espouse a virgin'... maybe Fannie was and maybe not, we don't know. IF Oliver Cowdery is to be believed Fannie was an adulterous affair before any 'spiritual wifery' was made known so she could not have been a virgin and could not have qualified for plural marriage if D&C 132 is belived to mean what it says.

The real trouble with Polygamy is in hiding it and lying about it. Tell the truth and you don't have to remember what your story was.

[_Daheshist]

Jason,

If Gordon B. Hinckley said the sky was blue, I would take it with a grain of salt. This is the same Hinckley that denied he knew Mark HOfmann (a lie), the same Hinckley that denied he had appointed Steve Christensen to work with Hofmann (a lie), the same Hinckley who told Mike Wallace that the Church never gets involved in politics (a lie), the same Hinckley that told an Australian journalist that he "did not know the reason why" blacks were banned from the priesthood until 1978 (a lie). And remember, these are only the lies of his we KNOW about!

My educated "guess" is that the "Brethren" are not officially on any Boards, but that they still get the "fees". We don't know, until they open the books, and the Church is spending probably MILLIONS to prevent that from happening.

And in regards to Mormon bishops. Bishop Kunzler of the Bellevue 8th Ward did all he could to COVER-UP the sex scandal, and he was rewarded for it by the Stake PResidency. They made him the 2nd Counsellor. Mormon bishops HIDE and COVER-UP things all the time if those things involve priviledged Members or friends or family of VIPs.

[_ajax18]

You are out of touch. Hinckley, shortly after becoming Church Pres made all GAs drop off any boards of any company, church owned or not.

That's really admirable of President Hinckley. How did you ever find that out? Do we know the reason?

Well they don't sit on boards any more but even when they did you know nothing about what they make. Nor do I.

We don't know the details, but we do get a glimpse of their lifestyle. I don't know enough about them to make a 100% foolproof judgment, but I don't know enough about a lot of things to be completely sure. They don't know everything about me but out of necessity still make judgments about me. Part of the reformation seemed to be the common people waking up and making judgments about how their money was being spent in Rome by the Lord's annointed. God gave us eyes, ears, and hearts? Why wouldn't he say that we should use them?

The philosophical question came down to, "Did Jesus Christ own the clothes that he wore?" As I watch the US Open, Andre Agassi and Steffi Graff tell me it's time to give of my time and money. The thought that comes to my mind is that they could have given a long time ago too, but they chose to enjoy and live out a dream when they had the chance. I don't blame them for that. I blame people when they hold me to a higher standard than they themselves were willing to live. So when Thomas Monson stands up and talks about me needing to give up my gas money and take a bus to work, I'm going to look at his Lexus and start asking how it all adds up now and in eternity.