Mormons?

[Anthony]

If Joseph Smith was a false prophet, Jesus said he couldn’t bring forth good fruit. No one is really willing to consider the ramifications of that assurance of the Savior. Are the scriptures of Mormonism evil fruit or good fruit?

Joseph Smith is no different no better no worse than Muhammad, Mormonism is no different than Isalm, it is simply another non-christian religion.

Also you cannot judge someone's as being a prophet based on how "good" they are. What good fruits are you referring to? Just about every religion can produce good fruits.

2PE 2:1
But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In heir greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

1CO 4:6
Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another. For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?

 

[baker]

The Book of Mormon was first published in 1830 and section 132 wasn’t made public until 1852. Technically, its first “public” reading was in 1843 when Joseph Smith’s brother read it to the Nauvoo high council (leaders of an ecclesiatical LDS unit). Some members of the Reorganized LDS Church (now called Church of Christ) claim that it was produced after Joseph Smith’s death.



Some people claim that they are one and the same, but I think historically and textually there are good indications that it is not. As I mentioned earlier, the LDS Church doesn’t publish commentaries on the scriptures, but there was a book published during the height of the Church’s practice of plural marriage called “The Compendium” where the president of the 12 apostles indicated that plural marriage is a subset of eternal marriage.

Alma,

In doing a keyword search on the lds.org site for "wives and concubines" I found a verse from the book of mormon, Jacob 2;24 that seems to directly contradict this sec 132. It says that god thought having them were an abomination but 132 now says they are justified. How or why would the practice of polygamy be allowed given that god thought it was an abomination. I kow this sounds crazy but did god change his mind in less than a year or would there be reason to think that perhaps this polygamy idea was for personal needs of those origianlly practising it?

If the command on eternal marriage is different from the command to practice polygamy, why couldn't they be announced at different times and why would they wait some 20 years after the revelation was given to announce the commandment for eternal marriage? It sounds pretty important and neccessary to one achieving a pretty high glory to wait to let eveyone know about it.

Where can I find this book Compendium? Was this an official book from your church?

I think that could be a plausible reading, but not the accurate one. If you’ll look at the language which is very specific, it gives the conditions of the covenant that he is about to reveal. It includes “all covenants, vows, oaths, bonds, performances,” etc. It is much more inclusive than marriage or even plural marriage.

I'm not following this. Was this some sort of catch up revelation or was it particular to one teaching? What else is included in here other than eternal marriage and polygamy that is not covered in your other commandments?

As far as a condemnation for choosing not to marry, Paul taught “Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” But that is ancillary to section 132.

Again, I'm not following you here. Where does god condemn anyone for not marrying? Frankly, and I'm pretty sure about this, God taught that marriage was for this world only and that marriage was not required to receive his greatest blessings. (I don't have the verses right now but am very certain of these teachings) This really sounds like more of a cult teaching (no offense here but it surely isn't any teaching of Christ that I've ever heard of).

The verse threatening condemnation (we’ll see if that word is allowed), is for those who have “a new and everlasting covenant” revealed to them who refuse to abide by it. Brigham Young claimed in 1868 that, “All Latter-day Saints enter the new and everlasting covenant when they enter this Church.”

Are you saying that if people hear about your concept of eternal marriage, and don't accept it (like I said, the Bible is very clear on marriage) your church teaches that they are condemned from receiving God's greatest glory. Please tell me your church doesn't promote this! What am I missing here?

I believe that eternal marriage was taught by Christ and practiced anciently by the Christian Church. I personally doubt that plural marriage was practiced in that time period but some Mormons - - very prominent ones at that - - have believed and likely do believe that it was.

Why do you believe that. Is it something that you were just raised with and followed through obediance or are there some biblical scriptures that lead you to this conclusion. Also, with respect to your comment about "prominent Mormons", what do you mean by that?


Alma[/QUOTE]

 

[Alma]

Alma, In doing a keyword search on the lds.org site for "wives and concubines" I found a verse from the book of mormon, Jacob 2;24 that seems to directly contradict this sec 132. It says that god thought having them were an abomination but 132 now says they are justified. How or why would the practice of polygamy be allowed given that god thought it was an abomination. I know this sounds crazy but did god change his mind in less than a year or would there be reason to think that perhaps this polygamy idea was for personal needs of those originally practising it?

I think your questions are excellent and thoughtful. Hopefully, I can give you brief answers that are detailed enough to follow. I think it’s important to understand the difference between the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. Rather than couching my language in qualifiers like “the Book of Mormon alleges,” or ”purports to be ” I present it from my perspective – that is, I honestly believe that these texts are actually accounts of God speaking, and I recognize that you and other readers don’t believe that they are, but in the long run, it will save time in my explanations if I don’t qualify every claim. (I hope that makes sense.)

The Book of Mormon is an account of people (tribe of Joseph) who left Jerusalem 600 B.C. and came to this hemisphere. They were led by prophets who recorded their history which was subsequently compiled by a prophet named “Mormon.” Joseph Smith was given the compilation and commanded by God to translate it into English. The book of Jacob within the Book of Mormon (BoM) was written about 544 B.C. At that time, those people began to take several wives and sought to justify their conduct by what was written in the scriptures regarding David and Solomon. Their prophet Jacob, called them to repentance and explained that David and Solomon’s actions were an abomination to God and God had specifically forbidden this people (before they left Jerusalem) from having concubines or plural wives. (Jacob 3:5) He further explained that should God intend to have his people increase their numbers (“raise up seed”) that he would then allow polygamy; but absent such a command, they were to observe strict monogamy. “For if I will, saith the Lord of hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people, otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.” (Jacob 3:30)

Move forward 2,400 years to 1831. Joseph Smith said that God had commanded him to make an inspired revision of the Bible. During this process, he often came to circumstances that seemed problematic. As a result, he would pray to God for an explanation. Many of those explanations (as well as other revelations) have been recorded as sections of the book “Doctrine and Covenants.” One of the theological problems he encountered was the fact that it appeared that God not only didn’t condemn Old Testament instances of polygamy, but seemed in certain instances to even promote it. (Such as when Nathan the prophet told David that God had given David his wives (2 Sam. 12:8.)) He asked God how He could have justified such conduct especially given the condemnation pronounced upon David and Solomon. In reply, God said that David and Solomon each engaged in abominable conduct: David by his adultery with Bathsheba and the subsequent murder of Uriah - - essentially stealing someone else’s wife and committing murder in the process, and Solomon by marrying women who God had commanded the Israelites not to marry. However, just as the comment in Jacob 3:30 contained provision for God to command plural marriage, section 132 explained if commanded by God, plural marriage not only is acceptable to God but also a requirement.

If the command on eternal marriage is different from the command to practice polygamy, why couldn't they be announced at different times and why would they wait some 20 years after the revelation was given to announce the commandment for eternal marriage? It sounds pretty important and necessary to one achieving a pretty high glory to wait to let everyone know about it.

Actually, Joseph Smith and other church leaders did teach the necessity of eternal marriage to the entire Church in connection with the construction of the temple. They encouraged all the members to go to the temple and be married for eternity as soon as the temple could accommodate them. (They started performing ordinances there in Fall of 1845 even though the structure wasn’t completed until Spring of 1846. In the Spring of 1845 Brigham Young told the Church in general conference: “And I would say, as no man can be perfect without the woman, so no woman can be perfect without a man to lead her, I tell you the truth as it is in the bosom of eternity; and I say so to every man upon the face of the earth; if he wishes to be saved he cannot be saved without a woman by his side.” (He said this just after citing the passage of Paul that “in the Lord, neither is that man without the woman nor the woman without the man.”)

Where can I find this book Compendium? Was this an official book from your church?

I need to apologize about that. I was going from memory and when I went to the actual book I realized I was thinking of another aspect. The author says that regarding section 132, that God didn’t begin to answer the question until verse 29. The book is out of print, my copy is from 1882. As far a “official books” of the LDS Church, they are almost entirely limited to the scriptures and official proclamations of the First Presidency and Apostles. As I mentioned earlier, the Church simply doesn’t provide commentaries of scriptures. That is because in the LDS faith, belief is secondary to behavior. Belief isn’t mandated.

I'm not following this. Was this some sort of catch up revelation or was it particular to one teaching? What else is included in here other than eternal marriage and polygamy that is not covered in your other commandments?

The revelation was an answer to a question on how God justified his servants in taking additional wives; but the answer dealt with the principle of justification rather than polygamy per se. It explains several instances of where God has commanded something that ordinarily would be wrong, but because God commanded it, those who obeyed were “justified.” (God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, Saul was commanded to destroy the Amalekites, etc.)

Again, I'm not following you here. Where does god condemn anyone for not marrying?

Actually, the condemnation comes by rejecting the concept God revealed dealing with justification, rather than marriage or polygamy.

Frankly, and I'm pretty sure about this, God taught that marriage was for this world only and that marriage was not required to receive his greatest blessings. (I don't have the verses right now but am very certain of these teachings) This really sounds like more of a cult teaching (no offense here but it surely isn't any teaching of Christ that I've ever heard of).

I’m sure we could discuss that as well (as soon as this subject is clear.)

Are you saying that if people hear about your concept of eternal marriage, and don't accept it (like I said, the Bible is very clear on marriage) your church teaches that they are condemned from receiving God's greatest glory. Please tell me your church doesn't promote this! What am I missing here?

Hopefully, what I explained above answers that question. If not, let me know.

Why do you believe that. Is it something that you were just raised with and followed through obedience or are there some biblical scriptures that lead you to this conclusion. Also, with respect to your comment about "prominent Mormons", what do you mean by that?

Actually, I was raised in an environment much more allied to polygamy than most Mormons. It is a conclusion I have arrived at through Bible study. A couple of early LDS apostles believed that Jesus was married to the sisters Mary and Martha. I say that couldn’t have been the case because the law of Moses forbade marrying sisters. Since Jesus kept the whole law, he could not have been married to both of them.

Alma

 

[baker]

The Book of Mormon is an account of people (tribe of Joseph) who left Jerusalem 600 B.C. and came to this hemisphere. They were led by prophets who recorded their history which was subsequently compiled by a prophet named “Mormon.” Joseph Smith was given the compilation and commanded by God to translate it into English. The book of Jacob within the Book of Mormon (BoM) was written about 544 B.C. At that time, those people began to take several wives and sought to justify their conduct by what was written in the scriptures regarding David and Solomon. Their prophet Jacob, called them to repentance and explained that David and Solomon’s actions were an abomination to God and God had specifically forbidden this people (before they left Jerusalem) from having concubines or plural wives. (Jacob 3:5) He further explained that should God intend to have his people increase their numbers (“raise up seed”) that he would then allow polygamy; but absent such a command, they were to observe strict monogamy. “For if I will, saith the Lord of hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people, otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.” (Jacob 3:30)

Alma,

While I'm not sure I follow (or perhaps agree) with your description of poygamy in the OT, what you are saying is that god comanded Smith to practice polygamy to bare more children for him. If this was the condition to practice polygamy, how many more children did Smith bare to god that couldn't have been born without the practice of polygamy? I mean even in the OT do you think god wanted this practice to increase the population? I guess what I'm asking is, was there a shortage of men during the OT and during the days of J. Smith? It just seem so strange that god would condemn polygamy in the book of mormon, and then ok it so soon after it was issued? Do I make sense here?

Move forward 2,400 years to 1831. Joseph Smith said that God had commanded him to make an inspired revision of the Bible. During this process, he often came to circumstances that seemed problematic. As a result, he would pray to God for an explanation. Many of those explanations (as well as other revelations) have been recorded as sections of the book “Doctrine and Covenants.” One of the theological problems he encountered was the fact that it appeared that God not only didn’t condemn Old Testament instances of polygamy, but seemed in certain instances to even promote it. (Such as when Nathan the prophet told David that God had given David his wives (2 Sam. 12:8.)) He asked God how He could have justified such conduct especially given the condemnation pronounced upon David and Solomon. In reply, God said that David and Solomon each engaged in abominable conduct: David by his adultery with Bathsheba and the subsequent murder of Uriah - - essentially stealing someone else’s wife and committing murder in the process, and Solomon by marrying women who God had commanded the Israelites not to marry. However, just as the comment in Jacob 3:30 contained provision for God to command plural marriage, section 132 explained if commanded by God, plural marriage not only is acceptable to God but also a requirement.

So are you saying that god required certain people to practice polygamy? This is sounding kinda bizarre. Your sec. 132 makes it sound like all were to practice this commandment. How do you know when god commands you to practice polygamy?

I would like to check, but it also dawns on me that we must of had laws during the time of Smith. Was polygamy even legal back then? What was your church's postition with respect to U.S laws?

Actually, Joseph Smith and other church leaders did teach the necessity of eternal marriage to the entire Church in connection with the construction of the temple. They encouraged all the members to go to the temple and be married for eternity as soon as the temple could accommodate them. (They started performing ordinances there in Fall of 1845 even though the structure wasn’t completed until Spring of 1846. In the Spring of 1845 Brigham Young told the Church in general conference: “And I would say, as no man can be perfect without the woman, so no woman can be perfect without a man to lead her, I tell you the truth as it is in the bosom of eternity; and I say so to every man upon the face of the earth; if he wishes to be saved he cannot be saved without a woman by his side.” (He said this just after citing the passage of Paul that “in the Lord, neither is that man without the woman nor the woman without the man.”)

Perhaps I'm confused again. Are you saying that Smith and your church were teaching only part of the revelation if they were teaching to marry in the temple? What temple are you refering to and when was construction started on it? Was this your temple in Salt Lake? For some reason I thought that the mormons didn't arrive in Salt Lake until 1847, I think they call it pioneer day? I'm sure I'm not getting it all strait here!!!

I need to apologize about that. I was going from memory and when I went to the actual book I realized I was thinking of another aspect. The author says that regarding section 132, that God didn’t begin to answer the question until verse 29. The book is out of print, my copy is from 1882. As far a “official books” of the LDS Church, they are almost entirely limited to the scriptures and official proclamations of the First Presidency and Apostles. As I mentioned earlier, the Church simply doesn’t provide commentaries of scriptures. That is because in the LDS faith, belief is secondary to behavior. Belief isn’t mandated.

That's ok, I'm not sure I realize what the distinction of verse 29 is but I'll go back and read it to see if I follow you. However your last sentence really threw me for a loop. Are you saying that as long as you look/play the part of a mormon, it doesn't matter what you believe? This sounds very "Stalinistic". Please elaborate on this one for me!!!!

The revelation was an answer to a question on how God justified his servants in taking additional wives; but the answer dealt with the principle of justification rather than polygamy per se. It explains several instances of where God has commanded something that ordinarily would be wrong, but because God commanded it, those who obeyed were “justified.” (God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, Saul was commanded to destroy the Amalekites, etc.)

Since it seems pretty clear that god's command for polygamy was to raise seed, there must have been some compelling demographic reasons during the days of Smith or else why practice it. Is this a fair assesment? Again, like I said above, I'd love to know what the laws were back then.

Actually, the condemnation comes by rejecting the concept God revealed dealing with justification, rather than marriage or polygamy.

Could you elaborate here - I don't follow you. I understand the concept of rejecting a commandment from god. But where do you believe god commanded us to marry or to marry more than one?

I’m sure we could discuss that as well (as soon as this subject is clear.)

I found one of the scriptures I was referring to before. It comes from Luke 20:

27 Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him,
28 Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
29 There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children.
30 And the second took her to wife, and he died childless.
31 And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died.
32 Last of all the woman died also.
33 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife.
34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection

It would seem to me that if Christ ever wanted to say anything about the neccessity of marriage, even to the Sadducees, this would have been the opportune time. Thats why I don't follow your requirement to be married for eternity. Maybe I'm missing some scripture?

Hopefully, what I explained above answers that question. If not, let me know.

I'm still not following you. Have you read Matt 19?

10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Here Christ is very clear on two points:

One, marriage is not required for god's glory. Two, marriage is not required for eternal life.

Actually, I was raised in an environment much more allied to polygamy than most Mormons. It is a conclusion I have arrived at through Bible study. A couple of early LDS apostles believed that Jesus was married to the sisters Mary and Martha. I say that couldn’t have been the case because the law of Moses forbade marrying sisters. Since Jesus kept the whole law, he could not have been married to both of them.

Could you refer me to what scriptures in the Bible convinced you the Christ was married. I'd be interested.

Anyway, thanks for your reply.

 

[Alma]

While I'm not sure I follow (or perhaps agree) with your description of polygamy in the OT, what you are saying is that god commanded Smith to practice polygamy to bear more children for him. If this was the condition to practice polygamy, how many more children did Smith bear to god that couldn't have been born without the practice of polygamy?

It wasn’t directed only to Smith; rather, the command was given to several men. As to how many more children could be borne as a result of polygamy: my great-great grandfather has more than 65,000 descendants living today.

I mean even in the OT do you think god wanted this practice to increase the population?

Not merely increase the population, but increase the population among certain progenitors. Jacob had two children by the wife of his choice and many more than that because of his additional wives.

I guess what I'm asking is, was there a shortage of men during the OT and during the days of J. Smith? It just seems so strange that god would condemn polygamy in the book of Mormon, and then ok it so soon after it was issued? Do I make sense here?

Two things: Don’t forget that the condemnation in the BoM wasn’t unconditional - - it did specify an exception. Secondly, the provision to live polygamy doesn’t correspond to the number of men as much as it does to the number of children God would want righteous men to raise. The caveat was “raise up seed unto me’ rather than just increase the population.

So are you saying that god required certain people to practice polygamy? This is sounding kinda bizarre. Your sec. 132 makes it sound like all were to practice this commandment. How do you know when god commands you to practice polygamy?

Essentially, a man must be called to do so by the prophet. See verse 7 of section 132, it states that God’s commandments come by revelation from God through a prophet. So, for a man to know that he was commanded, it would have to come through the recognized prophet. So, yes, only certain men were called to obey this commandment.

I would like to check, but it also dawns on me that we must have had laws during the time of Smith. Was polygamy even legal back then? What was your church's position with respect to U.S laws?

We believe that we are required to obey the constitutional law of the land. While polygamy was against the law in Illinois and later in Utah territory, there was a bit of wrangling involved before the supreme court ruled on the constitutionality of the laws against polygamy. The history is really quite detailed. When the government initially tried to prosecute “polygamists” they learned that the laws only applied to men who entered into more than one legal marriage. LDS marriages weren’t recognized as legal, so they ended up prosecuting under different statutes. There were no statute laws prohibiting the LDS practice of plural marriage until the 1860’s.

Perhaps I'm confused again. Are you saying that Smith and your church were teaching only part of the revelation if they were teaching to marry in the temple?

You’re probably confused because you’re coming from a “sola scriptura” Protestant paradigm that presupposes documentation for every teaching. Much more was revealed to Joseph Smith than what he reduced to writing. While some people were hesitant to believe that God had revealed this principle to Joseph Smith, some of them said they would believe it if he produced a written document they could examine.

What temple are you refering to and when was construction started on it? Was this your temple in Salt Lake? For some reason I thought that the mormons didn't arrive in Salt Lake until 1847, I think they call it pioneer day? I'm sure I'm not getting it all strait here!!!

Before the Mormons arrived in Salt Lake, they had completed two other temples: one in Kirtland, Ohio and the other one in Nauvoo, Illinois. The Ohio temple had a different purpose, but the Illinois temple was built for ordinance work including eternal marriage and baptism for the dead. While the Mormons were building the Illinois temple, they were instructed by Joseph Smith on its purposes. However, he was killed before it was finished – and the Mormons were driven from Illinois just as it was being completed. Brigham Young was crossing the plains when they were putting the roof on it.

That's ok, I'm not sure I realize what the distinction of verse 29 is but I'll go back and read it to see if I follow you.

That’s a minor point; I wouldn’t worry about it. I just explained it so that you would understand my mistake.

However your last sentence really threw me for a loop. Are you saying that as long as you look/play the part of a mormon, it doesn't matter what you believe? This sounds very "Stalinistic". Please elaborate on this one for me!!!!

I’m not sure how this is “Stalinistic” but yes, as long as your behavior coincides with the commandments, it doesn’t matter what you believe. Jesus’ sermons were concerned with standards of conduct rather than creedal formulas. It wasn’t until after the deaths of the apostles that men were expected to consent to a doctrinal statement before they could be considered Christians. I believe that there is a great truth included in Jesus’ statement that “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” (John 7:17)

I have to get to work now. I’ll try to get back to the rest of your questions later.

Alma

 

[Alma]

Continued…

Could you elaborate here - I don't follow you. Where do you believe god commanded us to marry or to marry more than one?

I don’t believe that God has commanded us to marry more than one wife, I believe that occurred only for specific individuals over 100 years ago. However, I think the scriptures do indicate that God’s plan involves marriage for everyone who has the capacity to marry. It starts with the account of creation where God specifically states: “It is not good for man to be alone.” After the creation of other types of animal life, we’re told that none of these were a “help meet” for man - - in other words, none of them were appropriate. However, when God created woman, this was a “help meet” for man and God said, “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife.” I think that’s a pretty clear indication of two things: 1) God said it is not good for man to be alone, and 2) God said that man “shall leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife.”

I already cited Paul’s comment that “in the Lord” neither the man nor the woman were independent of each other. It’s true that in 1 Corinthians 7 Paul tells those who are single not to marry, but he also qualifies those statements, indicating that it is a temporary consideration by saying, “I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress …”

I found one of the scriptures I was referring to before. It comes from Luke 20:

“Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him, …”

It would seem to me that if Christ ever wanted to say anything about the necessity of marriage, even to the Sadducees, this would have been the opportune time. That’s why I don't follow your requirement to be married for eternity. Maybe I'm missing some scripture?

Yes, the first scripture you’re missing is section 132 … The other is the parallel account of this same event taken from Matthew. This is an example of a group of Jesus’ critics trying to trap him. Notice in the beginning that it is a group of Sadducees, a group of Jews who rejected both the resurrection and the existence of spirits. They give Jesus a hypothetical situation concerning seven Sadducees marrying one woman: “Now there were with us seven brethren …” In reply, Jesus points out that they don’t understand the scriptures or “the power of God.” He then refers to the hypothetical seven (who reject the resurrection, and Jesus for that matter) and points out that in the resurrection “they” will neither marry nor be given in marriage but shall be as the angels of heaven.” Contrast that status with the status of Christians who will sit with Christ in his throne. They will not be as the angels of heaven but will have rewards that “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.”

I’m not sure that it’s legitimate to make a judgment of a particular doctrine based upon what Jesus did not say. Jesus taught many things that were only for the ears of his disciples and many of his teachings never were compiled into the Bible. (Consider the dearth of information from the Savior’s 40 day ministry after his resurrection.)

I'm still not following you. Have you read Matt 19?

Yes, it’s one of my favorite passages from the New Testament.

Here Christ is very clear on two points: One, marriage is not required for god's glory. Two, marriage is not required for eternal life.

Your conclusions are based on a partial story. Jesus told this rich man to keep the commandments, and when he said that he had done so since his youth, Jesus invited him to give away his riches and come and follow Jesus. Rather than saying that this identifies the requisites for eternal life, I’d say this shows the progressive nature of God’s instruction to his children: Keep the commandments and then follow me and God will instruct you even more.

Could you refer me to what scriptures in the Bible convinced you the Christ was married. I'd be interested.

I think the best treatise on the subject is a book by a Methodist minister named William Phipps. It’s titled, “Was Jesus Married? The Distortion of Sexuality in the Christian Tradition.” The case he lays out I think is incontrovertible. Based upon the Jewish culture that Jesus lived in, bachelorhood was an unthinkable circumstance. Had Jesus remained single, the criticism against this “unnatural” state would have been a predominant theme by Judaism. But there was nary a peep in that direction. I’m sure the book is available at your local library. I think it is scholarly and worth the read for anyone who harbors the idea that the New Testament promotes something different than “it is not good for man to be alone."

Alma

 

[baker]

It wasn’t directed only to Smith; rather, the command was given to several men. As to how many more children could be borne as a result of polygamy: my great-great grandfather has more than 65,000 descendants living today.

Not merely increase the population, but increase the population among certain progenitors. Jacob had two children by the wife of his choice and many more than that because of his additional wives.

Two things: Don’t forget that the condemnation in the BoM wasn’t unconditional - - it did specify an exception. Secondly, the provision to live polygamy doesn’t correspond to the number of men as much as it does to the number of children God would want righteous men to raise. The caveat was “raise up seed unto me’ rather than just increase the population.

Alma,

Thanks for your thoughts.

Some of this histroy is quite fascinating if you're not a mormon. I was wondering if you are giving your opinion in this discussion of polygamy or if it is the official postion of the mormon church. I guess I just want to be careful in how I interpret some of your resoponses and don't want to pass on things that are just opinions. It has been helpful where you have referred me to the info at lds.org. That site has some great research and key word search functions.

When I asked about population demographics, I was assuming that there would have to be an excess of women to men since, by way of an example, two men with two women could generate as many offspring as one man with two women. Is there any info on the demographics on your membership populations from this time period? Also, is there any place on the lds.org site where it lists all the offspring of Joseph Smith. I'd be interested to see how many children he had and the range of ages.

Another thing you said, if I'm understanding your reasoning correctly, is that polygamy was needed for "righteous" offspring. Are you saying that righteous men had more righteous offspring than other men, hence the need for polygamy? This sounds like righteousnous is more hereditary than based on ones faith in god. I must be missing something here because I wouldn't think that is a christian doctrine. I mean wouldn't one's righteousness be based on their faith in god's word as opposed to who their father was? Do I make sense here?

We believe that we are required to obey the constitutional law of the land. While polygamy was against the law in Illinois and later in Utah territory, there was a bit of wrangling involved before the supreme court ruled on the constitutionality of the laws against polygamy. The history is really quite detailed. When the government initially tried to prosecute “polygamists” they learned that the laws only applied to men who entered into more than one legal marriage. LDS marriages weren’t recognized as legal, so they ended up prosecuting under different statutes. There were no statute laws prohibiting the LDS practice of plural marriage until the 1860’s.

It sounds like this may have been a very messy area in terms of law. Given all the press today on polygamy with the Elizabeth Smart case and this new book called "Under the Banner" (although I must admit I have not read it) it sounds like our legal system still has a difficult time addressing this area. However, from your statement above, I'm a little confused. Are you saying that your church designed a polygamous marriage to be illegal to get around the law? Also, what did the stautes of 1860 have in them that earlier laws against polygamy (if there were such) did not have that made them effective against polygamy? (I know this sounds confusing!) Let me try it with an example: If there were laws prior to 1860 prohibiting polygamy, they were not applicable to the mormon practice of polygamy because these were not (I assume) legal marriages. So did the laws of 1860 now apply to illegal marriages or did the mormon polygamous marriages become legal in 1860? (wow, that was a mouthful!)

Any recommendations for a good book on this subject/time frame?

I’m not sure how this is “Stalinistic” but yes, as long as your behavior coincides with the commandments, it doesn’t matter what you believe. Jesus’ sermons were concerned with standards of conduct rather than creedal formulas. It wasn’t until after the deaths of the apostles that men were expected to consent to a doctrinal statement before they could be considered Christians. I believe that there is a great truth included in Jesus’ statement that “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” (John 7:17)

What I meant is that it sounded more like Stalin in that obediance was placed over belief/agreement. I see your reference to John 7 in a much different light. To me one must have a belief in a doctrine first to carry it out. Carrying out the doctrine ("do his will") is a product of one's belief/faith. I have never heard of a church or religion that only cares about "form" but not "substance". Are you saying that one can be a good mormon as long as they play the part even if they don't believe, for example, that the book of mormon is true. This sounds rather different.

Anyway, thanks for you responses. Perhaps if I had more time to "google search" info on this topic I would know more!

 

[Alma]

Some of this history is quite fascinating if you're not a Mormon.

I think it’s fascinating and I’m a Mormon.

I was wondering if you are giving your opinion in this discussion of polygamy or if it is the official position of the Mormon church. I guess I just want to be careful in how I interpret some of your responses and don't want to pass on things that are just opinions.

Sorry, but the LDS Church doesn’t generally make official positions public on these matters. You’ll just have to evaluate what I write and determine for yourself if mine is an informed or an ignorant opinion. I can only give you information that I believe is consistent with the data I’m familiar with.

When I asked about population demographics, I was assuming that there would have to be an excess of women to men since, by way of an example, two men with two women could generate as many offspring as one man with two women. Is there any info on the demographics on your membership populations from this time period?

There have been several studies and most have concluded that there was not a surplus of females to males. Probably the most recent work on polygamous demographics was written by Jessie Embry in 1987, “Mormon Polygamous Families: Life in the Principle.” However, it’s also important to realize that in the 1880's when Mormon polygamy was at its height, only 3-4% of Mormons were practicing polygamy. That’s based upon 300,000 Mormons and 12,000 Mormons who were forbidden to vote because they were living polygamously (see “Proceedings Before the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the United States Senate In the Matter of The Protests Against the Right of Hon. Reed Smoot, a Senator from the State of Utah, to Hold His Seat” Volume I page 321) (whew!)

Also, is there any place on the lds.org site where it lists all the offspring of Joseph Smith. I'd be interested to see how many children he had and the range of ages.

Probably not at that site. But he had 9 children with his first wife, Emma: Alvin, Thaddeus, Louisa (all three died in infancy , Joseph (b. 1832), Frederick Granger Williams, (1836) Alexander Hale, (1838) Don Carlos, (1840) male child, (both died in infancy 1842) David Hyrum.(born Nov. 1844 five months after father’s death) Adopted twins: Joseph and Julia Murdock. (1830) There are no official instances of children born to Joseph Smith’s plural wives.

Another thing you said, if I'm understanding your reasoning correctly, is that polygamy was needed for "righteous" offspring.

I said, “the number of children God would want righteous men to raise.” While I don’t think righteousness is genetic, I do think that good men will influence children better than evil men will.

It sounds like this may have been a very messy area in terms of law. Given all the press today on polygamy with the Elizabeth Smart case and this new book called "Under the Banner" (although I must admit I have not read it) it sounds like our legal system still has a difficult time addressing this area. However, from your statement above, I'm a little confused. Are you saying that your church designed a polygamous marriage to be illegal to get around the law?

No, but that was the situation. The laws against polygamy had been drafted to protect women from a husband who would marry one woman in one place and another somewhere else without either woman knowing about the other one. In such a circumstance, the husband would enter into two (technically) legal marriages. Prosecuting such a case is easy. The proof of violating the law is the fact that the husband entered into two legal marriages. However, in the case of Mormon polygamists, their wives all knew about each other, but they had only entered into one legal marriage. The church leaders believed they had the right to perform marriages that were recognized by the church and they didn’t care if the government was consulted on the matter. They saw it as a strictly religious concept and believed that the constitution couldn’t make laws regarding the “establishment of religion.” I wouldn’t say they were “illegal” as much as they were “extra-legal” since there was no specific statute that forbade such conduct. Even though the government (or the people) may be absolutely opposed to some kind of behavior, it isn’t illegal unless there is a specific law against it.

Also, what did the statutes of 1860 have in them that earlier laws against polygamy (if there were such) did not have that made them effective against polygamy?

There was actually a succession of laws enacted to try to stop the practice of plural marriage. I believe the first law was passed in 1862, but suffered from the same problem of not being able to prove more than one marriage. Consequently, legislation was passed aimed specifically at “unlawful cohabitation.” That is, a man who lived with more than one woman was liable to go to prison - - but only if he claimed she was his wife. The government wasn’t interested in fornication or adultery, just polygamy, and so the legislation specified that unlawful cohabitation occurred if they lived “in the marriage relation.” If a Mormon wanted to avoid prosecution, he could simply claim that he was visiting a prostitute rather than his wife and he wasn’t breaking the law. Of course, they couldn’t bring such a reproach upon their wives and mothers of their children.

Ultimately, the government succeeded in their legislation by disincorporating the LDS Church, confiscating all its property in excess of $50,000, putting men in prison for life, eliminating jury trials, and disfanchizing (took away the right to vote) anyone who belonged to a religion that believed in plural marriage. The court determined that the offense of cohabitation carried a sentence of 5 years in prison. That meant that each time a man visited a plural wife constituted a separate offense. If the court could prove that a man visited his wife 10 times, he could be sentenced to 50 years. They also determined that a man didn’t need to actually visit the wife, if he paid for her support or for the support of her children that was also evidence of cohabitation.

(I know this sounds confusing!) Let me try it with an example: If there were laws prior to 1860 prohibiting polygamy, they were not applicable to the mormon practice of polygamy because these were not (I assume) legal marriages. So did the laws of 1860 now apply to illegal marriages or did the mormon polygamous marriages become legal in 1860? (wow, that was a mouthful!)

They couldn’t prosecute plural marriages that existed before 1862 because the constitution forbids an ex post facto law, so, technically marriages before that date were exempt, but they later determined that even if the marriage was legal, living with the wife was not.

Any recommendations for a good book on this subject/time frame?

Probably the most scholarly would be “Solemn Covenant” by B. Carmen Hardy. For a more readable, but probably harder to find publication, look for “Americanism, Mormonism and Politics” by Richard Vetterli. It was initially Vetterli’s Master’s Thesis later published in book form. You’ll probably find the Vetterli book through inter-library loan. Depending on where you live, it may be in your local library.

What I meant is that it sounded more like Stalin in that obedience was placed over belief/agreement. I see your reference to John 7 in a much different light. To me one must have a belief in a doctrine first to carry it out. Carrying out the doctrine ("do his will") is a product of one's belief/faith. I have never heard of a church or religion that only cares about "form" but not "substance.".

Oh, the substance is in behavior rather than mental assent. Remember that the devils believe. (James 2:19)

Are you saying that one can be a good mormon as long as they play the part even if they don't believe, for example, that the book of mormon is true. This sounds rather different.

It is. I don’t believe that one would be a “good” Mormon if he didn’t believe, but it certainly wouldn’t affect his position as a Mormon. But a Mormon who claims to believe and is a bad person may very well be expelled from the Church.

Anyway, thanks for you responses. Perhaps if I had more time to "google search" info on this topic I would know more!

You’re welcome.

Alma

 

[baker]

Alma,

Thanks for your reply of last week. Sorry, but I've been traveling and haven't been at liberty to post much in the way of my thoughts to your last reply.

I did have the ambition to go down to Borders last week and try and find some information on polygamy. I picked up a book by mormon writer Richard Van Waggoner, "Mormon Polygamy" which I'm well into right now. Truly fascinating, not only from a polygamy standpoint, but also from a sort of "american west" perspective. Anyway, I'd like to post more about the subject once I read a little more on it.

If I may, one thought you brought up in your last post really intrigued me. You said that at its height, only about 3-4% of mormons practiced polygamy. But you also said that polygamy was commanded by god for only righteous men. Are you implying that only about 3-4% of mormons were righteous in the eyes of god? Considering that its practice was limited to about one (or maybe one and a half) generation, and it's practice was limited to so very few, and that it appears to have brought so much hardship on the religion as well as some individuals, why do you think it was commanded by god. Perhaps what I'm trying to understand is what would have been un-accomplished if polygamy was never part of the religion. I know one could say that "why question what god supposedly commanded", but it seems like such an obvious question to me.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.

 

[baker]

Alma,

Don't know if your still here. I've been travelling alot but did get a chance to do some additional reading on the history of polygamy.

Anyway, if you don't mind, I'd like to go back to the legality of it for a minute based on your previous comment. Through the book I mentioned above, I found out that there was a law prohibiting polygamy in Illinois effective during the time of J. Smith. Not only did this law prohibit polygamy, but also cohabitation. Here is an excerpt from the statute:

"Sec 121. Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one and the same time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive. If any person or persons within this State, being married, or who shall hereafter marry, do at any time marry any person or persons, the former husband or wife being alive, the person so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine, not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned in the penitentiary, not exceeding two years. It shall not be necessary to prove either of the said marriages by the register or certificate thereof, or other record evidence; but the same may be proved by such evidence as is admissible to prove a marriage in other cases, and when such second marriage shall have taken place without this state, cohabitation in this state after such second marriage shall be deemed the commission of the crime of bigamy, and the trial in such case may take place in the county where such cohabitation shall have occurred. (Revised Laws of Illinois, 1833, p.198-99)"

I don't know if you knew about this or not given your previous statements but I thought I might share it with you.

However, what was even more interesting is that the author points out that the official doctrine of the mormon church at that time, publically supported by J. Smith denounced polygamy. Van Wagoner led me to look up a mormon church publication called Times & Seasons which J. Smith was the editor of at the time he published this statement:




From the Book of Doctrine & Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

ON MARRIAGE.

According to the custom of all civilized nations, marriage is regulated by laws and ceremonies: therefore we believe, that all marriages in this church of Christ of Latter Day Saints, should be solemnized in a public meeting, or feast, prepared for that purpose: and that the solemnization should be performed by a presiding high priest, high priest, bishop, elder, or priest, not even prohibiting those persons who are desirous to get married, of being married by other authority.-We believe that it is not right to prohibit members of this church from marrying out of the church, if it be their determination so to do, but such persons will be considered weak in the faith of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Marriage should be celebrated with prayer and thanksgiving; and at the solemnization, the persons to be married, standing together, the man on the right, and the woman on the left, shall be addressed, by the person officiating, as he shall be directed by the holy Spirit; and if there be no legal objections, he shall say, calling each by their names: "You both mutually agree to be each other's companion, husband and wife, observing the legal rights belonging to this condition; that is, keeping yourselves wholly for each other, and from all others, during your lives." And when they have answered "Yes," he shall pronounce them "husband and wife" in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by virtue of the laws of the country and authority vested in him: "may God add his blessings and keep you to fulfil [fulfill] your covenants from henceforth and forever. Amen."

The clerk of every church should keep a record of all marriages, solemnized in his branch.

All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled. Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again. It is not right to persuade a woman to be baptized contrary to the will of her husband, neither is it lawful to influence her to leave her husband. All children are bound by law to obey their parents; and to influence them to embrace any religious faith, or be baptized, or leave their parents without their consent, is unlawful and unjust. We believe that husbands, parents and masters who exercise control over their wives, children, and servants and prevent them from embracing the truth, will have to answer for that sin.

We have given the above rule of marriage as the only one practiced in this church, to show that Dr. J. C. Bennett's "secret wife system" is a matter of his own manufacture; and further to disabuse the public ear, and shew [show] that the said Bennett and his misanthropic friend Origen Bachelor, are perpetrating a foul and infamous slander upon an innocent people, and need but be known to be hated and despise. In support of this position, we present the following certificates:-

We the undersigned members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and residents of the city of Nauvoo, persons of families do hereby certify and declare that we know of no other rule or system of marriage than the one published from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and we give this certificate to show that Dr. J. C. Bennett's "secret wife system. Times and Seasons; Vol 3; pg 939, Oct.1842

This may or may not be new to you but it really was quite surprising to me given everything you had posted. I mean doesn't it seem extreamly conflicting for Smith to be preaching that monogamy and a public marriage is the only rule of marriage practiced by the church as late as 1842 if god gave him a revelation saying something different in 1831. I was also intrigued that the guidelines for any marriage in the church had to follow the guidelines of civilized laws and customs with particular emphasis being placed on having them recorded. It seems to indicate that if you didn't follow these rules, you were marrying outside the church.

Given the above law and the above church rule on mariage by Smith, how could his polygamous actions be legal or in accordance with your church at that time. I guess to me it seems sorta hard to believe this was from god (please, no offense intended).

Anyway, I'd love to get your thoughts on the above information. Still traveling but I can get a peak in from time to time.

 

[baker]

Alma,

Are you still out there?

 

[Thaddeus]

Why would anyone trust a religion which promotes such hateful views? Did the founding Mormons not read that Noah is the seed of Cain? Is there a different Bible used by Mormons?

 

[baker]

Hi Alma,

I noticed you had been visiting this site over the past week or so but had not responded to my last post.

I hope, by posting the information I came across through the book I referred to, I did not offend you. That was certainly not the intention. For me, I was merely trying to get a little better background on the history of mormonism and their practice of polygamy.

If you are still interested, I would love to hear your thoughts on the subject. I just hope I did not offend you with the information/questions from my last post.

 

[Alma]

Hi Alma,

I noticed you had been visiting this site over the past week or so but had not responded to my last post.

I hope, by posting the information I came across through the book I referred to, I did not offend you. That was certainly not the intention. For me, I was merely trying to get a little better background on the history of mormonism and their practice of polygamy.

If you are still interested, I would love to hear your thoughts on the subject. I just hope I did not offend you with the information/questions from my last post.

No, you didn't offend me. It's just that school started for me and I haven't had as much time as I wished. I will reply, it's just that your message takes more thought than I had to give. I'll have late meetings tonight but tomorrow I hope to get back to you. I did send you a private message. Did you get that?

Alma

 

[Alma]

If I may, one thought you brought up in your last post really intrigued me. You said that at its height, only about 3-4% of mormons practiced polygamy. But you also said that polygamy was commanded by god for only righteous men. Are you implying that only about 3-4% of mormons were righteous in the eyes of god?

No, I didn’t mean to imply that only those who practiced plural marriage were righteous; that was the ideal but short of reality. The practice was severely limited by several factors: 1) the number of eligible women. At one point, Heber C. Kimball commented that every woman in the territory of Utah who wanted to be married was married, “even if she had a face as long as a horse.” (Sorry if anyone’s offended by that comment, I think it’s instructive.) 2) There were sizeable congregations of Mormons in England. There was no attempt to practice polygamy there. (At one time in the 1860’s, there were more Mormons in Utah from the British Isles than from the United States. 3) General poverty. Utah is a desert and the Mormons were mostly refugees who had lost their material possessions. It is a significant financial strain to have several households and scores of children. Very few men had the financial, or psychological capacity to meet such a challenge.

Considering that its practice was limited to about one (or maybe one and a half) generation, and it's practice was limited to so very few, and that it appears to have brought so much hardship on the religion as well as some individuals, why do you think it was commanded by god. Perhaps what I'm trying to understand is what would have been un-accomplished if polygamy was never part of the religion. I know one could say that "why question what god supposedly commanded", but it seems like such an obvious question to me.

I am a fifth generation Mormon and my father is the first monogamist in that genealogical line. Largely as a result of multiple wives, my great-great grandfather has more than 65,000 descendants today. Since I pointed out that the primary purpose was to produce additional posterity, I think that demonstrates that the premise was valid. I think there were several other reasons as well, including providing an environment where every woman who wished to have a husband and children could realize that goal. I also think that it served as a winnowing factor. It was a difficult concept – and likely made many people seriously evaluate the basis of their faith. Those who couldn’t bring themselves to pray to God and ask if it was right elected instead to leave the religion. I think there are a couple of other important reasons for its implementation but those should give you something to chew on.

Alma

 

[A Taffer]

I used to be a Morman and this is very interesting to me. I am a Christian now Born again in his ligh and love and my life has not only become more fulfilling but I no longer have all the hang ups that the Morman religon instills in you. I was born into a Morman family but never felt right about it I kept trying and trying and after I turned 21 and had been in and out of church with the constant fear that God was going to cast me away because I was Morman I found GOD!!! and he was no where near a Morman church. I never felt the Love of Christ like I have since leaving that religon. I have seen now how Morman's are brainwashed and no matter how hard you fight with one weather they believe it or not they will tell you they are right and you are going to a lesser hevan or hell because you are not Morman. This fear, that brainwashing technique kept teh truth of having God in your life for 21 years....I lost so much of my life forced into a religon that hurt me so much.
I am so happy I have found the truth light of Christ. I would never go back not even for a moment.
being a Christian has completely changed my life and I am in love with this Forum because I can finally find people with my same beliefs....
It is beautiful and Praise God for the inspiration.

DNA VS The Book Of Mormon http://www.mormonchallenge.com/dna/dna.htm

This 45 minute online video provides absolute proof of the falsity of the Mormon faith. I hope you will share it with your Mormon friends (if any) and maybe more people will come to Christ. Isn't being a Christian one of the greatest feelings in the world?

 

[Alma]

Anyway, if you don't mind, I'd like to go back to the legality of it for a minute based on your previous comment. Through the book I mentioned above, I found out that there was a law prohibiting polygamy in Illinois effective during the time of J. Smith. Not only did this law prohibit polygamy, but also cohabitation. Here is an excerpt from the statute:

Yes, I’m aware that polygamy has been illegal in every state where Mormons practiced it (Ohio, Illinois, Mexico and Canada.) But LDS leaders felt that the laws were unconstitutional and could be successfully challenged because it dealt (from their perspective) entirely with a tenet of their religion. Whenthe laws and their punishments were declared constitutional by the Supreme Court and there were no further avenues of appeal, Church leaders acquiesced to the demands of the civil law.

I don't know if you knew about this or not given your previous statements but I thought I might share it with you.

Yes I did know about the law, but still maintain that it did not specifically address the Mormon practice because the law still relied upon a “second marriage.” Even though the statute specified cohabitation, it was tied to a subsequent marriage: “cohabitation in this state after such second marriage. The Mormon practice was never referred to as a “marriage” but rather as a “sealing” and was entirely outside the legal process. That is why the first laws against polygamy in Utah also failed in their desired result. The federal government ultimately had to prosecute cohabitation rather than polygamy.

However, what was even more interesting is that the author points out that the official doctrine of the mormon church at that time, publically supported by J. Smith denounced polygamy. Van Wagoner led me to look up a mormon church publication called Times & Seasons which J. Smith was the editor of at the time he published this statement:

Actually, John Taylor was the editor at that time and the official doctrine was a bit of legalese drafted in Ohio by Oliver Cowdery while Joseph Smith was in Michigan. If you’ll read it carefully, two things will become evident: 1) the author of the statement only includes “fornication” as a crime, not polygamy. Note that he refers to “the crime” of fornication and polygamy rather than the crimes of fornication and polygamy. The language only restricts women from having more than one husband. It says, “we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband.” Notice the use of the phrase “but one husband?” It says a man should have one wife and a woman “but one husband.” There is a very good discussion on this point in a pamphlet written by Richard C. Evans that I believe is available on the web titled “Why I Left the Latter Day Saint Church.”

This may or may not be new to you but it really was quite surprising to me given everything you had posted. I mean doesn't it seem extremely conflicting for Smith to be preaching that monogamy and a public marriage is the only rule of marriage practiced by the church as late as 1842 if god gave him a revelation saying something different in 1831.

I would say that Joseph Smith learned about the principle in 1831 but was told by God that it was not yet time to implement it in the Church. Several years later, he did teach it to specific Church leaders with the understanding that they would make it public when it was appropriate.

Given the above law and the above church rule on mariage by Smith, how could his polygamous actions be legal or in accordance with your church at that time. I guess to me it seems sorta hard to believe this was from god (please, no offense intended).

No offense taken. But, it is important to realize that the church rule on marriage was not drafted by Smith. According to Brigham Young and others, it was written and included in the canon while Smith was away on a mission; and he was opposed to its inclusion in the canon (more because it was deceptive than because it prohibited polygamy.)

Anyway, I'd love to get your thoughts on the above information. Still traveling but I can get a peak in from time to time.

Perhaps one of the best explanations I’ve seen was written by Joseph Smith. It appears today in a book titled “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith” but it isn’t in its original context. Joseph Smith had asked Nancy Rigdon to be one of his plural wives. She said she couldn’t unless she was convinced it was a legitimate principle from God. Joseph Smith wrote the explanation that follows below. Nancy Rigdon wasn’t convinced and published Smith’s treatise in a newspaper. It says,

“Happiness is the object and design of our existence; and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God. But we cannot keep all the commandments without first knowing them, and we cannot expect to know all, or more than we now know unless we comply with or keep those we have already received. That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another.

“God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said, "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added. So with Solomon: first he asked wisdom, and God gave it him, and with it every desire of his heart, even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation.

“A parent may whip a child, and justly, too, because he stole an apple; whereas if the child had asked for the apple, and the parent had given it, the child would have eaten it with a better appetite; there would have been no stripes; all the pleasure of the apple would have been secured, all the misery of stealing lost.

“This principle will justly apply to all of God's dealings with His children. Everything that God gives us is lawful and right; and it is proper that we should enjoy His gifts and blessings whenever and wherever He is disposed to bestow; but if we should seize upon those same blessings and enjoyments without law, without revelation, without commandment, those blessings and enjoyments would prove cursings and vexations in the end, and we should have to lie down in sorrow and wailings of everlasting regret. But in obedience there is joy and peace unspotted, unalloyed; and as God has designed our happiness—and the happiness of all His creatures, he never has—He never will institute an ordinance or give a commandment to His people that is not calculated in its nature to promote that happiness which He has designed, and which will not end in the greatest amount of good and glory to those who become the recipients of his law and ordinances. Blessings offered, but rejected, are no longer blessings, but become like the talent hid in the earth by the wicked and slothful servant; the proffered good returns to the giver; the blessing is bestowed on those who will receive and occupy; for unto him that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundantly, but unto him that hath not or will not receive, shall be taken away that which he hath, or might have had.

“Our heavenly Father is more liberal in His views, and boundless in His mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive; and, at the same time, is more terrible to the workers of iniquity, more awful in the executions of His punishments, and more ready to detect every false way, than we are apt to suppose Him to be. He will be inquired of by His children. He says, "Ask and ye shall receive, seek and ye shall find;" but, if you will take that which is not your own, or which I have not given you, you shall be rewarded according to your deeds; but no good thing will I withhold from them who walk uprightly before me, and do my will in all things—who will listen to my voice and to the voice of my servant whom I have sent; for I delight in those who seek diligently to know my precepts, and abide by the law of my kingdom; for all things shall be made known unto them in mine own due time, and in the end they shall have joy.”

Hopefully, I’ve answered your questions. If not let me know.

Alma

 

[ByGrace]

Well, your god seems very clumsy in his dealings. your book of mormon condemns polygamy and then god commands it. Sounds like he might need some meds since he apparently, according to joseph came down while already married to the heavenly mother and had "relations" with mary to produce your jesus. That is not only cheating on the NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT but it is incest and also would make the Bible wrong. Is this really the god you want to believe in?

 

[madscot]

"But LDS leaders felt that the laws were unconstitutional and could be successfully challenged because it dealt (from their perspective) entirely with a tenet of their religion."

Hmmm. An interesting point. From this perspective anything could be justified, any law flouted if a practice was considered a tenet of one's faith, as in the principle of "Blood Atonement." Even so, make no mistake; the practice polygamy is intrinsic to the LDS faith. Without plural wives, spiritual or otherwise, a man may not enter "Celestial Glory", nor may he progress to godhood. Joseph Smith thought it so important that not only did he marry single women and girls, he married wives of other men.

 

[Link_Blue]

hi Alma

I was just wondering if u have link to the book of Abraham

bye