Presentism and the Persecutors of the Early Saints

[_Runtu]

Maybe, but I just think that you found a way out and you took it and ran with it. And here you are. Nothing new in it. Many have followed your path and more will follow. It is always easy to find a way out, if one wishes to find a way out.

It seems rather odd for someone who can't manage to stay active in the LDS church to lecture someone who was not looking to "find a way out" and who fought against that way out all the way.

These cheap, self-righteous attributions of motive don't help your cause.

[_why me]

Maybe, but I just think that you found a way out and you took it and ran with it. And here you are. Nothing new in it. Many have followed your path and more will follow. It is always easy to find a way out, if one wishes to find a way out.

It seems rather odd for someone who can't manage to stay active in the LDS church to lecture someone who was not looking to "find a way out" and who fought against that way out all the way.

These cheap, self-righteous attributions of motive don't help your cause.

If I wanted to find a way out I could. No problem. I could just pull any critic complaint and run with it too. No problem. Except that when I was a young man I prayed about the Book of Mormon and received a powerful witness. Now, it is true, that I am a crappy Mormon. But I cannot deny that witness.

I try to see Joseph Smith through an holistic lens. I see the complete man. Was he perfect? No. But I cannot fathom just how he wrote the Book of Mormon or just how sidney wrote it. Nor can I understand the 11 witnesses, and Emma who felt the oulines of the plates beneath a piece of cloth. Was she stupid? I don't think so.

I look at the complete picture and I don't nitpick my way through it.

[_Kishkumen]

It seems rather odd for someone who can't manage to stay active in the LDS church to lecture someone who was not looking to "find a way out" and who fought against that way out all the way.

These cheap, self-righteous attributions of motive don't help your cause.

Of course, we all understand that 'why me" isn't here to help us, but to help him/herself hang on in Mormonism. That being the case, it is no wonder that why me can't afford to really think about where a former Mormon is or seek real understanding--to do so would completely undermine his/her reason for participating here.

As another post-Mormon, I can attest that the road was far from easy, but came after much heartache, shock, disappointment, and struggle. I was fully involved in Mormonism, and it was the faith my ancestors had struggled and suffered for. If you think I just found the first convenient exit, then f**k you. You really have no idea.

[_Runtu]

Of course, we all understand that 'why me" isn't here to help us, but to help him/herself hang on in Mormonism. That being the case, it is no wonder that why me can't afford to really think about where a former Mormon is or seek real understanding--to do so would completely undermine his/her reason for participating here.

As another post-Mormon, I can attest that the road was far from easy, but came after much heartache, shock, disappointment, and struggle. I was fully involved in Mormonism, and it was the faith my ancestors had struggled and suffered for. If you think I just found the first convenient exit, then f**k you. You really have no idea.

Amen to that. Figuring out the reality behind the church was easily the most painful experience of my life, even worse than losing two brothers in an accident. If why me thinks we just wanted out, then, by all means he can go “F” himself.

[_Kishkumen]

If I wanted to find a way out I could. No problem. I could just pull any critic complaint and run with it too. No problem. Except that when I was a young man I prayed about the Book of Mormon and received a powerful witness. Now, it is true, that I am a crappy Mormon. But I cannot deny that witness.

What a stunning solipsism. You imagine that we did not have a powerful witness simply because we left? How would you begin to know? Do you imagine erroneously that everyone with a powerful witness will stick with it no matter what?

[_Runtu]

What a stunning solipsism. You imagine that we did not have a powerful witness simply because we left? How would you begin to know? Do you imagine erroneously that everyone with a powerful witness will stick with it no matter what?

Yup, I would guess that most of us who have been in the church have had what we considered powerful witnesses. I know I did. But why me seems to be projecting here. Maybe he's the one who wants out.

[_Kishkumen]

Yup, I would guess that most of us who have been in the church have had what we considered powerful witnesses. I know I did. But why me seems to be projecting here. Maybe he's the one who wants out.

If anyone had told me that I would leave the LDS Church even a year before it happened, I would have laughed in that person's face. I wouldn't say that I was the happiest Mormon, but I was very involved. I was in the young men's presidency, was a full tithe payer, had a temple recommend, attended every Sunday, did service projects, went out on splits with the missionaries. And what kept me going despite my unhappiness about certain things? The powerful spiritual experiences I had as a missionary and since that time. Let no one imagine it was just a little hop out the door.

Maybe you are right about why me. Perhaps s/he does see it as a simple hop, because that is what it is from his/her vantage point. I have no idea, and I don't particularly care, but I would appreciate whyme dropping these stupid assumptions about others around here.

[_Brackite]

God wanted to raise a righteous seed unto Him through monogamy. There is no loophole in verse 30.

Hello Seven,

You are absolutely right here.

There is absolutely NO Evidence whatsoever, that the Phrase, 'raise up seed unto me', in Jacob 2:30, refers to that the Lord God will command His People to enter into the Practice of Polygamy. The Lord God intends to command His People to marry Monogamously, in order to be able to raise up a righteous seed unto Him. This is really meaning raising up righteous children, righteous sons and daughters, unto the Lord God. It can and will be done through the Practice of Monogamy. The Lord God intends to raise up a righteous seed unto Him, through Monogamy, (NOT Polygamy), as can be clearly seen when correctly comparing Jacob 2:30 to 1 Nephi 7:1, and then correctly comparing 1 Nephi 7:1 to 1 Nephi 16:7-8.

Here is Jacob 2:30, Compared to 1 Nephi 7:1:

Jacob 2:30:

[30] 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.


1 Nephi 7:1:

[1] And now I would that ye might know, that after my father, Lehi, had made an end of prophesying concerning his seed, it came to pass that the Lord spake unto him again, saying that it was not meet for him, Lehi, that he should take his family into the wilderness alone; but that his sons should take daughters to wife, that they might raise up seed unto the Lord in the land of promise.

Here is Now 1 Nephi 7:1, Compared to 1 Nephi 16:7-8:

1 Nephi 7:1:

[1] And now I would that ye might know, that after my father, Lehi, had made an end of prophesying concerning his seed, it came to pass that the Lord spake unto him again, saying that it was not meet for him, Lehi, that he should take his family into the wilderness alone; but that his sons should take daughters to wife, that they might raise up seed unto the Lord in the land of promise.


1 Nephi 16:7-8:

[7] And it came to pass that I, Nephi, took one of the daughters of Ishmael to wife; and also, my brethren took of the daughters of Ishmael to wife; and also Zoram took the eldest daughter of Ishmael to wife.

[8] And thus my father had fulfilled all the commandments of the Lord which had been given unto him. And also, I, Nephi, had been blessed of the Lord exceedingly.

Nephi and his brethren took just one wife each, in order to be able to raise up seed unto the Lord God.
Nephi and his brethren did fulfill the Commandment of the Lord God, with them just taking one wife each, in order to be able to raise up righteous seed unto the Lord God.
A Righteous Man is able to raise up a righteous seed unto the Lord God, with having just one righteous wife.



Here is how Jacob Chapter Two, Verse 30 is Correctly interpreted and read:

[30] For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people [To Marry Monogamously]; otherwise they shall [will] hearken unto these things [The Sins of Polygamy].

A lot of LDS Apologists have read the words, 'shall hearken' in Jacob 2:30 as imperative, and/or as a commandment, 'must hearken.' However, I have found three other places in the Book of Mormon were the words 'shall hearken' occur. These three places in the Book of Mormon where the words shall hearken occur at are in 1 Nephi 14:1, 2 Nephi 3:23, and 2 Nephi 28:31.

Here is 1 Nephi 14:1:

[1] And it shall come to pass, that if the Gentiles shall hearken unto the Lamb of God in that day that he shall manifest himself unto them in word, and also in power, in very deed, unto the taking away of their stumbling blocks --

Here is 2 Nephi 2:23:

[23] Wherefore, because of this covenant thou art blessed; for thy seed shall not be destroyed, for they shall hearken unto the words of the book.

Here is now is 2 Nephi 28:31:

[31] Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost.

( I Bolded the Phrase 'shall hearken' in all these three Scriptural Passages. )


In all those three other Passages in the Book of Mormon, the words 'shall hearken' is Not read as imperative, and/or as a commandment 'must hearken,' but the words 'shall hearken' in those three places in the Book of Mormon is correctly read as 'will hearken.' The same thing also goes for Jacob 2:30. The words 'shall hearken' in Jacob 2:30 is Not read as imperative, and/or as a commandment 'must hearken, but the words 'shall hearken' in Jacob 2:30 is correctly read as descriptive, as 'will hearken.' A lot of the men of the People were willing to hearken unto the Sins of Polygamy. (Please See e.g. Jacob 1:15 & Jacob 2:34.).

Here is again how Jacob Chapter Two, Verse 30 is correctly interpreted and read:

[30] For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people [To Marry Monogamously]; otherwise they shall [will] hearken unto these things [The Sins of Polygamy].

[_Mary]

Seven,

For how polyandry could be justified in Joseph's mind, also found this from the wivesofjosephsmith.org web site on Sylvia Sessions.

Brigham Young taught that “if the woman preferred a man higher in authority, and he is willing to take her and her husband gives her up-there is no Bill of divorce required...it is right in the sight of God”. Brigham also explained that the woman, “...would be in a higher glory”. This may help shed light on Sylvia’s complex marriage arrangement.

The site doesn't put in a reference for Brigham's quote, but I am guessing it is essentially no different to the ideas originally put forward by Joseph himself.

It seems to me that what the Mormon leadership were essentially trying to do, was to create a state within a state with their own laws and government. This stuff was never going to work as part of the wider American culture.

Where on earth is Joseph getting precedent for these practices and justifying them as of God?
Sometimes I really do think that he was just a little bit mentally unhinged...,

John, who was Eli Johnson then? Was he related to John in someway. (I've had a look on various websites, including LDS, but nobody seems to know who he is?) How do we account for the failed proposal to castrate Joseph?

Mary

[_Runtu]

Here are the quotes in context. As usual, wivesofjosephsmith takes almost all its information from Todd Compton's In Sacred Loneliness:

Having rejected the theories that Smith married polyandrously when the marriages involved non-member husbands or were unhappy, we turn to statements in the historical record that do supply a convincing rationale for polyandry. First, Smith regarded marriages performed without Mormon priesthood authority as invalid (see D&C 132:7), just as he regarded baptisms performed without Mormon priesthood authority as invalid. Thus all couples in Nauvoo who accepted Mormonism were suddenly unmarried, granted Joseph's absolutist, exclusivist claims to divine authority. John D. Lee wrote:

About the same time the doctrine of "sealing" for an eternal state was introduced, and the Saints were given to understand that their marriage relations with each other were not valid. That those who had solemnized the rites of matrimony had no authority of God to do so. That the true priesthood was taken from the earth with the death of the Apostles ... They were married to each other only by their own covenants, and that if their marriage relations had not been productive of blessings and peace, and they felt it oppressive to remain together, they were at liberty to make their own choice, as much as if they had not been married. That it was a sin for people to live together, and raise or beget children in a!ienation from each other. There should be an affinity between each other, not a lustful one, as that can never cement that love and affection that should exist between a man and his wife.

This is a radical, almost utopian rejection of civil, secular, sectarian, non-Mormon marriage. Civil marriage was even a "sin," unless a higher "affinity" "cemented" spouses together.

Another relevant doctrinal statement comes from an 1861 speech by Brigham Young:

The Second Way in which a wife can be seperated from her husband, while he continues to be faithful to his God and his preisthood, I have not revealed, except to a few persons in this Church; and a few have received it from Joseph the prophet as well as myself. If a woman can find a man holding the keys of the preisthood with higher power and authority than her husband, and he is disposed to take her he can do so, otherwise she has got to remain where she is ... there is no need for a bill of divorcement ... To recapitulate. First if a man forfiets his covenants with a wife, or wives, becoming unfaithful to his God, and his preisthood, that wife or wives are free from him without a bill of divorcement. Second. If a woman claimes protection at the hands of a man, possessing more power in the preisthood and higher keys, if he is disposed to rescue her and has obtained the consent of her husband to make her his wife he can do so without a bill of divorcement.

This allows for two options: (1) if a man apostatized, his wife could leave him without a formal divorce; (2) if a woman desired to be married to a man with greater priesthood authority than her current husband, and if both men agreed, she could be sealed to the second man without a formal divorce. In some ways this principle can be applied directly to Smith's polyandrous marriages, for clearly he was regarded as having more priesthood authority than any other living man. The emphasis on the desire of the woman is notable. In nineteenth-century Utah there are well-documented cases in which married women asked to be joined to a prominent church leader. In Nauvoo, however, such cases would not be frequent, as polygamy was secret. In Young's statement the husband is granted his own volition, which would be consistent with the suggestion made above that the first husbands in Smith's polyandrous marriages may have known about the marriages and permitted them.

Jedediah Grant's 1854 statement already referred to can now be quoted more fully:

When the family organization was revealed from heaven—the patriarchal order of God, and Joseph began, on the right and the left, to add to his family, what a quaking there was in Israel. Says one brother to another, "Joseph says all covenants [previous marriages] are done away, and none are binding but the new covenants [marriage by priesthood sealing power]; now suppose Joseph should come and say he wanted your wife, what would you say to that?" "I would tell him to go to hell." This was the spirit of many in the early days of this Church [i.e., unwillingness to consecrate everything to Smith as the mouthpiece of God] ... What would a man of God say, who felt aright, when Joseph asked him for his money? [he would give it all willingly] Or if he came and said, "I want your wife?" "O yes," he would say, "here she is, there are plenty more." ... Did the Prophet Joseph want every man's wife he asked for? He did not ... the grand object in view was to try the people of God, to see what was in them. If such a man of God should come to me and say, "I want your gold and silver, or your wives," I should say, "Here they are, I wish I had more to give you, take all I have got." A man who has got the Spirit of God, and the light of eternity in him, has no trouble about such matters.

This remarkable sympathetic testimony to Smith's polyandrous marriages touches on many areas of interest. First, Grant sees the practice in terms of extended "family organization." Polyandry would obviously be useful in linking families to Smith. "Joseph says all covenants are done away, and none are binding but the new covenants." Here we have the doctrine that previous marriages are of no effect, "illegal," in Orson Pratt's words. Grant disapproves of those who were asked to give up their wives and refused. The proper response, according to Grant, would have been instant, unquestioning consecration of all "possessions" to the prophet. He states that Smith did not want every wife he asked for, which implies that he wanted some of them. The emphasis here is on Smith's testing his followers, as when Smith demanded Vilate Kimball from Heber Kimball. Yet the fact that at least eleven women were married to Joseph polyandrously, including the wife of prominent apostle Orson Hyde, shows that in many cases Joseph was not simply asking for wives as a test of loyalty; sometimes the test included giving up the wife.