Another view of Joseph's Polygamy

[_The Nehor]

Sec 132 is what it is: as cruel a joke as has ever been played on a group of vulnerable women. And until it's removed from the canon, our leaders can huff and puff 'til the cows come home, but the joke continues.

If they remove that section and declare it the fraud that my conscience tells me it is, I would consider going back to the LDS church. I can't stomach supporting an organization with sexist, immoral doctrine.

I know why they can't do as you and I wish them to, but that doesn't change the wrongness of basic idea. If they were to delete it, they would have to admit that Joseph was wrong, that Brigham was wrong, that the pioneers suffered for something that wasn't God-given. It wouldn't be as easy as giving up the priesthood ban, which though a rotten concept to the core, wasn't basic to the doctrines of the church. Polygamy wasn't a policy. Polygamy was basic to being a Mormon. Giving up polygamy would be like giving up the priesthood. And it's not gonna happen. No matter what they believe or how much they hate it (and there's certainly nothing to indicate that they hate it like I do), they can't and won't change it. The cost far outweighs the utility.

More's the pity.

If Celestial Polyandry were introduced would that change your views?

[_harmony]

One of the big problems with the argument that all of Joseph's plural marriages were platonic sealings, is that all of the women who recorded the events of the proposal talk about how shocked they were. They struggled with the idea. In a few cases, Joseph gave them a day to think and pray about it. He claimed that even he was reluctant, but an angel was threatening his life if he failed to obey. This is exactly the reaction one would expect if these were actual marriages that involved real changes in their lives. It is inconsistent with an Eternity-only dynastic sealing.

The accounts of the women themselves are discounted because they had no standing. Their thoughts and experiences were as meaningless as the thoughts and experiences of women today. They were objects to passed from man to man, as rewards for the man's faithful service. Never get the idea that women actually count in this church, then or now. The pedestal notwithstanding, women are simply ornaments and wombs, useful but not important.

You will know the instant that changes: the women will be given the priesthood. But don't hold your breath. It's not happening any time soon... or even in the next 50 years.

[_Blixa]

(Nehor you changed your avatar. And I can't read what those guys are saying!)

[_harmony]

If Celestial Polyandry were introduced would that change your views?

No.

[_The Nehor]

(Nehor you changed your avatar. And I can't read what those guys are saying!)

Ahhh, it didn't transfer well, going back to old avatar until I can fix it.

[_truth dancer]

I'm thinking that at some point in the future (OK, a century or so), there will come a time when the church will HAVE to acknowledge women as equal human beings or it will not continue.

I think what will happen is that... the leaders will go with the idea that originally, monogamy was canonized, official doctrine and the change to polygamy was just a temporary thing. Since it no longer is the law of the church the brethren will decide to remove it from the canon. The Book of Mormon clearly states that monogamy is the correct principle and God only required polygamy for a short time so it is time to remove it from scripture.... Or something like that.

And like all other changes, members will just go along with it since the prophet is the prophet, and the church is the one and only true one, and it is just more revelation, whatever.

:-(

~dancer~

[_AmazingDisgrace]

The accounts of the women themselves are discounted because they had no standing. Their thoughts and experiences were as meaningless as the thoughts and experiences of women today. They were objects to passed from man to man, as rewards for the man's faithful service. Never get the idea that women actually count in this church, then or now. The pedestal notwithstanding, women are simply ornaments and wombs, useful but not important.

You will know the instant that changes: the women will be given the priesthood. But don't hold your breath. It's not happening any time soon... or even in the next 50 years.

Do the apologists actually ignore all of the wives' statements when looking at the historical record? I know they discount Martha Brotherton, but I figured that was just because she refused Joseph's proposal, and her account is pretty damning. Maybe Mormon apologetics is in even worse shape than I thought.

Sadly, I agree that it will be a long time before women are allowed equality in the church.

[_Sethbag]

Sec 132 is what it is: as cruel a joke as has ever been played on a group of vulnerable women. And until it's removed from the canon, our leaders can huff and puff 'til the cows come home, but the joke continues.

If they remove that section and declare it the fraud that my conscience tells me it is, I would consider going back to the LDS church. I can't stomach supporting an organization with sexist, immoral doctrine.

I personally cannot understand your remark. You seem to be saying that the LDS Church is true but you just disagree with one of its doctrines, so you're out of the church over it. If that's true then I'd suggest you get back to the church ASAP - it wouldn't do to lose your salvation over one stubborn disagreement.

I, on the other hand, think that the LDS church isn't true, and it's not just not true because of this doctrine. It's not true because Joseph Smith, along with some others, made it up. And they could change this doctrine, and the rest of the church is still made up, so I could never start believing again.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Sec 132 is what it is: as cruel a joke as has ever been played on a group of vulnerable women. And until it's removed from the canon, our leaders can huff and puff 'til the cows come home, but the joke continues.

If they remove that section and declare it the fraud that my conscience tells me it is, I would consider going back to the LDS church. I can't stomach supporting an organization with sexist, immoral doctrine.

I personally cannot understand your remark. You seem to be saying that the LDS Church is true but you just disagree with one of its doctrines, so you're out of the church over it. If that's true then I'd suggest you get back to the church ASAP - it wouldn't do to lose your salvation over one stubborn disagreement.

I, on the other hand, think that the LDS church isn't true, and it's not just not true because of this doctrine. It's not true because Joseph Smith, along with some others, made it up. And they could change this doctrine, and the rest of the church is still made up, so I could never start believing again.

Good point. I'm of the opinion that someone can join or leave for any reason, but if you believe in the restoration, that God and Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith, and the priesthood was restored to the Mormon church, logically you shouldn't let other issues bug you. You may believe the church apostatized at some point after the restoration, but you should stil find some branch of Mormonism to join, your salvation depends on it....if you believe all the restoration that is.

[_Seven]

Sec 132 is what it is: as cruel a joke as has ever been played on a group of vulnerable women. And until it's removed from the canon, our leaders can huff and puff 'til the cows come home, but the joke continues.

If they remove that section and declare it the fraud that my conscience tells me it is, I would consider going back to the LDS church. I can't stomach supporting an organization with sexist, immoral doctrine.

I personally cannot understand your remark. You seem to be saying that the LDS Church is true but you just disagree with one of its doctrines, so you're out of the church over it. If that's true then I'd suggest you get back to the church ASAP - it wouldn't do to lose your salvation over one stubborn disagreement.

I, on the other hand, think that the LDS church isn't true, and it's not just not true because of this doctrine. It's not true because Joseph Smith, along with some others, made it up. And they could change this doctrine, and the rest of the church is still made up, so I could never start believing again.

It's not just disagreeing with one of it's doctrines in some kind of stubborn choice I have made. This doctrine if fundamental to the entire plan of Mormon salvation. (which is eternal increase) It's not like disagreeing with just one piece of the plan because exaltation is the whole point of Mormon beliefs. Plural marriage is considered the highest principle of the LDS ordinances and REQUIRED for the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. (which is the only place one will have progression of eternal increase)

The reason I say I would consider going back to church isn't because I believe it holds all truth and has errored in only this. Polygamy is only one of many issues that the church has misled members with and I don't believe LDS leaders are any more inspired than we are. Do I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Joseph Smith was a con man? No. I have never known with a sure knowledge that he was led by God either. I am more in a state of disillusionment with the church and it's leaders in general. I have yet to resolve all of my doubts on the requirement for Priesthood authority, ordinances etc.

My reasons for stating I would go back to church have nothing to do with it being "true" in the sense that TBMs believe. I think it holds some truth, but I believe other faiths hold truth as well. I believe the church has evolved to a place where it focuses on basic Christian principles that are good and bring us peace. (some might call that "milk") There is no LDS doctrine or teaching that can't be changed and many have changed with the default position of continuing revelation. So again, activity for me has nothing to do with the church being led by God. It has more to do with fellowshipping with those who share the same morals and principles I believe are from Christ and good for mankind.

For me, there are many parts of the LDS church I love and support but I also realize I don't fit in at all with the members any longer. For me it would be the same as having to fellowship with people who teach wonderful gospel principles but espouse a racist doctrine against blacks and believe they will be our slaves in heaven. (had I been in the church during the time that was taught I would have left over it too) I won't give my money or time to any organization that teaches racist, sexist, immoral doctrines no matter how wonderful everything else is. I know there were many LDS members who were so relieved when the ban was lifted. I don't know how they stayed and supported an organization who taught such racism because I don't believe LDS leaders are receiving continueing revelations. They are doing what they can to mainstream the church to help it grow and become a powerful force for good.

There are also personal family issues that would be resolved if I became active again. My life would be a whole lot easier if I could get rid of my principles (which ironically came from my LDS upbringing) and go back to church.