Raising up Seed... (sigh)

[_James Clifford Miller]

That's the thing I have a problem with Harm. So many of my ancestors knew Joseph and/or Brigham very well. They spoke highly of them and not in the sense that LDS today think of President Hinckley. They knew them. They had private conversations with him. They don't seem like morons. I find it highly suspect that critics think they know him better than those he led and lived with.

Your ancestors were not the only contemporaries of Joseph and Brigham who knew them very well.

Some of those who knew Joseph and Brigham best were such Mormon luminaries as Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon (and his daughter, Nancy), John C. Bennett, and others. I'm sure that your ancestors were fine, devout LDS who were not morons, but I doubt they knew Joseph and Brigham anywhere as well as did Mssrs Cowdery, Rigdon, Bennett and others.

These contemporaries, whose much closer association with Joseph and Brigham probably allowed them to know Joseph and Brigham better than did your ancestors, came to far different conclusions about the doctrines and personal behavior of Smith and Young than did your ancestors. They ended up NOT speaking highly of Smith and Young's doctrines and behavior. As far as I can tell, they considered Smith a fallen prophet. And I note that Emma Smith, who likely knew Joseph and Brigham better than did your ancestors, along with Rigdon, Bennett and Cowdery, chose NOT to follow Young to Utah when he took over from Joseph.

So forget today's critics who didn't know Smith or Young. Consider that many of Smith's and Young's contemporaries who likely knew them better than did your ancestors, came to far different and considerably more adverse conclusions than did your ancestors.

James Clifford Miller
millerjamesc@cox.net

[_huckelberry]

I do not think a person needs to be dumb to make a mistake in judgement. In fact sometimes being clever helps.

Trouble with that observation is that it doesn't do much to help decide if my ancestors were mistaken or not. I do not think they were dumb. In fact I think they show intellgence and strength of character. I also think Joseph character may be a more rich and inventive than simple villian.

I do not have ancesters that knew Joseph. I do have enough LDS ancestry that I grew up being taught respect for polygamy. I cannot remember a time not being aware of it. I do not remember any shame for it. Perhaps I remember a touch of pride in not careing what critics think.

In that my believing thougts about polygamy come from an age in life a bit naïve about maritial realities I may not be able to understand how people deal with it as adults. I know it is possible to imagine polygamy in idealistic colors. Love and respect being goveriing principals, I think people can get caugth up in utopian dreams. On the other hand I can remember misgivings in my own mind as a child but as a child how does one understand ?

People who lived it obviously adopted it in a sense of utopian hope. Once started they were married to it.

[_James Clifford Miller]

People who lived it [polygamy] obviously adopted it in a sense of utopian hope. Once started they were married to it.

Clever.

My ancestry includes LDS polygamy and we have their diaries to read. One little plural bride, married in her teens, whose DNA got passed down to me, wrote in her diary that her husband, Hans Christian Mortensen (don't laugh -- it's a real name and quite a common one), had a sex drive second to none and that he liked considerable variety in terms of intimate partners. He kept writing to Brigham Young to send him on missions back to Denmark and, guess what, brought new wives back after each new mission. Ultimately he had a string of plural wives in a string of homes in central Utah (the sister wives did not get along AT ALL). As was a common practice (according to my little ancestor), each little plural wife of my gggfather Mortensen had to provide for herself and her children, except for the favorite one (always the latest, and youngest one) who got all the support. My little ancestor's diary is heartbreaking to read with its daily accounts of the deprivation, abuse, and exploitation involved in that polgyamous family. Equally heartbreaking were the accounts of the poverty her children endured since women back then had a hard time making a living by themselves.

I compare your claims of some sense of utopian hope held by the polygamists to the family diaries we have with their tales of abuse and destitution and heartbreak and I perceive a considerably gap. I'm not sure 19th century LDS polygamy was quite the hope of utopia you think it was. I wonder if the dysfunction wasn't more wide-spread than you perceive.

James Clifford Miller
millerjamesc@cox.net

[_huckelberry]

A bit shy of the hope of utopia?

19th century polygamy would not be the only hope of utopia for which reality fell short of the hope. That does not diminish the persuasive power that utopia can exert on intelligent human beings. In fact it requres a bit of intellegence and imagination to be persuaded by utopia. That would be part explanation why intelligent well meaning people have at times been swept up into utopian dreams more monstrous than polygamy. Examples such as Stalin, American communist party, Nazi youth movement or for real fun Charles Manson come to mind. I mention these not in any attempt to equate all utopian entheusiasm to that dark leval. The founding of the United States could also be a utopian movement. That example would still not be all roses but more positive in result than many.

My irony was to look at the power of utopian imagination and to wonder how much that explains the event of people adopting something like polygamy, something which sober choice is likely to see as about as stupid an idea for utopia as can be thought of outside of some LSD delusions from 1968.

..................................................

Its late so I am going to add the unspoken thought.

Utopian ideals can be a strong intoxicant. The strength of the intoxicant is multiplied by the idea of the participants being better than the common run of humanity. Combine those two ideas and it is possble you have a very addictive mix. Is it a suprise, it really should be, that Mormons actually think they are better than the rest of humanity? This idea may persist in people even after they leave. Why I bet even Polygamy Porter hasnt shaken the habit. (not to pick on PP, he isnt different than the rest of us)

[_James Clifford Miller]

A bit shy of the hope of utopia?

The after the fact D&C 132 justification of polygamy says nothing of utopia. Neither did the recorded seduction lines Smith used. The angel with the flaming sword waiting to kill Smith if women didn't yield to his entreaties has nothing to do with utopia. The "raising up of seed" was the stated reason (even in D&C 132) and to impregnate a women in Joseph Smith's day required sex.

I contend that social utopia almost certainly played no role at all in LDS polygamy or even its justifications (except in this thread which -- to me -- is really kind of an apologist stretch). But sexual utopia -- middle-aged LDS polygamists marrying a string of 19 year-old nubile females (as indicated even by BYU' studies of Utah polygamy) -- may well have played a major role.

James Clifford Miller
millerjamesc@cox.net

[_Seven]

Hi Jason,

If BY really said it this way I find it deeply disturbing and rather Warren Jeffish. Maybe the RFLDS are the true successors of 19th century Mormonism.

I think the FLDS reflect the church Joseph Smith founded.

No question about it in my opinion.

Ever listen to FLDS members discuss their church? They are the ones who held to the teachings/doctrines/practices revealed to Joseph Smith by Jesus Christ. They are the ones who did not succumb to the government's pressure. The one true church.

~dancer~

That's right. http://mormonstories.org/?p=203
Even right down to the Adam God doctrine that Brigham Young declared. Doesn't the LDS church excommunicate members that are found to be teaching anything about this doctrine revealed by Brigham Young? I guess I shouldn't bring it up in Relief Society when we talk about the Garden of Eden.

[_Roger Morrison]

"Goodness Gracious TD," first Abraham now Polygamy-Purpose in question. Mee thinks yer having trouble with yer faith :-)

These threads do though bring to "lite" the dark & heavies of the past. So much chatter about "God" being involved in these absurdities as to be laughable IF it wasn't such an indictment of human tendency to authoritarianism.

As focus clears we see this is not about religion and free-agency. It is about sectarian politics and power that extracts taxes for an eternal estate. Or, eternal damnation for noncompliance. Smarter, one question at a time. Keep 'em coming Dancer! Warm regards, Roger

[_Brackite]

Every time I hear the justification for polygamy, that God needed to raise up seed, I find myself in wonder.

Here we have the God of the universe, who can create anything, who made galaxies and solar systems, and created life, in all its varieties, and the only way "He" can get more good people on the eart is to command people to engage in what "He' has described as an abomination?

You have got to be kidding!

First, the birth rate actually went down during polygamy. Believers will reply that "raising seed," was not just about offspring but about offspring being born into the best families, (as if all those young men who couldn't find a woman to marry were not righteous).

So, God couldn't have the mothers of these great families just have twins?

Why not help out the less righteous to be more righteous? "He" certainly has done that before... (think Paul, for one examle).

How about giving the children born into the less fabulous familes an extra blessing or two so they become more righteous?

The infant mortality rate was quite high... why not lower it? This would be nothing for the God of the universe.

The idea that the only way, or the chosen way for God to increase righteous people on the earth was to command such a cruel and disgusting practice would be laughable if it wasn't so horrific.

~dancer~

Hi There Truth-dancer,

Here is Part of my Commentary (again?) here, From the Zion Lighthouse Message Board, on what 'Raising Up Seed' really means in the Book of Mormon:

And Please also notice that the phrase 'raise us seed unto the Lord' does Not mean that the Lord God wants to raise up a more numerous seed. The phrase, 'raise up seed unto the Lord' in the Book of Mormon means that the Lord God wants to raise up a righteous seed; righteous children, righteous sons and daughters, unto the Lord God. Lets go through another Scriptural Passage again in the Book of Mormon to more effectively demonstrate my Point here. In Mosiah 15:10-13, the Lord God through the Book of Mormon Prophet Abinadi defines who is the seed of the Lord God. Here is Mosiah 15:10-13:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mosiah 15:10-13:
10 And now I say unto you, who shall declare his generation? Behold, I say unto you, that when his soul has been made an offering for sin he shall see his seed. And now what say ye? And who shall be his seed?
11 Behold I say unto you, that whosoever has heard the words of the prophets, yea, all the holy prophets who have prophesied concerning the coming of the Lord -- I say unto you, that all those who have hearkened unto their words, and believed that the Lord would redeem his people, and have looked forward to that day for a remission of their sins, I say unto you, that these are his seed, or they are heirs of the kingdom of God.
12 For these are they whose sins he has borne; these are they for whom he has died, to redeem them from their transgressions. And now, are they not his seed?
13 Yea, and are not the prophets, every one that has opened his mouth to prophesy, that has not fallen into transgression, I mean all the holy prophets ever since the world began? I say unto you that they are his seed.
(Bold Emphasis Mine.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the Link to that Commentary, On one of the Zion Lighthouse Message Board Thread:

http://p079.ezboard.com/Reading-Jacob-C ... =415.topic

[_Seven]

Hi Brackite,
I agree with you.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is how LDS should interpret this verse, from the most "correct book on earth."

It's clear from verse 30 that it wasn't numerous seed but righteous seed. "seed UNTO ME" So then the question becomes how God raises seed unto Him that is righteous. Throough polygamy or monogamy......
One thing I noticed when reading Jacob 2 goes along with your post. I posted this in the Celestial forum on the topic of polygamy.

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

It doesn't get much clearer than that. Only one wife was sanctioned by God.

When God led Lehi and his family to America, they would have come from a culture of polygamy but He commands them to raise righteous seed through monogamy.

Quote:
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a arighteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

The people of old He is referring to are the polygamists of the Old Testament. LDS misinterpret verse 30 and take it out of context with the entire sermon given.

If God really commanded LDS to raise righteous seed through polygamy, then why didn't he command Lehi's family to do this?
If there was ever a time it was needed, it would have been then since He led them out of Jerusalem to raise a righteous branch. Yet all the righteous men in the Book of Mormon were monogamists.

He doesn't want them to follow the culture of the previous Prophets and has led them out of there to raise seed through monogamy.

[_Roger Morrison]

Seven, it seems so forthright to me: "...one wife...no conqubines..." that i'm in awe of Jac 30, being interpreted to mean "...righteous seed..." through polygamy!!!

Seems it was/is easier to 'sell' sex--"Polygamy"--than 'charity'--"United Order"??? Says something about marketing LDSism... Warm regards, Roger