DiscussMormonism.com

I am really not in disagreement with you or you reasoning.

I think its just that I don't like the word Polygamy to justify his actions. I know the evidence (journals, all produced after his death) exists. But another way that I think helps to show what I am trying to say is to look at another example of the point I am trying to make.

1. The church uses the word Martyrdom in the situation of the death of Joseph. This implies to those who speak English, that someone was killed for not renouncing their beliefs or something like that. Sort of a "deny or die" scenario. I think in a major way, this sums up a Martyrdom. They did this, in my opinion to create a reverent feeling about his death. It made the Carthage event a sacred place. So on and So on. Well, in my humble opinion, the Carthage event was no more a Martyrdom than the man in the moon. Any person who is aware of the events as they occurred and is intellectually honest with themselves, would not call it a Martyrdom, Gun battles, Press being destroyed, Militia being activated and Politics are some of the major elements of the Carthage story. He wasn't in the Carthage jail because of how he was conducting Sacrament Meeting or for what was written in the Book of Mormon or his testimony of it. Yet, the church uses the term "Martyrdom nonetheless. It is convenient and gets the masses of members to think a feel a certain way.

2. In the same sense of the word, The church uses the word Polygamy. My point has its origins in the latest essays. The Church said it was Polygamy and it was of God. The substance of the meaning of the term and the substance of the known realities related to it as mentioned in my original post, strongly suggests that in a real and tangible way, Joseph was not a Polygamist. Yes, William Law accused him of this. Why? Joseph hit on his wife and wanted her to engage in his so called wifery. His wife was furious over this. William was not in the inner loop of those doing this. I believe that in the Expositor, Law used the phrase "preying on the young ladies" coming to Nauvoo from England. When Joseph, for obvious reasons, tries to bring William into the secret circle as a method of damage control, William rejects him and quickly finds himself and his wife excommunicated. So it is the term Polygamy that the church has validated as being the actions of Joseph I am most disappointed with. That is was of God, further infuriates me. Why, because the Lord inspired or whatever, Joseph to keep section 101 in the published scriptures while having Joseph secretly living something different. I am sorry, this is revolting.

It was the Church's current affirmation that it was Polygamy and of God that started my feelings of wanting to post my thoughts. Especially when I compare what they said in our day versus what Joseph did while he was alive. They don't match up, just like the Martyrdom in Carthage.

readtoomuch wrote:I am really not in disagreement with you or you reasoning.

I think its just that I don't like the word Polygamy to justify his actions. I know the evidence (journals, all produced after his death) exists. But another way that I think helps to show what I am trying to say is to look at another example of the point I am trying to make.

1. The church uses the word Martyrdom in the situation of the death of Joseph. This implies to those who speak English, that someone was killed for not renouncing their beliefs or something like that. Sort of a "deny or die" scenario. I think in a major way, this sums up a Martyrdom. They did this, in my opinion to create a reverent feeling about his death. It made the Carthage event a sacred place. So on and So on. Well, in my humble opinion, the Carthage event was no more a Martyrdom than the man in the moon. Any person who is aware of the events as they occurred and is intellectually honest with themselves, would not call it a Martyrdom, Gun battles, Press being destroyed, Militia being activated and Politics are some of the major elements of the Carthage story. He wasn't in the Carthage jail because of how he was conducting Sacrament Meeting or for what was written in the Book of Mormon or his testimony of it. Yet, the church uses the term "Martyrdom nonetheless. It is convenient and gets the masses of members to think a feel a certain way.

2. In the same sense of the word, The church uses the word Polygamy. My point has its origins in the latest essays. The Church said it was Polygamy and it was of God. The substance of the meaning of the term and the substance of the known realities related to it as mentioned in my original post, strongly suggests that in a real and tangible way, Joseph was not a Polygamist. Yes, William Law accused him of this. Why? Joseph hit on his wife and wanted her to engage in his so called wifery. His wife was furious over this. William was not in the inner loop of those doing this. I believe that in the Expositor, Law used the phrase "preying on the young ladies" coming to Nauvoo from England. When Joseph, for obvious reasons, tries to bring William into the secret circle as a method of damage control, William rejects him and quickly finds himself and his wife excommunicated. So it is the term Polygamy that the church has validated as being the actions of Joseph I am most disappointed with. That is was of God, further infuriates me. Why, because the Lord inspired or whatever, Joseph to keep section 101 in the published scriptures while having Joseph secretly living something different. I am sorry, this is revolting.

It was the Church's current affirmation that it was Polygamy and of God that started my feelings of wanting to post my thoughts. Especially when I compare what they said in our day versus what Joseph did while he was alive. They don't match up, just like the Martyrdom in Carthage.

Good points, Great post!

readtoomuch wrote:What I am saying is that "I don't see a Polygamist".

Joseph Smith had more than one spouse. Do you disagree with that?

readtoomuch wrote:I am really not in disagreement with you or you reasoning.

I think its just that I don't like the word Polygamy to justify his actions. I know the evidence (journals, all produced after his death) exists. But another way that I think helps to show what I am trying to say is to look at another example of the point I am trying to make.

1. The church uses the word Martyrdom in the situation of the death of Joseph. This implies to those who speak English, that someone was killed for not renouncing their beliefs or something like that. Sort of a "deny or die" scenario. I think in a major way, this sums up a Martyrdom. They did this, in my opinion to create a reverent feeling about his death. It made the Carthage event a sacred place. So on and So on. Well, in my humble opinion, the Carthage event was no more a Martyrdom than the man in the moon. Any person who is aware of the events as they occurred and is intellectually honest with themselves, would not call it a Martyrdom, Gun battles, Press being destroyed, Militia being activated and Politics are some of the major elements of the Carthage story. He wasn't in the Carthage jail because of how he was conducting Sacrament Meeting or for what was written in the Book of Mormon or his testimony of it. Yet, the church uses the term "Martyrdom nonetheless. It is convenient and gets the masses of members to think a feel a certain way.

2. In the same sense of the word, The church uses the word Polygamy. My point has its origins in the latest essays. The Church said it was Polygamy and it was of God. The substance of the meaning of the term and the substance of the known realities related to it as mentioned in my original post, strongly suggests that in a real and tangible way, Joseph was not a Polygamist. Yes, William Law accused him of this. Why? Joseph hit on his wife and wanted her to engage in his so called wifery. His wife was furious over this. William was not in the inner loop of those doing this. I believe that in the Expositor, Law used the phrase "preying on the young ladies" coming to Nauvoo from England. When Joseph, for obvious reasons, tries to bring William into the secret circle as a method of damage control, William rejects him and quickly finds himself and his wife excommunicated. So it is the term Polygamy that the church has validated as being the actions of Joseph I am most disappointed with. That is was of God, further infuriates me. Why, because the Lord inspired or whatever, Joseph to keep section 101 in the published scriptures while having Joseph secretly living something different. I am sorry, this is revolting.

It was the Church's current affirmation that it was Polygamy and of God that started my feelings of wanting to post my thoughts. Especially when I compare what they said in our day versus what Joseph did while he was alive. They don't match up, just like the Martyrdom in Carthage.

Interesting take but it still does not make much sense in relation to the word polygamy. Again, polygamy is simple being "married" to multiple women. We know that these were not "legal" marriages (the church essays even admit this), they were only marriages in the sense that Smith said they were. We have "common law" marriages in this country where two people just live together but that is not "legal" marriage, but it is culturally acceptable (to many - and even recognized legally in some instances). Joseph Smith practiced polygamy in that he "married' these women (by whatever means he deemed) and they were considered his "wives". Did he do this with all the women he was intimate with. No. We know that, but some won't accept it and so have to make up apologist excuses for his behavior like he was married to Fanny Alger and Mary Heron even though there is absolutely no evidence to back this up, but there is evidence in both cases for an adulterous affair. I do think that Smith DEVELOPED his theology of polygamy. This again, is something that the church and their apologists don't like to admit, because that places the Fanny Alger incident squarely in the adultery category. You also have to consider that Smith contemplated marriage to the Indian women in 1831, (of which Ezra Booth affirms), but that wasn't really polygamy because Booth said they would have to do this and then leave their legal marriages behind (be "free" from their wives). Booth wrote,

Another method has been invented, in order to remove obstacles which hitherto had proved insurmountable. "The Lord's store-house," is to be furnished with goods suited to the Indian trade, and persons are to obtain license from the government to dispose of them to the Indians in their own territory; at the same time they are to disseminate the principles of Mormonism among them. From this smug[g]ling method of preaching to the Indians, they anticipate a favorable result. In addition to this, and to co-operate with it, it has been made known by revelation, that it will be pleasing to the Lord, should they form a matrimonial alliance with the Natives; and by this means the Elders, who comply with the thing so pleasing to the Lord, and for which the Lord has promised to bless those who do it abundantly, gain a residence in the Indian territory, independent of the agent. It has been made known to one, who has left his wife in the State of N. Y. that he is entirely free from his wife, and he is at liberty to take him a wife from among the Lamanites. It was easily perceived that this permission, was perfectly suited to his desires. I have frequently heard him state, that the Lord has made it known to him, that he is as free from his wife as from any other woman; and the only crime that I have ever heard alleged against her is, she is violently opposed to Mormonism. But before this contemplated marriage can be carried into effect, he must return to the State of N. Y. and settle his business, for fear, should he return, after that affair had taken place, the civil authority would apprehend him as a criminal.

This, of course is not really polygamy and it is extremely ironic that the Church Essay would reference this quote. Kinda stupid when Booth also states in another letter that Joseph Smith felt that he could commit adultery or any crime and because he was "prophet" this was justified. This of course is EXACTLY what Joseph did.

Look Read... I'm agreeing with much of what you say, but I think that you should rethink this thing about the word polygamy and that Joseph Smith didn't write 132. He did. They called it polygamy and it was polygamy IN NAUVOO. Smith refined the idea of it to fit it into his religious theology. He was claiming that "adultery was no crime" early in his career. He justified this by claiming that "Gentile" marriages were really not valid so he could take other men's wives as his own and it wasn't really adultery. Levi Lewis attested to this, as did Ezra Booth. Oliver Cowdery claimed that he did so and wink, winked at it. I think you have a fine grasp of the issue, but I simply think you should embrace the fact that Smith practiced polygamy and wrote the "revelation" to justify it.

And the journals. They were not all produced after his death. Clayton's journal is contemporary as is Willard Richards and William Laws. And there is a whole year of Clayton's journals that hasn't been released by the Church. There is enough contemporary evidence to prove that Smith wrote the "revelation" and practiced polygamy. And William Law was an "insider". The Laws got their Endowments on Cctober 1, 1843. The next step was polygamy which they rejected. But they were approached by Hyrum Smith and William spoke to Joseph about it. He was shown the "revelation" by Hyrum Smith and wrote about it in his Nauvoo Diary. Hyrum told him it was written by Joseph and Joseph admitted to Law that he wrote it. This is all contemporary evidence that backs this up. It was all not written after Joseph's death. The substance of the meaning of the word polygamy is to be married to multiple women. Joseph was. He had ceremonies that were documented by William Clayton in his Nauvoo Journals.

Are you trying to defend the practice of polygamy? Is that why you are so upset about this?

I mean, come on, Willard Richards quoted Smith as saying in 1843:

I don't want you to think I am very righteous, for I am not very righteous.

He wasn't.

My simple take on this is that Joe was a cad, a bounder, a horn dog, a common adulterer with an audience and a bunch of creative rationalizations.

Tator wrote:My simple take on this is that Joe was a cad, a bounder, a horn dog, a common adulterer with an audience and a bunch of creative rationalizations.

But in its malapropic tradition, the LDS dub that a prophet, seer, revelator and translator.

grindael wrote:[Are you trying to defend the practice of polygamy? Is that why you are so upset about this?

This is exactly what I was beginning to wonder. Readtoomuch, you are new here and I have no reference as to what your agenda is here (no offense, we all have an agenda here). I can't tell whether you are ultimately trying to defend or criticize the church. You remind me of another poster who is engaged in mental gymnastics to support his belief in the church. You seem to be working hard to prove your point, but do you mind sharing why?

Readtoomuch, you are new here and I have no reference as to what your agenda is here (no offense, we all have an agenda here). I can't tell whether you are ultimately trying to defend or criticize the church. You remind me of another poster who is engaged in mental gymnastics to support his belief in the church. You seem to be working hard to prove your point, but do you mind sharing why?

Fair question. I am certainly new as a poster at this site. However, I have been a reader for quite some time. I am a life time member (four generations) and have been fairly active my whole life. I grew up in the church, served a mission, married in the Temple and have served in many responsible positions in the church. Raised my family in the church. So why am I doing these posts? I went through a serious faith crisis in my thirty's and managed to get passed it by focussing on the Gospel and letting go of everything else. That lasted for about 8 years. Slowly, through a series of events and through lots of reading, I have slowly found myself back where I was back in my thirtys. I slowly came to realize that all the things I have been taught in my life by those in the Church is now being thrown under the bus. My wife and I still have a kid to raise and we are not sure what we should do. I have read just about everything I can get my hands on and I am just about fed up with it all. Then.....out came the Essays late last year. One by one, I cringed with each one I read. The ommissions, half-truths, the out and out lies, and rejection of doctrine have just gotten to me. I have some of my kids who are supportive of Ordain Women. Slowly I have begun to see what it is all about and support its cause. Last year I was utterly repulsed over the excommunication of Kate Kelly. What a joke. What an embarrassement! She was no more an apostate than Bugs Bunny. So all of my frustrations with Church has fever pitched with all these essays and especially over Polygamy. I hate Polygamy. I hate the fact that men who marry a woman and live as husband and wife for 50 years, only to have the husband re-marry after his original spouse passes. I first learned of this when I was in my twenties when Elder L Tom Perry came to our Stake Conference and while speaking mentioned that after his wife of 27 years passed away, him and his NEW wife, had just bought a condo near the Temple in Salt Lake and he was so happy about that. I thought to myself WTF? Why remarry if you are sealed for time and all eternity????????? I had just been married for about two years at that time and most of my family didn't get to see me get married because of our "Eternal Marriage" I didn't know it was all about Polygamy. I had a serious probem then and I still do. No one in the church would give me the real answer....Polygamy is still alive and well. All this has led me to where i am now. Slowly I have become more and more vocal; and you know what that means!!! But when I read in the essay about the church throwing the Negro policy under the bus, I had just had it. I tried asking questions and I couldn't and still can't get most of my friends in the church to even read them. So I guess I am on a person quest to speak my mind and share my thoughts. Asking the church for answers is simply not possible. I am not anti-mormon, rather, just as in the words of Sandra Tanner, I have become a critic of the Church. I still see the church as a positve influence for good as it relates to the humble members who are trying to live the Gospel. Most of what the church has put out this year has directly conflicted with most of what I have learned my entire life. Most members have no idea of what I and all of you are even talking about. So that's a little snap shot into my purpose. I hate Polygamy and I think the church is using the term to distract people from looking deeper into the real reasons he was getting sealed. (He had a woman disire overload) I just don't see a Polygamist when I review the life of Joseph Smith. I know about all the journals and the testimonies. But none of this was availabe to read during Nauvoo. Most of this surfaced (conveniently) after the death of Joseph Smith. Yes, he must have ceramoniously married women. I am sure of it. But that was, in my opinion, only a cover to have his way. Hell, Brigham waited from 1847 to I think 1853 or at least 6-8 years before he even admitted to doing what he was doing in Utah. Plenty of time to sort of "cook the books" to justify his actions. I used to believe that "Direct Revelation" meant that the Prophets and Apostles spoke to God. Now I know that the term is used only to make you think that is what happens. As we all know, Hinckley, when asked directly, said he followed the "still small voice" or in other words, he feels inspired. Ok, that's great, that puts him in par with the Pope who claims the same thing. Well, another item to add to my list of terms being used to influence what people think when really something else is going on. Like I said in one of my replies in this string, Martyrdom, Polygamy, Direct Revelation are just a few examples of the church swaying public opinion and belief when somthing altogether different is going on. Years ago, I went to my Stake President for a temple interview. I had the book "Messeges of the First Presidency" In this book, there was a message sent out notifying all leadership, that Bishops were no longer required to sign a recommend for the Second Anointing. One Stake Presidents and up needed to do so. This was back around the turn of the century (1900). So I asked him about it and he told me he knew nothing about it and that I had two problems (1) I read too much, and (2) I think too much about what I read. That really says it all. My ID is sort of a sarcastic slap back to that day. Sorry for the long reply. Hope that helps

readtoomuch wrote:

Readtoomuch, you are new here and I have no reference as to what your agenda is here (no offense, we all have an agenda here). I can't tell whether you are ultimately trying to defend or criticize the church. You remind me of another poster who is engaged in mental gymnastics to support his belief in the church. You seem to be working hard to prove your point, but do you mind sharing why?

Fair question. I am certainly new as a poster at this site. However, I have been a reader for quite some time. I am a life time member (four generations) and have been fairly active my whole life. I grew up in the church, served a mission, married in the Temple and have served in many responsible positions in the church. Raised my family in the church. So why am I doing these posts? I went through a serious faith crisis in my thirty's and managed to get passed it by focussing on the Gospel and letting go of everything else. That lasted for about 8 years. Slowly, through a series of events and through lots of reading, I have slowly found myself back where I was back in my thirtys. I slowly came to realize that all the things I have been taught in my life by those in the Church is now being thrown under the bus. My wife and I still have a kid to raise and we are not sure what we should do. I have read just about everything I can get my hands on and I am just about fed up with it all. Then.....out came the Essays late last year. One by one, I cringed with each one I read. The ommissions, half-truths, the out and out lies, and rejection of doctrine have just gotten to me. I have some of my kids who are supportive of Ordain Women. Slowly I have begun to see what it is all about and support its cause. Last year I was utterly repulsed over the excommunication of Kate Kelly. What a joke. What an embarrassement! She was no more an apostate than Bugs Bunny. So all of my frustrations with Church has fever pitched with all these essays and especially over Polygamy. I hate Polygamy. I hate the fact that men who marry a woman and live as husband and wife for 50 years, only to have the husband re-marry after his original spouse passes. I first learned of this when I was in my twenties when Elder L Tom Perry came to our Stake Conference and while speaking mentioned that after his wife of 27 years passed away, him and his NEW wife, had just bought a condo near the Temple in Salt Lake and he was so happy about that. I thought to myself WTF? Why remarry if you are sealed for time and all eternity????????? I had just been married for about two years at that time and most of my family didn't get to see me get married because of our "Eternal Marriage" I didn't know it was all about Polygamy. I had a serious probem then and I still do. No one in the church would give me the real answer....Polygamy is still alive and well. All this has led me to where i am now. Slowly I have become more and more vocal; and you know what that means!!! But when I read in the essay about the church throwing the Negro policy under the bus, I had just had it. I tried asking questions and I couldn't and still can't get most of my friends in the church to even read them. So I guess I am on a person quest to speak my mind and share my thoughts. Asking the church for answers is simply not possible. I am not anti-mormon, rather, just as in the words of Sandra Tanner, I have become a critic of the Church. I still see the church as a positve influence for good as it relates to the humble members who are trying to live the Gospel. Most of what the church has put out this year has directly conflicted with most of what I have learned my entire life. Most members have no idea of what I and all of you are even talking about. So that's a little snap shot into my purpose. I hate Polygamy and I think the church is using the term to distract people from looking deeper into the real reasons he was getting sealed. (He had a woman disire overload) I just don't see a Polygamist when I review the life of Joseph Smith. I know about all the journals and the testimonies. But none of this was availabe to read during Nauvoo. Most of this surfaced (conveniently) after the death of Joseph Smith. Yes, he must have ceramoniously married women. I am sure of it. But that was, in my opinion, only a cover to have his way. Hell, Brigham waited from 1847 to I think 1853 or at least 6-8 years before he even admitted to doing what he was doing in Utah. Plenty of time to sort of "cook the books" to justify his actions. I used to believe that "Direct Revelation" meant that the Prophets and Apostles spoke to God. Now I know that the term is used only to make you think that is what happens. As we all know, Hinckley, when asked directly, said he followed the "still small voice" or in other words, he feels inspired. Ok, that's great, that puts him in par with the Pope who claims the same thing. Well, another item to add to my list of terms being used to influence what people think when really something else is going on. Like I said in one of my replies in this string, Martyrdom, Polygamy, Direct Revelation are just a few examples of the church swaying public opinion and belief when somthing altogether different is going on. Years ago, I went to my Stake President for a temple interview. I had the book "Messeges of the First Presidency" In this book, there was a message sent out notifying all leadership, that Bishops were no longer required to sign a recommend for the Second Anointing. One Stake Presidents and up needed to do so. This was back around the turn of the century (1900). So I asked him about it and he told me he knew nothing about it and that I had two problems (1) I read too much, and (2) I think too much about what I read. That really says it all. My ID is sort of a sarcastic slap back to that day. Sorry for the long reply. Hope that helps

I appreciate your openness. I agree with most details, except about the "I hate the fact that men who marry a woman and live as husband and wife for 50 years, only to have the husband re-marry after his original spouse passes. ...... I thought to myself WTF? Why remarry if you are sealed for time and all eternity?????????"

I re-marriied after the death of my first spouse. Not in the temple, because my new wife is not Mormon. I don't regret it. Lonliness is a bugger..