DiscussMormonism.com

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 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.

readtoomuch wrote:

What do you see when you see a "REAL" polygamist? What would that entail? There have been many bigamists who married another woman and then treated the first like crap or left them, or didn't live with them, etc. Does that NOT make him a bigamist? And now it's that none of this was available to READ during Nauvoo? What does this have to do with anything? The documents I spoke of (and many more) were ABSOLUTELY produced IN NAUVOO during the time of Joseph Smith when he was alive. To say they are not is simply wrong.

If you read my original post at the start of this string of posts, I give my specific points that show what I mean. Please re-read. I think I am specific about what makes me feel the way I do. Yes, The bad bigamist is still a bigamist. No question about it. The point I have made is that one un-escapable possiblity, which I personal feel may be true, is that there may have been a wedding service of some kind, but the church policy did not provide moral authority to marry; given the published revelation in the D&C section 101. Thus, there can't be a real marriage as an appeal to the church authority. Since polygamy was illegal, no appeal can be made for a marriage from the government. So in substance, there was not a real marriage. It was secret, against church policy and illegal. So my suggestion is that we consider that there was no marriage either in form or substance. He didn't cohabitate, didn't have kids, didn't support them as far as we know, so I see no legit claims for a marriage as an appeal to common law. I see the most public, most well known figure in the church running for national office of President and I am supposed to believe that he had 30- to 40 legit wives (meaning legally or common law) and he thought he could hide it. No, I believe he was really just committing serial adultry and brought a few close associates in on it to keep it going. Since those associates believed in Joseph, they were sucked in on the deception he taught. Why may I ask, was Joseph Smith dragged out of his house in the night back in Kirtland and tarred and feathered and almost castrated? Not because of what he taught in Sacarament. Think of Fanny Alger. Think, why would they want to do that? Because, I suggest, they didn't like the fact that he was hitting on Fanny. I believe I am not the only one that feels that way. I think, this act of adultry, leads to the genesis of the term Polygamy in the church. He had to protect his reputation. Do I know this for a fact? No. But I feel that a careful review of the circumstances suggest I might be right. The church used the term "Martyrdom" "Direct Revelation" and "Polygamy" all the same way. Applying those terms to describe something other than what those terms mean to those who speak English. I feel that they did that to sway public opinion to what they wanted people to think. I am suggesting that people can write anything in a journal or certificate or whatever. It may be true or it may be half-true or it may be false. Given the church's record of being straight on far too many issues, I would recommed not "drinking the kool aid" too quickly. Some things are not always as they seem.

mentalgymnast wrote:
Anytime a consideration of whether or not polygamy was or wasn't practiced, even if in name only, or whether or not polygamy was and inherently evil practice and/or institution...it would be well to open up the curtains a bit more and look at what others had to say in regards to the practice. Or in your estimation, the non-practice.

In George D. Smith's: Nauvoo Polygamy: “. . . but we called it celestial marriage., chapter 6, the testimonies of those that considered polygamy to be a commandment of God are compiled/laid out. There are other sources available that have the biographical writings of those that believed polygamy was a commandment of God.

So what do you do with that? Joseph wasn't acting in isolation. Others were directly connected with what was going on and they didn't see Joseph as simply being a womanizer.

Regards,
MG

Quoted material here

Dr. Shades wrote:readtoomuch:

To properly use the "quote" feature, type [ quote ] (without the spaces) at the beginning of the other person's words, then type [ /quote ] (without the spaces) at the end of the other person's words.

Do not type [ quote ][ /quote ] both together at the beginning and the end, as you have been doing.

Doing it your way results in this:

Quoted material here

. . . which is incorrect. Doing it the way I showed you results in this:

Quoted material here

. . . which is correct.

Now go thou and sin no more.