Should Joseph Smith have introduced Polygamy publicly?

[_JLHPROF]

Other:
- Joseph would have eventually made it public, just as Brigham did.
- No, not at first, as it was not a law given for the general public, or even the general membership.

So, it was a secret combination then?

- Doc

That depends on your definition and perspective.
It most definitely was secret at first.

But the LDS definition of "secret combinations" states that it was a " is a secret society of people bound together by oaths to carry out the evil purposes of the group." And since the term is uniquely LDS I will go with that definition.

So it would only be a secret combination if the purpose was evil. If you view polygamy as evil you would be right to label it as a Secret Combination. If you consider it to come from God you could not correctly use that term. No evil purpose, no secret combination.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

That depends on your definition and perspective.
It most definitely was secret at first.

But the LDS definition of "secret combinations" states that it was a " is a secret society of people bound together by oaths to carry out the evil purposes of the group." And since the term is uniquely LDS I will go with that definition.

So it would only be a secret combination if the purpose was evil. If you view polygamy as evil you would be right to label it as a Secret Combination. If you consider it to come from God you could not correctly use that term. No evil purpose, no secret combination.

Do you consider marrying teenagers and other men's wives in secret, without letting your spouse know, evil or good?

- Doc

[_JLHPROF]

That depends on your definition and perspective.
It most definitely was secret at first.

But the LDS definition of "secret combinations" states that it was a " is a secret society of people bound together by oaths to carry out the evil purposes of the group." And since the term is uniquely LDS I will go with that definition.

So it would only be a secret combination if the purpose was evil. If you view polygamy as evil you would be right to label it as a Secret Combination. If you consider it to come from God you could not correctly use that term. No evil purpose, no secret combination.

Do you consider marrying teenagers and other men's wives in secret, without letting your spouse know, evil or good?

- Doc

I consider obeying God good, period.
As for the 3 issues you describe, you know as well as I do that there are justifications for all 3.
They may be justifications you completely reject as being evil, but they are still important to consider.
Personally, I see no sin in what Joseph did and believe he was obeying God.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Do you consider marrying teenagers and other men's wives in secret, without letting your spouse know, evil or good?

- Doc

I consider obeying God good, period.
As for the 3 issues you describe, you know as well as I do that there are justifications for all 3.
They may be justifications you completely reject as being evil, but they are still important to consider.
Personally, I see no sin in what Joseph did and believe he was obeying God.

Wow. You actually think marrying teenagers and other men's wives is good.

Welp. There you go. Mormonism.

- Doc

[_JLHPROF]

Wow. You actually think marrying teenagers and other men's wives is good.

Welp. There you go. Mormonism.

- must be nice to view things in black and white, good and evil. Most people aren't so binary.

You can't see a situation where Joseph could have had a teenage wife like 14 year old Helen sealed to him as a wife and never was intimate with her during their one year of marriage?
You can't see a situation where Joseph could have had a woman with a non-member husband sealed to him for her eternal future only?
You can't see a situation where God would require someone to do something their spouse simply couldn't accept so they kept it from them?

I don't believe for a second Joseph was celibate with all his plural wives. But I am also not assuming the worst possible motivations.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Well, you'd have to ignore all that stuff about creating babies and whatnot in the D&C if you want to give Mr. Smith a pass. Uh, look, Fanny Alger. That should pretty much put the issue to rest; I mean this topic has been hashed and re-hashed so many times it's pointless to get into it, but I tend to take people at their word.

Anyway. What I find interesting and laudable is you own it for the most part. You're comfortable with secret combinations and the awkward position it puts a believing Mormon in. Once a person invests himself intellectually and emotionally in an 'ism it's a dicey narrative where his faith will take him.

It's just kind of funny how God reeeeeally didn't want Emma in on the whole thing until way down the road. I can certainly see why she wouldn't be keen on the whole marrying teenagers and other men's wives.

- Doc

[_JLHPROF]

Anyway. What I find interesting and laudable is you own it for the most part. You're comfortable with secret combinations and the awkward position it puts a believing Mormon in. Once a person invests himself intellectually and emotionally in an 'ism it's a dicey narrative where his faith will take him.

Well, I know round these parts Cog Dis is the brush people like me get tarred with.
It seems to be inconceivable to many that a person with a functioning brain (mostly) could accept these things without it causing any dissonance for them.

I am a believer. I make no bones about that fact. And it leads me to approach from that perspective. I believe it all, every doctrine Joseph taught. So when I have encountered in the past things that have be troubling (and it's been a while since anything has troubled me) I have that to lean on and work forward from there. It has been a long time since any of the "troubling" things in Mormonism have caused me any discomfort.

There are those who are bothered by Adam-God. I accept it.
There are those who can't stand polygamy. I believe it to be an eternal principle.
The temple, the endowment/garment/second anointing, the Book of Abraham, Blood atonement, etc, etc. All of it.

I guess I just love me some Kool Aid...

[_Lemmie]

There are those who can't stand polygamy. I believe it to be an eternal principle.

So a person can have more than one spouse for the eternities? Of course I am being facetious. I assume you mean you believe it to be an eternal principle that a male can have multiple female partners. Because he is a male. Because there is something unique about being a male that is not unique about females. Well, thankfully, I don't believe it to be an eternal principle. What I mostly feel is sadness for women who are attached to men who do. And even more sadness for the daughters of men who do- daughters who have to grow up with the burden of knowing their father literally believes they belong in a relationship with a man who has multiple other relationships with multiple other women.

[Guest]

This begs the questions:

Why is marriage to multiple women an eternal principle?

What's the point?

- Doc

[_JLHPROF]

This begs the questions:
Why is marriage to multiple women an eteranal principle?

What's the point?

1. Anything that is eternal in nature is an eternal principle. If there are eternal polygamous marriages (and the Church has never denied this in any way) then polygamy would be an eternal principle. If Wilford Woodruff's sealing to his wives for eternity are valid, then polygamy is eternal.
But to be more direct, if polygamy is the form of marriage lived by Heavenly Father and the Council of the Gods as taught by early leaders, then it is even more directly eternal in nature.

2. The point is the same point as any marriage. There doesn't need to be a separate reason for polygamy from monogamy unless we believe polygamy to be "different".
The same covenants are made in a polygamous marriage as in a monogamous one. The same command is given to participants in a polygamous marriage as in a monogamous one.
There doesn't need to be a separate point if monogamous marriage is just step one in polygamous marriage. (Hard to be a polygamist without first being a monogamist.)