Polygamy

[_thechair]

I've been an LDS Lifer thus far... over 50, in a high council, married for 30 years. But only a couple of years' study, not even that deep, led me quickly to conclude that Joseph Smith's polygamy was nothing but horse hockey. I had read Rough Stone Rolling way back when and shelved the polyandry. But last year I began reading biographies, including two on Brigham Young, one on John Taylor, Mormon Enigma about Emma, and Laura Ulrich Thatcher's House Full of Females. Just these books, plus some podcast episodes from A Year of Polygamy and some Gina Colvin stuff, leave little room for an honest, thinking person to conclude LDS polygamy was anything other than horse manure, as I said. I keep a list of reasons I believe this. Mental Gymnast should look at the last bullet point. He can, of course, do what he wants, but for me it's just too much work to rationalize the strange institution as coming from God. All one does is distort one's own conscience.

-Polygamy is almost always illegal. But where it is legal, it seems always to be found with companion illegalities.
-Polygamy seems to make people lie, even where it is legal.
-It fails the Golden Rule and other generalized codes of conduct. For example, it utterly fails Rotary International’s Four-Way Test: (1) Is it the TRUTH? [fosters lies, before, during, and after marriage(s), and fosters lies about its practice in genetral] (2) Is it FAIR to all concerned? [No] (3) Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS? [No] and (4) Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned? [No].
-Violates equality by increasing sexual opportunity for men while diminishing them for wives.
-Creates elite clan lords; it’s feudalistic.
-Alpha males attract the majority of desirable women; this feeds on itself.
-It rapidly exhausts the supply of marriageable women in a given region and rapidly drives down the marriage age of females. [affirmed by author Laura Ulrich Thatcher in personal conversation].
-The above phenomena forces the males to go to other communities to poach their women and girls.
-I don’t believe, although I can’t prove it, yet, that polygamy creates more little Mormons (or whatever) than does monogamy. For example, Brigham Young sired only about the same number of kids as he had wives. I am skeptical that typical rationales deployed to justify polygamy are not borne out in reality. [This forum had a recent discussion about the math, a discussion I was not equipped to contribute to. But I opine that even if there is some theoretical formula where men can marry an optimal number of women of a certain age and still sustain the institution without ponzi-style flameout, it could never happen in real life. I question whether polygamist husbands can, or are willing, to get around to each wife enough to keep up the procreative attention numbers required.
-Creates pain, loneliness, jealousy, and disharmony in the home. It's dishonest to pretend otherwise.
-Favorites!
-The doctrine of polygamy was smuggled in secretly, through the back door, violating common consent and trammeling agency.
-The doctrine of polygamy was later discarded in reaction to events in the USA, and its meaning was changed.
-The practice of polygamy was fostered only with coercive tactics and overreaching.
-It violates the spirit of the commandment against adultery.
-D&C 132 is idiocy for idiots. It talks about God “giving” women to favored men, and threatening to “destroy” Emma. It mischaracterizes women–half the human race–as chattel property rather than coequal citizens and free moral agents. This–D&C 132–clashes HARD with the American Declaration of Independence. The early Republican Party–Abraham Lincoln’s party–was right to have in its 1860 platform opposition to both polygamy and the extension of slavery, “the twin relics of barbarism.”
-Polygamy treats women and “seed” (a.k.a. children) as commodities.
-Makes equal love and respect in marriage impossible as it gives leverage only to husbands who can always discard a disfavored wife if he doesn’t get his way, for whatever reason, with no price to pay.
-Finally, acceptance of polygamy in light of these objections forces one to distort one’s conscience and moral thinking.

[_grindael]

I've been an LDS Lifer thus far... over 50, in a high council, married for 30 years. But only a couple of years' study, not even that deep, led me quickly to conclude that Joseph Smith's polygamy was nothing but horse hockey. I had read Rough Stone Rolling way back when and shelved the polyandry. But last year I began reading biographies, including two on Brigham Young, one on John Taylor, Mormon Enigma about Emma, and Laura Ulrich Thatcher's House Full of Females. Just these books, plus some podcast episodes from A Year of Polygamy and some Gina Colvin stuff, leave little room for an honest, thinking person to conclude LDS polygamy was anything other than horse manure, as I said. I keep a list of reasons I believe this. Mental Gymnast should look at the last bullet point. He can, of course, do what he wants, but for me it's just too much work to rationalize the strange institution as coming from God. All one does is distort one's own conscience.

-Polygamy is almost always illegal. But where it is legal, it seems always to be found with companion illegalities.
-Polygamy seems to make people lie, even where it is legal.
-It fails the Golden Rule and other generalized codes of conduct. For example, it utterly fails Rotary International’s Four-Way Test: (1) Is it the TRUTH? [fosters lies, before, during, and after marriage(s), and fosters lies about its practice in genetral] (2) Is it FAIR to all concerned? [No] (3) Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS? [No] and (4) Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned? [No].
-Violates equality by increasing sexual opportunity for men while diminishing them for wives.
-Creates elite clan lords; it’s feudalistic.
-Alpha males attract the majority of desirable women; this feeds on itself.
-It rapidly exhausts the supply of marriageable women in a given region and rapidly drives down the marriage age of females. [affirmed by author Laura Ulrich Thatcher in personal conversation].
-The above phenomena forces the males to go to other communities to poach their women and girls.
-I don’t believe, although I can’t prove it, yet, that polygamy creates more little Mormons (or whatever) than does monogamy. For example, Brigham Young sired only about the same number of kids as he had wives. I am skeptical that typical rationales deployed to justify polygamy are not borne out in reality. [This forum had a recent discussion about the math, a discussion I was not equipped to contribute to. But I opine that even if there is some theoretical formula where men can marry an optimal number of women of a certain age and still sustain the institution without ponzi-style flameout, it could never happen in real life. I question whether polygamist husbands can, or are willing, to get around to each wife enough to keep up the procreative attention numbers required.
-Creates pain, loneliness, jealousy, and disharmony in the home. It's dishonest to pretend otherwise.
-Favorites!
-The doctrine of polygamy was smuggled in secretly, through the back door, violating common consent and trammeling agency.
-The doctrine of polygamy was later discarded in reaction to events in the USA, and its meaning was changed.
-The practice of polygamy was fostered only with coercive tactics and overreaching.
-It violates the spirit of the commandment against adultery.
-D&C 132 is idiocy for idiots. It talks about God “giving” women to favored men, and threatening to “destroy” Emma. It mischaracterizes women–half the human race–as chattel property rather than coequal citizens and free moral agents. This–D&C 132–clashes HARD with the American Declaration of Independence. The early Republican Party–Abraham Lincoln’s party–was right to have in its 1860 platform opposition to both polygamy and the extension of slavery, “the twin relics of barbarism.”
-Polygamy treats women and “seed” (a.k.a. children) as commodities.
-Makes equal love and respect in marriage impossible as it gives leverage only to husbands who can always discard a disfavored wife if he doesn’t get his way, for whatever reason, with no price to pay.
-Finally, acceptance of polygamy in light of these objections forces one to distort one’s conscience and moral thinking.

I just have to preserve this, (just in case). I've been researching Mormon polygamy for about six years straight and I've never seen anything like this list. To say I'm astounded at how well you put this together is an understatement. I've read whole books, like yourself and have gleaned a lot of what you have here, but this succinct list is rather fabulous.

Welcome, thechair and ... thanks!

[_grindael]

I take umbrage at claims that the Happiness Letter is based on anything that Smith previously taught in his 12 year career before he wrote it. It doesn't teach "hard doctrine" it teaches wacked out twisted doctrine. Here is how Jeremy and I addressed it (and Hales) in Pt. II of The Irrational World of Brian Hales' Polygamy:

Hales is absolutely defending polygamy no matter how hard he tries to deny this—that is painfully obvious. Hales has deftly tried to refocus what Section 132 is really all about, which we discuss below (See also, Note #61).

And “only a few” eternal polygamists are needed? Where does he get this from? Nowhere does the polygamy revelation stipulate this. This is simply an invention of the Hales.

He also tries to claim (again and again it seems) that “Joseph Smith’s theological teachings regarding plural marriage are universally ignored.” Actually, they are not. Let’s put this to the test with a good example here. Hales claims above that “The practice [of polygamy] is difficult to defend as anything but unfair and at times emotionally cruel.”

If Hales (as he claims) understands Joseph’s theology, then how can he make such a statement and reconcile it with Mormon theology? Especially in the light of this letter by Joseph Smith to Nancy Rigdon:

“Happiness is the object and design of our existence; and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God. But we cannot keep all the commandments without first knowing them, and we cannot expect to know all, or more than we now know unless we comply with or keep those we have already received. That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another.”

“God said, “Thou shalt not kill;” at another time He said “Thou shalt utterly destroy.” This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added. So with Solomon: first he asked wisdom, and God gave it him, and with it every desire of his heart, even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation.”

“A parent may whip a child, and justly, too, because he stole an apple; whereas if the child had asked for the apple, and the parent had given it, the child would have eaten it with a better appetite; there would have been no stripes; all the pleasure of the apple would have been secured, all the misery of stealing lost.”

“This principle will justly apply to all of God’s dealings with His children. Everything that God gives us is lawful and right; and it is proper that we should enjoy His gifts and blessings whenever and wherever He is disposed to bestow; but if we should seize upon those same blessings and enjoyments without law, without revelation, without commandment, those blessings and enjoyments would prove cursings and vexations in the end, and we should have to lie down in sorrow and wailings of everlasting regret. But in obedience there is joy and peace unspotted, unalloyed; and as God has designed our happiness—and the happiness of all His creatures, he never has—He never will institute an ordinance or give a commandment to His people that is not calculated in its nature to promote that happiness which He has designed, and which will not end in the greatest amount of good and glory to those who become the recipients of his law and ordinances. Blessings offered, but rejected, are no longer blessings, but become like the talent hid in the earth by the wicked and slothful servant; the proffered good returns to the giver; the blessing is bestowed on those who will receive and occupy; for unto him that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundantly, but unto him that hath not or will not receive, shall be taken away that which he hath, or might have had.”

Be wise today; ’tis madness to defer:
Next day the fatal precedent may plead.
Thus on till wisdom is pushed out of time
Into eternity.

“Our heavenly Father is more liberal in His views, and boundless in His mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive; and, at the same time, is more terrible to the workers of iniquity, more awful in the executions of His punishments, and more ready to detect every false way, than we are apt to suppose Him to be. He will be inquired of by His children. He says: “Ask and ye shall receive, seek and ye shall find;” but, if you will take that which is not your own, or which I have not given you, you shall be rewarded according to your deeds; but no good thing will I withhold from them who walk uprightly before me, and do my will in all things—who will listen to my voice and to the voice of my servant whom I have sent; for I delight in those who seek diligently to know my precepts, and abide by the law of my kingdom; for all things shall be made known unto them in mine own due time, and in the end they shall have joy.”[89]

Claiming that polygamy is “unfair and emotionally cruel” by its very nature (which we all know it is) directly contradicts what Joseph Smith claimed: that God would never institute a commandment or ordinance that by its nature is unjust (Hales word) or designed to promote unhappiness or unfairness.

At lds.org they write,

God is just, true, and righteous in all things (see Revelation 15:3; Psalm 89:14; Ether 3:12).

The problem with the Hales is that they are not Mormon Authorities. They are simply apologists who promote irrational arguments to defend Joseph Smith’s practice of polygamy. What they claim directly contradicts what Joseph Smith taught: that “happiness is the object and design of our existence, and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it…” A foundational Mormon theological concept is that men and women are born on earth that they might experience joy. The Book of Mormon declares:

Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy. (2 Nephi 2:25)

How can one pursue the path to happiness when forced to live a principle that according to Brian Hales is by design “unfair and emotionally cruel”? This makes little sense theologically or otherwise. As Milton R. Hunter taught to a General Conference audience in 1954:

I believe with all my heart that God the eternal Father wants his children on this earth to have joy, an abundance of joy. I believe, also, that he expects members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we who have taken upon ourselves the name of Christ, to live an abundant, joyful, happy life. Our lives should be lived in such a way as to bring to us a fulness of joy today, tomorrow, next week, ten years from now, a hundred years from now, a thousand years from now, and even, throughout the eternities. I want to remind each of us that God has placed within the reach of the members of the Church of Jesus Christ the possibilities of that joy, that perpetual and eternal joy, if we will just obey the laws that bring that joy into our lives.[90]

This is Early Mormon Doctrine, not the invented doctrine of Brian Hales or the twisted perversion that Smith came up with in Nauvoo. How does a practice that is emotionally cruel and unfair at its core bring joy into the lives of those that are commanded to practice it? In the end, was polygamy “joy”? Not for the vast majority of the women involved in it along with many of the men. It may have been joyful to those men who could discard their women at will, like Brigham Young and Joseph Smith, (as he did with the Partridge sisters and others) but not for everyone else that was forced to live the principle or pay a hefty $10 divorce fee that Brigham Young charged. Most of them looked at it as an unpleasant duty to their religion. There were many cases (for example) of men who married more than one woman and then refused to live with any but one (their favorite) and they were condemned for it.

Even marriage according to the Apostle Paul, should never get in the way of the gospel and so he admonished those who were single to stay so, even as he was, but that if you felt the need to be married, do so.[91] Even Paul claimed that, “…those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.”[92]

Yet Joseph gave polygamy as a commandment, not an option as Paul does with marriage.

Hales theological argument about polygamy makes little sense if one looks back historically at the practice. What does the importance of polygamy in eternity have to do with why Joseph Smith and other church leaders would inflict so much emotional damage on those they commanded to practice it on earth?

What sense does it make for God to command it on earth, if according to Hales, the focus of it is for eternity? (Or only monogamous eternal sealings?) We know why, as both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught, it was to raise up righteous seed.

Hales quotes Brigham Young in an effort to show that polygamy was instituted as some kind of “trial”:

I foresaw, when Joseph first made known this doctrine, that it would be a trial, and a source of great care and anxiety to the brethren, and what of that? We are to gird up our loins and fulfill this, just as we would any other duty.[93]

Yet Young also said in the same speech:

This revelation, which God gave to Joseph, was for the express purpose of providing a channel for the organization of tabernacles, for those spirits to occupy who have been reserved to come forth in the kingdom of God…[94]

But for Brigham Young the answer to those who might be discontented was simple:

Sisters, do you wish to make yourselves happy? Then what is your duty? It is for you to bear children,…are you tormenting yourselves by thinking that your husbands do not love you? I would not care whether they loved a particle or not; but I would cry out, like one of old, in the joy of my heart, ‘I have got a man from the Lord!” ‘Hallelujah! I am a mother–…’[95]

For many women, this was not happiness, although some looked back on their hard lives living with polygamy and were thankful for their children, who ultimately did bring many some measure of joy. This takes the focus off of eternity where Hales wants to exclusively put it, and back on earth where it belongs. That is the true context of Section 132, time and eternity, and this applies to Patriarchal Marriage as well as monogamous ones.

Hales claims that the critics ignore his claim that “within the context of Joseph Smith’s teachings, a few eternal polygamists are needed.“

What, exactly is “a few”? Hales doesn’t explain. That the sealing power was all about what was bound on earth would be bound in heaven is self evident. That this also applies to marriage was the “revelation” of Joseph Smith to the Mormons in Nauvoo. Hales claims that polygamy is also part of the “restoration of all things”, but then cannot adequately explain why it was discontinued as a practice, given all the statements by Joseph’s disciples who carried on with it after the Nauvoo period.

Hales writes:

Polygamy isn’t fair on earth. But according to Joseph Smith’s theology, every man and every woman must have a spouse in order to be exalted. The promise is that they “shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths. . . and a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.” (D&C 132:19-20.)

If we can believe this promise, then the need for eternal plural sealings becomes more easy to embrace.

My experience is that instead people just roll their eyes and rant about earthly polygamy. But in doing so, I think they may denigrate the polygamous women of the nineteenth century who practiced it for that reason, because it was commanded.

God commanded it according to the early prophets. Can we call it “damnable”? I guess it is a faith thing.[96]

Easy for whom to embrace? Those who for whatever reason are compelled to defend polygamy, for sure. Yet, the argument isn’t about polygamy in heaven, but on earth and why it was necessary and commanded to be practiced on earth. Hales offers no rational answers here; only that it is a “faith thing”. One can say that everything is a trial for some. But the object and design of the plan of salvation according to Mormon theology is that we are here to experience joy. Why then, would polygamy really be necessary on earth if God can assign righteous women to men in the afterlife?

And both Jeremy and I are not denigrating the polygamous wives, we are criticizing the practice and those who instigated it: Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. And there is no passage in the Bible where God commands polygamy, but he does command any future king of Israel not to practice it:

I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me, you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. But he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, for the LORD has said to you, ‘You shall not return that way again. Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself. (Deuteronomy 17:14-17)

For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. (I Kings 11:4 )

The promise of the celestial kingdom is for all who live righteously, even children who never get married. So what makes polygamy necessary on earth except for raising up “righteous seed”? This is never adequately answered by Hales, given the above. He also writes:

Perhaps another point is that those close to Joseph were just as skeptical as you and me. I’ve often said Fawn Brodie did a hatchet job on Joseph Smith. But she did a bigger hatchet job on those around Joseph because she portrayed them as being too dumb or gullible to figure out the alleged immoralities that Brodie depicted in her book a hundred years later. Brodie wasn’t that smart and Brigham, Eliza, Zina and John (Taylor) were not that gullible.

Recently Alex Beam said Joseph’s hypocrisy was “breathtaking.” How ridiculous. Beam can detect breathtaking hypocrisy 170 years later that none of the Nauvoo polygamists apparently detected because if they had seen ANY hypocrisy, they would have left Joseph.[97]

The only hatchet job being done here is by Hales against the critics of polygamy and Joseph Smith. Go here, for further reading, or to read the notes and references https://mormonitemusings.com/2018/12/09 ... #_ednref64

[_Master_DC]

MG,

I do appreciate the links and discussion on this. I am familiar with the Hales and other resources you posted, but they don't help ME better understand the questions swirling in my mind.

An example: Hales states that there are several reasons, according to Joseph Smith, why plural marriage could be introduced among the Latter-day Saints:

1. A Restoration
2.To provide a customized trial
3. Multiplying and replenishing the earth
4. Making eternal marriage available to everyone

1. What exactly is polygamy restoring? a practice from the Old Testament? I thought Joseph was restoring the church Christ founded during his ministry? was plural marriage reinstituted during His earthly ministry, therefore Joseph was fulfilling this prophecy?

2. This reason is pretty ridiculous in my opinion. This "customized trial" is probably the most defining characteristic of the Mormon church, marginalizing the people and the message. Life is difficult enough today. Most people don't need manufactured trials to prove their faithfulness. The Saints in the 1840's - 1890's lived under harsh conditions, crossed the plains, lost loved children, spouses, friends. This argument just seems like mansplaining to me.

3. Not much to say concerning this, others up above have addressed this, and you did as well on a different thread, Joseph doesn't have known offspring from this practice... hmmmm

4. This last one is fairly damning if you look at Hales entry. Exaltation requires plural marriage. My question to this then is, did all worthy Saints practice plural marriage? or only the ones appointed by the leadership? If some worthy saints were not blessed with this 'customized trial," who is responsible for them not attaining exaltation? do they have to wait with the minor sinners until their work is done her eon earth? the doctrine quickly crumbles.

These are oversimplified responses to this question, but it is where my head is at, and the discussions are valuable for me to really try and understand my thought and feelings.

thechair, I agree with grindael, that list is incredible, thanks for sharing

[_Maksutov]

I've been an LDS Lifer thus far... over 50, in a high council, married for 30 years. But only a couple of years' study, not even that deep, led me quickly to conclude that Joseph Smith's polygamy was nothing but horse hockey. I had read Rough Stone Rolling way back when and shelved the polyandry. But last year I began reading biographies, including two on Brigham Young, one on John Taylor, Mormon Enigma about Emma, and Laura Ulrich Thatcher's House Full of Females. Just these books, plus some podcast episodes from A Year of Polygamy and some Gina Colvin stuff, leave little room for an honest, thinking person to conclude LDS polygamy was anything other than horse manure, as I said. I keep a list of reasons I believe this. Mental Gymnast should look at the last bullet point. He can, of course, do what he wants, but for me it's just too much work to rationalize the strange institution as coming from God. All one does is distort one's own conscience.

-Polygamy is almost always illegal. But where it is legal, it seems always to be found with companion illegalities.
-Polygamy seems to make people lie, even where it is legal.
-It fails the Golden Rule and other generalized codes of conduct. For example, it utterly fails Rotary International’s Four-Way Test: (1) Is it the TRUTH? [fosters lies, before, during, and after marriage(s), and fosters lies about its practice in genetral] (2) Is it FAIR to all concerned? [No] (3) Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS? [No] and (4) Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned? [No].
-Violates equality by increasing sexual opportunity for men while diminishing them for wives.
-Creates elite clan lords; it’s feudalistic.
-Alpha males attract the majority of desirable women; this feeds on itself.
-It rapidly exhausts the supply of marriageable women in a given region and rapidly drives down the marriage age of females. [affirmed by author Laura Ulrich Thatcher in personal conversation].
-The above phenomena forces the males to go to other communities to poach their women and girls.
-I don’t believe, although I can’t prove it, yet, that polygamy creates more little Mormons (or whatever) than does monogamy. For example, Brigham Young sired only about the same number of kids as he had wives. I am skeptical that typical rationales deployed to justify polygamy are not borne out in reality. [This forum had a recent discussion about the math, a discussion I was not equipped to contribute to. But I opine that even if there is some theoretical formula where men can marry an optimal number of women of a certain age and still sustain the institution without ponzi-style flameout, it could never happen in real life. I question whether polygamist husbands can, or are willing, to get around to each wife enough to keep up the procreative attention numbers required.
-Creates pain, loneliness, jealousy, and disharmony in the home. It's dishonest to pretend otherwise.
-Favorites!
-The doctrine of polygamy was smuggled in secretly, through the back door, violating common consent and trammeling agency.
-The doctrine of polygamy was later discarded in reaction to events in the USA, and its meaning was changed.
-The practice of polygamy was fostered only with coercive tactics and overreaching.
-It violates the spirit of the commandment against adultery.
-D&C 132 is idiocy for idiots. It talks about God “giving” women to favored men, and threatening to “destroy” Emma. It mischaracterizes women–half the human race–as chattel property rather than coequal citizens and free moral agents. This–D&C 132–clashes HARD with the American Declaration of Independence. The early Republican Party–Abraham Lincoln’s party–was right to have in its 1860 platform opposition to both polygamy and the extension of slavery, “the twin relics of barbarism.”
-Polygamy treats women and “seed” (a.k.a. children) as commodities.
-Makes equal love and respect in marriage impossible as it gives leverage only to husbands who can always discard a disfavored wife if he doesn’t get his way, for whatever reason, with no price to pay.
-Finally, acceptance of polygamy in light of these objections forces one to distort one’s conscience and moral thinking.

Excellent exposition. I appreciate that you have a moral and ethical code that stands apart from and resists all of the gaslighting and fraud. It's fascinating that critics of polygamy are told that they don't support the church because they (the critics) just want to break the commandments, all the while Smith not only broke the commandments but invented new ones to justify it.

[_mcjathan]

Not a simple topic to discuss. It's complex and comes to us from many different angles/purposes/viewpoints.

It's not simple if you insist on shoe-horning a fundamentally selfish, cruel, dishonest, and exploitative practice into a picture of godliness, goodness, and virtue.

On the other hand, it's quite simple by a plain reading of the facts. The real dilemma and complexity with a simple reading of the facts regarding Mormon polygamy is that it tends to upset the apple cart of belief in the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and all other Mormon leaders who claim polygamy is godly.

[_Maksutov]

Not a simple topic to discuss. It's complex and comes to us from many different angles/purposes/viewpoints.

It's not simple if you insist on shoe-horning a fundamentally selfish, cruel, dishonest, and exploitative practice into a picture of godliness, goodness, and virtue.

On the other hand, it's quite simple by a plain reading of the facts. The real dilemma and complexity with a simple reading of the facts regarding Mormon polygamy is that it tends to upset the apple cart of belief in the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and all other Mormon leaders who claim polygamy is godly.

Yep. And I would submit that virtually all of the "mysteries" of Mormonism are revealed through the same process. It's a refusal to use a shelf when a fully functioning brain is handy.

[_Maksutov]

As for Hales, it is not bias, it is a fact. I've proven how he misuses sources, (mainly omissions) and doctors what he uses to get the outcome he wants. An unrealistic and unhistorical one. I have asked him repeatedly to debate me on polygamy, but he won't. The answer why is obvious. No one should waste their time reading his apologetic drivel.

Brian Hales is incapable of being a historian. His preoccupation with apologetics will always come first. And it's unfortunate, because I do find some value in his works on the history of the fundamentalists. He can't come to terms with the obvious, however. He can't drop special treatment of the Mormons and Smith and acknowledge that these exhibit common and clearly explainable features of exploitive and abusive "new religious movements"--"high demand religions"--cults. Jonathan Streeter did a great job of comparing Smith with other creepy cult founders of past and present.

[_mentalgymnast]

-Finally, acceptance of polygamy in light of these objections forces one to distort one’s conscience and moral thinking.

The practice of polygamy in the early church comes to us through the filters of history. As such, and knowing that there were many detractors of the prophet, I am willing to give Joseph and others the benefit of a doubt that they believed that they were carrying out the will of the Lord. Why? Because I take it at face value that IF Joseph was a prophet that we would observe in the natural course of events strong positions taken by both those that support Joseph and his calling and those that were vehemently opposed to him.

So we have John C. Bennett at one time saying:

...the Arch Seducer, and his Apostles, were signally repulsed: but in hundreds of other cases, they succeeded to their hearts’ content in their black hearted work of deep degradation, corruption and sorrow.

He said this about Joseph and his apostles in response to Mrs. [Sarah Marinda Bates] Pratt, Miss [Nancy] Rigdon, and Miss Brotherton's statements that were given and then later published in Bennett's History of the Saints.

Yet earlier Bennett had said:

...my heart is filled with indignation, and my blood boils within me, when I contemplate the vast injustice and cruelty which Missouri has meted out to that great philanthropist and devout Christian, General Joseph Smith.

So what happened here? Were the women who Bennett used to defame Joseph Smith trustworthy? It depends on which side of the fence you live on.

TESTIMONY OF J. McILWRICK - I do know that the sister of my wife, Martha Brotherton, is a deliberate liar, and also a wilful inventor of lies; and that she has also to my certain knowledge at sundry times, circulated lies of a base kind, concerning those whom she knew to be innocent of what she alleged against them. She has also stooped to many actions which would be degrading to persons of common decency, such as lying on the top of a young man when he was in bed, and seeking Aristotle’s work from a young seaman’s box. And I further state that I am acquainted with Gen. Joseph Smith, President Brigham Young, and Elder Heber C. Kimball, having had the privilege of being intimate with the latter gentleman for several months in England. And I believe them to be men who lead holy and virtuous lives, and men who exhibit a philanthropic spirit to all the human family without respect of persons; and I also know for a truth that the forenamed Martha Brotherton has wickedly endeavored to injure the character of these gentlemen; and many besides myself can testify that the statements which she has reported in different places, are quite contrary to those she related here. JOHN McILWRICK.

We Elizabeth Brotherton, and Mary McIlwrick, sisters of the said Martha Brotherton, concur in the above sentiments.

ELIZABETH BROTHERTON. MARY McILWRICK.

Sworn to, and subscribed, before me, this 27th day of August A. D. 1842. E. ROBINSON, Justice of Peace, for Hancock Co. Ill.

So is Martha to be believed? Sarah? Nancy Rigdon?

My point is that we have almost what could be called a schizophrenic historical record that either demonizes and/or lionizes Joseph Smith and the early brethren. One can take a position for either. One can also find reasons to discard the principle of plurality of wives simply on principle. I get that. It all comes down to whether or not God is behind the restoration or not. In one of Joseph's three(?) recorded sermons in Nauvoo he as a matter of fact said that if he were to share all that God had revealed to him that there were those on the stand where they sat who would immediately rise up and destroy/kill him for preaching blasphemy.

If I revealed all that has been made known to me, scarcely a man on this stand would stay with me.' and 'Brethren, if I were to tell you all I know of the kingdom of God, I do know that you would rise up and kill me.

I think that we see the same today in a limited sense. The practice of polygamy was a hard doctrine. It produced both negative and positive results/consequences. No one is going to argue that. But the fact is, life is messy. There is opposition that results from contradictions and opposing forces within a system that is built on law/commandments. Personally, I believe that this is the reason that we observe, and always have, the multiplicity of various religions and systems of philosophical thought. There have been and will always be many religions or what have you that branch off of pure religion based upon what folks are willing/desirous to take with them and own.

Joseph Smith said that we would be amazed at the liberality of God and His way, methods, and means to bring about the happiness of His children. It's a lot BIGGER in scope than any of us can imagine. I see polygamy as part of restoration of all things and a doctrine/practice that under certain conditions and at different times is acceptable to Him. Others are not so willing and like those sitting on the stand when Joseph preached are only able to accept that which they can live with based upon their own understanding. That understanding may not encompass all that God understands.

Another thing that I try to keep in mind are these words that Joseph Smith gave us:

Although I do wrong, I do not the wrongs that I am charged with doing; the wrong that I do is through the frailty of human nature, like other men. No man lives without fault.

Going back to John C. Bennett. Much of what we have in regards to Nauvoo polygamy, on the negative side, filters through his writings. To be honest with ourselves we should consider whether Bennett and others are the perpetrators of those things that Joseph later claimed he was not guilty of. Again, from looking at many historical sources and trying to look at it from all sides, I am willing to cut some slack and give Joseph the benefit of a doubt that he believed/knew that he was doing the will of the Lord. But as he said, "No man lives without fault."

Regards,
MG

[_Maksutov]

We don't have to demonize John C. Bennett in order to recognize the rotten fruits of Joseph's lust. They are still with us and have nothing to do with Bennett.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/polygamy/20 ... tal-blade/

Prosecutors in central Utah have filed a child sex abuse charge against another member of the Knights of the Crystal Blade — a small religious group that believes in polygamy and that a doomsday was nearing.

Robert Roe, 34, was charged Thursday in Utah’s 6th District Court with one count of sodomy on a child. The charge carries the possibility of life in prison.

Court records list Roe as a resident of Castro, Calif. Sanpete County Attorney Kevin Daniels said Roe is not yet in custody. Daniels said his office is seeking an arrest warrant.


Roe is the third member of a small, perhaps short-lived religious group whose followers called themselves Knights of the Crystal Blade to be charged with a sex crime. Court records have said the leaders believed in Mormon fundamentalist teachings, including in polygamy, and that a Muslim invasion of the United States and end of the world were nearing.

.......

Daniels said Roe communicated on the internet with the cult’s two leaders, John Coltharp and Samuel Shaffer. They found common beliefs, Daniels said.

Roe then drove to Utah to get baptized into the cult, Daniels said. Afterward, Daniels said, Roe “married” a 5-year-old girl who had family in the cult, took her to a motel and sexually assaulted her. A court record implies the alleged assault happened on Aug. 28.

Knights of the Crystal Blade came to the attention of law enforcement in December. That’s when Coltharp and Shaffer hid Coltharp’s children from his ex-wife, triggering an Amber Alert and search that spread from Spring City in central Utah into the desert west of Cedar City, where Shaffer and the children were found in a makeshift home constructed from shipping containers.

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

When the abductor of Elizabeth Smart rationalized his holy rape, he didn't rely on John C. Bennett. He relied on Joseph Smith. Same with the Lafferty Brothers, with John Singer, with Warren Jeffs. They emulated Joseph Smith. Not John C. Bennett.