Brother Crockett vs...?

[_beastie]

What I wonder about bob's defense is this: why is it not equally morally offensive that Joseph Smith took away another man's wife and CHILDREN in the next life?? If one presumes Mormonism is true, then his actions had an eternal impact. Windsor Lyon was a faithful member of the church (except for one brief period where he was ex'd for suing his stake president for never paying back a 3,000 loan) and a loyal friend of Joseph Smith. Yet Joseph Smith took his wife and children away from him.

Why doesn't this bother men in the church???

But clearly what really bothers them is the idea that Sylvia may have been having sex with both Windsor and Joseph.

It's ok that a man could have sex with not just two, but many dozens of "wives", but for a woman to have sex with two husbands.... unthinkable. Outrageous. Anyone who would suggest as much is a hater.

Other than the obvious double standard, this also seems to indicate to me that believers tend not to get riled up about the stuff in the next life... almost as if it weren't real, anyway. It's THIS life that gets them riled up. :)

[_truth dancer]

Hey Beastie,

You bring up two important points in my opinion.

1. Most LDS men seem totally fine with polygamy, it is only polyandry that bothers them. Seems so long as they can engage in their sexual fantasies and have their women they are fine regardless of the fact that in polygyny, women are left out in the cold. The lack of compassion, concern, and love astounds me.

I mean I get that there are selfish uncaring men, but the fact these LDS men seem totally uncaring toward their wives and daughters really does baffle me. It is as if they truly do not care in the least if their wives are miserable, if their daughters are coerced or manipulated to be the sex object of older men, or if the girls and women they supposedly love are completely miserable and heart broken.

I really don't get it.

2. The fact that Joseph Smith took the wives and daughters of these men for ETERNITY. Again I don't get why LDS men don't have a problem with this. The only thing I can figure is that they don't really love their families and wouldn't really care if it happened to them, or they don't think about what that would mean if it happened to them, or they worship Joseph Smith so deeply that they care more about pleasing Joseph Smith than they do about the fact that men had their families torn away from them for ETERNITY.

The thing is, I know of NO NON-lds men who would be fine with a man taking away his family in this life or the next. I really do not. I know of NO NON-lds men who would be happy to give their daughters to an older man to suffer through this life as a polygamist wife (with the obvious exception of Mormon offshoots and a few guys in prison).

It is as if, because of Joseph Smith and polygamy the normal care, devotion, love of a man for his wife and children is somehow distorted or lessened or removed in some way. Their sexual and ego needs seem to override the concern, love, and well being of a man's wife and daughters.

When we read comments from Jason, Inconceivable, Roger, and other men here who are not such devotees of Joseph Smith, I get a sense of a normal man who loves and cares for his wife and children. When I read comments from some TBMs (say on another board... smile), I get a sense that these men have lost some very normal connection to their wives and daughters. Again, it is as if they just do not care at all, they have no qualms about giving up their wives to a prophet, giving their daughters to an older leader, or giving up their families for eternity.

It is very odd, in my opinion,

~dancer~

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The quote I used was "I will at once go to work preparing it [I.e., John D. Lee's autobiographical confession] adding such facts . . . as will make the Book interesting and useful to the public." The part I left out, as I was editing all my quotes, was "connected with the trial and history of the case."

But, according to several of Lee's biographers, what Bishop added dozens of pages and pages of accounts of crimes in northern Utah with which Lee would have had no familiarity, which were apparently drafted for Bishop (at least in my view) by a Salt Lake Tribune reporter.

Moreover, unknown to Bishop, Lee gave another confession to U.S. Attorney Howard, and the details varied in material respects. So, whatever Bishop added was meant to make the confessions much more salacious and more untruthful. The part I left out, again solely in the interest of brevity, was "connected with the trial and history of the case." That stuff was not material, because "trial and history of the case" encompassed the world of the massacre -- I left it out because it was just redundant.

But, your critique expresses confusion because you apparently think I left that entire sentence out, and you take issue of my use of the sentence, not my removal of ellipsed material. It shows you have merely read Scratch's stuff, not my work.

However, in your case, you cited material without attribution as if you had the original quote, and the original quote as you had it ended with a period, rather than a comma and a whole lot of other words which made my case. Shameful. Sloppy. Dishonest. Just like Scratch and Rollo to cite original material from secondary sources without mentioning the secondary.

The problem here, Bob, is that none of this is in your article. You simply insert the ellipses and jump to the conclusion that none of Lee's Mormonism Unveiled is credible due to the perceived taint of Bishop. Your manipulation of the quote indeed did support your conclusion, but the full quote did not. That's the problem folks are having.

[_Jason Bourne]

What I wonder about bob's defense is this: why is it not equally morally offensive that Joseph Smith took away another man's wife and CHILDREN in the next life?? If one presumes Mormonism is true, then his actions had an eternal impact. Windsor Lyon was a faithful member of the church (except for one brief period where he was ex'd for suing his stake president for never paying back a 3,000 loan) and a loyal friend of Joseph Smith. Yet Joseph Smith took his wife and children away from him.

Why doesn't this bother men in the church???

But clearly what really bothers them is the idea that Sylvia may have been having sex with both Windsor and Joseph.

It's ok that a man could have sex with not just two, but many dozens of "wives", but for a woman to have sex with two husbands.... unthinkable. Outrageous. Anyone who would suggest as much is a hater.

Other than the obvious double standard, this also seems to indicate to me that believers tend not to get riled up about the stuff in the next life... almost as if it weren't real, anyway. It's THIS life that gets them riled up. :)

Well as I noted when discussing Zina Diantha Hunington Jacob with Loran this was what was still troubling to me. Even if this was dynastic, even if there was not sex involved or anything, it would trouble me that my love was going to be with another man in the hereafter. Especiallly if I believed like Henry Jacob and Windsor Lyon did. Why did their wives need some other higher priesthood if they were worthy.

Coggins told me not to trifle with the things of Gods and Godesses or something like that.

Well it is all pretty messy. I know it ticks Coggins, Bob and others off that I am still an attending and participating LDS person but have concluded that polygamy and polyandry was not of God at all. If Joseph Smith was a prophet at all I do not believe he was on this issue. It just is all so ungodly.

[_Yong Xi]

What I wonder about bob's defense is this: why is it not equally morally offensive that Joseph Smith took away another man's wife and CHILDREN in the next life?? If one presumes Mormonism is true, then his actions had an eternal impact. Windsor Lyon was a faithful member of the church (except for one brief period where he was ex'd for suing his stake president for never paying back a 3,000 loan) and a loyal friend of Joseph Smith. Yet Joseph Smith took his wife and children away from him.

Why doesn't this bother men in the church???

But clearly what really bothers them is the idea that Sylvia may have been having sex with both Windsor and Joseph.

It's ok that a man could have sex with not just two, but many dozens of "wives", but for a woman to have sex with two husbands.... unthinkable. Outrageous. Anyone who would suggest as much is a hater.

Other than the obvious double standard, this also seems to indicate to me that believers tend not to get riled up about the stuff in the next life... almost as if it weren't real, anyway. It's THIS life that gets them riled up. :)

Well as I noted when discussing Zina Diantha Hunington Jacob with Loran this was what was still troubling to me. Even if this was dynastic, even if there was not sex involved or anything, it would trouble me that my love was going to be with another man in the hereafter. Especiallly if I believed like Henry Jacob and Windsor Lyon did. Why did their wives need some other higher priesthood if they were worthy.

Coggins told me not to trifle with the things of Gods and Godesses or something like that.

Well it is all pretty messy. I know it ticks Coggins, Bob and others off that I am still an attending and participating LDS person but have concluded that polygamy and polyandry was not of God at all. If Joseph Smith was a prophet at all I do not believe he was on this issue. It just is all so ungodly.

Jason,

In your opinion, why did Joseph Smith institute polygamy? Does your disbelief in polygamy as being divinely inspired cause you difficulty with other LDS doctrines? How do you look past the "ungodly" practice as you describe it, and still hold to the concept of Joseph Smith as prophet (if indeed you do.)

Thanks for responding.

[_beastie]

Well as I noted when discussing Zina Diantha Hunington Jacob with Loran this was what was still troubling to me. Even if this was dynastic, even if there was not sex involved or anything, it would trouble me that my love was going to be with another man in the hereafter. Especiallly if I believed like Henry Jacob and Windsor Lyon did. Why did their wives need some other higher priesthood if they were worthy.

Coggins told me not to trifle with the things of Gods and Godesses or something like that.

Well it is all pretty messy. I know it ticks Coggins, Bob and others off that I am still an attending and participating LDS person but have concluded that polygamy and polyandry was not of God at all. If Joseph Smith was a prophet at all I do not believe he was on this issue. It just is all so ungodly.

I wonder if people like you (and me, when I was still struggling to believe and had a very similar stance to yours), simply take it more seriously than people like bob and coggins. It reminds me of one of my favorite quotes:

It is an insult to God to believe in God. For on the one hand it is to suppose that he has perpetrated acts of incalculable cruelty. On the other hand, it is to suppose that he has perversely given his human creatures an instrument -- their intellect -- which must inevitably lead them, if they are dispassionate and honest, to deny his existence. It is tempting to conclude that if he exists, it is the atheists and agnostics that he loves best, among those with any pretensions to education. For they are the ones who have taken him most seriously. ~Galen Strawson

Of course this would have to be modified to describe the situation of a believer who rejects polygamy and polyandry. But it does seem to me that one who takes God and his morality very seriously, and considers these things in the larger perspective of that morality, would be compelled to reject polygamy and polyandry. Does anyone doubt that bob and coggins would object to their own wives and children being taken from them and "given" to some other man, to regard as HIS wife and children, if they were also worthy of inheriting the CK in the first place? Does anyone doubt that they would suffer the pangs of hell over such an abandonment and betrayal? So why do they not have the ability to exercise enough imagination to feel the empathy and compassion that would allow them to feel just a taste of that hell? And logically reject it as ungodly?

I really think it's because they're not taking it that seriously.

[_Jason Bourne]

In your opinion, why did Joseph Smith institute polygamy?

Well I have narrowed it down to to choices. First, he really believed that it was part of the restoration of all things and thus instituted it as part of that process. But I think he was mistaken about that and it was his own opinion, not God's. There is some indication that he intended to put an end to it before but he was murdered before he could do so. The other choice is he did it to justify his own desires to be with more women. I prefer choice one, but fear choice two may be the actual reason.

Does your disbelief in polygamy as being divinely inspired cause you difficulty with other LDS doctrines?

Certainly it has challenged my whole paradigm. Really I think I have re-defined what it means to be a prophet. I believe Joseph was inspired to start a religious work that could and would be a boon to the the life of many humans. I think much of what he brought was good and inspiring. But I think like all prophets through out the ages, he got a lot of his own ideas in the mix, polygamy being the biggest error.

How do you look past the "ungodly" practice as you describe it, and still hold to the concept of Joseph Smith as prophet (if indeed you do.)

I take the good and ignore the not so good. However, the one and only true church concept has been difficult for me to hold on too. I believe God inspires many people to teach spiritual ideas and doctrine that can help them find meaning in this life and come closer to God. Mormonism will work for some, Islam for others, Catholicism for others and so on. And for some no religions may work better and they can still be quite moral and even spiritual in a way. No one religion or way is perfect and the only way to God, peace and happiness in a difficult and troubling world. And I do not like extremism at all.

Is this position difficult for a active practicing Mormon? It can be. Does it put me in a hypocritical position at times. Yes and that bothers me as well. I have considered options on that and not sure what to do. There are other religions where one can worship and be accepted even if their views vary from the dogma. That is tough to do as a Mormon at least in Church on Sunday. I don't talk much about mt views with anyone. I wish I could and still be accepted as a participating LDSer. I think it was Kimberly who talked about how issues of religion are debated and discussed quite open,y in her Methodist congregation. That would never fly in the LDS Church setting. Can you imagine an open discussion about polyandry in SS? Or even a more benign issue like how was tbe Book of Mormon really translated?

[_truth dancer]

Hi Jason,

I think much of what he brought was good and inspiring.

What specifically do you think Joseph Smith brought that was good and inspiring?



~dancer~

Don't mean to derail this thread but am curious... :-)

[_antishock8]

Does your disbelief in polygamy as being divinely inspired cause you difficulty with other LDS doctrines?

Certainly it has challenged my whole paradigm. Really I think I have re-defined what it means to be a prophet. I believe Joseph was inspired to start a religious work that could and would be a boon to the the life of many humans. I think much of what he brought was good and inspiring. But I think like all prophets through out the ages, he got a lot of his own ideas in the mix, polygamy being the biggest error.

How do you look past the "ungodly" practice as you describe it, and still hold to the concept of Joseph Smith as prophet (if indeed you do.)

I take the good and ignore the not so good. However, the one and only true church concept has been difficult for me to hold on too. I believe God inspires many people to teach spiritual ideas and doctrine that can help them find meaning in this life and come closer to God. Mormonism will work for some, Islam for others, Catholicism for others and so on. And for some no religions may work better and they can still be quite moral and even spiritual in a way. No one religion... [is] the only way to God, peace and happiness in a difficult and troubling world. And I do not like extremism at all.

No surprise a Mormon has to redefine a doctrine/work/tenet/idea in order to accommodate belief. However, Jason, you do realize you're an apostate with that "more than one path to God" idea, no?

[_Jason Bourne]

Well as I noted when discussing Zina Diantha Hunington Jacob with Loran this was what was still troubling to me. Even if this was dynastic, even if there was not sex involved or anything, it would trouble me that my love was going to be with another man in the hereafter. Especiallly if I believed like Henry Jacob and Windsor Lyon did. Why did their wives need some other higher priesthood if they were worthy.

Coggins told me not to trifle with the things of Gods and Godesses or something like that.

Well it is all pretty messy. I know it ticks Coggins, Bob and others off that I am still an attending and participating LDS person but have concluded that polygamy and polyandry was not of God at all. If Joseph Smith was a prophet at all I do not believe he was on this issue. It just is all so ungodly.

I wonder if people like you (and me, when I was still struggling to believe and had a very similar stance to yours), simply take it more seriously than people like bob and coggins. It reminds me of one of my favorite quotes:

It is an insult to God to believe in God. For on the one hand it is to suppose that he has perpetrated acts of incalculable cruelty. On the other hand, it is to suppose that he has perversely given his human creatures an instrument -- their intellect -- which must inevitably lead them, if they are dispassionate and honest, to deny his existence. It is tempting to conclude that if he exists, it is the atheists and agnostics that he loves best, among those with any pretensions to education. For they are the ones who have taken him most seriously. ~Galen Strawson

Of course this would have to be modified to describe the situation of a believer who rejects polygamy and polyandry. But it does seem to me that one who takes God and his morality very seriously, and considers these things in the larger perspective of that morality, would be compelled to reject polygamy and polyandry. Does anyone doubt that bob and coggins would object to their own wives and children being taken from them and "given" to some other man, to regard as HIS wife and children, if they were also worthy of inheriting the CK in the first place? Does anyone doubt that they would suffer the pangs of hell over such an abandonment and betrayal? So why do they not have the ability to exercise enough imagination to feel the empathy and compassion that would allow them to feel just a taste of that hell? And logically reject it as ungodly?

I really think it's because they're not taking it that seriously.

I think this is keen insight. I do not think it is as TD posited, that these men do not love their wives or families. I do not think most in the 19th century were like that. Henry Jacobs certainly adored Zina it seems, at least based on his letters. Yet he was a staunch believer in Joseph Smith's and BY's calls. I am not sure how he maintained it all. Modern day LDS men really see this in the abstract for the most part. It is not real in the here and now. Oh there may be a few who look forward to many wives in the eternal realm. I do not think most do and most don't give it much thought. If they do they call it a hard doctrine, like Coggins has here and attribute the acceptance of it to might faith. They believe that our eyes will be opened to greater understanding and we will be able to live in such a way if asked to do so in Heaven. Even Charity takes this position and talks about it being a true act of love.

Now I understand that religion goes beyond current reason on many aspects. But for me at least I cannot see God purposefully testing his believers in such a cruel way. My sight may be limited. But to ask a man to give his wife or women to share their true love with many others goes beyond reason. And so do other so called tests. But I focus on this one because it it the topic of this thread.