Mormonism's Greatest Downfall.

[_William Schryver]

dissonance:

The only way to escape polygamy after 1852 was to be dead, broke, or ugly.

And, also quoting you:

Your ignorance of LDS history is appalling.

I’m sure you’re a great grandmother. Of that, I have no doubts at all. But you know next to nothing about LDS history. Indeed, you are just about as ignorant as it is possible to be. I'm beginning to believe it is intentional on your part.

As for having to be “dead, broke, or ugly” to escape polygamy after 1852, I give the following evidence to the contrary:

I am a descendant of the following Mormon family lines: Waite (arrived in SL valley in 1848), Barnes (1856), Hardy (1860), and Collins (1872).

Despite a preponderance of female offspring in these families (a trend that continues to this day in my family) there were no plural marriages among them. Despite being a descendant of several old pioneer families, I don’t have a single polygamist in my pedigree! And, incidentally, I have the photos – they were beautiful women. Very much so. And they were, almost without exception, quite prosperous.

So, the bottom line is that your theory is completely flawed. No one, especially women, was forced into plural marriage in pioneer-era Utah. And any woman who so desired could obtain a divorce simply on the basis of her expressed dissatisfaction with the marriage. It happened all the time.

[_Fionn]

It does not seem that the plural wives of Joseph Smith were unduly harmed by their experience. When Joseph Smith died all went there own way not exactly sharing their experience but with no regrets either. I think that that says much about plural marriage during Joseph Smith's time.

If by "went there (sic) own way" you mean several were passed along to Joseph's inner circle, then you would be correct. My g-g-g-grandfather, Heber C. Kimball, ended up married to several of Joseph's widows and at least one of Hyrum's.

http://www.familysearch.org/eng/search/ ... esults.asp

Look particularly at marriages made in Hancock County Illinois between 1844-1845.

This was prior to the westward trek, so these women didn't need "help and protection" as widows crossing the plains. They were being passed along like the chattel they were considered to be. They didn't have children by Joseph, so there were no fatherless children needing protection.

All I can say is, I am thrilled not to be going to the CK. You can have it, polygamy and the glory. Who needs it?

[_Jason Bourne]

And yet Mormonism appears to be proceeding forward unhindered by the supposed impediment of its past (and, admittedly, probable future) embrace of plural marriage.

Certainly one of the reasons the Church proceeds forward is because is abandoned the impediment. Clearly the Church was on the verge of destruction and was not prospering at all in the late 19th century, primarily because of polygamy. And it took 50 years after the second manifesto before the Church really started to be remotely accepted. And even today the black mark is there. Look how quickly the Church is tagged to the FLDS.

As for the future I think you are simply fantasizing. The Church will never ever bring polygamy back as a real life practice. The LDS Church is more anti Polygamy than any group out there and I believe current leaders wished it never happened. If they institute it in the near future it would mean huge losses in membership and growth. Just not gonna happen.

I think the principles and doctrines at the root of plural marriage are undoubtedly the “acid test” for many people. It is what separated the “sheep from the goats” (as it were) in Nauvoo. People like William Law, his brother Wilson, William Marks, etc., could not come to grips with the “principle,” whereas Brigham Young, John Taylor, the Pratts, etc. could and did.

Would you feel the same way were you looking at this for say a David Koresh type?

And the body of the Church was not negatively affected by the defections in Nauvoo, just as it was not hampered by the previous periods of defection in Far West and Kirtland. If anything, history shows that these periods of intense apostate activity in the Church are always followed by a corresponding growth spurt that more than compensates for losses to apostasy – almost like an apple tree that, after being severely pruned, rebounds with more and better fruit the following season.

Really this is nonsensical and is an argument made to make you feel good about losing massive numbers. Rarely is it good to lose souls in a religion.

I have found the concepts contained in Joseph Smith’s letter to Nancy Rigdon to be a very reliable sifter of the Saints. Those who take offense at it will, if they have not already, eventually fall away. Those who view it as an expression of the mind of God will always remain faithful.

Some of the concepts in the letter are fine. However, they really lay the groundwork for the one claiming to speak for God to have excessive power that could be abused. If God really does change so easily as the letter proposes then we better be sure the person speaking for God really is speaking for God. Unfortunately the letter really appears to be more abusive then godly.

[_William Schryver]

Fionn:

All I can say is, I am thrilled not to be going to the CK. You can have it, polygamy and the glory. Who needs it?

Of course, that is your prerogative, just as plural marriage was always subject to the prerogative of the females involved.

For this eternal truth is given: that God will force no man [or woman] to heaven.

[_Fionn]

...just as plural marriage was always subject to the prerogative of the females involved.

While that is likely true for at least some women (Eliza R. Snow springs to mind), I doubt it holds true for all. Especially when combined with fear of losing one's eternal salvation as a consequence of refusal.

[_karl61]

Harmony wrote:

"Indeed, Joseph showed no interest in polygamy at all... until he took Fanny to bed."

I don't think he took her to bed. He took her to the barn.

[_TAK]

Harmony wrote:

"Indeed, Joseph showed no interest in polygamy at all... until he took Fanny to bed."

I don't think he took her to bed. He took her to the barn.

To put a slightly finer point.. Joseph did not show an interest in polygamy until he was found out about he and Fanny's exploits..

[_William Schryver]

...just as plural marriage was always subject to the prerogative of the females involved.

While that is likely true for at least some women (Eliza R. Snow springs to mind), I doubt it holds true for all. Especially when combined with fear of losing one's eternal salvation as a consequence of refusal.

I want to see a reference for this claim. Who was threatened with losing their eternal salvation if they did not submit to being a plural wife?

And just a hint: the experience of Helen Mar Kimball will not help your cause. She was promised something, but she was never threatened with losing something. There is a profound difference.

And furthermore, her experience was very unique. I am aware of no other similar examples during the pioneer era. Take Amelia Folsom, for instance. Was she coerced into becoming Brigham Young's wife, despite a huge age difference between the two? Was she coerced into remaining with him? What about Ann Eliza Webb?

It never ceases to amaze me how you people can be so willfully ignorant of the facts when it comes to these things.

[_Kishkumen]

And just a hint: the experience of Helen Mar Kimball will not help your cause. She was promised something, but she was never threatened with losing something. There is a profound difference.

OMG. Semantics, the last refuge of the shameless, hair-splitting apologist. What a bozo.

[_William Schryver]

And just a hint: the experience of Helen Mar Kimball will not help your cause. She was promised something, but she was never threatened with losing something. There is a profound difference.

OMG. Semantics, the last refuge of the shameless, hair-splitting apologist. What a bozo.

Fine, Kissassman. For the sake of argument, let's say I grant you the whole Helen Mar Kimball episode. Now produce other examples where a woman was threatened with negative consequences for not entering into plural marriage.

You know next to nothing about these things, except the major exmormon talking points.

Did I mention that you are a freakish cartoon character?