Recovery Board
: RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum.
I think every one of these points is a "spin lie".
"...The Book of Mormon identifies one reason for God to command it: to increase the number of children born in the gospel covenant in order to “raise up seed". Plural marriage did result in the birth of large numbers of children within faithful Latter-day Saint homes. It also shaped 19th-century Mormon society in other ways: marriage became available to virtually all who desired it; per-capita inequality of wealth was diminished as economically disadvantaged women married into more financially stable households; and ethnic intermarriages were increased, which helped to unite a diverse immigrant population....Church leaders viewed plural marriage as a command to the Church generally, while recognizing that individuals who did not enter the practice could still stand approved of God. Women were free to choose their spouses, whether to enter into a polygamous or monogamous union, or whether to marry at all."
At least they dropped the "take care of the widows from persecution" line....
"...The Book of Mormon identifies one reason for God to command it: to increase the number of children born in the gospel covenant in order to “raise up seed". Plural marriage did result in the birth of large numbers of children within faithful Latter-day Saint homes. It also shaped 19th-century Mormon society in other ways: marriage became available to virtually all who desired it; per-capita inequality of wealth was diminished as economically disadvantaged women married into more financially stable households; and ethnic intermarriages were increased, which helped to unite a diverse immigrant population....Church leaders viewed plural marriage as a command to the Church generally, while recognizing that individuals who did not enter the practice could still stand approved of God. Women were free to choose their spouses, whether to enter into a polygamous or monogamous union, or whether to marry at all."
At least they dropped the "take care of the widows from persecution" line....
They also dropped the "there were too many women" line.
oops, I spoke too soon....
I missed the part in the article saying :
"Indeed, this system of marriage could not have been universal due to the ratio of men to women."
whatever that means. lol, they aren't exactly forthcoming with this explanation. In one sentence they couch the old belief of men-women ratio while not coming out and actually explaining that particular mormon misconception. Just in case anyone reads this who still believes there was a male-female ratio imbalance in mormon history they are appeased while still never been alerted to the real truth that there was not a male-female ratio imbalance.
This writer is clever and tricky.
I missed the part in the article saying :
"Indeed, this system of marriage could not have been universal due to the ratio of men to women."
whatever that means. lol, they aren't exactly forthcoming with this explanation. In one sentence they couch the old belief of men-women ratio while not coming out and actually explaining that particular mormon misconception. Just in case anyone reads this who still believes there was a male-female ratio imbalance in mormon history they are appeased while still never been alerted to the real truth that there was not a male-female ratio imbalance.
This writer is clever and tricky.
Even though church leaders preached that practicing polygamy was essential to salvation, if every Mormon man married two or three women, then there wouldn't be enough single women to go around after just a few years. So in effect, church leaders issued a commandment that in practice was impossible for all to obey. Maybe Brigham Young shoulda done the math before he married 56 women. :-)
Plural marriage creates an ethnically diverse population? It does precisely the opposite by creating a DNA chokepoint. My Mormon great grandfather married three biological sisters. My family is plagued with mental illness. Diverse is what we're not.
That point is a lie.
That point is a lie.
This is from Sarah Pratt, married to an early Apostle, Orson Pratt:
Sarah Pratt ended her marriage to husband Orson Pratt in 1868 because of his "obsession with marrying younger women"[31] and condemned polygamy because:
“ [polygamy] completely demoralizes good men and makes bad men correspondingly worse. As for the women—well, God help them! First wives it renders desperate, or else heart-broken, mean-spirited creatures.[32] ”
Pratt was one of the founders of the Anti-Polygamy Society in Salt Lake City.[4] Pratt lashed out at Orson in an 1877 interview,
“ Here was my husband, gray headed, taking to his bed young girls in mockery of marriage. Of course there could be no joy for him in such an intercourse except for the indulgence of his fanaticism and of something else, perhaps, which I hesitate to mention.[33]
Having an abortion doctor refutes the need to raise seed:
[Bennett was en route to do] "a little job for Joseph [because] one of his women was in trouble." Saying this, he took [out] a pretty long instrument of a kind I had never seen before. It seemed to be of steel and was crooked at one end. I heard afterwards that the operation had been performed; that the woman was very sick, and that Joseph was very much afraid that she might die, but she recovered.[27] ”
Pratt also related her observations of Bennett's work for Joseph Smith to Smith's son Joseph Smith III,[28]
“ I saw that he was not inclined to believe the truth about his father, so I said to him: 'You pretend to have revelations from the Lord. Why don't you ask the Lord to tell you what kind of a man your father really was?' He answered: 'If my father had so many connections with women, where is the progeny?' I said to him: 'Your father had mostly intercourse with married women, and as to single ones, Dr. Bennett was always on hand, when anything happened.'[29]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Marinda_Bates_Pratt
Sarah Pratt ended her marriage to husband Orson Pratt in 1868 because of his "obsession with marrying younger women"[31] and condemned polygamy because:
“ [polygamy] completely demoralizes good men and makes bad men correspondingly worse. As for the women—well, God help them! First wives it renders desperate, or else heart-broken, mean-spirited creatures.[32] ”
Pratt was one of the founders of the Anti-Polygamy Society in Salt Lake City.[4] Pratt lashed out at Orson in an 1877 interview,
“ Here was my husband, gray headed, taking to his bed young girls in mockery of marriage. Of course there could be no joy for him in such an intercourse except for the indulgence of his fanaticism and of something else, perhaps, which I hesitate to mention.[33]
Having an abortion doctor refutes the need to raise seed:
[Bennett was en route to do] "a little job for Joseph [because] one of his women was in trouble." Saying this, he took [out] a pretty long instrument of a kind I had never seen before. It seemed to be of steel and was crooked at one end. I heard afterwards that the operation had been performed; that the woman was very sick, and that Joseph was very much afraid that she might die, but she recovered.[27] ”
Pratt also related her observations of Bennett's work for Joseph Smith to Smith's son Joseph Smith III,[28]
“ I saw that he was not inclined to believe the truth about his father, so I said to him: 'You pretend to have revelations from the Lord. Why don't you ask the Lord to tell you what kind of a man your father really was?' He answered: 'If my father had so many connections with women, where is the progeny?' I said to him: 'Your father had mostly intercourse with married women, and as to single ones, Dr. Bennett was always on hand, when anything happened.'[29]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Marinda_Bates_Pratt
And: " It also shaped 19th-century Mormon society in other ways: marriage became available to virtually all who desired it;"
This is a patent lie. Marriage was NOT availabe to all who desired it. The institution and practice of polygamy guickly became a cockhold on the number of available women within the Mormon community. Even in Nauvoo Mormon men of status were scoping out younger and younger women. In a very short time were laying claims upon girls not yet even out of puberty before the girls even had a chance to experience their first real crush.
In Utah, young men were sent on missions with express instructions to recruit as many women as possible and send them back to Utah unmarried. A frustrated Heber Kimball is recorded to have been pissed off about missionaries who were marrying the prettiest girls during their missions before the old farts back home had a chance to look them over and use political influence to add them to their herd of "cows." (Admittedly, a combination of quotes.) In fact, the lust and greed of those men in power lead to the "revelation" that a woman may remarry a man of "higher priesthood authority," but only with the current husband's consent. But what man, after witnessing a castration or two (an ACTUAL historical event of a young man refusing to let his sweetheart be given to a foul, wrinkled, pee-smelling bishop) is going to refuse to turn over his beautiful young wife to to the demands of a deranged, butchering letch calling himself god's annointed?
The wife grabbing game lead to a severe shortage of available women of any age within the Mormon faith, and a huge surplus of healthy, viable, productive available men who COULD NOT find a Mormon girl or woman to marry. They were expected to find a stranger to the Mormon faith and often married without full disclosure to the prospective bride. Most people consider omissions that important to be constructive fraud.
Now, a TBM will certainly say, "I see no lie here. The excess men were not prohibited from seeking marriage outside church membership, so the article is not lying. And, the article expressly used the word "virtually." So, that speaks of the men who didn't have enough to offer to attract a wife in marriage."
As a child I was taught to draw someone deliberately to a misleading misleading conclusion is as good as an outright lie, and worthy of punishment. Many people were reared that way. That discomfort with Mormon prevarication is probably why so many have found their way to this web site.
This is a patent lie. Marriage was NOT availabe to all who desired it. The institution and practice of polygamy guickly became a cockhold on the number of available women within the Mormon community. Even in Nauvoo Mormon men of status were scoping out younger and younger women. In a very short time were laying claims upon girls not yet even out of puberty before the girls even had a chance to experience their first real crush.
In Utah, young men were sent on missions with express instructions to recruit as many women as possible and send them back to Utah unmarried. A frustrated Heber Kimball is recorded to have been pissed off about missionaries who were marrying the prettiest girls during their missions before the old farts back home had a chance to look them over and use political influence to add them to their herd of "cows." (Admittedly, a combination of quotes.) In fact, the lust and greed of those men in power lead to the "revelation" that a woman may remarry a man of "higher priesthood authority," but only with the current husband's consent. But what man, after witnessing a castration or two (an ACTUAL historical event of a young man refusing to let his sweetheart be given to a foul, wrinkled, pee-smelling bishop) is going to refuse to turn over his beautiful young wife to to the demands of a deranged, butchering letch calling himself god's annointed?
The wife grabbing game lead to a severe shortage of available women of any age within the Mormon faith, and a huge surplus of healthy, viable, productive available men who COULD NOT find a Mormon girl or woman to marry. They were expected to find a stranger to the Mormon faith and often married without full disclosure to the prospective bride. Most people consider omissions that important to be constructive fraud.
Now, a TBM will certainly say, "I see no lie here. The excess men were not prohibited from seeking marriage outside church membership, so the article is not lying. And, the article expressly used the word "virtually." So, that speaks of the men who didn't have enough to offer to attract a wife in marriage."
As a child I was taught to draw someone deliberately to a misleading misleading conclusion is as good as an outright lie, and worthy of punishment. Many people were reared that way. That discomfort with Mormon prevarication is probably why so many have found their way to this web site.
I agree. I think pretty much every sentence in that paragraph is a complete lie or totally misleading at best.
These jackasses just pile insult on injury. Many, especially women, suffered horribly under the categorically misogynistic abuse of polygamy...and not just LDS. Theres a whole subculture of polygamy still in America and in islamic cultures the abuse is too vast to mention. Gawd youve got to be stoned to just buy such a trite transparent excuse. Theyre saying those women had it good? If polygamy was a stable, loving model of family life the church should extol specific examples...even IF they stopped practicing it. Fact is, details damn it. When you actually look for examples of the blessings they claim...not there. Whats there? Heartache. Abuse. Sexism.
Mormons often claim we apostates really know in our hearts its true but we deny it...pot, meet kettle. Mormons are VERY uncomfortable discussing polygamy. It scares them. It offends their conscience and they have to ignore it or rationalize it...and when it comes time to DEFEND it only a very few propagandists are willing to. Otherwise you can go YEARS in mormonism and rarely hear it spoken of. Its sacred they might say. Problem is, sacred is an excuse to cover up abuse. When evil disingenuous whistleblowers call foul they kill the messenger.
Mormons often claim we apostates really know in our hearts its true but we deny it...pot, meet kettle. Mormons are VERY uncomfortable discussing polygamy. It scares them. It offends their conscience and they have to ignore it or rationalize it...and when it comes time to DEFEND it only a very few propagandists are willing to. Otherwise you can go YEARS in mormonism and rarely hear it spoken of. Its sacred they might say. Problem is, sacred is an excuse to cover up abuse. When evil disingenuous whistleblowers call foul they kill the messenger.
Brigham Young had 55 wives. He had 57 children. Let's forget that only 16 of those women bore those children for a minute.
55 wives with only 57 kids. Imagine how many "seed" could have been raised up if those women had one husband. If each wife had only four kids, that raises up 220 head of Mormon.
If each of those 16 women had their own husband, and stopped having children at only 4 kids each, it is 64. Still more than Brigham sired.
55 wives with only 57 kids. Imagine how many "seed" could have been raised up if those women had one husband. If each wife had only four kids, that raises up 220 head of Mormon.
If each of those 16 women had their own husband, and stopped having children at only 4 kids each, it is 64. Still more than Brigham sired.
Why do they think for a minute that they can fool people by a few well placed words (that many don't know the meaning of)in every single thing they write? Or, are they only hoping to keep the uneducated and low scale literate on the hook?
Before I left in 2011, I was getting progressively uncomfortable with the articles the church was putting out. I was seeing too many words that were being used that had double meanings, or were the kind of words many people would skim over because they weren't sure of the meaning. Church writings were becoming thick with that kind of thing. I had to wonder why they weren't putting it all out there in plain, clear, understandable language for all?
Once I went online with no fear, I saw the 'why' of it very clearly. Their intent was to deceive as many and as much as possible. They have to be laughing in their cokes at how gullible members are.
Words that begin with the letters WR are some of their favorites. Almost every word that begins with these two letters have a meaning that is related in some way to twisting, bending, and changing the shape of.
Take a look here:http://www.morewords.com/starts-with/wr/
The mormon church is currently (has always?)been obsessed with bending the word or words they use. That's the biggest red flag of all IMO.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2014 10:20PM by madalice.
Before I left in 2011, I was getting progressively uncomfortable with the articles the church was putting out. I was seeing too many words that were being used that had double meanings, or were the kind of words many people would skim over because they weren't sure of the meaning. Church writings were becoming thick with that kind of thing. I had to wonder why they weren't putting it all out there in plain, clear, understandable language for all?
Once I went online with no fear, I saw the 'why' of it very clearly. Their intent was to deceive as many and as much as possible. They have to be laughing in their cokes at how gullible members are.
Words that begin with the letters WR are some of their favorites. Almost every word that begins with these two letters have a meaning that is related in some way to twisting, bending, and changing the shape of.
Take a look here:http://www.morewords.com/starts-with/wr/
The mormon church is currently (has always?)been obsessed with bending the word or words they use. That's the biggest red flag of all IMO.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2014 10:20PM by madalice.
Here’s what’s glossed over or omitted entirely:
They say the manifesto is mentioned as inspired by God. They offer a brief description of the manifesto: “This essay primarily addresses plural marriage as practiced by the Latter-day Saints between 1847 and 1890, following their exodus to the U.S. West and before the Manifesto.”
The article claims that after the manifesto plural marriages were not practiced in the U.S.A. They fail to mention that members of the Quorum of 12 apostles were practicing after the “inspired” revelation ban proclaimed by Woodruff. Of course, to address the issues prior to their exodus to Utah and following the manifesto involves too many “troublesome” issues that they do not want to address out of fear that major deceptions would be easily pointed out. Once again they cherry-pick what they will and won’t address so they appear in the most favorable light, which sounds like the Richard Bushman writing style. The problem is that it’s STILL deceptive as they leave out the more deceptive parts in a bid to deceive even further.
>“In 1904, the Church strictly prohibited new plural marriages. Today, any person who practices plural marriage cannot become or remain a member of the Church.”
They omit the fact that plural marriage is still considered a celestial Mormon law, which will be practiced after they are no longer in this world. They also omit that many members are married, sealed in temple marriage, to more than one person when their spouse dies and they remarry, therefore they are in fact in a plural marriage on paper and in the eyes of God. In the western law the prior marriage is null and void after death, allowing the person to re-marry legally without being considered a polygamist. Not so in mormonism. Their spouse is dead so they aren’t practicing it physically, but in every other regard the Mormon church does honor and perform and recognise plural marriage as an ordinance that is ordained in their temples whenever one spouse remarries while still married to their deceased spouse.
They do not explain Government involvement at this point. Instead they describe polygamy. This is clever because you will read their version, which is contradictory and confusing. At the end, after they soften your heart and rattle your mind to their version, they describe some of the government acts. That’s very clever.
They start their blurb with an excuse: “Latter-day Saints do not understand all of God’s purposes for instituting, through His prophets, the practice of plural marriage during the 19th century.”
Then what is the purpose of having prophets if not to understand such important and controversial issues and topics? The lure and bait for Mormon missionary work is to sell mormonism based on the premise that they alone have a prophet to guide, direct and reveal things to the members based on truth – the one truth. If ever there was a time or topic for God’s truth this surely would be one of the many within mormonism. They uphold the practice and purpose of prophets while simultaneously state that they do not understand all of God’s purposes for instituting the practice even though they are the only church authorized by God with Prophet revelation to instruct and clear up such issues.
Now that they set the groundwork for the rest of their article they fail to mention the issues they DO know. The sexual mess Emma Smith caught Joseph engaging in prior to the D&C revelation. They don't address the question of Emma requesting to marry Law.
The D&C revelation date discrepancies.
To do so might expose their on-going fraud, deception and lying for the sake of mormonism. Yep, they leave all those issues out of polygamy.
>“ethnic intermarriages were increased, which helped to unite a diverse immigrant population.”
Of course by that they mean white Caucasian marriages. Blacks were a non-issue, but that's another essay.
>“Plural marriage also helped create and strengthen a sense of cohesion and group identification among Latter-day Saints.”
Seriously?
I’ve read many of the polygamy accounts and they were a nightmare! Last week a faithful lds co-worker described his polygamous ancestry story to me. He said that one of the wives was from Sweden and was the ‘favorite”. This did NOT go over well with the other wives and she was treated terribly. The other wives called her all sorts of names due to jealousy and favoritism. Currently in the t.v. series, “sister wives” it is likewise impossible for the Brown family to conceal their jealousy of the new wife addition. They say they aren’t jealous while other words and actions speak louder than their final claim that they are not jealous.
Lol, it’s quite a joke as they try to hood-wink their public to not pay attention to jealousy issues because they outrightly claim they are not jealous. It’s twisted denial when a person makes a final claim that is contradictory to other previous claims and actions. I’ve heard many historical stories that are worse than the Browns modern day story, but still apologists claim that it “also helped create and strengthen a sense of cohesion and group identification among Latter-day Saints.”
>“Church members came to see themselves as a “peculiar people,” covenant-bound to carry out the commands of God despite outside opposition, willing to endure ostracism for their principles.
No, non-members came to see them as people with a “persecution complex people” who claim they have been and still are persecuted.... where every generation whines and complains about how persecuted they are for keeping God’s commandments; poor me types who are afraid of ostracism and often become clicky within their own group.
Hmmm, peculiar people theory upholds an erroneous ego complex which is usually seen within Mormons and also makes it difficult for Mormons to see the actual truth of what really happened. Peculiar people theory is another way of psychologically keeping the members from seeing the truth behind the deceptive stories the past and present apologists claim by enticing ego-mania and pridefullness through false erroneous history deception.
>“For these early Latter-day Saints, plural marriage was a religious principle that required personal sacrifice. Accounts left by men and women who practiced plural marriage attest to the challenges and difficulties they experienced, such as financial difficulty, interpersonal strife, and some wives’ longing for the sustained companionship of their husbands.”
Wait, this is contradictory to the previous paragraph supporting polygamy they said: “per-capita inequality of wealth was diminished as economically disadvantaged women married into more financially stable households.”
Which is it, financial difficulty or financial stability. Was inequality of wealth diminished with financially stable households, or were they challenged with financial difficulty and interpersonal strife. This is the type of on-going generational decade upon decade double-speak and deception I’m familiar with in the Mormon apologetic methods and this article follows traditional suit. These type of back-and-forth deceptive techniques are used to confuse and confound readers who are believing and trusting souls, and/or who lack critical skills to analyze and diagnose or discernment toward lies and deception – especially when it is coming from church leaders they have already raised their arm to sustain and trust.
They confuse and counter their above 2 contradictions again by immediately stating another viewpoint: “But accounts also record the love and joy many found within their families.”
of course the apologists cannot write clear, concise data, because they are mired down in a foggy brain of deception and pumping out deception, therefore their pen writes the same deceptive way their mind thinks.
> “They believed it was a commandment of God at that time and that obedience would bring great blessings to them and their posterity, both on earth and in the life to come. While there was much love, tenderness, and affection within many plural marriages, the practice was generally based more on religious belief than on romantic love.12 Church leaders taught that participants in plural marriages should seek to develop a generous spirit of unselfishness and the pure love of Christ for everyone involved.”
Above shows how they counter their brief admission that there were a lot of hardships in polygamous marriages. They sandwich the hardship statement between comments that polygamists brought unity, financial stability and love and was a way to develop a generous spirit of unselfishness and pure love of Christ for everyone involved......except for those for whom it did NOT, and that was for many of the wives and children involved in the practice.
Here is a prime example of how people brainwash through beliefs and teachings of those beliefs. They take a precarious issue and sandwich the truth between a few lies, just as they did in the above scenario. The believing member reads a sweet positive statement that it was ordained and positive. Then the person reads the truth, that it caused problems financially and socially. Their mind recognizes the truth statement. Then it’s couched and hidden behind at least one or two more sweet positive statements which aren’t truthful or accurate, saying that it was a commandment to bring great blessings (which the mind assumes is a positive outcome).
It’s what I call the lie sandwich and I’ve seen all kinds of religious beliefs do this from Hindu, Buddhist teachers right down to this very article. The believing mind reads the sweet, recognizes the truth inserted and sandwiched in the middle, but wait – the truth statement largely contradicts the previous sweet statement. Then they read the final sweet positive statement (usually emphasized by a commandment type of technique, which this article uses as well to ignite the internal desire for obedience) and what happens after the believing Mormon reads this type of sandwich? They forget the truth inserted in the middle because they focus on the positive sweet concepts that countered it at the beginning and the end; then the fear of disobedience whips them at the end and they say, “It was god’s commandment and we need to trust God’s commandment.”
Remember that if the believing member catches on to this type of ‘sandwich’ brainwashing technique they can re-read it and the preface is written claiming the writers over-all ignorance by saying, “Latter-day Saints do not understand all of God’s purposes for instituting, through His prophets, the practice of plural marriage during the 19th century.”
Now the believer is back to the original excuse and allowance that qualifies the big deceptive sandwich they just consumed. Because most people aren’t aware that this type of written programming deceptive technique is commonly used by many deceptive writers they will not recognize that they’ve been given an excuse to couch a positive comment which is actually a full lie, followed by a few half-lies/half truths, followed by a few ommissions, followed by a discreetly placed truth statement, followed by another full lie which is positive, followed by a reminder that it was a commandment followed by a few other very positive results the commandment was supposed to offer if it was obeyed. The cue to obey sends a message to the mind which re-directs the mind to believe in spite of the fact that the person just read a truth couched between a few positive sounding full-lies or half-lies or nasty sounding half-lies.
>“all were required to obtain the approval of Church leaders before entering a plural marriage.”
What about the Apostles who were in polygamous marriages after the manifesto agreement? Did they have approval if it was in place prior to the manifesto ban? Oops, the writer of this article ‘forgot’ to mention anything about the Apostles in plural marriage after the manifesto and since those church apostles WERE the Church Leaders it becomes something of a joke really.
>“Where the family lived—whether in Salt Lake City, with its multiple social and cultural opportunities, or the rural hinterlands, where such opportunities were fewer in number—made a difference in how plural marriage was experienced. It is therefore difficult to accurately generalize about the experience of all plural marriages.”
Hmmm, they managed to GENERALIZE about the experience of plural marriages in the above paragraphs enough to give the believing member the illusory concept that they were good, and even going so far as to note the many positive benefits of living a plural marriage. Clearly their concession that it isn’t accurate to generalize about the experience of all plural marriages is an ‘out’ and an excuse for the many marriages that were recorded as ghastly nightmares. That doesn’t stop them from generalizing in their previous paragraphs, but now they put in a clause that it is difficult to ACCURATELY GENERALIZE. So their conceding that their previous overview was an Inaccurate generalization?
Why would they write an inaccurate generalization and then a few paragraphs down state that it’s difficult to Accurately generalize. Was their prior generalization supposed to be accurate or inaccurate? This further consciously and/or subconsciously confuses the reader. These sorts of articles explain how and why lds members brain is a large cognitive-dissonant pretzel waiting to baked in the Mormon oven of accurately inaccurate generalizations.
The next paragraph counters by saying: “Church leaders recognized that plural marriages could be particularly difficult for women.”
Wait, in the paragraphs previously they said that it was sunshine, roses and gods commandment for a lot of bliss. Or wait, did they say it was troublesome. Nope, they said it was great and positive because it offered all kinds of fantastic perks, bonuses and joy-filled blessings. Nope, now their saying that even though it was a positive experience and there is NO ACCURATE GENERALIZATION for polygamists now they’re conceding that there was enough data to make church leaders recongize that plural marriages could be PARTICULARLY :difficult: for women and because of this “Divorce was therefore available to women who were unhappy in their marriages.”
I think it’s safe to say that debating the inaccuracy of generalizations based on their previous assertion that no one could accurately compare the outcome of marriages in rural environments vs city environments is ridiculous at this point in the article. If a rule was put in place to accommodate unhappy marriages during an era when divorce wasn’t commonly practiced as it is in this century, it is pretty clear that it isn’t a generalization to say that overall polygamist marriages were extremely difficult so much as to warrant a divorce option in place (during an era where divorce was still largely considered a religious Christian taboo.)
If divorce was in place to accommodate the many unhappy women how do they defend their earlier assertion that polygamy was so positive and good?
>“Women did marry at fairly young ages in the first decade of Utah settlement (age 16 or 17 or, infrequently, younger), which was typical of women living in frontier areas at the time.20 As in other places, women married at older ages as the society matured.”
Is this their poor attempt to do a side-ways response to teenage plural wives? What they omit entirely is the amount of teen brides to old men. It wasn’t uncommon for young women to marry, although it wasn’t the norm for teens to marry at that time – it was NOT common for young girls to marry old men. That was scandalous! They fail to mention how many older Mormon men married teenage girls. This is another psyche trick. It eludes to a specific type of controversy, like the age of women, and while it mentions age it doesn’t actually do anything to address the meat and the root of the issue. Instead it side-steps the real issue altogether.
A believing Mormon will read the comment about age and their mind thinks the article has addressed the issue of age regarding the Mormon teen marriage controversy. The article did NO such thing. It’s another example of a psychological mind manipulation technique whereby a small amount of information is addressed, but nothing that really answers the issues….just enough to appease the mind and loop it back into a FALSE belief and trust that the writer on behalf of the Mormon church is telling them the truth and not leading them astray.
The article further goes on to diffuse and obfuscate the real issue of teen marriage to old men:
>“Almost all women married, and so did a large percentage of men. In fact, it appears that a larger percentage of men in Utah married than elsewhere in the United States at the time. Probably half of those living in Utah Territory in 1857 experienced life in a polygamous family as a husband, wife, or child at some time during their lives. By 1870, 25 to 30 percent of the population lived in polygamous households, and it appears that the percentage continued to decrease over the next 20 years.”
Note the clever writing trickery.
I’m going to go over it sentence by sentence to point out the deception sandwich used again in this context.
First they start with a truth: “Although some leaders had large polygamous families, two-thirds of polygamist men had only two wives at a time. Church leaders recognized that plural marriages could be particularly difficult for women. Divorce was therefore available to women who were unhappy in their marriages; remarriage was also readily available.”
They tell a truth and fail to mention how many constituted the 1/3, thereby proposing the suggestion that 1/3 isn’t that many compared to 2/3 without offering any actual hard numbers.
Clever!
It’s a truth sandwiched between an omission creating a half-truth or a half-lie. Because of omission and placement of half-truths and full truths the data becomes extremely deceptive. Now they leave the number stats of polygamy and go onto a truth about divorce. but it is a truth that has been couched in the previous positive obedient commandment diatribe, thereby the readers mind becomes confused hearing a truth and half-truth used to describe the very same issue! The brain gets foggier and easier malleable to take on more of the same deceptive sandwiches.
Now they go back to their avoidance of addressing the female age issue while writing a short blurb on female age :
> “Women did marry at fairly young ages in the first decade of Utah settlement (age 16 or 17 or, infrequently, younger), which was typical of women living in frontier areas at the time.20 As in other places, women married at older ages as the society matured.”
Like I said, they address the age but omit the details about teens vs elder men. They previously said only 1/3 men had more than 2 wives, which causes the mind to suppose that there couldn’t be many teen girls married to old buggers!
They couched it by saying that women had the option to marry, making it seem that women were in charge of who they married rather than appointed by the leaders. This is the nasty little omission that discusses age while skirting around the issues.
Then the writer redirects any attention to scandalous issues by writing: “Almost all women married, and so did a large percentage of men. In fact, it appears that a larger percentage of men in Utah married than elsewhere in the United States at the time. Probably half of those living in Utah Territory in 1857 experienced life in a polygamous family as a husband, wife, or child at some time during their lives. By 1870, 25 to 30 percent of the population lived in polygamous households, and it appears that the percentage continued to decrease over the next 20 years.”
A female age teen omission and de-rail sandwiched between other random and inconsequential truth stats, creating the deception sandwich again.
Now, at the end of the article they introduce government issues:
>“Beginning in 1862, the U.S. government passed laws against the practice of plural marriage. Outside opponents mounted a campaign against the practice, stating that they hoped to protect Mormon women and American civilization.”
They forget to mention: The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (37th United States Congress, Sess. 2., ch. 126, 12 Stat. 501) was a federal enactment of the United States Congress that was signed into law on July 8, 1862 by President Abraham Lincoln. Sponsored by Justin Smith Morrill of Vermont, the act banned bigamy and limited church and non-profit ownership in any territory of the United States to $50,000.
The act targeted the Mormon practice of plural marriage and the property dominance of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Utah Territory. The measure had no funds allocated for enforcement, and Lincoln chose not to enforce this law; instead Lincoln gave Brigham Young tacit permission to ignore the Morrill Act in exchange for not becoming involved with the Civil War. General Patrick Edward Connor, commanding officer of the federal forces garrisoned at Fort Douglas, Utah beginning in 1862, was explicitly instructed not to confront the Mormons over this or any other issue."
Mormons could slide around that law, avoiding the serious crime of disobeying the law of the land.
They couldn’t slide around the later amendment in 1882 by the Edmunds Act.
The Edmunds Act, also known as the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882, is a United States federal statute, signed into law on March 23, 1882 by president Chester A. Arthur, declaring polygamy a felony. The Edmunds Act also prohibited "bigamous" or "unlawful cohabitation" (a misdemeanor), thus removing the need to prove that actual marriages had occurred. It was passed in a wave of Victorian-era reaction to the perceived immorality of polygamy, or at least polygyny, which was often compared to slavery. The act not only reinforced the 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act but also revoked polygamists' right to vote, made them ineligible for jury service, and prohibited them from holding political office.”
The Edmunds Act restrictions were enforced regardless of whether an individual was actually practicing polygamy, or merely stated a belief in the Mormon doctrine of plural marriage without actually participating in it.
The article doesn’t point out that it took years for the 1890 manifesto to be put into place and then only because the Prophet had no other choice because they would not be able to vote or hold political office. This is the Mormon article definition of “inspired”? The Omissions are glaring.
Here’s what the article had to say about government involvement: “For their part, many Latter-day Saint women publicly defended the practice of plural marriage, arguing in statements that they were willing participants.”
Wow!
Now they further sugar coat this puff-piece explanation of the post manifesto fall-out.....
>>“After the U.S. Supreme Court found the anti-polygamy laws to be constitutional in 1879, federal officials began prosecuting polygamous husbands and wives during the 1880s. Believing these laws to be unjust, Latter-day Saints engaged in civil disobedience by continuing to practice plural marriage and by attempting to avoid arrest. When convicted, they paid fines and submitted to jail time. To help their husbands avoid prosecution, plural wives often separated into different households or went into hiding under assumed names, particularly when pregnant or after giving birth.”
This certainly explains why it’s hard to track down the Smith children lineage. In the opening the writer said that Woodruff “ declared his intention to abide by U.S. law forbidding plural marriage and to use his influence to convince members of the Church to do likewise. After the Manifesto, monogamy was advocated in the Church both over the pulpit and through the press.”
They say nothing of what was done to help them incorporate into a legal marriage format, just that there was an amount of civil disobedience by continuing to practice plural marriage and by attempting to avoid arrest. The article puts a large gap between the opening remarks about Woodruff’s innocence and his preaching about obeying the law; with the omission of the comments concerning the apostles who did not obey the law, and general population who didn’t obey the law. At the end of the article, after they’ve softened the reader to the contradictions and confusion surrounding polygamy and hopefully gained a little sympathy through omission the writer(s) end it by giving more information about the disobedience and confusion after the manifesto. The transition period sounded very much like the modern day FLDS debacles.
The article is ended on a positive note toward the manifesto: ”As the Church grew and spread beyond the American West, the monogamous nuclear family was well suited to an increasingly mobile and dispersed membership.”
It helped the lds fit into monogamous communities and do missionary work!
My familiarity with this type of writing technique allows me to see the predictability of the piece. The writer will not leave the article hanging on a negative note if the information doesn’t promote or produce sympathy.
Therefore, the end utilizes the same sandwich technique.
It leaves off by reiterating:
>“Despite the hardships some experienced, the faithfulness of those who practiced plural marriage continues to benefit the Church in innumerable ways.”
Their back to countering the hardships that Some experienced even though the writer made a point of sandwiching that earlier between many positives, and again sandwiching it between positives. It’s like the spoon full of sugar before and after the bitter pill. Now the writer claims that plural marriage continues to benefit the Mormon church! It’s saying that the polygamy albatross has caused them to be “faithful to their gospel covenants as righteous mothers and fathers”. I’m not sure how when spinning the lies and half-truths and omissions can be defined as being a righteous father or mother, but I’ve come to realize that Mormon definitions are completely different than non-mormon definitons.
The finale states that the polygamist albatross has also made members into “loyal disciples of Jesus Christ, and devoted Church members, leaders, and missionaries.”
I was once loyal and devoted too. I felt persecuted because non-mormons just didn’t know the truth. I discovered that this writers definition of loyal and devoted is built on more lies, deceptions and half-truths that are being continually foisted upon the members in articles such as this. Does it count as ethical if the member is deceived into being loyal and devoted to a system that is lying to them ....using beliefs that aren't accurate and that haven't been fully disclosed?
I don’t call that loyal and devoted, I call that duped and ignorant, and the writer of this article is continuing the Mormon deception legacy. So sad. :(
The writer wants the reader to have only a small amount of information which is strategically placed to put the history in the best possible light while still omitting many of the serious issues about polygamy. Then the writer has the sheer audacity to say the lies and deception and omissions make members loyal and devoted to these lies and deceptions!
I don’t know how these writers sleep at night.
I really don’t.
They must have no conscience.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2014 10:32PM by joan.
They say the manifesto is mentioned as inspired by God. They offer a brief description of the manifesto: “This essay primarily addresses plural marriage as practiced by the Latter-day Saints between 1847 and 1890, following their exodus to the U.S. West and before the Manifesto.”
The article claims that after the manifesto plural marriages were not practiced in the U.S.A. They fail to mention that members of the Quorum of 12 apostles were practicing after the “inspired” revelation ban proclaimed by Woodruff. Of course, to address the issues prior to their exodus to Utah and following the manifesto involves too many “troublesome” issues that they do not want to address out of fear that major deceptions would be easily pointed out. Once again they cherry-pick what they will and won’t address so they appear in the most favorable light, which sounds like the Richard Bushman writing style. The problem is that it’s STILL deceptive as they leave out the more deceptive parts in a bid to deceive even further.
>“In 1904, the Church strictly prohibited new plural marriages. Today, any person who practices plural marriage cannot become or remain a member of the Church.”
They omit the fact that plural marriage is still considered a celestial Mormon law, which will be practiced after they are no longer in this world. They also omit that many members are married, sealed in temple marriage, to more than one person when their spouse dies and they remarry, therefore they are in fact in a plural marriage on paper and in the eyes of God. In the western law the prior marriage is null and void after death, allowing the person to re-marry legally without being considered a polygamist. Not so in mormonism. Their spouse is dead so they aren’t practicing it physically, but in every other regard the Mormon church does honor and perform and recognise plural marriage as an ordinance that is ordained in their temples whenever one spouse remarries while still married to their deceased spouse.
They do not explain Government involvement at this point. Instead they describe polygamy. This is clever because you will read their version, which is contradictory and confusing. At the end, after they soften your heart and rattle your mind to their version, they describe some of the government acts. That’s very clever.
They start their blurb with an excuse: “Latter-day Saints do not understand all of God’s purposes for instituting, through His prophets, the practice of plural marriage during the 19th century.”
Then what is the purpose of having prophets if not to understand such important and controversial issues and topics? The lure and bait for Mormon missionary work is to sell mormonism based on the premise that they alone have a prophet to guide, direct and reveal things to the members based on truth – the one truth. If ever there was a time or topic for God’s truth this surely would be one of the many within mormonism. They uphold the practice and purpose of prophets while simultaneously state that they do not understand all of God’s purposes for instituting the practice even though they are the only church authorized by God with Prophet revelation to instruct and clear up such issues.
Now that they set the groundwork for the rest of their article they fail to mention the issues they DO know. The sexual mess Emma Smith caught Joseph engaging in prior to the D&C revelation. They don't address the question of Emma requesting to marry Law.
The D&C revelation date discrepancies.
To do so might expose their on-going fraud, deception and lying for the sake of mormonism. Yep, they leave all those issues out of polygamy.
>“ethnic intermarriages were increased, which helped to unite a diverse immigrant population.”
Of course by that they mean white Caucasian marriages. Blacks were a non-issue, but that's another essay.
>“Plural marriage also helped create and strengthen a sense of cohesion and group identification among Latter-day Saints.”
Seriously?
I’ve read many of the polygamy accounts and they were a nightmare! Last week a faithful lds co-worker described his polygamous ancestry story to me. He said that one of the wives was from Sweden and was the ‘favorite”. This did NOT go over well with the other wives and she was treated terribly. The other wives called her all sorts of names due to jealousy and favoritism. Currently in the t.v. series, “sister wives” it is likewise impossible for the Brown family to conceal their jealousy of the new wife addition. They say they aren’t jealous while other words and actions speak louder than their final claim that they are not jealous.
Lol, it’s quite a joke as they try to hood-wink their public to not pay attention to jealousy issues because they outrightly claim they are not jealous. It’s twisted denial when a person makes a final claim that is contradictory to other previous claims and actions. I’ve heard many historical stories that are worse than the Browns modern day story, but still apologists claim that it “also helped create and strengthen a sense of cohesion and group identification among Latter-day Saints.”
>“Church members came to see themselves as a “peculiar people,” covenant-bound to carry out the commands of God despite outside opposition, willing to endure ostracism for their principles.
No, non-members came to see them as people with a “persecution complex people” who claim they have been and still are persecuted.... where every generation whines and complains about how persecuted they are for keeping God’s commandments; poor me types who are afraid of ostracism and often become clicky within their own group.
Hmmm, peculiar people theory upholds an erroneous ego complex which is usually seen within Mormons and also makes it difficult for Mormons to see the actual truth of what really happened. Peculiar people theory is another way of psychologically keeping the members from seeing the truth behind the deceptive stories the past and present apologists claim by enticing ego-mania and pridefullness through false erroneous history deception.
>“For these early Latter-day Saints, plural marriage was a religious principle that required personal sacrifice. Accounts left by men and women who practiced plural marriage attest to the challenges and difficulties they experienced, such as financial difficulty, interpersonal strife, and some wives’ longing for the sustained companionship of their husbands.”
Wait, this is contradictory to the previous paragraph supporting polygamy they said: “per-capita inequality of wealth was diminished as economically disadvantaged women married into more financially stable households.”
Which is it, financial difficulty or financial stability. Was inequality of wealth diminished with financially stable households, or were they challenged with financial difficulty and interpersonal strife. This is the type of on-going generational decade upon decade double-speak and deception I’m familiar with in the Mormon apologetic methods and this article follows traditional suit. These type of back-and-forth deceptive techniques are used to confuse and confound readers who are believing and trusting souls, and/or who lack critical skills to analyze and diagnose or discernment toward lies and deception – especially when it is coming from church leaders they have already raised their arm to sustain and trust.
They confuse and counter their above 2 contradictions again by immediately stating another viewpoint: “But accounts also record the love and joy many found within their families.”
of course the apologists cannot write clear, concise data, because they are mired down in a foggy brain of deception and pumping out deception, therefore their pen writes the same deceptive way their mind thinks.
> “They believed it was a commandment of God at that time and that obedience would bring great blessings to them and their posterity, both on earth and in the life to come. While there was much love, tenderness, and affection within many plural marriages, the practice was generally based more on religious belief than on romantic love.12 Church leaders taught that participants in plural marriages should seek to develop a generous spirit of unselfishness and the pure love of Christ for everyone involved.”
Above shows how they counter their brief admission that there were a lot of hardships in polygamous marriages. They sandwich the hardship statement between comments that polygamists brought unity, financial stability and love and was a way to develop a generous spirit of unselfishness and pure love of Christ for everyone involved......except for those for whom it did NOT, and that was for many of the wives and children involved in the practice.
Here is a prime example of how people brainwash through beliefs and teachings of those beliefs. They take a precarious issue and sandwich the truth between a few lies, just as they did in the above scenario. The believing member reads a sweet positive statement that it was ordained and positive. Then the person reads the truth, that it caused problems financially and socially. Their mind recognizes the truth statement. Then it’s couched and hidden behind at least one or two more sweet positive statements which aren’t truthful or accurate, saying that it was a commandment to bring great blessings (which the mind assumes is a positive outcome).
It’s what I call the lie sandwich and I’ve seen all kinds of religious beliefs do this from Hindu, Buddhist teachers right down to this very article. The believing mind reads the sweet, recognizes the truth inserted and sandwiched in the middle, but wait – the truth statement largely contradicts the previous sweet statement. Then they read the final sweet positive statement (usually emphasized by a commandment type of technique, which this article uses as well to ignite the internal desire for obedience) and what happens after the believing Mormon reads this type of sandwich? They forget the truth inserted in the middle because they focus on the positive sweet concepts that countered it at the beginning and the end; then the fear of disobedience whips them at the end and they say, “It was god’s commandment and we need to trust God’s commandment.”
Remember that if the believing member catches on to this type of ‘sandwich’ brainwashing technique they can re-read it and the preface is written claiming the writers over-all ignorance by saying, “Latter-day Saints do not understand all of God’s purposes for instituting, through His prophets, the practice of plural marriage during the 19th century.”
Now the believer is back to the original excuse and allowance that qualifies the big deceptive sandwich they just consumed. Because most people aren’t aware that this type of written programming deceptive technique is commonly used by many deceptive writers they will not recognize that they’ve been given an excuse to couch a positive comment which is actually a full lie, followed by a few half-lies/half truths, followed by a few ommissions, followed by a discreetly placed truth statement, followed by another full lie which is positive, followed by a reminder that it was a commandment followed by a few other very positive results the commandment was supposed to offer if it was obeyed. The cue to obey sends a message to the mind which re-directs the mind to believe in spite of the fact that the person just read a truth couched between a few positive sounding full-lies or half-lies or nasty sounding half-lies.
>“all were required to obtain the approval of Church leaders before entering a plural marriage.”
What about the Apostles who were in polygamous marriages after the manifesto agreement? Did they have approval if it was in place prior to the manifesto ban? Oops, the writer of this article ‘forgot’ to mention anything about the Apostles in plural marriage after the manifesto and since those church apostles WERE the Church Leaders it becomes something of a joke really.
>“Where the family lived—whether in Salt Lake City, with its multiple social and cultural opportunities, or the rural hinterlands, where such opportunities were fewer in number—made a difference in how plural marriage was experienced. It is therefore difficult to accurately generalize about the experience of all plural marriages.”
Hmmm, they managed to GENERALIZE about the experience of plural marriages in the above paragraphs enough to give the believing member the illusory concept that they were good, and even going so far as to note the many positive benefits of living a plural marriage. Clearly their concession that it isn’t accurate to generalize about the experience of all plural marriages is an ‘out’ and an excuse for the many marriages that were recorded as ghastly nightmares. That doesn’t stop them from generalizing in their previous paragraphs, but now they put in a clause that it is difficult to ACCURATELY GENERALIZE. So their conceding that their previous overview was an Inaccurate generalization?
Why would they write an inaccurate generalization and then a few paragraphs down state that it’s difficult to Accurately generalize. Was their prior generalization supposed to be accurate or inaccurate? This further consciously and/or subconsciously confuses the reader. These sorts of articles explain how and why lds members brain is a large cognitive-dissonant pretzel waiting to baked in the Mormon oven of accurately inaccurate generalizations.
The next paragraph counters by saying: “Church leaders recognized that plural marriages could be particularly difficult for women.”
Wait, in the paragraphs previously they said that it was sunshine, roses and gods commandment for a lot of bliss. Or wait, did they say it was troublesome. Nope, they said it was great and positive because it offered all kinds of fantastic perks, bonuses and joy-filled blessings. Nope, now their saying that even though it was a positive experience and there is NO ACCURATE GENERALIZATION for polygamists now they’re conceding that there was enough data to make church leaders recongize that plural marriages could be PARTICULARLY :difficult: for women and because of this “Divorce was therefore available to women who were unhappy in their marriages.”
I think it’s safe to say that debating the inaccuracy of generalizations based on their previous assertion that no one could accurately compare the outcome of marriages in rural environments vs city environments is ridiculous at this point in the article. If a rule was put in place to accommodate unhappy marriages during an era when divorce wasn’t commonly practiced as it is in this century, it is pretty clear that it isn’t a generalization to say that overall polygamist marriages were extremely difficult so much as to warrant a divorce option in place (during an era where divorce was still largely considered a religious Christian taboo.)
If divorce was in place to accommodate the many unhappy women how do they defend their earlier assertion that polygamy was so positive and good?
>“Women did marry at fairly young ages in the first decade of Utah settlement (age 16 or 17 or, infrequently, younger), which was typical of women living in frontier areas at the time.20 As in other places, women married at older ages as the society matured.”
Is this their poor attempt to do a side-ways response to teenage plural wives? What they omit entirely is the amount of teen brides to old men. It wasn’t uncommon for young women to marry, although it wasn’t the norm for teens to marry at that time – it was NOT common for young girls to marry old men. That was scandalous! They fail to mention how many older Mormon men married teenage girls. This is another psyche trick. It eludes to a specific type of controversy, like the age of women, and while it mentions age it doesn’t actually do anything to address the meat and the root of the issue. Instead it side-steps the real issue altogether.
A believing Mormon will read the comment about age and their mind thinks the article has addressed the issue of age regarding the Mormon teen marriage controversy. The article did NO such thing. It’s another example of a psychological mind manipulation technique whereby a small amount of information is addressed, but nothing that really answers the issues….just enough to appease the mind and loop it back into a FALSE belief and trust that the writer on behalf of the Mormon church is telling them the truth and not leading them astray.
The article further goes on to diffuse and obfuscate the real issue of teen marriage to old men:
>“Almost all women married, and so did a large percentage of men. In fact, it appears that a larger percentage of men in Utah married than elsewhere in the United States at the time. Probably half of those living in Utah Territory in 1857 experienced life in a polygamous family as a husband, wife, or child at some time during their lives. By 1870, 25 to 30 percent of the population lived in polygamous households, and it appears that the percentage continued to decrease over the next 20 years.”
Note the clever writing trickery.
I’m going to go over it sentence by sentence to point out the deception sandwich used again in this context.
First they start with a truth: “Although some leaders had large polygamous families, two-thirds of polygamist men had only two wives at a time. Church leaders recognized that plural marriages could be particularly difficult for women. Divorce was therefore available to women who were unhappy in their marriages; remarriage was also readily available.”
They tell a truth and fail to mention how many constituted the 1/3, thereby proposing the suggestion that 1/3 isn’t that many compared to 2/3 without offering any actual hard numbers.
Clever!
It’s a truth sandwiched between an omission creating a half-truth or a half-lie. Because of omission and placement of half-truths and full truths the data becomes extremely deceptive. Now they leave the number stats of polygamy and go onto a truth about divorce. but it is a truth that has been couched in the previous positive obedient commandment diatribe, thereby the readers mind becomes confused hearing a truth and half-truth used to describe the very same issue! The brain gets foggier and easier malleable to take on more of the same deceptive sandwiches.
Now they go back to their avoidance of addressing the female age issue while writing a short blurb on female age :
> “Women did marry at fairly young ages in the first decade of Utah settlement (age 16 or 17 or, infrequently, younger), which was typical of women living in frontier areas at the time.20 As in other places, women married at older ages as the society matured.”
Like I said, they address the age but omit the details about teens vs elder men. They previously said only 1/3 men had more than 2 wives, which causes the mind to suppose that there couldn’t be many teen girls married to old buggers!
They couched it by saying that women had the option to marry, making it seem that women were in charge of who they married rather than appointed by the leaders. This is the nasty little omission that discusses age while skirting around the issues.
Then the writer redirects any attention to scandalous issues by writing: “Almost all women married, and so did a large percentage of men. In fact, it appears that a larger percentage of men in Utah married than elsewhere in the United States at the time. Probably half of those living in Utah Territory in 1857 experienced life in a polygamous family as a husband, wife, or child at some time during their lives. By 1870, 25 to 30 percent of the population lived in polygamous households, and it appears that the percentage continued to decrease over the next 20 years.”
A female age teen omission and de-rail sandwiched between other random and inconsequential truth stats, creating the deception sandwich again.
Now, at the end of the article they introduce government issues:
>“Beginning in 1862, the U.S. government passed laws against the practice of plural marriage. Outside opponents mounted a campaign against the practice, stating that they hoped to protect Mormon women and American civilization.”
They forget to mention: The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (37th United States Congress, Sess. 2., ch. 126, 12 Stat. 501) was a federal enactment of the United States Congress that was signed into law on July 8, 1862 by President Abraham Lincoln. Sponsored by Justin Smith Morrill of Vermont, the act banned bigamy and limited church and non-profit ownership in any territory of the United States to $50,000.
The act targeted the Mormon practice of plural marriage and the property dominance of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Utah Territory. The measure had no funds allocated for enforcement, and Lincoln chose not to enforce this law; instead Lincoln gave Brigham Young tacit permission to ignore the Morrill Act in exchange for not becoming involved with the Civil War. General Patrick Edward Connor, commanding officer of the federal forces garrisoned at Fort Douglas, Utah beginning in 1862, was explicitly instructed not to confront the Mormons over this or any other issue."
Mormons could slide around that law, avoiding the serious crime of disobeying the law of the land.
They couldn’t slide around the later amendment in 1882 by the Edmunds Act.
The Edmunds Act, also known as the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882, is a United States federal statute, signed into law on March 23, 1882 by president Chester A. Arthur, declaring polygamy a felony. The Edmunds Act also prohibited "bigamous" or "unlawful cohabitation" (a misdemeanor), thus removing the need to prove that actual marriages had occurred. It was passed in a wave of Victorian-era reaction to the perceived immorality of polygamy, or at least polygyny, which was often compared to slavery. The act not only reinforced the 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act but also revoked polygamists' right to vote, made them ineligible for jury service, and prohibited them from holding political office.”
The Edmunds Act restrictions were enforced regardless of whether an individual was actually practicing polygamy, or merely stated a belief in the Mormon doctrine of plural marriage without actually participating in it.
The article doesn’t point out that it took years for the 1890 manifesto to be put into place and then only because the Prophet had no other choice because they would not be able to vote or hold political office. This is the Mormon article definition of “inspired”? The Omissions are glaring.
Here’s what the article had to say about government involvement: “For their part, many Latter-day Saint women publicly defended the practice of plural marriage, arguing in statements that they were willing participants.”
Wow!
Now they further sugar coat this puff-piece explanation of the post manifesto fall-out.....
>>“After the U.S. Supreme Court found the anti-polygamy laws to be constitutional in 1879, federal officials began prosecuting polygamous husbands and wives during the 1880s. Believing these laws to be unjust, Latter-day Saints engaged in civil disobedience by continuing to practice plural marriage and by attempting to avoid arrest. When convicted, they paid fines and submitted to jail time. To help their husbands avoid prosecution, plural wives often separated into different households or went into hiding under assumed names, particularly when pregnant or after giving birth.”
This certainly explains why it’s hard to track down the Smith children lineage. In the opening the writer said that Woodruff “ declared his intention to abide by U.S. law forbidding plural marriage and to use his influence to convince members of the Church to do likewise. After the Manifesto, monogamy was advocated in the Church both over the pulpit and through the press.”
They say nothing of what was done to help them incorporate into a legal marriage format, just that there was an amount of civil disobedience by continuing to practice plural marriage and by attempting to avoid arrest. The article puts a large gap between the opening remarks about Woodruff’s innocence and his preaching about obeying the law; with the omission of the comments concerning the apostles who did not obey the law, and general population who didn’t obey the law. At the end of the article, after they’ve softened the reader to the contradictions and confusion surrounding polygamy and hopefully gained a little sympathy through omission the writer(s) end it by giving more information about the disobedience and confusion after the manifesto. The transition period sounded very much like the modern day FLDS debacles.
The article is ended on a positive note toward the manifesto: ”As the Church grew and spread beyond the American West, the monogamous nuclear family was well suited to an increasingly mobile and dispersed membership.”
It helped the lds fit into monogamous communities and do missionary work!
My familiarity with this type of writing technique allows me to see the predictability of the piece. The writer will not leave the article hanging on a negative note if the information doesn’t promote or produce sympathy.
Therefore, the end utilizes the same sandwich technique.
It leaves off by reiterating:
>“Despite the hardships some experienced, the faithfulness of those who practiced plural marriage continues to benefit the Church in innumerable ways.”
Their back to countering the hardships that Some experienced even though the writer made a point of sandwiching that earlier between many positives, and again sandwiching it between positives. It’s like the spoon full of sugar before and after the bitter pill. Now the writer claims that plural marriage continues to benefit the Mormon church! It’s saying that the polygamy albatross has caused them to be “faithful to their gospel covenants as righteous mothers and fathers”. I’m not sure how when spinning the lies and half-truths and omissions can be defined as being a righteous father or mother, but I’ve come to realize that Mormon definitions are completely different than non-mormon definitons.
The finale states that the polygamist albatross has also made members into “loyal disciples of Jesus Christ, and devoted Church members, leaders, and missionaries.”
I was once loyal and devoted too. I felt persecuted because non-mormons just didn’t know the truth. I discovered that this writers definition of loyal and devoted is built on more lies, deceptions and half-truths that are being continually foisted upon the members in articles such as this. Does it count as ethical if the member is deceived into being loyal and devoted to a system that is lying to them ....using beliefs that aren't accurate and that haven't been fully disclosed?
I don’t call that loyal and devoted, I call that duped and ignorant, and the writer of this article is continuing the Mormon deception legacy. So sad. :(
The writer wants the reader to have only a small amount of information which is strategically placed to put the history in the best possible light while still omitting many of the serious issues about polygamy. Then the writer has the sheer audacity to say the lies and deception and omissions make members loyal and devoted to these lies and deceptions!
I don’t know how these writers sleep at night.
I really don’t.
They must have no conscience.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2014 10:32PM by joan.
This is the first essay I've read but if they're all this bad I'm going to have to do my own speshul review on all of them.
I hope to expose these writers and their manipulative writing methods.
I hope to expose these writers and their manipulative writing methods.