His response to a story about a guy excommunicated for finding out that Joseph Smith had 25-33 wives (that's all he knows about the story):

"I hadn't heard anything about it. yeah, it's possible that Joseph Smith had that many wives. Back then, there were a lot of men in the church with more than one wife. It was still legal in the US to do that. When it became illegal, or shortly thereafter, the church reversed its decision to practice polegamy (?).

The story sounds funny (weird). It doesn't make sense that he would be ex-ed for making inquiries. There's got to be more to the story.

Another weird thing - on the news last night, they were talking about a guy who "legally" has 2 wives - today. He was married in FL to some lady, then a few years later he was married to another lady in Las Vegas. He has hid the 2 wives from each other, but one found out (the second one). He was arrested, but can't be prosecuted because the Florida law says that as long as he was married in Florida first, he's OK. That whole thing sounds weird. Either I missed something, don't understand the news anchors, or they aren't presenting the whole story. I'm going with the last one because it was just a 60 second news segment."

[Note: I included that last paragraph as it shows that he's not in some information bubble.]


My response that I just sent 10 seconds ago:

"You don't question the convenient timing of that reversal by the church on polygamy? [I'd love to add here: "I can't believe that an all-knowing God would be caving in to a country's politics and society's norms when deciding to accept what's good and what's bad. Isn't right always right irregardless of what people might think at that time?" The "right always right" question was something I asked about the blacks/priesthood controversy. Like I said before, he answered this by saying he isn't the best spokesperson for the church.]

The guy sounded kind of nerdy but the story was that he was asked tons of questions by a coworker who seemed to know more about Joseph Smith than he did. So, he researched Smith and found out many things that he was never told about Smith while growing up in the church.

The hush hush seems so suspicious IMHO. They're making a big stink of it in the local press."


----

Does anyone have that article I can send him about the guy in Utah that recorded his ex-communication meeting?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2011 06:20PM by newcomer.

marriages are supposed to be recognized in all fifty states.... so the..."its Florida so its ok" does NOT HOLD WATER.... i am sure someone else will weigh in with a legit reason this cant be so....

bignevermo I agree with you. Something is not adding up.

marriage took place.
It's a jurisdiction thing.
He can be prosecuted in Nevada, I'm sure.

EVERY polygamous marriage ever performed by the Mormon Church was illegal. That includes polygamous marriages performed in Mexican Territories as well as U.S. Territories.

Also, less than 5% of the men in the church practiced polygamy.

It's a myth that the majority were practicing it. The endowment session was created to keep polygamy secret from the rest of the members, and the garment was worn on the "inside" as the secret sign.

Check out the term "lying for the lord" as well. You'll find that it was all part of polygamy and keeping it a secret from EVERYONE.

You were lied to about it being somehow symbolic of Adam and Eve's coverings.

So the garment was never meant for fire protection?

I know tithing is for fire insurance.

So why would any mo who paid a full tithe need to wear the g's?

But for the ones that the mobs kept going after. Sure, Smith pretended that they would have magical powers of protection.

But what DIDN'T Smith pretend?

Good one, RaptorJ, but really tell me more about the purpose of the original g's - were they just so that polygamy practicing members could identify one another, and if that is what you are saying, maybe I got that all wrong, how could they do that with the g's under their clothes?

I had just never heard any of this before, other than that only a few of the early members lived it, not even half of the 12 originally in Nauvoo, and that it was kept secret from the general membership of the church. But I am a bit confused as to why they wore g's back then. Please explain a bit more. thanks.

Because they were all part of the inner circle with Smith.

The garment just symbolized their super duper secret special club within a club. Decoder rings are for children!!!

You'll need to ask someone else when the endowment became more open. That's a gap I have in my Mormon history.

There's wasn't a massive surplus of women. In fact, men outnumbered women in Deseret/Utah until the 20th century.

If 5% practiced polygamy, then it required a minimum of 10% of the women (1 man, two wives). If that 5% had three wives each, then it involved 15% of the women. The five polygamists in my family tree (who must have been pretty special, right, to be initiated into the club) had four, four, five, six and seven wives. So, if they're representative (and the guys with double-digit wives were the exception) and we average that out to five wives each, five percent of the men would be married to about 25% of the women. So now we're talking about 30% or so of the Mormon adult (and sometimes teen) population involved in polygamy. In the meantime, BY was ranting from the pulpit that not enough men were polygamists, that monogamy is an abomination and that all those monogamous brethren were wrong when they imagined they could get into the celestial kingdom with only one wife.

I recently had that conversation on-line with some guy commenting on an SLTrib post. He was like, "The church would never do anything illegal!"

Are you talking about Lyndon Lambourne, ex'd for knowing too much and talking to ward members, and he did tape record his excommunication. It used to be in three part on utube I believe.
But it was about many issues, not just JS wives, so maybe it is someone else you are speaking of, and I don't think Lyndon lives in Utah, but maybe.

think4u Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are you talking about Lyndon Lambourne, ex'd for
> knowing too much and talking to ward members, and
> he did tape record his excommunication. It used to
> be in three part on utube I believe.
> But it was about many issues, not just JS wives,
> so maybe it is someone else you are speaking of,
> and I don't think Lyndon lives in Utah, but maybe.


That's the guy. Great. I'll find a link to send to him.

Thanks think4u!

He was from Mesa, Az. Don't know if he is still there or not.

// Ignore this post. //



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2011 07:07PM by cludgie.

Cludgie, I thought the poster's original question was about a guy that was recently ex'd for speaking out about the many wives of JS and that he recorded his excomm. trial? Did I get that wrong?

Again, I hallucinate.

Polygamy WAS illegal in the State of Illinois, as of 1833. It was punishable by $1,000 and up to two-years imprisonment. Why do you think Joseph worked so hard to keep it secret?

Here's the law-book to prove it:

http://www.archive.org/stream/revisedlawsofill1833illi#page/198/mode/2up

But he was not actually legally married to the other wives; he was only sealed to them without having a civil marriage license for each one. If he had a legal civil marriage performed with the others,then that law would apply.

So I guess then, it was all just blatant adultery, how lovely.

1. Polygamy was illegal in every state and territory in which TSCC leaders practiced it.

2. There was never any significant statistical imbalance between genders in the church or in Utah or in the United States, so the claim that it was instituted to provide support for widowed women is patently false. Polygamy was instituted in Nauvoo long before Young took the main church to Utah. Polygamy actually creates a shortage of marriageable women. The “revelation” makes no mention of the need to support widows, but that it is commanded to “multiply and replenish” the earth.

3. Smith’s practice of marrying the wives of his followers is a direct violation of Section 132 which states that a plural wife should be a virgin and not already committed to another man. It also contradicted the church statement in the Book of Commandments that declared “all legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled.”

4. Officially, a first wife must consent before her husband could take another woman as a wife. However, Section 132 specifically threatens Emma Smith with destruction if she did not acquiesce to Joseph having plural wives. That a first wife’s consent was unnecessary was confirmed by LDS Church President Joseph F. Smith as he was being questioned during the Reed Smoot hearings. President Smith told the congressional hearing that a woman was commanded to consent and if she did not her husband was free to disregard her wishes and fulfill his obligation to his religious duty.

5. Attempts to disavow polygamy is church doctrine is disingenuous as the Doctrine & Covenants, Section 132 remains as canonized scripture. The practice has only been temporarily suspended due to hostile cultural and legal circumstances, but the doctrine still stands. Polygamy is still practiced in the sense that a man who remarries after the death of his wife can be sealed to his new wife and expects to live with both women in heaven.

6. It is often claimed that early polygamists practiced the same polygamy that was practiced in the Bible. However, in Leviticus a man is prohibited from marrying the sister of his wife. Neither was he permitted to marry a mother and daughter. The penalty for this was to “…be burnt with fire both he and they; that there is no wickedness among you.” (Lev 20:14) If the early church had indeed held to the Biblical restrictions on polygamy, then Joseph Smith himself would have been subject to the penalty of death as Joseph's wives included at least one mother/daughter pair (Patty Bartlett and Sylvia Sessions) and three sets of sisters: Delcena and Almera Johnson; Sarah and Maria Lawrence (aged seventeen and nineteen, respectively); and Emily and Eliza Partridge.

Self-imposed ignorance about the reality of polygamy as practiced in the early church has resulted in many LDS adherents having an understanding of LDS history that is, as retired LDS Institute Director Grant Palmer described it, a mile wide but only an inch deep.

caedmon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1. Polygamy was illegal in every state and
> territory in which TSCC leaders practiced it.
>
> 2. There was never any significant statistical
> imbalance between genders in the church or in Utah
> or in the United States, so the claim that it was
> instituted to provide support for widowed women is
> patently false. Polygamy was instituted in
> Nauvoo long before Young took the main church to
> Utah. Polygamy actually creates a shortage of
> marriageable women. The “revelation” makes no
> mention of the need to support widows, but that it
> is commanded to “multiply and replenish” the
> earth.
>
> 3. Smith’s practice of marrying the wives of
> his followers is a direct violation of Section 132
> which states that a plural wife should be a virgin
> and not already committed to another man. It also
> contradicted the church statement in the Book of
> Commandments that declared “all legal contracts
> of marriage made before a person is baptized into
> this church, should be held sacred and
> fulfilled.”
>
> 4. Officially, a first wife must consent before
> her husband could take another woman as a wife.
> However, Section 132 specifically threatens Emma
> Smith with destruction if she did not acquiesce to
> Joseph having plural wives. That a first wife’s
> consent was unnecessary was confirmed by LDS
> Church President Joseph F. Smith as he was being
> questioned during the Reed Smoot hearings.
> President Smith told the congressional hearing
> that a woman was commanded to consent and if she
> did not her husband was free to disregard her
> wishes and fulfill his obligation to his religious
> duty.
>
> 5. Attempts to disavow polygamy is church
> doctrine is disingenuous as the Doctrine &
> Covenants, Section 132 remains as canonized
> scripture. The practice has only been temporarily
> suspended due to hostile cultural and legal
> circumstances, but the doctrine still stands.
> Polygamy is still practiced in the sense that a
> man who remarries after the death of his wife can
> be sealed to his new wife and expects to live with
> both women in heaven.
>
> 6. It is often claimed that early polygamists
> practiced the same polygamy that was practiced in
> the Bible. However, in Leviticus a man is
> prohibited from marrying the sister of his wife.
> Neither was he permitted to marry a mother and
> daughter. The penalty for this was to “…be
> burnt with fire both he and they; that there is no
> wickedness among you.” (Lev 20:14) If the early
> church had indeed held to the Biblical
> restrictions on polygamy, then Joseph Smith
> himself would have been subject to the penalty of
> death as Joseph's wives included at least one
> mother/daughter pair (Patty Bartlett and Sylvia
> Sessions) and three sets of sisters: Delcena and
> Almera Johnson; Sarah and Maria Lawrence (aged
> seventeen and nineteen, respectively); and Emily
> and Eliza Partridge.
>
> Self-imposed ignorance about the reality of
> polygamy as practiced in the early church has
> resulted in many LDS adherents having an
> understanding of LDS history that is, as retired
> LDS Institute Director Grant Palmer described it,
> a mile wide but only an inch deep.

WOW! His head is going to explode. I will probably mention the illegality so that I don't overwhelm him and he shuts down.

Truly thank you!

Mormons today tend to gloss over the difficulties faced by the women who sacrificed so much to live "the principle" as they were commanded. But to ignore or dismiss the very real personal struggles these women faced, is to demean their memories.

http://blogs.standard.net/the-political-surf/2011/06/29/polygamy-was-no-mormon-harem-but-it-tore-at-marriages-and-hearts/


"As Van Wagoner writes, though, there was a somber paradox to polygamy, particularly for faithful LDS women who reluctantly embraced the doctrine as a commandment of God yet suffered personal heartache and financial pain due to their husband’s extracurricular wives. Emmeline B. Wells, early Mormon women’s leader and feminist, wrote publicly that polygamy “gives women the highest opportunities for self-development, exercise of judgment, and arouses latent faculties, making them truly cultivated in the actual realities of life, more independent in thought and mind, noble and unselfish.” In her private journal, though, Wells despaired of how polygamy had robbed her of the love of her husband, Daniel H. Wells, member of the church’s first presidency."

http://blog.mrm.org/2011/07/the-dysfunctional-doctrine-of-mormon-polygamy/

"....on her twenty-second wedding anniversary (October 10, 1874), Emmeline wrote in her diary,

“Anniversary of my marriage with Pres. Wells. O how happy I was then how much pleasure I anticipated and how changed alas are things since that time, how few thoughts I had then have ever been realized, and how much sorrow I have known in place of the joy I looked forward to.” (Mormon Polygamy, 94)"

Just some additional reading material for you on polygamy:

http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changecontents.htm

with recognizing the facts of polygamy in early church history.

So why bother discussing it with him?

His response sent this AM. And he left on that stupid hiking trek. He'll be away from his phone and Internet the next three days.

"I don't question the convenient timing because church history says that the reversal was done because of the US law.

I don't know what to think about this story.  I haven't seen in it the news.

I think that any group, especially the bigger the group gets, whether religious or not, is going to get some nut cases - whether on the leadership or the followership (hehe, new word!) side of things.  Some leaders will do things different than other leaders in the group, so everything isn't done completely consistently throughout the group."

Sounds like the idea lemming - he's willing to believe anything.

What the hell?

What the hell kind of a response is that?

"I don't question...."

"I don't know...."

And then the whole "Any group is going to get nut cases...Some leaders will do things differently than other leaders."

That doesn't explain anything. It just shows how shallow his thought process is. Pathetic in every way.

Ask him, then, if he's admitting that Joseph Smith was a nut case, and if not, how does your friend's explanation NOT apply to JS.

Call him out on this. Ask him to be more specific. Ask him questions in regards to the points addressed by caedmon (well done btw).

Force him to use his brain. Jesus.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/16/2011 03:13AM by greekgod.

This Mormon friend of yours evidently doesn't know much about his own church and its history. I can understand that you will have problems explaining facts against his arrogant ignorance.

But - if polygamy was not illegal, why did Joseph Smith keep it secret in Nauvoo?

Why did he have the printing press of the Mormon Expositor destroyed when it exposed polygamy?

If the Mormon church put an end to polygamy when it supposedly was made illegal, why were several Mormon leaders, including GAs, arrested and jailed for practicing polygamy?