LDS Freedom Forum

ocarinahuff wrote:

jbalm wrote:As BrianM recently pointed out in another thread, the content of the Nauvoo Expositor itself blasts a very large hole in the theory that someone other than JS concocted sec. 132. And if JS was responsible for that section, then it is difficult to maintain the view that he neither practiced nor preached polygamy.

I was kind of bummed when Brian pointed that out, because I really wanted to believe that JS had nothing to do with that stuff. But it is what it is.

Sorry, but that doesn't fly. The Nauvoo Expositor was written by enemies of the Church. As such, it is not likely that they would be telling the truth in that newspaper. By the way, Joseph had the press responsible for publishing that newspaper destroyed. In addition, the accusations of polygamy against Joseph in that newspaper is actually just more of the same that had been thrown at him for some time before then. I would take Joseph's own words on this subject over any "second-hand" account from others who say Joseph "said this" or "said that". Remember, I pointed out that Joseph sued a member for saying that he preached polygamy, in court. THAT, is a matter of public record.

If you have read the nauvoo expositor you know that those "enemies of the church" testified in the article that Mormonism as it was initially implemented was true and they were calling joseph smith to repentance. The reason joseph smith got ticked and had it destroyed was because everything said in the nauvoo expositor was true.
The laws were attempting to do the will of a God in calling joseph to repentance and they stated they were willing to accept him with open arms. Martin Harris said he didn't leave the church, "the church left him...", David whitmer testified that the same voice that told him the Book of Mormon was true told him to separate himself from the saints, oliver cowdery got ex-communicated for accusing joseph of adultery. The laws tried to tell everyone the evils of polygamy, and they all have gotten a bad rap for nearly two hundred years but the truth is starting to come out as the curse is being lifted that was put upon the church for polygamy. The same curse warned about in jacob 2. Hallelujah that a few people will open there hearts and set aside their idol worship of men to receive the truth from God.

By the way you don't need to just simply believe anyone. Have you received a witness of the Book of Mormon? Go repeat the same steps and you can receive a witness of the truth of this matter too. Applies to anything else as well...

ocarinahuff wrote:
Maybe you didn't read the latter post to KMCopeland...I'll try rephrasing it.

It depends on who one choose to believe is right, and who is wrong. If I choose to believe Joseph Smith, and his claims of innocence on the charges of polygamy, then I must assume that those who say he isn't are wrong. Is that clear enough? In your example above, I would usually side with the Mormons as being the good guys, and therefore believe what they say about John Bennett or William Law since they would be the bad guys in this case. Once you decide who is good and who is bad, it makes it a bit easier to decide who to believe. By this logic, I chose not to believe what is written in the Nauvoo Expositor, since it was written by people who left the church, and non-members. The church had a lot of enemies at the time, spreading lies left and right.

I did in fact read excerpts from that newspaper, and WM Law and one other individual claim to have seen a document from Hyrum Smith who claimed Joseph Smith received it as revelation. So it appears that the document may have existed while Joseph was alive. But again, this is a second-hand account from an enemy, who claims Joseph privately taught polygamy while publicly denouncing it. I would not follow a man so conflicted like that.

Since I choose to believe Joseph Smith's claims of innocence, I will thus throw out WM Law's claim. I do see the possibility that Section 132 may have been written during Joseph's time, but whether he wrote it or not is another question. I personally have reason to believe that Joseph Smith did not write it, nor received it from the Lord.

I should warn you, I'm an introvert, and joining this forum and posting stuff like this is way outside my comfort zone. I do not like arguing, it makes me feel angry. I blocked KMCopeland because I did not like the feeling I got from his posts. Be nice, and I will respond in kind. Remember, Christ taught that contention is of the devil, and I certainly have never felt the Spirit in ANY of KMCopeland's posts in all the months i have spent reading this forum before I joined. And no, I will not apologize if he feels offended at the insinuation.

If you have nothing nice to say to me, say nothing at all.

So you start with your conclusion and then cherry pick and mold the evidence support your conclusion. Yeah...you're credible. :-BD

And I'll say what I want to whomever I want. Deal with it. If you choose to deal with it like this, :(( :(( , so be it.

minorityofone wrote:

ocarinahuff wrote:

jbalm wrote:As BrianM recently pointed out in another thread, the content of the Nauvoo Expositor itself blasts a very large hole in the theory that someone other than JS concocted sec. 132. And if JS was responsible for that section, then it is difficult to maintain the view that he neither practiced nor preached polygamy.

I was kind of bummed when Brian pointed that out, because I really wanted to believe that JS had nothing to do with that stuff. But it is what it is.

Sorry, but that doesn't fly. The Nauvoo Expositor was written by enemies of the Church. As such, it is not likely that they would be telling the truth in that newspaper. By the way, Joseph had the press responsible for publishing that newspaper destroyed. In addition, the accusations of polygamy against Joseph in that newspaper is actually just more of the same that had been thrown at him for some time before then. I would take Joseph's own words on this subject over any "second-hand" account from others who say Joseph "said this" or "said that". Remember, I pointed out that Joseph sued a member for saying that he preached polygamy, in court. THAT, is a matter of public record.

If you have read the nauvoo expositor you know that those "enemies of the church" testified in the article that Mormonism as it was initially implemented was true and they were calling joseph smith to repentance. The reason joseph smith got ticked and had it destroyed was because everything said in the nauvoo expositor was true.
The laws were attempting to do the will of a God in calling joseph to repentance and they stated they were willing to accept him with open arms. Martin Harris said he didn't leave the church, "the church left him...", David whitmer testified that the same voice that told him the Book of Mormon was true told him to separate himself from the saints, oliver cowdery got ex-communicated for accusing joseph of adultery. The laws tried to tell everyone the evils of polygamy, and they all have gotten a bad rap for nearly two hundred years but the truth is starting to come out as the curse is being lifted that was put upon the church for polygamy. The same curse warned about in jacob 2. Hallelujah that a few people will open there hearts and set aside their idol worship of men to receive the truth from God.

You've chosen to believe Law's word over Joseph's word. We'll have to agree to disagree.

The Expositer doesn't really prove anything to me. It could have been made up or part of a revelation that was altered.

There is more evidence to consider. Like Joseph Smith III personally interviewing those who claimed to be married to his father and getting nothing but denials that they were married to him. Emma denying it ever took place and the lack of progeny.

The whole thing is quote troubling because either way, one of the presidents of the church was a big liar.

Thomas wrote:The Expositer doesn't really prove anything to me. It could have been made up or part of a revelation that was altered.

There is more evidence to consider. Like Joseph Smith III personally interviewing those who claimed to be married to his father and getting nothing but denials that they were married to him. Emma denying it ever took place and the lack of progeny.

The whole thing is quote troubling because either way, one of the presidents of the church was a big liar.

I thought the Utah mormons did their best to convince JSIII that his father was a polygamist. Maybe is was just the leadership that tried to convince him? Where did you read about the denials?

Thomas wrote:
The whole thing is quote troubling because either way, one of the presidents of the church was a big liar.

Joseph was to keep sacred things sacred.
There's a history of prophets lying. It goes back to OT times. Sometimes it's to save their lives, or the lives of others. Abraham lied to the Pharaoh. Other lies seemed to have been approved of God as well. Jacob lied to his father in order to receive the blessings that were intended for Esau. Lots of examples once one cares to search.

So, why should we take their word for anything? Liars aren't trustworthy, by definition.

Appearantly Joseph III made many visits to SLC. Here is part of his account of the meeting with Sarah Pratt, a women Joseph was accused of seducing and marrying as a spiritual wife.

"Sister Pratt, it has been frequently told that he behaved improperly in your presence, and I have been told that I dare not come to you and and ask you about your relations with him, for fear you would tell me things which would be unwelcome to me."

"You need have no such fear," she repeated. "Your father was never guilty of an action or proposal of an improper nature in my house, towards me, or in my presence, at any time or place. There is no truth in the reports that have been circulated about him in this regard. He was always the Christian gentleman, and a noble man."

That I thanked Mrs. Pratt very warmly for her testimony in these matters my readers may be very sure. I had constantly heard it charged that my father had been guilty of improper conduct toward Elder Pratt's wife, and I had long before made up my mind that if I ever had an opportunity I would find out the truth from her.

The result [of this interview] was very gratifying to me, especially as she had made her short, clear-cut statements freely, just as I have recorded, in the presence of Dr. Benedict.

It may be added that mingled with my pleasure was a degree of astonishment that such stories as had been told about her and her relations with Father should have gotten out and been so widely circulated and yet never met with a public refutation from her. However, I expressed my appreciation of her kind reception and her statements, and at the close of our interview, which lasted about an hour and a half, left her with good wishes.
Doctor Benedict and I passed from her presence into the street in a silence which was not broken until we had gone some distance. Then suddenly he stopped, pulled off his hat, looked all around carefully, and raising his hand emphatically, said:

"My God! What damned liars these people are! Here for years I have been told that your father had Mrs. Pratt for one of his spiritual wives and was guilty of improper relations with her. Now I hear from her own lips, in unmistakable language, that it was not true. What liars! What liars!"

...I was glad that before she died I had her testimony, and that it had proved, as had been proved many times before, that such charges made against my father were untrue.

...I have conscientiously traced statements made by various individuals inculpating my father in this wrongdoing, and in every instance I have failed to find evidence worthy to be called proof. It strikes me now, as it has for many, many years, that honorable men and women should absolve me from blame for pursuing the course I have taken, in steadfastly refusing to believe, simply because persons entangled in the evil meshes [of polygamy] wished to involve him in their wrongdoing, that my father was a bad man and responsible for doctrines which he himself pronounced to be "false and corrupt." (Saints' Herald, January 15, 1935, 80; January 22, 1935, 109–110)

Full account here. There are more but you have to dig for themhttp://restorationbookstore.org/articles/nopoligamy/jsfp-vol2/2chp3.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

shadow wrote:

Thomas wrote:
The whole thing is quote troubling because either way, one of the presidents of the church was a big liar.

Joseph was to keep sacred things sacred.

Where do you get that?

"I am bold to declare I have taught all the strong doctrines publicly, and always teach stronger doctrines in public than in private."

Ran across this article recently dealing with monogamy and men:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex ... ale-libido" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

LDS leaders have said that monogamy runs counter to the way (at least) men are created. What do you think? Should middle-aged women be happy their men are looking at porn so their men can remain monogamous with them and not run off with someone half their age, since polygamy is not mainstreamed yet?

I was recently speaking with two women (they do not know each other) who are involved with people in the polyamory lifestyle. One said something quite interesting, and she thinks it is due to evolutionary psychology, that women in their late teens often get involved with group relationships but when they reach 21-ish they tend to pair off with a male. This may be because they are (consciously or sub-consciously) wanting to have someone they can count on to help raise children. Then something happens to women once they reach their late 30s (after most have children who are beyond the total-commitment ages) and that is they really get into the lifestyle, and often are far more into women than they used to be.

One could extrapolate a lot of conclusions from this person's observations (I have run across research that confirms what she says) and...well, polygamy would allow greater choices for women,would it not?

Fiannan wrote:Ran across this article recently dealing with monogamy and men:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex ... ale-libido" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

LDS leaders have said that monogamy runs counter to the way (at least) men are created. What do you think? Should middle-aged women be happy their men are looking at porn so their men can remain monogamous with them and not run off with someone half their age, since polygamy is not mainstreamed yet?

I was recently speaking with two women (they do not know each other) who are involved with people in the polyamory lifestyle. One said something quite interesting, and she thinks it is due to evolutionary psychology, that women in their late teens often get involved with group relationships but when they reach 21-ish they tend to pair off with a male. This may be because they are (consciously or sub-consciously) wanting to have someone they can count on to help raise children. Then something happens to women once they reach their late 30s (after most have children who are beyond the total-commitment ages) and that is they really get into the lifestyle, and often are far more into women than they used to be.

One could extrapolate a lot of conclusions from this person's observations (I have run across research that confirms what she says) and...well, polygamy would allow greater choices for women,would it not?

This was quite a disturbing comment. Are you suggesting lesbian activity in polygamous relationships would be healthy? What the hell?

Btw joseph smith 3rd by the end of his life saw enough evidence that he changed his position and no longer declared to know that his father didn't practice polygamy. He said he didn't know whether joseph practiced it, but either way it was a false doctrine.

This was quite a disturbing comment. Are you suggesting lesbian activity in polygamous relationships would be healthy? What the hell?

I heard an interview a while back where an anthropologist said that there were instances of Mormon sister wives falling in love and forming same-sex relationships with each other. She said the husbands did not mind. I spoke with a reform Jewish rabbi last year. She said that lesbian activity in a polygamist family was not considered a sin, as long as they still fulfilled the first commandment to multiply and replenish the earth, although it was considered a bit lascivious. Islam is a bit tougher on this and it is discouraged for sister wives to even see each other naked as it is thought to provoke sexual activity between women.

I bring this up only in an academic sense really. It is my belief that the acceptance of polygamy will increase not through Mormon polygamists and court cases but through secular group marriage arrangements. This will allow justices to erode monogamy as a part of the US marriage ideal without making it look as if they are playing favorites with certain religious groups.

Also, evolutionary psychology would say that if a behavior or belief increased reproduction then that will obviously mean more people will have the genes of the mother who possessed those traits. Many women nowadays admit to being bi-romantic, meaning usually they seek the warmth and companionship of another woman, but not necessarily a sexual relationship with that woman. Some have said that Ellinor Roosevelt was lesbian but I believe the evidence suggests she cared very deeply for her female friend, but that may not have involved sex. So let's say a LDS man was married to a woman who was either bisexual or bi-romantic and polygamy was announced to be back. She might immediately start telling him to get married to her single friend. Her friend might not ever have been able to get married but now she has a chance to reproduce. The wife and friend can share in household duties and form a less stressful household (and produce children much more economically than monogamous marriages). Perhaps this is why women are far more apt to admit that they could see themselves with another woman than men would say they would like to try a relationship with another man. The latter makes no evolutionary sense while the former, in a polygamist society, does.

I am not promoting this, just trying to explain why it is that female sexuality appears far more fluid than male.

Muerte Rosa wrote:Fiannan what exactly is your profession?

Always tell people I'm a greeter at a big box store. ;)

Muerte Rosa wrote:Seriously though.....

Just had a new haircut that day.


http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2010 ... costco.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Strange, most people who know me say I remind them of this:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RScc2jH3jM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

B-)

Just out of curiosity though Muerte, why not attack my assertions in relation to science, the family and psychology rather than post a pic featuring a male composite from an over-30s singles dance?

It's pretty clear by now that we may never know the truth of the matter, due to the many conflicting reports of the time period. We'll have to wait on the Lord to reveal all things in due time, but, man, I hate long waits.

This much I do know, though, I know by the Holy Spirit that Joseph Smith is the Prophet of the Restoration, and he did translate the Book of Mormon, and it is an ancient record of God's dealings with the people of this american continent in ages past.

I have great respect for Joseph Smith, and will continue to honor him and give his words more weight over his enemies.

Now, back to day ### of waiting for God to tell me the truth of the matter.... :-w

People thought, and still do, that this gentleman said some pretty strange things as well:

ocarinahuff wrote: Now then, who else is as confused/concerned about this topic as I?

This is absolutely not a confusing subject. We claim to be a restoration of all of the correct principles of the true church of Jesus Christ as they have existed on the earth whether in part or complete at any time the church has functioned in part or in whole. Thus the issue is not that the LDS Church practices polygamy but the issue is whether it was ever considered a correct principle in any prior dispensation.

Polygamy is like any other concept in the gospel. It has a right application sustained by God, and it has a perverted application sustained by Satan. It is like killing in that respect. There are times when killing is absolutely forbidden by the commandments and there are times when killing is required by commandment. It is equally wrong to kill when it is forbidden, as it is to not kill when it is required.

In the case of polygamy we have the exact same situation. When conditions are appropriate, the Lord commands it, when not then the command is withdrawn. In the case of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and references in scripture that sanction its application, such as in Deuteronomy, it is clear that the Lord did not forbid this principle and indeed required it. It is equally as evident that it was a practice that could be abused as in the case of David and Solomon. It seems that as far I can discover that there is always the way of the Lord and there are the perverted forms of Satan; thus fulfilling another balance in the eternities of opposition in all things.

The issue is it is a confusing concept for many because the morays of societies that comprise the predominate historical American profile have created distance away from polygamous liaisons and classed them as categorically adulterous. That societal bias becomes a superstitious teaching of our fathers IF we cannot create the same repulsion in the Biblical paradigm.

Thus all that is required to make polygamy an unsuitable practice for the restored true Church of God is simply to prove it has never held a position of preference or commandment of the Lord; that it has never been practiced by the righteous and approved of by God. In that process we would expect to be able to observe it’s proper application and it’s Satanic compromises to lead men astray. Take the current dispensation out of the mix and remove the principle from the Old Testament and prove that God did not accept its presence among his most beloved servants and then it is automatically determined to not be eligible for a restoration principle; A difficult task to in honesty to accomplish.

Muerte Rosa wrote:Ok let me rephrase....you say some CREEPY stuff. I say weird things and do some weird things. Im a weirdo and I take pride in that. But you say creepy things. I'm not alone on this either. Re-read some of your comments and try to see it from a normal person's perspective.

Oh really? My Atheist friends say that the Bible has some really creepy stuff. I suppose it is up to the person doing the interpretation. Give some examples though...not very constructive to just make an insult and not back it up. I will note that I have never insulted you in any discussion and I do not intend to.

I will note that modern society is based on the ideas of Freud, Jung, Skinner, Nietzsche, Mead, Kinsey, Watson, W. Reich, Bernays, and the application of their ideas through institutions such as the Taviskock Institute, CIA, and various huge foundations. Most people passively accept whatever the elite filter out to the society and yet if someone points out the principles of these entities they are accused of sounding conspiratorial or "creepy." You want creepy? Look at how you are manipulated every moment of the day, or what some people with a lot of power have planned for the human race in the next 50 - 100 years. You won't be so quick to make accusations after that.

As for polygamy, the original topic here, if you believe in evolution or even theistic-evolution then you must then accept that humans are animals and are governed by the same biological mechanisms as a moose, cat or Bonobo chimp. Thus we can say that what works to maintain these species can apply to our own. Of course in Darwin's "Descent of Man" he does say that morality is a component of human behavior but he fails to go beyond compassion to really set any foundation for what morality is. Religion on the other hand, which I am a very devout Mormon I will note, gives a moral compass as to what is right and wrong. The thing is, if we accept the evolutionary standpoint as or origins rather than a biological framework, then something like polygamy is totally consistent in amplifying both the man and woman's (women's) genetic code into subsequent generations. If we look at religion we find that there is an interesting intersection here in that religion often sees polygamy as positive and it is, ultimately, very pro-natal if practiced with an eye to forming families.

Face it, biology, especially as explained by evolutionary psychologiest, makes the case for the acceptance of polygamy. And the Bible and Koran make the case for polygamy's acceptance as well. Joseph Smith restored an ancient family framework, he did not invent it.

It's funny how you appeal to science when it supports your position. Then, almost in the same breath, you will appeal to the Old Testament (citing clearly allegorical characters like Adam and Noah) which mostly contradicts science.

To belive evolution you have to have blind faith that we and other animals are changing at a slow unseen rate. And to belive the so called evidences collected and documented and put in there bible. "School books".It's a belief formed by most in their youth while being taught at the atheist church. The church of public school of the United states.

All other religions are excluded from this church. And only atheism is taught.

It's totally a religion.

So the earth is 6000 years old, and everyone alive today descended from the eight survivors of a flood that happened around 4000 years ago?

Believe what you want. But you should be cautious with accusations of "blind faith."

Muerte Rosa wrote:I think some of the details of that kind of stuff are merely speculation. Like the flood.
I believe people evolve but not from amebas and monkeys. In genesis the story of Adam and Eve is worded very clearly. That they were in fact created by the hands of the Lord. I can't think of any other way of interpreting that that would fit in with evolution.
I believe there is a scientific explanation for everything but that not all science we have on the earth right now is complete or even correct. YET.

Yet we don't know how he did it. Could evolution been how are our bodies were made? You can't rule it out. It sure is hard to explain all the half man half ape creature remains found.

Evolution of life is fact. We see it happen in a short period of time with viruses and microbes. Just be cause we don't live long enough to observe mullti generational changes in humans doesn't mean they don't take place.

The fact remains that God had to have come from somewhere. Explain how than you have something.

I believe in God. I also believe that evolution is likely the way He created us.