LDS Freedom Forum

MMbelieve wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 2:24 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 1:04 pm

MMbelieve wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 12:37 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 12:15 pm

Of course understanding something doesn't mean one has to accept it.

But anyone who thinks that plural marriage is about the sex, clearly doesn't understand it.

It's not all that hard for a man to find multiple sexual partners. Going to a brothel or having mistresses is a whole lot cheaper and than caring for a bunch of wives and there also wouldn't be any children to care for.

Plural marriage was a huge sacrifice for all involved, men, women, and children. The People who lived it had all of the human weaknesses that we have today.

It troubles me that so many people feel like they can bash an eternal principle of God and those who tried their best to live this principle as commanded by God.

We should commend them for their sacrifice like we commend the pioneers for their sacrifices. These Saints deserve our admiration not condemnation.

I’m not condemning anyone, this is not about the early saints to me. I know they sacrificed, I know they had a hard time, I know they should be held in high regard for their unwavering faith to follow something so against their sensibilities. It is not 1850 however, it’s nearly 2020. We can discuss polygamy without having to bash or praise early saints or old prophets.

Let’s try this, you tell me in 1 paragraph what I do not understand about polygamy. I mean, I doubt you have anything more to say than anyone else in here has said already to try to convince people that it’s a higher law and a celestial principal and whatever else. The church doesn’t even teach that polygamy is a higher law or that it’s a necessary part of eternity.

Or better yet, tell me why you desire to have many wives.

When you say that plural marriage is all about the sex for the men ad nothing but awful for the women you are in fact bashing the early Saints. Your also calling Brigham Young and the early Church leaders liars and whoremongers for making up a false revelation so they could have lots of sex and emotionally abuse women and children.

This is what would have to be true if plural marriage is wrong.

Here's what you don't understand about plural marriage.

Plural marriage is first and foremost about obeying whatever command God gives, no matter how great the personal sacrifice. Plural marriage is about creating eternal families in which women and children are sealed to a righteous husband and father who will be exalted in the Celestial Kingdom. Plural marriage is about learning to put God first and others first, not yourself. It is about overcoming the natural man and woman. It is about denying yourself, taking up your Cross, and following whatever it is the Lord asks of you. It was also among many other God-given doctrines designed to make his people into a peculiar people and not a people after the ways of the world.

I also never said that I want to live plural marriage.

The only reason I would live plural marriage is if God commanded me to. And then my purpose would be to love and care for as many women and children as God expects me to.

This sounds like an emotional response to me...I’m not openly bashing anyone. If my beliefs inherently are seen as bashing another then it’s emotional is it not?

Fair enough.

Perhaps I misunderstood some of your comments.

So let's set the record straight.

So you don't believe Brigham Young and the early leaders of the Church made up the revelation on plural marriage so they could have lots of sex and thereby commit whoredoms?

So you believe that the early Utah Saints in the 1850s and beyond were justified in practicing plural marriage and that the men weren't in essence whoremongers who were basically reducing the innocent women to whores?

Juliet wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 12:59 pm There is only one point in which I can agree with polygamy. If a man wants to have sex with another woman, he had better be willing to provide for her for the rest of her life. The typical culture men have these days... Is to pump and dump. Ok, that is wrong. And stealing to the upmost degree. If you can't have the self control to keep it to one woman, she deserves a lifetime supply of provision. Because women actually bond to the man during sex. And it is evil to think of her as pump and dump when for her he will be glued into her heart.

As for the eternities, I doubt God is going to command in all things. But the highest law is written in our hearts. One man and his female. Because a female is taken out of a man and is bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. That's how it's written in my heart, and that's how I expect it to be. And if it's not that way, and anyone is still around, when you look up and see intergalactic war, you can know that this little someone has forged a protest.

LOL. I like your perspective and attitude. You did a great job of explaining the inner workings which, IMO, should become the outer workings known and respected by everyone.

Women who oppose polygamy are simply trying to keep the value and sacredness and specialness of human bonding and relationships. She doesn’t want to lose her love for her man!

Sanctioning polygamy in the biblical days likely had exactly to do with if you want her then you must be responsible to her forever. This is also implied in the D&C scripture when it says “and if he DESIRE another...”. It’s the mans desire that initiates polygamy and God made a way for women to be taken care of and to retain that bond he created by laying with her. Men in biblical times laid with women all the time and it wasn’t thought of like it is today.

Seems polygamy is a man made design with God stepping in and telling men to be men about providing instead of just making it one sided.

This points even more to polygamy being a lower law if it’s even a law at all.

Matthias wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 2:30 pm

MMbelieve wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 2:24 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 1:04 pm

MMbelieve wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 12:37 pm

I’m not condemning anyone, this is not about the early saints to me. I know they sacrificed, I know they had a hard time, I know they should be held in high regard for their unwavering faith to follow something so against their sensibilities. It is not 1850 however, it’s nearly 2020. We can discuss polygamy without having to bash or praise early saints or old prophets.

Let’s try this, you tell me in 1 paragraph what I do not understand about polygamy. I mean, I doubt you have anything more to say than anyone else in here has said already to try to convince people that it’s a higher law and a celestial principal and whatever else. The church doesn’t even teach that polygamy is a higher law or that it’s a necessary part of eternity.

Or better yet, tell me why you desire to have many wives.

When you say that plural marriage is all about the sex for the men ad nothing but awful for the women you are in fact bashing the early Saints. Your also calling Brigham Young and the early Church leaders liars and whoremongers for making up a false revelation so they could have lots of sex and emotionally abuse women and children.

This is what would have to be true if plural marriage is wrong.

Here's what you don't understand about plural marriage.

Plural marriage is first and foremost about obeying whatever command God gives, no matter how great the personal sacrifice. Plural marriage is about creating eternal families in which women and children are sealed to a righteous husband and father who will be exalted in the Celestial Kingdom. Plural marriage is about learning to put God first and others first, not yourself. It is about overcoming the natural man and woman. It is about denying yourself, taking up your Cross, and following whatever it is the Lord asks of you. It was also among many other God-given doctrines designed to make his people into a peculiar people and not a people after the ways of the world.

I also never said that I want to live plural marriage.

The only reason I would live plural marriage is if God commanded me to. And then my purpose would be to love and care for as many women and children as God expects me to.

This sounds like an emotional response to me...I’m not openly bashing anyone. If my beliefs inherently are seen as bashing another then it’s emotional is it not?

Fair enough.

Perhaps I misunderstood some of your comments.

So let's set the record straight.

So you don't believe Brigham Young and the early leaders of the Church made up the revelation on plural marriage so they could have lots of sex and thereby commit whoredoms?

So you believe that the early Utah Saints in the 1850s and beyond were justified in practicing plural marriage and that the men weren't in essence whoremongers who were basically reducing the innocent women to whores?

I do not think like that but if you want me to, I don’t believe the early saints were turned into whores any more than men turn women into whores today. I do not believe men married for sex back then any more than they marry for sex today. Neither of those have to have anything to do with polygamy.

The issue for me is the way God made a woman’s heart. Polygamy rips that apart. So when people say polygamy is THE law of marriage I have to raise a brow at it. Plus, nothing in my understanding of the gospel tells me polygamy is the law of God for his children. The church does not teach it...period.

There is a lot more to the polygamy issue aside from early prophets so I can discuss and talk about polygamy without bashing or referencing them at all. To me, the issue is separate and I would venture to say it seems to go towards the early prophets because men bring that in, not women though the women will discuss in when it does come up.

When the justifications start to creep in, it's a good time to paste in another round of Jacob 2 :

23 This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines,which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

Allison wrote: ↑October 11th, 2019, 9:10 pm

LadyT wrote: ↑October 11th, 2019, 9:01 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑October 10th, 2019, 10:49 pm

cab wrote: ↑October 10th, 2019, 9:07 pm


Yes. This... I believe that if it was ever commanded, ways.wel to specific men as a specific type of Abrahamic test, as a necessary part of their progression to see if they could still keep their virtue (law of chastity) despite a seemingly contradictory set of commandments (like Adam's commandments in the garden, or Abraham's commandment to kill his birthright son)... Or perhaps to Joseph Smith after translating a book that condemns the practice over and over...

In regards to Joseph's potential polygamy, I think we should listen to what William Marks had to say...

"When the doctrine of polygamy was introduced into the church as a principle of exaltation, I took a decided stand against it; which stand rendered me quite unpopular with many of the leading ones of the church. … Joseph, however, became convinced before his death that he had done wrong; for about three weeks before his death, I met him one morning in the street, and he said to me, “Brother Marks, … we are a ruined people.” I asked, how so? He said: “This doctrine of polygamy, or Spiritual-wife system, that has been taught and practiced among us, will prove our destruction and overthrow. I have been deceived,” said he, “in reference to its practice; it is wrong; it is a curse to mankind, and we shall have to leave the United States soon, unless it can be put down and its practice stopped in the church. Now,’ said he,’ Brother Marks, you have not received this doctrine, and how glad I am. I want you to go into the high council and I will have charges preferred against all who practice this doctrine, and I want you to try them by the laws of the church, and cut them off, if they will not repent and cease the practice of this doctrine.”

Well if Marks was right (and I don't believe he was), then I guess William Law would have been right, too?

So Joseph had William cut off for trying to expose him and not letting Joseph take William's wife?

If that's true then are the rest of William's claims true too?

That would make Joseph a fallen prophet.

Since Joseph had already taken a plural wife in Kirtland before the Temple was dedicated, then we can write all the miracles that happened in the temple off as nonsense.

We can also write off all of his teachings and revelations after 1836.

Is that really a rabbit hole you want to go down?

I agree that plural marriage would have been a test for the extremely righteous.

It is quite possible that the practice evolved under Brigham Young and was even an whoredom for some who may have practiced it unworthily.

I refuse to judge that. God will be the judge.

I have studied plural marriage from every possible angle and have made my peace with it as a valid practice for the very righteous under God's command.

Although the Saints had a really hard time living plural marriage and abuses certainly existed, there were benefits to plural marriage, too.

No righteous woman would ever have to settle for remaining single or marrying a bum.

Righteous women would be able to have a fellow kinship and share domestic responsibilities among several other sister wives, freeing them up to pursue other interests, serve others, and study the gospel a lot more.

It would also ultimately help men and women be more Christlike and less selfish and self centered.

Recently a lady on this forum shared her struggles with loneliness and a desire for marriage to a righteous man, but to no avail.

Plural marriage would solve her problem tomorrow. A worthy man would be able to marry her and she would have an immediate association with her new sister wives.

These benefits were lost when the Church gave up plural marriage.

Some fundamentalists who practice plural marriage still have some of these benefits, but most are of course a mess.

Thats because it's doubtful any of them have the authority and blessing of God to currently live plural marriage.

That's between them and God though, and I do not judge them.

I would rather be single than share my husband. Thanks no thanks. I honestly can't see any benefit about plural marriage that you can get from a close family.

Amen sister! I have often thought maybe I would go ahead and take a lower kingdom and be single. That way at least I could have male friends, because I like men! But as one of a harem, you could never form any male friendships, because you know, no flirting when you're "married."

Brigham did invite his wives to divorce him if any of them found a man with whom they could form an eternal bond of marriage, and some took him up on it! How is that a celestial/eternal relationship?

None of it makes any sense, when you spend a few minutes really thinking it through.

From Brigham:

The second way in which a wife can be separated from her husband while he continues to be faithful to his God and his priesthood I have not revealed except to a few persons in this church, and a few have received it from Joseph the Prophet as well as myself.

This other path a woman may take if she can get a chance and do it in accordance with the order of heaven. If a woman can find a man holding the keys of the priesthood with higher power and authority than her husband, and he is disposed to take her, he can do so, otherwise she has got to remain where she is.

This doesn't look much like heaven to me.

lemuel wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 3:14 pm

Allison wrote: ↑October 11th, 2019, 9:10 pm

LadyT wrote: ↑October 11th, 2019, 9:01 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑October 10th, 2019, 10:49 pm

Well if Marks was right (and I don't believe he was), then I guess William Law would have been right, too?

So Joseph had William cut off for trying to expose him and not letting Joseph take William's wife?

If that's true then are the rest of William's claims true too?

That would make Joseph a fallen prophet.

Since Joseph had already taken a plural wife in Kirtland before the Temple was dedicated, then we can write all the miracles that happened in the temple off as nonsense.

We can also write off all of his teachings and revelations after 1836.

Is that really a rabbit hole you want to go down?

I agree that plural marriage would have been a test for the extremely righteous.

It is quite possible that the practice evolved under Brigham Young and was even an whoredom for some who may have practiced it unworthily.

I refuse to judge that. God will be the judge.

I have studied plural marriage from every possible angle and have made my peace with it as a valid practice for the very righteous under God's command.

Although the Saints had a really hard time living plural marriage and abuses certainly existed, there were benefits to plural marriage, too.

No righteous woman would ever have to settle for remaining single or marrying a bum.

Righteous women would be able to have a fellow kinship and share domestic responsibilities among several other sister wives, freeing them up to pursue other interests, serve others, and study the gospel a lot more.

It would also ultimately help men and women be more Christlike and less selfish and self centered.

Recently a lady on this forum shared her struggles with loneliness and a desire for marriage to a righteous man, but to no avail.

Plural marriage would solve her problem tomorrow. A worthy man would be able to marry her and she would have an immediate association with her new sister wives.

These benefits were lost when the Church gave up plural marriage.

Some fundamentalists who practice plural marriage still have some of these benefits, but most are of course a mess.

Thats because it's doubtful any of them have the authority and blessing of God to currently live plural marriage.

That's between them and God though, and I do not judge them.

I would rather be single than share my husband. Thanks no thanks. I honestly can't see any benefit about plural marriage that you can get from a close family.

Amen sister! I have often thought maybe I would go ahead and take a lower kingdom and be single. That way at least I could have male friends, because I like men! But as one of a harem, you could never form any male friendships, because you know, no flirting when you're "married."

Brigham did invite his wives to divorce him if any of them found a man with whom they could form an eternal bond of marriage, and some took him up on it! How is that a celestial/eternal relationship?

None of it makes any sense, when you spend a few minutes really thinking it through.

From Brigham:

The second way in which a wife can be separated from her husband while he continues to be faithful to his God and his priesthood I have not revealed except to a few persons in this church, and a few have received it from Joseph the Prophet as well as myself.

This other path a woman may take if she can get a chance and do it in accordance with the order of heaven. If a woman can find a man holding the keys of the priesthood with higher power and authority than her husband, and he is disposed to take her, he can do so, otherwise she has got to remain where she is.

This doesn't look much like heaven to me.

What in the...

Here's a fantastic talk called "Love your wife". I've swapped out each instance of wife to be plural, since that's apparently what Heaven will look like and what life would be like in the BY era.

Love your Wife(wives)

So brethren, your foremost priesthood duty is to nurture your marriages—to care for, respect, honor, and love your 50? wives

Another way husbands can be a blessing to their wives is by “[keeping] alive the spirit of romance in [their] marriage,” Elder Nelson says. “Be considerate and kind in the tender intimacies of your married life. Let your thoughts and actions inspire confidence and trust. Let your words be wholesome and your time together be uplifting. Let nothing in life take priority over your 2 dozen wives who are so numerous they live in basically a dorm—neither work, recreation, nor hobby.”3

“Do you tell your 7 wives often how very much you love them? It will bring THEM great happiness. I’ve heard men tell me when I say that, ‘Oh, THEY KNOW.’ You need to tell them. That handful of women grows and is greatly blessed by that reassurance. Express gratitude for what your several spouses do for you. Express that love and gratitude often.”5

… We can endure almost anything if we have a couple women at our side who truly loves us, who is easing the burden and lightening the load.”

To give ourselves totally to another 5 women, as we do in marriage, is the most trusting step we take in any human relationship. (still trying to figure out how a guy could totally give himself to more than 1 woman. This seems especially difficult, given the fact that men in the church require a call to repentance by leaders because they don't give their whole selves to their only wife they have)

This talk just doesn't have the same effect if you're assuming someone has more than 1 wife. I have a hard time believing this nonsense. Sorrryyyyy.(not sorry)

Matthias wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 2:14 pm

John Tavner wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 1:43 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 1:04 pm

MMbelieve wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 12:37 pm

I’m not condemning anyone, this is not about the early saints to me. I know they sacrificed, I know they had a hard time, I know they should be held in high regard for their unwavering faith to follow something so against their sensibilities. It is not 1850 however, it’s nearly 2020. We can discuss polygamy without having to bash or praise early saints or old prophets.

Let’s try this, you tell me in 1 paragraph what I do not understand about polygamy. I mean, I doubt you have anything more to say than anyone else in here has said already to try to convince people that it’s a higher law and a celestial principal and whatever else. The church doesn’t even teach that polygamy is a higher law or that it’s a necessary part of eternity.

Or better yet, tell me why you desire to have many wives.

When you say that plural marriage is all about the sex for the men ad nothing but awful for the women you are in fact bashing the early Saints. Your also calling Brigham Young and the early Church leaders liars and whoremongers for making up a false revelation so they could have lots of sex and emotionally abuse women and children.

This is what would have to be true if plural marriage is wrong.

Here's what you don't understand about plural marriage.

Plural marriage is first and foremost about obeying whatever command God gives, no matter how great the personal sacrifice. Plural marriage is about creating eternal families in which women and children are sealed to a righteous husband and father who will be exalted in the Celestial Kingdom. Plural marriage is about learning to put God first and others first, not yourself. It is about overcoming the natural man and woman. It is about denying yourself, taking up your Cross, and following whatever it is the Lord asks of you. It was also among many other God-given doctrines designed to make his people into a peculiar people and not a people after the ways of the world.

I also never said that I want to live plural marriage.

The only reason I would live plural marriage is if God commanded me to. And then my purpose would be to love and care for as many women and children as God expects me to.

And those that believe it are calling Joseph Smith a liar and a hypocrite - is it better to call Joseph a Liar and hypocrite or Brigham? or perhaps Birgham was deceived and Joseph told the truth.

This is the problem - someone had to get thrown under the bus for this and the church (Brigham decided to throw Joseph and Hyrum under the bus) threw Joseph and Hyrum under the bus. It is Indisputable from even our own church records that Hyrum ddin't have plural wives in the way people talk about it. He was married as proxy for someone else. If that is celestial plural marriage, then I am married to probably over 100 women now.

I do not believe that Joseph (who at 14 years old) refused to lie about what God told him all through is life - refused to lie about the book of Mormon, refused to lie about pretty much anything and then magically this one principle somehow he fears man more than God and lies about polygamy to everyone. It doesn't fit. It doesn't make sense. It is outside Joseph's character. Joseph literally was tarred and feathered, and suffered incredibly and was persecuted spending months on end in jail and yet polygamy appeared to be the straw that broke the camels back? That is the ONE thing he lied about for fear of man? Nope don't believe it. Doesn't make ssnse. Doesn't fit.

I understand you believe that if one accepts the traditional plural marriage narrative of the Church one is defending Brigham Young and throwing Joseph Smith under the bus.

It's more complicated than that. Brigham Young and other secret plural marriage practitioners also signed statements denouncing polygamy and spiritual wivery. It wasn't just Joseph Smith.

No believer in plural marraige I know of is accusing Joseph and Hyrum of being liars and hypocrites.

Yet the anti-plural marriage crowd does in fact say just that about Brighman Young and a while bunch of other men called by God to lead his people.

It's also worth pointing out that Joseph did keep sacred information secret sometimes. For example he and Oliver Cowdery did not make their baptisms and ordination to the Aaronic Priesthood known initially because of persecution.

Just so we are clear, something that is kept secret, is different then lying about it. Did Joseph and Oliver lie about it? Also, I would like to see the citation for that claim.

Furthermore, That only proves my point more about Brigham and others. Joseph didn't run around lying about things. Hyrum 100% didn't practice polygamy. That is not only the traditional narrative of the church, but it is THE narrative of the church.

John Tavner wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 5:13 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 2:14 pm

John Tavner wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 1:43 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 1:04 pm

When you say that plural marriage is all about the sex for the men ad nothing but awful for the women you are in fact bashing the early Saints. Your also calling Brigham Young and the early Church leaders liars and whoremongers for making up a false revelation so they could have lots of sex and emotionally abuse women and children.

This is what would have to be true if plural marriage is wrong.

Here's what you don't understand about plural marriage.

Plural marriage is first and foremost about obeying whatever command God gives, no matter how great the personal sacrifice. Plural marriage is about creating eternal families in which women and children are sealed to a righteous husband and father who will be exalted in the Celestial Kingdom. Plural marriage is about learning to put God first and others first, not yourself. It is about overcoming the natural man and woman. It is about denying yourself, taking up your Cross, and following whatever it is the Lord asks of you. It was also among many other God-given doctrines designed to make his people into a peculiar people and not a people after the ways of the world.

I also never said that I want to live plural marriage.

The only reason I would live plural marriage is if God commanded me to. And then my purpose would be to love and care for as many women and children as God expects me to.

And those that believe it are calling Joseph Smith a liar and a hypocrite - is it better to call Joseph a Liar and hypocrite or Brigham? or perhaps Birgham was deceived and Joseph told the truth.

This is the problem - someone had to get thrown under the bus for this and the church (Brigham decided to throw Joseph and Hyrum under the bus) threw Joseph and Hyrum under the bus. It is Indisputable from even our own church records that Hyrum ddin't have plural wives in the way people talk about it. He was married as proxy for someone else. If that is celestial plural marriage, then I am married to probably over 100 women now.

I do not believe that Joseph (who at 14 years old) refused to lie about what God told him all through is life - refused to lie about the book of Mormon, refused to lie about pretty much anything and then magically this one principle somehow he fears man more than God and lies about polygamy to everyone. It doesn't fit. It doesn't make sense. It is outside Joseph's character. Joseph literally was tarred and feathered, and suffered incredibly and was persecuted spending months on end in jail and yet polygamy appeared to be the straw that broke the camels back? That is the ONE thing he lied about for fear of man? Nope don't believe it. Doesn't make ssnse. Doesn't fit.

I understand you believe that if one accepts the traditional plural marriage narrative of the Church one is defending Brigham Young and throwing Joseph Smith under the bus.

It's more complicated than that. Brigham Young and other secret plural marriage practitioners also signed statements denouncing polygamy and spiritual wivery. It wasn't just Joseph Smith.

No believer in plural marraige I know of is accusing Joseph and Hyrum of being liars and hypocrites.

Yet the anti-plural marriage crowd does in fact say just that about Brighman Young and a while bunch of other men called by God to lead his people.

It's also worth pointing out that Joseph did keep sacred information secret sometimes. For example he and Oliver Cowdery did not make their baptisms and ordination to the Aaronic Priesthood known initially because of persecution.

Just so we are clear, something that is kept secret, is different then lying about it. Did Joseph and Oliver lie about it? Also, I would like to see the citation for that claim.

Furthermore, That only proves my point more about Brigham and others. Joseph didn't run around lying about things. Hyrum 100% didn't practice polygamy. That is not only the traditional narrative of the church, but it is THE narrative of the church.

The reference for them keeping their baptisms and ordinations a secret for a while is JS History 1:74 in the Pearl of Great Price.

You may interpret the carefully worded public denials of Joseph, Hyrum, and the other secret plural marriage practitioners as lying, but the early Utah Saints were aware of these statements and did not consider it lying.

Matthias wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 5:40 pm

John Tavner wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 5:13 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 2:14 pm

John Tavner wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 1:43 pm

And those that believe it are calling Joseph Smith a liar and a hypocrite - is it better to call Joseph a Liar and hypocrite or Brigham? or perhaps Birgham was deceived and Joseph told the truth.

This is the problem - someone had to get thrown under the bus for this and the church (Brigham decided to throw Joseph and Hyrum under the bus) threw Joseph and Hyrum under the bus. It is Indisputable from even our own church records that Hyrum ddin't have plural wives in the way people talk about it. He was married as proxy for someone else. If that is celestial plural marriage, then I am married to probably over 100 women now.

I do not believe that Joseph (who at 14 years old) refused to lie about what God told him all through is life - refused to lie about the book of Mormon, refused to lie about pretty much anything and then magically this one principle somehow he fears man more than God and lies about polygamy to everyone. It doesn't fit. It doesn't make sense. It is outside Joseph's character. Joseph literally was tarred and feathered, and suffered incredibly and was persecuted spending months on end in jail and yet polygamy appeared to be the straw that broke the camels back? That is the ONE thing he lied about for fear of man? Nope don't believe it. Doesn't make ssnse. Doesn't fit.

I understand you believe that if one accepts the traditional plural marriage narrative of the Church one is defending Brigham Young and throwing Joseph Smith under the bus.

It's more complicated than that. Brigham Young and other secret plural marriage practitioners also signed statements denouncing polygamy and spiritual wivery. It wasn't just Joseph Smith.

No believer in plural marraige I know of is accusing Joseph and Hyrum of being liars and hypocrites.

Yet the anti-plural marriage crowd does in fact say just that about Brighman Young and a while bunch of other men called by God to lead his people.

It's also worth pointing out that Joseph did keep sacred information secret sometimes. For example he and Oliver Cowdery did not make their baptisms and ordination to the Aaronic Priesthood known initially because of persecution.

Just so we are clear, something that is kept secret, is different then lying about it. Did Joseph and Oliver lie about it? Also, I would like to see the citation for that claim.

Furthermore, That only proves my point more about Brigham and others. Joseph didn't run around lying about things. Hyrum 100% didn't practice polygamy. That is not only the traditional narrative of the church, but it is THE narrative of the church.

The reference for them keeping their baptisms and ordinations a secret for a while is JS History 1:74 in the Pearl of Great Price.

You may interpret the carefully worded public denials of Joseph, Hyrum, and the other secret plural marriage practitioners as lying, but the early Utah Saints were aware of these statements and did not consider it lying.

Thanks!

Yes, how can you trust a religion that lies like that? It was different before Joseph died. Oh I"m aware of the "carefully worded statements" I used to make the same arguments you make. It is straight up lying. In fact for almost 30 years there was so much double-speak and lying going on in the intermountain west that it actually ruined a lot of the unity of the saints (whatever was left). Seriously it was awful - all because of polygamy. IT was so common that many people literally thought the 1890 manifesto was also double speak. It wasn't until they started exing people in the after the first decade of the 1900's with fervor that anyone began to believe the church was serious.

Sounds a lot like muslim Taqiyya if your a Shia muslim and Maruna if you're sunni. They are allowed to lie or have "feigned moderation" i.e. feign moderation to eventually conquer the "infidels" Or Tawriya which is ambiguous deception or kitman, which is deception by omission, or Hiyal which is deceiving another party by oath. Seriously, How can you trust others if they have that view. It is one thing to do it once if God straight up commands it. It is another to continually lie for over 70 years. That is disgusting. The Father of lies I"m sure was having a field day.

It seems those mormons seemed to miss the boat that God is a God of light and doesn't hide things in darkness... cause He is light.

Just so we are clear, I am a baptized attending, temple card carrying member. I just realize the purpose of the church - and it is different that what most people beleive.

Also not all the "early Utah saints" were aware until quite a few years AFTER they moved there. Some even arrived to Utah from England and were shocked to hear polygamy was a thing.

I'm out of my depth here but, just for the record, while the liar is cast into hell I would say that imo applies to the habitual liar not someone protecting someone else, like Rahab when she hid the spies and then said they had gone elsewhere. The commandment, in the big ten, is that you do not bear false witness against your neighbor, not you must never use deceit or strategy to protect life.

Durzan wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 1:16 pm

EmmaLee wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 1:04 pm

Alaris wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 12:47 pm

EmmaLee wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 12:31 pm

Yeah, I'm thinking the pro-polygamy men on LDSFF probably don't have a whole lotta control either (as is evidenced by their comments any time pornography comes up, for just one example). David was an amazing man - full of excellent qualities - one of God's chosen - AND he could have sex with a different woman every night of the year - but it STILL wasn't enough. Yet your average LDS man of 2019 thinks he has more integrity than David did before he fell??

Good point. However, I will say that the evidence that polygamy caused much suffering doesn't mean it wasn't commanded from God. He often commands us to follow laws that are beyond us. The early saints were also commanded to live the law of consecration. These evidences just show - to me - that polygamy was beyond us even when it was practiced. It was beyond David for crying out loud. This is why I find it so silly that folks get themselves so worked up about this. This can be an eternal principle and be beyond our comprehension. Do we know what sex is like in the eternities? No? Alllllllrighty then.

I agree with the bolded part, for sure. Just being a victim does not make a person virtuous - one does not equal the other. As for it ever being commanded by God, my research and revelation coincides with what Stahura and others have shared on this forum for years - no need to rehash or repeat it, IMO. As for consecration - we still to this day covenant to obey that Law in our temples - we do not, and have never done so, with polygamy, so it cannot be compared, IMO (not that that is what you were doing; I don't believe you were - but someone probably will, lol). If (BIG if), some version of plural marriage is a 'thing' in the eternities, it certainly was never meant to be lived during mortality by fallen, sinful, natural men.

Comparing the law of consecration to the plural marriage clause in this The law of Celestial Marriage is comparing a full orange to a slice of apple. one is a full law, while the other is a provision of service and mercy meant to allow the few who need it to reach full exaltation.

As for why it was implemented on earth, well... Restoration of All Things, Abrahamic Test, no marriage in heaven nor being given in heaven without it happening on earth, etc.

I said they CANNOT be compared to each other, so please do not put words in my mouth and make it sound like I compared them when I did not.

I do not believe "celestial marriage" has anything to do with men having more than one wife, and neither did Joseph Smith.

I'm curious why there are so many single Mormon men promoting polygamy on LDSFF - seems odd. Maybe they should see how they handle having one wife and the children produced therefrom, before clamoring for more.

Bilcliffe wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 6:31 pm I'm out of my depth here but, just for the record, while the liar is cast into hell I would say that imo applies to the habitual liar not someone protecting someone else, like Rahab when she hid the spies and then said they had gone elsewhere. The commandment, in the big ten, is that you do not bear false witness against your neighbor, not you must never use deceit or strategy to protect life.

Yes... which is what polygamy caused... habitual lying... and bearing false witness against Joseph Smith and if you don't believe Joseph smith, at the very Least Hyrum Smith.
Everyone suspected everyone else of being an agent and no one could trust anyone because they lied often. One offs are different than a way of life. Double speak was so common, like I said, much of the church didn't even believe the 1890 manifesto. Or the manifesto that happened after that... Or the many other situations because the lying was so prevalent.

Matthias wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 1:58 pm

EmmaLee wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 12:41 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 12:27 pm

EmmaLee wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 12:21 pm

It is humorous, in a sad sick sort of way, that pro-polygamy men try and convince people it's not about the sex, lol. I mean, who do they think they're fooling (besides themselves, of course)? I guess they think if they say it long enough, and loud enough, it will become truth or something. And yes, power, as well, for sure.

Maybe all the pro-polygamy men are either single (which is especially hilarious, as their excuse is - "there are SO many single Mormon women who need husbands, so, POLYGAMY!!! Well, why are you still single then??? lol), or they are in bad marriages - which is equally hilarious, because if you can't even figure out how to have one happy marriage with one happy wife, they think having MORE unhappy marriages with even MORE unhappy wives will make things better?? In the end, it's just fantasy land for them - a way to have what they suppose is guilt-free sex with a bunch of different women.

Well thanks for proving my point that most plural marriage haters don't understand what it is about and instead let their emotions judge the matter for them.

And to be clear, I'm not pro-polygamy. I don't desire to live It. I know I'm not worthy to live it.

But according to the word of God it is an eternal principle and God did command his people to live it in the past and will again some day in the future.

It's interesting that your only response is to attack me personally (against forum rules, BTW), and falsely accuse me of letting my "emotions" judge the matter for myself. What an ignorant statement. You don't know the first thing about me or what I know or how I've come to the conclusions that I have. But continue to bare false witness against me, as it's obviously all you've got.

As to your last statement, Stahura and others (mostly men, BTW) have provided ample evidence that it is NOT an eternal principle, and God has never commanded anyone to live it, and therefore, he will not command it in the future either. But there's no arguing with some men when it comes to sex, as they would even invoke God's name in justifying their lusts.

Well that's a double standard if I've ever seen one.

You state that the reason "pro-polygamy" men (obviously referring to me) defend plural marriage is because "it's just fantasy land for them - a way to have what they suppose is guilt-free sex with a bunch of different women."

Then you have the gall to get upset and accuse me of attacking you and breaking forum rules by saying that you proved my point about people letting their emotions lead their conclusions about plural marriage.

Come on now, I didn't attack you. You attacked me in a very viscious way. All I was doing was calling a spade a spade.

You're right I don't know you, and you don't know me.

Plural marriage is a hot button issue, I get that.

I'm sorry that my defending the moral integrity of a doctrine and practice in our canon of scripture, that was taught and practiced by the early Saints in this dispensation as a higher law from God, caused you to feel like you need to accuse me of wanting guilt free sex with lots of women.

In my book that's letting your emotions cloud your judgement, as there was absolutely no reason to make that horrible accusation against me based on any of the comments I made defending the doctrine of plural marriage.

Stop being so emotional, Matthias; and stop making things up. I never accused YOU of anything - unlike what you said directly about ME. Do you see the difference? No, of course not, because emotions are clouding your judgement. Everybody, except you, knows men want polygamy so they can have sex with multiple women - not at the same time, sorry to those of you who think polygamy allows you to have sex with multiple women at the same time - which YES, has also been promoted on LDSFF by "good Mormon men" (I won't say by whom, but we should all know the answer to that) - but no, it's not about sex. Seriously, this is laughable.

The Book of Mormon is my go-to book of scripture - it agrees with me on polygamy. Joseph Smith is my go-to Prophet - he agrees with me on polygamy. This pernicious "doctrine" has no place in my religion, but ya'll can do and believe whatever you want.

EmmaLee wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 6:33 pm

Durzan wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 1:16 pm

EmmaLee wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 1:04 pm

Alaris wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 12:47 pm

Good point. However, I will say that the evidence that polygamy caused much suffering doesn't mean it wasn't commanded from God. He often commands us to follow laws that are beyond us. The early saints were also commanded to live the law of consecration. These evidences just show - to me - that polygamy was beyond us even when it was practiced. It was beyond David for crying out loud. This is why I find it so silly that folks get themselves so worked up about this. This can be an eternal principle and be beyond our comprehension. Do we know what sex is like in the eternities? No? Alllllllrighty then.

I agree with the bolded part, for sure. Just being a victim does not make a person virtuous - one does not equal the other. As for it ever being commanded by God, my research and revelation coincide with what Stahura and others have shared on this forum for years - no need to rehash or repeat it, IMO. As for consecration - we still to this day covenant to obey that Law in our temples - we do not, and have never done so, with polygamy, so it cannot be compared, IMO (not that that is what you were doing; I don't believe you were - but someone probably will, lol). If (BIG if), some version of plural marriage is a 'thing' in the eternities, it certainly was never meant to be lived during mortality by fallen, sinful, natural men.

Comparing the law of consecration to the plural marriage clause in this The law of Celestial Marriage is comparing a full orange to a slice of apple. one is a full law, while the other is a provision of service and mercy meant to allow the few who need it to reach full exaltation.

As for why it was implemented on earth, well... Restoration of All Things, Abrahamic Test, no marriage in heaven nor being given in heaven without it happening on earth, etc.

I said they CANNOT be compared to each other, so please do not put words in my mouth and make it sound like I compared them when I did not.

I do not believe "celestial marriage" has anything to do with men having more than one wife, and neither did Joseph Smith.

I'm curious why there are so many single Mormon men promoting polygamy on LDSFF - seems odd. Maybe they should see how they handle having one wife and the children produced therefrom, before clamoring for more.

...Now, hold on a second, Emma. I didn't put any words in your mouth at all. Neither literally or figuratively. You said this:

As for consecration - we still to this day covenant to obey that Law in our temples - we do not, and have never done so with polygamy, so it cannot be compared, IMO

That seems like a comparison to me, pretty cut and dried, even though you say they cannot be compared. Don't go biting my proverbial head off, please.

Plural Marriage is mentioned and explained in quite a bit of detail in D&C 132, which also describes and fleshes out Celestial Marriage (Which we DO covenant to obey in the temples). Hence why so many say plural marriage is a part of celestial law. I should know because I did a thorough verse by verse literary commentary of that entire section just to get to the bottom of the issue of Polygamy.

And guess what? My eyes were opened by God to how it fits into the plan of salvation as a whole, and I easily comprehended it. I am someone who was initially repulsed by Polygamy and shied away from it. And then over time, as my passion against it died and my mind became more open to the point where I didn't care one way or another, the opportunity in time was given for me to study it out and be taught by the Lord. The result was that I got a profound glimpse into how it all works. Just a glimpse with an open heart was all I needed.

EmmaLee wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 6:45 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 1:58 pm

EmmaLee wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 12:41 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 12:27 pm

Well thanks for proving my point that most plural marriage haters don't understand what it is about and instead let their emotions judge the matter for them.

And to be clear, I'm not pro-polygamy. I don't desire to live It. I know I'm not worthy to live it.

But according to the word of God it is an eternal principle and God did command his people to live it in the past and will again some day in the future.

It's interesting that your only response is to attack me personally (against forum rules, BTW), and falsely accuse me of letting my "emotions" judge the matter for myself. What an ignorant statement. You don't know the first thing about me or what I know or how I've come to the conclusions that I have. But continue to bare false witness against me, as it's obviously all you've got.

As to your last statement, Stahura and others (mostly men, BTW) have provided ample evidence that it is NOT an eternal principle, and God has never commanded anyone to live it, and therefore, he will not command it in the future either. But there's no arguing with some men when it comes to sex, as they would even invoke God's name in justifying their lusts.

Well that's a double standard if I've ever seen one.

You state that the reason "pro-polygamy" men (obviously referring to me) defend plural marriage is because "it's just fantasy land for them - a way to have what they suppose is guilt-free sex with a bunch of different women."

Then you have the gall to get upset and accuse me of attacking you and breaking forum rules by saying that you proved my point about people letting their emotions lead their conclusions about plural marriage.

Come on now, I didn't attack you. You attacked me in a very viscious way. All I was doing was calling a spade a spade.

You're right I don't know you, and you don't know me.

Plural marriage is a hot button issue, I get that.

I'm sorry that my defending the moral integrity of a doctrine and practice in our canon of scripture, that was taught and practiced by the early Saints in this dispensation as a higher law from God, caused you to feel like you need to accuse me of wanting guilt free sex with lots of women.

In my book that's letting your emotions cloud your judgement, as there was absolutely no reason to make that horrible accusation against me based on any of the comments I made defending the doctrine of plural marriage.

Stop being so emotional, Matthias; and stop making things up. I never accused YOU of anything - unlike what you said directly about ME. Do you see the difference? No, of course not, because emotions are clouding your judgement. Everybody, except you, knows men want polygamy so they can have sex with multiple women - not at the same time, sorry to those of you who think polygamy allows you to have sex with multiple women at the same time - which YES, has also been promoted on LDSFF by "good Mormon men" (I won't say by whom, but we should all know the answer to that) - but no, it's not about sex. Seriously, this is laughable.

The Book of Mormon is my go-to book of scripture - it agrees with me on polygamy. Joseph Smith is my go-to Prophet - he agrees with me on polygamy. This pernicious "doctrine" has no place in my religion, but ya'll can do and believe whatever you want.

In Matthias's defense - I remember as a young missionary (when I believed in polygamy) I would meet women who had husbands not members of the church and despised teh church. I remember thinking "If they don't have anyone to marry, I would marry them and have them as a plural wife so they can obtain exaltation" I thought that often even after my mission and it really wasn't about sex. I just wanted them to get exaltation and it hurt me that they might not have it because they were such amazing women - women to whom I wasn't physically attracted to at all. So I told God I would marry them if they would have me so that they could obtain exaltation.

That being said, I 100% don't believe in it anymore and I believe most men do desire it for sex.- as I was thrown into the world a bit more and convinced as to the ways of the world (I was incredibly naive) I caused myself to begin to lust because I felt like I was weird compared to other men. I am/ have for the most part returned to my missionary like mind. I do believe strongly that if a man looks at pornography then they shouldn't make a decision on whether or not to defend polygamy. Lust is clearly a factor whether they want to admit it or not - because sex is on their mind more than they care to admit.

Though thinking about it, I also didn't vehemently defend polygamy other than the fact that I just "knew" Joseph practiced it. I don't know Matthias's mind, but I do know that most men I know that want or love the idea o polygamy have some sort of issue with pornography and/or lust.

Durzan wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 6:50 pm

EmmaLee wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 6:33 pm

Durzan wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 1:16 pm

EmmaLee wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 1:04 pm

I agree with the bolded part, for sure. Just being a victim does not make a person virtuous - one does not equal the other. As for it ever being commanded by God, my research and revelation coincide with what Stahura and others have shared on this forum for years - no need to rehash or repeat it, IMO. As for consecration - we still to this day covenant to obey that Law in our temples - we do not, and have never done so, with polygamy, so it cannot be compared, IMO (not that that is what you were doing; I don't believe you were - but someone probably will, lol). If (BIG if), some version of plural marriage is a 'thing' in the eternities, it certainly was never meant to be lived during mortality by fallen, sinful, natural men.

Comparing the law of consecration to the plural marriage clause in this The law of Celestial Marriage is comparing a full orange to a slice of apple. one is a full law, while the other is a provision of service and mercy meant to allow the few who need it to reach full exaltation.

As for why it was implemented on earth, well... Restoration of All Things, Abrahamic Test, no marriage in heaven nor being given in heaven without it happening on earth, etc.

I said they CANNOT be compared to each other, so please do not put words in my mouth and make it sound like I compared them when I did not.

I do not believe "celestial marriage" has anything to do with men having more than one wife, and neither did Joseph Smith.

I'm curious why there are so many single Mormon men promoting polygamy on LDSFF - seems odd. Maybe they should see how they handle having one wife and the children produced therefrom, before clamoring for more.

...Now, hold on a second, Emma. I didn't put any words in your mouth at all. Neither literally or figuratively. You said this:

As for consecration - we still to this day covenant to obey that Law in our temples - we do not, and have never done so with polygamy, so it cannot be compared, IMO

That seems like a comparison to me, pretty cut and dried, even though you say they cannot be compared. Don't go biting my proverbial head off, please.

Plural Marriage is mentioned and explained in quite a bit of detail in D&C 132, which also describes and fleshes out Celestial Marriage (Which we DO covenant to obey in the temples). Hence why so many say plural marriage is a part of celestial law. I should know because I did a thorough verse by verse literary commentary of that entire section just to get to the bottom of the issue of Polygamy.

And guess what? My eyes were opened by God to how it fits into the plan of salvation as a whole, and I easily comprehended it. I am someone who was initially repulsed by Polygamy and shied away from it. And then over time, as my passion against it died and my mind became more open to the point where I didn't care one way or another, the opportunity in time was given for me to study it out and be taught by the Lord. The result was that I got a profound glimpse into how it all works. Just a glimpse with an open heart was all I needed.

Out of context then, as I was merely commenting on what Alaris had said about the LoC. I wasn't the one who brought it into this discussion - I was responding to a comment that was made to me, which you seem to have left out. Again, context.

As for 132, as has been explained countless times on LDSFF, it was changed, altered to add plural marriage. I do not believe 132 is scripture as it stands now.

John Tavner wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 6:53 pm

EmmaLee wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 6:45 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 1:58 pm

EmmaLee wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 12:41 pm

It's interesting that your only response is to attack me personally (against forum rules, BTW), and falsely accuse me of letting my "emotions" judge the matter for myself. What an ignorant statement. You don't know the first thing about me or what I know or how I've come to the conclusions that I have. But continue to bare false witness against me, as it's obviously all you've got.

As to your last statement, Stahura and others (mostly men, BTW) have provided ample evidence that it is NOT an eternal principle, and God has never commanded anyone to live it, and therefore, he will not command it in the future either. But there's no arguing with some men when it comes to sex, as they would even invoke God's name in justifying their lusts.

Well that's a double standard if I've ever seen one.

You state that the reason "pro-polygamy" men (obviously referring to me) defend plural marriage is because "it's just fantasy land for them - a way to have what they suppose is guilt-free sex with a bunch of different women."

Then you have the gall to get upset and accuse me of attacking you and breaking forum rules by saying that you proved my point about people letting their emotions lead their conclusions about plural marriage.

Come on now, I didn't attack you. You attacked me in a very viscious way. All I was doing was calling a spade a spade.

You're right I don't know you, and you don't know me.

Plural marriage is a hot button issue, I get that.

I'm sorry that my defending the moral integrity of a doctrine and practice in our canon of scripture, that was taught and practiced by the early Saints in this dispensation as a higher law from God, caused you to feel like you need to accuse me of wanting guilt free sex with lots of women.

In my book that's letting your emotions cloud your judgement, as there was absolutely no reason to make that horrible accusation against me based on any of the comments I made defending the doctrine of plural marriage.

Stop being so emotional, Matthias; and stop making things up. I never accused YOU of anything - unlike what you said directly about ME. Do you see the difference? No, of course not, because emotions are clouding your judgement. Everybody, except you, knows men want polygamy so they can have sex with multiple women - not at the same time, sorry to those of you who think polygamy allows you to have sex with multiple women at the same time - which YES, has also been promoted on LDSFF by "good Mormon men" (I won't say by whom, but we should all know the answer to that) - but no, it's not about sex. Seriously, this is laughable.

The Book of Mormon is my go-to book of scripture - it agrees with me on polygamy. Joseph Smith is my go-to Prophet - he agrees with me on polygamy. This pernicious "doctrine" has no place in my religion, but ya'll can do and believe whatever you want.

In Matthias's defense - I remember as a young missionary (when I believed in polygamy) I would meet women who had husbands not members of the church and despised teh church. I remember thinking "If they don't have anyone to marry, I would marry them and have them as a plural wife so they can obtain exaltation" I thought that often even after my mission and it really wasn't about sex. I just wanted them to get exaltation and it hurt me that they might not have it because they were such amazing women - women to whom I wasn't physically attracted to at all. So I told God I would marry them if they would have me so that they could obtain exaltation.

That being said, I 100% don't believe in it anymore and I believe most men do desire it for sex.- as I was thrown into the world a bit more and convinced as to the ways of the world (I was incredibly naive) I caused myself to begin to lust because I felt like I was weird compared to other men. I am/ have for the most part returned to my missionary like mind. I do believe strongly that if a man looks at pornography then they shouldn't make a decision on whether or not to defend polygamy. Lust is clearly a factor whether they want to admit it or not - because sex is on their mind more than they care to admit.

I once retorted to a certain individual on LDSFF that perhaps a certain mystery was unavailable to folks who are struggling with cordial conversations (lol) - to his great credit he conceded the point.

Let's stop projecting rage upon men ... this reminds of me of how the left sees racism everywhere - racism here, racism there! racism everywhere! Perhaps the real racists are the ones who assume everyone's racist! They're judging others based off their own perceptions and experiences after all - as do we all. This also reminds me of the Rorschach test joke where the patient keeps saying he's seeing images of sex. Doctor says: "You appear to have an obsession with sex" Patient: "You're the one showing me all the dirty pictures!"

Whether the men of this time and season long for sex with multiple women has zero bearing on whether it's a true principle and whether God actually commanded it to Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or otherwise. This has not been commanded of us. Thank goodness! Count your blessings for Pete's sake.

Well ... I wouldn't say zero bearing ... let me ammend that. Because we are struggling with porn, our prophets have been zealously preaching to us to this end. Thank goodness for them!

Level
1
2
3
4
5 - Law of Gospel - 2nd token / sign - Ephraim - LDS - Temples - Sealing etc etc (*whispers* struggles with porn)
6 - Law of Chastity - 3rd token / sign - Priests / Priestesses - (*whispers* polygamy maaaay be a test here ... )
7 - Law of Consecration - 4th token / sign - Patriarchs / fullness of Priesthood (Abraham is one. So is Joseph Smith)

What about women? What possibly could women have to learn from by practicing polygamy? Might there be a time in a woman's eternal progression where polygamy is relevant to some end?

Alaris wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 7:07 pm

John Tavner wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 6:53 pm

EmmaLee wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 6:45 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 1:58 pm

Well that's a double standard if I've ever seen one.

You state that the reason "pro-polygamy" men (obviously referring to me) defend plural marriage is because "it's just fantasy land for them - a way to have what they suppose is guilt-free sex with a bunch of different women."

Then you have the gall to get upset and accuse me of attacking you and breaking forum rules by saying that you proved my point about people letting their emotions lead their conclusions about plural marriage.

Come on now, I didn't attack you. You attacked me in a very viscious way. All I was doing was calling a spade a spade.

You're right I don't know you, and you don't know me.

Plural marriage is a hot button issue, I get that.

I'm sorry that my defending the moral integrity of a doctrine and practice in our canon of scripture, that was taught and practiced by the early Saints in this dispensation as a higher law from God, caused you to feel like you need to accuse me of wanting guilt free sex with lots of women.

In my book that's letting your emotions cloud your judgement, as there was absolutely no reason to make that horrible accusation against me based on any of the comments I made defending the doctrine of plural marriage.

Stop being so emotional, Matthias; and stop making things up. I never accused YOU of anything - unlike what you said directly about ME. Do you see the difference? No, of course not, because emotions are clouding your judgement. Everybody, except you, knows men want polygamy so they can have sex with multiple women - not at the same time, sorry to those of you who think polygamy allows you to have sex with multiple women at the same time - which YES, has also been promoted on LDSFF by "good Mormon men" (I won't say by whom, but we should all know the answer to that) - but no, it's not about sex. Seriously, this is laughable.

The Book of Mormon is my go-to book of scripture - it agrees with me on polygamy. Joseph Smith is my go-to Prophet - he agrees with me on polygamy. This pernicious "doctrine" has no place in my religion, but ya'll can do and believe whatever you want.

In Matthias's defense - I remember as a young missionary (when I believed in polygamy) I would meet women who had husbands not members of the church and despised teh church. I remember thinking "If they don't have anyone to marry, I would marry them and have them as a plural wife so they can obtain exaltation" I thought that often even after my mission and it really wasn't about sex. I just wanted them to get exaltation and it hurt me that they might not have it because they were such amazing women - women to whom I wasn't physically attracted to at all. So I told God I would marry them if they would have me so that they could obtain exaltation.

That being said, I 100% don't believe in it anymore and I believe most men do desire it for sex.- as I was thrown into the world a bit more and convinced as to the ways of the world (I was incredibly naive) I caused myself to begin to lust because I felt like I was weird compared to other men. I am/ have for the most part returned to my missionary like mind. I do believe strongly that if a man looks at pornography then they shouldn't make a decision on whether or not to defend polygamy. Lust is clearly a factor whether they want to admit it or not - because sex is on their mind more than they care to admit.

I once retorted to a certain individual on LDSFF that perhaps a certain mystery was unavailable to folks who are struggling with cordial conversations (lol) - to his great credit he conceded the point.

Let's stop projecting rage upon men ... this reminds of me of how the left sees racism everywhere - racism here, racism there! racism everywhere! Perhaps the real racists are the ones who assume everyone's racist! They're judging others based off their own perceptions and experiences after all - as do we all. This also reminds me of the Rorschach test joke where the patient keeps saying he's seeing images of sex. Doctor says: "You appear to have an obsession with sex" Patient: "You're the one showing me all the dirty pictures!"

Whether the men of this time and season long for sex with multiple women has zero bearing on whether it's a true principle and whether God actually commanded it to Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or otherwise. This has not been commanded of us. Thank goodness! Count your blessings for Pete's sake.

Well ... I wouldn't say zero bearing ... let me ammend that. Because we are struggling with porn, our prophets have been zealously preaching to us to this end. Thank goodness for them!

Level
1
2
3
4
5 - Law of Gospel - 2nd token / sign - Ephraim - LDS - Temples - Sealing etc etc (*whispers* struggles with porn)
6 - Law of Chastity - 3rd token / sign - Priests / Priestesses - (*whispers* polygamy maaaay be a test here ... )
7 - Law of Consecration - 4th token / sign - Patriarchs / fullness of Priesthood (Abraham is one. So is Joseph Smith)

What about women? What possibly could women have to learn from by practicing polygamy? Might there be a time in a woman's eternal progression where polygamy is relevant to some end?

Oh I don't have rage against men. I just see it as fact that men who do not have pure hearts have a harder time receiving true/ pure revelation.

The only thing I am, is I suppose, passionate/ maybe slightly frustrated with how people throw Joseph under the bus and Hyrum.

I'm not saying it has no bearing on whether it is true or not, but what I am saying (or intended to say, but probably wasn't clear) is that someone who lusts and looks at pornography is more likely to be deceived when they are asking questions because of their own selfish desires - whether they are aware of them or not.

Also in regards to women, I think it is a great opportunity for them to ask why they hate it if they do or why they want it if they do. Just like men. Is it selfishness? Is it pride? is it lust? Is it any other reason? Is that reason a Godly reason or one influenced by satanic feelings?

As we learn those reasons, we can purify ourselves more and come to Christ with pure hearts and do whatever it is He asks us to do.

John Tavner wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 7:12 pm

Alaris wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 7:07 pm

John Tavner wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 6:53 pm

EmmaLee wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 6:45 pm

Stop being so emotional, Matthias; and stop making things up. I never accused YOU of anything - unlike what you said directly about ME. Do you see the difference? No, of course not, because emotions are clouding your judgement. Everybody, except you, knows men want polygamy so they can have sex with multiple women - not at the same time, sorry to those of you who think polygamy allows you to have sex with multiple women at the same time - which YES, has also been promoted on LDSFF by "good Mormon men" (I won't say by whom, but we should all know the answer to that) - but no, it's not about sex. Seriously, this is laughable.

The Book of Mormon is my go-to book of scripture - it agrees with me on polygamy. Joseph Smith is my go-to Prophet - he agrees with me on polygamy. This pernicious "doctrine" has no place in my religion, but ya'll can do and believe whatever you want.

In Matthias's defense - I remember as a young missionary (when I believed in polygamy) I would meet women who had husbands not members of the church and despised teh church. I remember thinking "If they don't have anyone to marry, I would marry them and have them as a plural wife so they can obtain exaltation" I thought that often even after my mission and it really wasn't about sex. I just wanted them to get exaltation and it hurt me that they might not have it because they were such amazing women - women to whom I wasn't physically attracted to at all. So I told God I would marry them if they would have me so that they could obtain exaltation.

That being said, I 100% don't believe in it anymore and I believe most men do desire it for sex.- as I was thrown into the world a bit more and convinced as to the ways of the world (I was incredibly naive) I caused myself to begin to lust because I felt like I was weird compared to other men. I am/ have for the most part returned to my missionary like mind. I do believe strongly that if a man looks at pornography then they shouldn't make a decision on whether or not to defend polygamy. Lust is clearly a factor whether they want to admit it or not - because sex is on their mind more than they care to admit.

I once retorted to a certain individual on LDSFF that perhaps a certain mystery was unavailable to folks who are struggling with cordial conversations (lol) - to his great credit he conceded the point.

Let's stop projecting rage upon men ... this reminds of me of how the left sees racism everywhere - racism here, racism there! racism everywhere! Perhaps the real racists are the ones who assume everyone's racist! They're judging others based off their own perceptions and experiences after all - as do we all. This also reminds me of the Rorschach test joke where the patient keeps saying he's seeing images of sex. Doctor says: "You appear to have an obsession with sex" Patient: "You're the one showing me all the dirty pictures!"

Whether the men of this time and season long for sex with multiple women has zero bearing on whether it's a true principle and whether God actually commanded it to Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or otherwise. This has not been commanded of us. Thank goodness! Count your blessings for Pete's sake.

Well ... I wouldn't say zero bearing ... let me ammend that. Because we are struggling with porn, our prophets have been zealously preaching to us to this end. Thank goodness for them!

Level
1
2
3
4
5 - Law of Gospel - 2nd token / sign - Ephraim - LDS - Temples - Sealing etc etc (*whispers* struggles with porn)
6 - Law of Chastity - 3rd token / sign - Priests / Priestesses - (*whispers* polygamy maaaay be a test here ... )
7 - Law of Consecration - 4th token / sign - Patriarchs / fullness of Priesthood (Abraham is one. So is Joseph Smith)

What about women? What possibly could women have to learn from by practicing polygamy? Might there be a time in a woman's eternal progression where polygamy is relevant to some end?

Oh I don't have rage against men. I just see it as fact that men who do not have pure hearts have a harder time receiving true/ pure revelation.

The only thing I am, is I suppose, passionate/ maybe slightly frustrated with how people throw Joseph under the bus and Hyrum.

I'm not saying it has no bearing on whether it is true or not, but what I am saying (or intended to say, but probably wasn't clear) is that someone who lusts and looks at pornography is more likely to be deceived when they are asking questions because of their own selfish desires - whether they are aware of them or not.

Also in regards to women, I think it is a great opportunity for them to ask why they hate it if they do or why they want it if they do. Just like men. Is it selfishness? Is it pride? is it lust? Is it any other reason? Is that reason a Godly reason or one influenced by satanic feelings?

As we learn those reasons, we can purify ourselves more and come to Christ with pure hearts and do whatever it is He asks us to do.

I should be clearer in my questions - apologies - I wasn't directing the question at you but at "ya" - as it seems men get thrown under the bus quite often here. When I speak to loved ones about this who may or may not be female, and he or she gets testy, I'm like, "Hey I didn't invent polygamy!"

Good follow up questions John Tavner. God tests us - that's the purpose of life. We're not here on vacation. We're here to stretch ourselves and learn to rely on him to be our strength and our salvation - our wisdom. We aren't expected to understand first and obey later.

EmmaLee wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 7:00 pm

Durzan wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 6:50 pm

EmmaLee wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 6:33 pm

Durzan wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 1:16 pm

Comparing the law of consecration to the plural marriage clause in this The law of Celestial Marriage is comparing a full orange to a slice of apple. one is a full law, while the other is a provision of service and mercy meant to allow the few who need it to reach full exaltation.

As for why it was implemented on earth, well... Restoration of All Things, Abrahamic Test, no marriage in heaven nor being given in heaven without it happening on earth, etc.

I said they CANNOT be compared to each other, so please do not put words in my mouth and make it sound like I compared them when I did not.

I do not believe "celestial marriage" has anything to do with men having more than one wife, and neither did Joseph Smith.

I'm curious why there are so many single Mormon men promoting polygamy on LDSFF - seems odd. Maybe they should see how they handle having one wife and the children produced therefrom, before clamoring for more.

...Now, hold on a second, Emma. I didn't put any words in your mouth at all. Neither literally or figuratively. You said this:

As for consecration - we still to this day covenant to obey that Law in our temples - we do not, and have never done so with polygamy, so it cannot be compared, IMO

That seems like a comparison to me, pretty cut and dried, even though you say they cannot be compared. Don't go biting my proverbial head off, please.

Plural Marriage is mentioned and explained in quite a bit of detail in D&C 132, which also describes and fleshes out Celestial Marriage (Which we DO covenant to obey in the temples). Hence why so many say plural marriage is a part of celestial law. I should know because I did a thorough verse by verse literary commentary of that entire section just to get to the bottom of the issue of Polygamy.

And guess what? My eyes were opened by God to how it fits into the plan of salvation as a whole, and I easily comprehended it. I am someone who was initially repulsed by Polygamy and shied away from it. And then over time, as my passion against it died and my mind became more open to the point where I didn't care one way or another, the opportunity in time was given for me to study it out and be taught by the Lord. The result was that I got a profound glimpse into how it all works. Just a glimpse with an open heart was all I needed.

Out of context then, as I was merely commenting on what Alaris had said about the LoC. I wasn't the one who brought it into this discussion - I was responding to a comment that was made to me, which you seem to have left out. Again, context.

As for 132, as has been explained countless times on LDSFF, it was changed, altered to add plural marriage. I do not believe 132 is scripture as it stands now.

Might I point out then that such is more of an assumption on your part for it being changed and altered. I don't recall much evidence that would conclusively support that beyond some stretch or conjecture. And even then, several seperate revelations have been recorded together under one section of the D&C before, so I see no need to worry about that. It is of God, when endorsed. Context is key.

Alaris wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 7:07 pm I once retorted to a certain individual on LDSFF that perhaps a certain mystery was unavailable to folks who are struggling with cordial conversations (lol) - to his great credit he conceded the point.

Let's stop projecting rage upon men ... this reminds of me of how the left sees racism everywhere - racism here, racism there! racism everywhere! Perhaps the real racists are the ones who assume everyone's racist! They're judging others based off their own perceptions and experiences after all - as do we all. This also reminds me of the Rorschach test joke where the patient keeps saying he's seeing images of sex. Doctor says: "You appear to have an obsession with sex" Patient: "You're the one showing me all the dirty pictures!"

Whether the men of this time and season long for sex with multiple women has zero bearing on whether it's a true principle and whether God actually commanded it to Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or otherwise. This has not been commanded of us. Thank goodness! Count your blessings for Pete's sake.

Well ... I wouldn't say zero bearing ... let me ammend that. Because we are struggling with porn, our prophets have been zealously preaching to us to this end. Thank goodness for them!

Level
1
2
3
4
5 - Law of Gospel - 2nd token / sign - Ephraim - LDS - Temples - Sealing etc etc (*whispers* struggles with porn)
6 - Law of Chastity - 3rd token / sign - Priests / Priestesses - (*whispers* polygamy maaaay be a test here ... )
7 - Law of Consecration - 4th token / sign - Patriarchs / fullness of Priesthood (Abraham is one. So is Joseph Smith)

What about women? What possibly could women have to learn from by practicing polygamy? Might there be a time in a woman's eternal progression where polygamy is relevant to some end?

Wow. Wonderful insights. Thanks again, Alaris. (Spoken completely sincerely, no facetiousness nor sarcasm.)

ori wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 9:21 pm

Alaris wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 7:07 pm I once retorted to a certain individual on LDSFF that perhaps a certain mystery was unavailable to folks who are struggling with cordial conversations (lol) - to his great credit he conceded the point.

Let's stop projecting rage upon men ... this reminds of me of how the left sees racism everywhere - racism here, racism there! racism everywhere! Perhaps the real racists are the ones who assume everyone's racist! They're judging others based off their own perceptions and experiences after all - as do we all. This also reminds me of the Rorschach test joke where the patient keeps saying he's seeing images of sex. Doctor says: "You appear to have an obsession with sex" Patient: "You're the one showing me all the dirty pictures!"

Whether the men of this time and season long for sex with multiple women has zero bearing on whether it's a true principle and whether God actually commanded it to Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or otherwise. This has not been commanded of us. Thank goodness! Count your blessings for Pete's sake.

Well ... I wouldn't say zero bearing ... let me ammend that. Because we are struggling with porn, our prophets have been zealously preaching to us to this end. Thank goodness for them!

Level
1
2
3
4
5 - Law of Gospel - 2nd token / sign - Ephraim - LDS - Temples - Sealing etc etc (*whispers* struggles with porn)
6 - Law of Chastity - 3rd token / sign - Priests / Priestesses - (*whispers* polygamy maaaay be a test here ... )
7 - Law of Consecration - 4th token / sign - Patriarchs / fullness of Priesthood (Abraham is one. So is Joseph Smith)

What about women? What possibly could women have to learn from by practicing polygamy? Might there be a time in a woman's eternal progression where polygamy is relevant to some end?

Wow. Wonderful insights. Thanks again, Alaris. (Spoken completely sincerely, no facetiousness nor sarcasm.)

LOL - Thanks ori - how sad is it we have to append compliments with such (I do the same...and no I'm not being facetious either )

EmmaLee wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 6:45 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 1:58 pm

EmmaLee wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 12:41 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑October 12th, 2019, 12:27 pm

Well thanks for proving my point that most plural marriage haters don't understand what it is about and instead let their emotions judge the matter for them.

And to be clear, I'm not pro-polygamy. I don't desire to live It. I know I'm not worthy to live it.

But according to the word of God it is an eternal principle and God did command his people to live it in the past and will again some day in the future.

It's interesting that your only response is to attack me personally (against forum rules, BTW), and falsely accuse me of letting my "emotions" judge the matter for myself. What an ignorant statemequotedon't know the first thing about me or what I know or how I've come to the conclusions that I have. But continue to bare false witness against me, as it's obviously all you've got.

As to your last statement, Stahura and others (mostly men, BTW) have provided ample evidence that it is NOT an eternal principle, and God has never commanded anyone to live it, and therefore, he will not command it in the future either. But there's no arguing with some men when it comes to sex, as they would even invoke God's name in justifying their lusts.

Well that's a double standard if I've ever seen one.

You state that the reason "pro-polygamy" men (obviously referring to me) defend plural marriage is because "it's just fantasy land for them - a way to have what they suppose is guilt-free sex with a bunch of different women."

Then you have the gall to get upset and accuse me of attacking you and breaking forum rules by saying that you proved my point about people letting their emotions lead their conclusions about plural marriage.

Come on now, I didn't attack you. You attacked me in a very viscious way. All I was doing was calling a spade a spade.

You're right I don't know you, and you don't know me.

Plural marriage is a hot button issue, I get that.

I'm sorry that my defending the moral integrity of a doctrine and practice in our canon of scripture, that was taught and practiced by the early Saints in this dispensation as a higher law from God, caused you to feel like you need to accuse me of wanting guilt free sex with lots of women.

In my book that's letting your emotions cloud your judgement, as there was absolutely no reason to make that horrible accusation against me based on any of the comments I made defending the doctrine of plural marriage.

Stop being so emotional, Matthias; and stop making things up. I never accused YOU of anything - unlike what you said directly about ME. Do you see the difference? No, of course not, because emotions are clouding your judgement. Everybody, except you, knows men want polygamy so they can have sex with multiple women - not at the same time, sorry to those of you who think polygamy allows you to have sex with multiple women at the same time - which YES, has also been promoted on LDSFF by "good Mormon men" (I won't say by whom, but we should all know the answer to that) - but no, it's not about sex. Seriously, this is laughable.

The Book of Mormon is my go-to book of scripture - it agrees with me on polygamy. Joseph Smith is my go-to Prophet - he agrees with me on polygamy. This pernicious "doctrine" has no place in my religion, but ya'll can do and believe whatever you want.

Well Emma, if your suggestion that all men want polygamy because they want sex with lots of women and are into porn wasn't directed at me, then I apologize for interpreting it that way.

I wonder how you would have reacted had I said something like "All women hate plural marriage because they are selfish, insecure, and jealous and are hooked on romance novels (porn) that glorify sex with a soul mate."

I don't believe that by the way, but I would image that you and others on here would be outraged had I or someone else made such a terrible remark.

You can believe that all men who defend the practice of polygamy are into porn and want lots of sex with lots of women, but you don't know that, nor does everyone else except me.

I defend plural marriage because I sincerely believe that God commanded it. That doesn't make me a lustful sex addict. That makes me someone who believes the scriptures and early teachings of the church.

I haven't once said that I want plural marriage, so maybe your remarks about all men who want polygamy being sex addicts really wasn't directed at me.

Anyway, I forgive you for your terrible insult against all men who believe that D&C 132 came from God, whether it was directed at me or not.

I also sincerely apologize if you felt attacked by what I said about emotions clouding judgement on this very emotional topic. It was not my intent to attack you, but I suppose I was a bit harsh after your "all men who want polygamy want it so they can have lots of sex with lots of women and are into porn" accusation. That really rubbed me the wrong way. Again I'm sorry for being a little aggressive.

Well this woman (among many others) disagrees with the op.
Lucy Walker Kimball:

In the year 1842, President Joseph Smith sought an interview with me, and said: "I have a message for you. I have been commanded of God to take another wife, and you are the woman." My astonishment knew no bounds. This announcement was indeed a thunderbolt to me. He asked me if I believed him to be a prophet of God. "Most assuredly I do," I replied. He fully explained to me the principle of plural or celestial marriage. He said this principle was again to be restored for the benefit of the human family, that it would prove an everlasting blessing to my father's house, and form a chain that could never be broken, worlds without end. "What have you to say?" he asked. "Nothing." How could I speak, or what could I say? He said, "If you will pray sincerely for light and understanding in relation thereto, you shall receive a testimony of the correctness of this principle. I thought I prayed sincerely, but was so unwilling to consider the matter favorably that I fear I did not ask in faith for light. Gross darkness instead of light took possession of my mind. I was tempted and tortured beyond endurance until life was not desirable. Oh that the grave would kindly receive me, that I might find rest on the bosom of my dear mother. Why should I be chosen from among thy daughters, Father, I am only a child in years and experience, no mother to counsel; no father near to tell me what to do in this trying hour. Oh, let this bitter cup pass. And thus I prayed in the agony of my soul.

The Prophet discerned my sorrow. He saw how unhappy I was, and sought an opportunity of again speaking to me on this subject, and said: "Although I cannot, under existing circumstances, acknowledge you as my wife, the time is near when we will go beyond the Rocky Mountains and then you will be acknowledged and honored as my wife." He also said, "This principle will yet be believed in and practiced by the righteous. I have no flattering words to offer. It is a command of God to you. I will give you until tomorrow to decide this matter. If you reject this message the gate will be closed forever against you."

This aroused every drop of Scotch in my veins. For a few moments I stood fearless before him, and looked him in the eye. I felt at this moment that I was called to place myself upon the altar a living sacrifice--perhaps to brook the world in disgrace and incur the displeasure and contempt of my youthful companions; all my dreams of happiness blown to the four winds. This was too much, for as yet no shadow had crossed my path, aside from the death of my dear mother. The future to me had been one bright, cloudless day. I had been speechless, but at last found utterance and said: "Although you are a prophet of God you could not induce me to take a step of so great importance, unless I knew that God approved my course. I would rather die. I have tried to pray but received no comfort, no light," and emphatically forbid him speaking again to me on this subject. Every feeling of my soul revolted against it. Said I, "The same God who has sent this message is the Being I have worshipped from my early childhood and He must manifest His will to me." He walked across the room, returned and stood before me with the most beautiful expression of countenance, and said: "God Almighty bless you. You shall have a manifestation of the will of God concerning you; a testimony that you can never deny. I will tell you what it shall be. It shall be that joy and peace that you never knew."

Oh, how earnestly I prayed for these words to be fulfilled. It was near dawn after another sleepless night when my room was lighted up by a heavenly influence. To me it was, in comparison, like the brilliant sun bursting through the darkest cloud. The words of the Prophet were indeed fulfilled. My soul was filled with a calm, sweet peace that "I never knew." Supreme happiness took possession of me, and I received a powerful and irresistible testimony of the truth of plural marriage, which has been like an anchor to the soul through all the trials of life. I felt that I must go out into the morning air and give vent to the joy and gratitude that filled my soul. As I descended the stairs, President Smith opened the door below, took me by the hand and said: "Thank God, you have the testimony. I too have prayed." He led me to a chair, placed his hands upon my head, and blessed me with every blessing my heart could possibly desire.

The first day of May, 1843, I consented to become the Prophet's wife, and was sealed to him for time and all eternity, at his own house by Elder William Clayton.

Today I have but one regret, which is that I have not been a more worthy representative of the principle of plural marriage, and that I have not lived a more perfect life. I can also state that Emma Smith was present and did consent to Eliza and Emily Partridge, also Maria and Sarah Lawrence being sealed to her husband. This I had from the Prophet's own mouth; also the testimony of her niece, Hyrum Smith's eldest daughter, (my brother Lorin's wife), as well as that of the young ladies named themselves, with whom I was on most intimate terms, and was glad that they, too, had accepted that order of marriage. Instead of a feeling of jealousy, it was a source of comfort to me. We were as sisters to each other.

In this I acted in accordance with the will of God, not for any worldly aggrandizement, not for the gratification of the flesh. How can it be said we accepted this principle for any lustful desires? Preposterous! This would be utterly impossible. But, as I said before, we accepted it to obey a command of God, to establish a principle that would benefit the human family and emancipate them from the degradation into which they, through their wicked customs, had fallen.

In all this, God had in view a road marked out for me that I knew not, to struggle against the tide of opposition, prejudice and tradition, to aid in establishing a principle that would exalt mankind and bring them back into His presence. A tie has been formed that will guide me to the highest and most glorious destiny, if I continue to walk in the regeneration, which is the grand object of my life.

No one can possibly feel more deeply to regret than I do, the course taken by the sons of President Joseph Smith, knowing that they have been misinformed; that it is through prejudice, through yielding to popular opinion that they have been misled. They might heir their father's priesthood, if they would take proper steps and honor the principles revealed through him. Thus they might be called to occupy prominent positions in this dispensation, to aid in forwarding the great work of redemption and to seek to bring every honest soul of every nation to a knowledge of the gospel of the Son of God. O, that they had eyes to see and ears to hear the sound of the gospel, and walk in the footsteps of their illustrious father, knowing as I do that he was the grandest personage that has stood upon the earth since the days of our Savior. O, that God would in His boundless mercy, His matchless charity, withdraw the curtain and let but one ray from His magnificent countenance shine upon them, that like Saul of Tarsus, they might turn to God and become his apostles in very deed. That they might also accept the many testimonies given by those whose lives have been pure and spotless, who have sought to aid in establishing eternal principles that will exalt the human race in the presence of God. How gladly we would have them in our midst, did they walk in the spirit of their father.

They seem surprised that there was no issue from asserted plural marriages with their father. Could they but realize the hazardous life he lived, after that revelation was given, they would comprehend the reason. He was harassed and hounded and lived in constant fear of being betrayed by those who ought to have been true to him.

Since 1845, I have been the wife of President Heber C. Kimball, by whom I have had nine children, five sons and four daughters, have lived in the same house with other members of his family, have loved them as dearly as my own sisters, until it became necessary, as our children began to grow up around us, to have separate homes. Every mother has her own mode of government, and as children grow in years, it is more pleasant to have them under the immediate dictation of their own mother. I can truthfully state, however, that there is less room for jealousy where wives live under the same roof. They become interested in each other's welfare; they love each other's children. Besides, in my experience, I find the children themselves love each other as dearly as the children of one mother. In sickness, it has been a pleasure to minister to those in need of assistance.

I will say here, too, that it is a grand school. You learn self control, self denial; it brings out the nobler traits of our fallen natures, and teaches us to study and subdue self, while we become acquainted with the peculiar characteristics of each other. There is a grand opportunity to improve ourselves, and the lessons learned in a few years, are worth the experience of a lifetime, for this reason, that you are better prepared to make a home happy. You can easily avoid many unpleasant features of domestic life that through inexperience you otherwise are unprepared to meet.

The study of human nature is a grand study. I can only speak for myself in this regard. When I separated from others and went to a home with my own children, I placed many little safeguards around our home that experience had suggested, and my children grew into their teens without having heard an unkind word between their father and mother. When the father was there, everything was done necessary for his comfort. To make our home a pleasant one was the chief object of life. When absent I knew he was in good company and where he had a right to be. I stood in no fear from his associations with others, because I knew their purity of life. It is needless for me to say anything in regard to the life and character of President Heber C. Kimball. He lives in the hearts of the people called Latter-day Saints, and his acts and works are known abroad.

As time passed on he seemed to appreciate more than ever his wives and growing children. His last words to me were that he had been agreeably disappointed in my course of life, had appreciated my example as a wife and as a mother, that none had excelled me in the home life. Wherever my lot had been cast, there he had found a place of peace and rest. "Let me now thank you kindly," he said, "for every kind word, for every kind act of your life, and when I am gone, which will not be but a short time, you shall be blessed and find friends." He went on to say that if he never spoke to me again, I might rest assured that I had his most sanguine good feelings, his unbounded love and esteem. "What can you tell Joseph when you meet him? Cannot you say that I have been kind to you as it was possible to be under the circumstances? I know you can, and am confident you will be as a mediator between me and Joseph, and never enjoy any blessing you would not wish Heber to share."

These words were more precious to me than gold, as they were his last, with the addition of "I leave my peace and blessing with you. May the peace of Heber ever abide in your habitation."

I do not pen these facts thinking that others did not share equally in his esteem, as every woman carves her own niche in her husband's affections.

Heber C. Kimball was a noble whole-souled son of God, and was as capable of loving more than one woman as God Himself is capable of loving all his creations.

Sister Vilate Murrey Kimball, first wife of Heber Chase Kimball, was one of the noble women of earth. She was dearly beloved by his wives and children, as well as by all who intimately knew her. Too little has been said of her exemplary life. She was as a ministering angel to those in distress, ever ready to aid those who had not been so fortunate as herself in regard to the comforts of life. She never seemed so happy as while seeking to make others happy. Every year it was her custom to invite all the family to dine at her table, and insisted that it was her privilege to wait upon and make them happy and comfortable. In her last sickness, she expressed her regret that she could no longer have the pleasure of seeing the family together as she had been in the habit of doing. On one occasion when one of her old time associates was urging her to come often, as she had done in her former years, she answered, "You must excuse me, as our own family has grown so large that by the time I visit them all, I want to begin the rounds again." This shows the good feelings she cherished towards her husband's many wives and children. Too much cannot be said in praise of her example. In her demise, Zion lost one of her noblest daughters.

Very sincerely, your sister in the gospel,

Lucy W. Kimball.

Draw your own conclusion, there are many others besides. But they are all swept away with the brush of a hand by those that despise this principle. But that is ok as it takes all kinds and there must needs be opposition in all things.