Page 9 of 18

Re: Your Weekly Reminder that Polygamy Was Never Approved by God

Posted: October 12th, 2019, 11:18 pm
by MMbelieve
Matthias wrote: October 12th, 2019, 10:28 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 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.
D&C states, if he DESIRE another....now what exactly is the nature of that desire?

Do you think you would get more men following this command from God if the women were all ugly and fat or thin and beautiful, barren or fertile, older or younger? Because if what you say is correct then it would not matter at all, but why would the men stand in the line of the pretty younger women and not the ugly older (though still fertile) ones?

Do you think if men who defend D&C were taken to a location to pick a few more wives would decide to back track if presented with the single women available who were not at all attractive? Would they cease to DESIRE more wives? I sure hope not! Cause then it points to mans base desire...which is sadly sex, not Gods will.

Women have experienced how most men (the normal and healthy ones) operate. Your going to have a nearly impossible sell trying to convince women that polygamy is not about sex. Heck, monogamy is about sex too, lol.

Re: Your Weekly Reminder that Polygamy Was Never Approved by God

Posted: October 12th, 2019, 11:56 pm
by LDS Watchman
MMbelieve wrote: October 12th, 2019, 11:18 pm
Matthias wrote: October 12th, 2019, 10:28 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.
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.
D&C states, if he DESIRE another....now what exactly is the nature of that desire?

Do you think you would get more men following this command from God if the women were all ugly and fat or thin and beautiful, barren or fertile, older or younger? Because if what you say is correct then it would not matter at all, but why would the men stand in the line of the pretty younger women and not the ugly older (though still fertile) ones?

Do you think if men who defend D&C were taken to a location to pick a few more wives would decide to back track if presented with the single women available who were not at all attractive? Would they cease to DESIRE more wives? I sure hope not! Cause then it points to mans base desire...which is sadly sex, not Gods will.

Women have experienced how most men (the normal and healthy ones) operate. Your going to have a nearly impossible sell trying to convince women that polygamy is not about sex. Heck, monogamy is about sex too, lol.
I'm sorry you feel the way you do.

I'm sorry that all you can see is the sex and comparing the physical beauty and desirability of perspective brides.

I understand why you feel this way. We live in a very sexualized world, with sex thrown at us everywhere we turn. It's practically impossible for any if us not to be effected by it in one way or another.

Desire is not in and of itself a bad thing. It all depends on what is desired. If the desire is righteous then it is good. If the desire is wicked then it is bad.

If God commands a man to enter into plural marriage, then it's okay for a man to desire more wives so he can please God.

There is nothing wrong with desiring a wife for all the usual reasons, love, companionship, attraction, having a family and life together, etc.

So if God commands a man to enter into plural marriage, then there is nothing wrong with a man desiring additional wives for similar reasons as he married his first wife for.

On the other hand, if a man has not been commanded by God to live plural marriage, then desiring other wives is akin to committing adultery in one's heart, and marrying additional wives would be an abomination.

It all comes down to the Lord's command, just as Jacob 2 and D&C 132 state.

There's really not much more to say on the subject.

So I say we just let it go, and hopefully people won't feel the need to attack plural marriage on this forum constantly.

This debate doesn't ever lead anywhere, except to contention and hurt feelings.

Re: Your Weekly Reminder that Polygamy Was Never Approved by God

Posted: October 13th, 2019, 12:25 am
by nvr
simpleton wrote: October 12th, 2019, 10:53 pm 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.
These are not the sentiments held by at least some of the ancestor's I've heard about in my wife's family who practiced it. Lucy's recollection here was written decades after the fact when she was herself involved in polygamy in Utah. She also testified in the Temple Lot trial about being married to Joseph, but the judge of the case determined that Joseph did not originate or participate in it.

Re: Your Weekly Reminder that Polygamy Was Never Approved by God

Posted: October 13th, 2019, 12:31 am
by MMbelieve
Matthias wrote: October 12th, 2019, 11:56 pm
MMbelieve wrote: October 12th, 2019, 11:18 pm
Matthias wrote: October 12th, 2019, 10:28 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.
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.
D&C states, if he DESIRE another....now what exactly is the nature of that desire?

Do you think you would get more men following this command from God if the women were all ugly and fat or thin and beautiful, barren or fertile, older or younger? Because if what you say is correct then it would not matter at all, but why would the men stand in the line of the pretty younger women and not the ugly older (though still fertile) ones?

Do you think if men who defend D&C were taken to a location to pick a few more wives would decide to back track if presented with the single women available who were not at all attractive? Would they cease to DESIRE more wives? I sure hope not! Cause then it points to mans base desire...which is sadly sex, not Gods will.

Women have experienced how most men (the normal and healthy ones) operate. Your going to have a nearly impossible sell trying to convince women that polygamy is not about sex. Heck, monogamy is about sex too, lol.
I'm sorry you feel the way you do.

I'm sorry that all you can see is the sex and comparing the physical beauty and desirability of perspective brides.

I understand why you feel this way. We live in a very sexualized world, with sex thrown at us everywhere we turn. It's practically impossible for any if us not to be effected by it in one way or another.

Desire is not in and of itself a bad thing. It all depends on what is desired. If the desire is righteous then it is good. If the desire is wicked then it is bad.

If God commands a man to enter into plural marriage, then it's okay for a man to desire more wives so he can please God.

There is nothing wrong with desiring a wife for all the usual reasons, love, companionship, attraction, having a family and life together, etc.

So if God commands a man to enter into plural marriage, then there is nothing wrong with a man desiring additional wives for similar reasons as he married his first wife for.

On the other hand, if a man has not been commanded by God to live plural marriage, then desiring other wives is akin to committing adultery in one's heart, and marrying additional wives would be an abomination.

It all comes down to the Lord's command, just as Jacob 2 and D&C 132 state.

There's really not much more to say on the subject.

So I say we just let it go, and hopefully people won't feel the need to attack plural marriage on this forum constantly.

This debate doesn't ever lead anywhere, except to contention and hurt feelings.
I’m sorry, all I’m hearing is if God puts his stamp then the reasons become “good”. Is the standard definition given by some that polygamy is religious sanctioned adultery.

Sometimes I wonder why God gave us agency and conscience if he never really wanted us to actually use it.

Look, I get it, you are probably a very nice guy who is trying his best to do what is right and to honor the early pioneers and to do anything God will ever ask of you to do. This is all good and no one (That I can tell) is trying to hurt your feelings in a personal manner. Just know that making claims as you have will result in breaking against the standard and will not easily be believed. Also, please find the real reason you feel the need to defend polygamy when it’s got nothing to do with our church operations today. It’s not part of the lives of LDS members today and not in the foreseeable future either.
If it’s because your doing family genealogy of polygamist and you don’t want their name smeared, I respect that. It’s difficult to judge others at a different time with much accuracy and we should be very forgiving and understanding and thankful to the saints who paved the path for us, their lives were difficult. We live in a time when polygamy is not just against our natural sensibilities but a time when we have seen how it’s lived in our more modern time. We have a perspective they did not have and thus we have different opinions and will respond differently. If it was a good and clear thing (seems it comes down to he said she said) it wouldn’t be so heavily debated by members. Your strong view is only one view, there are equally as strong of views that oppose yours. And likely for just as valid reasons.

Re: Your Weekly Reminder that Polygamy Was Never Approved by God

Posted: October 13th, 2019, 12:50 am
by cab
simpleton wrote: October 12th, 2019, 10:53 pm 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.

I'd like to know the year that this letter by Lucy Walker Kimball was written?

I'll go out on a limb and say that I'm pretty sure that none of this information, regarding Joseph's proposals to her, can be corraborrated by contemporaneous journal entries or anything of the sort, but rather came into existence decades later after she was well entrenched as a plural wife to a high ranking leader of the church, Heber C Kimball...

Such is the history of virtually all the the candidates for Joseph's plural wives... Their "testimonies" came serendipitously at a time when the doctrine needed to be documented as having come from Joseph, such as to be used as evidence in the Temple Lot case.

Re: Your Weekly Reminder that Polygamy Was Never Approved by God

Posted: October 13th, 2019, 1:12 am
by cab
SettingDogStar wrote: October 12th, 2019, 3:42 pm
lemuel wrote: October 12th, 2019, 3:14 pm
Allison wrote: October 11th, 2019, 9:10 pm
LadyT wrote: October 11th, 2019, 9:01 pm

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...

Yes. This is where I believe the abomination is most easy to see... It was a mess.

Once the LDS were far removed from the United States, into the far off wilderness of Utah, this doctrine of needing to hitch yourself to the highest ranking leader of the church set hold... Kingdom building began, and women and men were desperate to position themselves favorably or they'd risk not being able to feed themselves.

Wives were justified to leave their husbands to marry and husband who had "more keys", and it was his "right" to take her.... This happened over and over... Abominable.

Then people began sealing themselves to high ranking church leaders to make them better off in the eternities through "adoption"... It was NOTHING like the "families are forever" meme of today... We are so ignorant as to how the doctrine of family sealings has evolved into what it is today... And no, it was not "continuing revelation"...

Today we want desperately to ignore this is a part of our history... We want desperately to believe that our beliefs today came straight from Joseph himself... We will cling to the notion of an unbroken line of keys, authority, and doctrine and will ignore anything not "faith-promoting" and have twisted history just to make the pill more palatable. Anything and I mean ANYTHING than to conceed that we may have been, or currently are, deceived as a people....

Re: Your Weekly Reminder that Polygamy Was Never Approved by God

Posted: October 13th, 2019, 7:33 am
by LDS Watchman
cab wrote: October 13th, 2019, 1:12 am
SettingDogStar wrote: October 12th, 2019, 3:42 pm
lemuel wrote: October 12th, 2019, 3:14 pm
Allison wrote: October 11th, 2019, 9:10 pm



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...

Yes. This is where I believe the abomination is most easy to see... It was a mess.

Once the LDS were far removed from the United States, into the far off wilderness of Utah, this doctrine of needing to hitch yourself to the highest ranking leader of the church set hold... Kingdom building began, and women and men were desperate to position themselves favorably or they'd risk not being able to feed themselves.

Wives were justified to leave their husbands to marry and husband who had "more keys", and it was his "right" to take her.... This happened over and over... Abominable.

Then people began sealing themselves to high ranking church leaders to make them better off in the eternities through "adoption"... It was NOTHING like the "families are forever" meme of today... We are so ignorant as to how the doctrine of family sealings has evolved into what it is today... And no, it was not "continuing revelation"...

Today we want desperately to ignore this is a part of our history... We want desperately to believe that our beliefs today came straight from Joseph himself... We will cling to the notion of an unbroken line of keys, authority, and doctrine and will ignore anything not "faith-promoting" and have twisted history just to make the pill more palatable. Anything and I mean ANYTHING than to conceed that we may have been, or currently are, deceived as a people....
I'm aware of a statement or two by Brigham Young suggesting that a woman could leave her husband for another man with higher authority. I was of the understanding that these statements were hypothetical as part of another point he was making about this or that.

Can you provide evidence of this having actually happened, let alone over and over again?

You make a good point about sealings and adoption later turning into "families are forever" when the original practice looked quite a bit different.

I agree that "continuing revelation" is a tough sell to explain this.

However you are aware that these type of sealings and adoptions began with Joseph Smith in Nauvoo right?

It didn't begin once the Saints were in Utah.

As for your questioning of Lucy Walker's letter...

It's obvious from the letter that she wrote it after the death of her second husband, Heber C. Kimball.

I know those who reject plural marriage as ordained of God like to dismiss any non contemporary statements with the wave of the hand, but actual historians don't do that.

Historians prefer journals and contemporary letters, but still use memoirs, letters, and statements by individuals years later as valid evidence.

Are you suggesting that Lucy is straight up lying in her letter?

There's also contemporary evidence that Joseph was marrying plural wives and teaching plural marriage in Nauvoo. Multiple witnesses said this. William Law and Wilson Law, William Law's wife, Robert Foster, John C. Bennett, etc.

They viewed it as an abomination, but they nevertheless were intimately associated with Joseph Smith.

William Law was his councillor and a member of the Council of Fifty.

If you actually read the Nauvoo Expositor, it seems pretty clear that William was giving us pretty accurate information, but with a negative spin as he believed in the restoration, but considered Joseph's practice of plural marriage as wrong and an abomination that has crept into the Church. According to the Nauvoo Expositor, his intention was to bring this secret abomination to light so Joseph and the others involved would repent.

I'm 100% convinced that Joseph started plural marriage in the Church.

So either it is of God, or Joseph Smith was just as guilty of whoredoms as the Utah polygamists. In fact he'd be even more guilty for having started it. He'd be the king Noah or Riplakish.

Re: Your Weekly Reminder that Polygamy Was Never Approved by God

Posted: October 13th, 2019, 8:13 am
by SettingDogStar
nvr wrote: October 13th, 2019, 12:25 am
simpleton wrote: October 12th, 2019, 10:53 pm 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.
These are not the sentiments held by at least some of the ancestor's I've heard about in my wife's family who practiced it. Lucy's recollection here was written decades after the fact when she was herself involved in polygamy in Utah. She also testified in the Temple Lot trial about being married to Joseph, but the judge of the case determined that Joseph did not originate or participate in it.
I’m curious as to what the purpose of this letter was written. It seems odd to me that she purposely brings up Joseph’s children as being deceived and misinformed...

Re: Your Weekly Reminder that Polygamy Was Never Approved by God

Posted: October 13th, 2019, 8:15 am
by SettingDogStar
Matthias wrote: October 13th, 2019, 7:33 am
cab wrote: October 13th, 2019, 1:12 am
SettingDogStar wrote: October 12th, 2019, 3:42 pm
lemuel wrote: October 12th, 2019, 3:14 pm

From Brigham:


This doesn't look much like heaven to me.
What in the...

Yes. This is where I believe the abomination is most easy to see... It was a mess.

Once the LDS were far removed from the United States, into the far off wilderness of Utah, this doctrine of needing to hitch yourself to the highest ranking leader of the church set hold... Kingdom building began, and women and men were desperate to position themselves favorably or they'd risk not being able to feed themselves.

Wives were justified to leave their husbands to marry and husband who had "more keys", and it was his "right" to take her.... This happened over and over... Abominable.

Then people began sealing themselves to high ranking church leaders to make them better off in the eternities through "adoption"... It was NOTHING like the "families are forever" meme of today... We are so ignorant as to how the doctrine of family sealings has evolved into what it is today... And no, it was not "continuing revelation"...

Today we want desperately to ignore this is a part of our history... We want desperately to believe that our beliefs today came straight from Joseph himself... We will cling to the notion of an unbroken line of keys, authority, and doctrine and will ignore anything not "faith-promoting" and have twisted history just to make the pill more palatable. Anything and I mean ANYTHING than to conceed that we may have been, or currently are, deceived as a people....
I'm aware of a statement or two by Brigham Young suggesting that a woman could leave her husband for another man with higher authority. I was of the understanding that these statements were hypothetical as part of another point he was making about this or that.

Can you provide evidence of this having actually happened, let alone over and over again?

You make a good point about sealings and adoption later turning into "families are forever" when the original practice looked quite a bit different.

I agree that "continuing revelation" is a tough sell to explain this.

However you are aware that these type of sealings and adoptions began with Joseph Smith in Nauvoo right?

It didn't begin once the Saints were in Utah.

As for your questioning of Lucy Walker's letter...

It's obvious from the letter that she wrote it after the death of her second husband, Heber C. Kimball.

I know those who reject plural marriage as ordained of God like to dismiss any non contemporary statements with the wave of the hand, but actual historians don't do that.

Historians prefer journals and contemporary letters, but still use memoirs, letters, and statements by individuals years later as valid evidence.

Are you suggesting that Lucy is straight up lying in her letter?

There's also contemporary evidence that Joseph was marrying plural wives and teaching plural marriage in Nauvoo. Multiple witnesses said this. William Law and Wilson Law, William Law's wife, Robert Foster, John C. Bennett, etc.

They viewed it as an abomination, but they nevertheless were intimately associated with Joseph Smith.

William Law was his councillor and a member of the Council of Fifty.

If you actually read the Nauvoo Expositor, it seems pretty clear that William was giving us pretty accurate information, but with a negative spin as he believed in the restoration, but considered Joseph's practice of plural marriage as wrong and an abomination that has crept into the Church. According to the Nauvoo Expositor, his intention was to bring this secret abomination to light so Joseph and the others involved would repent.

I'm 100% convinced that Joseph started plural marriage in the Church.

So either it is of God, or Joseph Smith was just as guilty of whoredoms as the Utah polygamists. In fact he'd be even more guilty for having started it. He'd be the king Noah or Riplakish.
I’d call what William Law did was more then just negative spin. It was flat out lying with a teaspoon of truth. The relief society a Harem with levels? And the Nancy Rigdon letter was straight up forged.

Re: Your Weekly Reminder that Polygamy Was Never Approved by God

Posted: October 13th, 2019, 8:20 am
by EmmaLee
Durzan wrote: October 12th, 2019, 8:24 pm
EmmaLee wrote: October 12th, 2019, 7:00 pm
Durzan wrote: October 12th, 2019, 6:50 pm
EmmaLee wrote: October 12th, 2019, 6:33 pm

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.
Or you could just read all the evidences Stahura and others have posted on this and other threads - none of which include assumptions, stretching, or conjecture. Just cold, hard, inconvenient facts. But whatevs. Please feel free to believe whatever you want (more on that in a bit).

Re: Your Weekly Reminder that Polygamy Was Never Approved by God

Posted: October 13th, 2019, 8:34 am
by Durzan
EmmaLee wrote: October 13th, 2019, 8:20 am
Durzan wrote: October 12th, 2019, 8:24 pm
EmmaLee wrote: October 12th, 2019, 7:00 pm
Durzan wrote: October 12th, 2019, 6:50 pm

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



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.
Or you could just read all the evidences Stahura and others have posted on this and other threads - none of which include assumptions, stretching, or conjecture. Just cold, hard, inconvenient facts. But whatevs. Please feel free to believe whatever you want (more on that in a bit).
I have and it don’t hold as much water as they think.

Re: Your Weekly Reminder that Polygamy Was Never Approved by God

Posted: October 13th, 2019, 8:37 am
by EmmaLee
Matthias wrote: October 12th, 2019, 10:28 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 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.
Matthias, would you please point to my post where I said all men who believe in/want polygamy are into porn? I don't recall making such a statement, but maybe I did and have forgotten - so please direct me to where *I* said that, thanks. John Tavner made comments about polygamy/porn, so maybe you're confusing who said what. I do believe I "thanked" him for some of his comments on this thread, but he was the one who made the comments about polygamy/porn, yet you accuse me of doing it.

Yes, I actually read your posts, therefore I'm aware that you don't necessarily desire polygamy - therefore, my comments that you've taken offense at shouldn't apply to you. Perhaps I should have sectioned my posts to where I was talking to you, specifically, and then to others or 'in general'.

I believe most of 132 is from God, just not the added-years-after-Joseph-died-polygamy part. I believe even more that the Book of Mormon, the keystone of our (or at least, my) religion, is from God.

Your comment about "romance novels" made me think back to if I've ever read one. Not that I can think of - unless you consider the literature from Austen or the Bronte sisters (Price & Prejudice, Jane Eyre, et al) to be "porn" - and if you do, then we really do live on different planets, sorry. Oh, and I don't believe in "soul mates" either.

Re: Your Weekly Reminder that Polygamy Was Never Approved by God

Posted: October 13th, 2019, 8:39 am
by EmmaLee
Durzan wrote: October 13th, 2019, 8:34 am
EmmaLee wrote: October 13th, 2019, 8:20 am
Durzan wrote: October 12th, 2019, 8:24 pm
EmmaLee wrote: October 12th, 2019, 7:00 pm

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.
Or you could just read all the evidences Stahura and others have posted on this and other threads - none of which include assumptions, stretching, or conjecture. Just cold, hard, inconvenient facts. But whatevs. Please feel free to believe whatever you want (more on that in a bit).
I have and it don’t hold as much water as they think.
Oh, okay.

Re: Your Weekly Reminder that Polygamy Was Never Approved by God

Posted: October 13th, 2019, 9:04 am
by The Airbender
Is this really going to be a weekly thing?

Re: Your Weekly Reminder that Polygamy Was Never Approved by God

Posted: October 13th, 2019, 9:07 am
by EmmaLee
These thoughts were in my head when I woke up this morning - even the way it was worded and laid out - it's like it was a picture that had been placed there - so I will share, but I also feel like any further discussion (?) on this subject is an utter and complete waste of time at this point. Take it for what it's worth (nothing, to most of you, no doubt). This is where the majority of the members of the LDS Church are today, in 2019. Call it "fruits" if you want, or not, no matter to me.

The following groups of ever-growing, and rapidly-growing, people are active in the Church, have current temple recommends, and believe wholeheartedly that they, and their beliefs, are right - they believe their interpretation of the scriptures is right - they believe the prophets they choose to believe are right - they believe the information they choose to believe (or not believe) are right - they believe they have received just as much revelation from God via the Holy Ghost as anyone in the other groups. They have a conviction, a surety, that what they believe is right and good and true, every bit as much as the other groups have a conviction, a surety, that what they believe is right and good and true.

Whether here in mortality, or in the next life (spirit world/resurrection/celestial kingdom), or both - most LDS in 2019 fully believe in these aberrations to The Family Proclamation and that these relationships are ordained and approved of by God -

- A man being "married" to more than one woman at the same time.
- A woman being "married" to more than one man at the same time.
- A man and/or woman being "married" to both men and women.
- Everyone is "married" to everyone (a great celestial orgy/free-for-all, in other words).
- Men can be "married" to men, women can be "married" to women.

I have seen every one of these scenarios above preached with sincere fervor and sure testimony on this very forum by people who claim to be active, recommend-holding, calling-holding, temple-going, LDS members who claim to read and believe the very same set of scriptures, and listen to the very same prophets, as I do. How can they all be right? How can all of the above scenarios be "true" or be from an unchanging God? This is what happens when darkness, gross darkness, covers the land and the people in it. This is what happens when people stray from their founding, keystone scriptures (the Book of Mormon), and from their founding Prophet's OWN words (what actually came of out of HIS mouth, not what so-and-so said he said 40 years after he died). This is what happens when people do not understand what sealings are/what sealing is. This is what happens when carnal man (that's mankind, for those of you who think I'm giving women a pass here) takes over and clouds/overshadows our spirits. Darkness reigns. The devil is laughing. The heavens are weeping. Lord, Jesus, come quickly.

Re: Your Weekly Reminder that Polygamy Was Never Approved by God

Posted: October 13th, 2019, 9:08 am
by LDS Watchman
EmmaLee wrote: October 13th, 2019, 8:37 am
Matthias wrote: October 12th, 2019, 10:28 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.
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.
Matthias, would you please point to my post where I said all men who believe in/want polygamy are into porn? I don't recall making such a statement, but maybe I did and have forgotten - so please direct me to where *I* said that, thanks. John Tavner made comments about polygamy/porn, so maybe you're confusing who said what. I do believe I "thanked" him for some of his comments on this thread, but he was the one who made the comments about polygamy/porn, yet you accuse me of doing it.

Yes, I actually read your posts, therefore I'm aware that you don't necessarily desire polygamy - therefore, my comments that you've taken offense at shouldn't apply to you. Perhaps I should have sectioned my posts to where I was talking to you, specifically, and then to others or 'in general'.

I believe most of 132 is from God, just not the added-years-after-Joseph-died-polygamy part. I believe even more that the Book of Mormon, the keystone of our (or at least, my) religion, is from God.

Your comment about "romance novels" made me think back to if I've ever read one. Not that I can think of - unless you consider the literature from Austen or the Bronte sisters (Price & Prejudice, Jane Eyre, et al) to be "porn" - and if you do, then we really do live on different planets, sorry. Oh, and I don't believe in "soul mates" either.
Emma, I'm not at all accusing you of anything. Nor do I assume that you have bad intentions or are jealous or into Romance novels.

I merely said that so you would see how your comment about men would feel turned around the other way around.

I don't need to point you to your post about where you said that all men who want polygamy want sex with lots of women and that these men also have issues with porn. Just go back and look at the last few you made. It's there.

Like I said, I forgive you for it. It's no big deal. Plural marriage is a very emotinal topic and it's hard to discuss it objectively because it is so repulsive to so many people.

It was repulsive at first to those early Saints who practiced it to.

They had to get revelation from God that it was his will before they could do it.

Re: Your Weekly Reminder that Polygamy Was Never Approved by God

Posted: October 13th, 2019, 9:24 am
by EmmaLee
Matthias wrote: October 13th, 2019, 9:08 am
EmmaLee wrote: October 13th, 2019, 8:37 am
Matthias wrote: October 12th, 2019, 10:28 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.
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.
Matthias, would you please point to my post where I said all men who believe in/want polygamy are into porn? I don't recall making such a statement, but maybe I did and have forgotten - so please direct me to where *I* said that, thanks. John Tavner made comments about polygamy/porn, so maybe you're confusing who said what. I do believe I "thanked" him for some of his comments on this thread, but he was the one who made the comments about polygamy/porn, yet you accuse me of doing it.

Yes, I actually read your posts, therefore I'm aware that you don't necessarily desire polygamy - therefore, my comments that you've taken offense at shouldn't apply to you. Perhaps I should have sectioned my posts to where I was talking to you, specifically, and then to others or 'in general'.

I believe most of 132 is from God, just not the added-years-after-Joseph-died-polygamy part. I believe even more that the Book of Mormon, the keystone of our (or at least, my) religion, is from God.

Your comment about "romance novels" made me think back to if I've ever read one. Not that I can think of - unless you consider the literature from Austen or the Bronte sisters (Price & Prejudice, Jane Eyre, et al) to be "porn" - and if you do, then we really do live on different planets, sorry. Oh, and I don't believe in "soul mates" either.
Emma, I'm not at all accusing you of anything. Nor do I assume that you have bad intentions or are jealous or into Romance novels.

I merely said that so you would see how your comment about men would feel turned around the other way around.

I don't need to point you to your post about where you said that all men who want polygamy want sex with lots of women and that these men also have issues with porn. Just go back and look at the last few you made. It's there.

Like I said, I forgive you for it. It's no big deal. Plural marriage is a very emotinal topic and it's hard to discuss it objectively because it is so repulsive to so many people.

It was repulsive at first to those early Saints who practiced it to.

They had to get revelation from God that it was his will before they could do it.
I actually don't feel emotional at all, as this belief does not affect me or my life or my relationships. I'm actually trying to bring some logic to the discussion, but I'm obviously failing miserably.

And yes, you are indeed accusing me of saying all men who want polygamy are into porn - and I'm asking you to please show me where *I* said that. Can you? Or are you just going to keep accusing me of saying something without showing me where I said it? I already pointed out that John Tavner is who made that comment - about polygamy and porn - and you just completely ignored that I pointed that out, and you continue to accuse me. You say you don't need to show me where I said something - why not? I've scrolled through my comments on this thread and can't find where I said what you're accusing me of saying (polygamy/porn), can you?

I did say men want polygamy for the sex, and I do believe 99.9% of men who want polygamy to return want it for the sex. That is my belief - take it, leave it. But unless you can show me MY post where I said what you're accusing me of saying (polygamy/porn), STOP accusing me of saying it. I haven't asked for your forgiveness - not sure why you keep saying you forgive me, like I've wronged you somehow. We can keep going back and forth like this till the 2nd Coming if you want, Matthias, or you can just own the fact that you're bearing false witness against me, and it is I who has need to forgive you - or you can show me MY post where I said all men who want polygamy also look at porn. Thanks.

Re: Your Weekly Reminder that Polygamy Was Never Approved by God

Posted: October 13th, 2019, 10:23 am
by MannahChef
Stahura wrote: October 10th, 2019, 10:06 am
jmack wrote: October 10th, 2019, 9:56 am
Stahura wrote: October 10th, 2019, 9:17 am Here are some facts regarding polygamy.


Brigham Young did not understand sealing. He didn't, and yet it is HE that influenced EVERYTHING that we do with sealings today, and EVERYTHING that we THINK we understand about celestial marriage. Proof of this is pfound in the account where Brigham Young says that he prayed and Joseph Smith appeared to him and Brigham told him that he and the brethren did not understand the sealing principles. Joseph then said nothing about sealing, and told the brethren to follow the Spirit when it comes(Interesting.. hadn't it come yet? Could it be that some of the brethren hadn't yet received the Holy Ghost? ABSOLUTELY. The doctrine of Christ is misunderstood)


The Book of Mormon condemns it, and does not allow it. This should suffice for anyone, unfortunately this is ignored.

Mormon women would have had more children if they would have been in monogamous relationships. Facts.So the whole "rise up righteous seed" by having many babies can't apply here

Contrary to the belief of some, Women did not outnumber men to any large degree, so again, this can't be an excuse for polygamy.

Joseph and Hyrum condemned it until the day they died, they excommunicated members for practicing it, for preaching it. When people like John Bennet and William Law and Oliver Cowdery accused him of polygamy, he worked as hard as he possibly could to clear his name of this adulterous accusation by getting anyone and everyone to sign affidavits and testify that he is innocent of the charges.

Emma denied it until the day she died. She was slandered for this reason. Brigham repeatedly called her a liar. Brigham and co accused her of attempting to POISON and MURDER Joseph TWICE. She was accused of burning the original section 132(more on that later).

Polygamist marriages and births EXPLODED the moment Joseph died. Why is this? If he supposedly told everyone it was okay before June 1844 to have wives, why then did everyone wait for him to die to begin grabbing extra wives? Hint, it's because he never said it was okay, and after Jun 1844 he wasn't around to fight that abominable doctrine in court like he had been doing for the past couple years to clear his name

Every person who has claimed to be a descendant of Joseph through someone other than Emma has been indisputably disproved.

If they were Joseph's celestial plural wives, why then did some of them re marry into polygamist relationships? For example, Eliza snow was supposedly a wife of Joseph's, sealed for eternity. And then she got sealed to Brigham Young for eternity. How do you explain that?

Joseph Smith III Spent his entire adulthood trying to figure out if his father was a polygamist, and he died believing he had one wife. He travelled to Salt Lake and interviewed woman after woman after women. Time after time after time, supposed wives and family of those "wives" of Joseph's would talk to Joseph Smith III and contradict testimonies they had given 30 years prior, they'd explain time and time again that they never had a "carnal" relationship with the prophet, or that they never had a proper marriage with the prophet.



SECTION 132

The original was supposedly burned by Emma (another LIE about Emma Smith)

Supposedly William Clayton recorded the first version. William Clayton was a financial clerk, he helped with finances and business. Joseph's personal secretary was James whitehead. Prior to Clayton supposedly recording this revelation, according to James Whitehead, Clayton was dismissed from his duties because some money had gone missing and Clayton was blamed for it. There is not a single revelation ever recorded by William Clayton before this. So, Joseph never had William do this sort of thing, didn't trust him, but then decided to have him be the one to record the most controversial and according to some people, the most important doctrine in the church? Righhht.

Joseph Kingsbury was a store clerk for Newel K Whitney. Yep, that's it. He's a nobody. But for some reason, he was tasked with copying Clayton's supposed version. And lucky for us because Emma burned Clayton's version! right? Well this version didnt' come around until 1852. This means that, they had been supposedly practicing polygamy for 10+ years without a revelation from God being presented to the members of the Church.

The TEMPLE LOT CASE The church fought in court to prove that Joseph start polygamy.. and THE CHURCH LOST. The Judge was unconvinced. In that case, James Whitehead, Joseph's actual secretary, testified that the ACTUAL revelation that we now know as section 132 was completely altered from when he had seen it. What was changed? Well, it was changed to allow and approve of polygamy. Meaning that when Joseph had first had the revelation, it said nothing of polygamy. After he dies, at some point before 1852 it suddenly talks about polygamy.

Unlike the standard for scripture, this section was never approved by unanimous voting by the three priesthood quorums, which is required for something to be accepted as scripture.

At that same moment, section 101 expressly forbdd polygamy. When section 132 was added, section 101 was edited to remove the condemnation of polygamy . Weird right?


After all is said and done:

If Joseph practiced polygamy, he was wrong, and made a horrible mistake.

If he thought of practicing it, and taught it a tiny bit and repented though, he made a horrible mistake.

If he did practice it for a time and then do away with it, he made a horrible mistake.

God never approved polygamy, he never required it. Period. It is an abomination.

Just go read the LDS Eternal Marriage guide, look at the sheer amount of dedication and love a man is required to give his wife. Now go and try to figure out how that can be done with 2 wives, let alone 10 or 50. It can't be done. One man is to cleave himself to one woman. Period.
Again, where did you get this, it's riddled with errors.
There’s no error. I’ve provided historical facts. Just because it’s inconvenient to your world view doesn’t make it an error. I’ve provided sources on everything many times in other posts . Those who rail against it As being “anti” or “erroneous” never have looked at the sources, and have no intent on reading the source, so why would I provide it any longer?

The information is out there. When you come to realize that polygamy is an evil abominable doctrine, you can go find the truth waiting for you.
Actually, there's no need to even check the sources on this one, because regardless where it came from it can easily be seen for what it is. When a person says the sun doesn't come up in the mornings and doesn't go down in the evening, is there reason for me to check whether this person is a NASA scientist or prophet or have some qualifying credentials that I should believe them that the sun doesn't come up in the morning and doesn't go down in the evening? And I won't discuss your past posts because that has already been done to your satisfaction by others I'm sure, but will remain relevant and current by discussing what you've said just now concerning Apostles not having yet received the Holy Ghost. And also to discuss your narrow understanding of the scriptures which is just as narrow as everybody's understanding for we all are blind to the grand things of God and are but children and so there's no insult in my voice and I'm just as open to your words as I am the Lord's words. But I'll bring up the points that I think when I hear your words, according to my own understanding, and you can take them or leave them because I'm not God and I could possibly be just as wrong as you or right as you.

Just as you suppose the Spirit had not yet come upon some of the Apostles, surely certain revelations had not yet come upon Jacob. You cannot suppose that the Law of Moses was the one and only law. And that God gives the same laws and governance to every nation of every era in history. Surely Adam (and definitely Enoch's pure nation) had a different lifestyle and world than we have now. Fathom what it must look like to slaughter 20,000 animals on an altar in just one day and how large that lake of blood would be, before thinking our laws today have any semblance to the laws of yesterday and note the greatness of the change and difference between those laws and the laws you follow. Have you slaughtered even one animal on an altar, let alone hundreds? Has your Bishop? Any of your leaders? Who do you follow? Yes, of course we all slaughtered Jesus and so you've at least slaughtered one, the same one that I slaughtered. But no, we don't slaughter animals on the altar these days, save only Jesus who we slaughtered, and there will apparently be a few more slaughtered by the Jews in Jerusalem in the Third Temple yet to be. And God continues to slaughter His children in love until the last one of us is dead and raised again. You cry a Bible a Bible you have a Book of Mormon and you suppose there shall never again be another Book of Mormon. Certainly Mormon wrote other books. And so your view even according to Mormon should he ever give an interview on TV about views such as yours will say it's quite narrow as is all of ours, we all have much to learn at God's feet.

I'm not biased, if God says marry dogs and horses, hopefully I'll have the faith to obey Him. If He says as John the Baptist did, marry these rocks, hopefully I'll have the faith to obey Him. But you refuse, and so who here is the truthful follower of God, those who put God in a box and say this law of God is right and this law of God is wrong. That is opinion to the hundredth power, I've regularly seen such opinionated in the human mind of every human even me, we're all opinionated it's human nature to be closed in by a box in our own minds and it's called the veil and we also have many other things blinding us and our hearts.

The real challenge is to peel away these veils and see clearly all things which is impossible for our mortal brains which barely can see anything at all unfortunately but which blindness is necessary and for a grand purpose namely our testing and proving. The point is, we must obey God regardless past commandments. Because the day will come when He raises up a rock, or a carpenter, or somebody from your home town who you've known all his/her young life and you'll reject it when he/she stands up and says he/she is God and you must follow him/her. Surely you'll fail that test as do we all. For all of us crucified Jesus, nobody is inculpable of that mistake. None of us can recognize when it's God speaking. Only those who have that gift (and even they doubt it). It requires the Gift of the Holy Ghost to have a testimony (and then we doubt it still). You believe what you believe today but tomorrow you'll certainly believe something else and it may still be just as wrong or right as what you believe today. I look forward to see what your future beliefs are, regardless how right or absurd!

Marry who or what or the multitude or lack thereof that you desire. If that is what you believe God has commanded you, surely you must obey what God told you! I'll obey what God told me. That is what each person must do! Surely you understand that. But it's fine and dandy for you to express if you feel that we all are in violation. Thank you for chastising us. And if it turns out that you are right and we changed, glory be. And if it turns out that you are right and we didn't change, shame on us! But if it turns out that you are wrong... well... we're all wrong in the end, so don't worry too much, the important thing is that you followed the voices in your head, and so you'll be raised up spotless at the last day! It's they who don't follow the voices in their head that won't be found worthy to rule in the eternities and must follow. And there's nothing wrong with that, who doesn't want to be an angel?

Ironically the only gender that doesn't want to be an angel (men) will be the very ones castrated on that day! Very few men will stand on that day. There will be a great many women without men indeed on that day! Therefor mostly all will be angels on that day. Or "like unto the angels" and not Gods. And there's NOTHING wrong with that. God's plan no matter how ugly and messy and bloody and tragic and doomed and imperfect, is none-the-less a perfect plan, and perfect in its imperfection and will hold the day and in fact all eternity! God wins! And I don't judge whether or not it's right that He has one or two wives.

Who am I to judge God! And that's the risk we make when we put God in a box. I'm certain that no god would want to be put in a box and heaven help that person who did it! Don't judge nor crucify God. Simply obey Him. No matter how many times He changes His mind. Heaven forbid we fall behind and miss any of the changes and are left in the dust! Heaven forbid we read only one book and not the others! Heaven forbid we only have the Book of Mormon on the last day when all the prophets of all the lost tribes and nations have brought theirs! Heaven forbid we don't even have the Bible! And yes, heaven have mercy on the souls of those who reject the Book of Mormon.

But just as in rejecting the Law of Moses we are saved in Jesus, we must be prepared to accept new laws and reject old laws, accordingly. Which is why we now drink water instead of wine and yet a day is coming when we will yet drink wine. Are you prepared? WHEN the Holy Spirit comes on those Apostles, if in fact it's as you had said that possibly He had not yet come on them, then surely they'll accept what He says which is the very reason they are called to the Apostleship and not others.

One of your comments (all are great in my opinion) that I totally agree with is when you said in your concurrent comments that men want polygamy for sex (you were quoting John Tavner if I'm remembering correctly). And again, I say, anyone who feels that way is locking themselves into a box (no matter how true the comment) by focusing only on the teenage years of a man (and for many men yes it's also in the adult years that a man still wants sex), instead of looking much further into the man's future. Seeing how it will be in the future for that man after he has had 8 or 20 or 1,000 wives at which point he will no longer want sex as greatly as he wants to go drink with the guys and watch football instead of managing such a household (in fact most men lose their drive even after having just one wife and many more men never had it to begin with which is why we shouldn't say only men have this drive; plus physically most men lose even the ability after a certain age).

Those who focus on the issue of sex need to look at the whole picture, the latter years as well (not just pre-marriage and marriage but also latter years and even the eternities what a man's drive will be like on that day a Millennia from now), and then we'll gaze in awe at God's wisdom for it goes further and deeper than we ever imagined and we'll never know it all (and might not have anything to do with sex, marriage, etc). Peer down at eternity, not just this mortality, not just Jacob's time, not just Abraham's time, not just our time, but further (for all we know we cease to exist at some point and were just being used to create plastic for other extraterrestrial beings).

We have no idea what laws will exist a Millennia from now. We know marriage will exist (or do we). Most men will be angels, castrated on that last day, and so this discussion won't apply to the majority of men anyhow (and so if anything sex should be their motivation for obeying God's law whatever it may be). We have not yet received revelation concerning whether or not there is sex in the heavens anyways. Surely the heavens are capable of petri-dish births and cloning and so on. And concerning the desire to have only one or two, look at it from the perspective of a child's longing to be their parent's one and only: Of course we want to be our parent's favorite child. Everybody wants to be God's one and only. But there is glory in having many brothers and sisters and for each to have their own special relationship with our parents.

We would be missing out if we removed all our brothers and sisters from the picture. Perhaps the greatest benefit in sharing is that we become less obsessive. Obsession isn't love. Jesus talked at great length about the dangers of zealotry. Should a woman obsesses over her man? Should a man obsess over one woman? Definitely in the case of a woman's focus on a man, it's obvious: To focus on the issue of men, is truly unworthy of a woman's time; a man is just one handbag (possession and joy) out of many (she has her children, friends, activities, things, pursuits, future, and so on).

Yes, there hopefully will be true love between them, all the romance, but please realize that obsession isn't love. It's just as difficult for a man to say honey you're NOT my one and only, as it is for a mother to say she loves one child more than the other. And yet she can have joy in all of them. And they can have joy in her regardless she has many (infinite number of children). And heaven forbid, maybe in the heavens men do have only one wife! We pray that everyone can accept God's command regardless which way He commands.

Maybe in the end everybody is commanded to be gay! Would we accept that commandment? Hopefully it's just a test and like with Abraham an angle will come down at the last minute and say zip up your pants, no need to slay this dragon! I could totally be wrong.

Great discussions! Thank you for your post!

Re: Your Weekly Reminder that Polygamy Was Never Approved by God

Posted: October 13th, 2019, 12:17 pm
by John Tavner
MannahChef wrote: October 13th, 2019, 10:23 am
Stahura wrote: October 10th, 2019, 10:06 am
jmack wrote: October 10th, 2019, 9:56 am
Stahura wrote: October 10th, 2019, 9:17 am Here are some facts regarding polygamy.


Brigham Young did not understand sealing. He didn't, and yet it is HE that influenced EVERYTHING that we do with sealings today, and EVERYTHING that we THINK we understand about celestial marriage. Proof of this is pfound in the account where Brigham Young says that he prayed and Joseph Smith appeared to him and Brigham told him that he and the brethren did not understand the sealing principles. Joseph then said nothing about sealing, and told the brethren to follow the Spirit when it comes(Interesting.. hadn't it come yet? Could it be that some of the brethren hadn't yet received the Holy Ghost? ABSOLUTELY. The doctrine of Christ is misunderstood)


The Book of Mormon condemns it, and does not allow it. This should suffice for anyone, unfortunately this is ignored.

Mormon women would have had more children if they would have been in monogamous relationships. Facts.So the whole "rise up righteous seed" by having many babies can't apply here

Contrary to the belief of some, Women did not outnumber men to any large degree, so again, this can't be an excuse for polygamy.

Joseph and Hyrum condemned it until the day they died, they excommunicated members for practicing it, for preaching it. When people like John Bennet and William Law and Oliver Cowdery accused him of polygamy, he worked as hard as he possibly could to clear his name of this adulterous accusation by getting anyone and everyone to sign affidavits and testify that he is innocent of the charges.

Emma denied it until the day she died. She was slandered for this reason. Brigham repeatedly called her a liar. Brigham and co accused her of attempting to POISON and MURDER Joseph TWICE. She was accused of burning the original section 132(more on that later).

Polygamist marriages and births EXPLODED the moment Joseph died. Why is this? If he supposedly told everyone it was okay before June 1844 to have wives, why then did everyone wait for him to die to begin grabbing extra wives? Hint, it's because he never said it was okay, and after Jun 1844 he wasn't around to fight that abominable doctrine in court like he had been doing for the past couple years to clear his name

Every person who has claimed to be a descendant of Joseph through someone other than Emma has been indisputably disproved.

If they were Joseph's celestial plural wives, why then did some of them re marry into polygamist relationships? For example, Eliza snow was supposedly a wife of Joseph's, sealed for eternity. And then she got sealed to Brigham Young for eternity. How do you explain that?

Joseph Smith III Spent his entire adulthood trying to figure out if his father was a polygamist, and he died believing he had one wife. He travelled to Salt Lake and interviewed woman after woman after women. Time after time after time, supposed wives and family of those "wives" of Joseph's would talk to Joseph Smith III and contradict testimonies they had given 30 years prior, they'd explain time and time again that they never had a "carnal" relationship with the prophet, or that they never had a proper marriage with the prophet.



SECTION 132

The original was supposedly burned by Emma (another LIE about Emma Smith)

Supposedly William Clayton recorded the first version. William Clayton was a financial clerk, he helped with finances and business. Joseph's personal secretary was James whitehead. Prior to Clayton supposedly recording this revelation, according to James Whitehead, Clayton was dismissed from his duties because some money had gone missing and Clayton was blamed for it. There is not a single revelation ever recorded by William Clayton before this. So, Joseph never had William do this sort of thing, didn't trust him, but then decided to have him be the one to record the most controversial and according to some people, the most important doctrine in the church? Righhht.

Joseph Kingsbury was a store clerk for Newel K Whitney. Yep, that's it. He's a nobody. But for some reason, he was tasked with copying Clayton's supposed version. And lucky for us because Emma burned Clayton's version! right? Well this version didnt' come around until 1852. This means that, they had been supposedly practicing polygamy for 10+ years without a revelation from God being presented to the members of the Church.

The TEMPLE LOT CASE The church fought in court to prove that Joseph start polygamy.. and THE CHURCH LOST. The Judge was unconvinced. In that case, James Whitehead, Joseph's actual secretary, testified that the ACTUAL revelation that we now know as section 132 was completely altered from when he had seen it. What was changed? Well, it was changed to allow and approve of polygamy. Meaning that when Joseph had first had the revelation, it said nothing of polygamy. After he dies, at some point before 1852 it suddenly talks about polygamy.

Unlike the standard for scripture, this section was never approved by unanimous voting by the three priesthood quorums, which is required for something to be accepted as scripture.

At that same moment, section 101 expressly forbdd polygamy. When section 132 was added, section 101 was edited to remove the condemnation of polygamy . Weird right?


After all is said and done:

If Joseph practiced polygamy, he was wrong, and made a horrible mistake.

If he thought of practicing it, and taught it a tiny bit and repented though, he made a horrible mistake.

If he did practice it for a time and then do away with it, he made a horrible mistake.

God never approved polygamy, he never required it. Period. It is an abomination.

Just go read the LDS Eternal Marriage guide, look at the sheer amount of dedication and love a man is required to give his wife. Now go and try to figure out how that can be done with 2 wives, let alone 10 or 50. It can't be done. One man is to cleave himself to one woman. Period.
Again, where did you get this, it's riddled with errors.
There’s no error. I’ve provided historical facts. Just because it’s inconvenient to your world view doesn’t make it an error. I’ve provided sources on everything many times in other posts . Those who rail against it As being “anti” or “erroneous” never have looked at the sources, and have no intent on reading the source, so why would I provide it any longer?

The information is out there. When you come to realize that polygamy is an evil abominable doctrine, you can go find the truth waiting for you.
Actually, there's no need to even check the sources on this one, because regardless where it came from it can easily be seen for what it is. When a person says the sun doesn't come up in the mornings and doesn't go down in the evening, is there reason for me to check whether this person is a NASA scientist or prophet or have some qualifying credentials that I should believe them that the sun doesn't come up in the morning and doesn't go down in the evening? And I won't discuss your past posts because that has already been done to your satisfaction by others I'm sure, but will remain relevant and current by discussing what you've said just now concerning Apostles not having yet received the Holy Ghost. And also to discuss your narrow understanding of the scriptures which is just as narrow as everybody's understanding for we all are blind to the grand things of God and are but children and so there's no insult in my voice and I'm just as open to your words as I am the Lord's words. But I'll bring up the points that I think when I hear your words, according to my own understanding, and you can take them or leave them because I'm not God and I could possibly be just as wrong as you or right as you.

Just as you suppose the Spirit had not yet come upon some of the Apostles, surely certain revelations had not yet come upon Jacob. You cannot suppose that the Law of Moses was the one and only law. And that God gives the same laws and governance to every nation of every era in history. Surely Adam (and definitely Enoch's pure nation) had a different lifestyle and world than we have now. Fathom what it must look like to slaughter 20,000 animals on an altar in just one day and how large that lake of blood would be, before thinking our laws today have any semblance to the laws of yesterday and note the greatness of the change and difference between those laws and the laws you follow. Have you slaughtered even one animal on an altar, let alone hundreds? Has your Bishop? Any of your leaders? Who do you follow? Yes, of course we all slaughtered Jesus and so you've at least slaughtered one, the same one that I slaughtered. But no, we don't slaughter animals on the altar these days, save only Jesus who we slaughtered, and there will apparently be a few more slaughtered by the Jews in Jerusalem in the Third Temple yet to be. And God continues to slaughter His children in love until the last one of us is dead and raised again. You cry a Bible a Bible you have a Book of Mormon and you suppose there shall never again be another Book of Mormon. Certainly Mormon wrote other books. And so your view even according to Mormon should he ever give an interview on TV about views such as yours will say it's quite narrow as is all of ours, we all have much to learn at God's feet.

I'm not biased, if God says marry dogs and horses, hopefully I'll have the faith to obey Him. If He says as John the Baptist did, marry these rocks, hopefully I'll have the faith to obey Him. But you refuse, and so who here is the truthful follower of God, those who put God in a box and say this law of God is right and this law of God is wrong. That is opinion to the hundredth power, I've regularly seen such opinionated in the human mind of every human even me, we're all opinionated it's human nature to be closed in by a box in our own minds and it's called the veil and we also have many other things blinding us and our hearts.

The real challenge is to peel away these veils and see clearly all things which is impossible for our mortal brains which barely can see anything at all unfortunately but which blindness is necessary and for a grand purpose namely our testing and proving. The point is, we must obey God regardless past commandments. Because the day will come when He raises up a rock, or a carpenter, or somebody from your home town who you've known all his/her young life and you'll reject it when he/she stands up and says he/she is God and you must follow him/her. Surely you'll fail that test as do we all. For all of us crucified Jesus, nobody is inculpable of that mistake. None of us can recognize when it's God speaking. Only those who have that gift (and even they doubt it). It requires the Gift of the Holy Ghost to have a testimony (and then we doubt it still). You believe what you believe today but tomorrow you'll certainly believe something else and it may still be just as wrong or right as what you believe today. I look forward to see what your future beliefs are, regardless how right or absurd!

Marry who or what or the multitude or lack thereof that you desire. If that is what you believe God has commanded you, surely you must obey what God told you! I'll obey what God told me. That is what each person must do! Surely you understand that. But it's fine and dandy for you to express if you feel that we all are in violation. Thank you for chastising us. And if it turns out that you are right and we changed, glory be. And if it turns out that you are right and we didn't change, shame on us! But if it turns out that you are wrong... well... we're all wrong in the end, so don't worry too much, the important thing is that you followed the voices in your head, and so you'll be raised up spotless at the last day! It's they who don't follow the voices in their head that won't be found worthy to rule in the eternities and must follow. And there's nothing wrong with that, who doesn't want to be an angel?

Ironically the only gender that doesn't want to be an angel (men) will be the very ones castrated on that day! Very few men will stand on that day. There will be a great many women without men indeed on that day! Therefor mostly all will be angels on that day. Or "like unto the angels" and not Gods. And there's NOTHING wrong with that. God's plan no matter how ugly and messy and bloody and tragic and doomed and imperfect, is none-the-less a perfect plan, and perfect in its imperfection and will hold the day and in fact all eternity! God wins! And I don't judge whether or not it's right that He has one or two wives.

Who am I to judge God! And that's the risk we make when we put God in a box. I'm certain that no god would want to be put in a box and heaven help that person who did it! Don't judge nor crucify God. Simply obey Him. No matter how many times He changes His mind. Heaven forbid we fall behind and miss any of the changes and are left in the dust! Heaven forbid we read only one book and not the others! Heaven forbid we only have the Book of Mormon on the last day when all the prophets of all the lost tribes and nations have brought theirs! Heaven forbid we don't even have the Bible! And yes, heaven have mercy on the souls of those who reject the Book of Mormon.

But just as in rejecting the Law of Moses we are saved in Jesus, we must be prepared to accept new laws and reject old laws, accordingly. Which is why we now drink water instead of wine and yet a day is coming when we will yet drink wine. Are you prepared? WHEN the Holy Spirit comes on those Apostles, if in fact it's as you had said that possibly He had not yet come on them, then surely they'll accept what He says which is the very reason they are called to the Apostleship and not others.

One of your comments (all are great in my opinion) that I totally agree with is when you said in your concurrent comments that men want polygamy for sex (you were quoting John Tavner if I'm remembering correctly). And again, I say, anyone who feels that way is locking themselves into a box (no matter how true the comment) by focusing only on the teenage years of a man (and for many men yes it's also in the adult years that a man still wants sex), instead of looking much further into the man's future. Seeing how it will be in the future for that man after he has had 8 or 20 or 1,000 wives at which point he will no longer want sex as greatly as he wants to go drink with the guys and watch football instead of managing such a household (in fact most men lose their drive even after having just one wife and many more men never had it to begin with which is why we shouldn't say only men have this drive; plus physically most men lose even the ability after a certain age).

Those who focus on the issue of sex need to look at the whole picture, the latter years as well (not just pre-marriage and marriage but also latter years and even the eternities what a man's drive will be like on that day a Millennia from now), and then we'll gaze in awe at God's wisdom for it goes further and deeper than we ever imagined and we'll never know it all (and might not have anything to do with sex, marriage, etc). Peer down at eternity, not just this mortality, not just Jacob's time, not just Abraham's time, not just our time, but further (for all we know we cease to exist at some point and were just being used to create plastic for other extraterrestrial beings).

We have no idea what laws will exist a Millennia from now. We know marriage will exist (or do we). Most men will be angels, castrated on that last day, and so this discussion won't apply to the majority of men anyhow (and so if anything sex should be their motivation for obeying God's law whatever it may be). We have not yet received revelation concerning whether or not there is sex in the heavens anyways. Surely the heavens are capable of petri-dish births and cloning and so on. And concerning the desire to have only one or two, look at it from the perspective of a child's longing to be their parent's one and only: Of course we want to be our parent's favorite child. Everybody wants to be God's one and only. But there is glory in having many brothers and sisters and for each to have their own special relationship with our parents.

We would be missing out if we removed all our brothers and sisters from the picture. Perhaps the greatest benefit in sharing is that we become less obsessive. Obsession isn't love. Jesus talked at great length about the dangers of zealotry. Should a woman obsesses over her man? Should a man obsess over one woman? Definitely in the case of a woman's focus on a man, it's obvious: To focus on the issue of men, is truly unworthy of a woman's time; a man is just one handbag (possession and joy) out of many (she has her children, friends, activities, things, pursuits, future, and so on).

Yes, there hopefully will be true love between them, all the romance, but please realize that obsession isn't love. It's just as difficult for a man to say honey you're NOT my one and only, as it is for a mother to say she loves one child more than the other. And yet she can have joy in all of them. And they can have joy in her regardless she has many (infinite number of children). And heaven forbid, maybe in the heavens men do have only one wife! We pray that everyone can accept God's command regardless which way He commands.

Maybe in the end everybody is commanded to be gay! Would we accept that commandment? Hopefully it's just a test and like with Abraham an angle will come down at the last minute and say zip up your pants, no need to slay this dragon! I could totally be wrong.

Great discussions! Thank you for your post!
I can almost with 99.9% surety tell you that (if you were talking about Stahura) he wasn't quoting me regarding sex or pornography. I think I have mentioned sex or pornography once the entire time on all these threads. Both times I have been mentioned I was responding to someone else and what they said. It also appears you took what I said out of context - Because I did not lock myself in a box either. I believe I said most and even gave an example of how when I did believe in polygamy, sex was the farthest hing from my mind.

I just wanted that made clear.

Re: Your Weekly Reminder that Polygamy Was Never Approved by God

Posted: October 13th, 2019, 12:55 pm
by cab
The Airbender wrote: October 13th, 2019, 9:04 am Is this really going to be a weekly thing?
I think it needs to be so all other threads don't get hijacked

Re: Your Weekly Reminder that Polygamy Was Never Approved by God

Posted: October 13th, 2019, 1:13 pm
by LDS Watchman
?

Re: Your Weekly Reminder that Polygamy Was Never Approved by God

Posted: October 13th, 2019, 1:14 pm
by LDS Watchman
EmmaLee wrote: October 13th, 2019, 9:24 am
Matthias wrote: October 13th, 2019, 9:08 am
EmmaLee wrote: October 13th, 2019, 8:37 am
Matthias wrote: October 12th, 2019, 10:28 pm

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.
Matthias, would you please point to my post where I said all men who believe in/want polygamy are into porn? I don't recall making such a statement, but maybe I did and have forgotten - so please direct me to where *I* said that, thanks. John Tavner made comments about polygamy/porn, so maybe you're confusing who said what. I do believe I "thanked" him for some of his comments on this thread, but he was the one who made the comments about polygamy/porn, yet you accuse me of doing it.

Yes, I actually read your posts, therefore I'm aware that you don't necessarily desire polygamy - therefore, my comments that you've taken offense at shouldn't apply to you. Perhaps I should have sectioned my posts to where I was talking to you, specifically, and then to others or 'in general'.

I believe most of 132 is from God, just not the added-years-after-Joseph-died-polygamy part. I believe even more that the Book of Mormon, the keystone of our (or at least, my) religion, is from God.

Your comment about "romance novels" made me think back to if I've ever read one. Not that I can think of - unless you consider the literature from Austen or the Bronte sisters (Price & Prejudice, Jane Eyre, et al) to be "porn" - and if you do, then we really do live on different planets, sorry. Oh, and I don't believe in "soul mates" either.
Emma, I'm not at all accusing you of anything. Nor do I assume that you have bad intentions or are jealous or into Romance novels.

I merely said that so you would see how your comment about men would feel turned around the other way around.

I don't need to point you to your post about where you said that all men who want polygamy want sex with lots of women and that these men also have issues with porn. Just go back and look at the last few you made. It's there.

Like I said, I forgive you for it. It's no big deal. Plural marriage is a very emotinal topic and it's hard to discuss it objectively because it is so repulsive to so many people.

It was repulsive at first to those early Saints who practiced it to.

They had to get revelation from God that it was his will before they could do it.
I actually don't feel emotional at all, as this belief does not affect me or my life or my relationships. I'm actually trying to bring some logic to the discussion, but I'm obviously failing miserably.

And yes, you are indeed accusing me of saying all men who want polygamy are into porn - and I'm asking you to please show me where *I* said that. Can you? Or are you just going to keep accusing me of saying something without showing me where I said it? I already pointed out that John Tavner is who made that comment - about polygamy and porn - and you just completely ignored that I pointed that out, and you continue to accuse me. You say you don't need to show me where I said something - why not? I've scrolled through my comments on this thread and can't find where I said what you're accusing me of saying (polygamy/porn), can you?

I did say men want polygamy for the sex, and I do believe 99.9% of men who want polygamy to return want it for the sex. That is my belief - take it, leave it. But unless you can show me MY post where I said what you're accusing me of saying (polygamy/porn), STOP accusing me of saying it. I haven't asked for your forgiveness - not sure why you keep saying you forgive me, like I've wronged you somehow. We can keep going back and forth like this till the 2nd Coming if you want, Matthias, or you can just own the fact that you're bearing false witness against me, and it is I who has need to forgive you - or you can show me MY post where I said all men who want polygamy also look at porn. Thanks.
Alright, so it appears that we have a misunderstanding going on here.

I'm not bearing false witness against you. That would suggest that I'm lying, which would mean that I know what I'm saying isn't true and am intentionally saying something false about you.

You're right, it was John Tavner who made that direct connection to men who want polygamy all being into porn. You did make a similar comment, but not as direct as he did. So I guess I just put two and two together. I guess maybe that was a mistake on my part. Since you are so adamant that you did not say this, then I guess I was wrong for taking your comments the way I did.

Like I said, it's obviously just a misunderstanding.

Here are some of the very emotionally charged accusations you did make that set my off.

"Of course it's about the sex. If any of the men lusting after multiple wives were given a bunch of 70-year old women as their plural wives, they'd run as fast as they could the opposite direction. Saggy, old, pot-bellied men who think they should get to "marry" a harem of 20-year old virgins - but no, it's not about the sex....

As to your second statement - no, these men lusting after other women besides their first wife want what they think is "God's approval" to have sex with a bunch of different women - that is why they want so bad for the Church to give the 'ok' - so they can screw around guilt-free. "Having affairs" or never getting married wouldn't solve the guilt issue for them. They want to feel "righteous" while they're breaking their first wife's heart by having sex with other women besides her." (2019 Oct 12, 11:07 am)

That's pretty harsh towards men who support plural marriage being a true doctrine of God.

Then you said,

"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?? :shock: 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." (2019 Oct 12, 11:21 am)

This is again very harsh towards men who support plural marriage as being a true doctrine of God.

Then you said,

"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). " (2019 Oct 12, 11:31 am)

So here's were the misunderstanding happened I guess. You're right that you didn't actually say that all pro-plural marriage men are into porn, but you did make a connection between the men on this forum who support plural marriage and them not having a whole lot of self control. You then alluded to comments other pro-plural marriage men on this forum have made when the topic of pornography comes up, strongly implying a connection between pro-plural marriage men and not having a lot of self control and being into pornography.

So I guess you didn't come right out and say that those men who support plural marriage are into porn, but I think you can see why someone who defends plural marriage (such as myself) might take it that way. It certainly appeared to be a veiled accusation of just that.

Anyway I sincerely apologize if I took things the wrong way and you truly were not suggesting that the men who support plural marriage only support it because they want guiltless sex with a bunch of women and are into porn.

BTW, I know you didn't ask for my forgiveness, nor did you even apologize for these very harsh and aggressive comments towards men who defend plural marriage.

I'm choosing to forgive you anyway and not hold a grudge about it.

Again I'm sorry if I misrepresented what you were saying. I had no intent to bear false witness against you.

Re: Your Weekly Reminder that Polygamy Was Never Approved by God

Posted: October 13th, 2019, 1:19 pm
by cab
Matthias wrote: October 13th, 2019, 7:33 am
cab wrote: October 13th, 2019, 1:12 am
SettingDogStar wrote: October 12th, 2019, 3:42 pm
lemuel wrote: October 12th, 2019, 3:14 pm

From Brigham:


This doesn't look much like heaven to me.
What in the...

Yes. This is where I believe the abomination is most easy to see... It was a mess.

Once the LDS were far removed from the United States, into the far off wilderness of Utah, this doctrine of needing to hitch yourself to the highest ranking leader of the church set hold... Kingdom building began, and women and men were desperate to position themselves favorably or they'd risk not being able to feed themselves.

Wives were justified to leave their husbands to marry and husband who had "more keys", and it was his "right" to take her.... This happened over and over... Abominable.

Then people began sealing themselves to high ranking church leaders to make them better off in the eternities through "adoption"... It was NOTHING like the "families are forever" meme of today... We are so ignorant as to how the doctrine of family sealings has evolved into what it is today... And no, it was not "continuing revelation"...

Today we want desperately to ignore this is a part of our history... We want desperately to believe that our beliefs today came straight from Joseph himself... We will cling to the notion of an unbroken line of keys, authority, and doctrine and will ignore anything not "faith-promoting" and have twisted history just to make the pill more palatable. Anything and I mean ANYTHING than to conceed that we may have been, or currently are, deceived as a people....
I'm aware of a statement or two by Brigham Young suggesting that a woman could leave her husband for another man with higher authority. I was of the understanding that these statements were hypothetical as part of another point he was making about this or that.

Can you provide evidence of this having actually happened, let alone over and over again?

You make a good point about sealings and adoption later turning into "families are forever" when the original practice looked quite a bit different.

I agree that "continuing revelation" is a tough sell to explain this.

However you are aware that these type of sealings and adoptions began with Joseph Smith in Nauvoo right?

It didn't begin once the Saints were in Utah.

As for your questioning of Lucy Walker's letter...

It's obvious from the letter that she wrote it after the death of her second husband, Heber C. Kimball.

I know those who reject plural marriage as ordained of God like to dismiss any non contemporary statements with the wave of the hand, but actual historians don't do that.

Historians prefer journals and contemporary letters, but still use memoirs, letters, and statements by individuals years later as valid evidence.

Are you suggesting that Lucy is straight up lying in her letter?

There's also contemporary evidence that Joseph was marrying plural wives and teaching plural marriage in Nauvoo. Multiple witnesses said this. William Law and Wilson Law, William Law's wife, Robert Foster, John C. Bennett, etc.

They viewed it as an abomination, but they nevertheless were intimately associated with Joseph Smith.

William Law was his councillor and a member of the Council of Fifty.

If you actually read the Nauvoo Expositor, it seems pretty clear that William was giving us pretty accurate information, but with a negative spin as he believed in the restoration, but considered Joseph's practice of plural marriage as wrong and an abomination that has crept into the Church. According to the Nauvoo Expositor, his intention was to bring this secret abomination to light so Joseph and the others involved would repent.

I'm 100% convinced that Joseph started plural marriage in the Church.

So either it is of God, or Joseph Smith was just as guilty of whoredoms as the Utah polygamists. In fact he'd be even more guilty for having started it. He'd be the king Noah or Riplakish.

One of those statements by Brigham Young is what I replied too in this post.

My favorite example off the top of my head is Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs. Brigham took her to marry while her husband was over seas on his mission. Of course the many years later narrative was that Joseph did this same exact thing with her, but that Joseph merely married her for eternity, but allowed her to remain living with her husband (though Brigham married her in every sense of the word and fathered children by her), after she had children from her actual marriage... And this is a recurring story you see in our history... Brigham or someone else does something like this (marrying another man's wife) but then saying that they were just doing what Joseph did...

As for Joseph sealing others to himself... He sealed both men and women to himself... I don't think anyone understood what he was attempting to do... I believe this was his way of attempted an intercession for a people who had already rejected the fullness... But there are other possibilities too...

Joseph only had children with one woman. Emma Hale Smith...

And yes, I'm suggesting there there is a precedent for "lyin' for the Lord'. It was seen as part of one's duty in our history. We can also see the subversion and manipulation inherent in these types of relationships, where these women had no choice but to do what they were asked/commanded to do by their leaders/ husbands/ means of living... Remember, they are 1000 miles away from any other civilized people... They had no choice but to stick with the program...

I am less willing to believe known scumbags like John C Bennett and known dissenters like William Law than you. While William Law seems like he was likely a man of good moral character, he also was knee deep in land speculation and had a financial stake involved in what was happening in Nauvoo. And I leave room for the possibility that he came to believe the rumor mill going around about Joseph and Hyrum... When Joseph and Hyrum publicly condemn polygamy, and express their intentions to excommunicate those preaching and practicing it in the April 1 1844 in the Times and Seasons, I choose to believe them over the accusations in the Expositor...

Boy, it's a tangled web. I may be wrong... But like Emmalee, I'm using the Book of Mormon and the public teachings of Joseph as my go to... And I believe these do not support the practice of multiple wives later entered into by our church...

Re: Your Weekly Reminder that Polygamy Was Never Approved by God

Posted: October 13th, 2019, 1:30 pm
by Allison
In the end, Joseph vehemently denounced polygamy over and over. He excommunicated young people who were caught in “spiritual wifery.” Emma said on her deathbed that Joseph never taught nor practiced polygamy, “...at least not that I know of.”

Joseph had a wretched time with John C. Bennett and some believe that after Joseph threw him out of Nauvoo, it was Bennett who EDIT: instigated the charges of treason that resulted in the warrant for Joseph’s arrest. (My blunder—at first I conflated that with the Missouri extermination order! Thank you gkearney for catching that, sheesh.)

Also, Joseph did not carefully word his denials. He condemned polygamy under no uncertain terms, and denied having any part in it. I can look all of this up if you want, but he did say (this is pretty close), Why is it, no sooner than I organize the Church, I am accused of having multiple wives, when I can only find one? It’s in History of the Church.

I can dig up the exact quotes, but ultimately, Joseph sure sounded like he hated polygamy and thought it was a crime and an abomination.

Thus, as harsh as it sounds to countenance the possibility that Brigham and others might have really been lying, the only alternative is that Joseph would have really, REALLY been lying, and I don’t believe that for a minute.

Also, I did post in this thread where President Hinckley clarified to Larry King that “they were permitted to do it when they went out west.” (Off the top of my head again...look it up if you want.). And he said that polygamy isn’t doctrinal. Why would he say that—are we to believe President Hinckley was also “lying for the Lord?” No!

The Book of Mormon is true. Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and probably one of the most honest, guileless, and pure-hearted men the world will ever know. It’s time his good name is restored after almost two centuries of slander.

I personally believe this topic needs more exposure, not less.

Re: Your Weekly Reminder that Polygamy Was Never Approved by God

Posted: October 13th, 2019, 1:41 pm
by gkearney
Allison wrote: October 13th, 2019, 1:30 pm
Joseph had a wretched time with John C. Bennett and some believe that after Joseph threw him out of Nauvoo, it was Bennett who went to Governor Boggs and instigated the extermination order.


Got our historical facts rather jumbled up here. Governor Boggs was Governor of Missouri and the Extermination Order was signed by him in Missouri years before the founding of Nauvoo, so John C. Bennett could not have left Nauvoo and travelled to Missouri to instigate the Extermination Order in that state.