Re: A weak side-step attempt
Posted: February 20th, 2020, 4:43 pm
You do know that Brian C. Hales is a polygamy apologist. Right?That book from Brian C. Hales has been widely criticized for...let's just say a slanted view.
Your home for discussing politics, the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, and the principles of liberty.
https://ldsfreedomforum.com/
You do know that Brian C. Hales is a polygamy apologist. Right?That book from Brian C. Hales has been widely criticized for...let's just say a slanted view.
Right.Mindfields wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 4:43 pmYou do know that Brian C. Hales is a polygamy apologist. Right?That book from Brian C. Hales has been widely criticized for...let's just say a slanted view.
If I'm not mistaken it's from the King Follett discourse.Zathura wrote: ↑February 19th, 2020, 12:41 pmThat’s a new one. Where is that from?TylerDurden wrote: ↑February 19th, 2020, 12:32 pm"I have taught all the strong doctrines publicly, and always taught stronger doctrines in public than in private."Zathura wrote: ↑February 19th, 2020, 12:19 pm Like I said in another post:
And then this:If you've read everything Joseph and Hyrum said on the topic(FROM SOURCES DURING THEIR LIFETIME AND NOT HE SAID SHE SAID 30 YEARS LATER BY POLYGAMISTS), you'd understand that he equated every possible version of plural marriage, call it whatever term you want, to adultery. He left no room to interpret his words any other way. He and Hyrum very explicitly condemned every possible way you could describe a man having more than one wife, and also explicitly made it clear that no man should ever have more than one wife. There's no where else to turn.
Either he lied over and over and over again.
OR
He didn't actually practice or preach it.
Period.
Joseph clearly tied all possible forms and terms for plural marriage/celestial marriage/ bigamy/wifery to adultery.Something you appear to be missing is that, yes, Joseph found himself defending himself saying he did not commit adultery. Well guess what? This wasn't just in response to someone saying "Joseph committed adultery".
It was in response to someone saying "Joseph has other wives".
Now, if you accuse me of having 3 side wives, and I say "That's a lie, I'd never commit adultery", you could easily understand that I believe plural marriage to be adultery.
Context + Logic = Clarity
-Joseph Smith
Well, like I’ve said, he either flat out lied over and over or he told the truth. Either way there are implications and consequences.Matthias wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 9:41 pmIf I'm not mistaken it's from the King Follett discourse.Zathura wrote: ↑February 19th, 2020, 12:41 pmThat’s a new one. Where is that from?TylerDurden wrote: ↑February 19th, 2020, 12:32 pm"I have taught all the strong doctrines publicly, and always taught stronger doctrines in public than in private."
-Joseph Smith
It can't be taken at face value though, because it's simply not true. All one has to do is look at the minutes of meetings, especially the secret meetings of the council of fifty, to see that the strongest or deepest doctrines from Joseph Smith were often taught in more private settings.
The Savior did the same during his mortal ministry.
Also interestingly enough there are zero contemporary accounts of the Saviors teachings during his mortal ministry. The best we have are accounts written many years after the fact, yet we don't throw them out do we?
Nor do we accuse Peter of making up quotes about having the keys because he was power hungry, or Luke making up miracles after the fact to support his desired narrative do we?
So why do we do this with BY, John Taylor, Willford Woodruff, etc.?
One reason and one reason only: disdain for plural marriage.
Most of the women in my ancesty who were plural wives were defacto single mothers, living miles away from their working spouses.
THEY CHOSE that life. It was kind of like how Brigham described the Church leaving Missouri. "We left voluntarily...because we had to".
Are we to condemn these people, and the sacred principle they were following, years later?
Or should we admire them? Thank them? Learn from them?
Durzan wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 11:23 amThis. Is. Ultimately. A similar. Conclusion. To What I reached. Especially considering that my ancestors were under similar circumstances to yours, though it goes through Joseph F Smith (twice) and Thomas Sasson Smith.Phantom wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 11:02 am Too much evidence exists, some of it better known than others, that the practice of "sealing" was confused with "plural marriage"/"polygamy".
I have such evidence within my personal family history archives. I won't get into details other than to say that I have an ancestor who was sealed to Joseph -- an event they attended to together with Emma there, too -- and Joseph himself was the author of the idea. He suggested it. He recommended it.
This ancestor and Joseph never lived together, never had children together, and to my knowledge never even were together again physically in the same room. However, on the records of the Church, they were then sealed and remain so.
This event was confirmed again years later by a letter from...a man who later became president of the Church.
There is no doubt in my mind that it happened.
Several years ago this ancestor's name came up on a list made by an anti-Mormon author as one of Joseph's plural wives, accusing them both of having had a lurid affair while her husband was on a mission. Since that publishing the falsehood has been repeated as fact by several "historians".
To me this has been quite instructive. Unless I can see the written, tangible paper with verifiable evidence that it is in the handwriting of the person making the statement I've decided I will believe NO "historian". To many histories are written to push an agenda. Artifacts in my personal possession showcase a far more complex situation regarding plural marriage during those generations and I have many ancestors who lived it. What I have, to me, very closely aligns with D&C 132.
We also have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight decades later to see the outcome of these people's lives. Many of them lived tragic lives -- not that those chose such tragic circumstances but rather that's just the way the world was. In my view, plural marriage at times was a merciful thing, saving lives that were otherwise destroyed by other events. You never hear that from "historians". All you hear are the breathless, sordid assumptions about plural marriage being about nothing but sex and abuse. Frankly, in the evidence I hold, I cannot even find a suggestion of those elements at all. And I'm not talking just one or two situations -- I'm talking DOZENS. In other words, both from within and without of the Church, I believe we have been given a distorted and oft times false portrayal of what really happened and why.
I urge great caution of anyone casting judgement on anything done by people who are no longer here to explain or defend their actions. For anyone to stand in judgement of them is a fool's errand and you do it at the peril of the judgment you will bring upon yourself.
TylerDurden wrote: ↑February 19th, 2020, 11:21 am The following paragraph is taken from the church's book "Saints, Vol. 1: The Standard of Truth" (chapter 40, pg. 489-490).
A weak side-step attempt is made here to explain away the evidence of Joseph Smith publicly condemning and denouncing polygamy (plural marriage). The argument made is that there was a difference between the terms "plural marriage", "polygamy", and "spiritual wifery"; and that when Joseph made such statements denouncing polygamy, he wasn't referring to their "celestial plural marriages". "They and the others who practiced plural marriage never referred to it as polygamy": this is just silly."In choosing to be sealed to Joseph, Emily trusted in her witness that she was acting in obedience to the Lord’s commandment. She and her sister Eliza continued to keep their marriages private. They and the others who practiced plural marriage never referred to it as polygamy, which they considered a worldly term, not a priesthood ordinance.30 When Joseph or someone else condemned “polygamy” or “spiritual wifery” in public, those who practiced plural marriage understood that they were not referring to their covenant relationships.31"
There is no documentation or public sermon explaining the difference between "plural marriage" and "polygamy". We are making assumptions that those who were secretly practicing polygamy were told the difference between each by Joseph, of which we have no evidence.
The sources attached in the book, link such an idea back to George A. Smith and Eliza R. Snow, years after the matter.
Whether intended or not, the book and apologies at FAIRmormon suggest there are semantics involved. If the claim is that it was a matter of what it was called, we can throw that argument out the window as we know Joseph condemned "plural marriage" as well as "polygamy". To say Joseph condemned polygamy and spiritual wifery, and yet did not condemn "celestial plural marriage" is silly.
"Walked up and down St[reet] with Scribe and gave instructions to try those who were preaching, teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives on this Law. Joseph forbids it and the practice thereof. No man shall have but one wife. [rest of page blank] {page 116} (Scott H. Faulring, ed., An American Prophet's Record: The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith, 417)
Everything is so clear from the cheap seats of the 21st century.
No, we will be held responsible for cherry picking history and bending it to pre-conceived views. My own personal efforts in family history has exposed the agendas of "historians" on ALL sides. Trust no one. Lean only upon the Spirit.cab wrote: ↑February 22nd, 2020, 2:50 pm
We have access to more information and transparency than ever before in history... Literally libraries full of information in the palm of our hands... I wouldn't call them the cheap seats. We'll be held responsible for not searching out and discerning things for ourselves.
Which is probably why you were not called to that experience. And thank goodness you don't get to decide eternity for anyone else.buffalo_girl wrote: ↑February 22nd, 2020, 3:36 pm For me...spending Eternity as one of a multitude of wives fails to convince me that such a life would provide everlasting joy. I would just as soon shepherd sheep and ride horses.
Phantom wrote: ↑February 22nd, 2020, 8:23 pmNo, we will be held responsible for cherry picking history and bending it to pre-conceived views. My own personal efforts in family history has exposed the agendas of "historians" on ALL sides. Trust no one. Lean only upon the Spirit.cab wrote: ↑February 22nd, 2020, 2:50 pm
We have access to more information and transparency than ever before in history... Literally libraries full of information in the palm of our hands... I wouldn't call them the cheap seats. We'll be held responsible for not searching out and discerning things for ourselves.
And thank goodness you don't get to decide eternity for anyone else.
The entire life experience in this world is ALWAYS tainted with social/political extortion. That's a reality for everyone.buffalo_girl wrote: ↑February 23rd, 2020, 7:50 amAnd thank goodness you don't get to decide eternity for anyone else.
I am ever content with the decisions of others just so long as my freedom to decide for myself is never tainted with social/political extortion.