LDS Freedom Forum

I would like to hear opinions on this website, 'Historical Monogamy Doctrine'. It's another discourse on the Joseph-Smith-was-a-Monogamist topic, and makes several different arguments against polygamy being doctrinal. I made a search of this forum but didn't see that this website has been posted or discussed here before, so if you haven't read it at all please give it a look-through first before replying what you think of it:

Historical Monogamy Doctrine:
https://historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/ ... ofdoctrine

From section 64 on that site;

"The birth of the Savior was as natural as the births of our children; it was the result of natural action.

Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115"

Kind of defeats the whole idea, power, symbolism of the virgin birth, And is an attitude/view contrary to the victim card of “You anti-polygamists act like polygamy is just about sex!” polygamist proponents drop

This idea that Christ was not a virgin birth and that Mary is one of many wives that bears children for Heavenly Father.

From the horse’s mouth; it appears that polygamy is very much about sex. It’s so much about sex that the miracle and power of the virgin birth is literally buried and replaced with just another case of sexual conception when taught by the polygamist Godfather.

What a nightmare of bad doctrine.

Polygamy is a false doctrine. No matter what one thinks of the many claims made about the church and polygamy there is one overriding Truth to which everyone agrees: The doctrine and practice of polygamy was secret and founded and supported by lies. It is a work of darkness and not of light. It is the product of men and not of the True and Living God.

Thanks for sharing the link.

A Disciple wrote: ↑December 13th, 2023, 10:30 pm Polygamy is a false doctrine. No matter what one thinks of the many claims made about the church and polygamy there is one overriding Truth to which everyone agrees: The doctrine and practice of polygamy was secret and founded and supported by lies. It is a work of darkness and not of light. It is the product of men and not of the True and Living God.

What personally led you to that conclusion (since I'm assuming it wasn't the website I just posted)?

I took a rather long period of time to finally feel certain about it one way or the other, trying to think of all the angles there might be -- but if I'd had this website at the time it likely would have quickened the thinking process for me.

PortalToParis wrote: ↑December 13th, 2023, 10:40 pm
What personally led you to that conclusion

I've read the arguments of the apologists and even they recognize that for the polygamy narrative to be true, Joseph Smith, Emma Smith and Hyrum Smith must be dastardly liars. And yet to justify Brigham Young and the line of polygamist church presidents that followed they allow for that defamation to be accepted.

Well that sure creates a tangled web! If the Smith family were the liars and duplicitous swindlers they would have to be to pull of the polygamy stunt, what kind of church were they leading? What kind of people do this?

Either Brigham Young and pals lied about Joseph Smith or the founding family of the Restoration was criminal and reprobate. For not only would the Smiths be liars but they would be hypocrites of the highest order - condemning others for the very thing they were privately advocating and living.

And yet Brigham Young always praised Joseph Smith and adhered himself to him. If Joseph Smith were such a liar and hypocrite what was praiseworthy about him? Oh, that's right, Joseph was praiseworthy but his wife was a problem. Yeah, that's how it was.

The Lord does not work in darkness. He does not practice deception. He does nothing in secret. That is the Lord's standard. Either Joseph Smith initiated polygamy in secret or Brigham Young and his pals did.

If Joseph Smith did it then that points to a fault line in the Restoration that began in the late 1830s. If Brigham Young did it then a whole catalogue of church history and doctrine is bogus. Neither narrative is good for the LDS church leadership. But pinning polygamy on Joseph Smith gives the church the defense that polygamy was meant to be and all that followed was approved of God.

Except pinning polygamy on Joseph Smith means the church of the Nauvoo period was a scam and we must accept the prophet at that time was a liar and fraud.

What a tangled web indeed!

Drama drama drama.

Polygamy was practiced from Abraham to 1100 AD, it’s biblical.

Jesus was born into a polygamist family, his stepmother went to his tomb, Mark 16:1.

If you are not familiar with the 2 biblical James then do your homework before you cry to me.

Bronco73idi wrote: ↑December 13th, 2023, 11:35 pm Drama drama drama.

Polygamy was practiced from Abraham to 1100 AD, it’s biblical.

Jesus was born into a polygamist family, his stepmother went to his tomb, Mark 16:1.

If you are not familiar with the 2 biblical James then do your homework before you cry to me.

If polygamy is a fundamental godly pattern why be so secret about it? Why the lies and deceptions? Why the doctrine that violates core principles of Salvation such as Agency and Accountability?

If polygamy is godly why is the doctrine stuffed in a crate and put in a warehouse at an unknown address? Why was the doctrine denied by President Hinckley who said it was unimportant and something of the past? Why in my own family of polygamist ancestors is there no honor in the practice and no longing to regain the doctrine?

So many puzzles and no answers.

A Disciple wrote: ↑December 14th, 2023, 12:30 am

Bronco73idi wrote: ↑December 13th, 2023, 11:35 pm Drama drama drama.

Polygamy was practiced from Abraham to 1100 AD, it’s biblical.

Jesus was born into a polygamist family, his stepmother went to his tomb, Mark 16:1.

If you are not familiar with the 2 biblical James then do your homework before you cry to me.

If polygamy is a fundamental godly pattern why be so secret about it? Why the lies and deceptions? Why the doctrine that violates core principles of Salvation such as Agency and Accountability?

If polygamy is godly why is the doctrine stuffed in a crate and put in a warehouse at an unknown address? Why was the doctrine denied by President Hinckley who said it was unimportant and something of the past? Why in my own family of polygamist ancestors is there no honor in the practice and no longing to regain the doctrine?

So many puzzles and no answers.

Because men are afraid of women!

Isaiah 3
12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

2 Nephi 13
12 And my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they who lead thee cause thee to err and destroy the way of thy paths.

This leads to destruction, happy wife happy life.

Happy wife happy life is a sin Exodus 4:24

After destruction we have

Isaiah 4
1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

2 Nephi 4:1

Hmmmm, do you get it? I doubt you will see through your emotional opinion.

We have stories of polygamy, man is successful with wife, leaders tell man to marry another. Wife gets mad at man behind close doors (sin) woman lets man marry another to keep up good standing (sin) man marries second wife in sin because he isn’t making an everlasting covenant, he is playing a part in a play that his first wife is directing. Second wife is treated as a house slave and gets fat and after everything falls apart (1st wife divorce husband) has a horrible life. All polygamy fault or is it man never made an everlasting covenant that he would keep, with his lord in the first place?

Moses was going to die because he agreed to not stand up to his second gentile wife, thus breaking his everlasting covenant!

Moses’s stupid prideful wife had to circumcise her own sons to save her husband’s life.

Bronco73idi wrote: ↑December 13th, 2023, 11:35 pm Drama drama drama.

Polygamy was practiced from Abraham to 1100 AD, it’s biblical.

Jesus was born into a polygamist family, his stepmother went to his tomb, Mark 16:1.

If you are not familiar with the 2 biblical James then do your homework before you cry to me.

Would you very kindly recommend where I ought to go read about '2 biblical James' and Christ's polygamous family? I don't see it in my web search or how Matthew 16:1 relates.

What specifically do you think of the websites' section points #19, #28, and #32?

PortalToParis wrote: ↑December 13th, 2023, 8:55 pm I would like to hear opinions on this website, 'Historical Monogamy Doctrine'. It's another discourse on the Joseph-Smith-was-a-Monogamist topic, and makes several different arguments against polygamy being doctrinal. I made a search of this forum but didn't see that this website has been posted or discussed here before, so if you haven't read it at all please give it a look-through first before replying what you think of it:

Historical Monogamy Doctrine:
https://historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/ ... ofdoctrine

I honestly am not sure what your motivations are however they certainly don't seem to be rooted in truth.

You personally created a different thread about a week ago to discuss this very same topic, which included the same link. Therefore, either your memory is really poor, or you know that you posted this same link previously.
viewtopic.php?p=1445567

You also posted the same link in another thread where it was discussed, by you and others, for some time.
viewtopic.php?p=1446127&hilit=Historica ... y#p1446127

I don't mind you not telling the truth about this and having an agenda to post this link several times. However, if you are willing to lie about something so basic then what else are you willing to lie about?

On section 64, I’d recommend changing it from immaculate conception to virgin birth.

The immaculate conception refers to the conception of Mary. Catholics believe Mary the mother of Jesus was conceived without sexual relations, while her father was away from home and her mother was home alone. Catholics believe in Original Sin, and the mother of God could not be born in sin. Hence the belief in the immaculate conception.

Telavian wrote: ↑December 14th, 2023, 7:24 am

I honestly am not sure what your motivations are however they certainly don't seem to be rooted in truth.

You personally created a different thread about a week ago to discuss this very same topic, which included the same link. Therefore, either your memory is really poor, or you know that you posted this same link previously.
viewtopic.php?p=1445567

You also posted the same link in another thread where it was discussed, by you and others, for some time.
viewtopic.php?p=1446127&hilit=Historica ... y#p1446127

I don't mind you not telling the truth about this and having an agenda to post this link several times. However, if you are willing to lie about something so basic then what else are you willing to lie about?

Hi! Yes, as you can see from the account it's my first time on this site. My first posting of the link was my very-first post on this site ever and it didn't look to me like it showed up properly (I'm still trying to figure the forum out) so I tried again. The thread I made answer to was amongst 20 pages of dialogue in response to another essay so I still wanted to hear responses in it's own thread where it wouldn't be buried. My intent in joining the forum was specifically to ask about the website since I'd not seen it discussed anywhere online except reddit and wanted to hear some non-reddit opinions.

I view the doctrine of polygamy the same as the doctrine of the exclusion of blacks from the priesthood. Both doctrines claim to be supported by ancient scripture. However, the restoration era implementation of the doctrines is messy. There is finger pointing and extrapolation to show who among the leaders originated and enforced the doctrines.

The messiness of origin is nothing compared to the disaster that followed. With both polygamy and with the priesthood ban church leaders created horrible, indefensible doctrines to justify the policies they wanted. We know the doctrines are indefensible because the church now makes no defense. The proof is in the pudding.

I am a GenXer. I was taught blacks were cursed because of Cain. The church of today denies this happened. I grew up in a region of the country where the main acknowledgement of the Mormons was they were polygamists. When I served my mission the materials the church gave us greatly deemphasized polygamy. And of course President Hinckley then buried the matter as "in the past".

Polygamy and the Race ban were the doctrines of men. No matter the rational one might feel for those policies, they were not of God. Humiliating people and denying them their agency is a contradiction wholly unsupported by the Words and Doctrine of Christ.

A Disciple wrote: ↑December 14th, 2023, 8:57 am I view the doctrine of polygamy the same as the doctrine of the exclusion of blacks from the priesthood. Both doctrines claim to be supported by ancient scripture. However, the restoration era implementation of the doctrines is messy. There is finger pointing and extrapolation to show who among the leaders originated and enforced the doctrines.

The messiness of origin is nothing compared to the disaster that followed. With both polygamy and with the priesthood ban church leaders created horrible, indefensible doctrines to justify the policies they wanted. We know the doctrines are indefensible because the church now makes no defense. The proof is in the pudding.

I am a GenXer. I was taught blacks were cursed because of Cain. The church of today denies this happened. I grew up in a region of the country where the main acknowledgement of the Mormons was they were polygamists. When I served my mission the materials the church gave us greatly deemphasized polygamy. And of course President Hinckley then buried the matter as "in the past".

Polygamy and the Race ban were the doctrines of men. No matter the rational one might feel for those policies, they were not of God. Humiliating people and denying them their agency is a contradiction wholly unsupported by the Words and Doctrine of Christ.

Yes I think this is the complication with all of these. There are some, mostly stretches of logic, that are used to defend the idea. Whenever there are discussions about them this "proof" is always used and of course nothing contrary is discussed.

Polygamy could be true and restricting blacks could be true. However, the scriptures are very much against both.

PortalToParis wrote: ↑December 14th, 2023, 6:13 am

Bronco73idi wrote: ↑December 13th, 2023, 11:35 pm Drama drama drama.

Polygamy was practiced from Abraham to 1100 AD, it’s biblical.

Jesus was born into a polygamist family, his stepmother went to his tomb, Mark 16:1.

If you are not familiar with the 2 biblical James then do your homework before you cry to me.

Would you very kindly recommend where I ought to go read about '2 biblical James' and Christ's polygamous family? I don't see it in my web search or how Matthew 16:1 relates.

What specifically do you think of the websites' section points #19, #28, and #32?

That’s hilarious “I don’t see it in my web search”

Should the mysterious of God be plain and simple?

Jesus gave the parable of the sower in Matthew 13 to a group of people who were eager to hear his words. The disciples asked him why he spoke to the group in a parable, for them to ask means the disciples knew the group didn’t understand. Did he not tell the disciples that if they don’t understand then his Father’s kingdom is not for them?

Here is a link to help you with your study of the biblical Jameses.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Less

The 1st time I read D&C 132, all the way through, was when I read D&C all the way through back in 2007. I came to this board in 2016. I read about people crying about 132 many times and the Holy Ghost always told me not to participate or worry about it, Until a year ago.

Between 2016 and 2022 my testimony of beliefs have grown considerably. For that particular subject, it started with the discourse or eulogy of Elder King Follet. Then studying the Book of Abraham I realized that the Follet Discourse was just a summary of Abraham chapter 3 and also Jesus answering the Sadducees in Matthew 22 and Mark 12.

So now, not knowing that I was prepared to read D&C 132 , I felt like I should read it and try to understand the complaints of it. When I read D&C 132 I was blown away with the doctrine in it. The relationship between us and the Kingdom of heaven, the narrow is the way, if all 7 brothers marry one woman because each brother died and none of them have kids (they don’t become like their Father in heaven) they can only become Angels!

Your website is exactly what the devil wants, to mock the secrets of heaven. Because of the weakness of Joseph Smith, you can justify every point you made.

Study something productive, like the sacrifice of a red heifer during Yom Kippur 2024 and how it is an abomination to the Father because of John 3:17 but he is going to allow it because of what Daniel said in 11:36 or Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4.

From Abraham and until Paul, the Lord's people practiced polygamy. Paul called a lot of things abominations. He didn’t call polygamy that. He restricted it and then did away with it.

Bronco73idi wrote: ↑December 14th, 2023, 9:34 am Paul called a lot of things abominations. He didn’t call polygamy that.

We must distinguish between cultural practices and doctrines claimed to be of God. A man living with his clan out yonder may, with his wife's permission, seed a child with the wife's sister, assuming the sister also consents. That is not an abomination. In fact it may be a sensible thing to do for the welfare of the clan. But a policy and doctrine that a man should have sex with his wife's sister or with any "virgin" he so desires, and in fact is glorified if he does so is an abomination. Jacob, in the Book of Mormon, labels men seeking multiple wives an abomination. Jacob correctly saw that the practice would lead the people into iniquity.

Speaking of Paul, he saw all sexual extravagance as problematic. He wrote: "The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery" - Gal 5:19. I suspect Paul did not single out "Polygamy" because it was encapsulated in his charge to flee fornication and to not commit adultery.

A Disciple wrote: ↑December 14th, 2023, 10:07 am

Bronco73idi wrote: ↑December 14th, 2023, 9:34 am Paul called a lot of things abominations. He didn’t call polygamy that.

We must distinguish between cultural practices and doctrines claimed to be of God. A man living with his clan out yonder may, with his wife's permission, seed a child with the wife's sister, assuming the sister also consents. That is not an abomination. In fact it may be a sensible thing to do for the welfare of the clan. But a policy and doctrine that a man should have sex with his wife's sister or with any "virgin" he so desires, and in fact is glorified if he does so is an abomination. Jacob, in the Book of Mormon, labels men seeking multiple wives an abomination. Jacob correctly saw that the practice would lead the people into iniquity.

Speaking of Paul, he saw all sexual extravagance as problematic. He wrote: "The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery" - Gal 5:19. I suspect Paul did not single out "Polygamy" because it was encapsulated in his charge to flee fornication and to not commit adultery.

You want to compare the barbarians to Abraham and his Seed?

Sounds like a justification for your opinion.

I understand Paul’s opinion.

Doesn’t that make my statement that you quoted more relevant?

Should I thank you for teaching me? Am I an unlearned swine?