Last week Jana Riess (Flunking Sainthood) wrote about “The Mormon Reinvention of Emma Smith.” Recapping a recent lecture by Emma Smith’s biographer Linda King Newell (co-author with Valeen Tippets Avery, Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, 1984), Ms. Riess noted that before the publication of Ms. Newell’s book, “Emma had been largely written out of official LDS history.”
Emma had been disappeared. Why?
We all use history to suit our purposes, and Emma simply did not suit the purposes of the LDS Church in the years following her husband’s death.
- It wasn’t just that she was the mother of a boy whom many Saints felt to be Smith’s rightful prophetic heir, rather than Brigham Young.
- It wasn’t just that she clashed with Young so severely that he once claimed that “more hell was never wrapped up in any human being than there is in her.”
- And it wasn’t just that she later helped her son found a rival church, coalescing the support of many former Mormons who had stayed behind in the Midwest.
It was that she hated polygamy and flatly refused to countenance its presence among the Mormon people. (“The Mormon Reinvention of Emma Smith”)
And though Emma Smith shows up in Church materials and talks more often these days than in the past, the Mormon Church continues to present a “reinvented Emma Smith.”
One example provided by Jana Riess is found in the “official narrative” on Emma Smith at lds.org:
After Joseph’s death on 27 June 1844, the Saints knew they would have to leave Nauvoo, so they began to make plans. In 1846 they headed west. Emma, a 41-year-old widow with her aged mother-in-law and five children to care for, chose the security of her home in Nauvoo rather than the unknown perils of the frontier and did not accompany the Saints. (GAK405: Emma Smith)
But in fact, it was Mormon polygamy that held Emma back.
The Mormon Church paints a radiant picture of Emma’s and Joseph’s marriage — he the loving and devoted husband, she the supportive and dedicated wife. While there is every reason to believe Joseph and Emma loved each other deeply, their marriage was filled with turmoil. When Joseph took his first plural wife just six years into his and Emma’s marriage, Emma found the strength to forgive him. This was in about 1833; the young woman was Fanny Alger.
“Mrs. Smith had an adopted daughter, a very pretty, pleasing young girl, about seventeen years old. She was extremely fond of her; no own mother could be more devoted, and their affection for each other was a constant object of remark, so absorbing and genuine did it seem. Consequently it was with shocked surprise that the people heard that sister Emma had turned Fanny out of the house in the night…it was felt that she [Emma] certainly must have some very good reason for her action. By degrees it became whispered about that Joseph’s love for his adopted daughter was by no means a paternal affection, and his wife, discovering the fact, at once took measures to place the girl beyond his reach.” (Ann Eliza Webb Young, cited in Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, 34)
Emma knew about Fanny and forgave Joseph for his indiscretion, but she was unaware of many of the additional plural wives Joseph secured over the following years. On July 27, 1842 Joseph married his 15th bride, 17-year-old Sarah Ann Whitney. Her parents fully approved of the union and were called on to help Joseph and Sarah find a “safe” time to be together. On August 18th, Joseph wrote to Sarah and her parents:
I know it is the will of God that you should comfort me now in this time of affliction, or not at all. Now is the time or never, but I have no need of saying any such thing, to you, for I know the goodness of your hearts, and that you will do the will of the Lord, when it is made known to you; the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes, then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safety; only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible…I think Emma won’t come tonight. If she don’t, don’t fail to come to night. (Cited in Gary James Bergera, Conflict in the Quorum, 27-28; spelling and grammar standardized)
Emma did not know, and it was important to Joseph that she not find out. Yet just a few months later Joseph had persuaded Emma that the doctrine of celestial (plural) marriage had been revealed by God. Emma agreed to allow Joseph to marry two young women, Emily and Eliza Partridge. Some weeks later Joseph married another set of sisters, Sarah and Maria Lawrence, wives #24 and #25. But the Smith family began to unravel at the core.
About six weeks after his marriages to the Partridge and Lawrence sisters [March and May 1843, respectively], Joseph dictated the plural marriage revelation to his scribe William Clayton, perhaps in an attempt to give weight to his arguments with Emma…Emma refused to accept the written version with the same vehemence she accorded Joseph’s verbal arguments. A month later, in August 1843, Emma went to St. Louis to buy supplies for the red brick store that Joseph operated in Nauvoo…On her return to Nauvoo she gave Joseph a drastic ultimatum: get rid of the plural wives or she would leave him. William Clayton’s journal entry for August 16, 1843 documented Emma’s threat. To keep her, Joseph promised Emma he would “relinquish all,” but in recounting the incident to Clayton, Joseph admitted his subterfuge; he would “not relinquish anything.” David Smith’s parents [Joseph and Emma] thus continued a relationship characterized by falsehood and deception on his father’s part and anger and frustration on his mother’s only fifteen months before his birth. (Valeen Tippetts Avery, From Mission to Madness: Last Son of the Mormon Prophet, 14)
Emma may have believed Joseph, or she may have decided to appear to believe him, but the issue of Joseph’s polygamy could not stay dormant in Joseph’s and Emma’s marriage.
At some point during the early spring of 1844, Joseph apparently ordained his young son Joseph to succeed him as eventual president of the church. His move triggered Emma’s determination to rid the church of polygamy, for now it threatened to become her son’s inheritance. She intensified her campaign to force Joseph to end the practice…Unable to terminate Joseph’s plural relationships through persuasion, Emma threatened violence, apparently her own suicide…Emma won. (From Mission to Madness, 14)
Joseph sent the sisters away, but tranquility did not reign for long in the Smith household.
The situation in the Law family [spring 1844] created yet another crisis for the Smiths. Joseph was accused of being too familiar with Law’s wife, Jane. Emma learned of a visit Joseph made to the woman and angrily prepared to return to her family in Pennsylvania. Joseph’s associate, Ebenezer Robinson, reported, “It was a time when [Emma] was very suspicious and jealous…for fear he would get another wife,…[If he did] she was determined to leave and when she heard [of Joseph’s visit to another woman] she Emma became very angry and said she would leave and was making preparations to go to her people in the State of New York. It came close to breaking up his family.” Joseph once again turned the situation around, and Emma remained with him, but it was a tenuous peace. (From Mission to Madness, 15; brackets and ellipses retained from the source cited)
Not long after this Joseph died, leaving Emma in the company of perhaps another 33 grieving widows. Brigham Young soon took on the mantle of leadership for the Mormon Church and began preparations to take the Mormon people west, away from Nauvoo.
[Emma] differed sharply with Brigham Young over the direction he appeared to be leading the church. She firmly opposed the principle and practice of plural marriage, which she was certain would continue under Young’s leadership. Emma saw no reason to travel any great distance with her young family, only to face the same polygamy controversies. Nor was she reticent in voicing her opinion to Brigham Young, who, along with other church leaders, assumed the responsibility for many of Joseph’s other plural “widows” by marrying them in the spirit of the Old Testament leviratic requirements that a man take responsibility for his dead brother’s wife and family. Emma refused to marry any of the church leaders as a plural wife as so many of Joseph’s other wives had done. Disappointed that even Joseph’s death had not eliminated polygamy and alone with five children to support, Emma decided to remain in Nauvoo. (From Mission to Madness, 27)
The 17-year marriage of Joseph and Emma Smith was punctuated by deception, subterfuge, betrayal, infidelity, threats, suspicion, secrecy and anger. This is not a picture that matches the warm and devoted family life the Mormon Church presents in its reinvention of Emma and Joseph Smith.
Polygamy. This always would make me cringe when I was LDS. I can’t say how much time I spent studying and praying over it trying to get some kind of witness that it is an eternal principle. Never happened. Funny how the LDS Church uses a witness for one thing (the Book of Mormon), which strongly lacks any of the unique Mormon doctrine, to tell you that everything else done by the LDS CHurch is true. If you don’t get a witness on anything else, like temple rituals or polygamy, than there is something wrong with you. So most Mormons just go on believing things that they don’t even believe, because if you get a good feeling with the Book of Mormon than everything else must be true. I have seen it so many times before. Many members don’t care what specific Mormon doctrine you get upset about as long as it doesn’t affect the Book of Mormon. I’ll say that based on this this and this Joseph Smith is a false prophet. The Mormon I am talking to wont even hear the stuff about Joseph Smith, won’t even entertain it. They usually end up saying, “But than you are saying YOU DON’T BELIEVE THE BOOK OF MORMON!” Mormons (even those that hate polygamy) won’t even confront their feelings about it because of the Book of Mormon.
I read an article recently about how since marriage in American is being redefined, we should legalize polygamy. This got me thinking. What if it was legalized. Where would the LDS Church stand? They couldn’t fight against it. But supporting it would also be a bad decision. Membership would drop like flies. I asked an LDS friend about this recently. She said that this is something in LDS history that she has always struggled with and that she would be against it. I wonder if she would actually fight against it. Think about LDS members fighting against something that they profess was and still is (practiced spiritually) an eternal principle. I once asked as a child, what if polygamy was brought back, what would our family do? Would I have to practice it in heaven? The answer that I got was, “you will never have to worry about that. If God isn’t asking you now, he won’t ask you later. This may very well be an issue in the future. Could polygamy be practiced in a few generations? Christianity will always oppose it. But I don’t think Mormonism can. Mormons may need to face the possibility that their children could be polygamists.
I recently viewed a Church-produced film about Joseph Smith’s life and death with some LDS missionaries. The video did not include any references to polygamy, which implied (perhaps intentionally) that Joseph Smith was married to Emma Smith only. I consider this deceptive.
When I read No Man Knows My History, my heart broke for Emma. I have a biography of her as well, waiting to be read, but I have to limit myself with how much LDS – focused reading I do in order to keep myself from getting all riled up. But yes, my heart broke for Emma over and over again. It continues to do so with the topic of polygamy. I don’t understand how it can just be swept under a rug like it is so often.
Re: the comment about redefining marriage, it’s interesting and I don’t want to get into a controversial argument, but I see it going, with the LDS church, one of two ways. 1. Fighting again for polygamy if given the option. 2. Reversing their policy on gay marriage in order to be perceived as more tolerant and mainstream. Honestly, I see the second happening before I see the first, but I could be wrong.
@Jaxi
Pologamy will always be a topic not many Mormons will want to tackle, but i’ll try.
I think the view of mormonism and polygamy are a little bit off. Only around 6 % of the members practiced polygamy during that time. Also. remember that during this time women had little to no rights. They could ot own property. Alot of Mormon men were being killed, leaving their wives with children and no where to live. That is one thing that I have thought about.
A real question I have about polygamy is why was it okay during different times in the Bible? Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob practiced polygamy did they not? Just something I have always that about not saying its right or wrong
@SR
I think with gay marriage they will stop trying to stop it, but will never accept it. Thats just my opinion.
Jarron,
Your knowledge of the history of Mormonism and polygamy is not accurate. I don’t really have the time to go into it now because I am going on a trip for a couple days. Maybe I can give you some real statistics when I get back. But basically there was no good reason to practice polygamy. The 6 percent number you give is from what year in Mormon history? The practice grew, it did not stay at one percentage.
I get your Bible argument. It is one I often told myself in order to accept the practice. But really read your Bible. Did God ever command polygamy? Did he ever suggest it? If you read the accounts of these men in the Bible that practice it, polygamy brought nothing but trouble. To me the Bible argues quite strongly against polygamy. Early Christian Church Fathers also condmemned the practice.
Jarron,
You really need to read up on the facts before you make statements. It helps with the credibility of your arguments. Here is a law that was passed in 1848 in New York:
Before 1848, a few laws were passed in some states in the U.S. giving women some limited property rights, but the 1848 law was more comprehensive. It was amended to include even more rights in 1860; later, married women’s rights to control property were extended still more. As of 1860, 14 states had passed some version of this statute. By the end of the Civil War, 29 states had passed some version of a Married Women’s Property Act.
@ Jaxi after reading your post I did a little research to understand what you were saying. What I should have said was that 6% of Males practiced polygamy. I dont know what the percentages were for the church as a whole, my mistake.
There is much more to the story of Emma that was not touched upon here. Emily Dow Partridge wrote,
In William Clayton’s diary, he tells of Jo having a problem with Emma over the Partridge sisters. He indicates that Joseph deceived her by telling her he would “relinquish all” for her sake when he really didn’t intend to relinquish anything:
On May 24, 1843 (p. 43) William Clayton told of Jo holding the door shut when he was in a room with one of the Partridge girls and that this made Emma very “irritated”:
According to William Clayton, Jo was willing to go so far as to initiate a fake excommunication to cover up the practice of polygamy:
George D. Smith, who edited the diaries of Clayton that the Church has allowed to be seen (they are still refusing to release some of them) wrote:
If Jo would go to these lengths of lying and cover up, what else did he do? There was also great conflict between Emma & William Clayton, the personal secretary to Jo.
Young was so petty, he would not even give a new carriage to Lucy Smith, but instead they were full of ill will towards the Smith family, William in particular:
The real story about polygamy and Emma Smith is not even close to what the Church portrays it to be, further evidence that Mormonism is not what it claims to be.
Jarron said: Alot of Mormon men were being killed, leaving their wives with children and no where to live.
Jarron, did you know that several of the women who Joseph Smith married already had husbands who were still alive? In a few cases, Joseph sent those men off on missions and married their wives in this absence. Those women weren’t left behind by a deceased husband at all.
Also, you said: I think with gay marriage they will stop trying to stop it, but will never accept it. Thats just my opinion.
I think it’ll be interesting to see. Especially because I would imagine that before 1978, I could have found that exact same statement about blacks holding the priesthood.
SR
I personally have nothing against gay marriage because it does not hurt me if two other people want to get married. I dont see why it is such a big deal. Concerning your point on black people: Its hard to understand racism for me and people in my generation. But look at people my grandparents age, a lot of them are still racist, and they come from every walk of life. As time has gone people have become more accepting, which is how it should be. This was not just an issue in the LDS religion. I’m not trying to claim that this was ok, I’m just pointing out that racism was not just found in mormonism, it was everywhere.
Jarron21, on one hand you feel that if a church pays their Pastor that a indicator of a false
church , and now you say you have no problem with gay marriage ! Now please I will not
go off topic here , the topic is polygamy , but can you see how you are not going to be taken
seriously about what the Bible teaches about Mormon doctrine and why we should embrace
your opinions on spiritual issues , especially your opinion on how to identify the true body
of Christ , His church ?
We are all praying that your eyes of understanding will open by the Holy Ghost to know the
truth about Jesus and salvation in Him .
You are correct, Jarron21; blatant racism has been commonplace in many regions of the United States in the last couple centuries. However, the discrimination within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is unique because it happened under the supervision of men who were supposedly God’s hand-picked leaders on Earth. If the Godhead guides the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, then why was the de facto priesthood ban (which the Church now seems to claim was a mistaken “policy”, not a “doctrine”) left in place for over one hundred years?
Kenneth, great comment. The Mormon hierarchy shortly after Joseph Smith’s death simply
borrowed from the racist attitudes of some of the non-LDS ministers around them and from
there Mormonism’s “modern day ” prophets/apostles introduced it as “gospel truth” that
Negroes were cursed and not allowed Temple endowments necessary to become a God .
These modern day false prophets went on to even add a new twist , new spiritual insight , by
revealing that Blacks were cursed because of what they did in heaven before they came to earth !
Brigham Young taught much about the laws and ordinances of the gospel , one such law was that
a Mormon male holding the priesthood could not marry a black woman — a very severe penalty
could follow that violation .
Next we have the supposed restoration of gospel ordinances by Mormon apostles , one such
being polygamy . Polygamy was declared to be as essential and important as baptism . This
claim supposedly coming from officers in Jesus’ church , the same church He had established
1700 years earlier . This is why Paul warned us to beware of those who would arise and try to
mimic the authority and gospel that Jesus gave him — Gal 1:8 ; 2Jn 7-9 .
In examining Mormonism gospel we can see why Paul’s warning is so appropriate even today.
The Mormon people deserve better . God loves them and wants to show them a better way .
Mike R.
saying I have no problem with gay marriage is not the same as saying I condone it. On the Issue of Paying Pastors, All I said is that it bothers me. You guys can keep telling me that I have not found Jesus all you want, your approval is not the one I need.
J21.
The only thing I will say on the issue of gays getting married is this, the bible is clear, the homosexul will not enter the kingdom of heaven and that lifestyle is an abomanation in the eyes of God. So it is wrong simply put and God does not Condon that lifestyle.
J21, why do you have an issue with paid pastors but not paid lds clergy.
Also have you read where Jesus said, not everyone one who says, lord, lord, will enter into heaven. The lds view of Jesus is not the same as the Jesus of Christians. I see you are avoiding falcons questions on who is Jesus.
Jarron21
You said
“I think the view of mormonism and polygamy are a little bit off. Only around 6 % of the members practiced polygamy during that time. Also. remember that during this time women had little to no rights. They could ot own property. Alot of Mormon men were being killed, leaving their wives with children and no where to live.”
I think that a little history might be instructive here Jarron, what you say is a very familiar argument put about by the LDS. For example my ex used to believe, perhaps she still does, that polygamy was started by Brigham Young & was practised because of a shortage of men due to persecution. That is something she was taught when she first became a member in the early 60s. However, the deceptive nature of the LDS can be clearly seen when one looks at the facts. Polygamy was obviously started by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young continued it when they moved to Utah, he in fact had over 50 wives. All the census records from 1850 to 1950 (statistics courtesy of Mormonthink) actually show a surplus of men, that’s rather different to the claim of a shortage of men put about by the LDS. John Taylor, later to become the third President of the church, whilst on a mission to Europe was accused of polygamy, an accusation that he strenuously denied. At the time of his denial he was married to 11 women. Gordon Hinkley in a television interview claimed polygamy was practised on a ‘very restricted scale’ & he gave the figures of between 2% & 5% that’s another lie as the most recent estimates of the period between 1850 & 1890 are 20% to 30%. Jarron, if your prophets are prepared to lie publicly how can you trust any of the LDS leaders?
“A real question I have about polygamy is why was it okay during different times in the Bible? Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob practiced polygamy did they not?”
Correction Jarron, it was never ‘ok’ in the Bible, certainly it was practised, polygamy was part & parcel of ancient culture but it was never acceptable to God. Take the Old Testament prophets as an example, not one of them had more than one wife, don’t you think that a man who God appointed as His spokesman would have had more if it had been acceptable? In short, although God accepted divorce & plural marriage He never at any time condoned those things. Multiple wives were tolerated but never with God’s approval. Jesus told the Jews, “Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way” Matthew 19:3-8 We must assume that statement also applied to polygamy. If it didn’t then why the sudden change from the polygamy of the O/T to the monogamy of the N/T? It would mean that God had changed his mind & He doesn’t do that.
Jarron, it’s interesting that when you bring up “paid clergy” and the it is pointed out to you
that your leadership is also paid , you suddenly avoid that topic. You’re going to tell me that
you have never heard your leaders say “paid ministers” is one identifying mark of apostate
“Christendom ” ? I think that’s why you brought it up .
Now let me address the important issue you raised when you said, ” You guys keep telling me
that I have not found Jesus …”
Jarron, I don’t believe that I personally have said this to you . I have reminded you that it does
matter what you believe about Jesus and that to believe doctrine about Him not in accord with
scriptures (Bible) then that is a extremely serious matter , please see 2 Cor 11:4 . To believe
that your apostles are directed by God and if they have taught false doctrine about Jesus , have
introduced teachings about Him that are inaccurate , then to embrace their aberrant doctrine
is to place yourself in peril spiritually . You are to dismiss these men from your life and stand
for truth . If you refuse to do this you will be judged along with your false apostles /prophets .
That’s how serious this is . Now that is what I have attempted to explain to you . I personally
try to be very slow in judging someone I know little about , such as yourself . You say that you
have found Jesus , accepted Jesus . Perhaps you have . There are those who sit in the pews
Sunday morning at the local Ward that may very well be someone who just found Jesus , etc.
But you ( and them ) have the responsibility to look into what those who you submit to as
apostles have taught about God/Jesus , YOU are accountable to do this . Those who continue
to give allegiance to apostles who have introduced false doctrine about God /Jesus will
together with those apostles meet the same consequence—-Isa 9:16 ; Matt 15:14 .
This is why we plead with the Mormon people to test their prophets —-1 Jn 4:1 .
Do you understand that those men who claim to be prophets /apostles and who teach false
doctrine about God ARE false prophets no matter how moral of a lifestyle they may live ?
Even good men can wander away from true doctrine , they can look beyond the mark and
with good intention introduce teachings from their own heart instead of from God . Thus the
consequences for embracing their false doctrine will result in placing ones self in spiritual peril.
This is in accordance with what the Bible teaches and even your own leaders have agreed
that it is a valid scenario i. e. believing false doctrine about God/Jesus = no salvation .
So please do the right thing and take some time off and get alone with God and the Bible ( not the
LDS one) and see what it teaches about God . Then we can provide you with some examples
of what Mormon Authorities have taught about Him that you most likely are aware of .
Truth matters.
There is complete forgiveness and acceptance by God with a life in Heaven with Him and the
fullest of blessings therein to those who come to Jesus . This is available outside of the
Mormon church and it’s prophets .
Old man , when you said that none of the Old Testament prophets had more than one wife , you
might be questioned on that . Bottom line is that it won’t change the point you reminded us of
i.e. that polygamy was something that God never actually mandated for His people .
When Mormon leaders introduced polygamy as a gospel ordinance in Jesus’ N.T. church
” restored ” , they drifted into error and thus are condemned as per Paul —Gal 1:8 .
We today are to be aware of those who come and try and mimic Jesus’ true apostles authority
or their gospel and thus mislead people with a counterfeit .
I appreciate your presence here .
What was the purpose or Joseph Smith instituting polygamy in his religious sect?
We know that the OT tells us of some of the patriarchs practiced plural marriage. Was it for the same purpose that JS was doing it?
In-other-words did these OT men believe that they would become gods and as part of the process need to have more than one wife?
JS told one of the women that he was pursuing that an angel with a sword appeared to him and said he’d kill (JS) if he didn’t practice plural marriage. I’m wondering if the same angel appeared to the Mormon prophet later, in 1890, and told him to end it or he would kill him?
What is true is that it’s pretty standard practice for religious leaders like Smith to fall into sexual sin. They usually spiritualize it when they are seducing women.
I heard Ann Wilde, a Mormon fundamentalist say that as far as Smith marrying women already married, they perhaps had been assigned to him in the pre-existence. I thought that was pretty creative on her part.
Many Old Testament Prophets and Patriarchs had multiple wives : Lamech, Abraham, Jacob, Esau, Gideon, Saul, David, Solomon. Rheoboam, Elkanah, Asher, Abijah, and Jehoiada (some had concubines) from Wikipedia, “Polygamy in Christianity”.
And bad things happened to all of them because of it.
Abraham was not a polygamist. Abraham had an illegitimate son by Hagar. But that was an adulterous sin never sanctioned by God.
He [Abijah] committed all the sins his father had done before him; his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his forefather had been. 1 Kings 15:3
Then Lamech said to his wives:”Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;Wives of Lamech, listen to my speech!For I have killed a man for wounding me,Even a young man for hurting me.If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold,Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.”—Genesis 4:19-24
Jacob lived in polygamy BEFORE he was converted:
His father-in-law, Laban, deceived Jacob. Laban supplanted Jacob’s promised and loved wife, Rachel, with his elder daughter Leah. Leah was foisted on Jacob by fraud. According to God’s marriage laws, Jacob could have rejected her — put her away as soon he discovered the deception. In that event, he would never have been truly married to Leah — GOD would not have bound them as one flesh. But when Jacob accepted her as his wife, she became his ONLY true wife, in God’s sight, as long as they both live!
But Jacob was not yet converted. He leaned to his own understanding. He did not seek wisdom from God, nor did he seek to OBEY God. He did what seemed right to him, in his own selfish interest. So Jacob lived in polygamy with both wives, and also had children by their two personal maids. After this, Jacob said to his household and to all who were with him, “Get rid of the foreign gods you have with you, and purify yourselves and change your clothes. Then come, let us go up to Bethel, where I will build an altar to God, who answered me in the day of my distress and who has been with me wherever I have gone.” Genesis 35:2-4
As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. Romans 9:13
I can go on and on.. but there is no need.
With respect to all here, when I responded to Jarrons post I said that none of the Prophets had more than one wife & by Prophet I mean a man appointed by God to speak for Him. Although some people refer to Prophet & Patriarch in the same breath. I made the distinction for a very specific reason, namely that Prophets, speaking for God, would be more aware of Gods purpose than anyone else. Anyway, I apologise if, in my attempt to clarify things for Jarron21, I actually muddied the waters.
Jarron
Those who believe that polygamy was acceptable to God might ask themselves a couple of logical questions. Why did God only make one wife for Adam? Why has He kept the numbers of women roughly the same as men if more than one wife is allowed? It could be argued that there would be many more women than men if polygamy were to be the norm. As I mentioned in my previous post, the exact opposite was found in Utah. From 1850 to 1950 men actually outnumbered women. It’s hard to see how polygamy could have worked in a situation like that.
I guess you can only posy 6 times in a day. I have been blocked from posting until now.
@Mike R.
What I mean by paid clergy is getting paid donated money from the members. General Authorities of the church are “paid” but not from my donations. donations :
• Provide thousands of buildings or places of worship for members around the world.
• Provide education programs, including support for church universities and its seminary and institute programs.
• Support the church’s worldwide missionary program.
• Build and operate nearly 140 temples around the globe and administer the world’s largest family history program.
• Support the church’s welfare programs and humanitarian aid, which serve people around the world — Mormons and others.
The money that the GA’s recieve is from investments. You can look all this up on their tax records. Also, every single ward (at least in the U.S. and Canada) is audited annually. Local leaders are not paid for their services because all the members have callings as well to help out.
Jarron, a couple of things. Where do you think the original “investment” money came from? Tithing. And Bishops, up until about the 1920’s, got a percentage of their Ward’s tithing, as did Stake Presidents & Patriarchs charged a fee for every blessing they gave, and Brigham Young would charge $10 for a Temple Divorce.
A few notes here.
First, to those who claim that Plural Marriage was not ordained of God, read the Laws of Moses more closely. Not only are there specific laws that govern such marriages, but in other instances it becomes the only method of complying with the Law.
Take, for example, the laws regarding in Deuteronomy 22. In verses 28 and 29 it states “If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.”
Notice here that there is no difference made between a married man and a single man. According to this law it doesn’t matter. A man who forces himself on an unmarried woman makes that woman his wife, regardless of whether he already has a wife or not. Thus, to comply with this law plural marriage had to be practiced. This shows, very clearly, that not only did God allow plural marriage, but in many cases expected it.
As to no prophets ever having multiple wives: Just to be clear, are we going with the idea that no one born before Moses was a prophet? This seems to be the assumption, as everyone knows that Abraham and Jacob had multiple wives, and thus one must conclude that neither one of these great men, who spoke directly with God (and for him), were ever prophets.
However, just going on the prophets from Moses on down, we do read that Moses had married an Ethiopian woman, which would give him two wives. The Bible does not clarify when this marriage took place, but “According to Josephus, when Moses was a general of the Egyptian army in the attack against the Ethiopians, he married an Ethiopian woman as a political alliance to end the war (see Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, bk. 2, chap. 10, par. 1).” (http://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/numbers-1-12?lang=eng)
This would indicate that he married her before he married Zephorrah, and thus would give him a plurality of wives. Concerning the other prophets, very little is said of their marriages, and while I don’t recall it ever declaring them to have more than one wife, it never explicitly says they didn’t either.
“Although the LDS Church is largely run by a lay clergy, most General Authorities work full-time and receive salaries from the Corporation of the President.”
source: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-10/how-the-mormons-make-money#p6
This gives a lot of insight I think.
@grindael
Where did you get your information in your last post?
Jarron, when you first brought this issue up was it not because you heard from some other
Mormon that churches which have “paid clergy/ministers ” was one way that marked them
as false /apostate ? Now you know in your heart why you brought this issue up , I’m not going
to “badger” you any more on it . You can start to see with some of the info we’ve shared with
you ( and is available on MRM ) that perhaps you’ve been duped into believing another lie .
Some Mormon s want to get super technical with terms like ” clergy” “paid” , “allowance”
and others and there by this can confuse people like you and others . But your top leadership
make out rather well financially . It’s a shame that you will never know the full truth about this
because of the fact your leadership does’nt trust you to know exactly what your tithe goes to .
But public pressure on them might one day prevail , or if one of them gets saved , leaves and
then divulges exactly what goes on at the top , etc .
Shem,
try as you may you still make absolutely no case for why your leaders introduced polygamy
as a essential ordinance into Jesus’ church , “restored” . I was aware of what the O.T. has
recorded about Israelite community life , but it does not make a case for introducing polygamy
into the church that Jesus established after His resurrection and directed thru Paul and others.
The gospel of salvation , the church standards on marriage , are recorded in the N.T. and THAT
is the gospel and church which Mormon leaders claimed to restored . If fact Mormon leaders
claimed that their church was exactly the same church that Jesus established 1700 years
earlier , the very same power, organization, principles, doctrines and ordinances as the
church in N.T. time . Polygamy had no place in that church .
When I read how God ordained marriage in the beginning , and then I see later on how mankind
drifted away from God on many important issues , and then we come to how God in His mercy
on the follies, sin, and pride of man , even “good” men struggling with the complexities of
people interacting with others , I can see how God in His mercy would provide a way for some
very serious and personally damaging experiences to be saved from further damage , and we
see this played out in the life of men and women such as you mentioned in your first paragraph
above . It absolutely does not mandate polygamy as God’s best for His people —- His will was
clearly revealed in the very beginning .
If Joseph Smith would have claimed to have restored Moses “church” , or if Mormonism was
” Joseph Smith’s church “, then polygamy might make sense .
The whole issue with polygamy is the story of how a sincere people were deceived into accepting
an imitation of the gospel that Paul preached and joining an imitation of Jesus’ church , because
they accepted the claims of men who imitated Jesus’ apostles .
The Mormon people deserved better 170 years ago , and they do so today .
Shem
As I was the one who said that Prophets didn’t have more than one wife I should probably be the one to respond.
You said
“As to no prophets ever having multiple wives: Just to be clear, are we going with the idea that no one born before Moses was a prophet? This seems to be the assumption, as everyone knows that Abraham and Jacob had multiple wives, and thus one must conclude that neither one of these great men, who spoke directly with God (and for him), were ever prophets.”
Everyone doesn’t know that Abraham had multiple wives because he didn’t but your conclusion about those men is correct, Abraham & Jacob were not prophets they were Patriarchs. I made it very clear in my post that I was talking about Prophets & not Patriarchs; The Prophets I referred to were men called by God for the specific purpose, of being His spokesmen to the Israelites. You would know I said this if you had read my post.
You said
“However, just going on the prophets from Moses on down, we do read that Moses had married an Ethiopian woman, which would give him two wives. The Bible does not clarify when this marriage took place, but “According to Josephus, when Moses was a general of the Egyptian army in the attack against the Ethiopians, he married an Ethiopian woman as a political alliance to end the war”
Of course the Bible doesn’t clarify when this marriage took place for the very simple reason that NOT ONE of the events described above can be found within its pages. You are trying to make it appear by your use of ‘we read’ that what you have read about an Ethiopian woman is Biblical when clearly it is not.
You may quote from LDS literature or Josephus till the cows come home but I’ve already told you that I don’t allow extra-Biblical sources to determine what I believe.
“Concerning the other prophets, very little is said of their marriages, and while I don’t recall it ever declaring them to have more than one wife, it never explicitly says they didn’t either.”
Are you saying that because Scripture doesn’t tell us that they had more than one wife we should assume that they did? What kind of reasoning is that?
I say again, you will find no reference within the pages of the Bible to Prophets having polygamous relationships.
I’ve answered the points you made concerning the Prophets but I’m too tired to answer any of the other points you make about polygamy (It’s been a very long day & I’m too old) so I’ll leave them in the more than capable hands of the other contributors.
Historical Mormon documents like the diaries of Abraham H. Cannon, Rudger Clawson, Heber J. Grant, Wilford Woodruff, and other places like the Mormon Hierarchy books by Mike Quinn. Go to Signature Books and start reading. Brigham Young took $10,000 a year in salary for 30 years. He lived like a king. This is nothing like what Christ preached or did. He was a very evil man, who taught that Adam was God, castrated people, murdered people, humiliated those around him constantly and is still hailed as some “great prophet” by the Mormons. He is the reason I left Mormonism. I’m still horrified at what he taught, and did.
Abraham had “multiple wives”? LOL. Folks, this is the “expert” that is trying to teach you about polygamy. Keep talking Shem, you are only making it easy for us all.
Grindael
Mike Quinn has been shown to produce half-truths, he is no reliable source. see link below
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?reviewed_author&vol=9&num=2&id=271
What did you mean by” Abraham had “multiple wives”? LOL” ???? “And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.” Genesis 16:3 that makes two wives at one time
“Mike Quinn has been shown to produce half-truths, he is no reliable source.” If you apply this logic to one scholar out of a list, why do you not apply the same logic to Joseph Smith?
Your heart goes out to Emma ( and Mormon women who were duped into thinking polygamy
was an essential ordinance of Jesus’ gospel ) she endured such embarrassment in finding out
about her husband’s clandestine behavior of soliciting women to be possible additional wives
after others in her church already had knowledge of this . Although she eventually acquiesced
to his new marriage behavior , and then endured a stormy relationship with him because of it ,
after he died she refused to follow her husband’s partner in crime —Brigham Young —- on to
Utah . She finally experienced rest from the false doctrine that her husband had created in his
own mind and then proceeded to call it a revelation from God . I tip my hat to those Mormon
women who endured polygamy , especially in Utah . They deserved better .
The Mormon hierarchy has cleverly reinvented Joseph and Emma’s life in certain areas , in
a PR effort to non-LDS especially . In a film ,recommended by Mormon leadership released in
2005 ( Joseph Smith : Prophet of the Restoration ) certain very important facts about Joseph
and his wife’s life were conspicuously absent —-their friction over his polygamy .
Then we have in Mormon church manual about Brigham Young life and teachings ( Teachings
of the Presidents of the Church , B.Y. ) where polygamy is absent from serious mention , and
there were reports of Mormons who were rather surprised at why this was so .
This all seems a strange way to handle a doctrine that close friend of Joseph Smith , William
Clayton, said was : the most holy and important doctrine ever revealed to man .
Jarron21
Just a quick note on what you said here
“What did you mean by” Abraham had “multiple wives”? LOL” ????
And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife..” Genesis 16:3
“that makes two wives at one time”
Actually it doesn’t make two wives, note the words “gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.” Sarah was doing what was customary for barren wives at that period; she encouraged Abraham to have a son by using her slave girl. Abraham did not marry Hagar, rather he ‘used her as a wife’ Remember that God had promised Abraham he would have a son by Sarah even though she was barren but as the years passed & the promised heir had not arrived Sarah followed the practice of the time.
Hagar’s son Ishmael was never considered to be Abraham’s heir because he was not ‘the son of promise’& ultimately they were forced to leave. Genesis 21:9-14 Note that in all those verses God calls Hagar ‘the slave girl’ NEVER a wife.
I hope that answers your question.
I’m not saying you have done this but anyone who tries to use Abraham & Hagar as proof for Gods ordination of polygamy clearly do not understand what they are reading. You need to be aware that it is standard practice among LDS apologists to take isolated verses out of context, twist their meaning & then use them to insinuate LDS doctrine into the pages of the Bible.
Let’s see,
Should I go with what grindael has presented as a result of his in-depth and years of research or should I go with all the work J/21 has done by providing a link for the awesome Maxwell Institute?
What to do, what to do?
OK after much consideration, I’ll go with grindael.
Isn’t it funny the way our former Mormon posters have all done their due diligence and spent a great deal of time, effort and often money, researching whether or not that which they thought they had a “testimony” of is actually true? And they’ve concluded that the buzz they originally got from the Smith story was an emotional aberration and a poor test of the truth.
I’ve heard Mormons say that often the pro-lds websites provided such poor information and little more than childish, embarrassing information that it was one more reason they determined Mormonism is a pack of lies.
J/21 I think you need to follow the lead of the former Mormons who post here and do yourself some adult sized research.
Good point falcon, we know that jarron deserves better for himself than what the LDS apologists provide. Let’s use his logic towards these apologists:
FARMS and the Maxwell Institute have been shown to produce half-truths, omissions and blatant lies, they are no reliable sources.
Your kidding, right? Here is ONE example of how your friend at the maxwell institute tries to squirm out of the facts…
The FACTS are, Grant saw nothing BY HIS OWN WORDS. He lied. Trying to compare it with someone else doesn’t work. Note this quote:
This means what it means. Grant made more out of his experience in public, and then in private said he really saw and heard NOTHING. Trying to make something out of the obvious retelling of the experience (as a lie) is ludicrous. This is how your friends at the maxwell institute try and discredit Quinn. Instead of reading the material for yourself, and making your OWN judgements, you are relying on second hand information filtered by a MORMON APOLOGIST, who of course, believes just the opposite. Please don’t waste my time with anything like this again until you yourself read ALL of the original diaries, (like I have) all of the other source material (like I have) and Quinn’s books for yourself.
falcon
with all due respect, How would you know how much research I have done? My research is not just about The mormon religion. I attend many different religious services, and not just Christain ones. Research is more than just reading what other people conclude. Maybe go out and see what all the religions have to offer. Or you can continue your obsession with mormonism if thats what you prefer.
grindael
So you are refuting the refute of a refuter ? we could do this all day and neither one of us will change our minds. I stumbled across this board looking for another website, It seemed interesting but now I am wondering what the purpose of it is.
No it doesn’t. Calling someone a “wife” does not make her a wife. That is what Jo Smith tried to do. SARAH gave her to him, NOT GOD. God never sanctioned the marriage, nor the issue that came from it, because Sarah LACKED THE FAITH in God that she could have a child in her old age. To use this as a justification for polygamy is ridiculous, and this is not “multiple wives”.
Does this sound like the way God works? Everything about this is wrong, even the fact that Abraham let Sarai “deal harshly” with her, for doing absolutely nothing wrong. (This sin was on Sarai & Abraham).
Consider the consequences revealed in Scripture in each of the following cases: Abraham—led to bitterness between Sarah and her maid, Hagar, and the eventual dismissal of Hagar and Ishmael; Jacob—led to Rachel’s jealousy of Leah and to Joseph being betrayed and sold by his half-brothers; David—led to the rape of one of his daughters (Tamar) by one of his sons (Tamar’s half-brother Amnon) and Amnon’s subsequent murder by Tamar’s brother Absalom; Solomon—his many wives “turned away his heart” from the Lord and to the worship of false gods (1 Kings 11:1–8). Just because the Bible records polygamous relationships does not mean that God approves of such things, and he in fact commanded Israel NOT to multiply wives to themselves for just such reasons.
So, tell me how your “refuters” explanation discredits Quinn? You asked for references, but instead of reading Quinn, you go to the Mormon Apologists to try and get dirt on him. What is the purpose in that? Then you make a blanket assessment of Quinn’s works because of the “refuter” you read, who has all kinds of problems refuting Quinn. Do you know how many Mormon Historians quote Quinn as a reliable source of information? More than you would ever know, I’m sure.
If you don’t want to honestly research for yourself, and get answers, then yes, this board is not for you. And now, since you don’t like what you are getting as far as answers, we see the real Jarron starting to come out in your comments to Falcon. It’s obvious you have done no research, and are not interested in it, because you went first to your Mormon apologists to try and find something to discredit Quinn. Try reading the original sources for yourself, but I’m sure you never will, because as you said yourself “nothing will change your mind”, not even the facts.
jarron,
People here aren’t obsessed with Mormonism. Many of us will talk to anyone of any religion and tell them about Jesus. Many of us have either been LDS or have loved ones who are. We come here for support and we come here to try and help people out of the church. It’s a terribly difficult transition.
Your experience may be all roses with the LDS church but not everyone’s is. The LDS church has left a wake of destruction and heart ache for many people. In my opinion it is an evil organization aimed at leading people away from Christ, building up their own sense of self righteousness and pride.
Personally, I talk with all sorts of people about Jesus. I have atheist friends and LDS friends and have heart felt discussions with them all. I have studied many other religions, I took classes on Eastern Religions in college. Mormonism tries to come off as a family friendly Christian church and it deceives people I love very deeply. I want to do all I can to help people come to Jesus. The real Jesus. THe one who has transformed my life in such a powerful way. I hate seeing my family who I love so deeply lead astray by the church, I would do anything to get them out of it.
You say you’ve been to all theses churches but it is quite obvious you haven’t taken the time to get to know God all on your own. Your like an infant in need of someone to spoon feed you religion. Word of advise, DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.
Find out the history of the LDS church, not just the LDS.org rose colored glasses version. It doesn’t even have to be “anti”Mormon.
Brigham Young and J.S. were deluded and very evil men. The world deserves to know the truth about who they were. You deserve to know the truth. We won’t stay quiet when we know something this atrocious is going on. At least I won’t.
Old Man
You need to read my words better, and it wouldn’t hurt to refresh yourself on the Bible either; unless you use a different version than I do, which alters the meaning of the words.
Genesis 16: 3
“And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.”
So, Abraham did, in fact, have two wives living at the same time; Sarai and Hagar. I have heard many arguments that try to refute this, but it’s simple a fact. Hagar was his wife. She was a second class wife, being a servant, but a wife none the less. God calls her a bondwoman (servant, by the way, not slave); because that is what she was. However, Sarah did not give her to be used as a wife, but to be his wife. There is an important distinction here; the first being adultery, the second not. The custom you refer to is the custom of marrying a second woman for the sake of children (http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?bk=0&ch=16). This is why in chapter 21 the words cast out refer more to a divorce than merely a banishment, which is partly why Abraham would have been reluctant, as it would have cut Ishmael out of the inheritance completely (http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?bk=0&ch=21). Hagar remained part of the servant class, and thus would be called a concubine, but this is still a legally married wife. (Referenced from Clarke’s Bible Commentary)
Numbers 12: 1
“And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.”
So the event of this marriage is indeed in the Bible, despite your claims. The Bible does not say when this union took place, which is why I cited Josephus, as he does give us a timing for the event. If we are to accept Josephus’s account then we must also accept the likelihood that Moses had two wives living at the same time.
You said “Are you saying that because Scripture doesn’t tell us that they had more than one wife we should assume that they did? What kind of reasoning is that?”
I don’t know where you get your interpretations of my words, but you don’t follow my reasoning at all. My argument is that we should assume they had plural wives, but that given the complete lack of information on the subject we should assume nothing. In short, I was pointing out that your assumption of monogamy among these men has no real basis in provable fact.
“I say again, you will find no reference within the pages of the Bible to Prophets having polygamous relationships.”
And I will say again that without any explicit statement that they didn’t your statement proves nothing.
Jarron,
The fact that you thought all Christian faiths originated from Roman Catholicism shows that you have limited knowledge on Christianity.
You said to Falcon, “Maybe go out and see what all the religions have to offer.” Christianity isn’t all about you; what it can give you. It’s about giving yourself to God, it’s about your relationship with God. You should be more worried about truth, giving yourself to your neighbor, and giving yourself to God. You aren’t shopping for a car that has all the best features. This isn’t about getting your back stroked.
I said when I came back from my trip I would give some statistics about polygamy. I took this data from the book “Setting the Record Straight: Mormons and Polygamy.” It is by an member of the LDS Church.
“‘Ben’ Benion studied the 1880 census and found that the number of polygamists varied by town. In Washington County, Utah, for example almost 40 percent of the families in St. George were polygamists. In Harrisburg/Leeds, in the same county, only 11 percent were. In Kane County, Utah, the figures varied from 10 percent in Rockville to 67 percent in Orderville. In Davis County, Utah, 30 percent of the families in Bountiful were polygamous, while only 5 percent were in Sounth Weber. Larry Logue also researched St. George and found that 30 percent of the men were polygamists in 1870, rising to 33 percent in 1880. Chris Nelson determined that 63 percent of the Mormon men in the Mormon colonies in Mexico practiced polygamy. Marie Cornwall, Camela Cartwright, and Laga Van Beck looked at the three wards in the Salt Lake Valley. In 1860, 44 percent of the men were polygamists. In 1870, 28 percent of the men in Sugarhouse, a suburb of Salt Lake City, had more than one wife. According to DAynes, the same year 36 percent of the men in Manti had plural wives. That number was up from 30 percent in 1860. It dropped to 25 percent in 1880. ”
“B.H. Roberts said that only 2 percent of the men were polygamists. Joseph Fielding Smith, an apostle and later Church president in the 1970’s, repeated that figure in his Church-approved history, Essentials in the Church History. That figure is clearly too low. But the problem with numbers is that they can be changed in many ways to get the desired results. So maybe if Roberts and Smith compared the number of men married to more than one wife to the entire Church membership, they would come up with 2 percent. But only looking at the number of men does not show the number of women and children who were part of plural families.
“More recent studies have concluded that 10-25 percent of Mormon families were polygamists. Stanely S. Irvis said about 20 percent. Church historian Davis Bitton said no more that 5 percent of married men has more than one wife, and because the majority only had two wives, they estimated 12 percent of Mormon married women practiced polygamy.”
Falcon
I apologize for the personal attack.
Jaxi
is this a reliable source for christian history? so instead of coming from catholics they just had a split.
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/denominations/orthodoxy.htm
grindael
The real Jarron does not normally get on discussion boards unless its about sports. Most of my religious discussions come from face to face encounters. What is something available online from Quinn that I can read.
J21,
I dont propose to know where you are at in your search for spiritual meaning and by all means I am still on that road myself. I only comment to say one thing that I have discovered recently in my search. Motive is everything!
I started this journey of mine last summer and I started with the right intentions. My spirit was immersed in Gods word and I believed every word without question. This didnt last long tho. Without going into a lot of detail about it, my motives changed somewhere along the way. I started looking at religions that were the most appealing. I love traditions, ceremonys, and I even love rules. I love guidelines about what I can and cannot do, or what I can and cannot eat. I realise now the reason for that (for me anyway) is out of conceit. Im a very prideful person and I know that. Religion is very much a vise for me. Now im struggling to come back to what my motive should be. I imagine in my mind God asking me this question “why do you seek me?” And I imagine that I cant answer him because I dont know if its for my wants or to do what he wants. So I imagine Him answering the question for me and this is what he says “you seek me because I am the only thing that matters”. This of course is my imagination of it but the statement is true.
We can seek religion to fill our needs here on earth and it imagine that it does. We can convience ourselves of whatever we want to believe by doing backflips and twisting things into what we want truth be but if it isnt truth than it wont matter in the end.
My point is that if your motives are in the wrong place you will never find truth because truth will be whatever you want it to be at that moment…at least that is how its been for me. I know my motives have been wrong and now im trying to make it right. Its a lot of having to look inward and being able to be honest with myself.
Jarron,
There is just so much to Christian history. I try to be well read and I am no where near any kind of expert. Most Mormons only know what is taught to them from Joseph Smith period on and only from the Mormon perspective. If you go back and study the early Church Fathers, you won’t find any Mormonism. The Great Schism wasn’t until 1054. There is so much that happened in that first thousand years. The Oriental Orthodox split away in the 5th century. Many other denominations don’t claim to come from Catholicism either. The idea that Roman Catholicism had all power and authority and through corrupt popes and religious leaders corrupted the Bible and now there is just mass confusion is a unique Mormon teaching. A teaching that Mormonism depends on for its existence.
Based on you comments, you have also demonstrated that you only know Mormon history from how it is taught within the Mormon faith. I went to BYU and took several religion classes. I was very upset when I started to do my own digging into history that Mormonism has largely written its own history in the way that it would like it to be seen, whether or not it reflects truth doesn’t seem to be important, only that it is “faith promoting.”
Shem
“You need to read my words better, and it wouldn’t hurt to refresh yourself on the Bible either; unless you use a different version than I do, which alters the meaning of the words.”
Thank you for the advice but I don’t need to refresh myself on the Bible or read your words better. Yes, I probably do have a different version of the Bible, a more up to date & more accurate translation that yours. Let me know if you need an example or two.
Anyway, you said
“And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.”
You are using the same argument & the same quotes as Jarron21. As I have already explained the facts to him may I suggest you go back & read them.
“The custom you refer to is the custom of marrying a second woman for the sake of children This is why in chapter 21 the words cast out refer more to a divorce than merely a banishment, which is partly why Abraham would have been reluctant, as it would have cut Ishmael out of the inheritance completely. Hagar remained part of the servant class, and thus would be called a concubine, but this is still a legally married wife”
Please don’t tell me what custom I am referring to. In that region at that time the custom was to take a slave girl to provide an heir & marriage was not involved.
I used the link that you gave in your post & the custom that is mentioned there is in fact an Indian Hindu custom. Your ‘selective’ quotes say a lot about your methods of discussing facts. You quote from a site to make a point about marriage but conveniently leave out what the same site says here
“Go in unto my maid – It must not be forgotten that female slaves constituted a part of the private patrimony or possessions of a wife, and that she had a right, according to the usages of those times, to dispose of them as she pleased, the husband having no authority in the case.”
“The slave being the absolute property of the mistress, not only her person, but the fruits of her labor, with all her children, were her owner‘s property also. The children, therefore, which were born of the slave, were considered as the children of the mistress. It was on this ground that Sarai gave her slave to Abram; and we find, what must necessarily be the consequence in all cases of polygamy, that strifes and contentions took place.”
And here
“Hagar, Sarai‘s maid – This mode of address is used to show her that she was known, and to remind her that she was the property of another.”
“God calls her a bondwoman (servant, by the way, not slave)”
What she is called is dependant upon which version of the Bible you quote from, God calls her a slave woman as does Sarah in the version I used. So there is little point in arguing over that.
You’re correct about Moses & the Ethiopian woman so I apologise for my error, however she is mentioned as far as I’m aware in just that one verse & the marriage obviously took place before Moses came to know God. Having said that & having agreed with you on that single point there is still no reason to claim that God ever ordained plural marriage.
“I don’t know where you get your interpretations of my words, but you don’t follow my reasoning at all. My argument is that we should assume they had plural wives, but that given the complete lack of information on the subject we should assume nothing. In short, I was pointing out that your assumption of monogamy among these men has no real basis in provable fact.”
I’m well aware you assume that the prophets had plural wives & my argument is that if the Prophets had practised polygamy Scripture would have told us, just as it did with Abraham Jacob Moses & all the others who had multiple wives. In short, I’m pointing out that your assumption of polygamy among these men has no real basis in provable fact & is nothing more than confirmation bias.
Jarron,
“So you are refuting the refute of a refuter ? we could do this all day and neither one of us will change our minds.” Good observation and good course of action. The ad hominem argument is an easily refuted one. Just because someone has a chronic lying problem does not mean that they can’t tell the truth at all. Every person’s claims must truly be handled individually rather that attacking the person with a broad brush. Every single one of us are liars believe it or not, therefore not a single one of us are a reliable source according to our actions from the past.
“I stumbled across this board looking for another website, It seemed interesting but now I am wondering what the purpose of it is.” There is a definite purpose to this website, but before that is divulged you made a comment about studying other religions. If I may inquire, what is your opinion of other religions and how do you view the afterlife, God, and how those relate to all of mankind?
grindael
Hicks vs. Knicks! Can’t wait.
Ok, I’ll take it easy on you. There is not much online by Quinn, but here is the first thing I ever read by him. (I now have all of his books) and I’m currently reading Hierarchy II. This is about post-Manifesto Polygamy. Now, I’m not saying that everything Quinn writes is totally accurate or the right version of events, but he is one of the most thorough historians you will ever encounter. You have to do a lot of puzzle piecing to put together the history of events sometimes. But it helps to first read what a person writes in context and then go to reviews. Also, reading the original documents helps. I am currently working with Don Bradley on something very interesting that I discovered, even though he is full on in the faith and I’m an ex-Mormon. This is a recent discovery that very few people know about, and will probably surprise many. I went to him, because of his access to original documents. (He worked on the Joseph Smith Papers). We met because of an online forum about his Kinderhook persentation for FAIR in 2011. I have a different view than his, but he liked my research and where I was going with it and encouraged me to stay with it. You don’t have to believe something to find the history of it interesting.
For example, Mike Quinn believes that Jo had his first vision in the summer (not spring) of 1820, which I disagree with (I think he invented it to cement his authority over the church). That doesn’t mean that Quinn is not to be trusted. Even Dan Vogel, an atheist, believes that Jo had some kind of a vision/experience, because of what he wrote in the Book of Mormon. I don’t see it that way, just because of the incredible lack of evidence to support it. I’m currently writing an article on the first vision, and the very first thing I read was the “Exploring the First Vision” anthology, Edited by Samuel Alonzo Dodge and Steven C. Harper found on the BYU website. (The site is down now or I’d provide the link). Mormon apologists constantly gripe that those who write about Mormonism don’t include all the “current” arguments about certain things, so I make it a point to read them.
I have little patience for people that won’t read the original source material and then try and tell others that they don’t know what they are talking about. There is BOAP, there is Saints Without Halos, Dialogue, Signature Books, LDS.ORG, Sunstone, and a whole host of sites that have published original documents like the Kirtland Council Minutes, Diaries entries, Church History, etc. And the Joseph Smith Papers site is fantastic. You must get as close to the original time period as you can, and sort it all out.
For example, many critics of Mormonism say that the term “Urim & Thummim” was not used until W. W. Phelps first used it in 1833. This is not correct. It was used by Samuel H. Smith & Orson Hyde in 1832. They were quoted in a newspaper article when they were on their mission together. Yet, a few months later when Jo wrote his 1832 History, he does not use the term, he uses “spectacles”. Even so, the term was being used by missionaries in 1832. Could it have come from Phelps before he wrote about it in the Messenger & Advocate? Perhaps, but that is the earliest reference to it that I can find and it predates Phelps use of it in 1833.
I dialogue with a lot of Mormons that come off very pleasantly at first, but then when confronted by historical documents, show that they are not really interested in Mormon History, only the modern day church approved version of it, and then get nasty when you show that they don’t know what they are talking about. I hope you are not one of them.
J/21
I will suggest this to you. There is a publication called “Christian History”. It is a very good periodical that will take one topic and have several different articles related to that (topic). It’s an easy read and provides resources for a person to read further. For example they may take a topic dealing with a religious movement or a particular individual. I particularly liked the one on Charles Spurgeon. There’s also one on D.L. Moody. But they will also devote an issue to “Where we got our Bible”.
Here’s the link. Scroll down about half way and you will see links to all the past issues listed by topic.
http://www.logos.com/product/4634/christian-history-and-biography-magazine