Surprised this apologetic view of polygamy hasn't come up here yet

[LA Ute]

Viewed through the lens of our own modern church experiences we certainly will roll our eyes at that type of rhetoric. I am left wondering whether we would also roll our eyes if we lived 170 years ago and heard JS give a sermon? How about BY? Any others? Was much of what we claim to be Divinely inspired revelation simply a fiery rhetoric which included certain 'key words', delivered by a spiritual speaker with a strong speaking voice and a magnetic personality? Philosophies of men, mingled with scripture?

In primary we are correlated/taught that the church is the same today as it was 150+ years ago, 2000+ years ago, etc. When we look closer we realize it is significantly different than it was 100 years ago and that the early prophets were more similar to people we now consider to be 'wackos', than they were to simple, pure, inspired men of God.

Try to imagine someone today doing what Paul did in Acts 17 - march up Mars Hill and start preaching to a bunch of intellectuals about the "unknown God." He'd look like a nutter. Context matters.

[Pheidippides]

Try to imagine someone today doing what Paul did in Acts 17 - march up Mars Hill and start preaching to a bunch of intellectuals about the "unknown God." He'd look like a nutter. Context matters.

Not to quibble, but you do realize the killed Paul in the end, right?

[LA Ute]

Not to quibble, but you do realize the killed Paul in the end, right?

Yes, of course, you miserable vomitous mass. What does that have to do with context? Besides, it was the Romans who did that, not the Greeks. Sheesh, do i have to lay everything out?

[Pheidippides]

Yes, of course, you miserable vomitous mass. What does that have to do with context? Besides, it was the Romans who did that, not the Greeks. Sheesh, do i have to lay everything out?

My life is now complete - I rated MVM status!! Oh, happy day!

[NorthwestUteFan]

Try to imagine someone today doing what Paul did in Acts 17 - march up Mars Hill and start preaching to a bunch of intellectuals about the "unknown God." He'd look like a nutter. Context matters.

Yes it does matter. When the stake president tells you that God wants you to allow your 11 year old daughter to marry the high priest group leader, just tell yourself to keep it in 'context'.

[LA Ute]

Yes it does matter. When the stake president tells you that God wants you to allow your 11 year old daughter to marry the high priest group leader, just tell yourself to keep it in 'context'.

Point taken. . Just sayin' that Paul must have looked like a wacko back then.

[LA Ute]

My life is now complete - I rated MVM status!! Oh, happy day!

It was long overdue. Someone screwed up in the ratings office and misfiled your upgrade.

[scottie]

Second, I recognize the tendency I have to view the historical church (pre-SLC) through modern day lenses. I remember thinking, "why would anybody persecute the church and force them to leave the state? They just want to love their fellow man and be happy". Then when I look at the FLDS groups and instead realize that it was THIS type of religion that was being chased from the state then it suddenly makes much more sense to me.

Of course the irony of this case was Jeffs hiding behind 'prohibiting free exercise of religion' as though polygamy itself was on trial. He was on trial for 'marrying', and subsequently consumating said marriages, to very young teenaged girls (12 and 15?).

Looking back at the history of the early church we see a number of highly dubious practices, all related to polygamy. Marrying women who were already married, JS sending a husband out of the country on a mission to marry his wife who was left behind, BY doing some strange things (eg 'revoking' the priesthood from black members), etc, and the link becomes closer.

I have to say I understand why some outsiders have such strong sense of antipathy towards the church.

I agree.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Little time for me to contribute, but I want to say that I have enjoyed the discussion in this thread. Thanks everyone.

[Jeff Lebowski]

We had a discussion in this thread comparing FLDS/Warren Jeffs to early momonism and JS. In that context, you might want to check out this article from yesterday:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...tradition.html

It is written by Nathan B. Oman who is a professor at William and Mary. Very interesting comparison of FLDS vs LDS traditions. He argues that while FLDS are more true to early mormonism regarding polygamy, LDS traditions of missionary work and outreach are more consistent with our roots relative to FLDS isolationism.

[TripletDaddy]

We had a discussion in this thread comparing FLDS/Warren Jeffs to early momonism and JS. In that context, you might want to check out this article from yesterday:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...tradition.html

It is written by Nathan B. Oman who is a professor at William and Mary. Very interesting comparison of FLDS vs LDS traditions. He argues that while FLDS are more true to early mormonism regarding polygamy, LDS traditions of missionary work and outreach are more consistent with our roots relative to FLDS isolationism.

Thanks. Interesting read. My condensed take: "This was you guys, like it or not. Things wound up changing, but this was still you guys back in the day."

His distinction re: isolationism vs "expansionism" is an interesting and accurate point, though. The FLDS do seem to be stuck in a time warp, circa Wilford Woodruff.

By 1890, a decade of intense legal pressure had taken its toll. Thousands of Mormon polygamists were in jail. The Utah economy had all but ceased to function. The majority of Mormons had been deprived of their right to vote and the federal government was in the process of methodically dismantling the Mormon Church, confiscating its property and threatening to stop virtually all of its operations.

In extremis, some polygamists believed that the only alternative was to cling even more tightly to polygamy, retreat to more isolated locations, and abandon all connections with the outside world. If necessary these Mormons were willing to embrace apocalyptic destruction at the hands of the federal government. They became the progenitors of Warren Jeffs.

This, however, is not the path that Mormonism took. Then-Mormon church president Wilford Woodruff prayed and found a God willing to accept a church that survived and remained engaged in the world. Rather than retreating into dusty, ever more remote, polygamist utopias, the Mormon Church maintained its strained connection and openness to the outside world. To be sure, Woodruff transformed his religion, but he also preserved that portion of 19th-century Mormonism that modern polygamists reject.

[Rosebud]

Poor Valerie. This is just embarrassing. That woman needs to get up the guts to start using the brain god gave her. I don't know how or why she's letting herself get wrapped up in reasoning like this, but I feel sorry for her.

Either she's not as informed as she needs to be or she's letting someone convince her that she's serving Mormonism/god by making a mockery of her own intelligence. Weird. It's as if whomever put this conference together was looking for a woman who is known to be smart but is willing to say something stupid. Maybe they're hoping people will accept her words because she's both smart and female regardless of the stupidity of the arguments she makes.

Or.... she really believes this??? I can't wrap my head around where she could possibly be coming from.

She should probably stick to political science . I hope she'll rethink her strategy. She could contribute so much if she'd allow herself to open her mind.

[LA Ute]

We had a discussion in this thread comparing FLDS/Warren Jeffs to early momonism and JS. In that context, you might want to check out this article from yesterday:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...tradition.html

It is written by Nathan B. Oman who is a professor at William and Mary. Very interesting comparison of FLDS vs LDS traditions. He argues that while FLDS are more true to early mormonism regarding polygamy, LDS traditions of missionary work and outreach are more consistent with our roots relative to FLDS isolationism.

Fair enough. There are some slimy practices of the Jeffs group that I am pretty sure were not present in olden times Mormonism, though. I don't think there were any "lost boys" in that era (adolescent boys kicked out of the community at ages 12-14 and told to fend for themselves). Also, I listened to that creepy tape of Jeffs talking to all his wives at once about servicing him sexually, and I haven't seen anything suggesting the 19th century Mormons were doing that. Maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, we shouldn't get too carried away with the idea that the FLDS are simply 19th century Mormonism in a time warp.

[LA Ute]

Peggy has what I think is a pretty fair and balanced piece in today's Tribune:

Comparing Mormon founder, FLDS leader on polygamy

The issue of Smith’s polygamy is, Mormon historian Richard Bushman says, “a Rorschach test” in which people see what they want to see.

Seems to be true, to some extent.

EDIT: I missed this piece, also by P.F. Stack, on Valerie Hudson's views:

Are Mormons through with polygamy?

This interpretation helps explain why the Utah-based faith does not baptize polygamists even in countries where plural marriage is legal. And, she says, it “casts doubt on the widespread nondoctrinal belief among Mountain West Latter-day Saints that God will command the Saints to practice polygamy again before the Second Coming.”

Hudson says this view also should debunk the notion that polygamy will be the form of married life in the eternities.

Even McConkie, in his encyclopedic Mormon Doctrine, writes that plural marriage “is not essential to salvation or exaltation.”

But what about the fact that, even today, Mormon men can marry more than once for eternity in an LDS temple ritual, but women can marry only one man?

That, Hudson quips, is “a vestige of androcentric [male-centered] understanding of the sealing order of the temple.”

She notes that deceased women can also be sealed to more than one husband, but has no comment on those arrangements beyond this: “If polygamy is truly an Abrahamic sacrifice, it is clear no one can be required to practice it in the Celestial Kingdom [the highest Mormon heaven].”

Peggy doesn't quote anyone with an opposing point of view. That's unusual for her.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Peggy has what I think is a pretty fair and balanced piece in today's Tribune:

Comparing Mormon founder, FLDS leader on polygamy

The issue of Smith’s polygamy is, Mormon historian Richard Bushman says, “a Rorschach test” in which people see what they want to see.

Seems to be true, to some extent.

Well I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly didn't see what I wanted to see in JS's polygamy.