|
|
| (25 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | {{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
| + | #REDIRECT [[Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Polygamy]] |
| − | __NOTOC__
| |
| − | {{FAIRAnalysisHeader
| |
| − | |title=[[../|MormonThink]]
| |
| − | |author=Anonymous
| |
| − | |noauthor=
| |
| − | |section=Polygamy
| |
| − | |previous=
| |
| − | |next=
| |
| − | |notes=
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | ==A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page "Polygamy"==
| |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{Website response summary}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | The positions that this MormonThink article appears to take are the following:
| |
| − | *
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{Website response label}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{MormonThinkIndexClaim
| |
| − | |claim=That one of the reasons most commonly given in church to justify polygamy is: There were more women than men in the 1800s and polygamy provided a way for women, particularly widows to have the benefits of a husband....Brother [John] Lynch admits to John Dehlin that many commonly-held beliefs of the members are untrue - specifically mentioned are that there were NOT more women than men in the Church when they practiced polygamy.
| |
| − | |think=
| |
| − | *{{antispeak|admit}} Was John Lynch previously hiding this fact and was finally forced to "admit" it? John A. Widtsoe "admitted" the same thing decades ago—this is not a secret.
| |
| − | *Just because some members have come up with uninformed opinions about why plural marriage was practiced, is this the Church's fault? The Church doesn't include any of those reasons in its manuals. Why does Elder [[Mormonism_and_polygamy/Purpose_of_plural_marriage/Reasons offered that are not in keeping with the evidence|John A. Widtsoe]] specifically deny such explanations in the Church's official magazine?
| |
| − | *In Utah, there were [[Mormonism_and_polygamy/Purpose_of_plural_marriage/Possible_benefits|always more women worthy of temple marriage]] than there were men. So, plural marriage might not increase the number of ''children'' born, but it could very easily increase the number of ''children born to active families with dedicated parents''. Given a choice between not marrying at all, or marrying a man who was not as active or dedicated, do you think it surprising that some dedicated LDS women preferred a plural relationship with a believing, temple-worthy man?
| |
| − | |quote=* "The theory that plural marriage was a consequence of a surplus of female Church members fails from lack of evidence." - John A. Widtsoe, ''Evidences and Reconciliations'' (1943), p. 390. (Acknowledged on the MormonThink site)
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{MormonThinkIndexClaim
| |
| − | |claim=That one of the reasons most commonly given in church to justify polygamy is: Polygamy was not practiced until after the Saints started immigrating to Utah, and done so that women, whose husbands had died from the exertions of the trek, could be taken care of.
| |
| − | |think=
| |
| − | *Just because some members have come up with uninformed opinions about why plural marriage was practiced, is this the Church's fault? The Church doesn't include any of those reasons in its manuals.
| |
| − | |quote=
| |
| − | * "The most common of these conjectures is that the Church, through plural marriage, sought to provide husbands for its large surplus of female members. The implied assumption in this theory, that there have been more female than male members in the Church, is not supported by existing evidence." - John A. Widtsoe, ''Evidences and Reconciliations'' (1943), p. 390.
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{MormonThinkIndexClaim
| |
| − | |claim=That one of the reasons most commonly given in church to justify polygamy is: Polygamy was not illegal in the 1800s and was not in violation of U.S. law or against the 12th article of faith, which supports obeying the laws of the land.
| |
| − | |think=
| |
| − | *Just because some members have come up with uninformed opinions about plural marriage, is this the Church's fault? The Church doesn't include any of these claims in its manuals.
| |
| − | * Doesn't MormonThink think that Mormons at the time understood the laws of the land? Wouldn't they know about the legal status of polygamy? And, didn't they know about Article of Faith #12? So, why doesn't MormonThink try to help us ''think about and understand'' how the 19th century Saints understood the matter? They must have had an understanding that helped them feel comfortable with what they were doing.
| |
| − | * Why doesn't MormonThink help us understand those members and their choices, instead of just trying to condemn them?
| |
| − | |link=Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Illegal
| |
| − | |subject=Illegal to practice polygamy?
| |
| − | |summary=Polygamy was certainly declared illegal during the Utah-era anti-polygamy crusade, and was arguably illegal under the Illinois anti-bigamy statutes. This is hardly new information, and Church members and their critics knew it. Modern members of the Church generally miss the significance of this fact, however: the practice of polygamy was a clear case of civil disobedience. The Saints understood the law and believed they should obey it--except where that law infringed upon their religious liberty in ways that did not harm others.
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{MormonThinkIndexClaim
| |
| − | |claim=That one of the reasons most commonly given in church to justify polygamy is: Polygamy was an acceptable way to rapidly increase the Church membership....This doesn't make any sense because a group of women can have far more children if they each have their own husband instead of sharing one man.
| |
| − | |think=
| |
| − | *Just because some members have come up with uninformed opinions about why plural marriage was practiced, is this the Church's fault? The Church doesn't include any of those reasons in its manuals.
| |
| − | *In Utah, there were [[Mormonism_and_polygamy/Purpose_of_plural_marriage/Possible_benefits|always more women worthy of temple marriage]] than there were men. So, plural marriage might not increase the number of ''children'' born, but it could very easily increase the number of ''children born to active families with dedicated parents''. Given a choice between not marrying at all, or marrying a man who was not as active or dedicated, do you think it surprising that some dedicated LDS women preferred a plural relationship with a believing, temple-worthy man?
| |
| − | *How many of you are descendants of polygamists? If there had been no polygamy, would you be here?
| |
| − | *Why doesn't MormonThink point these things out?
| |
| − | |quote=
| |
| − | * "Another conjecture is that the people were few in number and that the Church, desiring greater numbers, permitted the practice so that a phenomenal increase in population could be attained. This is not defensible, since there was no surplus of women." - John A. Widtsoe, ''Evidences and Reconciliations'' (1943), p. 390.
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{MormonThinkIndexClaim
| |
| − | |claim=For example Brigham Young reportedly had 55 children by some 29 child-bearing capable wives but had those women had their own husbands they may have had 150 or more children in total.
| |
| − | |think=
| |
| − | *Why does MormonThink use the example of Brigham Young, who is the most extreme example available? He had more plural marriages than anyone else, ever.
| |
| − | *Why doesn't MormonThink tell us that [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=20&num=2&id=721#_ednref174 66% of all polygamists] had only two wives? Or that [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=20&num=2&id=721#_ednref174 87% had no more than 3]? Or that at most [http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=20&num=2&id=721#_edn176 15-20% of LDS families ''ever'' practiced plural marriage]? Do you think they might being trying to create an inaccurate picture here?
| |
| − | * Why doesn't MormonThink tell us that under plural marriage, ''more'' women were married than the national norm in the United States? Why don't they consider the fact that women who do not marry won't have ''any'' children?{{ref|marriage.rates}}
| |
| − | *Why doesn't MormonThink point these things out?
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{MormonThinkIndexClaim
| |
| − | |claim=Polygamy was always illegal whenever and wherever the Mormons practiced it. It was even illegal in Canada and Mexico as they only recognize marriages that are legal in the person's home country.
| |
| − | |authorsources=
| |
| − | *The Illinois Anti-bigamy Law enacted February 12th, 1833
| |
| − | *The 1862 federal Morrill Act
| |
| − | |think=
| |
| − | *Just because some members have come up with uninformed opinions about plural marriage, is this the Church's fault? The Church doesn't include any of these claims in its manuals.
| |
| − | * Doesn't MormonThink think that Mormons at the time understood the laws of the land? Wouldn't they know about the legal status of polygamy? And, didn't they know about Article of Faith #12?
| |
| − | *So, why doesn't MormonThink try to help us ''think about and understand'' how the 19th century Saints understood the matter? They must have had an understanding that helped them feel comfortable with what they were doing.
| |
| − | * Why doesn't MormonThink tell us that the Church spent decades challenging the constitutionality of these laws?
| |
| − | * Why doesn't MormonThink help us understand those members and their choices, instead of just trying to condemn them?
| |
| − | |link=Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Illegal
| |
| − | |subject=Illegal to practice polygamy?
| |
| − | |summary=Polygamy was certainly declared illegal during the Utah-era anti-polygamy crusade, and was arguably illegal under the Illinois anti-bigamy statutes. This is hardly new information, and Church members and their critics knew it. Modern members of the Church generally miss the significance of this fact, however: the practice of polygamy was a clear case of civil disobedience. The Saints understood the law and believed they should obey it--except where that law infringed upon their religious liberty in ways that did not harm others.
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{MormonThinkIndexClaim
| |
| − | |claim=The first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants (1835) included a section denying any practice of polygamy.
| |
| − | |think=
| |
| − | *Actually, the section denied that polygamy was a belief of the Church. This was true—the Church membership generally was not being taught plural marriage, and were not living it.
| |
| − | |link=Mormonism and polygamy/1835 Doctrine and Covenants denies polygamy
| |
| − | |subject=1835 Doctrine and Covenants denies polygamy
| |
| − | |summary=The 1835 edition of the D&C contained a statement of marriage which denied the practice of polygamy. Since this was published during Joseph Smith's lifetime, why might the prophet have allowed it to be published if he was actually practicing polygamy at that time?
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{MormonThinkIndexClaim
| |
| − | |claim=The Sunday School lesson manuals, priesthood manuals, seminary books, etc almost never mention Joseph's polygamy. There are some references to the other prophet's plural marriages but not for Joseph.
| |
| − | |think=
| |
| − | *Saying "almost never" is a slippery statement--any example of it being mentioned simply lets MormonThink acts as if it's an exception to the rule, and doesn't count. Why do you suppose that is? How much mention is "enough"?
| |
| − | * The Church certainly doesn't teach it or emphasize plural marriage today, because it is not practiced.
| |
| − | * But, when would Joseph's plural marriages come up in a Church class, except in reading D&C 132?
| |
| − | |quote=
| |
| − | *How about Latter-day Saint scriptures? Does that count? D&C 132 on plural marriage reads, in part:
| |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | 51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.
| |
| − | 52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive ''all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph'', and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God. ({{s||DC|132|51-52}})
| |
| − | </blockquote>
| |
| − | ::How can this hide Joseph's plural marriages, since it speaks of those "that have been given unto my servant Joseph"? Are members told to study their scriptures but ''not'' to read D&C 132?
| |
| − | * The Church's on-line topical study guide:
| |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | After God revealed the doctrine of plural marriage to Joseph Smith in 1831 and commanded him to live it, the Prophet, over a period of years, cautiously taught the doctrine to some close associates. Eventually, he and a small number of Church leaders entered into plural marriages in the early years of the Church. Those who practiced plural marriage at that time, both male and female, experienced a significant trial of their faith. The practice was so foreign to them that they needed and received personal inspiration from God to help them obey the commandment. - "[http://www.lds.org/study/topics/polygamy-plural-marriage Polygamy (Plural Marriage)]," lds.org (accessed 24 April 2012).</blockquote>
| |
| − | * How about a Sunday School manual for D&C 132 (in what other section would the topic come up?):
| |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | | |
| − | In this dispensation, the Lord commanded some of the early Saints to practice plural marriage. '''The Prophet Joseph Smith and those closest to him''', including Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, were challenged by this command, '''but they obeyed it'''. Church leaders regulated the practice. Those entering into it had to be authorized to do so, and the marriages had to be performed through the sealing power of the priesthood. & mdash;"Lesson 31: “[http://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-31-sealed-for-time-and-for-all-eternity Sealed … for Time and for All Eternity”]," Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual, (1999) {{ea}}.
| |
| − | </blockquote>
| |
| − | *How about Priesthood/Relief Society Manual ''Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith''?
| |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | This book deals with teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith that have application to our day....This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. (The 2008-2009 lesson manual Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, (2007), pages vii–xiii) </blockquote>
| |
| − | *How about the ''Ensign'' "admitting" that Joseph had plural wives? How did ''this'' slip through?
| |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | Her great trial came when the prophet revealed to Emma that '''they would be required to live the ancient law of Abraham—plural marriage'''. Emma suffered deeply hurt feelings because of it. While she agreed with this doctrine at times, at other times she opposed it. Years later, Emma is purported to have denied that any such '''doctrine was ever introduced by her husband'''. <br>—Gracia N. Jones, “My Great-Great-Grandmother, Emma Hale Smith,” ''Ensign'', Aug 1992, 30 {{link|url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=4e2694bf3938b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD}} {{ea}}
| |
| − | </blockquote>
| |
| − | * John A. Widtsoe:
| |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | ...2. A number of men, who in their lives showed themselves honest, have testified that they actually performed the ceremonies that united Joseph Smith to plural wives. Among these were Joseph B. Noble, Hyrum Smith, James Adams, Newell K. Whitney, Willard Richards, and others. Several of these men lived long after the Prophet's death and always declared that they officiated in marrying the Prophet to a plural wife, giving place, date, and the witnesses present.
| |
| − | | |
| − | 3. Many of the women who were thus sealed to Joseph Smith lived long after his death. They declared that they lived with the Prophet as husband and wives. These women were of unblemished character, gentle and lovely in their lives who spoke with loving respect of their martyr husband. They substantiated in detail the statements of those who performed the ceremonies.... - John A. Widtsoe, ''Evidences and Reconciliations'' (1943).</blockquote>
| |
| − | | |
| − | There are many other examples.<br>
| |
| − | |response=
| |
| − | |link=Polygamy book/Initiation of the practice/Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage
| |
| − | |subject=Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage
| |
| − | |summary=Church sources and authors that discuss Joseph Smith's plural marriages
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{MormonThinkIndexClaim
| |
| − | |claim=Critic's Note: If we take the Book of Mormon witnesses' statements so seriously, shouldn't we also accept other things that they reportedly witnessed just as powerfully? For example, Oliver Cowdery called it "a dirty, nasty, filthy affair..."
| |
| − | |think=
| |
| − | *That's what Oliver thought that it was. He didn't accept the idea of plural marriage. In his eyes, it was a "dirty, nasty, filthy affair." Has someone claimed that Oliver did ''not'' believe this?
| |
| − | * Oliver didn't claim that an angel had come down and told him this--as he continued to insist to his dying day it had with the plates and other instruments.
| |
| − | * Does MormonThink really think that being a witness of one thing makes opinions on other subjects equally certain to be true? If I see a car accident and can tell about it, does my opinion about what caused my neighbor's divorce have the same weight?
| |
| − | * Oliver was already alienated from the Church and some members over other issues before plural marriage--could this have affected his reaction?
| |
| − | * Oliver later learned more about plural marriage and accepted the doctrine--why doesn't MormonThink tell us this?
| |
| − | * Oliver came back to the Church afterward--he must have resolved any concerns he had about it.
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{MormonThinkIndexClaim
| |
| − | |claim=Joseph's first polygamous marriage was before the sealing authority was given....The "sealing" power was not restored under LDS belief until April 1836 when Elijah appeared to Joseph and conferred the sealing keys upon him.
| |
| − | |think=
| |
| − | * Why aren't they asking whether Joseph's first marriage was regarded as a "sealing?" Because it wasn't. Fanny Alger, Joseph's first plural wife, was sealed to Joseph ''by proxy'' in the temple ''after Joseph was murdered''.
| |
| − | * In the modern Church, we think of sealing = marriage, but before 1836, the idea of sealing was not part of LDS doctrine. They still knew about ''marriage'', though, and so Joseph and Fanny were ''married''. Why isn't this explained? The idea is simple--what are they trying to get you to believe?
| |
| − | * Even hostile anti-Mormon sources agreed that Fanny and Joseph were married. Why would these sources claim that if it wasn't well-understood by those who knew about it? Wouldn't they take any opportunity to make Joseph look bad? Why say it was a "marriage" if it wasn't?
| |
| − | |quote=
| |
| − | * Mosiah Hancock autobiography, in which Hancock reports that "Father gave her [Fanny] to Joseph repeating the Ceremony as Joseph repeated to him."{{ref|fanny.1}} This is a ''marriage ceremony''.
| |
| − | * Ann Eliza Young, a hostile anti-Mormon source, reported later that Fanny's "parents . . . considered it the highest honor to have their daughter adopted into the Prophet's family, and her mother has always claimed that she [Fanny] was sealed to Joseph at that time."{{ref|fanny.2}}
| |
| − | * Ann Eliza else where wrote: "''I do not know that 'sealing' commenced in Kirtland but I am perfectly satisfied that '''something similar''' commenced'', and my judgement is principally formed from what Fanny Algers [sic] told me herself concerning her reasons for leaving 'sister Emma.' "{{ref|fanny.3}} {{ea}}
| |
| − | |response=
| |
| − | |link=Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Fanny Alger and William McLellin
| |
| − | |subject=Fanny Alger and William McLellin
| |
| − | |summary=With a lone exception, there is no account after Joseph’s death of Emma admitting Joseph’s plural marriages in any source. The reported exception is recorded in a newspaper article and two letters written by excommunicated Latter-day Saint apostle William E. McLellin. The former apostle claimed to have visited Emma in 1847 and to have discussed Joseph’s relationship with Fanny Alger. McLellin also reported a tale he had heard about Joseph and Fanny Alger in which they were allegedly observed by Emma together in the barn.
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{MormonThinkIndexClaim
| |
| − | |claim=Our Comment: Although Henry eventually remarried, after Brigham Young told him that his wife and children belonged to Brigham and not to Henry, he continued to yearn for Zina and their children. There doesn't seem to be any good, logical reason why Joseph and then Brigham Young would take Henry Jacob's wife Zina from him and force him to abandon his children and find another wife.
| |
| − | |think=
| |
| − | * Henry didn't seem to think so--he supported the process.
| |
| − | * Joseph and Brigham didn't "take" Henry's wife and children. Zina chose to be sealed to them. Doesn't MormonThink Zina and Henry can make their own decisions?
| |
| − | * Henry consented to the sealing, and was present to give his consent.
| |
| − | |response=
| |
| − | |link=Polygamy_book/Polyandry#Zina%20Diantha%20Huntington%20Jacobs
| |
| − | |subject=Zina and polyandry
| |
| − | |summary=In 1839, at age 18, Zina arrived with her parents in Nauvoo after being driven out of Missouri. Faithful LDS missionary Henry Jacobs courted her during 1840–41. At the same time, Joseph Smith had taught Zina the doctrine of plural marriage, and thrice asked her to marry him. She declined each time, and she and Henry were wed 7 March 1841.
| |
| − | * Allen Wyatt, "[http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2006-fair-conference/2006-zina-and-her-men-an-examination-of-the-changing-marital-state-of-zina-diantha-huntington-jacobs-smith-young Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young]," (FAIR 2006 Conference).
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{MormonThinkIndexClaim
| |
| − | |claim=LDS apologists admit Joseph married other men's wives.
| |
| − | |think=
| |
| − | *{{antispeak|admit}}
| |
| − | |response=
| |
| − | |link=Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Polyandry
| |
| − | |subject=Joseph Smith and polyandry
| |
| − | |summary= Joseph Smith was sealed to women who were married to men who were still living. Some of these men were even active members of the Church.
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{MormonThinkIndexClaim
| |
| − | |claim=If you believe the concept of eternal marriage, then Joseph Smith literally stole other men's wives and their children, regardless of whether he had sex with them or not. What right did he have to do that - because he was the prophet?
| |
| − | |think=
| |
| − | *To "steal" means to "take the property of another without right or permission." These women continued to live with, and have relations with, their earthly husbands.
| |
| − | *Joseph had the permission of these women to be sealed to them, and in all cases where we are told about the husband's reaction, the men ''also'' gave permission. Why doesn't MormonThink tell us this?
| |
| − | * Why are there no examples of angry husbands upset that Joseph had cheated on them with their wives? Joseph's "[[Polygamy_book/Polyandry|polyandrous]]" relationships have no evidence of being consummated. Polyandry was probably designed to link families together.
| |
| − | *Why doesn't MormonThink tell us that polyandrous sealings were probably designed to bind members into one great family? This didn't destroy existing family relationships, it simply bound the members together.
| |
| − | |link=Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Polyandry
| |
| − | |subject=Joseph Smith and polyandry
| |
| − | |summary= Joseph Smith was sealed to women who were married to men who were still living. Some of these men were even active members of the Church.
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{MormonThinkIndexClaim
| |
| − | |claim=The following is from a love letter Joseph Smith wrote when he wanted to arrange a liaison with Newel K. Whitney's daughter Sarah Ann, whom Smith had secretly married without Emma's knowledge.
| |
| − | |think=
| |
| − | *Did you know that MormonThink originally posted an edited version of this letter that left out important information? And that they only corrected it when someone on an ''ex-Mormon'' message board pointed out that FAIR showed the text of the full letter?
| |
| − | *Read the whole letter, and ask yourself: who writes a love letter to his wife ''and her parents''? Who asks his bride ''and her parents'' to come to a ''single private room'' for carnal relations?
| |
| − | |quote=
| |
| − | |link=Joseph Smith/Polygamy/"Love letters"
| |
| − | |subject=Did Joseph write secret "love letters" to any of his polygamous wives?
| |
| − | |summary=Critics claim that on 18 August 1842 Joseph Smith wrote a “love letter” to Sarah Ann Whitney requesting a secret rendezvous or "tryst." Joseph had been sealed to Sarah Ann three weeks prior to this time. The letter invites the Whitney family to come see Joseph; three days later Joseph sealed the Whitneys together. Why doesn't MormonThink tell you that?
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{MormonThinkIndexClaim
| |
| − | |claim=No one denies that Brigham Young had sex with his many wives. He had over 50 children. So why question whether or not Joseph had sex with his wives, even the ones who were already married to other men?
| |
| − | |think=
| |
| − | * {{Antispeak|repeat}}
| |
| − | *Lets follow this logic: Brigham Young had sex with his many wives. We know this because he had 50 children. Joseph Smith had no known children by his many wives, even the ones that were "married to other men." Therefore, this means.....oh, wait.
| |
| − | *Of course, as the site notes, 13 of Joseph's plural wives testified that they ''did'' have relations with him, but not any of the ones that were "married to other men."
| |
| − | *Why are there no examples of angry husbands upset that Joseph had cheated on them with their wives? Joseph's "[[Polygamy_book/Polyandry|polyandrous]]" relationships have no evidence of being consummated. Polyandry was probably designed to link families together.
| |
| − | *Did you know that Brigham Young had ''no'' polyandrous marriages? Instead, the members of his era used "[[Mormonism_and_polygamy/The_Law_of_Adoption|adoption]]" sealings to bind families together. A person would be "adopted" by a Church leader, rather than "married" to a Church leader. This didn't destroy existing family relationships, it simply bound the members together.
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{MormonThinkIndexClaim
| |
| − | |claim=If Joseph was commanded to marry these women for the express purpose of multiplying and replenishing the earth, he would have been breaking the "commandment" from God if he did not try to procreate with his wives.
| |
| − | |think=
| |
| − | *Well, if that was the only reason, then it seems that Joseph did a pretty lousy job of it then.
| |
| − | *Perhaps that wasn't the ''only'' reason Joseph was commanded to practice plural marriage?
| |
| − | |link=Mormonism and polygamy/Purpose of plural marriage
| |
| − | |subject=Purpose of plural marriage
| |
| − | |summary=Why would the Lord have commanded the 19th century Saints to implement plural marriage? What purpose(s) did polygamy accomplish?
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{MormonThinkIndexClaim
| |
| − | |claim=Faithful Mormon and wife of Joseph Smith, Sylvia Sessions (Lyon), on her deathbed told her daughter, Josephine, that she (Josephine) was the daughter of Joseph Smith. Josephine testified: "She (Sylvia) then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church."
| |
| − | |authorsources=
| |
| − | *Affidavit to Church Historian Andrew Jenson, 24 Feb. 1915
| |
| − | |think=
| |
| − | *Did you know that in an article published in Mormon Historical Studies, Brian C. Hales demonstrates that Sylvia considered herself divorced prior to marrying Joseph polygamously? [See: Hales, Brian C. "The Joseph Smith-Sylvia Sessions Plural Sealing: Polyandry or Polygyny?" ''Mormon Historical Studies'' 9/1 (Spring 2008): 41–57.]
| |
| − | |link=Polygamy_book/Polyandry#Sylvia_Sessions_Lyon
| |
| − | |subject=Sylvia Sessions Lyon
| |
| − | |summary=Some have thought that Sylvia Lyon was a polyandrous wife. However, Sylvia considered herself divorced at her sealing to Joseph, and there are documents which support this interpretation.
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{MormonThinkIndexClaim
| |
| − | |claim=When Joseph supposedly propositioned (or actually had sex with) fifteen year old Nancy Marinda Johnson, Dr. Dennison, with the encouragement of a neighborhood mob, nearly castrated him. Why would the mob try to castrate him? Castration is used as a penalty for sexual crimes only.
| |
| − | |think=
| |
| − | *Van Wagoner describes the charge against Joseph: "One account related that on 24 March [1832] a mob of men pulled Smith from his bed, beat him, and then covered him with a coat of tar and feathers. Eli Johnson, who allegedly participated in the attack 'because he suspected Joseph of being intimate with his sister, Nancy Marinda Johnson, … was screaming for Joseph's castration.'"
| |
| − | *Did you know that Van Wagoner's source is Fawn Brodie? Brodie's source, Clark Braden, also got his information second-hand ''52 years after this incident occurred'', and is clearly antagonistic, since he is a member of the Church of Christ, the “Disciples,” seeking to attack the Reorganized (RLDS) Church.
| |
| − | *Did you know that Brodie, Van Wagoner and MormonThink also gets the woman's name wrong—it is "Marinda Nancy," not "Nancy Marinda."
| |
| − | *Did you know that Marinda ''had no brother named Eli''?
| |
| − | |quote=
| |
| − | * Did you know that Van Wagoner and others admit in the footnotes that the story is '''probably false'''?
| |
| − | :: "That an incident between Smith and Nancy Johnson precipitated the mobbing '''is unlikely'''. Sidney Rigdon was attacked just as viciously by the group as was Smith." - Van Wagoner, ''Mormon Polygamy'', 4, endnote.
| |
| − | * Did you know that members of the mob later discussed why they attacked Joseph, and it had nothing to do with immoral acts?{{ref|ryder.1}}
| |
| − | ** "And the leader of the mob, Simonds Ryder, later said that the attack occurred because members of the mob had found some documents that led them to believe “the horrid fact that a plot was laid to take their property from them and place it under the control of Smith” (Hill 1977, 146)." - Van Wagoner, ''Mormon Polygamy'', 4, endnote.
| |
| − | * Did you know that Marinda Nancy Johnson remained a member of the Church, and was not a fan of plural marriage? Yet, she said this about Joseph's time there:
| |
| − | ** "Here I feel like bearing my testimony that during the whole year that Joseph was an inmate of my father’s house I never saw aught in his daily life or conversation to make me doubt his divine mission." - Marinda (Johnson) Hyde, Interview, cited in Edward Tullidge, ''Women of Mormondom'' (1877), 404.
| |
| − | * Why doesn't MormonThink provide this information? Even historians who use the story admit that it has major problems.
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{MormonThinkIndexClaim
| |
| − | |claim=Some critics believe that Joseph may have gotten some of his wives pregnant but had them get abortions. This is what Sarah Pratt, whom Joseph excommunicated for refusing to have sex with him, said to Smith's son.
| |
| − | |think=
| |
| − | *We're not surprised that "some critics" believe this—they have to account for the lack of children ''somehow''.
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{MormonThinkIndexClaim
| |
| − | |claim=From the FAIR apologist web site discussing Joseph's marriages to women already married to other living men: "This is not to argue, I hasten to add, that such marriages must not or could not involve sexuality. I believe they were legitimate marriages, and as such could easily accommodate righteous marital relations."
| |
| − | |think=
| |
| − | * What's MormonThink's problem with sex, anyway? Husband and wives often have sex, and there's nothing disgraceful or dirty about it. Why is it such a scandal if Joseph had conjugal relations with his plural wives? Every ''other'' Church president and leader who practiced plural marriage had conjugal relations with at least some of their wives too.
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{MormonThinkIndexClaim
| |
| − | |claim=FARMS also admits Joseph likely had sex with his plural wives
| |
| − | FARMS reviewer Gregory L. Smith admits, 71 pages into his 86-page review of George D. Smith's new book, Nauvoo Polygamy: "…but we called it celestial marriage" ("George D. Smith's Nauvoo Polygamy," FARMS Review 20:2, 2008), that Joseph Smith had "conjugal relations" with at least eight women in addition to his first wife, Emma.
| |
| − | |think=
| |
| − | *{{antispeak|admit}} How does FARMS (actually the Maxwell Institute) "admit" something that is a well-documented fact from the Temple Lot case? Was someone hiding this?
| |
| − | * {{Antispeak|repeat}} We get it, "apologists" have "admitted" this.
| |
| − | * But, this kind of "admission" is not new--another FARMS reviewer discussed the same matter years earlier in 1998. (See {{FR-10-2-6}}).
| |
| − | * A CES teacher, Danel Bachman, discussed these matters in the 1970s. ({{Book:Bachman:Thesis:1975}})
| |
| − | * MormonThink does not, however, include any of the other data which Smith cites in his review above. Much of the material that would debunk MormonThink's claims is found in that review--why don't they include ''those'' facts on their page about plural marriage?
| |
| − | * MormonThink is simply not paying attention if they think this "admission" is new.
| |
| − | * Do you get the feeling that MormonThink is simply looking for negative material, and is not really interested in telling the whole story?
| |
| − | * And, what's MormonThink's problem with sex, anyway? Husband and wives often have sex, and there's nothing disgraceful or dirty about it. Why is it such a scandal if Joseph had conjugal relations with his plural wives? Every ''other'' Church president and leader had conjugal relations with at least some of their wives too.
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{MormonThinkIndexClaim
| |
| − | |claim=If even the FARMS apologists, FAIR apologists and faithful LDS historians acknowledge that Joseph may have had sex with his polygamous wives (including the ones already married) then why should any LDS members dispute that Joseph likely did have sex with those wives?
| |
| − | |think=
| |
| − | {{Antispeak|repeat}} Why do they keep making sure to lump in "the ones already married" multiple times in the article. Where is the data?
| |
| − | *There is ''no'' evidence that Joseph's polyandrous sealings involved marital relations. This is not surprising, since the polyandrous sealings were likely designed to bind families together with Joseph.
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{MormonThinkIndexClaim
| |
| − | |claim=It's often taught that concerning the marriage of Joseph to 14 year old Helen Mar Kimball, it was Helen's father that initiated and arranged the marriage. This is not true. Before Smith approached Heber to have 14 year-old Helen as his bride, Smith called on Heber to turn over his wife, Vilate, to be Smith's wife....So after Joseph Smith went so far as to "test" Heber C. Kimball to see if he would turn over his wife, Smith then asked for his only daughter, 14 year-old Helen.
| |
| − | |think=
| |
| − | *Wait a minute—''Helen'' is the one that said that her father initiated and arranged the marriage. These quotes are included on MormonThink's own page! Here it is again:
| |
| − | ** "Having a great desire to be connected with the Prophet, Joseph, he [Heber] offered me to him; this I afterwards learned from the Prophet's own mouth." - Helen, cited in Compton, ''In Sacred Loneliness'', 498.
| |
| − | *Note that again this sealing was designed to bind families in the Church together.
| |
| − | *Joseph did test Heber and Vilate, and ''after they consented to give Vilate to Joseph as his wife'', Joseph said that it was not required, and sealed them instead. So where are we supposed to make the leap of logic that "Smith then asked for his only daughter?" Can MormonThink produce some data indicating that the Heber/Vilate "proposal" was all a setup for Joseph to ask for their "only daughter?"
| |
| − | *To be precise, Helen was born on August 20, 1828 and sealed to Joseph in May 1843, three months short of her 15th birthday.
| |
| − | |quote=
| |
| − | *Helen Mar Kimball: ""Without any preliminaries, my father asked me if I would believe him if he told me that it was right for married men to take other wives."
| |
| − | * Helen was upset when she first heard about plural marriage, because she thought her father was questioning her virtue:
| |
| − | **Helen Mar Kimball: “My father was the first to introduce it to me, which had a similar effect to a sudden shock of a small earthquake. When he found (after the first outburst of displeasure for ''supposed injury'') that I received it meekly, he took the first opportunity to introduce Sarah Ann [Whitney] to me as Joseph's wife" (Whitney, Helen Mar Kimball (1880–1883), Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, 1828-1896, Autobiography (c. 1839-1846), "Life Incidents," Woman's Exponent 9-10 (1880-1882) and "Scenes and Incidents in Nauvoo,") {{link|url=http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/HWhitney.html}} {{ea}}
| |
| − | * During the summer of 1843, Heber tried to explain plural marriage to Helen, who was then nearly fifteen. Of this experience she later wrote, "I remember how I felt, but which would be a difficult matter to describe--the various thoughts, fears and temptations that flashed through my mind when the principle was first introduced to me by my father . . . in the summer of 1843. . . ." Helen was very disturbed and skeptical. "The next day, the Prophet called at our house, and I sat with my father and mother and heard him teach the principle and explain it more fully, and I believed it . . . ." - Stanley B. Kimball, "Heber C. Kimball and Family, the Nauvoo Years," ''Brigham Young University Studies'' 15/4 (Summer 1975): 465; citing H. M. Whitney, "Scenes and Incidents," 11(15 July 1882): 39.
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{MormonThinkIndexClaim
| |
| − | |claim=Our Comments: Like many polygamous wives, Helen likely hated the very idea of polygamy when first introduced to it and for many years afterward as she said in many of her writings. The negative writings by Helen seem to greatly outweigh the positive writings. This is similar to Emma Smith, who at times accepted polygamy, but most of the time was bitterly opposed to the practice. As time went on Helen may have accepted it and even felt special by being known as one of the wives of the most revered prophet. Perhaps she decided to make the best of it as she had no choice at that point. No one but Helen herself can say for sure if she really enjoyed being a polygamous wife of Joseph Smith. However, one thing we can say with conviction is that a 14 year-old girl should never have been put in that position in the first place by Joseph and by her own parents.
| |
| − | |think=
| |
| − | *How does one "weigh" the negative writings against the positive ones?
| |
| − | *Helen has already told us that she believed the doctrine when it was taught to her. Helen made the choice to be sealed to Joseph: "This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward." - Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, Autobiography, 30 March 1881, LDS archives; cited in B. Carmon Hardy, ''Works of Abraham'', 49.
| |
| − | * She realized, in retrospect, that she did not understand the trials that would result: "in [my mother's] mind she saw the misery which was as sure to come as the sun was to rise and set; but it was all hidden from me."
| |
| − | *Helen was one of the most vocal and persistent defenders of plural marriage among all nineteenth-century LDS women. MormonThink does not fairly represent her experience or her opinions.
| |
| − | * Let's let Helen speak for herself.
| |
| − | |quote=
| |
| − | * [William Clayton spoke about plural marriage]…"his subject was polygamy, showing why it was so necessary, & the great loss of those that did not practice it; proving it by scripture, that what seemed to be theirs would be taken and given to another, that men with only one wife would be nothing but angels in the next world, it was very interesting; & I confess I understood things that night that I never did before, & saw not only the necessity but the beauty of polygamy our trials here look so small, when I look at the great glory that is in store for the few that will hold out faithfull to the end." - Helen Mar Kimball Whitney to Horace K. Whitney, 17 December 1869, Whitney Family Papers, Box 1, fd 1, ULA; cited in B. Carmon Hardy, ''Works of Abraham'', 162.
| |
| − | * I did not try to conceal the fact of its having been a trial, but confessed that it had been one of the severest of my life; but that it had also proven one of the greatest of blessings. I could truly say it had done the most towards making me a Saint and a free woman, in every sense of the word; and I knew many others who could say the same, and to whom it had proven one of the greatest boons--a "blessing in disguise." – Helen Mar Kimball, ''Why We Practice Plural Marriage'', 23-24.
| |
| − | * I have encouraged and sustained my husband in the celestial order of marriage because I knew it was right. At various times I have been healed by the washing and annointing, administered by the mothers in Israel. I am still spared to testify to the truth and Godliness of this work; and though my happiness once consisted in laboring for those I love, the Lord has seen fit to deprive me of bodily strength, and taught me to 'cast my bread upon the waters' and after many days my longing spirit was cheered with the knowledge that He had a work for me to do, and with Him, I know that all things are possible… - Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, cited in Augusta Joyce Crocheron (author and complier), ''Representative Women of Deseret, a book of biographical sketches to accompany the picture bearing the same title'' (Salt Lake City: J. C. Graham & Co., 1884).
| |
| − | '''Helen's greatest trial occurred when she lost her newborn child at Winter Quarters''':
| |
| − | * No one but God and the angels to whom I owe my life and all I have, could know the tenth part of what I suffered. I never told anybody and I never could. A keener taste of misery and woe, no mortal, I think, could endure. For three months I lay a portion of the time like one dead, they told me; but that did not last long. I was alive to my spiritual condition and dead to the world. I tasted of the punishment which is prepared for those who reject any of the principles of this Gospel. Then I learned that plural marriage was a celestial principle, and saw the difference between the power of God's priesthood and that of Satan's and the necessity of obedience to those who hold the priesthood, and the danger of rebelling against or speaking lightly of the Lord's annointed.
| |
| − | :"I had, in hours of temptation, when seeing the trials of my mother, felt to rebel. I hated polygamy in my heart, I had loved my baby more than my God, and mourned for it unreasonably. All my sins and shortcomings were magnified before my eyes till I believed I had sinned beyond redemption. Some may call it the fruits of a diseased brain. There is nothing without a cause, be that as it may, it was a keen reality to me. During that season I lost my speech, forgot the names of everybody and everything, and was living in another sphere, learning lessons that would serve me in future times to keep mein the narrow way. I was left a poor wreck of what I had been, but the Devil with all his cunning, little thought that he was fitting and preparing my heart to fulfill its destiny…
| |
| − | :I fasted for one week, and every day I gained till I had won the victory and I was just as sensible of the presence of holy spirits around my bedside as I had been of the evil ones. It would take up too much room to relate my experience with the spirits, but New Year's eve, after spending one of the happiest days of my life I was moved upon to talk to my mother. I knew her heart was weighed down in sorrow and I was full of the holy Ghost. I talked as I never did before, I was too weak to talk with such a voice (of my own strength), beside, I never before spoke with such eloquence, and she knew that it was not myself. She was so affected that she sobbed till I ceased. I assured her that father loved her, but he had a work to do, she must rise above her feelings and seek for the Holy Comforter, and though it rent her heart she must uphold him, for he in taking other wives had done it only in obedience to a holy principle. Much more I said, and when I ceased, she wiped her eyes and told me to rest. I had not felt tired till she said this, but commenced then to feel myself sinking away. I silently prayed to be renewed, when my strength returned that instant… - ''Representative Women of Deseret''
| |
| − | * Helen is clear that plural marriage caused trials to her mother, but is also equally clear that it was a commandment. Her conviction and knowledge was the product of revelation.
| |
| − | * Why doesn't MormonThink let Helen speak for herself--which she does eloquently--instead of claiming it's "hard" to balance her statements? She doesn't seem to think it's hard at all.
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{MormonThinkIndexClaim
| |
| − | |claim=Smith was killed 13 months after his sealing to Helen, so he simply may not have had the opportunity to consummate their relationship before his death. However, it's a virtual certainty that he would have if he had lived. The bottom line being that it's futile for Mormon apologists to argue that Smith's sealing to Helen was "dynastic" or "spiritual" only, in an effort to show that Smith's plural marriages to young girls were proper.
| |
| − | |think=
| |
| − | *Isn't 13 months (a little over one year) enough time to consummate a marriage if one is ''really'' determined to do so?
| |
| − | *In other words, despite the total lack of evidence, and the fact that Helen herself wrote about plural marriage years later and never claimed such a thing, you simply ''want'' this to be true. It is a "virtual certainty."
| |
| − | *The word "virtual" is defined as "a condition without boundaries or constraints. It is often used to define a feature or state that is simulated in some manner." So, if you can't actually show any documented evidence in this case, you will simply simulate it. MormonThink has decided upon the answer it wants, and so it doesn't ''matter'' to them what the evidence shows.
| |
| − | *Is it really "futile" to argue a position based upon evidence against a "virtual" position? Think about it.
| |
| − | | |
| − | }}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{MormonThinkIndexClaim
| |
| − | |claim=1844 Sermon given by Joseph. It is clear that on May 26, 1844 Joseph lied about practicing polygamy, despite claims to the contrary.
| |
| − | |authorsources=
| |
| − | Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 6, pp. 410-411
| |
| − | |think=
| |
| − | * Joseph tried to teach plural marriage publicly to Church members, but many rejected it.
| |
| − | * Did Joseph have any duty to protect the Saints from the mobbing and deaths that would surely follow if plural marriage became widely known?
| |
| − | * Joseph showed himself willing to die to prevent attacks on the Saints—but, should he have been willing to risk the death ''of others'' because of what he was teaching?
| |
| − | * It is easy to criticize from the safety of the twenty-first century, when police protection is strong, and unpopular groups are not always at risk of vigilante justice.
| |
| − | * It seems like MormonThink would prefer that Joseph tell everything, and have the Saints slaughtered as a result. Polygamy was revealed as soon as it was safe to do so, even though the Church and its leaders knew that they would suffer political disadvantage.
| |
| − | |quote=
| |
| − | * "What would it have done for us, if they had known that many of us had more than one wife when we lived in Illinois? They would have broken us up, doubtless, worse than they did." - {{JDfairwiki|author=Orson Hyde|title=The Marriage Relations|date=6 October 1854|vol=2|disc=18|start=75|end=75}}
| |
| − | |link=Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Hiding the truth
| |
| − | |subject=Hiding the truth about polygamy
| |
| − | |summary=It is true that Joseph did not always tell others about plural marriage. He did, however, make some attempt to teach the doctrine to the Saints. It is thus important to realize that the public preaching of polygamy—or announcing it to the general Church membership, thereby informing the public by proxy—was simply not a feasible plan. Critics of Joseph's choice want their audience to ignore the danger to him and the Saints.
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{MormonThinkIndexClaim
| |
| − | |claim=The Church continued to practice polygamy after 1890.
| |
| − | |think=
| |
| − | * In fact, "the Church" did not continue to practice polygamy. Some ''members of the Church'' continued to do so, well aware that they were violating Church policy.
| |
| − | * Once again, MormonThink does nothing to help us understand why members made the choices they did.
| |
| − | * Doesn't it seem like they don't want you to understand, but simply condemn?
| |
| − | * Were all these people simply wicked fanatics? Or, could they have been sincere people doing their best in a difficult situation, caught between many pressures and duties?
| |
| − | |response=
| |
| − | |link=Mormonism and polygamy/Practiced after the Manifesto
| |
| − | |subject=Practiced after the Manifesto
| |
| − | |summary= limited number of plural marriages were solemnized after Wilford Woodruff's Manifesto of 1890 (Official Declaration 1). Some of these marriages were apparently sanctioned by some in positions of Church leadership. Critics claim that this demonstrates that the Manifesto was merely a political tactic, and that the "revelation" of the Manifesto was merely a cynical ploy. They also claim that Post-Manifesto marriages demonstrate the LDS Church's contempt for the civil law of the land.
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{MormonThinkIndexClaim
| |
| − | |claim=Critics' Comment: Today's church leaders assert that the mainstream Mormon church has nothing whatsoever to do with fundamentalist polygamists. There's no contradiction in the fact that a sitting apostle in the 1950s had a polygamous Father-in-law living in full fellowship in the church and was a temple worker, more than half a century after church leaders claimed to have abandoned polygamy???
| |
| − | |think=
| |
| − | * MormonThink should remember that we "can't pick our families."
| |
| − | * If an apostle's father-in-law in the 1950s is the best they can come up with to try to link "fundamentalist" groups to the Church, what does that say about the quality of the argument?
| |
| − | * Most "fundamentalists" have never been members of the LDS Church.
| |
| − | * The Church does not now preach or sanction the practice of polygamy. If MormonThink has any evidence proving otherwise, they ought to provide it.
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{MormonThinkIndexClaim
| |
| − | |claim=Critic's comments: Why did the prophet of the church just lie and say that polygamy was not doctrinal? It is still in our scriptural canon, D&C 132. Hinckley makes it sound as if it was either a mistake or practiced for reasons unrelated to religion. Surely he knows why it was practiced. Also he makes an issue that polygamy is not legal today (as practiced by the fundamentalists). That's correct but it was not legal when the LDS practiced it in the 1800s either. He wants everyone to believe that polygamy was legal when the Latter-day Saints practiced it in the 1800s but is illegal now as practiced by the fundamentalists. As shown above, this is completely untrue. It was always illegal - from Joseph's first plural wife in 1833 through the 2nd manifesto in 1904.
| |
| − | |think=
| |
| − | {{Antispeak|repeat}}
| |
| − | * It is amazing that MormonThink can read President Hinckley's mind.
| |
| − | * They are a hostile audience, and so of course find a hostile reading. Are there no other options?
| |
| − | ** For example, there is no doctrine that allows the present practice of plural marriage in the Church. Its practice is "not doctrinal." Do they think President Hinckley such a fool as to think he can hide D&C 132? To do so, he would have to be evil ''and'' stupid. Shouldn't MormonThink have to pick one or the other?
| |
| − | ** Polygamy is illegal today, and Church policy is to respect the law on the matter. For most of the practice of plural marriage, the Church fought the anti-polygamy laws, and regarded them as violations of the Constitution.
| |
| − | ** Any decision to disobey secular law for conscience sake must be specifically commanded by the Church's leaders. At present, that has not happened.
| |
| − | * Many constitutional law scholars--LDS and non-LDS--regard the Supreme Court decisions on the legality of plural marriage as clearly biased and motivated by religious prejudice. The nineteenth century Saints had good grounds for believing that the law was unjust and would eventually be overturned.
| |
| − | |quote=
| |
| − | * {{Periodical:Smith:Polygamy Prophets and Prevarication}} describes these issues in detail. But, MormonThink doesn't want you to have detail, they just want you to condemn.
| |
| − | * It would be nice if history was as simple and clean as MormonThink wants to pretend, but real life isn't like that.
| |
| − | |link=Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Illegal
| |
| − | |subject=Illegal to practice polygamy?
| |
| − | |summary=Polygamy was certainly declared illegal during the Utah-era anti-polygamy crusade, and was arguably illegal under the Illinois anti-bigamy statutes. This is hardly new information, and Church members and their critics knew it. Modern members of the Church generally miss the significance of this fact, however: the practice of polygamy was a clear case of civil disobedience.
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{MormonThinkIndexClaim
| |
| − | |claim=Critic's note: The Church Almanac lists Parley P Pratt as assassinated while on a mission but he was really murdered by the irate existing husband of his latest fancy. Technically therefore, she was polyandrous also. Practically, she was adulterous and then when she married Parley, bigamous. She was never divorced from her first husband. She had just abducted one of her children. Her husband took the child back after a court hearing and then killed Parley. I don't think he was ever tried for the murder which was in Arkansas.
| |
| − | |think=
| |
| − | * My goodness, so much misinformation in one paragraph.
| |
| − | * MormonThink deceives us by acting as if nineteenth century marriages always ended in a formal divorce. They did not--this was often impossible.
| |
| − | * Here again, an article that MormonThink cites provides many of the facts, but MormonThink ignores them and distorts the historical record.{{ref|smith.1}} Here are some highlights:
| |
| − | ** Eleanor's husband was a heavy drinker, which in 1844 resulted in separation. The couple was reconciled, and the family moved to San Francisco.
| |
| − | ** While in California, Eleanor discovered the church. Her husband forbade her to join and "purchased a sword cane and threatened to kill her and the minister who baptized her if she became a Mormon." Eleanor attended meetings, and one Sunday at home, "while Eleanor was singing from a Mormon hymn book she had purchased, Hector tore the book from her hands, threw it into the fire, beat her, cast her out into the street, and locked the door."
| |
| − | ** Eleanor lodged a complaint of assault and battery against Hector and planned to leave him until prevailed upon by local church members and her physician. At that point, said Eleanor, "I presume McLean himself would not deny that I then declared that I would no more be his wife however many years I might be compelled to appear as such for the sake of my children."
| |
| − | ** Eleanor was not baptized until 1854, and she had the written permission of her husband to do so. However, he forbade her to read church literature or to sing church hymns at home.
| |
| − | ** Through it all, as a church leader, Parley Pratt had tried to help the couple reconcile.
| |
| − | ** Eleanor had her children baptized, and Hector responded by filing a charge of insanity against his wife so he could have her committed to an asylum. Hector sent her children by steamer to their maternal grandparents' home, confined Eleanor to the house, and again threatened to have her committed for insanity. Eleanor eventually found her children at her parents' home, but they refused to let her take them. Eleanor went to Salt Lake City and married Pratt on 14 November 1855.
| |
| − | ** She considered herself divorced from Hector from the time he violently threw her from their home in San Francisco. They never received a civil divorce, however.
| |
| − | * Why do you think none of this material made it in to MormonThink's attack on the Pratts and Church?
| |
| − | * Note that a major source for this story is ''BYU Studies'': a Church publication at BYU.{{ref|byu.studies.pratt}}
| |
| − | |quote=
| |
| − | <blockquote>It is not clear, then, why [MormonThink] feels Eleanor owed an observance of all the twentieth-century legal niceties to a violent, abusive, tyrannical drunkard. Through it all, as a church leader, Parley Pratt had tried to help the couple reconcile....From which authority, exactly, would [MormonThink] prefer that Eleanor receive a divorce? She was in Utah; Hector was in San Francisco. He had abused, beaten, confined, and threatened to institutionalize her....[N]otions of divorce were also more fluid in the mid-nineteenth century, especially on the frontier. It is unlikely that most contemporaries would have insisted that Eleanor required a formal divorce....In [MormonThink]'s worldview, are men like Hector entitled to hold women emotionally or martially hostage, civil divorce or no? - {{FR-20-2-4}} </blockquote>
| |
| − | |link=Mormonism and polygamy/Parley P. Pratt's marriage and murder
| |
| − | |subject=Parley P. Pratt's marriage and murder
| |
| − | |summary=Some critics claim that Parley P. Pratt's practice of polygamy was responsible for his murder, partly because he married a woman who hadn't been divorced from her first husband. What can you tell me about this?
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{MormonThinkIndexClaim
| |
| − | |claim=The Mountain Meadows Massacre was one later result of the ensuing hatred by Brigham et al of people from that area. The brethren did not recognize any marriage they did not perform as being legal, so they took whom they pleased. Missions were often wife gathering expeditions. Moral of the story: Better be careful whose family you try to steal...you might just get yourself killed!
| |
| − | |think=
| |
| − | * Why does MormonThink seem almost gleeful about the prospect of an unarmed man being shot and left to bleed to death, even when found guilty of no crime by a court?
| |
| − | * What about Hector McLean, the man who tried to have his wife put into an insane asylum so she could never see her children again? Doesn't that sound like trying to "steal someone's family"?
| |
| − | * [[Mountain_Meadows_Massacre/Brigham_Young|Brigham Young]] had nothing to do with the [[Mountain_Meadows_Massacre|Mountain Meadow Massacre]]. But, MormonThink tries to turn it into Brigham's revenge for Parley's murder?
| |
| − | * Doesn't this sound more like a bad novel than real history?
| |
| − | |link=Mormonism and polygamy/Divorce in the 19th century
| |
| − | |subject=Divorce in the 19th century
| |
| − | |summary=Some members of the Church remarried without obtaining a formal legal divorce. Critics of the Church try to make this seem dishonest and adulterous, when it was in fact the norm for the period, especially on the frontier and among the poor. Critics are not honest about the legal realities faced by nineteenth century Americans.
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{MormonThinkIndexClaim
| |
| − | |claim=Many LDS are under the impression that shortly before Joseph Smith was killed, he was put in jail unjustly by anti-Mormons using trumped-up charges. In reality, the circumstances surrounding Joseph's assassination was a result of the actions he took to prevent his being exposed as a polygamist.
| |
| − | |authorsources=
| |
| − | *From the "neutral" site wikipedia (from June 2008)
| |
| − | |think=
| |
| − | * MormonThink needs to get their history straight.
| |
| − | * Joseph and Hyrum were brought to Carthage to answer charges regarding the destruction of the ''[[City of Nauvoo/Nauvoo Expositor|Nauvoo Expositor]]''. Let us assume that they were completely in the wrong in ordering the paper's destruction--it was not something for which they would have been jailed, even if found guilty. (They had already been acquitted twice, once by an LDS judge and once by a non-LDS.)
| |
| − | * At most, Joseph and Hyrum would have been liable for financial damages to the owners of the press. They posted bail, and would have been tried in court when the circuit court judge next arrived. They were free to leave and go home.
| |
| − | * The "trumped up charges" were charges of treason, which were then lodged against Joseph and Hyrum once they had posted bail. These new charges were intended to keep them in custody, where they could be assassinated. (It is no coincidence that the leader of the Carthage Greys militia--the group which assassinated Joseph--was the justice of the peace who jailed them on the treason charge, without a hearing.)
| |
| − | * Notice the contradiction: MormonThink criticizes Joseph for hiding plural marriage, but then says Joseph was murdered because of plural marriage. So, if he would have announced to everyone that the Saints were teaching and practicing plural marriage, are we supposed to believe everything would have gone well? Does MormonThink approve of vigilante justice and mob rule?
| |
| − | |quote=
| |
| − | * "The court business of the day was to hearthe charge of riot against Nauvoo's town officers [including Joseph and Hyrum]. The defendants were released on bail of $500 each and bound over to the next term of the circuit court. Before the hearing, however, another charge, this one for treason, was brought against Joseph and Hyrum. Not the government, but dissenter Augustine Spencer accused them of calling out the legion to resist the state militia. The Mormons could see the dissenters were determined to keep Joseph and Hyrum in Carthage on one pretext or other. [Illinois Governor] Ford considered the treason charge groundless since the city had had reason to fear a mob invasion, but he refused to intervene in a judicial proceeding. The justice of the peace, Robert Smith [captain of the Carthage Greys who would murder them], committed Joseph and Hyrum to prison without a hearing, claiming he did so for their safety." — {{Book:Bushman:RSR|pages=547}}
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{MormonThinkIndexClaim
| |
| − | |claim=Our thoughts: The concept of a Heavenly Mother can be a bit strange for some people to accept but the idea of Heavenly Mothers (plural) is very unnerving. Logically if God has multiple wives then although everyone has the same Father-in-Heaven, most people would have different 'Mothers-in-Heaven'. Perhaps that's one reason we're told not to pray to our Mother-in-Heaven as we wouldn't know which one.
| |
| − | |think=
| |
| − | *Logically? When a child is in a room full of mothers and calls his own mother, wouldn't you think that she can hear that child and knows his or her voice? Do you think that she would be able to respond to him or her?
| |
| − | *This is the first time we've seen someone try to combine the concept of praying to a Heavenly Mother with the idea that God is a polygamist.
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{MormonThinkIndexClaim
| |
| − | |claim=We have to wonder why an angel didn't appear to Emma to convince her that polygamy was commanded by God.
| |
| − | The Bible talks of Mary being visited by the angel Gabriel. Mary's soon-to-be husband Joseph was going to put her away until he had a visit in a dream explaining the virgin birth. Wouldn't it make sense that Emma would have been given the same information from God as Joseph did about polygamy, so that Emma would have gone along and not fought Joseph as she did? This is another reason to think that polygamy may have originated with Joseph Smith rather than from God or an angel.
| |
| − | |think=
| |
| − | *Are we to compare Mary's angelic visit to announce the upcoming birth of the ''savior of all mankind'' to Emma accepting polygamy? Really?
| |
| − | *It was certainly difficult for Emma, but how about those that were asked to be plural wives? ''They'' reported divine manifestations.
| |
| − | * Since [[Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Emma_Smith|Emma would later lie]] and say Joseph never taught plural marriage, it's hard to know what she did or didn't experience in relation to it.
| |
| − | |quote=
| |
| − | There are at least two accounts in which Emma expresses her belief in plural marriage and Joseph's call as a prophet:
| |
| − | *Zina Huntington remembered a conversation between Elizabeth [Davis] and Emma [Smith] in which Elizabeth asked the prophet’s wife if she felt that Joseph was a prophet. Yes, Emma answered, but I wish to God I did not know it.{{ref|compton1}}
| |
| − | *Maria Jane Johnston, who lived with Emma as a servant girl, recalled the Prophet’s wife looking very downcast one day and telling her that the principle of plural marriage was right and came from Heavenly Father. “What I said I have got [to] repent of,” lamented Emma. “The principle is right but I am jealous hearted. Now never tell anybody that you heard me find fault with that[principle[;] we have got to humble ourselves and repent of it.”{{ref|johnston1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | And, what did Emma say about Joseph after all that had happened?: ''I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.''{{ref|emma1}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | * MormonThink wants us to believe everything that Oliver Cowdery says about plural marriage if we accept what he says about his role as one of the three witnesses. So, shouldn't we believe Emma on ''this'' matter?
| |
| − | * Doesn't it seem that no matter what the evidence, MormonThink is determined to come to a "negative" verdict?
| |
| − | |response=
| |
| − | |link=Mormonism and polygamy/Divine manifestations to plural wives and families
| |
| − | |subject=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families
| |
| − | |summary=Did those who entered into plural marriage do so simply because Joseph Smith (or another Church leader) "told them to"? Is this an example of "blind obedience"?
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{MormonThinkIndexClaim
| |
| − | |claim=With the admission that these justifications for polygamy are simply not true, by such LDS leaders as apostle John A. Widtsoe and FAIR Chairman John Lynch, we must turn to the only possible remaining answer - God commanded the early saints to take multiple wives for some reason.
| |
| − | But we can't think of any earthly reason for practicing polygamy. Why would God command this? Even if there were women that needed help, why would the men have to marry the women in order to help them. We certainly don't advocate marrying a homeless person to help them financially or otherwise. And why have polygamy at all since it could only be practiced by maybe 30% of its members?
| |
| − | |think=
| |
| − | *{{antispeak|admit}}
| |
| − | *If you can't think of any ''earthly reason'' for practicing polygamy, then perhaps the reason was not ''earthly'' at all—perhaps ''God'' had His own reasons for commanding it.
| |
| − | *But, MormonThink is not thinking very hard if they cannot see some of the advantages that accrued to the early Church because of plural marriage.
| |
| − | |link=Mormonism_and_polygamy/Purpose_of_plural_marriage/Possible_benefits
| |
| − | |subject=Possible benefits of plural marriage to the early Church
| |
| − | |summary=We have little revealed knowledge about the purpose of plural marriage, but it did have some important sociologic and economic benefits to the early restored Church.
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{MormonThinkIndexClaim
| |
| − | |claim=And although polygamy was practiced somewhat in Old Testament times, it was more of a social custom and not a religious commandment....Yes, polygamy was practiced in the OT, but God never commanded it to be practiced. The model was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve and Jane and Sally .... God seems to have accepted their practicing it for cultural reasons.
| |
| − | |think=
| |
| − | *Doesn't it seem that God approved of Hagar's marriage to Abraham because he sent an angel to [http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/gen/16.9-11?lang=eng#8 tell her to return]? Why would God send an angel if he was simply "tolerating" plural marriage?
| |
| − | *If an all-powerful God didn't approve of polygamy, why didn't he simply stop it and punish those who practiced it? It's mentioned all over the Old Testament after all.
| |
| − | *Why would an all-powerful God allow a practice that he didn't approve of to appear in his most holy book of scripture? Couldn't he have prevented that?
| |
| − | *Why would he allow his prophets to practice it? Couldn't he have just told them "Stop!"
| |
| − | *Why was there a [http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/deut/25.5-10?lang=eng#4 ''law'' in ancient Israel] that if a man died without having children, that his brother was required to marry him and have children by her in order for his brother to have progeny?
| |
| − | ** Why did God [http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/gen/38.1-11?lang=eng#primary punish those] who didn't observe this law properly?
| |
| − | * Why did God's prophet Nathan tell David that God had [http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/2-sam/12.7-8?lang=eng#6 given him plural wives]?
| |
| − | * Why did the Law of Moses contain [http://lds.org/scriptures/ot/duet/21.15?lang=eng#15 instructions] on how to [http://lds.org/scriptures/ot/ex/21.10?lang=eng#10 conduct plural households]? God was quite clear about banning other "social customs" such as sacred prostitution, making graven images, idol worship, cutting oneself to express mourning, and eating pork. Does MormonThink really expect us to believe that God couldn't or wouldn't ban plural marriage absolutely if he wanted it stopped?
| |
| − | |response=
| |
| − | |link=Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Not Biblical
| |
| − | |subject=Claims that polygamy is not Biblical
| |
| − | |summary=The criticism that polygamy is irreligious appeals to western sensibilities which favor monogamy, and argues that polygamy is inconsistent with biblical Christianity or (ironically) the Book of Mormon itself.
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{MormonThinkIndexClaim
| |
| − | | |
| − | |claim=Joseph's plural marriages were not known until Joseph was caught with Fanny Alger. Oliver Cowdery referred to it as a 'dirty, nasty, filthy affair'. Now suppose for just a minute, that this really was an affair as reported by Brother Cowdery, an apostle and one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon. Why would Joseph make up the preposterous story that an angel with a sword commanded him to practice polygamy (before the sealing power was even restored no less)? Why, because he could. People believed him. They believed his earlier story about an angel, so why not another one? Perhaps the entire practice of polygamy by the saints was inspired by Joseph's efforts to cover up an affair? If he was truly in an affair, he would have a hard time justifying his adultery, and he may have lost many, many followers. But he came up with the only excuse that could be justified - God commanded him to. It was so successful that he continued to take more and more women as wives.
| |
| − | |think=
| |
| − | * {{Antispeak|repeat}}
| |
| − | * Yes if we imagine and "suppose" things, it becomes easy to come to any conclusion we want.
| |
| − | * Unfortunately for this theory, the evidence is quite clear that Joseph had had the plural marriage revelation (and was teaching at least some of the principles) by [[Polygamy_book/Initiation_of_the_practice|1831]]--years before he ''married'' Fanny Alger (as, recall, both hostile and friendly sources reported).
| |
| − | * Besides, if Joseph was just trying to have easy sex, he picked the most complicated, difficult method of doing so. Why didn't he tell his followers that only he, the prophet, was commanded to make this huge sacrifice? It is very clear that those he taught were repulsed by the idea, and only accepted it with great difficulty [[Mormonism_and_polygamy/Divine_manifestations_to_plural_wives_and_families|after receiving revelation]]. Why did he risk putting them off or causing problems by pushing others to practice it?
| |
| − | * If this was what Joseph was after, why did he expose and alienate [[Polygamy_book/John_C._Bennett|John C. Bennett]], who ''was'' trying to do exactly what MormonThink claims Joseph wanted to do? Bennett had the scheme working well, and yet Joseph caused himself enormous trouble by exposing and then excommunicating Bennett.
| |
| − | * But, if you get to pick your own facts like MormonThink does, any story will do.
| |
| − | * MormonThink has now left the realm of evidence completely, and is letting their imagination soar. Anything goes.
| |
| − | |link=Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Lustful motives
| |
| − | |subject=Did Joseph have "lustful motives" for practicing polygamy?
| |
| − | |summary=Neutral observers have long understood that this attack is probably the weakest of them all. One might reasonably hold the opinion that Joseph was wrong, but in the face of the documentary evidence it is laughable to argue that he and his associates were insincere or that they were practicing their religion only for power and to satisfy carnal desires. Those who insist that “sex is the answer” reveal more about their own limited perspective than they do of the minds of the early Saints.
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{MormonThinkIndexClaim
| |
| − | |claim=If polygamy was really sanctioned by our Heavenly Father and polygamy is an eternal principle expected to be practiced in the next life, then naturally the spirit should bear witness to this. So why doesn't the spirit make us all feel warm fuzzies inside when it comes to polygamy? We have rarely found members in the church, especially women, who readily accept this idea.
| |
| − | |think=
| |
| − | *{{antispeak|warm fuzzies}} Why should we receive a spiritual manifestation about polygamy? ''We'' aren't required to practice it, and we're willing to bet that few people today would want to.
| |
| − | * There is no Church doctrine which says that plural marriage must be practiced in the next life. We do not know.
| |
| − | * Does it seem like MormonThink might be trying to make ''you'' worried that ''you'' will have to practice plural marriage in heaven?
| |
| − | * LDS author and former BYU Professor Valerie Hudson spoke powerfully against this idea. If this worries you, you should read it: [http://www.squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleCasslerPolygamy.html '''here'''].
| |
| − | *Are we supposed to receive a spiritual manifestation about polygamy practiced in the past? Are we supposed to receive a witness of polygamy as it was practiced anciently?
| |
| − | *Those who did practice it reported that only revelation persuaded them to obey.
| |
| − | *It's not surprising that MormonThink's account of plural marriage doesn't make anyone feel good--it isn't true!
| |
| − | *And, what many members have believed about plural marriage often isn't true either. We need to learn more if we are troubled.
| |
| − | * But, does MormonThink seem like a source that's going to help us do that?
| |
| − | |quote=
| |
| − | *MormonThink doesn't mention all the facts, distorts the historical record, and leaves out the most important parts. They want "sound bites" to condemn the Church, instead of doing the work it takes to understand why those members made the choices that they did.
| |
| − | *FAIR members are witnesses that we can be at peace about the difficulties that accompanied plural marriage if we hear the whole story.
| |
| − | *Our Heavenly Father can tell us whether Joseph Smith and his successors were true prophets or not, and whether plural marriage means that we should not trust them.
| |
| − | *Funny, MormonThink seems to think ''they'' can settle the question for you. Hopefully, you can now see how much they've hidden from you.
| |
| − | |link=Mormonism and polygamy/Divine manifestations to plural wives and families
| |
| − | |subject=Divine manifestations to plural wives and families
| |
| − | |summary=Did those who entered into plural marriage do so simply because Joseph Smith (or another Church leader) "told them to"? Is this an example of "blind obedience"? No, they bore witness that only powerful revelatory experiences convinced them that the command was from God.
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | * Another member's experience with these issues is described here: {{Periodical:Smith:Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Plural Marriage}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{MormonThinkIndexClaim
| |
| − | |claim=When we read such statements as these by the First Presidency of the Church, we have to wonder if polygamy, as practiced by the saints, came from God or from man:
| |
| − | "Brethren, I want you to understand that it is not to be as it has been heretofore. The brother missionaries have been in the habit of picking out the prettiest women for themselves before they get here, and bringing on the ugly ones for us; hereafter you have to bring them all here before taking any of them, and let us all have a fair shake."
| |
| − | - Apostle Heber C. Kimball, First Counselor to Brigham Young, The Lion of the Lord, New York, 1969, pp 129-130.
| |
| − | |think=
| |
| − | * MormonThink rounds things off with a quote from a hostile newspaper reporter that is not found anywhere in the records of Heber C. Kimball's speeches.
| |
| − | * MormonThink doesn't tell us that the source they are quoting is hostile, ''or'' that the source ''it'' is quoting is hostile, and that the book (''Lion of the Lord'') was widely panned by LDS and non-LDS reviewers as one of the worst works of LDS history.
| |
| − | * Here's what a non-LDS reviewer said about ''Lion of the Lord'':
| |
| − | <blockquote>The sources exploited by Professor Hirshson and his interpretation of them testify that The Lion of the Lord has failed to reach the flesh-and-blood Brigham Young, leaving us rather with a caricature of the man drawn from news accounts of the period; the founder of a new western empire is transformed into a paper lion….The Lion of the Lord provides precious little insight on the subject and leaves the reader to conclude that Professor Hirshson is inclined rather to perpetuate nineteenth-century myths than to search for an understanding<br><br>While space limitations preclude a full account of errors in historic fact, several should not go unmentioned….<br><br>Hirshson's indifference to accuracy is conspicuous….<br><br>The author's barely concealed antagonism to the Saints bleeds the cause of scholarship….
| |
| − | ::<br>— {{Dialogue|author=Donald R. Moorman|article=review of ''The Lion of the Lord''|vol=5|num=1|pages=98-100}} (non-LDS reviewer)</blockquote>
| |
| − | * This book even claims that Heber C. Kimball was illiterate—which he clearly was not, because we have many examples of his journals and letters. But, that's what you get when you trust anti-Mormon New York newspaper authors from the nineteenth century.
| |
| − | * There are [[Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/The_Lion_of_the_Lord|many other scathing reviews]] of the book, from LDS believers, cultural Mormons, and non-LDS scholars.
| |
| − | * The quote attributed to Kimball is nowhere found, for example, in Signature Books' ''New Mormon Studies'' CD-ROM (1998), in ''any'' source. It is probably a fabrication or distortion by an anonymous newspaper author.
| |
| − | * So, when we read such statements as these from MormonThink--don't we have to wonder if their version of polygamy and its history can be trusted at all?
| |
| − | |response=
| |
| − | |link=Criticism of Mormonism/Books/The Lion of the Lord/Use of sources/Heber C. Kimball says missionaries are "picking out the prettiest women"
| |
| − | |subject=Heber C. Kimball says missionaries are "picking out the prettiest women"?
| |
| − | |summary=Heber C. Kimball said, "Brethren, I want you to understand that it is not to be as it has been heretofore. The brother missionaries have been in the habit of picking out the prettiest women for themselves before they get here, and bringing on the ugly ones for us; hereafter you have to bring them all here before taking any of them, and let us all have a fair shake." However, critics don't mention that Heber also said, "I wish more of our young men would take to themselves wives of the daughters of Zion and not wait for us old men to take them all; go-ahead upon the right principle young gentlemen and God bless you forever and ever and make you fruitful, that we may fill the mountains and then the earth with righteous inhabitants."
| |
| − | | |
| − | }}
| |
| − | | |
| − | =={{Endnotes label}}==
| |
| − | #{{note|marriage.rates}} David R. Keller, "[http://www.fairblog.org/2008/04/27/where-the-lost-boys-go/ Where the Lost Boys Go]," FAIR Blog (last accessed 9 May 2008).
| |
| − | #{{note|fanny.1}} Mosiah F. Hancock, Autobiography, MS 570, LDS Church Archives, 61–62; Todd Compton, "Fanny Alger Smith Custer: Mormonism's First Plural Wife?" ''Journal of Mormon History'' 22/1 (Spring 1996): 189–90.
| |
| − | #{{note|fanny.2}} {{CriticalWork:Young:Wife No. 19|pages=66-67}}
| |
| − | #{{note|fanny.3}} Ann Eliza Webb to Mary Bond, letter (4 May 1876) in Myron H. Bond Collection, P21, f11, RLDS Library-Archives; cited in {{Book:Compton:In Sacred Loneliness|pages=645}}
| |
| − | #{{note|ryder.1}} There are two accounts by hostile sources, and neither blames Joseph's immoral actions for the attack: S.F. Whitney (brother of NK Whitney, a Reverend], in Arthur B. Demming (editor), ''Naked Truths About Mormonism'', 1 (January 1888): 3-4; Amos S. Haydon, ''Early History of the Disciples in the Western Reserve'' (1876); John M. Rigdon, “Lecture Written by John M. Rigdon on the Early History of the Mormon Church,” 9; transcript from New Mormon Studies CD-ROM, Smith Research Associates, 1998.
| |
| − | #{{note|compton1}} {{sacredloneliness1|start=261}}
| |
| − | #{{note|johnston1}} Emma Smith to Maria Jane Johnston, cited in Wendy C. Top "'A Deep Sorrow in Her Heart' – Emma Hale Smith," in ''Heroines of the Restoration'', edited by Barbara B. Smith and Blythe Darlyn Thatcher (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997), 17–34.; quoting Newell and Avery, ''Mormon Enigma'', 161.
| |
| − | #{{note|emma1}} Mary Audentia Smith Anderson (editor), "Memoirs of Joseph Smith III (1832–1914)," ''The Saints Herald'' (2 April 1935): 431–434.
| |
| − | #{{note|smith.1}} This information is available in the article cited by MormonThink above. {{FR-20-2-4}}
| |
| − | #{{note|byu.studies.pratt}} {{BYUS|author=Steven Pratt|article=[https://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=5172 Eleanor Mclean and the Murder of Parley P. Pratt]|vol=15|num=2|date=Winter 1975|pages=226}}
| |
