Maybe Xenu can help...
Posted on 03/27/2013 4:42:02 PM PDT by Colofornian
I have this book by B. Carmon Hardy. I've looked at Hardy's appendix: He lists 220 Mormon men who took
Note: These 220 men took about 275 additional plural wives during that 20-year period. (Almost half of these men already had -- at my count -- about 112 plural wives between them before the manifesto...so the overall average was almost three wives per man).
About HALF of the 220 men Hardy lists in his appendix -- 109 to be exact -- were monogamists when the 1890 "Manifesto" was passed. IoW, they weren't used to a "polygamous lifestyle" -- and had NO reason to take on a second, third, fourth, fifth wives -- with the "manifesto" in place.
The 220 men who took on 275 ADDITIONAL wives broke down, year-wise, as:
1910: 5
1909: 10
1908: 3
1907: 6
1906: 4
1905: 4
1904: 20
1903: 39 [this was the year Lds "prophet" Joseph F. Smith had to "lay down" Manifesto II to tell the Mormons to "stop" polygamy]
1902: 28
1901: 33
1900: 21
1899: 9
1898: 20
1897: 15
1896: 4
1895: 5
1894: 12
1893: 3
1892: 6
1891: 3
1890 between Oct. 10-->Dec: 8
TOTAL: 275 women initiated among 220 men
And precisely because over 100 additional unions were done in the 20th century, some of these plural unions did not die out until the late 1950s, with two possible families, the early 1960s.
From the BYU review article: Hardy clearly agrees with Apostle Marriner W. Merrill's 1891 view: "'I do Not believe the Manifesto was a revelation from God but was formulated by Prest. Woodruff and endorsed by His Councilors and the Twelve Apostles for expediency to meet the present situation of affairs in the Nation or those against the Church.'" (150).
(Well, ya know what this means...it means that IF D&C 132 is "correct" -- in a "revelation" that opened the door for Mormon polygamy...then there's BEEN NO "revelation" to really "shut it." It's just all for socio-political expediency...says both an Lds past "apostle"...and, in effect, this BYU source!!!
And, what this also means is that the fLDS are the "only" true keepers of Joseph Smith polygamous orthodoxy! (And here we thought the Mormon fundamentalists were the "offshoot"!!!)
Some readers may find the implications of its [chapter] title—"Lying for the Lord"—as difficult to accept as Mormon responsibility for the Mountain Meadows massacre, but the phrase seems justified. Hardy demonstrates with numerous examples how the hierarchy rationalized its use of questionable measures to preserve the principle and to protect those striving to keep it alive. Each successive crisis after the Edmunds Act of 1882 naturally led to greater dissimulation. Some Church leaders recognized the trend and expressed their fear, in the words of Charles W. Penrose, that it might make the "'rising generation a race of deceivers'" (368). Hardy concludes that "the decision to project only the appearance of compromise" brought all kinds of agony upon the church, including the persistence of Mormon fundamentalism (376).
Hardy's right. Lds "apostle" Charles W. Penrose was right. The BYU reviewer is right...it, in fact, did present a generational legacy of Mormons raised as "deceivers!"
Obsession, possibly to the extent of mental illness.
Have you considered seeking professional help?
I frankly appreciate Colofornian’s posts. I am keenly interested in the LDS and the info (he?) posts is quite informative both for what he posts and for how other people react to it.
Have you ever considered that you are on the Religion Forum, and this is a discussion about momronism.
Have you ever considered that you never seem to contribute to the conversation but apparently obsess on attacking the poster of the thread.
Have considered the possible insanity of this apparent repeated action?
He likes his Mormonism. However, what he posts seems to be true. Mormon history seems quite at variance with what the church projects today. I have not seen his postings refuted.
Maybe Xenu can help...
Per media reports, up to 25,000+ now...
(And people do need to understand that since I am a descendant from a Mormon polygamist, obviously I might not be in existence were it not for his polygamy...so this is not a simple "stream-lined" exercise of critiquing the "ism" of Mormonism...yet Truthseeker can only condemn the people who descend from Mormon polygamy -- like me -- yet somehow can't bring himself to critique the idea of polygamy itself)
Thanks for the reminder. (Yes, I did here about porn-industry Marriott doing this...they are also on Life Decision Intl's boycott list for giving $ to Planned Parenthood)
Based on what SLC lds has been saying and who they are supporting and the money being pumped into the defeat DOMA, I am guess there is a move to then next argue for polygamy.
Really once the courts redefine what “marriage” is, they can’t exclude anything thing.
An obsession for the truth is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact we perhaps could use a little more of it in a variety of areas...
Well, think about it...This article says that almost HALF of the Lds leaders in the late 19th century were polygamists.
About half of the post-Manifesto Lds "add-another-wife-to-the-club" gang were monogamists PRE-Manifesto!
(It almost seems its illusiveness incites Mormon monogamists to want to venture into illicit/illegal territory!)
For those who think Mormon polygamy was all so "19th century," here was a survey cited by author B. Carmon Hardy -- taken among Mormons taken in 1963:
"Another survey taken in the 1960s found that not only do contemporary church members overwhelmingly disapprove of polygamy but only two in five said they would enter the principle if commanded by the prophets." [B. Carmon Hardy, Solemn Covenant, University of Illinois Press, p. 339, citing survey published in 1963 by John R. Christiansen, "Contemporary Mormons' Attitudes Toward Polygamous Practices," Journal of Marriage and Family 25 (May 1963): pp. 167-170)].
Now I don't know about you -- but 40% who said "they would enter the principle if commanded by the prophets" in 1963 is pretty high!
The pro-polygamists between circa 1900 and 1963 eroded only 10% -- or less!
It's probably eroded now to less than one-third of Mormons...But if the next Mormon "prophet" told them to adhere to "the principle," how many Mormon men...with harems on their minds in an era like today...would leap at the chance?
Really once the courts redefine what “marriage” is, they can’t exclude anything thing.
Exactly. If everything is marriage, then nothing is.
If the standards are redrawn, there IS no place to arbitrarily "re-draw" them...a single partner is no basis for a boundary then...And relational ties (like siblings, or parent-child) become arbitrary, too.
The LONE standard remaining would be age -- which can be circumvented to some degree via "parental consent."
Abraham and Jacob (probably also Isaac) were polygamists .... Christ had the blood of David and Soloman in his veins, both polygamists...
It seems to me that your problem isn’t with LDS Mormons .... But with the foundation of pre-Christianity.
Since Christianity, LDS or not has been tainted with polygamy ..... why don’t you start a new religion ..... you could call it someting like ....
“The Chruch of Anti-Mormons who reject Christs Polygamist Ancestors”
Isaac wasn't. Nothing in the Bible. Totally made up by Joseph Smith, who wrote D&C 132 to convince his first wife, Emma, to go along with him sleeping around.
Jacob became a polygamist ONLY BY DECEPTION from his father-in-law, Laban.
(And here you want to institutionalize a system instigated in the Jacobian household by sheer deception?)
We have no proof Abraham "married" Hagar, 'cause his wife Sarai is the ONLY one who ever referenced Hagar as his "wife" -- and she did that prior to Hagar sleeping with Abraham...by Genesis 21, Sarah is labeling Habar "that slave woman" (not "wife" -- not even "concubine.")
In Genesis 16, AFTER Abraham slept with Hagar (once, for all we know), HE still is referencing Hagar as his wife's slave/servant. And so does the Angel of the Lord in that chapter!
The apostle Paul likewise DOESN'T reference Hagar as his "wife" in a lengthy passage in Gal 4:21-31.
And we know Abraham took Keturah as a "wife" in Gen. 25:1 post Sarah's death...tho it is possible that Keturah may have been a "concubine" while Sarah was still alive.
Is that really your argument Teppe?
Really?
So what? Christ had the blood of a prostitute--Rahab -- in his veins as well? (Or did you conveniently forget to absorb that factoid into your argument?)
Are you going to try to now tell us that prostitution is some kind of "righteous" cottage industry because of Rahab???
We know that Hosea married a prostitute at God's bidding -- Gomer -- who remained a prostitute post-ceremony. Are you going to tell us that because God wanted to provide a parallel situation to a faithless Israel that the "cottage industry" of prostitution has been established by these precedents???
One of the more ridiculous arguments we've heard from your keyboard, Teppe...perhaps you should better realize how Mormon polygamy has corrupted your family morals -- e'en this many generations later!
Wrong.
It has been explained to you dozens of times, is it an apparent obsession that you continually bring the same thing up over and over again.....there are those who patiently tell you the truth....the question is why you are apparently unwilling to except it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.