I thought this was a good write up. The differences are huge, worlds and centuries apart. The comparisons are silly. THe LDS church has millions of members worldwide, and this handful of perverts in Texas is as different as day from night.
Wrong. What you and the other anti types that continually try to tie early LDS practices to the FLDS fail to grasp is the stark differences between the two. The FLDS don't practice orthodox Mormonism, their "fundamentalism" is pure evil and is far removed from the principles taught by the founders of the Mormon faith. I haven't posted in almost 2 weeks, but wanted to share this, because frankly, it's ridiculous in here as of late.
And I'm lumping you all in this response, since you all say the same thing.
I'm not about to have the same old drawn out discussion time and time again. You can play all you want, and continue to do so. I won't. Consider yourself king of the thread if you like, that's your choice.
And no, I'm not restornu, and look at my history before you make such accusations. I've posted or replied hundreds and thousands of times. Resty might take exception to your insult. ;-) (Hi resty, hope you are feeling better)
Thanks for the chuckle, you are not the first to accuse me of such. Anyway, back to the topic at hand. You might find this of interest, but I highly doubt it. Others will, no doubt.
I posted this a few weeks back, and do so here again for those who actually care to know the difference.
______________________________________________________________________________
The mere idea that Plural Marriage as practiced, by both ancient biblical prophets or JS or BY was for the intent to sexual gratification is completely preposterous.
What’s amazing is that I hear you guys slam Abraham, Jacob, ect. for being a adulterous cad instead of a chosen prophet of God. Incredible! Critics charge that Joseph Smith and successors pursued plural marriage from purely base motivations. Such a notion is usually accompanied by appeals to the claim that polygamy was unchristian, illegal, cultish and the subject of lies. This way, you can imply that Joseph and his successors’ conduct were questionable on moral grounds, and driven by sexual appetites.
Neutral observers have long understood that this attack is probably the weakest of them all. George Bernard Shaw, certainly no Mormon, declared:
"Now nothing can be more idle, nothing more frivolous, than to imagine that this polygamy had anything to do with personal licentiousness. If Joseph Smith had proposed to the Latter-day Saints that they should live licentious lives, they would have rushed on him and probably anticipated their pious neighbors who presently shot him."
Brigham Young matches the explanation proposed by Shaw. When instructed to practice plural marriage by Joseph, Brigham recalled that it “was the first time in my life that I had desired the grave.”
John Taylor had similar opinions:
I had always entertained strict ideas of virtue and I felt as a married man that this was to me...an appalling thing to do...Nothing but a knowledge of God, and the revelations of God...could have induced me to embrace such a principle as this...We [the Twelve] seemed to put off, as far as we could, what might be termed the evil day.
Joseph knew these men intimately. He would have known their sensibilities. If it was all about sex, why push his luck with them? Why up the ante and ask them to marry polygamously? It would have been easier for him to claim the “duty” singularly, as prophet, and not insist that they join him.
Furthermore, Joseph Smith would not permit other members’ sexual misconduct. For example, he refused to countenance John C. Bennett’s serial infidelities. If Joseph was looking for easy access to sex, Bennett—mayor of Nauvoo, First Councilor in the First Presidency, and military leader—would have been the perfect confederate. Yet, Joseph publicly denounced Bennett’s actions, and severed him from the First Presidency and the Church. Bennett became a vocal opponent and critic, and all this could have been avoided if Joseph was willing to have him as a “partner in crime.”
And you can’t argue that Joseph felt that only he was entitled to polygamous relationships, since he went to great efforts to teach the doctrine to Hyrum and the Twelve, who embraced it with much less zeal than Bennett would have. If this is all about sex, why did Joseph humiliate and alienate Bennett, who he should have known he could trust to support him and help hide polygamy from critics, while risking the support of the Twelve by insisting they participate?
There were certainly easier ways to satisfy one’s libido. Historian Van Wagoner warns:
Contrary to popular nineteenth-century notions about polygamy, the Mormon harem, dominated by lascivious males with hyperactive libidos, did not exist. The image of unlimited lust was largely the creation of travelers to Salt Lake City more interested in titillating audiences back home than in accurately portraying plural marriage. Newspaper representatives and public figures visited the city in droves seeking headlines for their eastern audiences. Mormon plural marriage, dedicated to propagating the species righteously and dispassionately, proved to be a rather drab lifestyle compared to the imaginative tales of polygamy, dripping with sensationalism, demanded by a scandal-hungry eastern media market.
Indeed, those who became Mormons were those who were least likely, culturally, to be thrilled at the prospect of polygamy:
Polygamy, when first announced to the Saints, was an offensive, disgusting doctrine, difficult to accept...The men and women who placed faith in the bona fides of the revelation were Victorian in their background and moral character. The hard test of accepting polygamy as a principle revealed and required by God selected out from the Church membership at large a basic corps of faithful members who, within the next few decades, were to be subjected to an Abraham-Isaac test administered by the federal government as God’s agent.
Perhaps the best argument against the “lascivious” charge is to look at the lives of the men and women who practiced it. Historian B. Carmon Hardy observed:
Joseph displayed an astonishingly principled commitment to the doctrine [of plural marriage]. He had to overcome opposition from his brother Hyrum and the reluctance of some of his disciples. Reflecting years later on the conflicts and dangers brought by plural marriage, some church leaders were struck with the courage Joseph displayed in persisting with it. And when one recalls a poignant encounter like that between [counselor in the First Presidency] William Law and Joseph in early 1844, it is difficult not to agree. Law, putting his arms around the prophet’s neck, tearfully pleaded that he throw the entire business of plurality over. Joseph, also crying, replied that he could not, that God had commanded it, and he had no choice but to obey.
One can read volumes of the early leaders’ public writings, extemporaneous sermons, and private journals. One can reflect on the hundreds or thousands of miles of travel on missionary journeys and Church business. If the writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon and many others cannot persuade someone that they were honest men (even if mistaken) then one should sincerely question whether such a person is capable of looking charitably upon any Mormon.
Paul Peterson’s comment about the diaries of Joseph Smith resonates well in this regard:
I had not fully grasped certain aspects of the Prophet’s psyche and personality. After just a few pages into Personal Writings, it became clear that Joseph possessed religious dimensions that I had not understood. For one thing, it was apparent I had underestimated the depth of his dependence upon Deity. The Joseph that emerges in Personal Writings is an intensely devout and God-fearing young man who at times seems almost helpless without divine support. And his sincerity about his prophetic calling is also apparent. If others were not persuaded of his claims, it could not be said that Joseph was unconvinced that God had both called and directed him. Detractors who claim that Joseph came to like the game of playing prophet would be discomfited if they read Personal Writings. Scholars may quibble with how true his theology is, but for anyone who reads Personal Writings, his earnestness and honesty are no longer debatable points.
One might reasonably hold the opinion that Joseph was wrong, but 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.
I hope this has opened eyes a bit more on the what’s and why’s.
Back to real life for me. Gnash your teeth all you want here, it makes no difference to me, I've spoken my peace.
