The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
User avatar
TrueIntent
captain of 100
Posts: 974

The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by TrueIntent »

In response to recent media inquiries, the following statement has been released by the LDS Church:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is concerned about the temporal and spiritual welfare of all of God's children across the earth, with special concern for those who are fleeing physical violence, war and religious persecution. The Church urges all people and governments to cooperate fully in seeking the best solutions to meet human needs and relieve suffering.

The Church released a statement today against Donald Trump's position on banning refugees from middle eastern countries. The church has been very outspoken on this issue, and yet silent on other issues like abortion. I have a theory....and it has to do with Polygamy. See the news articles below. Once syrian refugees began making their way into Turkey, they brought polygamy with them, and it is wreaking havoc for women in Turkey because those living on the border are now being threatened by their Turkish husbands that if they don't "cook, clean, or meet certain standards", their husbands will take a syrian refugee as a wife (because the refugees are willing and culturally accepting of the practice). There are multiple news articles about this new problem in Turkey.

h[url]ttp://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/faith/ld ... 76885.html[/url]
In Turkey, it’s illegal for a man to take on multiple wives, but activists say the influx of Syrian refugees is fueling a rise in the practice – and the government is turning a blind eye to the problem.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pol ... 80b52fae27

Then, on LDSliving, there is an article that compares the similarities between Joseph Smith and the Prophet Mohammed. It is to be noted, that in the Journal of Discourses, Apostles Parley P. Pratt and George A. Smith spoke more fondly of The Prophet Mohammed. And George Albert Smith had even traveled to Pakistan to study the culture.

Here is the article off LDS living...http://www.ldsliving.com/What-Prophets- ... ad/s/84360
As early as 1855, at a time when Christian literature generally ridiculed Muhammad as the Antichrist and the archenemy of Western civilization, Elders George A. Smith (1817–75) and Parley P. Pratt (1807–57) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles delivered lengthy sermons demonstrating an accurate and balanced understanding of Islamic history and speaking highly of Muhammad’s leadership. Elder Smith observed that Muhammad was “descended from Abraham and was no doubt raised up by God on purpose” to preach against idolatry. He sympathized with the plight of Muslims, who, like Latter-day Saints, found it difficult “to get an honest history” written about them. Speaking next, Elder Pratt went on to express his admiration for Muhammad’s teachings, asserting that “upon the whole, … [Muslims] have better morals and better institutions than many Christian nations.
Parley P. Pratt and George Albert Smith are quoted in the LDS living article as supporters of the Prophet Mohammad. They were also believers that the doctrine of Polygamy was required in Utah during this time period...most teachings centered around the doctrine of Plurality of wives and its necessity. George q Cannon has an incredibly disturbing speech in the journal of discourses on "Celestial Marriage." These are the ideas of the brethren at this time. Specifically in this speech, Cannon compares the plight of women over seas and how Mormon men should step up to the plate and take them as wives to rescue them from the plight of women (I'm paraphrasing, but its an interesting idea that is repeated as why mormons can do a better job that other religions at practicing plural marriage ).

Of course I could be paranoid.....I am an avid supporter of women in monogamous marriages. But is the church aware that polygamy could be an indirect result just as it is becoming in Turkey. :)

User avatar
Melissa
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1697

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by Melissa »

Didn't know about what was happening in turkey.
I have one two occasions seen the ONLY way polygamy would ever come back (including the belief some hold about 7 women to 1 man) is because of immigrants.

Sometimes I wonder if the men who look forward to polygamy are expecting their additional wives to be the young women of the church....what if they are immigrants from syria? Or libya? Would they still be looking forward to it? Not a racist comment but more of a culture/language/ideas/mentality/way of life difference.

Eitherway, when I picture this senario, it doesn't sit right.
I think that whatever we think may happen or could happen wont, instead we will be suprised at how things end up turning out.

I also don't expect polygamy to return to the Church in any accepted living arrangement.


The church is making statements about the refugee stuff because of religious freedom. They said they don't get involved in politics much but when it comes to religious freedom, they must speak out. If we don't stand for the Muslim religion, we can't expect others to stand for the mormon religion. Religious freedom will be on the chopping block very soon!

User avatar
TrueIntent
captain of 100
Posts: 974

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by TrueIntent »

Melissa, I am seeing a trend with the immigrant idea. There is also a greater number of LDS single women in ratio to men at this point as well. There was a news article from 2015 describing the mormon dilemma of women to men I believe.

Here is another article....Even though the article calls for the church to speak out about immigration, it uses its history of polygamy and oppression as reasoning. The article says...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act ... 350d392d78
While Mormon relations in the state worsened to the point of another expulsion within a decade, the LDS Church learned the lessons concerning caring for refugee bodies.City ordinances passed in the Mormon town of Nauvoo welcomed “Mohammedans,” the period’s shorthand for Muslims.Both religious groups were social outcasts outside the Protestant mainstream.
Once in Utah, persecuted converts from areas throughout the world hastened to “Zion” in hopes of experiencing religious liberty. The LDS Church has retained a rhetorical commitment to religious liberty ever since their earliest struggles.
Im calling bluff on this religious freedom claim....i have stories in my family history where men were called over to Europe to "serve missions" but brought back wives...my particular ancestor was unaware that he had three other wives waiting for him in Utah. Fannie Steinhouse, in her book "tell it all" described a similar practice of the men going over to foreign countries to find more wives. I think it's less about religious freedom...there is always an agenda. This same article was just published....once again, it makes a reference to Muhammad and compares mormons to muslims.

This article and the LDS living article and the church perfectly timed release of these stories. Its like when the media has an agenda and they purposely time release stories.

User avatar
TrueIntent
captain of 100
Posts: 974

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by TrueIntent »

Deseret News is owned by the church....again, another article comparing mormons to muslims.....WHY? Also, timing of the article is suspect. it was also released in the last couple days

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8656 ... n-ban.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Very early in his religious career Mormon founder Joseph Smith was derisively labeled an “American Mohomet” and Mormonism the “Islam of America.” Rather than distance himself from Muslims, Smith defended them. In 1841, the Nauvoo City Council drafted a provision on religious liberty which included “Mohammedans” among those granted “free toleration and equal privileges” in the Mormon city. By 1844, Smith further elaborated a philosophy of religious liberty. He advocated “the broad and liberal principle that all men have equal rights, and ought to be respected, and that every man has a privilege … of choosing for himself voluntarily his God, and what he pleases for his religion.”
What the hell???? Why all the comparisons of mormons to muslims and the prophet joseph smith. What is agenda up at church head quarters?

Ezra
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4357
Location: Not telling

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by Ezra »

I would imagine if the church did bring back polygamy there would be a lot of members leave the church.

paulrobots
captain of 100
Posts: 374

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by paulrobots »

The path for polygamy was cleared when gay marriage was legalized. How can the .gov say two men can get married but a man can't marry two women? They can't, that ship has sailed, it doesn't require immigrants unless for the purpose of general acceptance by the populous.

User avatar
TrueIntent
captain of 100
Posts: 974

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by TrueIntent »

Here is another article supporting parts of my view point. Here is a dessert news article discussing, "Mohammedans" and their roll in early Nauvoo. Remember Deseret News is owned by the church...this article explains that Mohammed had received a portion of God's light (which I don't totally dispute...but this is painting a picture....
Those notions had been put into practice earlier in LDS Nauvoo, Illinois, where a municipal statute mandated religious liberty, including provisions protecting then-unpopular Roman Catholics and “Mohammedans” (a common 19th-century American term for Muslims).

In the 20th century, the LDS First Presidency named Muhammad among various world religious leaders who had “received a portion of God’s light” and had been given “moral truths … to enlighten whole nations."
Okay...let's dissect this....Mohammed had been given a portion of god's light, and "moral truths...to enlighten all nations".....remember, during this period all doctrines centered around plural marriage. What moral truths came from mohammed?

Now....we need to also take a look at history at the turn of the century while some of the mormon leadership had still been practicing polygamy secretly....This brings me to this article on TEDDY ROOSEVELT and polygamy....

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263879/ ... greenfield
The anti-immigration bill offended the Ottoman Empire, the rotting Caliphate of Islam soon to be defeated at the hands of America and the West, by banning the entry of “all polygamists, or persons who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.”

This, as was pointed out at the time, would prohibit the entry of the “entire Mohammedan world” into the United States.

And indeed it would.

The battle had begun earlier when President Theodore Roosevelt had declared in his State of the Union address back in 1906 that Congress needed to have the power to “deal radically and efficiently with polygamy.” The Immigration Act of 1907, signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt, had banned “polygamists, or persons who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.”

User avatar
TrueIntent
captain of 100
Posts: 974

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by TrueIntent »

Ezra wrote:I would imagine if the church did bring back polygamy there would be a lot of members leave the church.
Members are already leaving in groves over just the essays. The ones that will be left are members who are the most open to contradictions in our teachings, and those who would be obedient. If the essays or other issues don't shake them after deep pondering then they would be the most likely to participate in a practice based on obedience.

I'LLMAKEYAFAMOUS
captain of 100
Posts: 800

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by I'LLMAKEYAFAMOUS »

Ezra wrote:I would imagine if the church did bring back polygamy there would be a lot of members leave the church.
You better believe it. I was speaking to family and we were discussing the theories of what manner of divisive event could cause a mass exodus or "sifting" from the church, and polygamy was the first item mentioned. I doubt it'll be the case, but that would be a massive shock to the members.
Also, just a theory, could it be the future persecution the church receives will stem from their joining ranks with persecuted Muslims against the majority of public opinion?
Last edited by I'LLMAKEYAFAMOUS on January 29th, 2017, 11:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by Fiannan »

Sometimes I wonder if the men who look forward to polygamy are expecting their additional wives to be the young women of the church....what if they are immigrants from syria? Or libya? Would they still be looking forward to it? Not a racist comment but more of a culture/language/ideas/mentality/way of life difference.
Why not? Syrian and Egyptian women are generally very intelligent and family oriented, plus they likely possess lineage from special bloodlines.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by Fiannan »

TrueIntent wrote:
Ezra wrote:I would imagine if the church did bring back polygamy there would be a lot of members leave the church.
Members are already leaving in groves over just the essays. The ones that will be left are members who are the most open to contradictions in our teachings, and those who would be obedient. If the essays or other issues don't shake them after deep pondering then they would be the most likely to participate in a practice based on obedience.
Because the Church neglected for several decades the foundational doctrines of polygamy and then suddenly throws it out there. Freud would liken it to the primal scene where a child suddenly realizes what mom and dad really do behind closed doors. This shakes the child and can have life-long repercussions depending on how things are explained to the child. Same with religion. Few people dig deep. Those who do can either become extremely devout, or total apostates. That is just the way it is.

By the way, working with young people in the Church I can tell you that most young women think Sister Wives is a cool show, and many young women a few years ago were fans of "Big Love." Maybe as young women become more libertarian in sexuality one offshoot of this will be acceptance of polygamy, but it will not be as conservative as most members thought of it in the 1800s.

User avatar
Melissa
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1697

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by Melissa »

TrueIntent wrote:Deseret News is owned by the church....again, another article comparing mormons to muslims.....WHY? Also, timing of the article is suspect. it was also released in the last couple days

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8656 ... n-ban.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Very early in his religious career Mormon founder Joseph Smith was derisively labeled an “American Mohomet” and Mormonism the “Islam of America.” Rather than distance himself from Muslims, Smith defended them. In 1841, the Nauvoo City Council drafted a provision on religious liberty which included “Mohammedans” among those granted “free toleration and equal privileges” in the Mormon city. By 1844, Smith further elaborated a philosophy of religious liberty. He advocated “the broad and liberal principle that all men have equal rights, and ought to be respected, and that every man has a privilege … of choosing for himself voluntarily his God, and what he pleases for his religion.”
What the hell???? Why all the comparisons of mormons to muslims and the prophet joseph smith. What is agenda up at church head quarters?
The church does make it known of their possitive relationship with muslims. They have been pointing it out that I have seen ever since the world meeting of religious leaders about the family.

We do have many beliefs that the Muslims have. There is similarities and I believe we could get along with true muslims.

I sure hope there isint a polygamy spin to this.

ebenezerarise
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1585

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by ebenezerarise »

Good grief.

EdGoble
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1077

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by EdGoble »

TrueIntent wrote:I think it's less about religious freedom...there is always an agenda. . . . Its like when the media has an agenda and they purposely time release stories.
It sounds like you are one of these people, not unlike others that find fault with the Lord's anointed, that are reading a lot into the actions of the Church (or others that are not all that connected to the hierarchy in the Church, that you are somehow conflating with the Church itself) that seems extremely unsubstantiated. There is no hidden desire among the hierarchy for a return to polygamy. We are a hundred years removed from it, and any desires in mens hearts in the hierarchy for it to return have long been weeded out. Those of the hierarchy are pragmatic about this. They have no desire to return to it per se, and no agenda as you are reading into it. They do what they are commanded, and the only way it is coming back is for a set of circumstances to present itself where the Lord would command it again, and that sort of revelation would require a pretty extreme circumstance, where the Lord would have some purpose for it.

The only indicators for what that circumstance is, in both the scriptures and in Church history, is the following. If it returns ant all, it would be as a result of an extreme lack of men to the point where women would have no choice if they want a companion at all. And this, as a result of the general wickedness of mankind, where this lack of men becomes a general scourge to humanity. IF that circumstance ever presents itself, perhaps it will be women that would be the ones calling for its return, just out of sheer pragmatism, who will adopt it out of pure necessity. It will have nothing to do with men having some sort of agenda. Nobody will be calling for it as part of some kind of desire for it just for the sake of having plural wives. It will all be about the continued survival of the human race. And who can argue that it would not indeed be the answer for such an extreme circumstance? It would have nothing to do with some men's unrighteous desire for more wives, or some agenda.

Helen Mar Kimball wrote:
My father was often called a prophet, and years ago in Nauvoo I heard him predict that it would yet become a law of this nation that men should marry a plurality of wives.

The Prophet Joseph was heard to say that in consequence of wars and disasters, men would become so scarce that when one was seen it would be said of him, “There goes a man.”

The following we read in Isaiah: “Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war. And her gates shall lament and mourn: and she being desolate, shall sit upon the ground. And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man saying: We will eat our own bread and wear our own apparel, only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.”

If “coming events cast their shadows before,” we certainly have no cause to doubt the speedy fulfillment of this prediction. The first great commandment given by the Creator has nearly become obsolete among professed Christians, who set themselves up as our judges, and assume to be followers of the meek and lowly Jesus, but instead, have departed from His precepts, choosing only such portions of the scriptures as happen to suit their own ideas, and ignoring the rest; while the Latter-day Saints, whom they call heretics, accept it entirely, and believe it to be their duty to obey every requirement of the gospel held forth by our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Instead of spiritualizing it, we believe it means exactly what it says in both the Old and the New Testaments. As other sects have already followed in the footsteps of the “Mormons” in certain of their doctrines, we need not be surprised to eventually hear of their advocating and legalizing polygamy. (https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/womans-vie ... -incidents" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by Sarah »

It will be women having compassion and love for other women that will allow this practice to happen again. I have spiritually seen this. Woman's test will be to not envy their husband's privileges, or the other women married to her husband. She will be rewarded and blessed (and not just with children) if she can do this. Men will all eventually have the same test. The genders are not going to be imbalanced forever.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by Fiannan »

What is worse, some women having the same husband or many of those same women never having the chance to marry and have kids?

User avatar
TrueIntent
captain of 100
Posts: 974

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by TrueIntent »

Fiannan wrote:
TrueIntent wrote:
Ezra wrote:I would imagine if the church did bring back polygamy there would be a lot of members leave the church.
Members are already leaving in groves over just the essays. The ones that will be left are members who are the most open to contradictions in our teachings, and those who would be obedient. If the essays or other issues don't shake them after deep pondering then they would be the most likely to participate in a practice based on obedience.
Because the Church neglected for several decades the foundational doctrines of polygamy and then suddenly throws it out there. Freud would liken it to the primal scene where a child suddenly realizes what mom and dad really do behind closed doors. This shakes the child and can have life-long repercussions depending on how things are explained to the child. Same with religion. Few people dig deep. Those who do can either become extremely devout, or total apostates. That is just the way it is.

By the way, working with young people in the Church I can tell you that most young women think Sister Wives is a cool show, and many young women a few years ago were fans of "Big Love." Maybe as young women become more libertarian in sexuality one offshoot of this will be acceptance of polygamy, but it will not be as conservative as most members thought of it in the 1800s.
I would have described myself as extremely devout. When I read the essays and found inconsistencies, I dug deeper and found more. Excellent points.

User avatar
TrueIntent
captain of 100
Posts: 974

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by TrueIntent »

Fiannan wrote:What is worse, some women having the same husband or many of those same women never having the chance to marry and have kids?
You know Fiannan,

I actually find it very degrading to attempt to share affections with another many. When I read the scripture in Isaiah,

1For seven women will take hold of one man in that day, saying, "We will eat our own bread and wear our own clothes, only let us be called by your name; take away our reproach!"

I read it very differently than the way polygamous minds might interpret it. I consider myself to possess dignity, and have basic moral values that I abide by...this is how I would explain this scripture in my words...."sperm-donor and turkey baster" If there ever was a shortage of men...I would never attempt to share another woman's husband (just because I may suffer doesn't mean others should on my account, however, would I deny myself from being a mother???? Absolutely not, I would eat my own bread, wear my own apparel, and become a mother and bear only a man's name to do such. I would never ask for another woman to share her husband on my account. There is always a man willing to give up seed, and it can be done in a way where a women doesn't have to emotionally sell her soul, or give up her chastity, or share another woman's husband. Motherhood is rewarding in and of itself. We don't always have to interpret scripture through the lens of polygamy. ;-) There are lots of other options.

User avatar
TrueIntent
captain of 100
Posts: 974

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by TrueIntent »

Sarah wrote:It will be women having compassion and love for other women that will allow this practice to happen again. I have spiritually seen this. Woman's test will be to not envy their husband's privileges, or the other women married to her husband. She will be rewarded and blessed (and not just with children) if she can do this. Men will all eventually have the same test. The genders are not going to be imbalanced forever.
Just to clarify, you have spiritually seen women practicing polygamy? What do you mean by this?

If marriage was like a friendship contract, I agree. But sex runs deeper...which is why we covenant to wait for a spouse and be married. Otherwise, what's the big whooptie-do? A man must leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife and non-else. Even experiencing the intensity of sex requires a deep emotional connection for women (but also, it can occur if she is loose or emotionally unavailable as a partner). The intensity of orgasm is often related to emotional connection for women.

Jewish marriage contracts in the old testament were a big deal. There was a dowery, and a woman's virginity had to be proven to after sexual intercourse took place by showing blood on a cloth after the husband and wife consummated the marriage. The man committed to meet certain obligations in order to even obtain his bride (which is why jacob worked for 7 years, and then another 7 years to obtain Rachel.) Polygamy is a cheap marriage contract. It's an exchange of food and shelter for a sexual relationship. Its not even possible to have an appropriate relationship emotionally with multiple spouses. It takes time to just develop it with just one spouse. Even the comparison of christ as the Groom and the church as the bride is meaningless, unless you understand the amount of effort placed on a marriage between husband and wife in jewish custom.

User avatar
TrueIntent
captain of 100
Posts: 974

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by TrueIntent »

EdGoble wrote:
TrueIntent wrote:I think it's less about religious freedom...there is always an agenda. . . . Its like when the media has an agenda and they purposely time release stories.
It sounds like you are one of these people, not unlike others that find fault with the Lord's anointed, that are reading a lot into the actions of the Church (or others that are not all that connected to the hierarchy in the Church, that you are somehow conflating with the Church itself) that seems extremely unsubstantiated. There is no hidden desire among the hierarchy for a return to polygamy. We are a hundred years removed from it, and any desires in mens hearts in the hierarchy for it to return have long been weeded out. Those of the hierarchy are pragmatic about this. They have no desire to return to it per se, and no agenda as you are reading into it. They do what they are commanded, and the only way it is coming back is for a set of circumstances to present itself where the Lord would command it again, and that sort of revelation would require a pretty extreme circumstance, where the Lord would have some purpose for it.

The only indicators for what that circumstance is, in both the scriptures and in Church history, is the following. If it returns ant all, it would be as a result of an extreme lack of men to the point where women would have no choice if they want a companion at all. And this, as a result of the general wickedness of mankind, where this lack of men becomes a general scourge to humanity. IF that circumstance ever presents itself, perhaps it will be women that would be the ones calling for its return, just out of sheer pragmatism, who will adopt it out of pure necessity. It will have nothing to do with men having some sort of agenda. Nobody will be calling for it as part of some kind of desire for it just for the sake of having plural wives. It will all be about the continued survival of the human race. And who can argue that it would not indeed be the answer for such an extreme circumstance? It would have nothing to do with some men's unrighteous desire for more wives, or some agenda.

Helen Mar Kimball wrote:
My father was often called a prophet, and years ago in Nauvoo I heard him predict that it would yet become a law of this nation that men should marry a plurality of wives.

The Prophet Joseph was heard to say that in consequence of wars and disasters, men would become so scarce that when one was seen it would be said of him, “There goes a man.”

The following we read in Isaiah: “Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war. And her gates shall lament and mourn: and she being desolate, shall sit upon the ground. And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man saying: We will eat our own bread and wear our own apparel, only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.”

If “coming events cast their shadows before,” we certainly have no cause to doubt the speedy fulfillment of this prediction. The first great commandment given by the Creator has nearly become obsolete among professed Christians, who set themselves up as our judges, and assume to be followers of the meek and lowly Jesus, but instead, have departed from His precepts, choosing only such portions of the scriptures as happen to suit their own ideas, and ignoring the rest; while the Latter-day Saints, whom they call heretics, accept it entirely, and believe it to be their duty to obey every requirement of the gospel held forth by our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Instead of spiritualizing it, we believe it means exactly what it says in both the Old and the New Testaments. As other sects have already followed in the footsteps of the “Mormons” in certain of their doctrines, we need not be surprised to eventually hear of their advocating and legalizing polygamy. (https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/womans-vie ... -incidents" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)
Ummm, there is a desire for it to return....you should have seen all the hooplah one of my family members went through just so that she could have an ex-wife removed from the sealing. The new husband and she were requesting not to be sealed to the x-wife, and the church not only would not honor the request (because of a denial of blessings, which completely contradicts scripture...no one can take anyones blessings from the x-wife...she killed her own blessings by what she did during the marriage). But it required multiple letters from family members on both sides, two bishops involved. They were even told by a bishop that if they could claim it was causing emotional distress, that the higher ups are more lenient with allow the sealing to be cancelled. I had to write a letter on their behalf as well....including 4 other family members. In the process the x-wife character assasinated the new couple and they were left trying to prove all kinds of nasty slanders against them. It was a guilty until proven innocent thing. At one point, whoever was handling the situation suggested that they turn over their medical records to prove their innocence against one of the accusations made by the x-wife. It was a personal example to me, of how leadership at the top (because it wasn't the local authorities) are crossing boundaries like never before. Basically, it was a big mess.....if we don't believe in the doctrine of polygamy, and we believe in agency...then why on earth are we giving people so much crap about having an ex spouse sealing cancellation, especially when it is at the request of both of the new spouses. Its a control thing. It's a constant reminder.

BTW, I took the time to research Parley P. Pratt and George Q. Cannon, and all other statements made about mohammed in the journal of discourses and their statements made connecting Joseph Smith to the prophet mohammed. The context of these documents in the journal of discourses always correlates to polygamy, OR being justified in taking up the sword for the cause of religious persecution. Brigham Young was also referred to as the Mohammet of the West in reference to the doctrine of celestial marriage. NOW....im just a stay at home mom who is good with a google search. Why on earth, would the church publish an article on LDS living, and in Deseret News quoting Pratt, and Cannon referring to Joseph smith as a Mohammet, when the context of all those speeches surrounding those quotes was in reference to polygamy or taking up the sword?????????? The church has committees of historians, and scriptorians who finds the quotes, but publishes them out of context. What's the agenda?

You can do your own search....just note that mohammed is spelled differently and in multiple ways back through these documents.

Also, this was taken from a news article from of those leaked videos of the church....
Their charge was "to prepare to take the [Mormon] gospel to Islamic world." Their short-term recommendations included translating LDS scriptures into Arabic and other languages spoken by Muslims and to "provide specialized training for mission presidents of approved missions."

Though proselytizing in Islamic countries is forbidden, the group estimated that some 20,000 former Muslims have joined the Utah-based faith, mostly in countries where religious freedom is guaranteed.

"I don't think [the converts] have a problem being assimilated," apostle M. Russell Ballard says in the video, except "maybe in Utah.
"

Ballard said that Muslims don't have a problem with being assimilated....why is that???? What weird cultural beliefs to we espouse that they are cool with? Also, the catholic church appears to be pushing the same refugee agenda...and recently the church has been doing a lot of teaming up with the catholic church, including donating millions to some of their charities (there was a news article about this). What's the agenda? because there is definitely an agenda? You don't go pulling quotes from the 1800's out of context of controversial material without having an agenda.

User avatar
Melissa
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1697

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by Melissa »

Fiannan wrote:What is worse, some women having the same husband or many of those same women never having the chance to marry and have kids?
Depends on the view you take. It's easy for you to think like this as a man but try to think of it as a woman (which is something you won't ever fully understand) and you will see why so may women are opposed to polygamy.

It's okay with me if some women don't have kids. It's already the case and no one flips their lid about it.

If it's all about a woman having kids then we should treat women differently who don't have any or can't have any.

In olden times a woman was nothing without having a child. We know better now that women are more than just procreation. A Woman is not an outcast if she's infertile. The church is constantly stating that you are a mother and can be mothering to others even if you don't have kids of your own.

It's also not your responsibility to make sure all women have the chance to procreate.

brianj
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4066
Location: Vineyard, Utah

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by brianj »

TrueIntent wrote:I read it very differently than the way polygamous minds might interpret it. I consider myself to possess dignity, and have basic moral values that I abide by...this is how I would explain this scripture in my words...."sperm-donor and turkey baster" If there ever was a shortage of men...I would never attempt to share another woman's husband (just because I may suffer doesn't mean others should on my account, however, would I deny myself from being a mother???? Absolutely not, I would eat my own bread, wear my own apparel, and become a mother and bear only a man's name to do such. I would never ask for another woman to share her husband on my account. There is always a man willing to give up seed, and it can be done in a way where a women doesn't have to emotionally sell her soul, or give up her chastity, or share another woman's husband. Motherhood is rewarding in and of itself. We don't always have to interpret scripture through the lens of polygamy. ;-) There are lots of other options.
These days we are in a social environment where an increasing number of women feel comfortable going to a sperm bank or getting some guy to knock her up and walk away. We also have a lot of devious women who will use a variety of tricks to get pregnant such as lying about taking birth control pills or poking holes in condoms. There was even a story a few years about where a woman... how to I put this without being censured? She emptied her mouth into a test tube, emptied the test tube somewhere else, and sued the guy for child support. Maybe this is what Isaiah was talking about, but I suspect not. Among other things, in the current social environment there is no shame in not having kids (see the footnote to reproach in Isaiah, not in 2 Nephi).

That being said, getting a man to give up his seed and walk away so motherhood can be rewarding all by itself contradicts church teachings. The church is pretty clear about teaching that children should be raised in two parent households whenever possible. The church discourages divorce and strongly discourages single women from having children outside marriage.

shellertx
Hi, I'm new.
Posts: 5

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by shellertx »

Here's a thought... Perhaps the world will shift and polygamy will be legalized, but the church will stand against it? I see this happening. Because the Lord has no need to "raise up seed unto me" as stated in Jacob 2:30. The Lord is very specific about when polygamy is allowable, and I don't see there ever being a time in the future when it will be needed.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by Fiannan »

Depends on the view you take. It's easy for you to think like this as a man but try to think of it as a woman (which is something you won't ever fully understand) and you will see why so may women are opposed to polygamy.
And yet many women would welcome polygamy. What about them? One can only have choice if there is at least the option given.
It's okay with me if some women don't have kids. It's already the case and no one flips their lid about it.
Wow, now that seems a bit on the insensitive side.
If it's all about a woman having kids then we should treat women differently who don't have any or can't have any.
Well, nature does. Women who do not have kids gain greater risk of dying from several types of cancer. Also, I personally believe that women with children should be held in the greatest of esteem, far more than our society does today. A woman living with her husband in a trailer with three kids is more important to a society in the biological and societal sense than some single woman who wins awards in Hollywood.
In olden times a woman was nothing without having a child. We know better now that women are more than just procreation. A Woman is not an outcast if she's infertile. The church is constantly stating that you are a mother and can be mothering to others even if you don't have kids of your own.

It's also not your responsibility to make sure all women have the chance to procreate.
People are important as individuals but in a biological sense, as a young woman I was in a discussion with the other day who is actually an atheist enthusiastically noted, the most important function of both a man and woman is reproduction. Think about it, if you were in a fallout shelter that only had supplies for 100 people until the radiation passed, and you had 200 people crammed in, and you are the only humans left on earth, of course you would prioritize the young and fertile first, and send the others out. That is merely how survival and biology work.

Of course in the world today many LDS women will never find a worthy husband. Some will get artificial insemination (apparently more are doing so) and others will remain barren. The latter could always lend a hand to the single women who did avail themselves to receiving sperm donations and help them with childrearing I suppose.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: The Church's Stance on Refugees and It's Connection to Polygamy

Post by Fiannan »

shellertx wrote:Here's a thought... Perhaps the world will shift and polygamy will be legalized, but the church will stand against it? I see this happening. Because the Lord has no need to "raise up seed unto me" as stated in Jacob 2:30. The Lord is very specific about when polygamy is allowable, and I don't see there ever being a time in the future when it will be needed.
Oh really, even the leaders of the Church, in private of course but those recordings got out, are terrified that the Church's future as an inter-generational institution is in jeopardy due to low marriage and birth rates among the members today.

Post Reply