Friday, March 27, 2015

Excuse me Mitt do you believe Jesus Christ was a polygamist?

The reason that I ask is that it has recently come to my attention that some of the early leaders of your church apparently believed it and this appears to be what they taught their followers to believe. I don’t know whether or not this includes Joseph Smith the founder of your religion who did establish polygamy; but this apparently includes Brigham Young the second prophet of your religion.

(This was originally posted on Open Salon March 30, 2012)

The following excerpts from various historical sources indicates some of what they taught; the first is from one of Brigham’s wife’s the rest are from the Journal of Discourses which is a record of many of the sermons they preached in Utah.

Not content with bringing up "Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and David and Solomon," as their examples in the practice of polygamy, Brigham Young, in one of his sermons, delivered during the intensest heat of the excitement, declared that "Jesus Christ" was a practical polygamist; Mary and Martha, the sisters of Lazarus, were his plural wives, and Mary Magdalen was another. Also, the bridal feast at Cana of Galilee, where Jesus turned the water into wine, was on the occasion of one of his own marriages. Ann Eliza Young “Wife No. 19 (of Brigham Young): Or The Story of a Life in Bondage, Being a Complete Exposé of Mormonism” 1875 p.307

There is another class of individuals to whom I will briefly refer. Shall we call them Christians? They were Christians originally. We cannot be admitted into their social societies, into their places of gathering at certain times and on certain occasions, because they are afraid of polygamy. I will give you their title that you may all know whom I am talking about it—I refer to the Freemasons. They have refused our brethren membership in their lodge, because they were polygamists. Who was the founder of Freemasonry? They can go back as far as Solomon, and there they stop. There is the king who established this high and holy order. Now was he a polygamist, or was he not? If he did believe in monogamy he did not practice it a great deal, for he had seven hundred wives, and that is more than I have; and he had three hundred concubines, of which I have none that I know of. Yet the whole fraternity throughout Christendom will cry out against this order. “Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!” What is the matter? “I am in pain,” they all cry out, “I am suffering at witnessing the wickedness there is in our land. Here is one of the ‘relics of barbarism!’” Yes, one of the relics of Adam, of Enoch, of Noah, of Abraham, of Isaac, of Jacob, of Moses, David, Solomon, the Prophets, of Jesus, and his Apostles. And the other relic they have—you know whether they have used it up or not. Now what does our Bible tell us about this? Under this law of Carnal Commandments, the Lord told Moses to command the people to release their manservants and their maidservants, and forgive their debts once in seven years, and to let their land rest one year in seven; and when seven times seven years had passed over they were commanded to rest seven years, and to release all their manservants and maidservants. How will it be in eternity? We will wait till we get there, for there is no use in telling you; you would not know anything about it. I reckon there will be servants there, and I do not think they will be released once in seven years either; if they are, they will have to be brought right in again, for they will not know how to get their bread, and will have to be taken care of. Brigham Young “Journal of Discourses” v.11 p.327-8

Pass on still further in their history, and look at their course and conduct, if you will believe the writers that lived in that age. What does old Celsus say, who was a physician in the first century, whose medical works are esteemed very highly at the present time. His works on theology were burned with fire by the Catholics, they were so shocked at what they called their impiety. Celsus was a heathen philosopher; and what does he say upon the subject of Christ and his Apostles, and their belief? He says, “The grand reason why the Gentiles and philosophers of his school persecuted Jesus Christ, was, because he had so many wives; there were Elizabeth, and Mary, and a host of others that followed him.” After Jesus went from the stage of action, the Apostles followed the example of their master. For instance, John the beloved disciple, writes in his second Epistle, “Unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth.” Again, he says, “Having many things to write unto you (or communicate), I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full.” Again—“The children of thy elect sister greet thee.” This ancient philosopher says they were both John's wives. Paul says, “Mine answer to them that do examine me is this ...

Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas.” He, according to Celsus, had a numerous train of wives.
The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, causing his crucifixion, was evidently based upon polygamy, according to the testimony of the philosophers who rose in that age. A belief in the doctrine of a plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers. We might almost think they were “Mormons.” Jedediah M. Grant “Journal of Discourses” v.1 p.45-6

Gentlemen, that is as plain as the translators, or different councils over this Scripture, dare allow it to go to the world, but the thing is there; it is told; Jesus was the bridegroom at the marriage of Cana of Galilee, and he told them what to do.

Now there was actually a marriage; and if Jesus was not the bridegroom on that occasion, please tell who was. If any man can show this, and prove that it was not the Savior of the world, then I will acknowledge I am in error. We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into the relation whereby he could see his seed, before he was crucified. “Has he indeed passed by the nature of angels, and taken upon himself the seed of Abraham, to die without leaving a seed to bear his name on the earth?” No. But when the secret is fully out, the seed of the blessed shall be gathered in, in the last days; and he who has not the blood of Abraham flowing in his veins, who has not one particle of the Savior's in him, I am afraid is a stereotyped Gentile, who will be left out and not be gathered in the last days; for I tell you it is the chosen of God, the seed of the blessed, that shall be gathered. I do not despise to be called a son of Abraham, if he had a dozen wives; or to be called a brother, a son, a child of the Savior, if he had Mary, and Martha, and several others, as wives; and though he did cast seven devils out of one of them, it is all the same to me. Orson Hyde “Journal of Discourses” v.2 p.82

It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and on a careful reading of that transaction, it will be discovered that no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that occasion. If he was never married, his intimacy with Mary and Martha, and the other Mary also whom Jesus loved, must have been highly unbecoming and improper to say the best of it.

I will venture to say that if Jesus Christ were now to pass through the most pious countries in Christendom with a train of women, such as used to follow him, fondling about him, combing his hair, anointing him with precious ointment, washing his feet with tears, and wiping them with the hair of their heads and unmarried, or even married, he would be mobbed, tarred, and feathered, and rode, not on an ass, but on a rail. What did the old Prophet mean when he said (speaking of Christ), “He shall see his seed, prolong his days, &c.” Did Jesus consider it necessary to fulfil every righteous command or requirement of his Father? He most certainly did. This be witnessed by submitting to baptism under the hands of John. “Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness,” said he. Was it God's commandment to man, in the beginning, to multiply and replenish the earth? None can deny this, neither that it was a righteous command; for upon an obedience to this, depended the perpetuity of our race. Did Christ come to destroy the law or the Prophets, or to fulfil them? He came to fulfil. Did he multiply, and did he see his seed? Did he honor his Father's law by complying with it, or did he not? Others may do as they like, but I will not charge our Savior with neglect or transgression in this or any other duty. Orson Hyde “Journal of Discourses” v.4 p.259-60

Do you see how this could be a problem when running for president?

This is especially important when you consider your close ties to the Mormon church, including the fact that your fathers cousin Marion Romney was the first president of the church and the fact that you have been so loyal that you have donated millions of dollars in tithing money as a loyal Mormon.

If I was aware of this when I wrote about Mitt Romney’s Mormon Prophets I would have mentioned it then but it wasn’t until later that I found out about this. Apparently the Mass Media doesn’t mention this much at all nor does the Church or your campaign. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t an enormous amount of information out their about the subject. In fact, once I found out it only took a relatively quick search of the internet focusing mainly on the Journal of Discourses which is officially recognized as the teachings of Mormonism by the Mormon Church.

Now I suppose this wont make much of a difference to the Mormons many of whom already know about this and will certainly support you anyway. And it wont make much of a difference to the rich people that care only about the tax breaks that you’re promising; after all they know that you’re a rich person who has a history of looking out for other rich people who only care about profits. But this might make a significant difference to the vast majority of the public, including many of whom may not have heard about it yet.
If this is the first I have heard about it then it is almost certainly news to many other people. I suppose it might not be news to many of the most devout evangelicals; since they have been the ones that have been most critical of Mormonism for their own religious reasons. I suppose this might be part of the reason why they’ve been voting for Santorum or anyone but Mitt.

This isn’t all of it either Mitt.

There is much more where that came from; as you may know the Mormon religion has made a point of keeping some of the most extensive records of their activities in history. In fact, the biggest problem when it comes to sorting through Mormon beliefs isn’t a lack of documents, like many much older religions, it is information overload due to the enormous volume of records. However with time people can sort through them, or in most cases they already have. This raises many problems especially when it comes to beliefs that they once thought were divine but now believe are abominable.

These records also include an enormous amount of information on the methods used to indoctrinate people and intimidate those that don’t adopt the appropriate beliefs.

Mitt this isn’t going away.

Someone is going to have to address these issues before the election if you want to win.
Most of this isn’t based on any questions or claims from me; it is based on the teaching of your own church which has been well documented.

(For more information on Blog see Blog description and table of context for most older posts.)

The following are the original replies when this was first posted on Open Salon.

Interesting stuff. I think some Americans don't realize, however, that a Buddhist, a Muslim, an Atheist, etc. can legally be president of the US.

Sarah Cavanaugh March 30, 2012 12:05 PM

If it doesn't affect their job then it shouldn't matter; many Mormons aren't too devout, in fact they're often the biggest critics of the Mormon religion, but due to the nature of the religion those that are devout almost certainly will allow their religion to impact their job.

zacherydtaylor March 30, 2012 12:26 PM

I certainly wouldn’t hold polygamy against the Mormon Church Zachery. Some men aren’t cut out to be with just one woman especially men who have cultic personality's. Joseph Smith, Bingham Young, and Mohammed weren’t turning nothing down. Why should they? That kind of morality is just restraints imposed by men who are compensating for their own inadequate virility by making it a moral virtue? Jesus had Mary Magdalene, Mary of Clopas, and Lazarus for a change of pace! It was psychos like Origen, who bragged about having himself eviscerated, and Tertullian who tried to castrate Jesus that made sex dirty and therefore woman dirty too.

Jack Heart March 30, 2012 03:43 PM

Jack, I'm not too worried about it; in fact I've been told by some people that in the after life it will be the other way around. If so, and if Brigham is lucky enough to be one of Ann Eliza's husbands then she can intimidate him and use him f0r what ever purposes she chooses.

zacherydtaylor March 31, 2012 09:27 AM

[r] Zachd, in consumer, sound byte personality over character America, what difference does it make the real measure of a candidate? Overlord puppets all if they are part of the legacy parties. Thanks once again for doing some serious and enlightening vetting!!!! best, libby

libbyliberalnyc April 01, 2012 12:35 AM

"In fact, once I found out it only took a relatively quick search of the internet focusing mainly on the Journal of Discourses which is officially recognized as the teachings of Mormonism by the Mormon Church."

Not really. We regard the Journal of Discourses as a (generally) accurate portrayal of what past leaders have said, but it is certainly not considered scripture. Instead, its just the opinions and beliefs of past leaders of the church. It is certainly true that Pres. Young and Parley P. Pratt (among others) believed Christ was married (and I think both considered Christ a polygamist) but it is not official doctrine, and I would bet most members don't know that such a thing was ever taught by past leaders.

Vslyke May 13, 2012 09:06 PM

Vslyke, that is certainly fine to a point and many of the other beliefs that I have seen have been rejected by many other Mormons; however there are other potential problems. One of them is that Mormons and other religions are still taught to believe their leaders without adequate scrutiny and the fact that many Mormons don’t know about the changes of their beliefs that were once considered divine might also raise some questions. If Mormons aren’t familiar with the changes in their own religion then there should be some doubt as to whether or not some of them have adequate knowledge to continue sorting through he beliefs of their current religion as taught by their leaders.

One of the things that has been helpful about the Mormon religion is the fact that they decided to keep such extensive records but in order for people to benefit from them they have to review at least a portion of them. The records are so extensive that no one person could possibly keep track of them all. Thanks.

zacherydtaylor May 14, 2012 09:34 AM

No comments:

Post a Comment