One of the things I love about blogging is that it helps me learn, and better articulate my positions. I’m not sure why polygamy is such a hot topic lately, but it is. I enjoyed Kristine A’s post at Wheat and Tares this week: Joseph Smith’s Multiple Wives and Why I Care A Lot. It reminded me of one of my old posts, My Perspective on Polygamy. I’ve learned a lot about polygamy in the 6 years since I wrote that post, and I’m still learning things. (Back then I sounded much like Kristine does today.) I’m beginning to question whether the revelation in D&C 132 is a true revelation.
Don’t get me wrong, I love the New and Everlasting Covenant of marriage that is embedded in 132, but (1) there are some parts that most Mormons plainly ignore, (2) there are some things that Joseph Smith did that I think conflict with D&C 132, (3) there is a condemnation of Emma that I find to be highly manipulative, and (4) parts conflicts with established scripture. This really causes me to question whether 132 comes from God. Many of the points below were made in the discussion on Kristine’s post, but I want to add a few things as well. Maybe I’ll go in reverse order.
(4) D&C conflicts with the Book of Mormon
This was an interesting point that I hadn’t considered until Ken brought it up.
Jacob 2:24 “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.”
But D&C 132:38,
“David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.
39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife;”
Why does D&C 132 conflict with Jacob 2? One of them must be wrong or uninspired, or God is the author of confusion.
Furthermore, God seemingly justifies these marriages to non-Jewish wives. Clearly D&C 132 says that the New and Everlasting covenant must be between believers, yet David and Solomon married non-Jewish wives who worshiped idols. These marriages were a means of consolidating the kingdom of Israel, and such marriages between kings an conquered peoples were common for political reasons. Clearly the theology of 132 does not permit any modern Mormon to marry a Hindu, Catholic, or Buddhist, but it is highly probable that David and Solomon married Hindus, Buddhists, Baal-worshipers, Asherah-worshipers and many other polytheistic brides, to say nothing of concubines. Certainly prophets like Jeremiah condemned marriages to idol worshipers, and it would have been better for Israel if David and Solomon had set a better example with regards to marriage to idol-worshiping women.
I do not deny that concubines (or polygamy) are in the Bible, but I do question whether God had a role in any of that. David and Solomon had concubines (women sex slaves as trophies of war). D&C 132 says God ordains this. ISIS does it and justifies this as God’s will and we find this despicable. God allows despicable things like genocide, rape, and polygamy in the Bible, and we even have regulations on these issues. However, I think polygamy slavery, and rape were despicable in David and Solomon’s day, and I find the justifications in 132 to be highly questionable as coming from God. At least today we don’t try to justify slavery and polygamy as God-inspired today, but some of us try to rationalize it. I won’t rationalize it any more. It IS wrong, and it WAS wrong, or God is not the same, yesterday, today, and forever, and is changeable. I believe all changes should be blamed on man and his poor understanding of God, rather than on God. I also believe man has a tendency to blame God for poor behavior (like genocide, concubines, polygamy, etc.) I think Blaming these issues on God is taking God’s name in vain.
(3) there is a condemnation of Emma that I find to be highly manipulative and (1) there are some parts that most Mormons plainly ignore
It’s really hard not to separate these issues. I am greatly bothered by verses 52 and 54 of D&C 132, and clearly modern Mormons ignore these scriptures.
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.
54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.
It seems that it wasn’t Emma that was destroyed, it was Joseph. God’s admonition is exactly backwards. I think the Lord did destroy Joseph in Carthage, and his death is recorded in section 135.
(2) there are some things that Joseph Smith did that I think conflict with the revelation in 132
D&C 132 talks of marrying virgins. Verse 61:
if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
Brian Hales, a member of the Mormon Tabernacle choir, wrote a 3 volume set (vol 1, vol 2, vol 3) on Joseph Smith’s polygamy that is probably the modern-day standard on polygamy. In a recent talk to FAIR (Foundation of Apologetic Information and Research, a pro-Mormon group) Hales discusses an interesting story in which Joseph was sealed to a women still married to another man, and may have had a child with her. I encourage everyone to go read Brian Hales response about sexual relations between Joseph and women married to other men. Hales makes a very legalistic case that this was not adultery, but rather consecutive marriages. In short
1. Sylvia Sessions married Windsor Lyon on April 21, 1838 in a legal ceremony performed by Joseph Smith.
2. Sylvia conceives three children with Windsor.
3. Windsor was excommunicated in November of 1842.
4. Due to the excommunication, Windsor and Sylvia were separated. So they are legally married but they separate.
5. Then Joseph is sealed to Sylvia after the excommunication of Windsor.
6. Josephine, a daughter was born to Sylvia, and her mother said “that Josephine was actually Joseph Smith’s daughter.” Hales goes on to say “This daughter, I believe, is Joseph Smith’s actual daughter.” Furthermore, “there’s a whole Fisher family in Bountiful that descend from this marriage. I have been in contact with some of the descendants, and they are starting to say maybe we need to make a claim that we’re actually coming from Joseph and not from Windsor Lyon.”
7. Joseph Smith is killed in June 1844. Windsor is rebaptized and then Sylvia and Windsor come back together and the legal marriage is still intact, since it was never legally dissolved in the first place.
Here’s how Hales responds to these facts “Now, is this weird? Yeah, this is weird. Is it sexual polyandry? Is it immoral? Is it breaking the law of chastity that Joseph taught? No it isn’t.”
Hales’ website indicates that DNA testing has been done on descendants of Josephine Lyons but due to other family relations with the Smith family the results are inconclusive.
My question to you all. Since Sylvia was still legally married to Windsor but sealed to Joseph when she conceives Josephine, and then picks up her marriage with Windsor as if nothing has happened following the separation, (1) is this adultery, and (2) is this keeping the spirit of D&C 132:61?
Hopefully you’ve answered the poll questions before reading further, so I won’t influence you. If not, please answer before continuing to read my opinion.
Having told the story, Sylvia, as mother of 3 children with Windsor, can in no way be considered a virgin as specified in D&C 132:61. David at least knew he shouldn’t be marrying another man’s wife, so he hatched a plan to get Uriah killed. David knew this was against scripture, and didn’t need 132 to know that was wrong. I have a problem with this story, and I think this violates the spirit of D&C 132:61.
Regarding D&C 132, I read an interesting theory by Denver Snuffer that I blogged about back in October 2013. In brief, Snuffer believes that Brigham Young conflated plural marriage with the New and Everlasting Covenant. From page 80, Snuffer says
Plural marriage is one subject, the sealing power is another. Both topics are covered in section 132. But they remain two, distinct topics.
He believes D&C 132 is really 4 revelations, received at various times (as early as 1829), and written down in 1843 as a single revelation.
Section 132 is not a single revelation, but instead contains several revelations received at different times separated by years between them. Since none of them had previously been reduced to writing, when it was finally written in July 1843, all of them are set out as a single narrative. The first revelation included only the announcement of the possibility of an eternal marriage covenant, and an answer to the inquire about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, and Solomon’s multiple wives. A subsequent revelation (vs. 45-50) approves Joseph’s “sacrifices,” [verse 50] confirms his “exaltation,” [verse 49], and confers the power to “seal on earth…and in the heavens.[verse 46]” …
This means Joseph received the revelation on eternal marriage, (verses 1-33) and plurality of wives (34-40 or 44) first. Then later Joseph was told by an angel “with a drawn sword” that he was commanded to practice this form of marriage. The time, place and language of that second revelation concerning plural wives was not recorded. Only after living it did he obtain the keys to be able to perform such marriages, marking the third revelation set out in verses 45-50.
Snuffer seems to get sidetracked here, not directly referencing the 4th revelation in D&C 132, but verses 51-57 seem to be a 4th revelation, directed squarely at Emma telling her to “receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph” and “forgive my servant Joseph his trespasses” or “she shall be bdestroyed, saith the Lord.” On page 157, Snuffer immediately tells about Emma’s reaction to this 4th revelation by quoting William Clayton journal entry for July 12, 1843.
she did not believe a word of it and appeared very rebellious. J[oseph] told me to Deed all unencumbered lots [Joseph’s remaining building lots in Nauvoo] to E[mma] & the children. He appears much troubled about E[mma].
Snuffer goes on to explain that Emma wanted the lots
“to prevent other women from claiming they could share in the property.”
The following day Joseph and Emma reached a division of property between them.”
Snuffer goes on to say that plural wives were only supposed to be for Joseph, but he did test some of the other church leader’s loyalty by an Abrahamic test. For example, Joseph asked for Heber C. Kimball’s wife. After 3 days of anguished prayer, Kimball finally agreed to give Joseph Heber’s wife. Passing this Abrahamic test, Joseph then sealed Heber and Vilate together. Snuffer says that plural wives were supposed to be reserved only for a small group of people, stating on page 160,
With the public unveiling of plural wives, it became the teaching of the church that plural wives and exaltation were synonymous:
Snuffer believes that eternal marriage and plural wives are not synonymous and that “proof of that cannot be established through Joseph’s actions.”
I’m sure that some of you take issue with what I’ve said, but Joseph’s actions are problematic. I’ve offered a dare to several people to tell me that they have testimony of the following issues.
1. Joseph was sealed to non-virgin women already married to other men. Please bear testimony of Joseph being sealed to other men’s wives.
2. David and Solomon had concubines (women sex slaves as trophies of war). D&C 132 says God ordains this. ISIS does it and justifies this as God’s will and we find this despicable. Please bear testimony of concubines, especially as this relates to non-Jewish wives and concubines being sealed to David and Solomon.
3. Joseph was sealed to teens Fanny Alger and Mary Rollins Lightner. Please bear testimony of teen brides and Joseph Smith.
4. D&C 132:51-57 condemns Emma for her resistance to polygamy. Please bear testimony of this condemnation.
I note that nobody so far has a testimony of these 4 issues.
Could these issues be grounds for decanonizing 132 since it conflicts with several previously revealed scriptures?
If you read D&C 132:41-42 carefully, you see that Joseph has carved out exceptions that permit polyandry and the type of polyandry that he practiced. He was way too smart to dictate a revelation that condemns his actions and way too smart to draw attention to his actions by making that loophole too visible. Joseph could have had a nice legal career.
Sadly the church recently decided to double down on the Law of Sarah and close the door for the time being on considering whether Joseph’s polygamy was a mistake in any way. In fact, the full-throated backing of polygamy and polyandry is the saddest thing in all the essays. I am surprised they didn’t at least leave the door open a bit. That means it will be another 2 generations at least before it will be revisited seriously.
I have always been a bit confused about why people get so much more worked up about the polyandry issue. Is polygamy not adultry either way? Are we only outraged when it is a man who is having to share their spouse?
Also…what kind of sick mind game was he playing with the poor Kimballs? Can you imagine trying to move forward in a marriage after your husband had agreed to give you as wife to his friend?
The whole mess is so archaic, misogynistic, and disgusting.
Nona, it gets worse. After the whole thing with asking Heber C Kimball for his wife, he ends up marrying their 14 year old daughter. She only goes through with it because she’s told it will lead to her entire family’s salvation. This is the plural wife that the church essay describes with the weasel words “several month before her 15th birthday.” And she wasn’t even the only 14 year old.
The whole thing is a disgusting mess. I’m glad that men are finally getting a taste of the revulsion women have felt with the new admissions of polyandry.
MH,
You are going into some heavy speculation that goes beyond the established facts. Joseph’s polyandrous sealings are well known, but whether these relationships were consummated is in serious doubt. I believe that the genetic info about Josephine Lyon, while being inconclusive at present, points to the likelihood that she is not Joseph’s daughter. All other alleged children of Joseph’s have been genetically proven to not be his.
Your definition of concubines, is not explicitly endorsed as God’s will. There are other definitions besides war brides, like a wife from a lower caste or lower class family.
As for child brides, like Helen Mar, see above. We cannot prove the extent of these relationships, other than that they were sealed.
I have been blessed with a profound testimony of Joseph and the restoration; I’m also a descendant of polygamy. So questions like these have caused me considerable dissonance over the years. Eventually I posed this question to God; If Joseph’s polygamy was of you (God) what was its purpose? My understanding grew over years of pondering and personal revelation; it was commanded in an attempt to refine out our jealously, possessiveness and selfishness making us more selfless and therefore more Christ like.
Monogamous marriage by its very design attempts to avoid triggering our jealously and possessiveness by promising (or pretending to promise) exclusive fidelity. But polygamy does the opposite, by sharing your spouse jealously and possessiveness ARE triggered giving the participants an opportunity to grow and while it would probably take several generations under a benevolent theocracy to achieve that refinement in a meaningful way for most participants one thing is obvious you cannot remain jealous and possessive and successfully live polygamy in peace.
In monogamous marriage sex with another is called “cheating” and the spouse who was “cheated on” is entitled to catastrophize their victimization while those around them are expected to comfort them which also enables their victim-hood so little or no growth takes place with regard to jealously and possessiveness, rather their jealously and possessiveness is socially accepted and reinforced. As a result we tend to believe that to be jealous and possessive is just to be human and while this would be statistically accurate (normal due to our immature state) it certainly isn’t Christ like. In addition there are humans who have successfully transcended jealously and possessiveness demonstrating that it is both possible and desirable. So why wouldn’t God have commanded it?
It is from this entrenched jealous and possessive position that we dare to imply that Joseph was a fallen prophet, that he fell due to lust and that God wouldn’t have commanded polygamy. This is an arrogant position based on the acceptance of immature humanness as God’s ideal standard for us.
Other men’s wives? Why would God have commanded that? Well in general polygamy appeals more to men than it does to woman so it was easier to start by giving men more than one wife but that left the men unchallenged with regard to their own jealously and possessiveness so polyandry was necessary to pose that challenge to the men.
el oso,
Why would Sylvia Sessions tell Josephine that Joseph was her father when it was Windsor, in light of the fact that Windsor was separated? While yes we don’t have definitive proof that Joseph is Josephine’s father, why would you implicate that Sylvia is lying?
Regardless of whether there were sexual relations, why would Joseph be sealed to someone who was not a virgin and was legally married to another man?
I certainly believe Helen Mar was a virgin, so she passes that test, but it seems like a major abuse of Joseph’s position. Joseph was in his 30s when this supposed sealing occurred. Besides, we have plenty of innuendo that his relationship with 16 year old Fanny Alger was sexual. It just doesn’t smell right to me, and looks to be an abuse of Joseph’s position. I can’t endorse either of these relationships, to say nothing of the others.
I allow other definitions of concubines. I suppose that Hagar was a concubine, as well as the servants of Rachel and Leah. But D&C 132 doesn’t talk of these, it talks about David and Solomon’s concubines, who I think were more akin to political marriages and sex slaves than Hagar, and the servants of Rachel/Leah. In America, we don’t have a caste system. But I find even defining concubines as “servant wives” or “lower caste” to be a degrading and ungodly practice. Are you defending concubines as godly? Do you look forward to marrying concubines from a lower caste as a godly practice?
Howard, you are immoral, and to justify this as godly is immoral.
What is moral MH? Was Laben’s death moral?
First in my book is that teen brides were pretty common then and I’ve seen average actual marriage age move back and forth but in the last 100 years, nationwide, it dipped into the 16-17 y olds and stayed there for a while. With permission, a 16 year old can still get married in the temple. Although slow to change marriage ages, many states changed the acceptable age from 11-14 to 16. 15 with parents permission.
Next on my list is the D&C Teachers manualfor Gospel Doctrine, where the lesson on 132 makes it clear that the New and Everlasting covenant of marriage is not connected to the rest of the section. I can’t help it if many old timers continue to miss the separation of revelations and possible non revelations in that section.
Last, there has always been discussion and near agreement that the Emma Smith part was not ever meant to be a part of 132. Again, people who are interested in studying this out, have known that for some time. I’m in my early 50’s and remember discussions while in my 20’s.
“I think the Lord did destroy Joseph in Carthage, and his death is recorded in section 135.” I wonder why God would destroy Joseph and Hyrum but allow BY and many other polygamists to live long and full lives? I thought God was no respecter of persons?
(4) I don’t quite read those scriptures so narrowly. Plus, if you rule out plural marriage completely, then Jacob 2:30 is wasted text.
(3) and (1) Many sections in the D&C are very personal. In general, I don’t know why some of them are formally memorialized as “scripture,” except to say there may be something to learn from those personal revelations that we might apply in our lives. If you feel it was “manipulative,” then you can say the same thing for all of the revelations given through Joseph.
(2) People a lot smarter than me have spent pages and pages thoroughly examining every verse of D&C 132, so I leave it to them. I do always remember that the last verse said more revelation on the matter was to be forthcoming, so perhaps we still don’t have the whole picture.
I understand many have a desire to paint Joseph as a “fallen, fallible” prophet who was killed by God in Carthage. If that helps one sleep at night, I guess that’s okay. I don’t think we are asked if we have a “testimony” of everything ever said and done by Joseph, only of the restoration of the church in these latter days. I prefer to give him a wide benefit of doubt, and am sure I will have plenty of questions for him in the next life.
Laban’s death was not moral, and Nephi would justly receive the death penalty for armed (and lethal) robbery today, as well as in 600 BC. See my post where Bill Russell described this story:
Well, okay MH, then I suppose your black & white world view justifies your personal atrack and defecating on my testimony.
“teen brides were pretty common then…”
I’m really tired of this excuse, and I guess I should have added the following blurb from the comments in Kristine’s post. “The mean age of first marriages in colonial America (aka around 1830) was between 19.8 years to 23.7…” Funny thing is, that’s pretty close to today’s numbers too! 14 year olds get married today, it’s still legal in some states to marry at 14, and it IS EYEBROW raising, just like back then. It’s only people like Warren Jeffs that get thrown in jail over the issue. It’s just as common today as it was in 1840 (which is to say NOT COMMON.)
Howard, your testimony of poly-amory is the definition of defication. It stinks to high heaven (pun intended.)
Spoken like a saint MH, very impressive.
Very compelling write up MH. The grand question is, whence cometh the immorality of the scriptures, from heaven, or from men?
It is not such an easy task to edit out the “immoral” passages in the scriptures. It’s more than just D&C 132 or Laban’s killing. The Bible of course is filled with passages advocating genocide and even sex slavery (Exodus 21).
Even much of the Spirit of the Doctrine and Covenants is written in the voice of the jealous Old Testament Jehovah, who speaks relentlessly of apocalyptic terrors to be dished out on unbelievers, and even the innocent children of unbelievers, encouraging missionaries to wipe the dust off their feet so it will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah.
How different this revelatory voice is from the real voice of Joseph Smith the Man: “I do not blame any man for not believing my history. If I had not experienced it myself, I would not believe it.”
Joseph Smith the Man was a tender, loving man, devoted to Emma (“My heart is entwined around yours forever and ever”) and his family, fiercely loyal to his friends, and full of love for all of humanity. Numerous accounts, both from members and non-members speak of how kind, compassionate, patient, and loving Joseph was to all men. Very different than the impatient Jehovah of his revelations who threatens Martin Harris with bleeding at every pore if he won’t fund the Book of Mormon.
Were these revelations just Joseph Smith’s “manipulative” voice? I don’t think so. The dramatic difference between Joseph Smith’s personal writings and his revelations is one of the great witnesses of their authenticity.
This same contradiction is present in St. John, who says “God is love” in his personal writings, but then says this God of love is so wrathful that he will trample millions of unbelievers in a winepress, squirting their blood all over his garments, and leaving only a few thousand alive.
I believe Joseph Smith was an honest and loving man. This is the true historical record from his writings and the witnesses who knew him. It is only in His revelations that he is “immoral.” He never would have told his beloved Emma “you shall be destroyed.” Indeed, in his true character he says “I would go to hell for such a woman.”
So I see this as a problem with God, not with man. God could easily have stopped polygamy. He didn’t. He could easily have had Joseph Smith not say that thing about Pharaoh and the priesthood in the Book of Abraham, which influenced Brigham Young to deny the priesthood to blacks. He didn’t. He could have been kinder and more understanding of unbelievers, explaining how they will have another chance in the next life. He didn’t. Joseph Smith had to say that himself. He could have left the golden plates behind so all the scholars of the world could ponder its miraculous translation, and thus make the church look just a little less ridiculous, a little less embarrassing, a little more believable for the unbelievers He threatens to cast into hellfire. He didn’t. This is on God, not man.
Wow, Howard and MH perhaps the two of you should put on boxing gloves and head to the gym to duke it out.
I often wonder what my reactions would have been if I was one of the early saints during the whole polygamy, polyandry “revelation”. I think about my current reaction to the Warren Jeff’s FLDS situation and realize there are way too many similarities for my comfort.
“(4) I don’t quite read those scriptures so narrowly. Plus, if you rule out plural marriage completely, then Jacob 2:30 is wasted text.”
IDIAT, this is a fair point. I don’t rule out polygamy completely, but almost. Biblical polygamy was a cultural practice, but so was slavery. I think God supports neither practice, although we certainly have scriptures regulating both slavery and polygamy. I don’t see God ever re-instituting slavery or polygamy, but he certainly allowed both in biblical times. Today we view both slavery and polygamy as “twin relics or barbarism” (to quote the Republican party.)
How would you widen my reading of these scriptures to allow for godly polygamy?
“Many sections in the D&C are very personal. In general, I don’t know why some of them are formally memorialized as “scripture,” except to say there may be something to learn from those personal revelations that we might apply in our lives. If you feel it was “manipulative,” then you can say the same thing for all of the revelations given through Joseph.”
Sure there are some personal revelations in the D&C that are routinely ignored (some mission calls come to mind.) I just think that the condemnation of Emma is a false revelation and feels more like Joseph is condemning Emma rather than God. I don’t view mission calls as manipulative, and certain sections (like 20 and 76) are neither manipulative nor personal but church-wide. I think you’re casting a net too wide here in an attempt to minimize the problems of 132.
“People a lot smarter than me have spent pages and pages thoroughly examining every verse of D&C 132, so I leave it to them.”
We are constantly told to READ THE SCRIPTURES, not someone else’s commentary, but far too many just gloss over the tough stuff. By relying on others, I think you’re guilty of what Brigham Young warned:
“I do always remember that the last verse said more revelation on the matter was to be forthcoming, so perhaps we still don’t have the whole picture.”
Are you referring to Official Declaration 1?
“I prefer to give him a wide benefit of doubt, and am sure I will have plenty of questions for him in the next life.”
I prefer to follow Brigham Young’s admonition that we should “inquire for [our]selves of God whether [we] are led by him.”
Howard, your #6 post …really? I mean…really??
In that line of thinking, what makes most sense completely is to outlaw marriage. It is the source of selfishness, possessiveness and jealousy.
Everyone should just have children with everyone. Let’s all share and get rid of our possessiveness.
You talk about women like they’re possessions to own and share, as a way for men to learn to grow through such things. As if God thinks this way!?! That’s not mormon doctrine on the plan of salvation.
Something tells me that in a year from now…you will want to go back through the archives of W&T, and reread your post…and think…how can I erase stuff from the Internet?
Very interesting review. Good thing you don’t live in Rigby, ID.
I do always find it fascinating that men are willing to get into a lather over polyandry in a way they often do not for mere polygamy. A little empathy might go a long way at helping men realize that all polygamy is repulsive if you are a woman, told that your worth is a fraction of that of a man.
Nate #17. It may be a problem with God, but at least He is consistent. He doesn’t interfere. He works through mortals, through prophets, allowing them to take what they learn, and put it into practice.
But…that just means He is going through Joseph Smith. Joseph is filtering it and trying to do what he thinks he is told to.
It still comes back to Joseph. Because God isn’t intervening directly. He doesn’t.
Why not look at Joseph as the weak one. Is it possible Joseph was given the Abrahamic test to live something against all reason and judgment and his sweetheart wife’s conscience…but Joseph wasn’t strong enough to stick to his wife’s advice and counsel?
In today’s church, if the prophet had some revelation, but the counsel of others was not supportive…it isn’t revelation.
Back then…Joseph didn’t have the wisdom of those checks and balances.
I don’t know how to say it is on God…when it is coming through mortals who we know were products of their times and imperfect. To me, no matter how “honest and loving” the mortal is…odds are it’s on the mortal than on the God.
Hawk, point well taken. I think men are completely tone-deaf on how awful polygamy is, and the only way to get some to consider that point of view is to look closely at polyandry. If that’s what it takes, well that’s sad, but polygamy (including polygyny, polyandry, and poly-amory) is just a disgusting practice that never should have entered into the church.
But I love the idea of an eternal sealing for monogamous families–that’s a godly revelation.
Heber, I don’t expect Howard to change. (And I think Howard would jump at the opportunity to outlaw marriage.) He’s been spouting this poly-amory nonsense for several years. See his guest post from 2 years ago that said essentially the same thing: http://www.wheatandtares.org/12127/morality-just-dont-tell/
I love some of Howard’s observations on psychology, and he does have some interesting points sometimes, but when it comes to free love, he is morally bankrupt.
Heber13: “God isn’t intervening directly. He doesn’t.”
This isn’t really true of Joseph Smith’s God. The God of the Bible is clearly interventionist, as is the God of the early LDS church with the first vision, golden plates, angels, and many very specific revelations. If angels stop Joseph Smith from taking the sacred plates because he has temptations for riches, how come angels don’t stop him from taking brides and dishing out revelations based on carnal temptations?
MH says, “a false revelation and FEELS more like Joseph is condemning Emma rather than God.”
I think the feeling of falseness comes because we are looking at God and His Word through rose colored glasses. Who was Joseph Smith’s God? God is The Word. The experience of God cannot be separated from His Word. All of Joseph Smith’s revelations are variations on the Word of the KJV Bible. His First Vision contained the Biblical word, “this is my beloved Son.” The first words out of the angel Moroni’s mouth were quotations from the Bible. The Book of Mormon contains extensive passages almost identical to the Bible. Almost every verse and phrase from the D&C can be compared with a manner or turn of phrase or quotation from the Bible. Joseph’s experience of God is absolutely inseparable from the Bible. His entire church career he was working on a translation of the Bible which contained clarifications, augmentations, and commentary on it. The Pearl of Great Price and the Endowment are variations on the Genesis God.
Unlike all the other theologians of his day, Joseph Smith was wrestling with The Word in its fulness, from Genesis to Revelations. Joseph Smith resurrected the Old Testament Jehovah and placed Him alongside the 19th century Protestant Christ. He saw the children of Israel as a literal continuation, and the Gospel as being restored from the Genesis Patriarchs who had it in its fulness.
The God of Genesis came to Joseph Smith in that fulness, a fulness which included Abrahamic sacrifices, angels with drawn swords, and of course polygamy.
Our experience of God is dependent upon His expression of Himself to us personally. And for Joseph Smith, that expression was through His Word. Today, we are getting better and better at ignoring some parts of The Word, and building up a new Word (General Conference) which highlights a kinder, more moral dimension of God. But Joseph Smith didn’t have that Word. Can we blame him for trying to take God at face value?
We must wrestle God like Jacob. It’s taken time, but finally Wilford Woodruff wrestled the polygamous patriarchal God to the ground, with his own variation on the Word in the Book of Revelations, highlighting apocalyptic calamities which would come upon the Saints if we did not abandon it. The Word had come full circle, from Genesis to Revelations. Now we could take it with a grain of salt. Now we have more Word. We have more God. We have a merciful and rational God speaking in the voice of Thomas S. Monson, telling tender stories, cherry picking only the more moral parts of The Word. But Joseph Smith cannot be blamed for wrestling The Word. He was wrestling something that had been brewing for thousands of years. Thanks to his efforts, we can finally put it to rest.
I think Joseph Smith understands more about the gospel then MH will ever know. Along these lines, I offer Joesph the benefit of the doubt as the oracle of both Jacob and D&C 132.
Your assumption that he is wrong in 132 also implies he “forgot” about the text he had just translated in Jacob. I believe (although I admit I can’t reconclie these versus) there is more to the story and I trust Joseph more than MH.
Ken, I posit you “trust” Truman Madsen’s whitewashed Joseph, not the Joseph who really existed, a much harder person to pin down.
Nate,
I must confess that I have little patience for your desire to wallow in the land of paradox. When I read your posts, conservatives are liberal, liberals are conservative, right is wrong, wrong is right, sexism is good, God is a jerk, etc, etc. I pretty much avoid everything you write because everything is one great paradox, and everything is pointless.
Don’t get me wrong, I think there are paradoxes, there are things to wrestle with, and sometimes God does get mad; but you lose me with all your poorly defined words, and self-contradictory posts. I just shake my head when I read you most of the time.
“The grand question is, whence cometh the immorality of the scriptures, from heaven, or from men?”
Immorality comes from man, no question, and often men blame immorality on God. It happens all the time, and when it happens, man takes God’s name in vain and offends God. Men blame genocide on God, and I have a post about Joshua’s Unholy War. I take exception to the idea that God commanded circumcision in Abraham’s day. Circumcision was a pagan practiced adopted by Abraham as godly. I don’t think God had anything to do with his marriage to Hagar. God didn’t command (but permitted) sex slavery in Exodus 21. Balaam wasn’t a true prophet. I could go on and on.
Man blaming such atrocities on God is an affront to God. This type of God is like Zeus, or Apollo. It is a primitive belief in God. We need to grow up and quit blaming God for atrocities, rather than rely on primitive tales of 3000 years ago. We used to blame floods on God, and now we blame them on the weather because we understand it. (We come close to calling this an “Act of God”, but it is an act of nature that can often be predicted, thanks to our better understanding of the planet and satellites. Nobody blames this on God anymore.)
Nobody would navigate the globe using Christopher Columbus’s map today, but we think a 400 year old translation of the Bible is somehow a-ok??? I don’t get it. Understandings of God should evolve. God isn’t a tyrant up there.
“The God of the Bible is clearly interventionist, as is the God of the early LDS church with the first vision, golden plates, angels, and many very specific revelations.”
I disagree completely. God is rarely an interventionist. He didn’t intervene when Hitler killed millions of Jews, hasn’t intervened in Iraq and Syria, but somehow he made time to tell Joseph to marry concubines??? Doesn’t make sense to me.
The times God does intervene become scripture. I mean really nobody quotes the stories of Amos, Habukkuk, Joel because these are exhortations from prophets. The only appearances of God are to Adam, Moses, and Joseph Smith (Mohammad for Muslim believers.) God RARELY intervenes. But weird things happen, like an earthquake in Jericho, and suddenly this is an act of God, rather than the fact that Jericho was built on an earthquake fault…. We understand things better now. Will we blame God when LA or SF has another earthquake, or will we simply say that we shouldn’t build major cities in earthquake zones?
Now man blames God for all sorts of things: Joshua’s genocide, Abraham killing his son, Nephi killing Laban, Joseph’s polygamy. But we have to ask ourselves, are these things godly? I say no. Otherwise God is self-contradictory. Thou shalt not kill, but it’s ok if it’s the people of Jericho. Thou shalt not commit adultery, except in David, Solomon, and Joseph Smith’s case, then it’s a-ok. Sorry, I don’t buy it. It’s just too convenient to blame this on God. I think God had nothing to do with it. But if we can blame it on God, then it absolves us of responsibility. Hey, that’s the ticket! It wasn’t the devil that made me do it, it was God that made me do it!
Let’s not forget the First Vision. The devil was around.
The devil was there, about to destroy Joseph, at the very moment Joseph was praying to God. So when I hear that an angel with a flaming sword commanded Joseph, well, could it have been the devil with a flaming sword, just as the devil appeared during the First Vision? Did Joseph shake the hand of this angel as it says in D&C 129? I know of no such handshake.
We need to use our brains as well as our spirits and quit blaming God for our own sinfulness.
Ken, The Prophet Joseph Smith explained that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such” (HC 5:265). It behooves us to revere him when he acts like a prophet, but he isn’t always acting as such.
Joseph has taught me much about God and the gospel, and I have much to learn about the gospel, but I’m only going to revere Joseph when he is deserving of this reverence. He wasn’t acting as a prophet when the Kirtland Bank failed, he was acting like a farmer with no financial sense. I don’t think that is disputable. Joseph made mistakes, and clearly was a victim of the banking Panic of 1837 as well as his own mismanagement. He doesn’t always act like a prophet. But when he does act like a prophet, yes I can learn much from him.
Hawk, I don’t get your Rigby, ID comment.
Hawkgirl,
“Ken, I posit you “trust” Truman Madsen’s whitewashed Joseph, not the Joseph who really existed, a much harder person to pin down”
Actually I don’t accept either; rather, I accept the words of the Savior when he compared Prophets to Trees and provided a litmus test to validate Prophets in Matthew 7 when he stated “Ye shall know them by their fruits”. Chief among those fruits is the Book of Mormon, closely followed by the Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants and Translation of the Bible. These fruits are the way to validate the life of Joseph, not by conjecture, speculation or judgment.
The problem judging Joseph (or anyone for that matter) as MH does in this post, is none of us really understand his motivations, actions or thoughts. I think that is why, in this same chapter, the Savior frowns on judging others.
I too appreciate the same fruits you mentioned, Ken. There are those other fruits that are not so sweet, though, such as D&C 132.
“There are those other fruits that are not so sweet, though, such as D&C 132.”
At face value perhaps. It would be nice if Joesph could defend his position in this blog.
Joseph’s polygamist fruits are plainly visible for us all to judge righteous judgment.
If Bill Clinton did the same things Joseph was accused of, he would have been impeached. (Oh wait!) Bill was impeached for only an affair with 1 woman, not 30! And all you defenders of 132 won’t defend Warren Jeffs at all. Not once have I heard anyone defend Jeffs marriage to a 14 year old girl, which was the same thing Joseph did.
You’re right Ken, by their fruits ye shall know them. This fruit is so rotten, it stinks.
“At face value perhaps. It would be nice if Joseph could defend his position in this blog.”
There was a blog in 1844. It was called “The Nauvoo Expositor.”
On the upside, Joseph’s Polygamist Fruits sounds like a plausible Provo band name.
@33
LOL
Nate – #24 – “Now we have more Word. We have more God. We have a merciful and rational God speaking in the voice of Thomas S. Monson, telling tender stories, cherry picking only the more moral parts of The Word. But Joseph Smith cannot be blamed for wrestling The Word. He was wrestling something that had been brewing for thousands of years. Thanks to his efforts, we can finally put it to rest.”
I don’t know what you’re talking about. “Wilford Woodruff wrestling the polygamous patriarchal God to the ground,” etc. Are you and I not reading the same essays at lds.org? We are a 21st-century church that condones polygamy. The essays have defined us as a people who would, according to its current leadership, practice it again if God commands it.
I don’t want that stain on me.
I think those who are judging Joseph Smith so harshly should take a more balanced approach. One like Richard Bushman did when he wrote Rough Stone Rolling. To do otherwise is to say that they have complete knowledge of what happened.
I understand to a degree how unpalatable it is for some to defend Joseph Smith’s polygamy and polyandry. I wish it never occurred, but it did.
Those who condemn Joseph Smith for D&C 132 have to conclude that he was either a fallen prophet or never was a prophet. But what evidence to they have besides their opinion of the history available today. It is impossible for his critics to declare for sure what Joseph was up to.
His critics want to portray him as sexual _____(fill in the blank). His adherents, those who have a God given testimony, accept him at his word. He was reluctantly obeying God’s will.
Bushman wrote, “Nothing confuses the picture of Joseph Smith’s character more than these plural marriages.” I agree.
The ultimate question about what drove Joseph Smith will be up to each church member. I for one know him as a prophet. At a major cross roads in my life, I prayed about the stories I heard as a youth about Joseph Smith and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. I asked God to show me if these stories were true, if so, I would embrace his teachings and church, if not, I would forget about religion.
In answer to my prayer the Lord parted the veil enough to allow me to see things that forever changed my life. That was in 1966. In the years since then, I have had many other experiences that only increase my faith and testimony of the work Joseph Smith brought forth.
I say to all those who read my words that I know in a manner that is irrefutable that Joseph Smith was a prophet. You will have to get by my testimony, and the testimony of many others like me, to condemn the first Mormon, Joseph Smith.
I suggest a more balanced and careful approach because we will all die and be judged for our thoughts and words.
The fruits of Joseph Smith’s work are evident for all to behold. Genuine Mormons are the kind of people you want to have as a neighbor.
MH: I’m surprised you still feel that way about Balaam given your current understanding of Joseph Smith.
#28 – If you’re allowing Joseph Smith and other Prophets to be fallible men and still be able to fulfill their prophetic office, then I agree. Jonah ran off when commanded to preach to the inhabitants of Nineveh, so Jehovah booked him passage in the belly of the fish, and after he did his duty, probably like Ammon before the Lamanites, muttering “I’m a dead man” to himself on the way, his efforts are successful and then he complains about THAT.
It’s interesting that even DNA testing hasn’t produced conclusive evidence that Joseph Smith fathered any children from these ‘plural marriages’ (don’tcha just love euphemisms?). Since there’s little doubt that at least a few of these marriages were indeed ‘consummated’ in the normal fashion and not merely nominal sealings, means that one the primary purposes outlined in the BoM that ALLOWS for multiple wives, e.g., raised up a righteous seed, utterly failed. As for Josephine Lyon Fisher and her mother, Sylvia Lyon, though Joseph’s paternity of her is a strong possibility, it still can’t be proven via DNA (the details escape me save that there have been too many generations to reliably interpret any DNA tests from Fisher descendants), so, like the alleged children that died in infancy, we have nothing save the deathbed testimony of an old woman many years after the fact. I’m satisfied that IF indeed the Prophet knew her as Adam knew Eve that he did so in good faith, believing her marriage to Lyon over. I’m certain this wasn’t a Latter-Day version of “prima nocta” or, more properly, “Droite de Seigneur”, and as many in Nauvoo became disaffected with Smith, would certainly have had the excommunicated Lyon asserted his rights as an aggrieved cuckolded husband.
Still, I don’t care for the whitewashing of the less savory aspects of Church history. Even the progenitor of the Savior Himself, Judah, nailed his daughter-in-law who either was a supreme mistress of disguise or he was blitzed out of his mind. To his credit, he DID suggest selling off his younger half-brother, Joseph, to a passing caravan rather than commit outright murder as the other brothers wanted. Seriously, you can’t buy this kind of entertainment!
#33 THAT produced a few Chuckles. Sponsored by Wasatch Brewery, proud producer of Polygamy Porter…”Take some home for the WIVES!”
I don’t think there’s going to be any movement on any side without movement on the supposition that polygamy (of any stripe) is acceptable or not, regardless of how it was implemented in the early Church or in OT times. Because of the cultural, patriarchal, and legal biases we currently have, we have many, many reports of times when it went horribly wrong and relatively few reports of it going right.
Jared, your entire comment if full of false dichotomies. Some examples:
“To do otherwise is to say that they have complete knowledge of what happened.”
Stop with the hyperbole Jared. None of us have a complete knowledge of Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton either, but we knew that he spewed on her blue dress. We know that Sylvia Sessions claims Joseph is the father of Josephine, and DNA testing shows a linkage to Smith. Yes, it isn’t conclusive, so we don’t have complete knowledge, but we don’t have complete knowledge of Monica either. This is just misdirection and a ridiculous comment. I doubt you are so charitable in your judgment concerning Monica and Bill.
“Those who condemn Joseph Smith for D&C 132 have to conclude that he was either a fallen prophet or never was a prophet.”
I didn’t claim anything in this sentence, so once again you provide another false dichotomy.
“I understand to a degree how unpalatable it is for some to defend Joseph Smith’s polygamy and polyandry. I wish it never occurred, but it did.”
People like Ken love to throw out “By their fruits ye shall know them.” When we look at the fruits of polygamy, somehow we’re accused of judging too harshly, but you judge harshly all the time. (“We don’t use the scriptures enough here.”) What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. I wish polygamy didn’t happen too, but it did, and we must attempt righteous judgment. “By their fruits ye shall know them” cuts both ways, and you just don’t like the cut this time. Talk about selective reading of scriptures.
“I for one know him as a prophet.”
Me too, but prophets don’t always act as such. Jeremiah walked naked through the streets. Hosea married a prostitute, and named his kids weird names. It doesn’t diminish them as prophets, but does make us question why they did such weird things. While repentance is a wonderful thing, ya gotta wonder why God commanded Hosea 1:2, “Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms…” This just makes God look weird, conflicting, and nonsensical, and I have to ask if God really said this. I doubt you would look favorably on Pres Monson if he suddenly married a prostitute and claimed God said “Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms.” That’s taking God’s name in vain.
I suggest you quit with the false dichotomies and start using a balanced approach.
I also hope we’ve quoted enough scriptures here for you to quit saying we don’t talk scriptures enough here.
MH, we are actually on the same side. I am highlighting the paradox so that it will become intolerable. You are responding to the intolerability of the paradox by trying to resolve it.
The problem is that most Mormons don’t find the paradox intolerable, because they haven’t yet fully considered it. No one asks themselves what they would think if President Monson were arrested after tying one of his grandchildren up on top of a mountain and almost slitting their throat, yet they have no qualms about it when they read about Abraham doing it.
This is a blind spot we have. But I actually ask the question. What IF President Monson were arrested for doing such a thing?
Now you and I resolve the paradox in different ways. I say it is “God” but what I mean by God is not exactly what you mean by God. By God, you mean Ultimate Goodness. By God, I mean, as He is collectively understood and experienced in the religious conscience, and this is definitely not Ultimate Goodness. Rather, it includes things we understand as evil. But nevertheless, it is a real God, something outside Joseph Smith, something real which Joseph was wrestling with, not simply his own lusts. I maintain that Joseph Smith was an honest man. That is the record, that is the witness of his nature. He was wresting with supernatural things which had been forming in religious consciousness for thousands of years. This was how God manifest Himself to Joseph, and Joseph had to deal with it. It is not the way God manifests Himself to me or you. But it is how He manifest Himself to Joseph. That doesn’t mean it is good, or that it comes from a God of Ultimate Goodness. But it was something real, and Joseph was being honest. That is my belief, as convoluted as it might sound.
Daniel, did you read my Balaam post? I’m not sure I understand what you think is my current understanding of Joseph Smith.
IDIAT, I can get a bit longwinded, and I missed answering your question. “I wonder why God would destroy Joseph and Hyrum but allow BY and many other polygamists to live long and full lives? I thought God was no respecter of persons?”
It has been a long-held assertion by the RLDS Church that the reason there was so much death, persecution and suffering among the BY group was because of polygamy. LDS tend to try to promote the narrative that these people were faithful saints trying to live their religion. On the other hand, RLDS have argued for a long time that the cause of the suffering (like Willie/Harris handcart disasters) was because GOd was punishing the saints. Certainly Franklin Richards offered a false prophecy when he claimed that God would protect them even though the saints left so early. God didn’t endorse this prophecy, and Richards certainly was a false prophet in that instance. I talked about these trials in my post on the movie 17 Miracles.
So there’s another interpretation for you about how God wasn’t pleased with polygamy, and perhaps he used Congress to get the hard-headed LDS to abandon the proposition.
If you look at the number of revelations in the CoC compared to the LDS after Joseph’s death, God seems to be talking to them a whole lot more than us. On the other hand, I guess Warren Jeffs is still getting revelations, like this weird one, so the jury is out on who God is talking to. But it seems evident that God only talks to LDS when Congress or the NAACP agitate.
Nate, #24. I love your response. Good thoughts.
However…you start your comments: “This isn’t really true of Joseph Smith’s God.”
And that is exactly what sets the stage for the whole discussion.
If you use Joseph’s teachings, and scriptures through Joseph, and the church history from Joseph (angels stopping him from Gold Plates but not stopping him from being sealed to a 14 year old girl)…then everything we are talking about is “Joseph’s God”.
We can have faith in that God, as Joseph taught us he perceived as a prophet. It can provide us with more light and knowledge.
But we also have our own revelation, and other prophets, and scriptures, and other data points to help us further understand God as much as possible while our understanding is veiled.
But we can’t dismiss Joseph or any other prophet is telling us what they experienced through their mortal eyes. Which is not the same as total truth.
All I’m saying is that it is our job to find truth. We can’t accept the prophet’s perspectives or words in scripture as all there is for us to know. They are sign posts to help us, and shouldn’t be dismissed, nor should we say “we have a bible from Joseph and need no more bible”.
Viewing Joseph’s experiences as we know it cannot be taken as the only option of how God works, or even a complete assumption Joseph understood perfectly God’s works within himself, or when something was of God or was of his own mind. That is too simplistic, and fraught with too many variables in the process.
So…I take Joseph’s experiences for what they are (meaningful to me), and then I wrestle with God on what it means to me and how God works with my life. And take the title page of the Book of Mormon to heart:
“If there are faults they are the mistakes of men”. Because prophets are mortals.
My conscience tells me polygamy is very much a problem, and I conclude that although Joseph thought he was trying to do good, as with the Kirtland bank, it didn’t work. And God let’s that happen to us, because he doesn’t always intervene, even when we think we are inspired.
“Genuine Mormons are the kind of people you want to have as a neighbor.”
I wouldn’t want Joseph as a neighbor around my 14-19 year old girls, and I wouldn’t let them babysit at his house.
MH-I always enjoy your post and reasoning. I’ve learned a lot from you. I consider you an honest inquirer of history.
I feel the same way about many of those who have left the church and now count themselves as x-mormons. They did what reason required of them, they will tell you.
The main purpose of the scriptures is to open our eyes to a reality that is otherwise hidden.
I don’t have the time to answer you point for point. I will leave this thought, however. The bottom line, the summum bonum of the whole matter is lying before us–did an angel appear to Joseph Smith, with drawn or sheathed sword–and give him an ultimatum to enter into polygamy? If so, nothing else really matters.
It doesn’t matter how clumsily he may have gone about things, he did it. And it is a source of difficulty in our day. By the way, in a day where we have observed a momentous cultural change by redefining the basic Christian institution of marriage. Is not this ironic?
It makes one wonder what the institution of marriage in the Kingdom of God will be.
D&C 132 has problems as you have pointed out. It could be called clumsy. It is clumsy because it was a work in progress that never got finished.
“The problem is that most Mormons don’t find the paradox intolerable, because they haven’t yet fully considered it.”
BINGO!
“No one asks themselves what they would think if President Monson were arrested after tying one of his grandchildren up on top of a mountain and almost slitting their throat, yet they have no qualms about it when they read about Abraham doing it.”
BINGO again!
“Now you and I resolve the paradox in different ways. I say it is “God” but what I mean by God is not exactly what you mean by God.”
On these points we agree completely. But I have to say I don’t like your definition of God at all, because your definition is a crazy definition.
“The main purpose of the scriptures is to open our eyes to a reality that is otherwise hidden.”
I get what you mean Jared, but this is a truly ironic statement, because you close your eyes to D&C 132, and because of this, many egregious sins are hidden to you because you flatly ignore them.
Jared
Great comments. I would add MH does not know what the Savior meant by fruits. It is NOT actions, words or conjecture; or, to be more precise our judgement of others actions or words. This is precisely why the Savior used the parable in the context of NOT judging others.
The Book of Mormon is a perfect example of “fruit” as it can be verified independently by the spirit. What Joseph did with respect to polygamy is not a “fruit” as it is open to judgment or personal opinion. The spirit cannot and will not verify, personal judgments of others actions as it is largely none of our business. (Unless of course we are a common judge of Israel over that person)
When making righteous judgements we should always consider how it impacts our behavior. For example, it can be a righteous judgment to choose not to associate with a person because it would impact us personally or tempt us to sin. In contrast it would be an unrighteous judgment to not associate with another person simply because we think they are bad because of what they are wearing or the length of thier hair.
Considering allegations against Joseph does not impact any of us personally, or at least it shouldn’t. In contrast, getting an independent verification the Book of Mormon is true will be extremely impactful on us personally.
#48 MH
I wouldn’t say I ignore the problems in 132. I’m just not bound by 132. In addition, in order for there to be sin there needs to be a genuine “victim”. Where are the victims?
My reasoning goes this. Because Joseph received a commandment from God to enter into polygamy, it can’t be sin. There were people who thought they were victims because they didn’t believe polygamy was of God.
Why didn’t they believe, it remained hidden from them because they weren’t of God.
Joseph would made a great neighbor because he is of God.
#49 Hi Brother Ken.
#20 Heber13,
I didn’t imply or state nor does it follow logically from my comments that [monogamous] marriage is the source of selfishness, possessiveness and jealousy or that it should be outlawed. The *source* of selfishness, possessiveness and jealousy is a failure to mature beyond one’s childhood which is far more the rule than the exception thus the need for refining to become Christ like. You also wrote: “You talk about women like they’re possessions to own and share…” No I didn’t and those who have followed my attitudes regarding woman on this blog know this is not my attitude!
So obviously you did not understand my comment at all.
I haven’t been asked to take my child to a mountain and slit their throat, but I have been forced to survive the death of my own child and deal with survivor’s guilt. Though I never want any part of polygamy personally, I would be willing to weigh the prospect of a prophetic bargain to allow my wife to be sealed to the prophet or to take a second wife if it could bring my child back to me. I would be desperate to strike any bargain that could make that happen.
Though the dead do not come back to life, I believe hearing the new doctrine of being sealed for eternity as it was being unveiled in the 1840s would be a pretty powerful draw. People faced death of one or more children or the possibility of that with regularity. I would not doubt that feeling your soul burn with Joseph’s testimony heard with your own ears would not only draw you to want to follow him but to want to be linked to him. It would lead to a greater degree of confidence that you were on the path to being united with those deceased loved ones again.
The life expectancy of men in the US in 1900 was 46 and for women was 48. In 1918 with influenza, it went down to 36 and 42. I don’t know what it was in 1840, but was probably no better than what it was in 1900. People hoped that they were the lucky ones who lived to old age, but were familiar with the lot of those who did not. Thinking of marriage at age 14 would be different if you considered that you were at 30% of your life expectancy—even if the average age for marriage at that time was higher.
The people in that time lived with the uncertainty of putting food on the tables during poor harvest. They didn’t know if they would survive a famine. They also lived with the fear that they could be murdered for their support of Joseph Smith. They felt urgency to follow Joseph. Hyrum felt this when he remarried when he would have been inclined to mourn the death of Jerusha.
You could say that Joseph was preying on all of these mortal conditions in exerting unrighteous influence and perpetrating evil. You could also say that he was creating a tribe with strong links under prophetic understanding that was still being received line upon line. You could say that his presenting opportunities for spiritual development provided a respite from the temporal hardships that were faced. I can see Ellen’s comment of not wanting that stain on me, but feeling the stain of living with the loss of a child makes me wish I had been called to have some other test. I realize at having not lost more than one, my heart has not had to grieve to the depths of those who have.
Nate…who are you and where do you blog? I very much enjoyed your presentation of an alternative point of view.
Howard. Truly, I don’t understand you.
You wrote:
“Monogamous marriage by its very design attempts to avoid triggering our jealously and possessiveness by promising (or pretending to promise) exclusive fidelity. But polygamy does the opposite, by sharing your spouse jealously and possessiveness ARE triggered giving the participants an opportunity to grow and while it would probably take several generations under a benevolent theocracy to achieve that refinement in a meaningful way for most participants one thing is obvious you cannot remain jealous and possessive and successfully live polygamy in peace.”
Because you are stating that monogamous marriages include jealousy and possessiveness. Whereas, polygamous marriages do not, because there is sharing, there are opportunities to grow. From that…logically, more sharing would be more growth, which is why I am stating your argument would lead to just getting rid of marriage that creates possessiveness. But I doubt you’ll see the logic.
It just makes no sense to me. You continue to present it from your male perspective, and fail to see why HG continues to point out what she perceives about men talking about polygamy.
Sharing everything does not equate to more maturity, and especially not to less selfishness or possessiveness. Especially in marriage. The more farmland, the more cattle, and the more wives does not mean a man is less focused on possessions.
How you cannot see that is demeaning to women is beyond me.
Heber13 wrote …you are stating that monogamous marriages include jealousy and possessiveness. Whereas, polygamous marriages do not… No! This is a misunderstanding, I did not state this!
The *source* of selfishness, possessiveness and jealousy is child development, around the age of 3 a child can be observed clenching a toy in their hand, raising it in the air and declaring loudly “mine!”.
The problem is most people still feel this way inside to some extent at least subconsciously and society out of necessity accommodates this immaturity in it’s courts, it’s economic systems and it’s forms of marriage etc. in order to keep the peace. For example the capitalistic economic system is the most successful economic system in the history of the developed world. Why? Because it efficiency rewards greed and most of the developed world’s inhabitants are greedy!
The monogamous vs poly key word is “trigger” not “share”. Monogamous marriage does not by design *trigger* possessiveness and jealousy but poly by design does. So while both monogamous marriage and poly relationships include participants who are still possessive and jealous only the poly arrangement *by design* triggers that possessiveness and jealousy simply by participating in it!
So under a benevolent theocracy over *several generations* the opportunity is created to refine out possessiveness and jealousy creating a more caring and more selfless people, in other words a more Christ like people. I believe this is one of the major goals of God commanded polygamy under Joseph and I believe polyandry was necessary to refine the men because their possessiveness and jealousy would be triggered by their wives marring other men.
Howard. Thanks for clarifying. I did misunderstand you as I read quickly.
But I’m not sure it matters. Regardless of triggers or the source, I simply disagree polygamy leads to a more caring, selfless, and Christ-like people in this day and age when there are better options. Perhaps in times past under difference circumstances, but not a universal forever ideal system for making better people, and not the way Joseph did it.
Perhaps you are leaning towards monogamy being the lesser law, similar to tithing, rather than the higher law of consecration where we share everything.
Perhaps the problem is with us mortals, we can’t get the benevolent theocracy, so instead these attempts just end up demeaning others or taking advantage of them.
Polygamy or polyandry as necessary to refine men and women is like Abrahamic sacrifices are necessary to test obedience. Just because it happened once a long time ago doesn’t mean it is the best way to teach or test everyone all the time, when there are other options.
MH #7,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. On Sylvia Sessions telling her daughter that Joseph is her father, it may be that she considered her so because she was sealed to Joseph, even though he was not her biological father. See the contemporary (to this one)accounts about Heber J. Grant being Joseph’s son for another example of that type of thinking.
Joseph did not follow the normal interpretation of sealings like Brigham and others did afterward. I do not know why, but if the polyandrous sealings are not sexual relationships, then it is just different. Note that there is some justification for this in section 132.
In our society, servant wives is certainly degrading. There are no servants or lower caste people, so this seems to be a moot point. Also note that historically these relationships are acknowledged in modern revelation, but there is no provision for this type of relationship in D&C 132.
As for Fanny Alger, this seems somewhat of an anomaly in time. I see 3 possible reasons for this “relationship”:
1) Moral failing on Joseph’s part
2) Misinterpretation of events by the witnesses
3) Somewhat clumsy beginning of the implementation of the revelation by Joseph.
Based upon the many good fruits that Joseph produced, I tend to discount, but not eliminate, #1.
Once again Ken shows a COMPLETE lack of recall about scriptures. Let me quote from Matthew 7:
Please read the scriptures before mischaracterizing them. You obviously don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, and this comment deserves another flunking grade.
Jared,
“I wouldn’t say I ignore the problems in 132. I’m just not bound by 132.”
I’ve read this over about a dozen times and I still don’t have a clue what this means.
“In addition, in order for there to be sin there needs to be a genuine “victim”. Where are the victims?”
Come on Jared. Sin requires victims??? Where did you get that definition, because it’s certainly not scriptural? By that definition, I can chose to not keep the Sabbath day holy. Who is the victim? If I choose to pay a woman for sex, and she willingly agrees, who is the victim? If I drink red wine to improve my heart health, who is the victim? If I take God’s name in vain, is God a victim of my bad language? Come on. You know your scriptures better than that.
“My reasoning goes this. Because Joseph received a commandment from God to enter into polygamy, it can’t be sin.”
I reject the premise completely. If God commands me to rob a bank, steal a car, rape a child, then I guess it can’t be sin either. God commanded Warren Jeffs to marry a 14 year old. No sin. God commanded Susan Smith to drive her car in a lake in South Carolina, killing her children seatbelted inside. No sin. Jihadists kill in the name of God. No sin. This is completely perverse reasoning.
“There were people who thought they were victims because they didn’t believe polygamy was of God.”
Who are you talking about?
“Why didn’t they believe, it remained hidden from them because they weren’t of God.”
By this comment, it is plainly obvious to me that you can’t even recognize sin–it is completely hidden to you.
“Joseph would made a great neighbor because he is of God.”
See comment #45.
Jared, this is the best you’ve got??? Have you been taking scripture lessons from Ken? Come on. This response deserves a flunking grade.
el oso,
I went back to read your comment #5 and you said, “I believe that the genetic info about Josephine Lyon, while being inconclusive at present, points to the likelihood that she is not Joseph’s daughter. All other alleged children of Joseph’s have been genetically proven to not be his.”
This is a complete mischaracterization of the DNA test result. While you are correct that “all other alleged children of Joseph’s have been genetically proven to not be his,” Josephine tells a completely different story. It HAS BEEN PROVEN that the Fishers are in fact related genetically related to Joseph Smith, so this test result is quite different than the others. The inconclusive part is the fact that there are other people the Fishers are related to that are related to Joseph, so the fact that they have Joseph’s DNA could be due to factors other than via Josephine, but THEY ARE RELATED to Joseph, and in fact Josephine COULD BE Joseph’s offspring. Combine this with the fact that Sylvia said Joseph was the father, and I find your speculation of no sexual relations highly unlikely. Her name is JOSEPHine (how’s that for a BIG clue?) and Sylvia’s confession make it highly likely that (1) Josephine is Joseph’s offspring, and (2) the Fishers are related to Joseph via Josephine.
It is pure speculation on your part that no sexual relations happened between Joseph and Sylvia, and that speculation isn’t supported by Brian Hales, THE EXPERT on polygamy, and the circumstantial evidence is substantial. My bet is with Brian on this, not you. There’s just so much smoke on this issue that it’s hard to deny the fire exists.
“In our society, servant wives is certainly degrading. There are no servants or lower caste people, so this seems to be a moot point.”
It’s not a moot point, and here’s why. Slavery was legal in 1843. Jane Manning James was a black servant of Joseph in Nauvoo. (Indentured servitude was legal and these servants could have become concubines as well.) Jane could have easily filled the role of servant wife and concubine. Concubines certainly could have been part of this issue, and lest interracial marriage be a problem, I remind you that Moses married an Ethiopian. Let’s read D&C 132 again.
I don’t see God saying “restore polygamy, but just ignore that part about the concubines.” And for heaven’s sake, if Nathan is endorsing David’s concubines, why is Jacob 2 condemning these same concubines? Either Nathan (& 132) or Jacob are wrong on the issue.
MH,
“Ye shall know them by their fruits” is what I quoted, exactly what you posted (see Matthew 7:16). It was Jesus concluding the Sermon on the Mount with the chapter starting out “judge not that ye be judged’ just as I indicated. Not quite sure what accusation you are hurling now.
We clearly see things differently as it relates to Joseph Smith. I believe he is a Prophet of God; and, you don’t and that is your right. Clearly, your hostility towards the Prophet would prevent you from experiencing full fellowship in the church as it is not honorable to sustain him as a Prophet on the one hand, while accusing him of rape on the other.
With this said, I propose we agree to disagree. Quite honestly, I find dialogue with you to be counterproductive given your arrogance.
“With this said, I propose we agree to disagree. Quite honestly, I find dialogue with you to be counterproductive given your arrogance.” That’s what Emma said. But thanks to D&C 132, Joseph could blow that off and do whatever he wanted to anyway.
Ken mentioned earlier that the Savior said not to judge. What if we bring the Savior into closer quarters with us on this? Do you think that Christ himself would have entered the Smith home and told Emma to wipe away her tears because, yes, the whole plan for his gospel rolling forth hinges on her husband marrying and in some cases having sexual relations with dozens of women? Do you really picture him doing that? Saying that?
Heber13 wrote: I simply disagree polygamy leads to a more caring, selfless, and Christ-like people in this day and age when there are better options.
I do not believe this is true. I do not see LDS people being refined in a way that transcends their possessiveness and jealousy today. What are the *better ways* to do this you speak of? Instead I see a church that has regressed considerably since Joseph with polygamy and the Law of Consecration set aside, little practical attention given to the beatitudes and almost no serious consideration at all given to the mighty change of heart I see a mortal Mosaic Pharisaical church that is stuck in it’s rote obedience while marching in place spiritually because personal spiritual progression has been replaced with the simplicity of rituals, rote obedience and a checklist.
How does polygamy refine the men? It doesn’t. The the ways it is supposed to refine the women sound like blaming the victim. “If only you were more charitable and less jealous, you would be OK with what I’m doing.”
#59 MH
Jared wrote: My reasoning goes like this. Because Joseph received a commandment from God to enter into polygamy, it can’t be sin.
MH wrote: “I reject the premise completely.”
Thank you for another interesting exchange.
This exchange reminds me of a Nova program I saw on Quantum Mechanics years ago.
Scientist have found that at the atomic level many of laws of classical physics don’t apply. Therefore, different equation and theories are needed to understand the data science has gathered at the atomic level.
Would it be reasonable if scientist who are schooled in classical physics rejected the scientific data of Quantum Mechanics?
I think we can agree that it would be unreasonable.
Re #65 Polygamy includes both polygyny and polyandry. Polyandry is how men would be refined. Joseph asked for women who were already married this has the potential to trigger possessiveness and jealousy in the husbands of those women.
Hawkgirl,
Given the way I have defended Joseph, I think you would find that my personal opinion of Polygamy is similar to yours.
Best case scenario polygamy is odd. It would definitely offer a King like feeling in me as a man and foster an atmosphere of superiority, with a temptation for dominion and compulsion. To me, and I’m sure the opposite is true for a woman, it is hard enough being married to one woman. I don’t mean that to be disrespectful, just a reality of marriage. For these reasons, I could not participate in this practice and scratch my head why it was practiced in the Bible and at the restoration.
MH
I think it is fair to question the concept, but unfair to Joseph when you suggest you wouldn’t allow your daughters to visit his home, or suggest he is a fallen Prophet that God killed in Carthage. In response to your claims, I would offer the words of the Savior ‘with what judgement ye judge, ye shall also be judged’.
Who are you to judge the father of this dispensation? Pure arrogance.
I have long argued that polygamy and D&C 132 were not from God and that David and Solomon’s practice of it were cultural and not from God.
Beyond the convenient timing of Section 132 (so that Hyrum could finally be convinced and then work to convince Emma) the whole concept of such plural marriages violates a basic (as in “before the foundations…”) and psychological, eternal/uncreated truth: Humans are improved and aided in their desires to behave better (righteousness) if they bond with a partner. It is vaguely referenced in the creation myth where the aspirational admonition “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” appears. (Side note: Why would a father and mother be referenced to a man just made out of dust and to his wife, made from his rib = no belly buttons?)
This admonition is repeated in the D&C, but that isn’t what makes it a true principle. It is true because it works. The thorough bonding of two people develops in each of them more love, charity, motivation, etc. They, therefore, become more happy, more full of joy (the object and design of our existence, according to Joseph Smith)–a natural consequence, not a blessing from a supposed omnipotent God.
So, positing that principle, it would make no sense for God to command plural marriage thereby making such close bonding a practical impossibility between any of the possible pairs in such a relationship. Ergo, Joseph (in the best supposition), inundated and somewhat overwhelmed as he had been with a great deal of amazing new information via revelation, jumped to the wrong conclusion about copying David and Solomon. And, where did all that baloney come from about how more wives and children equals higher thrones and bigger kingdoms that Brigham Young and his contemporaries preached?
Finally, IMO, the promise of exaltation (aka: calling and election made sure) for any participating in this new and everlasting covenant (barring only murder and/or denying the Holy Ghost–unclear which) is, like the condemnation of Emma, a “red flag” indicating this was Joseph, not God speaking.
Ok Jared and Ken, I’ve been pretty hard on you two. Your responses have been pretty feeble, so I’m going to leave you alone. But since Ken still seems to not understand the comment about my daughters, let me share a few more episodes concerning Nancy Rigdon and the Partridge sisters. Please note that Joseph was 36-38 years old when he approached these 19-21 year old women. Tell me this doesn’t give you great pause if these were your daughters. From my post Sidney and Joseph – A Strained Friendship – Part 4
Please tell me if you believe that Emma, Nancy and Sidney Rigdon’s reactions were unrighteous. Would you let 36 year old Joseph near your 19 year old daughter Nancy, or 19-year old Eliza Partridge?
“Ok Jared and Ken, I’ve been pretty hard on you two. Your responses have been pretty feeble, so I’m going to leave you alone.”
That sums up my last two words pretty well. Pure Arrogance.
It is impossible to have a reasonable dialogue with someone that thinks that highly of themselves. I choose not to have any more dialogue with you for that reason.
Ken – I normally don’t press people on specific questions, but I really am interested to know the answer to my question at #63. Do you really think Jesus Christ would do that?
Richard, #10. Teen brides have not been “pretty common” at any point in the last two centuries. At least not in the U.S. (or other developed countries, for that matter). You stated a time-frame of 100 years. I’m attaching U.S. census data that lists median age of first marriage by sex (since 1890).
I continually hear this claim that teenage brides were common, in an attempt to somehow justify 37 yr old Joseph marrying 14 yr old Helen Mar. However, this is not reality. I’m open to correction, but I’ve yet to see any data, ever, that supports the claim that teenage brides were common (and in rare cases, <1%, where young teenagers are married, it is typically to other teenagers, not men in their 30s and 40s).
Ken, as Jim Rome says, “Have a take and don’t suck.” Your takes suck, are not thoughtful, and you have admitted that if you gave these types of responses on a job, you would be fired or received a flunking grade. That’s not arrogant when you admit it yourself. Have a take and don’t suck.
#72 – the ultimate in arrogance is the rejoinder “My ways are not your ways” (Isaiah 55:8), if you don’t believe that the Lord and/or His servants know what they’re doing. For example, one could take Jehovah commanding Abraham to take his son Issac, after all the trouble to have him in advanced age (and likewise aged was Issac’s mother Sarah), and ‘sacrifice’ him. Do keep in mind that many consider that Issac was not a little boy but at least a teenager, and quite capable of resisting or fleeing if he felt the old boy had stripped his gears.
Either way, it would constitute a grand mind-screwing on the part of Jehovah, so would HE do THAT? Answer: YES, if only to teach in a rather dramatic fashion the nature of the Atonement.
MH, Ken, et al-
Everyone is entitled to their belief. I respect MH knowledge of LDS history. I think Ken has brought up some excellent points to defend his faith. I for one give him–high five.
It really is an easy decision Joseph Smith. Either he was or he wasn’t a prophet. I have the advantage of certainty as I wrote in #36.
If it weren’t for that I would have a different opinion about the evidence MH presents. Therefore, I respect his opinion and honesty.
I encourage everyone to approach LDS history with more than just the intellect. If one is able to obtain a testimony of the Book of Mormon as outlined in Moroni 10:4-5 then they will view LDS history from that foundation.
The scriptures presents prophets who struggle, prophets who doubt, prophets who suffer greatly by following God’s commandments, prophets who die miserable deaths, and etc.
Some Latter Day Saints have an overly optimistic view of prophets. They think prophets are so close to the Lord that everything they do will turn out perfect, because God is perfect. That is true in the long run, but in the short run the scripture testify that things can be real messy. LDS church history is an example.
One of my favorite perspectives was the Radio West interview with Andrea Radke-Moss and Doug Fabrizio in which he asked her she thought the way polygamy came about was from God, Joseph being deceived, or Joseph following his physical passions, etc. Her response was that it could be all of these answers. That it’s messy and complex.
My least favorite part of the article is when church historian Richard Turley scoffed at the notion that anyone was coerced. Gag. Retrenchment, like rah said, is the saddest part of the whole essay deal.
I personally don’t ascribe to DC132 with all it’s accountings of virgins, law of sarah, destructions; Yeah, no.
Ellen,
“What if we bring the Savior into closer quarters with us on this?”
First off, Joseph Smith was no Jesus Christ. Of course, no one is, as that is the ultimate standard. As such, he chooses those that can do the best overall job under the circumstances. To serve a specific purpose in spite of their flaws. Spencer Kimball would not have been a good choice to take the saints across the plains and settle the west (at least 400 cities anyway). God needed a burly, no nonsense firmer hand and Brigham was perfect. In stark contrast, Brigham would have made a horrible choice to deal with some of the civil rights issues that President Kimball was so effective with.
In short, Christ is involved – involved with Prophets elevating them as Prophets as they help him elevate the individual line upon line and precept on precept.
“Do you think that Christ himself would have entered the Smith home and told Emma to wipe away her tears because, yes, the whole plan for his gospel rolling forth hinges on her husband marrying and in some cases having sexual relations with dozens of women? Do you really picture him doing that? Saying that?”
It is not about them, any of the ancient (or current) Prophets, it is about us and our progression. The problem with judging others is that it takes the focus, either inadvertently or intentionally, off our flaws. We need to focus on the mote in our eye as the Savior commanded.
The second problem with judging humans alleged actions or words, is that we don’t have all the facts. Some think they do, but that largely depends on the source. I don’t know if you know much about American politics, but getting the history of Ronald Reagan from Al Gore would be much different than from GH Bush. People have political, economic and other motivations in their “facts”.
What’s more, we don’t know all the circumstances or what test our father has for us or those around us. He can see all things past, present and future and as such can see the future you and provide challenges and opportunities to help you grow and develop.
Perhaps polygamy is a sieve, or a way to separate the secular from the spiritual. As I have said, had I not had a spiritual witness of the Book of Mormon I would buy none of this. My secular response to your question would be hell no. I am certain of one thing, you cannot solve a spiritual problem via secular means.It has to be solved through the spirit. I have received that witness and know the Book of Mormon is true; hence, Joseph was a Prophet.
A general great shift in social and legal attitudes toward issues of sex took place in the modern era and beliefs on the appropriate age below which girls should not be permitted to engage in sexual activity drifted toward adulthood. While ages from 10 to 13 were typically regarded as acceptable ages for sexual consent in Western countries during the mid-19th century,[1] by the end of the 19th century changing attitudes towards sexuality and childhood resulted in the raising of the age of consent…English common law had traditionally set the age of consent within the range of 10 to 12, but in 1875 the age was raised to 13
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent
Jared,
“It really is an easy decision Joseph Smith. Either he was or he wasn’t a prophet.”
Do you realize how many people you send out of the church with this stupid dichotomy? This is a really crappy thing to say, and it is the reason the church is losing members. PLEASE STOP WITH THE FALSE DICHOTOMIES!!!!
When people look at your false dichotomy, look at Joseph’s teen brides, polyandry, it doesn’t match scripture, doesn’t follow the 10 commandments for heavens sake, you send them right over to exmormon.org with this false dichotomy. You are sending people away. STOP IT!
Your false dichotomy won’t allow them the option to say “Joseph is a prophet, but some of the things he did were wrong.” I’m not buying your crappy logic, and nobody else needs to buy your crappy logic. YOU’RE SENDING PEOPLE OUT OF THE CHURCH WITH THIS CRAP. STOP IT.
I guess this is the time to tell people who struggle with these issues that there are other ways. You are welcome here. You are welcome at StayLDS.com/forum. Don’t buy Jared and Ken’s crap. They know it stinks, so rather than tackle these issues head on, they put out crappy logic. For the life of me I can’t figure out why. With their eyes, they do not see. With their ears they do not hear. THE SAVIOR WAS TALKING TO YOU KEN AND JARED.
MH-
Shout all you want! Bend reasoning the way it suits you, but you will learn sooner or later that the world and the Kingdom of God are much broader and deeper the view you hold.
I think we need to meet and pull sticks to settle things.
Jared,
Shame on you brother – using your testimony and light to attract the honest in heart. That is not logical. Don’t you know the way to attract coverts and retain members is to trash the founder of our faith. Don’t you remember last conference when the Apostles accused Joseph of rape, and warned them to keep their daughters from him or anyone that sustains him? Or better yet, when President Monson stood up and said God killed Joseph to protect the church. Come on, get some logic, the way to convert and retain is to bash the father of this dispensation.
Wait, did I hear that at conference or a story on Wheat and Tares “That Moment When You Realize You Are Talking to A Crazy Person”
ken-
I agree, but I have to say that MH is a good man.
Jared, you’re a good man too. I don’t know Ken as well, but I’m sure he is good at heart.
MH-love you, brother.
I would suggest we have a boys night out — perhaps in Hilldale/Colorado city. My treat.
Ken – #79 – Thanks for replying. You wrote:
“It is not about them, any of the ancient (or current) Prophets, it is about us and our progression.”
My question was not about ANY of them; it was about Christ. Is your answer that, yes, you picture Christ sitting down with Emma and laying out the cold, hard fact that His gospel requires her heartbreak? You picture him saying that to her?
I think your answer was yes to that, but I’m making sure.
By the way Anon for this, Nate blogs right here at W&T. On the top right you can click on his name to see his past posts.
Colorado City sounds interesting in a circus kind of way. Let me know when you want to go.
Ellen,
I never said Christ would do anything of the sort. I don’t speak for him, that is way above my pay grade. Doing so without his approval is taking his name in vain.
Thank you, Ken, for that refreshing interpretation. It has been close to my own heart for a considerable time. I think it represents a far more profound wrong than the mere use of unsavory language.
I suspect there are many in the religion trade who have cloaked themselves in the Lord’s word and enriched themselves in the process who will need to answer for it in time.
Ken – I’m not understanding you at all, so time for me to stop.
I think “What would Jesus do?” is a question most people have asked and tried to answer without claiming the question is above our pay grade.
Another ungraceful dodge, but it is time for the conversation to wrap up anyway. It’s outlived the ability to discuss pertinent issues and has devolved into a contest of accusing each other of arrogantly misjudging people past and present, as well as sidestepping uncomfortable facts. It’s definitely time to stop discussing this.
MTB #73 – no sane genealogist would argue that teenage brides that young were common in the mid-1800s, but that’s not what the church claims. The fact is that it did happen. In my own family from that time period I have a 15-year-old girl marrying a 19-year-old guy in a monogamous relationship (both Mormon). I also have a 14-year-old girl marrying a 37-year-old man (she was inactive Mormon, he was Catholic). So was it common? No. Did it happen sometimes? Yes.
As for the whole Section 132 mess, I hate polygamy. I have family stories where the difficulties of living polygamy were admitted. I have one female ancestor who stated that her husband taking a second wife was the worst moment of her life and living in polygamy was the single greatest trial of her life (yes, she did have children die before becoming adults). She still retained a testimony of the church, though.
So, am I allowed to dislike polygamy and still have a testimony of the Restoration? Definitely. In a moment when I was angriest about this (not just with Joseph, but with questionable actions of my own ancestors), I sat down and asked God if he really told Joseph to practice polygamy. I felt like I received a “Yes” answer. Am I going to tell other people that they will receive the same answer? No. For whatever reason God needs me to believe the initial command came from him. I don’t like the way it was started, practiced, and stopped (major missteps along the way), but I believe that God heard the cries of his daughters (just like in Jacob 2) and will make everything right for them in the end. For some who practiced polygamy, they received an assurance at that time. Others did not (one girl in my family literally hid in the swamp to avoid having to make her sealing to BY more than just in name only, she was later granted a divorce).
In my family, those who practiced polygamy definitely produced more descendants than those who did not, so I’m willing to accept the “raise up seed” argument from Jacob 2. Arguments about overcoming jealousy reek of the “Curse of Eve” philosophy and are entirely unconvincing (I still maintain that Howard’s views align much more closely with the Oneida community).
Mary Ann, comments like yours are very helpful to people like me, so thanks!
Ellen,
Fair enough. I am not trying to be diffucult and my point has been consistent all along. The question is not “What Would Jesus do?” but “What Would Jesus have ME do?”
Ellen wrote “Is your answer that, yes, you picture Christ sitting down with Emma and laying out the cold, hard fact that His gospel requires her heartbreak? You picture him saying that to her?”
Ken, Ellen’s question is along the lines of “What Would Jesus do?” It is not the question “What Would Jesus have ME do?”
It’s just so hard for some people to give straight answers when the questions get uncomfortable. Instead, “it’s above my pay grade” to answer, or “let me change the question to something that I’m more comfortable answering” or “let me testify of my conversion experience which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and that testimony will incoherently cover all past errors in judgment Joseph may have made.” It just kind of drives me nuts when people refuse to honestly deal with these difficulties and change the subject or refuse to answer.
That’s exactly what Nate said: “The problem is that most Mormons don’t find the paradox intolerable, because they haven’t yet fully considered it.”
“What would Jesus do?” It’s good to remember that Jesus displays the same schizophrenic character that Joseph Smith’s revelations do. In one chapter the disciples ask, “shall we call down fire from heaven to destroy them?” to which Jesus responds, “The Son of Man came to save, not to destroy.” But in the very next chapter Jesus says, speaking of people who reject the message, “wipe the dust of your feet off, and it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorah than for them.” Is it any wonder the disciples were a bit confused by Jesus?
MH,
It is not about being uncomfortable or dodging a question or giving what you think is a straight answer. It really is about me not knowing what Jesus would do on some hypothetical scenario AND neither do you. I really don’t know.
More importantly, we have been asked not to take his name in vain and I choose to follow that command. And yes, invoking his name in some hypothetical scenario and speculating what HE would do is taking his name in vain. In stark contrast, considering what he would have ME do in my personal activities each day is living the gospel.
Dodge
I’ve often wondered about the the Saviors seemingly “schizophrenic” answers to the apostles questions–as Nate points out.
I believe the answer lies in the, God is love teachings. The purpose of hell, justice, and punishment is to bless. How so?
D&C 88:35 teaches:
35 That which breaketh a law, and abideth not by law, but seeketh to become a law unto itself, and willeth to abide in sin, and altogether abideth in sin, cannot be sanctified by law, neither by mercy, justice, nor judgment. Therefore, they must remain filthy still.
I read this as saying the purpose of suffering that results from sin
is to bring about sanctification (to become God like).
Let me parrot this simple dichotomy to this question, using Jared’s comment 76 as a template.
“It really is an easy decision [on] Jesus. Either he would condemn Emma for polygamy or he wouldn’t condemn Emma for polygamy.”
There’s the dichotomy. So let’s analyze “I don’t know”. I don’t know means you could potentially see it either way. Yes, he might condemn Emma, or no he won’t.
Well, “No” leaves no room for doubt about this. Jesus wouldn’t condemn Emma if Ken answered no. However, Ken didn’t answer No. Therefore yes is a possibility, however unlikely such a response could be. Therefore “I don’t know”, while potentially true in Ken’s case, leaves Ken open to the idea that Jesus would condemn Emma. So “I don’t know” actually leaves room for “yes, Ken can picture Christ sitting down with Emma and laying out the cold, hard fact that His gospel requires her heartbreak.”
Aren’t false dichotomies wonderful? They leave room for only hot and cold, and Jesus spews the lukewarm out of his mouth. I’d spew it too, because “I don’t know” is really a “yes” in this case. Ken can imagine a scenario in which the Savior requires Emma’s heartbreak, which makes the Savior a really crappy guy. Sort of makes me not like the Savior. I don’t believe Jesus is a crappy guy, even if Nate does.
This is exactly why we shouldn’t use false dichotomies. It turns God and Jesus into crappy guys, and causes the faithful to send people to exmormon.org and away from God, because how can anyone believe God and Jesus give crappy advice? If God is good, then he wouldn’t say crappy things.
Most Christians believe Jesus never married. Mormons speculate that he married Mary Magdalene. I’ve never heard any support for Jesus being a polygamist. Adam wasn’t a polygamist. If we’re supposed to be like Jesus, then at best he was a monogamist. It seems God’s way.
MH, regardless of who did or didn’t practice it in the past, we’d all be “crappy guys” if we taught our daughters to believe their eternal position was according to a polygamous hierarchy.
Further, if those like Howard think the church or our society is less developed now because we don’t share spouses, either having multiple wives so the women can be tested and develop less possessiveness, or polyandry so the men can have opportunities to develop less jealousy, those “crappy” ideas just tear down the sanctity of marriage and the trust and commitment that is created in a marital relationship, safe for practicing responsible sexual relations in a beautiful way we are designed to experience such things.
If we are taught we cannot serve two masters, but choose either God or mammon, for God is a jealous God, why does it work “better” for us to serve two spouses to help us overcome jealousy? It doesn’t. That’s ludicrous.
Interestingly, if you read in India where they recently they had court rulings that freedom of religion to practice Islam doesn’t establish the right to practice polygamy, many of the defendants of polygamy there list reasons it should be good for women (sounding similar to many mormons trying to justify it, including there are more women in heaven then men so it is needed, blah blah blah), but in the end fall back on “it is good because God commanded it”.
It seems the same with mormonism and Joseph Smith. There are lots of theories…but it comes down to whether God commanded Joseph or not. We can justify it with scripture if so, or we can condemn it from scripture if not.
For me, I’ve come to accept that Joseph wasn’t a puppet, and Joseph wasn’t a blank canvas that God wrote on his heart what to do, and Joseph wouldn’t do anything that wasn’t directly from God, or that Joseph always understood what he should do. No…God doesn’t intervene in our lives like that. Joseph got ideas and took them to the Lord. He either got a yes, or a no…or sometimes no answer at all and had to figure it out for himself, only to learn later he was wrong about some things and that was part of his learning.
My biggest worry is that polygamy is still expected to be believed as eternal principles because we just can’t let go of the idea Joseph could possibly be wrong or blinded in some ways by his visions of utopia. And because of that, we secretly continue to teach it, like Joseph secretly taught it, because it doesn’t stand the light of day to teach it openly.
That scares me. So I will go with what stands the light of day (the chruch disavows it, we don’t teach it, I don’t know if we ever taught it was necessary), and I’ll go with what feels right in my heart. Which includes the fact that we develop more as a church, and as individuals, without the impractical mythical teaching of polygamous sharing.
Howard: #64 “I do not believe this is true. I do not see LDS people being refined in a way that transcends their possessiveness and jealousy today. What are the *better ways* to do this you speak of? Instead I see a church that has regressed considerably since Joseph with polygamy and the Law of Consecration set aside…”
A “better way” to teach men to transcend possessiveness would be castration. Then, you’d truly learn not to be attached. Are you ready to progress?
Heber13,
Brilliant! So the better way is to end the perpetuation of humankind? Gee, why didn’t I think of that?
I know, right?? Sure way of eliminating the natural man!
Or, we could be sensible, and have men and women equally yoked in marriage, realizing selfishness and possessiveness truly fall away when true love and respect are practiced in healthy relationships, without the “need” to inflict ridiculous false barriers to test us.
I personally am glad our church has “regressed” (as you put it) into the global organization it is today.
Heber13 wrote “…have men and women equally yoked in marriage, realizing selfishness and possessiveness truly fall away when true love and respect are practiced in healthy relationships…”
While successful monogamous marriage does test and tends to temper selfishness, possessiveness and jealously are barely touched compared to what happens in poly relationships.
I believe Heber13 is right. Polygamy doesn’t stand the LIGHT of day, the LIGHT of a loving Father and Son.
And I believe MH is right. This garbage – this carelessness and obliviousness to the damage a polygamy doctrine does to the faith of women and girls – is driving people out of the church.
I didn’t think Ellens’ question was all that hard. I could imagine Jesus saying a lot of things. He compared a woman who wanted his help to a dog; you don’t think that’s heartbreak? He called his most faithful disciple Satan for suggesting He not die.
So yes, I could see Jesus going face to face with Emma and saying it was necessary. It’s probably already happened. Doesn’t mean He wouldn’t have a hug and time mourning together afterwards.
We don’t have a “suck it up” God. We have an “I understand, let me help you through it” God.
Heber, I’m with ya brother, and support everything you said. I also find it funny that Ken, Jared, and Howard all agree “in principle” on polygamy. Talk about strange bedfellows! (I’d also like to reiterate what I said in comment #8.)
Frank –
Do you picture Jesus in the actual presence of a slave telling him that his bondage is part of the plan?
(Do I believe Christ’s light and love help people endure the bad things we do to each other. Of course.)
Part of HIS plan, Christ’s desire for the people of the world. Not “something that’s going to happen that Christ has foreknowledge of.”
#94 – having a testimony of Joseph Smith does NOT mean that you run everything he ever said/did up the flagpole and salute it. I have no issue with plural marriage (again, luv them euphenisms) AS described in D&C 132 – which includes that the first wife (and presumably, the incumbent wives if adding a third, or fourth, and so on…) must consent (this doesn’t prescribe a California King marriage bed with a tag-team free for all like the ending scene from “Fritz the Cat”).
My discomforts are some admittedly questionable things about the practice, like (1) publicly LYING about it, even though the reasons for Smith et. al are obvious, though not necessarily the same as the Nazis coming to your door and inquiring if you’re harboring Jews ; (2) sealing, even IF this ‘marriage’ wasn’t consummated in the normal sense, to another man’s wife, even IF he was apostate (3) it’s obvious that Emma was arm-twisted into allowing her husband to go forth with his polygamous unions, consummated or not. I don’t blame her or her sons for having hard feelings about it.
Some may say that Joseph Smith, b/c of what they perceive as excesses in polygamy (or practicing it at all) became a FALLEN prophet. If you recall the King Follet discourse, he’d rather have been considered “fallen” than false all along. I’m not ready to go there but can agree with MH that some of the things he did weren’t necessarily worthy of the Prophetic office.
One thing we might want to consider. Though the Church has downplayed the role of Polygamy, it still has painstakingly preserved ALL the history, regardless of how well it looks from a PR standpoint. That alone ought to give confidence that human foibles of those He called, the Lord knew then and knows now what He’s doing.
Ellen – Yes. “The Plan” involves letting people have a choice in what they do with what they are given. Doesn’t make it right, doesn’t make it wrong; it just is. You might as well cut to the chase and ask “Why does God let bad things happen?”
I think what you’re trying to get at is a bit different, but not by much. Could I see Jesus saying to someone, “this is going to hurt, but it needs to happen”. Sure. Cause we’re also talking about a God who asked for a volunteer to take on the sins of the world; an excruciating process that wasn’t helped by the torture and crucifixion. That was necessary too.
Was polygamy necessary? Beats the heck out of me. I wouldn’t have thought Christs’ sacrifice necessary either, but I’ve so little knowledge of what constitutes as necessary it would be akin to “aww, he’s so cute when he’s trying to be like God”.
(The atonement being necessary, not the crucifixion. I don’t believe that was necessary at all.)
Frank, that’s an interesting take. You might want to check out my post on different Atonement Theories. I’m not a fan of the penal substitution theory, and more of a fan of the Moral Influence theory to explain the atonement.
I saw this post on Facebook, and it bears a lot of similarities to my own thoughts: http://mormonverse.com/2015/02/02/dc-132-a-revelation-of-men-not-god/
Jared-“I have the advantage of certainty…”
You have no idea the credence this lends to your postings here. In fact, for me, it transforms the WWJD question.
MH: As I’m sure you’ve seen, the poster of that OP has been called in for a DC in his Rigby, Idaho stake. If he is really excommunicated for disbelieving polygamy is divine, that seems like the sort of thing Gawker will play for all its worth, followed by NYT et al.
How many of Mormonism’s detractors would love a headline stating that the church’s doctrine does embrace polygamy, and those who disbelieve it will be excommunicated? It’s what anti-Mormons have said about us all along. I’m not sure why this is the hill the Rigby stake president thinks we should die on. I’m pretty sure nobody at church headquarters would agree.
I am sure the NYT would prevert it the way you suggested, as would many “news” outlets. The reality is they are more propaganda then news.
To me the article is not about disavowing polygamy as much as it is discrediting Joseph Smith. If sustaining Joseph is a necessary part of entering the church via a baptismal interview; then why wouldn’t accusing Joseph of fraud, rape or criminal activity be a ticket for a DC?
Hmmm. Well, Moses slew an Egyptian, according to the Old Testament. Nephi murdered Laban. Were these not essentially crimes? Whence the double standard?
Who accused Joseph of fraud, rape, or criminal activity? Is this another out of context misquote?
Hawk, now I understand your Rigby comment. I was scratching my head there for a while.
I don’t recall being asked if I sustain Moses or Nephi, however, as for Moses he was the law giver. He killed the Egyptian before he was Prophet. We don’t know the circumstances of why, perhaps it was self defense.
As for Nephi, he was instructed to do so and rightly so by the spirit. We see similar orders by lessor souls almost daily. Obama, for instance orders drone strikes almost daily on ISIL targets.
You
I would hope there is more to the DC story than just disbelieving polygamy. If that is all it takes to get disfellowshipped in this church, I’m super naive. And probably need disfellowshipping. (Howard, don’t throw stones yet 😉 I need to ordain my son the be a deacon this Sunday…then they can discipline me about abhorring polygamy.)
Ken, please quote me where I said those words.
You know what you said, degrading him to a serial rapist by implying you wouldn’t even let your daughters near him. And, further suggesting God killed him for such deeds.
Those are harsh accusations aganist anyone, let alone someone you “sustain” as a Prophet.
Let me help you there Ken. The nice thing about a computer is you can do a quick search and find that prior to this comment, the word “rape” was used 8 times. Let’s see where the word rape and Joseph Smith are in the same sentence, shall we?
1 and 2) from the OP. “God allows despicable things like genocide, rape, and polygamy in the Bible, and we even have regulations on these issues. However, I think polygamy slavery, and rape were despicable in David and Solomon’s day, and I find the justifications in 132 to be highly questionable as coming from God.” Strangely, this has nothing to do with accusing Joseph Smith of rape.
3) from comment #58, written by me: “Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?” Ah, this one refers to *grapes*, not *rape*, and Joseph Smith’s name is nowhere to be found. This shouldn’t count in the 8, but that’s what the computer found.
4) from comment #59, written by me: “If God commands me to rob a bank, steal a car, rape a child, then I guess it can’t be sin either.” This is a hypothetical, and once again, Joseph’s name is nowhere to be found. It was in response to Jared’s point that if God commands something, then it can’t be a sin. These were counterpoints to show how silly that reasoning is.
That’s everything I wrote about rape in this thread, and never once did accuse Joseph of rape. Those 2 words aren’t even in the same sentence. Now, let’s see if Joseph and rape were in the same sentence. Who said it?
5) Wow, Ken put those 2 words together!!! Amazing!!! Comment 61 says “Clearly, your hostility towards the Prophet would prevent you from experiencing full fellowship in the church as it is not honorable to sustain him as a Prophet on the one hand, while accusing him of rape on the other.” Funny thing is, I NEVER accused him of rape, and you FALSELY attributed that to me. Shame on you Ken!
6) But you’re just warming up. You sarcastically accused me again! Comment 83 from you: “Don’t you remember last conference when the Apostles accused Joseph of rape, and warned them to keep their daughters from him or anyone that sustains him?” Nice half-truth there Ken. I was concerned that Joseph married 14 year old Helen Mar Kimball, 16 year old Fanny Alger, 19 and 21 year old Eliza and Emily Partridge, and proposed marriage to 19 year old Nancy Rigdon. But I never accused him of rape. How the hell did you jump to that erroneous conclusion?
7) Then in comment 120, you try to level it again: “If sustaining Joseph is a necessary part of entering the church via a baptismal interview; then why wouldn’t accusing Joseph of fraud, rape or criminal activity be a ticket for a DC?”
8) To which I finally challenged you on the baseless accusation in comment 122: “Who accused Joseph of fraud, rape, or criminal activity? Is this another out of context misquote?” Yes, it is another out of context misquote, and you’re falsely attributing stuff that you wrote to me. You responded with a single word “You” in comment 124.
Ken, it’s really time for you to bow out of the conversation. Let Frank, IDIAT, and el oso handle this on the apologetic side. Once again, you’re making things up, and you have nothing to add to the conversation. Goodbye.
Why then wouldn’t you want your 14 year old near him? And why did God kill him as you suggest?
Ken, this is seriously my last comment to you. You don’t deserve anything because you can’t read, jump to conclusions, misremember scripture, etc. (And you don’t even attempt to apologize for misquoting me even when it is shown clearly how egregious this was.)
Would you want a 36 year old man, already legally married to his wife marrying your 14 year old daughter, even after he already supposedly married 16 year old Fanny Alger, 19 and 21 year old sisters? If you say yes, that’s even more reason to write you off as a looney wacko. Warren Jeffs got thrown in jail for that very thing. Are you defending Warren? I personally wouldn’t mind seeing old Warren get the death penalty for abusing his position of authority. In today’s world, we would consider such abuse sexual harrassment at a minimum. Arizona charged old Warren with incest and sexual conduct with minors. In Utah he was convicted of two counts of rape as an accomplice. In Texas he was found guilty of sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault of children.
A 14 year old girl would require consent from her father to marry anyone, even in 1842. Still, I never accused Joseph of rape. Would you honestly give consent for your daughter to marry a 36 year old man (more than twice her age)? I don’t want Joseph proposing marriage to my 14 year old daughter. It’s an abuse of power, and amen to the authority of that man.
If God killed Joseph via the mob (and I’m not saying that, but I think it is a VERY good possibility), I think God killed him as a consequence of the false prophecy to Emma in D&C 132:51-57. That was another abuse of power, and clearly in violation of D&C 121:37.
Frank – #114 –
“Could I see Jesus saying to someone, “this is going to hurt, but it needs to happen”. Sure.”
It’s going to hurt to have your husband lie to you, but it needs to happen. It’s going to hurt to see your husband pursue other women, marry other women, have sex with other women, lie to the public – but it needs to happen. Section 132, where I threaten to destroy you, it needs to happen.
I don’t see God or Christ saying that in a million years, and neither do my daughters and nieces.
I hope this brother at mormonverse.com (Rigby, ID) is at peace with what he’s written and willing to see it through. The church has it both ways right now: presenting its incredulous face to the public(Polygamy? Good grief, no! That’s over and done with)while teaching its girls that it’s a righteous doctrine set to “off” for the time being. It’s not honest.
MH,
Your digging deeper and are making judgement and speculation with out all the facts. You think you know, but in the end none of us have the right to judge anyone, unless of course we are a common judge of Israel over that soul.
I too will make this my final comment to you on this post, The way to know Joseph was a prophet is through the spirit. I have taken that challange and what I experienced is more real than any “fact” you think you have on his action. It was real and it was from God. What’s more my daily study of the Book of Mormon has greatly blessed my life.
I wish you well.
If Jesus were a youth in Nazis Germany and the SS showed up questioning him about his parents aiding and abetting Jews (and they were) do you think Jesus would lie or tell the truth?
He would probably say nothing. Thats what he `said` to Herod-nothing.
If Jesus were a youth in Nazis Germany and the SS showed up questioning him about his parents aiding and abetting Jews (and they were) do you think Jesus would lie or tell the truth?
I think he would tell them, no-a lie.
Why? Because he would obey the higher principle.
Dying on the cross would be suicide for Jesus because he could have delivered himself. He had the power. But he didn’t, the higher principle was to “finish his preparations unto the children of men” his father commanded him to do.
This line of reasoning touches on the discussion of Joseph Smith and polygamy. Joseph didn’t want to do as he was commanded. It took an angel with a sword to motivate him to practice polygamy. In doing so he did what he had to do even if it meant lying and other behaviors that were not part of his character.
The problem with that line of reasoning, Jared, is that reaffirms polygamy as “the higher law.” The sad truth is, I believe, that polygamy is, in fact, a central “high law” of Mormonism. A lot of us just have a really hard time accepting it. I feel myself more and more backed into a corner where the only honest choices are “polygamy is the higher law” and “Mormonism is a fraud” Everything else feels a lot like just trying to fool myself. Somehow I just can’t get myself to commit to either of those choices though.
Ellen (131) – finish the paragraph you quoted.
As for your insinuation that this only hurts women; you’re sorely mistaken. Any man in this church who thinks the only option is “getting mor wimmin” is sadly deluded, having no knowledge of the polyandry that happened.
To have a God who doesn’t do anything we don’t like, you’ll have to look elsewhere.
LDS boys are never told that God may require them to be just one (concurrent) husband among many.
They certainly should be. I chalk it up to too many men believing they’ve got it easy.
Nona-
No one is required to live the law of polygamy if the choose not to.
For now, I wouldn’t worry a moment about it. Wait until the next life to make the decision, if there is one to be made.
In the here and now, be concerned about fulfilling your baptism covenant of receiving a remission of sins. That is something worth pondering and working on.
That’s a good comeback, but it sidesteps and minimizes the real pain of women and girls.
Ellen – the last thing I would ever want to do is minimize pain of anyone, but I won’t play pain Olympics either. Absolutely women bear the brunt of this, as when anyone thinks of polygamy, in or out of the Church, they think of men getting more than one woman.
Men and boys should be better informed about the possibilities of polyandry in their lives, to make them more aware of and empathetic to the pain that it causes women.
#141 – If ANY LDS woman, in these days some 125 years from the Manifesto (and 111 years from the worldwide polygamy ban) is in “pain” over the one-time practice of polygamy (I’m not including those caught up in the offshoot groups that mistakenly believe it’s still in effect), she needs to get a life. Seriously.
Are you serious?
I don’t give a rip about polygamy past. What I hate with a passion is the shadow it casts over the present. Girls are taught – formally and informally – that polygamy is acceptable and possible for them, in this life. A lot of girls are going to “get a life” outside of the church if these issues aren’t cleared up.
Jared, people have misused “higher law” logic in the name of God to commit all kinds of atrocities (Jihad, Crusades, Iniquisition, Salem Witch Trials, Mountain Meadows Masascre to name just a few.) I find your insistence that polygamy is a higher form of marriage to be a perversion of logic.
Ellen, selfdo59 is a caveman, and usually speaks like one.
I didn’t vote, partly because I don’t think some of the events happened anyway. I don’t believe Joseph Smith practiced polygamy at all. I don’t have all the references at the moment but here are some of the reasons why I believe this:
1. Joseph Smith taught against polygamy, even in his final sermon, and denied having married other women. Some say that he was simply denying it, to hide his crimes, but he told people not to follow anyone who would teach polygamy, even if that man was a prophet.
2. Jacob Cochrane began a movement in Massachusetts, which included spiritual wifery. Brigham Young and others went on a mission to the Cochranites and they and the converted Cocrhanites introduced spiritual wifery to the church. John C Bennet was one such man, who was having sexual relations with women, telling them it was okay because Joseph said so. Joseph Smith denied this and excommunicated him. (See the book, “The Saintly Scoundrel” by Andrew Smith.)
3. Brigham Young contradicts himself when he at one time said Joseph Smith taught it before the 1840s but on another occasion he says he had been considering plural marriage but Joseph had never taught it before. (This and other points are in Richard and Pamela Price’s book “Joseph Smith fought polygamy”.)
4. While Joseph Smith taught against polygamy, Brigham Young was in favor of it. BY also bought out the false doctrines of blood atonement, Adam is God, black people cannot hold the Priesthood (and that they are inferior to whites and should be their servants), murder is an unpardonable sin etc. Joseph smith did not teach these things and so is highly likely BY started polygamy along with these other doctrines and practices.
5. There was an original Section 101 or 109 of the D&C that stated the church’s stance on marriage and stated that the spiritual wifery system of John C Bennet is “a matter of his own manufacturing”.
6. Section 132 was not around in Joseph Smith’s time and Brigham Young produced it, saying he had kept in a draw until that time.
7. There are original transcripts of Joseph Smith’s words condemning the practice of polygamy which were then altered to say unless God allows it.
8. The matter of Joseph Smith having more than one wife could not be proven in a court of law when it was trying to decide which branch of Mormonism was right, in order to give land to the right organisation. Brigham Young’s sect wanted to prove that Joseph smith practiced polygamy and so this was researched and presented but the judge found no conclusive evidence.
9. If Joseph was a polygamist, he would have married women who lived in other cities, Joseph in Nauvoo and the women in Kirtland. They would have just had a secret marriage and then the woman left for her city.
10. There is no contemporary evidence for Joseph Smith’s wives. none of the women married to him wrote anything in the diaries about marrying Joseph until after he was dead. You’d think such an important thing as this would get a mention in a diary at the time.
So, no, I don’t believe it is right to marry more than one person and especially not another man’s wife or to do so without the first wife allowing it.
Also, God never mentions virginity. He doesn’t care if one is virgin or not, just if one keeps the law of chastity. The word “virgin” in the scriptures refers to a young woman, who in those days would have not had sex yet (if they kept their chastity).
Have you read brian hales books on polygamy?
hawkgrrrl – #119 – wrote:
“MH: As I’m sure you’ve seen, the poster of that OP has been called in for a DC in his Rigby, Idaho stake. If he is really excommunicated for disbelieving polygamy is divine, that seems like the sort of thing Gawker will play for all its worth, followed by NYT et al.
How many of Mormonism’s detractors would love a headline stating that the church’s doctrine does embrace polygamy, and those who disbelieve it will be excommunicated? It’s what anti-Mormons have said about us all along. I’m not sure why this is the hill the Rigby stake president thinks we should die on. I’m pretty sure nobody at church headquarters would agree.”
Does anyone have thoughts about this apparently going forward. I can’t understand it.
FWTW–my two cents. I think we can only see this from our limited mortal perspective here and that’s a problem because we lived premortally much longer than we do in this life. Plus we have no memory in this life of who we knew and what our relationships were with others premortally. Obviously, we knew a lot more people in the premortal world than we do here. We’re billions of years old–that means a lot of relationships existed that currently we have no memory of.
One of JS wive’s was told that she was always Joseph’s wife although she had an earthly husband.
Jesus’s mother Mary would be a wife of Elohim even though she was married to Joseph in this life.
If there are mistakes in D&C 132, at some point the Lord won’t do it that way and it’ll be clear.
I think all we can do is have faith in Him.
#146 (MH) – If I can be compared to this SF Giants legend, then I’ll take the label “Caveman” proudly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Robinson_(baseball)
What can I say. Saw the guy win a game with a pinch-hit homer in the bottom of the 12th back in ’90 at the ‘Stick. Not bad for a PITCHER (but so was Babe Ruth, whose record for consecutive scoreless innings stood for FIFTY years until Drysdale broke it in ’68). Mr. Robinson is currently very active in civic affairs in his home town in WV.
And yes, any member, but especially our lady folk who have far better things to concern themselves with, that gets into a pink fit over plural marriage, which has been functionally obsolete for 125 years in the USA, needs to get a life and a testimony of how CURRENT revelation works. I follow the LIVING prophet; the words of the dead ones are useful to the extent they haven’t been superseded. Hence since 1890 (1904 Worldwide, to close ‘loopholes’ for jurisdictions that didn’t then explicitly forbid polygamy) the Church has, as directed in Jacob 2:30, “adhered to THESE things” (e.g., the default mode of marriage which is monogamy).
Readers might want to consider the views of this defenders of the authenticity of Joseph Smith. Even though he’s RLDS (I wonder why he uses that instead of CoC), he makes great points. Sorry that this particular blog IS a few years old but it still seems relevant.
http://www.defendingjoseph.com/2008/11/does-book-of-jacob-support-polygamy.html
I’d say there is no comparison between you and Don Robinson. I’m sure Don has way more class and tact.
As for RLDS, following the schisms of the 1980s, many RLDS members left the mainstream RLDS church, and have formed “Restoration branches”. They object to the name change to Community of Christ (as well as COC policies on ordination of women, gay marriage, lineal succession, and other issues) and many have formed the Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and prefer to keep the RLDS nickname. The Remnant Church has a prophet by the name of Fred Larsen that can trace his lineage back to Joseph Smith.
Heretic, your rather arrogant assessment of one’s ‘class’ and tactfulness seems to be a function of whether they agree (or not) and how often your arguments get trumped. I consider the source.
Do appreciate the advice on the RLDS vs. CoC things, though I knew of the “Remnant” RLDS “Church”, the way the blogger considers even the CoC people as a part of the faith was somewhat confusing. The gist, though, is that here is someone who is definitely not an apologist for Joseph Smith practicing polygamy, or polygamy itself, and yet he stridently defends Smith as a true Prophet. I’ll let the few CoC (or RLDS) posters chime in if they care, they know far more about their Church than I do.
Douglas…”which has been functionally obsolete for 125 years in the USA, needs to get a life and a testimony of how CURRENT revelation works.”
Hate to break it to you, but our current temple sealing policies allow for living men to be sealed to more than one living woman concurrently. Living women who are divorced or widowed must have their prior sealing cancelled if they wish to be sealed to a new husband. We can issue all sorts of “carefully worded denials”, but the truth is that we still allow polygamy.
Mixed fruits i.e. bitters and sweets are good in beer, and can be judged very subjectively.
I would hope however that the fruits of pure revelation/prophecy might tap into that sweetest of fruit and yield a bit less ambiguity or confusion. Something more eternally objective.
This reduces the Gospel to a couple of important commandments in my opinion.
Many LDS “newbs” or otherwise relatively unhinged “believers” fail to connect all the dots. With polygamy in the LDS history, it must be considered as a development of the “spiritual wife” principle looking forward towards eternity. The idea was not necessarily sexualized explicitly. Joseph Smith and Brigham, for example, were sealed to many women “for eternity” with scant contact in the here and now…. in the there and then of their lives. The sealings that were done were not final in many cases, where people changed their minds and got “sealed” again for the next world. I consider it a sort of experimental development of a concept. With the expulsion from Nauvoo, a lot of folks just broke up, others got re-sealed to someone heading West.
It looks, historically, that D&C was written on the fly, specifically to address a problem with Emma. Joseph first came into contact with the notion while translating the Book of Mormon. Pretty hard to put a legal mind to work to make it all consistent across all that time.
The basic idea of polygamy is the central idea of all existence. It is being covenanted with, and working together with, people who want to promote life. It is more than a personal covenant with one other person, it is a covenant with God and with all who share the work. That is why, in the eternal worlds, those who dedicate themselves to this end, in the service of God and their fellow beings, don’t do it on legal terms exactly….. they do it because they have the love in their hearts for truth and for Life.
I’d have a hard time thinking David shouldn’t have been just executed for what he did to Uriah, whatever evil you see in Joseph Smith for polygamy is hardly the same kind of pre-meditated murder. In the end, Emma was feeding the proprietors of the Nauvoo Expositor with the facts they needed to destroy Joseph Smith, and when he fled for his life after the Nauvoo Expositor press was destroyed, she wrote him a letter asking how could he leave at a time like this. Joseph undoubtedly loved and valued Emma, to that day and probably forever, even though she was acting against him, so he went “like a lamb to the slaughter”. From all I’ve seen worth believing, he lived at home with Emma whatever “wives” he had, and though I’m related to the Windsor Lyon family and the Benjamin F. Johnson family where there are private convictions of descendency from Joseph Smith, he never was much like the later polygamists with large families they couldn’t provide for, or devote time to, resulting in basically fatherless children by the score.
I don’t think this world was ever conceived of as the place for an idyllic life unchallenged by conflicts or problems or personal failures. It has always been a testing ground against which we must struggle to exist, and even more to promote propagation towards a future where mankind increases, and all life increases. The critical judgment is not to dissect our imperfections and criticize one another legalistically, but how to recognize things that aren’t so good, and learn to do better.
So, yeah, lets write a better marriage revelation that allows men and women to form plural families by covenant based on the husband being the head of the family like Christ is the head of the Church, and have and provide for what children we can have.
Even in the Bible, a man had that prerogative if he chose it. And yeah, any woman who doesn’t want to help in that direction is sorta destroying herself by not following the first commandment given by God to Adam and Eve.