MsQwerty

No wonder he's got a big smile on his face...

That's what I get for posting late at night. What you say is correct and I worded it clumsily. I'm fairly sure I read that Emma believed the prophetic mantle should be passed on to her son after Joseph died. During the years between 1844 when Joseph was martyred and 1860 when she was baptised a member of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, she must have given a lot of thought to which spiritual direction she and her children should take. The fact she hated polygamy and tried to deny it ever happened, that she had legal wranglings with Brigham Young over trying to secure an inheritance for her children from Joseph's (and the church's) property, her marriage to Lewis Bidamon and being pregnant when her husband was killed, would have been more than enough to think about in those interim years before joining the Re-og's. The admission by the current C of C that Joseph practiced polygamy is fairly recent, if I recall correctly? I suppose polygamy was a bit of a Pandora's box in some ways. I don't know how Joseph would have been able to justify stopping it once it had been introduced. She saw it for what it was, I think.

Of course she had an agenda that may have relied on sensationalising her experiences, but in general I felt she had valid insight and experience to support her complaints about polygamy. Agreed, but this was a fairly natural response, given what she went through. Although as you say, there were women who experienced polygamy differently. Sounds good, thanks. I'll look for it.

Funny how that works...

Not in Joseph Smith's case, in fact when Emma said "No Way", Joseph then had another revelation telling her she'd be 'destroyed' if she didn't comply: "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" (D&C 132.54). So what are a woman's 'choices' in this situation? She really has no control over the fact that if her husband feels compelled to do so, he's going to 'take' another wife regardless of what she says. He just has to keep badgering and guilt-tripping her into accepting the idea until she gives in or leaves the marriage. Emma's opposition to polygamy is well documented and so is the fact that Joseph kept his first few marriages at least, a secret from her because she was so against the idea. When she left with her sons for the Reorganized LDS church after Joseph's death, there are documents that show she couldn't stand Brigham Young (she thought her son should be the next prophet, not him) or polygamy (she denied it ever happened in her marriage). As such the Re-og's have never preached polygamy and deny that Joseph ever practiced it. And I know exactly what the men in the early church said to women to get them to comply with polygamy - the old 'oh if only I didn't have those angels with flaming swords ordering me to marry that other woman' stuff. What I read here earlier is the same thing - a woman can be manipulated with religious guilt into complying with plural marriage if a man suggests it to her. Thank goodness those days are over. Women in polygamy made the best of a bad situation. They did their best to be faithful and try to understand why they were required to live the principle of plural marriage. In general, the literature shows they didn't much like the idea but were willing to make the sacrifices required.

I haven't read a lot on this (I think Quinn has explored the subject), but the logic of it came from the idea of 'dynastic marriages'. The purpose was to join high ranking church families to the prophet's family...and then I suppose the rest of the church would also be sealed to the prophet, and to God, by extension. Something like that...I think.

You know, I meant to post this for you before when I read your question. :) We can dig out all kinds of weird and wonderful comments by past leaders of the church, but the fact is that it's modern revelation that is most important for us. Bruce R. McConkie was an inspiring example to me in this regard. If you've ever read his "Mormon Doctrine", you'll know that he made many comments about the "Negro" that came across as, to be frank, downright racist. However, then he was present when the 1978 revelation was received "that the time had now come to extend the gospel and all its blessings and all its obligations, including the priesthood and the blessings of the house of the Lord, to those of every nation, culture and race, including the black race." His response? Was it to stand by his own perceived wisdom or research? Was it to silently support his previous comments by not correcting them, thus allowing evil-minded people to use his words against the church? Was it to rely on the comments of early church leaders like Brigham Young? Nope, his humility was amazing - and taught me a lesson about the importance of revealed truth and the importance of the words of a living prophet. He said: "There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, "You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the Gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the Gentiles." What matters is that we follow the LIVING prophet today. God knows the challenges of our times and he gives us guidance through his mouthpiece today. What was revealed to saints of other times was for their benefit (even if it's not apparent to us today). Hope that helps a little with your question.

No offense, but the reality of living in polygamous marriages is very different to what you are positing here. If you read any of the biographies that are currently in the bookstores about people who have lived in polygamous communities (the FLDS in particular), or other bios from women who have done the same in African, Arab and Asian countries, you will see it's not as you describe at all. In fact, it's most often horrible, degrading, abusive, competitive and divisive. Then read the research on the subject of LDS polygamy as practiced in the early church and in the early years after it was first made an excommunicable practice, and you'll learn pretty much the same thing. See Todd Compton's "In Sacred Loneliness" and Van Wagoner's "Mormon Polygamy". For a softer approach if you don't like the gory details, try Holzapfel's "Women of Nauvoo" and the evidence still points to LDS women's general dislike of the polygamy. But they gritted their teeth and did what they felt the prophet wanted them to do. One of Joseph Smith's wives was Helen Mar Kimball, daughter of Heber C. Kimball (an apostle at the time). It was revealed to Joseph that Helen was to be sealed to him, actually it was 'revealed' at first that Heber's wife Vilate was to be sealed to him, but the plan changed. You can look up Helen's thoughts on the subject - she was devastated because at 14 she had ideas about going out dancing and romantic feelings for a young boy. She was horrified and felt betrayed when her father came to her with the 'revelation' that she was to be sealed to Joseph. The jury is out on whether this marriage was ever consummated. This girl hated polygamy because of the heartache she'd seen her mother endure, but like other women she was convinced to be 'obedient' and submit her will to the adults around her. A quick google search on her name will yield you hours of reading if you're interested. One of Brigham Young's younger wives (Ann Eliza Young) decided she was sick of being number 19 (in fact it later emerged she was number 52 but just didn't know it) left him and then went on the lecture circuit preaching against polygamy (and Brigham Young) and campaigning for women's rights. I actually read her book "Wife No. 19", (found it in a second hand bookstore of all places), and it makes for compelling reading. She wrote that she had "a desire to impress upon the world what Mormonism really is; to show the pitiable condition of its women, held in a system of bondage that is more cruel than African slavery ever was, since it claims to hold body and soul alike." You can read about her here: Ann Eliza Young - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'd smack my husband (metaphorically speaking) if he tried that one on me. What you would be doing is a) talking to her like she's a three year old, and, b) trying to convince her that while you're telling her she has a choice, she really doesn't because you're going to do what you want anyway. Oh wait, it's what GOD wants. Uh huh.

I'm sure the previous poster meant "daily" as an expression to mean that news stories on this issue are commonly reported. Attempting to minimize the frequency of news reports on abuse in polygamous communities is simply not fair to those who suffer. The raid on the YFZ FLDS compound in Texas was in the news daily for months, as I recall. I have recently read "Escape" by Carolyn Jessop and "Lost Boy" by Brent W. Jeffs, both of whom lived in the FLDS polygamous communities and know firsthand of the abuses that occur in those situations. If you want specific examples I suggest you get hold of either of these books, or go online and look at organizations that have been set up to support those who flee or are exiled from their communities. There's plenty of media exposure in the news about these people.

Let me know when you figure that one out...I'd like to know too.

There were a number of cases of women in the early LDS church being sealed to men. Joseph Smith actually started the practice himself. I'll repost a comment I made some time ago, where I asked if men in the church would be as supportive of the idea of polygamy if it meant sharing their wives with another man. See below: After reading through the threads on polygamy, I noticed a few comments wondering about the practice of polyandry in the early church. This article gives an explanation of how it all worked at the time: http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf And this one focuses on the experiences of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young, who was married to Joseph Smith while married to her 'legal' husband Henry Jacobs. After Joseph was killed, she was then re-sealed to Joseph (with Brigham acting as proxy) and sealed next to Brigham Young as himself - while still married to Henry (all a bit convoluted). Brigham then sent Henry on a mission and Zina moved into Brigham's Winter Quarters. Zina and Her Men Todd Compton's "In Sacred Loneliness" also discusses Zina's marriages, noting that she felt it was a sacrifice greater than giving up her life when she finally relented and said yes to Joseph. He had proposed to her three times while she was courting her husband Henry, and after she was married she finally said yes to Joseph when he said that if she didn't marry him, an angel would slay him and the church would pretty much end. (p.80,81). When she married Brigham later on (while still married to Henry), she said she felt a "weakness of heart" over it (p.85,86). The practice in those days though, was that if a prophet or apostle died, his wives would be married to another apostle so their status and protection would remain the same in the church. Brigham had around seven of Joseph's wives sealed to him after the martyrdom, if I recall correctly. Meanwhile, Henry said "I feel alone & no one to speak to call my own. I feel like a lamb without a mother.” (Compton, p.91). Henry continued to write many heartfelt and loving letters to Zina while he was away on his mission, but by then the official line was that they were separated and he never got to live with his wife again. Henry's experience highlights the issue of why so many men in the church say they don't understand why women are so worried about polygamy, if it is a commandment from god. They, as men, don't have to contemplate, as Henry Jacobs did, the thought of their wife being taken care of and pleased by another man in a physical and emotional sense. Out of curiousity, how many men here would be ok with the idea of their wife being intimate with another man? If a man has little or no problem with the idea of having more than one wife if god commands it, then it should follow that he should be just as open to a command from god that his wife be joined to another man in every sense of the marital relationship. On a purely cerebral level I couldn't care less about the practice of polyandry or polygamy (or any other form of marriage, quite honestly), but on a reality level, I am convinced the practice would bring much in the way of difficulty and heartache. There are numerous instances of polyandry being practiced in the early church, but Zina and her first husband Henry have really had me thinking about the implications of plural marriage from a polyandrous perspective.

Yes, that's probaby true to a large extent. Although I wouldn't want to label all people who get tattoos (in western society at least) as being attention seekers. Some people just do it for personal and symbolic reasons and get tattoos in places where only a trusted person will ever see them. Like anything in life, there's probably a thousand rationales behind why someone gets tattooed. This is the way I feel about a lot of issues - I make the choice not to do something, but I try hard not to judge others for choosing differently.

Stop it, you're making me hungry...and it's too late at night for me to be eating

My 'culture' means the men in the last generation of my family have tattoos as marks of toughness, of military or prison experience. To them it means they are strong, physically and mentally tough, travelled, been through a war or two, done a spell in prison, seen a lot of life, that sort of thing. I've never seen those particular tattoos as anything 'bad', quite the opposite actually. However I have just never had that desire to decorate myself permanently. There's just nothing in me that wants it and when I've ever thought about it, all I feel is a natural aversion. I feel the same way about eating brussells sprouts.

Don't call me 'Deary' - I find it patronising and rude. Thanks. Thanks too for the cultural enlightenment - and I might add that as one who works in an exceptionally multicultural field, I am well aware of the significance of tattoos for certain groups. Still, I appreciate you sharing your obviously vast historical knowledge of the subject. Your comments about the 19th century aristocracy in England have some basis in fact, although tattooing wasn't as common among this group as you'd suggest. The occasional member of royalty and a select few followers who were trying to curry favour hardly consitute evidence that this was common practice among the wealthy. In fact, the majority of men who had tattoos during Victorian times were soldiers and sailors - men who 'earned' their stripes with life experience and travel, so to speak. Tattooing was also also preached against by social commentators of the time who associated tattoos with prostitutes and criminals (like the women and men who ended up being transported to various penal settlements and who were then identified by their body markings). Either way, I'm not interested in getting into a slanging match based on who can dig up unsubstantiated 'research' from google links. What I was referring to earlier was the more recent western obsession with decorative 'body-art' for its own sake, and the fact that it is no longer considered the domain of stereotypical 'toughness' and masculinity. Again, I appreciate you sharing your thoughts.

Once upon a time tattoos were the symbols of toughness for sailors or rough, tough men in both legal and illegal professions. My biological father was one of those men of a former generation for whom tattoos were a stamp of toughness. Tattoos were associated with big, bad, bikies and professional boxers - and I suppose it's those historically negative connotations that were partly behind the church's opposition to them. Recently I read a book about women convicts who were shipped off to the colonies from England, and many of them were identified in ship's logs by their tattoos. Most would have the names of their husbands or children tattooed on their bodies, or a special year to mark an event like marriage, that sort of thing. It's interesting to me that tattoos were once something you only got when you were either living outside the moral mainstream of society, or if you were a criminal. Nowadays it's simply an expression of individuality or body-art. I wonder what people of those generations who had to 'earn' their tattoos would think of the purely decorative aspect of body-art today? Personally, I've never had a desire to mark my body permanently with ink...the very thought actually makes me shiver. I know many people who have lots of tattoos and while I can admire the artwork or the sentiments behind them, I don't actually like the idea of it. Today I saw a girl walking in a shopping center with a large eagle tattooed across her breastbone - I thought it looked horrible quite honestly. Does that make me a very horrible, intolerant person? Am I abnormal for NOT liking tattoos?

Kind of on topic, sorta, kinda ... Protect Insurance Companies PSA from FOD Team, Will Ferrell, Jon Hamm, Olivia Wilde, Thomas Lennon, Donald Faison, Linda Cardellini, Masi Oka, Ben Garant, Jordana Spiro, lauren, Drew Antzis, and chad_carter - Video

I read Pam's link and looked up the original document on Joseph Smith's platform - great reading if you're interested or haven't seen it before. Smith History Vault: 1844 "Gen. Smith's Views"

The automatic stay must be a huge relief for people who find themselves financially overburdened - good to know that at least is one less worry for the bankrupt. Thanks for all that info and for the exchange of ideas - I always enjoy a good chat about social issues in different nations. We can agree to disagree, and meanwhile hope the powers that be come up with useful reforms that will benefit the people of your country. As my husband and two of my children are American citizens I'm of course hopeful for the future of the US. I guess I'm not that interested in what 'bankruptcy' really means since I'm not in that position and the laws in my neck of the world are probably different to what you are familiar with. If I did discuss it I'd be talking out of my hat and wasting your time. But thanks for the info you've already provided. Maybe you'll find someone who is more interested in the subject if you try starting another thread? :)

As evidenced by the devilishly handsome and smooth-talking G.W. Bush - voted in for two presidential terms...

No problem, your observation is correct. I vote for the government I trust to spend my taxes wisely, in particular the tax I pay for healthcare. In my country it's probably fair to say that both right and left leaning voters are pro-government run health system - we know we keep them accountable with our votes. If you live in a country you pay taxes for public services like anyone else - we just happen to be a country that believes providing free health care is as vital a service as any other. Meanwhile, the waiting period (how long is it in the US?) for the bankrupt can be a time of extreme hardship. I wonder what the rate of suicide is for bankrupts? No but they can hound you for payment until as Pres. Obama said in his speech on health reform, you are forced to pay it back, or into bankruptcy. That is just ridiculous - people being bankrupted or placed in severe financial hardship because they cannot afford to pay for the health care they might have needed in an emergent situation. So the people you mentioned on the CNN program couldn't walk into that emergency room without the knowledge they might be placing their families in financial jeopardy. No wonder they went home to suffer instead. No, it's not ideal. It's shameless and embarrassing in a developed country. The rest of the developed world has free health care available to women who give birth. When will the US catch up in this area? But with universal health care it wouldn't be 'at someone else's expense' since almost all people would have contributed to the system through their taxes. With enough left over, in fact, that even some poor woman who has a baby and no money will be cared for without having to expect a bill when she gets home. Not caring for women who give birth is also discriminatory, since men will never be in that exceptionally vulnerable position of being heavily pregnant and unable to work or support a family and pay for health insurance. Home births are in my experience a choice women make because they feel more comfortable at home. It's an indictment on your health system if women are choosing home births to avoid paying hospital fees. Seriously, I hope that's not true. Then there is that frivilous UN Declaration of Human Rights that states: 2. Special protection should be accorded to mothers during a reasonable period before and after childbirth. During such period working mothers should be accorded paid leave or leave with adequate social security benefits." The human rights of women: a reference guide to official United Nations documents: English . All developed countries take this right for women seriously, so why doesn't the US? Just like that slave money used to pay for police, military, education, roads..? If both of them went into the same public or private hospital they would receive the same treatment. Really. We don't go all silly and adoring over public figures in this country - generally speaking. That sounds terrible. I hope your aunt is recovered now. I have no idea as to how the US will implement reforms so that everyone can afford health insurance. I did read that the teams Obama had researching this issue have looked at models like the one they have in Canada but decided it wouldn't work in the US. I suspect that isn't because it can't be done, but because so many people are closed and fearful of any change (like those who have been protesting recently). People need to get over the idea that caring equally for all of the citizens in a country is that terrible thing called "socialism" - can't it just be the sensible, equitable, compassionate thing to do? Yep. We shall see what the future holds. Thanks for that info. Well, I'm assuming all those brilliant teams he had working for months to come up with good health care reform solution might have some idea of what they are doing. Meaningless to you maybe - but inspiring and hopeful for many millions of Americans (like those who would much prefer not to go bankrupt or face financial hardship because they have t pay back a large hospital bill).

Um. Yes. That's what governments do - they collect taxes and spend them for the benefit of the citizens.

They don't practice what they preach (ie. you're calling them hypocrites), and the President is a bad leader. No demonizing there. Got it.

Apparently they have set the example for the rest of us to follow. It just amazes me how many out there want to demonize the Obamas, who by all accounts are honest, decent, hard-working, god-loving and idealistic people.