Not another polygamy thread! (sigh)

[funkymonkey]

Hi Mike. Sorry if my post sounded defensive...I actually had only seen Raemptom's post and then found that article and posted it up! Totally didn't even see your question so it wasn't meant to be directed at you in any way...I was totally just throwing the article up there for people to read! :)

[rameumptom]

So he just married her civily then? What purpose if it wasnt for eternity? Im not bitching I just dont understand the significance and why he did it.

Oh, maybe because the Lord commanded it? Why did God command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? We don't always know why or understand God's reasons, except sometimes he is just testing us to see if we're willing to obey.

The way I see it, God would not have restored the fullness of the temple blessings to the earth, had Joseph not been fully prepared to receive them. Without obedience by marrying Fanny Alger, there would not have been a visit by Elijah to restore the sealing keys - because Joseph would not have been ready to do all things commanded of God.

[Elphaba]

Is this dependent upon the preceding wife being dead, or can this be performed while the first wife is still living?

I'm sorry I wasn't clear on that point, and I believe Bytor answered it, correctly.

According to my mother who works extensively in geneaology and extraction, she and her husbands must all be deceased. I am not clear when she is allowed to make the choice, though. I suppose it would be after all of them had received their ordinances, even by proxy if necessary.

I should add a caveat that she can choose a man who can't take her to the Celestial Kingdon. It will be her choice to make.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

I've been reading these posts since the beginning with PC starting question. And now after all these pages of posts, my head hurts!I'm quite dazed and confused. My sisters joined the Church some 40 years before I did and the same arguments were present then. Whenever I told someone that my sisters were mormon I would get questions, "Are they the first wife?" etc. I found it nauseating to be trueful. Because I knew very little about the Church I would just respond that plural marriage is not practiced and besides that's not what the Church is about anyway.

Hi Candy,

I would really recommend Rough Stone Rolling, by Richard Bushman. It is a perceptive biography of Joseph that explains some of what this thread is addressing. It is not exactly faith-promoting, though some might disagree. But, IMO, it is extremely perceptive and insightful about Joseph's beliefs and actions.

It does reference some of the more difficul aspects of his life we've talked about on this thread. However, atheist that I am, I came away with a different understanding of Joseph than I'd had before, and it was fascinating, and less condemning.

Elphaba

[rameumptom]

I'm sorry I wasn't clear on that point, and I believe Bytor answered it, correctly.

According to my mother who works extensively in geneaology and extraction, she and her husbands must all be deceased. I am not clear when she is allowed to make the choice, though. I suppose it would be after all of them had received their ordinances, even by proxy if necessary.

I should add a caveat that she can choose a man who can't take her to the Celestial Kingdon. It will be her choice to make.

Elphaba

But can he take her dancing in the Terrestrial Kingdom's dance hall?

[Elphaba]

According to my wife, some of the ladies did not know that plural marriages or sealings to more than one woman occured. This was clearly explained to them by a BYU Professor that was also speaking. He explained that since Elder Nelson's firt wife had passed that he was able to be sealed to his new wife.....

Hi Bytor,

I had a discussion on Yahoo, a few years ago, with a young man who was a new convert, who insisted I was wrong about men marrying more than one woman in the temple, when she was deceased of course.

He kept referring to President Hinckley's quote, which we, as insiders, know was meant to differentiate the main LDS Church's practice of polygamy with those who continue to do so.

But he does say "whatsoever," which I think was misleading.

I told the convert to speak with his bishop, which he did. He wrote back it didn't harm his testimony, and I was glad for that.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

But can he take her dancing in the Terrestrial Kingdom's dance hall?

Only if she wants him to dance on the tables with her. (I picture Steve Martin and Gilda Radner going at it!)

Somehow, I can't see the white-robed people from the Celestial Kingdom being able to dance, not even the Meringue. They would get all caught up in their robe's folds, and though it wouldn't physically hurt, eventually they would fall, hard.

And well, we all know what happens to those who fall!

Elphie

[Elphaba]

One must also keep in mind that a lot of Joseph Smith's sealings to young woman were not a meant to be sealings in the marriage sense, but to create a dynastic link between himself and several of his most faithful, loyal families, in the same way I'm sealed to my mother, yet not married to her.

Not quite the same in that I assume it would never occur to you to have have relations with your mother.

Far too many people want to label Joseph with the "Well, he only made dynastic ties," than is warranted.

We do have evidence that he had sexual relations with more of the women than members with whom I've discussed this want to acknowledge.

My point, though, is if the Church's pioneers practiced polygamy, including polyandry, because they believed it was a commandment of God, I don't understand why Joseph's polygamy is so difficult to comprehend. It was really the same thing, except for the secrecy.

I do consider the secrecy a large problem. Though I understand why he didn't tell Emma, I still consider it unconscionable.

Joseph even had one polygamous relationship where he told the woman how to hide from Emma so he could visit her. Not good.

But the practice of polygamy itself was really not so different, at least when it came to the wives.

Now the brothers and sons . . . don't get me started!

Elphaba

Edited August 15, 2008 by Elphaba

[bytor2112]

Hi Bytor,

I had a discussion on Yahoo, a few years ago, with a young man who was a new convert, who insisted I was wrong about men marrying more than one woman in the temple, when she was deceased of course.

He kept referring to President Hinckley's quote, which we, as insiders, know was meant to differentiate the main LDS Church's practice of polygamy with those who continue to do so.

But he does say "whatsoever," which I think was misleading.

I told the convert to speak with his bishop, which he did. He wrote back it didn't harm his testimony, and I was glad for that.

Elphaba

It does seem difficult for some to swallow..... but it makes perfect sense...to me at least. Most of the world doesn't have a clue about sealings, but know what polygamy is.......I think that is the point President Hinkley was stressing.

[bytor2112]

Not quite the same in that I assume it would never occur to you to have have relations with your mother.

Far too many people want to label Joseph with the "Well, he only made dynastic ties," than is warranted.

We do have evidence that he had sexual relations with more of the women than members with whom I've discussed this want to acknowledge.

My point, though, is if the Church's pioneers practiced polygamy, including polyandry, because they believed it was a commandment of God, I don't understand why Joseph's polygamy is so difficult to comprehend. It was really the same thing, except for the secrecy.

I do consider the secrecy a large problem. Though I understand why he didn't tell Emma, I still consider it unconscionable.

Joseph even had one polygamous relationship where he told the woman how to hide from Emma so he could visit her. Not good.

But the practice of polygamy itself was really not so different, at least when it came to the wives.

Now the brothers and sons . . . don't get me started!

Elphaba

Exactly! I don't understand the big deal about Joseph Smith and polygamy. We readily accept Brigham Young and other Prophets and Apostles and plural marriage. It is surprising how few even know that he practiced plural marriage. My best friend is an inactive, life long member and thought I was joking when I mentioned it...he didn't have a clue. But, really, when you read the Teachings of the Presidents of the Church manuals....like the Brigham Young manual, you would never know that BY had more than one wife. I haved read...and I don't know how reliable this is, that BY and other Prophets also divorced some of their wives?? Hmm....

[Elphaba]

But I did find this little excerpt in a talk given by Dallin H Oaks, regarding timing and how important it is for the Lord...

I was listening to a BYU Devotional that Elder Oaks spoke at, and when he said this I was incensed.

"People who do not accept continuing revelation sometimes get into trouble by doing things too soon or too late or too long. The practice of plural marriage is an example."

In my opinion, Elder Oaks is committing a grave insult to the Church's pioneers with this ridiculously simplistic comment.

There is a very good reason many Saints did not immediately give up the practice of polygamy. They had been taught for fifty years it was required of them to enter the Celestial Kingdom.

They had been taught, for fifty years, that the practice was NEVER going to be taken away from the earth.

They had been taught, for fifty years, that other cultures would come to accept polygamy, learning it was the road to the best relationships in marriage.

They had come to understand that God commanded it, and if it were taken from the earth, in direct contradiction to the Manifesto, God would be offended because of their disobedience.

So, condemning these people for not saying, "Oh, okay. No problem," and expecting them to completely uproot their civilization and society, is absolutely insane.

This new revelation also uprooted personal lives, of those who had committed themselves to the practice, some inspite of great sacrifice. To demean their lives because they didn't immediately stop the practice, is hogwash, offensive, unadulterated hogwash.

In fact, we are taught prophets are only prophets when they are speaking as prophets, so, maybe President Woodruff is wrong."

The truth is there were many people very happy with the end of practicing polygamy. There were others, however, who had committed their lives to the practice, and were suddenly unnerved by President Woodruff's manifesto, which they believed (as historians today do as well) that it was politically expedient, but not a revelation in the sense of previous revelations.

So, for Elder Oaks to simplistically use the Church's pioneers for a description of ANYTHING improper, is offensive to their memory. They did far more than so many human beings are capable of, and they did their best, in all things.

And Elder Oaks knows this.

Elphaba

Edited August 15, 2008 by Elphaba
Because I can't typo anymore.

[bytor2112]

This new revelation also uprooted personal lives, of those who had committed themselves to the practice, some inspite of great sacrifice. To demean their lives because they didn't immediately stop the practice, is hogwash, offensive, unadulterated hogwash.

I don't think that the Prophet and Apostles immediately stopped the practice either. I have read a bit about the Reed-Smoot hearings............

[FlaviusHambonius]

Well I went out and bought Rough Stone Rolling a few days ago and have barely started to read it. I can't wait to get into the meat. I heard about it about a year ago and hearing about it on some of these threads has really piqued my interest.

I went to a used book store today and bought Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith.

I remember my Mom back in the mid-late 70's reading it and making the comment that her heart went out to her because of all the trying times that she had-- so I really want to dig into that one also.

Deseret Book was all out of 'In Sacred Lonliness' by Todd Compton and Seagull doesn't carry it anymore, so I'll have to order it.

They were sold out of 'Massacre at Mountain Meadows' but were getting some in soon.

I have Mountain Meadow Massacre by Juanita Brooks that I need to read again-- it has been years.

And while at the used book store I bought a copy of Fawn Brodies 'No Man knows my History' I know I have heard the comments and some reviews about her supposed bias's against Joseph Smith and that she was on the her way out of the church etc. but I will still give it a read. I don't know whether to read them in chronological order such as Brodie and then see how Rough Stone Rolling has evolved or just save it (Brodie) and read it last--maybe for a weekend matinee reading:confused:

Another one that I started years ago and never finished was'Fate of The Persecutors of The Prophet Joseph Smith'--any opinions on that one?

And last but not least as a sidenote, while I was in the used book store, the guy who worked there who seemed to be a faithful member of the church pointed out a new book about the fairly recent supposed picture of Joseph Smith. It's a bigger book with illustrations and nice pictures and he said it also contains a little church history to boot, but focuses on the death mask and how all the bone structure of Joseph's face seem to line up with the picture etc. he seems convinced that it is indeed the picture of Joseph.

I can't remember the name of the book and didn't write it down, I told him I might come back and buy it.

I know it doesn't matter what he looked like, but I think it sounds interesting--after all if you look at some of the illustrations and portrayal's of Joseph, especially the earliest ones they look somewhat similiar in the face, but as the years have gone by, and especially the most recent ones, they make him out to be this strikingly handsome man who's face has evolved quite a bit--I know it's just the artist's conseption--but still a litle eerie.

Anyway I have a lot of reading to do to catch up with some on the board here.

Many Thanks to Elphaba and HiJolly and others for their comments on the books and history.

HB

Edited August 15, 2008 by FlaviusHambonius

[mike_uk]

Oh, maybe because the Lord commanded it? Why did God command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? We don't always know why or understand God's reasons, except sometimes he is just testing us to see if we're willing to obey.

The way I see it, God would not have restored the fullness of the temple blessings to the earth, had Joseph not been fully prepared to receive them. Without obedience by marrying Fanny Alger, there would not have been a visit by Elijah to restore the sealing keys - because Joseph would not have been ready to do all things commanded of God.

I just asked a question. Also, how do you know he commanded it?

Edited August 15, 2008 by mike_uk

[bytor2112]

I just asked a question. Also, how do you know he commanded it?

I think for most of us it boils down to two things.......the Holy Spirit and faith. Many of us know by the witness of the Spirit that the church is true and have faith that all aspects of it are true. Some of us have also recieved a witness from the Holy Spirit that plural marriage was indeed a commandment......

[debi56]

David was given many wives and concubines and he was given so much but he lusted for Bathsheba, and even plotted Uriahs' murder so he could have her. As was said earlier, he wasn't happy with what he had, and commited several serious sins so that he could have her.

From what I understand is that polygamy was necessary in the early days of the church to raise up seed in the religion. Only the righteous men were allowed to have multiple wives, and I believe that the first wife had to give her permission as to who the husband married. I can't imagine what that was like for Emma, nor for the men who had to support all those wives and children.

Can you imagine a house full of women with PMS?

[Vort]

Another one that I started years ago and never finished was'Fate of The Persecutors of The Prophet Joseph Smith'--any opinions on that one?

In 1975, while he was the president of BYU, Dallin Oaks (now Elder Oaks of the Quorum of Twelve) researched much of the same material and published a book, coauthored by Marvin Hill, called Carthage Conspiracy: The Trial of the Accused Assassins of Joseph Smith . His opinion was that The Fate of the Persecutors of the Prophet Joseph Smith was bunk. (My word, not his, but that was the gist of it.) By the way, his book was fascinating and well worth the read.

[Vort]

I was listening to a BYU Devotional that Elder Oaks spoke at, and when he said this I was incensed.

"People who do not accept continuing revelation sometimes get into trouble by doing things too soon or too late or too long. The practice of plural marriage is an example."

In my opinion, Elder Oaks is committing a grave insult to the Church's pioneers with this ridiculously simplistic comment.

Perhaps you should strive not to take offense so easily and over such trivial provocation.

There is a very good reason many Saints did not immediately give up the practice of polygamy. They had been taught for fifty years it was required of them to enter the Celestial Kingdom.

They had been taught, for fifty years, that the practice was NEVER going to be taken away from the earth.

They had been taught, for fifty years, that other cultures would come to accept polygamy, learning it was the road to the best relationships in marriage.

They had come to understand that God commanded it, and if it were taken from the earth, in direct contradiction to the Manifesto, God would be offended because of their disobedience.

Elder Oaks, an apostle of Jesus Christ, apparently did not consider this "a very good reason". So his opinion differs from yours. Whose do you suppose I ought to value more?

So, condemning these people

Elder Oaks condemned no one. He merely said, as you yourself quoted, that "people...sometimes get into trouble". Surely even you would agree that the Saints did "get into trouble" over continuing the practice of plural marriage.

for not saying, "Oh, okay. No problem," and expecting them to completely uproot their civilization and society, is absolutely insane.

Whatever his faults, I seriously doubt Elder Oaks is insane. Unless you have accomplished a significant fraction of what Elder Oaks has during his lifetime, you probably ought not to cast aspersions upon him. It just makes you look small and bitter.

This new revelation also uprooted personal lives, of those who had committed themselves to the practice, some inspite of great sacrifice. To demean their lives because they didn't immediately stop the practice, is hogwash, offensive, unadulterated hogwash.

Please illustrate where Elder Oaks "demeaned" anyone's life. Or will you instead admit that your accusation is (to use your word) "hogwash"?

There were others, however, who had committed their lives to the practice, and were suddenly unnerved by President Woodruff's manifesto, which they believed (as historians today do as well) that it was politically expedient, but not a revelation in the sense of previous revelations.

Which was exactly Elder Oaks' point, in case you somehow missed it: "People who do not accept continuing revelation sometimes get into trouble by doing things too soon or too late or too long."

So, for Elder Oaks to simplistically use the Church's pioneers for a description of ANYTHING improper, is offensive to their memory.

Interestingly, I didn't find it offensive to their memory. Guess it's just you. And since you are not even a Saint, your opinion on the matter isn't very important.

They did far more than so many human beings are capable of, and they did their best, in all things.

And Elder Oaks knows this.

And yet, he's the apostle, and you're merely another disaffected person badmouthing the work of God and taking absurd offense over trifles.

Edited August 16, 2008 by Vort

[Elphaba]

Perhaps you should strive not to take offense so easily and over such trivial provocation.

I have already striven, and I ain’t strivening no more.

Elder Oaks, an apostle of Jesus Christ, apparently did not consider this "a very good reason". So his opinion differs from yours. Whose do you suppose I ought to value more?

Mine, of course.

Elder Oaks condemned no one. He merely said, as you yourself quoted, that "people...sometimes get into trouble". Surely even you would agree that the Saints did "get into trouble" over continuing the practice of plural marriage.

No, I surely do not, and don’t call me Surely again.

Whatever his faults, I seriously doubt Elder Oaks is insane.

Nor do I.

Frankly, I’m starting to think you did not read my post at all.

Unless you have accomplished a significant fraction of what Elder Oaks has during his lifetime, you probably ought not to cast aspersions upon him. It just makes you look small and bitter.

GET OUT! I look small?

Hang on a sec--I have to go find my perfect black dress that has been in storage for about ten years. Because if I'm small again, I'm gonna be hot!

Oh, and I do like a splash of bitters in my morning oatmeal--it's very bracing.

Please illustrate where Elder Oaks "demeaned" anyone's life.

Okay, now I know you did not read my post. Do you think you could find it, and give it another go?

Or will you instead admit that your accusation is (to use your word) "hogwash"?

Hey! “Hogwash” is a great word! You have to admit it gets the message across. In fact, I bet you are not clever enough to think of a better word than "Hogwash"! (Now that I'm small, I can make fun of you.)

Which was exactly Elder Oaks' point, in case you somehow missed it: "People who do not accept continuing revelation sometimes get into trouble by doing things too soon or too late or too long."

Okay, which is it? Too soon? Too late? Too long? Too dumb? Too insipid? Too vapid? Too lacking in substance, although you think hypberbole will fool everyone into thinking you know what you're talking about?

Wow. I really am smarter than you, er, I mean, Tou. (I can say that now that I am small.)

Interestingly, I didn't find it offensive to their memory. Guess it's just you. And since you are not even a Saint, your opinion on the matter isn't very important.

Is that the best you can do?

There was once a woman on this site who called me an atheist priestess, and that I was part of a cabal of other evil priests/priestesses whose sole purpose was to destroy and remove Christianity from the face of the earth.

So, a word of advice. If you want to be taken seriously in the future, you’ve got to spend a lot more time on your insults.

And yet, he's the apostle, and you're merely another disaffected person badmouthing the work of God and taking absurd offense over trifles.

Where did I badmouth the work of God?

I think you’re a little confused. I badmouthed Elder Oaks’ comments, and no one else’s.

In fact, I am really holding back from badmouthing you, because it's boorish of you to comment on my post when you didn't even read it!

And it’s also, well, dumb. My post is not that long, so go back and read, man, read!

(If you’re not a man, I apologize. I’m a woman, but people think I’m a guy, a lot. Wonder why that is?)

Finally, you think calling me by the tired and thought-stopping cliché “disaffected member,” is effective? The truth is, it just makes you look fat.

(I can say that now that I am small.)

Elphaba

[funkymonkey]

Elphaba, that was hilarious! LOL! :)

[funkymonkey]

...

Edited August 16, 2008 by funkymonkey
duplicate!

[Elphaba]

Last week I sat through an amazing presentation on Joseph Smith's DNA where the speaker had taken 48 (I think it was) samples from various descendants and done a lot of analysis.

He found that Fannie's son Orrison Smith was not Joseph's son. Fanny Alger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HiJolly

Hi Hi,

I really doubt Joseph had any children with any of his wives, excepting Emma of course.

I think if he had, our technology would have discovered one by now.

I also do not think it is as important as some do, because it doesn't prove anything we don't already know. I do not think it is the smoking gun some think it is.

But it sure is interesting!

Elphaba

[Moksha]

Somehow, I can't see the white-robed people from the Celestial Kingdom being able to dance, not even the Meringue. They would get all caught up in their robe's folds, and though it wouldn't physically hurt, eventually they would fall, hard.

Elphie

How will they be dressed in the other Kingdoms? Will the Celestial Kingdom women wear mostly white maternity outfits?

[FlaviusHambonius]

In 1975, while he was the president of BYU, Dallin Oaks (now Elder Oaks of the Quorum of Twelve) researched much of the same material and published a book, coauthored by Marvin Hill, called Carthage Conspiracy: The Trial of the Accused Assassins of Joseph Smith . His opinion was that The Fate of the Persecutors of the Prophet Joseph Smith was bunk. (My word, not his, but that was the gist of it.) By the way, his book was fascinating and well worth the read.

Thanks Vort, very interesting.

I also have the book 'Carthage Conspiracy' and pulled it off the rack and dusted it off, and will start reading. I have commited myself to start reading all these books that I have had shelved for years.

My fear is I will be reading so much, that perhaps I may start a dustbowl equivilent to a scene from 'The grapes of Wrath'

HB

[rameumptom]

I just asked a question. Also, how do you know he commanded it?

Because that's what the Bible story tells us, and I have no reason to disbelieve the point that Abraham at least believed he was commanded to do so.