questions

[bytebear]

How many of these women had their sealings recorded by the church?

[Elphaba]

How many of these women had their sealings recorded by the church?

FamilySearch.org - Search

I just discovered this link takes you to the place to fill in the names. I'll list them below:

Joseph Smith Father: Joseph Smith

Mother: Lucy Mack

wife: Emma Hale

1830 born in New York

Elphaba

Edited September 21, 2009 by Elphaba

[Elphaba]

Bytebear,

I've given you ample evidence that Joseph used his seer stone while translating the Golden Plates. Do you have a response?

Elphaba

[bytebear]

Bytebear,

I've given you ample evidence that Joseph used his seer stone while translating the Golden Plates. Do you have a response?

Elphaba

I do. None of the quotes specifically mention the plates. The quotes were also written well after the facts. They could easily be a description of the JST translation or the Book of Abraham. It actually makes more sense, since Smith continued to translate after the "interpreters" were returned with the plates, that Smith used seer stones afterward.

[bytebear]

FamilySearch.org - Search

I just discovered this link takes you to the place to fill in the names. I'll list them below:

Joseph Smith Father: Joseph Smith

Mother: Lucy Mack

wife: Emma Hale

1830 born in New York

Elphaba

Did you notice anything interesting in those records?

Only one record says "sealed" (Amanda Melissa Barnes) and that was done in 1852, 6 years after Smith was killed. So the real answer is 1, posthumously.

[Elphaba]

I do. None of the quotes specifically mention the plates. The quotes were also written well after the facts. They could easily be a description of the JST translation or the Book of Abraham. It actually makes more sense, since Smith continued to translate after the "interpreters" were returned with the plates, that Smith used seer stones afterward.

You did not read my post.

Elphaba

[Just_A_Guy]

Byte, if you log into FamilySearch before doing your search, the results of the search will show LDS ordinance data.

[Elphaba]

Did you notice anything interesting in those records?

Only one record says "sealed" (Amanda Melissa Barnes) and that was done in 1852, 6 years after Smith was killed. So the real answer is 1, posthumously.

Another interesting thing in "those" records.

It does not say Joseph was sealed to anyone except Ms. Barnes. So does that mean he was never sealed to Emma? Of course he was, yet these records do not show it.

In fact, if we were to go by your logic, the only person Joseph is sealed to, and thus will spend eternity with, is Ms. Barnes. Obviously that's not true.

Additionally, the dates show that he was married to most of these women before he was murdered.

Another interesting aspect:

The records do not say Brigham Young was sealed to anyone. Yet we know he was, and his wives are listed in the Family Search site. If you want to check, his father was John Young, and his mother was Abigail Nabby Howe.

The records do not say Wilford Woodruff was sealed to anyone. Yet we know he was, and his wives are listed in the Family Search site. If you want to check, his father was Apheck Woodruff and his mother was Beulah Thompson.

I agree it is unique that Amanda Barnes' record reads "Sealed"; obviously the site does not regularly record sealings. Nevertheless, the list of Joseph's wives is accurate, and he was sealed to all of them.

If you don't think these marriages were sealed, what do you think was the point of Joseph marrying them?

Elphaba

[Maya]

What is the big deal about seer stones or plural wifes?

We text to people pretty often these days... We can even look at films on cellphones....

I am not sure at all that Joseph did his duties with the other wifes, so why would he have found out plural marriage if he could not practice it? I think he is in trouble as he did not do his duties. Kids only with Emma...

[Snow]

What is the big deal about seer stones or plural wifes?

How well would it have gone over today in Church if you bishop had gotten up and said that God talked to him through a magic rock last night?

We text to people pretty often these days... We can even look at films on cellphones....

Rock that works by magic vs modern electronics.

That's kinda like comparing bowling to a bowl of jello. Different things.

I am not sure at all that Joseph did his duties with the other wifes, so why would he have found out plural marriage if he could not practice it? I think he is in trouble as he did not do his duties. Kids only with Emma...

Do you think his wives were all liars?

[Moksha]

So the real answer is 1, posthumously.

I suspect thousands have been sealed posthumously. Brigham Young once had men out scouring the records for single sisters to be sealed in such a posthumous manner to Joseph Smith. Since then, I imagine many have offered themselves to be sealed to the Prophet. Can't have too many wives when begetting spirit children (in a chaste manner only of course!).

:)

[Moksha]

... so why would he have found out plural marriage if he could not practice it? I think he is in trouble as he did not do his duties. Kids only with Emma...

In several of the 19th Century religious movements, coitus interuptus was practiced quite religiously. Maya is right, it would be odd to not live up to one's duties - especially when given the duty by an Angel (with flaming sword).

[Maya]

Noo the bishop would hve his seeerstone with him ... and the hat... Then he would look at the stone in teh hat and everyone would shake of fear WHOS sinns would God this time draw in daylight and who would have to repend...

I once red a book that told about a girl from Africa visiting Finland. Even a washingmaskine was a big wonder and working by magic, not mentioning the scarry maskin eating all from the floors!. She did not understand electricity, but she did understand magic...

All JSs wifes gladly shared teh sexual esperiences? Not arguing about him beeing married to these dear sisters. But knowing feminines pretty close.. it is possible they boasted a bit about certain things, just like men about their toughness. The more "rigious" or "uplifting in society" the thing is more flavour the story gets.

We will know this thing one day how it was... it wont change the gospel. It wont change that the BoM IS Gods words. IT wont change attonement. It wont change our salvation. So what it the point? How ever I think it is interesting. But telling someone she/he is wrong is a bit over heads.... everyone is welcome with an opinion... I got mine untill it is proven wrong by ... probably JS himself. He is the one who knows. But it is not rally one of the first things I want to know, there is so many other things much more intereesting I want to know ...

[Guest]

Noo the bishop would hve his seeerstone with him ... and the hat... Then he would look at the stone in teh hat and everyone would shake of fear WHOS sinns would God this time draw in daylight and who would have to repend...

I once red a book that told about a girl from Africa visiting Finland. Even a washingmaskine was a big wonder and working by magic, not mentioning the scarry maskin eating all from the floors!. She did not understand electricity, but she did understand magic...

All JSs wifes gladly shared teh sexual esperiences? Not arguing about him beeing married to these dear sisters. But knowing feminines pretty close.. it is possible they boasted a bit about certain things, just like men about their toughness. The more "rigious" or "uplifting in society" the thing is more flavour the story gets.

We will know this thing one day how it was... it wont change the gospel. It wont change that the BoM IS Gods words. IT wont change attonement. It wont change our salvation. So what it the point? How ever I think it is interesting. But telling someone she/he is wrong is a bit over heads.... everyone is welcome with an opinion... I got mine untill it is proven wrong by ... probably JS himself. He is the one who knows. But it is not rally one of the first things I want to know, there is so many other things much more intereesting I want to know ...

Thank you, Maya.

I'm going to post an admonition to everybody who contributed to this thread. You are not mindful of the intent of the OP. If I was PainterLily, not only will I remain agnostic, I will run as fast as I can away from LDS.

It took 9 pages of you guys going back and forth about something so idiotic as JS having sex with his wives before Maya brought it back to what you should have said on page 1 - that to understand this religion called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, polygamy is not where you want to start.

[Elphaba]

Thank you, Maya.

I'm going to post an admonition to everybody who contributed to this thread. You are not mindful of the intent of the OP. If I was PainterLily, not only will I remain agnostic, I will run as fast as I can away from LDS.

Did you even read the opening post? If not, I admonish you to do so.

PainterLily's "intent" was to get information about the practice of polygamy, so of course we're going to discuss it. Why would you think otherwise?

It took 9 pages of you guys going back and forth about something so idiotic as JS having sex with his wives.

Why is that idiotic? It has to do with Joseph's polygamy--which was perfectly in keeping with PainterLilly's question.

PainterLily's question before Maya brought it back to what you should have said on page 1 - that to understand this religion called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, polygamy is not where you want to start.

So we should have ignored Painterlily's questions? What would you prefer: "We're not going to answer your questions about polygamy because it makes us look bad, but here's a Book of Mormon for you to read instead"?

Frankly, I'm baffled. PainterLily was very clear she wanted information about polygamy, and you cannot talk about polygamy without discussing Joseph's practice of it. Yet you seem to think we shouldn't have talked about it at all.

Or is that we shouldn't have gone into the detail we did, including Joseph's sexual relations with some of his wives? If so, why not? It happened, and therefore is part of the history of polygamy. To selectively leave that out is not being honest to the subject.

I don't think lying, or withholding information, is the proper response to a person's direct question. I'm sure she can live with it, and if she can't, then that's her perspective, and I respect that.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

First byte bear wrote this nonsense.

If I were a 19th century woman writing to her friends, and wanted to elevate her social status. I could easly see her telling friends how close she was to the prophet, and I would bet she might even exaggerate her status to the point of lying about her "sealings" and cosumation of it. We know historically, that Smith's death created a legacy, and anyone who could claim an intimate relationship (socially, religiously, or in this case sexually) with the prophet would gain favor in the community. We also know that Brigham Young was fighting against the testimony of Emma Smith, who denied everything. I can easily see Young bolstering his claim by "encouraging" a few women to swear to their claims of a sexual relationship with Smith.

　

And now you write:

All JSs wifes gladly shared teh sexual esperiences? Not arguing about him beeing married to these dear sisters. But knowing feminines pretty close.. it is possible they boasted a bit about certain things, just like men about their toughness. The more "rigious" or "uplifting in society" the thing is more flavour the story gets.

I am sick of people acting like these polygamous wives, in this case Joseph's, were conniving biddies who had no problem embellishing the truth to make it look like Joseph felt more affection for this wife, or that another wife’s position with Joseph was more secure, or that Joseph so preferred yet another one he had a sexual relationship with her. If you read these women’s biographies, you’ll come away knowing these women could do nothing of the kind.

First, they would never discuss the subject with each other both because they were told to keep their marriages secret, plus, in the 1800s, you did not sit around and boast about your sexual experiences.

These women were not liars. They obeyed Joseph by marrying him, thereby demonstrating their amazing faith in God. These women were strong in the gospel, and the thought that they would lie about this, or anything, is patronizing nonsense.

Would you have have sat at the table with Joseph's wives, and bragged about his sexual relations with you, even though there were none, just to make it look like Joseph cared about you more, or because it raised your standing among the Saints?

How idiotic is that?

Belittling these sisters of the early church who made so many sacrifices to help the Church survive, and thrive, is ignorant and insulting.

Elphaba

　

[Guest]

Did you even read the opening post? If not, I admonish you to do so.

PainterLily's "intent" was to get information about the practice of polygamy, so of course we're going to discuss it. Why would you think otherwise?

Why is that idiotic? It has to do with Joseph's polygamy--which was perfectly in keeping with PainterLilly's question.

So we should have ignored Painterlily's questions? What would you prefer: "We're not going to answer your questions about polygamy because it makes us look bad, but here's a Book of Mormon for you to read instead"?

Frankly, I'm baffled. PainterLily was very clear she wanted information about polygamy, and you cannot talk about polygamy without discussing Joseph's practice of it. Yet you seem to think we shouldn't have talked about it at all.

Or is that we shouldn't have gone into the detail we did, including Joseph's sexual relations with some of his wives? If so, why not? It happened, and therefore is part of the history of polygamy. To selectively leave that out is not being honest to the subject.

I don't think lying, or withholding information, is the proper response to a person's direct question. I'm sure she can live with it, and if she can't, then that's her perspective, and I respect that.

Elphaba

Of course I read the OP, otherwise, I wouldn't post what I just did. The first page of answers was great. All the rest could have gone to the all the other threads outside of this one.

I have mentioned this several times before, line upon line precept upon precept. You don't lie or withhold information, but you do have to be cognizant of the fact that investigators may not have an understanding of basic gospel principles and would therefore be easily dis-illusioned, misled, put off, especially when given the impression that there is contention among the members on the principles. We can contend among ourselves as members just fine and dandy because we are rooted on the foundation of the gospel. But, imagine yourself an investigator and re-read this thread. I am a fairly recent convert and this thread is making me uncomfortable.

But, alas, I am now contributing to said contention, so I leave you in peace. I hope to hear from PaintedLily to see what she gleaned out of this and hope this doesn't contribute to more confusion.

[Elphaba]

Of course I read the OP, otherwise, I wouldn't post what I just did. The first page of answers was great. All the rest could have gone to the all the other threads outside of this one.

Why?

This thread is about polygamy. If we were to take the more difficult aspects of it to another thread, it would still have "polygamy" in the title. Someone interested in the first place is very likely going to read both threads.

Just off the top of my head, perhaps these threads that contain difficult, and riled debates could go into the Open Forum. But who would make that decision? I doubt the mods want to be policing every thread. Perhaps this is not feasible for reasons I am not aware of.

I have mentioned this several times before, line upon line precept upon precept. You don't lie or withhold information, but you do have to be cognizant of the fact that investigators may not have an understanding of basic gospel principles and would therefore be easily dis-illusioned, misled, put off,

Then the subject shouldn't be addressed at all, because it is naturally going to devolve into the nitty gritty details. It's the nature of the beasty.

Additionally, in my opinion, withholding information about it could be just as dangerous, especially if the investigator takes it upon him/herself to study the subject more in-depth. If this person discovers the more difficult aspects of polygamy on his/her own, of course the person is going to realize we withheld information.

especially when given the impression that there is contention among the members on the principles. We can contend among ourselves as members just fine and dandy

I actually don't see serious contention in this thread, or at least, nothing we can't handle. But I do see your point that a person new to the board would be confused by it.

I know I've been contentious in the past, and I'm working on that, because I do believe it takes away from the purpose of the forum. But there's a difference to me between contention and assertiveness. I see more of the latter.

But, imagine yourself an investigator and re-read this thread.

That's a hard thing for me to do since I was raised in the Church and have left it.

Frankly, I would like it, but that's because I love this stuff, and would find it fascinating. The contention wouldn't bother me, but not understanding the discussion would, so I would want as much information as I could get. I do realize not everyone would respond like I would.

I am a fairly recent convert and this thread is making me uncomfortable.

That holds weight with me, and I do not dismiss it.

But if the goal is to not put off investigators, then many of our discussions probably should not be started at all, because the nature of the subject will devolve to the more difficult parts, especially when it comes to the history of the Church.

I really don't know the answer to this. I do know, however, that it would require a lot more moderating than we have now. Perhaps that would be a good thing. Well, maybe not. If the mods agree with you, then it's not too much to expect a member to self-regulate.

But what the heck am I going to write about if that happens?

I hope to hear from PaintedLily to see what she gleaned out of this and hope this doesn't contribute to more confusion.

Maybe you should send her a PM. If she were put off by the thread you could explain to her what you've written to me, and perhaps that would reassure her.

Elphaba