Guest Posted November 4, 2014 Report Share Posted November 4, 2014 I'm not convinced that the relationships to already-married-and-cohabiting women, or very young teenagers, were pitched as marriages--at least, not as sexual ones (and let's face it--at least where such relationships are concerned, 75% of the concerns people tend to express is because of the sex that we assume was taking place under the auspices of those relationships). There's a sort of a parallel among Catholicism, where my understanding is that if a woman becomes a nun, she's theoretically married to Jesus (that's the perception, at least. Obviously I can't speak to the theological nuances). But to tell someone wholly unacquainted with Catholic theology or practice "Oh, yeah, this is Sister Maria and she is married to Jesus" would create a very different idea of the relationship than what actually exists. And this is very much cultural... Because, in the Philippines, for example, the word "married" does not automatically bring the word "sex" into someone's mind. So that, when a nun says I'm married to Jesus, not many people would connotate a sexual relationship rather, for most, if not all, it would connotate the level of commitment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omegaseamaster75 Posted November 4, 2014 Report Share Posted November 4, 2014 So I was only able to ask 40 people this last Sunday, the results were interesting I choose people at random even some who I did not know Did you know that JS was sealed to women who were already married? yes: 6 no: 34 Did you know that he hide some of his marriages from his wife Emma? yes: 3 no:37 So far it is as expected, people either don't know or don't want to know about the details of the history of the church, I am fine with this but I do think that this lack of information can be testimony damaging or cause problems when confronted with this information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted November 4, 2014 Report Share Posted November 4, 2014 So I was only able to ask 40 people this last Sunday, the results were interesting I choose people at random even some who I did not know Did you know that JS was sealed to women who were already married? yes: 6 no: 34 Did you know that he hide some of his marriages from his wife Emma? yes: 3 no:37 So far it is as expected, people either don't know or don't want to know about the details of the history of the church, I am fine with this but I do think that this lack of information can be testimony damaging or cause problems when confronted with this information. Interesting. I was ill this Sunday and so haven't been able to ask around much. I've only spoken to 6 people. I'm curious. Is the question being asked as in prior to the essays, or at all in the past. All 6 of those who I have spoken to were already aware of these things prior to the essays, but they have almost all also said that they only found out about them within the past several years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omegaseamaster75 Posted November 4, 2014 Report Share Posted November 4, 2014 I just asked randomly, some asked why I was asking so I was able to engage in conversation a little bit. Like I said there is an underlying knowledge of polygamy and the practice of it with JS, our teaching of the history glosses over this. It is an after thought and in the grand scheme of things it really doesn't matter. The Folk Prophet 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytebear Posted November 5, 2014 Report Share Posted November 5, 2014 Neibaur story aside for the moment, I have to ask this. Without the accusation of polygamy in the expositor, would JS have ordered it to be destroyed? No. No way. I disagree. The Expositor had a lot more than just polygamy. And although Smith ordered the desctruction, it wasn't like he flew off the handle and ran in with torches blazing. The city council met to discuss it, and having already been kicked out of various settlements (not for polygamy) it was decided they needed to stop the anti-Mormon press so they didn't get pillaged again. The whole situation is far more complex than anyone is giving it credit for. As to people not knowing about Smith's polygamy, I suppose most don't know because they don't care. I always knew. And I never cared. And the question of events is misleading. "Did you know Emma wasn't told?" I believe she knew right from the start and was trying to hide it from the world. But I believe she knew everything that was going on. I also believe the Fanny Alger "affair" was a rumor that wasn't true. I don't count her as a wife or anything else other than a troubled girl who was taken in by the Smiths. Emma had a jealous streak for sure, but I think she knew what God wanted, and she did her best to accommodate the situation. And what about other sealings to Smith? Weren't men sealed to him as sons and brothers? How does that fit in with the notion of "raising a seed?" I like the dynastic theory. People (men and women, young and old) were sealed to the prophet because it was a legacy they could carry into the next life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted November 5, 2014 Report Share Posted November 5, 2014 (edited) The whole situation is far more complex than anyone is giving it credit for. Don't lump us all in with one or two people's views. Edited November 5, 2014 by The Folk Prophet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytebear Posted November 5, 2014 Report Share Posted November 5, 2014 Don't lump us all in with one or two people's views. The whole situation is far more complex than anyone is many people on this thread are giving it credit for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garryw Posted November 6, 2014 Report Share Posted November 6, 2014 The Nauvoo City Council didn't shut down the Expositor because it was publicizing embarrassing truths that Smith didn't want publicized. The council shut down the Expositor because it was generally "inciting riot". Let's be honest here. The Expositor was not the only paper that can be accused of "inciting riot". The Warsaw Signal was plenty good at that. The problem with the Expositor was that the publisher had inside info on polygamy (including knowledge of the unpublished section 132). That's what got it destroyed. Frankly I think it was MILD compared to the Warsaw Signal which called for outright war against the Saints. We have no time for comment, every man will make his own. LET IT BE MADE WITH POWDER AND BALL!!! (Warsaw Signal) That sounds more riotous than this: AFFIDAVITS.I hereby certify that Hyrum Smith did, (in his office,) read to me a certain written document, which he said was a revelation from God, he said that he was with Joseph when it was received. He afterwards gave me the document to read, and I took it to my house, and read it, and showed it to my wife, and returned it next day. the revelation (so called) authorized certain men to have more wives than one at a time, in this world and in the world to come. (Expositor) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted November 7, 2014 Report Share Posted November 7, 2014 (edited) Let's be honest here. The Expositor was not the only paper that can be accused of "inciting riot".No; but it was the only such paper operating within the jurisdiction of Nauvoo. The Nauvoo city council had no legal authority over events occurring in Warsaw; and they knew it. Edited November 7, 2014 by Just_A_Guy mordorbund 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magus Posted November 11, 2014 Report Share Posted November 11, 2014 (edited) Hey guys, I just read this article from the New York Times ( http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/us/its-official-mormon-founder-had-up-to-40-wives.html?_r=0 ) about Joseph Smith and polygamy, and a lot of other controversial issues from early Church history, and I just want to say....I am ECSTATIC that the Church is finally addressing all of this in a straight-forward and official way, and in a way that stands by the truth and promotes faith for members. Seriously, this is a big deal for me, because there are people close to me who have had testimony issues over this stuff, and it just really makes me happy that obscure sources on the internet aren't the only way to read about this anymore. It is now totally, completely out and in the open in a way that people who aren't internet scholars can find, read and digest in an official context. And I have read over the material and find it faithful to the truth. As the NY Times article also suggests, this is also indicative of maturity and understanding from Church leaders. Finding piece-meal info on all of these topics scattered all over the internet, often very negatively biased and/or confusing, has been a growing problem for the Church and now they are finally getting ahead of the curve on it. I am very pleased. Hats off to this very bold and positive decision by the Church!! No more hiding, no more shame - embrace it, own it and believe! Edited November 11, 2014 by Magus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.