Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
rockpond

Starting the path to legal polygamy in the U.S.

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Let's look at the time line.  Joseph Smith is caught having an affair with young Fanny Alger.  Church co-founder, Oliver Cowdery called it a "dirty, nasty, filthy affair".  This was in 1831 three years before the sealing power has supposedly been resorted.  There was no published revelation either.  Just secrecy and deception.  Just one man telling young girls that it was okay to sleep with him because god said so.  I agree with you, this is the work of a charlatan. 

Utter nonsense.  And your timeline is completely wrong.

The idea of polygamy being restored was long before the Fanny Alger incident in 1836.
Joseph had known about polygamy from 1831 when translating the OT.  5 years after the fact came his connection to Fanny Alger. 
There was also a polygamy revelation (of debated "officiality" of course) given during the mission to the Lamanites in 1831.

Any idea that Joseph made up polygamy to cover his affair with Fanny Alger is contradicted by history.
At least try to be accurate in your false accusations.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

The idea of polygamy being restored was long before the Fanny Alger incident in 1836.
Joseph had known about polygamy from 1831 when translating the OT.  5 years after the fact came his connection to Fanny Alger. 
 

Going from memory here, but I thought Joseph married Fanny in 1833.  The sealing keys were not restored until 1836.

Edited to add this link:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives/Fanny_Alger

 

 

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Going from memory here, but I thought Joseph married Fanny in 1833.  The sealing keys were not restored until 1836.

Edited to add this link:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives/Fanny_Alger

No, she moved to Kirtland in 1833 and met Joseph. http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives/Fanny_Alger_as_Joseph_Smith's_first_plural_wife

The marriage was closer to probably 1835, around 4 years after Joseph learned of polygamy.  http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history-2/plural-wives-overview/fanny-alger/

And we've been over the lack of "sealing" keys.  The only people who question the lack of sealing keys are those who think Joseph was only sealed to his plural wives, not married.  If Joseph accepted polygamy he would have entered polygamy prior to the sealing keys in the same manner as he married Emma and anyone else was married.
He would have married her.

Share this post


Link to post

IIRC, according to Levi Hancock (who supposedly performed the ceremony), the marriage took place in 1833.  I'll try to find the sources again and refresh my memory for sure...

Edited to Add:

After reading different sources and writings, it seems that their relationship and marriage could have taken place as early as 1833 or in 1835 (depending on which sources you feel are most reliable, etc.).  

Bottom line is that the date of their marriage is unknown. 

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Let's look at the time line.  Joseph Smith is caught having an affair with young Fanny Alger.  Church co-founder, Oliver Cowdery called it a "dirty, nasty, filthy affair".  This was in 1831 three years before the sealing power has supposedly been resorted.  There was no published revelation either.  Just secrecy and deception.  Just one man telling young girls that it was okay to sleep with him because god said so.  I agree with you, this is the work of a charlatan. 

You and McGregor will be thread banned if the overheated rhetoric continues.

The highlighted claim is false.

I shall respect the moderator instruction, and not draw the logical conclusion that follows from that fact; as that might be seen as "overheated."

(Incidentally, the assertion following the highlighted claim is likewise false.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Utter nonsense.  And your timeline is completely wrong.

The idea of polygamy being restored was long before the Fanny Alger incident in 1836.
Joseph had known about polygamy from 1831 when translating the OT.  5 years after the fact came his connection to Fanny Alger. 
There was also a polygamy revelation (of debated "officiality" of course) given during the mission to the Lamanites in 1831.

Any idea that Joseph made up polygamy to cover his affair with Fanny Alger is contradicted by history.
At least try to be accurate in your false accusations.

1842 was when section 132 came out.  This was a good ten years after the Alger affair.  Until this time, JS had made every attempt to keep his affairs secret.  From his wife, from the church, and from the public.  

Stop now JLHROF, when it comes to JS and polygamy, there is no high ground.  His actions are reprehensible. 

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, ALarson said:

Bottom line is that the date of their marriage is unknown. 

No, bottom line is that it was at a minimum 2 years after Joseph learned of polygamy from God, and that the introduction of polygamy was not created as an excuse to cover up the Fanny Alger affair as Sunstoned implied.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

1842 was when section 132 came out.  This was a good ten years after the Alger affair.  Until this time, JS had made every attempt to keep his affairs secret.  From his wife, from the church, and from the public.  

Stop now JLHROF, when it comes to JS and polygamy, there is no high ground.  His actions are reprehensible. 

Completely disagree.  Joseph did absolutely nothing wrong.  Polygamy was from God and will be again.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Completely disagree.  Joseph did absolutely nothing wrong.  Polygamy was from God and will be again.

Really? Then why did he do it is secret and lie about it?  Is this how god works, in shadows?

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Really? Then why did he do it is secret and lie about it?  Is this how god works, in shadows?

Pearls before swine.  Hemlock knots and corn dodgers.  Golden calves and lesser laws.

People cannot handle higher truth.  Clearly.

Edited by JLHPROF

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, sunstoned said:

1842 was when section 132 came out.  This was a good ten years after the Alger affair.  Until this time, JS had made every attempt to keep his affairs secret.  From his wife, from the church, and from the public.  

Stop now JLHROF, when it comes to JS and polygamy, there is no high ground.  His actions are reprehensible. 

You assume, contrary to direct testimony, that Joseph's plural marriages were "affairs." Then you proceed to pass judgement based upon your own assumptions.

What is "reprehensible" is consciously distorting the facts in order to support a false accusation.

No other "reprehensible" acts are in view.

 

Share this post


Link to post

I'll say it again, I think polygamy should be saved for the Millennium and the celestial kingdom.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I'll say it again, I think polygamy should be saved for the Millennium and the celestial kingdom.

I'll say it again.  Whatever God requires is right.  Our opinion doesn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I'll say it again.  Whatever God requires is right.  Our opinion doesn't matter.

True. I'm just predicting how I believe it will unfold.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't favor a return of polygamy to the Church. But when, and if God, commands me to do it, I'll cross that bridge when I get there.

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/1/2016 at 8:26 AM, thesometimesaint said:

I don't favor a return of polygamy to the Church. But when, and if God, commands me to do it, I'll cross that bridge when I get there.

Yeah, what you said.

My late wife was onboard with it, if it were ever to happen (with the proviso that she got to pick my plural wives!), but I forgot to ask my new wife if she was OK with me marrying another wife, if push came to shove!

I wonder what she will say when I ask her?  <Mischievous glint! />

 

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Yeah, what you said.

My late wife was onboard with it, if it were ever to happen (with the proviso that she got to pick my plural wives!), but I forgot to ask my new wife if she was OK with me marrying another wife, if push came to shove!

I wonder what she will say when I ask her?  <Mischievous glint! />

 

Assuming you are sealed to both, I'd say it's a little late to worry about it.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Assuming you are sealed to both, I'd say it's a little late to worry about it.

Well, she's sealed to her first husband, so that ship has sailed, but the question still remains what would be her reaction if we were asked to practice it in our Time Only marriage.

I did ask her about this in an email last night and got the answer this morning.  She would be obedient, though it would be hard!  Which is pretty much what I expected.  I married an outstanding woman, that's for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/3/2016 at 0:18 PM, Stargazer said:

Well, she's sealed to her first husband, so that ship has sailed, but the question still remains what would be her reaction if we were asked to practice it in our Time Only marriage.

I did ask her about this in an email last night and got the answer this morning.  She would be obedient, though it would be hard!  Which is pretty much what I expected.  I married an outstanding woman, that's for sure.

After death a woman can be sealed to all of her husbands. So after both you and your current wife enter eternity, the work can be done in a temple to seal you together by a living family member.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

After death a woman can be sealed to all of her husbands. So after both you and your current wife enter eternity, the work can be done in a temple to seal you together by a living family member.

CFR.  Under what doctrine, policy, and/or scripture can a woman be sealed to multiple husbands?

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

CFR.  Under what doctrine, policy, and/or scripture can a woman be sealed to multiple husbands?

Its being done in temples today where a woman who was married to multiple husbands is sealed to all her husbands in the temple. The woman and the husbands have to be dead first though before they can all be sealed, but yes women are sealed to multiple men in temples now.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

After death a woman can be sealed to all of her husbands. So after both you and your current wife enter eternity, the work can be done in a temple to seal you together by a living family member.

Haven't we had this conversation before?  That's only to cover all bases.  I am not stealing her from her first husband, who was a good and faithful priesthood holder.  I will be sure to leave instructions to descendants that we are not to be sealed.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Its being done in temples today where a woman who was married to multiple husbands is sealed to all her husbands in the temple. The woman and the husbands have to be dead first though before they can all be sealed, but yes women are sealed to multiple men in temples now.

That has been the case for a long time.  It's not new.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

CFR.  Under what doctrine, policy, and/or scripture can a woman be sealed to multiple husbands?

I think the doctrine is that we don't know what the ultimate outcome of some situations should be, and so we cover all bases.  For example, one of my great grandmothers first husband died and she remarried to my great grandfather.  Who should she be sealed to?  It seems that the first husband gets "dibs" but how do we know?  Maybe she didn't love him, didn't want him, but children and circumstances (and laws at the time) prohibited her from divorcing him.  Maybe she would be much happier with her second husband, the man who was my great grandfather. My mother and father were close to divorce when she died -- should I really have had them sealed together, or should I have not?  I don't know, so it's best to assume that since they were married and loved each other at one time, that they should have the benefit of the sealing.

It's not my CFR, but I think you will find the policy stated in either Handbook 1 or 2.  I think it's in 1, but I'm not sure.  

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By SouthernMo
      The timeline and reasons of how the idea of polygamy evolved into practice is perplexing.  It is causing me doubt how scriptures are to be obeyed, and how to trust the revelatory process.  Let's look at the pattern Joseph Smith followed:
      March 1830 - Joseph Smith publishes the Book of Mormon (supposedly scripture) which contains commandments from God.  The only discussion of polygamy is found in Jacob 2, which clearly condemns the practice.  However, there is a provision given for exceptions: only to 'raise up seed' if God commands it.
      The Gospel Topics Essay on Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo states that "After receiving a revelation commanding him to practice plural marriage, Joseph Smith married multiple wives and introduced the practice to close associates."  The only revelation I know of on polygamy came in July 1843 (D&C 132), yet Joseph Smith had married 22 (by some count) additional wives by July 1843.
      2 Big Questions:
      1. What revelation did Joseph Smith receive (per the mentioned Gospel Topic Essay) before the D&C 132 revelation that told him to practice polygamy, despite the Book of Mormon's 1830 prohibition (with exception)?
      2. In light of the Jacob 2:30 provision for the allowance of polygamy to "raise up seed unto me..." why are there no (known) children that emerged from Joseph Smith's plural wives?  Joseph apparently did not use polygamy to 'raise up seed.'
    • By HappyJackWagon
      I want to respond to a couple of statements made by Julianne from the now closed "Weed" thread, because she absolutely nails it. She is spot on and I think the discussion at this level needs to occur before any progress can be made on the SSM issue.
      She wrote...
      Speaking as a straight, white, man, I recognize that I come to the traditional church teachings of priesthood, sealing, polygamy/polyandry, and SSM from a certain privileged position. The church's teachings and practices benefit me and they always have. Even though there is little to no evidence for how celestial families will actually be organized and function in the CK I used to think I had it all figured out. Obviously, I thought, marriage is essential to have legal physical intimacy which is necessary for creating offspring with one or multiple wives. Yet there is no firm teaching about how spirits are created. Are they born like a baby is born into mortality? There is no evidence or teaching for that, but it is widely assumed. That assumption then justifies polygamy while discrediting polyandry and even SSM. After all, if the entire purpose is to create spirit offspring and it is thought that it happens in a way similar to creating biological offspring, then it makes sense. But that is ALL based on assumptions.
      Based on these assumptions many are willing to condemn others to lives (and possibly even an eternity) of loneliness.
      So (we) don't even know what the afterlife looks like. It is unknown. Yet we think (we) have enough information to condemn and judge others, and since most of us come at it from positions of privilege, we are in the position to enforce our dogma upon the less privileged. The church is not unique in behaving this way. It is how society has always worked. But recognizing the assumptions for what they are and being humble about how much we really don't know, can help society improve.
      Julianne also stated...
      How can one categorically dismiss SSM when there is little to nothing known about family organization in the next life, even regarding a variety of heterosexual family organizations. Which sealings will be valid? Polygamy/polyandry? Only those which benefit men? Who are the children sealed to? There is a lot of "The Lord will work it out" mentality, which is fine because it acknowledges a lack of understanding and knowledge. The problem comes when one then loses all humility and attempts to define how family relationships will or will not work for other people. I agree with Julianne that the polygamy/polyandry topic is closely tied to the SSM topic and must be ironed out.
      So maybe this can be a thread that can be commented on instead of derailing other threads when this subject comes up.
       
      *Julianne, I hope I didn't misunderstand or misrepresent you. I really appreciated where you were trying to take the discussion.
    • By DBMormon
      Knowing the background of the Lucy Walker story (if you don't, I can not emphasize enough the need to understand the story - resources below), I am curious how those who both know the story and who are faithful to the restoration and Church authority answer the following question.
      Do you take the position that Joseph deceived Lucy Walker about God commanding him to take her as a plural wife, or do you subscribe to a God whose morality has him commanding a man in a father/daughter dynamic to change his relationship with this 16 year old girl living in his home effectively as his foster daughter into a husband/wife dynamic? I am also open to other perspectives that hold some other ground but wood tool answers will not be acceptable in this post (have faith, God will work it out on the other side, go pray about it and get your own answer knowing people get competing answers)
      The question is not how does someone other than yourself come down or arrive at a perspective on this question but rather where do you personally come down on this question. I am deeply hoping that you wont avoid all-together or avoid using the mechanism that you know by the spirit that the Church is true hence you don't concern yourself with such conundrums. Instead what is your personal take on this historical issue.
      While this historical story has been largely ignored, I think it is the most important story in all of Mormonism. bigger than the Book of Abraham, bigger than Helen Mar Kimball and Fanny Alger, bigger than first vision accounts, and Race and Priesthood.
      http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2017/12/premium-lucy-walker-spiritual-experiences/
      http://www.yearofpolygamy.com/tag/lucy-walker-smith/
      http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/23-LucyWalker.htm
      http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/plural-wives-overview/lucy-walker/
    • By Maidservant
      Elder Quentin L. Cook opens Black Church Leadership Summit
      Mormon Newsroom YouTube bit
      Transcript of Elder Cook's remarks
      Highlights for me:  Mentions meeting Bernice King while (both) attending the Pope (sweet); affirming LGBT rights in the society (nice); that (unlike many churches of the day) blacks (the few) and whites worshiped together in the same early Mormon Church (let's not forget that; beautiful); 'battle' and 'attack' imagery (I really challenge that, not how I see the world, but I find it fascinating that our religious, in fact human, struggle continues to be encapsulized that way); his challenge to the challenge to the colonial narrative (cool, it's time; although let's not overdo it, colonial narrative, not to mention colonialism, is alive and well and still doing damage); continued affirmation of the Church's very specific stance on religious freedom (what it means and what it looks like) (ok); reiterating the Church's persecution foundation (what?! sigh; let's DO forget that).
      And this spectacular quote from the Prophet Joseph.
      ///A few months before he was killed by a mob in 1844, our prophet, Joseph Smith, taught that moral agency was essential for each individual: “God cannot save or damn a man only on the principle that every man acts, chooses and worships for himself; hence the importance of thrusting from us every spirit of bigotry and intolerance towards a man’s religious sentiments, that spirit which has drenched the earth with blood.” ///
      My hero.  (The Prophet, not Elder Cook )
      Lots more in the talk . . .
       
    • By MiserereNobis
      LDS friends,
      The issue of polygamy was brought up in another thread and one poster argued that it was a system that was inherently unequal towards women. From an external 21st century viewpoint, this seems true. One husband with many wives appears to be a situation where the one man has more authority, power, what-have-you over each individual wife. For example, a man with four wives would seem to be a set-up where each wife is only a 1/4 of the relationship.
      I'm wondering how posters here view this, not only as it was practiced in the 19th century, but how polygamy will be practiced in the celestial kingdom. Is polygamy simply a natural outgrowth of patriarchy? In particular, sisters, how do you feel about the prospect of sharing your husband with many other women in the celestial kingdom? Or am I misunderstanding LDS doctrine concerning this?
      The Catholic Church is patriarchal insofar as it limits the priesthood to men, and we agree with you that in this mortal life gender roles have a part to play. However, the division of gender isn't inherent in our understanding of heaven, so I think the LDS view here is unique and I'm interested in not only the official doctrines, but the thoughts and feelings of those who believe it.
      Thanks!
      +PAX+
       
×
×
  • Create New...