Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Nofear

Women, Men, and Priesthood

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's weird compared to what we do now, but these sealings certainly don't negate the women's agency, and if the one example is any indication, they have likely also been sealed to actual husbands since that time.  It was common for people to be sealed to prophets and other leaders rather than family members up until 1894 (these were known as adoption sealings, usually), when WW said he received a revelation stating that sealings should be done between actual family members.

Do we know if WW considered all of these women to be actual wives?  I'm just wondering what information we have on it.  

If you read through, many of these women had died and many were very young and many never met Woodruff in their lives. He said God gave them to him for his birthday, for crying out loud.

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

If you read through, many of these women had died and many were very young and many never met Woodruff in their lives. He said God gave them to him for his birthday, for crying out loud.

Where did WW say that God have them to him for his birthday?  I read the blog but didn’t see that part. 

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Where did WW say that God have them to him for his birthday?  I read the blog but didn’t see that part. 

I take that back, in my mind I thought that. Here's the quote that you no doubtedly read and didn't see it as I did. Sorry about that. :)

Woodruff recorded in his journal in 1877 that he had received revelation from God that the temple work should be done “for and behalf of the wives who are dead and have been sealed to my servant Wilford, or those who are to be sealed to him, and this shall be acceptable unto me saith the Lord, and the dead of my servant shall be redeemed in the spirit world and be prepared to meet my servant at the time of his Coming.”

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting read, just thought there would be more people viewing in here.

Some of us might have found that line interesting " ... He said God gave them to him for his birthday, for crying out loud."  but--

then again if its not true then there's no sense fussing about it.   No no reply necessary I hardly ever get back to this commentary / site /// um probably more correct: forum

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

If you read through, many of these women had died and many were very young and many never met Woodruff in their lives. He said God gave them to him for his birthday, for crying out loud.

Why are you torturing puppies you monster?!?!

Oh, that is just what I thought I read.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, bluebell said:

It's weird compared to what we do now, but these sealings certainly don't negate the women's agency, and if the one example is any indication, they have likely also been sealed to actual husbands since that time.  It was common for people to be sealed to prophets and other leaders rather than family members up until 1894 (these were known as adoption sealings, usually), when WW said he received a revelation stating that sealings should be done between actual family members.

Do we know if WW considered all of these women to be actual wives?  I'm just wondering what information we have on it.  

If I have it right, it was a practice to ensure that that the woman was "adopted" into the family of the prophet, thereby ensuring that she would presumable have the option to be sealed to a worthy man in the eternities regardless of whether or not the person she chose in life was worthy to be sealed in the eternities.  Maybe I am wrong but I think it was seen as an honor and kind of an "insurance policy" that the woman would be enabled to progress in the eternities.

In no way was it perceived at the time to be "giving himself brides for his birthday" but rather as a gift of temple work for deceased sisters and an option for them in the resurrection.  I think it is a great way to spend birthdays now that I think of it- declare a "day in the temple" and do temple work all day as one's own "birthday present" to oneself.  Now of course we would never seal anyone to whom we are not related to them- but that was not, as you point out- the practice at the time.

All temple work is done under the condition that the person receiving the ordinances wants them and sees them as a blessing.  

I have relatives who get angry when temple work is done, under the impression that "He made grandma a Mormon- and she would never have agreed to that!!  It's horrible!"

This is the same kind of thing.  It is not some voodoo curse that enslaves the dead person forever- it is a loving gesture which we believe can give eternal life to those who desire to partake.  It is always done as a blessing for the person receiving the ordinance, and if they don't want it- they can reject it.  No problem.  The person doing the work receives another opportunity to repeat and re-experience the wonderful blessings they received when those ordinances were performed for themselves.

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, bluebell said:

 It was common for people to be sealed to prophets and other leaders rather than family members up until 1894 (these were known as adoption sealings, usually), when WW said he received a revelation stating that sealings should be done between actual family members.

So much for his alleged cradle robbing I suppose- that point right there negates the idea that he was doing it all for his personal gratification.

"OOPS- there go my 72 virgins!"

I don't think so!  ;)

Those who believe always see first the best of intentions and apparently those who do not always see the worst of intentions I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Those who believe always see first the best of intentions and apparently those who do not always see the worst of intentions I guess.

I don't think it is simply a matter of belief and disbelief, but why.  Most I know who disbelieve who were never members are pretty neutral in judgment except for seeing things as weird or silly at times.  They tend to be very positive over charitable activities.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So much for his alleged cradle robbing I suppose- that point right there negates the idea that he was doing it all for his personal gratification.

"OOPS- there go my 72 virgins!"

I don't think so!  ;)

Those who believe always see first the best of intentions and apparently those who do not always see the worst of intentions I guess.

And both often see stuff that is not there though I prefer the benevolent wrongness myself as opposed to the “wanting to see the worst bit”. Reminds me of one of my favorite Lewis quotes:

“Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one's first feeling, 'Thank God, even they aren't quite so bad as that,' or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies are as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally we shall insist on seeing everything -- God and our friends and ourselves included -- as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred.”

There is a lot of that around.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Hmmm I'll have to be quiet and read some more, refreshing minds in this site.

Liked the Lewis bit " . . .

You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally we shall insist on seeing everything -- God and our friends and ourselves included -- as bad, and not be able to stop doing it:
we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred.”

 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

×
×
  • Create New...