Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MustardSeed

Callings given to imperfect human beings

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

No, I believe that God is indifferent when it comes to polygamy as long as it only involves consenting adults.  

This is what I think too.  If polygamy was legal today, I doubt God would care who chooses to live it and who doesn’t as long as it’s done openly and honestly between adults. I can’t imagine Him sending an angel with a sword down to threaten anyone with destruction if they refused to live it (especially to someone who was already living it!).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, JulieM said:

That’s an interesting theory (or concept or thoughts), Calm!

Is there evidence of this, do you know?  Like did he change the pattern or stop marrying widows or other men’s wives after 1843?  I haven't looked that up, but it would be interesting to know.

Yes, most of the polyandrous sealings took place early on, before the vast majority of the single sealings.

 Alger, single of course, in 1833 appears to be the original attempt which likely was felt to be a disaster imo, followed by possibly but doubtful imo Harris 1838, who was married, then widely accepted single Louisa Beaman (she is the only one named in the Institute manual iirc) in April 1841and then (using the lazy convenience of Wiki) followed by at least 8 married or widowed and possibly ten (the possible 9th is unknown whether married or single) until for sure single Delcena Johnson and Eliza R Snow (June 1842).  So it looks to me like he experimented for about a year with polyandrous sealings.  After that there were only two sealings of married women, Ruth Vose (married to nonmember, documented eternity only sealing) and Elvira Cowles, where there is a late source suggesting the marriage was a legal fiction to begin with (first child was conceived apparently 7 months after Joseph's death).

Info on last two wives from Hales' site.

I speculate ( emphasize speculate) Emma was unhappy enough with Alger that he put off plural marriage for years and then tried again with Beaman, probably leading to renewed unhappiness from Emma, so while accepting he had to continue sealings, he switched to polyandrous sealings where he would not be necessarily responsible for providing the children (or even if he did, Emma might be able to comfort herself that the woman was happy with her legal husband and that it was pure duty on Joseph's part).

 

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, JulieM said:

This is what I think too.  If polygamy was legal today, I doubt God would care who chooses to live it and who doesn’t as long as it’s done openly and honestly between adults. I can’t imagine Him sending an angel with a sword down to threaten anyone with destruction if they refused to live it (especially to someone who was already living it!).

I don't think this works in a Latter-day Saint paradigm.  It just doesn't make sense to suggest that God is indifferent to polygamy.  That contravenes Jacob 2:30.  

And "as long as it's done openly and honesty between adults" doesn't wash, either.  Fornication and adultery both involve consenting adults (though the latter may or may not also involve a non-consenting party), but these behaviors are still prohibited.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, okay.

As between your A) unsubstantiated and unexplained opinion, and B) the combined and informed assessments of Hales, Bushman, Helen Mar Kimball, Lucy Walker, many of Joseph's contemporaries, and Joseph F. Smith, I'll go with the latter.

Thanks,

-Smac

You should also inquire of the Lord, yourself, rather than just take what other people say to you, so option C) would be the best solution:  Study it out in your own mind and ask the Lord to reveal the truth to you through the power of the Holy Ghost.

Bushman supposes reluctance but that is just his conjecture.  Another possibility is that God did not impress on Joseph's mind that he should be sealed to another particular woman, other than Emma, until he met Fanny Alger.  And then after not until he met the next one.  Even if he knew God wanted him to be sealed to other women that doesn't necessarily mean God wanted Joseph to marry any woman that happened to come along.

Hales is just voicing his own opinion, too.

And so is Helen Mar Kimball ("{H}ad it not been for the fear of His {the Lord’s} displeasure, Joseph would have shrunk from the undertaking and would have continued silent, as he did for years."  and "Joseph put off the dreaded day as long as he dared.”).

And Lucy Walker

And so are many, many other contemporaries of Joseph Smith 

 

Quote

And Joseph F. Smith: Joseph Smith was commanded to take wives, he hesitated and postponed it, seeing the consequences and the trouble that it would bring and he shrank from the responsibility...").

I'm allowing for the possibility that Joseph F. Smith was not speaking as a prophet when he said that, but I'm also open to receiving further light and knowledge from the Lord about that.  Finding a good, suitable wife is not an easy thing, even for a prophet of God.

I can understand how it could have taken Joseph a while to find a good wife, if she was actually to be his wife and not just another woman he was to be sealed to for all of eternity as part of the one overall union of every man and woman who wants to be sealed to our Father in heaven.  It took me 40 years before I found the kind of woman I felt I was ready to marry and yet I have always felt that God wants a man to have a woman as his eternal companion.

Edited by Ahab

Share this post


Link to post

Well I for one do think there were elements of “letchery” and I do see patterns of narcissism that support such entitlement in early leadership.  

This is my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And "as long as it's done openly and honesty between adults" doesn't wash, either.  Fornication and adultery both involve consenting adults (though the latter may or may not also involve a non-consenting party), but these behaviors are still prohibited.

But you think that doesn’t apply to the polygamy practiced by church members?  

If God doesn’t forbid it OR force it, he’s not going to condemn the behavior.

And as far as it being commanded to multiply, that isn’t very convincing, imo.  I think it’s been shown more kids are born from not living polygamy (monogamous relationships). 

Those are my views at least.

Edited by JulieM

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yes, most of the polyandrous sealings took place early on, before the vast majority of the single sealings.

 Alger, single of course, in 1833 appears to be the original attempt which likely was felt to be a disaster imo, followed by possibly but doubtful imo Harris 1838, who was married, then widely accepted single Louisa Beaman (she is the only one named in the Institute manual iirc) in April 1841and then (using the lazy convenience of Wiki) followed by at least 8 married or widowed and possibly ten (the possible 9th is unknown whether married or single) until for sure single Delcena Johnson and Eliza R Snow (June 1842).  So it looks to me like he experimented for about a year with polyandrous sealings.  After that there were only two sealings of married women, Ruth Vose (married to nonmember, documented eternity only sealing) and Elvira Cowles, where there is a late source suggesting the marriage was a legal fiction to begin with (first child was conceived apparently 7 months after Joseph's death).

Info on last two wives from Hales' site.

I speculate ( emphasize speculate) Emma was unhappy enough with Alger that he put off plural marriage for years and then tried again with Beaman, probably leading to renewed unhappiness from Emma, so while accepting he had to continue sealings, he switched to polyandrous sealings where he would not be necessarily responsible for providing the children (or even if he did, Emma might be able to comfort herself that the woman was happy with her legal husband and that it was pure duty on Joseph's part).

 

Thanks for all this, Calm!  It’s so interesting when you lay it out like above and analyze it.  It almost makes sense out of the mess (lol 🤣).  It’s so difficult to decipher because it was all so secretive in that era.

I do hate much of the behavior but I try not to condemn or judge.  Most involved were good people, imo. 

Edited by JulieM

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I think it’s been shown more kids are born from not living polygamy (monogamous relationships). 

Multiply is not the same imo as raising up seed unto God (I think of Samuel, Hannah's child promised to God for his service).

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Or mix and match.  

Every Latter-day Saint, even he most observant ones, stray and make mistakes and sin.  This is why we need to repent, exercise faith, serve others, study, grow, etc.

So I can't accept your dichotomy.  We do not face two choices.  We face dozens or hundreds of choices every day, every week, every month, every year.

Again, I reject the dichotomy.  We are all making mistakes every day.  But we can be "safe."  We accept Jesus Christ and strive to obey His commandments.  Those commandments include repenting when we sin.  We have the opportunity to repent every day, particularly on Sundays.

This is wildly inaccurate.  You are way oversimpllifying what we believe, to the point of caricature and inaccuracy.

I don't know what this means, so I can't really say whether I agree with it or not.

I believe the Church is what it claims to be.  That does not mean I believe it has a monopoly on "truth," or that it is infallible, or that it is perfect and without blemish, or that it cannot improve itself.

I don't know what this means, either.  "Protection" from what?

What "enforcement" are you talking about?  

What is it that the Church does when it "enforces?"

And not backed up by anything except the individual's voluntary agreement to cooperate.

If and when a member of the Church does something the Church doesn't like, the Church can't to bupkis about it, except to limit or end the individual's membership.  The relationship between the Church and the individual member is entirely voluntary.  On both sides.  Consequently, the only "authority" that the Church wields is that which the individual agrees to accept.

Yes.  But there is no shunning.  There is no public flogging or public denunciation.  There is no violence.  There is no confiscation of the individual's property.  There is no incarcerating of the individual.  Nothing.

Moreover, the Church moves heaven and earth to not "destroy" a person's membership in the Church.  We go out of our way to encourage each other to repent, to keep the commandments, and so on.  Formal discipline is quite rare, with the most extreme form - excommunication - being very rare.

But there is no "banishment."  We broadly welcome everyone to attend Sunday services and other activities and events.  People who are under discipline, or who have been excommunicated, are specifically and emphatically welcomed and encouraged to attend such events.

"Banishment?"  Where you getting such nonsense? 

-Smac

So excommunication isn't a big deal. Not being an eternal family isn't a big deal. Not being on the approved path of the social group isn't a big deal because, "membership is voluntary." 

You are playing with the meanings when it suits you.  Within the church, the covenant-keeping and eternal families are the goal and working toward that goal is rewarded with acceptance in the group. Within the context of group acceptance, at minimum you simply lose a favourable position in the group. Yet, within the believing context, you will lose all that matters eternally for rejecting polygamy.

You are trying to mitigate the harshness of that punishment by saying we don't have to believe, or that excommunicated people can still come to church. Those mitigating factors don't remove the final outcome for believers who in good conscience cannot accept polygamy.

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Multiply is not the same imo as raising up seed unto God (I think of Samuel, Hannah's child promised to God for his service).

Oh I agree.  But I don’t know if more kids are raised up to God (or people in general) when polygamy is being lived.  More men might have joined the church if there had been more single women.  Men may have been better fathers if they didn’t have so many kids they couldn’t spend much time with them and been better husbands who could help their wives more if they just had one.  Both men and women may have been happier and raised happier kids.  On and on....

And it does state “raise up seed”.  So that could be interpreted to mean more kids.  It also states that on the church website (“one reason for God to command it [polygamy]:  to increase the number of children born...”).

So I’m not convinced more are raised up to God by practicing polygamy.  I honestly feel it’s a down trodden, sad life for many who were involved and a bunch leave the church over it (back them and now).  But it’s all interesting to consider!

Edited by JulieM

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Ahab said:

You should also inquire of the Lord, yourself, rather than just take what other people say to you, so option C) would be the best solution:  Study it out in your own mind and ask the Lord to reveal the truth to you through the power of the Holy Ghost.

I have given much thought and study and prayer to this issue.

22 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Bushman supposes reluctance but that is just his conjecture. 

No, it's his takeaway from the historical evidence.

22 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Another possibility is that God did not impress on Joseph's mind that he should be sealed to another particular woman, other than Emma, until he met Fanny Alger.  And then after not until he met the next one.  Even if he knew God wanted him to be sealed to other women that doesn't necessarily mean God wanted Joseph to marry any woman that happened to come along.

Again, where are you getting this stuff?  You seem to be just making it up.

22 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Hales is just voicing his own opinion, too.

No.  He is presenting his takeaway from the historical evidence.

22 minutes ago, Ahab said:

And so is Helen Mar Kimball ("{H}ad it not been for the fear of His {the Lord’s} displeasure, Joseph would have shrunk from the undertaking and would have continued silent, as he did for years."  and "Joseph put off the dreaded day as long as he dared.”).

And Lucy Walker

And so are many, many other contemporaries of Joseph Smith 

They are far better situated to speak competently about Joseph Smith's perspective on polygamy than you are.

Why should I accept your unexplained say-so over that of Hales, Bushman, Joseph's contemporaries, etc.?

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, JulieM said:
Quote

And "as long as it's done openly and honesty between adults" doesn't wash, either.  Fornication and adultery both involve consenting adults (though the latter may or may not also involve a non-consenting party), but these behaviors are still prohibited.

But you think that doesn’t apply to the polygamy practiced by church members?  

I don't understand the question.  What are you asking about here?

20 minutes ago, JulieM said:

If God doesn’t forbid it OR force it, he’s not going to condemn the behavior.

I think He will.  See Jacob 2:30.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think He will.  See Jacob 2:30.

I already addressed how I feel about Jacob 2:30 (in my response but it may have been an edit after you read it 😊).

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I have given much thought and study and prayer to this issue.

Good for you, and yet we do not agree.  I wonder what we can do about that.

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

No, it's his takeaway from the historical evidence.

As I said, conjecture.  Pretty much the same exact thing.

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Again, where are you getting this stuff?  You seem to be just making it up.

I suggested it as a possibility.  Can't you conceive of other possibilities without someone spelling them out for you?  Think of what is involved in finding a woman to marry.  Did you just marry the first woman to come along who would say Yes?  Whether or not you did, do you think Joseph was supposed to do that?  It may have had nothing at all to do with reluctance and instead just a matter of finding someone he wanted to be sealed to, or who he thought he should be sealed to.   Finding who to marry is not always a quick and easy process.

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

No.  He is presenting his takeaway from the historical evidence.

Same thing. I have considered that evidence too.  Broken down to basic facts that we can all see, all we can see is that there was some time before he was sealed to other women. And from that we get all of this conjecture.

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

They are far better situated to speak competently about Joseph Smith's perspective on polygamy than you are.

Why would you think so? Excuse me, why would you think you are correct in thinking so?  I know Joseph a heck of a lot better than many people who lived back then who thought they knew the real ole "Joe" Smith. Revelation from God is a wonderful thing!

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Why should I accept your unexplained say-so over that of Hales, Bushman, Joseph's contemporaries, etc.?

Only because God has told me the truth about some of this stuff, but of course before you can know that God will have to tell you the same things.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

So excommunication isn't a big deal.

I think it's a huge deal.  But I that's a product of my choice.

I have family members who have left the Church, apparently for good.  For them, their membership in the Church "isn't a big deal."  That's a product of their choices.

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Not being an eternal family isn't a big deal.

It's a huge deal.

Unless you don't believe in eternal families, in which case membership in the Church doesn't matter much at all.

It's all about choice.

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Not being on the approved path of the social group isn't a big deal because, "membership is voluntary." 

Obeying the tenets of the Restored Gospel can either be a big deal, or not a big deal, depending on the individual's perspective.  On the individual's choice to believe or not.

But the fact remains that members of the Church who are not "on the approved path" are not shunned, or "banished" (as you absurdly, and falsely, claimed), or robbed, or beaten, or imprisoned, or killed.

The only thing the Church can do to "punish" its members is to limit or end the individual's membership.  

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

You are playing with the meanings when it suits you. 

I am not.

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Within the church, the covenant-keeping and eternal families are the goal and working toward that goal is rewarded with acceptance in the group.

Yes.  And?

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Within the context of group acceptance, at minimum you simply lose a favourable position in the group.

Isn't that precisely what I have been saying?  Over and over?  The only thing the Church can do to a wayward member is to limit or end his membership (his "position in the group").

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Yet, within the believing context, you will lose all that matters eternally for rejecting polygamy.

Isn't that precisely what I have been saying?  Over and over?  That the Church's authority is purely a matter of belief, and choice extending therefrom?

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

You are trying to mitigate the harshness of that punishment by saying we don't have to believe, or that excommunicated people can still come to church.

No.  I think excommunication carries huge ramifications for the individual.

What I am doing is rejecting the idea that the Church is coercive.  It's not.  Membership in the Church is bilaterally voluntary.  The individual can choose to leave, and the Church can, if appropriate and necessary, limit or terminate the individual's membership.

Membership only matters to the individual if he chooses to attached significance to it.  If he does not, then the Church can't do squat to him.  If he does, then he cannot be said to be "coerced," since he has chosen to submit to the jurisdiction of the Church.

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Those mitigating factors don't remove the final outcome for believers who in good conscience cannot accept polygamy.

I don't know what you mean here.

FWIW, I welcome in full fellowship "believers who in good conscience cannot accept polygamy."  I am quite empathetic to their position, actually.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Good for you, and yet we do not agree.  I wonder what we can do about that.

We can look to the historical evidence.  That is certainly a helpful thing.

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

As I said, conjecture.  Pretty much the same exact thing.

But their "conjecture" is far more informed than yours, I think.

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I suggested it as a possibility. 

A purely speculative and unsubstantiated one.

I'm not really interested in that sort of thing.

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Can't you conceive of other possibilities without someone spelling them out for you? 

I prefer to examine evidence.  Sheer speculation is not my thing.

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Same thing. I have considered that evidence too. 

But you haven't accounted for it, except to dismiss it out-of-hand.

I find that problematic.

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Why would you think so? Excuse me, why would you think you are correct in thinking so?  I know Joseph a heck of a lot better than many people who lived back then who thought they knew the real ole "Joe" Smith. Revelation from God is a wonderful thing!

Sorry, but I'm not going to examine a say-so that A) ignores or dismisses out-of-hand relevant historical sources and studies thereof, and B) instead presumes to claim to understand Joseph Smith's perspective on polygamy through revelation.

Your characterization of Joseph Smith (particularly this bit, and this) is very problematic.  That you are now propping it up by claiming revelation doesn't improve things.

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Only because God has told me the truth about some of this stuff, but of course before you can know that God will have to tell you the same things.

God told you that Joseph Smith "was {not} disturbed" by polygamy?  All evidence from friendly sources to the contrary?

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We can look to the historical evidence.  That is certainly a helpful thing.

We're talking about the time period(s) between his sealings to other women and what some people say are the reasons for those time delays. 

The sources you are using suggest he was "disturbed" by the idea of a man having more than one wife, whether for himself or for other men who have had more than one woman sealed to them.

I have said that hearsay doesn't really count as good evidence and that instead of using that we should seek a better source of information.  Second hand witness accounts don't really prove anything other than those people have an opinion.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But their "conjecture" is far more informed than yours, I think.

I know you think so.  Why you think so is another issue.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A purely speculative and unsubstantiated one.

God has given some substance to form the faith that I have.  But to you, I know, that is just my opinion.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not really interested in that sort of thing.

Evidently.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I prefer to examine evidence.  Sheer speculation is not my thing.

My word is evidence. Examine that.  Compare it to the word of other people.  And what does that get you?  Just some speculation and conjecture, likely, from your perspective.  Whose word trumps the word of other people for you?

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But you haven't accounted for it, except to dismiss it out-of-hand.

I find that problematic.

Solve the problem.  I have told you enough for you to know how if you didn't know already.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sorry, but I'm not going to examine a say-so that A) ignores or dismisses out-of-hand relevant historical sources and studies thereof, and B) instead presumes to claim to understand Joseph Smith's perspective on polygamy through revelation.

Your characterization of Joseph Smith (particularly this bit, and this) is very problematic.  That you are now propping it up by claiming revelation doesn't improve things.

Sorry I can't make it easier for you.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

God told you that Joseph Smith "was {not} disturbed" by polygamy?  All evidence from friendly sources to the contrary?

Yes, and yes.  Considering all that Joseph told us (the Church and the world) about a man having more than one wife and how God is good with it in certain circumstances, I am 100% certain that Joseph wasn't disturbed by the idea of a man being sealed to more than one woman as long as it was under circumstances God approved for that union.  There are other circumstances when it would not be right or righteously lived, or properly understood, but as long as a person has the correct understanding of how it should be lived while knowing God approves of it then such people need not be disturbed at all by the idea.  Even if other people have a problem with it.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, smac97 said:

FWIW, I welcome in full fellowship "believers who in good conscience cannot accept polygamy."  I am quite empathetic to their position, actually.

Thanks,

-Smac

How YOU welcome them sounds great, but what does D&C 132 say about them? What did the church say and do about them when it practiced polygamy? Were they, believers in the Restoration, accepted in full-fellowship? Were they invited to continue onward to establish Zion?

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Calm said:

Alger, single of course, in 1833 appears to be the original attempt which likely was felt to be a disaster imo, followed by possibly but doubtful imo Harris 1838, who was married, .....

After that there were only two sealings of married women, Ruth Vose (married to nonmember, documented eternity only sealing) 

Thank you for this entire post, Calm.  It’s all very interesting to lay it out as you’ve done!

I have a couple questions.

I have read a few times on here that there were no documented eternity only sealings for Joseph.  So what you state about his sealing to Ruth Vose caught my eye.  Where is that eternity only sealing documented? 

And about the Harris sealing (to Lucinda Pendleton Morgan Harris). Why do you doubt that one took place?

(Thanks in advance 😊)

Edited by JulieM

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JulieM said:

I have read a few times on here that there were no documented eternity only sealings for Joseph.  So what you state about his sealing to Ruth Vose caught my eye.  Where is that eternity only sealing documented? 

It's not documented (as in having a record stating it was for "eternity only").  You are correct we do not know that any of Joseph's sealing were of this nature (eternity only). 

Here is what I have found that is in writing about this sealing (Calm may have other documents that I haven't seen): 

 

Quote

 

.... claims that there is evidence that there were non sexual, eternity only “sealings” because of some notes written by Andrew Jenson in the 1880’s:

He’s interviewing one of Joseph Smith’s plural wives. We don’t know which one, and this is occurring in early 1887. He is interviewing this wife and it’s probably Eliza Snow, but we don’t know. “While the strongest affection sprang up between the Prophet Joseph and Mr. Sayers,” Mr. Sayers is the legal husband of Ruth Vose Sayers, one of Joseph’s plural wives, “the latter [Mr. Sayers], not attaching much importance to the theory of a future life, insisted that his wife, Ruth, should be sealed to the prophet for eternity, that he himself should only claim her in this life. She was accordingly sealed to the prophet in Emma Smith’s presence, and thus became numbered among the Prophets plural wives.”

First, [we don't] know where this information came from. It could be hearsay. It could be made up for all we know. But there is something that throws doubt on this account. This statement claims that Emma Smith was present at the sealing of Ruth Vose Sayers in February, 1843. This is even more confusing when one reads the affidavit that Ruth Vose signed in 1869:

Be it remembered that on this first day of May, A.D. 1869, personally appeared before me, Elias Smith, Probate Judge for Said County, Ruth Vose Sayers who was by me Sworn in due form of law and upon her oath Saith that on [blank] day of February A.D. 1843 at the City of Nauvoo County of Hancock, State of Illinois, She was married or Sealed to Joseph Smith President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, by Hyrum Smith, Presiding Patriarch of Said Church, according to the laws of the Same, regulating Marriage; in the presence of.

 

 

I'll add that out of all of Joseph's sealings, this is the one where I believe it may have been for "eternity only"....but we don't have documentation of that.

 

--

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JulieM said:

And about the Harris sealing (to Lucinda Pendleton Morgan Harris). Why do you doubt that one took place?

I think there may have been some doubt whether this sealing took place before Joseph's death or afterwards (but as I understand it, the sealing records were found).  I may be remembering wrong, but I believe she was sealed to Joseph in 1842 and then the sealing was redone after his death.  I will see if I can find what I read on that and refresh my memory.

ETA:

Here is what is stated in the footnote regarding this sealing (in George D. Smith's Nauvoo Polygamy ):

Quote

 

Lucinda married two Freemasons:  William Morgan, who was kidnapped and reportedly murdered when he published a Masonic expose in 1826, and George Harris four years later.  In 1834 the Harrises converted to Mormonism and moved to Missouri, then Illinois.  While still living with George, Lucinda married Joseph by Jan. 1842.  She was re-sealed to him on Jan. 22, 1846, George acting as proxy for Joseph.

(Record in the "Nauvoo Sealings & Adoptions"  Book A, LDS Archives)

 

 

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think there may have been some doubt whether this sealing took place before Joseph's death or afterwards (but as I understand it, the sealing records were found).  I may be remembering wrong, but I believe she was sealed to Joseph in 1842 and then the sealing was redone after his death.  I will see if I can find what I read on that and refresh my memory.

ETA:

Here is what is stated in the footnote regarding this sealing (in George D. Smith's Nauvoo Polygamy ):

 

Thank you!  This is all so interesting and so much of it just had to be pieced together because of the secrecy back then.  Some things we may never be sure if I guess, one way or the other 😏

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Thank you!  This is all so interesting and so much of it just had to be pieced together because of the secrecy back then.  Some things we may never be sure if I guess, one way or the other 😏

Came upon the youtube site called "Gospel Tangents". Rick Bennett put these together, he is an active LDS believer but is really intersted in the truth and very interested in the warts in the church. His interviews include Sandra Tanner and the church's current historian Elder Snow. I'm sure there are plenty videos that discuss polygamy. 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4clkuJcpGygxprWuwa5SVA/videos

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Came upon the youtube site called "Gospel Tangents". Rick Bennett put these together, he is an active LDS believer but is really intersted in the truth and very interested in the warts in the church. His interviews include Sandra Tanner and the church's current historian Elder Snow. I'm sure there are plenty videos that discuss polygamy. 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4clkuJcpGygxprWuwa5SVA/videos

Wow, thank you Tacenda!  Sounds very interesting.  I’ll watch it as soon as I can👍

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/6/2019 at 4:43 PM, Ahab said:

We're talking about the time period(s) between his sealings to other women and what some people say are the reasons for those time delays. 

The reason for the delays between Kirtland and Nauvoo has a name.

Missouri.

It was the events of Missouri that following the early attempt at plural marriage in Kirtland prevented trying anew until the new home in Nauvoo was established.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...