SeekingUnderstanding

They will always be called tweets 😜

I think that’s pretty horrible, but not unusual. Much like baptizing people for the dead that were adamant in life about their choices. I guess I don’t see Nathan and Eliza in this light however. Their relationship as recorded by their children was very good and it seems only church doctrine prevented the sealing. With sealings now allowed between one living woman and multiple men these days I’m in the “why not” camp. At least before I left the church.

Ultimately in this case it wasn’t his call to make as Eliza was adamant, but I agree that the idea that you are just borrowing a woman as your wife, and that your own biological children will belong to another for eternity is not an ideal situation and shows one of the many downsides to the doctrine of eternal families in the church.

Good question. I believe Nathan was quoted as saying “he would not rob the dead” or some such. Interestingly the temple work for him and Eliza was completely in the last couple of decades iirc (which actually upset my rather conservative brother for some reason). By all reports he treated all the mingled children equally and was a very kind guy.

I’ve got a ton and it’s all fascinating. The closer you get to original sources the more raw and real it is. In a rare reversal of roles on polygamy, another gg grandmother was Eliza Cusworth Burton Staker. Here I’m speaking more from memory so hopefully I won’t mess up too much. Eliza and her first husband Joseph converted in England with two young children, but Joseph died shortly thereafter. Eliza walked across the plains with the Martin Handcart company with her two young children (age 7 and 4). Met a widower (Nathan)in Salt Lake, they married and had an additional 5 children but they were all sealed to the first husband and as they believed she and they would be his (the first husbands) in the eternities. Real life makes a mess of “simple gospel truths” at times. Nathan stood proxy actually for the sealing.

If you all will indulge me one more family history story, Lorena's mother Flora was picked up as a third wife in Nauvoo in 1846. Had a baby shortly thereafter and started to cross the plains. A couple things left Flora dissatisfied with her situation. One, the husband was very harsh with her child and two, he pretty much left her to get across the plains on her own as he was off pursing wife number four. Flora was fed up, and decided to divorce and marry a different individual as a second wife. According to Flora's first husband: "Among other things to annoy me, my wife, [Flora], rebelled at my government of her child and left us upon the road, and associated with a family named Washburn, into which she afterwards married." According to Flora's daughter Lorena: "Mother had become alienated from her husband on account of his conduct. She laid her case before President Brigham Young. Johnson at first refused to sign the divorce and sent it back to Salt Lake unsigned, but President Young said, ‘I will see that he does sign it,’ and he did.”

I don’t know how it worked elsewhere, but in the late seventies near Monroe, first presidency approval must have been an after thought or perhaps a rubber stamp? Lorena, went to the next town over to house sit and help with kids at her fathers first wives home while the wife was away. Within a week she reports three plural marriage proposals. There is no way they had time to run that up the flagpole.

Correct. And anything that attempts to downplay the pressure felt by these young women (and the inherent inequity that came after) to enter these relationships is inherently dishonest IMNSHO of course.

I appreciate this. I personally doubt the original allegations. I guess I just fundamentally disagree with the idea that there wasn't a significant amount of coerersion involved. Different people see that differently. It's hard to reconstruct the past, but Lorena wrote a ton. She was taught by her church leaders and family that the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom was only available to those who practiced plural marriage. She (and her son - who has a wing named after him at BYU) is adamant that this was the position of the church at the time. Additionally, her Patriarchal blessing (which church members view as guidance from God) told her that she was heir to all the blessings of Sarah and "if I would obtain them, I must yield obedience to the law of Sarah." When Lorena was 14 (just a couple months shy of her 15th birthday 😉 ), she turned down her first marriage proposal. The man and his wife approached Lorena's parents for permission which was granted. Her father pressured her saying "I am afraid you will some day be sorry for turning down such a fine man." He was 50 years old. Became Lorena's bishop two years later and continued to pursue Lorena. Once the guy's first wife died he even took her to a dance. While Lorena turned him down (good for her), that's a ton of pressure on her. Asymmetric pressure that is just glossed over in the video. There is no healthy society in which adults are trying to marry off their young teenagers to 50 year old men. The dude was Martin Harris's Nephi btw Bishop Dennison Lott Harris. And he was far from the only old man to court Lorena in her teenage years. I went back to check and at least 6 others proposed marriage to her before she choose her husband at the age of 20 (he was 35).

Yes. Aunt Julia as the first wife was called got to live with the husband while Lorena went into hiding, adopted false names and had to teach her toddler to lie about who her dad was. I pretty much don’t see any redeeming qualities to polygamy, but the state persecution of what consenting adults do makes me really mad. The woman in question is Lorena Washburn Larsen. I don’t recall ever seeing anything but low and behold a quick google search shows her quoted in one of the polygamy essays: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/the-manifesto-and-the-end-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng Every story is so complex. I see the despair and desperation in her story but also acknowledge the light she felt from her faith which was the defining characteristic of her life.

Polygamy was such a sacrifice for the women that lived it. It’s one of the one issues I had with the video in the OP which just came across as a dude explaining it away. In addition to the above, I have a gg grandma on my mother’s side that lived through the manifesto era. From her: She went on to live as a single mother, providing all the support for her eight children (four born post manifesto). She describes her growing resentment for her husband who lived with his first wife and only came for conjugal visits, but also continued spiritual affirmations that it was what God wanted of her. The sacrifice and hardship that she went through (and she is far from alone I know) is indescribable in a way that the video just fails to capture.

I’ve tried to find more of her story, but the only descendant I was able to track down (who is very active on ancestry) was very cagey over email but was willing to meet in person. Never was able to make it work out.

Just really sad all around 😢

From my Grandpa’s Family history: I don’t know just when this happened, but a man by the name of Elvy came to Bloomington. He took a liking to Anna. One day he took Anna and the children and left Bloomington by team and wagon. Grandfather Krogh didn’t find out about them leaving until the next morning when he went to check on Anna. Grandfather was very angry and hurt. He got his team of oxen and started after them. He went all the way to Evanston, Wyoming but never caught up to them. Elvy had a team of horses and grandfather only had oxen. Grandfather never saw them after that. They went to California. Franklin[one of the children], after he was grown, he came to Bloomington to look up the family. I have a picture taken at this time with him and all of grandmother Krogh’s children. The only one in the family that I became aquatinted with was Aunt Sarah Page [another of the four children]. She worked in the mining area of northern Idaho. She married Alfred Page. They owned the Page mine in Idaho. She told us that Elvy was mean to the children and she asked him once why he took the children with Anna. He said the reason was her mother wouldn’t have gone without her children.

FWIW, my gg grandparents were from Scandinavia (Denmark). My gg grandpa married two women one after the other. He was 36. They were both 16, however, both arrived with their entire families. I have no idea about how easy divorce was, but the first wife ran away with a traveling salesman along with her four young children.

Glad I could drag you out of retirement. The board is better for your presence of course! I do agree with you that I was over broad in my characterization. There are many who claim to know they are correct and many that are much more humble in their truth claims. I appreciate the correction.

And as near as I can tell, all religions claim to know with a great deal of certainty the answers to those and many other questions. And as far as I can tell the answers do not match. This is what makes comparing religion to physics a red herring. Religion is bad at knowing what is unknown (as demonstrated by each faith tradition having different and contradictory answers - and each faith tradition being sure they are correct). Science on the other hand is pretty good at knowing what is unknown (see Sean Carroll's statement on Many Worlds) and it has a built in mechanism to correct itself.

I feel like there is a bit of sleight of hand going on here. Analytics initial claim was No where in there was there a claim that naturalism understands everything about the universe. Here is what Sean Carroll says about many worlds [emphasis mine]: Can you point to a general conference address in the last decade that shows the same epistemological humility? How about something from the pope? From the Southern Baptist convention? How about a grand Ayatollah or grand Imam?

I don't view Christianity as a single faith. Do you? Additionally, I have no doubt I could find stories of ex-muslims / ex-Hindi's / ex-whatever returning to their faith. You point out that Sabine and Sean have different views. That's great. If you ask them if super-determinism is proven by the data, I know that they would say no. There is room for differing opinions. A naturalistic world view doesn't claim to know all the answers. Sean Carroll is a strong proponent of the many worlds interpretion of Quanotm Mechanics and spends a good amount of time talking about it, but he readily acknowledges it is only one of many possible theories and that further work is needed. Let's contrast that with Christianity. If I'm am a married gay man and ask "Christians" how I should live my life, how many answers will I get? Will they have the same epistemological humility as the physicists? Or will they declare that they know I'm going to hell? Isn't whether someone is going to live with God or not kind of the point of religion? Why are there so many opinions each stated with certainty on something so straight forward?

If only they could converge on a single faith, then you might be on to something… 🤔

I think the best explanation is that the author was writing in wiggle room. You don’t get the answer that you should? Well of course that’s your fault.

It’s a Gregory Prince recording of a Nibley interview on an interaction he had with McKay. For another take you can see this post here from one of Nibley’s sons I believe.

You first need to read what people say. If you had done this one small simple thing you would have realized that no where did I or anyone else ask you to apologize for you “opinion”.

The not rude thing to do would be to apologize, that you wrote your experience in a generalized over broad way and that you appreciate the additional data brought to light here. That is only if you are interested in truth and not some dogmatic ax to grind.

Would it? YMMV, but in my experience testimonies of conversion are rarely so explicit. Maybe God came down and spoke to you “yes, it’s true”. Most stories I hear are of the spirit “testifying”. Ask two Latter-day Saints what that means and you’ll get at least three different answers. Elder Holland tells us that god sometimes even gives us false impressions (like sending us down the wrong road). So sure I will grant that you will hear many testimonies from saints testifying, and maybe very little the other way around. From this exmormon and those that I know though? It’s because the experience that once was interpreted as “this is true” is now seen with further light and knowledge to have been nothing more than confirmation bias. Before you get too upset, I can’t speak for your experience. It’s yours. Perhaps God really does talk to you in a way that can’t be explained away. Good for you - seriously. I can speak for my own experience and for those on this side I have spoken to who have left the church however. And our experiences are much better explained via a secular paradigm. My lived experience makes soooo much more sense now. But no God didn’t tell me it’s not true. Because he doesn’t exist