Questions About Polyandry

[MJNSW]

There will be no time or energy restrictions in the next life, thus our spouses can be with us for an infinite time whether they are only one individual or multiple ones.

There will be no jealousy, no competition, no low self-esteem, no doubt.

There will be full and total communication between individuals so that each knows exactly how the other feels about them.

People will have the capacity for infinite love.

In that circumstances how is sharing that love with more than one person unfair, especially if people want to share the experience.

My husband is a wonderful man. I feel completely confident that he is fully in love with me. I also believe that if I were to die, he would be capable of finding another love with another woman. If he can do it serially, I see no reason why he couldn't do it at the same time---he is the same person with the same capabilities after all. His being able to love another woman will, in my belief and trust, in no way decrease his love for me. The only restriction is one of time and energy--and thus may limit the ability to fully express that love in all ways as previously done--and depending on the person and their individual needs, it just may be asking too much to include someone else in the relationship. OTOH, I have read journals where women have expressed the opinion that their husband has grown in the ability to love them when they've been willing to fully accept a sister-wife or more into the family as well as having the opinion that they've grown themselves closer to the type of pure charity/love that God would like us all to experience.

Just because you personally can't imagine feeling this way doesn't mean that other women and men aren't capable of expanding themselves in this way, especially in the next life when we are dealing with infinites. Let people make decisions for themselves, imo. They know their own limitations better than anyone else in most cases.

So with what you are saying... why the need to have other women married to husbands of their own sealed as wife or husband to the prophet?

you say: There will be no time or energy restrictions in the next life, thus our spouses can be with us for an infinite time whether they are only one individual or multiple ones.

There will be no jealousy, no competition, no low self-esteem, no doubt.

There will be full and total communication between individuals so that each knows exactly how the other feels about them.

People will have the capacity for infinite love.

In that circumstances how is sharing that love with more than one person unfair, especially if people want to share the experience.

Why were they not sealed to their own husbands? then sealed as a child to JS? It does not make sense...

[Jan]

Oracle and MJNSW,

If the woman didn't like the idea of polygamy (and many didn't; this was, after all, Protestant, Victorian America), then they said "no." If they married polygamously and didn't like it, they could get a divorce - granted easily for women (but not men) by Brigham Young.

For those of you who haven't read this online article by Greg Smith MD, I highly recommend it:

POLYGAMY, PROPHETS, AND PREVARICATION: FREQUENTLY AND RARELY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE INITIATION, PRACTICE, AND CESSATION OF PLURAL MARRIAGE IN THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS

[MJNSW]

The women were not forced.

And how were they not forced? The prophet of the Lord stood before them threatening that an angel with a flaming sword would bring destruction upon them if they did not follow or marry him! How is that not forcing?

[Jan]

And how were they not forced? The prophet of the Lord stood before them threatening that an angel with a flaming sword would bring destruction upon them if they did not follow or marry him! How is that not forcing?

Have you done any research or are you just making this up as you go? Zina Diantha Hungtington said "No" the first 3 times that Jospeh Smith asked her to marry him. Do you know what happened to change her mind?

[sunstoned]

I am not talking just sex here. The emotional trauma of having to share your spouse or give them up to another in the next life just does not seem right or fair in any way.

Why could it not be a child parent sealing and not a spousal sealing? That has yet to be answered.

Good point. The emotional trauma would be great. I think Orson Hyde experience some of this when he returned from his mission.

If all of this was from God, and it was so important to be sealed to other menâ??s wives, then where is the revelation dong away with polyandry? According to some on this board JS â??sealingsâ? were platonic. But we know BY and others were not. Outside of Zina, I donâ??t think BY or others after Nauvoo time period took married woman. Why was JSâ??s brand of polygamy so different than the leaders that followed him?

[karl61]

Have you done any research or are you just making this up as you go? Zina Diantha Hungtington said "No" the first 3 times that Jospeh Smith asked her to marry him. Do you know what happened to change her mind?

my guess what changed her mind was Joseph's persistence, bringing up that he was a prophet of God in a private meeting with her , saying an angel threatened his life, she was his before the world was formed, and she and her family would have salvation.

[MJNSW]

Have you done any research or are you just making this up as you go? Zina Diantha Hungtington said "No" the first 3 times that Jospeh Smith asked her to marry him. Do you know what happened to change her mind?

I have done plenty of research... Have you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zina_D._H._Young

Marriage and children

At the age of twenty, while openly being courted by Henry Bailey Jacobs, Zina received a secret proposal from the prophet, Joseph Smith, Jr. (Compton 1997, p. 77 â?? 79). As Smith was already married to his wife Emma, he explained to Zina that the Lord was restoring the ancient order of plural marriage (Van Wagoner 1992, p. 44). Zina declined the proposal and on March 7, 1841 she married Jacobs. Nauvoo mayor John C. Bennett conducted the ceremony.

Within months of her marriage to Henry, Joseph sent word to her that he had "put it off till an angel with a drawn sword stood by me and told me if I did not establish that principle upon the earth I would lose my position and my life" (quoted in Compton 1997, p. 80 â?? 81). They were sealed on October 27, 1841 (Compton 1997 p. 81 â?? 82). Henry was aware of the wedding, but they continued to live together when he wasn't away serving a mission (Compton 1997 p. 81 â?? 82). They had two sons, Zebulon William Jacobs was born January 2, 1842. DNA research has confirmed that Zebulon is not the son of Joseph Smith (Perego 2005). Henry Chariton Jacobs was born March 22, 1846 after Joseph's death.

Zina married Brigham Young on February 2, 1846, aged 25. They were married for thirty-one years and had one daughter, Zina Prescinda Young, who married Charles Ora Card and became the great-grandmother of novelist Orson Scott Card. She also reared four of Young's children by Clarissa Chase after their mother's death. (Compton 1997 p 84, 88, 90 â?? 91).

So I did not quote it exact... but if you would like further references I will do my best to supply!

[Zakuska]

DNA research has confirmed that Zebulon is not the son of Joseph Smith (Perego 2005).

[Dale]

She said through prayer, and scripture study she obtained a testimony of the truth of plural marriage. (In Sacred Lonliness pg. 81) Todd Comptom also reports in his words "he apparently told them they could continue to live together as man and wife." (In Sacred Lonliness pg.80) Sounds to me like once Zina accepted the idea as true nothing indicates Joseph Smith never lived with Zina as man and wife.

With Todd Comptom admitting the Helen Mar Kimball sealing was only platonic it's possible that's all was involved in this case. But Todd Comptom state's very speculatively "Nothing specific is known about sexuality in the marriage, though judging from Smith's other marriages, sexuality was probably included." (pg.82) Nothing that he provides regarding this case makes me agree with his speculation. I see more room for my view than for his. A platonic behavior on the part of Joseph smith towards Zina goes against the idea Joseph Smith proposed to her out of lust. He was of course speculating about the Zina Huntington case.

If Joseph Smith was commanded by God to propose to Zina then who are we to disagree with God?

[MJNSW]

http://www.fairlds.org/Mormonism_201/m20117b.html

In May 1843 the thirty-seven-year-old prophet of Mormonism convinced fifteen-year-old Helen Mar Kimball to be sealed as his plural wife. The daughter of Heber C. Kimball stated how Smith promised that if she would "take this step," it would insure the eternal salvation and exaltation of her father's household and kindred. Helen was led to believe that the relationship was more of a spiritual nature and claimed she would have never gone through with it had she known otherwise.

This in my mind this is coercion. This is not a proposal or anything of virtue in my mind!

[Jan]

I have done plenty of research... Have you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zina_D._H._Young

So I did not quote it exact... but if you would like further references I will do my best to supply!

Why did Zina say "no" three times and then change her mind and say yes? What changed her mind?

[urroner]

Why did Zina say "no" three times and then change her mind and say yes? What changed her mind?

And if this question is answered, could solid references be given and not any personal opinions about why she changed her mind.

[Jan]

And if this question is answered, could solid references be given and not any personal opinions about why she changed her mind.

Hint: See the Allen Wyatt paper previously referenced.

[Nighthawke]

http://www.fairlds.org/Mormonism_201/m20117b.html

This in my mind this is coercion. This is not a proposal or anything of virtue in my mind!

Bravo. What insight. You're absolutely correct! In YOUR MIND this is coercion.

But if you were to read Helen's writings you would realize that she was not coerced. Nowhere in her writings does she say that she was coerced nor does she ever say in any of her letters, speeches or other writings that she was guaranteed eternal salvation and exaltation because she agreed to become a plural wife of Joseph Smith. She never says anything of the sort. What she does say is that eternal salvation and exaltation can only be obtained through faith in Jesus Christ and living righteously -- the same as the rest of us. Her writings also emphatically state that plural marriage was a virtuous choice.

Though some modern historians have levied criticism that LDS Church leaders manipulated both their own women and gentile suffragists in their confrontation with the government over polygamy, neither national nor local suffragists could be construed as pawns, maneuvered by the stratagem of religious leaders. Plural wives were no less committed to the Church and plural marriage than their husbands or Church leaders. Mormon women were inseparable partners in defense of what they persistently maintained was a divine mandate and a constitutional guarantee. Realistically, women had far more to lose than men if their marriages were invalidated and their children illegitimatized. Mormon women's defense of the practice was thus fervent and personal.

. . . Mormon women were not only willing but also essential partners in this long-standing confrontation. Their presence, their petitions, their writings, their lectures all assisted in arousing public empathy, in finding allies, and in building bridges.(23)

(23)Carol Cornwall Madsen, An Advocate for Women: The Public Life of Emmeline B. Wells 1870â??1920. (Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 2006), 228â??229.

An Advocate for Women received the Mormon History Association's Best Book Award this year; I highly recommend it. Unlike wivesofjosephsmith.com which garnered, um, nothing.

[karl61]

Bravo. What insight. You're absolutely correct! In YOUR MIND this is coercion.

SHE WAS FOURTEEN! If you read their statements they say at the beginning they were shocked, angry and would not agree. They were heavily influenced by Joseph Smith: telling them the Lord threatened him; telling girls they were his before the world was formed, promising their family salvation. These girls were not getting their Ph.d in Logic from harvard. They likely didn't have a lot of education. This was not new at the time. The Oneida Community was right next door with their youthful leader testing something other than monogamy He also was in absolute control and would kick people out if they didn't follow him.

But if you were to read Helen's writings you would realize that she was not coerced. Nowhere in her writings does she say that she was coerced nor does she ever say in any of her letters, speeches or other writings that she was guaranteed eternal salvation and exaltation because she agreed to become a plural wife of Joseph Smith. She never says anything of the sort. What she does say is that eternal salvation and exaltation can only be obtained through faith in Jesus Christ and living righteously -- the same as the rest of us. Her writings also emphatically state that plural marriage was a virtuous choice.

An Advocate for Women received the Mormon History Association's Best Book Award this year; I highly recommend it. Unlike wivesofjosephsmith.com which garnered, um, nothing.

[Nighthawke]

Karl 61:

"SHE WAS FOURTEEN! If you read their statements they say at the beginning they were shocked, angry and would not agree. They were heavily influenced by Joseph Smith: telling them the Lord threatened him; telling girls they were his before the world was formed, promising their family salvation. These girls were not getting their Ph.d in Logic from harvard. They likely didn't have a lot of education. This was not new at the time. The Oneida Community was right next door with their youthful leader testing something other than monogamy He also was in absolute control and would kick people out if they didn't follow him."

If I read their statements????

I have read their statements. And their statements say, at the beginning, that Helen was shocked, angry and would not agree to plural marriage as practiced by the likes of vengeful apostates John C. Bennett, Chauncey and Francis Higbee and Robert Foster. The following is the full text of what Helen wrote, not the ellipsed text found in Compton's book and cherry picked further by wivesofjosephsmith.com :

Woman's Exponent vol. 11, no. 5, 1 August 1882, pp. 39-40

I remember how I felt, but which would be a difficult matter to describeâ??the various thoughts, fears and temptations that flashed through my mind when the principle was first introduced to me by my father, who one morning in the summer of 1843, without any preliminaries, asked me if I would believe him if he told me that it was right for married men to take other wives, can be better imagined than told; but suffice it to say the first impulse was anger, for I thought he had only said it to test my virtue, as I had heard that tales of this kind had been published by such characters as the Higbees, Foster and Bennett, but which I supposed were without any foundation. My sensibilities were painfully touched. I felt such a sense of personal injury and displeasure; for to mention such a thing to me I thought altogether unworthy of my father, and as quick as he spoke, I replied to him, short and emphatically, No, I wouldn't! I had always been taught to believe it a heinous crime, improper and unnatural, and I indignantly resented it. This was the first time that I ever openly manifested anger towards him; but I was somewhat surprised at his countenance, as he seemed rather pleased than otherwise. Then he commenced talking seriously, and reasoned and explained the principle, and why it was again to be established upon the earth, etc.

Looking closely at what Helen wrote in its unedited version above, we read that the reason Helenâ??s â??first impulse was angerâ? was because she believed her father was â??testing [her] virtueâ?. In other words, Helen believed her father was testing her to see if she was sympathetic to what â??had been published by such characters as the Higbees [Chauncey and Francis], [Robert] Foster and [John C.] Bennettâ? which was the reason behind much of the persecution of the Saints in Nauvoo. For Helen to be found sympathetic to the apostatesâ?? tales and publications meant she would have been complicit in trying to embitter the Saints against Joseph Smith. â??No, I wouldnâ??t!â? she replies. Helenâ??s dismissal of these apostatesâ?? malicious slanders and â??self-prescribed polygamyâ? explains her father being â??rather pleased than otherwise.â?

This is confirmed by Helenâ??s reminiscence of 1883 wherein she refers to her â??first outburst of displeasureâ? (i.e. â??first impulse was angerâ?) â??for supposed injuryâ? (i.e. â??testing my virtueâ?). Again, Helen mentions how â??very dangerousâ? it was at that time for such a doctrine to be introduced, â??in the midst of the greatest trouble Joseph had ever encountered. The Missourians and Illinoisians were ready and determined to destroy himâ? and that â??the Higbee boysâ? had â??caused serious trouble.â?

How about taking your own advice and reading their unedited, unellipsed text instead of a few lines off the Internet?

Could those who look down upon plural wives and cast a stigma upon them and their offspring realize the lamentable and degraded condition of many women in the world, veritable slaves who dare not express their feelings for fear of the lash of â??public opinion,â?? they might change their minds respecting â??Mormonâ?? women, who are anything but dupes or slaves. The women who have come out to this meeting and the thousands whom they represent, could not be kept in subjection to an influence that would make them slaves instead of free women.

Helen Mar Kimball Smith Whitney, Mormon Women's Protest, p. 52.

Karl 61: "These girls were not getting their Ph.d in Logic from harvard. They likely didn't have a lot of education. "

These "girls" who married polygamously included medical doctors, political activists, suffragettes, etc. For example Dr. Ellen Brooke Ferguson, studied overseas in Cambridge, England and Edinburgh. Dr. Ellen B. Ferguson and Emmeline B. Wells met with the President of the United States, President Grover Cleveland in Washington, to discuss the matter of plural marriage back in the 1880s.

Brigham Young encouraged women to attend university. I was reading the 1882 Salt Lake Daily Herald two weeks ago and noticed that several young women had obtained their degrees in geography, science and so forth.

I have also transcribed some of Helen Mar Kimball's letters to her children and to her husband and her spelling, grammar and writing are impeccable. She was very well educated and could correspond with noted men and women of her era as well as converse with them when them stopped by to visit her. A lot of people were curious about plural marriage and sought her out. This is one of the many reasons why she wrote two lengthy publications defending it.

Another one of your Internet-based theories bites the dust.

[karl61]

Karl 61:

If I read their statements????

I have read their statements. And their statements say, at the beginning, that Helen was shocked, angry and would not agree to plural marriage as practiced by the likes of vengeful apostates John C. Bennett, Chauncey and Francis Higbee and Robert Foster. The following is the full text of what Helen wrote, not the ellipsed text found in Compton's book and cherry picked further by wivesofjosephsmith.com :

Looking closely at what Helen wrote in its unedited version above, we read that the reason Helenâ??s â??first impulse was angerâ? was because she believed her father was â??testing [her] virtueâ?. In other words, Helen believed her father was testing her to see if she was sympathetic to what â??had been published by such characters as the Higbees [Chauncey and Francis], [Robert] Foster and [John C.] Bennettâ? which was the reason behind much of the persecution of the Saints in Nauvoo. For Helen to be found sympathetic to the apostatesâ?? tales and publications meant she would have been complicit in trying to embitter the Saints against Joseph Smith. â??No, I wouldnâ??t!â? she replies. Helenâ??s dismissal of these apostatesâ?? malicious slanders and â??self-prescribed polygamyâ? explains her father being â??rather pleased than otherwise.â?

This is confirmed by Helenâ??s reminiscence of 1883 wherein she refers to her â??first outburst of displeasureâ? (i.e. â??first impulse was angerâ?) â??for supposed injuryâ? (i.e. â??testing my virtueâ?). Again, Helen mentions how â??very dangerousâ? it was at that time for such a doctrine to be introduced, â??in the midst of the greatest trouble Joseph had ever encountered. The Missourians and Illinoisians were ready and determined to destroy himâ? and that â??the Higbee boysâ? had â??caused serious trouble.â?

How about taking your own advice and reading their unedited, unellipsed text instead of a few lines off the Internet?

Karl 61: "These girls were not getting their Ph.d in Logic from harvard. They likely didn't have a lot of education. "

These "girls" who married polygamously included medical doctors, political activists, suffragettes, etc. For example Dr. Ellen Brooke Ferguson, studied overseas in Cambridge, England and Edinburgh. Dr. Ellen B. Ferguson and Emmeline B. Wells met with the President of the United States, President Grover Cleveland in Washington, to discuss the matter of plural marriage back in the 1880s.

Brigham Young encouraged women to attend university. I was reading the 1882 Salt Lake Daily Herald two weeks ago and noticed that several young women had obtained their degrees in geography, science and so forth.

I have also transcribed some of Helen Mar Kimball's letters to her children and to her husband and her spelling, grammar and writing are impeccable. She was very well educated and could correspond with noted men and women of her era as well as converse with them when them stopped by to visit her. A lot of people were curious about plural marriage and sought her out. This is one of the many reasons why she wrote two lengthy publications defending it.

Another one of your Internet-based theories bites the dust.

I see you pulled a Selek.

let me eat and then I will respond.

p.s (whisper) In Sacred Lonliness is out of stock at DeseretBook.

http://deseretbook.com/store/product?product_id=100010764

[Nighthawke]

"...pulled a Selek"?? What's that supposed to mean? Does Selek also provide quotations to support what he/she has posted?

When the Saints first heard this doctrine advanced it looked strange and unnatural to them; it was strong meat and required a little time before it could be digested; but this was owing to the narrow, contracted ideas which had been handed down from generation to generation by our forefathers. We were like babes and had always been fed upon milk; but, as Jesus said, we have to be taught "here a little and there a little." When I was able to comprehend it, it appeared quite consistent. There is something in this doctrine that is very home-like, grand and beautiful to reflect upon, and it is very simple and comprehensive. It teaches us that we are all the children of the same parent, whose love was so great that He gave His beloved Son, our Elder Brother, Jesus Christ to redeem us from the fall. He came down upon this earth in the meridian of time and descended below all things that, He might rise above all things, and thus rescue us from everlasting death. It teaches us that our Father was once mortal, and that if we remain faithful we will finally become as He is--immortal, even if we must first, pay the penalty for the transgression of our first parents.

- Helen Mar Kimball Smith Whitney, Plural Marriage as Taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City, Utah, 1882.

This is only one of several examples where Helen clearly teaches that redemption is through Jesus Christ. If she had been guaranteed redemption through plural marriage to Joseph Smith why is she writing that redemption is through Jesus Christ and that we must remain faithful to the gospel of Jesus Christ?

KARL61: "p.s (whisper) In Sacred Lonliness is out of stock at DeseretBook."

p.p.s. (whisper) So what? I already own a copy; and if anyone wants to purchase it there's a little online store called amazon.com they can order it from.

[No Touch]

What exactly is the purpose of this thread? I noticed the OP didn't even include a question despite the "subject". So what exactly are you trying to do here Karl? Cause I get the sense (as others have said) that you just want to get up and say something provocative, but I am wondering to what end? Do you intend to disprove the Church by casting Joseph Smith as a philanderer who used his influence as Prophet to take advantage of women? Do you expect this sort of attack to have an impact here?

[karl61]

did you even read what she wrote:

When the Saints first heard this doctrine advanced it looked strange and unnatural to them; it was strong meat and required a little time before it could be digested; but this was owing to the narrow, contracted ideas which had been handed down from generation to generation by our forefathers. We were like babes and had always been fed upon milk; but, as Jesus said, we have to be taught "here a little and there a little." When I was able to comprehend it, it appeared quite consistent. There is something in this doctrine that is very home-like, grand and beautiful to reflect upon, and it is very simple and comprehensive. It teaches us that we are all the children of the same parent, whose love was so great that He gave His beloved Son, our Elder Brother, Jesus Christ to redeem us from the fall. He came down upon this earth in the meridian of time and descended below all things that, He might rise above all things, and thus rescue us from everlasting death. It teaches us that our Father was once mortal, and that if we remain faithful we will finally become as He is--immortal, even if we must first, pay the penalty for the transgression of our first parents.

- Helen Mar Kimball Smith Whitney, Plural Marriage as Taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City, Utah, 1882.

first, this is written almost half a century after she married Joseph Smith at age fourteen. Second, I have never heard that polygamy teaches us about a pre existence, the fall, redemption, and then at the last sentence she goes directly against the second article of faith saying that we might have to pay for the sins of Adam.

[MJNSW]

Knighthawke... if you noticed, I did not get my comments from wivesofjosephsmith.com I have never been to that site. I went to Fairs.

I stated my thoughts on the issue simply because Polygamy and Polyandry are 2 issues that I have a very hard time digesting regardless of what you throw out there. My perception of it is quite different from yours. I have read the same books, but I do believe that the women who participated (who said different things at different times in their lives) were duped into believing it was a righteous principal.

In my mind, they were sadly mistaken and that the men who implemented it abused their positions as heads of the church to implement their sick desires. That is my honest view of it.

Yes, JS did help bring about an amazing religion - but these topics hit a very sore spot with me. Just my feelings, but we were asked our thoughts on the matter and those are mine!

[Dale]

Karl61-Did you get your questions on polyandry answered? What still bothers you on the subject and why?

[Nighthawke]

did you even read what she wrote:

When the Saints first heard this doctrine advanced . . .

first, this is written almost half a century after she married Joseph Smith at age fourteen. Second, I have never heard that polygamy teaches us about a pre existence, the fall, redemption, and then at the last sentence she goes directly against the second article of faith saying that we might have to pay for the sins of Adam.

Good grief.

Helen isn't referring to the doctrine of plural marriage in her paragraph. She's writing about the priesthood and other things. I thought I made that clear when I wrote, "This is only one of several examples where Helen clearly teaches that redemption is through Jesus Christ. If she had been guaranteed redemption through plural marriage to Joseph Smith why is she writing that redemption is through Jesus Christ and that we must remain faithful to the gospel of Jesus Christ?":

PRIESTHOOD:

"The Priesthood was given to Adam--he obtained the first presidencyand held the keys of it from generation to generation. He obtained it inthe creation before the world was formed. * * He had dominion given himover every living creature; he is Michael, the archangel spoken of in thescriptures. Then Noah who is Gabriel--he stands next in authority to Adamin the Priesthood. He was called of God to his office and was the fatherof all living in this day, and to him was given the dominion. These menheld the keys first on earth and then in heaven. The Priesthood is aneverlasting principle and existed with God from eternity and will toeternity, without beginning of days or end of years. The keys have to bebrought from heaven--it is by Adam's authority.

"Daniel, in the seventh chapter of his book, speaks of the Ancient ofdays--he means the oldest man, our father Adam, Michael. He will call hischildren together and hold a council with them to prepare them for thecoming of the Son of man. He (Adam) is the father of the human family andpresides over the spirits of all men, and all that have had the keys muststand before him in this grand council. This may take place before some ofus leave this stage of action. The Son of man stands before him and thereis given him glory and dominion. Adam delivers up his stewardship toChrist, that [31] which was delivered to him as the keys of the universe,but retains his standing as head of the human family.

"The spirit of man is not a created being, it exists from eternity,and will exist to eternity. Any thing created can not be eternal.

"The fullness of times has come of which Daniel writes: `I beheldtill the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whosegarment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool:his throne was like the fiery fame, and his wheels as burning fire. `Afiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousandsministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him:the judgment was set, and the books were opened.'

"`I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of mancame with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and theybrought Him near before Him. And there was given Him dominion, and glory,and a kingdom, that all people, nations. and languages should serve Him:His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, andHis kingdom that shall not be destroyed'" (Daniel, vii, 9, 10, 13, 14).

When the Saints first heard this doctrine advanced it looked strange and unnatural to them; it was strong meat and required a little time before it could be digested; but this was owing to the narrow, contracted ideas which had been handed down from generation to generation by our forefathers. We were like babes and had always been fed upon milk; but, as Jesus said, we have to be taught "here a little and there a little." When I was able to comprehend it, it appeared quite consistent. There is something in this doctrine that is very home-like, grand and beautiful to reflect upon, and it is very simple and comprehensive. It teaches us that we are all the children of the same parent, whose love was so great that He gave His beloved Son, our Elder Brother, Jesus Christ to redeem us from the fall. He came down upon this earth in the meridian of time and descended below all things that, He might rise above all things, and thus rescue us from everlasting death. It teaches us that our Father was once mortal, and that if we remain faithful we will finally become as He is--immortal, even if we must first, pay the penalty for the transgression of our first parents.

- Helen Mar Kimball Smith Whitney, Plural Marriage as Taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith. Salt Lake City, Utah, 1882.

"...pay the penalty for the transgression of our first parents" is referring to us having to pass through death. See? She's talking about immortality, that we must "remain faithful" to become as God is--immortal.

[Nighthawke]

In my mind, they were sadly mistaken and that the men who implemented it abused their positions as heads of the church to implement their sick desires. That is my honest view of it.

Your honest view of it goes directly against what the women themselves said about it.

I recognize that you have difficulty with the doctrine of a plurality of wives. I wish you well in your journey.

[karl61]

Good grief.

Helen isn't referring to the doctrine of plural marriage in her paragraph. She's writing about the priesthood and other things. I thought I made that clear when I wrote, "This is only one of several examples where Helen clearly teaches that redemption is through Jesus Christ. If she had been guaranteed redemption through plural marriage to Joseph Smith why is she writing that redemption is through Jesus Christ and that we must remain faithful to the gospel of Jesus Christ?":

I will take your word.

"...pay the penalty for the transgression of our first parents" is referring to us having to pass through death. See? She's talking about immortality, that we must "remain faithful" to become as God is--immortal.

I stand corrected on this and see that she meant Adam brought death into the world.