Questions About Polyandry

[Jan]

If anyone deserved a special dream, a visit from the Holy Ghost, a visit from an angel or even God himself, it should have been Emma, telling her polygamy for okay.

How did you know that she didn't? Did she make choices based on her conscious and, in the end (based on results), decide to stay with Joseph in the marriage? As Cal said, her family probably would have welcomed her back home. IIRC, she may have had family just to the north of Nauvoo in either Illinois or Iowa (she went to them during the 1846 "war" in Nauvoo).

[Greg Smith]

little things likely can be considered a threat.

But, the point is that Emma clearly DIDN'T consider it a threat--or at least not a threat to keep her from doing something against plural marriage.

Why this constant supposition about what Emma "likely" or "might" have thought or felt, when her actions clearly show that she was not intimidated by Joseph on this point? (If there's one thing Emma was not, I think, it was weak-willed.)

If I remember right Herber C. Kimball's daughter was told how much it would help her family if the fourteen year old married Joseph Smith; if she didn't "the gate would be closed for ever", which when heard, made her very angry.

I don't think you remember right. Lucy Walker got irritated when he said something like that, as I have already quoted--but Joseph praised her for it, and she got her revelation. In another account, she said:

When the Prophet Joseph Smith first mentioned the principle of plural marriage to me, I became very indignant and told him emphatically that I did not wish him ever to mention it to me again, as my feelings and education revolted against anything of such a nature. He counseled me, however, to pray to the Lord for light and understanding. . . . After I had poured out my heart's contents before God, I at once became calm and composed; a feeling of happiness took possession of me, and at the same time I received a powerful and irresistible testimony of the truth of plural marriage, which testimony has abided with me ever since. - Lucy W. Kimball, as quoted in Jenson, The Historical Record 6:229; cited in Jeni Broberg Holzapfel and Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, Women of Nauvoo (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1992), Chapter 6.

The only thing Helen was upset about was that her father, who first mentioned it, did so in a way that made her think he was questioning her virtue. That was what upset her.

Helen Mar said:

This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward…in [my mother's] mind she saw the misery which was as sure to come as the sun was to rise and set; but it was all hidden from me. - Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, Autobiography, 30 March 1881, LDS archives; cited in B. Carmon Hardy, Works of Abraham, 49

Helen also said:

I did not try to conceal the fact of its having been a trial, but confessed that it had been one of the severest of my life; but that it had also proven one of the greatest of blessings. I could truly say it had done the most towards making me a Saint and a free woman, in every sense of the word; and I knew many others who could say the same, and to whom it had proven one of the greatest boons--a "blessing in disguise." – Helen Mar Kimball, Why We Practice Plural Marriage, 23-24 cited in Andrus, Doctrines of the Kingdom.

If you want to understand this issue historically or theologically--rather than just rail about how this offends you--you can't trust how the secondary sources have spun this topic; virtually all of them have made interpretive areas, or outright textual distortion. (I have a whole section in my files on textual distortion on this subject.)

as to Emma, "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" , I don't know who said that...maybe it was Joseph.

William Congreave (1670-1729) said that, in his play "The Mourning Bride" (1697):

Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned

Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned.

If Emma was so full of "fury," why did she never expose Joseph or threaten to? (Even in William Clayton's journal, there's never any mention of Emma threatening to 'go to the papers,' or otherwise expose the problem.)

Hyrum was set to do just that until he got a testimony of plural marriage.

If anyone deserved a special dream, a visit from the Holy Ghost, a visit from an angel or even God himself, it should have been Emma, telling her polygamy for okay.

How do you know Emma didn't have one? There were times when Emma accepted plural marriage. Do you really think Emma could be the only person who could have marvelous manifestations and afterwards would not live fully in accord with it?

There are first-person witnesses who said that Emma had indicated her belief that the plural marriage commandment was from God. I have already quoted Zina H on Emma to other plural wives. ("I wish to God I did not know it.")

Also:

"Allen J. Stout, who served as a bodyguard for Joseph, recounted a conversation he overheard in the Mansion House between Joseph and his tormented wife:…“from moments of passionate denunciation [Emma] would subside into tearful repentance and acknowledge that her violent opposition to that principle was instigated by the power of darkness; that Satan was doing his utmost to destroy her, etc. And solemnly came the Prophet’s inspired warning: 'Yes, and he will accomplish your overthrow, if you do not heed my counsel.'" - Allen J. Stout, “Allen J. Stout’s Testimony,” Historical Record 6 (May 1887): 230–231; cited in Wendy C. Top "'A Deep Sorrow in Her Heart' – Emma Hale Smith," in Heroines of the Restoration, edited by Barbara B. Smith and Blythe Darlyn Thatcher (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997), 17–34.

And:

Maria Jane Johnston, who lived with Emma as a servant girl, recalled the Prophet’s wife looking very downcast one day and telling her that the principle of plural marriage was right and came from Heavenly Father. “What I said I have got [to] repent of,” lamented Emma. “The principle is right but I am jealous hearted. Now never tell anybody that you heard me find fault with that [principle;] we have got to humble ourselves and repent of it.” - Emma Smith to Maria Jane Johnston, in Newell and Avery, Mormon Enigma, 161; also cited in Wendy C. Top "'A Deep Sorrow in Her Heart' – Emma Hale Smith," in Heroines of the Restoration, edited by Barbara B. Smith and Blythe Darlyn Thatcher (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997), 17–34.

And:

[Emma] "had received a testimony of the truthfulness of plural marriage." - Leonora Taylor; quoted by Mary Alice Cannon Lambert, "Leonora Cannon Taylor," Young Women's Journal 19 (1908): 347; cited in Mormon Enigma, 2nd ed., 145.

And:

Zina was asked "if Emma Smith was opposed to poligamy." Reply: "No." - Zina DH Young, quoted in Minutes, "Sister's Meeting Held in Creation Room," 22 November 1895, LDS Archives; cited in Mormon Enigma, 2nd ed., 145.

One can pick and choose cites, but the full record gives a much more nuanced picture. And, I would point out yet again that Emma had a number of witnesses re: Joseph's prophetic gifts that most people did not have.

Best,

Greg

[Greg Smith]

Would you mind expanding on 'And, I think a strong case can be made, in historical perspective, that it WAS necessary.'??

The best defense I've seen for polygamy, polyandry is doing it because God commanded it which as a non member is taken with a grain of salt. What, in your opinion, is the historical perspective?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Ah, well, you asked for it. This is something I'm still chewing on and formulating myself, so I'll just give you sort of a "thumbnail sketch" of where I'm coming from. I could say lots more on each point, but this isn't the proper venue for that.

1) Revelation - as has been pointed out, this put the Saints' revelatory money where their mouths were. It's easy enough to believe a revelation that accords with our desires; it is even easy if it can be rationally justified, or if it answers burning questions well (which Joseph's theology certainly did). But, the key question seems to be, Do you trust God? Do you trust Him to lead you aright, even when you don't necessarily understand? The impact of that choice for the future Church is staggering, and we live off that capital to an extent even today.

2) Sociologic - As Terryl Givens has pointed out, the Mormons really weren't that different in their views than any other Americans. Yet, it was essential, I think, that they be bound together as a group. Persecution did that in Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois. But, persecution leads to death, etc. Polygamy bound the group together in a decisive "either/or" type of fashion. It gave a focus for the nation's persecution of the Mormons which didn't result, by and large, in death. (No federal marshalls were killed during the Raid, for example. The Feds killed the occasional Mormon being pursued for polygamy--a misdemeanor, by the way, not a felony, but they still shot to kill, but the death toll wasn't anything like the pre-martyrdom period.)

It also gave them a theological difference that was key. Look at the fate of the RLDS (no offense to any members of the CoC)--they have essentially become assimilated into mainstream protestantism, and have lost their devotion to things like the uniqueness of Joseph's mission, the literalness of the Book of Mormon account, and the validity of things like the Nauvoo theology (not just plural marriage).

I think we underestimate how difficult the fusion into a new people is.

3) Political - The conflict with the Mormons over polygamy virutally defined Church-State interactions in the US. (Remember, extending things like the "establishment clause" to the states and territories was not a "done deal"--there were plenty of establishment churches; they just weren't established by the federal government.) Much of what we now take for granted about how Church/state relations work was established because of polygamy. And, one wonders if the citizens of the US would have been motivated to do it how they did without something as reviled as polygamy that EVERYONE could just about get behind.

Ditto for the resacralizing of marriage, which was in the process of being taken out of the hands of the churches and into the secular law. (Read Sarah Barringer Gordon and Kathleen Flake on these issues.)

Ironiclly, the modern Church probably embraces and benefits from these aspects; I think as things like gay marriage and the like become issues, the principles hammered out in the 1880s and 1890s may have more benefit than we sometimes think.

4) Other

- feminist issues: despite the cliche portrayal of plural marriage as "anti-woman," this is silly. Women under plural marriage often had it BETTER than women in Victorian monogamy. Women in Utah had education, meaninful work, and the vote. They had virtually the best divorce laws in the country, control over their own property, etc. Keeping men in the marriage pool created an artificial scarcity, which enhanced the value of women.

- combatted the risk of the LDS continuing with the angel/whore dichotomy which has always troubled Western culture's view of women (Eugene England has a good paper on this). Thank you St. Augustine....

- economic - plural marriage served as an economic leveler in an extraordinarily difficult economic environment, especially for single women, helped those with no male guardians, etc. (See Daynes, More Wives Than One).

- more women than men were always worthy of endowment blessings (again, see Daynes). This had no relation to the rates of plural marriage. Thus, plural marriage allowed faithful women the option of a mate who would keep church covenants. Many a single sister today may identify; in the growing period of the Church, this was perhaps more essential, to keep such women in the birthing pool with children who would have the best chance to be more committed than they would otherwise have been. There were also economic issues to not marrying which were more onnerous in a pioneer environment than today.

5) Finally - plural marriage highlighted many of the moral issues of Christians living under a secular government. We don't struggle with these much at the present, but I think the day will come when this period will again become a touch-stone for how moral individuals must interact with an unsympathetic or even hostile body politic. It is a landmark story in the struggle for personal conscience and religious freedom. The early Christians had their fight with Rome; we had ours against a rather cynical legislative process in Washington.

So, I agree that "God said so" is the best reason. Nor do I think most of the Saints knew "why" they did these things. But, God is the ultimate multi-tasker, and a great deal of good came out of the plural marriage period that often goes unrecognized.

A few thoughts, anyway.

Best,

Greg

[Calm]

Ah, well, you asked for it. This is something I'm still chewing on and formulating myself, so I'll just give you sort of a "thumbnail sketch" of where I'm coming from. I could say lots more on each point, but this isn't the proper venue for that.

Thanks Greg. There are a few things here I hadn't considered before.

[karl61]

Emma rejected polygamy and was not destroyed for it.

"54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law"

She didn't go west and live for time with Brigham Young or any other person of that small fraternity. She remarried and stayed where she was...she knew the principle and she rejected it. The reorganized church denied Joseph was involved in Polygamy and Emma was involved in the reorganized church.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Emma rejected polygamy and was not destroyed for it.

"54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law"

She didn't go west and live for time with Brigham Young or any other person of that small fraternity. She remarried and stayed where she was...she knew the principle and she rejected it. The reorganized church denied Joseph was involved in Polygamy and Emma was involved in the reorganized church.

This is your response to Greg's interesting information? Come on, Karl.

[karl61]

I just got home from the gym and a hard bike class. I'm tired. I don't need to write anything as Todd Compton's book is over six hundred pages long and puts all what greg wrote to rest. It's clear D&C 132 was created to scare Emma. It didn't work. She was not destroyed. Joseph was the one who was killed.

I'm amazed at how this group still tries to support polygamy while the Church evades it and Mitt Romney does everything to distance himself from it. I bet ninety percent of all active mormons likely believe that Polygamy started with Brigham Young.

what did Elder Packer say: somethings that are truthful are not very useful and don't generate a lot of happiness. He can only be speaking about polygamy. What else could he be thinking about.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I see no reason to discuss it further with you, Karl.

[karl61]

I see no reason to discuss it further with you, Karl.

thank you, since your posts always ad so much to the topics that are being discussed.

[T-Shirt]

Emma rejected polygamy and was not destroyed for it.

Do you really think that being killed is the only possible meaning for, "destroyed"?

T-Shirt

[Dale]

I believe the part about Emma's destruction is a reference to Matthew 10:28. The destruction of body and soul in hell is what's meant. It's a misunderstanding that God was going to send an angel to kill Emma while she was still alive.

Certainly D.&C. 132 was written to scare Emma in repenting of her opposition against plural marriage. If the revelation is of God then God had the right to tell Emma the way thing's were. If the revelation is of man, or the Devil then Emma has nothing to fear from God. But if the revelation is of God then any mortal in opposition to plural marriage like Emma was is in as much danger of destruction in hell as she was.

[MJNSW]

Are your comments adressed to me? I don't believe that I am defending plural marriage wholeheartedly, I'm just posting a few quotations by plural wives. They would be the ones defending it wholeheartedly.

Not directed at anyone in particular.

[MJNSW]

I believe the part about Emma's destruction is a reference to Matthew 10:28. The destruction of body and soul in hell is what's meant. It's a misunderstanding that God was going to send an angel to kill Emma while she was still alive.

Certainly D.&C. 132 was written to scare Emma in repenting of her opposition against plural marriage. If the revelation is of God then God had the right to tell Emma the way thing's were. If the revelation is of man, or the Devil then Emma has nothing to fear from God. But if the revelation is of God then any mortal in opposition to plural marriage like Emma was is in as much danger of destruction in hell as she was.

Heavenly Father knows our hearts and we will only be accountable for what we understand. If he truly commanded it then our understandings and our hearts are between GOD and ourselves. Frankly, I do not fear meeting my maker because I know he knows my heart!

[Calm]

Heavenly Father knows our hearts and we will only be accountable for what we understand. If he truly commanded it then our understandings and our hearts are between GOD and ourselves.

I am perfectly comfortable with this approach as well which is why I don't speak up if someone simply says they don't believe in polygamy. When they take it further and ask questions or challenge others to defend polygamy and start talking about those involved as if their own words and actions are irrelevant...then I'll speak up.

But why are you saying things like this?

You may say you have studied and prayed, but until you have been faced with it how can you defend it so wholeheartedly?

Why are we being in essence condemned for our understanding by you?

Remember you and others came here with questions and we have tried to answer them based on our own understanding yet you are condemning our responses as inappropriate that we are even responding/defending it. It's not as if we are out there preaching that everyone come to the same understanding that we have.

I am very confused as to just what you expected or wanted by questioning us on this thread...

[MJNSW]

I am perfectly comfortable with this approach as well which is why I don't speak up if someone simply says they don't believe in polygamy. When they take it further and challenge others to defend polygamy and start talking about those involved as if their own words and actions are irrelevant...then I'll speak up.

But why are you saying things like this?Why are we being in essence condemned for our understanding by you?

You may say you have studied and prayed, but until you have been faced with it how can you defend it so wholeheartedly?

Remember you and others came here with questions and we have tried to answer them based on our own understanding yet you are condemning our responses as inappropriate that we are even responding/defending it. It's not as if we are out there preaching that everyone come to the same understanding that we have.

I am very confused as to just what you expected or wanted by questioning us on this thread...

I was trying to ask a question not condemn you. That is why it was posed as a question. I don't judge any of you for how you feel... I just truly don't understand how you can feel that way. Does that make sense? I am quite aware that everyone differs in opinions and I am open to that. If any of you feel I have condemned you I truly apologize! I really am coming for understanding - but 2 and 3 are not = 4 in my mind anyway anyone has put it thus far.

My question was a sincere one... not one of condemnation. Please try to reread it with that in mind.

If I am condemning you I will come out and just say it. But if I am in the wrong I will be more than willing to say my sorries.

[kamenraider]

William Clayton was sealed to Margaret Moon, and the same woman was also sealed to Heber C. Kimball.

CFR

[Dale]

This is likely to be the last I'll state on this topic.

I find it unconscionable that one would feel compelled to defend the practice of polyandry as it was practiced by Joseph Smith, much less trying to link it to being sanctioned by God. Something has gone awry if you are doing this. You are sacrificing your conscience in order to defend a practice that has no ethical defense. And I will never respect that or come to some agreement about it.

I am not yet convinced that he practiced polyandry. I have no doubt he underwent a platonic polyandrous ceremony. He does not appear to have put that polyandry into mortal practice. They look to me more like agreements to or associations for worlds to come that did not involve marital rights in the flesh. I figure they used the time and for eternity wording in the ceremony, but I don't see the women, and Joseph Smith sharing any time part. I just don't see any ethical misdeed's on Joseph Smith's part towards any married woman he was said to have been sealed to. I see a molehill and others see a mountain.

I don't believe in plural marriage. but if plural marriage was of God I am open to admitting I am wrong. With revelations of God what I want to reject as far as the word of the Lord doesn't matter. If I rejected a true revelation of God then I am in the wrong not the revelation. Human idea of ethics are just temporary. But God is eternal and his idea of ethics is just as eternal. And he can declare my idea of right and wrong, wrong if he wishes.

The authority of God's word as found in D.&C. 132 is the greatest ethical defense of polyandry not mortal defenses. Mortal defenses can't persuade unbeliever's like the two of us to believe in plural marriage. If the revelation is the word of God then God already defended his servant Joseph Smith. If God accepted Joseph Smith's polyandry who would I be to not equally accept his polyandry? I accept whatever God accepts and whatever I doubt God accepts I doubt.

---------------

kamenraider-What does CFR stand for? Margaret Moon's sealing to Heber C. Kimball appears to have been a platonic meant for eternity sealing. I just don't see William Clayton and Heber C. Kimball practicing polyandry with her in mortality. This is why I don't jump to conclusions about Joseph Smith, and his polyandrous sealings.

[Greg Smith]

I just got home from the gym and a hard bike class. I'm tired. I don't need to write anything as Todd Compton's book is over six hundred pages long and puts all what greg wrote to rest.

I've read Compton. You may notice that many of my quotes CAME from Compton. Compton's data is good; the use he makes of that data is often flawed. (And, that isn't surprising, since he thinks plural marriage isn't inspired. So, it is hardly amazing that he misreads data--or doesn't mention it, or tries to spin it away--particularly when it impacts on that thesis that he is trying to defend.)

But, if you're content to let Compton do your thinking on the matter, I won't be much help.

C'mon, follow these women's example! Don't trust anyone but God and your own wrestle with the issues.

It's clear D&C 132 was created to scare Emma. It didn't work.

According to William Law, Emma believed it. She later changed her mind, it would seem. Again, you need to actually engage the primary sources on this. Law was of the opinion that, because of her acceptance of D&C 132 (if only for a time), "Emma was a full accomplice of Joseph's crimes."

She was not destroyed. Joseph was the one who was killed.

I think others have dealt with this. "Destroyed" in a spiritual sense.

Besides, the D&C uses the term in many ways besides "killed," and almost always with a spiritual spin:

D&C 10:6,19 - Those who stole 116 pages want to "destroy" Joseph. Not kill him, surely, but destroy him spiritually, or his influence for good, or his mission, etc.

D&C 17:4 - the witnesses of the BoM are given to prevent Joseph's destruction

D&C 45:19 - covenant people "destroyed" by being scattered--how can you scatter dead people among the nations of the earth?

You need to engage these texts and issues in a much more serious and less superficial way if you want to understand them. If that's true of a verse of D&C 132, how much more of the frustratingly-fragmented plural marriage record, especially of Nauvoo?

I'm amazed at how this group still tries to support polygamy while the Church evades it and Mitt Romney does everything to distance himself from it. I bet ninety percent of all active mormons likely believe that Polygamy started with Brigham Young.

It seems immaterial to me what 90% of active Mormons believe. I support the idea that plural marriage was inspired because I have spiritual and historical evidences that have so persuaded me. I didn't always, but that's where I am now. In fact, I've been amazed at how powerfully convinced I am of that. But, that came from a deeper engagement with the data, not less.

It is strange that a presentation of data which differs from your opinion is greeted with mere psychoanalysis and hand-waving.

I've had a lot of anti-Mormons and a few disgruntled Mormons say they disagree with what I've written on this topic. Thus far, none of them has ever engaged my actual presentation of the data. I wish they would--I might learn something.

what did Elder Packer say: somethings that are truthful are not very useful and don't generate a lot of happiness. He can only be speaking about polygamy. What else could he be thinking about.

You suffer from a certain failure of the imagination, don't you? Many (even most) things that are truthful are not very useful for a given function. Differential equations and vector algebra are all TRUE, but their relevance to trying to decide about plural marriage (for example) is virtually nil. Any teacher picks their material in accord with their goal for a given set of learners.

I teach medical students and residents (and have won awards for doing so, so I know something about how to do this). I know lots of stuff that is TRUE. But, the way I teach a student at the beginning of their training versus the end of their training is substantially different. My knowledge is no more or less TRUE, but is is more or less USEFUL for a given learner in a given situation.

Anyone who teaches knows this.

Best,

Greg

[Greg Smith]

I am not yet convinced that he practiced polyandry. I have no doubt he underwent a platonic polyandrous ceremony. He does not appear to have put that polyandry into mortal practice. They look to me more like agreements to or associations for worlds to come that did not involve marital rights in the flesh. I figure they used the time and for eternity wording in the ceremony, but I don't see the women, and Joseph Smith sharing any time part.

I suspect that you are right on this part. The big obstacle would be a child by Sylvia Sessions Lyon. (She could be the exception that proves the rule, I suppose, since her husband was out of the church for several years in the relevant time. Compton opines that she would not have denied him conjugal rights because of this, but that seems to be more a visceral reaction than based on any evidence. These people took their faith awfully seriously; she might well decide that his excommunication caused a marital barrier between them. He remained friendly to Joseph until the end, though, despite his excommunication.)

I don't believe in plural marriage. but if plural marriage was of God I am open to admitting I am wrong.

I think this is the proper attitude to have. The practice of plural marriage was a great sacrifice for the saints; a true Abrahamic test in which they put undeniable revelation against their own ideas of what was normal, practical, right, proper, etc. They had to put all that on the altar.

It seems to me that the modern member who is sincerely troubled by all this--and believe me, I get that, and I understand why: better than most, maybe--is in an analogous situation. What is it that we prize above all? The Saints had to be ready to give up their good name, their ideas of moral behavior, their respect for the monogamous family, their civil rights, their Puritan roots, etc.

We don't maybe value those things so much in our day. But, there are equally dear and intimate parts of us that plural marriage threatens.

* We have to be prepared to reassess our ideas of what God will ask of us--things will not be easy, faith will not always lead us to happy places (in the short term). Women and children get thrown into a fire in Ammonihah after an angel tells Alma to go back there and preach. Couldn't he wish that maybe he'd have stayed home?

* We may have to leave aside our deeply-felt view of sexual politics, sexual exploitation, marital mistreatment, etc. It is not to say that these views are not good, and true, and right--and even healing and necessary in our own struggles against the darkness we've seen inflicted on ourselves or others. But, we have to be willing to abandon the application of those models to polygamy/polyandry if God reveals it differently to us. It is altogether too easy to put ourselves into these situations, and imagine our reaction if things were how we think they were. We forget that their past was not ours, their traumas not ours, and the reality perhaps not as we think it was. All of this we must lay on the altar, or be ready to--and that is frightening, which induces anger and loss.

* We long, perhaps, to be intellectually respectable and progressive. If we cannot explain it all, we ought to jettison it (we've seen that attitude on this thread repeatedly; ironically, it has often been expressed by those who seem to know the least about the data). If we can't explain it, and God tells us anyway, will we accept it? Will we place our intellectual bona fides, our command of the sources, etc. on the altar?

What, ultimately, do we trust? Revelation, or something different? Revelation will always be scorned in the world at large (and by a portion of the Saints), and people always want to control it because it is DANGEROUS.

But, I have found too that the Lord is kind, and nothing which we are asked to consecrate is ever really gone. We often get it back again, shined up and repaired, or we get something better in its place.

That conviction, however, does not allow any cheating. We cannot "pretend" to consecrate or lay things on the altar. We put it all there, heart in mouth, and pockets empty. The gift and sacrifice must be real, which means the loss must bite, often deeply. The offering must be real. But, then again, so is the revelation.

Best,

Greg

[Deborah]

I'm amazed at how this group still tries to support polygamy while the Church evades it and Mitt Romney does everything to distance himself from it. I bet ninety percent of all active mormons likely believe that Polygamy started with Brigham Young.

First of all the church doesn't evade the issue; it's just not a current topic for discussion in the curricula because it is no longer practiced. What is Romney to do when he knows people like you will misinterpret and blow out of proportion anything he may say on the subject. I bet 90% of all active Mormons do have an understanding that Joseph practiced polyamy but aren't that interested. Certainly most people I've met, including the youth were aware of it. If anyone reads the D&C they know he did.

Polygamy as far as doctrine isn't something you can just discuss off the cuff without going into some of the deeper doctrine. It isn't just about living and having sex with someone in this life, which is what all the anti's like to make it out to be. It is much more about true unconditional love and eternal relationships. I find it strange that someone doesn't have a problem with a man being married, being widowed and being married again and maybe even being widowed and married again and therefore having multiple spouses in this life; and even though they are not concurrent in this life if the wives are all sealed to the husband they will be concurrent in eternity. But heaven forbid a man have living concurrent wives.

[Maidservant]

Emma rejected polygamy and was not destroyed for it.

This is able to be argued. Meaning, it can be argued that a) she did not reject polygamy; and/ or b ) she did experience destruction in her life at the point she rejected it. (Arguable -- I'm not stating as fact.)

It's clear D&C 132 was created to scare Emma.

?

I bet ninety percent of all active mormons likely believe that Polygamy started with Brigham Young.

90 percent of Mormons live outside the United States. I don't know how or when they hear about polygamy. As for USA mormons, my sense (in opposition, lol, to your 'I bet') is that they are well aware of Joseph Smith's polygamy.

What else could he be thinking about.

?

Karl, you have the same questions many of us have had. Happy seeking -- it's a bit of a journey isn't it.

Greg,

You have blown me away. Thanks.

[kamenraider]

kamenraider-What does CFR stand for? Margaret Moon's sealing to Heber C. Kimball appears to have been a platonic meant for eternity sealing. I just don't see William Clayton and Heber C. Kimball practicing polyandry with her in mortality. This is why I don't jump to conclusions about Joseph Smith, and his polyandrous sealings.

CFR = call for references. I just wanted a reference for the alleged sealing of Margaret Moon to Heber C. Kimball.

[Dale]

Greg I am not yet willing to accept Sylvia Session's daughter as Joseph Smith's. I am hoping that Ugo Perego through his DNA studies will be able to prove, or disprove the old claim. I will willingly accept her as Joseph Smith's daughter, but only if his solid DNA research can ever back it up. A child born to a polyandrous wife that was Joseph Smith's daughter would prove the platonic sealing explanation in that case atleast wouldn't work.

But i think Josephine may have misunderstood her mother on her deathbed when she was told she was a daughter of Joseph Smith. Heber J. Grant's mother had only been sealed to Joseph smith after his death. but Brigham H. Roberts had called him a son of the prophet Joseph Smith. This adoption idea of her being Joseph Smith's daughter may be all Sylvia may have meant.

I saw the quote from Brigham H. Roberts without source or page number in one of my RLDS writers. Differences That Persist by Elbert Smith I do believe cited him.

I am hesitant to accept without question anything Sylvia said while she was dying. I would like assurance she didn't have Alzheimer's, or something else similar. Somebody not in the right frame of mind can say all sorts of easily to misunderstand stuff.

Ouside a daughter's memory of a conversation Todd Comptom's other witness was Angus Cannon. He claimed to have heard Brigham Young say Patty Session's reported Josephine as Joseph's. But if I recall he made this claim about what Brigham Young said in 1905. And Brigham Young died I think in 1877. We don't have the sermon on record. We don't know if Angus Cannon made up hearing Brigham Young saying anything of the sort. I hate to accuse him of lying, but I am not certain he could not have lied. To bad we don't have a valid notes from the statement Brigham Young was said to have made.

I think the circumstances of Angus Cannon's statement was he was talking to Community of Christ/RLDS President Joseph Smith 3rd.

I think Todd Comptom misleads people by reporting the claim as if it was beyond question. I feel it's ok to be cautious about the claim's of offspring via Joseph's wive's. Mary Lightner reported hearing rumor's of three children. Ugo Perego's research is the last vestige of hope for such children ever existing. If she was mislead about the existence of children then she shouldn't be cited as proof of such children.

[Dale]

CFR = call for references. I just wanted a reference for the alleged sealing of Margaret Moon to Heber C. Kimball.

My source is An Intimate Chronicle, The Journals of William Clayton, Edited by George D. Smith page 99. Signature Book's is the publisher. "At the Temple A.M. at 10 Brother Kimballs was M[arried to M[argaret] M[oon]..."

In the previous paragraph for April 27, 1843 he say's in part "Sister Marg[are]t Moon was sealed up by the priesthood, by the president and M[arried] to me..." The me of course being a reference to William Clayton.

He for some odd reason has two seperate entries for April 27th. I don't think they shared the same plural wife in mortality. So my guess one to Kimball was a sealing only meant for eternity.

[Calm]

What, ultimately, do we trust? Revelation, or something different? Revelation will always be scorned in the world at large (and by a portion of the Saints), and people always want to control it because it is DANGEROUS.

But, I have found too that the Lord is kind, and nothing which we are asked to consecrate is ever really gone. We often get it back again, shined up and repaired, or we get something better in its place.

That conviction, however, does not allow any cheating. We cannot "pretend" to consecrate or lay things on the altar. We put it all there, heart in mouth, and pockets empty. The gift and sacrifice must be real, which means the loss must bite, often deeply. The offering must be real. But, then again, so is the revelation.

Amen.