Questions About Polyandry

[LifeOnaPlate]

Greg: Have you considered writing a book on the subject?

[LifeOnaPlate]

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

I am grateful you kept bringing it up, though. Your posts drew some great things out of Greg.

[kamenraider]

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.

Margaret Moon was never married or sealed to Heber C. Kimball. She was sealed to William Clayton on April 27, 1843 at Heber C. Kimball's house by Joseph Smith. The footnotes on pg. 99 clarify this.

[Greg Smith]

Greg: Have you considered writing a book on the subject?

Yeah, I have actually. (This always sounds enormously presumptuous to me: "Ahem, I'm working on a book....")

You're the 3rd person to ask me recently, so...vox populi, vox dei.

Actually, I have some draft chapters written. I've been researching it pretty intensely for almost 3 years, so I have a ton of notes (150 pages in Word, singlespaced) as well as a 100-page timeline.

My limitation is easy access to the primary sources, which really have to be checked. I've certainly seen examples (Allen Wyatt's work on Zina and Henry Jacobs is a great example) where EVERYONE has misread the sources--probably because few recheck the originals, but just cite other people who cite other people...and, even Compton (who is the best with sources that I've seen, so far as I can tell) omits some things that I've found elsewhere that argue against his thesis.

What may happen is we get a (say) 200 page booklet type of work targeted more at general apologetic audience--Church members who want to know more about the basic issues, etc. My goal is to get that done reasonably quickly. Then, with more research perhaps I can get something more "scholarly" done, in the sense of with more direct reference to sources. I'm making lists of everything I want to look up in the original.

I don't think there is a good 1 volume history of plural marriage. (Van Wagoner has been superceded in almost every area, and in my opinion he commits the most distortions of the textual record--but, in fairness, he was also early.)

I note that George D. Smith has one on Nauvoo Polygamy coming out from Signature in Jan 2008. I've disagreed with some of his readings in stuff he's already published, though, and his and Signature's clear bias against the Church and its truth claims don't inspire me to overwhelming confidence. (Why is it that Signature never misreads data IN FAVOR of the Church's claim? Errors can be innocent, but when all the errors slant one way, one becomes suspicious...)

So, yes, I'm working on something. Whether it sees the light of day remains to be seen. At the very least, I'd probably put it up as an e-book or something if FAIR thinks it's worthwhile.

Greg

[Greg Smith]

Greg I am not yet willing to accept Sylvia Session's daughter as Joseph Smith's.

Nor am I. She's the "best" evidence, but iffy so far. There's several quotes from LDS general authorities about their regret at Joseph having no children in the Church. Given the stink that JS III and the other RLDS raised about it, the LDS would have been very proud to trot out a real JS descendant by polygamy. But, they didn't. Plus, the prestige in LDS circles during the 1850-1890 period of being a descendant of JS's would have been potent--I can't see people keeping it a secret.

Likewise, all the potential children of JS are from polyandrous marriages, so there is a clear chance for someone else to be the father in all cases.

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 at least wouldn't work.

Right. But, her relationship was unique in that sense, in that her husband was out of the Church for a number of years, which may make it different than the others in that sense.

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.

As Daynes points out, with thoughts of death on her mind, she could easily have turned to thoughts of eternal families, etc., rather than biologic paternity.

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.

And, Brigham often spoke about JS III and not living up to his privileges, etc. And George Q Cannon bemoaned the absence of descendants. I think this is questionable, just because it's late and the earlier GA's (who would have known if BY knew, I suspect) seemed to specifically exclude the idea that Joseph had living descendants in the LDS church.

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.

I agree. Interestingly, Mary Lightner has two children that have been proposed as Joseph's, but in 1905 she says she doesn't know who his children are, but was told there were some. This would really seem to rule her kids out as options...

Greg

[blueadept]

Being listed as a pundit, I appreciate your response in understanding the "historical nature" of the polyandry/polygamy issue. Good food for thought on some of these and if there was a vote for you writing a book on this topic, I'm all for it.

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?

I trust God with my entire heart, mind and soul.

As a non member, trusting JS is who he says he is, is a different matter which needs to be kept in mind

Do you trust Him to lead you aright, even when you don't necessarily understand?

When I don't understand a particular issue like polygamy/polyandry, I look no further than Christ's example here on earth (NT). Of course you are talking to someone who believes that Christ is the "perfect example" of Christian sacrificial love that is to be emulated in our marriages. The bridegroom is the Church who is to submit themselves to the groom (Christ), and the groom is to give everything to the bride. In this case, Christ gave his life to his bridegroom. Hmmm....I think men have the more difficult role in marriage, but I believe in today's society that women prefer not to be submissive. Since LDS members and non members cannot agree if Jesus was actually married (let alone married to multiple wives), I'm not sure where to go from here. If you accept JS as a prophet, then there is no problem.

The impact of that choice for the future Church is staggering, and we live off that capital to an extent even today.

I couldn't agree more.

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.

Good food for thought and for me I've had to analyze the happenings in Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois in accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet since I'm on the fense about the 1st Vision story. I can appreciate Mormons feeling they were persecuted for not being able to practice their faith as they wanted. But events in these locations when analyzed not just from a LDS point of view can leave an investigator to question how much of it was self inflicted and I'm not saying that Mormons didn't die for practicing polygamy.

In Ohio, I'm still analyzing the Kirtland Bank failure and what happened. For me it's not positive faith promoting event. LDS say they were persecuted, but I wonder why JS left the Kirtland area shortly after 'allegedly' losing the saints money. Hmmm... an interesting event to analyze.

My understanding in Missouri is that several apostles were kicked out for not accepting polygamy. They request protection from the state of Missouri which I don't believe the governor wanted to be involved. There is no question that governor Boggs gave the extermination order in Oct 1838, but it seems not many LDS are aware that Sidney Rigdon pretty much said the same thing on July 4, 1838. I'm not trying to justify anyone here, just trying to keep some perspective of the time line.

With the destruction of the printing press in Illinois for printing articles in regards to polygamy, it seems JS had a heavy hand in the political arena. LDS like to scream persecution which I can appreciate, but squelching the opposition questions the persecution card for me. Oh well.

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.)

I totally agree that the practice of Polygamy definitely created an "either/or" decision. I have no problems considering these saints as martyrs of the church.

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.

Thanks for the history lesson. My only comment is in regards to "polygamy IS reviled by EVERYONE" mentality that Mormons seem to deal with in talking with other Christian faiths. No one can argue that polygamy existed in the OT. The problem most Christians have is that they do not believe it has a part in God's plan after Christ's perfect example given in the NT. Because of 'our traditions' since that time, it's an abomination for Christians to accept the Mormon thought of Salvation especially the role polygamy will have in it. Good luck in getting the rest of Christianity out of that mentality.

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.)

I would be appreciative of more info on this, thanks!!

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.

IMO, it's only a matter of time (unfortunately) before gay marriage will be recognized by the US Government which will open some interesting doors for the LDS church. Once gay marriages are recognized as is a 'law of the land,' there will be some groups (not necessarily the LDS church) who will push for recognition of polygamous marriages. It will be interesting how the LDS church will approach the issue (granted the ordinance can only come from HF) since polygamous marriages are held in such high regard as I believe your past history reflects but not appreciated by non members.

4) Other

- feminist issues: despite the cliche portrayal of plural marriage as "anti-woman," this is silly.

In the grand scheme of things, I agree.

Women under plural marriage often had it BETTER than women in Victorian monogamy.

In many cases, I'm not sure most marriages understood the 'sacrificial love' that Christ wanted us to have in relationships with our spouse. Total sacrifice for each other, is a concept today's society can't seem to grasp that the early martyrs of the church I believe understood. My 2 cents.

Women in Utah had education, meaninful work, and the vote.

I don't believe this point of view is appreciated enough by non members, but I agree with your comment!!

They had virtually the best divorce laws in the country, control over their own property, etc.

I don't believe this is necessarily a good thing especially w/ my dad's half of the LDS family. No one is married to their original spouse for the last 2 generations and most of them remarried 3 times. And the winner is one great uncle remarried 18 times. IMO, having the best divorce laws is not a good thing.

Thank you St. Augustine....

Can you give a reference please, I accidently cut off more of your quote than I wanted.

- 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.

good food for thought

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.

As I stated earlier, Christians view of plural marriage is an abomination and potential hot topic because of Mitt Romney. LDS are normally floored by this Christian viewpoint. I'm not saying it's right, but LDS have all that 'tradition" to deal with that says it's morally wrong. Good luck!!

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.

It's not just the legislative process, it's trying to convince the rest of Christianity to keep an open mind. That's an oxymoron.

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.

Thanks for your scholarly response. I REALLY hope you decide to write a book on this!!!

Peace

[Calm]

My limitation is easy access to the primary sources, which really have to be checked.

Guest room is always available if you decide to come down to the Y or Church archives for a working vacation, Kerry hardly ever takes advantage of the same arrangement anymore so there's not much competition for it.

At the Temple A.M. at 10 Brother Kimballs was M[arried to M[argaret] M[oon]...

Looks like there is a comma missing between "Kimballs" and "was". The "s" on the end of "Kimball" makes it a location, not a person. Correct punctuation probably is "At the Temple AM, at Brother Kimball's, was married to MM".

[Dale]

I could have misread it. Why did William Clayton have two seperate April 27th notes on what happened that date?

[Calm]

I could have misread it. Why did William Clayton have two seperate April 27th notes on what happened that date?

Couldn't really say, but it does appear that additional information is given in the second note. Perhaps he felt he wanted to add more detail?

[Dale]

I speculated William Clayton may not have written both of those April notes on the same date. He could have written the second note a day later after having time to reflect.

[Greg Smith]

I trust God with my entire heart, mind and soul.

As a non member, trusting JS is who he says he is, is a different matter which needs to be kept in mind.

Of course. To those who aren't sure, I'd say figure out who God is, and what your relationship is before you try to solve things like Joseph Smith. (Joseph can be a witness for God, if need be, but for some people that doesn't work as well as other routes.)

When I don't understand a particular issue like polygamy/polyandry, I look no further than Christ's example here on earth (NT). Of course you are talking to someone who believes that Christ is the "perfect example" of Christian sacrificial love that is to be emulated in our marriages.

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. (And, plural marriages seemed to work much better when all parties had that attitude, and much, much less well when they didn't--and in this respect I think the men failed more than the women did.

Food for thought and for me I've had to analyze the happenings in Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois in accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet since I'm on the fence about the 1st Vision story.

I recommend asking those who were there. Since Joseph is dead, only God can confirm or deny.

I can appreciate Mormons feeling they were persecuted for not being able to practice their faith as they wanted. But events in these locations when analyzed not just from a LDS point of view can leave an investigator to question how much of it was self inflicted and I'm not saying that Mormons didn't die for practicing polygamy.

Far more Mormons died for things unrelated to polygamy. Indeed, Wilford Woodruff and other GAs in Utah often pointed out that the Saints suffered far more before polygamy was known, than they did afterwards.

In Ohio, I'm still analyzing the Kirtland Bank failure and what happened. For me it's not positive faith promoting event. LDS say they were persecuted, but I wonder why JS left the Kirtland area shortly after 'allegedly' losing the saints money. Hmmm... an interesting event to analyze.

Well, he left because he was in fear for his life.

Bear in mind that (contrary to the anti-Mormon caricature of this event), Joseph paid far more for his KSS stock than virtually anyone else. He also lost far more money than just about anyone else. He also went further into debt trying to save it even when he was cautioning others to have nothing more to do with it.

I wrote a large chunk of this article, which I think is worth considering:

http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Kirtland_Safety_Society

Critics also often ignore that the KSS documents were written up by (non-Mormon!) legal counsel. We see in retrospect that the bank was probably illegal, but this was very much an open question at the time, and required fairly sophisticated legal analysis to appreciate. I don't know that we can fault Joseph and the others for getting "bad" legal advice. So far as I know, Joseph never claimed a revelation for the KSS, but it was an attempt to solve a very vexing (and, probably insoluble, given the financial tools of the time) problem. Hundreds of other towns tried the same thing.

My understanding in Missouri is that several apostles were kicked out for not accepting polygamy.

While there were "rumors" of various things in Kirtland, few seemed to have known about plural marriage. (William McLellin, for example, who was ex-ed in May 1838 could only go on what others told him later about plural marriage.) Oliver Cowdery knew, but few others. Oliver wasn't even talking, much, beyond hints.

Missouri was much more about LDS political power, bloc voting, and the like. Apostates left because they disapproved of Joseph's political and financial policies, as well as changes which made Church govt more hierarchical.

With the destruction of the printing press in Illinois for printing articles in regards to polygamy, it seems JS had a heavy hand in the political arena. LDS like to scream persecution which I can appreciate, but squelching the opposition questions the persecution card for me. Oh well.

Again, one must not be guilty of presentism. The destruction of the press would be illegal under current US law, because the 14th amendment extends the Bill of Rights to state and local governments. But, in pre-Civil War USA, this was CERTAINLY not the case. (One could argue that the civil war was fought in part to decide this question).

So, freedom of the press per se was not guaranteed in the same way. And, many other presses had been likewise suppressed in Illinois and elsewhere before and after the Expositor event. And, the city council approved the press's destruction.

See:

http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Nauvoo_Expositor

The definitive work is Dallin H. Oaks, "The Suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor," Utah Law Review 9 (Winter 1965):862â??903. The suppression was legal, and with valid precedent.

Joseph was willing to pay for the (legally excessive) destruction of press and type. He was held at Carthage afterwards on charges of treason; it had nothing to do with the Expositor (which is why they wanted a different charge; he wasn't holdable on the Expositor matter per se).

Thanks for the history lesson. My only comment is in regards to "polygamy IS reviled by EVERYONE" mentality that Mormons seem to deal with in talking with other Christian faiths. No one can argue that polygamy existed in the OT.

Don't be so sure--I've met very conservative Christians who argue otherwise. :-)

The problem most Christians have is that they do not believe it has a part in God's plan after Christ's perfect example given in the NT. Because of 'our traditions' since that time, it's an abomination for Christians to accept the Mormon thought of Salvation especially the role polygamy will have in it. Good luck in getting the rest of Christianity out of that mentality.

Well, I think the salvific role of polygamy is in the obedience to God, not polygamy qua polygamy.

Modern non-LDS Christians do hold his point of view, but they should realize that such a view has NOT been the universal opinion of other Christians. Augustine, Iraeneaus, and Justin Martyr all held that polygamy was not wicked per se, but could be appropriate under some circumstances. Martin Luther made the same claims more than 1000 years later. As usual, many conservative American Christians have a very parochial view of how Christians have read the texts.

I would be appreciative of more info on this, thanks!!

Sarah Barringer Gordon, The Mormon Question: Polygamy and Constitutional Conflict in Nineteenth-Century America (2001) (See here)

Kathleen Flake, The Politics of American Religious Identity: The Seating of Senator Reed Smoot, Mormon Apostle (See here)

IMO, it's only a matter of time (unfortunately) before gay marriage will be recognized by the US Government which will open some interesting doors for the LDS church. Once gay marriages are recognized as is a 'law of the land,' there will be some groups (not necessarily the LDS church) who will push for recognition of polygamous marriages. It will be interesting how the LDS church will approach the issue (granted the ordinance can only come from HF) since polygamous marriages are held in such high regard as I believe your past history reflects but not appreciated by non members.

Under current Church/state supreme court law, it is arguable that polygamy statutes could be struck down now as unconstitutional. And, I think they should be. (Not that such unions should have civil recognition, necessarily--but, if two women want to live with one man and call it marriage, I can't really see the case for criminalizing that. Whether the state will recognize or support something, is, of course, an entirely different question of public policy.

In many cases, I'm not sure most marriages understood the 'sacrificial love' that Christ wanted us to have in relationships with our spouse. Total sacrifice for each other, is a concept today's society can't seem to grasp that the early martyrs of the church I believe understood. My 2 cents.

No, they didn't. Nor do we now. :-) The funny thing, though, is to watch critics acting as if late 19th century American women had it so great--not.

I don't believe this is necessarily a good thing especially w/ my dad's half of the LDS family. No one is married to their original spouse for the last 2 generations and most of them remarried 3 times. And the winner is one great uncle remarried 18 times. IMO, having the best divorce laws is not a good thing.

Well, it depends. Look at Catholic-influenced countries, where divorce is illegal. People abandoned for years by spouses can't get divorces, can't remarry, and can't move on with their lives. Women in Utah had a choice, and could get out of abusive relationships. I agree the pendulum has swung too far nowadays, but when you consider how common bigamy was in the 19th century because of problems with marriage laws, marriage jurisdiction, etc., the LDS women had it pretty good. (Brigham Young would grant divorces to women quite easily, but was scathing to men who tried to get out of their responsibilities).

Can you give a reference please, I accidentally cut off more of your quote than I wanted.

I was thinking of St Augustine's regrettable tendency to vilify the body and human sexuality, and assume human depravity because (I suspect) of his own weaknesses, rather than anything innate to this idea in Christian scripture. Elaine Pagel's "Adam, Eve, and the Serpent" is a good read on this line.

It's not just the legislative process, it's trying to convince the rest of Christianity to keep an open mind.

What the Saints wanted was not acceptance of marriages in a civil sense--they didn't want welfare payments, etc. They just wanted to be left alone, not disenfranchised for believing that plural marriage was right, even if they didn't practice it. They didn't want to be spied on, jailed for "cohabitation" with willing consenting adults. They wanted to be able to provide for their children, and to allow those children to inherit.

As Kathleen Flake said (paraphrasing), Protestant Christians in 19th century America had a cosy, comfortable attitude toward law and conscience, because being in the majority and writing the laws, they could be certain that the law would never conflict with their conscience. Mormons and other marginalized groups had no such luxury.

Best,

Greg

PS Anyone know how to keep my posts from being double-spaced?

[don't know what is going on with that. Haven't seen it before. I've fixed some of them. ~mods]

[karl61]

Greg: what are your thoughts about "the twin relics of Barbarism". Google that thought.

[Greg Smith]

Greg: what are your thoughts about "the twin relic of Barbarism". Google that thought.

The "twin relic of babarism" was a line from the newly formed Republican party, advocating the abolition of slavery and polygamy. The party grew out of the collapse of the Missouri compromise on the issue of slavery. [see Thomas Hudson McKee (editor), The National Conventions and Platforms of All Political Parties 1789 to 1904, 5th rev. ed., (Baltimore, MD: The Friedenwald Company, 1904), 98.]

I'm not sure what you mean by "thoughts." Do I think slavery was a good thing? No. Do I think voluntary plural marriage between consenting adults was the moral equivalent of forced African slavery? Hardly.

Interestingly, proponents of one "twin relic" were not above using the other as a whipping boy to distract attention.

President Buchanan was a southern Democrat, and thus his base was heavily "pro-slavery." One can argue that the 1857 Utah war was as much about distracting attention from the slavery issue as it was worries about the Mormons as a military threat to the US.

As one advisor wrote Buchanan:

"I believe that we can supercede the Negro-Mania with the almost universal excitements of an Anti-Mormon crusade.â?¦[T]he pipings of Abolitionism will hardly be heard amidst the thunders of the storm we shall raise" - Lyn Ragdale, Vital Statistics on the Presidency: Washington to Clinton, revised edition, (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 1998), 102.

So the Mormons were not mere paranoid fanatics who thought that their enemies were out to get them. Political enemies with nefarious agendas really did try to exploit anti-Mormon sentiment for their own political and religious purposes.

I rather like Ralph Waldo Emerson's reaction to the hysteria about how Mormons were destroying the Moral Fabric of the Nation :

"Nothing is so hypocritical as the abuse in all the journalsâ??& at the South, especially,â??of Mormonismâ?¦These men who write the paragraphs in the "Herald" & "Observer," have just come from their brothel, or, in Carolina, from their Mulattoes [sic]." - Ralph Waldo Emerson, The Journals and Miscellaneous Notebooks, edited by Susan Sutton Smith and Harrison Hayford, (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1978) 14:204â??5; cited by Givens, Viper on the Hearth, 145.

Amen, Bro. Ralph....

But, other than that I don't understand your question...

Greg [dang formatting; sorry, I don't know why it's doing that...]

[There were a bunch of extra [ size = 3 ] commands in there so I took most out assuming you intended them for the quotes? I don't know what is up with all the extra line spacing - they just look like blank lines when I use the "edit" button to fix. I just hit the delete key until the extra lines are removed. One that that helps is not to add a line break/hard return after the end quote command because it will automatically add a line just before and after the begin and end quote commands. Haven't noticed anyone else with this particular problem. ~mods]

[blueadept]

I recommend asking those who were there. Since Joseph is dead, only God can confirm or deny.

It bugs my wife in my approach in prayer and why I won't simply do it the "Mormon" way. Oh well

http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Kirtland_Safety_Society

Critics also often ignore that the KSS documents were written up by (non-Mormon!) legal counsel. We see in retrospect that the bank was probably illegal, but this was very much an open question at the time, and required fairly sophisticated legal analysis to appreciate. I don't know that we can fault Joseph and the others for getting "bad" legal advice. So far as I know, Joseph never claimed a revelation for the KSS, but it was an attempt to solve a very vexing (and, probably insoluble, given the financial tools of the time) problem. Hundreds of other towns tried the same thing.

Thanks for the link, I'll check them out later. I can appreciate JS receiving "bad" legal advice. Member/non member will look at this from opposite directions. Members say that JS was doing his best by combining the saints funds and non members will see JS as a control freak. The bottom line is that the result was "bad" because of legal advice and JS had to run for his life. My point is that this is not a faith promoting event.

Missouri was much more about LDS political power, bloc voting, and the like. Apostates left because they disapproved of Joseph's political and financial policies, as well as changes which made Church govt more hierarchical.

Thanks for the historical perspective. Any links or books to review would be appreciative.

Again, one must not be guilty of presentism. The destruction of the press would be illegal under current US law, because the 14th amendment extends the Bill of Rights to state and local governments. But, in pre-Civil War USA, this was CERTAINLY not the case. (One could argue that the civil war was fought in part to decide this question).

So, freedom of the press per se was not guaranteed in the same way. And, many other presses had been likewise suppressed in Illinois and elsewhere before and after the Expositor event. And, the city council approved the press's destruction.

See:

http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Nauvoo_Expositor

The definitive work is Dallin H. Oaks, "The Suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor," Utah Law Review 9 (Winter 1965):862â??903. The suppression was legal, and with valid precedent.

Joseph was willing to pay for the (excessive) destruction of press and type. He was held on charges of treason; it had nothing to do with the Expositor (which is why they wanted a different charge; he wasn't holdable on the Expositor matter per se).

Depending if you are a believer or not, is the particular viewpoint of history that makes more sense to a person. I've argued JS's martyrdom before on this board and how the events as a non believer didn't qualify JS as a martyr. After that insane debate, it comes down to how the individual defines martyrdom and which aspects of history makes more sense. I now consider JS a martyr just for the sake of not arguing about it.

Don't be so sure--I've met very conservative Christians who argue otherwise. :-)

I've been on that side of the fence before as well.

Well, I think the salvific role of polygamy is in the obedience to God, not polygamy qua polygamy.

I can appreciate having an Abrahamic type test which Mormons seem to embrace so willingly especially when it comes to accepting polygamy. (especially if it's every re-instituted)

Provided that I never convert, I won't have to worry about an issue like this

Modern non-LDS Christians do hold his point of view, but they should realize that such a view has NOT been the universal opinion of other Christians. Augustine, Iraeneaus, and Justin Martyr all held that polygamy was not wicked per se, but could be appropriate under some circumstances. Martin Luther made the same claims more than 1000 years later. As usual, many conservative American Christians have a very parochial view of how Christians have read the texts.

In reading the ECF, I haven't run across anything like this. Do you have something I can review this interesting aspect?

Sarah Barringer Gordon, The Mormon Question: Polygamy and Constitutional Conflict in Nineteenth-Century America (2001) (See here)

Kathleen Flake, The Politics of American Religious Identity: The Seating of Senator Reed Smoot, Mormon Apostle (See here)

Thanks!!

Well, it depends. Look at Catholic-influenced countries, where divorce is illegal. People abandoned for years by spouses can't get divorces, can't remarry, and can't move on with their lives. Women in Utah had a choice, and could get out of abusive relationships. I agree the pendulum had swung too far, but when you consider how common bigamy was in the 19th century because of problems with marriage laws, marriage jurisdiction, etc., the LDS women had it pretty good.

I believe the only thing we can do is institute programs for those considering marriage to answer the questions that should be answered before getting married. My wife and I went to an engagement encounter that we put our heart and soul into so that we felt we had a fighting chance to make it all work out. I'm not aware that the LDS church has such a program which I think it should IMO.

I was thinking of Augustine's regrettable tendency to vilify the body and human sexuality, and assume human depravity because (I suspect) of his own weaknesses, rather than anything innate to this idea in Christian scripture. Elaine Pagel's "Adam, Eve, and the Serpent" is a good read on this line.

As a Christian, there isn't much of St. Augustines life that should be emulated except the very end of it (maybe). Weaknesses is an understatement.

Peace

[Greg Smith]

Thanks for the link, I'll check them out later. [on KSS] I can appreciate JS receiving "bad" legal advice. Member/non member will look at this from opposite directions. Members say that JS was doing his best by combining the saints funds and non members will see JS as a control freak. The bottom line is that the result was "bad" because of legal advice and JS had to run for his life. My point is that this is not a faith promoting event.

One must not forget, though, that the KSS was not a uniquely Mormon venture. It, like thousands of frontier banks, was an effort to solve financial problems that most of us can hardly fathom. (As one author pointed out, one 20-year mortgage would have solved almost all the problems.)

And, the KSS had prominent and politically influential non-Mormons as part of its organizing group. Joseph gets a lot of attention, but to act like he was a one-man show on this, or trying to "control" everything just seems to misunderstand the dynamic and the facts on the ground.

Don't forget that the loans extended to the bank, Joseph, the Church etc. didn't come out of thin air. The financial institutions that made the loans to the KSS didn't do so out of compassion, or religious zeal--they did them because they thought Joseph and Co. a good credit risk. How exactly did Joseph "control them" into loaning him money? In that respect, I don't think financial practices then and now are much different.

So, I've no doubt that non- (much less anti-) Mormons see it differently. But, I've met few of that category who seem to have much grasp of the facts of the matter, beyond "Joseph started an illegal bank, it failed, and he skipped town."

I can appreciate having an Abrahamic type test which Mormons seem to embrace so willingly especially when it comes to accepting polygamy. (especially if it's every re-instituted)

Provided that I never convert, I won't have to worry about an issue like this

Perhaps converting to Mormonism is YOUR Abrahamic test. Sleep well.

In reading the ECF, I haven't run across anything like this. Do you have something I can review this interesting aspect?

See here: link

Sorry, I said Iraeneus instead of Tertullian in my previous post.

As a Christian, there isn't much of St. Augustines life that should be emulated except the very end of it (maybe). Weaknesses is an understatement.

And yet, Augustine is the touchstone for most of western (i.e., Latin) Christendom. His influence on subsequent theology and doctrine (vs. what was taught before) is substantial. Yet, he hardly seems qualified for such a post. Even the Reformation went back to Augustine (rather than correcting him).

Best,

Greg

[Dale]

Not all followers of Joseph Smith accept plural marriage. My Community of Christ/RLDS has only believed in monogamy.

If it were not for my strong belief the Book of Mormon is scripture this polyandry subject would bother me more. But I can simply classify it as a mistake of Joseph Smith. I see enough other things about Joseph Smith's prophetic calling I like more. I hate to throw out the rest a good prophet's work over one aspect of his history that might bother me.

Worst case scenario for me is Joseph Smith became like David in the last part of his life.

[kamenraider]

I speculated William Clayton may not have written both of those April notes on the same date. He could have written the second note a day later after having time to reflect.

As the footnotes explain, he began a new journal on that date, hence double entries.

[Dale]

I speculated he did not actually start that new journal on that date. He could have copied the earlier date and added a second note at a later time. The 2nd note just look's like he later re-read the note from the other journal in pondering how to start the new journal. I doubt he started the new journal that day. He could have, and I am open to either possibility.