bethabara Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 Juliann,How dare you allow those women to speak for themselves? Don't you know that the Defenders of Dead Mormon Women only like to defend them because Dead Mormon Women are their ideal type of woman: completely silent. the DDMW can thus fill their mouths with anything words they wish they'd spoken, and when confronted with evidence to the contray thay can condescendingly pat them on the head and shush them because obivioulsy the DDMW know how things really were.C.I.In the end, dead Mormon women are as useful as dead prophets. They are so pliable. Link to comment
juliann Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 In the end, dead Mormon women are as useful as dead prophets. They are so pliable.Invisible women are far more useful. They don't exist. They don't need to be pliable only silenced and replaced with the apparent fantasy of every countermo, a woman who will say and do what she is told. Link to comment
katherine the great Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 They don't need to be pliable only silenced and replaced with the apparent fantasy of every countermo, a woman who will say and do what she is told.This fantasy is only indulged by countermo men? I thought it was universal. Link to comment
Hammer Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 Her voice is strong and she speaks to apostates, ex-mormons and postmormons today: LIFE INCIDENTSBy Helen Mar Kimball WhitneyThe scenes which are familiar to the Latter-day Saints of an earlier day, are but little known to those who have since been gathered from the different nations, nor to those who have grown up in the peaceful valleys of the Rocky Mountains. Until within a few years, the world knew nothing of our true history. Falsehoods were manufactured and sent out to serve the purposes of our enemies, and apostates have been their willing tools. The bitter prejudices felt by the outside world makes it almost an impossibility for them to believe or become acquainted with our faith and principles; but the history of this people is always interesting to the Latter-day Saints, and incidents of our travels and experience are calculated to benefit the young and rising generation. The spirit of unbelief which has crept into our midst is lamentable, and a stupor seems to have come over a portion of this people, who I sometimes fear, will need the judgments of God to awaken them from its influence, and we know that they are sure to come upon the slothful and disobedient, if they do not repent.Having continued longer than I anticipated I shall now close "Life Incidents," but not before expressing the gratitude I feel for the privilege of belonging to the unpopular sect called "Mormons." I never saw the time that I felt more joyful and more willing to bear the stigmas which are heaped upon us than I am today. Jesus and his apostles and saints were also hated, and they suffered a great deal more than the Latter-day Saints, and were finally destroyed from off the earth, but we have no fears of a similar fate, for we know that God has set his hand for the second time and that He will live to fulfil his purposes, and though hundreds may apostatize and join our enemies, they will accomplish nothing but their own ruin for apostates are looked down upon by the Gentiles and despised as traitors always are. The wicked only use them as tools to overthrow the work of the Almighty. It is only those who are weak in the faith that fear and tremble. "The wicked flee when no man pursueth," and they judge the Latter-day Saints by themselves. The bitterness that is manifested by the world towards this people is the greatest proof to me that this is the true gospel of Jesus Christ. If my homely description of scenes and incidents among the Saints prove beneficial to others, I will feel amply rewarded and can say as the poet, "If I one soul improve I have not lived in vain."It seems that Helen has some strong words for apostates. I have seen critics bring up her polygamous marriage many times as a mark against JS. However, these same critics and apostates forget the words of sister Helen as the above. Helen is certainly speaking to us today.Boy does she know what is and was and will be. Link to comment
Corky Wallace Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 I see plural marriage as a temporary but necessary hardship to establish a membership core that would ensure the survival of the Church in the 19th century and set the stage for its prosperity in the 20th and 21st centuries.Apostle John Widstoe disagreed with this line of reasoning, principally because there were more males in the LDS church than females. http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/Why.htmNow if you were referencing a membership core composed of the offspring of elite mormon males then that's a different matter. Link to comment
why me Posted October 11, 2007 Author Share Posted October 11, 2007 Apostle John Widstoe disagreed with this line of reasoning, principally because there were more males in the LDS church than females. http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/Why.htmNow if you were referencing a membership core composed of the offspring of elite mormon males then that's a different matter.Your website posted has very powerful 'thought control' suggestions. For example:"Today, an increasing number of LDS church members are uncomfortable with the idea that God commanded polygamy, and are adopting a different view. To them, Joseph Smithâ??s behavior seems inappropriate or manipulative â?? perhaps even abusive. The idea that Joseph pressured young teenagers into marriage, or that he married women who already had loving, honorable husbands, does not mesh with treasured principles such as agency when choosing a partner and fidelity to ones cherished spouse. All this seems foreign to the God they worship and the principles they honor and love".If one dissects this paragraph from the website, one can see the thought control process at work by the writer. One can couch many nice words into a sentence but that does not make it true. Words are powerful tools of persuasion and the countemormons use such techniques very powrfully. However, such language above does not compare with Helen's own words to apostates. The above quotation uses the 'bandwagon' approach of persuasion. 'Get on the bandwagon and become one of those increasing number of lds church members who.....' is a common enough ploy. The above paragraph disrespects the many women who were in polygamous relationships. Nice to defend these women under a pretext of indignation when actually it is done as a pretext for antimormon thought. Link to comment
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 The Antis would probably sound like the demons in "The Great Divorce" to her.Throw off your shackles of happiness! Taste realism not joy! You're persecuted and repressed in that paradise! Give it up!It strikes me as odd how many confessed miserable atheists will try to convert me. If you're the shining example, I'll pass.2 Nephi 2: 27They "...choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself." Link to comment
MormonMason Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 Is Helen speaking to you in her above comments in my original post? How Romney feels about polygamy from the 21st century has no bearing on it. Polygamy was not easy. It was a sacrifice for many. But many of these women were like Helen, strong in the faith....and not very supportive of 19th century apostates.And, in some ways it was much harder on the men! Men had to be able to support all their wives. That often meant lots of extra work. There is also a curious medical situation that arises in that women who live together tend to cycle together, if you catch my drift. Imagine multiplying cases of PMS by the number of wives that you had! Imagine the horror of all those mothers-in-law!!! Link to comment
Tchild2 Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 I have found that when members contemplate leaving the lds church they seem to pick and choose episodes in history. Usually, they post a quote or quotation from someone in the past. And like this individual overlook the bigger picture. A person's life is not a quotation. Rather it is a story made up of actions and words that are often lost in the wind.Helen Mar Kimball may have come around to the idea of polygamy since she was at such a formative and impressionable age when she began the practice. Her acceptance still doesn't seem to diminish the sense of lopsided proportions outsiders see in this situation of the leader of a religious group, a grown adult, and already married man, taking to wife a young person still in the formative stages of mental and emotional capacities. It may have been more common for younger girls to marry, yes. But it was extremely uncommon for young girls to wed already married adult men. Or are there stats to negate that?It isn't picking out a quote taken out of context, rather, it is taking actions from past leaders that seem so out of context with what the church teaches today as moral behavior. Link to comment
katherine the great Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 And, in some ways it was much harder on the men! Men had to be able to support all their wives. That often meant lots of extra work. I've got news for you. Many (if not most) wives of polygamists absolutely worked their fingers to the bone to support themselves and their children. They didn't sit around and let their husbands support them. In fact, many men were sent on missions or were in hiding for years and were of no financial support to their families during those times. Yes, it was hard on all parties involved, and NO, it was certainly not "all about sex" for the vast majority of polygamists, but it isn't accurate to assume that most polygamist men could support their families on their own. Link to comment
Corky Wallace Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 Your website posted has very powerful 'thought control' suggestions. For example:"Today, an increasing number of LDS church members are uncomfortable with the idea that God commanded polygamy, and are adopting a different view. To them, Joseph Smithâ??s behavior seems inappropriate or manipulative â?? perhaps even abusive. The idea that Joseph pressured young teenagers into marriage, or that he married women who already had loving, honorable husbands, does not mesh with treasured principles such as agency when choosing a partner and fidelity to ones cherished spouse. All this seems foreign to the God they worship and the principles they honor and love".If one dissects this paragraph from the website, one can see the thought control process at work by the writer. One can couch many nice words into a sentence but that does not make it true. Words are powerful tools of persuasion and the countemormons use such techniques very powrfully. However, such language above does not compare with Helen's own words to apostates. The above quotation uses the 'bandwagon' approach of persuasion. 'Get on the bandwagon and become one of those increasing number of lds church members who.....' is a common enough ploy. The above paragraph disrespects the many women who were in polygamous relationships. Nice to defend these women under a pretext of indignation when actually it is done as a pretext for antimormon thought.Hi Why,Yeah, I know that site is not seen as neutral, like with many, many other things I take it with a grain of salt. But the Widstoe quote seemed pretty straightforward, fairly untainted by context or agenda. Link to comment
Hammer Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 Juliann,How dare you allow those women to speak for themselves? Don't you know that the Defenders of Dead Mormon Women only like to defend them because Dead Mormon Women are their ideal type of woman: completely silent. the DDMW can thus fill their mouths with anything words they wish they'd spoken, and when confronted with evidence to the contray thay can condescendingly pat them on the head and shush them because obivioulsy the DDMW know how things really were.C.I.Wouldn't it be wonderful if we understood this one principle: What you see and how you see it is who and what you are. And who and what you are determines what you do.Great women as described by Helen, were chosen handmaidens of the Lord, while others were just prostituting themselves if their heart was not in it.It isn't the men who married them (speaking of JS's time) who were always at fault when they were unhappy. They could, as my little great grandma did, dump the guy and go marry someone else. Link to comment
why me Posted October 11, 2007 Author Share Posted October 11, 2007 Hi Why,Yeah, I know that site is not seen as neutral, like with many, many other things I take it with a grain of salt. But the Widstoe quote seemed pretty straightforward, fairly untainted by context or agenda.I understand. Recently I posted a topic on the catholic apologetic site. I entitled the thread: Martin Luther supported polygamy. It was based on a quotation from Luther and also from an episode from history where Luther seemed to sanction the polygmous marriage of a royal prince. The quotations were flying in the thread in what luther said or didn't mean to say. People say things all the time and people write things all the time. People also get it wrong in their writings. I am sure that if BY knew how is words would be dissected decades later he would have been more careful. To understand past situations, just look at your own life and how much you have said and written down. And yet, it is only representing you at that moment and not 10 years later. Countermos seem to relish in picking a quotation and trying to make a touchdown with the quotation. And yet, Helen certainly has many faith promoting quotations from which countermos can choose from. But these they ignore. I think that JS did not quite understand the polygamy thing. He received a revelation and off he went. He agonized over it and made his decisions. He learned as he went. That is how I read it. And he usually approached family members of the future 'bride' first for permission. Now that must have been difficult for him. Link to comment
Doctor Steuss Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 Well then, if this make me a bad person, tell me when was the last time one of your GA's spoke or wrote something about Helen. [...]February of '06 (James Faust). Link to comment
Jaybear Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 February of '06 (James Faust).How bout that. Did he actually address polygamy in this speech/article? If so, my world view will be completely shaken? Which is a good thing. So what did he say about Helen? Link to comment
why me Posted October 11, 2007 Author Share Posted October 11, 2007 How bout that. Did he actually address polygamy in this speech/article? If so, my world view will be completely shaken? Which is a good thing. So what did he say about Helen?Form the February 2006 Ensign:The journal of Horace K. and Helen Mar Whitney verifies the following regarding four more of the children of Stillman Pond who perished:â??On Wednesday, the 2nd of December 1846, Laura Jane Pond, age 14 years, â?¦ died of chills and fever.â? Two days later on â??Friday, the 4th of December 1846, Harriet M. Pond, age 11 years, â?¦ died with chills.â? Three days later, â??Monday, the 7th of December, 1846, Abigail A. Pond, age 18 years, â?¦ died with chills.â? Just five weeks later, â??Friday, the 15th of January, 1847, Lyman Pond, age 6 years, â?¦ died with chills and fever.â? 15 No mention of polygamy but her name was mentioned. Now if a member chooses to research her name based on the article, the polygamy would be discovered. Link to comment
why me Posted October 11, 2007 Author Share Posted October 11, 2007 From Helen's diary. She reflects on JS and polygamy. She sounds like a wonderful apologist in this paragraph:From the wiki:Initially, Helen despised the concept of polygamy, stating that, "seeing the trials of my mother, felt to rebel. I hated polygamy with my heart." Later in her life, however, she became a vigorous defender of the practice and wrote a number of publications praising it (Brodie 1971, p. 479-480;Whitney 1884). With regard to her feelings about Joseph Smith's implementation of the practice, Helen states,â??It was a strange doctrine, and very dangerous too, to be introduced at such a time, when in the midst of the greatest trouble Joseph had ever encountered. The Missourians and Illinoisans were ready and determined to destroy him. They could but take his life, and that he considered a small thing when compared with the eternal punishment which he was doomed to suffer if he did not teach and obey this principle. No earthly inducement could be held forth to the women who entered this order. It was to be a life sacrifice for the sake of an everlasting glory and exaltation" (Whitney 1880-1883).Sounds strong and yet, it makes sense to understand JS and why he acted the way he did. She believed. Link to comment
Doctor Steuss Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 How bout that. Did he actually address polygamy in this speech/article? If so, my world view will be completely shaken? Which is a good thing. So what did he say about Helen?All he did was mention her name. But, I thought all you were after was "something about Helen."She's talked about in an article that mentions "plural marriageâ? in December 1978 Ensign (by Quinn). Thereâ??s also a March 1992 article (by Sheri Dew) in the Ensign that talks about the â??practice of plural marriage,â? and an article written by Helen (in the Womanâ??s Exponent) is footnoted. She is also footnoted in an article in the June 1997 Ensign.I didnâ??t know that â??somethingâ? meant â??address[ing] polygamy.â? Link to comment
Jaybear Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 I didnâ??t know that â??somethingâ? meant â??address[ing] polygamy.â?It doesn't. I was simpling following up to see if the GA's reference to Helen conformed to my expectation, or would shake my expectations to the core. Link to comment
Doctor Steuss Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 It doesn't. I was simpling following up to see if the GA's reference to Helen conformed to my expectation, or would shake my expectations to the core.LOL. Well, it appears your expectations may remain intact... at least for now. Link to comment
ERMD Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 LOL. Well, it appears your expectations may remain intact... at least for now.No, it means that if Jaybear asks for something and you produce it, he will not be satisfied and will ask for something else. Link to comment
monachus Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 Taste realism not joy!That one little sentence speaks volumes about denial. Link to comment
AKS Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 Apologists get to pick and choose what comments are valid from Helen. From my point of view her early thoughts are the most telling. I don't find it surprising at all the she defended the practice later in life. What choice did she have? If you force a young girl into a lifestyle the she finds repugnant, it comes as no surprise that she would come to accept and then embrace polygamy later in life. Some apologists indignation not withstanding, I'd bet it happens every day in cultures still practicing the principle. Link to comment
why me Posted October 14, 2007 Author Share Posted October 14, 2007 Apologists get to pick and choose what comments are valid from Helen. From my point of view her early thoughts are the most telling. I don't find it surprising at all the she defended the practice later in life. What choice did she have? If you force a young girl into a lifestyle the she finds repugnant, it comes as no surprise that she would come to accept and then embrace polygamy later in life. Some apologists indignation not withstanding, I'd bet it happens every day in cultures still practicing the principle.At times a person first reaction may not be the correct reaction. The first reaction can be an emotional reaction. In the case of Helen, I don't think she came on board late in life. She was on board for most of her life. She believed. I know that it is difficult for some people to believe but she actually believed in the lds church. She was a supporter of lds women and polygamy. It has nothing to do with 'what choice did she have'. But it had all to do with the choice that she made. My problem is when exmormons choose to show her the victim. She was no victim. She did not like polygamy at first. But through prayer and understanding...she realized god's plan. Link to comment
AKS Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 I know that it is difficult for some people to believe but she actually believed in the lds church. She was a supporter of lds women and polygamy. It has nothing to do with 'what choice did she have'. But it had all to do with the choice that she made.So she made the choice to enter a polygamist relationship? I didn't read it that way.She did not like polygamy at first. But through prayer and understanding...she realized god's plan.It's funny how so many exploits can be rationalized this way.The facts are:1> a 14 year old girl has forced into a situation that she felt repulsive2> Years later the woman defended the situationLike I said, I don't think its all that surprising. And I don't think it makes JS look prophet-like. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.