Valerie Hudson'S Talk At Fair Conference

[Calm]

As I said I never gave circumcision much thought in relation to doctrine and I really don't dwell on polygamy either.

I don't expect to have to make any decisions in that regard so it is a moot point for me.

So why assume that someone must be at least a little disturbed if they deny that plural marriage is an eternal principle. Could they not just be using the same logic of dismissal that you use for circumcision?

[ERayR]

So why assume that someone must be at least a little disturbed if they deny that plural marriage is an eternal principle. Could they not just be using the same logic of dismissal that you use for circumcision?

I believe my phrase was: "...those who challenge..." I am not challenging your premise at all. It was obvious that Valerie had given it considerable thought. I have just not thought about it. If I were to challenge your premise it would indicate I had some animus towards it. I am not challenging it Valerie Hudson did challenge polygamy as a general principle.

Edited August 26, 2011 by ERayR

[Calm]

I believe my phrase was: "...those who challenge..." I am not challenging your premise at all. It was obvious that Valerie had given it considerable thought. I have just not thought about it. If I were to challenge your premise it would indicate I had some animus towards it. I am not challenging it Valerie Hudson did challenge polygamy as a general principle.

So in your view people only challenge things they have "some animus" toward. You appear to be challenging Valerie Hudson's position, if you are or will does that mean you have "some animus" to it?

Edited August 26, 2011 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

So in your view people only challenge things they have "some animus" toward. You appear to be challenging Valerie Hudson's position, if you are or will does that mean you have "some animus" to it?

All challenges are some kind of a reaction however, not all reactions are challenged. And I believe if you will reread you will find that yes I have a reaction, not a challenge, to what I thought I heard but am waiting for the written transcript to verify if I heard what I thought I heard.

Incidentally what is your animus to what I wrote? I have neither expressed a pro or con position towards polygamy and only stated that as I remember what Valerie Hudson said that I thought she had drawn some conclusions which which I couldn't have drawn from the same information.(As remembered) I am waiting for transcripts to be made available.

[Calm]

All challenges are some kind of a reaction however, not all reactions are challenged. And I believe if you will reread you will find that yes I have a reaction, not a challenge, to what I thought I heard but am waiting for the written transcript to verify if I heard what I thought I heard.

Incidentally what is your animus to what I wrote? I have neither expressed a pro or con position towards polygamy and only stated that as I remember what Valerie Hudson said that I thought she had drawn some conclusions which which I couldn't have drawn from the same information.(As remembered) I am waiting for transcripts to be made available.

You are the one that stated if one challenges a position, one must have some animus toward that position to do so. I do not believe that is so, that one can challenge a position as untenable just based on an awareness that it is not coherent or compatible with what else is known. It's called analyzing or even disagreeing if one concludes it is false. Edited August 26, 2011 by calmoriah

[Curtis Weber]

1874 William Clayton affidavit on Joseph Smith's revelation on plural marriage:

"From him I learned that the doctrine of plural and celestial marriage is the most holy and important doctrine ever revealed to man on the earth, and that without obedience to that principle no man can ever attain to the fulness of exaltation in celestial glory."

And this is not based merely on some personal interpretation of the language of D&C 132 (even though this is exactly what section 132 states); this understanding also came from his intimate association with the Prophet:

"After the revelation on celestial marriage was written, Joseph continued his instructions, privately, on the doctrine, to myself and others, and during the last year of his life we were scarcely ever together, alone, but he was talking on the subject, and explaining that doctrine and principles connected with it" (1874 Affidavit).

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

1874 William Clayton affidavit on Joseph Smith's revelation on plural marriage:

"From him I learned that the doctrine of plural and celestial marriage is the most holy and important doctrine ever revealed to man on the earth, and that without obedience to that principle no man can ever attain to the fulness of exaltation in celestial glory."

And this is not based merely on some personal interpretation of the language of D&C 132 (even though this is exactly what section 132 states); this understanding also came from his intimate association with the Prophet:

"After the revelation on celestial marriage was written, Joseph continued his instructions, privately, on the doctrine, to myself and others, and during the last year of his life we were scarcely ever together, alone, but he was talking on the subject, and explaining that doctrine and principles connected with it" (1874 Affidavit).

Celestial marriage and plural marriage are not the same thing.

[alter idem]

You are the one that stated if one challenges a position, one must have some animus toward that position to do so. I do not believe that is so, that one can challenge a position as untenable just based on an awareness that it is not coherent or compatible with what else is known. It's called analyzing or even disagreeing if one concludes it is false.

[Curtis Weber]

Celestial marriage and plural marriage are not the same thing.

I guess that is the question, but since you already know the answer....

"From him I learned that the doctrine of plural and celestial marriage is...." (italics mine)

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I guess that is the question, but since you already know the answer....

"From him I learned that the doctrine of plural and celestial marriage is...." (italics mine)

My bad. Oh well. Thanks for the clarification. I thought you were trying to equate the 2.

Are you trying to equate the 2? Maybe I am now more confused? Let me illustrate.

Plural marriage includes celestial marriage but a celestial marriage need not include plural marriage.

Edited August 26, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[baddonkey]

As I stated erlier I am waiting to avail my self of the printed copy of Valeri Hudson's presentation because listening to it I sensed a personal animus toward polygamy.

Well, I sensed that her personal animus was toward inequality and toward what she referred to as "celestial lust" rather than toward polygamy. The Lord says in the Book of Mormon that all are alike unto him whether black or white, bond or free, male or female. He also says that whoredoms are an abomination to him. I don't think there is a problem if someone has any animus toward violation of these divine principles. Seeing polygamy as the violation of a law rather than the obeying of a law clarifies my feelings toward the issue immensely.

[Curtis Weber]

My bad. Oh well. Thanks for the clarification. I thought you were trying to equate the 2.

Are you trying to equate the 2? Maybe I am now more confused? Let me illustrate.

Plural marriage includes celestial marriage but a celestial marriage need not include plural marriage.

I don't have to equate the two--that was apparently done by Joseph Smith and others (Brigham Young most famously, as I am sure you are aware). Whether you believe them or later latter-day interpreters who strive so strenuously to differentiate the two, that's up for you to decide.

I agree that in a certain sense "plural marriage includes celestial marriage but a celestial marriage need not include plural marriage." But that does not really answer the original question--is a monogamous celestial marriage all that is required for exaltation, as far as marriage is concerned? I would ask: Is plural marriage lesser, higher, or equal to monogamous celestial marriage? Certainly, statistically speaking, in mortality plural marriage is a subset of celestial marriage--God commands it in far fewer cases, specific cases; whereas monogamous celestial marriage is relatively commonplace, readily available to any worthy Saint who can get a worthy member of the opposite sex to agree to the union. I would argue that this fact alone demonstrates that monogamous celestial marriage is not a higher law than plural marriage.

To be more clear: Entering into a monogamous celestial marriage--as necessary as that is to exaltation--does not fulfill all of the laws, rites and ordinances pertaining to that order of the priesthood; but obedience to those laws, rites and ordinances, which we covenant to keep, is a further requirement for exaltation. The obvious question is: What exactly are the laws, rites and ordinances referred to in monogamous celestial marriage? If you don't know, then the original question cannot be fully answered.

I'm still making my way through Hudson's paper, so I can't yet comment specifically on the points she makes, but I will ask this: If plural marriage is not a necessary aspect of exaltation--rather, merely a mortal test or trial of one's faith, or even an eternal marriage option for some persons particularly capable of such an arrangement--why does Smith delay introducing monogamous celestial marriage until after Emma and Hyrum have accepted--at least to a certain degree, in the case of Emma--both the doctrine and practice of plural celestial marriage? The most obvious answer is because the two are inextricably linked--entering into one entails the other.

Edited August 27, 2011 by Curtis Weber

[ERayR]

You are the one that stated if one challenges a position, one must have some animus toward that position to do so. I do not believe that is so, that one can challenge a position as untenable just based on an awareness that it is not coherent or compatible with what else is known. It's called analyzing or even disagreeing if one concludes it is false.

OK I can rethink that position.

[Calm]

OK I can rethink that position.

That's great. It's always nice when I can get a point across, even better when someone decides to consider it a possibility.

[ERayR]

That's great. It's always nice when I can get a point across, even better when someone decides to consider it a possibility.

I'm not really as hard headed as my wife claims.

[Calm]

I'm not really as hard headed as my wife claims.

I never thought you were.

[K-2]

Here's a more recent article by Valerie Hudson in Square Two: http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleReadersPuzzlePolygamy.html

One thing that I disagree with her about is the idea that "polygamy practiced without the sanction of the Lord is adultery, pure and simple."

Joseph Smith seemed to accept the legality and moral legitimacy of polygamous marriages both in countries where polygamy is practiced, and among the gathered Saints in the U.S. :

Again we heard the Prophet say upon the stand in Nauvoo in a grove near the Temple when he was speaking to a large assemblage of saints, with many other things he said, "If I should reveal the things that God has revealed to me, there are some on this stand that would cut my throat or take my heart's blood." We wondered if it was possible that that saying could be true. And again while speaking to the people in that place he supposed a case. He said, "Suppose we send one of our Elders to Turkey or India or to a people where it was lawful to have several wives, where they practiced polygamy and he should say to them, `Your laws are not good, you should put away your plural wives;' what would they do to him? They would kick him out of their realm," said he. * * *And when the Elder shall come round again, this Brother shall accost him thus saying, "Elder is there not a land of Zion, a place where the saints should gather to?" The Elder should not lie to him. He shall say, "Yes, Brother, there is a land of Zion where saints of God are required to gather to." Then said he to the Elder, "I have five wives and I love one equally as well as I do the other, and now what are the laws in that land? Can I bring my five wives there and enjoy them there as well as I can here?" Said the Prophet, "Yes, the laws in Zion are such that you can bring your wives and enjoy them here as well as there," the Elder shall say to that Brother.

The Prophet went on preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom as if he had not said anything strange or awful, but this to me was the first intimation that I ever received that polygamy would ever be practiced or lawful with this people. The Prophet went to his dinner and as it might be expected several of the first women of the Church collected at the Prophet's house with his wife, said thus to the Prophet Joseph, "O Mister Smith, you have done it now. It will never do; why it is all but blasphemy. You must take back what you have said today. It is outrageous. It would ruin us as a people." The Prophet knew it would not avail anything to contend with the sisters. Said he, "I will have to take that saying back and leave it as though there had been nothing said," for he was aware it was a very large pill for them or the people to swallow, but as the Lord had revealed the principle of plural marriage to him, and had informed him that the time had fully come that that doctrine should be taught and practiced by his people, the Latter-day Saints, as it was a very important item pertaining to the fullness of the Gospel there he deemed it wisdom to throw out something for the people to reflect upon that they might begin to digest that very important doctrine which belongs to the dispensation of the fullness of times. * * *

We attended the meeting in the afternoon. The Prophet arose to address the meeting. He said, "Brethren and sisters, I take back what we said this morning and leave it as though there had been nothing said." It amused me somewhat but it didn't take with me for I was satisfied that he meant what he said in the morning. (Joseph Lee Robinson Journal, pp. 12, 13, 14)

I realize that the Church (contrary to the ideas Joseph Smith expressed) does not allow legal polygamists in other countries to be baptized without divorcing in order to become monogamists, however the Church still does not view these people as perpetual adulterers or fornicators. I think that to claim that polygamists in other cultures and religions, where polygamy is legal and commonplace, are somehow adulterers just because the LDS Prophet has not approved of their marriages is an extreme position to take and one which shows a cultural bias.

[Calm]

It would seem similar to the idea I hear expressed from time to time that only temple marriages are actual marriages in God's eyes which is not what our leaders teach.