CARPE DIEM Posted January 8, 2012 Posted January 8, 2012 For Emma's part, I believe she didn't like that Brigham's view of stewardship. He felt that he was responsible for taking care of all of Joseph's business, including protecting, by marriage, his wives. Emma was never converted to the Principle of Plural Marriage, and did not want to be one of Brigham's wives.Emma, we should note, chose instead to marry Charles Bidamon whose dalliance with Emma's servant produced a child that she, Emma,took care of for many years.In addition, Emma was dedicated to caring for Lucy Mack Smith, her mother-in-law, who was too frail to make the trek to Deseret. (She'd lost all but two of her sons to mobs, and her husband, as well. She was alone but for Emma, and simply could not make the trip.) Emma's reluctance to go, and Lucy's inability mutually fed on each other. Brigham did offer to transport Lucy Mack, but since Emma wasn't prepared to accompany her, she declined.As to Joseph's having to go to hell to get Emma, there are several ways this could be interpreted, not the last of which might involve a rigorous understanding of what "hell" meant when each prophet made his statement.I don't have the luxury of my library here, so I can't look them up, but "hell" does not always mean Satan's empire. In fact, it most often means nothing more than "the grave". So, If Brigham was trying to make the point that men will resurrect their wives, Joseph's going to hell to get Emma would be nothing more than what any Priesthood holder will do for his wife or children. But, as i said, this is pure speculation, and based on very little.On the other hand, Emma was in apostasy, having rejected the authority of the Twelve, and all apostates will have to spend some time repenting (in this life or the next) before their Celestial blessings can be effectuated, if at all. So, Emma would be going to Peter's Spirit Prison and Joseph would go there and exercise the power of her sealing to him so she could (as more couples will do than recognize it) enjoy their shared status in the Kingdom.LehiPretty deep stuff!
Storm Rider Posted January 8, 2012 Posted January 8, 2012 Emma is an example of the weaknesses of being a human. She endured so much pain, agony, and trials, but at the end she did not endure. She stopped and sought respite. How many times I have thought of doing exactly that or have just taken time off in search of a time to recuperate? Too many too count.I have never understood Bidamon as a husband for her. He did not offer happiness or peace; there must have been a degree of satisfactory companionship. However, in doing so she steps very far away from her place as the wife of the prophet and as an active disciple of Jesus Christ. We may learn from her example and we may commiserate over her countless trials, but she is not an example of a noble member who endured to the end or one that our children should emulate.
why me Posted January 8, 2012 Posted January 8, 2012 Emma is an example of the weaknesses of being a human. She endured so much pain, agony, and trials, but at the end she did not endure. She stopped and sought respite. We need to look at all the problems that being married to JS brought her. The persecution and turmoil. Not to mention the loss of JS and his brother. Also, indirectly, the loss of many of her childern. In her personal life there was quite a lot of death. I am sure that this affected her deeply. Also, she was no fan of polygamy. She never quite understood it. And so, she could not go on with the saints to the west. And so, her and JS's mother stayed behind. But she stayed by her man until the end and in this she did endure to the end.
Nevo Posted January 8, 2012 Posted January 8, 2012 Emma and Joseph were both among those who had the Second Anointing --- making their calling and election sure --- in the 1840's. (There is a list of those who received in at the time. Two lists, if I recall correctly.) Of course she will be in the celestial kingdom with Joseph.That seems to be BYU history professor Steven Harper's view as well.It seems that one of the main points of section 132 is to assure Joseph that he and Emma will be exalted together, that despite the wedge plural marriage had driven between them, the Lord will weld them eternally. . . . [T]he law of exaltation is set forth in Doctrine and Covenants 132:7, 19–20, and the historical record shows that Joseph and Emma met its terms and conditions precisely. They made and entered the covenant on May 28, 1843, and received the confirming ordinance section 132 refers to as "most holy" on September 28, 1843 (v.7).Though neither Joseph nor Emma was flawless after meeting the conditions on which the Lord will exalt them, neither committed the unpardonable sin verse 27 describes. Emma was never excommunicated, her ordinances never voided. She gave her children faith in the Book of Mormon but blamed Brigham Young for plural marriage. It seems as if the Lord spoke verse 26 specifically to set Joseph's mind at ease about Emma's eternal destiny. Perhaps that knowledge was the "escape" Joseph needed in order to make the extreme "sacrifices" for plural marriage that contributed to his death (v. 50; see D&C 135).— Steven C. Harper, Making Sense of the Doctrine & Covenants: A Guided Tour through Modern Revelations (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2008), 488–489.
Acris Venator Posted January 8, 2012 Posted January 8, 2012 Emma didn't merely face polygamy as any number of LDS women of the 19th Century. She was the first wife of her dispensation to face it without any prior expectation of having to. And before she could sort it out, the man who was simultaneously the man that she loved & the prophet that unleashed it on her was murdered.Anyone who judges her choices and her life without the insight of being an all-seeing, all-knowing god doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Storm Rider Posted January 8, 2012 Posted January 8, 2012 Emma didn't merely face polygamy as any number of LDS women of the 19th Century. She was the first wife of her dispensation to face it without any prior expectation of having to. And before she could sort it out, the man who was simultaneously the man that she loved & the prophet that unleashed it on her was murdered.Anyone who judges her choices and her life without the insight of being an all-seeing, all-knowing god doesn't have a leg to stand on.To judge her another i.e. to proclaim her exaltation or damnation is beyond us; however, to judge her choices versus the command to each of us to endure to the end is rather simple. You can make all the excuses you want for her, BUT it is clear she did not remain faithful to the Church until the end. She went so far and then she stopped. To say otherwise is just closing your eyes to what is obvious. To try and say we do not have a leg to stand on is also the same; pull your own head out of the sand. We do not condemn her or praise her, but the obvious is clear for all to see.
katherine the great Posted January 8, 2012 Posted January 8, 2012 How many times I have thought of doing exactly that or have just taken time off in search of a time to recuperate? Too many too count.Wow! You are so noble. I hope you will find it in your heart to go down and visit her in the afterlife.
mbh26 Posted January 8, 2012 Posted January 8, 2012 (edited) We may learn from her example and we may commiserate over her countless trials, but she is not an example of a noble member who endured to the end or one that our children should emulate.I think it just goes to show that you can rewrite history to say pretty much whatever you want to hear. There were a lot of apostates who endured trials as members of the Church, but we rarely if ever go to such lengths to make excuses for them nor do we emphasize the idea of not judging. This is one of the things I hate most about organized religion. Only the people we don't have a soft spot for go to hell. Their actions are irrelevant. Happy endings are mandatory even if it means rewriting the rules.I'm sure if you were an Israelite enjoying the land right priveledges gained by King David's military conquests, you wouldn't be very happy about someone telling you that he would be doing some time in hell. I don't think the Jews see it this way up to this day. Edited January 8, 2012 by mbh26
Acris Venator Posted January 8, 2012 Posted January 8, 2012 to judge her choices versus the command to each of us to endure to the end is rather simple.It's certainly simple to type out such judgments. Even without being in possession of all the facts.She went so far and then she stopped. To say otherwise is just closing your eyes to what is obvious. I never actually said otherwise.But since you brought it up, I will say that it is never as simple as "she went so far and then she stopped" no matter how brusque you wish to be about assessing someone's life and choices. You say the word "obvious" as if you were an eye witness, but even if you had been you wouldn't be in possession of all the facts. Journals, letters, and church records don't have all the facts, either. Thus no one but she and Christ have all the facts of the case.People are more akin to countries than baseball cards. As far as Emma Smith is concerned, you're just another tourist with a keyboard. 1
Storm Rider Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 Wow! You are so noble. I hope you will find it in your heart to go down and visit her in the afterlife. How noble of you to notice and that you deign to speak to one such as me speaks volumes. As an aside, you missed the entire point of my comment, but don't let that stop you.
Storm Rider Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) It's certainly simple to type out such judgments. Even without being in possession of all the facts.I never actually said otherwise.But since you brought it up, I will say that it is never as simple as "she went so far and then she stopped" no matter how brusque you wish to be about assessing someone's life and choices. You say the word "obvious" as if you were an eye witness, but even if you had been you wouldn't be in possession of all the facts. Journals, letters, and church records don't have all the facts, either. Thus no one but she and Christ have all the facts of the case.People are more akin to countries than baseball cards. As far as Emma Smith is concerned, you're just another tourist with a keyboard.Delete comments. It really is not worth continuing. When individuals become the focus rather than the topic of the OP it is evident the thread is lost. Edited January 9, 2012 by Storm Rider
Storm Rider Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 Delete my comments. There is no need to respond and I should have known better.
katherine the great Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 How noble of you to notice and that you deign to speak to one such as me speaks volumes. As an aside, you missed the entire point of my comment, but don't let that stop you.I missed nothing and I think your criticisms of her are wrong.
Senator Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 However, in doing so she steps very far away from her place as the wife of the prophet and as an active disciple of Jesus Christ. We may learn from her example and we may commiserate over her countless trials, but she is not an example of a noble member who endured to the end or one that our children should emulate.This judgement of yours, sickens me.
Storm Rider Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 This judgement of yours, sickens me.How would you explain her behavior after Joseph's death...I mean if you can pick yourself up from your deathbed of sickness. As an aside, for the three of you, please focus on the topic rather than me. I could just as easily comment on you personally and your thoughts, but I have resisted because they would not serve a purpose, but please believe me when I say that your feelings could not be any stronger than mine and I hold your (all three) thoughts in approximately the same esteem. Cheers,
Senator Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 (edited) How would you explain her behavior after Joseph's death...I mean if you can pick yourself up from your deathbed of sickness.I feel absolutely no necessity to explain her.Rather, I only feel that if I could step back in time, I would find her, wrap my arms around her and weep upon her neck....I don't know....how would post-traumatic stress sound?...... losing half your children, your husband and having lived most your life in utter turmoil....Maybe God said enough was enough.. Maybe He made good on his word that he would not allow her to be tempted/tried more than she could bear... Maybe she had given enough.........and by the way, I didn't focus on you, I focused on your comment. Edited January 9, 2012 by Senator
katherine the great Posted January 9, 2012 Posted January 9, 2012 I don't know....how would post-traumatic stress sound?Sounds good to me.
Recommended Posts