Grant Palmer Is At It Again...

[Darth_Bill]

I find it interesting that the apologetic that the RLDS once used is now used by the LDS. My thoughts are that there were relations with some of the wives. Also did some searching and now i think Palmer was a bit loose with some of the history, but I still dont have a good opinion of the practice as JS practiced it. I would say more but I highly revered JS most of my life and what I think about this episode would not be easy to write.

[ERayR]

When this topic is discussed no distinction is made between marriage and sealing. They are not synonomous.

[Minos]

We don't allow threads devoted to ruminating about other people's sexual activity. Show some class people! Or get thread banned.

[california boy]

When this topic is discussed no distinction is made between marriage and sealing. They are not synonomous.

In your mind, what is the difference between marriage and sealing that justifies Joseph Smith taking another man's wife?

[Duncan]

In your mind, what is the difference between marriage and sealing that justifies Joseph Smith taking another man's wife?

if your sealed to someone they would be so lucky to get a Christmas card but if your married your doing the garden and helping with the laundry, shopping, fixing the roof and neighbour kid's bike

[california boy]

I am not sure if you are joking or not. I ask the question because I am a bit confused at drawing such a distinction. I always thought sealing was being bound together for eternity. Am I wrong? Or as you imply, is sealing just not that important of ordinance? And I guess if I was a husband whose wife was bound to Joseph Smith for eternity rather than me, I would be upset.

I also want to make clear, I, like Darth Bill revere JS, and don't in any way ask these questions to diminish who Joseph Smith is. I am just trying to understand this issue better.

[Duncan]

I am not sure if you are joking or not. I ask the question because I am a bit confused at drawing such a distinction. I always thought sealing was being bound together for eternity. Am I wrong? Or as you imply, is sealing just not that important of ordinance? And I guess if I was a husband whose wife was bound to Joseph Smith for eternity rather than me, I would be upset.

I also want to make clear, I, like Darth Bill revere JS, and don't in any way ask these questions to diminish who Joseph Smith is. I am just trying to understand this issue better.

I jest with distinction. Being married means doing all that stuff and being sealed is just an act with probably no further other stuff going along with it, like marrying someone to get them into the country-you do it then you undo it and you move on with your life

[cdowis]

In your mind, what is the difference between marriage and sealing that justifies Joseph Smith taking another man's wife?

A sealing can occur between a man and a woman who were never married. JS was sealed to women who were married, but never sealed to their husband.

Normally we think of these jointly, but they are actually two different things. Married is effective for mortality, sealing is post mortality. We can be sealed and married in the temple, but the sealing goes in effect after mortality.

A woman is married to a non-member and he refuses to join the church. She meets a member, and they have a tactful agreement that they will be part of the same family in the afterlife. After they are deceased, it is possible that they can be sealed (under special conditions) in the temple. Women who never knew JS had themselves sealed to JS after he was deceased -- but this practice was stopped for obvious reasons.

Give it some thought and it will become clear.

Edited February 29, 2012 by cdowis

[selek1]

In your mind, what is the difference between marriage and sealing that justifies Joseph Smith taking another man's wife?

There is zero evidence that Joseph "took another man's wife".

Zero.

As in none.

Zip.

Zilch.

Nada.

But that doesn't stop critics from framing the issue in the most insensitive, inflammatory, and insulting (to the principals involved) terms possible.

And yet for all of the hysterical shrieking and hullabaloo critics love to raise as self-appointed "defenders of dead Mormon women" they are always eager to gloss over the fact that these sealings were entirely voluntary.

In answer to your question, however, I ask the following:

What is your understanding of the term "adoption" that justifies taking another man's child?

In the case of the polygamous religious sealings, we at least have the virtue of active consent.

Yet their "defenders" are always so eager to deny these women their conscious choices.....

Edited February 29, 2012 by selek1

[why me]

The biggest problem I have with polygamy is the angel with flaming sword thing.

The best defense for polygamy is the infallible prophet defense.

But when you take into account the angel with flaming sword, it's not on Joseph. It's on God. So then you have a lot of head scratching why God decided to introduce it with the inconsistencies and weirdness and everything else that came with it.

Easiest to conclude Joseph lied.

The sword is often used by god as a threat. I believe that it is also found in the old testament. See Isiah 34:6 and exodus 22:24. It was not uncommon to be threatened by a sword.

[why me]

In your mind, what is the difference between marriage and sealing that justifies Joseph Smith taking another man's wife?

My take on it is simple: Joseph felt that he had to reinstate polygamy. He began to take many wives during a two year period. He was a man in a hurry. I do believe that he may have been looking for kinship with families in the afterlife. And perhaps he didn't quite understand the principle itself. But for two years in the beginning of the 1840's, he began to practice polygamy after years of hesitation. Why did he feel compelled to do it?

[why me]

Why did Joseph marry so many women in such a short period of time? I think that that needs to be discussed.

[Storm Rider]

I am not sure if you are joking or not. I ask the question because I am a bit confused at drawing such a distinction. I always thought sealing was being bound together for eternity. Am I wrong? Or as you imply, is sealing just not that important of ordinance? And I guess if I was a husband whose wife was bound to Joseph Smith for eternity rather than me, I would be upset.

I also want to make clear, I, like Darth Bill revere JS, and don't in any way ask these questions to diminish who Joseph Smith is. I am just trying to understand this issue better.

Sealings were different in this day than today. Men were sealed to men in a father son role and women were sealed to men in both capacities. There was a concept of eternal increase and a desire to be together for eternity. This was very early in the process and the concept of sealings was not fully developed by the prophet. I also think that women were sealed to more than one man as a wife, but others will need to confirm that.

We know that Joseph did have marital relationship with some of the women to whom he was married and were plural wives. However, I think people would be doing a lot stretching to assume that it was a majority of his wives. I have always felt that he had relations with a small minority of his plural wives; he was more focused on eternal increase of his family and friends.

[cinepro]

A sealing can occur between a man and a woman who were never married. JS was sealed to women who were married, but never sealed to their husband.

Normally we think of these jointly, but they are actually two different things. Married is effective for mortality, sealing is post mortality. We can be sealed and married in the temple, but the sealing goes in effect after mortality.

A woman is married to a non-member and he refuses to join the church. She meets a member, and they have a tactful agreement that they will be part of the same family in the afterlife. After they are deceased, it is possible that they can be sealed (under special conditions) in the temple. Women who never knew JS had themselves sealed to JS after he was deceased -- but this practice was stopped for obvious reasons.

Give it some thought and it will become clear.

What about Zina Huntington? When she married Brigham Young after having been sealed to Joseph and having a living husband (Henry), was her marriage to Brigham Young a "marriage", a "sealing", or both?

[jwhitlock]

I am not sure if you are joking or not. I ask the question because I am a bit confused at drawing such a distinction. I always thought sealing was being bound together for eternity. Am I wrong? Or as you imply, is sealing just not that important of ordinance? And I guess if I was a husband whose wife was bound to Joseph Smith for eternity rather than me, I would be upset.

I also want to make clear, I, like Darth Bill revere JS, and don't in any way ask these questions to diminish who Joseph Smith is. I am just trying to understand this issue better.

Sealing and marriage are different things. Sealings are about binding relationships in different ways (husband-wife, children-parents, etc.) while marriage is more specific to a particular husband-wife relationship. Latter-day Saints often use sealing and marriage interchangeably, which is not entirely accurate.

[Darth_Bill]

There is zero evidence that Joseph "took another man's wife".

Zero.

As in none.

Zip.

Zilch.

Nada.

Yet their "defenders" are always so eager to deny these women their conscious choices.....

Not sure what is going on, perhaps a definition issue, and what one qualifies as "taking". Yes, these were conscious choices but even the faithful histories smacks of manipulation. Promising eternal life and also just by his position alone would land someone in jail today. At least, you wouldn't want anyone from the church talking to your daughter or wife in those terms today..well, I wouldn't.

I'm not sure of all the details on all the marriages, but I think it is quite accepted that he was sealed to other men's wives. So, I'm thinking there is a definition issue. As I mentioned before, we have some histories of the women who said "Yes." I'm not sure if we have a whole lot from the women who said "No." or those that felt they had a choice.

[robuchan]

The sword is often used by god as a threat. I believe that it is also found in the old testament. See Isiah 34:6 and exodus 22:24. It was not uncommon to be threatened by a sword.

The issue is not the sword. The issue is that God sent the angel with sword to Joseph to ensure he moved forward with polygamy. It ups the ante. You can't dismiss it as a mistake or due to the fallibility of a prophet. God was directing the doctrine and practice of polygamy as intimately as he did with any doctrine of the restoration. So all the weirdness of it, you can't blame on Joseph. Either that or Joseph lied about the angel and the whole thing is a sham.

[Monster]

We will never know for sure about what was going on with Joseph, but putting Palmer's conclusions aside I ask myself would a practical god and one that I would want to have an affiliation with be involved with all this craziness? Why would I want to worship a God that I do not even share the same values with. Seems to me a restored gospel of Jesus Christ would have a better track record than all the bizarre stuff that seems to crop up.

Believers can make ad hominem attacks on the critics all they want but the fact remains there is much smoke, and where there is smoke there tends to be fire. Is it as bad as Palmer makes it out to be, I have no idea, but I do know the pattern that seemed to form in Nauvoo seems to be one that is repeated by other charismatic leaders throughout history. We just do not want to accept that our charismatic leader is the same as the rest. We want to believe ours is different even though the pattern is the same. If all these aspects about Joseph were applied to another religion we would immediately dismiss the whole shebang. For a minute imagine you are not a member and you read this stuff, what would your reaction be? We should not ignore evidence and troublesome history because it does not fit our world view.

Palmer was correct in one thing he said. History will not be kind to the current group of LDS leaders unless they get ahead of this. The glossy story that has been preached for 150 years is getting tarnished and just preaching more obedience and telling members to avoid any non church approved material will only delay the inevitable.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Monster

[Duncan]

We will never know for sure about what was going on with Joseph, but putting Palmer's conclusions aside I ask myself would a practical god and one that I would want to have an affiliation with be involved with all this craziness? Why would I want to worship a God that I do not even share the same values with. Seems to me a restored gospel of Jesus Christ would have a better track record than all the bizarre stuff that seems to crop up.

Believers can make ad hominem attacks on the critics all they want but the fact remains there is much smoke, and where there is smoke there tends to be fire. Is it as bad as Palmer makes it out to be, I have no idea, but I do know the pattern that seemed to form in Nauvoo seems to be one that is repeated by other charismatic leaders throughout history. We just do not want to accept that our charismatic leader is the same as the rest. We want to believe ours is different even though the pattern is the same. If all these aspects about Joseph were applied to another religion we would immediately dismiss the whole shebang. For a minute imagine you are not a member and you read this stuff, what would your reaction be? We should not ignore evidence and troublesome history because it does not fit our world view.

Palmer was correct in one thing he said. History will not be kind to the current group of LDS leaders unless they get ahead of this. The glossy story that has been preached for 150 years is getting tarnished and just preaching more obedience and telling members to avoid any non church approved material will only delay the inevitable.

where there is smoke there is fire but in some cases as it appears to be in the case Grant Palmer is the only one with the torch as it were

[Jaybear]

where there is smoke there is fire but in some cases as it appears to be in the case Grant Palmer is the only one with the torch as it were

Wrong analogy. In this case, the fire would be the actual existence of an inappropriate sexual relationship between Smith and these young girls. The smoke is the widespread allegations and innuendo that Palmer has documented concerning the alleged relationships.

Unless you are suggesting that by starting the fire, Grant Palmer was the one who had an inappropriate relationship with Fanny Alger and the others,

Are you suggesting that Grant brought a smoke machine to the discussion, ie he manufactured evidence.

[Calm]

telling members to avoid any non church approved material.....

CFR that this is what is taught by General Authorities.

[Duncan]

Wrong analogy. In this case, the fire would be the actual existence of an inappropriate sexual relationship between Smith and these young girls. The smoke is the widespread allegations and innuendo that Palmer has documented concerning the alleged relationships.

Unless you are suggesting that by starting the fire, Grant Palmer was the one who had an inappropriate relationship with Fanny Alger and the others,

Are you suggesting that Grant brought a smoke machine to the discussion, ie he manufactured evidence.

hardly! I am suggesting as is others that Grant Palmer is unnecessarily adding to things when it seems that water is available to put the whole thing out and everyone moves on with their life and I don't think he knows what he is doing

[LeSellers]

Are you suggesting that Grant brought a smoke machine to the discussion, ie he manufactured evidence.

I am suggesting as is others that Grant Palmer is unnecessarily adding to things when it seems that water is available to put the whole thing out ...

My position is reasonably close to Duncan's. In addition, however, I believe that Palmer is purposefully leaving things out.

There is precious little evidence that Joseph had any kind of marital relationships with any of the already-married women to whom he was sealed. (which is, as others have pointed out, a different thing from "married"). In one case, an alleged plural wife told her daughter that she was Joseph's child, not her husband's. This is the only place we find any such statement, but it is far from clear what she meant by that: it may have been that her sealing to Joseph conferred "Born in the Covenant" status through Joseph Smith, rather than her father. We don't know, but it does not make the daughter Joseph's literal offspring.

Lehi

[Nevo]

CFR that this is what is taught by General Authorities.

I think what Monster is getting at is that members are generally counseled to avoid "anti-Mormon" materials. And when preparing lessons, in particular, they are counseled to avoid consulting any "not correlated" materials (source).

[stemelbow]

....will only delay the inevitable.

What's the inevitable?