Emma Denying Polygamy

[Jaybear]

I had to log in to give you a + on this one lol XD.

Some lies are bigger that others.

It boggles my mind, that you would dismiss out of hand, with a LOL to boot, the fact that the wife of the prophet, the woman who is expressly named in the Sec 132, would deny the existence and therefor the divine source of the revelation.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

I'm willing to give Emma some slack. She could only watch as her children died; the Saints driven from state to state and finally out of her country: her husband and Brother-in-Law murdered. She herself was in poor health much of the time. I don't believe she was wicked, let alone the most wicked of women. I believe she was wrung out by her trials, and just too emotionally and physically tired to go on with the Saints.

Brigham Young was a man of strong opinions and he didn't hesitate to give them. But he was without authority to judge the eternal fate of anyone including Emma.

[Jaybear]

Jaybear:

I'm willing to give Emma some slack. She could only watch as her children died; the Saints driven from state to state and finally out of her country: her husband and Brother-in-Law murdered. She herself was in poor health much of the time. I don't believe she was wicked, let alone the most wicked of women. I believe she was wrung out by her trials, and just too emotionally and physically tired to go on with the Saints.

Inasmuch as she tried to poison her husband twice, I find it odd that you would so readily excuse her behavior and then attribute her questionable actions to neighbors and apostates.

Brigham Young was a man of strong opinions and he didn't hesitate to give them. But he was without authority to judge the eternal fate of anyone including Emma.

It was not Brigham, but Joseph who said that "she was a child of hell, and literally the most wicked woman on this earth, that there was not one more wicked than she ..."

Likewise, it was God, not Brigham, who condemned her when He said ..

And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.

[rodheadlee]

So what? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. This whole discussion is disgusting.

[Log]

.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Log

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

Hello I've tried to poison myself more times than that by accidently eating food that had gone bad.

The same principle applies to Joseph, to Brigham, to any mortal that has ever lived on this planet.

What commands of God can we safely violate and not risk condemnation?

[Bob Crockett]

I think Brigham Young said it best in his General Conference address

My guess is that she wasn't actually trying to kill him she was just trying to break Joseph of his coffee habit.

Phaedrus

I think it is unfair to judge either Brigham Young or Emma from this quote. Both had their weaknesses; Brigham Young's was his unremitting dislike for Emma. The feeling was mutual.

[ebeddoulos]

In a day and age where refrigeration and microbiology were relatively recent discoveries and not widely known or understood, I do not find it unusual that people would be subject to food poisoning. Nor do I find it unusual that Brigham Young would talk past Emma Smith and blame her for certain issues and vice versa. I think they were talking past each other. Sometimes we just hear what we want to hear and it matters not whether we are listening to the Lord, a spouse, a friend or a perceived enemy.

Based on the lack of progeny of Joseph Smith by any of Joseph's wives other than Emma, I suspect that Emma's understanding of how Joseph actually practiced plural marriage may have been more accurate than Brigham's understanding. Therefore, I do not think it inconceivable that in Emma's mind, Joseph did not practice polygamy as taught by Brigham. On the other hand, I suspect that Brigham certainly had a different perspective of how the Lord wanted plural Marriage than Emma. Based on their own unique understanding, viewpoint and circumstances, they were both correct ... at least in their own mind.

Personally, I think both Brigham Young and Emma Smith were good people, who did the best they could for those they loved. I respect them

[changed]

changed:

I think Jesus deals with people the way they are, while trying to teach better way.

yes, people the way they are, line upon line... is it a lie? or just protecting people from what they are not ready for yet?

[noel00]

Zina Huntington was taken off Lyn Jacobs and given to BY. Jacobs was sent off on a stretcher on a mission. To whom would his children have been sealed to? Would he have had to start again? Seems rather unfair that someone with power can decide who marries who.I suppose just like the ape colony, the strongest ape gets the females. But then didn't Smith tell William Clayton he had a right to all he can get?

[inquiringmind]

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Emma was telling the truth. Joseph had no wife but her. Simple.

I don't know about that, but neither do I know if there's any contemporary evidence that Emma knew about plural marriage prior to Joseph's death 1844.

Does anyone know if there's any evidence to back up Brigham statement that Emma knew this?

[ebeddoulos]

I don't know about that, but neither do I know if there's any contemporary evidence that Emma knew about plural marriage prior to Joseph's death 1844.

Does anyone know if there's any evidence to back up Brigham statement that Emma knew this?

D&C 132:51-56

[inquiringmind]

D&C 132:51-56

That was published in eighteen fifty something, by the Brigham Young party in Utah, right?

I was asking if there's any contemporary evidence (from the 1840's), to support Brigham's statement that Emma was a liar?

I know the early Latter Day Saints kept Journals when they were in Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois, and I think there were records of marriages and seelings in Nauvoo (and the witnesses that were present.)

Is there any direct evidence (from that period) that Emma knew what Brigham said she knew?

Edited April 21, 2012 by inquiringmind

[TAO]

Some lies are bigger that others.

It boggles my mind, that you would dismiss out of hand, with a LOL to boot, the fact that the wife of the prophet, the woman who is expressly named in the Sec 132, would deny the existence and therefor the divine source of the revelation.

Jaybear, I think you took my comment a tad too seriously. =p

Edited April 21, 2012 by TAO

[inquiringmind]

Based on the lack of progeny of Joseph Smith by any of Joseph's wives other than Emma, I suspect that Emma's understanding of how Joseph actually practiced plural marriage may have been more accurate than Brigham's understanding. Therefore, I do not think it inconceivable that in Emma's mind, Joseph did not practice polygamy as taught by Brigham. On the other hand, I suspect that Brigham certainly had a different perspective of how the Lord wanted plural Marriage than Emma. Based on their own unique understanding, viewpoint and circumstances, they were both correct ... at least in their own mind.

That is interesting.

Thank you.

Edited April 21, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Alan]

I sometimes wonder whether Joseph was allowed to die at Carthage because he had taken things are far as he was prepared too regarding plural marriage. He had had a number of women sealed to him but would go no further. He had no marital relations with them because he didn't want to, it wasn't his understanding of the doctrine, and he would not have hurt Emma anyway.

He had the keys, had obeyed the letter of the law, but was not prepared to enter into the spirit of it.

He gave the keys to the apostles, died at Carthage, and the apostles took over. They were prepared to go the whole hog.

[inquiringmind]

I sometimes wonder whether Joseph was allowed to die at Carthage because he had taken things are far as he was prepared too regarding plural marriage. He had had a number of women sealed to him but would go no further. He had no marital relations with them because he didn't want to, it wasn't his understanding of the doctrine, and he would not have hurt Emma anyway.

He had the keys, had obeyed the letter of the law, but was not prepared to enter into the spirit of it.

He gave the keys to the apostles, died at Carthage, and the apostles took over. They were prepared to go the whole hog.

But why was that a good thing if polygamy was a sin from 600 B.C. to 400 A.D., and would again be a sin after 1912?

If polygamy was important enough to threaten a prophet's life (by an angel with a drawn sword), and allow him to die, what was it important when the Book of Mormon was being written, and why isn't it important today?

Why would God insist on it for only 68 years?

[Log]

But why was that a good thing if polygamy was a sin from 600 B.C. to 400 A.D., and would again be a sin after 1912?

If polygamy was important enough to threaten a prophet's life (by an angel with a drawn sword), and allow him to die, what was it important when the Book of Mormon was being written, and why isn't it important today?

Why would God insist on it for only 68 years?

The answer is here.

[inquiringmind]

The answer is here.

I already read that.

From what I remember, the argument is that rumors of polygamy had nothing to do with the persecution Latter Day Saints survived in Ohio, Missouri, or Illinois, and when they got away from their enemies and established a more or less isolated community of their own in the Salt Lake Valley, their enemies would have somehow wiped them out of existence if they weren't polygamists.

Somehow, their enemies would hate polygamy less then the idea that these people claimed God was talking to them, would forget about that claim once they started practicing polygamy (even though the practice of polygamy was based on the claim that God spoke to Joseph Smith), and would let them go on existing after they stopped practicing polygamy (which God probably didn't like all that much anyway) in 1912.

Is that right?

I'll re-read the paper if you like, but I didn't find that argument all that convincing.

[LDS_RM]

But why was that a good thing if polygamy was a sin from 600 B.C. to 400 A.D., and would again be a sin after 1912?

If polygamy was important enough to threaten a prophet's life (by an angel with a drawn sword), and allow him to die, what was it important when the Book of Mormon was being written, and why isn't it important today?

Why would God insist on it for only 68 years?

The answer is here.

God allowed the Saints of the time make the choice. God did not demand nor command that polygamy be stopped. The answer to the polygamy issue and its end is found in the Official statements inthe D&C and not in some article by Elden J Watson.

Also it is not known that polygamy was a sin from 600bc to 400AD.

Edited April 21, 2012 by LDS_RM

[Log]

That is certainly one way to characterize the paper - but does not adequately capture its essence.

Amongst some more commonly understood reasons, the Lord had Joseph Smith institute the practice of plural marriage in Nauvoo in preparation for the confrontation which he knew would eventually be devised to destroy the Church. During the 50 intervening years, the Lord gradually diverted the animosity being directed against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from that of members of the Church having direct communication and revelation from God to that of the Saints practicing plural marriage. He did this in order that when the confrontation came and the Church was in imminent peril of destruction, the Church would have something that it could give up, thus allowing its adversaries to win their crusade and back off their persecution. Being in direct communication with God was a principle that could not be given up because on that principle the entire structure of the Church rests. Plural marriage, on the other hand, could be given up, since it was for that very purpose that it was instigated. It is presumed that none of the prophets from Joseph Smith to Wilford Woodruff were aware of this hidden purpose of the Lord, since it would have severely weakened the position the Church had taken.

When the time was critical, the Lord had Wilford Woodruff issue the Manifesto giving up the practice (not principle) of plural marriage, effecting the salvation of the Church and insuring it’s continued growth and prosperity. Issuance of the manifesto fulfilled the purpose for instituting the practice of plural marriage in the Church, and it was the intent of the Lord that the practice then be stopped.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Log

[Log]

The answer to the polygamy issue and its end is found in the Official statements inthe D&C and not in some article by Elden J Watson.

Either you're answering a different question than was asked, or you did not read the question.

[inquiringmind]

Also it is not known that polygamy was a sin from 600bc to 400AD.

According to the Book of Mormon, Lehi left Jerusalem around 600 B.C., and commanded his children to have no more than one wife, and no concubines.

His son Jacob talks at great length about what a sin polygamy is for them at that time (B.C.), and tells his people they're to keep their father Lehi's commandment unless God tells them otherwise.

There's no indication that He ever did, and the chronology of the Book of Mormon indicates that the Nephite civilization ended around 400 A.D.

So the conclusion would seem to be that polygamy was a sin (at least here in the western hemisphere) from 600 B.C. to 400 A.D.

God allowed the Saints of the time make the choice. God did not demand nor command that polygamy be stopped

I was under the impression it's been an excommunicatable offense since 1912?

Wouldn't that mean God wanted it stopped?

Edited April 21, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Log]

His son Jacob talks at great length about what a sin polygamy is for them at that time (B.C.), and tells his people they're to keep their father Lehi's commandment unless God tells them otherwise.

There's no indication that He ever did.

Now, in this case, absence of evidence is truly not evidence of absence.

[epiginosko]

Because they were not his wives as we understand it, and he had no sexual relations with them.

So how then does that relate to the explanation for polygamy given in Section 132: 34 "God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises. 35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay, for I, the Lord, commanded it."

I have often marveled at the similarities between Joseph Smith and Abraham in this regard. Both prophets of a dispensation. Both married to a woman by whom they struggled to bear posterity. According to the reports, Fannie Alger may have been Joseph Smith's first plural wife. And what was her station? Handmaiden to the Smiths. Furthermore, when did Joseph Smith receive the revelation on plural marriage? While translating the Book of Abraham.

Similar to how Smith began to ponder the matter of baptism by authority while translating the Book of Mormon, is it possible that Joseph Smith began to inquire of the Lord as to the law of plural marriage during his translation of the Book of Abraham, thereby receiving this instruction?

Furthermore, is it is possible that Joseph Smith did not carry out the revelation in the manner which the Lord would have had him do because of Emma's antagonism? I'm not degrading her in any manner. Certainly her reaction was normal to the proposition. However, had she gone along with it from the start, is it possible that Joseph Smith would have born numerous posterity through plural relations? As quoted above, the Lord seemingly permitted it.

Finally, why has it become important to the contemporary Church that Joseph Smith did not have sexual relations with any of his "spiritual wives?" Is it because of his denial of practicing the principle? Or is it because of the negative stigma of plural marriage with sexual immorality ?