Book Notice: Brian Hale'S 3-Volume "Joseph Smith'S Polygamy"

[Daniel Peterson]

Could she have just relented to the powers that be? How many times did she say no? Therefore by the time Brigham married her she must have felt that saying no means nothing. That's NOT choice!

Am I wrong in seeing the comment above as beginning with a hypothetical possibility and ending with a declarative certainty, without any actual evidence being interposed between beginning and end?

[ALarson]

It was Zina's decision, first to refuse and then to accept....to suggest that she was just some poor victim with no mind of her own is to diminish her and every other woman who proactively made the decision to live plural marriage.

My question isn't regarding polygamy, it's regarding her polyandrous marriage to Brigham. I'm not diminishing her decision to live plural marriage.

I'm just wondering why the need for a 2nd polyandrous marriage sealing for time only to Brigham Young? She was already sealed to Joseph for time & all eternity. She was currently married to Henry who was an active member of the church and who she was having children with.

Why did Brigham agree to this or even want this?

[Calm]

Why did Brigham agree to this or even want this?

I can't remember if those church leaders whom the widows of JS chose (those widows that did so choose, some did not take advantage of the offer IIRC) to step in as more or less levirate 'brothers' were generally sealed only for time or if they were sealed for eternity. If for eternity, it would make sense for me that they simply saw it was a resealing with Joseph with them as a proxy such as would happen in a levirate marriage where a brother would marry a widow in order for her to bear a child for the deceased.

They did repeat of baptisms as they felt the need arise for among other things a sense of recommitment to the Lord's work, so it would not surprise me if they looked on sealings in the same way...as being repeated to demonstrated renewed commitment.

However, unless there is something that states this somewhere it is all speculation.

Edited February 7, 2013 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

Am I wrong in seeing the comment above as beginning with a hypothetical possibility and ending with a declarative certainty, without any actual evidence being interposed between beginning and end?

A deep seated distrust of anyone that won't take no for an answer, sorry.

[Daniel Peterson]

A deep seated distrust of anyone that won't take no for an answer, sorry.

But do you have any actual reason for supposing that to have been a factor in this case?

[webbles]

My question isn't regarding polygamy, it's regarding her polyandrous marriage to Brigham. I'm not diminishing her decision to live plural marriage.

I'm just wondering why the need for a 2nd polyandrous marriage sealing for time only to Brigham Young? She was already sealed to Joseph for time & all eternity. She was currently married to Henry who was an active member of the church and who she was having children with.

Why did Brigham agree to this or even want this?

Pure speculation ahead: Maybe because Zina didn't really like Henry? She was first approached by Joseph Smith. She didn't like that idea and she got married to Henry to prevent it. Then, she decided that that was a bad idea and so she accepted Joseph. Then when Joseph dies, she asks Brigham to act as proxy in the resealing because she still doesn't like Henry. Then she finally decides she doesn't want to be with Henry anymore and she tells Brigham to help her.

This could be similar to his relationship with Mary Woodward. She was divorced from her husband (who was LDS) on the grounds of physical cruelty and then she was married to Brigham Young (in 1846, same year as Zina's). Her husband then convinced her to come back to him and so she asked Brigham for a divorce which he did in 1847 but she still kept open the option that if her husband was again abusive to her that she'd go back to Brigham. (most of this is from http://www.dialoguej...e_V20N03_59.pdf, page 8 ).

Edited February 7, 2013 by webbles

[Tacenda]

But do you have any actual reason for supposing that to have been a factor in this case?

No, only a sense that no means no.

[Calm]

A deep seated distrust of anyone that won't take no for an answer, sorry.

There were other cases where "no" was accepted for an answer though so why do you think this case is different?

[Tacenda]

There were other cases where "no" was accepted for an answer though so why do you think this case is different?

I'm going to bow out of commenting any further because I tend to get banned whenever it's a thread like this since this whole issue is the biggest faith hurdle I have and I can't accept the thought of JS telling someone that God is commanding polygamy or an angel with a drawn sword is threatening to take their life. Whatever happened to free agency? Edited February 7, 2013 by Tacenda

[Calm]

I'm going to bow out of commenting any further because I tend to get banned whenever it's a thread like this since this whole issue is the biggest faith hurdle I have and I can't accept the thought of JS telling someone that God is commanding polygamy or an angel with a drawn sword is threatening to take their life. Whatever happened to free agency?

There are plenty of times in life where we are faced with choices that put our lives at risk....do we decide to smoke or take drugs for the fun of it even knowing the health risks or do we join the military to protect others at the risk of our own lives for example. If it was just the threat of death that took away our free agency (I prefer just "agency" myself as adding "free" adds connotations that are incorrect imo), then I don't think we could honestly claim that we are actually moral agents for ourselves.

I don't know if this will help you clarify your ideas about agency, but there is a book by Viktor Frankl that might help, Man's Search for Meaning. It in part describes how he found true meaning and freedom in what would appear to most people to be one of the less free and meaningful existences possible, a Nazi prison camp. Frankl observed that the people who survived in the camp were the ones who looked at life as something they could control (among other things) rather than something that controlled them even when they were in such a physically restricted environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man%27s_Search_for_Meaning

Edited February 7, 2013 by calmoriah

[Hamba Tuhan]

I can't accept the thought of JS telling someone that God is commanding polygamy or an angel with a drawn sword is threatening to take their life. Whatever happened to free agency?

Agency doesn't disappear just because the Lord says, 'Thou shalt' or 'Thou shalt not'. In fact, it's in those very moments that our agency is most active.

[Calm]

Agency doesn't disappear just because the Lord says, 'Thou shalt' or 'Thou shalt not'. In fact, it's in those very moments that our agency is most active.

Well said.

[Tacenda]

Agency doesn't disappear just because the Lord says, 'Thou shalt' or 'Thou shalt not'. In fact, it's in those very moments that our agency is most active.

I've heard it said once, can't remember where now, that Joseph may have been given a test and maybe he failed by living polygamy instead of using his agency to say no.

[Calm]

I've heard it said once, can't remember where now, that Joseph may have been given a test and maybe he failed by living polygamy instead of using his agency to say no.

Perhaps, but considering section 132 it seems unlikely. Plus from the way God treated Joseph in the past, God wasn't shy about telling Joseph when he failed at something....why not this time? Edited February 7, 2013 by calmoriah

[Hamba Tuhan]

I've heard it said once, can't remember where now, that Joseph may have been given a test and maybe he failed by living polygamy instead of using his agency to say no.

I've likewise read on apostate message boards that Abraham similarly failed a test when he didn't tell the Lord to take a leap off the nearest cliff.

[omni]

Pure speculation ahead: Maybe because Zina didn't really like Henry? She was first approached by Joseph Smith. She didn't like that idea and she got married to Henry to prevent it. Then, she decided that that was a bad idea and so she accepted Joseph. Then when Joseph dies, she asks Brigham to act as proxy in the resealing because she still doesn't like Henry. Then she finally decides she doesn't want to be with Henry anymore and she tells Brigham to help her.

Wow! The mental gymnastics needed to accept polyandry. Anybody else need some tape to wrap their sprained brains?

[Daniel Peterson]

I've got some tape to help you with your brain injury, omni. Just drop me a note and we'll make arrangements for you to come by and get it.

[webbles]

Wow! The mental gymnastics needed to accept polyandry. Anybody else need some tape to wrap their sprained brains?

No, I think I'm doing pretty good But considering the facts we do have and that I do consider Zina to be a powerful woman, why not? I don't think we have any facts that can prove or disprove what I speculated (and as I pointed out, it is pure speculation and I'm perfectly fine with it not being true).

Edited February 7, 2013 by webbles

[awyatt]

I'm going to bow out of commenting any further because I tend to get banned whenever it's a thread like this since this whole issue is the biggest faith hurdle I have and I can't accept the thought of JS telling someone that God is commanding polygamy or an angel with a drawn sword is threatening to take their life. Whatever happened to free agency?

I understand the passion, and in such cases it probably is best to bow out. My own studies of primary documents has led me to conclude there was no compulsion or coercion by JS in these matters. He always taught the principles, and told those he taught to not take his word for it, but ask God. Some left, true, but most received their own witness and exercised their own agency.

Those who abhor polygamy (and I understand there are many who do) find it virtually impossible to understand how anyone--especially women--could freely exercise their agency to accept the thing they abhor.

-Allen

[Calm]

or an angel with a drawn sword is threatening to take their life.

In case you are still reading the the thread, while I do agree the idea of talking about an angel with a drawn sword threatening to take someone's life is intimidating, you do remember that the only person's whose life was ever threatened in such a fashion was Joseph Smith, not any of the women?

“An angel came to him [Joseph Smith] and the last time he came with a drawn sword in his hand and told Joseph if he did not go into that principle, he would slay him. Joseph said he talked to him soberly about it, and told him it was an abomination and quoted scripture to him. He said in the Book of Mormon it was an abomination in the eyes of the Lord, and they were to adhere to these things except the Lord speak… [The Prophet reported that] the angel came to me three times between the years of 1834 and 1842 and said I was to obey that principle or he would slay me.”[9]

The women could have responded---and some apparently did---somewhere along the lines of 'live the principle if you must but do it with someone else' without fear of the prophet being killed as he was fulfilling his side of the commandment by his own willingness to teach and accept it.

http://www.josephsmithspolygamy.com/MISCFiles/JSKnewPMwasDifficult.html

[Tacenda]

In case you are still reading the the thread, while I do agree the idea of talking about an angel with a drawn sword threatening to take someone's life is intimidating, you do remember that the only person's whose life was ever threatened in such a fashion was Joseph Smith, not any of the women?

The women could have responded---and some apparently did---somewhere along the lines of 'live the principle if you must but do it with someone else' without fear of the prophet being killed as he was fulfilling his side of the commandment by his own willingness to teach and accept it.

http://www.josephsmi...sDifficult.html

In the D & C 132 section it threatens Emma's life to be taken. And JS wasn't commanded to have polygamy restored, in the beginning JS went to the Lord to ask if it should be restored. If you don't want something, why would you go to the Lord and ask if it should be restored? Edited February 7, 2013 by Tacenda

[Calm]

In the D & C 132 section it threatens Emma's life to be taken. And JS wasn't commanded to have polygamy restored, in the beginning JS went to the Lord to ask if it should be restored. If you don't want something, why would you go to the Lord and ask if it should be restored?

To seek greater understanding for what is and isn't required in the restoration of all things.

I asked the Stake President if my husband had to shave his beard when he got called hoping he would say "no". My hope was not fulfilled, but that didn't decrease my desire for him not to have to shave it at all. People do ask questions about things they fear they have to do because they want to do the right thing no matter what and if they get answered in the negative (as in "no, you don't have to do it"), they no longer have to worry about it.

add-on: there are those who operate on a 'what you don't know can't hurt you' or 'it is better to ask for forgiveness than permission' philosophy; there are others who believe being prepared is the better approach, knowing what is expected of them.

If one doesn't seek the Lord's Will on all things, how will one learn what is expected? If one only chooses to seek the Lord's Will on what one wants to do, then it is clear that one really doesn't care about what the Lord thinks is most important and only want confirmation of what one thinks is important.

CFR on he asked if it needed to be restored as his first approach to God on the matter. I know he asked about why God permitted Abraham, etc. to practice it...which is not an unusual question by anyone reading the Old Testament, is it?

Edited February 7, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

In the D & C 132 section it threatens Emma's life to be taken.

But not with the angel with the sword...you used "their" when referring to the angel when it only occurred for one person. And it says she will be "destroyed", not "killed"...considering the way destruction is tied to obedience in the scriptures, she is much more likely to have understood this to mean spiritual destruction...though if I were her I certainly would have been concerned about avoiding destruction in all ways.

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.

How many times in the scriptures does it say that those who don't obey God's commandments will be destroyed? This is not an unusual verse in that sense. Are you saying that God was wrong to use such language ever or only in this case?

[Tacenda]

delete

Edited February 7, 2013 by Tacenda

[Calm]

Sorry, don't mean to push you into something that it is better for you not to have to process at the moment. Since my comments are only for the purpose of trying to lighten your heart about something that troubles you deeply...not to prove a certain point is right even if my tone appears to be rather lecturing...please feel free whenever you need to tell me to 'shut up'.

Edited February 7, 2013 by calmoriah