Wrestling With Polyandry

[Teancum]

Maybe God did have plenty to do with it. It doesn't put my world view in jeopardy any more than Abraham being commanded to sacrifice Isaac does. That was his trial not mine. Polygamy was the early Saints trial. I am glad it is not mine. Who knows what trials the Saints will have a hundred plus years into the future.

Why do we need to be tried in barbaric ways? I am not convinced the the Abraham story is anything more than myth. And why was it up to Joseph Smith to test the saints in this way? The Heber Kimball give me your wife test comes to mind. How strange and cruel that was. Sure we have agency, free will or whatever you want to call it.

[Calm]

Do you give equal credence

I cannot judge whether or not they had the experiences they claimed. I am saying that if one allows the possibility of spiritual experiences, then one cannot simply dismiss Joseph's behaviour as if that is all there is to consider. One needs to consider as well the spiritual witnesses of those who participated...and those who did not.

[Calm]

How strange and cruel that was.

If life made sense, why would we need God? Reason would be sufficient.

[thesometimesaint]

Why do we need to be tried in barbaric ways? I am not convinced the the Abraham story is anything more than myth. And why was it up to Joseph Smith to test the saints in this way? The Heber Kimball give me your wife test comes to mind. How strange and cruel that was. Sure we have agency, free will or whatever you want to call it.

Why is it anymore barbaric than the ways we are tried today?

A myth? Yes. He lived a long time ago in a world vastly different than the one we live in now. But the human condition hasn't change all that much for a lot longer time. How do we follow the commandments of God with the trials we are given. Believe me I have more than enough of my own to worry about, and not have to also worry about the trials a person long dead had to face.

Apostles and Prophets are generally the ones whom do challenge us when it comes to the things of God.

That was a trial for Heber Kimball, but he followed what he believed was Gods' command. He was blessed for it.

Was that any more cruel than some one's family member with Alzheimer's disease? Sometimes the trial isn't for the person having the trial but for those whom love them.

We have Agency in how we deal with our problems and trials as we will. We are not the trial, but how we react is the person we have become.

[ERayR]

You answered your own question. ""Really it all boils down to whether one really believes God told Joseph to do this or not".

IT all boils down to choice.

[ERayR]

.

Yep. And to consider that maybe God really had nothing to do with it puts that world view in jeopardy.

And to consider the maybe he really did puts your whole world view in jeopardy. Yep one really must choose, right or wrong you must declare yourself.

[canard78]

Yet "God" knew what would occur as the result of polygany (the Church never practiced polyandry): the religion would go into the wilderness and thrive and become the fourth of the great "Abrahamic religions", distinctly fresh and unique, and become a great influence in the world for much good. So a manmade religion, again, accomplishes something that seems to be a greater whole than the sum of its parts. That tells me well enough that "God" is behind all of it. Even if all of us, beginning with JS, make many assumptions vis-a-vis what "God" is telling us....

So polygamy was the equivalent of 'pharaoh's whip' that chased Brigham and Israel into the wilderness and became an instrument in their persecution complex leading to their siege mentality and eventual strengthening? What was polyandry for then?

[thesometimesaint]

Or he simply saw the pragmatism of surrendering, if God knew the church would ultimately give it up why didn't he have John Taylor abolish it sooner rather than letter President Taylor die in hiding. Seem like pretty sloppy planning.

God is pragmatic. He works through the Saints however imperfect and prone to error we are.

Sometimes just starting the journey is more important than arriving at the destination.

Gods' plan is to have us return to him with experiences that make us more like him.

D&C 122:8

Son of Man hath ^bdescended below them all. Art thou greater than he?

Edited June 10, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[why me]

I don't agree that people don't criticize other promiscuous activity. I certainly don't support promiscuity. As for your comment about worrying too much about plural marriage well great if that works for you. But for me we are dealing with people who instituted doctrine claiming God spoke to them and in this case even to the point of claiming an angel was sent with sword in hand to kill Joseph if he did not institute plural marriage. I

The angel with a sword also appeard in the bible:

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

But David could not go before it to inquire of God: for he was afraid because of the sword of the angel of the LORD.

1 Chronicles 21:30

What can be said about an angel with a sword? Maybe we can say that he was a scary sight.

[why me]

Do you give equal credence to the women who rejected Smith's proposals and to those who turned against him because of polygamy? Do you think that given the position some women were in, the fact that they were young, that there whole lives were tied to the LDS church, that their families were immersed in the church, that the man making the proposal was viewed by them as a prophet and by all accounts was rather charismatic?

Well, I don't know. But what I do know is this: those who initially said no, after they prayed about the principle received a very strong spiritual experience that the principle was true. What to do with that? Of course we can always make comparisons. But at the end of the day, I will have to believe the women who claimed receiving a strong spiritual experience that the principle was true after praying about it. Also, I know of no women who was sealed to him who said a negative word about him after he was murdered. Now 33 women cannot be wrong.

[why me]

So polygamy was the equivalent of 'pharaoh's whip' that chased Brigham and Israel into the wilderness and became an instrument in their persecution complex leading to their siege mentality and eventual strengthening? What was polyandry for then?

For Joseph, polygamy was not about sex. For him, it was about kinship among other things. If it was about sex, I think that Joseph could have gotten some three counties over in a brothel. Or on his trips east. I don't think that he was hard up when it came to sex with emma. He did not have to be sealed to 33 women in a two year period for sex. Also, the relatives of the women all knew about the sealings. They were in on it.

However, I do believe that mistakes were made along the way.

[Teancum]

And to consider the maybe he really did puts your whole world view in jeopardy. Yep one really must choose, right or wrong you must declare yourself.

Well Eray I used to be of your view about this, that God must have told JS to practice plural marriage. I tried hard to reconcile what seemed to me to be an abuse, especially for some of the younger brides JS took and especially for the polyandry. I tried to reconcile the idea BY taught that a women could leave a lesser powerful priesthood male for one of higher power, I tried. I just could no longer do it with integrity. My conclusion is that this was not of God. Maybe JS believed it was. Who knows. But I don't. And it sure did rock my world view. To be able to accept it would certainly restore perhaps a large part of it. I have tried. So far no success.

[Teancum]

Well, I don't know. But what I do know is this: those who initially said no, after they prayed about the principle received a very strong spiritual experience that the principle was true. What to do with that? Of course we can always make comparisons. But at the end of the day, I will have to believe the women who claimed receiving a strong spiritual experience that the principle was true after praying about it. Also, I know of no women who was sealed to him who said a negative word about him after he was murdered. Now 33 women cannot be wrong.

First of all no Why me, there were women who said no to JS and continued to say no. Tell me Why me, what happened to Nancy Rigdon and Martha Brotherton for refusing to enter into a plural marriage?

Next you dodge the question as did the poster I put the question to. So if most the women Wayne Bent entered into a polygamous marriage believe this was God sanctioned can they be wrong? Do you accept their testimony? If not why?

[Questing Beast]

So polygamy was the equivalent of 'pharaoh's whip' that chased Brigham and Israel into the wilderness and became an instrument in their persecution complex leading to their siege mentality and eventual strengthening? What was polyandry for then?

As polyandry was never applied to the Church, or even to any other individuals than JS, I consider polyandry to be one of JS's palpable errors in judgment. He got into the plural wives thing very quickly and all at once, after he stopped dragging his feet so to speak. It happened so quickly and in such profusion that I doubt JS had much time to consider the effects of his wife-taking. Somehow the afterlife trumped the "raising up seed" part, making sealings by priesthood trump legal, secular marriages. That the two injunctions got combined only makes sense. But it sure is scandalous, ain't it? Polyandry was a mistake....

[ERayR]

Well Eray I used to be of your view about this, that God must have told JS to practice plural marriage. I tried hard to reconcile what seemed to me to be an abuse, especially for some of the younger brides JS took and especially for the polyandry. I tried to reconcile the idea BY taught that a women could leave a lesser powerful priesthood male for one of higher power, I tried. I just could no longer do it with integrity. My conclusion is that this was not of God. Maybe JS believed it was. Who knows. But I don't. And it sure did rock my world view. To be able to accept it would certainly restore perhaps a large part of it. I have tried. So far no success.

As I have noted elsewhere what one chooses to accept and what one chooses to reject certainly affects ones world view. I have also noted that this existence is one of sifting and sorting to attain ones comfort level. I would certainly not, nor have I ask, you to accept anything outside your comfort level. Yet you have consistently derided and denigrated that which is obviously within the comfort level of others. Why would you do that?

[ERayR]

As polyandry was never applied to the Church, or even to any other individuals than JS, I consider polyandry to be one of JS's palpable errors in judgment. He got into the plural wives thing very quickly and all at once, after he stopped dragging his feet so to speak. It happened so quickly and in such profusion that I doubt JS had much time to consider the effects of his wife-taking. Somehow the afterlife trumped the "raising up seed" part, making sealings by priesthood trump legal, secular marriages. That the two injunctions got combined only makes sense. But it sure is scandalous, ain't it? Polyandry was a mistake....

It may very well have been. I am sure JS made some errors and if it gives you a level at which you can be comfortable then so be it. Just respect someone else who is comfortable with other answers. None living that I know of sat in those councils or participated in those doings.

[ERayR]

Well Eray I used to be of your view about this, that God must have told JS to practice plural marriage. I tried hard to reconcile what seemed to me to be an abuse, especially for some of the younger brides JS took and especially for the polyandry. I tried to reconcile the idea BY taught that a women could leave a lesser powerful priesthood male for one of higher power, I tried. I just could no longer do it with integrity. My conclusion is that this was not of God. Maybe JS believed it was. Who knows. But I don't. And it sure did rock my world view. To be able to accept it would certainly restore perhaps a large part of it. I have tried. So far no success.

I don't believe you really know my view. You don't really seem to care either.

[why me]

First of all no Why me, there were women who said no to JS and continued to say no. Tell me Why me, what happened to Nancy Rigdon and Martha Brotherton for refusing to enter into a plural marriage?

Next you dodge the question as did the poster I put the question to. So if most the women Wayne Bent entered into a polygamous marriage believe this was God sanctioned can they be wrong? Do you accept their testimony? If not why?

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Women_locked_in_a_room

I think that the case of Martha is quite interesting. But unfortunately since Martha came under the influence of John C. Bennett, it is rather difficult to distinguish fact from fiction. She did quite well with her sensationalism. But she is tainted by Bennett's influence.

However Nancy is someone who I know very little about. I do know that she said no to Joseph proposal. However, I have no idea about her life. Tell us more about her.

[why me]

Next you dodge the question as did the poster I put the question to. So if most the women Wayne Bent entered into a polygamous marriage believe this was God sanctioned can they be wrong? Do you accept their testimony? If not why?

This all comes down to a matter of faith. I do trust the women who prayed about the principle after joseph asked them to be sealed to them. I think that they did have a huge spiritual experience to keep them faithful to the principle. Also, mormons are not living in a compound with a few hundred members. They belong to a successful church that is now in most countries of the world. The lds church is a success. Is that god's work? I can let you decide.

[DonBradley]

For Joseph, polygamy was not about sex.

I agree that Joseph Smith's polygamy does not boil down to sex.

However, I think marriage in general is almost always at least partly about sex. And I have trouble seeing polygamy as somehow an exception to that rule.

If Joseph Smith was completely unmoved by sexual motives when it came to his marriage choices, there was something wrong with him. For that to be the case, he would've had to be an asexual ascetic. We don't expect this sort of detachment and asexuality in monogamy. So why expect it in polygamy?

However, I do believe that mistakes were made along the way.

Agreed.

Don

[why me]

I agree that Joseph Smith's polygamy does not boil down to sex.

However, I think marriage in general is almost always at least partly about sex. And I have trouble seeing polygamy as somehow an exception to that rule.

If Joseph Smith was completely unmoved by sexual motives when it came to his marriage choices, there was something wrong with him. For that to be the case, he would've had to be an asexual ascetic. We don't expect this sort of detachment and asexuality in monogamy. So why expect it in polygamy?

Don

But we do have a problem. It seems that Joseph was not amorous with his plural wives. I see no love letters. No words of affection. It doesn't seem like a 'love' thing at all. His polygamy comes across as a matter of duty, something that needed to be done. Now if this were the case, sex would become rather meaningless and certainly nothing that would keep him fulfilled. And the women involved would sense a louse somewhere in the bedroom. And so, we have an enigma. Why initiate polygamy after such a disaster with fanny? What was behind it? Sex? Was this the main event? I don't think so. I see no ascetics involved.

[Teancum]

I don't believe you really know my view. You don't really seem to care either.

.

I honestly do not know what you are talking about when you say I do not care. As for knowing your view I assumed you beleive God sanctioned JSs plural marriage I but my assumption could be wrong. Feel free to correct me. Above you also accuse me of not being kind or respectful of others views to the point of deriding and being disrespectful. I disagree. I rarely post here and when I do I try to be respectful. But if you can give me specific examples I would be happy to work on it. I am sure in the heat of debate I have been pointed or sharp with some here and there especially to those who are towards me or others, but I think it is not often.

[Teancum]

This all comes down to a matter of faith. I do trust the women who prayed about the principle after joseph asked them to be sealed to them. I think that they did have a huge spiritual experience to keep them faithful to the principle. Also, mormons are not living in a compound with a few hundred members. They belong to a successful church that is now in most countries of the world. The lds church is a success. Is that god's work? I can let you decide.

Thank you why me in showing me that other women in other sects claim of personal witnesses about some sort of aberhent marriage system carries no weight with you. Only those who married JS in his plural marriage doctrine. So yes it is all a matter of faith.

[Glenn101]

I agree that Joseph Smith's polygamy does not boil down to sex.

However, I think marriage in general is almost always at least partly about sex. And I have trouble seeing polygamy as somehow an exception to that rule.

If Joseph Smith was completely unmoved by sexual motives when it came to his marriage choices, there was something wrong with him. For that to be the case, he would've had to be an asexual ascetic. We don't expect this sort of detachment and asexuality in monogamy. So why expect it in polygamy?

Don

Don,

I would think that Joseph probably was physically attracted to some of his plural wives. However I do not think it was the driving force. And I do expect that if Joseph had lived to see the Saints to the Rocky Mountains, he would have established his plural wives much the way that Brigham Young did. I do not believe that this would have included any type of cohabitation with those women to who he was sealed to for eternity that were married civilly to other men.

It is my opinion that Joseph was sage enough to wait for that time (the Rocky Mountain experience) because of his words to Lucy Walker that he could not acknowledge her as his wife until the Saints were beyond the Rocky Mountains.

Glenn

[Tacenda]

Don,

I would think that Joseph probably was physically attracted to some of his plural wives. However I do not think it was the driving force. And I do expect that if Joseph had lived to see the Saints to the Rocky Mountains, he would have established his plural wives much the way that Brigham Young did. I do not believe that this would have included any type of cohabitation with those women to who he was sealed to for eternity that were married civilly to other men.

It is my opinion that Joseph was sage enough to wait for that time (the Rocky Mountain experience) because of his words to Lucy Walker that he could not acknowledge her as his wife until the Saints were beyond the Rocky Mountains.

Glenn

If he had made it to the Rocky Mountains do you think Emma would have been able to withstand that openess? And would he have married several more like BY did?

Also, all of it makes sense when we put into the context that men will become Gods or just a few righteous enough will. There were plenty of men available for the women to marry with no need for polygamy, and polyandry apparently was put forth because JS was the most righteous of all or any current prophet if polygamy was practiced with the living still. These two prophets were starting their kingdoms here on earth. And soon it apparently spread that the rest of them started their kingdoms also. It is the only plausible reason for plural marriage, it is key. The loophole being that some of the polyandry wives had righteous husbands so the need for a marriage to JS seem bizarre, unless it was just to be able to live in His kingdom, maybe that's why he married sisters, and mother/daughter combinations to keep them together, but the bible condemns such, therefore it may have been time for JS to be destroyed for disobeying. But apparently BY lived polyandry and wasn't destroyed, so it's a big question mark of why not.

Edited June 11, 2013 by Tacenda