Brigham Young?

[Coreyb]

Yes it does.

Ask the Temple President next time you go.

 

 

Note: I have already asked this question.

this is ignorant. This "legal and lawful " in regards to civil law idea is a modern standard. It only became required in the post second manifesto years when the church was trying to stamp out polygamy.

[Alan]

this is ignorant. This "legal and lawful " in regards to civil law idea is a modern standard. It only became required in the post second manifesto years when the church was trying to stamp out polygamy.

 

I don't appreciate being labelled "ignorant", but I'll let it pass.

 

That's quite a good explanation Coreyb........... CFR?

Edited February 18, 2014 by Alan

[Alan]

Well, then we would do like we always do in the Church, and assume "further light and knowledge on the subject" was received by the leaders. 

 And as such, then even Utah Polygamy would have come from God. 

 

Thank you.

At last someone who is actually addressing my question rather than lambasting me because I differ in my view of Joseph Smith's sex-life!

 

I edited out your last sentence as that is an issue all by itself and probably deserves it's own thread.

 

So, we could assume "further light and knowledge" on the subject. What would that look like?

[Alan]

After reading the response in the post above, I'm done discussing this with Alan.  No amount of evidence or proof or just plain old common sense gets through to him.  Believe what you wish, Alan. You have every right to do so.

 

I do, you're right.

Thank you for acknowledging that.

I can't understand why everyone gets so hot under the collar because I have different views on the subject of plural marriage as it relates to Joseph. It just amazes me.

And this thread was not even especially about that subject!!!   

[JLHPROF]

Thank you.

At last someone who is actually addressing my question rather than lambasting me because I differ in my view of Joseph Smith's sex-life!

 

I edited out your last sentence as that is an issue all by itself and probably deserves it's own thread.

 

So, we could assume "further light and knowledge" on the subject. What would that look like?

 

The same way further light and knowledge is presented to the church right now.  Announcements in General Conference, press releases, changes in teachings from the GA's, and on the very rare occasion, a written revelation on the subject.

 

I think Orson Pratt's 1852 announcement of polygamy to the world qualifies in the same vein as Spencer W. Kimball's announcement of the end of the priesthood ban was announced to the Church and read by N. Eldon Tanner.  And we have every bit as much evidence to accept one as coming from God as the other.

[Alan]

The same way further light and knowledge is presented to the church right now.  Announcements in General Conference, press releases, changes in teachings from the GA's, and on the very rare occasion, a written revelation on the subject.

 

I think Orson Pratt's 1852 announcement of polygamy to the world qualifies in the same vein as Spencer W. Kimball's announcement of the end of the priesthood ban was announced to the Church and read by N. Eldon Tanner.  And we have every bit as much evidence to accept one as coming from God as the other.

 

I think this is a tad over simplified. So you're saying that further light and truth doesn't come through revelation especially, it can come through announcements, press releases, changes in GA's teachings. I don't believe that. It isn't scriptural and isn't the doctrine of the church.

Also, incidently, Pratt's announcement was backed up with a written revelation, Tanner's wasn't. The 1978 announcement was simply a letter stating the change, it wasn't the revelation document.

 

Anyway, no one seems to be interested in the OP, they just want to debate me about unproveable nonsense regarding Joseph's sex life.

So I'm done with this too.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Alan

[K-2]

Alan, have you read any of Benjamin F. Johnson's writings or statements about plural marriage? When he said that Joseph Smith occupied the same room and bed as his sister, do you think he was lying?

[K-2]

From Benjamin F. Johnson's letter to George S. Gibbs:
 

I know that Joseph was commanded to take more wives, and he waited until an angel with a drawn sword stood before him and declared that if he longer delayed fulfilling that command he would slay him. This was the manner of Brother Hyrum's teaching to me, which I then did not need, as I was fully converted.

 

Meanwhile, the Prophet, with Louisa Beeman and my sister Delcena, had it agreeably arranged with Sister Almera, and after a little instruction she stood by the Prophet's side and was sealed to him as a wife, by Brother Clayton; after which the Prophet asked me to take my sister to occupy room number "10" in his Mansion home during her stay in the city. But as I could not long be absent from my home and business, we soon returned to Ramus, where on the 15th of May, some three weeks later, the Prophet again came and at my house occupied the same room and bed with my sister, that the month previous he had occupied with the daughter of the late Bishop Partridge, as his wife.

 

And at this time he sealed to me my first wife for eternity, and gave to me my first plural wife, Mary Ann Hale, an orphan girl raised by my mother then living with us, who is still with me, and is probably the only wife still living with the man to whom she was given by the Prophet.

 

[JLHPROF]

Alan, have you read any of Benjamin F. Johnson's writings or statements about plural marriage? When he said that Joseph Smith occupied the same room and bed as his sister, do you think he was lying?

 

K-2, not to answer for Alan, but he has repeatedly dismissed all statements about the prophet Joseph having relations with his plural wives as either "not contemporary" recollections, or simply unreliable statements.

 

There are many statements in addition to Johnson's recollections that you provide.

Joseph's plural wife Melissa Lott recalled:

“I did not go to church with Joseph Smith, was never seen on the streets or in public places with him as his wife during his lifetime”.  However, Melissa said they did share intimate moments, and that she was Joseph’s wife, “in very deed”. 

 

Eliza R. Snow told Heber C. Kimball that:

 Brother Heber C. Kimball, I am informed, asked her the question if she was not a virgin although married to Joseph Smith and afterwards to Brigham Young, when she replied in a private gathering, “I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that.”’

 

and while most children who might have been Joseph's have been disproven, they have not all been disproven.  There are still a few that could have been the prophet's child such as Josephine Sessions, not to mention the oft repeated story that Eliza R. Snow was pregnant and lost the child.

http://www.josephsmithspolygamy.com/JSPSexuality/MASTERJSPSexuality.html

http://www.josephsmithspolygamy.com/images/ChartJSPossibleChildren.html

[Alan]

Alan, have you read any of Benjamin F. Johnson's writings or statements about plural marriage? When he said that Joseph Smith occupied the same room and bed as his sister, do you think he was lying?

 

Yes, I do.

[Alan]

 

 not to mention the oft repeated story that Eliza R. Snow was pregnant and lost the child.

 

 

The story is that she was pregnant by Joseph, and Emma threw her down the stairs, thus causing a miscarriage. This is a fabrication.

Richard Price demonstrated this very successfully in his book Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy Volume One. He showed clearly that the solitary so-called eye witness to this event was untruthful because it was impossible to have been standing where he claimed to have been and to have been able to see what he said he saw. It was physically impossible, unless he could see through solid walls and around corners.

 

This is a good example of what I have been saying all along. If we only read one side of the issue we do ourselves a great injustice because we are denying ourselves the opportunity to think it out in our own minds, as we are counselled to do. We end up simply parroting the party line because that is the only one we have ever been exposed to. It's very sad in my view.

 

As for the Heber C. Kimball quote, what does that prove? "I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that" could be interpreted to mean the opposite of what you think it means. In other words, "you know Joseph was a righteous man and was faithful and true to Emma. Why are you asking me this?"

[Tacenda]

The story is that she was pregnant by Joseph, and Emma threw her down the stairs, thus causing a miscarriage. This is a fabrication.

Richard Price demonstrated this very successfully in his book Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy Volume One. He showed clearly that the solitary so-called eye witness to this event was untruthful because it was impossible to have been standing where he claimed to have been and to have been able to see what he said he saw. It was physically impossible, unless he could see through solid walls and around corners.

This is a good example of what I have been saying all along. If we only read one side of the issue we do ourselves a great injustice because we are denying ourselves the opportunity to think it out in our own minds, as we are counselled to do. We end up simply parroting the party line because that is the only one we have ever been exposed to. It's very sad in my view.

As for the Heber C. Kimball quote, what does that prove? "I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that" could be interpreted to mean the opposite of what you think it means. In other words, "you know Joseph was a righteous man and was faithful and true to Emma. Why are you asking me this?"

He doesn't need to see it to know it's happening. Those homes were a lot smaller and staiirs were not very soft back then. Anyone would know if a ruckus had happened and maybe even see the aftermath. But I wasn't there to witness the exact exchange. It could be that they argued and Eliza slipped. Edited February 21, 2014 by Tacenda

[Calm]

He doesn't need to see ot yo know it's happening. Those homes are a lot smaller and staiirs were not very soft back then. Antone would know if a euckus had happened.

Someone can fall down stairs without being pushed. If not seen, but they might believe it happened one way while it was really another.

It is however highly unlikely the story is true. Eliza Snow was recorded as teaching school the day after this allegedly happen. She would not have been physically capable of it if she had been injured as they say.

"The statement that Eliza carried Joseph’s unborn child and lost it [due to an attack by Emma] is brought into question by Eliza’s own journal. While her Victorian reticence probably would have precluded mention of her own pregnancy, if she were indeed carrying Joseph’s child, other evidence in the journal indicates that she may not have been pregnant. Eliza’s brother Lorenzo indicated that by the time she married Joseph, she was “beyond the condition of raising a family.” Also if she was “heavy with child” as the Rich account states, she would not have been teaching school, for even legally married women usually went into seclusion when their pregnancies became obvious. Eliza continued to teach school for a month after her abrupt departure from the Smith household. Her own class attendance record shows that she did not miss a day during the months she taught the Smith children, which would not have been probable had she suffered a miscarriage.[3]"

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives/Eliza_R._Snow/Emma_pushing_Eliza_down_the_stairs

Edited February 21, 2014 by calmoriah

[Alan]

He doesn't need to see it to know it's happening. Those homes were a lot smaller and staiirs were not very soft back then. Anyone would know if a ruckus had happened and maybe even see the aftermath. But I wasn't there to witness the exact exchange. It could be that they argued and Eliza slipped.

 

But that isn't what the "eye witness" said. He said he saw Joseph and Eliza emerge from her bedroom and a confrontation occur on the landing with Emma, followed by Eliza tumbling down the stairs.

I've seen the photo's of the stairs. Richard Price is absolutely right when he says this is not a true account. The man could not possibly have witnessed what he said he did.

Therefore, we have to ask ourselves, why make up this story? What was his motivation? And why are so many saints, who supposedly honour Emma as the "elect lady", ready to believe it?

 

This is a really good example of what I have been saying all along. It doesn't take much to start a story and have it believed many years later because there is so much evidence of it's re-telling.

If we asked 100 ordinary members of the public today to describe a Viking helmet, a pound to a penny most of them would describe something with horns. After all, everyone knows Vikings had horns on their helmets - it's a no brainer. Except, of course, they didn't. The depiction of Viking's horned helmets is due to an opera performance in the mid-1800's. But the idea caught on and is now almost universally acknowledged as the symbol of these Scandinavian invaders.

 

The truth never gets in the way of a good story........ and so it is with Joseph.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Alan

[JLHPROF]

But that isn't what the "eye witness" said. He said he saw Joseph and Eliza emerge from her bedroom and a confrontation occur on the landing with Emma, followed by Eliza tumbling down the stairs.

I've seen the photo's of the stairs. Richard Price is absolutely right when he says this is not a true account. The man could not possibly have witnessed what he said he did.

Therefore, we have to ask ourselves, why make up this story? What was his motivation? And why are so many saints, who supposedly honour Emma as the "elect lady", ready to believe it?

 

This is a really good example of what I have been saying all along. It doesn't take much to start a story and have it believed many years later because there is so much evidence of it's re-telling.

If we asked 100 ordinary members of the public today to describe a Viking helmet, a pound to a penny most of them would describe something with horns. After all, everyone knows Vikings had horns on their helmets - it's a no brainer. Except, of course, they didn't. The depiction of Viking's horned helmets is due to an opera performance in the mid-1800's. But the idea caught on and is now almost universally acknowledged as the symbol of these Scandinavian invaders.

 

The truth never gets in the way of a good story........ and so it is with Joseph.

 

I agree that this story about Emma as pass around in not likely to be true.  But I also firmly believe there is no smoke without fire.  When it comes to Eliza & Emma and the stories about a baby I would say that the variety of rumours probably point to two things:

1. Emma knew/found out that Eliza was married to Joseph and there was some kind of blowup.

2. Eliza may well have been pregnant and miscarried (but there is no evidence Emma caused it).

 

It's kind of like the Adam and Eve story - was the first man named Adam?  sure.  Did he gain a body composed of mortal elements?  Yep.  Was he actually made out of dust or adobe?  Of course not.  But there are truths hidden in the myths/legends & hyperbole.

[cinepro]

Emma and Eliza and the Stairs