Ok There Seems To Be A Problem With Polygamy In The Church's Past

[saemo]

It would be polite if you could phrase this more as your opinion rather than it coming off as if you are stating it as a fact.  And, if you do believe it to be a fact, could you please supply some evidence to back this up.

Sure, I can do that, but I think that request is a two way street, no? 

 

But wait. I did "I", and "for me". Does that mean to you I am presenting something not in my experience, but rather, reflecting something in your experience or someone else?

Edited September 10, 2014 by saemo

[Calm]

HUGELY!  In case you didn't see the numbers and reasons for testimony fall out.  One of the top is church history and finding out late in life that Joseph Smith had 33 or more wives and some were married and some were in their teens. ?

Are you talking about the self selected survey of a particular online community?

Their results may or may not be typical of the general population.

[saemo]

It's amazing how two people can come across the exact same historical information and interpret it so differently.  Personally I saw nothing lustful or ugly about the prophet Joseph and his practice of Plural Marriage.  The usual complaints I have resolved to my satisfaction, and I prefer to judge Joseph by his fruits - the Church, the scriptures, the priesthood, eternal families, the list goes on and on.

To me, there is no way Joseph was anything other than a prophet of God, and while not perfect, pretty much as close as we mortals can achieve.

 

Well, I think a lot of LDS have a romantic view of polygamy. Honestly, it creeps me out to contemplate on my GX6 grandmother who was married to the same man as her two sisters. I think there is something seriously dysfunctional in that lifestyle.

[Tacenda]

Are you talking about the self selected survey of a particular online community?

Their results may or may not be typical of the general population.

True, I got a little ahead of myself I guess.  ETA:  FMH Podcast has a good podcast, http://feministmormonhousewivespodcast.org/ , I listened half way and some of the polygamist wives wanted that way of life, and loved their sister wives also, and there were cases where polygamy did help women marry, they may have ended up single possibly, not that that is the worst thing.  So there were good situations, I'm not denying that.  I'm not even talking about their specific polygamy. 

 

I just don't like it if they are ever coerced into it.  Some things JS said to some of the wives, made it sound like he would be killed by an angel with the drawn sword or they wouldn't make it to the CK with their families, or they would make it there if the women agreed, so a reward.  Things like that seem to be wrong to me. 

 

C/P from a blog I saw on NOM:

 

"I know whereon I stand, I know what I believe, I know what I know and I know what I testify to you is the living truth. As I expect to meet it at the bar of the eternal Jehovah, it is true. And when you stand before the bar you will know. He preached polygamy and he not only preached it, but he practiced it. I am a living witness to it. It was given to him before he gave it to the Church. An angel came to him 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." (Mary Lightner, Address to Brigham Young University, April 14th, 1905, BYU Archives and Manuscripts)

 

"19 year-old Zina remained conflicted until a day in October, apparently, when Joseph sent [her older brother] Dimick to her with a message:an angel with a drawn sword had stood over Smith and told him that if he did not establish polygamy, he would lose "his position and his life." Zina, faced with the responsibility for his position as prophet, and even perhaps his life, finally acquiesced." (Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness, page 80-81)

 

"I will pass over the temptations which I had during the twenty four hours after my father introduced to me this principle & asked me if I would be sealed to Joseph, who came next morning & with my parents I heard him teach & explain the principle of Celestial marriage-after which he said to me, “If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation & that of your father’s household & all of your kindred."This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward." (Helen Mar Kimball, letter to her children, March 30th 1881)

Edited September 10, 2014 by Tacenda

[JLHPROF]

Well, I think a lot of LDS have a romantic view of polygamy. Honestly, it creeps me out to contemplate on my GX6 grandmother who was married to the same man as her two sisters. I think there is something seriously dysfunctional in that lifestyle.

 

That's just modern day POV getting in the way of objective evaluation.  Happens all the time when reading history.

I find nothing dysfunctional about plural marriage unless the relationships actually were dysfunctional.

 

But there are so many dysfunctional families of all shapes and sizes today.  Polygamy is no different.

 

Ironically, aren't all Catholic nuns brides of Christ?  Even if that's not accurate, polygamy is part of almost every religions origins.  Abraham - Christianity, Judaism and Islam for instance.

Edited September 10, 2014 by JLHPROF

[ksfisher]

Sure, I can do that, but I think that request is a two way street, no? 

 

But wait. I did "I", and "for me". Does that mean to you I am presenting something not in my experience, but rather, reflecting something in your experience or someone else?

 

This was your sentence I'm referring to:

 

"The shock was learning that Smith's polygamy was neither righteous or a higher calling sort of thing but a usual and common lust."

 

You are stating this as if it was a know fact, rather than your conclusion.  All I'm asking is that opinions not be portrayed as facts.

[saemo]

That's just modern day POV getting in the way of objective evaluation.  Happens all the time when reading history.

I find nothing dysfunctional about plural marriage unless the relationships actually were dysfunctional.

 

But there are so many dysfunctional families of all shapes and sizes today.  Polygamy is no different.

 

I said lifestyle, not family.

[JLHPROF]

I said lifestyle, not family.

 

I hate the word "lifestyle".  A family is not a lifestyle.

[saemo]

This was your sentence I'm referring to:

 

"The shock was learning that Smith's polygamy was neither righteous or a higher calling sort of thing but a usual and common lust."

 

You are stating this as if it was a know fact, rather than your conclusion.  All I'm asking is that opinions not be portrayed as facts.

The facts lead to the conclusion.

[saemo]

I hate the word "lifestyle".  A family is not a lifestyle.

Polygamy is certainly a lifestyle that is different than a monogamous lifestyle. 

[ksfisher]

I hate the word "lifestyle".  A family is not a lifestyle.

 

Arthur: I seem to be having this tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle.

Slartibartfast: I beg your pardon?

Arthur: What? Oh, sorry. Fatuous thing to say, really.

Slartibartfast: I thought so.

 

"Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy"

[ksfisher]

The facts lead to the conclusion.

 

In your opinion.  

[saemo]

In your opinion.  

Facts are facts, not opinions.

[JLHPROF]

Polygamy is certainly a lifestyle that is different than a monogamous lifestyle. 

 

Which means absolutely nothing more than a polygamous family functions differently than a monogamous family.  The buzzword "lifestyle" adds nothing.  They are families.

[saemo]

Which means absolutely nothing more than a polygamous family functions differently than a monogamous family.  The buzzword "lifestyle" adds nothing.  They are families.

Oh, lifestyle is not a buzzword for me. It is exact and describes what is socially acceptable to a group or individual. So, I find what is socially acceptable to groups and individuals in polygamous relationships, to be dysfunctional. ie, marrying the same man as your sister…that's seriously messed up to anyone who lives a Christian lifestyle. ie, what is socially acceptable to groups and individuals who call themselves Christians.

 

Better?

 

People become normalized, that is my personal opinion of the situation.

Edited September 10, 2014 by saemo

[ksfisher]

Facts are facts, not opinions.

If this is a fact "The shock was learning that Smith's polygamy was neither righteous or a higher calling sort of thing but a usual and common lust" then please provide a CFR.  If it is your opinion please acknowledge it as such.

[saemo]

If this is a fact "The shock was learning that Smith's polygamy was neither righteous or a higher calling sort of thing but a usual and common lust" then please provide a CFR.  If it is your opinion please acknowledge it as such.

You really want me to lay out the facts? I don't find that Mormons actually want to know the facts.

 

Romanticized version: All my life growing up LDS, hearing about how the Prophet was tarred and feathered for his religious beliefs. What a shining example for us all, to stick to our beliefs.

 

FACT: A 30-something year old married man was chasing after a 15 year old in his neighborhood and her brothers tarred and feathered him for it. They were also going to go for castration but the doctor engaged for the deed backed out. (Good thing, no?)

 

Was it really a shining example of sticking to one's beliefs? If so, what beliefs were those? A 15 year old was marked by God for a 30-something year old, married, man to marry? Do you believe that? Was it religious persecution or frontier justice?

 

What would happen to such a man today in our society? 

 

Why do Mormons see such a thing as normal, and even defend it?

 

There is no reason to insult all Mormons.

[Calm]

"up single possibly, not that that is the worst thing"

Would have been very bad if the woman had no family as many of the immigrant females who married into plural marriages were situated. Women did not have the financial self sufficiency in most cases back then. Spinsterhood was equivalent to poverty, especially as they got older and less able to find work they were capable of doing.

[ksfisher]

You really want me to lay out the facts? I don't find that Mormons actually want to know the facts.

 

Romanticized version: All my life growing up LDS, hearing about how the Prophet was tarred and feathered for his religious beliefs. What a shining example for us all, to stick to our beliefs.

 

FACT: A 30-something year old married man was chasing after a 15 year old in his neighborhood and her brothers tarred and feathered him for it. They were also going to go for castration but the doctor engaged for the deed backed out. (Good thing, no?)

 

Was it really a shining example of sticking to one's beliefs? If so, what beliefs were those? A 15 year old was marked by God for a 30-something year old, married, man to marry? Do you believe that? Was it religious persecution or frontier justice?

 

What would happen to such a man today in our society? 

 

Why do Mormons see such a thing as normal, and even defend it?

 

The events, as you portrayed them and stated in the language you've used are not normal or defensible.  I believe that others have looked at the same events and come to different conclusions as to what was going on.  That, I acknowledge, is my opinion.  I'm in the process of reading Brian Hales "Joseph Smith's Polygamy."  It will be interesting to learn more.  Even then, I've studied enough history to know that historical facts can be very elusive and the same fact can lead to many different conclusions.

[JLHPROF]

Romanticized version: All my life growing up LDS, hearing about how the Prophet was tarred and feathered for his religious beliefs. What a shining example for us all, to stick to our beliefs.

 

FACT: A 30-something year old married man was chasing after a 15 year old in his neighborhood and her brothers tarred and feathered him for it. They were also going to go for castration but the doctor engaged for the deed backed out. (Good thing, no?)

 

Once again, neither of these are "FACT" - they are interpretations of events.  You calling it "FACT" doesn't make it so.

 

Probable Event:  The Prophet Joseph (actually aged 27) who had learned of polygamy by revelation while translating the Bible made a blundering or ill advised attempt to enter into plural marriage like the Biblical patriarchs with a 15 year old neighbor (a quite common age for marriage at the time).  The attack by her brothers is understandable considering they had no knowledge and certainly no testimony of the principle of plural marriage.

 

He neither needs to be a romanticized hero or a lecherous villain.  That is personal interpretation.  What actually happened is more likely as I described.  There is no evidence it was lust OR a direct command from God.  If anything could be assumed, it's that the tarring and feathering was God pointing out that Joseph hadn't yet received permission to live plural marriage.

[Calm]

.

FACT: A 30-something year old married man was chasing after a 15 year old in his neighborhood and her brothers tarred and feathered him for it. They were also going to go for castration but the doctor engaged for the deed backed out. (Good thing, no?)

Actually no, that is not a FACT or even a fact, but a fabrication:

"Claim #1 – Nancy Marinda Johnson

So, right into it, claim number one, Nancy Miranda Johnson. I’m using Van Wagoner here because he gives the most evidence, if you will, or the most examples. So, we’ll use him as a base and we’ll go into the others as we need it, just to see how different authors handle the evidence. This is a quotation from him, on page 4, note. This is right out of the gate, this is what you get:

…allegations in Hiram, Ohio, reportedly caused problems for Smith in 1832. One account related that on 24 March [1832] a mob of men pulled Smith from his bed, beat him, and then covered him with a coat of tar and feathers. Eli Johnson, who allegedly participated in the attack “because he suspected Joseph of being intimate with his sister, Nancy Marinda Johnson, … was screaming for Joseph’s castration” (Brodie 1975, 119) – Van Wagoner, 4.

Wow, juicy stuff!

The only source for this claim, you’ll notice, is Fawn Brodie—that should send your antennae twitching right there. When I first encountered this passage, I didn’t know who Brodie was, so I was naÔve. So, already, we have a common phenomenon that you’ll see over and over again—the critical sources on this matter repeatedly quote each other. Getting back to what the actual source is takes a good deal of work.

There’s more. If you bother to check the endnotes to Van Wagoner’s book, you will then read this (I’ve added the emphasis):

“That an incident between Smith and Nancy Johnson precipitated the mobbing is unlikely. Sidney Rigdon was attacked just as viciously by the group as was Smith. And the leader of the mob, Simonds Ryder [you know, Mr. You-can't-spell-my-name-right], later said that the attack occurred because members of the mob had found some documents that led them to believe “the horrid fact that a plot was laid to take their property from them and place it under the control of Smith” (Hill 1977, 146). Besides, John Johnson had no son Eli. His only sons were John, Jr., Luke, Olmstead, and Lyman (Newell and Avery 1984, 41).”"

"Completely unmentioned by either Van Wagoner or George Smith is a testimony from the despoiled maiden herself, Miranda Hyde, who did not have a good experience with plural marriage and cannot be described, I think, as someone who would’ve been thought one of its boosters. But, she said this,

“Here I feel like bearing my testimony that during the whole year that Joseph was an inmate of my father’s house I never saw aught in his daily life or conversation to make me doubt his divine mission.”4"

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2009-fair-conference/2009-everything-you-always-wanted-to-know-about-plural-marriage-but-were-afraid-to-ask

Edited September 10, 2014 by calmoriah

[omni]

Once again, neither of these are "FACT" - they are interpretations of events.  You calling it "FACT" doesn't make it so.

 

Probable Event: 

 

He neither needs to be a romanticized hero or a lecherous villain.  That is personal interpretation.  What actually happened is more likely as I described.  There is no evidence it was lust OR a direct command from God.  If anything could be assumed, it's that the tarring and feathering was God pointing out that Joseph hadn't yet received permission to live plural marriage.

Wouldn't this make Joseph an adulterer?

[JLHPROF]

Wouldn't this make Joseph an adulterer?

 

Depends on your view of temporal marriage and eternal marriage.

 

If you consider the earthly state marriage license as actually legitimizing the marriage then EVERY polygamist since the invention of the marriage license is an adulterer, from Joseph Smith all the way up through Heber J. Grant.

If you consider marriage licenses as merely a gov't formality and only the priesthood covenant of marriage as binding then the only way to be an adulterer is to violate that covenant.  And at the time Joseph and Emma were not under a priesthood covenant.

[omni]

Depends on your view of temporal marriage and eternal marriage.

 

If you consider the earthly state marriage license as actually legitimizing the marriage then EVERY polygamist since the invention of the marriage license is an adulterer, from Joseph Smith all the way up through Heber J. Grant.

If you consider marriage licenses as merely a gov't formality and only the priesthood covenant of marriage as binding then the only way to be an adulterer is to violate that covenant.  And at the time Joseph and Emma were not under a priesthood covenant.

Couple of problems with this, first of all this isn't doctrine. The Church doesn't see marriage licenses as mere formalities, but as a binding commitment in this life. Why would it have been any different in Joseph's case? Second, how did Joseph initiate polygamy before the sealing powers were restored?

[JLHPROF]

Couple of problems with this, first of all this isn't doctrine. The Church doesn't see marriage licenses as mere formalities, but as a binding commitment in this life. Why would it have been any different in Joseph's case? Second, how did Joseph initiate polygamy before the sealing powers were restored?

 

1. Why would it be different?  Because the Church DIDN'T see marriage licenses as binding until after plural marriage was discontinued.  If they did why would they all choose to commit adultery?  In the days of polygamy the US government was viewed little better than Babylon.  Priesthood authority was considered the ONLY binding authority.  And I have CFR'd this historical fact a few times in the past.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63134-is-the-church-being-completely-honest/page-13

and http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/61921-top-10-mistakes/page-3

Starting in Nauvoo up until the end of polygamy priesthood was supreme, the only marriage that really counted, and the only way to commit adultery was to break the marriage covenant.

Therefore, Joseph and the Church did not consider plural marriage adultery at all because only priesthood marriage counted.  It WAS different in Joseph's case.

 

2. That is a very good question.  It would require a study of Mormon marriage beliefs before the restoration of authority in 1836.  Joseph is only linked to 2 or 3 women prior to the restoration of the sealing keys.  He probably considered them to be common-law marriages, if they were in fact marriages as many claim.  Also, we know that even prior to the sealing keys Joseph had little regard for earthly marriage laws and state laws.  One of the first complaints against him was for marrying people without a license.

 

See: https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=7111