Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

New Gospel Topic Essays - Polygamy


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I am guessing no matter how we try to soften this, the fact was it was not a prevalent occurrence and it made people even then uncomfortable.

 

Removed - changed my mind about the creepy links.

Edited by JLHPROF
Posted

I am guessing no matter how we try to soften this, the fact was it was not a prevalent occurrence and it made people even then uncomfortable.

Wouldn't a more accurate way to ask the question be:

 

How common was it for a 14-15 year old girl to marry a man who was a few months short of his 36th birthday?

Posted

Why is it that...

Over the last few days since the essay I've been thinking about the same question. Why?

I don't see God in the black priesthood/temple ban and I'm glad that the church has almost entirely disavowed it.

I also don't see God in Polygamy. I'm glad the church essay has opened up to the reality of it. I hope that one day they will take the next step and disavow it too.

The more I study, ponder, pray and consider the question of polygamy the more it leads to a simple conclusion:

There was no commanding angel

There was no drawn or flaming sword

There was no revelation behind section 132

There was no divine mandate for polygamy

We don't have to wrestle with why God would command this. He didn't.

Posted

it seems like, even back then, it was inappropriate and disgusting for a 35 year old to marry a 14 year old. Why are we so afraid to face that fact? Someone questions it and people run around trying to say it was okay for a 14 year old to marry someone back then. Uh...but that doesn't address the issue.

Posted

My great-grandpa was 50 and married his 19 year old daughter's friend, just after he sent his wife off to the state mental institution in Georgia. That weenie.

Posted

it seems like, even back then, it was inappropriate and disgusting for a 35 year old to marry a 14 year old. Why are we so afraid to face that fact? Someone questions it and people run around trying to say it was okay for a 14 year old to marry someone back then. Uh...but that doesn't address the issue.

 

Age of consent in the state was 10.  No laws on statutory rape existed.  Reading the ordinance records of the Nauvoo temple has MANY such marriages being performed.

It was NOT considered inappropriate or strange.

Posted

Over the last few days since the essay I've been thinking about the same question. Why?

I don't see God in the black priesthood/temple ban and I'm glad that the church has almost entirely disavowed it.

I also don't see God in Polygamy. I'm glad the church essay has opened up to the reality of it. I hope that one day they will take the next step and disavow it too.

The more I study, ponder, pray and consider the question of polygamy the more it leads to a simple conclusion:

There was no commanding angel

There was no drawn or flaming sword

There was no revelation behind section 132

There was no divine mandate for polygamy

We don't have to wrestle with why God would command this. He didn't.

 

I couldn't disagree more.  This was from God.

Posted

Wouldn't a more accurate way to ask the question be:

How common was it for a 14-15 year old girl to marry a man who was a few months short of his 36th birthday?

Lol... I see what you did there.

The sentence is longer:

How common was it for a 14-15 year old girl to marry a man who was a few months short of his 36th birthday and already married to someone else?

Posted

Age of consent in the state was 10.  No laws on statutory rape existed.  Reading the ordinance records of the Nauvoo temple has MANY such marriages being performed.

It was NOT considered inappropriate or strange.

Sure it was inappropriate and strange, in every way those words mean anything. It was very much so. It took years for some of the church members to accept polygamy at all because it was inherently inappropriate and strange. Cowdery objected vehemently to the Fanny Alger affair because it was nothing but inappropriate and strange, and Fanny was older than Helen and Joseph was younger.

Posted

In the essays it mentions the "Law of Sarah".  I did a little research on it and came up with the below quote...I c/p from a post I made on another forum.  Just wondered if my summation is correct or not.  Anything I got wrong on?  I'm not a good student of the Old Testament.   

 

"The Law of Sarah is not what the church purports. In the bible does it state that she would be destroyed if she didn't live polygamy? No, it was actually her idea because she wanted to continue Abraham's lineage. That was how it was back then, polygamy was for continuing that lineage if the first wife was barren. Emma Smith wasn't barren.

God condemned having many wives and concubines. Especially the Kings that did that. Not too many prophets did in the bible, and if they did some converted and discontinued the practice, and those that did were often condemned for it.

Why is it that Emma's free choice is destroyed? Why is the wife in polygamist marriages in a catch 22? There is no way she has a choice in Section 132, she couldn't say no, she is condemned no matter what, but Jesus said he didn't come to condemn but to redeem.

I found this too..

"When thou art come unto the land which the Eternal thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me. . . . Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away" (Deut. 17:14, 17). It is spoken of as "THIS LAW" in verses 18 and 19."

 

The "Law of Sarah" doesn't make much sense to me.  As described in verses 64-65 it sounds like the "Law of Sarah" is just that the wife must consent and if not, she'll be "destroyed" and the husband can go ahead with additional wives anyway.

 

In any case, it appears to be just one of the many parts of D&C 132 that Joseph ignored in his practice of polygamy.  Rather odd since he apparently had the section memorized word-for-word.  You'd think if it was that important to him, he would have followed it.

Posted

Age of consent in the state was 10.  No laws on statutory rape existed.  Reading the ordinance records of the Nauvoo temple has MANY such marriages being performed.

It was NOT considered inappropriate or strange.

 

So why do we not even let 14-15 year old girls date now if it was appropriate for them to get married then?

Posted

I couldn't disagree more. This was from God.

And the only evidence you have for that view is the same I have for mine. Subjective conclusions based on intangible experiences that are of value to you and you alone.

Posted

Over the last few days since the essay I've been thinking about the same question. Why?

I don't see God in the black priesthood/temple ban and I'm glad that the church has almost entirely disavowed it.

I also don't see God in Polygamy. I'm glad the church essay has opened up to the reality of it. I hope that one day they will take the next step and disavow it too.

The more I study, ponder, pray and consider the question of polygamy the more it leads to a simple conclusion:

There was no commanding angel

There was no drawn or flaming sword

There was no revelation behind section 132

There was no divine mandate for polygamy

We don't have to wrestle with why God would command this. He didn't.

 

Amen.  Well said.

Posted (edited)

And the only evidence you have for that view is the same I have for mine. Subjective conclusions based on intangible experiences that are of value to you and you alone.

 

Exactly why neither of us should present our opinions as gospel absolutes or historical fact, something I think we're both guilty of in this thread.

Edited by JLHPROF
Posted

So why do we not even let 14-15 year old girls date now if it was appropriate for them to get married then?

 

Societal change.  What's right today will be wrong tomorrow - isn't that what you've been arguing for months on the SSM threads.

Posted

Societal change.  What's right today will be wrong tomorrow - isn't that what you've been arguing for months on the SSM threads.

 

Nope.  Are you in favor of societal change dictating our standards?  I thought that was the wrong approach?

Posted

Exactly why neither of us should present our opinions as gospel absolutes or historical fact, something I think we're both guilty of in this thread.

I intentionally started my statements with this phrase: "The more I study, ponder, pray and consider the question of polygamy the more it leads to a simple conclusion:"

As to the question of historical facts. I think they weigh in my favour. Obviously.

Just taking one example...

The angel with a drawn sword commanding Joseph to marry Zina, another man's wife (a woman who was recently married to an active and worthy priesthood holder and carrying their first child).

The angel's command broke many other core principles of the gospel and even the instruction of section 132 or Jacob 2.

Zina was not a virgin (she was pregnant!) - breaks D&C 132:61

Marriage to Joseph was not needed to raise up seed (she was pregnant) - breaks Jacob 2:30 which gives the condition on which God might command polygamy

Joseph also hadn't asked Emma which again breaks the standard you believe is divine.

As for the standard itself (132). It also doesn't follow the process for establishing doctrine.

It materialised some time in the 1840s with almost no evidence of being around in the early 1830s (there really is next to no evidence for the 1831 even though that section states in the intro that: "evidence indicates that some of the principles involved in this revelation were known by the Prophet as early as 1831")

It wasn't presented to the church until 1852. The revelation was placed in the Doctrine and Covenants in 1876. By the church own definition it wasn't a doctrine until 1876.

Posted

It is now official, Joseph Smith did practice plural marriage. I am sorry Alan. 

 

"In Nauvoo, Joseph Smith married additional wives and authorized other Latter-day Saints to practice plural marriage." 

"Sealings for time and eternity included commitments and relationships during this life, generally including the possibility of sexual relations. Eternity-only sealings indicated relationships in the next life alone. Evidence indicates that Joseph Smith participated in both types of sealings"

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/the-manifesto-and-the-end-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints?lang=eng

 

 

Remember, the Gospel Topics are approved by the First Presidency 

 

"Most of those sealed to Joseph Smith were between 20 and 40 years of age at the time of their sealing to him. The oldest, Fanny Young, was 56 years old. The youngest was Helen Mar Kimball, daughter of Joseph’s close friends Heber C. and Vilate Murray Kimball, who was sealed to Joseph several months before her 15th birthday. Marriage at such an age, inappropriate by today’s standards, was legal in that era, and some women married in their mid-teens. Helen Mar Kimball spoke of her sealing to Joseph as being “for eternity alone,” suggesting that the relationship did not involve sexual relations. After Joseph’s death, Helen remarried and became an articulate defender of him and of plural marriage."

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng

Why is it that it is men that originate these things? Is it some sort of Freudian fantasy with men?

Posted

As for the standard itself (132). It also doesn't follow the process for establishing doctrine.

It materialised some time in the 1840s with almost no evidence of being around in the early 1830s (there really is next to no evidence for the 1831 even though that section states in the intro that: "evidence indicates that some of the principles involved in this revelation were known by the Prophet as early as 1831").

 

Have you read Danel Bachman's 1978 JMH article, "New Light on an Old Hypothesis: The Ohio Origins of the Revelation on Eternal Marriage"? I'm pretty sure that article was the basis for the statement in the heading to D&C 132. Bachman's thesis that Joseph Smith was contemplating polygamy as early as 1831 is ultimately speculative—there is no definitive proof that he was—but I find Bachman's arguments quite persuasive.

Posted

Have you read Danel Bachman's 1978 JMH article, "New Light on an Old Hypothesis: The Ohio Origins of the Revelation on Eternal Marriage"? I'm pretty sure that article was the basis for the statement in the heading to D&C 132. Bachman's thesis that Joseph Smith was contemplating polygamy as early as 1831 is ultimately speculative—there is no definitive proof that he was—but I find Bachman's arguments quite persuasive.

Most of his argument hinges on events seemingly not plural marriage and a few years after 1831. That makes it all the more interesting when we bring to question that date. Rumor and innuendo from the Kirtland era is about all we have, sadly. And they are pretty ambiguous.

Posted

Have you read Danel Bachman's 1978 JMH article, "New Light on an Old Hypothesis: The Ohio Origins of the Revelation on Eternal Marriage"? I'm pretty sure that article was the basis for the statement in the heading to D&C 132. Bachman's thesis that Joseph Smith was contemplating polygamy as early as 1831 is ultimately speculative—there is no definitive proof that he was—but I find Bachman's arguments quite persuasive.

Thanks Nevo, I'll have a look (currently my phone is having some issues opening it).

My understanding was that it was based on some very obscure recollections of individuals about 30 years after the revelation is supposed to have first happened.

Posted

I intentionally started my statements with this phrase: "The more I study, ponder, pray and consider the question of polygamy the more it leads to a simple conclusion:"

As to the question of historical facts. I think they weigh in my favour. Obviously.

Just taking one example...

The angel with a drawn sword commanding Joseph to marry Zina, another man's wife (a woman who was recently married to an active and worthy priesthood holder and carrying their first child).

The angel's command broke many other core principles of the gospel and even the instruction of section 132 or Jacob 2.

Zina was not a virgin (she was pregnant!) - breaks D&C 132:61

Marriage to Joseph was not needed to raise up seed (she was pregnant) - breaks Jacob 2:30 which gives the condition on which God might command polygamy

Joseph also hadn't asked Emma which again breaks the standard you believe is divine.

As for the standard itself (132). It also doesn't follow the process for establishing doctrine.

It materialised some time in the 1840s with almost no evidence of being around in the early 1830s (there really is next to no evidence for the 1831 even though that section states in the intro that: "evidence indicates that some of the principles involved in this revelation were known by the Prophet as early as 1831")

It wasn't presented to the church until 1852. The revelation was placed in the Doctrine and Covenants in 1876. By the church own definition it wasn't a doctrine until 1876.

 

These and other reasons are why I was disappointed that the Church didn't use the essays to distance themselves from claims that the practice of polygamy had divine origins.

Posted

These and other reasons are why I was disappointed that the Church didn't use the essays to distance themselves from claims that the practice of polygamy had divine origins.

 

Why not?  What is so wrong about polygamy if the intelligent adults involved agree?   I agree that today it is a sin, but I cannot find any secular reasons. 

Posted

Why not?  What is so wrong about polygamy if the intelligent adults involved agree?   I agree that today it is a sin, but I cannot find any secular reasons. 

 

I'm not sure I understand your question.  As a purely secular thing, the church doesn't need to weigh in.

 

I am completely in favor of it being decriminalized (as it was recently in Utah).

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...