Is The Only Way To Win Not To Play?

[mormonnewb]

Judgements are made from a 21st century paradigm without any knowledge of 18th century norms.

 

Wouldn't that be the perfect justification for, say, porn viewing in the 21st century?  How can we possibly judge those who are acting squarely within the norms of their society?

[mormonnewb]

Judgements are made from a 21st century paradigm without any knowledge of 18th century norms.

 

Wouldn't that be the perfect justification for, say, porn viewing in the 21st century?  How can we possibly judge those who are acting squarely within the norms of our modern society?  Or do we judge right and wrong on an eternal standard?

 

Or do we judge morality from what many saints seem to start with -- the Joseph Smith standard?  By definition, if Joseph did it, then it must have been right.  This, to me, seems the standard that started the problem to begin with.

[Duncan]

Wouldn't that be the perfect justification for, say, porn viewing in the 21st century?  How can we possibly judge those who are acting squarely within the norms of our modern society?  Or do we judge right and wrong on an eternal standard?

 

Or do we judge morality from what many saints seem to start with -- the Joseph Smith standard?  By definition, if Joseph did it, then it must have been right.  This, to me, seems the standard that started the problem to begin with.

 

 

 

 

ideally we should leave judgements to the Lord. Religion and History is tough to write because the historian has to suspend their own personal views on the subject and see whatever through the eyes of someone else. So for example a Historian would write say, What did Sir Winston Churchill believe about God? and then they would scour the documents looking for anything stating what he said about the subject. Now, whether or not God exists or whether Churchill was theologically right about God isn't a historical question and so the historian wouldn't attempt to answer

[Kenngo1969]

in all honesty the judgment is coming from a place of discomfort and unease, it seems to me. ...

Compared to the people who established multiple settlements (literally from nothing) from which they repeatedly were kicked out, thus being dispossessed of property they worked so hard to acquire and improve and forced to wander from place to place, being subjected, not only to persecution, but to poverty, hunger, thirst, fatigue, illness, and death?  Most of us think it's a sacrifice (or at least an imposition) to be without the blasted Internet for a few days.

 

If someone else wants to sit, well-fed and well-clothed, in an easy chair, in a heated room, laptop-on-lap, and pass unfair, undue, myopic judgment on the folks who sacrificed literally everything so that he could pass such judgment upon them from some anonymous corner of Cyberspace, more power to him.  (He would do well, however, to remember Matthew 7:1-5.)  As for me and my house ...

[Ham Clam]

I kind of wish I still have FB so I could see how the people in my YSA branch were responding ... oh, well. I'll see them on Sunday for Break the Fast.

[Ham Clam]

Compared to the people who established multiple settlements (literally from nothing) from which they repeatedly were kicked out, thus being dispossessed of property they worked so hard to acquire and improve and forced to wander from place to place, being subjected, not only to persecution, but to poverty, hunger, thirst, fatigue, illness, and death?  Most of us think it's a sacrifice (or at least an imposition) to be without the blasted Internet for a few days.

 

If someone else wants to sit, well-fed and well-clothed, in an easy chair, in a heated room, laptop-on-lap, and pass unfair, undue, myopic judgment on the folks who sacrificed literally everything so that he could pass such judgment upon them from some anonymous corner of Cyberspace, more power to him.  (He would do well, however, to remember Matthew 7:1-5.)  As for me and my house ...

 

Yes.

[stemelbow]

If someone else wants to sit, well-fed and well-clothed, in an easy chair, in a heated room, laptop-on-lap, and pass unfair, undue, myopic judgment on the folks who sacrificed literally everything so that he could pass such judgment upon them from some anonymous corner of Cyberspace, more power to him.  (He would do well, however, to remember Matthew 7:1-5.)  As for me and my house ...

No doubt that something like that occurs. But certainly not in all cases when someone in our modern world disagrees with actions or ideas expressed by people of the past. many such disagreements, which are labeled judgments around here, are well calculated, well-thought out and are not meant in any way to judge, nor condemn the past people.

[mormonnewb]

Compared to the people who established multiple settlements (literally from nothing) from which they repeatedly were kicked out, thus being dispossessed of property they worked so hard to acquire and improve and forced to wander from place to place, being subjected, not only to persecution, but to poverty, hunger, thirst, fatigue, illness, and death? Most of us think it's a sacrifice (or at least an imposition) to be without the blasted Internet for a few days.

If someone else wants to sit, well-fed and well-clothed, in an easy chair, in a heated room, laptop-on-lap, and pass unfair, undue, myopic judgment on the folks who sacrificed literally everything so that he could pass such judgment upon them from some anonymous corner of Cyberspace, more power to him. (He would do well, however, to remember Matthew 7:1-5.) As for me and my house ...

I didn't know anyone was passing judgment on anyone but JS. I certainly don't read anyone on this thread (or anywhere) passing judgment on Fanny Alger, Helen Mar Kimball, Sister Emma or any of the other women involved.

However, let's be clear. Just because a group of people are related to YOU doesn't make them perfect and immune from any critique of their behavior.

After all, as Americans, we owe a great debt to those early colonists. Some of us are even directly descendant from them. Does that mean that, in every US history class, some kid should arise indignantly and give the diatribe that you just gave about judging them from our lap-top? Should we just ignore the "removal" of the native population, slavery, the subjugation of women, etc. because they were perpetrated by OUR grandfathers?

Because if so, we need to shut down every history class and department in the world because every great civilization produced offspring who could be every bit as offended as you are, assuming they let themselves be offended (still think I'm not a REAL Mormon?).

Edited October 28, 2014 by mormonnewb

[stemelbow]

One of the great virtues of history, studying history, is that we have the chance to learn from the past. And yet, some here seem to want us to pretend that we should ignore the bad elements of a certain group of people in history because if we don't we're judging them harshly or something.

nah we should be able to openly accept that people have erred, and pointing that out isn't a terrible judgment on them.

[WysteriaBlue]

As mormonnewb says, "I didn't know anyone was passing judgment on anyone but JS. I certainly don't read anyone on this thread (or anywhere) passing judgment on Fanny Alger, Helen Mar Kimball, Sister Emma or any of the other women involved."

 

I would certainly hope NOT.. Do NOT blame the victims!

 

And wedding and bedding a 14 year old by an older man has the "label" of statutory rape for a reason. The laws exist for a reason, and an age is 'set' because before that time, GIRLS are not ready emotionally, physically or mentally for congress and marriage, in any era.  Same reason that childhood weddings in other cultures including the monarchy of England were perhaps contracted very early, but the girls stayed in their home country and mother's domain until ready for marriage.  Queen Elizabeth was one who was taken too early due to the extreme need for an heir to cement the alliance, and afterwards was so badly scarred due to her young age (13-14) that she could not ever bear children again and later had very strong views on the matter.

 

Emma made it clear that she considered Fanny a friend and type of daughter and did not know what was going on and was incensed when she found out   It was a matter of disloyalty and breaking of trust for her husband to do such a thing to a friend and someone in her household on both their parts.  Fanny was then banned and later had to move to another state to finally be legitimately married again. and continued to be a woman of good morals and had many children.

Fanny made it clear afterwards (in personal letters) that she was coerced and did not understand the full impact of her marriage and thought it a "sealing" in name only.

 

Many other women whose husbands were upset by Joseph's decision to take their wives were sent on Missions far away due to their declining to have their wives taken from them.  Some left the church.

It was clear that others including Oliver Cowdery had deep reservations about Joseph's behaviours and clearly were not happy. 

Some in Nauvoo tried to have print a newspaper about their anger and views on Joseph Smith's behaviours and had their printing press burned down after only one issue for questioning the behaviours of the Mayor and leader of the church.  This is when Joseph Smith left and was later persuaded to come back and face the charges.

 

A woman's chastity and virtue were the mainstays of her good name and honor in all times.  To have such removed or tainted, stained not only her but her family and friends and certainly her husband or husband to be.

That chastity and purity are still taught today, but in light of the times would have been even more paramount.

 

To say that others here can't imagine putting it into the perspective of the times or sit smugly in their living rooms "making judgments" is ludicrous. 

Anyone with any basic amount of historical reading obviously knew the price these women paid for following their leader and were told that their own souls and lives were at stake as well as their loved ones should they NOT obey the prophet even though it went AGAINST everything that they knew to be true in terms of such behaviors in their "times."

Women were stoned, beaten, shunned and had no where to turn when doing such things in those times.  In many places it still holds true in these times too.

 

Emma made her views very clear.  Sarah's law had horrid consequences like "death of their souls" should they not obey, and that was clearly part of Joseph's prophesy and coercive arguments made to the women involved and/or their families whether he wrote it in the D&C until much later or not.  Although she "allowed" some of the sealings....she too could not tolerate it in the end.

 

Most of these women were originally raised in the Methodist/Baptist/Presbyterian/Lutheran or Calvinist churches prior to joining the faith led by Joseph Smith.  This would have been abhorrent and beyond comprehension to most if not all of these women.  Their families of the faith may have agreed as a prophesy spoken by the prophet, but the women themselves who had the most to lose in terms of future 'prospects' (if single) and against their husbands and vows of marriage (if married) would have been appalled and deeply afraid.

 

The attitude of 'we don't hear them complaining' or 'we don't understand from a historical perspective' is like blaming a rape victim for the behaviors of the rapists or abusers in "modern" times. 

 

If you also propose that certain things are "right or wrong" no matter what and in any time, then obviously adultery, polygamy, polyandry, murder, taking of young girls, coercion, lying and manipulation by those in higher authority, and who believe in the covenant and higher standards of the priesthood, would certainly and rightly be held responsible and looked upon badly, NOT the followers or faithful or women....those that abuse authority are always judged, not the victims.  As it should be.

 

If that doesn't put it "into perspective", what would help you to understand how it was viewed by people of the time and of the place as well as "modern" peoples?  How can anyone accuse members today reading of these dealings with abhorrence and shock, who followed the teachings of the church not to read outside of "church approved" literature are either ignorant or "not understanding" of the times and peoples and what is ethical, is both ridiculous and hypocritical.

 

The old but true adage that 'absolute power absolutely corrupts' still rings true today as always. 

All organizations MUST have some series of checks and balances in place to prevent such things happening. 

Transparency, integrity, honesty and responsiveness to the people of the church (or indeed any organization) is mandated and put in place for a very good reason.  History does indeed repeat itself and those that don't learn lessons from such history are fools indeed.

[Kenngo1969]

... And wedding and bedding a 14 year old by an older man has the "label" of statutory rape for a reason. ...

 

Yep.  Today it does.  Imposing 21st-century norms, laws, and mores on 19th-century conduct is called presentism, and it's a perfect example of what I was decrying in my previous post.  Thanks.

[WysteriaBlue]

The "label" may be more "legal" and "newer"....but the practice and the consequences of it are quite ancient.  The development of females today are even more advanced at a younger age than they used to be....

 

Read it how you will.

[Kenngo1969]

I didn't know anyone was passing judgment on anyone but JS. I certainly don't read anyone on this thread (or anywhere) passing judgment on Fanny Alger, Helen Mar Kimball, Sister Emma or any of the other women involved.

 

No.  You's jus' thinks dem wimmunz is po' an' defenseless, an' they's needs you's to look out fo dem!

 

However, let's be clear. Just because a group of people are related to YOU doesn't make them perfect and immune from any critique of their behavior.

 

I wasn't defending them simply because some of them happen to be related to me.  Unlike you, apparently, I value the spiritual heritage they bequeathed to me.  To each, his own.

 

After all, as Americans, we owe a great debt to those early colonists. Some of us are even directly descendant from them. Does that mean that, in every US history class, some kid should arise indignantly and give the diatribe that you just gave about judging them from our lap-top? Should we just ignore the "removal" of the native population, slavery, the subjugation of women, etc. because they were perpetrated by OUR grandfathers?

 

That's all a red herring, Newb.  I wasn't defending any of it.  In fact, I think that, generally, the treatment of women by the early leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints easily compares favorably with treatment of women generally at the time, polygyny notwithstanding.

 

 

Because if so, we need to shut down every history class and department in the world because every great civilization produced offspring who could be every bit as offended as you are, assuming they let themselves be offended (still think I'm not a REAL Mormon?).

 

My point still stands.  It's awfully easy to judge early leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (from the anonymity of cyberspace and the comfort of our easy chairs) by 21st-century laws, norms, and mores.  If that's what floats your boat, fine, but I will have no part of it.

[WysteriaBlue]

Correction:

Margaret Beaufort married Henry VII when she was 10 and had a child at 11 or 12 and was so scarred both emotionally and physically, that although remarried later after the death of her husband, she was never able to conceive another child.

Even then....relatively....child brides did not consummate marriages until age 16.  She also later clearly disapproved of another marriage/consummation to her grandson by another child bride

Sorry for the historical error.

 

wb

[Nevo]

Emma made it clear that she considered Fanny a friend and type of daughter and did not know what was going on and was incensed when she found out   It was a matter of disloyalty and breaking of trust for her husband to do such a thing to a friend and someone in her household on both their parts.  Fanny was then banned and later had to move to another state to finally be legitimately married again. and continued to be a woman of good morals and had many children. Fanny made it clear afterwards (in personal letters) that she was coerced and did not understand the full impact of her marriage and thought it a "sealing" in name only.

 

I'm curious to know what your source is for the bolded claim. It was my understanding that Alger refused to comment on her relationship with Joseph Smith and didn't leave any firsthand account.

[WysteriaBlue]

Dear Nevo,

 

I have searched my notes and cannot find where I had heard about the letters.  I was left with just Oliver Cowdrey's calling their affair or marriage "dirty, nasty filthy scrape..."   I thought there were also letters by Eliza Snow and another friend outside of the church.  The fact that Emma disapproved of the marriage or affair was apparent.

 

I hope this enough to satisfy.

[Nevo]

I find Joseph Smith's marriage to Helen Mar Kimball troubling on a number of levels, but I think everyone discussing her case would do well to (re-)read Spencer Fluhman's superb discussion in "'A Subject That Can Bear Investigation': Anguish, Faith, and Joseph Smith's Youngest Plural Wife." Fluhman's treatment of this difficult and complex subject is the gold standard, in my opinion. Would that more defenders and critics alike followed his lead.

[Nevo]

I hope this enough to satisfy.

 

Thanks for looking. I am fairly confident that no such letter(s) exist—I suspect you're thinking of the statement ascribed to Helen Mar Kimball by Catherine Lewis—but I'd be thrilled to be proven wrong.

[WysteriaBlue]

Thank you for the reference Nevo.  I believe I may have confused portions of the some of the histories of Helen Mar Kimball and Fanny Alger.  The article was well written.

 

My understanding was that Fanny's child by Joseph Smith either miscarried or was born dead.

 

wb

[canard78]

Impressive post WysteriaBlue. I'll be amazed if the mods or board regulars let it stand but it was impressive all the same.

[JLHPROF]

Correction:

Margaret Beaufort married Henry VII when she was 10 and had a child at 11 or 12 and was so scarred both emotionally and physically, that although remarried later after the death of her husband, she was never able to conceive another child.

Even then....relatively....child brides did not consummate marriages until age 16.  She also later clearly disapproved of another marriage/consummation to her grandson by another child bride

Sorry for the historical error.

 

wb

 

Well, historical and ancient Jewish tradition has the mother of our Savior giving birth to him around the age of 13/14.

If this tradition is indeed factual, then our Heavenly Father must be one inconsiderate husband to make a "child" give birth to his child (regardless of how you believe conception occurred).

[WysteriaBlue]

If you doubt His consideration, that is your choice.  I would not...and Joseph Smith is not part of the Godhood.

[JLHPROF]

Joseph Smith is not part of the Godhood.

 

Probably not...

 

But he is the head and presiding authority over this last dispensation, and will sit in judgement on every man, woman, and child who lived in this age.

 

Who are we to presume to judge Joseph?  He answers only to God and Jesus Christ.

Edited October 28, 2014 by JLHPROF

[pogi]

If you doubt His consideration, that is your choice.  I would not...and Joseph Smith is not part of the Godhood.

 

That is the heart of the matter.  Are we doubting God's consideration when we doubt that Joseph Smith was commanded in this matter?  Without God's command, I don't think any would disagree with your sentiment.  I admit it is hard to accept, but without a confirmation one way or the other, I refrain from doubt and choose to hope in light of all the other personal evidences and confirmations I have of his mantle. 

Edited October 28, 2014 by pogi

[JLHPROF]

As mormonnewb says, "I didn't know anyone was passing judgment on anyone but JS. I certainly don't read anyone on this thread (or anywhere) passing judgment on Fanny Alger, Helen Mar Kimball, Sister Emma or any of the other women involved."

 

I would certainly hope NOT.. Do NOT blame the victims!

 

And wedding and bedding a 14 year old by an older man has the "label" of statutory rape for a reason. The laws exist for a reason, and an age is 'set' because before that time, GIRLS are not ready emotionally, physically or mentally for congress and marriage, in any era.  Same reason that childhood weddings in other cultures including the monarchy of England were perhaps contracted very early, but the girls stayed in their home country and mother's domain until ready for marriage.  Queen Elizabeth was one who was taken too early due to the extreme need for an heir to cement the alliance, and afterwards was so badly scarred due to her young age (13-14) that she could not ever bear children again and later had very strong views on the matter.

 

Age of consent in the US in the 1800s was 14 or sometimes younger (in most states today it's 16).  Helen was old enough to consent.  And it would only have been statutory rape if any sexual relations occurred, which most historians believe did not.  As for Fanny, she was over 16 at the time.

 

Emma made it clear that she considered Fanny a friend and type of daughter and did not know what was going on and was incensed when she found out   It was a matter of disloyalty and breaking of trust for her husband to do such a thing to a friend and someone in her household on both their parts.  Fanny was then banned and later had to move to another state to finally be legitimately married again. and continued to be a woman of good morals and had many children.

Fanny made it clear afterwards (in personal letters) that she was coerced and did not understand the full impact of her marriage and thought it a "sealing" in name only.

 

I sincerely doubt this fact since 1. Fanny never talked about the relationship again AND 2. Sealing as a doctrine wasn't revealed at the time.  She knew full well this was a marriage (of some sort).

 

Many other women whose husbands were upset by Joseph's decision to take their wives were sent on Missions far away due to their declining to have their wives taken from them.  Some left the church.

It was clear that others including Oliver Cowdery had deep reservations about Joseph's behaviours and clearly were not happy. 

Some in Nauvoo tried to have print a newspaper about their anger and views on Joseph Smith's behaviours and had their printing press burned down after only one issue for questioning the behaviours of the Mayor and leader of the church.  This is when Joseph Smith left and was later persuaded to come back and face the charges.

 

I believe there is only record of one man being sent on a mission and Joseph marrying his wife.  Apostle Orson Hyde.  And oddly enough he stayed faithful to the Church his whole life.

So, yeah, CFR on "sent on Missions far away due to their declining to have their wives taken from them.  Some left the church."

 

A woman's chastity and virtue were the mainstays of her good name and honor in all times.  To have such removed or tainted, stained not only her but her family and friends and certainly her husband or husband to be.

That chastity and purity are still taught today, but in light of the times would have been even more paramount.

 

Marriage is honorable in all - Hebrews 13:4 - not a single one of Joseph's wives lost an ounce of virtue or chastity by being with him.

 

To say that others here can't imagine putting it into the perspective of the times or sit smugly in their living rooms "making judgments" is ludicrous. 

Anyone with any basic amount of historical reading obviously knew the price these women paid for following their leader and were told that their own souls and lives were at stake as well as their loved ones should they NOT obey the prophet even though it went AGAINST everything that they knew to be true in terms of such behaviors in their "times."

Women were stoned, beaten, shunned and had no where to turn when doing such things in those times.  In many places it still holds true in these times too.

 

You see more coercion than even the participants would believe.  I think your own bias is being falsely displayed as the opinion of the participants.  Yes, they considered their eternal lives at stake.  So did the men.  Heber was told he would lose his apostleship and be damned.  Joseph was commanded by an angel with a drawn sword or be killed.  Men were threatened with the same loss of office and excommunication for refusing to live God's law as the women.  Don't play the women were victims card - not even the women believed it.

 

Emma made her views very clear.  Sarah's law had horrid consequences like "death of their souls" should they not obey, and that was clearly part of Joseph's prophesy and coercive arguments made to the women involved and/or their families whether he wrote it in the D&C until much later or not.  Although she "allowed" some of the sealings....she too could not tolerate it in the end.

 

And there were men who could not tolerate consecrating their property.  And there are men and women who cannot tolerate tithing, word of wisdom, wearing garments, keeping chaste, controlling their temper.  Whatever God commands is right, whether tolerable or not.

 

Most of these women were originally raised in the Methodist/Baptist/Presbyterian/Lutheran or Calvinist churches prior to joining the faith led by Joseph Smith.  This would have been abhorrent and beyond comprehension to most if not all of these women.  Their families of the faith may have agreed as a prophesy spoken by the prophet, but the women themselves who had the most to lose in terms of future 'prospects' (if single) and against their husbands and vows of marriage (if married) would have been appalled and deeply afraid.

 

The attitude of 'we don't hear them complaining' or 'we don't understand from a historical perspective' is like blaming a rape victim for the behaviors of the rapists or abusers in "modern" times. 

 

There is NOT ONE SINGLE INSTANCE OF RAPE, STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE in Joseph's polygamous history.  And for you to like a most holy and sacred eternal order of marriage to rape just shows that it is you who has the wrong perspective.

 

If you also propose that certain things are "right or wrong" no matter what and in any time, then obviously adultery, polygamy, polyandry, murder, taking of young girls, coercion, lying and manipulation by those in higher authority, and who believe in the covenant and higher standards of the priesthood, would certainly and rightly be held responsible and looked upon badly, NOT the followers or faithful or women....those that abuse authority are always judged, not the victims.  As it should be.

 

Typical victim mentality.  These women were anything but victims, and historical fact backs that up.  They were among the most educated, most liberated, most self-reliant women of the era.  They repeatedly stood before governments and the world and defended polygamy as both good and pure AND their choice.  It is people who cannot see past their own limited perspectives that make them into victims.

 

If that doesn't put it "into perspective", what would help you to understand how it was viewed by people of the time and of the place as well as "modern" peoples?  How can anyone accuse members today reading of these dealings with abhorrence and shock, who followed the teachings of the church not to read outside of "church approved" literature are either ignorant or "not understanding" of the times and peoples and what is ethical, is both ridiculous and hypocritical.

The old but true adage that 'absolute power absolutely corrupts' still rings true today as always. 

All organizations MUST have some series of checks and balances in place to prevent such things happening. 

Transparency, integrity, honesty and responsiveness to the people of the church (or indeed any organization) is mandated and put in place for a very good reason.  History does indeed repeat itself and those that don't learn lessons from such history are fools indeed.

 

I have never seen such poor perspective put on the events of our past or such twisted and biased perspective, outside of anti-mormon literature.  There was no abuse, coercion, rape, corruption, or any other such sins in the system of polygamy.  Things may have occurred in some polygamous families, just as they do in some monogamous families.  But speaking of a God given commandment with repercussions reaching into the eternities in such foul terms is just plain false.