Polygamy Is Not The Issue. The Devil Is In The Details

[escott3564]

Thank you for the link, Jlhprof. 

[mormonnewb]

Matthew 10:5-6

Matthew 15:22-28/Or Mark 7:25-29

You continue to assume that Christ's distinctions are based on race and not covenant/relationship. In the case of the Samaritans, that conclusion is unsupportable because the Samaritans were JEWS. They traced their lineage to the three of the twelve tribes of Israel. Certainly, Jesus wasn't saying, "Don't go into a town inhabited by those descendant from the tribes of Levi, Ephraim, and Manasseh. He was using something other than lineage to single them out.

As for the Greek woman, we know nothing of her ethnicity. She may have very well been Semitic. Or perhaps, she was a pagan (ie, out of covenant relationship with HF).

Given the unknowns, why would you assume that Christ based his decision on race?

[mfbukowski]

You continue to assume that Christ's distinctions are based on race and not covenant/relationship. In the case of the Samaritans, that conclusion is unsupportable because the Samaritans were JEWS. They traced their lineage to the three of the twelve tribes of Israel. Certainly, Jesus wasn't saying, "Don't go into a town inhabited by those descendant from the tribes of Levi, Ephraim, and Manasseh. He was using something other than lineage to single them out.

As for the Greek woman, we know nothing of her ethnicity. She may have very well been Semitic. Or perhaps, she was a pagan (ie, out of covenant relationship with HF).

Given the unknowns, why would you assume that Christ based his decision on race?

Jews were only from the tribe of Judah, therefore they were not Jews. The word "Jew" is not synonymous with "tribes of Israel".

[ERayR]

I believe since race was not a concept back then, what it meant is claimed all those circumcised as his kin, they became his kin if they weren't already by the covenant.

 

Kind of like temple sealings in the current dispensation.

[mormonnewb]

Jews were only from the tribe of Judah, therefore they were not Jews. The word "Jew" is not synonymous with "tribes of Israel".

 

The Samaritans were ETHNICALLY Jewish.  I agree that HF makes distinctions amongst His children on the basis of covenants/relationships.  However, JLHPROF insists that HF concerns himself with ethnic/tribal distinctions -- that HF will confer/deny blessings based on differences in DNA.  My point here is that, as a group, the Samaritans and "Jews" had virtually identical DNA as they were all descendant from Joseph.

[Svawd]

I have a hard time believing in polygamy. I think Joseph got a wild hair, don't believe God would put so much pressure on his eternal family plan. This is something I believe God would present in the millennium.

[mfbukowski]

The Samaritans were ETHNICALLY Jewish.  I agree that HF makes distinctions amongst His children on the basis of covenants/relationships.  However, JLHPROF insists that HF concerns himself with ethnic/tribal distinctions -- that HF will confer/deny blessings based on differences in DNA.  My point here is that, as a group, the Samaritans and "Jews" had virtually identical DNA as they were all descendant from Joseph.

Both groups are descendants from Jacob (Israel), not Joseph.  Descendants of Judah, who is a descendant of Jacob, are not descendants of Joseph, though obviously they are cousins with a common ancestor. 

 

Samaritans were descendants of Joseph, but not of Judah.

 

Clearly the Abrahamic covenant was made on the basis of covenants, but the covenants were only available to one ethnic group.   I don't see how that is debatable.  Clearly people who are not members of the ethnic group can be "adopted",

 

Yes, the Samaritans were part of the Abrahamic covenant

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritans

Edited November 17, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mormonnewb]

Both groups are descendants from Jacob (Israel), not Joseph.  Descendants of Judah, who is a descendant of Jacob, are not descendants of Joseph, though obviously they are cousins with a common ancestor. 

 

Samaritans were descendants of Joseph, but not of Judah.

 

Clearly the Abrahamic covenant was made on the basis of covenants, but the covenants were only available to one ethnic group.   I don't see how that is debatable.  Clearly people who are not members of the ethnic group can be "adopted",

 

Yes, the Samaritans were part of the Abrahamic covenant

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritans

 

 

Thanks for the clarifications.  You're right.  The twelve tribes descend from Jacob not Joseph.

 

I'm still not sure why we make the jump that HF was restricting his covenant to one ethnic group when he allowed others to participate through the law of adoption.  Even aside from that not-insignificant point, the fact that HF chose a family to carry on a particular task, it doesn't mean that He had any particular affinity to their ethnicity.

 

For example, let's suppose that the RLDS were right and that HF wanted His true church to be headed by the lineal descendants of JS.  Would that mean that HF had given some racial preference to people of one-half Irish, one-quarter German and one-sixteenth Swedish descent (or whatever was JS' ethnic background)?  Of course not.  I would mean that the Lord had established a preference for one particular family and that even other people with the exact same ethnic heritage would be excluded from the position of prophet.  In that regard, HF would not be making decisions based on race but rather covenant (i.e., "I swore an oath with your father and his father and his father and so on.")

 

This is something different from the idea that HF decrees that "all people of this race are cursed" or that "I bless all people of another race."  It simply isn't the case.  A "pure bred" Judah-ite worshipping Baal would be in just as much trouble as any of the "natives" doing the same.  Because in accessing the righteousness of His children, HF doesn't look to race, but rather relationship.

Edited November 17, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Tacenda]

I didn't know there were so many holes in the latest essay concerning Nauvoo polygamy, until I read this guy's annotations to it. 

 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vd_nkzaEoXDUZhwwjtAq0O0VyiQbTNJGne15eAF2Fxc/edit?pli=1#

[Hamilton Porter]

- The revelation that allowed polygamy said that it was to raise up seed, but it did just the opposite. The women had far fewer kids than monogamous Mormon women if I have read my data correctly. 

- It also left significant men without a marriage as many of the women were taken.

- Many of the reasons we give for polygamy simply fall short of fact and reality. (more women than men in the Church, it was done to provide for old maids and widows, etc... all simply fall short)

 

I agree that to "raise seed" is a crappy rationale for polygamy in this dispensation. JS practiced polygamy to create a friendship ring. The reason the Church gave for testifying to Congress on polygamy is that polygamous societies are more unified and cohesive than atomistic, monogamous ones.

 

That's the only reason that squares with why Joseph and the Church practiced it.

 

I recommend Samuel Brown's On Heaven as it is on Earth.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Hamilton Porter

[Nevo]

I didn't know there were so many holes in the latest essay concerning Nauvoo polygamy, until I read this guy's annotations to it. 

 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vd_nkzaEoXDUZhwwjtAq0O0VyiQbTNJGne15eAF2Fxc/edit?pli=1#

 

FYI, there are more distortions, faulty assumptions, and factual errors in the annotations than in the essay that is being criticized.

[JLHPROF]

FYI, there are more distortions, faulty assumptions, and factual errors in the annotations than in the essay that is being criticized.

 

Agreed, and there is nothing in the annotations new at all.  Just the same old claims.

[mfbukowski]

Thanks for the clarifications.  You're right.  The twelve tribes descend from Jacob not Joseph.

 

I'm still not sure why we make the jump that HF was restricting his covenant to one ethnic group when he allowed others to participate through the law of adoption.  Even aside from that not-insignificant point, the fact that HF chose a family to carry on a particular task, it doesn't mean that He had any particular affinity to their ethnicity.

 

For example, let's suppose that the RLDS were right and that HF wanted His true church to be headed by the lineal descendants of JS.  Would that mean that HF had given some racial preference to people of one-half Irish, one-quarter German and one-sixteenth Swedish descent (or whatever was JS' ethnic background)?  Of course not.  I would mean that the Lord had established a preference for one particular family and that even other people with the exact same ethnic heritage would be excluded from the position of prophet.  In that regard, HF would not be making decisions based on race but rather covenant (i.e., "I swore an oath with your father and his father and his father and so on.")

 

This is something different from the idea that HF decrees that "all people of this race are cursed" or that "I bless all people of another race."  It simply isn't the case.  A "pure bred" Judah-ite worshipping Baal would be in just as much trouble as any of the "natives" doing the same.  Because in accessing the righteousness of His children, HF doesn't look to race, but rather relationship.

Are you sitting down?

 

I agree completely.

 

The problem is that the Bible does not say that, it affirms the covenant was for the descendants of Abraham, and Jesus indicated that he did not come for the Gentiles.

 

But as is said in one of my favorite songs, "It Ain't Necessarily So".  That's why I don't believe the Bible is inerrant.  Guess what?  Neither do other Mormons.  The deal is the only way you can know what is true in a religions sense is what the Spirit tells you is true. I suspect you do not agree with that, but whether or not you do, that is the difficulty with those who believe that scripture is inerrant- any scripture.  AND on the other hand, how then do you know what is true and what is not?

 

You have to have a testimony of each individual principle.  But we have discussed that a million times before.

 

I believe that God loves all his children but I also believe that MEMBERS of certain cultures may not be "ready" for the gospel due to certain cultural conditions, but it is not up to us to decide which INDIVIDUALS will not be ready for the gospel based on ethnic or cultural bias.  Headhunters probably, as a group, will not be interested in the Gospel, but who knows there might be an individual who IS interested.  People raised in atheistic cultures may not be "ready" for the gospel, but there may be individuals who are.

[Tacenda]

FYI, there are more distortions, faulty assumptions, and factual errors in the annotations than in the essay that is being criticized.

Do you mind pointing out a few?

[Nevo]

Do you mind pointing out a few?

 

I'd be glad to. Here's a brief sampling of problematic assertions from the paper:

 

• "Actually, this date was inferred because Joseph was already being accused of polygamy in the early thirties and claimed his first wife - his 16-year old live-in maid Fanny Alger - in 1833-34.  There were accusations of other incidents besides Fanny. For instance, the famous mob attack in which Joseph was tarred and feathered was led by the Johnson brothers, fueled by their accusations that Joseph had been indecently involved with their little sister. It is significant that they brought a doctor along to castrate Joseph. What kind of behavior warrants punishment by castration?"

Joseph was likely married to Fanny Alger in late 1835, when Fanny was nineteen (see, e.g., Don Bradley's "Weighing the Case of Fanny Alger" and "Dating Fanny Alger"). The "famous mob attack" was not led by "the Johnson brothers" and wasn't "fueled by their accusations that Joseph had been indecently involved with their little sister [Nancy Marinda Johnson]." Nor is it clear that a doctor was engaged for the purpose of castrating Joseph (see the discussion in Mark Lyman Staker, Hearken, O Ye People: The Historical Setting for Joseph Smith's Ohio Revelations, 345–373).

 

• "The revelation on eternal marriage was first written down in 1843 because Emma demanded to see a revelation before she would agree to let Joseph marry plural wives (the Partridge sisters)."

D&C 132 was recorded in July 1843. Emma consented to the sealings of the Partridge and Lawrence sisters in early May 1843.

 

• "I would also like to challenge the common excuse for Joseph’s marriage to Helen and other teenagers that  it was common for older men to marry 14 and 15-year olds at the time. This is absolutely not true. Yes, it was legal but it was rare and it was no less scandalous in Victorian America than it is today. The average marriage age for women was around 20 and for men around 24, almost always marrying someone near their own age. It must also be pointed out that 19th Century girls typically had their first period three years later than they do today. So in terms of sexual maturity, marrying a 19th Century 14-year old was the equivalent of marrying a 21st Century 11-year old. These were prepubescent girls."

This is ridiculous. Helen Mar Kimball was not equivalent to an 11-year-old when she married Joseph Smith. It is extremely unlikely that her parents would have offered her in marriage to Joseph Smith if she was still prepubescent. When she was thirteen she became close friends with 17-year-old Sarah Ann Whitney. She later recalled: "Though our parents had long been associated, and we had known each other since the schooldays of Kirtland, but as she was some four years older than myself, who had entered my teens but a few months previous, I had never thought of becoming a companion to her. I had grown up very fast and my father often took me out with him and for this reason was taken to be older than I was. I really thought it curious that Sarah Ann should take such a fancy to me" (Whitney, "Scenes in Nauvoo after the Martyrdom"). At the age of 15, she played the part of the Countess de Morville in the play, "Orphan of Geneva," replacing Mrs. George J. Adams in the role—an absurd bit of casting if Helen looked like a child.

Edited November 18, 2014 by Nevo

[Lukas101]

I agree that the lying is the most problematic part for me. JS was courageous enough to come forth with the BOM, vicarious ordinances, the Great Apostasy and the Restoration of the priesthood. He wasn't a man who shrank away from speaking "hard truths." And while I can understand the concept of not casting pearls before swine, I see nothing in scripture to support lying to the swine, particularly when some of those "swine" were faithful members of the Church. These people, who sacrificed everything to follow their beloved prophet, DESERVED the truth. They deserved to not be set "adrift" from the priesthood because they actually believed JS' own words and rejected the teachings of BY.

So if the choice is between believing that HF chose to discard these precious saints or that JS erred, I choose the latter every time. Of course, I'm completely comfortable with following an imperfect prophet, so it isnt a deal breaker for me.

[LinuxGal]

 

The problem is that the Bible does not say that, it affirms the covenant was for the descendants of Abraham, and Jesus indicated that he did not come for the Gentiles.

 

He also mentioned that if need be, God could raise up from the stones of the ground children to Abraham.  Later, Paul clarified it: We are children of Abraham by faith, not by blood.

[mfbukowski]

He also mentioned that if need be, God could raise up from the stones of the ground children to Abraham.  Later, Paul clarified it: We are children of Abraham by faith, not by blood.

Read the rest of the post.

[CMZ]

I struggle with that as I just don't buy that God gave women a salvific advantage over men. I don't believe God stacked the odds against me simply because I am a man ( Sorry bill but I designed you to be less spiritual and hence less likely.

 

Is there some quote out there that says God gave women a salvific advantage over men? Or that God stacked the odds against you simply because you are a man? Or are these assumptions that are read into some other quotes?

[bcuzbcuz]

Polygamy, as practiced by Joseph Smith, a “dirty, nasty, filthy affair.”

I totally agree.

Polygamy, by anyone, a "dirty, nasty, filthy affair".

[Tacenda]

I'm reading 'In Sacred Loneliness' again. Actually never made it through a lot of it the first time. One quote by Mary Elizabeth Lightener, whose husband was Adam at the time, said, "Joseph said I was his, before I came here. He said all the Devils in Hell should never get me from him." Elsewhere she wrote that Joseph told her he was commanded to marry her or suffer the consequences. I guess Joseph also believed or told a few that their civil marriages were not valid, but only pre earth sealings were. And that their husbands would be blessed if they agreed to his marrying their wives.

It just sounds like a pick up line to me. I don't think HF would put asunder someone's marriage like that, let JS tell people that their marriages weren't valid. But I guess to those husbands, he was a prophet.

[rodheadlee]

Yeah let's all judge Joseph Smith, we have nothing to fear.

 

17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

  18 But those things which proceed out of the ^amouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

  19 For out of the ^aheart proceed evil thoughts, ^bmurders, ^cadulteries, ^dfornications, thefts, ^efalse witness, ^fblasphemies:

  20 These are the things which ^adefile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man. 

[Tacenda]

 

Yeah let's all judge Joseph Smith, we have nothing to fear.

 

17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

  18 But those things which proceed out of the ^amouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

  19 For out of the ^aheart proceed evil thoughts, ^bmurders, ^cadulteries, ^dfornications, thefts, ^efalse witness, ^fblasphemies:

  20 These are the things which ^adefile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man. 

 

Are you saying that about me? 

[JLHPROF]

I'm reading 'In Sacred Loneliness' again. Actually never made it through a lot of it the first time. One quote by Mary Elizabeth Lightener, whose husband was Adam at the time, said, "Joseph said I was his, before I came here. He said all the Devils in Hell should never get me from him." Elsewhere she wrote that Joseph told her he was commanded to marry her or suffer the consequences. I guess Joseph also believed or told a few that their civil marriages were not valid, but only pre earth sealings were. And that their husbands would be blessed if they agreed to his marrying their wives.

It just sounds like a pick up line to me. I don't think HF would put asunder someone's marriage like that, let JS tell people that their marriages weren't valid. But I guess to those husbands, he was a prophet.

 

Until we recognize that civil marriage has nothing to do with religion/God we will never have the right view of Joseph or his marriages.  God doesn't join them.  God doesn't ordain them.  God MAY honor them, but they are telestial, not celestial and celestial always trumps.

[bcuzbcuz]

Until we recognize that civil marriage has nothing to do with religion/God we will never have the right view of Joseph or his marriages.  God doesn't join them.  God doesn't ordain them.  God MAY honor them, but they are telestial, not celestial and celestial always trumps.

Tell that to my wife, I dare you.