Nytimes: "it's Official: Mormon Founder Had Up To 40 Wives"

[Gervin]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/us/its-official-mormon-founder-had-up-to-40-wives.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

[Blah]

It's official: slow news day.

[JLHPROF]

Good article. Nothing new.

[bluebell]

It's better than the copy cat article I read which stated that the church taught for 200 years that JS was strictly monogamous and that this article is the first time it has admitted he practiced polygamy.

[ALarson]

It's also on today's front page of the Fox News website and CNN's:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/11/mormon-leaders-admit-church-founder-joseph-smith-practiced-polygamy/?intcmp=latestnews

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/11/living/mormon-founder-polygamy/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

[Silhouette]

I guess what irritates me about the "concern" some women have about the possibility of plural marriage in the eternities is that they clearly do not have an understanding of Gospel teaching on the matter.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Either you'll embrace it and be completely happy with it, or you won't be exalted to have to worry about it anyway.

While there has been no official teaching about whether or not polygamy will be in effect in the state of exaltation, the possibility has been discussed enough in a hypothetical sense, that these people ought to have a better understanding of it than they do,

If it IS to occur in exaltation, those who practice it will be happy with it and have absolutely no problem with it.

If anyone had an issue with it, they won't be exalted anyway, and therefore won't have to deal with marriage at all.

If it must be practiced, I have every confidence in Heavenly Father that He will see that those who practice it will be blissfully happy in that state.

I don't see what the problem is for some people.

And while I'm on my soapbox, I have to add that I don't feel it would be appropriate for women to hold the Priesthood. I think that women who argue in favor of this are trying to get power over things that are not and should not be in their stewardship.

My opinions on these matters might open up a can of worms here, but I think that people who make a fuss about this stuff need to learn more about the appropriate gender rolls for men and women, and what is appropriate stewardship for each.

Not trying to be holier-than-thou to those that don't think like I do. Just saying they need to be able to extrapolate further than their earthly hang-ups and view things in an eternal perspective. This can only be done by educating themselves about it, and listening to the Spirit and allowing that to guide them rather than their petty earthly emotions.

There. Reckon I've stirred the pot enough for now, so I'm going back to bed.

[Avatar4321]

His plural marriage has been public record in the church for well over 150 years. All you have to do is look at family search entries for Joseph Smith

[LOSTONE]

I can barley handle one wife. Why in the world would I want more than one? I am ... but not this bad.

[JLHPROF]

I guess what irritates me about the "concern" some women have about the possibility of plural marriage in the eternities is that they clearly do not have an understanding of Gospel teaching on the matter.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Either you'll embrace it and be completely happy with it, or you won't be exalted to have to worry about it anyway.

While there has been no official teaching about whether or not polygamy will be in effect in the state of exaltation, the possibility has been discussed enough in a hypothetical sense, that these people ought to have a better understanding of it than they do,

If it IS to occur in exaltation, those who practice it will be happy with it and have absolutely no problem with it.

If anyone had an issue with it, they won't be exalted anyway, and therefore won't have to deal with marriage at all.

If it must be practiced, I have every confidence in Heavenly Father that He will see that those who practice it will be blissfully happy in that state.

I don't see what the problem is for some people.

And while I'm on my soapbox, I have to add that I don't feel it would be appropriate for women to hold the Priesthood. I think that women who argue in favor of this are trying to get power over things that are not and should not be in their stewardship.

My opinions on these matters might open up a can of worms here, but I think that people who make a fuss about this stuff need to learn more about the appropriate gender rolls for men and women, and what is appropriate stewardship for each.

Not trying to be holier-than-thou to those that don't think like I do. Just saying they need to be able to extrapolate further than their earthly hang-ups and view things in an eternal perspective. This can only be done by educating themselves about it, and listening to the Spirit and allowing that to guide them rather than their petty earthly emotions.

There. Reckon I've stirred the pot enough for now, so I'm going back to bed.

Nite Nite,

Melanie

 

This deserves many rep points.  I 100% agree.

[Nevo]

I guess what irritates me about the "concern" some women have about the possibility of plural marriage in the eternities is that they clearly do not have an understanding of Gospel teaching on the matter. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Either you'll embrace it and be completely happy with it, or you won't be exalted to have to worry about it anyway. . . . I don't see what the problem is for some people.

 

Maybe if you had to live it you might be more understanding. Terryl Givens has some good comments on the topic in his new book on Mormon theology. He writes:

 

For most plural wives (and the men as well), the practice [of plural marriage] was a costly burden. Some women thrived under 'the principle.' And a surprising number rose to defend plural marriage when it was under attack, revealing a stalwart solidarity under siege, but also giving insight into their own understanding of its foundations and purposes. . . . The male narrative of Smith and Young especially emphasized the dynastic dimension to eternal families. Much nineteenth-century rhetoric about plurality emphatically positioned plural wives as instrumental to male exaltation and kingdom-building. Women, by contrast, often emphasized the benefits to society and posterity; for themselves, it was more a crucible than a blessing. . . .

 

As the practice grew and its immense challenges became manifest, a common objective of plural marriage hypothesized by its female adherents in particular was that it represented a higher spiritual practice, a refiner's fire that purified rather than thwarted emotional attachment. . . . If marital love survived, it was not the love of Victorian companionate marriage, with two soul mates caught up in a unitary bond to the exclusion of all else. And if romantic love had to die in the process, as it did, it must be because a higher form of love awaited the faithful practitioners of plural marriage. . . .

 

Novelistic accounts of Utah polygamy, which abounded throughout the nineteenth century, depicted women as duped, deluded, or coerced into the practice, in which men reveled. In actual fact, recognizing that few of either gender were happy with the practice, Young and his successors increasingly turned to the language of trial and spiritual refining to characterize plural marriage—which validated the women in their experience of the practice and shaped their understanding of its purpose accordingly. . . .

 

Because the practice was suspended but the revelation never superseded, the significance of plural marriage in the eternities hovers in indeterminacy. However, the association of polygamy in Mormon rhetoric with Abrahamic sacrifice, and the explicit juxtaposition of those topics in section 132, suggests an answer. . . . In the logic of Abrahamic sacrifice, as in the historical case of polygamy, the essence of the test is in the person's willingness to provisionally suspend a moral imperative (do not practice human sacrifice) in deference to a divine mandate to perform an ethically repugnant act. . . .

 

In the case of polygamy, the association with the Abrahamic offering of Isaac would be perverse if the act in question were transformed into a supernal principle, rather than a costly and agonizing trial. Even its most fervent defenders persisted, in the final analysis, in seeing the practice as a wrenching schooling, a test of faith, and the means to a greater end, not the blessed end itself: 'In obeying this law it has cost [us] a sacrifice nearly equal to that of Abraham.... There is nothing that would induce me to...lose my hold upon that crown which awaits all those who laid their willing but bleeding hearts upon the altar,' said one plural wife. Young's second wife Mary Ann concurred: 'God will be very cruel if he does not give us poor women adequate compensation for the trials we have endured in polygamy.' Lorena Bent found nothing to praise in a 'principle which had caused so much sacrifice, heartache, and trial.' Heavenly continuation of those trials would hardly constitute compensation.

 

— Terryl L. Givens, Wrestling the Angel: The Foundations of Mormon Thought: Cosmos, God, Humanity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 283–287, passim.

[USU78]

I have long thought that women were refined through polygyny, but men's arrogance and acquisitiveness tested thereby.

 

Women had to give up so very much that most take for granted.

 

Men had to raise their games as well.

 

No wonder they raised children who stayed so very close to the Church.

 

As always, Givens nails it.

[Jeanne]

I guess what irritates me about the "concern" some women have about the possibility of plural marriage in the eternities is that they clearly do not have an understanding of Gospel teaching on the matter.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Either you'll embrace it and be completely happy with it, or you won't be exalted to have to worry about it anyway.

While there has been no official teaching about whether or not polygamy will be in effect in the state of exaltation, the possibility has been discussed enough in a hypothetical sense, that these people ought to have a better understanding of it than they do,

If it IS to occur in exaltation, those who practice it will be happy with it and have absolutely no problem with it.

If anyone had an issue with it, they won't be exalted anyway, and therefore won't have to deal with marriage at all.

If it must be practiced, I have every confidence in Heavenly Father that He will see that those who practice it will be blissfully happy in that state.

I don't see what the problem is for some people.

And while I'm on my soapbox, I have to add that I don't feel it would be appropriate for women to hold the Priesthood. I think that women who argue in favor of this are trying to get power over things that are not and should not be in their stewardship.

My opinions on these matters might open up a can of worms here, but I think that people who make a fuss about this stuff need to learn more about the appropriate gender rolls for men and women, and what is appropriate stewardship for each.

Not trying to be holier-than-thou to those that don't think like I do. Just saying they need to be able to extrapolate further than their earthly hang-ups and view things in an eternal perspective. This can only be done by educating themselves about it, and listening to the Spirit and allowing that to guide them rather than their petty earthly emotions.

There. Reckon I've stirred the pot enough for now, so I'm going back to bed.

Nite Nite,

Melanie

Temple reference removed by moderator

[cdowis]

The problem is that the general public and many members do not understand the difference between married and sealed.  They naturally assume consummation where he was "married" to women who already had a husband.  The NYT made mention that sex may not have been involved, but JS did not give us an a record of exactly what was going on.

 

The church did the right thing here, and we will have to see what happens.

Edited November 11, 2014 by cdowis

[JLHPROF]

The problem is that the general public and many members do not understand the difference between married and sealed.  They naturally assume consummation where he was "married" to women who already had a husband.  The NYT made mention that sex may not have been involved, but JS did not give us an a record of exactly what was going on.

 

The church did the right thing here, and we will have to see what happens.

 

I'd still like to see any actual evidence for this "sealing only" ceremony.  I looked through Hales work and it's a bit of an assumption to say the least.

[Freedom]

Polygamy may be practiced if there is more of one gender than the other in the celestial kingdom but we won't know this until we get there. Also, there are countless billions of planets all with souls going through the same ordeal as us so there is an infinite supply of fresh new celestial beings to add to the eternal dating pool so if you don't fine any earthlings then there will be plenty others to choose from. 

 

I also suspect that we have a very limited understanding of eternal marriage so we tend to impose the conditions of plural marriage on our current limited view of intimacy and love. Trying to comprehend the possibilities of plural marriage as  mortals is like expecting an 8 year old to comprehend the possibilities of monogamous intimacy. It is all academic and completely lacking of proper context. 

[cdowis]

I'd still like to see any actual evidence for this "sealing only" ceremony.  I looked through Hales work and it's a bit of an assumption to say the least.

 

I think that is what I said.  JS left it to us to explain what he was doing.  It is very unlikely that the faithful members, regardless of their relationship with the prophet, would have allowed otherwise.  

 

Anyway, I do refer you to Mary Rollins Lightner's journal which gives us some insight into this relationship with JS.  Read it and make up your own mind, but it's clear to me that this relationship was sealing only.  (It is well worth the read on this period of her life -- very entertaining to read about where she insulted the angel who was.......)

Edited November 11, 2014 by cdowis

[Alan]

Helen Mar Kimball, who was sealed to Joseph when she was 14, clearly stated that it was a sealing for eternity and not a marriage in the normal sense. It was dynastical. There was not even a hint of intimacy.

So why not the others?

 

Eliza Snow issued an affidavit in Utah swearing she was a wife to Joseph and made other statements which suggested she had marital relations with him. However, she also issued a signed statement in Nauvoo (dated after her claimed marriage date) claiming there was no plural marriage in the church. She was lying in one of these statements.

 

I mention this to illustrate that when the claims are examined properly, very few of them stack up.

 

As many here know, it is my belief that Joseph was not a polygamist. He was only married to Emma.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Alan

[Tacenda]

Just listened to a podcast where they mention those that turned Joseph Smith down in his proposals. And how some of these women were defamed. Is JS correct in putting them up for criticism. Just doesn't sit well that he would do that. If he is so righteous in his desires to live polygamy does he trade off a good action with a bad one?

Edited November 11, 2014 by Tacenda

[JAHS]

His plural marriage has been public record in the church for well over 150 years. All you have to do is look at family search entries for Joseph Smith

Even better, all you have to do is read D&C 132, 

[bluebell]

removed

If this is meant to allude to things that happen in the temple it is completely inappropriate.

[Garden Girl]

While there has been no official teaching about whether or not polygamy will be in effect in the state of exaltation, the possibility has been discussed enough in a hypothetical sense, that these people ought to have a better understanding of it than they do,

If anyone had an issue with it, they won't be exalted anyway, and therefore won't have to deal with marriage at all.

If it must be practiced, I have every confidence in Heavenly Father that He will see that those who practice it will be blissfully happy in that state.

Nite Nite,

Melanie

 

I disagree with an absolute statement that we won't be exalted unless we live polygamy... I agree that there is no official Church teaching regarding whether we will be required to live polygamy to be exalted.  We do know that today a widower can be sealed to a subsequent wife and chldren...  and why wouldn't he be... i.e., a man's wife dies and leaves him with children, then he meets and marries a second wife and has children with her, why wouldn't he want that family also to be with him in the eternities, and in exaltation.

I do agree that if there is polygamy in exaltation, those participating will be completely happy because there is nothing in Heavenly Father's kingdom that isn't perfect and for our happiness.  But I do not believe it will be a requirement because of the Church's position, regardless of what BY has said.

And I agree our eternal perspective will be different than what we can understand as mere humans... 

 

GG

[Mystery Meat]

Helen Mar Kimball, who was sealed to Joseph when she was 14, clearly stated that it was a sealing for eternity and not a marriage in the normal sense. It was dynastical. There was not even a hint of intimacy.

So why not the others?

 

Eliza Snow issued an affidavit in Utah swearing she was a wife to Joseph and made other statements which suggested she had marital relations with him. However, she also issued a signed statement in Nauvoo (dated after her claimed marriage date) claiming there was no plural marriage in the church. She was lying in one of these statements.

 

I mention this to illustrate that when the claims are examined properly, very few of them stack up.

 

As many here know, it is my belief that Joseph was not a polygamist. He was only married to Emma.

 

Everyone is entitled to their wrong opinion. And even if you are right, are we to believe that he is going to be a polygamist in the eternaties but not here? You yourself admit he was sealed to more than one woman. Either way, polygamy is still polygamy.

[JLHPROF]

I disagree with an absolute statement that we won't be exalted unless we live polygamy... I agree that there is no official Church teaching regarding whether we will be required to live polygamy to be exalted.  We do know that today a widower can be sealed to a subsequent wife and chldren...  and why wouldn't he be... i.e., a man's wife dies and leaves him with children, then he meets and marries a second wife and has children with her, why wouldn't he want that family also to be with him in the eternities, and in exaltation.

I do agree that if there is polygamy in exaltation, those participating will be completely happy because there is nothing in Heavenly Father's kingdom that isn't perfect and for our happiness.  But I do not believe it will be a requirement because of the Church's position, regardless of what BY has said.

And I agree our eternal perspective will be different than what we can understand as mere humans... 

 

GG

 

You missed her point - it was not that we will be required.  It's that "If anyone had an issue with it, they won't be exalted anyway, and therefore won't have to deal with marriage at all."

 

You cannot fight against and reject a commandment from God and still expect exaltation.  Whether you personally will be required to live plural marriage is not an established doctrine.  But fighting or denigrating any of God's laws and commandments won't get us where we want to go...into his presence.

 

And frankly, I believe that God is a polygamist.  I believe that Christ is a polygamist.  When it comes time to be judged I can't see standing in front of them saying "polygamy is a mistake".

I also don't see how we expect to become like God and Christ if we don't live every law and ordinance they lived.  We are baptized, they were baptized.  We are endowed, they were endowed.  We are married, they are married.  But when it comes to plural marriage, well, we don't want to be THAT much like God and Christ.

 

Also, read the marriage ceremony.  If it's the last ordinance needed for exaltation, exactly what ordinance pertaining to the holy order of marriage did you just covenant to keep in the future?  You're done aren't you?  Maybe not...

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If this is meant to allude to things that happen in the temple it is completely inappropriate.

Don't worry BB it is meant that way.

[The Nehor]

In other exciting news there are indications that tobacco use may cause cancer.