Sinking

[Mars]

You're welcome.

 

I never know if saying "You're not alone" will invalidate the difficulty of someone's struggles, by like, trivializing it and making it sound ordinary, or if it'll comfort someone by knowing they're not alone.

 

So if it helps, you're not alone.  I sincerely hope your path keeps you in the Church, but I understand if it doesn't.  (As though you need my approval...  heh.)

[lds-convert-sw]

Tacenda, 

 

I feel like the Church is very Christ centered.  In fact, Christ as revealed through Joseph Smith has been the anchor of my testimony, not Joseph Smith himself....

Hi. To go slightly off topic, as a convert to the church 6 years ago, there have been times when I thought the Church was not Christ "focused". My thought, at first, was..."Why all the talk about Joseph Smith Jr, over and over again?, and all the talk about the Book of Mormon, all the time?" BUT, that was a fallacy in my thinking. Christ IS the center of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-Day Saints. The reason there is "all this talk about Joseph Smith" is for the very reason, He is indeed the Prophet of The Restoration. As I read the Book of Mormon daily, I can say without a doubt, the BOM does indeed testify of Christ, of his coming, his death, his resurrection, and of the truth in it's words. It (the BOM) talks about Christ over and over and over again, it reaffirms everything that's in the Bible, and provides even more for us, as does the POGP, and D & C.

I am a person who has often been the "Doubting Thomas", who just HAD to have proof for everything. I was always the person saying "Where is the proof of... (fill in the blank)". Until my life changed recently. There were a series of circumstances/consequences of my actions which turned my life completely upside down. I had to re-evaluate everything.  Now, I live my life by faith in the Lord. Or at least I try to, to the best of my ability.

 

Regarding J.S. Jr and poligamy, we can't know all the facts about what happened back in the 1830's. However, I know enough history, and I have enough faith, to know without a doubt that Joseph Smith Jr. was visited by, and did receive direct revelation from God. And as such, the actions he took while in this mortal realm may not have been perfect, but I think he did better than any of us could have done. It's just my personal view, but I do believe J.S. Jr was given revelation from God that poligamy was necessary, just as in days past. As it says in Ecclesiastes 3...

"He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end."

 

No man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end... Sometimes there just isn't an answer. Of course it's worth discussing, that's why we're here.

[Kenngo1969]

God made me with a reasonably-well-functioning (depending on whom you talk to! ) brain.  I can't really relate to where you are because I can never remember a time when I have harbored the kind of doubts you apparently do.  That does not, however, mean that I don't believe anyone who is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and who has a reasonably-well-functioning brain won't have questions about some (many) things relating to the doctrine, history, or practices of the Church of Jesus Christ.  

 

To borrow and slightly alter the title of a book by Hyrum W. Smith (the book is, Pain is Inevitable, Misery is Optional), Questions are Inevitable, Doubt is Optional.  Questions notwithstanding, I choose to believe.  You seem to want to take that approach, so my question would be, Why don't you?  I cannot speak for you, but the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ has born abundant good fruit in my life.  I would be surprised if the same could not be said of you.  A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit.  Stephen R. Covey once said that we don't see things as they are; we see them as we are.  The Apostle Paul wrote of seeing "through a glass, darkly."  As much as we might do both of those things with regard to bewildering present circumstances, it seems certain that we do them with regard to bewildering past circumstances.

 

I look forward to some exceedingly-well-attended firesides on the other side or during the millennium with such scintillating titles as, Brother Joseph, What Were You Thinking?, and Brother Brigham, What Were You Thinking?  I'm reluctant to judge them using my "seeing-things-as-I-am-not-as-they-are" and "seeing-through-a-glass-darkly" lenses.  The questions I have, while not doctrinal in nature, relate more to my personal circumstances.  For example, this Gospel extols the virtues of work and of earning one's living by the sweat of one's brow, so why is it that meaningful, reasonably-well-remunerated, reasonably-fulfilling employment has eluded me for so long?  And, this Gospel extols the virtues of family life, and too many of my brothers and sisters seem all too willing to stand in judgment of us long-term bachelors, forgetting that two people must choose to exercise their agency to determine their mutual eternal suitability for one another, so why is it that this blessing, too, has eluded me for so long (and indeed, may not be forthcoming in mortality)?

 

The only real answer I have (and some would argue that it isn't really an "answer" at all) is that I know, any frustration relating to current circumstances notwithstanding, that God loves me.  It's a good thing I don't have to be perfect for Him to love me, because I'm not; and I'm nobody special in terms of faithfulness and commitment.  Indeed, often, my faith can only be described with the words of the distraught father who implored the Savior to cast an evil spirit out of his son: "Lord, I believe.  Help thou mine unbelief." I can only say, with Job, "The Lord giveth, and the Lord hath taken away [or, at least in my case and at leas to this point, the Lord hath withheld]."  I can only say, with the Apostle Paul, that I am "troubled on every side, yet not distressed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed."  I can only say, again, with Paul, that "all things work together for the good of them that love God" (and "all" really does include all things, not just the "good" stuff).  I can only say, with Nephi, "I know that [God] loveth His children; nevertheless, I know not the meaning of all things."  And I can only say, with Isaiah, "God's thoughts are not my thoughts, neither are His ways my ways, for as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are God's thoughts higher than my thoughts, and His ways than my ways."

 

I wish you well.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[drums12]

God made me with a reasonably-well-functioning (depending on whom you talk to! ) brain.  I can't really relate to where you are because I can never remember a time when I have harbored the kind of doubts you apparently do.  That does not, however, mean that I don't believe anyone who is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and who has a reasonably-well-functioning brain won't have questions about some (many) things relating to the doctrine, history, or practices of the Church of Jesus Christ.  

 

To borrow and slightly alter the title of a book by Hyrum W. Smith (the book is, Pain is Inevitable, Misery is Optional), Questions are Inevitable, Doubt is Optional.  Questions notwithstanding, I choose to believe.  You seem to want to take that approach, so my question would be, Why don't you?  I cannot speak for you, but the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ has born abundant good fruit in my life.  I would be surprised if the same could not be said of you.  A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit.  Stephen R. Covey once said that we don't see things as they are; we see them as we are.  The Apostle Paul wrote of seeing "through a glass, darkly."  As much as we might do both of those things with regard to bewildering present circumstances, it seems certain that we do them with regard to bewildering past circumstances.

 

I look forward to some exceedingly-well-attended firesides on the other side or during the millennium with such scintillating titles as, Brother Joseph, What Were You Thinking?, and Brother Brigham, What Were You Thinking?  I'm reluctant to judge them using my "seeing-things-as-I-am-not-as-they-are" and "seeing-through-a-glass-darkly" lenses.  The questions I have, while not doctrinal in nature, relate more to my personal circumstances.  For example, this Gospel extols the virtues of work and of earning one's living by the sweat of one's brow, so why is it that meaningful, reasonably-well-remunerated, reasonably-fulfilling employment has eluded me for so long?  And, this Gospel extols the virtues of family life, and too many of my brothers and sisters seem all too willing to stand in judgment of us long-term bachelors, forgetting that two people must choose to exercise their agency to determine their mutual eternal suitability for one another, so why is it that this blessing, too, has eluded me for so long (and indeed, may not be forthcoming in mortality)?

 

The only real answer I have (and some would argue that it isn't really an "answer" at all) is that I know, any frustration relating to current circumstances notwithstanding, that God loves me.  It's a good thing I don't have to be perfect for Him to love me, because I'm not; and I'm nobody special in terms of faithfulness and commitment.  Indeed, often, my faith can only be described with the words of the distraught father who implored the Savior to cast an evil spirit out of his son: "Lord, I believe.  Help thou mine unbelief." I can only say, with Job, "The Lord giveth, and the Lord hath taken away [or, at least in my case and at leas to this point, the Lord hath withheld]."  I can only say, with the Apostle Paul, that I am "troubled on every side, yet not distressed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed."  I can only say, again, with Paul, that "all things work together for the good of them that love God" (and "all" really does include all things, not just the "good" stuff).  I can only say, with Nephi, "I know that [God] loveth His children; nevertheless, I know not the meaning of all things."  And I can only say, with Isaiah, "God's thoughts are not my thoughts, neither are His ways my ways, for as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are God's thoughts higher than my thoughts, and His ways than my ways."

 

I wish you well.

Thank you.  I appreciate your sincere and heartfelt thoughts. 

[JLHPROF]

I really am sorry for your faith crisis.  I tend not to comment on such things because I really can't indentify.  My faith crisis times have always been focused on my relationship with God (or lack thereof). 

 

But I have never questioned the things in Church History that cause so many of my Brothers and Sisters so much concern.  The age or marital status of Joseph's wives is something I long ago accepted.  Brigham's controversial doctrines were shocking, but some I accepted as true and others are just opinion.  Joseph's calling is something I have defended again and again and I don't doubt his calling or his position in God's Kingdom.

 

I have had (and continue to have) issues with the Church's lack of transparency and willingness to drop or change things I consider sacred.  But the history and origin of this Church just makes my spirit sing.  I wish I could transfer that feeling to those who struggle with Joseph Smith (or Brigham Young, John Taylor or any of our 1800's prophets).  I've read all the troubling facts, all the things that don't fit with our current perspectives but I cannot deny the fruits of the restored gospel, the fruits of these prophets.  They were men, they even made mistakes and sinned, but they were NEVER wicked in any way.

 

In the end though I am forced to realize that just because my faith crisis comes from one area of my religion and someone elses faith crisis comes from a different place, both are serious and deserve all the support that can be given.  Because giving up on what Heavenly Father has given to his children is just not an option in my life.  I hope you can find the same confidence and hold tight to your faith.

[Guest]

I've been struggling since 2010, and especially since late 2012. I'm tired. I just don't know if I can "make it all work" in my head anymore. I won't relay the issues I struggle with, as they are, for the most part, the usual. At last, though, with the release of the new essays on plural marriage, I feel like I can no longer make it work. If it were anyone but Joseph Smith, would we try to come up with reasons why marriages weren't "sexual" or what not? I love the Joseph Smith I grew up with. I still love the idea of that Joseph Smith. I know I've felt the Spirit of God in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But, at the end of the day, if Joseph was a sexual predator (which I'm not saying he was, but the evidence can certainly be interpreted that way), then isn't the whole thing built on a false foundation? I'm 34 years old. I concede that teenage young women (post-pubescent) can be attractive. But were I to ask one on a date I'd go to jail (rightfully so). Yet at Church, I sit and wonder how many members, even with the new essays, would be able to handle this information. Yes, I understand the marriage to Helen Mar Kimball may have been dynastic or unconsummated, but it also may HAVE been consummated. How do I deal with this without feeling like I'm just turning off my brain, and reasoning?

 

I know this forum isn't a support group, but I don't know where to turn.  How do I "trust" my spiritual experiences when so much factual information seems to fly in the face of them?

Just a question; do you struggle with OT Prophets being Prophets because of polygamy. Also a very large portion of Joseph's wives were only sealings. Joseph had 11 children with Emma (though some died) and none out of all other women. What are the odds. Many have claimed to have had children by him....but none.

[cursor]

...

Edited December 23, 2014 by cursor

[cursor]

Joseph Smith himself was struggling with a similar question about the truth of any particular religion, and that is a good thing.  Hugh Nibley used to express his concern for those who never asked questions, and hence learned nothing.  As to your felt lack of concord between your personal testimony and "facts," just ask yourself the appropriate questions in Alma 32.  Struggle is a lifelong process.  Without it we become stale automatons.  It is the best way to learn.

 

I realize that many may not have known anything previously about Mormon polygamy, and find it shocking -- based on modern Western assumptions that only bad people would marry several wives simultaneously, and especially a couple of very young wives (by modern standards).

 

The question of whether Joseph had sexual intercourse with any of them seems to me like asking whether Abraham and Jacob had sex with their plural wives.  More problematic though is whether Joseph had any offspring via these wives.  Even in our time of DNA testing, we know of none -- except those born of Emma.

 

I always recommend that people who find themselves shocked by something try to step back and evaluate the issue dispassionately and evenhandedly.  What are the implications of these supposed "facts."  Are we to take them at face value?  Or are they merely raw data which are to be interpreted?

 

How is this evaluation of how one should approach the seemingly disgusting (to the rest of the world) relationship of polygamy be compared to ... say homosexuality, wherein no children are born, yet serious lifelong companionship is supplied? Your suggestion is (or at least seems to be) that polygamy is OK (although contrary to then ... and current Western assumptions), when [perhaps] homosexuality (which is becoming MUCH more accepted in Western culture) might not be?

Edited December 23, 2014 by cursor

[cursor]

The question of whether Joseph had sexual intercourse with any of them seems to me like asking whether Abraham and Jacob had sex with their plural wives.  More problematic though is whether Joseph had any offspring via these wives.  Even in our time of DNA testing, we know of none -- except those born of Emma.

 

I always recommend that people who find themselves shocked by something try to step back and evaluate the issue dispassionately and evenhandedly.  What are the implications of these supposed "facts."  Are we to take them at face value?  Or are they merely raw data which are to be interpreted?

 

I see any argument that Joseph Smith viewed adding any priesthood-sealed wife as non-sexual as unrealistic.

 

Joseph Smith introduced the practice of polygamy (one man, multiple wives), in his later short life. From the example projected by all that followed him in said practice, I cannot for a moment presume that he did not have full and complete marital relations with all of his 30+ wives (including 14-year-old Fanny Mae). Any reasons for limited offspring for Joseph Smith is beyond me (although I have some theories). Brigham certainly didn't have any problem with offspring from wives beyond his first.The same can be said of many, if not all of JS' polygamous followers. What were the lessons taught by the prophet with regards to this practice? And, how were those teachings prolerferated.  

 

If Joseph meant for polygamy (the addition of other sealed wives — yet without romantic/sexual behavior) — to be the rule, then how did so many subsequent polygamous LDS families (in positions of high authority) have umpteen children from children ... from umpteen wives?

Edited January 6, 2015 by cursor

[Calm]

"From the example projected by all that followed him in said practice"

Except it was practiced among those who followed him for a younger bride to stay at home with her parents until she was of an age they saw as safe to begin to bear children, at which time she would move into her husband's household and be fully a wife physically speaking.

I do not doubt the younger wives would have eventually moved from betrothal status to full wife status, but from at least Helen's writings it appeared Joseph died before that happened.

Edited January 6, 2015 by calmoriah

[Robert F. Smith]

I see any argument that Joseph Smith viewed adding any priesthood-sealed wife as non-sexual as unrealistic.

 

Joseph Smith introduced the practice of polygamy (one man, multiple wives), in his later short life. From the example projected by all that followed him in said practice, I cannot for a moment presume that he did not have full and complete marital relations with all of his 30+ wives (including 14-year-old Fanny Mae). Any reasons for limited offspring for Joseph Smith is beyond me (although I have some theories). Brigham certainly didn't have any problem with offspring from wives beyond his first.The same can be said of many, if not all of JS' polygamous followers. What were the lessons taught by the prophet with regards to this practice? And, how were those teachings prolerferated.  

 

If Joseph meant for polygamy (the addition of other sealed wives — yet without romantic/sexual behavior) — to be the rule, then how did so many subsequent polygamous LDS families (in positions of high authority) have umpteen children from children ... from umpteen wives?

All good questions, cursor, but what are the odds that Joseph did not have any offspring from his polygynous unions?  Despite some very good efforts at DNA testing, none have been found as yet.  I hate to build a case on pure supposition.

 

At the same time, several of Brigham's and Joseph's wives were older women, and the likelihood that they sexually consummated their marriages is far from guaranteed.  Wives have historically been acquired from previous rulers as prestige items, such as some of the wives of Joseph being subsequently acquired by Brigham (the most famous being Eliza R. Snow, the sister of Lorenzo).  Thus, was Lucinda Morgan Harris merely a trophy wife?  She was the widow of famous anti-Mason William Morgan.  What about Fanny Young, who was 56 at her marriage to Joseph? Or of Sarah Kingsley, who was 53?  Was this all about sex and lust, or were other factors involved?

[Robert F. Smith]

...........................................................

Except it was practiced among those who followed him for a younger bride to stay at home with her parents until she was of an age they saw as safe to begin to bear children, at which time she would move into her husband's household and be fully a wife physically speaking.

I do not doubt the younger wives would have eventually moved from betrothal status to full wife status, but from at least Helen's writings it appeared Joseph died before that happened.

In some cultures, such as the Hindu, husbands and wives married as actual children (the parents made the selections), but such marriages were never consummated until many years later.

[rpn]

Fannie Alger was 16 or 17 (there is no exact date), not 14.

Edited January 6, 2015 by rpn

[Tacenda]

I don't understand anyone not knowing the natural birth control methods on this board. The pull out method is a form of birth control. Joseph was secretly practicing plural marriage, so in my estimation, a likely scenario.  But I also believe there may have been a few offspring because of some written history of people saying he had children other than with Enma.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Tacenda

[ERayR]

I don't understand anyone not knowing the natural birth control methods on this board. The pull out method is a form of birth control. Joseph was secretly practicing plural marriage, so in my estimation, a likely scenario.  But I also believe there may have been a few offspring because of some written history of people saying he had children other than with Enma.

 

Thanks for the birth control lesson.  Really he was practicing polygamy because he was commanded to.  He considered the polygamous marriages (as opposed to sealings only) to be valid marriages.  Couples who are married consummate those marriages. I know you and others abhor polygamy but it is not unreasonable for him to have children by one or more of his polygamous wives but there is just no solid evidence either way.  When are you all going to get tired of imagining peering into his bedroom window two hundred years removed.

[cursor]

All good questions, cursor, but what are the odds that Joseph did not have any offspring from his polygynous unions?  Despite some very good efforts at DNA testing, none have been found as yet.  I hate to build a case on pure supposition.

 

At the same time, several of Brigham's and Joseph's wives were older women, and the likelihood that they sexually consummated their marriages is far from guaranteed.  Wives have historically been acquired from previous rulers as prestige items, such as some of the wives of Joseph being subsequently acquired by Brigham (the most famous being Eliza R. Snow, the sister of Lorenzo).  Thus, was Lucinda Morgan Harris merely a trophy wife?  She was the widow of famous anti-Mason William Morgan.  What about Fanny Young, who was 56 at her marriage to Joseph? Or of Sarah Kingsley, who was 53?  Was this all about sex and lust, or were other factors involved?

 

What can I say, but my wife will be 53 years old this month ... and she is definitely HOT. She is without doubt a "trophy wife." Not only that, but she is a senior biomedical engineer to boot!

 

The simplicity of age is hardly a measure of attractiveness.

Edited January 7, 2015 by cursor

[juliann]

What can I say, but my wife will be 53 years old this month ... and she is definitely HOT. She is without doubt a "trophy wife." Not only that, but she is a senior biomedical engineer to boot!

 

The simplicity of age is hardly a measure of attractiveness.

 

Thanks Cursor. I am so repelled that "old" women are considered proof of non sexual unions when no one blinks an eye about the elderly men marrying women decades younger. No one worries about attractiveness then!  It is a particularly self-defeating rational when one is making a case that polygamy had nothing to do with sexual desires of the men.  The condescending "yuk yuk I can only handle one wife" as if all wives are burdens is also insulting to women. 

 

A little sensitivity training is in order when we speak publicly about women in a situation where they are likely to be considered victims to begin with.

[juliann]

 

I heard that Pres. Uchtdorf has had a hand in historical issues becoming more transparent. His son in law is Michael Ash, the author of the book helping people with crisis of faith, just forgot the name of it.

 

I think it a pretty sure bet all of the First Presidency (and probably more)  "had a hand in" it considering it wouldn't have seen the light of day without approval. MIke is his nephew not his SIL.

 

Now back to Drums....

[why me]

Tacenda, 

 

I feel like the Church is very Christ centered.  In fact, Christ as revealed through Joseph Smith has been the anchor of my testimony, not Joseph Smith himself.  Yet I wonder if all the spiritual witnesses I've had, and all the good done in the Church, are just my emotion.  This is what critics would tell me.  I

Of course the critics would tell you this. But you know that this is not the case. I have also had spiritual witnesses that the church is true. And I know that they were not tied to emotion. They were real and tangent. But the critics do need to attack such witnesses. And the exlds too. But you know better. Now about Joseph Smith. For his young life, he accomplished much during his 38 years and when we consider what his life was like at 22 and what it was like at 38, we can see quite a progression. 

 

In terms of his polygamy, not one woman said any disparaging words against him after he died. Just the opposite. And this speaks volumes about his intentions and character. I would think that if he were in it for the sex, some of these women would have said so. And yet, they didn't say anything such thing. Why? I take what the critics say about him seriously. Many of his plural wives had a strong spiritual experience before they accepted being sealed to him. And these women were not weak but strong frontier women who sacrificed much while in the church. I would stick to such basics and disregard the critics. 

[cursor]

Thanks Cursor.

 

 

My wife's maiden name is Julian. by the way.

[why me]

I don't understand anyone not knowing the natural birth control methods on this board. The pull out method is a form of birth control. Joseph was secretly practicing plural marriage, so in my estimation, a likely scenario.  But I also believe there may have been a few offspring because of some written history of people saying he had children other than with Enma.

I dont think that the women would have encouraged such practices. And there is still a risk if it all doesn't go right or as planned. Joseph could have had sex anytime he wanted when he was on the road. He could have traveled here and there to have sex. He didn't need to start polygamy when he did. Something else was guiding him into polygamy. 

[Tacenda]

I think it a pretty sure bet all of the First Presidency (and probably more)  "had a hand in" it considering it wouldn't have seen the light of day without approval. MIke is his nephew not his SIL.

 

Now back to Drums....

Oh I hate when I put false info out there, thanks for straightening me out. 

[Garden Girl]

I don't understand anyone not knowing the natural birth control methods on this board. The pull out method is a form of birth control. Joseph was secretly practicing plural marriage, so in my estimation, a likely scenario.  But I also believe there may have been a few offspring because of some written history of people saying he had children other than with Enma.

 

Okay Tacenda... I'm going to give you a CFR on the "written history" of people saying he had children other than with Emma... who are these people and please cite their written history that you refer to...

 

GG

[Calm]

" not one woman said any disparaging words against him after he died"

Do you mean of those actually sealed to him, because plenty of women had bad things to say about him, a few had even known him.

I am not saying they were right, but hyperbole does not help in the long run to resolve issues.

Edited January 7, 2015 by calmoriah

[cursor]

Joseph could have had sex anytime he wanted when he was on the road. He could have traveled here and there to have sex. He didn't need to start polygamy when he did. Something else was guiding him into polygamy. 

Seriously think about what you/re saying. Have you at all?