Yet Another Polygamy Article

[rockpond]

Then ask yourself why Emma lied later in life when asked whether Joseph had multiple wives. This was a very sensitive subject for her, just as it was for those asking her (her son Joseph III and his RLDS associates), who had a preconceived set of assumptions which could not be challenged for at least another century. Of course Joseph Jr lied in such instances. He had enough trouble with matters outside the family and certainly sought peace at home. I would be very surprised if he did not lie under such circumstances.

I'm not sure what your point is. Joseph lied about polygamy. Emma lied about polygamy. I was saying that it is unfair to claim that Emma lack faithfulness. Does Joseph also lack faithfulness for lying about it or just Emma?

[Lukas101]

Rockpond thanks for your comments. You make some really good points for discussion that I also have been thinking about. It's unfortunate that many people decide to go on the offensive when you really just want to discuss something. I had the same kind of redaction for expressing my opinion on evolution.....

[canard78]

And all these posts???

And all yours???

[canard78]

On orders from Lehi.

Lehi was dead by the time the words in Jacob 2 were said. In Jacob 2:11 he says he is speaking the words instructed by The Lord. Where are you getting Lehi?

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm not sure what your point is. Joseph lied about polygamy. Emma lied about polygamy. I was saying that it is unfair to claim that Emma lack faithfulness. Does Joseph also lack faithfulness for lying about it or just Emma?

Good questions.  My view is that all of us are fallible and make some huge mistakes, which might suggest unfaithfulness in retrospect.  I don't put Joseph or Emma above other people in that respect.  Joseph used to tell the Saints:  You bear with my infirmities, and I'll bear with yours.  That bears repeating.

[Robert F. Smith]

Lehi was dead by the time the words in Jacob 2 were said. In Jacob 2:11 he says he is speaking the words instructed by The Lord. Where are you getting Lehi?

From the Book of Mormon:

 

Jacob 2:11 does tell us the immediate occasion for High Priest Jacob's words, and he does attack the Davidic Dynasty for having many wives and concubines (as a Manassite could be expected to do), and goes on in verse 27 to set out the rule that "there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;"  However, that such a rule is not permanent is clear from verse 30, "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things."  Then in chapter 3:5, HP Jacob notes that the Lamanites "are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father--that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none," etc.

 

Which "father"?  Jacob 2:34, "And now, behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi:"  There is no question of the context which these verses give when read in sequence.  Had the Book of Lehi not been lost (remember the 116 pages?), we would likely have those very words of Lehi in his own book.

[omni]

I'm not sure what your point is. Joseph lied carefully worded denials (™) about polygamy. Emma lied about polygamy. I was saying that it is unfair to claim that Emma lack faithfulness. Does Joseph also lack faithfulness for lying carefully wording denials (™) about it or just Emma?

 

There, fixed it for you

[rockpond]

Good questions.  My view is that all of us are fallible and make some huge mistakes, which might suggest unfaithfulness in retrospect.  I don't put Joseph or Emma above other people in that respect.  Joseph used to tell the Saints:  You bear with my infirmities, and I'll bear with yours.  That bears repeating.

 

Agreed.  I just don't like when people put forward the proposition that Joseph had to lie about polygamy because Emma wasn't faithful enough to handle it.

[Thinking]

We need to focus on coming to terms with the history and theology, not declaring it wrong because it offends our modern sensibilities.

 

I'm pretty sure it (polygamy) offended 19th century sensibilities too.

[JLHPROF]

I'm pretty sure it (polygamy) offended 19th century sensibilities too.

 

Well, that is true, but for different reasons.

[Stargazer]

I'm perfectly happy with Joseph's handling of the new and everlasting covenant, just in case any of you were wondering where I stood on this.

 

What I am worried about is the Lord restoring plural marriage to active practice!  Only part of the worry is the promised departure of Mr. and Mrs. cinepro in this event. The other part is the fact that my wife has already identified who my first plural wife will be if push comes to shove. 

[Silhouette]

Agreed. I just don't like when people put forward the proposition that Joseph had to lie about polygamy because Emma wasn't faithful enough to handle it.

I understand where you're coming from, but the only other reason I could see for him lying about it would be because he wanted to cheat on Emma and be deliberately sneaky about it.

To me the lesser of the two evils would be the idea that Emma wasn't faithful enough to handle it.

Not saying that either one of these ideas is fact, mind you. I'm just saying that if our only choice came down to one of these two reasons, I'd prefer to think that it was Emma who had the problem rather than the Prophet Joseph.

When it gets down to it, I suspect it was a little of both.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Silhouette

[Calm]

Perhaps he lied because he knew it would hurt Emma. Perhaps he lied because he is one of those guys who claims he is protecting his wife but it really is because he wants to avoid the hassle of dealing with it at all. Perhaps he lied because he didn't want to put the effort into persuading her. Perhaps he lied because the things she would say would make him feel like a failure in his promises to her.

I could go on. I think there are a lot of options besides she was too faithless and he wanted to cheat.

[Tacenda]

Perhaps he lied because he knew it would hurt Emma. Perhaps he lied because he is one of those guys who claims he is protecting his wife but it really is because he wants to avoid the hassle of dealing with it at all. Perhaps he lied because he didn't want to put the effort into persuading her. Perhaps he lied because the things she would say would make him feel like a failure in his promises to her.

I could go on. I think there are a lot of options besides she was too faithless and he wanted to cheat.

 

Maybe it was to avoid her wrath:

 

“To my certain knowledge, Emma Smith is one of the damnedest liars I know of on this earth; yet there is no good thing I would refuse to do for her, if she would only be a righteous woman; but she will continue in her wickedness. Not six months before the death of Joseph, he called his wife Emma into a secret council, and there he told her the truth, and called upon her to deny it if she could. He told her that the judgments of God would come upon her forthwith if she did not repent. He told her of the time she undertook to poison him, and he told her that she was a child of hell, and literally the most wicked woman on this earth, that there was not one more wicked than she. He told here where she got the poison, and how she put it in a cup of coffee; said he ‘You got that poison from so and so, and I drank it, but you could not kill me.’ When it entered his stomach he went to the door and threw it off. he spoke to her in that council in a very severe manner, and she never said one word in reply. I have witnesses of this scene all around, who can testify that I am now telling the truth. Twice she undertook to kill him. [utah Historical Quarterly, vol. 48, Winter 1980, 82]

[rockpond]

I understand where you're coming from, but the only other reason I could see for him lying about it would be because he wanted to cheat on Emma and be deliberately sneaky about it.

To me the lesser of the two evils would be the idea that Emma wasn't faithful enough to handle it.

Not saying that either one of these ideas is fact, mind you. I'm just saying that if our only choice came down to one of these two reasons, I'd prefer to think that it was Emma who had the problem rather than the Prophet Joseph.

When it gets down to it, I suspect it was a little of both.

 

Calmoriah elaborated on other reasons why he might have lied.  I don't think Joseph did a lot of "cheating" in the carnal sense.  (My logic for that is that we know Joseph was fertile, there weren't a lot of birth control options back then, I don't buy the Bennett/abortion story, and there aren't many JS progeny around other than those from Emma.)

 

While I can follow your "lesser of two evils" thought process, I am completely offended at the notion of rationalizing Joseph's sin of commission (lying) by forcing it onto an assumed sin of ommission (lack of faith) by Emma.  For me, that is continuing this pattern of privileging Joseph's reputation above all else and I see no reason to do that.

[JLHPROF]

(My logic for that is that we know Joseph was fertile, there weren't a lot of birth control options back then, I don't buy the Bennett/abortion story, and there aren't many JS progeny around other than those from Emma.)

 

My logic for that is that Joseph probably consummated each marriage only once and then was unable to visit with his plural wives again.  The odds of any progeny being produced on a one time consummation, assuming biological timing is right are slim.

[rockpond]

My logic for that is that Joseph probably consummated each marriage only once and then was unable to visit with his plural wives again.  The odds of any progeny being produced on a one time consummation, assuming biological timing is right are slim.

 

That conclusion makes sense to me... I don't see him as a Lothario but I do believe that he may have felt the need (theologically) to consummate the marriages.

[Tacenda]

That conclusion makes sense to me... I don't see him as a Lothario but I do believe that he may have felt the need (theologically) to consummate the marriages.

There is the withdraw method, not to be graphic.  But is pretty reliable. 

[JLHPROF]

There is the withdraw method, not to be graphic.  But is pretty reliable. 

 

True, but again, I doubt Joseph had opportunity to "room" with his plural wives more than once or twice at best.  The lack of progeny argument doesn't really hold any water with me as to whether there were sexual relations or not.

 

Not that that matters either - I still believe they were (for the most part) his wives in this life just as much as Emma, regardless of relations.

[Thinking]

The other part is the fact that my wife has already identified who my first plural wife will be if push comes to shove. 

 

You wife is super proactive in this consent thing. Does the other woman know that you have had this conversation? What if she has already been identified as wife #2 by another couple? And the most important question of all (which you probably shouldn't answer): Is this woman who you would choose as wife #2?

Edited November 20, 2014 by Thinking

[stemelbow]

Posted Today, 02:04 PM

Stargazer, on 20 Nov 2014 - 12:07 AM, said:

The other part is the fact that my wife has already identified who my first plural wife will be if push comes to shove.

You wife is super proactive in this consent thing. Does the other woman know that you have had this conversation? What if she has already been identified as wife #2 by another couple? And the moist important question of all (which you probably shouldn't answer): Is this woman who you would choose as wife #2?

Call me suspicious but are you sure, Stargazer, your wife isn't wanting this second wife for her? Ya might want ot keep a close eye on these two.

[Calm]

You might want to rephrase that as it could be read as offensive and accusing his wife of unfaithfulness.

If actually meant as a joke, not funny IMO.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I want to find out if polygamy is a part of exaltation and if so, what my future earth wife would think of that.

[JLHPROF]

I want to find out if polygamy is a part of exaltation and if so, what my future earth wife would think of that.

 

Then I suggest getting on your knees and asking Heavenly Father, because doctrinally there is contradiction between prophets.  Some say yes, some say no.  Interpretation of the revelation is debated.  This leaves us to find out for ourselves, as Joseph Smith always taught we should do.

[JLHPROF]

Another article on the issue - this one I agree with, and actually, makes me feel like I need to repent a little.  I still believe the information on polygamy in the Church has always been there, easy to find for anyone who cared enough to look.

But this article more clearly points out why SO many members can legitimately claim to be shocked by the "big reveal" of Joseph Smith's polygamous marriages.

 

Sometimes I forget that that majority of Church membership didn't have access to the reading materials I did.  International location still isn't a full excuse, but language barriers could be.  Growing up in England (not Utah), my family ordered huge numbers of books on Mormonism to be shipped there from Utah.  We had the full set of the Journal of Discourses, the Life of Heber C. Kimball, Women of Mormondom, and many others that make full mention of polygamy.

 

But as the article points out:

"it’s clear that the overall trend is that any serious membership growth is happening abroad.
Spanish is the #1 language spoken in the global church.
In other words, if you grew up Mormon in the United States, speak English, and had polygamous family stories to teach you about history that had been banished from official curriculum, congratulations. You are now a privileged minority."

 

And other than the anti-materials on the internet or ordering english language materials, it's a bit close-minded of me to expect members everywhere to have access to this knowledge.  I still think growing up in the US, Utah, and to a lesser degree, England, Canada, and other English speaking nations, that you really could find out by reading a few more books on Mormonism.    But I no longer apply that to members everywhere.

 

 

http://janariess.religionnews.com/2014/11/20/memo-liberal-mormons-little-humility-please/

 

Smug. Self-satisfied. Above it all.

That’s how I’d characterize the reactions of some Mormons, especially liberal ones, in the wake of Polygamygate.

I’m a liberal Mormon too, so let me hasten to add that most of my peeps have behaved themselves well in these ongoing discussions about Joseph Smith, polygamy, and the early Church.

Some, however, have  gloated:

“I learned about this 15 years ago,” one person messaged me on Twitter. “This is new to you?”
Various people have mentioned on social media that they’d been taught about polygamy by grandparents or other relatives, so the new Gospel Topics announcements are “really no big deal” to them.
Or this: a guy whose father-in-law is a stake president in Central America sounded almost gleeful that his FIL and other regional church leaders were shocked by the Church’s revelations that Joseph Smith had as many as 40 wives, that some of them were teenagers, and others were already married to other men. They’d had no idea. The commenter appeared to enjoy setting them straight on the more salacious details of LDS history.
But this is not the time for us to enjoy a nice cup of schadenfreude, people. This is the time to be pastors.

I can certainly understand why some liberal Mormons may be feeling vindicated right about now. After all, some of our own were ostracized or even disciplined for being a few years or decades ahead of their time, publishing the uncomfortable historical facts about polygamy before the Church was ready to officially acknowledge them.

I’m glad the Church is now on board with historical transparency, and I applaud the many efforts the Historical Department has made to help bring this about. But I’m not rejoicing that Mormons who were not previously in the know are now suffering because of these revelations.

And I’m annoyed that these cavalier commenters aren’t concerned about this too. Do they just casually assume that since they had polygamous ancestors and learned about polygamy from their own family history, this is in any way common now for the Church as a whole?

Then let’s be clear: it isn’t. Consider these facts:

At least 56% of the membership of the LDS Church is now located outside the United States.(Other people put that number closer to 60%.)
Ninety percent of Mormons worldwide live outside of Utah.
Membership growth has slowed significantly in the United States, or even decreased slightly. In 2013 there were 6.3 million Mormons in the US (6,321,416), but in 2011 there had been nearly 6.4 million (6,398,889). I think this downward trend is just a blip, especially with the surge in young missionaries who have been assigned within the U.S. The LDS Church Growth Blog, for example, reports an increase for 2013 of more than 77,000 members in the U.S. However, it’s clear that the overall trend is that any serious membership growth is happening abroad.
Spanish is the #1 language spoken in the global church.
In other words, if you grew up Mormon in the United States, speak English, and had polygamous family stories to teach you about history that had been banished from official curriculum, congratulations. You are now a privileged minority.

As a convert, I certainly didn’t grow up hearing stories about polygamy at my granddaddy’s knee, though as a voracious reader, I learned about it later. In books that were printed only in English, not Spanish or Filipino or Portuguese or Korean.

Privilege, again.

So, liberal Mormons, can we have a little compassion? However late the official Church was to the transparency party, it finally arrived on Mormon Standard Time.

And while its presence at the party may seem to you like it’s too little, too late, believe me when I say that for some Latter-day Saints here and abroad, even that much unvarnished history is hard to assimilate. People who didn’t know about polyandry are having a tough time imagining the prophet Joseph Smith gathering women to himself who were already married — to say nothing of his unions with teenage girls.

Instead of mocking them for being disturbed by information they may never have even had access to, maybe we can learn from them by remembering once again that it is in fact disturbing.

Edited November 22, 2014 by JLHPROF