why me Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 That was my point. It isn't the "critics" that bring it up. Not historically, and not in the context of this thread. You'll have to site some past threads in order to make your case.I would have to go the exmo site and the postmo site. Not to mention other critic discussion boards. The subject comes up every now and then when polygamy is discussed. It is a standard for such threads on critic boards. Of course, apologists have to counter such negativity from the critics and so, they must bring it up or be accused of covering it up. On many occasions Joseph is called a sexual pedator on the exmo sites among other things. Should I post links?
JulieM Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 I would have to go the exmo site and the postmo site. Not to mention other critic discussion boards. The subject comes up every now and then when polygamy is discussed. It is a standard for such threads on critic boards. Of course, apologists have to counter such negativity from the critics and so, they must bring it up or be accused of covering it up. On many occasions Joseph is called a sexual pedator on the exmo sites among other things. Should I post links?You seem intent on bringing up negative opinions about both Emma and Joseph Smith. Why?And, I see very little criticism of Emma here or on other sites as most have a great deal of sympathy for her. Any examples of her being jealous or angry seem justified or at least people seem to understand. I enjoyed reading the article linked in the opening post. 2
stemelbow Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 Judging parents is too difficult. I mean I think it's one of the most commonly adhered to activities in the Church, but it's far too difficult on the whole. Most parents are all probably pretty good, but everyone has their bad moments. Judging parents that have long passed just makes it more difficult than to judge your neighbors. But people do it, I suppose. I think most parents could be shown to be the best parents ever if someone many years down the road picked stories to offer an assessment. I'm not saying Joseph and Emma were good or bad parents. I'm sure they were probably like most of us parents--some good and some bad, hoping the bad doesn't drown out the good.
JLHPROF Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 Judging parents is too difficult. I mean I think it's one of the most commonly adhered to activities in the Church, but it's far too difficult on the whole. Most parents are all probably pretty good, but everyone has their bad moments. Judging parents that have long passed just makes it more difficult than to judge your neighbors. But people do it, I suppose. I think most parents could be shown to be the best parents ever if someone many years down the road picked stories to offer an assessment.I'm not saying Joseph and Emma were good or bad parents. I'm sure they were probably like most of us parents--some good and some bad, hoping the bad doesn't drown out the good. This is very true. The challenge when speaking of Emma as a parent is that no matter what way you spin it she led her children away from the gospel and the priesthood. And whether we like to think it true or not, she DID know better. She had received all the ordinances with her husband. And she led her children away from them. It's hard not to recognize that as a serious error.
Gray Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 This is very true. The challenge when speaking of Emma as a parent is that no matter what way you spin it she led her children away from the gospel and the priesthood. And whether we like to think it true or not, she DID know better. She had received all the ordinances with her husband. And she led her children away from them. It's hard not to recognize that as a serious error. She knew better? I don't think she recognized Brigham Young as the rightful successor to Joseph Smith. I don't think that she was pretending about that (although she did pretend that Joseph was never a polygamist).
why me Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 You seem intent on bringing up negative opinions about both Emma and Joseph Smith. Why?And, I see very little criticism of Emma here or on other sites as most have a great deal of sympathy for her. Any examples of her being jealous or angry seem justified or at least people seem to understand. I enjoyed reading the article linked in the opening post.I am not bringing them up but the critics do. And yes, critics are sympathetic to emma and blame it all on Joseph Smith. I am sure that emma had a temper...since we all do. And i am sure that both had arguments. All marriages do. But here is the point: regardless of how the critics spin the polygamy issue emma always wore a lock of Joseph's hair around her neck after he was murdered. I also believe that both were good parents. When we look back on their parenting and take into consideration polygamy and joseph's 30 plus wives, it doesn't seem that it made him a worse parent. So, something was going on then that we can never understand regardless of how much we speculate. Also, upon Joseph's death, some of his plural wives were in the funeral possession.
ALarson Posted April 23, 2015 Author Posted April 23, 2015 I am not bringing them up but the critics do. Really? As far as I can see, YOU are the only one bringing them up in this thread (from 5 different posts of yours): why me said: "And yet, to hear the critics, emma attempted to murder joseph, kicked eliza down the stairs, and force fanny out of the home. Not so even tempered. So, who was right, the critics or charles? Someone who attempts to murder their husband, kicks someone down the stairs and forced out fanny, does not seem even tempered. And one does not change one stripes so easily." "So, was emma a mild manner woman after she left the saints? Did her personality take a change for the better or was she the attempted murderer and violent person?" "They keep it going to stir the pot by showing that all was not well in the home of emma and joseph. The active lds tend not to bring it up. I have heard it over and over again about the attempted murder and the kick down the stairs." "On many occasions Joseph is called a sexual pedator on the exmo sites among other things."
cinepro Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) I am not bringing them up but the critics do. And yes, critics are sympathetic to emma and blame it all on Joseph Smith. I am sure that emma had a temper...since we all do. And i am sure that both had arguments. All marriages do. But here is the point: regardless of how the critics spin the polygamy issue emma always wore a lock of Joseph's hair around her neck after he was murdered. I also believe that both were good parents. When we look back on their parenting and take into consideration polygamy and joseph's 30 plus wives, it doesn't seem that it made him a worse parent. So, something was going on then that we can never understand regardless of how much we speculate. Also, upon Joseph's death, some of his plural wives were in the funeral possession. I still don't get the point you're trying to make. Whether or not you believe Joseph was commanded by God to practice polygamy, doing it without Emma's knowledge or consent is still pretty lousy. Joseph might have been a great prophet, great leader, great scriptorian, great mayor and great many other things. But in my book, once you're marrying other women without your first wife's knowledge and consent, you are no longer a "good husband". Unless we're talking about quantity and not quality. Polygamy is often linked back to Abraham, and it's the same thing with him. Abraham may be a great prophet, the father of many nations, and so on, but at the point you're strapping your son to an altar and preparing to kill him, I don't think you can be considered a "good father", even if God told you to do it. It just seems to be a definitional thing. But again, maybe that's just me. Edited April 23, 2015 by cinepro 2
JLHPROF Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 She knew better? I don't think she recognized Brigham Young as the rightful successor to Joseph Smith. I don't think that she was pretending about that (although she did pretend that Joseph was never a polygamist). Emma went through the same priesthood ordinances, attended the same Anointed Quorum meetings, shared a house with Joseph and had more access to ask questions than anyone.I think she knew that her son was supposed to inherit some things from his father, but she also would have understood how a priesthood quorum worked. Most young Elders have learned that much. She had to realize her son wasn't qualified to lead yet (being 11 with no priesthood and no ordinances). And she had to understand how leadership in a quorum was determined and that the Apostles led the Church.Oh, I think she definitely knew better. I think she let her dislike of Brigham/polygamy and her recognition of Joseph's unfulfilled plans for their son rob her of her better judgement. She knew enough about priesthood to know where the authority went.
ALarson Posted April 23, 2015 Author Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) Emma went through the same priesthood ordinances, attended the same Anointed Quorum meetings, shared a house with Joseph and had more access to ask questions than anyone.I think she knew that her son was supposed to inherit some things from his father, but she also would have understood how a priesthood quorum worked. Most young Elders have learned that much. She had to realize her son wasn't qualified to lead yet (being 11 with no priesthood and no ordinances). And she had to understand how leadership in a quorum was determined and that the Apostles led the Church.Oh, I think she definitely knew better. I think she let her dislike of Brigham/polygamy and her recognition of Joseph's unfulfilled plans for their son rob her of her better judgement. She knew enough about priesthood to know where the authority went.JLHPROF,Do we really even know whether or not Emma was upset about her young son (Joseph III) not being named as her husband's successor? Do we have any statements from her on that? I'd really like to know and read more about the subject. My impression is that it had more to do with the polygamy issue. The split between those who followed Brigham Young and the leaders who stayed behind seem to be more those who were polygamists (or accepted polygamy) vs. those who rejected polygamy. But, I don't know if there's ever been a study on that so we can see percentages. Edited April 23, 2015 by ALarson
JLHPROF Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 JLHPROF,Do we really even know whether or not Emma was upset about her young son (Joseph III) not being named as her husband's successor? Do we have any statements from her on that? I'd really like to know and read more about the subject. My impression is that it had more to do with the polygamy issue. The split between those who followed Brigham Young and the leaders who stayed behind seem to be more those who were polygamists (or accepted polygamy) vs. those who rejected polygamyt. But, I don't know if there's ever been a study on that so we can see percentages. I think you're right. I'm no expert on Joseph III. I do believe that his father probably had indicated a birthright inheritance at some point. I'd have to do some research. But I do think Emma probably considered her son a potential successor at some point in the future.
Gray Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 Emma went through the same priesthood ordinances, attended the same Anointed Quorum meetings, shared a house with Joseph and had more access to ask questions than anyone.I think she knew that her son was supposed to inherit some things from his father, but she also would have understood how a priesthood quorum worked. Most young Elders have learned that much. She had to realize her son wasn't qualified to lead yet (being 11 with no priesthood and no ordinances). And she had to understand how leadership in a quorum was determined and that the Apostles led the Church.Oh, I think she definitely knew better. I think she let her dislike of Brigham/polygamy and her recognition of Joseph's unfulfilled plans for their son rob her of her better judgement. She knew enough about priesthood to know where the authority went. It may seem clear to you in hindsight how the succession was supposed to work out, but there was considerable doubt on the matter at the time. Which is why it is called the succession crisis.
Nevo Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 Emma ... had to understand how leadership in a quorum was determined and that the Apostles led the Church. I don't think it was clear to Emma that the leadership of the Church belonged to the Twelve in the absence of the First Presidency. After Joseph's death she pushed for William Marks to be appointed president and trustee-in-trust. Her reasons for supporting Marks's leadership are laid out in a recent article: While Marks is not usually brought up today when discussing the succession 'crisis,' he was initially one of the most likely options. First, he was one of the highest-ranking church leaders alive at the time. Joseph Smith revealed in 1835 that the high council of Zion (which was the Nauvoo High Council) was equal in authority to both the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles. However equal, the high council was the "cornerstone of Zion," while the Twelve Apostles were a "traveling high council." Thus, it could be argued that Marks should have presided in Nauvoo and the twelve in the periphery. Second, it could be argued that Marks's standing in the Quorum of the Anointed was greater than that of other claimants. Marks was one of the first to be anointed (as was Brigham Young), but he was also the first non-Smith to receive his second anointing. Finally, Marks outranked all other claimants in the Council of Fifty, which used a seniority system according to William Clayton. Marks was the tenth most senior member of the council, outranking both Brigham Young and Sidney Rigdon. The following year, in April of 1845, Emma told James Monroe, her children's schoolteacher, her views on Marks . . . [My time] has been occupied chiefly in conversing with Aunt Emma, from whom I have obtained several new and interesting ideas concerning the organization and government of the church for instance as we have often been told that temporal things are patterned after spiritual things especially in government, so as the Vice-President [of] the United States would take the office of the President in case of the removal or desease of that officer, the next officer of the Kingdom immediately below the First President would take his Place upon his decease, and hold it until his removal, decease, or until the coming of Christ when the Kingdom would again be given into the hands of Joseph to whom it belongs for time and eternity. The next officer is the President of the High Council in Line and not one of his councillors, any more than the Secretary of state or of the Treasury would be successor to the President. It is not the Twelve, because they have authority only among the branches in the world, and their peculiar provision is to spread the Gospel among all the nations of the earth. Whereas it is the business of the first Presidency more particularly to govern the Church at Zion and the members a-broad have a right of appeal to that quorum from its decisions of the Twelve. Now as the Twelve have no power with regard to the government of the Church in the Stakes of Zion, but the High Council have all power, as it follows that on removal of the first President, the office would devolve upon the President of the High Council in Zion. . . . Mr Rigdon is not the proper successor of Pres Smith being only his councilor but Elder Marks should be the individual as he was not only his councilor at the time of his death but also president of the High Council. And according to the ordination pronounced upon him by Br. Joseph he is the individual contemplated by him for his successor. The Twelve never received any such instruction or commands or ordination as would authorize them to take that office. They were aware of those facts but acted differently. (John S. Dinger, "'A Mean Conspirator' or 'The Noblest of Men': William Marks's Expulsion from Nauvoo," The John Whitmer Historical Association Journal 34, no. 2 [Fall/Winter 2014]: 15–17.) Emma's position was not an unreasonable one. Nothing in the revelations directed the Twelve to succeed Joseph. 3
JLHPROF Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 Emma's position was not an unreasonable one. Nothing in the revelations directed the Twelve to succeed Joseph. Except for the Biblical precedent that Emma had to be familiar with. Some guy named Peter.
cinepro Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 Emma went through the same priesthood ordinances, attended the same Anointed Quorum meetings, shared a house with Joseph and had more access to ask questions than anyone.I think she knew that her son was supposed to inherit some things from his father, but she also would have understood how a priesthood quorum worked. Most young Elders have learned that much. She had to realize her son wasn't qualified to lead yet (being 11 with no priesthood and no ordinances). And she had to understand how leadership in a quorum was determined and that the Apostles led the Church.Oh, I think she definitely knew better. I think she let her dislike of Brigham/polygamy and her recognition of Joseph's unfulfilled plans for their son rob her of her better judgement. She knew enough about priesthood to know where the authority went. She may have done all those things, but you're making it sound like Moroni had appeared to her and given her a copy of this article. Succession in Nauvoo in 1844 looked quite different than it does in 2015. Even to Brigham Young and the other members of the Quorum of the 12. 2
cinepro Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 Except for the Biblical precedent that Emma had to be familiar with. Some guy named Peter. Yeah, but in your analogy, Peter didn't become Jesus II. 1
JLHPROF Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 Yeah, but in your analogy, Peter didn't become Jesus II. Nor did Brigham become Joseph II. Not sure why that matters.
ALarson Posted April 23, 2015 Author Posted April 23, 2015 I don't think it was clear to Emma that the leadership of the Church belonged to the Twelve in the absence of the First Presidency. After Joseph's death she pushed for William Marks to be appointed president and trustee-in-trust. Her reasons for supporting Marks's leadership are laid out in a recent article: Emma's position was not an unreasonable one. Nothing in the revelations directed the Twelve to succeed Joseph.Thanks Nevo. That was very interesting to read. Have you read Andrew F. Ehat's thesis: "Joseph Smith's Introduction of Temple Ordinances and the 1844 Mormon Succession Question"? I have a copy of it and should probably pull it out and read it. If you've read it, any thoughts?
Gray Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 Nor did Brigham become Joseph II. Not sure why that matters. Joseph took Brigham's place. Peter didn't take Jesus' place, though.
Nevo Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 Have you read Andrew F. Ehat's thesis: "Joseph Smith's Introduction of Temple Ordinances and the 1844 Mormon Succession Question"? I have a copy of it and should probably pull it out and read it. If you've read it, any thoughts? I also have a copy and haven't read it I probably should. I have read this, though, which I think is one of the best treatments of the succession crisis. 1
JLHPROF Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 Joseph took Brigham's place. Peter didn't take Jesus' place, though. Other way round.And, no, he didn't.
Gray Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 Other way round.And, no, he didn't. Thanks, I'm easily confused 1
ALarson Posted April 24, 2015 Author Posted April 24, 2015 I also have a copy and haven't read it I probably should. I have read this, though, which I think is one of the best treatments of the succession crisis.I do know that there was some controversy surrounding Ehat's writing of this essay, but I need to refresh my memory about it. Didn't it end with him suing the Tanners? I'll try to look that up. Either way, I should read his essay as I'd imagine it's an excellent source.
Recommended Posts