USU78 Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Why not? Or divorce him, but in her day, divorce was extremely frowned upon. Because one act of alleged bullying deserves another, n'est-ce pas? Edited March 28, 2016 by USU78 Fumble Fingers
Tacenda Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 8 minutes ago, USU78 said: Because one act of alleged bullying deserves another, n'est-ce pas? Bullying? Let's just say unfaithful, it was adultery. I of course don't believe God commanded it. So that's probably going to nix any good dialogue between the two of us. 2
USU78 Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 4 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Bullying? Let's just say unfaithful, it was adultery. I of course don't believe God commanded it. So that's probably going to nix any good dialogue between the two of us. Adultery? Ridiculous. Emma agreed to live the principle, going to the extent of choosing wives for Joseph. Then she reneged. And she expected that her unilateral act, which involved seeking to compel Joseph against his will to go back on his word, would be effective to stop the train after it had already left the station. How is her unilateral act not a passive-aggressive [at least] act of bullying? 1
Jeanne Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 39 minutes ago, USU78 said: So your position is, as was Emma's, at least for a time, that she could rightly renege on her commitment to living the Principle? And she could and ought to be permitted to decide for Joseph whether or not he also should renege? Yep. He should ask...invite her input..and she should stick to what she feels is right for her! I don't believe that God commanded this and c'mon she had every right to say NO. 1
USU78 Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 4 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Yep. He should ask...invite her input..and she should stick to what she feels is right for her! I don't believe that God commanded this and c'mon she had every right to say NO. Except that she said yes. Or do you deny this as well?
ALarson Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 (edited) 10 minutes ago, USU78 said: Adultery? Ridiculous. Emma agreed to live the principle, going to the extent of choosing wives for Joseph. Yes, Emma chose girls who Joseph had already secretly married behind her back (the Partridge sisters). So, he had a mock ceremony for Emma and married both of them again. And yes, it was technically adultery (unless you believe Joseph's plural wives were his legal wives). . Edited March 28, 2016 by ALarson 2
VideoGameJunkie Posted March 28, 2016 Author Posted March 28, 2016 46 minutes ago, USU78 said: Except that she said yes. Or do you deny this as well? I don't feel she said yes at first because Emma was not the first wife sealed to Joseph Smith. She was like the 25th or something. 1
USU78 Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 1 minute ago, VideoGameJunkie said: I don't feel she said yes at first because Emma was not the first wife sealed to Joseph Smith. She was like the 25th or something. I'm not sure what 'feel' has to do with it, since she plainly gave her consent. Others are working on the assumption that he entered into marriages prior to her consent, but that's a separate issue. She gave consent. Joseph acted in good faith on that consent. In doing so, he made undertakings to G-d. She withdrew her consent, or at least attempted to, but that's more than a little bit late. Others' lives were involved, as well as Joseph's oath to G-d. Emma can appropriately choose actions violative of her own oath, but she cannot, once she gives her oath, prevent others from fulfilling their oaths. To attempt to is to be the bully you claim you're speaking out against. 1
ALarson Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, USU78 said: She gave consent. Joseph acted in good faith on that consent. What are you talking about? Joseph had already married the 2 girls behind Emma's back prior to her consent (and then he proceeded to further his deceit by holding a fake wedding and pretending to marry the Partridge sisters again in front of Emma rather than telling her the truth that he was already married to both of them). You call that acting "in good faith"? . Edited March 28, 2016 by ALarson
ALarson Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said: I don't feel she said yes at first because Emma was not the first wife sealed to Joseph Smith. She was like the 25th or something. Yes, Joseph was sealed to 25 other women prior to being sealed to Emma. She was finally allowed to be sealed to Joseph as a reward for her cooperation when she briefly and temporarily accepted the principle. She also received her 2nd anointing at this time (iirc). Why couldn't Emma have been sealed to Joseph first before he was sealed to so many other women? Why did she have to accept polygamy before Joseph approved her sealing to him? For me, this is evidence that Joseph felt the sealings were for polygamous/plural marriage rather than how we think of marriage sealings today. JLHPROF probably knows (if he's still reading this thread ) . Edited March 28, 2016 by ALarson
USU78 Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 1 hour ago, ALarson said: What are you talking about? Joseph has already married the 2 girls behind Emma's back prior to her consent (and then he proceeded to further his deceit by holding a fake wedding and pretending to marry the Partridge sisters again in front of Emma rather than telling her the truth that he was already married to both of them). You call that acting "in good faith"? Why are you ignoring the fact that her consent meant something? Why are you ignoring the fact that 3rd parties are affected by her consent? Why are you ignoring the fact that, once consent is given and 3rd parties are affected, you cannot unilaterally withdraw consent? Emma was in a miserable situation: it was supposed to be. Joseph was in a miserable situation: it was supposed to be. Emma was hurt by the misery [this is my view] and wanted the hurt to stop. No ram was found for her and Joseph in life. It's easy to give in to hopelessness. I don't condemn her, but neither to I have to look the other way and pretend she acted with honor and integrity. She didn't in this instance. Doesn't necessarily make her a wicked person [at least no more wicked than I am].
ALarson Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 (edited) 18 minutes ago, USU78 said: Why are you ignoring the fact that 3rd parties are affected by her consent? Why are you ignoring the fact that, once consent is given and 3rd parties are affected, you cannot unilaterally withdraw consent? Joseph had already married the girls and was sealed to them prior to Emma giving her consent, so you can't be referring to the Partridge sisters (as the "3rd parties" who were affected). Emma's consent did not allow them to marry Joseph, it was already done. So, who are the 3rd parties you are referring to? . Edited March 28, 2016 by ALarson
Calm Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 I suspect that both Emma and Joseph tried to make the situation easier for themselves and easier for their family, but in doing so both actually contributed to making it harder. It is pretty typical for humans to do that. 2
ALarson Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Calm said: I suspect that both Emma and Joseph tried to make the situation easier for themselves and easier for their family, but in doing so both actually contributed to making it harder. It is pretty typical for humans to do that. I believe that Emma and Joseph had a very deep love for each other. I honestly believe that Joseph did not intend to hurt her. Edited March 28, 2016 by ALarson
VideoGameJunkie Posted March 28, 2016 Author Posted March 28, 2016 3 minutes ago, Calm said: I suspect that both Emma and Joseph tried to make the situation easier for themselves and easier for their family, but in doing so both actually contributed to making it harder. It is pretty typical for humans to do that. Calm are you in support of polygamy? Because it's rare to find females that are.
Calm Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 I don't have a clue. I know that a number of women had personal spiritual witnesses, including visitation of angels. It (polygyny as opposed to polgamy) makes no sense to me eternally unless polyandry exists as well. I have had no spiritual witness of my own though on this specific principle and therefore believe I have no right or place to judge either way.
consiglieri Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 5 hours ago, USU78 said: Adultery? Ridiculous. Emma agreed to live the principle, going to the extent of choosing wives for Joseph. Then she reneged. And she expected that her unilateral act, which involved seeking to compel Joseph against his will to go back on his word, would be effective to stop the train after it had already left the station. How is her unilateral act not a passive-aggressive [at least] act of bullying? We know that at some point, Emma was threatened with "destruction" if she did not go along with her husband marrying other women. At some point, she relented and chose two sisters for him to marry. As mentioned, Joseph was already married to these two sisters but created a sham marriage so his wife wouldn't know. Shortly after, Emma changed her mind about going along with her husband marrying other women. And we are supposed to find fault with Emma for this? We are supposed to consider Emma's actions "passive-aggressive"? We are justified in considering what Emma did "bullying"? I have rarely seen a better case of victimizing the victim.
Jeanne Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 1 minute ago, consiglieri said: We know that at some point, Emma was threatened with "destruction" if she did not go along with her husband marrying other women. At some point, she relented and chose two sisters for him to marry. As mentioned, Joseph was already married to these two sisters but created a sham marriage so his wife wouldn't know. Shortly after, Emma changed her mind about going along with her husband marrying other women. And we are supposed to find fault with Emma for this? We are supposed to consider Emma's actions "passive-aggressive"? We are justified in considering what Emma did "bullying"? I have rarely seen a better case of victimizing the victim. I agree. To me with accordance to the D & C...the rules of game kept changing for Emma. 1
USU78 Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 2 hours ago, ALarson said: Joseph had already married the girls and was sealed to them prior to Emma giving her consent, so you can't be referring to the Partridge sisters (as the "3rd parties" who were affected). Emma's consent did not allow them to marry Joseph, it was already done. So, who are the 3rd parties you are referring to? The other wives, whenever married to Joseph as well as the holder of the Covenant: G-d!
JulieM Posted March 28, 2016 Posted March 28, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, USU78 said: The other wives, whenever married to Joseph as well as the holder of the Covenant: G-d! From what I've read, the "other wives" didn't know who the other ones were. The sisters didn't even know he'd married both of them for some time. So when Joseph married a new wife, the others weren't told about it. They weren't affected by him marrying the sisters. Edited March 29, 2016 by JulieM
JLHPROF Posted March 29, 2016 Posted March 29, 2016 8 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: D&C 132 says Emma would be destroyed if she didn't accept her husbands polygamy. Change destroyed to damned and you will understand.
JulieM Posted March 29, 2016 Posted March 29, 2016 27 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Change destroyed to damned and you will understand. Where have you read or been instructed to do that? Is it your own interpretation or a church leader's? Thanks.
JLHPROF Posted March 29, 2016 Posted March 29, 2016 2 minutes ago, JulieM said: Where have you read or been instructed to do that? Is it your own interpretation or a church leader's? Thanks. How do you define "destroyed" as far as God's judgment on his children?
JulieM Posted March 29, 2016 Posted March 29, 2016 (edited) 2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: How do you define "destroyed" as far as God's judgment on his children? Maybe it was expressed in a manner that we would understand or that Emna would understand. In "our" language or meaning or definition. Edited March 29, 2016 by JulieM
JLHPROF Posted March 29, 2016 Posted March 29, 2016 2 minutes ago, JulieM said: Maybe it was expressed in a manner that we would understand or that Emna would understand. In "our" language or meaning or definition. When God speaks of "destroying" one of his children, it almost always refers to damnation. Damnation occurs whenever we refuse to follow God's plan. To me, that is what was meant by the supposed "threat of destruction" made to Emma. Simply that her progression would be halted by such a decision. 1
Recommended Posts