sunstoned Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 On 3/6/2016 at 9:30 AM, rpn said: I think it is the "drawn sword" point that raises the question. What is up with the Lord using that tactic? (But what if the angel was sent on the errand, and decided to do the sword thing as the most effective way --- mortals make the equivalent kinds of mistakes.) Your question is valid. Perhaps some context might help understand the situation. JS had his eye on Zina Huntington Jacobs, a 19 year old married women. Prior to her marriage to Henry Jacobs JS had approached her with his proposition of marriage. She refused, Smith did not give up. Zina later wrote that five months after her marriage that, “[Joseph] sent word to me by my brother, saying, ‘Tell Zina, I put it off and put it off till an angel with a drawn sword stood by me and told me if I did not establish that principle upon the earth I would lose my position and my life’”. Joseph further explained that, “the Lord had made it known to him she was to be his celestial wife.” At this time JS had already started the practice of taking other wives, and had been doing so since Kirkland. I believe the angel with the flaming sword story was to convince Zina to come to him. It is unimaginable to me that God would want to break up a marriage so that JS could have one more women. 4
ALarson Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) 47 minutes ago, sunstoned said: Your question is valid. Perhaps some context might help understand the situation. JS had his eye on Zina Huntington Jacobs, a 19 year old married women. Prior to her marriage to Henry Jacobs JS had approached her with his proposition of marriage. She refused, Smith did not give up. Zina later wrote that five months after her marriage that, “[Joseph] sent word to me by my brother, saying, ‘Tell Zina, I put it off and put it off till an angel with a drawn sword stood by me and told me if I did not establish that principle upon the earth I would lose my position and my life’”. Joseph further explained that, “the Lord had made it known to him she was to be his celestial wife.” At this time JS had already started the practice of taking other wives, and had been doing so since Kirkland. I believe the angel with the flaming sword story was to convince Zina to come to him. It is unimaginable to me that God would want to break up a marriage so that JS could have one more women. Yes, he had already "established the principle upon the earth" with his marriage to Fanny Alger and Louisa Beaman. So, why would Joseph need more convincing to live the principle? I agree with you that it was to get Zina to agree to marry him. But, she may have been his first polyandrous marriage. Edited March 8, 2016 by ALarson 2
cdowis Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) At this time JS had already started the practice of taking other wives, and had been doing so since Kirkland. I believe the angel with the flaming sword story was to convince Zina to come to him. It is unimaginable to me that God would want to break up a marriage so that JS could have one more women. OK, this is the "Joseph Smith was a con man" interpretation. Now let's look at it from the "Joseph Smith was a prophet of God" interpretation. It was to demonstrate to her that this principle was from God, and not of man -- that he was himself very reluctant to practice it, as she was also reluctant. THEN he told her that the Lord said that she was to become one of his celestial wives. The angel and sword incident had occurred prior to his taking on any of the wives and had no direct relationship to Zina. Edited March 8, 2016 by cdowis
Gray Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 16 hours ago, JLHPROF said: I knew you'd say that. But if you don't believe the scriptures to be accurate descriptions of God's application of agency, then at the same time you have to accept that the scriptures may not also be correct in their exaltation of the agency principle. Perhaps agency isn't as important to God if you don't accept scripture. Can't have it both ways. Either scripture is true and God both prizes agency AND is recorded doing things that seem to remove agency (meaning we don't understand the principle correctly). OR the scripture is merely man-made and it is just as likely that God doesn't actually value our agency as it is that the stories of restricted agency are false. I think the trouble comes when you start attaching authority to teachings - whether in the scriptures or out of them. Teachings are valuable for their content, not for who said them. The question isn't whether we might guess that God values or doesn't value agency. The questions are, what is agency, is it important that we have it, and what circumstances allow for agency to be present in a meaningful way. As it stands, the stories we tell each other about God put God in a position of doing things that severely restrict agency, while supposedly holding agency in the highest regard. These kinds of contradictions are inevitable because these are stories told by human beings. We can reevaluate and reinterpret the stories when we discover that the way we've been looking at them doesn't make sense. 1
JulieM Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 1 hour ago, cdowis said: The angel and sword incident had occurred prior to his taking on any of the wives and had no direct relationship to Zina. How do you know this? Is there a record of Joseph stating that this occurred before he took Fanny for his wife? How could Fanny have been asked to be "one of his Celestial wives" when Joseph hadn't received the sealing keys yet?
JLHPROF Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 12 minutes ago, JulieM said: How do you know this? Is there a record of Joseph stating that this occurred before he took Fanny for his wife? How could Fanny have been asked to be "one of his Celestial wives" when Joseph hadn't received the sealing keys yet? This has been discussed to death. Joseph learned of the restoration of polygamy in 1831. The sealing keys were restored in 1836. The Fanny Alger marriage was Joseph's first attempt to practice polygamy. He didn't have all the information, but he knew that polygamy was approved of by God. So he married Fanny in the same way he would have married anyone else prior to the restoration of sealing keys. The saints continued to marry from the time the Church was founded in 1830 until the sealing keys were restored in 1836 and the first marriage sealings took place in the 1840s. Joseph's marriage to Fanny was no different. 1
JulieM Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) 10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: This has been discussed to death. Joseph learned of the restoration of polygamy in 1831. The sealing keys were restored in 1836. The Fanny Alger marriage was Joseph's first attempt to practice polygamy. He didn't have all the information, but he knew that polygamy was approved of by God. So he married Fanny in the same way he would have married anyone else prior to the restoration of sealing keys. The saints continued to marry from the time the Church was founded in 1830 until the sealing keys were restored in 1836 and the first marriage sealings took place in the 1840s. Joseph's marriage to Fanny was no different. So, when was Joseph actually sealed to Fanny? Was she present or did she give consent? And, since Joseph couldn't have been legally married to Fanny or sealed to her originally, what type of marriage ceremony was it? Edited March 8, 2016 by JulieM 1
JulieM Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) A few more questions I have are: Why did polygamy even need to be restored when there is no record of polygamy being commanded by God (other than Levirate marriages which was not what Joseph was doing)? How do we know it was a principle of the original gospel since it wasn't commanded by God previously? (And definitely not what seems almost forcing someone to practice by this angel with a drawn sword.) And, did polyandry need to be restored too? (Maybe I should ask this over on the other thread where this is being discussed?) Edited March 8, 2016 by JulieM
JLHPROF Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 5 minutes ago, JulieM said: So, when was Joseph actually sealed to Fanny? Was she present or did she give consent? And, since Joseph couldn't have been legally married to Fanny or sealed to her originally, what type of marriage ceremony was there? He wasn't. No marriage sealings were performed until the 1840s. He married her by the authority of the priesthood and the Church, just as all the saints in the Kirtland era Church were married by the Elders of the Church. When Joseph performed marriages, as with the Newell Knight-Lydia Goldthwaite Bailey wedding in Kirtland on November 24, 1835, 36 he did it by “authority of the preisthood which he held. Newell Knight reported Joseph as saying: “I have done it by the authority of the holy Priesthood and the Gentile law has no power to call me to an account for it. It is my religious privilege, and the congress of the United States has no power to make a law that would abridge the rights of my religion.” 38 In Fanny's case the marriage is believed to have been performed by Levi Hancock. The sealing was later performed posthumously in Salt Lake I believe. 1
JulieM Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: He wasn't. No marriage sealings were performed until the 1840s. He married her by the authority of the priesthood and the Church, just as all the saints in the Kirtland era Church were married by the Elders of the Church. When Joseph performed marriages, as with the Newell Knight-Lydia Goldthwaite Bailey wedding in Kirtland on November 24, 1835, 36 he did it by “authority of the preisthood which he held. Newell Knight reported Joseph as saying: “I have done it by the authority of the holy Priesthood and the Gentile law has no power to call me to an account for it. It is my religious privilege, and the congress of the United States has no power to make a law that would abridge the rights of my religion.” 38 In Fanny's case the marriage is believed to have been performed by Levi Hancock. The sealing was later performed posthumously in Salt Lake I believe. This is all so interesting to read, thank you for the information here! So, the marriages of the saints that took place during the Kirtland era were not legally recognized or actual legally bound marriages? If so, was that later corrected for them? At what point was Joseph authorized by the government to perform legal marriages?
cdowis Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) 55 minutes ago, JulieM said: How do you know this? Is there a record of Joseph stating that this occurred before he took Fanny for his wife? Because he said so. Obviously he was not practicing polygamy when the Lord chastised him for NOT practicing polygamy. Again this is the "JS was a prophet and telling the truth" version vs the antiMormon version "JS was a liar and a con man." How could Fanny have been asked to be "one of his Celestial wives" when Joseph hadn't received the sealing keys yet? Read my post. I said nothing about Fanny. Edited March 8, 2016 by cdowis
JLHPROF Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) 16 minutes ago, JulieM said: This is all so interesting to read, thank you for the information here! So, the marriages of the saints that took place during the Kirtland era were not legally recognized or actual legally bound marriages?I'm sure some were and some weren't. Until the mid 19th century (so around 1850) most states recognized common-law marriages and no marriage licenses were needed. If so, was that later corrected for them?Actually - according to some records the saints moved further away from worrying about civil marriage: Mormon Polygamy by Van Wagoner Pg 42 - Smith viewed as invalid those marriages not sealed by his blessing...Claiming sole responsibility for binding and unbinding marriages on earth and in heaven, he did not consider it necessary to obtain civil marriage licenses or divorce decrees. Pg 46-47 - quoting John D. Lee - "About the same time the doctrine of 'sealing' was introduced...the saints were given to understand that their marriage relations with each other were not valid...If their marriage had not been productive of blessing and peace, and they felt it oppressive to remain together, they were at liberty to make their own choice, much as if they had not been married." and quoting Increase McGee - "it is now the woman's privilege to choose whom she sees fit; if she likes the one she had been living with, she can keep him; if not, she is at liberty to ship him and take another;" At what point was Joseph authorized by the government to perform legal marriages? I don't know that he ever was since the legality of marriage was never a concern. Only the eyes of God seem to matter to him. 14 minutes ago, cdowis said: How could Fanny have been asked to be "one of his Celestial wives" when Joseph hadn't received the sealing keys yet? Pardon my ignorance, but walk me thru how you know this for a fact. ? Sealing keys restored in April1836. Fanny Alger marriage anywhere between 1833 & 1836 - date unknown. Marriage probably performed by Levi Hancock, not someone holding the sealing keys that we know of. Edited March 8, 2016 by JLHPROF 1
JulieM Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 13 minutes ago, cdowis said: How do you know this? Is there a record of Joseph stating that this occurred before he took Fanny for his wife? Because he said so. Joseph stated that the angel with a drawn sword appeared to him before he married Fanny? I haven't read that. Do you have the quote?
Alan Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 Joseph was only married to Emma. I know this because he said so, and went to great lengths to say so. If he said he was married only to Emma when he was in reality married to other women too, he would be a liar. I don't believe he was a liar. If I did believe he was a liar I would have to reconsider my beliefs regarding a number of the foundational claims concerning the restoration. Therefore, Joseph was only married to Emma.
JLHPROF Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 2 minutes ago, Alan said: Joseph was only married to Emma. I know this because he said so, and went to great lengths to say so. If he said he was married only to Emma when he was in reality married to other women too, he would be a liar. I don't believe he was a liar. If I did believe he was a liar I would have to reconsider my beliefs regarding a number of the foundational claims concerning the restoration. Therefore, Joseph was only married to Emma. Belief is irrelevant. By saying Joseph didn't lie you are saying dozens of the other wives and leaders of the Church lied through their teeth repeatedly and consistently over decades. In the face of the facts I think Joseph lied when he said in public he wasn't a polygamist. Believing Joseph wasn't a polygamist is the LDS equivalent of being a member of the Flat Earth Society. 2
Analytics Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: Belief is irrelevant. By saying Joseph didn't lie you are saying dozens of the other wives and leaders of the Church lied through their teeth repeatedly and consistently over decades. In the face of the facts I think Joseph lied when he said in public he wasn't a polygamist. Believing Joseph wasn't a polygamist is the LDS equivalent of being a member of the Flat Earth Society. It depends upon your definition of "marriage." From the standpoint of legal and lawful marriage, Emma was his only had one wife. From the standpoint of common law, Emma was the only woman he could even remotely be considered married to. According to the records and official laws of the LDS Church, Emma was his only wife. If you believe that what would otherwise be a clandestine affair is a marriage if the parties have a secret ritual to that effect, then Joseph Smith was a polygamist. 1
T-Shirt Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 I think Joseph was intentionally very careful with his words. First, as for his marriage to Emma, it was the only marriage that would have been legally recognized by the state. As for practicing polygamy, during Joseph's time they did not call it polygamy, they called it Celestial marriage. So did Joseph lie? He may have obfuscated, but, technically speaking, he did not lie. 1
ALarson Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) 17 minutes ago, T-Shirt said: I think Joseph was intentionally very careful with his words. First, as for his marriage to Emma, it was the only marriage that would have been legally recognized by the state. As for practicing polygamy, during Joseph's time they did not call it polygamy, they called it Celestial marriage. So did Joseph lie? He may have obfuscated, but, technically speaking, he did not lie. Let's see you accept this argument the next time someone (or one of your kids) tells you, "Hey, I was just choosing my words "very carefully". Technically speaking, I did not "lie", I "obfuscated". When someone knows the intent of the question they are being asked and they intentionally answer in a manner to hide the truth and give the wrong impression, it is lying. Joseph knew what he was doing and made a decision to hide the truth. You can try to justify why he did this, but it was still a lie. . Edited March 8, 2016 by ALarson 2
JLHPROF Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 26 minutes ago, Analytics said: According to the records and official laws of the LDS Church, Emma was his only wife. Nope.
JLHPROF Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 2 minutes ago, ALarson said: Let's see you accept this argument the next time someone (or one of your kids) tells you, "Hey, I was just choosing my words "very carefully". Technically speaking, I did not "lie", I "obfuscated". Joseph knew what he was doing and made a decision to hide the truth. You can try to justify why he did this, but it was still a lie. And he was right to do it.
ALarson Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) 2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: And he was right to do it. In your opinion (which is your right to have). I stated that one can try to justify it. I was just responding to the statement that he was not telling a lie, when in fact, he was. Discussing why he lied and if it was good that he lied, is another topic. . Edited March 8, 2016 by ALarson
Popular Post T-Shirt Posted March 8, 2016 Popular Post Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, sunstoned said: Your question is valid. Perhaps some context might help understand the situation. JS had his eye on Zina Huntington Jacobs, a 19 year old married women. Prior to her marriage to Henry Jacobs JS had approached her with his proposition of marriage. She refused, Smith did not give up. Zina later wrote that five months after her marriage that, “[Joseph] sent word to me by my brother, saying, ‘Tell Zina, I put it off and put it off till an angel with a drawn sword stood by me and told me if I did not establish that principle upon the earth I would lose my position and my life’”. Joseph further explained that, “the Lord had made it known to him she was to be his celestial wife.” At this time JS had already started the practice of taking other wives, and had been doing so since Kirkland. I believe the angel with the flaming sword story was to convince Zina to come to him. It is unimaginable to me that God would want to break up a marriage so that JS could have one more women. Why do people always choose to ignore the statements of the women in these matters? Do you think these women were just weak and easily manipulated? Here is what Zina said about the matter: "When I heard that God had revealed the law of celestial marriage that we would have the privilege of associating in family relationship in the worlds to come I searched the scripture & by humble prayer to my Heavenly Father I obtained a testimony for myself that God had required that order to be established in his church. I made a greater sacrifice than to give my life for I never anticipated again to be looked upon as an honorable woman by those I dearly loved. How could I compromise conscience and lay aside the sure testimony of the spirit of God for the Glory of this world?" Do you not believe her? Edited March 8, 2016 by T-Shirt 5
cdowis Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) JLFProf quoting John D. Lee No, you are quoting his biographer, and Lee was unavailable to comment when it was published. 3 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Marriage probably performed by Levi Hancock, not someone holding the sealing keys that we know of. OK, so maybe he performed the marriage, and he may or may not have had the authority, but we don't know. And the marriage happened maybe before or perhaps after the keys had been restored. AND we cannot vouch for John D. Lee's purported statement. So you have given us rock solid evidence of... well, something. Edited March 8, 2016 by cdowis 2
Analytics Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 3 hours ago, JLHPROF said: According to the records and official laws of the LDS Church, Emma was his only wife. Nope. How so? Are you saying his "plural marriages" were in harmony with the D&C before 1852? Or are you saying they were officially recorded by the Church? It's clear to me that they were personal, secret relationships that Joseph Smith never wanted to world to know about, and as such they were never recorded by the Church. Am I wrong about that? How so?
JLHPROF Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 9 minutes ago, Analytics said: How so? Are you saying his "plural marriages" were in harmony with the D&C before 1852? Or are you saying they were officially recorded by the Church? It's clear to me that they were personal, secret relationships that Joseph Smith never wanted to world to know about, and as such they were never recorded by the Church. Am I wrong about that? How so? The records of the Church now list most of his wives. On the current records of the Church, Joseph Smith is listed as a polygamist with many wives.
Recommended Posts