Why did Emma Smith fight polygamy so strongly?

[Jeanne]

10 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

My female cousin told me of a rhyme that was joked about during Young Women about polygamy coming back during the Millennium. It went like this:

"Someday my Prince will come,
In the Millennium,
And then he will say to me –
'You can be my Number Three.'"
 

I am glad this little rhyme is a joke..because it is quite sad actually.

[JulieM]

23 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Maybe acquiring the harem of a defeated king is an incident of kingship.

Maybe to reject the incidents of kingship is to reject the kingship.

Maybe David had been anointed king in Saul's stead, during Saul's life, by G-d's prophet.

Maybe G-d knew what He was doing in having David anointed king.

Maybe things would not have gone particularly well for David if he'd rejected the crown.  A cursing maybe even.

Well, MAYBE (lots of those in your post above).  But then MAYBE not too.

David may have felt obligated to accept them or it also may have been something he felt was right or that he wanted to do.

But there is no record of him being "commanded" to make them his wives.  

[ALarson]

16 hours ago, USU78 said:

Yup, and Hyrum's is necessarily hearsay 

Yes, from several women who had given testimony "under oath".  And Hyrum " having been made acquainted with some of the conduct of John C. Bennett" from these testimonies.   Are you doubting their word or Hyrum's word here?

Edited March 7, 2016 by ALarson

[thesometimesaint]

8 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Well, MAYBE (lots of those in your post above).  But then MAYBE not too.

David may have felt obligated to accept them or it also may have been something he felt was right or that he wanted to do.

But there is no record of him being "commanded" to make them his wives.  

Polygamy was part and parcel of ancient Hebrew cultural. It would have been unusual, to say the least, for God to have "Commanded" monogamy.

[JulieM]

3 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Polygamy was part and parcel of ancient Hebrew cultural. It would have been unusual, to say the least, for God to have "Commanded" monogamy.

Not all lived it.  It was not a commandment to live polygamy.

[Analytics]

11 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

In D&C 132 Emma got the shorthand of the stick by these verses:

51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.
52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.
53 For I am the Lord thy God and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things; for he hath been faithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him.
54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.
55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundredfold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds.
56 And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid forgive my servant Joseph his trespasses; and then shall she be forgiven her trespasses, wherein she has trespassed against me; and I, the Lord thy God, will bless her, and multiply her, and make her heart to rejoice.
57 And again, I say, let not my servant Joseph put his property out of his hands, lest an enemy come and destroy him; for Satan seeketh to destroy; for I am the Lord thy God, and he is my servant; and behold, and lo, I am with him, as I was with Abraham, thy father, even unto his exaltation and glory.

 

I can't help but wonder what, specifically, God commanded Joseph to "offer" Emma, but then pulled back and said, "just kidding, that was a test."  We know that Joseph Smith had been marrying women who were already married to other men, so at times at least, he felt God was commanding him to practice polyandry as well as polygyny.  So, based upon him believing (at times, at least), that God wanted certain women to have multiple husbands, and based upon the context of D&C 132:51, the most likely inference is that Joseph told Emma something like, "God commanded me to offer unto you the choice of which polyandrous husbands you'd like."  And then came back and said, "That was just a test to prove your faithfulness--he doesn't really want you to choose some extra husbands."

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Well, being given many women to marry, may not be considered a blessing by a lot of men, I'd imagine

But seriously, you believe God would have cursed David if he hadn't accepted all of those other wives that he offered him?

 

Yes, I do.
I believe any time God offers us a blessing and we turn it down it stands against us.
 

[JLHPROF]

18 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Not all lived it.  It was not a commandment to live polygamy.

This idea is based on the notion that polygamy was some kind of strange aberration that needed to be commanded.
Polygamy was accepted and practiced in basically all scriptural cultures and would not have needed to be commanded.

The only culture with the gospel where polygamy was against the custom was 19th century America, and it took a lot of commanding to get the saints to practice it.
No commanding was necessary for Abraham, Jacob, Moses, the Brother of Jared, etc.

[JulieM]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

This idea is based on the notion that polygamy was some kind of strange aberration that needed to be commanded.
Polygamy was accepted and practiced in basically all scriptural cultures and would not have needed to be commanded.

The only culture with the gospel where polygamy was against the custom was 19th century America, and it took a lot of commanding to get the saints to practice it.
No commanding was necessary for Abraham, Jacob, Moses, the Brother of Jared, etc.

But many state that polygamy was "commanded" in the Bible to compare and justify Joseph's claims that he was "commanded" to live polygamy.   

They were not commanded (except when a brother was to take care of his dead brother's wife, which is not usually what is being referenced with the claims.)

[JulieM]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, I do.
I believe any time God offers us a blessing and we turn it down it stands against us.
 

Maybe.  But cursed?

We receive or have many blessings available to us from God.  There is no forcing from him to accept all of them and no threat of being cursed if we don't accept them all (not that I've read at least).

 

[JLHPROF]

Just now, JulieM said:

But many state that polygamy was "commanded" in the Bible to compare and justify Joseph's claims that he was "commanded" to live polygamy.  

They were not commanded (except when a brother was to take care of his dead brother's wife, which is not usually what is being referenced with the claims.)

Many people state a lot of things.

Yes, God had to command a brother to marry his dead brother's widow.  But he didn't have to command polygamy if the Brother was married because it was already acceptable.
God cared to give a clarifying condition for entering into plural marriage (Exodus 21:10)- that alone shows that it was at least sanctioned by God.

See, every time God accepted a polygamist as his prophet, gave a condition for living polygamy, offered someone a polygamous wife, revoked polygamy due to wickedness, every time these things occurred that shows that polygamy was acceptable unto the Lord whether he needed to command it or not.

There is no sin or error in polygamy (unless lived wickedly).
 

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Maybe.  But cursed?

We receive or have many blessings available to us from God.  There is no forcing from him to accept all of them and no threat of being cursed if we don't accept them all (not that I've read at least).

 

 Blessings offered, but rejected, are no longer blessings, but become like the talent hid in the earth by the wicked and slothful servant; the proffered good returns to the giver; the blessing is bestowed on those who will receive and occupy; for unto him that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundantly, but unto him that hath not or will not receive, shall be taken away that which he hath, or might have had. - Joseph Smith

[Analytics]

29 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

This idea is based on the notion that polygamy was some kind of strange aberration that needed to be commanded.
Polygamy was accepted and practiced in basically all scriptural cultures and would not have needed to be commanded.

The only culture with the gospel where polygamy was against the custom was 19th century America, and it took a lot of commanding to get the saints to practice it.
No commanding was necessary for Abraham, Jacob, Moses, the Brother of Jared, etc.

If that were true, what's your interpretation of Jacob 2?  Most Utah Mormons believe that there is a standing commandment not to practice polygamy, unless God commands otherwise.

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 Blessings offered, but rejected, are no longer blessings, but become like the talent hid in the earth by the wicked and slothful servant; the proffered good returns to the giver; the blessing is bestowed on those who will receive and occupy; for unto him that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundantly, but unto him that hath not or will not receive, shall be taken away that which he hath, or might have had. - Joseph Smith

Thanks for this quote (I hadn't read this before).

So, the other wives offered to David, would have been "taken away" and "returned to the giver". 

I do understand what you believe here and I also believe we should be grateful and gracious about all that God offers us as blessings.

I just do not believe God would force or command us to live polygamy (on earth or after this life.)

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

If that were true, what's your interpretation of Jacob 2?  Most Utah Mormons believe that there is a standing commandment not to practice polygamy, unless God commands otherwise.

My interpretation of Jacob 2 is polygamy was banned due to wickedness as evidenced in verses 23, 31, 33, 35 and the examples named of David and Solomon as examples (who lived polygamy wickedly) instead of Abraham or Jacob (who lived polygamy righteously).

It would be the same as using Cain as an example against murder instead of Nephi.

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I just do not believe God would force or command us to live polygamy (on earth or after this life.)

God forces nothing.
But D&C 58 & 130 still apply:

D&C 58:32 I command and men obey not; I revoke and they receive not the blessing.

D&C 130:20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—
21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

If we want a blessing, we live a law.
If we refuse to live a law we don't get the blessing.
If we live a law and are given a blessing and reject it we are under condemnation.
Always our choice which we do.

 

[JulieM]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

God forces nothing....
 

If we want a blessing, we live a law.
If we refuse to live a law we don't get the blessing.
 

 

I'm glad that God won't force any woman to live polygamy for eternity (sealed or not to a man who has other women sealed to him).  I believe this too and I also believe she will be able to be in the Celestial kingdom and not live polygamy.

As far as polygamy being a blessing, I know many do not consider and would not think of it as a blessing to have to live it.  

I know you feel differently and I respect that you can believe this too.

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I'm glad that God won't force any woman to live polygamy for eternity (sealed or not to a man who has other women sealed to him).  I believe this too and I also believe she will be able to be in the Celestial kingdom and not live polygamy.

As far as polygamy being a blessing, I know many do not consider and would not think of it as a blessing to have to live it.

I know you feel differently and I respect that you can believe this too.

Don't confuse living polygamy being a blessing with living polygamy making you worthy of a blessing.

There may be (according to D&C 130) a blessing that God cannot give you if you refuse to live the law of plural marriage.
In the same way that refusing to marry robs one of exaltation, refusing to live polygamy may well rob one of some blessing we may not understand.

Personally, I suspect the marriage covenant we are under includes a promise that may include living polygamy.

Edited March 7, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, JulieM said:

Where have I "insisted" that polygamy is not "valid unless God commands it"?  I'm not even sure what you mean by "valid" (legal?).

You do insist that God did not command polygyny, except in some instances of levirate marriage, but you do not respond to my point that he would not need to command it when it is entirely normal.  He merely regulates it under the Mosaic Code.  It is clear from the bibical texts I cited that God has no problem at all with polygyny, and even encourages it.  A lot of people nowadays may not like it, but that is not the issue.

I don't care what consenting adults choose to do, I just don't believe polygamy was commanded by God (not in the Bible other than in some Levirate marriages amd not in the early days of the church).   I believe polygamy comes from men (or women if they choose to live it).

I don't mind what consenting adults do either, which is irrelevant to this discussion.  Your admission that levirate marriage is an exception denies your claim that God did not command polygyny.  Since God encourages polygyny and clearly has no problem with it in the Bible, your point seems only to be that you don't like it and therefore project your feelings into the ancient text.  This colors your interpretation of an ancient world in which polygyny was normal and regulated by religious law.  When polygyny is revived by Joseph Smith in the 19th century it meets with immediate attack from a society in which it was certainly no longer normal (even Ashkenazi Jews had given up that practice) -- finally forcing the Mormons to entirely suspend such practice.

I well understand the socio-cultural pressures, but they do not justify rewriting ancient history and biblical texts to accommodate modern emotions.  That is called eisegesis.

 

[ALarson]

 

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't mind what consenting adults do either, which is irrelevant to this discussion.  Your admission that levirate marriage is an exception denies your claim that God did not command polygyny.  Since God encourages polygyny and clearly has no problem with it in the Bible, your point seems only to be that you don't like it and therefore project your feelings into the ancient text.  This colors your interpretation of an ancient world in which polygyny was normal and regulated by religious law.  When polygyny is revived by Joseph Smith in the 19th century it meets with immediate attack from a society in which it was certainly no longer normal (even Ashkenazi Jews had given up that practice) -- finally forcing the Mormons to entirely suspend such practice.

I well understand the socio-cultural pressures, but they do not justify rewriting ancient history and biblical texts to accommodate modern emotions.  That is called eisegesis.

When it came to the commandment from God for a brother to marry and take care of his dead brother's wife (Levirate marriages), I feel the emphasis is mainly on the importance of God ensuring that the widow and her children were taken care of.  Of course, it most likely included the brother having more than one wife in the process of taking care of his brother's widow.  I do agree that in this case, polygamy was a part of the commandment.

But, you have failed to show where God commanded anyone to live polygamy elsewhere in the Bible (unless you use Joseph's words or the D&C for reference).  We have record that God "allowed" it or didn't "condemn" it at times....but it was not commanded.

I think we can get hung up on words here, and go around and around.  But, unless you can give a Biblical reference to where God specifically commanded polygamy to be lived, we just have Joseph's writings and the D & C.  That is the point some are trying to make here (from what I can tell and I agree).

We also have no record that anyone in the Bible was ever commanded to live polyandry as well. 

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

  When polygyny is revived by Joseph Smith in the 19th century it meets with immediate attack from a society in which it was certainly no longer normal

This is what I've said all along.

The "God has never previously commanded polygamy" argument is meaningless.  Our dispensation is the only one where God would have had to command polygamy.  Expecting to see a command in scripture makes no sense.

[USU78]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

Well, MAYBE (lots of those in your post above).  But then MAYBE not too.

David may have felt obligated to accept them or it also may have been something he felt was right or that he wanted to do.

But there is no record of him being "commanded" to make them his wives.  

You have some holes.  Killing the king and acquiring thereby the queen/harem is the point of the game anciently.  And not so very anciently.  Think of Claudius and Gertrude.  Think of Oedipus.  Think of Genghis Khan and his bon mot about victory being defined as defiling the chaste wives and virgin daughters of the vanquished.  Think of the vassal sleeping chastely beside the queen/betrothed of the king so as not to be proven disloyal to his vassalage oath [i.e., Siegfried].  Think of Agamemnon and the Trojan Women.  Think about the wholesale rape of German womanhood by the Red Army, for heaven's sake.

People need to read more, I'm thinking.  It's axiomatic that the conqueror gets the "spoils," and among the spoils are the women.  Let's not get caught up in our Victorian worldview of how things ought to be and have been, but rather look with clear eyes at how ancient and not so ancient people actually lived.

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The "God has never previously commanded polygamy" argument is meaningless.  

For you, maybe.  But for many, it means that God did not command polygamy until Joseph stated that he was commanded to live it.  Many also believe he was mistaken and that he originated polygamy in the church, not God (or any commandment from him).

I know of several women who absolutely do not believe polygamy or polyandry ever were (or ever was) a commandment.  They also believe this means that they will not need to live polygamy in the CK (even in the highest degree).  I agree with them and I see the pain it causes many of them to think that may have to live polygamy because it is a commandment from God.

It's a sensitive topic and one that is painful for many LDS (especially for many women). 

.

Edited March 7, 2016 by ALarson

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

 

When it came to the commandment from God for a brother to marry and take care of his dead brother's wife (Levirate marriages), I feel the emphasis is mainly on the importance of God ensuring that the widow and her children were taken care of.  Of course, it most likely included the brother having more than one wife in the process of taking care of his brother's widow.  I do agree that in this case, polygamy was a part of the commandment.

But, you have failed to show where God commanded anyone to live polygamy elsewhere in the Bible (unless you use Joseph's words or the D&C for reference).  We have record that God "allowed" it or didn't "condemn" it at times....but it was not commanded.

I think we can get hung up on words here, and go around and around.  But, unless you can give a Biblical reference to where God specifically commanded polygamy to be lived, we just have Joseph's writings and the D & C.  That is the point some are trying to make here (from what I can tell and I agree).

We also have no record that anyone in the Bible was ever commanded to live polyandry as well. 

Levirate marriage occurs when there are no children to carry on the dead man's name.  Not to care for the wife and children.  Having a child allows the widow access to the estate, if I understand properly so it may logistically have helped the widow even if its declaredpurpose was for another reason.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

For you, maybe.  But for many, it means that God did not command polygamy until Joseph stated that he was commanded to live it.  Many also believe he was mistaken and that he originated polygamy in the church, not God (or any commandment from him).

I know of several women who absolutely do not believe this is (or was ever) a commandment.  They also believe this means that they will not need to live polygamy in the CK (even in the highest degree).  I agree with them and I see the pain it causes many of them to think that may have to live polygamy because it is a commandment from God.

It's a sensitive topic and one that is painful for many LDS (especially women).

Most topics concerning what God requires are painful to someone:

Just off the top of my head for instance -

Mark 10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.

Doesn't change any requirements God may or may not have.