Why did Emma Smith fight polygamy so strongly?

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

I agree, but I also believe it was to care for his brother's widow.  This occurred in the early days of the church too when widows were taken care of after Joseph and others were killed.

Joseph also married his own brother's wife to care for her (Don Carlos's wife). 

.

Edited March 7, 2016 by ALarson

[VideoGameJunkie]

For those that are righteous will polygamy be an option for them to live in the Celestial Kingdom if they want it? Like for those righteous that either marry only once in this life, or not at all, will it be an option for polygamy in the next life if they desire it?

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

Well, determining and agreeing on what "requirements God may or may not have" will be difficult (if not impossible) here.  

I know you believe that God will require the living of polygamy in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom (unless I've misunderstood what you've posted).  Many believe God will not require this of them.

.

Edited March 7, 2016 by ALarson

[rpn]

Couldn't figure out how to edit my post yesterday at 1142.  But I wasn't suggesting that Emma's advocacy on polygamy was FOR polygamy.   It appears to have been fully opposed to at least "spiritual wifery" aka polygamy at least in some circles.

 

[JLHPROF]

42 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

For those that are righteous will polygamy be an option for them to live in the Celestial Kingdom if they want it? Like for those righteous that either marry only once in this life, or not at all, will it be an option for polygamy in the next life if they desire it?

Matthew 25

[USU78]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

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?

From my post on page 2:

Quote

I happen to believe the tales. As did Mormons of the time. The strength of the evidence is another matter entirety 

[Emphasis added].  I'm troubled by affidavits from the time period and what appears to me to be a wholesale willingness to admit hearsay statements and statements without foundation.  My objections are technical and evidentiary.  Once again:  I believe them.  Please don't ignore that again.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

From my post on page 2:

[Emphasis added].  I'm troubled by affidavits from the time period and what appears to me to be a wholesale willingness to admit hearsay statements and statements without foundation.  My objections are technical and evidentiary.  Once again:  I believe them.  Please don't ignore that again.

I had not seen your previous post (or remembered it if I did read it earlier) and I apologize if I misunderstood.  Thanks for clarifying  

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I had not seen your previous post (or remembered it if I did read it earlier) and I apologize if I misunderstood.  Thanks for clarifying  

Fair enough.

[VideoGameJunkie]

37 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Matthew 25

I just read that chapter about the talents and my answer to my question is yes. But being righteous is the key part.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I will say, I didn't think polygamy was even possible in the Millennium or next life in the CK for me until I came to this board.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours 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).

As both JLHPROF and I have pointed out: " Polygamy was accepted and practiced in [biblical times] and would not have needed to be commanded. "  That is why it was regulated by the Mosaic Code (Ex 21:10), and that is why God did not hesitate to give multiple wives to King David (have you even bothered to read II Sam 12:7-8?).  If he did not approve of it, why did he encourage it?  Why did his greatest servants practice it -- Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, et al.?  I understand that most people in the West are uncomfortable with it, but is that justification for denying the obvious?  Even though he found it distasteful, Martin Luther understood that it was a legally biblical pattern of marriage.  In the midst of the Restoration of All Things, Joseph Smith restored it.  Whether he had warrant from God to do so is a matter of personal religious faith.

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

I did not claim so.  Instead I included the term because it has in fact been practiced in some cultures.  People practice all manner of forms of marriage.  Study anthropology and you will find a dizzying array of practices worldwide and throughout time.  We are really quite narrow and parochial people in modern times, and that misleads us into presentism.  Wishful thinking is not a sound basis for historiography.

 

Edited March 8, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, USU78 said:

From my post on page 2:

[Emphasis added].  I'm troubled by affidavits from the time period and what appears to me to be a wholesale willingness to admit hearsay statements and statements without foundation.  My objections are technical and evidentiary.  Once again:  I believe them.  Please don't ignore that again.

Just curious:  Does this include your acceptance of claims that Bennett was molesting children?

[ALarson]

 

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

" Polygamy was accepted and practiced in [biblical times] and would not have needed to be commanded. "

Then we agree.  That is what is claimed by Joseph (that it was commanded) just as he was commanded to live it.  That is not correct.  Also, Joseph lived polygamy differently than those in the Bible (polyandry was a big part of how he lived it).  Polyandry is not in the Bible (iirc...I cannot think of any woman who had more than one husband, but correct me there if you know of any).

.

Edited March 8, 2016 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

 

Then we agree.  That is what is claimed by Joseph (that it was commanded) just as he was commanded to live it.  That is not correct.  Also, Joseph lived polygamy differently than those in the Bible (polyandry was a big part of how he lived it).  Polyandry is not in the Bible (iirc...I cannot think of any woman who had more than one husband, but correct me there if you know of any).

I still don't consider Joseph's "polyandrous" marriages to be true polyandry.
The issue at hand in the question of polyandry is which marriages were considered valid.
 

[ALarson]

29 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I still don't consider Joseph's "polyandrous" marriages to be true polyandry.
The issue at hand in the question of polyandry is which marriages were considered valid.
 

Well, he was definitely sealed to other men's legal wives while they were all still living.  I know the debates as to whether they were consummated and that's another topic for another thread.

What exactly do you mean when you state, "which marriages were considered valid"?  What is your definition of valid here?  And considered valid by whom?

Do you consider Brigham Young's polyandrous marriages to be valid?  How about Parley P. Pratt's?

.

Edited March 8, 2016 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, he was definitely sealed to other men's legal wives while they were all still living.  I know the debates as to whether they were consummated and that's another topic for another thread.

What exactly do you mean "which marriages were considered valid"?  What is your definition of valid here?  And considered valid by whom?

Do you consider Brigham Young's polyandrous marriages to be valid?  How about Parley P. Pratt's?

 

Mormon Polygamy by Van Wagoner

Pg 42 - Smith viewed as invalid those marriages not sealed by his blessing...Claiming sole responsiblity 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;"

In my opinion these "polyandrous marriages" fall into one of two categories:
Either 1 - Joseph was only sealed for eternity and the women were married to their husbands for time only - so no polyandry.
or 2 - The civil/legal marriage were meaningless and invalid in their eyes so Joseph's sealing was the only valid marriage - so no polyandry.

I don't think there are really any situations were these women considered themselves married to both Joseph and another man equally at the same time.  I think they either considered their marriages to their other husband invalid or they considered Joseph to only be their future companion in the eternities.
 

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Mormon Polygamy by Van Wagoner

Pg 42 - Smith viewed as invalid those marriages not sealed by his blessing...Claiming sole responsiblity 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;"

In my opinion these "polyandrous marriages" fall into one of two categories:
Either 1 - Joseph was only sealed for eternity and the women were married to their husbands for time only - so no polyandry.
or 2 - The civil/legal marriage were meaningless and invalid in their eyes so Joseph's sealing was the only valid marriage - so no polyandry.

I don't think there are really any situations were these women considered themselves married to both Joseph and another man equally at the same time.  I think they either considered their marriages to their other husband invalid or they considered Joseph to only be their future companion in the eternities.
 

Thanks for explaining your view (and your use of the word "valid").

Isn't there records that Joseph was sealed for both "time and eternity" to some of these women who already were legally married to other men?  (Sincere question).

Also, what are your views regarding Brigham Young's polyandrous marriages (or Parley P. Pratt taking another man's wife to be sealed to)?  Again, sincere question.

In Zina's case, Brigham could have been sealed to her for "time only" and he could not be legally married to her either.  They had a child together, so we know their marriage was consummated.

.

Edited March 8, 2016 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

25 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Thanks for explaining your view (and your use of the word "valid").

Isn't there records that Joseph was sealed for both "time and eternity" to some of these women who already were legally married to other men?  (Sincere question).

Also, what are your views regarding Brigham Young's polyandrous marriages (or Parley P. Pratt taking another man's wife to be sealed to)?  Again, sincere question..

The civil/legal marriage were meaningless and invalid in their eyes so the priesthood sealing was the only valid marriage - so no polyandry.
I assume with Pratt you refer to Eleanor McClean.  Parley married her and they considered that the only real marriage.  Her marriage to her abusive first husband she considered ended when he kicked her out.  Both Parley and Eleanor considered her first marriage ended/invalid and considered her single when she married him.

Quote

In Zina's case, Brigham could have been sealed to her for "time only" and he could not be legally married to her either.  They had a child together, so we know their marriage was consummated.

 

As long as we consider civil/state marriages to be real marriages and cannot get that out of our heads, we will never understand how and why the early saints practiced what appears on the surface to be polyandry.
If you completely ignore and take the civil marriage out of the equation (as some of the early saints did) you will far better understand these relationships.

[ALarson]

22 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The civil/legal marriage were meaningless and invalid in their eyes so the priesthood sealing was the only valid marriage - so no polyandry.
I assume with Pratt you refer to Eleanor McClean.  Parley married her and they considered that the only real marriage.  Her marriage to her abusive first husband she considered ended when he kicked her out.  Both Parley and Eleanor considered her first marriage ended/invalid and considered her single when she married him.

 

As long as we consider civil/state marriages to be real marriages and cannot get that out of our heads, we will never understand how and why the early saints practiced what appears on the surface to be polyandry.
If you completely ignore and take the civil marriage out of the equation (as some of the early saints did) you will far better understand these relationships.

Thanks for explaining your viewpoint.  I don't see it that way, but that shouldn't surprise you    I do enjoy reading your thoughts and picking your brain!

Just curious though....do you consider civil/state marriages today as not being "real marriages"?  If so, how does that fit in with the wording of the "Law of Chastity"? Legally AND lawfully is pretty clear.  I know you can believe "lawfully" means the laws of God, but what about the word "legally"?

.

Edited March 8, 2016 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

39 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Thanks for explaining your viewpoint.  I don't see it that way, but that shouldn't surprise you    I do enjoy reading your thoughts and picking your brain!

Just curious though....do you consider civil/state marriages today as not being "real marriages"?  If so, how does that fit in with the wording of the "Law of Chastity"? Legally AND lawfully is pretty clear.  I know you can believe "lawfully" means the laws of God, but what about the word "legally"?

.

Legally = Legal administrator

• "All the ordinances, systems, and administrations on the earth are of no use to the children of men, unless they are ordained and authorized of God; for nothing will save a man but a legal administrator; for none others will be acknowledged either by God or angels.” - Joseph Smith

No ordinances (including marriage) are acknowledged by God or angels unless they are ordained and authorized of God by a legal administrator.  Pretty clear to me.

As for whether civil/state marriages today are "real marriages", if that were cut and dry the Church would be forced to accept SS marriages as valid.
And the Law of Chastity was changed by the Church in an effort to ban polygamy.  The original as restored through Joseph Smith was worded differently.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Is there any record for how the men felt whose living wives were sealed to Joseph for eternity?

[snowflake]

17 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I will say, I didn't think polygamy was even possible in the Millennium or next life in the CK for me until I came to this board.

According to Matthew 22: 29,30

²⁹ Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

³⁰ For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

I don't think there will be marriage in the next life, isn't that what Jesus is saying?

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, snowflake said:

According to Matthew 22: 29,30

²⁹ Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

³⁰ For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

I don't think there will be marriage in the next life, isn't that what Jesus is saying?

No, it's not.
He was saying that there will be no new marriages after the resurrection.  And he is saying it pretty clearly.
It matches perfectly with D&C 132:16 -

"Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory."

I don't see how any reading of those Matthew verses can be seen to say there is no marriage in the eternities.  He is clearly saying there will be no new marriages - "neither marry nor are given in marriage".  He never says no marriage.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, ALarson said:

Then we agree.  That is what is claimed by Joseph (that it was commanded) just as he was commanded to live it.  That is not correct.  Also, Joseph lived polygamy differently than those in the Bible (polyandry was a big part of how he lived it).  Polyandry is not in the Bible (iirc...I cannot think of any woman who had more than one husband, but correct me there if you know of any)..

It took you a long time to agree, but now you can CFR that Joseph claimed that polygyny had been commanded in the Bible.
 

So now that you have lost on the polygyny debate, you want to make polyandry the issue?  Who claimed that polyandry was in the Bible?  No one, except perhaps you, so that you can knock it down.  You also claim that "polyandry was a big part of how he lived" polygyny.  Was it really?  Is that what Brian Hales concluded?

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So now that you have lost on the polygyny debate, you want to make polyandry the issue?  

I have not lost.  You finally agreed with me that polygamy was not commanded anywhere in the Bible (other than maybe as a part of Levirate marriages), as I initially and continuously stated here. 

(Do you want me to issue a CFR?  I honestly can't tell what you mean from how you worded your first sentence above.  Thanks.)

Edited March 8, 2016 by ALarson