let us reason together

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Because her father, one of his closest friends asked him to.

Heber asked Joseph to marry his 14 year old daughter?  If that's true, sorry, but that is disturbing.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

I'll also point out the most important thing about "presentism" that apologists have somehow totally missed.

The idea that we shouldn't judge people that lived in past times and different cultures isn't a defense against modern criticism.  It's a form of cultural moral relativism, which in addition to being soundly rejected by the Church (which is moral absolutist), is totally ill-suited in being applied to LDS Church history in general.

The reason it is so ill-suited is because it doesn't mean that we can excuse some of the behaviors of early Church leaders that we find objectionable (marriages to young girls, racism etc.) while still lauding these men as praiseworthy and good.

It means that we are arguing that we are totally incapable of making any moral judgement about these men, for good or bad.  "Presentism" means that it is just as illogical for a modern LDS to say that Joseph Smith did something "good" as it is for a critic to say he did something "bad".  Because both are incapable of making a moral judgment about anything Joseph Smith said or did outside of the culture and time in which he lived.

"Presentism" isn't a trump card that apologists can pull out when needed, and then safely put it away and tell the world what great persons Joseph Smith or Brigham Young were.  Once you play that card, you have totally removed them from the discussion in the context of moral judgment, and they become amoral historical figures.  

So our missionaries need to stop teaching that Joseph Smith was a good person, and instead that "in the context of the culture and time in which he lived, it generally appears that Joseph Smith acted well according to the cultural morals of his time, although we can't judge him from our modern moral perspective."  Anything else is "presentist".

You have gone completely off the rails here, cinepro.  The concept of presentism can certainly be ill-used, as you suggest, but we have here an excellent example of your ill-use of that very concept.  Historians regularly use presentism as something to be avoided in our descriptions of earlier periods.  You make it sound as though only those hated "apologists" use the term, and then for ignoble purposes.

I have no problem condemning Brother Brigham for his adoption of racist principles and practices which were the opposite of those practiced by others in contemporary American society (including opposition to racism by Orson Pratt and Joseph Smith).  I consider it a blot on Mormon history, but the sort of thing which one should expect of fallible humans in history.  I find slavery a huge blot on American history generally, and even moreso than the widespread slavery practiced in ancient Rome and Greece.  Why?  Because we had as a nation formally espoused non-racist principles in our Constitution.  That we were unable to live up to those high principles led to the most horrific and costly war we ever fought -- the Civil War -- after which Black people remained in slavery for another century, despite the Emancipation Proclamation.  And we are still feeling the effects of those wrong decisions.

For you, apparently, all past decisions are equally wrong -- based only on our current feelings about them, without any true sense of historical perspective.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Heber asked Joseph to marry his 14 year old daughter?  If that's true, sorry, but that is disturbing.

 

I will try and get a better reference, but for now:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Mar_Kimball

"According to Kimball, her father wished to create an eternal link between his family and the family of Joseph Smith(Anderson & Faulring 1998)[1]"

 

[Jeanne]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

Because her father, one of his closest friends asked him to.

And so?? If I did everything my friends told me to do..I would be dead by now...or a fool.  Isn't one of our admonitions to our children is...you don't have to do everything you friends do???

[ALarson]

39 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Heber asked Joseph to marry his 14 year old daughter?  If that's true, sorry, but that is disturbing.

 

Here is what Helen writes regarding what her father did:

Quote

“Having a great desire to be connected with the Prophet Joseph, he offered me to him; this I afterwards learned from the Prophet’s own mouth. My father had but one Ewe Lamb, but willingly laid her upon the alter”

 

Edited September 22, 2016 by ALarson

[Calm]

Jeanne, you asked for the reason, you didn't qualify it had to be a good one.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Calm

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Thanks for your clarification.  In my reply to the previous post..I had forgotten that Joseph was also sealed to men.  I respect your opinion though I disagree somewhat.  A lot of good women to be sealed to..why pick a 14 year old with her whole life ahead of her...and have her be responsible for the salvation of her parents?

Jeanne, I don't know why Joseph chose some of the women he did.  I agree with you that it seems strange, but why did he choose older women also?  Why did he choose Emma?  I don't understand a lot of things about why some men and women choose each other.  Some things have no answers for us in this life.  

I must admit that I don't worry too much about the salvation of her parents issue - I don't even understand how such a promise works given my understanding of the gospel - putting pressure on individuals is an old, old story.  I don't see any need to sentimentalize these types of things.  

When it comes to these types of questions where I cannot find answer I put them on the shelf and wait for further information or answers to come at a later time.  It is true that I tend to focus on the good things rather than get too hung up on the issues where I cannot find answers.  I am not blind to them, but I hope that I don't judge him so harshly that I become liable for being judged by the same standards.  I want as much mercy as possible and thus try to deal mercifully with others. 

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I believe he practiced natural child birth. I also don't understand him marrying house maids and girls he had know since a younger age.

I think you mean something like the rhythm method rather than natural child birth.....right?  There is an old joke about the rhythm method - Do you know what they call couples that use it as a form of birth control?  You are right, parents.  

As far as marrying people he knew...how do you marry people you don't know?  My response to Jeanne just above is worth a read also.   

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

 Call me ignorant and uninformed.

Actually, I believe you know precisely what you are doing.

I hope that you are aware that the scriptures tell us the Lord will not be mocked, and those who mock His messengers.  I wish you all the best.

Edited September 23, 2016 by cdowis

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Actually, I believe you know precisely what you are doing.

I hope that you are aware that the scriptures tell us the Lord will not be mocked, and those who mock His messengers.  I wish you all the best.

There is no mocking being done if one believes the principle of polygamy did not come from or was commanded by the Lord.   For some reason, I think that includes Jeanne.  

Edited September 23, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

44 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

 As far as marrying people he knew...how do you marry people you don't know?  

I'd imagine that Tacenda was referring to what George D. Smith wrote.  Joseph met 27 of his future wives while he was in Ohio, years before he married them and many of them were just young girls:

Quote

 

"When the Smiths moved to Ohio in 1831, Joseph there met the majority of his future wives. Most of them were still adolescents - the children of his close associates."

"As Joseph was expelled by his neighbors from New York to Ohio, then to Missouri, during the 1830's, the homes of friends or converts along the way offered temporary refuge.This is where Smith became acquainted with the young daughters and women he would marry a decade later. They were the daughters of friends in the families where he stayed. Some of them were very young when he met them and were as young as fourteen when he married them over a decade later."

 

 

Edited September 23, 2016 by ALarson

[Storm Rider]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'd imagine that Tacenda was referring to what George D. Smith wrote about.  Joseph met 27 of his future wives while he was in Ohio, years before he married them and many of them were just young girls:

 

Again, please share how an individual who does not practice prearranged marriages finds individuals to marry?  

The quotes a cute and are easily seen to be from the highest of neutral writers, surely they have a clue as how this was done?  Oh, the old fashioned way everyone else married people - they married people they knew.  

[Jeanne]

53 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Jeanne, I don't know why Joseph chose some of the women he did.  I agree with you that it seems strange, but why did he choose older women also?  Why did he choose Emma?  I don't understand a lot of things about why some men and women choose each other.  Some things have no answers for us in this life.  

I must admit that I don't worry too much about the salvation of her parents issue - I don't even understand how such a promise works given my understanding of the gospel - putting pressure on individuals is an old, old story.  I don't see any need to sentimentalize these types of things.  

When it comes to these types of questions where I cannot find answer I put them on the shelf and wait for further information or answers to come at a later time.  It is true that I tend to focus on the good things rather than get too hung up on the issues where I cannot find answers.  I am not blind to them, but I hope that I don't judge him so harshly that I become liable for being judged by the same standards.  I want as much mercy as possible and thus try to deal mercifully with others. 

I thank you for your honesty and respect the faith you have..  I hope that you get answers to those questions and others before that shelf breaks.  You, I am sure have a shelf that won't break..again, thank you.  I really don't want to judge Joseph...there was a time when he was my biggest hero..I just want to understand him.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Jeanne, you asked for the reason, you didn't qualify it had to be a good one.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The same questions confront a modern Jew, since polygyny among Jews was perfectly legal for thousands of years, and then it was not.  One may not contract plural marriage in Israel today, regardless of one's religion (and polygyny is legal within Islam), and regardless of one's deep respect for the Patriarchs of Israel.  Yet I have not encountered this terrible feeling of discomfort with polygyny among modern Jews.  They simply put that and levirate marriage aside, without all the emotional presentist nonsense one finds among some Mormons and anti-Mormons today. There may be a place for true emotional response to modern FLDS marriage practices, or indeed for the modern practice of child-marriage in India, but we ought to put aside the deep recriminations for past practices.

Likely modern Jews understand  the polygny was a cultural thing that was practiced thousands of years ago by a their nomadic and tribal ancestors. They understand that then women were viewed more like property.  They don't claim that God came to their founding prophets with a flaming sword and commanded them to institute the practice. Nor is there anything in their canon like D&C 132 nor a command to take on many wives to reach God's highest heavens.

I think your comparison is thus flawed.

[ALarson]

30 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Again, please share how an individual who does not practice prearranged marriages finds individuals to marry?  

You're kidding right?  You can't possibly believe that the only way to find a wife is to ask your friends for their daughters.  And, daughters who were as young as 4 years old when you (as an adult) met them.

Here's more on this:

Quote

 

"His [Joseph's] relationships in Ohio with various families and their daughters allowed him to invite the young women into his further confidence when they were older. Most were with their families in Ohio, where Smith had sent missionaries from western New York in 1830....

"Several families in Kirtland offered to house the Smiths in February 1831. This was not pre-arranged but a spontaneous response when people encountered them on their arrival. For instance, when the Smiths visited a country store, its proprietor, Newel K. Whitney, was prompt to suggest temporary lodging at his home. Whitney's daughter Sarah Ann would become one of Joseph Smith's wives, although at the time she was only five years old."

 

 

Edited September 23, 2016 by ALarson

[mong00se]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I will try and get a better reference, but for now:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Mar_Kimball

"According to Kimball, her father wished to create an eternal link between his family and the family of Joseph Smith(Anderson & Faulring 1998)[1]"

 

Weather accurate or not, that seems like such a dangerous rationale.  A 14 year old girl should not be a pawn in two older men's desire to be linked.  

It took away her opportunity for a normal childhood, she talks in her journal about the pain that she went through.  Joseph didn't let her meet up with her friends, go to dances or do things that her friends were doing, she went so far as to say she felt like an abused child.  

[Shadrak]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I have no problem condemning Brother Brigham for his adoption of racist principles and practices which were the opposite of those practiced by others in contemporary American society (including opposition to racism by Orson Pratt and Joseph Smith).  I consider it a blot on Mormon history, but the sort of thing which one should expect of fallible humans in history.

I'm not sure we can give brother Brigham such an easy pass. If his racism was confined to his personal conduct, then one could call it a fallibility. When it runs over into doctrine and denying salvation to everyone contrary to the laws of God, it's more than a fallibility. Peter got a revelation overturning his bias and prejudices to open salvation to all. That Brigham let his prejudices rule him doesn't sit well.

[Calm]

The dances claim is one of those misquotes...they invariably leave out important parts of the quote to make Helen say something quite different than she actually did.  Please read her entire telling of this event along with other descriptions of her activities during this time (see link below):

She had been going to a number of dances and other social activities for six? Months or so after the sealing.  But then a series of dances where it was known that there were going to be "blacklegs" occurred after Christmas (the Christmas social being one she had last attended before these started iirc) and Joseph warned her father about their presence and to keep his daughter away from them .  Her father at first forbid both Helen and her brother not to go (which indicates it was not because Helen was sealed to Joseph), but her brother told her dad he had his money committed already in some fashion and Heber relented (he was older, but double standards existed of course, young men's reps were less easily tarnished than young women's), which left Helen really ticked off at her brother, but later apparently after she heard of the rumors going around town, she was grateful she hadn't gone and was protected by her father.  She never imo linked not going with Joseph save he was the one who had warned her dad about them.

She called herself "an abused child" for that reason, but quickly forgave her dad because he took her everywhere with him so she was not bored and she figured out he was protecting her and her reputation from harm, not stopping her from having fun.

There is nothing said about anything else she was forbidden to do, so there very well may have been other dances she went to besides this weekly set involving men of "questionable character".  She talks about doing some acting in the spring of that year and was part of the choir that performed for the Prophet's family that New Year's Eve, so we know that she was socially active.

Sorry for the paraphrase but it won't copy for some reason.  For her own words see the below and search for "blacklegs" to find it quickly.

http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/HWhitney.html

I would like to see where she says she wasn't allowed to see her friends, a CFR (call for references) which means you need to provide a source.

As to the other claims, some are from her, some are words put in her mouth by imo hostile sources.  From reading what she herself said, I got the impression she wasn't happy about it, did it out of love and respect for her family and didn't realize the long term implications of the relationship until later and was probably even less happy about for a time, but was eventually reconciled and became a very strong supporter of plural marriage.

Two years after her marriage to Joseph, she was involved with Whitney and married to him so I don't see much evidence of her being robbed much of her normal childhood even if Joseph had lived and the sealing eventually became a full marriage instead of the apparent secret betrothal it was.

(I am not saying it was a good thing, but I respect Helen enough to take her own words as the truth of what she felt and not turn her into more of a victim then she was.)

Edited September 23, 2016 by Calm

[Shadrak]

4 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Thanks for your clarification.  In my reply to the previous post..I had forgotten that Joseph was also sealed to men.  I respect your opinion though I disagree somewhat.  A lot of good women to be sealed to..why pick a 14 year old with her whole life ahead of her...and have her be responsible for the salvation of her parents?

I don't think Joseph was sealed to men while he was alive, but I'm not positive. The Law of Adoption was instituted until 1846 for a brief time.

[Oliver_Cowdery]

3 hours ago, JulieM said:

Heber asked Joseph to marry his 14 year old daughter?  If that's true, sorry, but that is disturbing.

 

You should read this chapter from The Life of Heber C Kimball.

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, Shadrak said:

I don't think Joseph was sealed to men while he was alive, but I'm not positive. The Law of Adoption was instituted until 1846 for a brief time.

It may be why plural marriage was used instead to join families prior to having the temple available or it may not have been revealed to Joseph, but Brigham so sealing by marriage as seen as the only option to become a celestial family on earth originally.  Thanks for bringing this timing to my attention, I had missed that point n my reading.

"brief time"---almost 50 years until it was replaced by proxy sealing of individuals to their actual parents in a revelation of WW.

Edited September 23, 2016 by Calm

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

You're kidding right?  You can't possibly believe that the only way to find a wife is to ask your friends for their daughters.  And, daughters who were as young as 4 years old when you (as an adult) met them.

Here's more on this:

 

This is the really bizarre.  Tell me, oh wise one, did you know your wife before you asked her to marry you?  Of course you did; see that wasn't hard to answer the silly question.  Now, let's go slow, that is the only point I was making.  Nothing I have said has anything to do with friends of daughters.  You insist on bringing up a straw man position and then acting amazed.  Carry on with your crusade into the absurd, but I ain't interested in the ride. 

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

This is the really bizarre.  Tell me, oh wise one, did you know your wife before you asked her to marry you?

I'm not sure why you keep arguing this point.  The facts speak for themselves.

But answering your question, yes, I did know my wife before I married her as most do.  We met in college.  However, she was not the 4 year old daughter of my adult friends when I first met her.  

That's the point and that's what Tacenda was referring to.  Nothing more and nothing less.  Again, I'm not sure why you have a problem with this as it is a fact that Joseph met many of his future wives when they were children (and he knew their parents as an adult or he lived with them). 

.

Edited September 23, 2016 by ALarson

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, Shadrak said:

I'm not sure we can give brother Brigham such an easy pass. If his racism was confined to his personal conduct, then one could call it a fallibility. When it runs over into doctrine and denying salvation to everyone contrary to the laws of God, it's more than a fallibility. Peter got a revelation overturning his bias and prejudices to open salvation to all. That Brigham let his prejudices rule him doesn't sit well.

Just curious.  
Do you suppose that Moses was a racist?  He placed restrictions on whom the Israelites could associate with and marry.  He placed restrictions on who could obtain the priesthood.  Thus, the black race was precluded from marrying the Jews and to obtain the piresthood.

We find similar racist overtones when the disciples were told only to go to the House of Israel, not Gentiles, UNTIL Peter received the vision.  I guess he could not overcome his racist attitudes, until God forced it upon him with the revelation. 

Racism is such a worn phrase, especially for those who know little or nothing about the Bible.

Finally, you may find this interesting article from wiki

Quote

 

The split between the Northern and Southern Baptist organizations arose over doctrinal issues pertaining to slavery and the education of slaves. At the time of the split, the Southern Baptist group used the curse of Cain as a justification for slavery. Some 19th- and 20th-century Baptist ministers in the Southern United States taught that there were two separate heavens; one for blacks, and one for whites.^[22] Baptists have taught or practiced various forms of racial segregation well into the mid-to-late-20th century, though members of all races were accepted at worship services.^[23] In 1995, the Southern Baptist Convention officially denounced racism and apologized for its past defense of slavery.^[24]

The curse of Cain was used to support a ban on ordaining blacks to most Protestant clergies until the 1960s in both the United States and Europe

 

 

Edited September 23, 2016 by cdowis