Calm Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Gray said: Great, then he could have divorced Emma rather than sneaking around behind her back. She had the right to know if her husband was marrying additional women. He may have given her the option and she refused. We need to remember this was not something that occurred over a short period of time, but something that appeared to extend over a dozen years or so and both Joseph and Emma, from what little we know, reacted in a number of different ways overtime. Both resisted for many years (unless what Joseph told others was a total fabrication and if so we have no clue what went on, imo), Joseph appeared to sort of embraced it cautiously with polyandry..possibly thinking this meant he didn't have to be personally committed as a husband in the here and now as the other husband would care their wife; then, whatever motivated him to drop that approach and start being sealed to single women appears to have removed most of his misgivings about it and he became almost too casual about it ("your sister should be sealed to me" should not be part of a casual chat as an idea that just popped into his head, imo, but a long deliberation). It sounds like a constantly changing drama with Joseph perhaps not investing as much effort as he should have into understanding Emma's POV or Emma doing the same for him (assuming he was a prophet and was commanded). Like many couples, rather than taking the time to stay current in the relationship, it may have been seen by Joseph as easier and given him excuses like it does others to justify one's actions by using the spouse's past behaviour to make decisions rather than wonder and try to figure out what she is experiencing in the here and now. And maybe Emma was doing the same thing, angry because Joseph just didn't know when her mind changed so he would come talk to her about it. Instead the couple appears locked in some pretty nasty, destructive routines punctured by bursts of activity that feels more like attempts to make the disagreement disappear than to resolve it, each giving into the other's demands. Then Joseph feeling hopeless, so he didn't try to communicate with Emma, Emma, feeling neglected and ignored, gets angry, Joseph tries to appease her, she tries to appease him, no real understanding of the other accomplished though, so then rinse repeat. Edited February 27, 2017 by Calm
JLHPROF Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 19 minutes ago, Gray said: Were they raised in polygamist homes? They're the descendants of polygamists (I am too), not really the direct "fruits" of it, right? I'm sure I have ancestors who were raped, and I wouldn't use my eventual birth to justify it (I know it's a terrible analogy). President Kimball's father-in-law was the last known polygamist in good standing in the LDS Church. They died in the 50s. So President Kimball was a member of the quorum of the 12 while he had family members who were polygamists active in the Church. They also happened to be President Eyring's grandparents. And since he was born in 1933 and they died in their 20s, President Eyring could have spent his teenage years at his polygamous grandparents house. Yep, it's that recent. But I am not justifying polygamy from these fruits, just showing that there are plenty of good fruits to be seen.
JLHPROF Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 23 minutes ago, Gray said: A wife has the right to know if her husband is stepping out on her. Using the priesthood as a cover for that doesn't work. That scripture doesn't apply if no sin is being covered. There was no sin in polygamy when authorized by God. The sin was Emma's. 25 minutes ago, Gray said: Sure there is. Look to the law of Moses. The law of Moses doesn't apply. There was no eternal marriage under that Aaronic law. Brigham clearly taught that eternal sealings were not easily cancelled, and that men had no right to divorce (except as Christ said for adultery). He barely allowed women that option.
Meadowchik Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 11 minutes ago, bluebell said: The problem is that rationality is completely subjective. What is rational to you is irrational to another, and vice versa. What is rational and what isn't is based on personal opinion not fact. Um, what? If you want, replace rationality with objectivity in my post.
Gray Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: That scripture doesn't apply if no sin is being covered. There was no sin in polygamy when authorized by God. The sin was Emma's. Deceiving your spouse isn't a sin? 4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: The law of Moses doesn't apply. There was no eternal marriage under that Aaronic law. The law of Moses is the only canonical scripture at the time governing polygamy. 4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Brigham clearly taught that eternal sealings were not easily cancelled, and that men had no right to divorce (except as Christ said for adultery). He barely allowed women that option. Great, then Joseph could have been honest with his wife and given her the option of divorce if she disagreed. But you're taking Brigham Young's ideas about divorce and reading them back on Joseph. What did Joseph believe?
rockpond Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 39 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: "When a man married a wife, he took her for better or worse and had no right to ill use her; a man that would mistreat a woman in order to get her to leave him would find himself alone in the worlds to come. He said he knew of no law to give a man in polygamy a divorce." Brigham Young Marrying women behind your wife's back seems like "ill use" to me Also, I think about ten of Brigham Young's marriages ended in divorce.
rockpond Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: That scripture doesn't apply if no sin is being covered. There was no sin in polygamy when authorized by God. The sin was Emma's. Since Joseph didn't practice polygamy in accordance with the only scripture we have on the practice (Section 132) it is inappropriate to claim that Emma sinned in her lack of acceptance. 3
rockpond Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 I just want to add that since the 1835 D&C section 101 clearly taught that marriage was to be one man and one woman, I think the fault-finding of Emma for her lack of acceptance is without merit. 1
JLHPROF Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 41 minutes ago, rockpond said: Also, I think about ten of Brigham Young's marriages ended in divorce. Brigham's wives "divorced" him I believe, ie, he granted them their right to leave if they were unhappy. He didn't put much weight in divorce and repeatedly stated that the "divorced" people would likely still be bound to their spouses. You are claiming Joseph failed to do the same by not giving Emma the option to leave? 38 minutes ago, rockpond said: Since Joseph didn't practice polygamy in accordance with the only scripture we have on the practice (Section 132) it is inappropriate to claim that Emma sinned in her lack of acceptance. I disagree. I see no evidence Joseph violated D&C 132. 4 minutes ago, rockpond said: I just want to add that since the 1835 D&C section 101 clearly taught that marriage was to be one man and one woman, I think the fault-finding of Emma for her lack of acceptance is without merit. 1835 D&C 101 was not a revelation but Church policy and probably not written by Joseph.
bluebell Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 1 hour ago, Meadowchik said: Um, what? If you want, replace rationality with objectivity in my post. I'm not sure how trying to treat objectivity as equal importance to a witness of spirit helps. We are all bias. I think it's very possible to achieve a level of objectivity sometimes but none of us are completely objective. Our emotions and experiences color how we judge things. Hurt, hate, love, joy, fear, etc. are strong emotions and are often the catalyst behind our beliefs or changes in belief, not sudden objectivity. 2
rockpond Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 2 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Brigham's wives "divorced" him I believe, ie, he granted them their right to leave if they were unhappy. He didn't put much weight in divorce and repeatedly stated that the "divorced" people would likely still be bound to their spouses. You are claiming Joseph failed to do the same by not giving Emma the option to leave? No. Just pointing out that BY had quite a few divorces since you seemed to be citing him as someone opposed to it. 2 hours ago, JLHPROF said: I disagree. I see no evidence Joseph violated D&C 132. V 61 2 hours ago, JLHPROF said: 1835 D&C 101 was not a revelation but Church policy and probably not written by Joseph. It was part of our published scripture. It isn't unreasonable that Emma may have been hesitant to accept polygamy given that the canon of the time prohibited it. And since you have no evidence of what and when the Prophet Joseph may have taught her about polygamy, we need to assume that the 1835 section 101 is what she most likely held as doctrine. You claimed that Emma had sinned in rejecting polygamy but you've provided no evidence to support such a conclusion.
JLHPROF Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 14 minutes ago, rockpond said: It was part of our published scripture. It isn't unreasonable that Emma may have been hesitant to accept polygamy given that the canon of the time prohibited it. And since you have no evidence of what and when the Prophet Joseph may have taught her about polygamy, we need to assume that the 1835 section 101 is what she most likely held as doctrine. I doubt that the early saints put quite as much emphasis on what was "canon" and what wasn't. Joseph would produce doctrine extemporaneously with no revelation or canon to back it up and it became the doctrine that was taught nonetheless. 1
rockpond Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 50 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I doubt that the early saints put quite as much emphasis on what was "canon" and what wasn't. Joseph would produce doctrine extemporaneously with no revelation or canon to back it up and it became the doctrine that was taught nonetheless. True, but in this particular example, not relevant: Joseph hadn't publicly taught the doctrine of plural marriage so D&C 101 (1835 version) stood as the Church's doctrine on marriage. It's what we can reasonably assume Emma would have recognized as doctrine unless/until you can establish that she was taught otherwise by the prophet. I think you ought to retract your statement that Emma had sinned until you have some substantial evidence. 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 6 hours ago, JulieM said: I don't need that to be confirmed... 6 hours ago, Jeanne said: Probably what you need JulieM is an angel with a flaming sword! That is called revelation! 6 hours ago, JulieM said: Yup! Are you two secretly trying to prove my point???
JulieM Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 10 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Are you two secretly trying to prove my point??? What point is that?
Recommended Posts