Emma and Mother's Day

[probablyHagoth7]

Just got off a heartwarming call with a very good woman.

A very encouraging discussion, as aftermath of events from Mother's Day.

Led me to reflect on women who have been an important influence in my life, and in other people's lives, and eventually to this:

 

How do each of you view Emma? And why?

Edited May 15, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[bluebell]

I view her as an amazing woman.

[cinepro]

That's an odd video.  Emma had tons of ordinary days. 

By all accounts, her life was quite ordinary until she married Joseph in her early 20s, and then for 35 years after he died she lived what appears to be a pretty serene life (but not without its own struggles) with the companionship of Lewis Bidamon (her husband of 32 years).

Sure, her ~19 years with Joseph were a whirlwind of sorrow, tragedy and deprivations, but it's kind of odd (even if understandable) that as LDS we think that her life began when she met Joseph and ended when he died.

 

Edited May 15, 2017 by cinepro

[JLHPROF]

41 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

How do each of you view Emma? And why?

I view her as the wife of the head of this dispensation, the first Queen and Priestess ordained in this age of the earth, and an eternal companion to Joseph.
I also view her as a leader, the first President of the Relief Society, and a great example.

She had trials with no frame of reference to comfort her as the first to pass through them.
She may have lost her way but I have no doubt that she received her rewards.

[probablyHagoth7]

7 minutes ago, cinepro said:

...but it's kind of odd (even if understandable) that as LDS we think that her life began when she met Joseph and ended when he died.

My life really began when I married.

[MDalby]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

She may have lost her way but I have no doubt that she received her rewards.

What makes you think that she lost her way?  Because she remained in Nauvoo, did not make the trek to remain with the Saints, and married Bidamon?

[cinepro]

13 minutes ago, MDalby said:

What makes you think that she lost her way?  Because she remained in Nauvoo, did not make the trek to remain with the Saints, and married Bidamon?

She seems to have rejected Brigham Young's authority as President of the Q12 and fostered the development of the Reorganized Church, which is apostasy by any LDS definition. 

[probablyHagoth7]

49 minutes ago, cinepro said:

She seems to have rejected Brigham Young's authority as President of the Q12 and fostered the development of the Reorganized Church...

Apparently true.

49 minutes ago, cinepro said:

...which is apostasy by any LDS definition. 

Or perhaps she had simply earned her rest, and had no need to trek further.

Edited May 15, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[probablyHagoth7]

49 minutes ago, cinepro said:

She seems to have rejected Brigham Young's authority as President of the Q12 and fostered the development of the Reorganized Church, which is apostasy by any LDS definition. 

I don't think presentism helps too much.

I had a coworker earlier this year who initially took serious issue with Emma's post-1844 decisions.

A synopsis of my response:

Did she really intend to deceive others and lead them astray?

Was there lasting/eternal harm done to the few who joined such a church?

Would such a church have formed regardless of anything she said/did? 

 

Given Joseph's love for Emma, I think we ought to extend her charity...as our default stance.

Edited May 15, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[probablyHagoth7]

...and, did her influence help mitigate bitterness that might otherwise have taken root in such a church?

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, MDalby said:

What makes you think that she lost her way?  Because she remained in Nauvoo, did not make the trek to remain with the Saints, and married Bidamon?

 

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

She seems to have rejected Brigham Young's authority as President of the Q12 and fostered the development of the Reorganized Church, which is apostasy by any LDS definition.

 

1 hour ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

 

Or perhaps she had simply earned her rest, and had no need to trek further.

Her not joining with the Church in the West would not mean she lost her way.
Her fights against plural marriage, her rejection of Brigham and the 12, her support of founding a new Church, and her possible breaking of covenants (and I do mean merely possible, not certain) would all qualify.

But as I said, I have no doubt she received her reward and is with Joseph now.

Edited May 15, 2017 by JLHPROF

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

My life really began when I married.

I hope that is not the case in my life. If so it may be a very short life.  

[cinepro]

22 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

I don't think presentism helps too much.

I had a coworker earlier this year who initially took serious issue with Emma's post-1844 decisions.

A synopsis of my response:

Did she really intend to deceive others and lead them astray?

Was there lasting/eternal harm done to the few who joined such a church?

Would such a church have formed regardless of anything she said/did? 

 

Given Joseph's love for Emma, I think we ought to extend her charity...as our default stance.

There's a difference between being "charitable" and being "delusional." 

I'm all for compassion and forgiveness, but in order to be compassionate and forgiving, we should first be clear about what we're talking about.

If it is your contention that I am being "presentist", and that in the Church of the 1840s it was okay to reject Brigham Young and the Quorum of the 12 as the leaders of the Church, separate oneself from the Brigham-led Latter-day Saint Church, and subsequently help foster the creation of a new, competing Church with its own prophet, ordinances and priesthood totally outside the authority and keys held by Brigham Young and his LDS successors,  and in so doing, one was not committing apostasy, then I think you have a novel and unique understanding of what the Church considered "apostasy" back then.

I'm all for the idea that she will be forgiven and allowed to join Joseph and his other wives in the Celestial Kingdom, perhaps due to special circumstances and pleading, but let's not pretend she didn't do what she did, or even presume that that that's where she is going to want to be for all eternity. 

Edited May 16, 2017 by cinepro

[rongo]

29 minutes ago, cinepro said:

There's a difference between being "charitable" and being "delusional." 

I'm all for compassion and forgiveness, but in order to be compassionate and forgiving, we should first be clear about what we're talking about.

If it is your contention that I am being "presentist", and that in the Church of the 1840s it was okay to reject Brigham Young and the Quorum of the 12 as the leaders of the Church, separate oneself from the Brigham-led Latter-day Saint Church, and subsequently help foster the creation of a new, competing Church with its own prophet, ordinances and priesthood totally outside the authority and keys held by Brigham Young and his LDS successors,  and in so doing, one was not committing apostasy, then I think you have a novel and unique understanding of what the Church considered "apostasy" back then.

I'm all for the idea that she will be forgiven and allowed to join Joseph and his other wives in the Celestial Kingdom, perhaps due to special circumstances and pleading, but let's not pretend she didn't do what she did, or even presume that that that's where she is going to want to be for all eternity. 

Agreed. Emma actively taught her sons and others things that she knew weren't true. I agree that she may get special consideration for special circumstances, but generations of RLDS members continued to insist that Brigham Young was the sole founder of polygamy, and that Joseph had nothing to do with it. The answer to these questions from probably not Hagoth are a resounding "Yes!"

Did she really intend to deceive others and lead them astray?

Was there lasting/eternal harm done to the few who joined such a church?

And the answer to this one is: "No!" She was a prime force behind the formation of the RLDS Church, promoting her sons as heads of it.

Would such a church have formed regardless of anything she said/did? 

------

Brigham Young, August 24, 1872. Journal of Discourses 15:136  The boys, themselves, have no will, no mind, no judgment independent of their mother. I do not want to talk about them. I am sorry for them, and I have my own faith in regard to them. I think the Lord will find them by and by --- not Joseph, I have told the people times enough, they never may depend on Joseph Smith who is now living; but David, who was born after the death of his father, I still look for the day to come when the Lord will touch his eyes. But I do not look for it while his mother lives. The Lord would do it now if David were willing; but he is not, he places his mother first and foremost, and would take her counsel sooner than he would the counsel of the Almighty, consequently he can do nothing, he knows nothing, he has no faith, and we have to let the matter rest in the hands of God for the present.

[probablyHagoth7]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

..in order to be compassionate and forgiving, we should first be clear about what we're talking about.

Agreed.

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

If if it your contention that I am being "presentist"...then I think you have a novel and unique understanding of what the Church considered "apostasy" back then.

but let's not pretend she didn't do what she did, or even presume that that that's where she is going to want to be for all eternity. 

Dunno if it's unique. I don't pretend to know what others have thought/said/written on the matter.

I believe that either through what Emma waded through, or through what Joseph waded through, or more likely both, she had likely finished her race. And that little mattered after approximately 1844. If so, why insist that what happened *after* crossing her ticker tape had much bearing on things? Is there never a time when she was granted the right to unstring the bow? 

Or are we gonna judge missionaries for taking off the badge on their P-day...or after they are released?

So by referring to presentism/charity, what I mean is why hold her to *our* post-1844 standard, and lay additional burdens on her? To what end? 

(Especially when we already know her fate?) And even more so when *we* might not fare well if held up to *her* standard.

*Some* principle of mercy and/or special dispensation intervened to span her eventual fate and our understanding of post-1844 orthodoxy. Why not consider all that she waded through/sacrificed, and all that she did for Joseph and for the work, and then consider that heaven may have thereby deemed her honorably released?

A cognitive bridge for modern saints to remain true to their own principles, while honoring a dispensation of grace extended to Emma.

If it doesn't work for you, fine. It resolves things nicely for me.

Meanwhile, I'm more than happy to hear other explanations that mitigate a supposed dissonance between Emma's fate and modern standards.

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

...but let's not pretend she didn't do what she did...

I wasn't pretending.

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

...or even presume that that's where she is going to want to be for all eternity. 

Do you mean with Joseph?

With several things, including what Emma testified about Joseph decades after his death (that he was *everything* he claimed to be)...I believe she was *at least* everything he attested her to be. As such, I opt to believe that *at least* a similar measure of mutual respect/devotion carried on beyond mortality.

What shape such orbits take, I wouldn't presume to know. Fair enough?

Edited May 16, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[cinepro]

22 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

Agreed.

 

What shape such orbits take, I wouldn't presume to know. Fair enough?

Whatever works for you, although I would point out that the theory that Emma will be forgiven and exalted in spite of everything that happened post-1844 is probably a much more "presentist" view of things than my theory that she will be judged for her actions like everyone else will (which seems to have been the prevailing view of Church leaders and culture in the 1800s).

Edited May 17, 2017 by cinepro

[probablyHagoth7]

19 minutes ago, cinepro said:

...the theory that Emma will be forgiven and exalted in spite of everything that happened post-1844 is probably a much more "presentist" view of things...

Depends on your perspective.

I view it as a pre-1844 view of things, as it is reflective of a man holding keys who said he would go to hell and back for a woman like that.

Edited May 17, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Whatever works for you, although I would point out that the theory that Emma will be forgiven and exalted in spite of everything that happened post-1844 is probably a much more "presentist" view of things than my theory that she will be judged for her actions like everyone else will (which seems to have been the prevailing view of Church leaders and culture in the 1800s).

Don't forget that Emma would fall under D&C 132:19-20 though.

She received her second anointings, all her ordinances, etc.  She would have to commit an unpardonable sin (denying the holy ghost, shedding innocent blood etc) to lose her exaltation.
AND she has Joseph as her advocate.

I don't think it's presentism to follow the doctrines attached to the position Emma was in.  The 19th Century leaders (Brigham etc) who claim she was doomed unless Joseph claimed her were stretching a bit in my opinion.
Were her actions severe enough to constitute denying the Holy Ghost?
We know she broke multiple covenants, but how severely?

 

[cinepro]

24 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Don't forget that Emma would fall under D&C 132:19-20 though.

She received her second anointings, all her ordinances, etc.  She would have to commit an unpardonable sin (denying the holy ghost, shedding innocent blood etc) to lose her exaltation.
AND she has Joseph as her advocate.

I don't think it's presentism to follow the doctrines attached to the position Emma was in.  The 19th Century leaders (Brigham etc) who claim she was doomed unless Joseph claimed her were stretching a bit in my opinion.
Were her actions severe enough to constitute denying the Holy Ghost?
We know she broke multiple covenants, but how severely?

 

Emma also falls under D&C 132:64, quite specifically:

Quote

64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.

 

[probablyHagoth7]

22 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Emma also falls under D&C 132:64, quite specifically:

Even with this verse, in the context of the ones previously cited, and other things, being *destroyed* has a spectrum of meaning (including that found in the OT & BofM) that doesn't exclude brighter promises.

I've been destroyed a time or two. And have been rebuilt. And I'm not making light of the word's meaning. (Or am making light of it, hinging on your perspective.)

Edited May 17, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[rongo]

16 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Emma also falls under D&C 132:64, quite specifically:

I think Emma can rightly be seen as having been "destroyed," as this passage and the Brethren interpreted it. Not blood atonement, but rather, the wages of sin and the natural consequences of rejecting the priesthood. This, from John Taylor, is pretty representative:

Here is a principle—and the same principle applies to the man—that if a man commits adultery, he also shall be destroyed. Can I change that? I did not make the law. Have I the right to change it?…The law says, “they shall be destroyed.” What else? “And shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption.” That is the law. Can I change it? Can you? I speak now to Presidents of Stakes and Bishops. We are told that we are not to be partakers of other men’s sins. Now, you send men with recommends to me to have me pass upon them. I trust to you. I suppose you are acquainted with these things. I suppose you act intelligently and understandingly. But if people do not fulfill the requirements of the Gospel, you have no right to recommend them to the house of the Lord. They do not belong there. People who do not observe the laws of the Gospel and live their religion, should not receive recommends, and if you do recommend such you will be held responsible…I have known cases where wicked and corrupt men have gone into the house of God. The parties administering did not know it, but nevertheless it was a fact. And what has become of them? They have come to me feeling as though they were in hell. They wanted to know what they could do. I told them I did not know; perhaps the Lord would indicate by and by. I say to all, you had better, unless you determine to fear God and keep His laws, quit at once, for God expects us to do right, and will hold us to an account for our acts (John Taylor, June 24, 1883. Journal of Discourses 24:269.)

Now, said I, I did not make that law. I find it in the word of God. It is not my province to change it. I cannot make any change. I am sorry for these little children. I am sorry for the shame and infamy that has been brought upon them; but I cannot reverse the law of God. I did not commit this crime; I am not responsible for it; I cannot take upon myself, the responsibility of other peoples’ acts. Well, it made my heart ache. The husband wept like a child, so did the woman; but I could not help that. I speak of this for the purpose of bringing up other things, and of presenting them before the people. And the principle I desire to impress upon their minds is, that we have no right, any of us, to violate the laws of God (John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 24:232. Date unknown.)

(the context of this one was also "being destroyed in the flesh," a la D&C 132.

The abuse and drinking she endured from Lewis Bidamon, together with her feelings and dissonance in not staying with the Church and teaching her sons and others against it, certainly qualifies for "destruction" or being left over to the buffetings of Satan, as John Taylor described it. Were it up to me, I wouldn't wish anything else upon her.

[probablyHagoth7]

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/128.9-11?lang=eng#p8

Again, I am confident that her lengthy sacrifice/service, with his priesthood keys, and their love, and what we know of the Savior's love/atonement, trump and overcome any cross-denominational transgression one might opt to heap on her head.

...as we forgive those who trespass against us...

[cinepro]

28 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/128.9-11?lang=eng#p8

Again, I am confident that her lengthy sacrifice/service, with his priesthood keys, and their love, and what we know of the Savior's love/atonement, trump and overcome any cross-denominational transgression one might opt to heap on her head.

...as we forgive those who trespass against us...

That's fine.  I think it's great when Church leaders and members have to choose between the "doctrine" and common sense goodness and go with the goodness.  It might lead to some dubious ideas and contradictory teachings, but if it's done out of an attempt to prefer mercy over justice, I fully support it.