Reconciling the Lucy Walker story

[JulieM]

44 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

The comparison stands.

It’s a comparison of course.  But in my opinion, not a very good one.  I do agree not everything was recorded (that would be impossible).  But, something as important as Joseph claimed polygamy was (needing to be restored so Christ’s gospel was fully restored), one would hope a record would have been left for us.  

[Bernard Gui]

18 minutes ago, JulieM said:

It’s a comparison of course.  But in my opinion, not a very good one.  I do agree not everything was recorded (that would be impossible).  But, something as important as Joseph claimed polygamy was (needing to be restored so Christ’s gospel was fully restored), one would hope a record would have been left for us.  

We can hope for a lot of things. Scripture (pre- and post- Abraham) permitted (permits in some Jewish communities) polygamy. There is a record.

Edited December 30, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[DBMormon]

45 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Takes too long.

I think faster than you talk and straight up I don't care that much what you think. 

I comment on what you write.   Don't do podcasts.

Have  a great new year.

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

"Or they could have converted their husbands and brought him the gospel (or activated him) and raised their kids active in the church.  That could go either way."

Quite possible.  It would be interesting to see a breakdown of how many husbands were baptized after their wives and the percentage of their children who were baptized, endowed, and sealed for marriage in the temple.

Unfortunately records being what they were, I know some in my own family who have proxy dates on their records instead of their own living blessings/covenant dates so I am not sure if records could give us the info.  Would make a great project though, get a census records of all in Nauvoo and Utah if that is available early enough and then follow their lines to see what happened with their descendants.

Without statistics that likely weren't gathered at the time, it is impossible to know which would have yielded more faithful children.

It did produce a solid core which has provided many, many good and great leaders for the Church, but again we have no way of knowing if monogamy and choosing from a larger pool of church members would have provided less, the same, or more good and great leaders.

Bottomline for me, it is about faith.  We can prove nothing by anecdotal info save that families were very faithful in some cases and not so faithful in other, families were loving, close, and happy even if having hard times in some cases and the opposite in others.

I like this post, Calm.  I think your posts are so well thought out and balanced.  They do always make me stop and think (which is good to do).

I agree that those stats would be interesting to know.  Something else we don’t know is how many would have joined the church (or stayed in the church) if polygamy was not a part of it for the years it was.  

Edited December 30, 2017 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, DBMormon said:

no more than I have to reject the garden of Eden believing it to be figurative only and symbolic of the pre-mortal life.  One only need look at the miracle stories we impose as true in this dispensation to see how embellished myth becomes a sacred telling

So you believe scripture like D&C 110 and 138 to be figurative only?  

[Tacenda]

On 12/29/2017 at 1:34 PM, kiwi57 said:

Do you think that might be because it is largely manufactured?

Consider the fact that DB keeps harping on the claim that Lucy was Joseph's "'intents and purposes'  foster daughter." The facts you've put forward show her to be something of a parlour-boarder. DB has worked really hard to turn the arrangement into a kind of quasi-father-daughter relationship in order to beat up some moral outrage.

But it's entirely artificial.

There was a man in my ward that went to prison for sexually abusing his foster daughters, they were in their teens. But I guess JS gets a break because he said it came from God. Do you think the guy in my stake could have used that? After reading a few comments it brought to my memory this case in my stake. He was a really nice guy too. 

Poster removed for ongoing violations. 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

There was a man in my ward that went to prison for sexually abusing his foster daughters, they were in their teens. But I guess JS gets a break because he said it came from God. Do you think the guy in my stake could have used that? After reading a few comments it brought to my memory this case in my stake. He was a really nice guy too. 

Are you claiming that JS sexually abused girls in his care?

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

The comparison stands. Just because something is not written does not mean it does not exist or didn't happen.

The only pertinent question is, did an angel really appear?

Even if polygamy was not a restoration this really is the only pertinent question.  And if the answer is yes that is all the record of command needed for Joseph.  When God commands do it.

And yes, sometimes God does command with a penalty for disobedience.  Sometimes God compels us to obey.

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

There was a man in my ward that went to prison for sexually abusing his foster daughters, they were in their teens. But I guess JS gets a break because he said it came from God. Do you think the guy in my stake could have used that? After reading a few comments it brought to my memory this case in my stake. He was a really nice guy too. 

Complete and utter rubbish.

Joseph had sex with his wives (and probably not all of them.)  Husbands and wives have sex all the time.  That is not abusive.  Really getting tired of these stupid false eqivalencies.

[MDalby]

On 12/28/2017 at 5:02 PM, JulieM said:

Yes, according to Joseph’s revelation, he was.

There’s no record of that in the Bible though.  Only what came from Joseph (as he understood it from God).  That could be awfully convenient for him, I think.

Julie, which edition of the D&C do you accept as scripture and the word of God?

[MDalby]

On 12/28/2017 at 6:21 PM, Glenn101 said:

Well, there is also the story of King David as he was being chastised by Nathan the prophet for murdering Uriah the Hittite and taking Uriah's wife.

"7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."

We can play semantic word games all we wish but that is strong evidence that God sanctioned polygamy in the Old Testament. As has been noted, there were Levirate marriages that were polygamous by commandment. The Mosaic law also specifically allowed plural marriage and gave laws concerning the treatment of plural wives.  It was still being practiced during the time of Christ.

Glenn

Julie, did you respond to this post?

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, MDalby said:

Julie, which edition of the D&C do you accept as scripture and the word of God?

I think some of it contains revelation. Each person has to pray about them and receive their own confirmation.  

I believe Prophets are not infallible and I believe Joseph made a mistake if he believed polygamy came from God.  How do you explain Fanny Alger before the revelation and before the sealing keys?  How did the ceremony go (it wasn’t a sealing and it wasn’t a legal marriage)?

 

Edited December 31, 2017 by JulieM

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, MDalby said:

Julie, did you respond to this post?

A couple people posted about David and yes, I responded.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

I think some of it contains revelation. Each person has to pray about them and receive their own confirmation.  

I believe Prophets are infallible...

 

I think you meant fallible.  I am always leaving out "not" and reversing what I mean.  My mind goes much faster than my fingers.

[JulieM]

55 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think you meant fallible.  I am always leaving out "not" and reversing what I mean.  My mind goes much faster than my fingers.

Thanks, Calm.  Yes, I always have to stop and think which one to use (fallible or infallible).  I’ll correct it!

[Scott Lloyd]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

I wonder what percentage of Parley's children were faithful to the Lord and thus raised up those 266 grandchildren to the Lord. (Serious question, are there any studies that compare level of remaining at least semi active in the Church to being member in name only or not a member?)

Having lots of children is not the identical imo as raising up seed to the Lord.

I wonder how many of his children saw him on a daily basis while he was alive, could always find him when they needed to talk when he was not on missions.

 

I couldn’t venture a guess on the percentage (I don’t know who could) but it seems reasonable to me to believe that children who come through genealogical lines where both father and mother are faithful believers in the gospel are far more apt themselves to be faithful believers. I believe this is what is meant by “raising up seed” unto God. 

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

John the Baptist states if God wants, he could raise up from the stones children for Abraham.  Just because something was viewed as possible if God wants it, doesn't mean that it has to happen, be "essential"...after all God may not desire it.

So Jacob only establishes polygamy as a possibility if God desires it, not as an essential principle.

A possibility, nevertheless, and Jacob 2 was and is cited as the reason. Not only were a lot of children of faithful members produced quickly, but many very significant leaders came from those families.

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Takes too long.

I think faster than you talk and straight up I don't care that much what you think. 

I comment on what you write.   Don't do podcasts.

It is difficult and time-consuming to study a podcast and prepare appropriate responses. 

[Exiled]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

"Almost 1:1" is not 1:1.  However, there are slightly more males born then females as the natural sex ratio is 1.06 males to 1 female (which adds up when talking billions) , so it looks like polyandry needs to be made available to ensure everyone has the opportunity to be sealed in the next life.

Of course. Haha. But do you think God wants the favoritism for the select males that the polygamy system provides?  Would you call it a just system?

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

It did produce a solid core which has provided many, many good and great leaders for the Church, but again we have no way of knowing if monogamy and choosing from a larger pool of church members would have provided less, the same, or more good and great leaders.

Well, that’s the point I have been making all along, and the one reason Jacob gave to allow plural marriage. It happened in a very short time- just one generation - and continues to provide phenomenal leaders today. I can’t imagine a better vindication for Jacob. How about a list of men and women of polygamous descent who have honorably, valiantly, competently, and selflessly served in high positions of Church leadership.? That would also be informative.

Edited December 31, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, that’s the point I have been making all along, and the one reason Jacob gave to allow plural marriage. It happened in a very short time- just one generation - and continues to provide phenomenal leaders today. I can’t imagine a better vindication for Jacob.

One thing it did was widen the field of mate selection for women in the Church who were faithful and righteous. That is to say, a woman might not be obliged to settle for a man who was unbelieving or unfaithful to gospel values if the possibility of marriage to a faithful man engaged in plurality of wives was open to her. 

[Bernard Gui]

17 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Of course. Haha. But do you think God wants the favoritism for the select males that the polygamy system provides?  Would you call it a just system?

How did it favor males? They were obliged to provide for more women and children than their monogamous brothers. Men and women were burdened by it. Whatever we may think of it, that was the system, and it worked. It was intense and brief, but it accomplished the intended result of quickly establishing a solid Church  leadership core...both men and women. Those folks went through hardships but they laid a firm foundation. I believe their reward will be great. We can speculate about other means that could have achieved the same results, but this is the one that was used...and it was provided for in the Book of Mormon years before it was implemented.

Edited December 31, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Of course. Haha. But do you think God wants the favoritism for the select males that the polygamy system provides?  Would you call it a just system?

It will be just if people who want to participate and are capable of participating in a loving way are granted that desire.

I don't believe we have more than a glimmer about what eternal marriage means, just as a toddler barely grasps 'mom and dad' but has little comprehension of what it means to be such companions.  Because of this, I see no reason to believe we can fairly judge what eternal polyandry, polygyny, or polygamy might be like.  I leave it up to God and those currently in eternal relationships who are capable of comprehending the totality of the relationship to decide what it will be.

[Glenn101]

I really wish that this topic could be put on a shelf until the the Millennium (but I know better). I have seen no one move off of the positions they have held for the longest time and I have seen no new arguments put forth from either pro or con. We are all just holding on to what we already believe. And, in a way, that is good because I do not believe that any person should be convinced for or against other than by the Holy Ghost. I do have a personal stake in the outcome because I have been sealed to two women. My first wife is deceased and was not around to give her consent for me to be sealed to my current wife. I have no idea what will become of that in the next life. God is a loving God and also a righteous God. I do not believe that he will force either of those women to live in a polygamous relationship. It would have to be of their own choosing. Could they both reject me ? I don't know. I do know where to get the answers, just not when they will come. I do have a lot of shelves for unanswered questions, but I no matter what the are, I still come back to the testimony that I have and where it came from.

Glenn

 

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, JulieM said:

I believe Prophets are not infallible and I believe Joseph made a mistake if he believed polygamy came from God.  How do you explain Fanny Alger before the revelation and before the sealing keys?  How did the ceremony go (it wasn’t a sealing and it wasn’t a legal marriage)?

 

Fanny Alger wasn't before the revelation.  Plural marriage was revealed during the translation of the Bible- before Fanny Alger came along.

As for the authority used- it was the same as Joseph used for all marriages at that time.  Limited in scope but still more authoritative than the law of the land.