Reconciling the Lucy Walker story

[JulieM]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

I don’t think we know for sure when Joseph received the revelation.  But he had not recorded it when he had his relationship with Fanny Alger.

But there was no sealing that took place because Joseph had not received those keys yet.  What do you mean by the same authority used for  “all marriages at that time”?  He was already legally married to Emma and couldn’t be married in the same manner to Fanny, right?

Did Joseph marry any other women before the sealing keys were restored?

That entire relationship with Fanny is pretty sketchy, IMO.  And Emma seems to most definitely not be aware of it beforehand.  Do you believe she’d already rejected polygamy so he didn’t need to ask her permisssion?  

I was actually a bit surprised that Fanny was listed as Joseph’s first plural wife in the essay.  

Edited December 31, 2017 by JulieM

[Calm]

Plural marriage is different from a sealing.

The sealing turns a marriage limited to mortality into an eternal marriage.

There is allegedly (thirdhand) accounts from the family of Fanny Alger that state they witnessed the marriage, so there was apparently a ceremony, but not what we now call temple marriage/sealing.

"Father gave her to Joseph repeating the Ceremony as Joseph repeated to him"

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/mosiah-hancock-an-addition-written-in-1896-to-the-autobiography-of-his-father-levi-ward-hancock/

Edited December 31, 2017 by Calm

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Plural marriage is different from a sealing.

The sealing turns a marriage limited to mortality into an eternal marriage.

There is allegedly (thirdhand) accounts from the family of Fanny Alger that state they witnessed the marriage, so there was apparently a ceremony, but not would we now call temple marriage/sealing.

Thanks Calm.  That helps in trying to understand.

But they couldn’t have been legally married, so they were just pronounced man and wife in name only (no sealing and no legal marriage).  That seems odd but I guess that’s what was done (by the power of the Priesthood....but no legal power or authority if I’m understanding correctly).

Edited December 31, 2017 by JulieM

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Thanks Calm.  That helps in trying to understand.

But they couldn’t have been legally married, so they were just pronounced man and wife in name only (no sealing and no legal marriage).  That seems odd but I guess that’s what was done (by the power of the Priesthood....but no legal power or authority if I’m understanding correctly).

Definitely not a civil marriage, but solely a religious one in my understanding.  So not bigamy, which requires an attempt to represent multiple marriages as legal ones (which is why the law targeting polygamy attacked cohabitation, not marriage as plural marriages never, to the best of my knowledge, involved civil authority), but also not viewed as adultery by believers in Priesthood authority even if it makes sense that nonbelievers would label it as such.

From what I have read, Joseph didn't insist everyone get a religious marriage by Priesthood authority when they joined the Church, so I personally believe he saw other marriages as valid in their own right, but marriages performed by Priesthood authority had greater authority in his view, not less.

Edited December 31, 2017 by Calm

[Gray]

10 hours ago, Darren10 said:

You brought up women voting against women’s right to vote to nullify my pointing out that Mormon women voting routinely to support polygamy. I made that point because to me that is good evidence that polygamy as practiced in Mormonism was not oppressive to women. It absolutely was challenging but not oppressive. Your attempt to make my point null and void fails because LDS women also voted, very strongly for women’s suffrage. That too shows Mormon women as a group of people who strengthen women, not oppress them. 

Of course it was oppressive to women - that's by its very nature. I didn't say all aspects of Utah culture were oppressive to women, but polygamy was and is.

[Gray]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

Yes male lineages, which isn't surprising.  Patriarchal societies generally follow the male lineages.  I suppose one could argue that patriarchal societies are inherently sexist but I don't know if that's a given.

I think it is a given.

 

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

Besides that though, I'm not sure polygamy ignores the social value of a two-parent home so much as it implies that sometimes there are exceptions where other things are of more value (such as when married men with children were called away on missions for years at a time, leaving one parent households).  The BOM at least teaches that polygamy is the exception and not the rule, so it makes sense that other things surrounding it are also exceptions as well.

There's always a selfish excuse for why children will come second to some thing or other - whether that thing is money or fame or even polygamy.

 

[Gray]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

Polygamy is good at raising seed under certain lineages.  If God considers those lineages 'righteous' (if it's about whose line the children come through and not the overall number of children) then polygamy does what the BOM says it does.  

Brigham Young had a grandson who was a murderer and a son who was, I believe, considered to be something of a wastrel. There is no such thing as a righteous lineage. Everyone has their agency.

[JLHPROF]

41 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Thanks Calm.  That helps in trying to understand.

But they couldn’t have been legally married, so they were just pronounced man and wife in name only (no sealing and no legal marriage).  That seems odd but I guess that’s what was done (by the power of the Priesthood....but no legal power or authority if I’m understanding correctly).

Neither legally married nor sealed.

Joseph performed weddings for early Church members without legal permission or license.  He didn't feel he needed it.  The Church states categorically  that Joseph learned the principle of plural marriage as early as 1831, and D&C 132 specifies that that portion came in answer to questions about the OT patriarchs leading most to believe that was where he was in the translation of the Bible.

I think we have a very good idea when Joseph learned of polygamy and his first attempt with Fanny Alger was based on limited understanding in an attempt to duplicate the patriarchs.

Shortly after Fanny he received the sealing keys and began to learn of eternal marriage and temple doctrines, putting a general stop to attempts at polygamy.

I view Fanny as a marriage made under Joseph's Church leadership authority and an attempt at plural marriage without sufficient understanding. 

[Calm]

57 minutes ago, Gray said:

Brigham Young had a grandson who was a murderer and a son who was, I believe, considered to be something of a wastrel. There is no such thing as a righteous lineage. Everyone has their agency.

Adam had Cain and Isaac had Esau.  A "righteous lineage" doesn't prevent its members from rejecting the covenants of their parents.

[Darren10]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Of course it was oppressive to women - that's by its very nature. I didn't say all aspects of Utah culture were oppressive to women, but polygamy was and is.

Well, then I guess your post should lead me to think you think Mormon women were phsychologically aloof when they cited for polygamy. 

[Gray]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Adam had Cain and Isaac had Esau.  A "righteous lineage" doesn't prevent its members from rejecting the covenants of their parents.

Meaning a "righteous lineage" is a meaningless term. People don't make good or bad choices because of who their ancestor was.

[Gray]

5 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Well, then I guess your post should lead me to think you think Mormon women were phsychologically aloof when they cited for polygamy. 

Not sure what you intend to mean by "phsychologically aloof"

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, Gray said:

Brigham Young had a grandson who was a murderer and a son who was, I believe, considered to be something of a wastrel. There is no such thing as a righteous lineage. Everyone has their agency.

I don't think that 'raising a seed to God' means that everyone that ever will be born in that lineage must be righteous.  People can be born in the gospel covenant (a seed unto God) but still retain their agency and choose evil.

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, Gray said:

I think it is a given.

 

There's always a selfish excuse for why children will come second to some thing or other - whether that thing is money or fame or even polygamy.

 

Yes, I'm sure that you do.

To your second point, I don't think that polygamy put children second nor do i believe that every one parent household (who is there by choice) has a selfish excuse for why their children have come second to some thing or other.  I believe in the power of God to help children through the 'less than ideal' to create what He ideally wants for them anyway, especially when going through the less than ideal if because of trying to be obedient to Him.  

But I know that you don't believe in a God who interacts with his children at all so I can see why you have a different perspective.

[rchorse]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Meaning a "righteous lineage" is a meaningless term. People don't make good or bad choices because of who their ancestor was.

While we all have freedom of choice, to claim that lineage has no bearing on choice is a gross oversimplification. Parents teach their children how to live, either directly or through example, and that influence can be seen, for good or ill , for many generations. 

Tell someone born into a poor family in India that their lineage doesn't determine their choices in life.

Sure, agency is not determined by lineage, but our set of available choices is most definitely influenced by the families we're born into. That influence can be financial, social, religious, or other.

The fact that lineage is not an absolute determinant doesn't make it meaningless, either.

[Exiled]

13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

Maybe you are correct. Other than the intimate favors for the select few, it probably was a horrible system for all involved.

[Glenn101]

17 hours 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 not infallible and I believe Joseph made a mistake if he believed polygamy came from God.  

 

Julie, I had thought not to continue with this subject, but do wish to ask if you believe that Joseph got the idea for instituting polygamy from reading the Biblical accounts and was lying about the angel appearing three times to him commanding that he obey? Or do you believe that Joseph was deceived by Satan and actually believed that he was commanded by God to begin the practice of plural marriage when it actually came from Satan?

I personally believe that Joseph actually was confronted by an angel from God and commanded to begin the practice. After reading so much about him, by the people that knew him the best, I believe in his integrity, and I believe in his ability as a prophet to discern the difference between an angel sent from God and Satan or one of Satan's minions. That was something that he told Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, i.e. that he had the ability to discern between an angel of the devil and an agel of God.. (Mary also said that she had herself seen an angel, but was too affrighted to ask him the question.) I also do not believe that God would have allowed Joseph or any other prophet to lead His Church so far astray.

I also look at the lives of the women who became plural wives to Joseph. There were a couple that left the church, but in most part they remained faithful to the principle and to the church up to their deaths. And several became great leaders. They were not shrinking violets, but yet prayed and wrestled within themselves until they received a revelation that it was a correct principle. As has been noted, there were also some that did not accept Joseph's proposals nor receive a revelation. But the ones that did were not cowed by Joseph as a prophet, according to their own words. I believe them.

That is not proof of anything. I am just laying out the reasons I believe that Joseph actually received the commandment as he stated. He may have made mistakes in the way that some things were handled, but as Danzo has noted, that is something for God to judge and handle. I am perfectly content to leave that part to Him. But if reports that we have received from a few that have seen Joseph in visions or whatever after his death, it seems that he is in pretty good favor with God.

Glenn

[Exiled]

21 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Julie, I had thought not to continue with this subject, but do wish to ask if you believe that Joseph got the idea for instituting polygamy from reading the Biblical accounts and was lying about the angel appearing three times to him commanding that he obey? Or do you believe that Joseph was deceived by Satan and actually believed that he was commanded by God to begin the practice of plural marriage when it actually came from Satan?

I personally believe that Joseph actually was confronted by an angel from God and commanded to begin the practice. After reading so much about him, by the people that knew him the best, I believe in his integrity, and I believe in his ability as a prophet to discern the difference between an angel sent from God and Satan or one of Satan's minions. That was something that he told Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, i.e. that he had the ability to discern between an angel of the devil and an agel of God.. (Mary also said that she had herself seen an angel, but was too affrighted to ask him the question.) I also do not believe that God would have allowed Joseph or any other prophet to lead His Church so far astray.

I also look at the lives of the women who became plural wives to Joseph. There were a couple that left the church, but in most part they remained faithful to the principle and to the church up to their deaths. And several became great leaders. They were not shrinking violets, but yet prayed and wrestled within themselves until they received a revelation that it was a correct principle. As has been noted, there were also some that did not accept Joseph's proposals nor receive a revelation. But the ones that did were not cowed by Joseph as a prophet, according to their own words. I believe them.

That is not proof of anything. I am just laying out the reasons I believe that Joseph actually received the commandment as he stated. He may have made mistakes in the way that some things were handled, but as Danzo has noted, that is something for God to judge and handle. I am perfectly content to leave that part to Him. But if reports that we have received from a few that have seen Joseph in visions or whatever after his death, it seems that he is in pretty good favor with God.

Glenn

It seems the real reason for polygamy and polyandry is not broached here but that is understandable.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

Maybe you are correct. Other than the intimate favors for the select few, it probably was a horrible system for all involved.

Have you read The Letters of Brigham Young to His Sons?

 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't think that 'raising a seed to God' means that everyone that ever will be born in that lineage must be righteous.  People can be born in the gospel covenant (a seed unto God) but still retain their agency and choose evil.

For every wastrel there was a Brigham Young Jr. or Susan Young Gates? Was it a 1:1 ratio? I doubt it very much.

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

Julie, I had thought not to continue with this subject, but do wish to ask if you believe that Joseph got the idea for instituting polygamy from reading the Biblical accounts and was lying about the angel appearing three times to him commanding that he obey? Or do you believe that Joseph was deceived by Satan and actually believed that he was commanded by God to begin the practice of plural marriage when it actually came from Satan?

I personally believe that Joseph actually was confronted by an angel from God and commanded to begin the practice. After reading so much about him, by the people that knew him the best, I believe in his integrity, and I believe in his ability as a prophet to discern the difference between an angel sent from God and Satan or one of Satan's minions. That was something that he told Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, i.e. that he had the ability to discern between an angel of the devil and an agel of God.. (Mary also said that she had herself seen an angel, but was too affrighted to ask him the question.) I also do not believe that God would have allowed Joseph or any other prophet to lead His Church so far astray.

I also look at the lives of the women who became plural wives to Joseph. There were a couple that left the church, but in most part they remained faithful to the principle and to the church up to their deaths. And several became great leaders. They were not shrinking violets, but yet prayed and wrestled within themselves until they received a revelation that it was a correct principle. As has been noted, there were also some that did not accept Joseph's proposals nor receive a revelation. But the ones that did were not cowed by Joseph as a prophet, according to their own words. I believe them.

That is not proof of anything. I am just laying out the reasons I believe that Joseph actually received the commandment as he stated. He may have made mistakes in the way that some things were handled, but as Danzo has noted, that is something for God to judge and handle. I am perfectly content to leave that part to Him. But if reports that we have received from a few that have seen Joseph in visions or whatever after his death, it seems that he is in pretty good favor with God.

Glenn

Thank you, Glenn, for taking the time to write out such a thoughtful post.  I do like to read what others believe about this and appreciate you doing that.

I feel my beliefs are evolving some on this since I first heard more details about Joseph’s polygamy and his wives.  I had been taught the whole “he only married older widows who needed help or to be taken care of” and belived that.  I’m not blaming anyone really but myself for not digging deeper and learning the truth.

I believe that no one (or very few) is all good or all bad.  Good people make mistakes, poor choices that can hurt others or even have behaviors that include lies and deceit and still be overall a decent, loving, good person.  This is how I feel about what Joseph did with living polygamy.  I think his weakness was women (including much younger women or girls).  Ive heard and read that there is evidence that he cheated on Emma from near the beginning of their marriage (I’ve never reaseached those claims).

I think he had a wandering eye.  I really wonder if some people are not the type (or temperament or whatever word fits) to be in a monogamous relationship.  Maybe that was Joseph?  

I do believe that he at least came to believe he’d been told by God to live polygamy.  But the manner he chose to then live it, is puzzling I think.  Marrying other men’s wives?  Was that necessary to restore the principle of polygamy? Marrying Emma’s young housemaids without her knowledge?  Was that necessary to hurt and betray her in order to restore the principle?  For me, the answer to those questions is “no”.  

But I do hope for better answers than what I’ve read by apologists, etc.  None of them feel right to me (and I have prayed about this).

So, it remains on my shelf and I’m ok with it there (at least now).  I’ll keep studying and reading about it too.  But many of the dismissive, snarky or flippant responses and criticisms I see are not helpful, IMO.  I appreciate your manner here and thank you again, Glenn.

Edited December 31, 2017 by JulieM

[Gray]

3 hours ago, rchorse said:

While we all have freedom of choice, to claim that lineage has no bearing on choice is a gross oversimplification. Parents teach their children how to live, either directly or through example, and that influence can be seen, for good or ill , for many generations. 

Tell someone born into a poor family in India that their lineage doesn't determine their choices in life.

Sure, agency is not determined by lineage, but our set of available choices is most definitely influenced by the families we're born into. That influence can be financial, social, religious, or other.

The fact that lineage is not an absolute determinant doesn't make it meaningless, either.

Sounds like a variation on a Calvinist theme.

[Gray]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Yes, I'm sure that you do.

To your second point, I don't think that polygamy put children second nor do i believe that every one parent household (who is there by choice) has a selfish excuse for why their children have come second to some thing or other.  I believe in the power of God to help children through the 'less than ideal' to create what He ideally wants for them anyway, especially when going through the less than ideal if because of trying to be obedient to Him.  

But I know that you don't believe in a God who interacts with his children at all so I can see why you have a different perspective.

Some people might trust in God to make up the difference if they neglect their children in pursuit of an acting career. But as always, God does not do our work for us. Either we put time into raising our children or we reap the natural consequences.

[Gray]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't think that 'raising a seed to God' means that everyone that ever will be born in that lineage must be righteous.  People can be born in the gospel covenant (a seed unto God) but still retain their agency and choose evil.

If it has any influence at all, it would need to be mitigated in the final judgement anyway - otherwise God would be a partial God. .

[Darren10]

On 12/29/2017 at 8:04 PM, Darren10 said:

I love Frederick Douglas. Very inspiring. He became great in spite of slavery, not because of it.

 Equating slavery to polygamy is absurd. This is especially true with the fact that the women of the Church routinely voted to preserve polygamy. I cannot think of very many Negroes (using 19th a century terminology which Douglas himself used) who voted to preserve slavery. 

I wrote a paper in college once on Frederick Douglas. Great man. Lincoln was very side to let him into his circles. 

 

On 12/29/2017 at 8:17 PM, Gray said:

Mormonism succeeded in spite of polygamy. Had it not given it up, it would have become a tiny fundamentalist clan, like the FLDS.

Polygamy is the other relic of barbarism, along with slavery.

 

On 12/29/2017 at 9:06 PM, Darren10 said:

Ignoring what I said about women of the Church routinely voting to preserve polygamy, both paragraphs you wrote are true. But unlike slavery you cannot argue that polygamy has no role in God's plan is salvation. This is especially true when doing so within a Mormon lense in that marriage is essential to obtain the highest of salvation. Unlike slavery, I am convinced it will be back. Just a question of when. I say it'll be during the Millenium. At that point feel free to join with those who cannot see how God can morally support polygamy. You'll have the freedom to do so. 

 

On 12/29/2017 at 9:58 PM, Gray said:

Some women also fought against women's suffrage. Human psychology is often a strange, alien landscape.

 

On 12/29/2017 at 11:20 PM, Darren10 said:

Not Mormon women. They championed women's suffrage. But, yeah, women can be dumb.

 

On 12/30/2017 at 10:48 AM, Gray said:

I didn't say that. But sometimes, for ideological reasons, people can fight against their own well-being.

 

14 hours ago, Gray said:

Of course it was oppressive to women - that's by its very nature. I didn't say all aspects of Utah culture were oppressive to women, but polygamy was and is.

 

6 hours ago, Gray said:

Not sure what you intend to mean by "phsychologically aloof"

I do believe this was the course of our dialogue regarding polygamy, I doubt you are a psychiatrist and is you are I doubt you treated Mormon women in the 19th century. 

By “psychologically aloof” I mean distant from reality. It’s another way of saying, “mentally incompetant”, which is what I think you think of Mormon women who voted for polygamy. 

Edited December 31, 2017 by Darren10