Reconciling the Lucy Walker story

[JulieM]

6 hours ago, why me said:

And the end result was that Emma carried a locket of Joseph's hair around her neck after his murder and she didn't speak a negative word about him after his death. And Emma had every reason to expose the 'fraud' about Joseph and his first vision. But she didn't.

Oh I believe that Emma deeply loved Joseph.  She knew though about many of the lies and deceptions and betrayals.  But she was an amazing, strong, loyal woman, IMO.  She continued to be this type of woman even after Joseph’s death.

Edited January 1, 2018 by JulieM

[kiwi57]

On 12/29/2017 at 10:30 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

I get that, but this is only another example of the abuses of power and authority that were seem pretty common to Joseph's polygamy practices. Joseph was wrong, possibly predatory in his pursuit of these young girls, especially those who were in his care, but this is just another example of his moral failings. This seems like typical Joseph behavior.

I think you are projecting.

[kiwi57]

On 12/29/2017 at 11:43 AM, DBMormon said:

or I frame everything in black and white dualistic thinking so as to walk people out of their own.

IOW, you're being manipulative.

Got it.

[kiwi57]

On 12/29/2017 at 1:02 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.

So you're slyly insinuating that he was lying, are you?

I have much more respect for those who are up front with their accusations.

[kiwi57]

On 12/29/2017 at 3:51 PM, sunstoned said:

How about Joseph's legal wife, Emma.  Does her opinion matter?

Do you have a primary statement from Emma about Joseph's marriage to Lucy?

If not, then her opinion is not even on record. We only have the officious rush to judgment from those who presume to speak for her.

[kiwi57]

On 12/29/2017 at 4:05 PM, sunstoned said:

I believe that most, if not all people (who are not heavenly invested in the traditional narratives of the church) would find this extremely disturbing.

And yet, those who purport to "find this extremely disturbing" just happen to be those who are heavily "invested in" denying "the traditional narratives of the church."

What a co-inkydink!

[kiwi57]

On 12/29/2017 at 5:37 PM, ttribe said:

This may be one of the most heartless summaries of this situation that I've ever seen.

Yes, we must rush to the defense of the so-called "victims," mustn't we?

Never mind that they didn't think of themselves as victims...

[kiwi57]

On 12/30/2017 at 8:10 AM, JulieM said:

Still no commandment to specifically live polygamy.   Where is polygamy commanded there?

The divinely decreed law recognises polygamy as a legal, moral and social fact, and it regulates the inheritances of the legitimate children of all the marriages accordingly.

Please look very hard at the phrase in italics and see if you can work out what it means.

Please also note that the children of adulterous relationships were not legitimate and could not inherit.

Edited January 1, 2018 by kiwi57

[kiwi57]

On 12/30/2017 at 8:40 AM, ttribe said:

Unless, of course, it wasn't actually God's law...

In order to determine whether something is actually God's law, we have to start by accepting that there actually is a God.

So, do you?

[kiwi57]

On 12/30/2017 at 9:25 AM, Analytics said:

Most fundamentally, my problem with this is that we aren't talking about a 40-something year old man publicly courting a teenager to be his actual, publically recognized wife. We are talking about a man with incredibly high social standing using his power to coerce a very young woman into having a secret, scandalous, sexual relationship with him.

That's false. Of course.

We are talking about Joseph inviting a young woman to become his plural wife.

Incidentally, it's kind of funny the way you trip over your own feet in your attempt to compete with the sanctimonious judgmentalism of your fellow anti-Mormons. A scandal isn't a scandal until it becomes public knowledge; if something is "scandalous" then it is, by definition, not "secret." Your zealous piling up of accusatory adjectives has led you to contradict yourself.

 

Edited January 1, 2018 by kiwi57

[kiwi57]

On 12/30/2017 at 9:32 AM, ttribe said:

Except that so many members' testimonies are hinging on this issue of polygamy.

Well, I can tell that there are some who seem to want them to.

 

Edited January 1, 2018 by kiwi57

[kiwi57]

On 12/30/2017 at 11:33 AM, blueglass said:

Will you discuss the cherry picked quote from Lucy's own words that she felt "tempted and tortured beyond endureance until life was not desirable"?  As you said before you claim that Lucy's own words do not contradict that Joseph took advantage of her - so engage the words I provided.  Let's hear it.  

As you know, Lucy herself engages those very words when she describes the manifestation she received in answer to her prayers. That's the answer to your carefully edited cherry-picking.

[kiwi57]

5 hours ago, JulieM said:

Oh I believe that Emma deeply loved Joseph.  She knew though about many of the lies and deceptions and betrayals.  But she was an amazing, strong, loyal woman, IMO.  She continued to be this type of woman even after Joseph’s death.

The highlighted portion appears to be something of a mantra of yours. You seem to keep repeating it over and over and over as if the mere repetition will somehow prove your point for you.

But it doesn't.

However, I do see some "lies and deceptions and betrayals" in this discussion. Shall I tell you where I see them?

1. I see lies and deceptions in the repeated claim that Joseph lied to and deceived Emma. The truth is that Emma knew a whole lot more about Joseph's plural marriages than you do, or ever will. It's true that at times she seemed to vacillate about it, and sometimes Joseph had to pick his moment when telling her about specific plural wives; but she knew about Plural Marriage from the beginning, and he didn't lie to her about that.
2. I feel personally betrayed every time someone claims to be such an oh so faithful member with just one little question; which, when answered, is immediately followed up by just one more little question; and just one more after that, and just one more after that. Especially when every single one of those "just one little questions" turns out to be a bog-standard anti-Mormon talking point. And I don't mind saying how personally betrayed (and taken for a mug) I feel in that circumstance.

Whatever you find "disturbing" or hard to accept about Plural Marriage, here is the one clear historical fact of the matter: it was always a genuine religious principle and nothing else. Those who try to convince you, either by outright assertion or sly insinuation, that it was merely a product of Joseph's libido have lied to you, deceived you, and betrayed you.

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

So you're slyly insinuating that he was lying, are you?

I have much more respect for those who are up front with their accusations.

I’ve explained and been “up front” about where I’m at with what I believe on this (and how I’m reasearching and reading and my beliefs are evolving actually as I do).  These are my honest feelings right now:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70009-reconciling-the-lucy-walker-story/?do=findComment&comment=1209783448

I know you believe differently and I certainly respect your right to do so.

 

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

 

1. Whatever you find "disturbing" or hard to accept about Plural Marriage, here is the one clear historical fact of the matter: it was always a genuine religious principle and nothing else.

No, that is definitely not a “clear historical fact”. You may believe that, but the writings we have (Bible), do not support that.  Abraham was given Hagar by his wife so he could get her pregnant and have his children.  

But this has already been discussed earlier in the thread if you want to go back.  I don’t see much good in rehashing it all again.

[JulieM]

Kiwi, I’d sincerely like to hear your thoughts on how the Partridge sealings (the actual ones that Emma knew nothing about and the mock ones where Joseph led her to believe it was the actual sealings and that he wasn’t already married to both girls) didn’t involve deceiving Emma.  

I can’t see how anyone would believe that Emma wasn’t deceived in this instance.  So how do you believe this took place without deception?  (I get that some believe the deception was justified, but Emma was still deceived.)

Definition of deceive (which is exactly what took place with the mock wedding):

de·ceive

dəˈsēv/

verb

1. To cause (someone) to believe something that is not true

   :	-  to give a mistaken impression.

    

   .

Edited January 1, 2018 by JulieM

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, JulieM said:

No, that is definitely not a “clear historical fact”. You may believe that, but the writings we have.....

But we do have the words of the Lord of Hosts (who is called the God of Abraham) in which he declares he will command plural marriage to his people when he wants to raise seed unto himself. Furthermore, we have the Old Testament record that the Lord of Hosts himself,  his 12 Apostles who will be our judges, and all the tribes of Israel, His chosen people, are the progeny of polygamists. We also know that all the peoples of the Book of Mormon are progeny of polygamists, and we know that every person baptized into the Church is the progeny of polygamists either by lineage or by adoption. 

Edited January 1, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, JulieM said:

No, that is definitely not a “clear historical fact”. You may believe that, but the writings we have (Bible), do not support that.  Abraham was given Hagar by his wife so he could get her pregnant and have his children.  

You conveniently leave out God's involvement in their lives and his approval and blessings showered upon them.  

Let me ask you, in the case of Abraham do you see any disapproval from God?  ANY indication that Abraham was an adulterer and thus a sinner?  Is polygamy in and of itself sinful or immoral?

Perhaps the worst mistake Joseph made was lying.  Because none of his other actions in polygamy seems to violate any commandment.  There seems to be no sin in polygamy by God's chosen prophet.

[JulieM]

I get what you’re both saying, but it doesn’t really address the precise statement that kiwi made.  I agree that polygamy was allowed by God under certain circumstances.

However, there’s nothing written (that we know of in the Bible) that states that polygamy needed to be restored in order to have the fullness of the gospel restored.

Do either of you believe that Christ lived polygamy as a necessary part of His gospel?

[Gray]

20 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ve never before this moment seen obeying God characterized as a selfish choice. The notion strikes me as bizarre. 

Religion can be practiced selfishly, like anything else. If I ascribe my desire for gold to the will of God, that doesn't make those desires less selfish. People who put their ideological beliefs above the well-being of their children are being selfish.

[JLHPROF]

36 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I get what you’re both saying, but it doesn’t really address the precise statement that kiwi made.  I agree that polygamy was allowed by God under certain circumstances.

However, there’s nothing written (that we know of in the Bible) that states that polygamy needed to be restored in order to have the fullness of the gospel restored.

Do either of you believe that Christ lived polygamy as a necessary part of His gospel?

You know I believe Christ was a polygamist, and yes I believe just as with baptism it was to fulfill all righteousness.

So if I read you right God is ok with polygamy and polygamists but the practice isn't part of the gospel, even despite Jacob 2?

[Gray]

23 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you clarify?

If being born into a "righteous lineage" is some kind of advantage, the effects on the person's behavior can't count toward the final judgement, can they? Not if God is judging righteously. Not everyone can be born into these lines.

Edited January 1, 2018 by Gray

[why me]

15 hours ago, JulieM said:

Oh I believe that Emma deeply loved Joseph.  She knew though about many of the lies and deceptions and betrayals.  But she was an amazing, strong, loyal woman, IMO.  She continued to be this type of woman even after Joseph’s death.

But did she know that he was a prophet? Most likely so. If Joseph lied, deceived and betrayed her she would have spilled the beans about him being a fraudster. But, she continued to believe in his prophethood. And this is the problem for critics. How to reconcile emma's testimony of her husband? Lets put it this way: section 132 is written to a woman who knows he is a fraud. Could Joseph be sure that emma would still keep her mouth shut about the fraud? Most likely no.

And when Joseph was murdered, she never murmured a negative word about Joseph to anyone. But she did carry a locket of his hair around her neck.

It could be said that she would rather Joseph be the Kirkland Joseph over the Nauvoo Joseph.

From the 1992 ensign: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/08/my-great-great-grandmother-emma-hale-smith?lang=eng

This is a beautiful article. And yes, Joseph's polygamy is mentioned and emma's reaction to it.

 

Edited January 1, 2018 by why me

[kiwi57]

8 hours ago, JulieM said:

No, that is definitely not a “clear historical fact”. You may believe that, but the writings we have (Bible), do not support that.  Abraham was given Hagar by his wife so he could get her pregnant and have his children.

Actually I was talking specifically about Mormon polygamy, starting with Joseph Smith, but let's run with Hagar, shall we?

First, Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham because Abraham had been promised a numerous progeny, and Sarah was already old. In that time, if a wife gave her servant to her husband, the servant's children were counted (for inheritance purposes) as if they were her mistress's children. Sarah and Abraham thought they were doing what was necessary to secure the Lord's promises.

Secondly, all this guff about "women were just property" is a lot of presentist (and feminist) nonsense. It's not as if Hagar was somehow being deprived of the opportunity of becoming the CEO of a Fortune 500 company; at that time and place, marriage was a woman's best career choice; it was a step up from domestic service, and marriage to the top guy - even as a subordinate wife - was a more promising prospect than marriage to the village blacksmith. We aren't told the discussions that went on between Sarah and Hagar, but the likelihood is that she jumped at the chance that was offered to her. It would have been silly of her to do anything else, since marriages were usually arranged anyway, and girls wanted good marriages, not Princes Charming.

8 hours ago, JulieM said:

But this has already been discussed earlier in the thread if you want to go back.  I don’t see much good in rehashing it all again.

I suppose not.

But in any event, whatever you find "disturbing" or hard to accept about Mormon Plural Marriage, starting with Joseph Smith, here is the one clear historical fact of the matter: it was always a genuine religious principle and nothing else.

[Calm]

"likelihood is that she jumped at the chance that was offered to her"

Given how Hagar reacted once she conceived, she certainly didn't act as if she felt oppressed by the situation.  She appeared to believe she was in control.  She wasn't, but if we are talking about her feelings, that appears to be the best indicator we have.

"When she knew she was pregnant, she began to despise her mistress"

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis 16

It is not a positive commentary on polygamy though as it emphasizes the competition between women for dominance through their children (and what a burden that placed on kids to know their moms' situation in life depended on their existence and staying in good graces with their dad) and the attention and favor of their husband that occurs over in the Bible.  I can't remember one story that had the wives treating each other with love, even when sisters.

The Bible is full of stories of people getting things wrong and only a few of them getting it right, so hopefully this wasn't the standard fare, but there is no evidence from the Bible that polygamy was a good thing for women save for the fact more may have gotten married (since there were probably many men in the same powerless situation and unable to marry).  It might have been a better situation to be married than single and dependent on father or brother (and the good graces of his wife), but it comes across as a 'frying pan into the fire' type of situation.

Edited January 1, 2018 by Calm