Reconciling the Lucy Walker story

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I have never made such a claim. In fact, I have indicated just that several times. It is true, however, that those elitists, as you call them, have had an extremely significant positive impact on the the Church during its formative years and it continues today. I attribute it to Jacob 2, you don’t. So be it.

So be it indeed.  Thanks for the comments.  I noticed in that quote you just responded to that I said "later 20th century" when I meant 19th.  But it seems you caught that gaff of mine.

[Exiled]

8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

I haven't, but are you saying that a few letters is an equivalent substitute to being around his sons day to day?  I grew up surrounded by children from big families and they complain about a lack of parental attention.  Their older siblings usually took on a parental role to fill in the gap and the parents were viewed as almost grandparents would be. This was because parents of big families don't have the time to be with each child individually as parents do with smaller families.  Likewise, I don't think BY had the time to be around his 56 children, much if at all.  So, my guess is that his children were actually raised on a myth of their father rather than the actual thing.  Clearly, this is a downside of polygamy.

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, MDalby said:

JulieM,

Can you give me ONE latter-day apostle/prophet that shares your opinion that plural marriage "is man’s creation, not from God."

If you cannot, and you are the exception, what does this seem to indicate?  Would it seem to indicate that maybe your view and opinion is the outlier?

 

I believe one of the keys to understanding the reason why some members of the Church refuse to imagine anything but lustful and purely human motivations to the early Church leaders’ practice of polygamy is because they are either unaware of or fail to comprehend the following words of spiritual insight from the Prophet Joseph Smith:

“That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, 'Thou shalt not kill'; at another time He said, 'Thou shalt utterly destroy.' This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.”

 

Could it be the reason why the aforementioned critical members so confidently impugn the early Church leaders’ practice of polygamy is because they know the scriptures teach straying outside of one’s marriage is a very serious violation of the law of God, but then they make a fatal mistake, a serious error in judgement that even puts them at defiance with the very God whom they claim to honor, because they fail to realize that when God commands his people to do something that he’s usually steadfastly against — like men being married to more than one woman — those specifically so commanded of the Him are completely justified in their actions and, in reality, are doing nothing more or less than fulfilling the law of God.

 

Another likely reason why some members don’t hold back in utterly condemning the early leaders’ practice of polygamy is because they themselves are carnally minded, and for that reason cannot even imagine how it’s  possible for faithful followers of Christ to practice polygamy in righteousness. In this instance, the bitter condemnations often say much more about the condemners’ spiritual states than the status of the spiritual preparedness of the early leaders. Is it not as the Apostle Paul once said:

 

15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. (Titus 1)

 

 

Edited January 5, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[MDalby]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

Weren't you trying to say to Julie that she isn't popular as a way to get her to back down when actually it is your position that is not popular?

Not at all.  I don't care what is popular.  What I care is what God has established through His latter-day prophets and apostles as being correct.

[MDalby]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Since our leaders have been silent regarding publicly speaking about polygamy, we have no statements about what they believe.  Do you have one that states they do believe it’s commanded by God?  Have any of them given a talk on this?  

The teaching that polygamy is required for salvation has certainly been softened.

Prophets are also not infallible, so mistakes have been made.  They have been wrong about things in the past.

I think each person has to study and read on their own and pray about it.  You seem to disagree with how I feel and that’s ok.

 

JulieM, What does this say to you?

Quote

In 1831, Church founder Joseph Smith made a prayerful inquiry about the ancient Old Testament practice of plural marriage. This resulted in the divine instruction to reinstitute the practice as a religious principle.

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/topic/polygamy

 

 

[MDalby]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Since our leaders have been silent regarding publicly speaking about polygamy, we have no statements about what they believe.  Do you have one that states they do believe it’s commanded by God?  Have any of them given a talk on this?  

The teaching that polygamy is required for salvation has certainly been softened.

Prophets are also not infallible, so mistakes have been made.  They have been wrong about things in the past.

I think each person has to study and read on their own and pray about it.  You seem to disagree with how I feel and that’s ok.

 

It shouldn't matter if I disagree with how your feel.  That is not the point.  I am asking you to give prophetic or apostolic support for what you feel.  If you don't have any support, and I haven't seen any, is there a chance that what you feel is not in sync with the prophets? 

[MDalby]

17 hours ago, JulieM said:

Well, I believe living polygamy had nothing to do with God.  I believe it was man’s creation, not from God.

Quote

After God revealed the doctrine of plural marriage to Joseph Smith in 1831 and commanded him to live it, the Prophet, over a period of years, cautiously taught the doctrine to some close associates. Eventually, he and a small number of Church leaders entered into plural marriages in the early years of the Church. Those who practiced plural marriage at that time, both male and female, experienced a significant trial of their faith. The practice was so foreign to them that they needed and received personal inspiration from God to help them obey the commandment.

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-and-families-in-early-utah?lang=eng

 

JulieM, can you provide ANY reference at LDS.org that says plural marriage was man's creation and not from God?  Just one reference?

[Thinking]

31 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.”

This thread can be simplified into the following two ideas.

1. Polygamy (especially as it was practiced by JS) is wrong, therefore Joseph Smith was not a prophet.

or

2. Joseph Smith was a prophet, therefore polygamy was a correct principle at that time.

 

[Gray]

17 hours ago, MDalby said:

 

The foolishness of God is wiser than men...
 

We should take care not to blame the foolishness of men on God.

[Gray]

16 hours ago, MDalby said:

There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.
(Neil L. Andersen, "Trial of Your Faith," Ensign, November 2012)

JulieM, Please share your consensus supporting evidence from the latter-day prophets that plural marriage is not of God?

 

Actually, can you share some recent and frequent teachings of the church stating that plural marriage is Godly? Something besides a couple of obscure passages in a manual, perhaps? "True principles are taught frequently and by many." How does polygamy fare under that standard?

[Gray]

23 minutes ago, Thinking said:

This thread can be simplified into the following two ideas.

1. Polygamy (especially as it was practiced by JS) is wrong, therefore Joseph Smith was not a prophet.

or

2. Joseph Smith was a prophet, therefore polygamy was a correct principle at that time.

 

3. Polygamy was wrong, but Joseph Smith was a prophet.

[pogi]

33 minutes ago, Thinking said:

This thread can be simplified into the following two ideas.

1. Polygamy (especially as it was practiced by JS) is wrong, therefore Joseph Smith was not a prophet.

or

2. Joseph Smith was a prophet, therefore polygamy was a correct principle at that time.

 

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

3. Polygamy was wrong, but Joseph Smith was a prophet.

4. Polygamy was, and is, a correct principle, and Warren Jeffs is a prophet 

 

Edited January 5, 2018 by pogi

[Thinking]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

3. Polygamy was wrong, but Joseph Smith was a prophet.

Yeah. I forgot that one, probably because it is the most illogical IMO.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

I haven't, but are you saying that a few letters is an equivalent substitute to being around his sons day to day?  I grew up surrounded by children from big families and they complain about a lack of parental attention.  Their older siblings usually took on a parental role to fill in the gap and the parents were viewed as almost grandparents would be. This was because parents of big families don't have the time to be with each child individually as parents do with smaller families.  Likewise, I don't think BY had the time to be around his 56 children, much if at all.  So, my guess is that his children were actually raised on a myth of their father rather than the actual thing.  Clearly, this is a downside of polygamy.

I suggest you read it.  Perhaps these teasers will pique your curiosity and increase your appreciation for the man.

Quote

But the focus is strictly on the filial, and that is how the book must be approached. The letters are didactic—even evangelical at times—as the concerned and loving father coaches, cajoles, chastises, encourages, and enjoins his attentive and admiring sons.

Though all the letters share a common tone, they do not become commonplace in the reading. This may be due less to the nature of the letters than to the acumen and careful scholarship of Dean C. Jessee. He has given each letter a meaningful historical context by setting it against a biographical sketch of the son to whom it was written and by explaining where that particular son was at the time and what had been the nature of his latest communication to his father. The result is actually a dialogue, and from it an entirely new appreciation of the Brigham Young family is possible. The dynamic and enigmatic John W., the charismatic Willard, the artistic Joseph Don Carlos, the cultured Alfales, the ungifted Oscar, the tragic Phineas, and the eminently lovable Brigham, Jr.,—these and the rest of the seventeen sons who grew to maturity begin to assume their historical identity. It is a heady trip for the historian, raising as many questions as it answers, particularly in regard to the sharply restricted scope of the Young influence in religious and political matters after Brigham's death. This dimension of the book notwithstanding, the reader's greatest reward will be the additional insight he gains into Brigham Young himself—sometimes a very complex man, sometimes remarkably simple, always interesting, and still eluding a capable biographer. https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/letters-brigham-young-his-sons

Quote

The letters of a person, especially of one whose business has been chiefly transacted by letters, form the only full and genuine journal of his life,” said Thomas Jefferson. Such is much of the case with Brigham Young. The voluminous correspondence that comprises a weighty part of the Brigham Young papers in the archives of the Church presents a view unsurpassed in its detail of his life. These letters vividly illuminate the character of the man who Samuel Eliot Morison has described as “among the most successful commonwealth builders of the English-speaking world.”

A select group of letters, chosen from among the countless papers of state and ecclesiastical importance, are those he wrote to members of his family. They reveal a dimension of his life, as husband and father, that has largely remained hidden from view in popular studies of him. If among Brigham Young’s pleasures in the waning years of his life was, as he said, the thought of his children’s honorable achievements, then the groundwork for his joy had been laid years before at his own fireside.

Few men have ignited the spark of human worth and dignity in their children as effectively as Brigham Young. Through the numerous letters he wrote to his children we can see something of the relationships he established with them and get some insight into his family life. These letters to his family also help us to better understand Brigham Young himself, since personality and character are best revealed in the intimate dialogue with one’s family.

Brigham Young’s family provided him with much happiness. “I do think the Lord has blessed me with one of the best families that any man ever had on the Earth,” he wrote to his wife on one occasion. Another time, after returning from missionary service for the Church in England, he noted that his joy was complete when he was able to spend, for the first time in years, an evening by his fireside with his family: “We enjoy it and feel to praise the Lord,” he wrote in his diary....

In an age when the father was frequently away from home visiting the Saints, directing the building of settlements, or helping to gather the poor, much of the responsibility for teaching the children in their early years devolved upon their mothers. The formal education of Brigham Young’s children began in a small room in the Lion House and later continued at the white schoolhouse built especially for that purpose across the street to the east. Besides the basics of reading and writing, the children were taught “strict probity of conduct.”

Brigham Young spared no effort to provide opportunities for the personal development of his children. After elementary education in the local schools, his children were given opportunity for further learning and experience in the field of their choice. Having been taught that building the kingdom requires an “endless variety of talent, skill and labor,” his children were early engaged in a wide range of activities by way of preparation.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1974/03/your-affectionate-father-brigham-young-the-prophets-letters-to-his-sons-part-1?lang=eng

 

Edited January 5, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

18 hours ago, Gray said:

Hmm, but either way, in the end it relies on your discernment.

Hence why i'm fallible.

 

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, MDalby said:

 

JulieM, can you provide ANY reference at LDS.org that says plural marriage was man's creation and not from God?  Just one reference?

Of course she can't.  What are you trying to prove?  

[Bernard Gui]

47 minutes ago, Thinking said:

This thread can be simplified into the following two ideas.

1. Polygamy (especially as it was practiced by JS) is wrong, therefore Joseph Smith was not a prophet.

or

2. Joseph Smith was a prophet, therefore polygamy was a correct principle at that time.

 

Let's indulge a little speculation. How could it have been introduced and put into practice better?

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Let's indulge a little speculation. How could it have been introduced and put into practice better?

More honesty and less secrecy would have been nice.

[Bernard Gui]

Just now, bluebell said:

More honesty and less secrecy would have been nice.

OK. How would that have played out given the culture of the times and the situation of the Church?

[drums12]

31 minutes ago, Gray said:

3. Polygamy was wrong, but Joseph Smith was a prophet.

How do you reconcile this?  I'm not being snarky or sarcastic or negative.  I seriously would like to know.  For me, it's difficult to conceive that Joseph was a prophet but got this wrong.  Also, how can we accept this idea without throwing out section 132 in its entirety, thus making eternal marriage wrong also?  Again, I'm sincerely asking, not arguing for or against.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

OK. How would that have played out given the culture of the times and the situation of the Church?

It's impossible to know.

But are you saying that God required JS to be dishonest? 

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, Thinking said:

This thread can be simplified into the following two ideas.

1. Polygamy (especially as it was practiced by JS) is wrong, therefore Joseph Smith was not a prophet.

or

2. Joseph Smith was a prophet, therefore polygamy was a correct principle at that time.

 

I think there are some who hold the position polygamy as practice by Joseph was wrong, a mistake or a sin, but he was or still could be a prophet since we have examples of other prophets making mistakes or committing sins and still being prophets (Noah getting drunk, brother of Jared not praying for a number of years).

[Bernard Gui]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's impossible to know.

But are you saying that God required JS to be dishonest? 

Of course we're speculating here.... How do you think an open declaration would have been received, given the situation the Church and Joseph were in? More violence or less? More criticism or less? 

[Bernard Gui]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think there are some who hold the position polygamy as practice by Joseph was wrong, a mistake or a sin, but he was or still could be a prophet since we have examples of other prophets making mistakes or committing sins and still being prophets (Noah getting drunk, brother of Jared not praying for a number of years).

Would those folks approve of polygamy as practiced by Brigham Young and others? Would they approve of polygamy as practiced by anyone?

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

OK. How would that have played out given the culture of the times and the situation of the Church?

Just with Emma would probably help a lot of people feel better with it.

In public, not saying anything at all rather than creating defenses that were deceptive (technically he had only one legal wife at the time he claimed it, but he was sealed to women he viewed as his wives, John Taylor's claim they weren't practicing it back in Utah while in Europe).