Reconciling the Lucy Walker story

[Calm]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

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

I have no clue in general, you would have to ask them.  Most see polygyny as manmade though in my experience.  If Joseph can be wrong about it and still be a prophet, why not Brigham?

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour 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.

 

Only partially correct. There are too many other powerfully compelling pieces of evidence, such as the Book of Mormon and presentation of a God of true love and mercy, that also inform the debate.

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

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? 

I'm not talking about a public declaration so much as I'm talking about not lying to members of the church community (such as Emma).  It's hard to square "thou shalt not lie" with the way that JS practiced polygamy in the beginning.  I don't believe that has to mean that polygamy wasn't of God, but it's hard to argue that it wouldn't have been better if the beginning of the practice wasn't shrouded in dishonesty and secrecy among church members.

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

 

I am actually related to the man by marriage.  Two of my great, great ..... aunts married him.  One divorced him.  One stayed with him.  I have read a lot about him over the years and I am sure the letters are heartfelt.  Anyway, do you think being a child of a family with 5 children, for example, and with a father who is home every night is better than being 1 of 56 with a father who is seldom around?  Do you think BY knew all his children's names or did he have to be coached?  Surely he had to have favorites and doesn't that create its own set of problems?

Edited January 5, 2018 by Exiled

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I am actually related to the man by marriage.  Two of my great, great ..... aunts married him.  One divorced him.  One stayed with him.  I have read a lot about him over the years and I am sure the letters are heartfelt.  Anyway, do you think being a child of a family with 5 children, for example, and with a father who is home every night or 1 of 56 with a father who is seldom around, is better?  Do you think BY knew all his children's names or did he have to be coached?  Surely he had to have favorites and doesn't that create its own set of problems?

Just because a father is home at night, doesn't mean he is present for his kids.  While the chances are better for a father who wants to be deeply involved in each of their kids' life if he has 5 kids instead of 50, a loving father of 50 would be closer to his kids than an indifferent father of 1.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Just because a father is home at night, doesn't mean he is present for his kids.  While the chances are better for a father who wants to be deeply involved in each of their kids' life if he has 5 kids instead of 50, a loving father of 50 would be closer to his kids than an indifferent father of 1.

I wonder what amount of effort a father of 1 would have to put in in order to out do an overachieving father of 50.  Maybe a 8% effort?  

[Calm]

He would have to care first.

All I am saying is it isn't automatically a better thing for a child to be in a small family than a huge one as far as parental attention.  A huge part of determining that connection is the personality and ability to have empathy with one's child.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Calm

[MDalby]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

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?

The following statements have "been approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles."  https://www.lds.org/topics/essays?lang=eng

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

 

 

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

 

 

Edited January 5, 2018 by MDalby

[Exiled]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Just because a father is home at night, doesn't mean he is present for his kids.  While the chances are better for a father who wants to be deeply involved in each of their kids' life if he has 5 kids instead of 50, a loving father of 50 would be closer to his kids than an indifferent father of 1.

Possibility v. probability.  Sure it is possible the a father of five could be horrible and the father of 56 could be incredible, however, what is the more probable outcome as far as time, involvement, good experiences, communication, etc., if one assumes both fathers are the same in every other respect?

[Bernard Gui]

21 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I am actually related to the man by marriage.  Two of my great, great ..... aunts married him.  One divorced him.  One stayed with him.  I have read a lot about him over the years and I am sure the letters are heartfelt.  Anyway, do you think being a child of a family with 5 children, for example, and with a father who is home every night is better than being 1 of 56 with a father who is seldom around?  Do you think BY knew all his children's names or did he have to be coached?  Surely he had to have favorites and doesn't that create its own set of problems?

We are all human. Even Brother Brigham. I hesitate judging people in the past by parenting standards of the present. The 8-5 dad who has 3 weeks paid vacation every year and the holidays and weekends off for the kids and wife is a modern phenomenon. 

You seem to have turned out OK.

[Bernard Gui]

40 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not talking about a public declaration so much as I'm talking about not lying to members of the church community (such as Emma).  It's hard to square "thou shalt not lie" with the way that JS practiced polygamy in the beginning.  I don't believe that has to mean that polygamy wasn't of God, but it's hard to argue that it wouldn't have been better if the beginning of the practice wasn't shrouded in dishonesty and secrecy among church members.

Once again, I'm not asking how it happened as we perceive it, but how it could have been better. I'm not sure how I would have handled it. How would you have done it if you were in Joseph's place?

[Bernard Gui]

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have no clue in general, you would have to ask them.  Most see polygyny as manmade though in my experience.  If Joseph can be wrong about it and still be a prophet, why not Brigham?

I realize we are in the realm of speculation here, that's why I'm asking you. Wrong about something as consequential as this? 

[Bernard Gui]

57 minutes ago, Calm said:

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).

Do you believe there was any fear of reprisal or violence? Or are prophets supposed to be above that?

[Bernard Gui]

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I wonder what amount of effort a father of 1 would have to put in in order to out do an overachieving father of 50.  Maybe a 8% effort?  

Well, there is an example in Brigham Young of how it was done. Overachiever? 

[Exiled]

11 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

We are all human. Even Brother Brigham. I hesitate judging people in the past by parenting standards of the present. The 8-5 dad who has 3 weeks paid vacation every year and the holidays and weekends off for the kids and wife is a modern phenomenon. 

You seem to have turned out OK.

Yes, decendants of polygamy have made it through ok

Edited January 5, 2018 by Exiled

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Do you believe there was any fear of reprisal or violence? Or are prophets supposed to be above that?

Of course.  It is understandable why the choices were made by Joseph and others.  Understanding and having empathy doesn't mean we have to agree it was the right way to go about it.  Or that we would have done any better in their situation (I can't honestly imagine what I would do if male, was the head of a church, and believed myself to be commanded to live polygamy, and to have had my life threatened a number of times and had friends and family hurt and killed by mob action as it is way too far out of my experience).

Edited January 5, 2018 by Calm

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, MDalby said:

JulieM, What does this say to you?

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

 

 

I’d say that’s a statement from the newsroom.

Any direct quotes by a current leader from them speaking publicly about polygamy being of God?

(How about providing what you’re asking me to do?)

Edited January 5, 2018 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

47 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I am actually related to the man by marriage.  Two of my great, great ..... aunts married him.  One divorced him.  One stayed with him.  I have read a lot about him over the years and I am sure the letters are heartfelt.  Anyway, do you think being a child of a family with 5 children, for example, and with a father who is home every night is better than being 1 of 56 with a father who is seldom around?  Do you think BY knew all his children's names or did he have to be coached?  Surely he had to have favorites and doesn't that create its own set of problems?

 

42 minutes ago, Calm said:

Just because a father is home at night, doesn't mean he is present for his kids.  While the chances are better for a father who wants to be deeply involved in each of their kids' life if he has 5 kids instead of 50, a loving father of 50 would be closer to his kids than an indifferent father of 1.

 

39 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I wonder what amount of effort a father of 1 would have to put in in order to out do an overachieving father of 50.  Maybe a 8% effort?  

Perhaps this line of discussion is specifically related to current societal norms.
Is it reasonable to expect the Father to spend as much time with his children in the 1800's as they do today?
Childhood as we recognize it progressed steadily in development from the days of Brigham till today.  Whole books are written on the creation of childhood.
And then there's the equalization and homogenizing of the roles of Mother and Father.

Perhaps this concern (a polygamous father spend X amount of time per child) is just another form of presentism.  Perhaps we expect Fathers today to be more like Mothers in the early 1800s.
Goodness knows Joseph Smith loved playing games with his children.  And Brigham positively doted on his kids regardless of amount of time.  The stories of his favoring and spoiling them are numerous.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

  The stories of his favoring and spoiling them are numerous.

All of them or some of them?  Didn't Ann Eliza Webb have two children when she married Brigham.  She demanded her own home and iirc, he didn't get out there much (she didn't sound too welcoming in my memory).  These would have been his step children, but in marriage he would have assumed responsibility.  Now it may have been his wife's, their mother, choices that led to his absence, but they still would not have had him much as a father in their life if my memory is accurate.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Calm

[Exiled]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

 

Perhaps this line of discussion is specifically related to current societal norms.
Is it reasonable to expect the Father to spend as much time with his children in the 1800's as they do today?
Childhood as we recognize it progressed steadily in development from the days of Brigham till today.  Whole books are written on the creation of childhood.
And then there's the equalization and homogenizing of the roles of Mother and Father.

Perhaps this concern (a polygamous father spend X amount of time per child) is just another form of presentism.  Perhaps we expect Fathers today to be more like Mothers in the early 1800s.
Goodness knows Joseph Smith loved playing games with his children.  And Brigham positively doted on his kids regardless of amount of time.  The stories of his favoring and spoiling them are numerous.

Have children changed that much between then and now? Is it possible to know even? I think the safe bet is not much if at all given evolutionary time.

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Once again, I'm not asking how it happened as we perceive it, but how it could have been better. I'm not sure how I would have handled it. How would you have done it if you were in Joseph's place?

How could it have been done better? It could have been implemented with less dishonesty and secrecy.  I'm assuming that honesty is always better than lying.

I probably wouldn't have handled it at all if i were in JS place.  He seems to have been much better at obedience in the face of persecution than I probably would be.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Have children changed that much between then and now? Is it possible to know even? I think the safe bet is not much if at all given evolutionary time.

Culture has changed, however, a great deal.  Even between when I was a child and nowadays, expectations of how a father should interact with their kids have changed.  While biology may influence need for attention in children, how that need is filled is heavily influenced by culture.

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Have children changed that much between then and now? Is it possible to know even? I think the safe bet is not much if at all given evolutionary time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood

• The concept of childhood emerged during the 17th and 18th centuries, particularly through the educational theories of the philosopher John Locke and the growth of books for and about children. Previous to this point, children were often seen as incomplete versions of adults.
•  The modern attitude to children emerged by the late 19th century; the Victorian middle and upper classes emphasized the role of the family and the sanctity of the child, – an attitude that has remained dominant in Western societies ever since.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_childhood

http://all-that-is-interesting.com/invention-of-childhood

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/04/the-invention-of-childhood-innocence/

https://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victorians/articles/perceptions-of-childhood

Joseph and Brigham literally lived during the emergence of childhood as a separate concept, and prior to the invention of teenagerhood.
http://www.ushistory.org/us/46c.asp

http://teachrock.org/lesson/birth-of-the-american-teenager/

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/books/review/Paglia.t.html

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 And Brigham positively doted on his kids regardless of amount of time.  The stories of his favoring and spoiling them are numerous.

And yet there is evidence of less than perfect concern for their mothers which cannot help, imo, in being filtered down to the children (Emily Smith Young's youngest surviving daughter was born in 1860 and would have been 14 and likely living with her at the time she reports BY preferred her to take care of herself, other most likely at home children were 17 and 19):

Quote

 

Emily seems to have had warm feelings for Brigham Young. On June 30, 1850, she wrote a letter to him: “My ever beloved friend and benefactor . . . You may think my affections are entirely placed upon Joseph [Smith] but there your mistaken, true I love him but no more than yourself.”48

Still, the marriage did not bring her economic security. In April 1874, the city gave her the choice of having a man contribute labor on a water ditch or paying the city seventy-five cents. She recorded, “I had better pay it, and I do not think the President[‘]s men will help me in that. They know very well that he wishes me to take care of my self, and I do not know why he does not tell me himself. I almost wish he would, (although it would be very hard on me)[.] It would be preferable to being told of it so much by others.”49 At the year’s end, she lamented being too exhausted to finish a batch of washing. “There seems to be no way for me, but work, work.”50 Still, when Brigham Young died in 1877, she wrote: “I believe Pr. [President] Young has done his whole duty towards Joseph Smith’s family.”51

 

 

https://user.xmission.com/~research/family/9emilydpyoung.pdf

Edited January 5, 2018 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

All of them or some of them?  Didn't Ann Eliza Webb have two children when she married Brigham.  She demanded her own home and iirc, he didn't get out there much (she didn't sound too welcoming in my memory).  These would have been his step children, but in marriage he would have assume responsibility.  Now it may have been his wife's, their mother, choices that led to his absence, but they still would not have had him much as a father in their life if my memory is accurate.

I can't say for sure all of them.  But the stories are numerous.