Reconciling the Lucy Walker story

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

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

 

I don't think anyone is arguing he was not a good father to some of his children, even many of them, just that there were those who likely missed out of his presence and possibly even his economic support if Emily's account is accurate.

If he was a great father to thirty of his kids, then it might have been better for his children to have just thirty kids and not 53 (41 biological).

Edited January 5, 2018 by Calm

[juliann]

On 1/4/2018 at 11:07 AM, Bernard Gui said:

 

Just these 20 early leaders who were polygamists account for almost 750 children. I imagine the next generation would be numbered in the thousands.  It's plain to see that in about 50 years polygamy served the purpose of quickly "raising seed to the Lord" as the Lord said in Jacob 2, thus giving the Restoration a firm, sudden, and effective foundation. We recognize among these names many that have provided vital and effective leadership to the Church for almost 200 years. This is precisely the purpose stated in Jacob 2. It was discontinued when its purpose was fulfilled.

 

 

Eh....the women, unnamed as usual, accounted for them. The men didn't birth them and certainly didn't dedicate themselves to raising each family. 

[Gray]

2 hours ago, MDalby said:

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

 

 

 

Can't argue with that, thanks

[Gray]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

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

 

5. Polygamy was wrong then and right now, but Warren Jeffs isn't a prophet

6. Polygamy was sort of wrong, but Nehor is the only prophet

[Gray]

3 hours ago, drums12 said:

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.

What's to reconcile? Joseph Smith was fallible, like all prophets

[Gray]

3 hours ago, Thinking said:

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

What's illogical about it?

[drums12]

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

What's to reconcile? Joseph Smith was fallible, like all prophets

What about eternal marriage?  If plural marriage was a mistake, isn't section 132 false, and by extension doesn't that make eternal marriage false?  or at least unknown?

[juliann]

2 minutes ago, drums12 said:

What about eternal marriage?  If plural marriage was a mistake, isn't section 132 false, and by extension doesn't that make eternal marriage false?  or at least unknown?

No. It was separated in a First Prez statement. Now celestial marriage just means marriage. 

[juliann]

On 1/3/2018 at 9:41 PM, Eek! said:

 

Imo there is a scripture which hints that polyandry isn't necessarily out of the question:  "And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed."   (D&C 132:41)  So... what about IF it HAD been "appointed unto her by the holy anointing"?  Kinda sounds like, in THAT case, it would NOT be adultery for her to be with that other man...??

 

It AMAZES me how many members tiptoe past the graveyard on that in your face verse. Since most of JS's first picks were polyandrous, this certainly wasn't out of the question....he had allowed for it. Seriously, soooooo mind boggling that anyone can pass that by with a straight face, which is why the whole polygamy discussion has turned into a tasteless who did it with whom to avoid the obvious meaning of "be with another....." 

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, drums12 said:

What about eternal marriage?  If plural marriage was a mistake, isn't section 132 false, and by extension doesn't that make eternal marriage false?  or at least unknown?

 

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

No. It was separated in a First Prez statement. Now celestial marriage just means marriage. 

That doesn't follow.
The doctrine of eternal marriage was revealed in D&C 132.  That is the source document for the restoration of the doctrine and practice.
Yes, the FP separated the doctrine of eternal marriage and plural marriage.  But if we eliminate D&C 132 they had no source doctrine to extrapolate on.

They can say eternal marriage and plural marriage are separate, but the source of both doctrines is D&C 132.  We get rid of D&C 132 as a false revelation and we lose both.
 

[juliann]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't think anyone is arguing he was not a good father to some of his children, even many of them, just that there were those who likely missed out of his presence and possibly even his economic support if Emily's account is accurate.

If he was a great father to thirty of his kids, then it might have been better for his children to have just thirty kids and not 53 (41 biological).

Not sure who is referred to as "he," but there are stories of children not recognizing fathers. Someone with that many kids might be a great something to them....but not father under any definition we use today. A lot would depend on where the children were housed and who was the favored wife.....

[juliann]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

That doesn't follow.
The doctrine of eternal marriage was revealed in D&C 132.  That is the source document for the restoration of the doctrine and practice.
Yes, the FP separated the doctrine of eternal marriage and plural marriage.  But if we eliminate D&C 132 they had no source doctrine to extrapolate on.

They can say eternal marriage and plural marriage are separate, but the source of both doctrines is D&C 132.  We get rid of D&C 132 as a false revelation and we lose both.
 

The source of eternal marriage now is the temple and a bizillion church authorized talks/lessons. And why would you need to "get rid of" 132 to put polygamy to rest? It happened, it is over. Polygamy was but a discontinued means of marriage and 132 is about marriage.

Quote

 

"Celestial marriage--that is, marriage for time and eternity--and polygamous or plural marriage are not synonymous terms. Monogamous marriages for time and eternity, solemnized in our temples in accordance with the word of the Lord and the laws of the Church, are Celestial marriages."

Heber J. Grant

Anthony W. Ivins,

J. Reuben Clark, Jr.

James R. Clark, Messages Of The First Presidency, 5:329.

 

 

Edited January 5, 2018 by juliann

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

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?

I agree with this.  I just don't believe people should be pointing to specific cases or drawing global conclusions about parents' relationships to their kids based solely on probabilities.  And in no case will fathers be actually identical in all but number of kids, that is purely a theoretical analysis.

I do believe there is a burden of proof on those claiming what is much less probable, I don't think it is reasonable to believe a father of 20 kids, let alone 50, is able to have a close relationship to each child.  I just don't think parents are that adaptable that they will be able to mesh with each kid and the more kids you have, the more likely personalities start to conflict or kids need different approaches.  It takes time to figure out new ways of doing things and more kids means less time to figure out the individual needs.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

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

 

Given the moderators have adapted  the Godwin's Rule generally to criminals, I think this is not a good place to go, even if a joke.

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, juliann said:

Not sure who is referred to as "he,"...

BY as he was being used as an example.

 

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

Quote

Imo there is a scripture which hints that polyandry isn't necessarily out of the question:  "And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed."   (D&C 132:41)  So... what about IF it HAD been "appointed unto her by the holy anointing"?  Kinda sounds like, in THAT case, it would NOT be adultery for her to be with that other man...??

It AMAZES me how many members tiptoe past the graveyard on that in your face verse. Since most of JS's first picks were polyandrous, this certainly wasn't out of the question....he had allowed for it. Seriously, soooooo mind boggling that anyone can pass that by with a straight face, which is why the whole polygamy discussion has turned into a tasteless who did it with whom to avoid the obvious meaning of "be with another....." 

Which anointing does that refer to.  This clearly refers to the Second Anointing where a wife who has received this ordinance is "anointed as queen to her husband".
 A direct reference this ordinance in the D&C.

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V16N01_12.pdf

• During Wilford Woodruff's administration, the rule was "not to permit a woman to be anointed to a man unless she had lived with him as his wife."
• Wilford Woodruff's journal continues: "President Young said when a woman was anointed a Queen to a good man and he died & the woman was sealed to another man for time it was not necessary for her to be anointed a Queen again but if she was anointed a Queen to a man who was not worthy of a wife & she is sealed to another man she should be anointed a Queen unto him. When a good man dies & his wives have not been anointed Queens unto him they may be anointed Queens to him after his death without any Proxy."

[JLHPROF]

38 minutes ago, juliann said:

The source of eternal marriage now is the temple and a bizillion church authorized talks/lessons. And why would you need to "get rid of" 132 to put polygamy to rest? It happened, it is over. Polygamy was but a discontinued means of marriage and 132 is about marriage.

 

Cart before the horse.
Still doesn't work.  The question concerning polygamy for many is whether it came from God.  As long as D&C 132 is canon the assumption is that polygamy was God's instruction, not Joseph's invention.  If D&C 132 is decanonized, the origin of eternal marriage goes with it.

Edited January 6, 2018 by JLHPROF

[juliann]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

BY as he was being used as an example.

 

Ah. Given his later penchant for favoring his newest wife and neglecting the others, I wouldn't think he would be much different when it came to children. 

[juliann]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Which anointing does that refer to.  This clearly refers to the Second Anointing where a wife who has received this ordinance is "anointed as queen to her husband".
 

 

Oh for heaven's sake. What difference does it make given the condition? It could be walking around the temple three times and doing a cartwheel,  but... if the wife has it....being with another man is no longer adultery. 

This is where I get all glassy eyed....those who dig in and rely on "scripture" at every turn....while denying the very plain scripture that is under discussion. 

Edited January 6, 2018 by juliann

[Calm]

I find Emily Partridge's comment extremely difficult to get past.  She can't even get to see him personally, but gets handled by his subordinates and has to cover 75 cents (which if my google is accurate was about $20).

[Thinking]

50 minutes ago, Gray said:

What's illogical about it?

I'm well aware of all the arguments about fallible prophets. However, polygamy was such a defining and lasting doctrine that I don't believe that it can be a mistake and Joseph Smith still be a prophet.

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, juliann said:

Oh for heaven's sake. What difference does it make given the condition? It could be walking around the temple three times and doing a cartwheel,  but... if the wife has it....being with another man is no longer adultery. 

This is where I get all glassy eyed....those who dig in and rely on "scripture" at every turn....while denying the very plain scripture that is under discussion. 

Who denied anything or disagreed with anything you said?
I merely provided an accurate explanation of that verse and the anointing it refers to.  Relax.

[juliann]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

I find Emily Partridge's comment extremely difficult to get past.  She can't even get to see him personally, but gets handled by his subordinates and has to cover 75 cents (which if my google is accurate was about $20).

The problem with polygamy is that once you get past all the warm and fuzzy stories of how wonderfully the wives all got along (and some did)  and look at all of it, it is painfully awful. BY had a penchant for acquiring younger wives and installing them in the Lion House in full view of the others. So the one who got all the attention, which means being able to be his current companion while the others were left behind, would be replaced as well. Can't remember names right now but one who was particularly in your face about it to the others created some satisfaction when she, too, finally experienced the same treatment the others bore. I lost a lot of respect for BY when I read the stories of his wives, especially this one who eventually had mental problems and was pretty much discarded to fend for herself.  

[juliann]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Who denied anything or disagreed with anything you said?
I merely provided an accurate explanation of that verse and the anointing it refers to.  Relax.

IIRC, last I talked to Don Bradley, even he wasn't sure what the anointing referred to. But according to the verse, whatever it is gives the go ahead for a married woman to be with another man without it being considered adultery. Given this, I highly suspect it was a very specific anointing for that purpose. 

[pogi]

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

Given the moderators have adapted  the Godwin's Rule generally to criminals, I think this is not a good place to go, even if a joke.

I wasn’t comparing anyone to Jeffs.  Just being silly in broadening our options.