Reconciling the Lucy Walker story

[Bob Crockett]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

I can't speak for anyone else, but these could be the answers to your questions as seen by those who object to the Lucy Walker situation:

1. No.

2. Yes.  And we don't consider Leonardo Da Vinci to be inspired by God either.

3. Once someone convinces other people that they speak for God, they have quite a bit of control over their actions (as history has shown, they may even control whether the other people choose to live or not).  The degree of this control seems based on the degree to which the person believes the prophet speaks for God.  As Nancy Rigdon and the home teaching stats in my ward would indicate, there can be a great variation in the degree to which people believe someone is speaking for God.  But the more someone believes Joseph Smith was speaking for God, the less "free will" they have.  As long as Joseph was speaking for God, there isn't a problem (and it's actually a good thing).  But if he wasn't...

4. As you point out, there isn't a rule that men can't want to secretly marry the young (or old) girls that come to live with them as wards or household help without their first wife's knowledge.  It would just be really great if they resisted that impulse.

But, even so, your post is filled with the smugness that comes from a belief that religious people lack free will.  I know you don't really mean to say that, but a sub rosa intent comes from your post.  The same argument is made in various degrees against Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics and others who believe is a strong centralized authority in religion.  People lack free will when there is a person claiming to be  prophet (or a Pope) telling them what to do.

[ttribe]

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Thanks!  I try.  

It's not heartless to acknowledge God's laws and obedience to them are at least equal to, and probably more important than, the feelings of those involved.  

There will be much weeping and wailing from those who choose to reject a law of God.  Those feelings won't change anything.  Obedience is the first law of heaven.

 

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

[JulieM]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

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

That is what I believe.  All the details involved are pretty creepy and the betrayal and lies and deceit.  That doesn’t sound like anything that came through God.  

If it truly did need to be restored, why did Joseph choose to go after Emma’s young maids plus women already married (some to brothers in the church) as the manner of restoration?

[ttribe]

10 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Correct but God did give wives to King David as a reward for his faithfulness. I think that’s close enough. Don’t you? 

Did it ever occur to you that the Old Testament was written by men? Men who lived in a culture where women were treated like property?  If so, you want to describe those actions of David taking many additional wives and "concubines" as being consistent with the commands of a moral God?  I'm sorry, but I have a really big problem with women being used as "rewards" for any man, no matter how "righteous" he may (allegedly) be; there's just something fundamentally wrong with that.

Edited December 29, 2017 by ttribe

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Polygamy successfully fulfilled it’s purpose...to raise seed to the Lord.

Which could have been done without polygamy, IMO.  There are less children born in polygamous relationships (from what I’ve read).

But at least you’re not one who claims Joseph never slept with his wives if you believe that was the purpose (to raise up seed).

[JLHPROF]

And this thread has run it's course apparently and hit the usual polygamy wall.
We've moved on from Lucy Walker's story and are now having the same old argument.  (Polygamy was from God/No it wasn't, God wouldn't do that).

28 hours - that's got to be a record.

For what it's worth, and back to the OP, according to their own words Lucy, Joseph, and Lucy's family believed it was God's will.
That's their agency, and really between them and God.  Perhaps we should save our moral outrage for the issues of our day instead of picking apart the spiritual testimonies of the early saints.
 

[blueglass]

38 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

But, even so, your post is filled with the smugness that comes from a belief that religious people lack free will.  I know you don't really mean to say that, but a sub rosa intent comes from your post.  The same argument is made in various degrees against Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics and others who believe is a strong centralized authority in religion.  People lack free will when there is a person claiming to be  prophet (or a Pope) telling them what to do.

As an attorney are you in favor of SB967 "affirmative consent"?  What are the primary reasons the laws changed on age of consent over the 19th and 20th centuries?   What are the major grievances of applying presentism bias on the morality of an early 19th century marriage of Lucy to an already married man, who is her employer and caretaker, 20 years her senior, without the consent of his legal wife?  

[Analytics]

5 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

As I have said in the past:

1.  Do you accept that the Old Testament provides for plural marriage as a divine principle?   If not, I can see your problem if you doubt the revelations of Joseph Smith.  If so, then the mere fact of plural marriage in the 1830s should not disturb you as it has been a divine principle in the past.

2.  Does Lucy's age bother you -- is that your basic issue?  She was of the age of consent.  As I have been reading Eli Chernow's new book on Leonardo Da Vince, I read of many marriages and mistresses who are 13 and 14 years of age.  Many Victorian novels I've read (Queen Victoria post-dated Joseph Smith) refer to marriages and affairs involving girls under 16.

3.  Do you believe that Lucy had no freedom of will?  Often, it seems, critics of the church think that members of the church (those called on missions to leave their family; handcart pioneers who left too late in the season, etc.) have no freedom of will.  For similar reasons I take offense at people who turn their noses up at people involved with Amway, or who are Hassids, as if there is no freedom of will.  Do you think, as a pawnbroker in Washington County, or me as a lawyer in California, you can or I can speak for another's freedom of will?

4.  Do you think the problem with the story is that Lucy was first a member of Joseph Smith's household as some sort of nanny?  Da Vince's "companion" for many years started out as a 10-year-old ward.  Does it just come down to that?  Like Abraham marrying his wife's servant?

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. If we were talking about anybody doing this other than a man that you happen personally revere as a prophet, the problem would be obvious.

 

[blueglass]

18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

according to their own words Lucy, Joseph, and Lucy's family believed it was God's will.

What are some ways we should integrate this beautiful story of obeying god's will in the young women's curriculum?  As Lucy said in her own words, "tempted and tortured beyond endureance until life was not desirable. Oh that the grave would kindly receive me that I might find rest on the bosom of my dear mother...Why – Why Should I be chosen from among thy daughters, Father I am only a child in years and experience.  No mother to council; no father near to tell me what to do, in this trying hour.  Oh let this bitter cup pass. And thus I prayed in the agony of my soul.”  - How can we integrate in our teaching of youth these true teachings on how to find strength and visions from god for when the prophet invites us to make difficult decisions in secret without our parents available to help?  

[ttribe]

22 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And this thread has run it's course apparently and hit the usual polygamy wall.
We've moved on from Lucy Walker's story and are now having the same old argument.  (Polygamy was from God/No it wasn't, God wouldn't do that).

28 hours - that's got to be a record.

For what it's worth, and back to the OP, according to their own words Lucy, Joseph, and Lucy's family believed it was God's will.
That's their agency, and really between them and God.  Perhaps we should save our moral outrage for the issues of our day instead of picking apart the spiritual testimonies of the early saints.
 

Except that so many members' testimonies are hinging on this issue of polygamy.  Do they not matter?

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, blueglass said:

What are some ways we should integrate this beautiful story of obeying god's will in the young women's curriculum?  As Lucy said in her own words, "tempted and tortured beyond endureance until life was not desirable. Oh that the grave would kindly receive me that I might find rest on the bosom of my dear mother...Why – Why Should I be chosen from among thy daughters, Father I am only a child in years and experience.  No mother to council; no father near to tell me what to do, in this trying hour.  Oh let this bitter cup pass. And thus I prayed in the agony of my soul.”  - How can we integrate in our teaching of youth these true teachings on how to find strength and visions from god for when the prophet invites us to make difficult decisions in secret without our parents available to help?  

No problem including this beautiful story of obeying gods will, . . .As long as you tell the whole story  instead of cutting it off where you did. 

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, blueglass said:

What are some ways we should integrate this beautiful story of obeying god's will in the young women's curriculum? 

As Lucy said in her own words, "tempted and tortured beyond endureance until life was not desirable. Oh that the grave would kindly receive me that I might find rest on the bosom of my dear mother...Why – Why Should I be chosen from among thy daughters, Father I am only a child in years and experience.  No mother to council; no father near to tell me what to do, in this trying hour.  Oh let this bitter cup pass. And thus I prayed in the agony of my soul.”  -

How can we integrate in our teaching of youth these true teachings on how to find strength and visions from god for when the prophet invites us to make difficult decisions in secret without our parents available to help?  

Well, we could also include the other things she said in her own words:

• When the Prophet Joseph Smith first mentioned the principle of plural marriage to me I felt indignant and so expressed myself to him, because my feelings and education were averse to anything [of that] nature. But he assured me that this doctrine had been revealed to him of the Lord, and that I was entitled to receive a testimony of its divine origin for myself. He counselled me to pray to the Lord, which I did, and thereupon received from him a powerful and irresistible testimony of the truthfulness and divinity of plural marriage, which testimony has abided with me ever since.

• He walked across the room, returned and stood before me with the most beautiful expression of countenance, and said: “God Almighty bless you. You shall have a manifestation of the will of God concerning you; a testimony that you can never deny. I will tell you what it shall be. It shall be that joy and peace that you never knew.”
  Oh, how earnestly I prayed for these words to be fulfilled. It was near dawn after another sleepless night when my room was lighted up by a heavenly influence. To me it was, in comparison, like the brilliant sun bursting through the darkest cloud. The words of the Prophet were indeed fulfilled. My soul was filled with a calm, sweet peace that “I never knew.” Supreme happiness took possession of me, and I received a powerful and irresistible testimony of the truth of plural marriage, which has been like an anchor to the soul through all the trials of life. I felt that I must go out into the morning air and give vent to the joy and gratitude that filled my soul. As I descended the stairs, President Smith opened the door below, took me by the hand and said: “Thank God, you have the testimony. I too have prayed.” He led me to a chair, placed his hands upon my head, and blessed me with every blessing my heart could possibly desire.
   

It would make a good young women's curriculum lesson on gaining testimony, overcoming doubt.  Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, and Vilate Kimball had similar trials.
It would also teach our young women that they have the right to receive revelation for themselves and not to follow blindly.

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Except that so many members' testimonies are hinging on this issue of polygamy.  Do they not matter?

Everyone matters.
But not everyone will accept what God has said.  It has always been that way.
There is no way for everyone to accept everything that comes from God.  That doesn't make God unkind or unfeeling.  It just means we have our agency and our own accountability to study, learn, and grow.  And to overcome our false traditions.

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

But, even so, your post is filled with the smugness that comes from a belief that religious people lack free will.  I know you don't really mean to say that, but a sub rosa intent comes from your post.  The same argument is made in various degrees against Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics and others who believe is a strong centralized authority in religion.  People lack free will when there is a person claiming to be  prophet (or a Pope) telling them what to do.

I don't know about any smugness.  I just know what the Church teaches.  For example, this is what the youth are taught about "free will":

Quote

Remember, true freedom comes from using your agency to choose obedience; loss of freedom comes from choosing disobedience.

https://www.lds.org/youth/for-the-strength-of-youth/agency-and-accountability?lang=eng

 

So the obvious question would be whether or not "freedom" comes when we are obedient to the mistaken or uninspired teachings and decisions of our leaders?  I suspect most LDS would insist that blessings will come either way, but in this context "freedom" is being presented as a philosophical construct that is operating at some higher plane.

I would suggest that the greatest and most important freedom is the freedom to figure out for ourselves whether or not our leaders are inspired and whether or not we should be obedient.  Only then does freedom come from being obedient.  But sadly the Church has never taught that (that I can find).

[blueglass]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

"my feelings and education were averse to anything [of that] nature."

As Elder Rasband taught recently "When we begin to second-guess, even third-guess, our feelings—and we all have—we are dismissing the Spirit; we are questioning divine counsel. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that if you will listen to the first promptings, you will get it right nine times out of ten."  [did anyone find this primary JS source?]  Who, what system of morality, philosophy nurtured Lucy's soul to have these first "feelings and education"?  

[readstoomuch]

39 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And this thread has run it's course apparently and hit the usual polygamy wall.
We've moved on from Lucy Walker's story and are now having the same old argument.  (Polygamy was from God/No it wasn't, God wouldn't do that).

28 hours - that's got to be a record.

For what it's worth, and back to the OP, according to their own words Lucy, Joseph, and Lucy's family believed it was God's will.
That's their agency, and really between them and God.  Perhaps we should save our moral outrage for the issues of our day instead of picking apart the spiritual testimonies of the early saints.
 

Boy, I was going to write something like this.  JLHPROF probably said it better than I would have.  You can't really have a discussion about polygamy.  Every time it deteriorates into what it has.  I don't think we understand it and probably never will in this life.  Especially, the early introduction that basically had to be secretive and was controversial.  I think Bill knew how it would go when he started the thread.  That's all I have to say.  

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, blueglass said:

As Elder Rasband taught recently "When we begin to second-guess, even third-guess, our feelings—and we all have—we are dismissing the Spirit; we are questioning divine counsel. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that if you will listen to the first promptings, you will get it right nine times out of ten."  [did anyone find this primary JS source?]  Who, what system of morality, philosophy nurtured Lucy's soul to have these first "feelings and education"?  

My problem is with the tenth time.  Surely we are responsible out of love for God and desiring to truly do his Will as well as love for our neighbour to ensure we do as much as possible to identify when it is that tenth time to avoid harming God's work and our neighbours as much as it is in our power to do so.  

[blueglass]

39 minutes ago, Danzo said:

No problem including this beautiful story of obeying gods will, . . .As long as you tell the whole story  instead of cutting it off where you did. 

I'm sorry - do you not want to discuss Lucy's feelings of being "tempted and tortured beyond endureance until life was not desirable" ?  Just move on to the good parts right?  Let me change this to say, that I agree that we should not include an ellipses . . .  in the proposed young women's curriculum for historical references to struggle, doubt, or the cases where women rebuffed Joseph's proposals.  

Edited December 29, 2017 by blueglass

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, blueglass said:

I'm sorry - do you not want to discuss Lucy's feelings of being "tempted and tortured beyond endureance until life was not desirable" ?  Just move on to the good parts right?  How about including an ellipses . . .  in the proposed young women's curriculum for this part?  

Struggling to get an answer to prayer is something everyone must go through.
And while it's important to discuss initial feelings, the revelation and answer are always more important.
Is it more important that Joseph was confused about which Church to join?  Or the answer he received?

22 minutes ago, blueglass said:

As Elder Rasband taught recently "When we begin to second-guess, even third-guess, our feelings—and we all have—we are dismissing the Spirit; we are questioning divine counsel. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that if you will listen to the first promptings, you will get it right nine times out of ten."  [did anyone find this primary JS source?]  Who, what system of morality, philosophy nurtured Lucy's soul to have these first "feelings and education"?  

Perhaps Joseph should have gone with his initial feelings (confusion), embraced them, and given up on religion.
Or perhaps Christ should have taken those feelings of abandonment, sorrow, and pain that he felt in Gethsemane and given up on the whole thing.

Initial feelings are NOT the same as first promptings.

[JLHPROF]

22 minutes ago, readstoomuch said:

I think Bill knew how it would go when he started the thread.  That's all I have to say.  

Dingdingding...winner.

"Strengthening Feeble Knees and Lifting Hands that Hang Down" - yeah right.  Skepticism is not a path through a faith crisis.

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, blueglass said:

I'm sorry - do you not want to discuss Lucy's feelings of being "tempted and tortured beyond endureance until life was not desirable" ?  Just move on to the good parts right?  How about including an ellipses . . .  in the proposed young women's curriculum for this part?  

How did you get that out of "no problem" and "tell the whole story"?

[ttribe]

40 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Everyone matters.
But not everyone will accept what God has said.  It has always been that way.
There is no way for everyone to accept everything that comes from God.  That doesn't make God unkind or unfeeling.  It just means we have our agency and our own accountability to study, learn, and grow.  And to overcome our false traditions.

So, that means the conversation should be shut down?

[kiwi57]

On 12/29/2017 at 6:10 AM, JLHPROF said:

I fail to see the moral outrage here.

Do you think that might be because it is largely manufactured?

On 12/29/2017 at 6:10 AM, JLHPROF said:

Lucy stayed with Joseph while her Father was on a mission.  She was not related by blood, she was not adopted, Joseph requested her brother's permission, and she was 17 (marriageable age).
And when her father returned he also gave his blessing.

I think you are grasping at straws to find offense where nobody involved had an issue (beyond Lucy seeking a witness of the principle first).

Consider the fact that DB keeps harping on the claim that Lucy was Joseph's "'intents and purposes'  foster daughter." The facts you've put forward show her to be something of a parlour-boarder. DB has worked really hard to turn the arrangement into a kind of quasi-father-daughter relationship in order to beat up some moral outrage.

But it's entirely artificial.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

But, even so, your post is filled with the smugness that comes from a belief that religious people lack free will.  I know you don't really mean to say that, but a sub rosa intent comes from your post.  The same argument is made in various degrees against Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics and others who believe is a strong centralized authority in religion.  People lack free will when there is a person claiming to be  prophet (or a Pope) telling them what to do.

You raise a very good point, particularly in light of the significant self-imposed constraints on the LDS Church set forth in D&C 134:10:

Quote

We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

The leaders of the Church lack any civil authority over their members.  They LDS Church, by design, cannot exercise any authority over its members except membership. 

In other words, the individual member has essentially 100% control over his relationship with the Church.  

I think we risk infantilizing otherwise mature and self-governing adults when we suggest that they lack free will relative to the LDS Church.  Of course they have free will.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bob Crockett]

46 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I don't know about any smugness.  I just know what the Church teaches.  For example, this is what the youth are taught about "free will":

 

So the obvious question would be whether or not "freedom" comes when we are obedient to the mistaken or uninspired teachings and decisions of our leaders?  I suspect most LDS would insist that blessings will come either way, but in this context "freedom" is being presented as a philosophical construct that is operating at some higher plane.

I would suggest that the greatest and most important freedom is the freedom to figure out for ourselves whether or not our leaders are inspired and whether or not we should be obedient.  Only then does freedom come from being obedient.  But sadly the Church has never taught that (that I can find).

See, you don't really believe in free will.  You believe in and blame institutional will.

My favorite example is this:  When the Martin Handcart company sallied forth in late September, a number of families decided instead to winter over and wait until Spring.  They were called "back-outs" by those who went on.  Franklin D. Richards was there to criticize the "back-outs."  The next spring Elder RIchards almost lost his membership over this issue.  Who is to blame for the death in Wyoming?