Reconciling the Lucy Walker story

[JulieM]

3 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Polygamy was a blessing to the Church in its time, and continues to be a blessing to the Church in our time.

I’m fine if you believe that.  I think it caused a great deal of pain and harm (and still does for many today).  

I do believe many made it work and obediently lived it and some even embraced it.  But there are so many stories of heartbreak, betrayal and pain if you read the journals and writings (especially the women’s experiences).

[JulieM]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Hmmm. It is explicitly accepted by God in this law, blessed by Him in Abraham, Jacob, and others, and the fruits of polygamist marriages were the chosen people of God, the Priesthood, the Temple, the original 12 apostles, Mary the mother of Jesus, and the Savior Jesus Christ. If that is not approval, then what is it?

The absence of a recorded commandment is not evidence that there never was one. 

That’s why I try to state that there is no record of it being commanded.  There’s a difference between God allowing polygamy to be lived and him forcing or commanding ( as Joseph pretty much claimed wth the angel and drawn sword).

Also why did polygamy need to be restored?  Where is it written that it was an essential necessary principle of Christ’s original church?

Do you believe Christ lived polygamy?  If it was essential to his gospel, why didn’t he teach it and preach to the people to live it?

Edited December 30, 2017 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Do you believe Christ lived polygamy?

Absolutely.  100%.

His wives include Mary, Martha, and Mary Magdalene.  And probably others.

[Exiled]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Absolutely.  100%.

His wives include Mary, Martha, and Mary Magdalene.  And probably others.

What are your sources for this?  Also, wasn't Mary his mother?  Probably others?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

Sounds like you want the church to bring it back?

Doctrinally it never left.  Like consecration the principle remains despite the practice being stopped at this time.

When this life and the next move closer together in the millennial period it may not return but it also won't be a mere relic of the past when polygamists from the other side of the veil become our associates.

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Exiled said:

What are your sources for this?  Also, wasn't Mary his mother?  Probably others?

Not his mother.  Mary and Martha, sisters of Lazarus.

[JulieM]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Absolutely.  100%.

His wives include Mary, Martha, and Mary Magdalene.  And probably others.

Yes, I know you believe he lived polygamy.  I believe Christ was married too, but don’t know about him living polygamy.

I was asking Bernard and like to hear what he believes on it. 

But Ill ask you where Christ taught that polygamy was an essential principle for his church or the gospel?  Where is that taught at all? ( Other than by Joseph stating he was commanded to restore it).

Edited December 30, 2017 by JulieM

[Exiled]

55 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not his mother.  Mary and Martha, sisters of Lazarus.

Ok, but how do you know Christ was married to these two and probably more?

[Exiled]

57 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Doctrinally it never left.  Like consecration the principle remains despite the practice being stopped at this time.

When this life and the next move closer together in the millennial period it may not return but it also won't be a mere relic of the past when polygamists from the other side of the veil become our associates.

Why do you think God has almost a 1:1 relationship between males and females born if he really wants polygamy?

[DBMormon]

On 12/28/2017 at 4:45 PM, Duncan said:

That makes no sense

If I can take a stab at what you're saying you don't think Abraham was a real person

perhaps a historical figure but that the story we tell of him has been dramatized, embellished and no longer holding a recognizeable semblance to the actual person and what his life looked like.  but yes most of my brain would lean towards a pseudo scriptural character.

[DBMormon]

On 12/28/2017 at 4:58 PM, JLHPROF said:

Then you must reject the canonized D&C 138 and possibly other scripture too.

no more than I have to reject the garden of Eden believing it to be figurative only and symbolic of the pre-mortal life.  One only need look at the miracle stories we impose as true in this dispensation to see how embellished myth becomes a sacred telling

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

I’m fine if you believe that.  I think it caused a great deal of pain and harm (and still does for many today).  

I do believe many made it work and obediently lived it and some even embraced it.  But there are so many stories of heartbreak, betrayal and pain if you read the journals and writings (especially the women’s experiences).

I really hate that women were treated as property in those days. I hope the church has learned that women are more than property or a reward. We aren't trophies. I hope the church will apologise for this mindset and allow even in the temple for women to be equal, we shouldn't have to go through our husbands as if they're our god. We shouldn't have to obey our husbands also..and no one on here better say the church doesn't teach it, I said it in a temple endowment session when going for myself. 

[DBMormon]

On 12/28/2017 at 5:21 PM, The Nehor said:

I find it interesting that "importance" to you somehow equates to "controversial". I hope you do not take that tact with everything in your life or your life is going to suck.

my life is incredible though I openly live to get below the walls we all put around ourselves and our beliefs and to get to something that is more real.  Luckily I am surrounded by others who desire the same and hence the level of vulnerability makes for a pretty awesome connectedness.  

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

Those women could have had even more children if they’d not been married to a man with many other wives  (or just as many).  I don’t see that explanation as valid (to raise seed). 

Of course you don’t. Nevertheless, that is precisely what they did.

[Duncan]

5 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

no more than I have to reject the garden of Eden believing it to be figurative only and symbolic of the pre-mortal life.  One only need look at the miracle stories we impose as true in this dispensation to see how embellished myth becomes a sacred telling

did you just read Joseph Campbell or any Mircea Eliade or do you know who they are?

Edited December 30, 2017 by Duncan

[DBMormon]

On 12/28/2017 at 6:52 PM, Danzo said:

Very convenient of you to disbelieve in anything you don't agree with.

actually I disbelieve whatever my brain comes to the conclusion is to absurd to believe.  The ground Abraham holds has nothing to do with whether I believe or not.  Rather I have spent considerable time studying other sacred texts, other religions, other perspectives, and now outside of ethnocentricy as my predominant perspective I see Mormonism as one tribe among many tribes with a God among many Gods and claims among many claims.  Once you grasp how myths are created and how easily they transform and then become hardened it becomes easy for the brain to take on a more world centric view

[Gray]

11 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Not Mormon women. They championed women's suffrage. But, yeah, women can be dumb.

I didn't say that. But sometimes, for ideological reasons, people can fight against their own well-being.

[Gray]

12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Of course you don’t. Nevertheless, that is precisely what they did.

Polygamist women have fewer children than monogamist women.

The numbers your reference are in relation to the men only. If the idea is to raise up seed, the bottle neck is always the women, who can only typically have one child at a time. Polygamy doesn't speed that up at all. It actually slows down childbirth.

Ironically, polygamy also leads to many defacto single-parent homes that the church now says are bad for children (in the Proclamation on the Family).

Edited December 31, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

On 12/28/2017 at 4:50 PM, pogi said:

Why does it force us to alter our perceptions of God's morality?  Is the God of Joseph not the God of Abraham?  Was Abraham (86 years old), who was married to Sarah, not given Hagar (a young fertile maid)?

As I recall, that was Sarah's idea. She later regretted it.

Also, considering Hagar was Sarah's slave, the relationship between Hagar and Abraham was something akin to rape.

Not that there is any reason to believe that any of these people actually existed. It's a sacred story, not a history.

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

I wonder what percentage of Parley's children were faithful to the Lord and thus raised up those 266 grandchildren to the Lord. (Serious question, are there any studies that compare level of remaining at least semi active in the Church to being member in name only or not a member?)

Having lots of children is not the identical imo as raising up seed to the Lord.

I wonder how many of his children saw him on a daily basis while he was alive, could always find him when they needed to talk when he was not on missions.

 

I don’t have the time or resources to figure that out; however, I am not inclined to project our current parenting standards and practices on this unique situation. Can we agree that within only two generations there were a lot of LDS children whose parents were influential, faithful, deeply committed Saints, who were quite serious about building Zion, and whose progeny has had and continues to have immeasurable positive impact on the Church? Even if there were a 50% failure rate, which I think would be way off, there would still be a lot.

This gives some details about Parley’s wives and children. http://www.gordonbanks.com/gordon/family/pppratt.html.

From Wikipedia...

Quote

Pratt's constant missions left him little time with his family. After he started practicing plural marriage, the longest period of time he had with his family were the 18 months following his return from a mission to Chile.

According to Terryl L. Givens and Matthew J. Grow, Pratt's "highest happiness was to be surrounded by a teeming domestic world of multiple wives and offspring." They noted that he also had an “antisocial bent".

One of Pratt's grandsons, William King Driggs, was the father of the King Sisters.

Mitt Romney, the Massachusetts governor (2003–07) and the 2012 Republican nominee for the U.S. presidency, is one of Pratt's great-great-grandsons.

One of Pratt's great-great-great-grandsons is Jon Huntsman, the former Utah governor and Ambassador to China, and an unsuccessful candidate for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

I’m also related to King Driggs, so there’s even one more illustrious descendant of Brother Parley! 

The book Brigham Young’s Letters to His Sons gives us an idea of how well he interacted wth his many children. The sons’ letters in response reveal the esteem they had for him. And, of course, someone needs to write a book about his letters to his daughters.

See also Dean Jessee’s excellent article https://www.lds.org/ensign/1974/04/your-affectionate-father-brigham-young-the-prophets-letters-to-his-sons-part-2?lang=eng

Quote

Every father who reads the letters of Brigham Young to his children may vicariously experience the satisfaction that the prophet felt in seeing them grow to maturity and to develop as useful citizens and participants in building the kingdom of God.

He will note, however, that Brigham Young’s satisfaction was not unearned. Among the paternal influences that had the greatest impact upon the lives of his children were the religious and secular education that he provided for them, the environment of love and understanding in which they were raised, and above all, the example of his own life.

 

Edited December 30, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Gray said:

Polygamist women have fewer children than monogamist women.

The numbers your reference are in relation to the men only. If the idea is to raise up seed, the bottle neck is always the women, who can only typically have one child at a time. Polygamy doesn't speed that up at all. It actually slows down childbirth.

Ironically, polygamy also eads to many defacto single-parent homes that the church now says are bad for children (in the Proclamation on the Family).

Polygamy is good at raising seed under certain lineages.  If God considers those lineages 'righteous' (if it's about whose line the children come through and not the overall number of children) then polygamy does what the BOM says it does.  

[JulieM]

34 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Of course you don’t. Nevertheless, that is precisely what they did.

I think some stayed in the church and some didn’t.  

Do you believe those hundreds of women couldn’t have righteously raised their children unless they were all married to one of those 17 men?

[Gray]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Polygamy is good at raising seed under certain lineages.  If God considers those lineages 'righteous' (if it's about whose line the children come through and not the overall number of children) then polygamy does what the BOM says it does.  

Male lineages, not female lineages. That's part of what makes the whole scheme so sexist. And of course it ignores the pro-social values of two-parent homes currently taught in church. These children would largely be raised by their mothers, anyway.

Edited December 30, 2017 by Gray

[Bernard Gui]

31 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I think some stayed in the church and some didn’t.  

Do you believe those hundreds of women couldn’t have righteously raised their children unless they were all married to one of those 17 men?

Possibly, but such speculation fails in the face of the real history. There were far more polygamists than just those 17. The course and history of the Restoration was immeasurably impacted by these men and women, and I believe in the long run, the impact was overwheliningly positive.

Edited December 30, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, Gray said:

Male lineages, not female lineages. That's part of what makes the whole scheme so sexist. And of course it ignores the pro-social values of two-parent homes currently taught in church.

Yes male lineages, which isn't surprising.  Patriarchal societies generally follow the male lineages.  I suppose one could argue that patriarchal societies are inherently sexist but I don't know if that's a given.

Besides that though, I'm not sure polygamy ignores the social value of a two-parent home so much as it implies that sometimes there are exceptions where other things are of more value (such as when married men with children were called away on missions for years at a time, leaving one parent households).  The BOM at least teaches that polygamy is the exception and not the rule, so it makes sense that other things surrounding it are also exceptions as well.

Edited December 30, 2017 by bluebell