Raise Up Seed Unto Me

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Perhaps these exceptions might happen more often since they are no longer performing sealings in the temple "for time only".  (General Handbook 27.3.3)

I am so looking forward to the day it gets out in writing. So many women and husbands will welcome the change and one big impediment to remarriage to a devout husband will be removed (since most devout men want children of their own they are sealed to).  There is something remarkable about the faithful man who is willing to create and raise children that are currently understood to belong to another man’s family eternally.  I admire women too who are willing to be married to a man who is already sealed. Trust in the Lord and her husband must be huge. 

Edited November 16, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

Thought this might interest some, from wiki:

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Several sounds like most to me

I think of several as 3-5 (dictionary “more than two but not many”), he was married to 14 women who were legally married to other men. 
 

https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/common-questions/sexual-polyandry/

Edited November 16, 2021 by Calm

[Olmec Donald]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

Excellent chart.  I made one like it on my own on butcher paper decades ago when doing amateur research.

What stood out to me was the veritable plethora of confirmed plural marriage dates in the year and a half or two preceding September of 1843, then one last sealing to an elderly woman on November 2nd, and then NOTHING, continuing to Joseph's death on June 27th of the following year. 

So what happened that made him stop?

Obviously I don't know, and it could have been trouble on the home front.  Or it could have been this:

On (or perhaps shortly before) September 28th, 1843, Joseph's attention seemed to re-orient to the Quorum of the Anointed, which was unique (to the best of my knowledge) in that it was a Quorum which included both men and women.  On that date Joseph and Emma were "anointed and ordained to the highest and holiest order of the priesthood."   Wow.  Emma was "ordained."

Anyway I can't help but wonder whether the Quorum of the Anointed replaced plural marriage as the zenith of Joseph's concept of what our associations in heaven would look like.

 

Edited November 17, 2021 by Olmec Donald

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, Olmec Donald said:

Excellent chart.  I made one like it on my own on butcher paper decades ago when doing amateur research.

What stood out to me was the veritable plethora of confirmed plural marriage dates in the year and a half or two preceding September of 1843, then one last sealing to an elderly woman on November 2nd, and then NOTHING, continuing to Joseph's death on June 27th of the following year. 

So what happened that made him stop?

Obviously I don't know, and it could have been trouble on the home front.  Or it could have been this:

On (or perhaps shortly before) September 28th, 1843, Joseph's attention seemed to re-orient to the Quorum of the Anointed, which was unique (to the best of my knowledge) in that it was a Quorum which included both men and women.  On that date Joseph and Emma were "anointed and ordained to the highest and holiest order of the priesthood."   Wow.  Emma was "ordained."

Anyway I can't help but wonder whether the Quorum of the Anointed replaced plural marriage as the zenith of Joseph's concept of what our associations in heaven would look like.

 

It had occurred to me he had asked and received some further enlightenment once he had realized using his own ideas mixed with revelation to figure out how to fulfill the commandment wasn’t yielding the best results, but I hadn’t focused on anything as a possibility. I quite like this as that possibility. 

Edited November 17, 2021 by Calm

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Enough that he had four more children with Emma during those years. 

You have to stretch back to Fanny Alger like @pogi for that. David Hyrum was born after Joseph's death, and a stillborn male was born in early 1842. Where are you getting four children with Emma during "those years?"

Edited November 17, 2021 by rongo

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Olmec Donald said:

Excellent chart.  I made one like it on my own on butcher paper decades ago when doing amateur research.

What stood out to me was the veritable plethora of confirmed plural marriage dates in the year and a half or two preceding September of 1843, then one last sealing to an elderly woman on November 2nd, and then NOTHING, continuing to Joseph's death on June 27th of the following year. 

So what happened that made him stop?

Obviously I don't know, and it could have been trouble on the home front.  Or it could have been this:

On (or perhaps shortly before) September 28th, 1843, Joseph's attention seemed to re-orient to the Quorum of the Anointed, which was unique (to the best of my knowledge) in that it was a Quorum which included both men and women.  On that date Joseph and Emma were "anointed and ordained to the highest and holiest order of the priesthood."   Wow.  Emma was "ordained."

Anyway I can't help but wonder whether the Quorum of the Anointed replaced plural marriage as the zenith of Joseph's concept of what our associations in heaven would look like.

 

Per https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/last-year-life/, Joseph only had two more plural sealings after the D&C 132 revelation was received.  One of them was (according to the plural wife) known to Emma and with her blessing.  The other is the sealing to the elderly woman (Fanny Young, 56 years old).  It sounds like Joseph and Emma came to an agreement of some sort on polygamy.

I don't think the Quorum of the Anointed replaced plural marriage because other polygamous marriages were still taking place.  And all of those had to be approved by Joseph so he was definitely still active with polygamy.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, rongo said:

You have to stretch back to Fanny Alger like @pogi for that. David Hyrum was born after Joseph's death, and a stillborn male was born in early 1842. Where are you getting four children with Emma during "those years?"

Joseph died in 1844, Emma has least 5 pregnancies from 1834-his death.  David was born after his death, but obviously Joseph had time to get with Emma, then there was a stillborn male 42, Don Carlos 40, and then Alexander in 38 and Frederick 36.

Every two years, either Emma breastfeeding each child naturally spaced her children or some other hormonal process was effective birth control or they intentionally spaced for her health…which would mean there was likely time for other women if he so chose. 

Edited November 17, 2021 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

On 11/15/2021 at 1:51 PM, Rivers said:

Jacob 2:30

“For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up ^aseed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things. “

What exactly does it mean to “raise up seed” unto the Lord?

I think it's interesting that the assumption of posters on this thread is that this refers to numerical posterity.

I'm not so convinced.

[Scott Lloyd]

19 hours ago, rongo said:

That's kind of my point. When he wasn't hiding, he was "building and governing a city, entertaining guests, running a church in mostly full view of local citizens," as you say. None of any of these activities (in addition to the hiding out) are conducive to "more than ample opportunity to consummate those marriages." It only takes a few minutes to perform a sealing; "consummating marriages" (hopefully) takes longer than that. 

And not just consummating the marriages, but properly caring for the offspring therefrom. It takes more than just consummating a marriage to “raise up seed” to the Lord. 
 

I think Pogi has been cavalier about the demands on Joseph Smith and whether they would have been conducive to fostering multiple families. Hence, I said his remarks were borne of ignorance. 
 

As I noted before, Joseph was cut down early in life. Had he been allowed to live and perhaps lead the Saints to a refuge in the West, as Brigham Young eventually did, perhaps he would have been as prolific as Brigham in raising up seed. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 11/17/2021 at 9:49 AM, JLHPROF said:

I think it's interesting that the assumption of posters on this thread is that this refers to numerical posterity.

I'm not so convinced.

Not just numerical posterity, but progeny who have been reared “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord,” who are apt to carry forward values, beliefs and a spiritual and covenantal legacy. 

Edited November 21, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[rodheadlee]

On 11/15/2021 at 4:43 PM, Teancum said:

I am sure Warren Jeffs and crew make the same argument.  Specific male lines means those that had the power.  It has always been thus.

And what did these men do with their power? What did Warren Jeffs do with his power?

What did Brigham Young do with his power? 

[The Nehor]

On 11/16/2021 at 5:24 PM, Calm said:

Trust in the Lord and her husband must be huge. 

I parsed that wrong the first time and took those as two separate statements.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I parsed that wrong the first time and took those as two separate statements.

Took me a second. Quite a different meaning. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I parsed that wrong the first time and took those as two separate statements.

Underscoring the importance of commas before coordinate conjunctions that introduce independents clauses ...

[Tacenda]

13 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

And what did these men do with their power? What did Warren Jeffs do with his power?

What did Brigham Young do with his power? 

Side note: recently read that Brigham Young was only 5'3 in height, I'd always pictured him to be much taller and large. 

I married a short man, love him to death, and so I'm for sure not downing this fact. ETA: Maybe this isn't a fact though, just double checked and read he was 5'10. 

Edited November 22, 2021 by Tacenda

[webbles]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Side note: recently read that Brigham Young was only 5'3 in height, I'd always pictured him to be much taller and large. 

I married a short man, love him to death, and so I'm for sure not downing this fact. 

He was actually 5' 10" (at least according his biography that was co-authored by his daughter).  I think the 5'3" idea came from https://www.thechurchnews.com/history-revisited/2018-08-29/discover-the-unique-burial-site-of-brigham-young-and-10-facts-from-his-life-141-years-after-his-death-8950 which originally said that he was a little over 5'.

[katherine the great]

On 11/16/2021 at 10:23 AM, bluebell said:

What if who is descended from it is one of the merits of Polygamy though?  The 12 tribes only exist because of polygamy, for example, so in that way it's impossible to separate the merits of polygamy from the descendents of it.  

I’m just barely getting around to reading this thread. I disagree with this. Leah was perfectly capable of producing twelve sons but her husband preferred the company of her sister. She literally had to buy a night with Jacob by offering Rachel the mandrakes. Apparently ancient Mesopotamian women were okay with pimping out a husband! Had Leah been the only wife, twelve tribes were still perfectly possible. 

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

I’m just barely getting around to reading this thread. I disagree with this. Leah was perfectly capable of producing twelve sons but her husband preferred the company of her sister. She literally had to buy a night with Jacob by offering Rachel the mandrakes. Apparently ancient Mesopotamian women were okay with pimping out a husband! Had Leah been the only wife, twelve tribes were still perfectly possible. 

From the House of Israel perspective though, 12 sons from the same woman would have only created one "house".  All the sons would have been from the exact same lineage.  That's all I'm saying.

[katherine the great]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

From the House of Israel perspective though, 12 sons from the same woman would have only created one "house".  All the sons would have been from the exact same lineage.  That's all I'm saying.

Not sure I understand. The sons were all from the exact same lineage. They were all from the house of Jacob. The wives were sisters and the children of the concubines would have legally belonged to the wives. (not that women really had a whole lot of rights anyway…)

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Not sure I understand. The sons were all from the exact same lineage. They were all from the house of Jacob. The wives were sisters and the children of the concubines would have legally belonged to the wives. (not that women really had a whole lot of rights anyway…)

I see what you are saying, and I'm not talking about legally (from the historical point of view) or biologically really.  Neither am I suggesting that the House of Israel proves anything about polygamy's truth claims as it is connected to religion.

I'm just saying that polygamy was used to created God's chosen people, and that the houses of israel exists because of polygamy's ability to create 12 sons from 4 women, who all survived childhood though they were born very close together in age in an era where it would be unlikely that such an outcome would have occurred with one mother.*  I don't think we can discount polygamy's ability to do that when discussing what it's merits are.  Producing multiple healthy children over a short span of time, all from one biological male, is one thing polygamy is better at doing than monogamy, if that is something that someone is trying to do.  Especially historically.

Now, there is a whole religious argument about whether or not any male needed that kind of posterity, but that's a different discussion.  I'm only speaking about whether or not birth numbers (for the father) is a valid merit of the practice or not.  SeekingUnderstanding suggested that it was irrelevant but from my perspective, it's very relevant, if it's one of the main goal of the practice.

 

*While it's possible that one woman could have had 12 sons born in quick succession who all made it to adulthood, it's not probable in that era, and less probable for it to have been Rachel, knowing her background with infertility.

[Calm]

nvm

Edited November 22, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Producing multiple healthy children over a short span of time, all from one biological male, is one thing polygamy is better at doing than monogamy, if that is something that someone is trying to do.  Especially historically.

I can see the point of having 12 sons that were seen as equals to symbolically create 12 equal tribes, except in terms of favour of dad…but even with this, the two youngest are treated differently in terms of what is expected and not just because of being favorites.

But there is nothing that matters as mentioned in scripture about that when it comes to the next generation, same with Ishmael and Isaac.  Age difference disappeared as important once they were older, at least in scripture.  So not getting the relevance past the initial story of how brothers personally interacted.  I don’t remember the ages of their ancestors as relevant except for the firstborn blessing issue, which happened with two brothers as well as twelve.

Abraham had Isaac way past the usual time.  And then had children with Keturah after Sarah’s death, which by the story at least 15 years later if I am remembering the conditions correctly of Isaac needing to be more than a preteen for the sacrifice and Sarah dying after that.  If we assume the stories are true, I am having a hard time seeing why having the 12 within 14? years of each other…unless you are suggesting they stuck together as 12 tribes because they started that way because of their age?  But in that case we have Esau and Jacob and Nephi and Laman and Lemuel.

It can produce a workforce faster for the dad, so had an impact on numbers early on, but not after a generation or two.

Edited November 22, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I'm only speaking about whether or not birth numbers (for the father) is a valid merit of the practice or not.

Brigham Young had 56 children by 14 wives.  It can make a difference when it gets past the number one woman can produce over a lifetime.  But not sure how that factors into what else you are saying in regards to the 12 tribes, which is within the limit, though not that common (surviving to produce children themselves)

Edited November 22, 2021 by Calm

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Producing multiple healthy children over a short span of time, all from one biological male, is one thing polygamy is better at doing than monogamy

Yes. Polygyny glorifies the man. No argument here on that point. Even though it is at the cost of the female’s reproductive fitness. In a strict patriarchy, polygyny is the way to go.