Plural marriage, the priesthood, and exaltation

[california boy]

I alway was taught the Joseph Smith really struggled with polygamy until he was forced by God to start practicing it.  Yet, he married Fanny Alger who was a teenager working as their maid in 1835, just five years after the church was founded, and didn't introduce the practice to anyone else until 1840.  For me, the dates don't really add up.  If God was commanding Joseph to live polygamy why did he wait 5 more years after his marriage to Fanny to introduce it to others?  Did he only have difficulty with polygamy after he married Fanny?

And if Fanny thought she was married, why did she marry Solomon Custer in 1836.  I also didn't know that Emma found Joseph and Fanny in "transaction" in the barn.  

 

Quote

Now Joseph I will relate to you some history, and refer you to your own dear Mother for the truth. You will probably remember that I visited your Mother and family in 1847, and held a lengthy conversation with her, retired in the Mansion House in Nauvoo. I did not ask her to tell, but I told her some stories I had heard. And she told me whether I was properly informed. Dr. F. G. Williams practiced with me in Clay Co. Mo. during the latter part of 1838. And he told me that at your birth your father committed an act with a Miss Hill [sic]—a hired girl. Emma saw him, and spoke to him. He desisted, but Mrs. Smith refused to be satisfied. He called in Dr. Williams, O. Cowdery, and S. Rigdon to reconcile Emma. But she told them just as the circumstances took place. He found he was caught. He confessed humbly, and begged forgiveness. Emma and all forgave him. She told me this story was true!! Again I told her I heard that one night she missed Joseph and Fanny Alger. She went to the barn and saw him and Fanny in the barn together alone. She looked through a crack and saw the transaction!!! She told me this story too was verily true. ^[1]

 

Edited December 14, 2021 by california boy

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, JustAnAustralian said:

So let's say that polygamy is completely done away with doctrinally.

What is the plan for those that have already been sealed to multiple people?

Will all but the first sealing be cancelled?

😂 I just want to see the President of the Church announce he's posthumously cancelled Joseph and Brigham's marriages.  And why stop there?  He's cancelled Abraham's marriage to Hagar. And left only Leah with Israel.

And just to be on the safe side he released Martha and Mary from the Savior, only leaving Mary Magdalene.  Just in case they really were married.  No eternal polygamy in LDS heaven any more.

That'll take care of it.  🤣

Edited December 14, 2021 by JLHPROF

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, california boy said:

I alway was taught the Joseph Smith really struggled with polygamy until he was forced by God to start practicing it.  Yet, he married Fanny Alger who was a teenager working as their maid in 1835, just five years after the church was founded, and didn't introduce the practice to anyone else until 1840.  For me, the dates don't really add up.  If God was commanding Joseph to live polygamy why did he wait 5 more years after his marriage to Fanny to introduce it to others?  Did he only have difficulty with polygamy after he married Fanny?

Apparently so:

Quote

See here (emphases added):

Quote

When polygamy was introduced into the Latter Day Saint movement is uncertain.

Some scholars believe that Smith transcribed a revelation recommending polygamy on July 17, 1831. This alleged revelation is described in a letter to Brigham Young written in 1861 by an early Mormon convert, William W. Phelps.
...
A note from Phelps in the same document explains how the conversion of the Native Americans coincided with Smith's plan for a new system of marriage:

Quote

About three years after this was given {i.e., about 1834}, I asked brother Joseph, privately, how "we," that were mentioned in the revelation could take wives of the "natives" as we were all married men? He replied instantly "In the same manner that Abraham took Hagar and Keturah; and Jacob took Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpah; by revelation—the saints of the Lord are always directed by revelation.

...
Though the 1831 revelation is cited by Mormon historians, non-Mormon historians, and critics, there are dissenting opinions, and no consensus has been reached.
...
After Smith's death, many early converts, including apostles Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, and Lyman E. Johnson, said that Smith was teaching plural marriage as early as 1831 or 1832. Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, Smith's ninth wife claimed that Smith had a private conversation with her in 1831 when she was twelve.
...
Pratt reported that Smith told some early members in 1831 and 1832 that plural marriage was a true principle, but that the time to practice it had not yet come.  Johnson also claimed to have heard the doctrine from Smith in 1831. Mosiah Hancock reported that his father Levi W. Hancock was taught about plural marriage in the spring of 1832.  

So the gist of this seems to put revelations about polygamy in the early 1830s.

Next, let's see here (emphases added):

Quote

This article examines some twenty different reminiscences that recount Joseph Smith’s encounters with a sword-bearing angel who commanded him to establish the practice of plural marriage in Nauvoo, Illinois, in the early 1840s (see Appendix).

The historical record indicates that Joseph Smith contracted his first plural marriage in 1835 or 1836 in Kirtland, Ohio, with Fanny Alger.
...
In Illinois, Joseph Smith began to reconsider previous doctrines only partially revealed. His February 16, 1832, revelation spoke of the celestial kingdom and eternal “priests and kings” unto God (see D&C 76:50–70, 92–96), but no details were given concerning the possibility of eternal “priestesses and queens” or eternal marriage.  Neither was polygamy, as he had once practiced in Kirtland, mentioned. As Richard L. Bushman has noted, “After this one unsuccessful attempt” of polygamous marriage with Fanny Alger, Joseph Smith “waited another five years."  The delay showed an uncharacteristic reluctance, hard for one who feared God. . . . Joseph never wrote his personal feelings about plural marriage. . . . Everything on the subject comes from the people around him. But surely he realized that plural marriage would inflict terrible damage, that he ran the risk of wrecking his marriage and alienating his followers.”

Multiple documents support that Joseph Smith was hesitant to revisit the practice of plural marriage in Nauvoo. Helen Mar Kimball Whitney stated that “had it not been for the fear of His {the Lord’s} displeasure, Joseph would have shrunk from the undertaking and would have continued silent, as he did for years.”  She also said that “Joseph put off the dreaded day as long as he dared.”   Lucy Walker reported that Joseph “had his doubts about it for he debated it in his own mind.”

So in the face of multiple anxieties, what might have prompted Joseph Smith to move forward personally and once again marry polygamously and teach others to do likewise? Several writers left accounts from the Nauvoo period that Joseph told of an angel with a sword who threatened him if he did not proceed.

The "Nauvoo period" was from 1839 to 1847, and hence well after the 1831-1832 timeframe in which polygamy was apparently revealed, and also the "early 1833" timeframe in which Joseph Smith purportedly married Fanny Alger.

Per Richard L. Bushman:

Quote

Joseph ordinarily followed the commandments punctiliously, as if disobedience put him at risk.  In the case of plural marriage, he held off for two or three years before marrying Fanny Alger, and then after this one unsuccessful attempt, another five years.  The delay showed an uncharacteristic reluctance, hard for one who feared God. In some of Joseph's revelations the Lord speaks as a friend, but in others with a voice of thunder.   

Joseph waiting "two or three years" before marrying Alger (in early 1833) jibes with the 1831-ish timeframe noted above (Bushman is likely relying on the same historical sources for this). 

The "five years" reference pertains to Lucinda Harris, whom he purportedly married in 1838.  However, "historians Richard Lloyd Anderson and Scott H. Faulring dismiss this claim as being based on 'no solid evidence'" (though Compton, whom Bushman follows, believes this marriage occurred).

Anyway, Hales and Don Bradley surmise that the Angel-with-a-Sword incident (or, if there were multiple such incidents, then one of them) happened around 1843:

Quote

Researcher Don Bradley argues that contemporary evidence for at least some of the elements can be identified. Assistant or Associate President and Church Patriarch Hyrum Smith did not accept the principle of plural marriage until May 26, 1843.   In the weeks just prior, he and others plotted to entrap Nauvoo polygamists, possibly not realizing that Joseph was one of them.  Levi Richards recorded a portion of Hyrum’s May 14 discourse:

Quote

I attended meeting at the temple in the afternoon. Hyrum Smith addressed the people . . . . He said there were many that had a great deal to say about the ancient order of things as Solomon and David having many wives and concubines, but it is an abomination in the sight of God. If an angel from heaven should come and preach such doctrine, some would be sure to see his cloven foot and cloud of darkness over head, though his garments might shine as white as snow. A man might have one wife but concubines he should have none.

Bradley theorizes that this 1843 quotation may have been referring to the same sword-wielding angel, but without mentioning the sword. 

Hales also quotes Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner as providing some somewhat specific dates for the incident:

Quote

Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner reported that the Prophet informed her that the angel came three times, the first visit in 1834: “In 1834 he {Joseph Smith} was commanded to take me for a wife. . . . The angel came to him three times.” She also quoted the Prophet: “The angel came to me three times between the years of 1834 and 1842 and said I was to obey that principle or he would slay me.” If these dates were accurate, the first angelic visit may have prompted the Alger plural marriage, probably in 1835.  It also possible that Joseph’s poignant memories about the fiasco caused by the Alger union dissolution prompted him to dawdle before engaging in further plurality. The chronology further supports the likelihood that sometime before April 5, 1841, when the Prophet was sealed to plural wife Louisa Beaman in Nauvoo, the angel returned for a second visit to admonish Joseph to use the sealing authority and to obey the earlier directives. Joseph F. Smith summarized: “Joseph Smith was commanded to take wives, he hesitated and postponed it, seeing the consequences and the trouble that it would bring and he shrank from the responsibility, but he prayed to the Lord for it to pass as Jesus did, but Jesus had to drink it to the dregs so it was with Joseph Smith, the Lord had revealed it to him, and said now is the time for it to be practiced—but it was not until he had been told he must practice it or be destroyed that he made the attempt.”

In sum, it looks like Joseph may have been repeatedly admonished/threatened to proceed with implementing polygamy.

Moreover, the context of the story makes is obvious that the practice of polygamy had been revealed to Joseph prior to the angelic admonishments.  After all, the story is that the angel threatened him for failing to do something he had previously been commanded to do.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

I would also like to see clarification on what is being proposed here ("do away with polygamy").  Is it some sort of repudiation of the doctrine?  Disavowal of it?  Decanonization?  

Back in 2016 we had a discussion about Carol Lynn Pearson's position that polygamy "is indefensible" and that "it was an error and needs to be corrected."  

What is meant by "do away with polygamy"?

Thanks,

-Smac

I think we should bring back polygamy and polyandry.

Gives me a little better odds of finding someone.

Meh….probably not.

[mrmarklin]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I think we should bring back polygamy and polyandry.

Gives me a little better odds of finding someone.

Meh….probably not.

Not getting all the angst. Polygamy will not be required in the Big C. There is no scriptural reference supporting this. Polygamy has been practiced in the past for the Lord’s purposes. But I believe it has been optional for everyone but prophets AFAIK. 

THE Lord’s purposes usually revolve around preserving the family unit, and ensuring its continuance. Remember Lot’s daughters, and their concern for their father’s posterity. Did they sin?  I don’t know, but they created nations. 

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

Not getting all the angst. Polygamy will not be required in the Big C. There is no scriptural reference supporting this. Polygamy has been practiced in the past for the Lord’s purposes. But I believe it has been optional for everyone but prophets AFAIK. 

THE Lord’s purposes usually revolve around preserving the family unit, and ensuring its continuance. Remember Lot’s daughters, and their concern for their father’s posterity. Did they sin?  I don’t know, but they created nations. 

I don’t believe the story about Lot and his daughters.

To me it is just too on the nose and I am pretty sure that this was just a way to emphasize that the people of Moab and Ammon were reprobates. Think up worst way to insult them….hmmmm….yep, they are all children of incest! We’ll go with that.

On a more practical level how did anyone get the details of the incest story to record them? Are we supposed to believe Lot’s daughters told that story to someone? Not likely.

[MacGyver]

23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t believe the story about Lot and his daughters.

To me it is just too on the nose and I am pretty sure that this was just a way to emphasize that the people of Moab and Ammon were reprobates. Think up worst way to insult them….hmmmm….yep, they are all children of incest! We’ll go with that.

On a more practical level how did anyone get the details of the incest story to record them? Are we supposed to believe Lot’s daughters told that story to someone? Not likely.

The Book of Genesis is a revelation from God to Moses regarding the history of the earth up to that point. 

God would have seen what Lot's daughters did. 

[why me]

7 hours ago, pogi said:

You don't think Henry was wronged? 

From an apologetic perspective:

 "Joseph Smith had taught Zina the doctrine of plural marriage, and thrice asked her to marry him. She declined each time, and she and Henry were wed 7 March 1841."

In a seeming effort to emphasize her refusal of Joseph and her choice of Henry, she asked Joseph to marry them.   Joseph never showed up to marry them (surprise) and the Mayor had to step in.  When asked why he never showed up, Joseph said that "the Lord had made it known to him that she was to be his Celestial wife."

"On 27 October 1841, Zina was sealed to Joseph Smith by her brother, Dimick Huntington. She was six months pregnant by Henry, and continued to live with him."

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_Why_would_Joseph_be_sealed_to_the_wife_of_someone_who_was_not_only_married_to_someone_else,_but_pregnant_with_her_husband's_child%3F

6 months after she married Henry, and while still pregnant with his child, Joseph continued to pursue her.  He used her brother to tell her that an angel of the Lord commanded it and would slay him if he did not obey.  She said that her choice to marry Joseph was a "sacrifice greater than giving her life".  

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that she married Joseph because she was unhappy with Henry at the time.  They were newly weds and pregnant.  Henry was a faithful husband and Latter-day Saint who deeply loved his wife.  How was he not wronged in this?

I think that she knew that she married the wrong person. It happens. Later she realized her mistake and corrected it. Did her suffer from her decision. Yes. But this is life. It happens everyday. People marry the wrong person. And when love is considered it makes it even more complicated. Henry loved Zina. Zina did not love Henry. She prayed about plural marriage and received a revelation. She became a plural wife.

But it is not good for the person to be married and consider it the wrong decision regardless of the children. She corrected it and I am sure that Henry knew the feelings of his wife.

[why me]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

I alway was taught the Joseph Smith really struggled with polygamy until he was forced by God to start practicing it.  Yet, he married Fanny Alger who was a teenager working as their maid in 1835, just five years after the church was founded, and didn't introduce the practice to anyone else until 1840.  For me, the dates don't really add up.  If God was commanding Joseph to live polygamy why did he wait 5 more years after his marriage to Fanny to introduce it to others?  Did he only have difficulty with polygamy after he married Fanny?

And if Fanny thought she was married, why did she marry Solomon Custer in 1836.  I also didn't know that Emma found Joseph and Fanny in "transaction" in the barn.  

 

 

Fanny wasn't legally married to Joseph. He was married to Emma. So, legally she could marry Solomon. Also, I don't believe that Emma was happy about plural marriage and if so, Joseph probably thought better of it and put it off for marriage peace. But then, later the pressure came and he began it again, knowing the problems that this would bring to him and his marriage. Thus, came section 132. I don't think that sex was the main instigator. Life pressures would certainly affect his libido. Men are not supermen.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, MacGyver said:

The Book of Genesis is a revelation from God to Moses regarding the history of the earth up to that point. 

God would have seen what Lot's daughters did. 

God thought that little episode was vital for some reason? Yeah, not buying it. I have to admit the idea of the Holy Ghost communicating it makes me giggle.

”Seriously, you want me to reveal that? Why? Goes against my whole ‘light’ schtick”

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Remember Lot’s daughters, and their concern for their father’s posterity. Did they sin?  I don’t know, but they created nations. 

[bluebell]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Physical evidence" of "bleak picture of God's view of women"?  What is that?

 

(I'd like to ask that you read through my entire post before you try to break it up and reply.  You'll need the context of the entire post if there is any hope that you will understand what I'm saying.)

The scriptures--which we believe are the word of God--are full of stories of women being treated like property, being expendable, being unimportant and ignored-often by men that we believe are prophets of God, but sometimes by God Himself. 

Calm gave an example of an Sarah being made to wait in a different area while an angel of the Lord told Abraham that she would have a baby as an old woman.  The law of Moses, which we are told comes from God, taught that a woman who was raped in town should be stoned because if it happened in town and no one heard and stopped it it obviously wasn't rape.  We are also told that the best outcome for a woman who is raped is that she is forced to marry the rapist.  We are taught in Joshua that God told the Israelite men to kill everyone except for the young virgins, who they are to kidnap and get pregnant.  In the D&C we are taught that God gives prophets power to take women away from husbands and give them to different husbands, or that God Himself gives women to prophets like Abraham (the idea of the agency of the woman doesn't exist in those verses).  The female imagery that is most represented in the scriptures is whore.  Throughout the scriptures, when the covenant people go astray, they are whores.  The daughters of zion are whores when covenant Israel is unfaithful.  The great and abominable church is female, the whore of all the earth.   

Accurate or not, those stories do paint a bleak picture of God's feelings for His daughters, and I could go on and on.

We hear a lot of great words about how God values His sons and His daughters equally but then we have these examples before us-examples we read over and over again when we are studying God's word, which seem to show the opposite.  It's the whole "actions speak louder than words" premise. 

Polygamy often becomes just one more example in the negative column.  Only in a lot of ways polygamy in church history is worse because it's not something from the OT that you can find ways around.  It's restored doctrine.  Women who are struggling can't put a "as long as it's translated correctly" spin on it to make it easier to take.  While you can somewhat escape the horrible interactions between women and God in the OT, polygamy in the D&C is a hammer to the heart for a lot of women, that there is no escape from.

Quote

But I'm not necessarily buying into subjective interpretations, either, nor am I keen on signing onto the calls for the Church to respond to such interpretations.

I'm not sure what this means.  If someone says "this makes me doubt God's love for women" you don't get to say, I don't buy it.  Well, you can say it, but it's completely meaningless and irrelevant.

Quote

 

I'm also curious if there is any thought given over to the difficulties men endured regarding polygamy.  See, e.g., this story about my great-great grandfather, Alexander F. Macdonald:

See also here:

And here:

And here:

Many men and women both paid a high price.

 

None of these are relevant to what I'm saying.  I appreciate that you are trying (and I believe you are very sincere in wanting to) but as long as you insist on coming at the discussion from this angle, you will never succeed.

Quote

 

I've said this previously:

That emphasized bit is helpful to me.

 

I am not talking about being uncomfortable with sharing a spouse.  This is not about jealousy or finding it uncomfortable that God gave permission to a guy to have sex with multiple women.

Quote

 

Hasn't that already happened?  See, e.g., here:

And here:

Here:

 

No, none of that addresses what I'm talking about.  It's not that polygamy is hard.  It's not that it's a sacrifice.  It's not that sharing a husband would suck.  It's not that it sounds sketchy.  None of those things are the things that cause women, who are not being asked to live plural marriage, pain.  Why would they cause them pain?  

What causes pain is the implication that many women see behind the practice--an implication that begins in the OT and continues to be illustrated over and over through all the books of scriptures--

***That women exist to bless and serve men but are otherwise irrelevant to God and His kingdom.***

Quote

I guess I'm suspecting an endless regression.

I have no doubt you are.  We usually find what we are looking for, but listening to respond/defend is a lot less effective than listening to understand.

Quote

 

I don't understand.  Your statement presupposes that the Church teaches that God "value{s} His sons more than His daughters."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

The church does teach that God loves His daughters as much as His sons.  But the church can't really back up those teachings with examples, and that's why they are so easy for satan to get some women to discredit. 

We are taught that the truth is established by two or more witnesses, right?  Where is the other witness that our leaders can point to as evidence that God values His daughters, other than their words? 

You, as a man, can point to thousands of scriptures that present positive interactions between men and God.  How many verses do you think a woman could point to?  A handful.  Maybe.  For women who are struggling to feel God's love, that handful is not a lot of protection against the forces that want them to feel like God views them as second class citizens.  Especially when those few verses come up against polygamy. 

It's like bringing a knife to a gunfight, as the popular saying goes.

[Canadiandude]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

(I'd like to ask that you read through my entire post before you try to break it up and reply.  You'll need the context of the entire post if there is any hope that you will understand what I'm saying.)

The scriptures--which we believe are the word of God--are full of stories of women being treated like property, being expendable, being unimportant and ignored-often by men that we believe are prophets of God, but sometimes by God Himself. 

Calm gave an example of an Sarah being made to wait in a different area while an angel of the Lord told Abraham that she would have a baby as an old woman.  The law of Moses, which we are told comes from God, taught that a woman who was raped in town should be stoned because if it happened in town and no one heard and stopped it it obviously wasn't rape.  We are also told that the best outcome for a woman who is raped is that she is forced to marry the rapist.  We are taught in Joshua that God told the Israelite men to kill everyone except for the young virgins, who they are to kidnap and get pregnant.  In the D&C we are taught that God gives prophets power to take women away from husbands and give them to different husbands, or that God Himself gives women to prophets like Abraham (the idea of the agency of the woman doesn't exist in those verses).  The female imagery that is most represented in the scriptures is whore.  Throughout the scriptures, when the covenant people go astray, they are whores.  The daughters of zion are whores when covenant Israel is unfaithful.  The great and abominable church is female, the whore of all the earth.   

Accurate or not, those stories do paint a bleak picture of God's feelings for His daughters, and I could go on and on.

We hear a lot of great words about how God values His sons and His daughters equally but then we have these examples before us-examples we read over and over again when we are studying God's word, which seem to show the opposite.  It's the whole "actions speak louder than words" premise. 

Polygamy often becomes just one more example in the negative column.  Only in a lot of ways polygamy in church history is worse because it's not something from the OT that you can find ways around.  It's restored doctrine.  Women who are struggling can't put a "as long as it's translated correctly" spin on it to make it easier to take.  While you can somewhat escape the horrible interactions between women and God in the OT, polygamy in the D&C is a hammer to the heart for a lot of women, that there is no escape from.

I'm not sure what this means.  If someone says "this makes me doubt God's love for women" you don't get to say, I don't buy it.  Well, you can say it, but it's completely meaningless and irrelevant.

None of these are relevant to what I'm saying.  I appreciate that you are trying (and I believe you are very sincere in wanting to) but as long as you insist on coming at the discussion from this angle, you will never succeed.

I am not talking about being uncomfortable with sharing a spouse.  This is not about jealousy or finding it uncomfortable that God gave permission to a guy to have sex with multiple women.

No, none of that addresses what I'm talking about.  It's not that polygamy is hard.  It's not that it's a sacrifice.  It's not that sharing a husband would suck.  It's not that it sounds sketchy.  None of those things are the things that cause women, who are not being asked to live plural marriage, pain.  Why would they cause them pain?  

What causes pain is the implication that many women see behind the practice--an implication that begins in the OT and continues to be illustrated over and over through all the books of scriptures--

***That women exist to bless and serve men but are otherwise irrelevant to God and His kingdom.***

I have no doubt you are.  We usually find what we are looking for, but listening to respond/defend is a lot less effective than listening to understand.

The church does teach that God loves His daughters as much as His sons.  But the church can't really back up those teachings with examples, and that's why they are so easy for satan to get some women to discredit. 

We are taught that the truth is established by two or more witnesses, right?  Where is the other witness that our leaders can point to as evidence that God values His daughters, other than their words? 

You, as a man, can point to thousands of scriptures that present positive interactions between men and God.  How many verses do you think a woman could point to?  A handful.  Maybe.  For women who are struggling to feel God's love, that handful is not a lot of protection against the forces that want them to feel like God views them as second class citizens.  Especially when those few verses come up against polygamy. 

It's like bringing a knife to a gunfight, as the popular saying goes.

There are few words for this sense of betrayal. Impersonal yet intimate, it screams across ever nerve and fibre of my being.

That the heaven I fought for  and dedicated my life towards has no answers thus far, no space for people like us- unless we accept the roles we are told to play.

~
 

What a terrible thing to realize that the very power-plays, tactics,  and tricks I learned from classical Realist theory in International Relations explains much of religion’s internal dynamics.

That it is about power. Order. Stability. Finding answers that suffice. All for the maintenance of those that control and seek such control.

Armies. Navies. False priests and tyrants.

A truth, and a scream, that echoes down your entire being.

It was never about you- or even most people really. 

Edited December 14, 2021 by Canadiandude

[mrmarklin]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t believe the story about Lot and his daughters.

To me it is just too on the nose and I am pretty sure that this was just a way to emphasize that the people of Moab and Ammon were reprobates. Think up worst way to insult them….hmmmm….yep, they are all children of incest! We’ll go with that.

On a more practical level how did anyone get the details of the incest story to record them? Are we supposed to believe Lot’s daughters told that story to someone? Not likely.

Whether the story is apocryphal or not, it's in the bible for a reason.  The Lord wants posterity.

[bluebell]

34 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

The Lord wants posterity.

The Songs of Solomon are in the bible as well, even though Pres. Kimball would staple that section shut in his bible because he didn't believe they were scripture (or so that story goes).

To the point above though, does the Lord want posterity at any cost?  Does the end justify the means?

[mrmarklin]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

God thought that little episode was vital for some reason? Yeah, not buying it. I have to admit the idea of the Holy Ghost communicating it makes me giggle.

”Seriously, you want me to reveal that? Why? Goes against my whole ‘light’ schtick”

There's an old saying, and it is true.  The servants know everything.  Lot's family likely had servants.  That's how this stuff gets out.  It's likely true.

[mrmarklin]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The Songs of Solomon are in the bible as well, even though Pres. Kimball would staple that section shut in his bible because he didn't believe they were scripture (or so that story goes).

To the point above though, does the Lord want posterity at any cost?  Does the end justify the means?

I think the story is illustrative of how important that family and posterity is to the Lord.  My bolded in the citation.

Genesis 19

³¹ And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:

³² Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

³³ And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

³⁴ And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

³⁵ And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

³⁶ Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

[ksfisher]

33 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

I think the story is illustrative of how important that family and posterity is to the Lord.  My bolded in the citation.

Genesis 19

³¹ And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:

³² Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

³³ And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

³⁴ And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

³⁵ And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

³⁶ Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

Are you saying that our Father in Heaven inspired or approved of this action? 

I've never read it that way. 

Scriptures may report events that happen, but it doesn't necessarily mean that all events reported in scripture have divine sanction.

Edited December 14, 2021 by ksfisher

[mrmarklin]

12 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Are you saying that are Father in Heaven inspired or approved of this action? 

I've never read it that way. 

Scriptures may report events that happen, but it doesn't necessarily mean that all events reported in scripture have divine sanction.

I don't know that any of this was sanctioned by the Lord.  But it was utmost in the daughter's minds that they couldn't leave their father without posterity.  They seemingly took it upon themselves to make sure that this wasn't so.

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

I don't know that any of this was sanctioned by the Lord.  But it was utmost in the daughter's minds that they couldn't leave their father without posterity.  They seemingly took it upon themselves to make sure that this wasn't so.

How then is it an example of how important family and posterity is to the Lord?

It shows that Lot's daughters believed posterity to be important as well as illustrating their misunderstanding of the situation they were in.

Edited December 14, 2021 by ksfisher

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Canadiandude said:

There are few words for this sense of betrayal. Impersonal yet intimate, it screams across ever nerve and fibre of my being.

That the heaven I fought for  and dedicated my life towards has no answers thus far, no space for people like us- unless we accept the roles we are told to play.

~
 

What a terrible thing to realize that the very power-plays, tactics,  and tricks I learned from classical Realist theory in International Relations explains much of religion’s internal dynamics.

That it is about power. Order. Stability. Finding answers that suffice. All for the maintenance of those that control and seek such control.

Armies. Navies. False priests and tyrants.

A truth, and a scream, that echoes down your entire being.

It was never about you- or even most people really. 

I think that we have been given fewer answers than we realize, and that sometimes the answers we have are championed more than their provenance would dictate is wise, but, I think we have to be careful with assigning motives to imperfect people and with ignoring the value of getting it wrong sometimes. 

When my 7 year old finds out that something someone told them wasn't true, her first reaction is often "you lied" or "they lied".  She wants to be able to trust the answers that she's given and she wants answers to be simple, and finding out that she can't always depend on that is uncomfortable to her.  In her mind, her discomfort is a negative so the reason it exists must be bad as well.    

I think that we all have that tendency when we face discomfort (on any scale) to something that means a lot to us.  Anger wants us to say "you did this to me and you did it on purpose!"  But anger is usually an idiot.

People are complicated and imperfect; being wrong is not the same as lying.  Answers are complicated and imperfect; the reason for an answer might be wrong while the answer itself is right.  We believe that discomfort or pain is a bad thing so we think anything that causes it is must wrong or bad too, but that's not always true either.  

In the end, I think that being willing to embrace discomfort--being willing to sit with it and invite it in--is the only way to actual get at the truth of things.  I think that discomfort is often the bridge to the next leg of the journey or the next set of knowledge. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that human weaknesses and foibles do affect and impact religious beliefs, and that is not a comfortable part of belief.  It can actually be one of the most painful parts.  But coming to terms with that is, in my opinion, the only way to find our connection to God and learn to trust it. 

Because we aren't just trying to learn to trust God despite imperfect leaders, we are learning to trust God despite our own imperfect, self-centered, control hungry, order-seeking, oppressive selves as well.

If any of that makes any sense.

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

I think the story is illustrative of how important that family and posterity is to the Lord.  My bolded in the citation.

Genesis 19

³¹ And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:

³² Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

³³ And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

³⁴ And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

³⁵ And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

³⁶ Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

Does it say anywhere in the scriptures that God condoned what the daughters did?  

[pogi]

12 hours ago, why me said:

I think that she knew that she married the wrong person. It happens. Later she realized her mistake and corrected it. Did her suffer from her decision. Yes. But this is life. It happens everyday. People marry the wrong person. And when love is considered it makes it even more complicated. Henry loved Zina. Zina did not love Henry. She prayed about plural marriage and received a revelation. She became a plural wife.

But it is not good for the person to be married and consider it the wrong decision regardless of the children. She corrected it and I am sure that Henry knew the feelings of his wife.

What do you mean by the "wrong person"?  Wrong in what way?  Is there only one right person for us?  There is no evidence whatsoever that Zina did not love Henry, as you claim (especially as newly weds at the time that she was sealed to Joseph).   She later, much later, said that she was not happy with him when she moved in with Brigham.  Shen never said that she was unhappy with him when they were still newly weds and was sealed to Joseph.  She never claimed that she did not love him.  

She continued to live with and have more children with Henry after she was sealed to Joseph as his "Celestial wife".  There is no contemporary evidence or indication that they were unhappy with each other.  There is no indication that he was verbally, emotionally, or physically abusive or worthy of divorce in any way.  Under what conditions is it ok to break your sacred marital vows and leave someone for another man?  I think it is unfair and not right that we have to denigrate Henry in some way, to make him seem unworthy, unfit, unkind, unlovable, or worthy of divorce in some way to make this seem ok.    All evidence and journal entries suggest that he was an attentive and supportive husband and father and faithful Latter-day Saint.

My question is this, if Joseph was only sealed to her for eternity, why did Joseph oppose their civil marriage for time?  He was sealed to other married women after all, and seemed to be ok with the situation.  Did he expect her to live alone and husbandless for time as his celestial wife?  

If Joseph didn't think it right to be sealed to her for time, Why did Brigham think it was right?  She didn't belong to Joseph for time, so why then did Brigham think that she belonged to him as Joseph's successor?  It doesn't really make sense to me.

 Why was Henry sent to England right before Zina moved in with Brigham?  He was poor (not surprising, considering his missions while trying to start a family) and desperately sick at the time.  He faithfully answered the call without hesitation, despite his poor financial situation and severe illness and left 2 days after receiving the call.  He was sent to England by Brigham Young poor and sick, but still had a wife and 2 kids...  He came home family-less. He was betrayed by his wife and by Brigham Young.  His marital vows were dishonorably transgressed and he was abandoned in a cowardly way.  There is no justification for what happened and how it happened.  Henry was wronged.  I'm not sure how accountability will be measured out in the eternities, but someone will have to pay for the poor treatment of Henry.  He was faithful to his wife and prophet, they were not faithful to him. 

 

Edited December 14, 2021 by pogi

[bluebell]

16 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

So let's say that polygamy is completely done away with doctrinally.

What is the plan for those that have already been sealed to multiple people?

Will all but the first sealing be cancelled?

If that happened people would have to embrace the "have faith, it will all work out" answer that is so popular right now with those on the other side of the isle.

But for the record, I don't think it should be done away with doctrinally.

[Olmec Donald]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

The church does teach that God loves His daughters as much as His sons.  But the church can't really back up those teachings with examples...

We are taught that the truth is established by two or more witnesses, right?  Where is the other witness that our leaders can point to as evidence that God values His daughters, other than their words?

Well I am definitely NOT a church leader, so this example is just my opinion:

Recall how many things in the temple are the "________ of the ________ Priesthood."  Recall the items of clothing which have the word "Priesthood" in their name.  Recall the signs and such given to both men and women patrons which have the word "Priesthood" in their names.  Recall the related actions then performed by both men and women which have the word "Priesthood" in their names.  Recall the thirty-something words which are spoken in a certain place and time, and note specifically the exact wording associated with "Priesthood". 

Are there any differences between how Priesthood is participated in by men and women in the endowment ceremony?  Nope.  (My apologies to those who have not been through the temple; the point I'm making in the preceding paragraph is that men and women both participate equally and fully in everything involving "Priesthood" in the temple endowment ceremony.)

Now we are leading up to the big question.  Unless "Priesthood" does not mean what we think it means, it would be totally inappropriate for anyone who is not a Priesthood holder to participate in the endowment ceremony.  And indeed, a man who does not hold the Melchizedek Priesthood is not allowed to.  How then can it be appropriate for a woman who is not a Priesthood holder?  Does it make sense that what is an absolute requirement for one-half of the population does not even apply to the other half?  No, that doesn't make sense, especially if the Lord's house is a house of order.  What would make sense, however, is this:

The women who attend the temple actually do hold the Priesthood.  Otherwise, they would be as out of place as a man who is not a Priesthood holder.

But there is NO ordination or other ceremony by which women have Priesthood conferred on them, so how in the world can women ALREADY hold the Priesthood when they go through the endowment ceremony? 

By process of elimination we come to this answer: They have had it all along!

And this sort of thing is not without precedent:  A male literal descendant of Aaron has Priesthood by birthright (D&C 107:16).  Perhaps so too the daughters of Eve have a Priestess birthright.  Just as the world, and probably most church members, know nothing about the Priesthood birthright of a male literal descendant of Aaron, so too we 'know" nothing about the Priestess birthright of the female descendants of Eve. 

But the Priestess birthright is strongly implied, in between the lines of the temple endowment ceremony, wisely hidden in plain sight.

And that just might be a second witness, in my opinion.

 

Edited December 14, 2021 by Olmec Donald