Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Distinct polygamy concerns


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I am not arguing from historical examples but just general application.  If a rich man, regardless of whom they are or when they live, has more than one wife, it would not necessarily be a problem of resources for him.   I understood your argument but just pointed out that it not true in all cases. 

Why in the world do you think that needs to be said again? What exactly do you think "only rich men could provide for additional wives" means if not what you just reiterated? Why are you taking up space repeating this? 

Link to comment

Rongo, I think there is enough evidence in this tread to decline the invitation to speak to the Relief Society on this subject.   I see far more downside than upside.   The saying is true, Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus and when it comes to polygamy, its is worse than traveling through a minefield in Ukraine.   I avoid even the subject with my wife.   In the few times it has come up, it does not go well and I just move away from the subject as quickly as possible.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Rongo, I think there is enough evidence in this tread to decline the invitation to speak to the Relief Society on this subject.   I see far more downside than upside.   The saying is true, Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus and when it comes to polygamy, its is worse than traveling through a minefield in Ukraine.   I avoid even the subject with my wife.   In the few times it has come up, it does not go well and I just move away from the subject as quickly as possible.

There is a downside to helping women set aside fears about what they have been fed about polygamy? Just so you know saying men are from Mars, women are from Venus is about as sexist as it gets. It only goes to prove that polygamy has always been presented through male eyes and the minute that is challenged, a lot of men fall apart if they can't get women's experiences with it put back on the shelf. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, juliann said:

First, a woman should be doing this but you are likely more knowlegable than some random person.  This is a good list. I would start with the difficulty of researching polygamy and how it has always been formulated around the husbands with the wives as an afterthought to the point we don't even know their names. An example is how they count polygamist "families" as one entity, i.e., a man's family.  That leaves out all the wives who had their own families. 

This is definitely one of my pet peeves with reading family history.  It is almost always focused on the man.  All the books that have been printed about my ancestors, I can't think of a single one that is about the wife/wives.  They feel tangential to the story.  I just recently attended a family reunion where we shared stories about ancestors.  Of those stories, the vast majority were about the man, not the woman.  I love reading my female ancestor stories but they are so hard to find.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, webbles said:

This is definitely one of my pet peeves with reading family history.  It is almost always focused on the man.  All the books that have been printed about my ancestors, I can't think of a single one that is about the wife/wives.  They feel tangential to the story.  I just recently attended a family reunion where we shared stories about ancestors.  Of those stories, the vast majority were about the man, not the woman.  I love reading my female ancestor stories but they are so hard to find.

Historians often refer to women and children as the "silent majority".  We have very few primary sources from their perspective.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, webbles said:

This is definitely one of my pet peeves with reading family history.  It is almost always focused on the man.  All the books that have been printed about my ancestors, I can't think of a single one that is about the wife/wives.  They feel tangential to the story.  I just recently attended a family reunion where we shared stories about ancestors.  Of those stories, the vast majority were about the man, not the woman.  I love reading my female ancestor stories but they are so hard to find.

That's funny, all the books about my ancestors I can't think of a single one that doesn't include stories/bios about both husbands and wives.

I've also notices that children seemed to be much more effusive when writing memories of their mothers than their fathers.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, juliann said:
Quote

I am not suggesting that we are obligated to accept the "angel and sword" story, only that we are not obligated to discard it either.  As Elder Melvin J. Ballard put it (from the same link as above), “The statement . . . concerning the angel appearing with the drawn sword is not a matter that is in our own church history. While it may be all true, the church has not pronounced it authentic nor has it contradicted it.”

You are seriously going to argue over a word, "discard?"

You are seriously going to say "About the sword and angel, modern scholarship is discarding these handed down after the fact stories (like the crickets and seagulls)," and then complain when I respond to what you just wrote?

1 hour ago, juliann said:

This is why your extended posts become too much to read.

Feel free to not read them.  

1 hour ago, juliann said:

You then admit that even the church hasn't pronounced it authentic.

Yes.  That's why I said "I am not suggesting that we are obligated to accept the 'angel and sword' story, only that we are not obligated to discard it either."

That's why I quoted Elder Melvin J. Ballard.

I am not committed to the "angel and sword" story.  I feel no obligation to accept it or reject it.  As I said back in 2019:

Quote

I am curious how you account for the "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" compiled by Brian Hales.

To be sure, I am not super-duper invested in this narrative.  It's not canonized.  Most of the accounts are quite late, all are at least hearsy, and some are hearsay-within-hearsay.  But it's kinda hard to dispose of all of these accounts 100%

Sounds about right.

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Yet that is one of the most ubiquitous polygamy stories ever. Discard means to get rid of something that isn't useful. I think that sums it up.

I have no qualms with you "discarding" the story.  I think others can contrarily find it useful to them.

Meanwhile, the point remains that Brian Hales and Don Bradley have apparently examined and written about these accounts in substantial detail, and they seem to think there are plausible grounds to accept them.  YMMV.

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Things that we rely on that are not authenticated are not useful,

Um, what?  Do you apply this reasoning to the Nativity?  The miracles of Jesus?  His resurrection and ascension?   The First Vision and Joseph's various other theophanies?  The Gold Plates?  The translated Book of Mormon?  The Book of Abraham?

If these things have been "authenticated," then I sure would like to know that.  But if, as I suspect, they have not been "authenticated," then are they - as you put it - "not useful?"

Again from my remarks in 2019:

Quote
Quote

There is no way of proving that he didn't make the angle/sword story up or the promise of exaltation to the Kimball family.  

There is no way of proving that the angel/sword story was fabricated, either.  

But since when can historical events like this be "proven?"  Can anyone prove that Moses didn't carve out the tablets while on the mount and use them to fool the Israelites into accepting his authority?  Can anyone prove that Lazarus wasn't just in a coma, and that his "resurrection" was just an interesting coincidence?  Can anyone prove that the followers of Jesus removed His body from the tomb, and thereafter fabricated claims of Him being resurrected?

There are all sorts of things that we accept and "rely on" as a matter of faith, largely because they cannot be "authenticated." 

1 hour ago, juliann said:

in fact, this is the very type thing that has hurt us badly when it comes to the many folk tales we have relied on as if they were doctrine. We lose members over that. 

Our own Lowell Bennion apparently created (or misconstrued) a quote and attributed it to Aristotle.  Despite the specious attribution of the quote, its underlying sentiment seems sound: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."  I have no qualms with considering the various stories about the angel and the sword, as well as arguments and analysis as to their provenance and likely probative value.  I acknowledge their shortcomings (see above), and the Church's failure to adopt them as authentic (see above).  But I don't feel obligated to "discard" them altogether.  In terms of historical issues, we are often left with less-than-ideal sources of information.  "Authentication" is often the exception, rather than the rule.  

1 hour ago, juliann said:

So when we have statements that are decades after the event (as in the cricket story)we would be wise to tread carefully.

I fully agree with that.

What I addressed was your statement that "modern scholarship is discarding these handed down after the fact stories."

I am not an absolutist.  I acknowledge that a piece of evidence may have varying degrees of authenticated provenance, accuracy, probative weight, and so on.  I account for such strengths and weakensses.  Sometimes I reach a conclusion that a piece of evidence is of such dubious origins and authenticity that I should give it essentially no credence.  That I should "discard" it.

The "angel and sword" narratives are not really of sufficient import to me.  I am content to remain ambivalent about them.

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Personally, I find it of little use...and almost silly....to put out the sword story as absolute proof and then have to say "but it's not authenticated!" before somebody beats you to it and makes you look like a little on the dishonest side. So, yes, discard. 

As it happens, I work in a profession where my peers and I can look at the exact same evidence and come away with very different interpretations and assessments of it.  We can do that without publicly impugning each other's character and honesty.

Reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, juliann said:

There is a downside to helping women set aside fears about what they have been fed about polygamy? Just so you know saying men are from Mars, women are from Venus is about as sexist as it gets. It only goes to prove that polygamy has always been presented through male eyes and the minute that is challenged, a lot of men fall apart if they can't get women's experiences with it put back on the shelf. 

Perhaps it is sexist but it also true that men and women view things differently.   Our brains work differently and how we see the world differently.  Polygamy perhaps has been presented to through male eyes and that is why I think it should be a woman in Relief Society leading the conversation rather than have a man do it.   I understand the value of men learning the perspective of polygamy from a woman's point of view.   Where it all turns to mud is when a man tries to prove to a woman that polygamy is all good and when a woman tries to prove to a man that polygamy is all bad.   When positions of absolutes are made, it is difficult for any side to come to agreement. 

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Let's see.  Juliann is attacking the honesty of someone whose viewpoint does not align with hers.  Must be a day ending in "y."

 

Oh, boy...here we go. When you get backed into a corner you start misrepresenting. I did not call you dishonest. I said you what you were doing was intellectually dishonest. Do you not know what that is? It is the use of logical fallacies. Strawman, which you are using liberally, is a part of intellectual dishonesty. 

 

Quote

 

Meanwhile, let's take a look at this (emphases added):

It is fairly inconsistent for you to say, in essence, "Listen to the 19th-century women who participated in polygamy, but only when they said things that accord with the personal opinions of Juliann in 2022."

So what?  Are you implying that they were being duplicitous?  That whenever they wrote something you don't like, they must have been lying?

 

Quote

 

I'm not going to continue to engage with strawmen arguments or logical fallacies. There are more than two possibilities here so you will not be successful in trying to force me into your false dilemma defense. 

 

 

 

 

Quote

I refuse to gauge the divinity of polygamy based on whether those who practiced it did so only with complete success and ease and rainbows and daffodils.

Another false dilemma. 

 

Quote

This is a very substantial non-sequitur.  Red herring.  Strawman.

Quote

 

In other words, intellectual dishonesty?

Quote

 

I have never claimed that nobody was "harmed" relative to polygamy.  

Yet another strawman. 

I said: "The impact of polygamy was . . . a very mixed bag.  It worked very well for some, so-so for others, and 'horribl{y}' for yet others."

And this: "Polygamy is very difficult, to be sure."

And this: "Again, polygamy was a difficult and harmful practice for some.  For others, it worked quite well."

And this: "Presentism can color our perception of history."

Red herring.

 

Your problem is I never claimed you claimed that. So the strawman and red herrings are yours.  

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

 

Meanwhile, let's take a look at this (emphases added):

 

I have the book you appear to be quoting. I can't tell what you are quoting, however, since you did not include page numbers. 

As for your "Bradley and Brian Hales researched" appeal to authority....you are not quoting Don Bradley. You are quoting Hales. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

I avoid even the subject with my wife.   In the few times it has come up, it does not go well and I just move away from the subject as quickly as possible.

Chiming in against my better judgment...

This varies with personalities and testimonies. I've been married to two very strong LDS women. Both my late wife and my current (and hopefully last) wife were and are not "fans" of plural marriage, per se, but when faced with the question of "What if?" both had and have testimonies that plural marriage is a divine principle, only to be practiced upon commandment, and both said that they would practice it in that event.

As for me, I hope not to be asked to practice it in this life, and given that I'm now 70, I'm quite safe, I believe.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Chiming in against my better judgment...

This varies with personalities and testimonies. I've been married to two very strong LDS women. Both my late wife and my current (and hopefully last) wife were and are not "fans" of plural marriage, per se, but when faced with the question of "What if?" both had and have testimonies that plural marriage is a divine principle, only to be practiced upon commandment, and both said that they would practice it in that event.

As for me, I hope not to be asked to practice it in this life, and given that I'm now 70, I'm quite safe, I believe.

I call this the sock puppet appeal.

And what happened to those who didn't practice it? What was their penalty? 

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, juliann said:

Oh, boy...here we go. When you get backed into a corner you start misrepresenting. I did not call you dishonest.

Let's review:

Quote
Quote

{Smac}: Again, polygamy was a difficult and harmful practice for some.  For others, it worked quite well.

{Juliann}: This has gotten to the point where it is intellectually dishonest. You know darn well that those staunch public defenders were writing private journals that were anything but happy. Until you can come up with stats, it is also intellectually dishonest to pull the "for some" card.

This is nothing but you publicly accusing me of dishonesty.

In the end, it doesn't really matter.  Internet message boards are a dime a dozen, as is the value of your character pronouncements.

20 minutes ago, juliann said:

I said you what you were doing was intellectually dishonest.

Uh huh.

20 minutes ago, juliann said:

Do you not know what that is? It is the use of logical fallacies. Strawman, which you are using liberally, is a part of intellectual dishonesty.  

I don't think I have used logical fallacies.  I also don't think I am intellectually dishonest.

20 minutes ago, juliann said:

I'm not going to continue to engage with strawmen arguments or logical fallacies.  There are more than two possibilities here so you will not be successful in trying to force me into your false dilemma defense. 

I think it was inconvenient and awkward for you to be caught implicitly impugning the honesty of 19th-century Latter-day Saint women who participated in polygamy, and to be caught doing so right after telling us that we should listen to these women.

20 minutes ago, juliann said:
Quote

I refuse to gauge the divinity of polygamy based on whether those who practiced it did so only with complete success and ease and rainbows and daffodils.

Another false dilemma. 

A dilemma is "a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two or more alternatives, especially equally undesirable one."

false dilemma is "a logical fallacy that presents only two options or sides when there are many options or sides."

My statement ("I refuse to gauge the divinity of polygamy based on whether those who practiced it did so only with complete success and ease and rainbows and daffodils") does not present "two or more alternatives" or "only two options."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, juliann said:

Another false dilemma. Historical polygamy just is. There is no need for judgment but there is a need for accuracy and fairness in accounts. The problems usually come when people, usually men, try to defend it rather than describe it accurately with the best available data....which we don't have enough of. 

I agree.  The more data the better

 

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

gain, women aren't suffering over polygamy because of struggles of their ancestors. And I doubt a RS would be asking for information about more stories. The problem is in how women are still being treated and forced to contemplate something that even a poll  found that a large majority of Mormons find it repulsive. (If anyone can remember that one, please link.)

Then the focus should be on todays issues and todays problems.  Historical polygamy might be a red herring.

7 minutes ago, juliann said:

If you pay attention, these debates are always the same. The minute someone questions the old saws about polygamy without using current research that centers on women, it becomes contentious. There is never a willingness to allow for anything that might break down a narrative that if polygamy worked for some, it was OK. There is particularly never any attempt to describe what happened to the women and children who were discarded by husbands after the Manifesto[s] after this practice that some want to uphold as doctrine. 

I always welcome new information.  My goal is a better understanding on what happened, not to defend or condemn the practice.  

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, juliann said:

I call this the sock puppet appeal.

Call it what you want. Are you saying my wives are sock puppets? :D I was commenting upon something @carbon dioxide said, just to say that others' experiences differ sometimes from his. Lots of diversity in this question. I know you have a very sturdy opinion in regards to the question, and I wish you well with it.

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

And what happened to those who didn't practice it? What was their penalty? 

Don't know. Not my problem.

As for myself, I expect the Lord to treat us according to His standards, and I shall endeavor to do what I can to act in accordance with them, as best I understand them. Having been blessed from time to time with effective guidance through the Holy Ghost at key points in my life, I shall endeavor to act in such a way as to be worthy of such guidance in the future.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Chiming in against my better judgment...

This varies with personalities and testimonies. I've been married to two very strong LDS women. Both my late wife and my current (and hopefully last) wife were and are not "fans" of plural marriage, per se, but when faced with the question of "What if?" both had and have testimonies that plural marriage is a divine principle, only to be practiced upon commandment, and both said that they would practice it in that event.

As for me, I hope not to be asked to practice it in this life, and given that I'm now 70, I'm quite safe, I believe.

Polygamy is the last thing I would want.   I occasionally see the big problem with monogamy is that it is one wife too many.  I will defend the scriptural and basic concept of polygamy while clearly knowing that it has been abused too many times and many bad things came from it.  While recognizing that having just one wife is not a cure of abuses either.  We live in a society with very little polygamy yet abuse of women and children is rampant and broken homes.  Clearly monogamy is not the cure all but polygamy not the big evil that if we avoid, life is bliss.

The problem in my view is not polygamy or monogamy as concepts but the individuals who are involved.  People who engage in abuse, neglect, and other things have a problem with their core person.  It is not the polygamy that made some men abuse or treat their wives like crap.  They would have done so if they had one wife.  It was their innate flaws they brought with them before they got married. 

Edited by carbon dioxide
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Tacenda said:
 
Normal

ADJECTIVE

Something that is normal is usual and ordinary, and is what people expect.

Well given that teenage Brides of Adult males are as old as history, then is it “not normal”

A wikipedia article, 

For the latter half of the 19th century between 13-18% of native-born white female first marriages in the US were under age 18.[21]

 

[21] Fitch, Catherine; Ruggles, Steven (2000). "Historical trends in marriage formation: The United States 1850–1990". In Waite, Linda J.; Bachrach, Christine (eds.). The Ties that Bind: Perspectives on Marriage and Cohabitation. Transaction Publishers. pp. 59–88. ISBN 9781412839365. Retrieved 11 September 2021.

 

13-18% sure seems normal.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Polygamy is the last thing I would want.   I occasionally see the big problem with monogamy is that it is one wife too many.  I will defend the scriptural and basic concept of polygamy while clearly knowing that it has been abused too many times and many bad things came from it.  While recognizing that having just one wife is not a cure of abuses either.  We live in a society with very little polygamy yet abuse of women and children is rampant and broken homes.  Clearly monogamy is not the cure all but polygamy not the big evil that if we avoid, life is bliss.

The elephant in the room is that it is not at all unknown in monogamy for the female partner to abuse the male, and use society's expectations as a cover for it. In such cases, nogamy or agamy would seem to be the ideal. The fish not needing a bicycle and all that.

6 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

The problem in my view is not polygamy or monogamy as concepts but the individuals who are involved.  People who engage in abuse, neglect, and other things have a problem with their core person.  It is not the polygamy that made some men abuse or treat their wives like crap.  They would have done so if they had one wife.  It was their innate flaws they brought with them before they got married. 

Amen to the bolded above.

In this life, we are all engaged in a test of our suitability to take on Father's work, at His level. I suspect that though many if not most will be heirs of salvation, fewer of us will pass the test to end up heirs of exaltation. As to what percentage will pass, I would not care to speculate. My further speculation, which in times past has garnered me scorn and derision from certain other posters, is that more females than males will pass the test, and thus make plural marriage a necessity, if all who are worthy are to be accorded the promised reward of exaltation. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but that is my understanding, based on what I have seen in scripture. I don't demand that others believe me.

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, juliann said:

I have the book you appear to be quoting. I can't tell what you are quoting, however, since you did not include page numbers. 

I provided a link.  And the text is searchable.

22 minutes ago, juliann said:

As for your "Bradley and Brian Hales researched" appeal to authority....

An "appeal to authority" posits that " because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true."

I did not cite Hales and Bradley for the proposition that their assessment of the sword-and-angel story "must therefore be true."  For myself, I am not accustomed to speaking of "scholarship" as a monolithic thing (as in "modern scholarship is discarding...").  Such a pronouncement is per se facile as to most issues because, well, "modern scholarship" is all over the place.  But in terms of the sword-and-angel story, I cited Hales and Bradley - whom I think can be reasonably characterized as "scholars" in the context of LDS history, doctrine, etc. - in response to your unsubstantiated assertion that "modern scholarship is discarding these handed down after the fact stories {specifically including the sword-and-angel story}."

Meanwhile, I invite you to ponder the meaning of "appeal to authority" in the context of this statement: "About the sword and angel, modern scholarship is discarding these handed down after the fact stories (like the crickets and seagulls.)"  To me, that sounds quite a bit like "Because modern scholarship is 'discarding' the angel-and-sword story, we should, too."

Also, you said: "If I recall, it originated from one person."  Per Hales, there were 20 accounts from nine sources:

  1. Joseph Lee Robinson (journal entry in 1853, referencing statement by Joseph Smith in apparently 1841 or 1846)
  2. Lorenzo Snow (1869 affidavit from Joseph F. Smith (so hearsay within hearsay), 1892 testimony in "Temple Lot" case, 1896 statement (Heber J. Grant quoting Lorenzo Snow)
  3. Benjamin F. Johnson (1869 affidavit, 1896 writing, 1903 writing)
  4. Eliza R. Snow (remarks in 1880 RS meeting, 1884 biography quoting statement from Joseph to her brother (so possibly hearsay within hearsay), 1887 recollection)
  5. Orson Pratt (pre-1881 statement recorded in diary of Charles Lowell Walker)
  6. Zina Huntington (statements in 1881 and 1894)
  7. Helen Mar Kimball (1882 statement, 1884 statement)
  8. Erastus Snow (1883 statement recorded in diary of Charles Lowell Walker, 1883 statement during St. George stake conference)
  9. Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner (statements in 1902, 1904, 1905).

I have given consideration to the actual historical statements abou the angel-and-sword story (given your factually incorrect recollection that the story "originated from one person," it seems fair to surmise that you have not given much, if any, study and consideration to the actual statements).

I have not relied on some nebulous (and, so far, unsubstantiated) appeal to "modern scholarship" about the sword-and-angel story.  I don't think "modern scholarship" is competently situated to make informed pronouncements about matters so drenched in religious belief.  

I have given consideration not just to the statements, but to the circumstances under which they were made.  I have considered them as having weakened credibility, provenance and probative weight because they are all hearsay (some even hearsay within hearsay), and also because of the substantial intervals of time between the timeframe of when Joseph would have made these statements and when they were eventually written down.

However, I have also given some real thought and consideration to the character and reputation of some of the declarants.  For example, Lorenzo Snow seemed to be, overall, a fairly honorable man.  And one of his recollections about the angel-and-sword story was presented in a (presumably sworn) affidavit used in a legal proceeding, and another came from him actually testifying during a legal proceeding. 

Similarly, Benjamin F. Johnson also made a statement in a (presumably sworn) affidavit.

And then there is Eliza R. Snow, who repeatedly attributed the story to Joseph Smith, including during a Relief Society meeting, again in a published biography.

Helen Mar Kimball also twice put her recollection in published print.

Mary Lightner gave her recollection at least four times, one of which was in a public setting.

I have also given consideration to the apparent absence of any repudiation of this story by any of the declarants.  

To be sure, hearsay, particularly multiple hearsay, warrants caution and scrutiny.  But then, I also think that a person of Lorenzo Snow's character and integrity would not be likely to fabricate something so sacred, let alone fabricate it while testifying under oath in court.

Still plenty of room for further study and consideration, but I'm not sure it's worth the time.  Again, I'm just not that invested in this story.  It is a secondary and peripheral piece of evidence relative to the authenticity/divinity of D&C 132, Jacob 2, etc.

22 minutes ago, juliann said:

you are not quoting Don Bradley. You are quoting Hales. 

Had you bothered to review the Hales article at the link I provided, and/or my verbatim quote from that article, you would know that Hales quoted/summarized Bradley.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, provoman said:

Well given that teenage Brides of Adult males are as old as history, then is it “not normal”

My stepmom's first marriage, at age 14, was to a man age 21. It was Kansas, back in 1938, and she needed, and got parental consent.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, YJacket said:

Well, you could just blow up the whole system and tell them JS never instituted polygamy, fought against it his entire life, worked to excommunicate any who practiced it.  You could tell them Nauvoo rather than being a virtuous city had an extremely seedy underbelly of prostitution and creating counterfiet money.  That the prostitution was with women on the outskirts of town (i.e. the poor areas) who traded sex for food.  That one of BY's first polygamous wives was not approved by Joseph, that that wife left her husband and 7 kids, she brought 2 of them with her and the infant who's name was Brigham Young Cobb died on her way to go live with her lover; that in the court divorce documents in the 1850s no mention of religious duty to God was found; she just simply stated that she loved BY more and that her love for her husband had grown cold.  And that in any other circumstance we would clearly conclude that whatever man this woman went to was committing adultery, and that having a child named after your next "husband" while currently married to another man would be a very huge indicator that the child was the product of an adulterous relationship.

I mean, that's what I'd do if I was asked to do what you were . . .

We could do all that.

But we'd be wrong and telling falsehoods.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...