Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Distinct polygamy concerns


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, juliann said:

The usual response of men being sealed to multiple wives now is easily answered by what you are already aware of, women are being sealed to more than one husband. It is also important to note that the CHI dictate that wives would have to choose one husband when sealed to all dead husbands has been removed. The minute people have to throw in polyandry, assigning women positions as wives usually gets bogged down and stops. Also, except for the first wive, JS was being sealed to married women. Polygamy started with polyandry (see 132:41 where women are allowed to be with another man with a "holy annointing.")

About 30 years ago I sat down and read Section 132 and verse 41 jumped out at me.  But virtually nobody notices it or its implications.

5 hours ago, juliann said:

Third, polygamy was already dying, it isn't a sustainable practice. It resulted in men picking off younger and younger women. No one should ever be talking about polygamy as if it was always the same. It changed dramatically and needs to be addressed by era, not as "polygamy." 

Polygamy as practiced in the Utah Valley era was not remotely sustainable.  

Do you think the way polygamy was practiced under Brigham Young was what Joseph Smith had in mind?  If not, what do you think Joseph envisioned?

5 hours ago, juliann said:

For me, the test in how someone views women is if they are able to include polyandry, like JS did, without needing to play games about sex. If they can't do that, women are in a secondary position to men and those people aren't really discussing polygamy, they are only maintaining men's superiority and right to acquire women at will. And I would be sure to tell the women that if any married man ever ever talks about acquiring more wives at some point that he be made to make a trip to the bishop's office for lusting after women.

Agreed.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I provided a link.  And the text is searchable.

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.

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

Yeah, this is the footnote:     20. Don Bradley to Brian C. Hales, November 11, 2008.  Really? 2008? Should I tell you how many years ago that was? Are you unaware that Don is constantly researching and new stuff does come up? I'll ask him what his view is decades later the next time I see him. 

As for your using Ulrich as a source and then quoting this instead, https://scholarworks.umb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1657&context=masters_theses, which is like using a book review instead of the original source, not impressed. Yes, I missed the link because it was placed in the undistinguished word "this" which was part of your sentence. So you provide a 98 page thesis as your evidence, without giving a single page number. That isn't acceptable here. You know we don't accept "here, read this book" as an appropriate response to a CFR, for example. 

As for "modern scholarship," the very name you used and her book is an example of not using anything but contemporary sources. Yeah, it's a thing now.  That you are using sources for the sword where the first mention is decades later should give pause...and it does to even Hales and Elder Ballard. 

 

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, manol said:

Do you think the way polygamy was practiced under Brigham Young was what Joseph Smith had in mind?  If not, what do you think Joseph envisioned?

To me, Joseph was trying to create a celestial family that linked everyone through sealings.  Brigham and others of Utah era saw it as more wives and children meant more glory (which meant in part more like God, but also more rewards) for the man.  Joseph was linking through other men’s wives, possibly even allowing women to have more than one anointed sexual partner just like the men, while Brigham was preaching no man could steal another man’s wife if the sealing was in place as long as he was righteous, even if the wife was persuaded to love another man. The emphasis is very different. 
 

The one case of polyandry I am aware, (webbles can correct me if I am wrong), authorized by Brigham was in the case of an infertile husband where the couple desired more children. There was no contact and a civil divorce with the first husband while the wife was civilly married and having children with the second and then when the first husband came back, the second was civilly divorced, went off and married someone else. It was purely to add more children, which aligned with the more children, more glory belief of Brigham, imo. 
 

———

“When Brigham Young visited Manti early in January of 1858, he was welcomed by the band at Temple Hill & by a large audience at the Council House.

A hush of expectancy & reverence filled the Council House as the prophet, Brigham Young, stepped to the pulpit. His greeting, "Dear brothers & sisters", was as personal as a handshake & he received unanimous response to his request for their prayer of faith.

Edmund & Mary Ann, clothed with their new dimension of spiritual understanding, absorbed the deep significance of Celestial Marriage as the Prophet explained it. Unspeakable joy filled their beings as they recalled the day of 20 April 1857 in Brigham Young's office as the Prophet, with the sealing power of the priesthood, pronounced them "Husband & Wife for time & all eternity." What a blessing was theirs!

"However," continued the Prophet, "every blessing begets its obligation. In this case the obligation is the responsibility of raising a family."

As Edmund breathed a prayer of thanks for his two children, he was startled to hear the Prophet continue, "It is the duty of every righteous man & woman to prepare tabernacles for all the spirits they can . . ."And then, in a voice vibrating with authority, he directed his instructions to husbands & wives separately.

"Is it not a blessing to you mothers," he asked, "to raise up men filled with the glory of God, to go forth & extend the work of God?" . . . "And husbands," he continued, "we understand that we are to be made kings & priests unto God . . . Now, if I am made the king & lawgiver to my family, & if I have many sons, I shall become the father of many fathers, for they will have sons, & their sons will have sons, & so on from generation to generation. And in that way, I may become the father of many fathers, or the king of many kings---or whatever the Father sees fit to confer upon me." (Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 195)

Without looking at her husband, Mary Ann knew that his head was bowed. And he knew by the pressure of her hand upon his that she loved him despite their eight childless years.

It was the problem of sealing Emma Lynette & George to them that sent the Richardson�s seeking an interview with the Prophet. (Details of this interview have been pieced together from fragmentary writings & folklore of the family & from sealing records at the Endowment House from January 1850-1871.) 

"I wouldn't worry too much about that sealing," advised the Prophet, "time will take care of that & your other children will be born under the covenant." (Emma & George were sealed to their parents 28 December 1932).

Mary Ann saw Edmund flinch as though struck by a blow, turn pale, & then rise resolutely to his feet. She would have spared him, but she rejoiced to find him equal to its performance. In the strength of his humility, Edmund confessed before the Lord & his Prophet, that in following the false teachings of his former religion & society, he had become a eunuch & more family was impossible.

As Mary Ann stepped beside Edmund to lend him her support, Brigham Young took both their hands & looking deep into their eyes, plumbed the depth of their faith & sincerity, their grief & remorse.

Brigham Young remembered the integrity of Brother & Sister Richardson. He knew how willingly they had accepted the call to leave Salt Lake City & to settle in Manti, even though they knew it meant facing poverty, hardships, discouragement, & Indian dangers. He noted how Edmund took the brunt of arduous & dangerous assignments, how he had donated $168.00 to the Perpetual Emigration Fund, how he gave time & means toward readying teams & wagons to go to the assistance of emigrant trains. Edmund had fulfilled his every assignment.

"Brother & Sister Richardson," the Prophet said presently, "the teachings & work of the Devil have taken away your posterity. But the teachings & authority of Christ can restore it, if you are willing to make great sacrifices."

After exchanging glances of mutual willingness to share any necessary sacrifice, Mary & Edmund turned their eyes again to the Prophet.

President Young then explained to Edmund that any added children for them would have to come by proxy. He would need to give Mary Ann a civil divorce & allow her to have a civil marriage with another man. Any issue from such a marriage, he explained, would belong to Edmund, because he & Mary Ann were sealed for eternity.”

http://oscox.org/richardson/maryanndrichardson.html

Notice it is “by proxy” even if it is Mary having the children.  That imo means the focus was on the man having children, the woman providing them.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

A celestial web is how I have described what Joseph was trying to create.  It was Rough Stone Rolling that first gave me the impression and then later observing how he attempted to institute plural marriage with wives, and then daughters and sisters when his friends freaked about sharing sealings with wives. The Law of Adoption makes sense under that family web as well, though the fighting over who would be son and who would be father shows that many (most) ended up interpreting it as glory building, not surprising with all the sermons on that subject.

I think we have an example in the Priesthood ban of how Brigham developed his thoughts into beliefs overtime and got it wrong, allowing his prejudice to get the better of him (judging a black elder in a very positive way until he hears the elder has married a white woman iirc) and caused him to misinterpret Joseph’s instructions (limitations of slaves who would be put in dangerous situations if they were officially priesthood leaders of their legal owners gets expanded to limitations to all blacks).  

I think the same thing likely happened with polygamy. In both cases God allowed the Church as a whole to be corrected eventually though believing many of the teachings and beliefs attached to the ban and in my view polygamy to be revelations when they were not…even though much harm occurred that wouldn’t have if the Lord had stepped in and immediately corrected Brigham and others’ misunderstandings. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 hour ago, juliann said:

It was someone on this board many years ago who pointed verse 41 out to me. I was astonished. What I find the most puzzling is that it can no longer be denied JS was practicing polyandry (although some like to pretend it wasn't "real.") That 132 wouldn't allow for that, and would even denounce it as JS practiced it, would be extraordinary. 

I don't know that JS knew what he had in mind. But I do think BY took the beginnings and then ran with it. And BY did not hold women in high regard, it is ridiculous to try and clean that up anymore than his views on Blacks. One only has to look at how BY treated his wives to see how he viewed women....which is why it is so obvious that his version of polygamy was not only based on the inequality of the sexes but intended to perpetuate it. And this is what we see as polygamy today, a 19th c. practice steeped in social, cultural, political suppression of women. And that is what some choose to defend rather than whatever the heck it was supposed to be. That is what makes polygamy so noxious, not the idea of multiple spouses itself. 

Good points. JS did not follow what was laid out in sec 132.  To me it is clear what his motivation was. Polygamy was also a non starter for me. It was conceived in secrecy and practiced in secrecy.  I believe the fruits of modern LDS polygamy are rotten. both for the church and for all the break offs.  I feel the church should denounce it as a misguided mistake and as a practice that was not ordained from God.  Yes, it would ruffle some member's feathers,  I think that in the long run the church would be in a much better place.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

The one case of polyandry I am aware, (webbles can correct me if I am wrong), authorized by Brigham was in the case of an infertile husband where the couple desired more children. There was no contact and a civil divorce with the first husband while the wife was civilly married and having children with the second and then when the first husband came back, the second was civilly divorced, went off and married someone else. It was purely to add more children, which aligned with the more children, more glory belief of Brigham, imo. 

Close.  The second husband was a well known man in the community who already had multiple wives and children with them.  It appears that no one in the community were aware of what happened, so I'm not sure how they explained the birth of two sons with the husband away.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Buckeye said:

I’m not sure if this has been covered, but the impact of polygamy on men is horrible and often overlooked. I agree with all the concerns about the impact on women, but for me the impact on men is at least as bad and much less discussed.

Simply put, because roughly equal numbers of men and women exist, to accept polygamy as practiced by the church (ie, multiple wives per husband), one must either (i) believe that men are inherently less valiant than women or (ii) accept that huge numbers of men will be excluded from exaltation for no fault of their own.  Even if just a few men practice polygamy, that means some portion of men will be excluded from eternal marriage. And I don’t buy the argument that only a small potion of saints practiced it. That may have been factually true because we practiced it for only a few decades, but our teaching was that all should practice it. And why not? If something is good we desire all to receive it. 

Polygamy is simply evil. There’s no way to square it. The impact on women is harmful. And the impact on men is just as harmful. Just ask any of the mothers of FLDS “lost boys”

I've added the "lost boys" effect as #11 in the OP. Thanks for coming up with that one!

Link to comment
9 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

You were asked by someone who doesn't know you, to teach a class on polygamy to a group of women?

OK....  why?

I think a combination of firesides I've done in the past, coupled with our new bishop's recommendation after meeting with and talking with me and my wife. 

The RS president is excited, and thinks this is sorely needed. 

Link to comment
10 hours ago, rpn said:

And there is no way you can discuss everything, so just take a list of resources for people who wish to understand more.

(And if the OP is a man and is NOT a polygamy scholar, the OP should tell the RSP that they aren't the right person to give that lesson, and unless they are going to advertise and live stream it, there is no point of teaching those who are IN THE PEWS, what the history and doctrine was or wasn't, means prospectively or not.)

I disagree about just taking a list of resources to hand out. That's the modern "podcast/wiki" approach, and it is sterile and impersonal --- and I've seen people struggle more after being given an omnibus list of resources as the sole approach. It is very effective to let people ask their "ask anything" questions in Q&A, for example, and for people without much exposure to the topic, it is helpful to have it presented. 

I also don't believe that one has to be a "polygamy scholar," as long as that person is competent. You go to war with the army that you have, not the army that you wish you had. It would be great to get Kathleen Flake or Kathryn Danes, instead. but that's very unlikely. I also believe that there is great power in using local resources, if there are local resources. 

Link to comment
8 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. 

Second, don't miss the point. Polygamy is about inequality, as in the above example, several women are considered the same as one man. What comes with this are the feelings about it for women, that outweighs all of the research/facts/history. And it never gets addressed. The most damaging response ever is "we don't know." That leaves the future wide open. The only thing we don't know is what to do with this piece of history and why it happened. The best thing you could do for women is close it off with the Manifesto and the Proc....as well as official statements saying it is over. (I'd really emphasize the Proc because only rich men financially supported wives and as fathers, some kids didn't even know them. It is in direct violation of the Proc) Always treat polygamy as a discarded piece of our history that didn't work out well, not as something still in play.

The usual response of men being sealed to multiple wives now is easily answered by what you are already aware of, women are being sealed to more than one husband. It is also important to note that the CHI dictate that wives would have to choose one husband when sealed to all dead husbands has been removed. The minute people have to throw in polyandry, assigning women positions as wives usually gets bogged down and stops. Also, except for the first wive, JS was being sealed to married women. Polygamy started with polyandry (see 132:41 where women are allowed to be with another man with a "holy annointing.")There will be some women who insist they would love the idea and it would be great to have help crap. A well crafted reminder that this demeans women and places them in secondary positions would be helpful. As well as how hurtful this is to so many women who do fear being in a secondary position. 

Third, polygamy was already dying, it isn't a sustainable practice. It resulted in men picking off younger and younger women. No one should ever be talking about polygamy as if it was always the same. It changed dramatically and needs to be addressed by era, not as "polygamy." 

Fourth, reading and researching it won't help with finding reasons because the problem is it's ickiness, not knowing more about it. In my experience, it only gets ickier the more you do find out. What is helpful is to read the accounts of the wives, in their own words, to give them their place in history. About the sword and angel, modern scholarship is discarding these handed down after the fact stories (like the crickets and seagulls.) There is nothing from JS himself, others attributed it to him. That isn't a solid source. If I recall, it originated from one person. 

For me, the test in how someone views women is if they are able to include polyandry, like JS did, without needing to play games about sex. If they can't do that, women are in a secondary position to men and those people aren't really discussing polygamy, they are only maintaining men's superiority and right to acquire women at will. And I would be sure to tell the women that if any married man ever ever talks about acquiring more wives at some point that he be made to make a trip to the bishop's office for lusting after women.

Very good thoughts, juliann! I agree that a woman would be best, if available. It was really good having my primary president be the presenter and help with Q&A when our ward did our fireside series 10+ years ago (she had interest and was really sharp). 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

I believe the fruits of modern LDS polygamy are rotten. both for the church and for all the break offs. 

You realize that some of the "fruits" you're taking about are real people, right?  Real, live, flesh-and-blood human beings who might feel differently about their existence than you do?  (Gawrsh, but we're so sorry our very existence makes you make you feel uncomfortable! <_<

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

 

I feel the church should denounce it as a misguided mistake and as a practice that was not ordained from God.  Yes, it would ruffle some member's feathers,  I think that in the long run the church would be in a much better place.

Yes, it would "ruffle some members' feathers," especially those of the "birds" who wouldn't be here without it!  But, hell, since it would make you feel more comfortable for the Church of Jesus Christ to denounce it! :unknw: 

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Raingirl said:

You make some good points. 
 

I personally wouldn’t be able to sit through a man teaching a polygamy lesson in RS, no matter what he taught about it. However, I also wouldn’t sit through a polygamy lesson taught by a woman if she put any kind of positive spin on it. 

I guess you're not the target audience.

I'm definitely not going to burn everything down and say it was all not of God, full stop. My mandate is for this to be an atmosphere of faith, and this isn't what the RS president wants or envisions. It's also not what I believe.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Much like obituaries, many don't tell the whole story.

This reminds me of some funeral talks in Journal of Discourses. Unlike today, when even the most worthless of wretches gets the best spin possible, there were several where the speaker said, essentially, "This man led a profligate life, and is not going to the celestial kingdom. No point sugar-coating it. Let it inspire us to get our acts together." 

While you're obviously right that obituaries don't tell the whole story, I'm kind of glad that people don't get thrown under the bus in them, or at their funerals. 

Link to comment
6 hours 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.

Appreciate the input, but I strongly disagree. I know that there is a lot of upside in giving people an outlet to learn about troubling things and to ask questions in a faithful environment. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

Good points. JS did not follow what was laid out in sec 132.  To me it is clear what his motivation was. Polygamy was also a non starter for me. It was conceived in secrecy and practiced in secrecy.  I believe the fruits of modern LDS polygamy are rotten. both for the church and for all the break offs.  I feel the church should denounce it as a misguided mistake and as a practice that was not ordained from God.  Yes, it would ruffle some member's feathers,  I think that in the long run the church would be in a much better place.

I think this would more than just ruffle some members' feathers, and I think that the Church would never recover from it in the long run. It would call everything into question, and would be like pulling at a thread which, instead of coming out or breaking, keeps going and going until the whole fabric is unraveled. At a minimum, D&C 132 would have to be eliminated or heavily changed, and millions of people would have their "old" copies to compare with the edited versions. 

Those are just the practical reasons not to do this. 

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, rongo said:

Very good thoughts, juliann! I agree that a woman would be best, if available. It was really good having my primary president be the presenter and help with Q&A when our ward did our fireside series 10+ years ago (she had interest and was really sharp). 

What about finding a woman who is interested in the subject, appears to be relatively strong in faith and able to handle questions of herself and others and is willing to study?  Meet with her first and prepare her with the questions you are discussing here and work with her to refine the answers, including giving her a list of resources and having her come back to you with her conclusions and additional questions. 

Then when both of you are prepared, team teach the activity. 

Link to comment

I'm certain that most men who were authorized to take other wives were wealthy enough to take care of multiple families (on paper --- there was some neglect as well). But, I know through my family history that some dirt poor men were authorized. My ancestors John W. Hess and Thomas Grover were wealthy, but the Frys, Joneses, Wildes, Toones, etc. were not. My Jones ancestor in particular had to eat the seed potatoes during a starving winter with his two wives and children. They were more than poor. My Jones ancestor was a peg leg who emigrated with a young son from England, and he lived in a tenement in Nauvoo with other poor people. There was also an element of worthiness and faithfulness as well (an ideal that wasn't always reached). 

Link to comment

I really appreciate everyone's input and participation in this thread! There are many more potential concerns than I had originally brainstormed. Thank you, @Calm and @YJacketfor bringing up the theories about Joseph Smith being fully absolved (it was all Brigham Young's fault!). I've added this to the OP. I know that these have some cachet among some today, and it's not only demonstrably incorrect, it could be a source of concern. I hadn't considered that. 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Calm said:

What about finding a woman who is interested in the subject, appears to be relatively strong in faith and able to handle questions of herself and others and is willing to study?  Meet with her first and prepare her with the questions you are discussing here and work with her to refine the answers, including giving her a list of resources and having her come back to you with her conclusions and additional questions. 

Then when both of you are prepared, team teach the activity. 

That would definitely be best in the "good, better, best" continuum. I'll see what possibilities there might be. 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

I hope that your RSP makes an opportunity for follow up lessons once your main presentation has had a chance to sink in. 

In the past, this sort of thing has led to a number of "ask anything" Q&A things. People are really energized being able to discuss and ask about things like this. We'll walk before we run, though. The RS president wanted it to be sometime in July ( 😮!), and she was **really excited** when she asked me. 

I'm going to make sure the bishop supports and endorses it, of course, but I think he's solidly on board. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, manol said:

It does look to me like Joseph's focus shifted a time or two, and I don't think he finished what he wanted to do.  Unfortunately not only did no man know his history, but no man knew what he had planned, though I think Calm's theory (quoted below) makes sense.

Not that I'll be teaching any classes to an LDS audience anytime soon, but I lean towards the Utah Valley version of plural marriage as being an example of a wrong way to go about it. 

I think you could be right.  Perhaps the pattern Joseph was working towards was like a giant "web", with each person potentially having multiple primary connections (which may not have involved physical intimacy, this speculation based on his apparently not having children by any of his plural wives despite the scriptural justification being the "raising up of seed"), while Brigham's pattern was more like a bunch of separate concubinage/harem-kingdoms... wherein, as they say, it's good to be king.

I'll admit to being biased towards finding interpretations which demonstrate that God is both fair and good, characteristics which were not obvious to me from within a purely LDS framework. 

Anyway thank you juliann and Calm for sharing your thoughts with me. 

I think this is why JS started, after the first, with married women.  A married woman can bring more family into the sealing network than a single woman.

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

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