Come Follow Me (April 1-7) - Talk about chastity, no mention of polygamy

[ZealouslyStriving]

7 minutes ago, PortalToParis said:

Unlike what Brigham Young taught, sustaining church leaders does not mean thinking them to be infallible or unable to be led astray. It doesn't mean sharing their opinions of doctrine. I'm sure we've all had bishops that we've disagreed with on a certain doctrinal point. Historical polygamy as false doctrine, Joseph Smith's opposition to it, and the lies of it by BY & co is certainly a very, very, big point of disagreement, but Joseph Smith taught that we shouldn't call anyone apostate simply for disagreement of doctrinal belief (and I would certainly include historical belief with that). It's not necessary for us to sustain Brigham Young or any other polygamist in any way.

Also consider The Book of Mormon, where the Lord rebukes the future Gentiles because they have hated and despised the Jews, and "not sought to recover them". I think we ought to also seek to recover our current LDS church leaders from Brigham Young's long-ago lies and false teachings.

Don't be this guy:

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, PortalToParis said:

Unlike what Brigham Young taught, sustaining church leaders does not mean thinking them to be infallible

Where did BY teach leaders were infallible or should be treated as such?

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

You two enjoy your undocumented fictions.

The whole polygamy thing was just another powerful cult like religious leader exerting influence.  It is entertaining watching you defend what you would never ever defend were it anyone but Joseph Smith.

 

17 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Emma never said she was unaware of the wives of Joseph.

I think you ought to study the history better.

 

17 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

 

It was Heber C. Kimball that requested a sealing be performed, it had nothing to do with Joseph wanting her.

So? So we can blame Heber for "selling" off his daughter for a promise of heavenly reward then.

 

17 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

There is no evidence that Helen ever cohabited with or had sexual relations with Joseph.

Well we don't know either way. But so what?  Was Helen free to date, go to dances, etc like any normal 14 year old of the era?  She  indicated she was not and that it was a huge sorrow or her.

17 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

In fact, she continued to live with her parents after the sealing. She always had a chaperone when with Joseph. Underage marriages were legal in her time, as girls matured at different rates, 40% of the young women Helen's age would have already matured and thus in their society be considered marriage eligible. A fourteen-year-old bride might be eyebrow-raising, but not a scandal. Helen thought very highly of Joseph, advocated for polygamy, and would never ask for you to be outraged on her behalf using your time traveling, mind reading abilities.

WHere did I mind read So, even IF all of what you say is the case what was going on here was certainly far outside the norm for 19th century America.  But you keep telling yourself this was all just a ok and hunky dory.

 

[PortalToParis]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Where did BY teach leaders were infallible or should be treated as such?

From Section #54 of the Historical Monogamy Doctrine site:

The Lord Almighty leads this Church, and he will never suffer you to be led astray if you are found doing your duty. You may go home and sleep as sweetly as a babe in its mother's arms, as to any danger of your leaders leading you astray, for if they should try to do so the Lord would quickly sweep them from the earth."

Brigham Young, 23 February 1862. Journal of Discourses 9:28

Have you read the HMD site yet? I ask because a back-and-forth on the topic is easier if both parties are familiar with the intro material on the topic. There's extra content on the Timeline page and the Sources page of it too.

Edited April 8, 2024 by PortalToParis

[PortalToParis]

9 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Don't be this guy:

Have you read through the priesthood ordination argument of the Historical Monogamy Doctrine site?: historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine

[Calm]

1 hour ago, PortalToParis said:

Have you read the HMD site yet? I ask because a back-and-forth on the topic is easier if both parties are familiar with the intro material on the topic. There's extra content on the Timeline page and the Sources page of it too.

I have read some of it.  It doesn’t flow together like when we are talking here so I haven’t picked up as much as perhaps I could if I reread it several times.  I want to ask it questions as I read…so I am more fond of talking to you than using it.  My daughter also ripped off my laptop where I was trying to put together a summary of it.

I wouldn’t say that counts as infallibility, especially given what else Brigham said.  Do you know the context of the quote?  A paragraph or so above it, Brigham says this:  “The Elders of Israel, though the great majority of them are moral men, and as clear of spot and blemish as men well can be, live beneath their privilege”.  Above that he is gently critiquing Kimball and himself as preachers.

Quote

Our language is deficient, and I do not possess in this particular the natural endowment that some men enjoy. I am a man of few words, and unlearned in the learning of this generation. The reason why brother Kimball has not language as perfectly and fully as some other men is not in consequence of a lack in his spirit, for he never has preached when I have heard him, that I did not know what he was about, if he knew himself.

That doesn’t sound like he is teaching infallibility there.

There is also a problem with the Journal as George Watts embellished Brigham’s word to make him sound more like a prophet and this sometimes changed ideas.

Quote

We owe a tremendous debt to George Watt for his shorthand record, which is an invaluable resource in church history and for items he transcribed and published. I cannot overstate that. But while we neither condemn nor excuse Watt’s changes, it is vital that we understand that what was published differs, often significantly, from what the speakers actually said. That what we read in the Journal of Discourses and in the Deseret News (which is the same material) is too often the words of George Watt and other shorthand reporters, not the words of Brigham Young and other speakers.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2023/02carruth

Edited April 8, 2024 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

34 minutes ago, PortalToParis said:

Have you read through the priesthood ordination argument of the Historical Monogamy Doctrine site?: historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine

I continue to marvel at those who put so much stock in RLDS claims, condemn Brigham, Heber, Orson, Parley ,et al. but insist on remaining (Utah) Latter-day Saints.

If they lied about plural marriage, why wouldn't they have lied about succession claims? Some Saints interviewed in Utah claimed Joseph set apart Joseph III as his successor. My own 3rd great-grandparents were some of the first converted by RLDS missionaries in Utah who migrated back east. Fortunately, after 3 generations and losing memory of our history we are back on the Covenant Path....

What keeps you from taking the leap and joining with the Restoration Branches Movement?

[Calm]

As an example of why I find the text of the HM site unsatisfactory ….

Point 15 talks about the revision of the text that originally states Joseph forbids it, but it is crossed out and in a different handwriting other material is written implying this was added later to make it look like Joseph approved….but the revision appears to me to have been added prior to next entry as the spacing between entries was typically pretty close and not the huge gap it would have to have been if the revision was added much later.  It looks more like they were taking turns with the notes to me.  Nor is that type of ongoing revision unusual in the manuscript from what I see.

Also the handwriting has been identified, but the HM site does not list whose it is.  

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-draft-1-march-31-december-1843/143

As far as I can tell this is not even the original journal as claimed by HM, but the draft notes for the history of the church manuscript

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/intro/introduction-to-history-drafts-1844-1856

Edited April 8, 2024 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

32 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

What keeps you from taking the leap

Not that I’ve ever considered it. But I will right now.
OK, I’m done considering. RLDS Is the only thing more peculiar to me than LDS. And when I say more, I mean a lot more. Besides, if I left our church, it would take a lot of unraveling and there’s no way I would ravel right back up with anybody else. 
I would only leave the church if I felt it was doing more harm than good. 
 

There are a lot of reasons people stay. To tell people “just go then “ disregards investment, relationships, obligations, familiarity, positive aspects, and risk aversion.

Not to mention, the times it’s been suggested here (I assume yours is a genuine question) it’s highly offensive.

Edited April 8, 2024 by MustardSeed

[ZealouslyStriving]

Just now, MustardSeed said:

Not that I’ve ever considered it. But I will right now.
OK, I’m done considering. RLDS Is the only thing more peculiar to me than LDS. And when I say more, I mean a lot more.

How so?

Just now, MustardSeed said:

Besides, if I left our church, it would take a lot of unraveling and there’s no way I would ravel right back up with anybody else. 
I would only leave the church if I felt it was doing more harm than good. 
 

There are a lot of reasons people stay. To tell people “just go then “disregards investment, relationships, obligations, familiarity, positive aspects, and risk aversion.

If you felt something was fundamentally flawed and something else was closer to truth- why wouldn't you jump ship?

Are social considerations are more important than truth claims?

Just now, MustardSeed said:

Not to mention, the times it’s been suggested here (I assume yours is a genuine question) it’s highly offensive.

 Why would it be offensive?

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, Calm said:

As an example of why I find the text of the HM site unsatisfactory ….

Another problem….this makes it look like Rigdon and Joseph were buddy buddy up until Joseph’s death, glossing over that Rigdon was postmaster in 1841 and by the time of Joseph’s death had moved back to Pittsburg.

Quote

Hyrum Smith is the one that Joseph Smith appointed as copresident. Sidney Rigdon was the first counselor in the first presidency, and served in that capacity from 1833, when the First Presidency was first formed, until Joseph's death in 1844. Before the formation of the First Presidency, Sidney assisted Joseph in his translation of the Bible for the three years during 1830-1833. Sidney Rigdon was also the one Joseph had the shared vision of Section 76 with. Sidney was also Joseph's neighbor in Nauvoo, close enough to see the comings and goings of everyone to and from the Joseph Smith home. Not only that, but Sidney also served as Nauvoo's postmaster, meaning he received all letters addressed to Joseph as well as all letters sent by Joseph. Joseph appointed him as vice-president in Joseph's bid to run as president of the United States. One month before Joseph's death, Rigdon testified on behalf of him in his trial against Chauncey Higbee and even acted as part of Joseph's legal council, declaring Joseph to be innocent of all polygamy charges. 
 

 

[Calm]

Quote

The sealing practices of Joseph Smith can be alternatively described as sealing one family to another family, connecting members to Joseph Smith as the patriarchal head of the dispensation. Genealogical sealing work as we know it today, in which we attempt to seal the entire human family together generationally from Adam through finding out what everyone's name and birthdate was, appears to have not been considered. And yet, it was known that all people must be sealed together to fulfill the prophecy to seal fathers to children and children to fathers. The sealings of Joseph Smith to others then, in which he sealed usually one woman of a family to himself, and usually the matriarch, could just as easily be argued as being through laws of family integration, and never due to any laws of plural marriage.

Point 56

Why would Joseph seal himself to the matriarch instead of the patriarch of a family?

[Pyreaux]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

The whole polygamy thing was just another powerful cult like religious leader exerting influence.  It is entertaining watching you defend what you would never ever defend were it anyone but Joseph Smith.

I think you ought to study the history better.

So? So we can blame Heber for "selling" off his daughter for a promise of heavenly reward then.

Well we don't know either way. But so what?  Was Helen free to date, go to dances, etc like any normal 14 year old of the era?  She  indicated she was not and that it was a huge sorrow or her.

WHere did I mind read So, even IF all of what you say is the case what was going on here was certainly far outside the norm for 19th century America.  But you keep telling yourself this was all just a ok and hunky dory.

Emma accepted plural marriage, then rejected it, got an original version of D&C 132, she didn't approval then, but thereafter, appears to enter into an agreement that required Joseph to obtain her permission. Emma had been warned if she refused to allow Joseph, he might proceed without her permission. But, we don't know if that ever happened. We know little about what Emma knew, and when she knew it. The anti-Mormon narrative of Joseph "sneaking around behind Emma's back" is not a fact at all.

You claim these marriages are all about what Joseph wanted and imply he had criminal intent. There is no evidence of this, someone deviant wouldn't do such things as discuss marriage with the parents. In fact, the evidence suggests the opposite, Helen thought Joseph was a good man, while Heber was a poor father. You are mind reading, assuming Joseph's motives. I know you don't think that something divine forced Joseph to do this, therefore have a hard time imagining how this is not about sex. So, let me help you think.

Might you concede that what is happening is he was often trapped by his own scam, or theological logic or delusion. Whether Joseph is a true believer or not, the evidence suggests he's merely marrying any willing woman, clearly whether he wants them or not. There were many wives much older than him, some in their 50s, and Jane Tippets who was 78. Some were very pregnant and married. I dare say he inadvertently married young women, since there is no evidence that he pursued them or consummated any of them. The worst motive I'd give Joseph is maybe a mere desire to model himself after Old Testament prophets who had many wives. Maybe he was motivated by the mere obtainment and number of wives, not the sexual conquest of them. But no, the critics always got to jump the shark, Tabloid-style. Yes, it's unusual but not a scandal.

[Calm]

Point 69….while a reference is given, no link to where one can examine it for oneself…for example to check to see if dates are ignored as they were in the Sidney Rigdon postmaster point.  Do you have one?

Quote

Mercy Fielding Thompson also testified that she was living together with Hyrum and Mary during the time previous to Hyrum's death, but a journal entry from her brother Robert at the time states, "went to visit Mercy at her little log cabin." [a]

 

[Calm]

Quote

79. 'Early Mormon pioneers are the ones who actually needed to have testimonies of plural marriage, and they did. How can you dismiss the individual testimonies of the doctrine of polygamy that all those members of the church had?'

 

Polygamy was only practiced by 20-30% of families during the time that it was in practice. [a] This is despite the fact that Brigham Young and contemporaneous leaders preached of it being essential to exaltation, official doctrine of the church, a central teaching of the church, and had it included as part of the temple endowment. Brigham's teachings on the matter were of the following kind:

The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.
                                                                                                                      Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, p. 269

Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned.

                                                                                                                               Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 266

Despite these quotes and others like it, the large majority of members of the church never adopted the practice of plural marriage for themselves. 70-80% of early Mormon pioneer families, for whatever reasons they had, seemed to either think or feel that it wasn't a right or desirable thing for themselves

This point ignores the problem of having enough women around for all the men to have at least two wives, though no doubt even if there were enough women, many would not have plurally married.

[Calm]

Point 80 states that Brigham taught monogamous men in the Church would lose their families and therefore many who participated then did so in fear, but they are leaving out the first part of the quote where Brigham says polygyny wouldn’t be necessary if all the men in the world married one woman.  So plural marriage can not be inherent in exaltation, otherwise what other men did would be irrelevant.

Which makes it to me mean he is saying if given the chance or instruction and they refuse it or disagree with the Principle, not that if they never got a second wife as he is not condemning monogamy….which makes it consistent with earlier comments of his.

Quote

As far as this pertains to our natural lives here, there are some who say it is very hard. They say, "This is rather a hard business; I don't like my husband to take a plurality of wives in the flesh." Just a few words upon this. We would believe this doctrine entirely different from what it is presented to us, if we could do so. If we could make every man upon the earth get him a wife, live righteously and serve God, we would not be under the necessity, perhaps, of taking more than one wife. But they will not do this; the people of God, therefore, have been commanded to take more wives. The women are entitled to salvation if they live according to the word that is given to them; and if their husbands are good men, and they are obedient to them, they are entitled to certain blessings, and they will have the privilege of receiving certain blessings that they cannot receive unless they are sealed to men who will be exalted. Now, where a man in this Church says, "I don't want but one wife, I will live my religion with one," he will perhaps be saved in the celestial kingdom; but when he gets there he will not find himself in possession of any wife at all. He has had a talent that he has hid up. He will come forward and say, "Here is that which thou gavest me, I have not wasted it, and here is the one talent," and he will not enjoy it, but it will be taken and given to those who have improved the talents they received, and he will find himself without any wife, and he will remain single for ever and ever. But if the woman is determined not to enter into a plural-marriage, that woman when she comes forth will have the privilege of living in single blessedness through all eternity. 

 

Edited April 8, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

Where is the reference for this was official doctrine?

Quote

82 ~ Many of those who did enter into the practice of polygamy left it later on ~

Under official church doctrine of the time, a wife who divorced her polygamist husband would be without any chance of exaltation unless she were to afterwards marry another polygamist, and according to Brigham Young's words specifically, it had to be a higher-ranking church leader who wanted 'to take her on'. 

 

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Where is the reference for this was official doctrine?

 

Didn't a couple of BY's wives divorce him without penalty?

[Calm]

Quote

. 'That answers why it wouldn't be considered back then, but what about now? Why wouldn't church historians be forward about this now?'

One marker of a good historian is that they do not settle on or change positions lightly; a very long period of time is taken to consider all possible aspects of all known and unknown information. I first learned of this alternate narrative in 2016, and have spent the following seven years studying it out on my own before acting to write anything about it online. I speculate that there are church historians who have also been following and studying the particulars of this narrative in recent years, but that not enough time has passed yet in the historical re-evaluation process for them to state it to be a valid possible narrative

The Joseph Never Practiced Polygamy argument has been around forever, since the founding of the RLDS church and before.  I don’t see how they can claim there are any serious historians that just discovered this recently.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Didn't a couple of BY's wives divorce him without penalty?

Lots of women divorced without penalty.  Utah was the divorce capital of the US for awhile because Brigham made it so easy for women to do so.  

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Lots of women divorced without penalty.  Utah was the divorce capital of the US for awhile because Brigham made it so easy for women to do so.  

That's what I was remembering.

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, PortalToParis said:

The King James Version of the Bible is the go-to translation for LDS members and leaders, but the New American Standard Bible translation quotes this (the verses you might be referring to) as the following:

5 Then David’s anger burned greatly against the man, and he said to Nathan, “As the Lord lives, the man who has done this certainly deserves to die! 

6 So he must make restitution for the lamb four times over, since he did this thing and had no compassion.”

7 Nathan then said to David, “You yourself are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel says: ‘It is I who anointed you as king over Israel, and it is I who rescued you from the hand of Saul. 

8 I also gave you your master’s house and put your master’s wives into your care, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; 2 Samuel 12:5-8 (NASB)

The "master" referred to here is King Saul. David defeated Saul and so Saul's wives became widows. When the Lord (through Nathan) tells David that the wives of Saul were "put into your care", it could simply be referring to David having been commissioned to take care of the widows and their now-fatherless children and in return have them be made part of David's adopted posterity. 

The King James Version translation reads it as 'gave you your master's house and your master's wives into thy bosom', which of course has a much different connotation than the above.

The King James version translation seems to better match verses in D&C 132 though-

David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife;

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, Calm said:

Where is the reference for this was official doctrine?

Quote

82 ~ Many of those who did enter into the practice of polygamy left it later on ~

 

Under official church doctrine of the time, a wife who divorced her polygamist husband would be without any chance of exaltation unless she were to afterwards marry another polygamist, and according to Brigham Young's words specifically, it had to be a higher-ranking church leader who wanted 'to take her on'. 

 

This does not say the higher ranking man need to be a polygamist.  Plus if a husband is not righteous, there is no penalty for the wife leaving him.

Quote

"The second way in which a wife can be separated from her husband while he continues to be faithful to his God and his priesthood I have not revealed except to a few persons in this church, and a few have received it from Joseph the Prophet as well as myself. If a woman can find a man holding the keys of the priesthood with higher power and authority than her husband, and he is disposed to take her, he can do so, otherwise she has got to remain where she is. In either of these ways of separation you can discover there is no need for a bill of divorcement. To recapitulate: First, a man forfeits his covenant with a wife or wives, becoming unfaithful to his God and his priesthood—that wife or wives are free from him without a bill of divorcement. Second, if a woman claims protection at the hands of a man possessing more power in the priesthood and higher keys, if he is disposed to rescue her and has obtained the consent of her husband to make her his wife, he can do so without a bill of divorcement. If after she has left her husband and is sealed to another she shall again cohabit with him, it is illicit intercourse and extremely sinful...."

 

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That's what I was remembering.

I believe Brigham encouraged women unhappy in plural marriages to marry monogamously if they could.  Too spaced out to find the quote now.  Maybe someone else remembers?

Edited April 8, 2024 by Calm

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I believe Brigham encouraged women unhappy in plural marriages to marry monogamously if they could.  Too spaced out to find the quote now.  Maybe someone else remembers?

Basically he granted the divorce and told them not to get plural married again and then come back for another divorce.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Lots of women divorced without penalty.  Utah was the divorce capital of the US for awhile because Brigham made it so easy for women to do so.  

This is true but this depended heavily on whether the woman had somewhere to go or if divorce would leave her destitute.

In the 1800s divorce was outright illegal in most of the United States. There were “divorce colonies” you could go to to get a divorce. Indiana was popular for a while. Later so was Nevada and the Dakota territory.