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

[PortalToParis]

49 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I asked him to elucidate on the reasons, but he never answered that part of my reply from earlier.

Have you read through the Historical Monogamy Doctrine website? It has a lot of information related to the questions you asked: https://historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine

I don't think the Restorationist branches are right about everything they teach either, but the main answer to your question is that I don't in my heart pledge allegiance to the LDS church or to any other church, but to Christ. I wouldn't die for the LDS church, but I would for Christ. I am committed to spending my life helping to build up the kingdom of God on the earth and establishing Zion, and the Lord wishes me to be doing my service and ministry for that predominately to the LDS membership within an LDS context. As far as "But Brigham Young!" -- if Brigham Young were now in the LDS church doing what he was doing back then, he would be excommmunicated several times over. I think I have more right, in terms of both beliefs and actions, to be in the LDS church now than Brigham Young or anyone acting like him.

Edited April 8, 2024 by PortalToParis

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

But it was her brother Robert you said, did you mean Joseph?  I wondered.  And if you did, can you please quote that part because a few key word searches didn’t bring it up for me.

Okay, I think I found it.

Quote

wrought some days for Brother Hyrum [Smith] who proposed to let me have some of his land to farm on shares, he to find a team, etc. and have half the produce, and as nothing better opened for me, I undertook this, and on the first of April, 1842, we left Sister Thompson's and went to live in a small log house near the land I had to occupy. For labor done for Brother Hyrum, he furnished us with some flour and pork. We soon began to plant potatoes, beans, etc. and thought that with care and economy we would do until we could have corn of our own. Brother Hyrum found my team with corn, etc. until we got some of our own.

Since they were sealed in August 1843 (she was sealed to Robert that May) it is not surprising that Mercy is still living in her own home, taking in boarders when her brother came to stay prior to April 42.  It was not till summer that Joseph reported being visited by her late husband and that could have even been the following year.  I see no mention of Mercy after this date until after Hyrum’s murder.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/revelations-in-context/mercy-thompson-and-the-revelation-on-marriage?lang=eng

Quote

During that summer, an angel visited Joseph Smith. It was Robert Thompson, his former clerk. He “appeared to [Joseph] several times telling him that he did not wish me to live such a lonely life,” Mercy recounted. The angel proposed a shocking solution: Hyrum was to “have me seal’d to him for time,” Mercy recalled. In other words, Robert Thompson requested that Hyrum marry Mercy as a plural wife for this life, “for time.” Mercy and Robert, meanwhile, would remain sealed in the eternities.

This contradiction of where Mercy was living at the time of her sealing appears to be a misunderstanding from not paying attention to dates.  Hyrum added a room to their home so Mercy had her own room, but that apparently hadn’t happened yet in spring 43 as the link below states Mercy was visiting her sister Mary while Hyrum was away.

Quote

One night in the spring of 1843, Mercy was sleeping at Mary’s home, keeping her sister company while Hyrum was away from Nauvoo on business. Mercy dreamed that she was standing in a garden with Robert. She heard someone repeat their marriage vows, though she couldn’t make out whose voice it was. As one attuned to the variety of ways God spoke, Mercy understood the dream as a message from God. “I awoke in the Morning deeply impressed by this Dream which I could not interpret.”

Later that night, Hyrum returned home and reported having had “a very remarkable Dream” while he was away from home. He had seen his deceased wife Jerusha and two of their children who had died prematurely. Hyrum was no clearer on the meaning of his dream than Mercy’s was on hers.

Quote

Mercy was not being asked to become the wife of Hyrum Smith for eternity. The message from Robert Thompson was that Hyrum should marry Mercy for time; or, in Mercy’s words, until such time as Hyrum “would deliver me up on the morning of the day of the resurrection to my husband Robert Blashel Thompson.” The marriage with Hyrum was like the levirate marriages of the Old Testament in which the man was commanded to marry the wife of his deceased brother. This combination of patriarchal practice and angelic appearance made sense to biblical restorationists like Hyrum Smith. He told Mercy that when he first learned of Robert Thompson’s request, “the Holy Spirit rested upon him [Hyrum] from the Crown of his Head to the Soles of his Feet.”

Latter-day Saint women who were converted to the principle of plural marriage in Nauvoo often reported spiritual experiences confirming their decision. They saw a light, felt peace, or, in one case, saw an angel. Mercy Thompson left no record of such experiences. She later said she believed the principle “because I could read it for myself in the bible and see that that it was practiced in those days, and the Lord approved of it and sanctioned it.”

But biblical logic alone was not enough for Mercy. Joseph himself eventually spoke with her, and it was his testimony that won her over. Robert Thompson appeared to him more than once, he explained, the last time “with such power that it made him tremble.” Joseph was not inclined to act on the request at first. Only after he prayed to the Lord and learned that he was to “do as my servant hath required” did he tell Hyrum about the vision.

As a believer in spiritual gifts, Mercy Thompson trusted that her deceased husband had made a communication. And, after half a dozen years of closely observing Joseph Smith, she believed that he was “too wise to err and too good to be unkind.” The request to marry Hyrum, she concluded, was “the voice of the Lord speaking through the mouth of the prophet Joseph Smith.”

Joseph Smith took the protestations of women like Mercy Thompson seriously. No one, woman or man, found plural marriage easy to accept on first hearing. Joseph did not compel women to accept plural marriage by the force of his own command any more than he did men. Women and men were encouraged to reflect and pray and arrive at their own decision. Mercy called for the manuscript copy of the revelation written on foolscap paper and kept it in her home for four or five days, studying over the contents in her mind.Only after much prayer and pondering did she give her consent. On August 11, 1843, Joseph Smith married Hyrum and Mercy at Mary and Hyrum’s house on the corner of Water and Bain Streets in Nauvoo. On Joseph’s recommendation, Hyrum built an additional room to the house, and Mercy moved into it.

 

Edited April 8, 2024 by Calm

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, PortalToParis said:

Have you read through the Historical Monogamy Doctrine website? It has a lot of information related to the questions you asked: https://historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine

I don't think the Restorationist branches are right about everything they teach either, but the main answer to your question is that I don't in my heart pledge allegiance to the LDS church or to any other church, but to Christ. I wouldn't die for the LDS church, but I would for Christ. I am committed to spending my life helping to build up the kingdom of God on the earth and establishing Zion, and the Lord wishes me to be doing my service and ministry for that predominately to the LDS membership within an LDS context. As far as "But Brigham Young!" -- if Brigham Young were now in the LDS church doing what he was doing back then, he would be excommmunicated several times over. I think I have more right, in terms of both beliefs and actions, to be in the LDS church now than Brigham Young or anyone acting like him.

Do you believe that Christ wants you in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to preach the members and convince them that JS never practiced polygamy and that it was never of God?

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, PortalToParis said:

Brigham Young were now in the LDS church doing what he was doing back then, he would be excommmunicated several times over. I think I have more right, in terms of both beliefs and actions, to be in the LDS church now than Brigham Young or anyone acting like him.

Brigham believed in continuing revelation so I highly doubt he would be doing now what he did then.

[PortalToParis]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

But it was her brother Robert you said, did you mean Joseph?  I wondered.  And if you did, can you please quote that part because a few key word searches didn’t bring it up for me.

Robert was her late husband, Joseph was her brother. I don't know the part of the journal that it is from, I haven't ever read it in its entirety. When Joseph says "we" in the first parts of his diary I think he is referring to himself and his wife, not himself and Mercy.

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, PortalToParis said:

Robert was her late husband, Joseph was her brother. I don't know the part of the journal that it is from, I haven't ever read it in its entirety. When Joseph says "we" in the first parts of his diary I think he is referring to himself and his wife, not himself and Mercy.

I am interested in hearing your thoughts after reading my next post on the subject.

Btw, I know Joseph was her brother and you know, but apparently not HM…(I get it is probably a typo)

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]

This is not quoted in the link you found.  Any idea where it came from?

Edited April 8, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

This is not quoted in the link you found.  Any idea where it came from?

My guess is it came from this book, which means it is probably not a quote of Joseph Fielding, but a paraphrase that misinterpreted his bio.

https://www.amazon.com/Hyrum-Prophet-Unsung-Whitney-Horning/dp/B0B7QPTNKC

Portal, any chance you have this book or can get a hold of it? 

Edited April 9, 2024 by Calm

[PortalToParis]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I am interested in hearing your thoughts after reading my next post on the subject.

Btw, I know Joseph was her brother and you know, but apparently not HM…(I get it is probably a typo)

Ah, yes, my eyes have seemingly always glossed over it saying Robert instead of Joseph, it's definitely a mistake.

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, PortalToParis said:

Ah, yes, my eyes have seemingly always glossed over it saying Robert instead of Joseph, it's definitely a mistake.

I just assumed she had another brother I hadn’t heard of until Google came up with nothing, lol.

She did, but that was James Fielding, who never converted and who was rather annoyed with Joseph for stealing his sheep just when he had arranged for a nice, new, big church to move them all into.  It did not create a warm family feeling apparently.

There was also a John, Thomas, and Benjamin and Josiah, though the last two died very young.  If they had one more son no doubt it would have been Robert given the parents’ obvious love of traditional names…Mercy’s three sisters were Ann, Mary, and Martha (though they got a bit more daring as they got older)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fielding

Found another source for timing on when she moved into Hyrum’s home.

https://ancestors.familysearch.org/en/KWV9-HX5/mercy-rachel-fielding-1807-1893

 

Edited April 9, 2024 by Calm

[PortalToParis]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I am interested in hearing your thoughts after reading my next post on the subject.

I promise to read it in full, even if I don't end up responding to every point made.

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, PortalToParis said:

I promise to read it in full, even if I don't end up responding to every point made.

It is all one point, so should be pretty easy.  

in essence, visit took place before April 41 according to Joseph’s bio while she said she moved into Hyrum’s home after the sealing, which was August 1843.

[Calm]

Another not quite accurate claim:

Quote

In 1833, the document on marriage that later became Section 101 of the 1835 Doctrine & Covenants was accepted as doctrine of the church by vote of assent among all members who were present to give their vote. Conversely, this never happened for the revelation we now know as Section 132. A vote of assent never occurred either at the time the revelation of plural marriage was announced in 1852, nor at any time after. To this day, monogamy is the only law of marriage that has ever been accepted into the church by vote of common consent.

While Section 132 was not voted on its own as far as I am aware, it was accepted by the vote of common consent October 10, 1880 when the entire book with additional revelations added was presented.  132 was added in 1876.

 

[Calm]

Quote

President George Cannon said: I hold in my hand The Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and also the book, The Pearl of Great Price, which books contain the revelations of God. In Kirtland, The Doctrine and Covenants in its original form, as first printed, was submitted to the officers of the church and the members of the church to vote upon. As there have been additions made to it by the publishing of revelations which were not contained in the original addition, it has been deemed wise to submit these books, with their contents to the conference, to see whether the conference will vote to accept the books and their contents as from God, and binding upon us as a people, and as a church . 

Hopefully I got the punctuation right…

Edited April 9, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

Point 83

Quote

it was only because so many polygamous women were willing to let a non-Mormon publish their grievances that Jennie could create her 470-page publication.

I would love to know how credible most scholars find this book given from what little I have been able to find it paralleled a lot of the sentimental anti polygamy novels at the time, where women were dying upon learning their husbands had taken another wife, etc.

I think I will read some of it tonight to see how credible it reads.

https://archive.org/details/womenofmormonism00froi

a brief dip….

Does anyone know a woman who fits this description….a prominent apostle, bosom friend of Joseph, who married a 17 year old recent convert from an Eastern state, on her own as she had left her family, in Nauvoo.  She had refused at first and only said in jest she would marry him if there was a revelation.  Three days later she was called to a meeting with other church leaders and told there was such a revelation.  Other details was she stayed with him till he died 20 years later.  So she would have been 37 when he died in about 1860-1865.

Heber C Kimball has several possibilities as long as I don’t insist on 17 years old and not precisely 20 years, but haven’t checked to see if they were with family or not.  Anyone heard a story about him getting turned down and then accepted by a 17 year old on her own?

Edited April 9, 2024 by Calm

[manol]

4 hours ago, PortalToParis said:

I don't think the Restorationist branches are right about everything they teach either, but the main answer to your question is that I don't in my heart pledge allegiance to the LDS church or to any other church, but to Christ. I wouldn't die for the LDS church, but I would for Christ. I am committed to spending my life helping to build up the kingdom of God on the earth and establishing Zion, and the Lord wishes me to be doing my service and ministry for that predominately to the LDS membership within an LDS context.

I respect your sense of purpose and your decision.

I am enjoying the discussion you and @Calm are engaged in, though I have nothing relevant to contribute. 

[PortalToParis]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

My guess is it came from this book, which means it is probably not a quote of Joseph Fielding, but a paraphrase that misinterpreted his bio.

https://www.amazon.com/Hyrum-Prophet-Unsung-Whitney-Horning/dp/B0B7QPTNKC

Portal, any chance you have this book or can get a hold of it? 

I do not have this book nor have I read it I'm afraid.

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Hopefully I got the punctuation right…

Thank you for the transcript, I would have hated trying to read that myself. I haven't seen this before, so it's saying that the church membership voted to accept the 1876 edition of the D&C as doctrine in the 1880 general conference?

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I think I will read some of it tonight to see how credible it reads.

I didn't know it could be accessed online so thank you for the link.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, PortalToParis said:

do not have this book nor have I read it I'm afraid.

I have written the author of the website and hopefully she will respond with her source so we can see if my guess is right or if there is another bio she has access to.

[PortalToParis]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Does anyone know a woman who fits this description….a prominent apostle, bosom friend of Joseph, who married a 17 year old recent convert from an Eastern state, on her own as she had left her family, in Nauvoo.  She had refused at first and only said in jest she would marry him if there was a revelation.  Three days later she was called to a meeting with other church leaders and told there was such a revelation.  Other details was she stayed with him till he died 20 years later.  So she would have been 37 when he died in about 1860-1865.

Heber C Kimball has several possibilities as long as I don’t insist on 17 years old and not precisely 20 years, but haven’t checked to see if they were with family or not.  Anyone heard a story about him getting turned down and then accepted by a 17 year old on her own?

It would be great if certain unnamed women of her book could be identified, though I don't know that anyone has undertook to do that. I assume Jennie's witholding of their identities was to protect them and to encourage them to tell her more than they would have otherwise.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, PortalToParis said:

It would be great if certain unnamed women of her book could be identified, though I don't know that anyone has undertook to do that. I assume Jennie's witholding of their identities was to protect them and to encourage them to tell her more than they would have otherwise.

That is possible.  It is also possible she just made them up because she was certain women like them existed or she assumed rumors or stories she read were true when they weren’t.

[Calm]

Portal, you asked people to read and respond to the HM site.  I have.  And yet you haven’t really engaged with my observations and criticisms.  This is rather disappointing.  I am not asking you to change your overall belief, but a comment saying why my criticism is wrong because you have found a source that supports the HM claim or that yes, it looks like HM didn’t dig enough and this claim isn’t valid would indicate you are actually interested in conversation and not just using the board to try to convince others of your own or HM’s position whether it is accurate or not.

[TheTanakas]

On 4/8/2024 at 12:17 AM, PortalToParis said:

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,

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the FLDS believe polygamy was instituted by God.  
If not, we are moving away from it being a big point of disagreement to landing on apostasy; by uttering
a false revelation under the pretext of "Thus Saith the Lord".

[TheTanakas]

On 4/7/2024 at 3:15 PM, CV75 said:

If the scripture were written that way, I might take it that way. But it says "seed." Please, no more!

How do you understand Doctrine and Covenants 132:37?

"God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she 
do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was
fulfilling, among other things, the promises".

What is the purpose of many of God's servants (where Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses
are specifically named) having many wives and concubines like the opening verse in that
section says?

[CV75]

38 minutes ago, TheTanakas said:

How do you understand Doctrine and Covenants 132:37?

"God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she 
do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was
fulfilling, among other things, the promises".

What is the purpose of many of God's servants (where Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses
are specifically named) having many wives and concubines like the opening verse in that
section says?

37 Abraham received ^aconcubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and ^bJacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their ^cexaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.

That Abraham kept God's law and gifts, and so received the fulfilled promise of entering into His full presence (exaltation). By extension, this applies to us. The purposes for revealing this law at any given time, dispensation or circumstance may of course vary.

The opening verse indicates that God justified His servants as touching the principle and doctrine because they kept the law as He gave it to them:

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many ^awives and ^bconcubines

But given the Abrahamic covenant, clearly any purpose of plural marriage (general or unique to the times) ties back to it, to bless the whole earth with the promulgation and blessings of the gospel through the priesthood order and sealing power, a peculiar people who receive these gifts by covenant, typically in a temple where there is one, through parents who are sealed, or where there will be a temple in which to receive them as adults.

Edited April 9, 2024 by CV75

[Stargazer]

On 4/6/2024 at 6:52 PM, Teancum said:

Nice to know you are all for JS marrying young teen.  Pretty gross really.

The presentism is strong in this one.

My stepmom first married at 15 to a 21 year old. One of my great grandfathers married a 16 year old at age 24. Not such a huge difference in age, but the  "youthness" would seem to have been excessive in them. Over the centuries age differences would sometimes have been remarkable to us moderns, but much less so to those living at the time. My late wife's mother married at 21 to a 30 year old -- at a time and place where a man just didn't get married until he had a stable career going on. And they were just coming out of the Great Depression in Germany.

Even in modern times interesting things happen. One of my stepdaughters insisted at age 19 in marrying a man who was 42. I'm 11 years younger than my late wife, 9 years older than my current wife, and my current wife's late husband was 15 years her senior. 

If the young teen is a volunteer, you or I might disapprove based on our cultural conditioning, but is it objectively wrong? 

[PortalToParis]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Portal, you asked people to read and respond to the HM site.  I have.  And yet you haven’t really engaged with my observations and criticisms.  This is rather disappointing.  I am not asking you to change your overall belief, but a comment saying why my criticism is wrong because you have found a source that supports the HM claim or that yes, it looks like HM didn’t dig enough and this claim isn’t valid would indicate you are actually interested in conversation and not just using the board to try to convince others of your own or HM’s position whether it is accurate or not.

What?? Nuh-uh, I've spent hours responding, over multiple days, complete with looking up sources for my responses, even as late as midnight, and I'm not for some reason finished looking into things, so certain expectations perhaps ought to be tempered.

I've been stating my case for what I believe, others as yourself have been stating their case as to why my reasoning isn't in their eyes valid enough, but I don't consider *their* stated reasons to believe differently to be valid, so I accept that. I won't be starting circular arguments because nobody likes those, including myself. Historical-text-bashing doesn't convince people anymore than Bible-bashing does.

There is a lot of ambiguity and unanswered questions about early Mormon polygamy, and I'm not a professional. No one will have all of their historical questions answered, not even the professionals. But I also think that to be okay, as I don't think it's necessary to have every historical point be known in order to understand who was historically truthful and what is true doctrine. Our missionaries don't teach investigators that they must study The Book of Mormon for 100+ hours before they can gain their own testimony of it. A manifestation of truth is available to all who sincerely study, pray, and fast over polygamy, and it wouldn't take years of sincere study to receive that manifestation. I think I've stated my monogamy case as a possible-enough argument to convince others to take it to the Lord, which is perfect to me.

Edited April 10, 2024 by PortalToParis