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

[The Nehor]

On 4/8/2024 at 8:56 PM, Calm said:

Point 83

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?

I started reading the book but haven’t gotten too far. I found the idea that Utah polygamy was worse than the chattel slavery of the South a little odd….and wrong. Also I admit to a chuckle at the author suggesting that monogamous marriage in the rest of the United States was a model of gender equality. Marriage in 1882 being an equal relationship…….yeah…..no.

Also had to have the fun islamophobic digs at people in Turkey and Syria.

Also kind of cute how they talk about the founding of “Mormonism” as an elaborate scam to bring in polygamy and that the early believers were inoffensive and had equality between men and women until Joseph Smith dropped the bomb and brought out the evil within.

It is a nice piece of propaganda. It flatters the listener and tells them what they want to hear.

Edited April 10, 2024 by The Nehor

[Teancum]

11 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The presentism is strong in this one.

Average age of women  marrying in the US in the 1840 was 2-22.  And let;s not forget that Joseph was already married.  More than once.  So yea. Gross.

11 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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.

But was your step mom married to someone twice her age?  And to someone already married?  Big difference. No persentism needed.

11 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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? 

Yes it is wrong. It is wrong when the man is twice the age, married, "marrying" others and so on.  And even is JS did not sleep with her, it took her out of normal social functions, growth and development. You would never defend that but for your need to be ok with Joseph doing this.  If I have presentism you have extreme confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance on this one.

[gopher]

Should the church allow polygamy in cases of conjoined twins?  Abby and Brittany Hensel have been in the news lately with the report Abby got married a few years ago.  I don't know if Brittany is interested, but it seems this may be a case where polygamy should be permitted if desired.  But it seems for many today that polygamy is distasteful only when religion is involved, so maybe our laws will change eventually since currently they can't both be married to the same husband.

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, gopher said:

Should the church allow polygamy in cases of conjoined twins?  Abby and Brittany Hensel have been in the news lately with the report Abby got married a few years ago.  I don't know if Brittany is interested, but it seems this may be a case where polygamy should be permitted if desired.  But it seems for many today that polygamy is distasteful only when religion is involved, so maybe our laws will change eventually since currently they can't both be married to the same husband.

They didn’t both marry him. I don’t imagine that both of them are in love with him

[bluebell]

32 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

They didn’t both marry him. I don’t imagine that both of them are in love with him

Which must be horrible if true, because they both have to have sex with him, and it means the one who didn’t marry him has likely given up her own chance at love. 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, gopher said:

Should the church allow polygamy in cases of conjoined twins?  Abby and Brittany Hensel have been in the news lately with the report Abby got married a few years ago.  I don't know if Brittany is interested, but it seems this may be a case where polygamy should be permitted if desired.  But it seems for many today that polygamy is distasteful only when religion is involved, so maybe our laws will change eventually since currently they can't both be married to the same husband.

Since they share the same body from the waist down, I don’t know how you could really differentiate between the two of them and him in a relationship. Definitely a unique case.

[Raingirl]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

They didn’t both marry him. I don’t imagine that both of them are in love with him

I think it’s entirely possible that both are in love with him. As far as only one of the twins marrying him, that’s all that is currently allowed. I’ve seen speculation that basically they are in a consensual polygamous marriage, but because of current laws, they have to promote the narrative that only one of them is married. Whatever the legalities or arrangements are, both twins are present for every moment of the relationship. It’s a situation that I don’t think any of us can understand. 

[Raingirl]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Average age of women  marrying in the US in the 1840 was 2-22.  And let;s not forget that Joseph was already married.  More than once.  So yea. Gross.

But was your step mom married to someone twice her age?  And to someone already married?  Big difference. No persentism needed.

Yes it is wrong. It is wrong when the man is twice the age, married, "marrying" others and so on.  And even is JS did not sleep with her, it took her out of normal social functions, growth and development. You would never defend that but for your need to be ok with Joseph doing this.  If I have presentism you have extreme confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance on this one.

Stargazer has to defend polygamy. Without it, he wouldn’t have been able to marry as often as he has. 
 

I believe polygamy was man-made. With eternal marriage, they had to come up with a work-around for widowers to remarry. Wouldn’t want any man to forego sex, would we?

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Average age of women  marrying in the US in the 1840 was 2-22.  And let;s not forget that Joseph was already married.  More than once.  So yea. Gross.

But was your step mom married to someone twice her age?  And to someone already married?  Big difference. No persentism needed.

It's presentism whether or not you like it. The definition of presentism is seeing the past through the lens of your present, and not regarding the culture that existed in the given time and place. And averages, as you should be aware, do not tell the whole story. A person with a grade point average of 2.2 could be a supergenius who just doesn't care about soft subjects like English, history, and geography, and gets D's in them but who is entirely focused on math and science and gets A's. You'd be wrong about him or her if all you saw was the average and thought of them as either stupid, lazy, or both.

It comes down to your opinion. My stepmom had to get her parents' permission to marry at 15 in her state, but regardless of your and my feelings on the matter, it was legal, and marginally within the social norms. 

And you're welcome to believe that plural marriage is icky. I'm not an advocate of it, either. But if God commanded it (which I do believe is this case), then that's the way of it. If there's a God, we will eventually find out whether he commanded it or not, won't we? And if there is no God, then it really doesn't matter. That's because without God, the only morality that exists is what we invent for ourselves, and in the end it wouldn't matter. The universe would spin madly on without the slightest care for what we once thought.

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Yes it is wrong. It is wrong when the man is twice the age, married, "marrying" others and so on. 

So, it is wrong when the man is twice the age of the woman. I love the absolutism here! Thus my stepdaughter's father was right as rain when he fought against their marriage tooth and nail? Almost to the point of alienating him from her and her eventual children? Refusing to attend the wedding until finally being persuaded to do so, and even then only very grudgingly walking her down the aisle? Against his own daughter's strong desires? She is a willful one, she is. She wanted children, lots of children (very counter-cultural in today's England), and found a man over twice her age who was willing to give her those children. Note that he was divorced with two children from his first marriage, and one of his children was older than her, his new step-mom! Does that bother you even more now? 🙂 This willful young lady immediately started making kids with her new husband, and now, after 14 years and seven children (the last one was born just 3 months ago) she has finally decided that's enough. I'm quite frankly amazed with her. And there are those here who seem actually offended at the size of her family. It's out of style, and bothers people a lot.

When my late wife and I married, her older sisters made a point of chiding her over our age difference. My oldest stepson was just 9 years younger than me (if I had adopted him, his new birth certificate would have looked very strange, with his father's age given as 9). After my wife's death, I married a woman who was the same age as my oldest stepson. Imagine that adoptive birth certificate: mother's age: 0. Some people would be aghast at all of this. My late wife's child score is 10, and some people, upon hearing this were inspired to say such ugly things as "Doesn't she know anything about birth control?"

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

And even is JS did not sleep with her, it took her out of normal social functions, growth and development.

Your concern over this taking her out of normal social functions is chock full of cultural bias (and presentism). What was she going to do back in that time and place? Go to university and become a physicist or a social scientist? Date fifteen men (or women) until she decided at age 39 that it was time to get married and have a single child? Or was she going to decide to identify as non-binary? Back then, women married and had children (except for those few who didn't). Sometimes they got an education of sorts beforehand, but not usually. The only question for her time and place was how soon she was going to get married. 

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

You would never defend that but for your need to be ok with Joseph doing this. 

 I defend it because Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and was following God's direction. You oppose it because you don't believe he was a prophet, and out of your need to not be ok with Joseph doing this. 

Was Joseph a prophet doing the will of God? I say yes; you say no. Our discomfort over the cultural incidentals is a distraction from the truth. Was he in the right, according to God, or not? That is the question.

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

If I have presentism you have extreme confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance on this one.

So you admit to the presentism! Congrats!

Confirmation bias? Cognitive dissonance? Heavy accusations, sir!  

Are you aware that both confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance are neutral? That it's possible to be deceived by confirmation bias in either the direction of truth, or of falsehood? And that one can be influenced by cognitive dissonance away from the truth?

I'm really familiar with the concept of confirmation bias. I see it all the time in others (e.g. Trump Derangement Syndrome and Trump Worship Syndrome), and I'm well aware of what it is. I watch myself carefully to be sure I don't fall under its spell. Do you? And as for cognitive dissonance, do you know that it is possible to feel cognitive dissonance even when the thing causing it in you is actually false? Coping with the nuances of contradictory ideas or experiences is mentally stressful, as it requires energy and effort to sit with those seemingly opposite things that all seem true. So one seeks to avoid those ideas. But sometimes those ideas break us, and we do what you have done, which is to abandon what you formerly believed. Both courses relieve the mental stress. To an extent, anyway. 

But changes of mind do not always go in the direction of truth. People can be convinced they are wrong, even if they were actually right.

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Raingirl said:

Stargazer has to defend polygamy. Without it, he wouldn’t have been able to marry as often as he has. 

Now there's an interesting accusation. I know you don't know very much about me, so I'm puzzled that you could make such an odd claim. Allow me to educate you.

1. I was married to my first wife for four years when she demanded that I divorce her. I didn't want to, but I did what she asked. We were not sealed in the temple. 

2. After the divorce, I met and married a divorcee whose husband had divorced her for other women and incidentally got excommunicated. She obtained a sealing cancellation, and then we were sealed in the Swiss Temple. We celebrated our 35th anniversary just before she died.

3. After my eternal wife died, I met and married a widow who had been previously sealed to a righteous man. We are in a "time only" marriage.

So, I'm sealed to exactly one woman. 

2 hours ago, Raingirl said:

I believe polygamy was man-made. With eternal marriage, they had to come up with a work-around for widowers to remarry. Wouldn’t want any man to forego sex, would we?

It's sad that you think that's all men want.

Before she died, my late wife asked me what I was going to do after she passed. I told her I was going to stay single. And I meant it. However, she vetoed that suggestion, and told me that she wanted me to remarry. She didn't care if I were sealed to my next wife -- unlike you, she believed that plural marriage was a divine principle. It wasn't about sex -- due to her illness I had gotten used to being without it for a couple of years. And if you think that's "too much information," well, you asked for it by practically accusing me of remarrying because I can't forego sex. 

Now, since you've psychoanalyzed me, do you want me to do the same for you? And with even less actual information? But nevermind. I'm not going to.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Raingirl said:

Stargazer has to defend polygamy. Without it, he wouldn’t have been able to marry as often as he has. 
 

I believe polygamy was man-made. With eternal marriage, they had to come up with a work-around for widowers to remarry. Wouldn’t want any man to forego sex, would we?

Do you mean be sealed to multiple women?  I believe Stargazer has mentioned he is not sealed to his current wife as she is sealed to her previous husband.

Seems like if it was only about being able to remarry in this life, widows who remarry have as much reason to want to have polygamy as widowers.

——

We now seal a woman to all previous husbands once she and they are dead.  There have also been exceptions since the early church of widows being allowed a second sealing (there was a poster who reported their grandmother had been and iirc they had knowledge of other cases, weebles has an unusual case in his family history, and I and others have heard reliable reports of it happening now where bishops can request for an exception to be made though this isn’t publicized by the Church unfortunately).  My guess is like we have moved to many other identical treatments for the temple for women and men, the exception will become the official rule and women will also be allowed multiple sealings while living.  

The question I have is if the belief she will have to choose only one of the men she loves for eternity where a man will be seen as not having to choose will continue.  That reasoning doesn’t make sense any more now the social and legal consequences of adultery are more equivalent (seriously I heard so often growing up the rationale that a woman can only love one man at a time, this was not only used to explain eternal polygyny but no eternal polyandry in the Church, but the fact that men were committing adultery so often in secular texts and conversations…ignoring the fact that women had affairs as well, I am seeing 15% of married women vs 25% married men in most sources, but some have the possibility they are much closer).

Edited April 10, 2024 by Calm

[CV75]

49 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you mean be sealed to multiple women?  I believe Stargazer has mentioned he is not sealed to his current wife as she is sealed to her previous husband.

Seems like if it was only about being able to remarry in this life, widows who remarry have as much reason to want to have polygamy as widowers.

We now seal a woman to all previous husbands once she and they are dead.  There have also been exceptions since the early church of widows being allowed a second sealing (there was a poster who reported their grandmother had been and iirc they had knowledge of other cases, weebles has an unusual case in his family history, and I and others have heard reliable reports of it happening now where bishops can request for an exception to be made though this isn’t publicized by the Church unfortunately).  My guess is like we have moved to many other identical treatments for the temple for women and men, the exception will become the official rule and women will also be allowed multiple sealings while living.  

The question I have is if the belief she will have to choose only one of the men she loves for eternity where a man will be seen as not having to choose will continue.  That reasoning doesn’t make sense any more now the social and legal consequences of adultery are more equivalent (seriously I heard so often growing up the rationale that a woman can only love one man at a time, this was not only used to explain eternal polygyny but no eternal polyandry in the Church, but the fact that men were committing adultery so often in secular texts and conversations…ignoring the fact that women had affairs as well, I am seeing 15% of married women vs 25% married men in most sources, but some have the possibility they are much closer).

Given the variety of interests among exalted beings, perhaps various combinations of vertical (the man and the woman to God) and lateral (the man and woman to each other)* sealings are practiced in the next life. Each distinct couple continues the round of salvation for their spirit children in partnership with their Father. The marriage arrangements we see in this life are those best suited to fulfill God’s will for perpetuating the Abrahamic covenant among His peculiar people under various circumstances. Sometimes it is a qualitative and sometimes qualitative endeavor in this world, but in an exalted world there are no limits to either. The “rarer” arrangements we see made under First Presidency approval in this world are case by case, acknowledging what the new couple and perhaps those closest to them can handle.

* https://www.thechurchnews.com/general-conference/2024/04/06/elder-matthew-l-carpenter-april-2024-general-conference-marriage-sealing-covenant/.

Edited April 10, 2024 by CV75

[Calm]

19 hours ago, PortalToParis said:

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.

It’s was very quiet on the board yesterday. Normally I tend to give people a day or two to respond, but you trained me to expect you would respond within a few hours.  You have invested a great deal of time into the conversation so far, I was hoping you were willing to invest more. 

If you were planning on responding, my apologies.  I was very much enjoying the conversation and the motivation to study and am grateful for you creating the opportunity for that to happen. I am hoping it continues and doesn’t end at this point. 
 

Quote

 

don't consider *their* stated reasons to believe differently to be valid, so I accept that.

I don’t expect to change your mind about the overall question of Joseph’s practice or even the details, but I do hope for some more complete interaction to some of the responses you prompted by continuing to point to the HM site and asking people to examine it as well as your own efforts to track down sources etc.  Unless your only purpose was to promote it and your own beliefs and if that is the case I am  disappointed because I was expecting more of a back and forth conversation (not a debate but examining the ideas together).  Not everyone wants that though, I get that. 

Hopefully you are interested in learning more details as well and so between the two of us and any others interested in examining the site we can see which points are valid or at least open and which ones aren’t actually supportive of the position either pro monogamy or pro plural marriage.  I assume that like me when I am supporting my own position that Joseph did practice plural marriage, you don’t actually want to use details that are false to promote a position that is true, so something like Mercy allegedly still living at her home when she wasn’t…surely you are interested in learning whether that is true or not as even if it doesn’t impact your overall belief, it should impact whether or not you continue to use that to challenge the proplural marriage mindset as you did in this thread.

Let me know if you are interested in continuing to examine the various claims and if you are, I can repost questions I made earlier that didn’t get addressed in my view.

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

The question I have is if the belief she will have to choose only one of the men she loves for eternity where a man will be seen as not having to choose will continue.  That reasoning doesn’t make sense any more now the social and legal consequences of adultery are more equivalent (seriously I heard so often growing up the rationale that a woman can only love one man at a time, this was not only used to explain eternal polygyny but no eternal polyandry in the Church, but the fact that men were committing adultery so often in secular texts and conversations…ignoring the fact that women had affairs as well, I am seeing 15% of married women vs 25% married men in most sources, but some have the possibility they are much closer).

Since DNA testing has become so prevalent, large numbers of cases are arising where a man believes he has X number of children, and then it turns out that he has X-Y number. This includes situations where the man gets sent to jail for not paying child support, only later to discover that he wasn't the father of the child, and even worse, the mother knew who the real father was the whole time and was still friends with him.

I am so glad that the person sorting all this out in the end won't be me. It will be someone who knows best for all eternity: Heavenly Father. And I am sure Heavenly Mother will have a hand in the decision as well.

One of things that tire me out with some members of the church is that they seem to think that the afterlife, especially eternal life, will be just like here, only with better housing and food. And that they are going to have the same human/mortal feelings they have here. If that were the case I would volunteer to become a cat for eternity.

[webbles]

Sorry, it has been a while but I wanted to respond.  I've been traveling for the eclipse and haven't had access to better sources till now.

On 4/7/2024 at 7:33 PM, PortalToParis said:

Dr. Bernhisel was also sealed to women in his immediate family, even those he was blood-related to:

Maria Bernhisel, sister; Brother Samuel’s wife, Catherine Kremer; Mary Shatto, (Aunt); Madalena Lupferd, (distant relative); Catherine Bernhisel, Aunt; Hannah Bower, Aunt; Elizabeth Sheively, Aunt; Hannah Bower, cousin; Maria Lawrence, (intimate friend); Sarah Crosby, intimate friend, [deceased] . . . ; Mary Ann Bloom, cousin.” Brown, “Early Mormon Adoption Theology,”

This affidavit from Dr. Bernhisel isn't really that great for anti-polygamy.  He was a polygamist who entered into it in 1846.  This affidavit was from 1868.  Guess what also was occurring around that same time?  Joseph Smith III mission to Utah and Joseph F Smith collection of affidavits.  This affidavit is just one of the many that were done to prove that Joseph Smith practiced and preached polygamy.

 

On 4/7/2024 at 7:29 PM, PortalToParis said:

While she was sealed to and supported by Heber C. Kimball after the martyrdom, I don’t think she ever adopted the doctrine of polygamy or lived in it with Heber C. Kimball. She was a very independent-minded woman who had turned down more than one offer of marriage, working as a single governess for several years before eventually marrying Hyrum at the age of 36. https://www.ldsliving.com/the-indomitable-faith-of-mary-fielding-smith-how-hyrums-martyrdom-changed-her-forever/s/90736 After the martyrdom she had Hyrum’s six children from his first marriage as well as her own Joseph F. Smith and Martha Ann to take care of. She never lived with Heber and Vilate Kimball until she was dying from illness. I don’t see the arrangement with Heber C. Kimball as anything more than a destitute widow of young children receiving living support. It wasn’t until she was on her deathbed that the big Section 132 reveal happened, which I think gives strong evidence that she was not someone who would have endorsed it.

I agree that Mary never lived it.  But she accepted it.  Her brother entered polygamy in 1845 and she definitely knew of his polygamy.  She entered into a sealing that was exactly the same as the other polygamous sealings.  She knew of polygamy.  She was a powerful woman and I don't believe that she would allow the church to go astray that badly if she knew the "true" sealing process.  She would have not gone west, but instead stayed back with Emma.  Also, she didn't need a sealing with Kimball to help her go west.  She used hardly any resources from him to go west or to live in Utah, instead depending mostly on her brother and her sister.

 

On 4/7/2024 at 7:38 PM, PortalToParis said:

Hyrum Smith explained that his two sealings were from being consecutively, legally married to two women. Since it wasn’t under the “adoption” use of sealing, it was the ‘contract be sealed in view of eternity’ use of sealing. It was only because he had separate legal marriage contracts with both of the women without either of those contracts overlapping with eachother in time, that he considered his sealings to both of them as valid.

He also believed that both sealings were valid in the afterlife.  He proclaimed himself a polygamist in the next life.  Sure, he might not have practiced polygamy in this life, but he was planning on practicing it in the next life.

 

On 4/7/2024 at 7:38 PM, PortalToParis said:

The topic is certainly a big one, much bigger than the intro website, and even my additional explanations here might not be extensive enough or well-argued enough to be convincing to you, but there’s a lot more on it that you can read from the site’s Further Study page, and even from the Joseph Fought Polygamy site if you want to read hundreds of pages of the RLDS view. The huge amount of conflicting information might end up feeling frustrating or exasperating to you, but I very strongly believe that if the topic is approached with prayer and fasting the Lord makes everything clear to the mind even to the point of receiving strong discernment and faith-based confidence in the truth.

I'm pretty well versed in polygamy (I have a LOT of polygamy in my ancestry, including a wife that is sealed to Joseph Smith in the Nauvoo Temple).  I read Joseph Fought Polygamy over a decade ago and found it very interesting.  I don't agree with their conclusion.  I'm curious, though, about your view and the HMD site because it is trying to fit a middle ground.  Joseph Fought Polygamy is completely anti-polygamy and anti-sealing.  I find that stance to be impossible with all of the new information that has been discovered.  So this new middle ground stance is interesting.  You seem to be trying to accept that sealing was taught by Joseph but was misunderstood or repurposed as polygamy.  I'd love to see evidence of this middle ground.  Nothing on the HMD site, though, provides any evidence.  There is only 3-4 points that mention this and it doesn't provide anything.  That's what I'm curious about.  Where is the evidence for this middle ground?

Also, I find it fascinating that both the HMD site and Michelle Stone's channel (which doesn't appear to accept this new middle ground) both start from a theological stance.  The vast majority of the points in the HMD site are trying to argue why polygamy is theologically incorrect.  It is similar to Brian Hale's 3rd book in this series where he tries to argue that polygamy is theologically correct.  But, Hale puts that at the end of the series and is a small book compared to volume 1 and 2.  HMD is the opposite.  It focuses so much on the theology and barely touches history.  I find that to be a weak point for it.

[webbles]

On 4/8/2024 at 6:06 PM, 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've purchased the book and the her other book about Joseph Smith.  It should arrive this weekend.  You want me to see what it says about Hyrum and Mercy?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

I've purchased the book and the her other book about Joseph Smith.  It should arrive this weekend.  You want me to see what it says about Hyrum and Mercy?

Please do so.  Look forward to it.  No word yet from the website owner.

Edited April 11, 2024 by Calm

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, Stargazer said:

It's presentism whether or not you like it.

I disagree.

19 hours ago, Stargazer said:

 

The definition of presentism is seeing the past through the lens of your present, and not regarding the culture that existed in the given time and place.

And the culture,time and place did not condone a married man of 38 marrying a 14 year old now did it.

19 hours ago, Stargazer said:

 

And averages, as you should be aware, do not tell the whole story. A person with a grade point average of 2.2 could be a supergenius who just doesn't care about soft subjects like English, history, and geography, and gets D's in them but who is entirely focused on math and science and gets A's. You'd be wrong about him or her if all you saw was the average and thought of them as either stupid, lazy, or both.

Regardless a married man marrying a 14 year old was absolutely outside the culture of the day.  You seem to be intentionally ignoring this point.

 

19 hours ago, Stargazer said:

It comes down to your opinion. My stepmom had to get her parents' permission to marry at 15 in her state, but regardless of your and my feelings on the matter, it was legal, and marginally within the social norms. 

Did your step mom marry a man that was already married. And was rampaging around the country side increasing his number of wives?

19 hours ago, Stargazer said:

And you're welcome to believe that plural marriage is icky. I'm not an advocate of it, either. But if God commanded it (which I do believe is this case), then that's the way of it. If there's a God, we will eventually find out whether he commanded it or not, won't we? And if there is no God, then it really doesn't matter. That's because without God, the only morality that exists is what we invent for ourselves, and in the end it wouldn't matter. The universe would spin madly on without the slightest care for what we once thought.

See this is your and other apologists problem. You start with a premise that you assume is true. Then you find any possible way to defend it. For you and other believers if Joseph really was just doing his own thing like so many other powerful male leaders then things start to crumble. So you have to make it work and you would not do this for any other religious leader like say David Koresh.

 

19 hours ago, Stargazer said:

So, it is wrong when the man is twice the age of the woman. I love the absolutism here!

Not  in every case.  Again you keep conveniently ignoring JS's marital status at the time.

 

19 hours ago, Stargazer said:

 

Thus my stepdaughter's father was right as rain when he fought against their marriage tooth and nail? Almost to the point of alienating him from her and her eventual children? Refusing to attend the wedding until finally being persuaded to do so, and even then only very grudgingly walking her down the aisle? Against his own daughter's strong desires? She is a willful one, she is. She wanted children, lots of children (very counter-cultural in today's England), and found a man over twice her age who was willing to give her those children. Note that he was divorced with two children from his first marriage, and one of his children was older than her, his new step-mom! Does that bother you even more now? 🙂 This willful young lady immediately started making kids with her new husband, and now, after 14 years and seven children (the last one was born just 3 months ago) she has finally decided that's enough. I'm quite frankly amazed with her. And there are those here who seem actually offended at the size of her family. It's out of style, and bothers people a lot.

I really think your anecdote here is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

 

19 hours ago, Stargazer said:

When my late wife and I married, her older sisters made a point of chiding her over our age difference. My oldest stepson was just 9 years younger than me (if I had adopted him, his new birth certificate would have looked very strange, with his father's age given as 9). After my wife's death, I married a woman who was the same age as my oldest stepson. Imagine that adoptive birth certificate: mother's age: 0. Some people would be aghast at all of this. My late wife's child score is 10, and some people, upon hearing this were inspired to say such ugly things as "Doesn't she know anything about birth control?"

I really think your anecdote here is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

19 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Your concern over this taking her out of normal social functions is chock full of cultural bias (and presentism). What was she going to do back in that time and place? Go to university and become a physicist or a social scientist? Date fifteen men (or women) until she decided at age 39 that it was time to get married and have a single child? Or was she going to decide to identify as non-binary? Back then, women married and had children (except for those few who didn't). Sometimes they got an education of sorts beforehand, but not usually. The only question for her time and place was how soon she was going to get married. 

Well let's read about how Helen felt about it:

 

Quote

 

With all the false traditions in which we were born, and in consequence of the degenerate tide with which the human family has been drifting for generations past, and as the Lord had no organized priesthood on the earth, it is not to be wondered at that in our ignorance of His ways the feelings of our natures should rebel against the doctrine of a plurality of wives.

I remember how I felt, but which would be a difficult matter to describe — the various thoughts, fears and temptations that flashed through my mind when the principle was first introduced to me by my father [Heber C. Kimball], who one morning in the summer of 1843, without any preliminaries, asked me if I would believe him if he told me that it was right for married men to take other wives, can be better imagined than told. But suffice it to say the first impulse was anger, for I thought he had only said it to test my virtue. … My sensibilities were painfully touched. I felt such a sense of personal injury and displeasure for to mention such a thing to me I thought altogether unworthy of my father, and as quick as he spoke, I replied to him, short and emphatically, “No, I wouldn’t!” I had always been taught to believe it a heinous crime, improper and unnatural, and I indignantly resented it.

This was the first time that I ever openly manifested anger towards him, but I was somewhat surprised at his countenance, as he seemed rather pleased than otherwise. Then he commenced talking seriously, and reasoned and explained the principle, and why it was again to be established upon the earth, etc., but did not tell me then that anyone had yet practiced it, but left me to reflect upon it for the next twenty-four hours, during which time I was filled with various and conflicting ideas. I was skeptical — his only daughter, and I knew that he would not cast her off, and this was the only convincing proof that I had of its being right. I knew that he loved me too well to teach me anything that was not strictly pure, virtuous and exalting in its tendencies; and no one else could have influenced me at that time or brought me to accept of a doctrine so utterly repugnant and so contrary to all of our former ideas and traditions. This was just previous to his starting upon his last mission but one to the eastern states. Fearing that I might hear it from a wrong source, knowing, as he did, that there were those who would run before they were sent, and some would not hesitate to deceive and betray him and the brethren, he thought it best that I should hear it from his own lips.

The next day the Prophet called at our house, and I sat with my father and mother and heard him teach the principle and explain it more fully, and I believed it, but I had no proofs, only his and my father’s testimony. I thought that sufficient, and did not deem it necessary to seek for any further.¹

 

Richard Anderson observed: “Helen says several times that her father took the initiative to arrange the marriage and very possibly he did so with a view to committing her to the Prophet before her budding social life produced a choice or a proposal” from someone else.

 

It is clear that Helen’s sealing to Joseph Smith prevented her from socializing as an unmarried lady. The primary document referring to the relationship is an 1881 poem penned by Helen that has been interpreted in different ways:

I thought through this life my time will be my own
The step I now am taking’s for eternity alone,
No one need be the wiser, through time I shall be free,
And as the past hath been the future still will be.
To my guileless heart all free from worldly care
And full of blissful hopes and youthful visions rare
The world seamed bright the thret’ning clouds were kept
From sight and all looked fair but pitying angels wept.
They saw my youthful friends grow shy and cold.
And poisonous darts from sland’rous tongues were hurled,
Untutor’d heart in thy gen’rous sacrafise,
Thou dids’t not weigh the cost nor know the bitter price;
Thy happy dreams all o’er thou’st doom’d also to be
Bar’d out from social scenes by this thy destiny,
And o’er thy sad’nd mem’ries of sweet departed joys
Thy sicken’d heart will brood and imagine future woes,
And like a fetter’d bird with wild and longing heart,
Thou’lt dayly pine for freedom and murmor at thy lot;

But could’st thou see the future & view that glorious crown,
Awaiting you in Heaven you would not weep nor mourn.
Pure and exalted was thy father’s aim, he saw
A glory in obeying this high celestial law,
For to thousands who’ve died without the light
I will bring eternal joy & make thy crown more bright.
I’d been taught to reveire the Prophet of God
And receive every word as the word of the Lord,
But had this not come through my dear father’s mouth,
I should ne’r have received it as God’s sacred truth.⁴

One year after writing the above poem, she elaborated:

During the winter of 1843, there were plenty of parties and balls. … Some of the young gentlemen got up a series of dancing parties, to be held at the Mansion once a week. … I had to stay home, as my father had been warned by the Prophet to keep his daughter away from there, because of the blacklegs and certain ones of questionable character who attended there. … I felt quite sore over it, and thought it a very unkind act in father to allow [my brother] to go and enjoy the dance unrestrained with others of my companions, and fetter me down, for no girl loved dancing better than I did, and I really felt that it was too much to bear. It made the dull school still more dull, and like a wild bird I longed for the freedom that was denied me; and thought myself a much abused child, and that it was pardonable if I did murmur.⁵

After leaving the church, dissenter Catherine Lewis reported Helen saying: “I would never have been sealed to Joseph had I known it was anything more than a ceremony.”⁶ Assuming this statement was accurate, which is not certain, the question arises regarding her meaning of “more than a ceremony”? While sexuality is a possibility, a more likely interpretation is that the ceremony prevented her from associating with her friends as an unmarried teenager, causing her dramatic distress after the sealing.

https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/plural-wives-overview/helen-mar-kimball/

 

 

So there you go.  When you say:

Quote

Your concern over this taking her out of normal social functions is chock full of cultural bias (and presentism). What was she going to do back in that time and place?

...it seems there were plenty of normal social things and development that Helen notes she was deprived of.  It really has nothing to do with presentism or my cultural values.  And again, you ignore thoddity and aberration polygamy was in 1840.  If JS was not married and maybe wanted to marry Helen as his one and only wife you may have a valid argument. But you don't have that and your argument crumbles.

 

19 hours ago, Stargazer said:

 I defend it because Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and was following God's direction.

You defend it because you believe and think he was a prophet. That comes first. You don't seem to ask "Is what this man did really godly and really from god?  If not can I really trust his other claims?"  You start with the conclusion first and then find the means to justify the end. This is a poor way to determine truth IMO.'

 

19 hours ago, Stargazer said:

 

You oppose it because you don't believe he was a prophet, and out of your need to not be ok with Joseph doing this. 

Ummm no. I believed that Joseph was a prophet and did the apologetic schtick like you are doing for decades. It just came to a point with this and a dozen or more other fatal issues that I concluded there is no way this guy was what he claimed. See the difference?  So not, I don't have nor did I have a need to NOT BE OK with Joseph doing this. I wanted to be ok with it. I wish he were a prophet. I wish his claims were true.  Even now.  But it seems pretty crystal clear, at least to me, that he is not and was not and it is one of the biggest tragedies of my life.  I am still pretty sad about it. 

 

19 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Was Joseph a prophet doing the will of God? I say yes; you say no.

I used to say yes until I realized that there are so may problems with the foundational claims of Mormonism that it could not possibly be true.

 

19 hours ago, Stargazer said:

 

Our discomfort over the cultural incidentals is a distraction from the truth.

It has nothing to do with the culture issues.

19 hours ago, Stargazer said:

 

Was he in the right, according to God, or not? That is the question.

It wasn't. God had nothing to do with it.

19 hours ago, Stargazer said:

So you admit to the presentism! Congrats!

You are welcome.

 

19 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Confirmation bias? Cognitive dissonance? Heavy accusations, sir! 

Sorry.  But it your posting on this seems full if these things.

19 hours ago, Stargazer said:

 

I'm really familiar with the concept of confirmation bias. I see it all the time in others (e.g. Trump Derangement Syndrome and Trump Worship Syndrome), and I'm well aware of what it is. I watch myself carefully to be sure I don't fall under its spell. Do you? And as for cognitive dissonance, do you know that it is possible to feel cognitive dissonance even when the thing causing it in you is actually false? Coping with the nuances of contradictory ideas or experiences is mentally stressful, as it requires energy and effort to sit with those seemingly opposite things that all seem true. So one seeks to avoid those ideas. But sometimes those ideas break us, and we do what you have done, which is to abandon what you formerly believed. Both courses relieve the mental stress. To an extent, anyway. 

I readily admit I have bias and things that cause cognitive dissonance. I try to be aware of it. I am sure I fail at times.

19 hours ago, Stargazer said:

But changes of mind do not always go in the direction of truth. People can be convinced they are wrong, even if they were actually right.

And more people, especially when it comes to religion, are convinced they are right when it is pretty clear they are not.

[Teancum]

On 4/8/2024 at 3:56 PM, PortalToParis said:

...But whichever translation of the book of Samuel you think to be most accurate, the Lord says that it ultimately doesn't change things:

23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

So here the Lord says that regardless of what was written down on their plates about David, David having many wives was abominable (-- he's setting the record straight for them --) and that they are not to use anything that had been previously written about David or by David as justification for polygamy.

Boy polygamy is sure problematic for Mormonism.

So as I have followed this thread can you clarify for me:

1:  You are an active believing member of Utah Mormonism?

2: You do not think Joseph Smith Practiced nor introduced the doctrine of plural marriage?

3:  You think Brigham Young and the other post JS 19th century leaders did introduce the doctrine of plural marriage?

Thank you

 

[Teancum]

On 4/8/2024 at 4:28 PM, PortalToParis said:

I do think Brigham Young lied about the Twelve's legitimacy as Joseph Smith's successors (see Section #42 of the site). It was only because most of the members democratically voted for the Twelve that most of the membership ended up following BY to Utah. I 100% do not believe that Brigham Young was chosen by the Lord to lead the membership, whether in Nauvoo or in Utah.

Interesting.  Again, if you are a believing member of Utah Mormonism how do you reconcile this?

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I readily admit I have bias and things that cause cognitive dissonance. I try to be aware of it. I am sure I fail at times.

As do we all.

 

[Teancum]

On 4/8/2024 at 6:26 PM, 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.

Is it problematic froman authority standpoint that Brigham was on the wrong track?  Was he a valid prophet holding the priesthood keys?  If no what does this say for the authoritative claim of his successors?

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Is it problematic froman authority standpoint that Brigham was on the wrong track?  Was he a valid prophet holding the priesthood keys?  If no what does this say for the authoritative claim of his successors?

That is what I've been trying to ascertain from him.

You finally get a "Like". ✊

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Ummm no. I believed that Joseph was a prophet and did the apologetic schtick like you are doing for decades. It just came to a point with this and a dozen or more other fatal issues that I concluded there is no way this guy was what he claimed. See the difference?  So not, I don't have nor did I have a need to NOT BE OK with Joseph doing this. I wanted to be ok with it. I wish he were a prophet. I wish his claims were true.  Even now.  But it seems pretty crystal clear, at least to me, that he is not and was not and it is one of the biggest tragedies of my life.  I am still pretty sad about it. 

OK, I take it back. Yes, I know that you wanted it to be OK for a long time. Your history on this board is similar to mine. I.e. we've been here a long time. So as I've said before, I remember the "old" Teancum. The man who ninjaed his way into the camp of the Lamanites to slay their leader Ammoron, and was slain in his turn. So to speak.

I am afraid that the "crystal clarity" you speak of seems dark to me. 

I deeply sympathize with the trials you have gone through on this. I can only imagine it happening to me. Another poster here who lost his faith some time back told me privately that he hoped I never experienced what he had. As do I.

There are some aspects of early church history that I cringe over. One of them is polygamy. Despite what certain posters here think of me, I am not a fan. But I accept D&C 132 as a true divine revelation. Whatever one may think of plural marriage's early history, and again, I'm not comfortable with it, I point to what is written in my signature, which I'll reproduce here:

"How poore, how narrow, how impious a measure of God, is this, that he must doe, as thou wouldest doe, if thou wert God."

This is from a sermon preached by John Donne, who was Dean of St Paul's Cathedral in London, in 1624ish (pre-Gregorian calendar). This quote expresses what I understand to be the case, when it comes to God (Isaiah 55:8,9):

8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

There is much in the Old Testament that we moderns have a problem with. Including plural marriage, of course. As has been mentioned here before, we see but through a glass, darkly. However, God sees things differently (1 Samuel 16:7)

7 But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.

In this case, Samuel was considering a new king for Israel, and thought one of David's brothers would be peachy keen. But the Lord had chosen David. As you know, even that chosen man David screwed up. He lost his exaltation. And if there are those who feel that Joseph Smith screwed up, they are entitled to their opinions, but judgement lies with the Lord. 

If all I had was my growing up in the Church with all the Primary songs and popcorn popping on the apricot trees, it's possible I might come down on the same side you have come down on. But as I have said before, I'm a convert. I came into this at age 14 having been guided carefully by the Spirit. And in my naïve attempts to become closer to the Spirit I have discovered ever greater confirmation that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is truly the Church of Jesus Christ. I accept that the Church has warts, and that its history has warts. But I cannot deny that it is true, and as imperfect as Joseph Smith was, I have a strong testimony that he was a true prophet of God.

And if there were something I could do to help Teancum return safely from slaying Ammoron, I would do it.

 

[webbles]

On 4/10/2024 at 8:00 PM, Calm said:

Please do so.  Look forward to it.  No word yet from the website owner.

The book arrived.  It doesn't have that quote.  It has an index at the back and I looked at every page that was listed under Mercy.