Teach children about plural marriage?

[Peacefully]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

Or maybe not and Joseph just told them that.

The only way I can reconcile it in my mind while still believing Joseph was a prophet is that sometimes good men do bad things and God makes the best of it. I know, mental gymnastics, but I have a testimony of Joseph Smith as a prophet and I also believe polygamy was not of God. Not sure how else to make it make sense. 

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

The only way I can reconcile it in my mind while still believing Joseph was a prophet is that sometimes good men do bad things and God makes the best of it. I know, mental gymnastics, but I have a testimony of Joseph Smith as a prophet and I also believe polygamy was not of God. Not sure how else to make it make sense. 

I would love to know the thought process back then given Joseph and others’ prior beliefs.  I wonder if plural marriage was easier to accept given polygyny was in the Bible than accepting God having a wife and literal spirit children.  And if somehow the teaching of eternal marriage and spirit children, etc got tangled up in Joseph’s head with polygyny because the topic came up when Joseph asked about the polygynous wives in the Bible.  And so God used Joseph’s mixed up understanding to jumpstart the eternal family doctrine.

I do think the practice of plural marriage created a very strong core of church leaders and committed general membership for a couple of generations.  I don’t know if it was necessary and that is why God commanded or allowed it, but my guess is if there was a reason for plural marriage, that was it.  Not saying there weren’t committed monogamous Saints, but plural marriage created a very strong core identity for Saints of up to my generation imo.  With the influx of converts (from 1960 to 1990) the identity shifted more to other things imo (WoW and the temple, the Book of Mormon itself become more significant).

Anyone know the timeline on what Joseph was saying about God’s relationship to mortals and about women’s role in heaven and eternal families?  

Also, when was the first monogamous only sealing for a man done (he wasn’t involved in any polygynous marriages as well)?

[JAHS]

40 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

The only way I can reconcile it in my mind while still believing Joseph was a prophet is that sometimes good men do bad things and God makes the best of it. I know, mental gymnastics, but I have a testimony of Joseph Smith as a prophet and I also believe polygamy was not of God. Not sure how else to make it make sense. 

Even though God allowed the Old Testament prophets to have plural wives? 

D&C 132:38 "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."
If it was not sanctioned by God I feel sorry for all those wives, as well as the ones in the early days of the restored church. Also I would not be here now if it were not for plural marriage.

[blackstrap]

I may have said this before, but I wonder if the Church would still be practicing plural marriage if the culture in the US had been more like some areas of the Middle East and Africa today.  

The FLDS have shown that , over time, the flaws appear when practiced in a relatively closed society. Mind you, China's ' one child 'rule demonstrates what happens when policy tries to override nature. 

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Also I would not be here now if it were not for plural marriage.

At least with the genetics you have, but is your eternal self determined by your genetics?

[JAHS]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

At least with the genetics you have, but is your eternal self determined by your genetics?

Nope ,  but I physically would not be here; at least not the me that is me now.

[webbles]

49 minutes ago, Calm said:

Also, when was the first monogamous only sealing for a man done (he wasn’t involved in any polygynous marriages as well)?

Can he later become involved in a polygynous marriage?  Or are you wanting the first man to be sealed to one wife and never have another wife later on?  Does sealings to dead wives (a widower) count?

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

What do you think of the story of the mock sealing to two young women he was already sealed to so Emma wouldn’t get upset when she opened up enough to choose his wives for herself?

The evidence for a "mock sealing" comes from later accounts, particularly from some of Joseph Smith’s supposed wives, it is not universally accepted as a verified historical fact. Emma Smith seemed to express knowledge of some of Joseph's marriages, particularly later on. There is still no direct, first-hand testimony from Emma herself that she was unaware of all of Joseph's plural marriages.

The existence of a "mock sealing" might suggest that Joseph was trying to protect Emma or prevent emotional distress. Or it shows the same complexity and discretion that surrounded the entire practice itself, so determining Emma's knowledge of the situation is complicated.

Edited December 18, 2024 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, webbles said:

Can he later become involved in a polygynous marriage?  Or are you wanting the first man to be sealed to one wife and never have another wife later on?  Does sealings to dead wives (a widower) count?

No sealings to dead wives, but a significant time before any later sealings so there was no likely anticipation he would become polygynous.

I am curious how tightly plural marriage was tied to sealings to begin with as in were only those men who were plurally married or to be shortly allowed to be sealed to their first wife because it was possibly anticipated by Joseph that celestial marriage was plural marriage originally and only later it was considered as long as they accepted the principle, they didn’t always have to live it….maybe someone started doing calculations and wondering where all the women would come from or as they started to think about those who died in the past becoming exalted would have realized many would only have one wife.

I hope that makes sense.

Edited December 18, 2024 by Calm

[manol]

My first significant encounter with polygamy was when I was thirteen.  I had been a member for a little over a  year.  Three members of my family, including myself, spent a month living with a small polygamist group.  None of my family members participated in plural marriage, nor were any members of this group actually participating in a plural marriage at the time, but "the principle" was among their core beliefs.

 

2 hours ago, Peacefully said:

The only way I can reconcile it in my mind while still believing Joseph was a prophet is that sometimes good men do bad things and God makes the best of it. I know, mental gymnastics, but I have a testimony of Joseph Smith as a prophet and I also believe polygamy was not of God. Not sure how else to make it make sense. 

 

There is a school of thought which holds that Brigham Young, and not Joseph Smith, was the originator of polygamy in the LDS Church.  My understanding is that this school of thought maintains Joseph's public denials were completely honest, and that deception was used by and/or under the direction of Brigham Young to obscure Joseph's opposition to polygamy and portray him as its originator.  Here is a YouTube video on the topic; its maker shares your testimony of Joseph Smith and your belief that polygamy was not of God, the difference being that he disputes Joseph's involvement in the practice.  I am not qualified to evaluate the authenticity of the documentation shown in support of his analysis. 

First LDS Polygamist: Joseph or Brigham? - YouTube

Edited December 18, 2024 by manol

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, JAHS said:

I noticed that there is a section of the Church D&C Storybook for children that attempts to inform children about the history of Plural marriage. 
Plural Marriage - Faith to obey a law from the Lord, even when it’s hard

I am guessing the purpose is to let children know about it now so they are not surprised about it later on?
Is this a good idea or harmful to teach them about it when they are so young?

Yes, children should certainly be taught age-appropriate lessons about polygamy, seerstones, and the like.  Previous generations (including future general authorities) grew up ignorant of some such matters and so were caught flat-footed when the antis began screaming to high heaven about it -- falsely claiming that it was a "cover up."  Even though such historical information was readily available all along and was never hidden.  It simply wasn't taught or researched by ordinary members.

Moreover, when taught, polygamy should be placed in proper historical and social context, the way anthropologists handle the subject.

Edited December 18, 2024 by Robert F. Smith

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 hours ago, JAHS said:

Even though God allowed the Old Testament prophets to have plural wives? 

D&C 132:38 "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."

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

 

[webbles]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

No sealings to dead wives, but a significant time before any later sealings so there was no likely anticipation he would become polygynous.

I am curious how tightly plural marriage was tied to sealings to begin with as in were only those men who were plurally married or to be shortly allowed to be sealed to their first wife because it was possibly anticipated by Joseph that celestial marriage was plural marriage originally and only later it was considered as long as they accepted the principle, they didn’t always have to live it….maybe someone started doing calculations and wondering where all the women would come from or as they started to think about those who died in the past becoming exalted would have realized many would only have one wife.

I hope that makes sense.

There's several men who were sealed to one wife by Joseph Smith and later took more wives after Joseph Died (Alphaeus Cutler, Cornelius Lott, Newell K. Whitney are examples).  That's only 2-3 years so not very long.  William Marks, though, was sealed to his wife by Joseph and never accepted polygamy and so was never sealed to another wife.

And there are many sealings in the Nauvoo temple to monogamous only couples.  Going down alphabetically in the Nauvoo sealings from https://archive.org/details/nauvoo-sealings-adoptions-and-anointings/page/2/mode/2up?view=theater and then checking for later wives in Family Search, I find Lewis Abbott, George Alley, Miles Anderson.

 

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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

 

In both David's and Solomon's cases, some of their wives and concubines were "received not of me", as God explains in D&C 132:38. And that is what was abominable before the Lord, as stated in Jacob 2:24
Then in verse 30 he said "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things."

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I'm surprised at my being so naive on the subject. I doubt very much they discuss much on D&C 132 or back then anyway, in Gospel Doctrine class. And apparently my family wasn't that great at scripture reading. And I was in many callings that took me out of Gospel Doctrine. Because I was unaware of JS living polygamy/polyandry up until I was in my forties!!

Maybe because my inactive father was a history major and while inactive he love church history.  I also had a bit  of polygamy in a bit of the pioneer stock I came from. But I did not know about polyandry nor the unseemly way Joseph started the practice as well as his adulterous affair with Fanny Alger, and it was an adulterous affair and not a plural "marriage."

[Peacefully]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

I would love to know the thought process back then given Joseph and others’ prior beliefs.  I wonder if plural marriage was easier to accept given polygyny was in the Bible than accepting God having a wife and literal spirit children.  And if somehow the teaching of eternal marriage and spirit children, etc got tangled up in Joseph’s head with polygyny because the topic came up when Joseph asked about the polygynous wives in the Bible.  And so God used Joseph’s mixed up understanding to jumpstart the eternal family doctrine.

I do think the practice of plural marriage created a very strong core of church leaders and committed general membership for a couple of generations.  I don’t know if it was necessary and that is why God commanded or allowed it, but my guess is if there was a reason for plural marriage, that was it.  Not saying there weren’t committed monogamous Saints, but plural marriage created a very strong core identity for Saints of up to my generation imo.  With the influx of converts (from 1960 to 1990) the identity shifted more to other things imo (WoW and the temple, the Book of Mormon itself become more significant).

Anyone know the timeline on what Joseph was saying about God’s relationship to mortals and about women’s role in heaven and eternal families?  

Also, when was the first monogamous only sealing for a man done (he wasn’t involved in any polygynous marriages as well)?

I think you are onto something with it being more easily accepted because it was in the Bible. I no longer believe that everything people said they were commanded to do by God in the Bible was actually from God. 

Edited December 18, 2024 by Peacefully

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, Peacefully said:

The only way I can reconcile it in my mind while still believing Joseph was a prophet is that sometimes good men do bad things and God makes the best of it. I know, mental gymnastics, but I have a testimony of Joseph Smith as a prophet and I also believe polygamy was not of God. Not sure how else to make it make sense. 

If that works for you then wonderful. For me this is at the top of a long list of a number of issues that led me to believe Joseph Smith was not a prophet at all. Whether he was sincere in what he did or not I do not know. Whether he was an intentional fraud or not and really believed God was speaking to him, I do not know. I go back and forth on these things.

[Peacefully]

12 hours ago, JAHS said:

Even though God allowed the Old Testament prophets to have plural wives? 

D&C 132:38 "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."
If it was not sanctioned by God I feel sorry for all those wives, as well as the ones in the early days of the restored church. Also I would not be here now if it were not for plural marriage.

Good men could do bad things even back then, like taking many wives and saying it was a commandment from God. 

[Peacefully]

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If that works for you then wonderful. For me this is at the top of a long list of a number of issues that led me to believe Joseph Smith was not a prophet at all. Whether he was sincere in what he did or not I do not know. Whether he was an intentional fraud or not and really believed God was speaking to him, I do not know. I go back and forth on these things.

It is very easy to go back and forth. I’m an adult convert of thirty years, so I didn’t grow up in the church, but my testimony of Joseph as a prophet has always been strong even when I have learned troubling things. Basically, whether I’m wrong or right, I ultimately trust that God will give me grace and I feel he will do the same for those who have chosen to leave the church, including my children. 

Edited December 18, 2024 by Peacefully

[Peacefully]

10 hours ago, manol said:

My first significant encounter with polygamy was when I was thirteen.  I had been a member for a little over a  year.  Three members of my family, including myself, spent a month living with a small polygamist group.  None of my family members participated in plural marriage, nor were any members of this group actually participating in a plural marriage at the time, but "the principle" was among their core beliefs.

 

 

There is a school of thought which holds that Brigham Young, and not Joseph Smith, was the originator of polygamy in the LDS Church.  My understanding is that this school of thought maintains Joseph's public denials were completely honest, and that deception was used by and/or under the direction of Brigham Young to obscure Joseph's opposition to polygamy and portray him as its originator.  Here is a YouTube video on the topic; its maker shares your testimony of Joseph Smith and your belief that polygamy was not of God, the difference being that he disputes Joseph's involvement in the practice.  I am not qualified to evaluate the authenticity of the documentation shown in support of his analysis. 

First LDS Polygamist: Joseph or Brigham? - YouTube

I will listen to this. Thank you. 

[Pyreaux]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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

Or context "for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son... which thing was abominable before me... [However] if I will... raise up seed unto me, I will command my people." It was not the multiple wives that was abominable, what was abominable was abuse and how not all of them were approved by the Lord, but some were.

"[Of a king] Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away" (Deuteronomy 17:14-20)

"I gave thee thy... wives into thy bosom... and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things." (2 Samuel 12:7-8)

Edited December 18, 2024 by Pyreaux

[The Nehor]

I don’t like Section 132. I also don’t like the way that Church leaders have tried to salvage it by dividing it up and trying to make one part of it about temple sealings in general and other bits about plural marriage. The opening text in the section is God declaring that it is all answers about plural marriage.

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

Yes, it is very weird to me that if Joseph really wanted to fool around with any woman he wanted, including other men’s wives (outside of Fanny, the first women he was sealed to were pregnant or widows, which is another weirdness), he would include that part in his counterfeit scripture. (Just in case someone misunderstands, I do not believe it is fake scripture, I think he actually got revelation…exactly what is less certain to me, but 132 is likely how he conveyed it to others).

I am not sure what difference being a widow makes.  And one can still have sex with a widow and a pregnant woman.  I think he married some of these more mature women in order to help groom the younger ones he has his eyes on.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I am not sure what difference being a widow makes.  And one can still have sex with a widow and a pregnant woman.  I think he married some of these more mature women in order to help groom the younger ones he has his eyes on.

I'm curious what age range you are using for the "younger ones".  Under 18?  Under 20?  Under 25?  I'll have to double check but I think many of the under 18 had connections to Joseph that didn't require any grooming from older women.  For example, the youngest, Helen Kimball, would have been groomed by her own parents.  Sarah Whitney (17) would have had her parents do it as well.  Lucy Walker (17) was living in Joseph's house as his foster daughter and she stated that Joseph approached her directly.  Emily Partridge (barely 19) was approached first by Joseph and then Elizabeth Durfee (an older wife, 50) approached her as well, so older wives did participate some time.  But I don't think it was all that often.

There is an old statement published in 1844 that does say that "[Joseph] had in his employ certain old women, called "Mothers in Zion", such as Mrs. Taylor, old Madam Durfee, and old Madam Sessions ... if Joseph wishes to make a spiritual wife of a certain young lady, he would send one of these women to her."  (page 13 at https://archive.org/details/narrativeofadven00jack/page/12/mode/2up).  I don't have much faith, though, that the person stating this actually knew of it.  Because he also later says that "[Joseph] boasted to me that he in this manner from the commencement of his career had seduced 400 women."  Elizabeth Durfee did approach at least one women (Emily), but, per Emily, it was done differently than described and it doesn't look very much like grooming.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I am not sure what difference being a widow makes.  And one can still have sex with a widow and a pregnant woman.  I think he married some of these more mature women in order to help groom the younger ones he has his eyes on.

I am not concerned with Joseph’s sealings, but with men who were sealed only once to their first and only wife, at least in the beginning for a significant time that suggests they may not have been anticipating ever having a plural wife while Joseph was alive and likely the source of their knowledge about sealings.  I want to see if exaltation, which at least today is where sealings between husband and wife are only relevant as in eternal marriage only exists if exaltation and one is exalted only if sealed in eternal marriage, was seen as requiring plural marriage originally or not at the beginning.

Since we don’t have firsthand teachings from Joseph, what sealings he approved of would seem to be the best source of understanding if he limited eternal marriage only to men who were also plurally married.  Iow, did he believe that for a man to be exalted he had to be plurally sealed.  A sealing to one and only one wife would seem to disprove this alleged requirement.