- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I don’t see anything positive from this statement EXCEPT that it includes approval of inter-racial marriage – which is the irony I mentioned, given later statements by other leaders. Also, there is no mention whatsoever of marrying already married women in the statement itself. That is extrapolating a future variation into a statement from a time when that variation didn’t exist.
I also don’t see it as a revelation.
Like I said: make-believe. wayfarer wrote:Like I said: make-believe.
It’s all make-believe. Its all man made doctrine…breath in. Breath out.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
curt wrote:Is this acknowledgement of the 1831 revelation?
Interestingly, the Church website says this:
Quote:After
God revealed the doctrine of plural marriage to Joseph Smith in 1831and commanded him to live it, the Prophet, over a period of years, cautiously taught the doctrine to some close associates. Eventually, he and a small number of Church leaders entered into plural marriages in the early years of the Church. Those who practiced plural marriage at that time, both male and female, experienced a significant trial of their faith. The practice was so foreign to them that they needed and received personal inspiration from God to help them obey the commandment. When the Saints moved west under the direction of Brigham Young, more Latter-day Saints entered into plural marriages.
Influenced by rumors and exaggerated reports, the United States Congress, beginning in 1862, enacted a series of laws against polygamy that became increasingly harsh. By the 1880s many Latter-day Saint men were imprisoned or went into hiding.
In 1889 in the face of increasing hardships and the threat of government confiscation of Church property, including temples, Wilford Woodruff, President of the Church at the time, prayed for guidance. He was inspired to issue a document that officially ended the sanction of plural marriage by the Church. The document, called the Manifesto, was accepted by Church members in a general conference held in October 1890 and is published in the Doctrine and Covenants as Official Declaration 1 (see also “Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto” following Official Declaration 1).
Just as the practice of plural marriage among the Latter-day Saints began gradually, the ending of the practice after the Manifesto was also gradual. Some plural marriages were performed after the Manifesto, particularly in Mexico and Canada. In 1904, President Joseph F. Smith called for a vote from the Church membership that all post-Manifesto plural marriages be prohibited worldwide.
http://www.lds.org/study/topics/polygamy-plural-marriage?lang=eng shawn, everything the church says there in that website definition is accurate when it speaks of the history, but it’s still not complete. Joseph Smith may not have been so ‘inspired’ when he talked about this ‘principle’, in as far as he required married woman to participate in it with him, and many times without their active husbands’ knowledge of it. You can apologetically defend that as a test, but even the church is hesitant about broadcasting that part of the history. the conclusion the church makes in the statement is that the principle of polygamy was a commandment. I would submit that this conclusion is suspect, given the nature of how polyandry was part of the bargain. To defend the ‘inspired’ nature of it, is to paint god as a bit of a monster with respect to testing and trying people’s loyalty within marriage, and then allowing the prophet to commit polyandry with other mens’ wives without their knowledge.
But it doesn’t matter. I like what you originally said in a post: something to the effect that Joseph Smith commmitted polyandry, yet he is the prophet of the restoration. I have no issue with him being both a sinner and a prophet, and I suspect neither do you. I find it harmful, however, to try to defend his position on polyandry (specifically) — so I don’t bother, and I don’t think there are many people, scholars or otherwise, that would bother to defend polyandry either (although I recognize now that MH has corrected me that a few scholars defended polygamy/polygyny).
Wayfarer, there are several prominent scholars that defend Joseph Smith era polygamy, most notably Richard Bushman, Brian Hales, and Anne Wilde (to name a few.) mormonheretic wrote:Wayfarer, there are several prominent scholars that defend Joseph Smith era polygamy, most notably Richard Bushman, Brian Hales, and Anne Wilde (to name a few.)
Of course I will defer to your background on this — I meant to say his ‘polyandry’ not ‘polygamy’, and I have corrected my post. Would it make a difference? Did bushman, hales, and wilde defend polyandry?Defend it from what? I really don’t care what the historians and apologetics say about it.
If polygamy and polyandry, especially as practiced by the early church is what God had in mind…than I don’t want anything to do with him.
And if the church position that it is to get to CK, than I guess I will be quite fine in my terrestrial state.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
Brian Hales did a presentation last year at both Sunstone and the Mormon History Association meetings where he did some “explanation” (perhaps defending) of polyandry. Hales has a website at http://www.josephsmithspolygamy.com Basically Hales’ position is that Joseph did not want to participate in polygamy and was dragging his feet on it. If he had participated when the Lord commanded him to do it, then the polyandrous sealings never would have happened because these women were not married at the time the Lord commanded Joseph. It’s not an argument I buy, but he presented this before a REALLY skeptical audience at Sunstone last year. (While not convincing to me, I thought it was an interesting presentation.)
I stopped into Benchmark Books last week, and I talked with Anne Wilde for a few minutes. We didn’t talk specifically about this topic, but she casually mentioned that she agrees with Hales on a lot of the Joseph Smith era polygamy (I don’t know her exact feelings on this topic), but she and Brian diverged on modern day polygamy. (As a polygamist herself, that doesn’t surprise me.) If I run into her again, I’ll see if I can ask her. Wilde is one of the “Principal Voices” group that is trying to get polygamy de-criminalized.
I believe Western society has a big, big double standard about polygamy. After all, it seems you can sleep with as many “partners” (hate that word!) as you like, but not marry them. Advertising and the media encourage this, but polygamy is a no no… SamBee wrote:I believe Western society has a big, big double standard about polygamy. After all, it seems you can sleep with as many “partners” (hate that word!) as you like, but not marry them. Advertising and the media encourage this, but polygamy is a no no…
Maybe, but I don’t think so…in the Western society, women are just as free to sleep with as many partners as men. In polygamy…that is not the case.
I have absolutely NO problem with polyandry. Married people want to sleep with whoever they want, as many partners as they want…go for it.
What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.
The problem with the way Mormons practiced polygamy, is the women were treated like chattel, and didn’t have the same rights to marry other men, and the secrecy involved where JS sent men on missions and then married their wives, and the whole manipulation about the need to marry him for salvation.
I grant that JS tried to allow women to sleep/marry whoever they wanted, with the exception of Emma, but Brigham Young changed everything. If BY’s wives would have been allowed to wander out and marry other married men…probably wouldn’t have this conversation.
So no Sam….I don’t think it is a double standard. I think it is an anti patriarchy/sexist type of a standard. That is just my opinion.
Quote:in the Western society, women are just as free to sleep with as many partners as men. In polygamy…that is not the case.
Depends which kind of polygamy. JS (maybe for the wrong motifs) also practised polyandry with certain women I believe. Now this is less common than polygyny in Mormon history, but it still existed… so there IS a precedent.
I don’t have a problem with a man marrying multiple women, or a woman marrying multiple men. Just as long as they’re not abusing each other, or transmitting STDs to each other… And more importantly no one is FORCED into a marriage.
The story of Emma and William Law is interesting in that regard. Joseph didn’t immediately say yes, but they did eventually approach the Laws about it, which I guess shows Joseph was open to the idea (even if the Laws weren’t). mormonheretic wrote:Basically Hales’ position is that Joseph did not want to participate in polygamy and was dragging his feet on it. If he had participated when the Lord commanded him to do it, then the polyandrous sealings never would have happened because these women were not married at the time the Lord commanded Joseph. It’s not an argument I buy, but he presented this before a REALLY skeptical audience at Sunstone last year. (While not convincing to me, I thought it was an interesting presentation.)
I don’t think there is any easy way out of this predicament. “If only JS hadn’t hesitated to take Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner as a plural wife when she was 15/16 when he was originally prompted, instead of waiting 8 years until she was 23 and married to someone else.” For some reason this doesn’t make me feel any better.
Besides, it doesn’t fit all the circumstances. Presendia Lathrop Huntington Jacobs was married to Norman Buell in 1827 and had two children with him. The couple didn’t join the church until 1836. She became a plural wife to JS in 1841.
In addition, I don’t like the picture that paints of God requiring that JS marry specific women no matter the cost in collateral damage or broken families. Perhaps that might make more sense under the understanding of kindred spirits/kindred personalities coupled with the idea that polygamy must be practiced in order to enter the CK or that the larger one’s posterity the greater the glory in the CK – but these doctrines seem quite foreign in the modern church. If these monumental sacrifices were required for some greater good, then why (over 100 years after the practices discontinuance) has the greater good eluded us?
The explanation that I am going with is the following:
Quote:“[JS] believed he had been given powers that transcended civil law. Claiming sole responsibility for binding and unbinding marriages on earth and in heaven, he did not consider it necessary to obtain civil marriage licenses or divorce decrees. Whenever he deemed it appropriate he could release a woman from her earthly marriage and seal her to himself or to another with no stigma of adultery.” Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy, 42
If this is true then it still doesn’t make me feel particularly good about what happened – but at least it applies to all the scenarios – i.e. civil marriages were of no consequence in the rollout of the practice of Polygamy. Everyone was on the market (so to speak).
Roy wrote:If this is true then it still doesn’t make me feel particularly good about what happened
I’m with you Roy. I’m not sure I’ve found anything to help me feel good about it…but there are some plausible explanations…just not ones I like.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.