- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
How about one of those prophets seers and revelators come out and clear this up. It is a black eye that no one in 100 years seems to want to touch. Just because we don’t actively teach it in Sunday school or seminary does not mean that we don’t learn it. We read it in seminary, then we read it every time we read D&C. I cannot tell you how many times I have cried over this scripture. And also how many fights I have gotten in from college on with returned missionaries telling me that polygamy is a celestial law. My husband even said that on his mission he and his companion decided it must be a celestial law because of the scripture that we have. This scripture is so offensive and contradictory to everything that I am taught/feel about who I am.
I am a daughter of God, Who loves me, but not enough to let me have my own husband or make my own choices about who else he can marry?
I don’t know a single woman who has peace with this. The closest that they come to having peace seems to be ‘I believe that the church is true, so I don’t like it but maybe I’ll understand it in the eternities.’
HSAB….The closest that they come to having peace seems to be ‘I believe that the church is true, so I don’t like it but maybe I’ll understand it in the eternities.’ That is exactly what my visiting teacher said to me. She is still upset by it to this day but is “praying to be humble enough to accept Gods will”. Ugh
On Own Now wrote:Ann wrote:Would that we could put a cosmic microphone up to the mouth of all women who lived polygamously and tell them to be honest.
From Eliza Partridge (Smith) (Lyman) in 1877:
Quote:After a time, my sister Emily and myself went to live in the family of the Prophet Joseph Smith. We lived there about three years. While there, he taught to us the plan of celestial marriage and asked us to enter into that order with him. This was truly a great trial for me but I had the most implicit confidence in him as a Prophet of the Lord and not but believe his words and as a matter of course accept of the privilege of being sealed to him as a wife for time and all eternity. We were sealed in 1843 by H. C. K. in the presence of witnesses. I continued to live in his family for a length of time after this but did not reside there when he was martyred which was the 27th of June, 1844.
I was then living with a family by the name of Coolidge. I stayed with them for a year or more until I was married to a man by the name of Amasa Lyman, one of the Twelve Apostles. I then went to live with my mother for a while and after that lived with him and his wife, Maria Louisa. Times were not then as they are now in 1877, but a woman living in polygamy dare not let it be known and nothing but a firm desire to keep the commandments of the Lord could have induced a girl to marry in that way. I thought my trials were very severe in the line and I am often led to wonder how it was that a person of my temperament could get along with it and not rebel, but I know it was the Lord who kept me from opposing his plans although in my heart I felt that I could not submit to them; but I did and I am thankful to my Heavenly Father for the care he had over me in those troublous times.
That God was with her doesn’t mean He commanded the practice. The Lord sustains people in their affliction. And human beings find ways to cope and compensate. Women (and men, for that matter) have married under pressure, out of expedience, in ignorance, as political pawns, as arranged by parents, “sold” by fathers, etc. So I understand that marriage has been a work in progress for eons. And everyone looks for the good in their situation.
But if we could talk with Eliza Partridge lo these many years later, would she want this for her great, great, great… granddaughters?
Some women are never going to have the perfect storm of circumstances that bring this issue to the forefront of their minds. But many have, many will, and many will discount the church’s doctrine in its entirety while this portion of it enjoys silent approval.
Easy explanation: Polygamy was a BS commandment all along and DC 132 is a total sham.
For an interesting exposition on the possibility of JS having nothing to do with 132 read this: http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2010/06/why-im-abandoning-polygamy.html?m=1 This was a belief of the RLDS church forever.
I also find it fascinating that Emma publicly denied Joseph had anything to do with polygamy her whole life…
132 has always been conflicting for me. It doesn’t bring the spirit. It doesn’t sound like the Lord. The voice is so different from other sections. Even if one believed Joseph made up the d&c I feel like the Lord has a fairly consistent voice (in a literary sense). Its different here. Especially in the Emma verses. I don’t know. It’s like ideas taken from other things Joseph taught mixed with justification for polygamy. I didn’t read the article above until about 3 days ago and I’m not declaring I believe it. It’s given me a lot of food for thought though and I’m considering it. But I’ve always struggled with 132. Just doesn’t fit…
I also am not convinced Joseph wrote Section 132, but I believe he probably did. This thread has certainly changed my view of it anyway. I was very excited when I read that puremormonism post a while ago. I asked for comments here and most said the polygamy stuff with Joseph is too well documented. I am still not convinced. I think 132 “feels” like an inserted page in the book. The idea that polygamy was a brigham and the boys thing and the church has had to maintain the ruse ever since works for me. It actually seems to fit with the general character of the church in so many other areas as well. Seems like Brigham did some interesting stuff and the church has been doing damage control ever since.
I didn’t continue the discussion here as there wasn’t much interest. I did email the puremormonism guy to ask if he still feels the same since his article is a year old or so. He said he still thinks Joseph didn’t go for polygamy in fact even feels more strongly about it.
I feel better about the church being built on Josephs teachings and inspirations by guys who manipulated things a bit after he was gone. This fits what has happened in most other religions and makes sense to me of church history. Certainly sits better with me than the sneaky Joseph who walked the razors edge between lords servant and deeply flawed human willing to take free will from women.
Just to be clear about my own view, I do believe Joseph married / was sealed to more than one woman (which included at least consummation sex in some but not all cases) – but I don’t think Joseph was a polygamist in the classic, traditional sense of the term, and I’m not convinced he wrote D&C 132, although I believe he did. At this point I’m still quite conflicted. The idea that Joseph wasn’t a polygamist seems too good to be true after being taught the opposite my whole life. Just because I really want to believe it doesn’t make it true… But the idea of Brigham Young et al. manipulating information to secure their positions does fit my view of Brigham Young just fine.
If it were true then that opens a whole new can of worms about whether anything post-JS would be legitimate. But for me there are ways around that problem that are easier to swallow than the idea of JS living a double life.
I think the truth may lie somewhere in the middle. I don’t think that Utah-era polygamy was inspired in its practice. And i absolutely don’t think polygamy was intended to be the central doctrine of the church as it was for 50 years.
So I’m still not convinced that Joseph didn’t practice it. But I’m moving in that direction.
Whenever I pray about it I’ve felt, like many, that it wasn’t a central doctrine and that I’d understand some day…
Perhaps that understanding comes in realizing its falsehood, hmm?
💡 At any rate I don’t think 132 was received
in totoby Joseph Smith. It just doesn’t fit to me. Well, JS was the author of polygamy, if not of Sec 132. Nauvoo-era polygamy was very different from Utah-era polygamy, but they were both polygamy. My opinion is that it is impossible to truly understand JS’s motives. It’s easy to assume sex, because that’s what most men would want out of it. But then there is that pesky problem with JS not having any children other than with Emma. There are plenty of other possible motives that are less uncomfortable. BY’s motivation was probably to follow the doctrine with exactness; thus resulting in the institutionalization of polygamy. 132? Hard to tell, but it is certainly based on concepts from JS. That JS produced a revelation, and taught it privately, and had multiple wives was attested to by the Nauvoo Expositor. Is 132 that revelation? Possibly. Is it the original wording of that revelation? Maybe. I have my doubts, as I outlined earlier.
But here is text from the June 7, 1844 Nauvoo Expositor:
William Law: “I hereby certify that Hyrum Smith did, (in his office) read to me a certain written document, which he said was a revelation from God, he said that he was with Joseph when it was received. He afterwards gave me the document to read, and I took it to my house, and read it, and showed it to my wife, and returned it next day. The revelation (so called) authorized certain men to have more wives than one at a time, in this world and in the world to come. It said this was the law, and commanded Joseph to enter into the law.-And also that he should administer to others. Several other items were in the revelation, supporting the above doctrines.”
Jane Law: “I certify that I read the revelation referred to in the above affidavit of my husband, it sustained in strong terms the doctrine of more wives that one at a time, in this world, and in the next, it authorized some to have to the number of ten, and set forth that those women who would not allow their husbands to have more wives than one should be under condemnation before God.”
Austin Cowles: “In the latter part of the summer, 1843, the Patriarch, Hyrum Smith, did in the High Council, of which I was a member, introduce what he said was a revelation given through the Prophet; that the said Hyrum Smith did essay to read the said revelation in the said Council, that according to his reading there was contained the following doctrines; 1st the sealing up of persons to eternal life, against all sins, save that of sheding innocent blood or of consenting thereto; 2nd, the doctrine of a plurality of wives, or marrying virgins; that “David and Solomon had many wives, yet in this they sinned not save in the matter of Uriah.” This revelation with other evidence, that the aforesaid heresies were taught and practiced in the Church; determined me to leave the office of first counselor to the president of the Church at Nauvoo [ie, first counselor to Nauvoo Stake President, William Marks], inasmuch as I dared not teach or administer such laws.”
I just started reading, “In Sacred Loneliness” so this thread caught my eye. I remember reading Sec. 132 in seminary and thought it was horrible that Emma was told she would be destroyed if she did not live polygamy. I could not understand that kind of God besides not liking the idea of polygamy. But then when I would visit Nauvoo or Salt Lake and see the statues of JS and Emma facing each other, I thought ‘where are the statues of the other wives?” Were they not important; did they not sacrifice and were noble women? I was told once that more women would go to heaven than men and so that women would have to learn to share their husbands. Would men do that if it were the other way around. Decifering what is really from God or man is difficult sometimes. I don’t mean to bump up a really old thread, but I have a few quick questions. What would be different in the church if Sect. 132 was never included in D&C in the first place? Would temple sealings and endowments be the same as they are today? Or would temples have a different purpose?
Sorry if these questions have been answered before.
I don’t believe it would change the temple ceremony at all. Section 132 wasn’t included in the D&C for many years after we were performing temple ceremonies and they didn’t seem to have any problems with lack of scriptural support. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your question.
Feel free to bump up any old discussion – there are some really good discussions here.
:thumbup:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.