- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Ray, concerning the “legal and lawful” words in the sealing ordinance, I believe that was added sometime after the 1890 manifesto. Prior to that, the church didn’t care that polygamist marriages weren’t legal or lawful. But following the manifesto, the words were added to discourage polygamist marriages (though they obviously continued for a couple more decades.) I don’t know when those specific words were added, I’d have to do some research. There is an interesting exchange in the book
Development of LDS Temple Worship.Mormons weren’t fans of “legal and lawful” marriages. I wrote about it in this link: http://www.mormonheretic.org/2011/03/06/development-of-lds-temple-worship/ Quote:Since I’m curious about the time period relating to the Manifesto, I had to look for information around 1890. Some of these quotes are hard to understand without the footnotes. For example, here is the quote from a letter from President Wilford Woodruff to William H. Seegmiller, Sept 26, 1890 that left me scratching my head until I read the footnote.
Elder H. S. Palmer of Freemont [Utah] writes to us that you have refused to give him a recommend to the House of the Lord because at his late trial he promised to obey the law.
The footnote states,
Apparently Seegmiller thought LDS people should stand firm in violating the law against polygamy. Notice that President Woodruff doesn’t support Palmer’s decision to obey the law; rather he finds the sin of obedience in this case to be venial rather than fatal.
Continuing with the quote from the letter,
If this is the only reason you have for withholding his recommend, and if he is otherwise in good standing in the Church, and were it not for this action of his you could freely recommend him, we do not think it advisable for that reason alone to withhold from him the privileges of the temple.
Official Declaration 1 was released just 2 days before this letter. Wilford Woodruff had a vision on Sept 23, 1891. The following day, the press release was drafted and printed in our current edition of the Doctrine and Covenants.
MH I’m interest in your opinion of the link on Fair at the beginning of the post. I tried to read it but after the third or fourth “but I’ll get to that later” I gave up
Thanks Mormonheretic, that is what I thought, but I am not a historian so I didn’t want to spout what I don’t know. My point was, if polygamy is approved by God then so be it. But to participate in it behind a spouse, man or woman, is deceitful, in my opinion. As far as people complaining… Every year about this time I complain about paying taxes. I still pay what is due for two reasons. First, because it is right to pay my fair share. Second (and the real reason) is because it is the law, and I will go to jail if I do not. I still complain, but it is a law I must follow. By the same thought, if polygamy is God’s law, I would be a huge complainer, but if I want to follow God’s law and not be punished (even if punishment is only knowing I disappoint God), then I would have to participate.
On the other hand, people who are participating in behaviors that are against law (either man’s or God’s) don’t usually complain. If someone is breaking into my house to steal my TV, I don’t think I would hear “Oh boy, what a bother to have to take this nice TV.” They might feel guilt, but I don’t believe they would complain. It would be done without the owner’s knowledge – deceit.
I have read Ray’s posts on JS polygamy over and over. I have also read this Fair article in the past, and skimmed it today. While I have not been convinced that polygamy is right, I have softened on my view of JS. I can see that, perhaps, through his sealing to many women, other men’s wives and even men, that his intent was to join together humanity. So, I am glad it has been discussed at length because I feel less hostile about the subject.
I suppose, if you go from the starting point of believing that JS is a prophet, then it follows that polygamy was, at that time, approved by God. I have ended up going the other way. Polygamy does not fit into my moral code, therefore I can’t bring myself to believe JS to be a prophet because he led men to sin (all my own opinion—no attempt to insult anyone). I can, however, accept that JS was a religious reformer, and wanted exhatation for all mankind.
As far as the original op on the sexuality involved in polyandry, I don’t see how it is any different than sexuality involved with single women. Either multiple partners is right, or it is wrong. It seems to me that every individual would have to come to that based on prayer and testimony.
Quote:if you go from the starting point of believing that JS is a prophet, then it follows that polygamy was, at that time, approved by God.
Not necessarily – and certainly not “as implemented”.
I’m OK with the general concept of various forms of sealing, but I’m not convinced Utah era polygamy was “approved by God”. I just can’t condemn it, given everything I’ve researched about it – and I certainly can’t condemn Joseph and Brigham over it or think it automatically invalidates their standing as prophets.
This discussion, amongst others, leads me to think that we LDS folks may be on the completely wrong track that one needs to “Be living worthy” to be able to be inspired. I think Joseph did bad things…I think evidence stretches credibility that everything he did was “OK in the eyes of the Lord”. Booze either denies the spirit or not, multiple partners is good or bad. Being a racist who believes blacks are lesser than whites is either good or bad. So if doing things that are not good either says “Amen to the priesthood of that man” or it does not. I am thinking it does not. Thats why a man I have come to respect can be a connoseuier of great beers and still have great spiritual insight. A man can view some pornography and give a blessing. You can smoke, and still teach a good lesson.
Yup…I know…i am going over the edge.
johnh wrote:This discussion, amongst others, leads me to think that we LDS folks may be on the completely wrong track that one needs to “Be living worthy” to be able to be inspired. I think Joseph did bad things…I think evidence stretches credibility that everything he did was “OK in the eyes of the Lord”. Booze either denies the spirit or not, multiple partners is good or bad. Being a racist who believes blacks are lesser than whites is either good or bad. So if doing things that are not good either says “Amen to the priesthood of that man” or it does not.
I am thinking it does not. Thats why a man I have come to respect can be a connoseuier of great beers and still have great spiritual insight. A man can view some pornography and give a blessing. You can smoke, and still teach a good lesson.
Yup…I know…i am going over the edge.
@johnh – hopefully it’s a short way down…just in case I follow.
:crazy: I agree. We do like to make people believe that sin will make a person unable to feel or be guided by the spirit. Yet we accept that all are imperfect and by definition of being imperfect sin. Thus none of us could feel the spirit. I believe this to be a misunderstanding of the scriptures. For some reason an image of a man reading an ensign while sipping a coffee at Starbucks comes to mind…
I have to apologize if I went over the line in my opinion of JS. I actually have come a long way in softening my position on him, and the posts here have helped me a lot. I do think he was a good man, and the church is good. What I really mean to say is: If polygamy is a correct principle, then why does the polyandry side have to be defended? I think the reason some get upset when they learn about it is just a cultural conditioning. We have always heard about 1 man with several wives. It seems shocking to hear about 1 woman having more than one husband. It is just new information. But in the end, the best defense that I have heard is that when God commands it, then God commands it. I am actually on the apologist side of this and not being antagonistic.
Quote:I am actually on the apologist side of this and not being antagonistic.
and that is totally fine for this group. It’s much more an open mind than any particular stance that is importnat here – and, somtimes, a thick skin.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:I am actually on the apologist side of this and not being antagonistic.
and that is totally fine for this group. It’s much more an open mind than any particular stance that is importnat here – and, somtimes, a thick skin.
Amen Ray! You B@stard
ok…just kidding…(about the B@stard part)
johnh wrote:This discussion, amongst others, leads me to think that we LDS folks may be on the completely wrong track…
I am thinking it does not. Thats why a man I have come to respect can be a connoseuier of great beers and still have great spiritual insight…..
:angel: It is a problem. In SM…it was all about spiritual gifts and the words, “obedience, keep the commandments, faith, worthy, earn” etc etc were used many times. It made me sad…to hear such false doctrine.
Perhaps the revelation and the spiritual gifts come prior to all of those things? Perhaps they are just tools to help us further along until we can “obedience, keep the commandments, faith, worthy, earn”?
GBSmith, I started reading Hales article but haven’t finished it. Let me tell you some of my first impressions. Hales said, Quote:So some observations. It’s kind of weird that a woman would be married to an active LDS but be sealed to Joseph Smith for an eternal marriage. And Joseph could be criticized that he was insensitive to those ten husbands, but none of them ever complained. We have no complaints from any of them.
Well, from my memory, Orson Pratt did complain, especially at first. While Orson eventually came around and embraced polygamy, I don’t think I agree with that statement.
Regarding some of the dates, Hales clearly states that he thinks Compton’s dates are wrong, but it sounds like Compton stands by his dates. I haven’t read Compton yet, so I can’t weigh in on that particular dispute.
I will say this regarding Hales. In the link I posted earlier about types of polygamy and surrogate parenthood, there is a really strange story of a non-Mormon couple (the Richardsons) driving through Utah that discusses a “Convenience marriage” (Kathryn Daines’ term, not mine.) While in SLC, the Richardsons converted. They had 2 children (girls I believe), and something happened to the husband so that he could not father children anymore. All the Mormons told the wife that she should leave her husband and get another because having children was seen as so important to salvation. Not wanting to divorce on that basis alone, they went to Brigham Young to ask his opinion. Young came up with a novel solution. He would have them temporarily divorce, the wife would marry a good mormon man, have a few children, then divorce and remarry as original. (This is a form of natural insemination!) Two new boys were born from the arrangement, were called by the Richardsons name and raised as his own in a sort of levirate marriage as mentioned in the Book of Matthew. This story is told in greater detail in “More Wives than One” by BYU professor Kathryn Daines, and I quoted her words in my blog post. In a way, this could be considered a polyandrous marriage. Daines said she hadn’t found any divorce decrees, and said it was a family story. Anyway, these 2 boys were sealed to the “sterile” father.
At Sunstone, I asked Hales specifically about this story, and he was very familiar with it. Hales said that he had found actual divorce papers, and he was convinced that the 2 divorces were legal and binding, and Sister Richardson had consecutive, not concurrent, sexual relations with the 2 men. Because of that, he says it is not a polyandrous marriage. From a technical point of view, I agree with Hales. But I will say that a temporary divorce with the intention to remarry later is really odd, and I’d call it a polyandrous marriage, even though the sexual relations were consecutive, not concurrent. To me, Hales is arguing a technical point; while technically correct, for all intents and purposes, I’d call it polyandrous. The whole temporary marriage and divorce just doesn’t sit well with me.
As far as legal divorce papers, well, as mentioned previously, Mormons didn’t care that they were breaking marriage laws. Utah had the most liberal divorce laws in the U.S. back in the day. Part of the anti-polygamy crusades included more stringest divorce laws in Utah. So the argument that Hales said he found legal divorce papers is interesting if true, but Mormons didn’t particularly care about whether a divorce was legal. (I wonder if the document Hales found is a Hoffman forgery!
😆 )One of the reasons Parley P. Pratt was killed was because he married a southern man’s wife. Because divorces were so easy in Utah (all you had to do was claim that you would move to Utah, and Utah would grant the divorce), the divorce wasn’t recognized as legal in Arkansas. That’s why the woman’s husband got so angry and murdered Parley. So I don’t necessarily find Hales argument regarding the Richardsons as compelling. I’d have to look more at his paper and books to see if I agree with him on JS polyandrous relations.
Ann wrote:I hope that “no one complained” is not a focal point of new lessons that discuss polygamy/polyandry. Emma complained and no one else matters, in my opinion.
Couldn’t agree more, Ann. I also wonder how much the other women were coerced into a marriage with JS that they really didn’t want. I can think of many ways coersion could have occurred – economically, emotionally, socially. As I’ve noted in other threads, this topic really bothers me.
An interesting tie-in to another controversial topic, is John D. Lee’s marriages to other women. I’ve read several books about John D. Lee and the Mountain Meadow Massacre. There was one juicy little footnote in Juanita Brook’s biography of JD Lee that sounded an awful lot like Lee temporarily “loaned” a wife to Q12 member Smith who fathered a child with her. I can’t really tell, though, and I haven’t done a lot of additional research on that very narrow topic.
For me, I can’t accept polyandry, sexual or not, as a God-inspired doctrine. It is simply too easy to abuse power in my opinion. I can accept it as a desire to cement a dynasty or a particular power structure in the church. I thought we were all equals in God’s eyes…
Roadrunner wrote:Ann wrote:For me, I can’t accept polyandry, sexual or not, as a God-inspired doctrine. It is simply too easy to abuse power in my opinion. I can accept it as a desire to cement a dynasty or a particular power structure in the church. I thought we were all equals in God’s eyes…
What I find interesting is how much we are willing to accept if we think God is behind it. In Joseph’s day, as hard as it was…men and women accepted the doctrine. Today, if someone came professing the mantle of a prophet and engaging in polyandry, using the same words to persuade and convince that JS did…it would take us 2 seconds to throw him out.
Imagine the turmoil in the church if polygamy and polyandry were reinstated (we never have repudiated the doctrine and still have it enshrined in D&C132). Imagine if it was first reinstated quietly, only among a few select leaders of the church, while publicly denying that they were doing anything of the sort. And then a leader coming to you telling you that God had told him that your wife was now to be his. We would get the exact same turmoil that Joseph experienced back then. There would be thousands who would leave the Church. Someone would publish a book or put up a blog proclaiming what was going on much like the Nauvoo Expositor of old.
The church still has not admitted the existence of the second annointing….and that would be a bit less shocking I would think johnh wrote:The church still has not admitted the existence of the second annointing….and that would be a bit less shocking I would think
I was surprized at John Dehlin’s change of tone regarding this in his interview. I think it’s one thing to be respectful, but I don’t think secrets work anymore. I cling to the very few profound, bonding, revelatory experiences I’ve had in the temple, but I think there is a way in which it will have to make more sense “up front” for people to be attracted to it in the future. I grew up in the church with no real thought of the temple in my head. When I got there with almost-husband and two sets of parents, a lot of my shock and concern were sort of absorbed by their presence. But in the future, prospective members can look the whole thing over beforehand. Will it strike them as something logical, beautiful, necessary and fair?
Or maybe all that’s beside the point somehow. I’m just putting my personality into a hypothetical young, female, North American investigator’s shoes. Maybe that’s not where the church is going to grow, and so be it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.