- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I think it is obvious that Joseph Smith had sex with them. After all, a human being can take care of another human being without marrying them. It’s called Christian charity! Joseph Smith and his sexual behavior is not a deal breaker with me. Jacob and Lamech had multiple wives, why not Joseph? I also think that Joseph Smith could of made mistakes and given into temptation, but still be a Prophet. I really don’t know.
Old-Timer wrote:When you read the first-person statements, none of the members (of whom I am aware) whose wives were sealed to Jospeh thought they were giving up their wives in doing so. They viewed “sealing” very differently than “marriage” – and it was a vital distinction to them.
I’ll just say the impression I get from the same sources is somewhat different. Of course there are differences – namely “sealing” is not limited to this life, but many of those early members didn’t hold a legal marriage to have as much binding power (now or in the next life) as a priesthood sealing. I think Heber C Kimball’s “test” demonstrates that at least some did understand their giving of their wife to the prophet as passing a test of faith. The mindset was much different back then and it makes our comprehension difficult, but I think the fact that Joseph was rejected multiple times shows it was a difficult situation even back then.
Orson wrote:Old-Timer wrote:When you read the first-person statements, none of the members (of whom I am aware) whose wives were sealed to Jospeh thought they were giving up their wives in doing so. They viewed “sealing” very differently than “marriage” – and it was a vital distinction to them.
I’ll just say the impression I get from the same sources is somewhat different. Of course there are differences – namely “sealing” is not limited to this life, but many of those early members didn’t hold a legal marriage to have as much binding power (now or in the next life) as a priesthood sealing. I think Heber C Kimball’s “test” demonstrates that at least some did understand their giving of their wife to the prophet as passing a test of faith. The mindset was much different back then and it makes our comprehension difficult, but I think the fact that Joseph was rejected multiple times shows it was a difficult situation even back then.
I am not exactly sure if I understand what you mean by the “mindset” being different back then. Sorry in advance if I am totally off or if I misunderstand you.
If you are referring to individuals mindsets in regards to polygamy and polyandry, I have to strongly disagree with you.
Never in American history has polygamy, polyandry or marrying multiple 14 year old girls been part of the mainstream mindset. Not now or in the 1830’s or 1840’s. Many of Joseph Smith’s own followers and his first wife were also against it.
It bugs me when people at church say you need to judge Smith’s polygamy, polyandry etc.. by the times he lived in. Personally, I think it’s a ridiculous notion because polygamy, polyandry and marrying multiple 14 year old girls was unacceptable in his time too. You never heard of George Washington, John Q. Adams or James Buchannon participating in this type of behavior.
Am I totally off here?
AngryMormon wrote:
I am not exactly sure if I understand what you mean by the “mindset” being different back then. Sorry in advance if I am totally off or if I misunderstand you.No, not at all. Thanks for asking for clarification. What I was referring to was more along the lines of the way people framed religious ideas and beliefs into their everyday life. How many people of today can you imagine uprooting their family to go gather with a religious group? The religious fervor of that place and time was
intense, and I think we need to take that into account. What would be an absurd request today was in the realm of plausibility at that time, due to their level of belief and eagerness. There are also other small cultural variations that we don’t automatically relate to on our first reading. I agree 14 has always been young to marry. I would say that it’s not just polygamy etc. that we need to frame in the environment where it existed, we need to frame ALL things in proper context. Some things we do fairly well (explaining in church Emma asked for some change before the WoW was received) other things we obviously can improve on (the actual method of BoM translation).
[Edit:] To be fair with the “uprooting” comparison the general sense of feeling “settled” was probably lower among those people than what financially stable families feel today – so again we must frame everything in proper context. There are a large set of variables that all effect each other in some way.
Orson wrote:AngryMormon wrote:
I am not exactly sure if I understand what you mean by the “mindset” being different back then. Sorry in advance if I am totally off or if I misunderstand you.No, not at all. Thanks for asking for clarification. What I was referring to was more along the lines of the way people framed religious ideas and beliefs into their everyday life. How many people of today can you imagine uprooting their family to go gather with a religious group? The religious fervor of that place and time was
intense, and I think we need to take that into account. What would be an absurd request today was in the realm of plausibility at that time, due to their level of belief and eagerness. There are also other small cultural variations that we don’t automatically relate to on our first reading. I agree 14 has always been young to marry. I would say that it’s not just polygamy etc. that we need to frame in the environment where it existed, we need to frame ALL things in proper context. Some things we do fairly well (explaining in church Emma asked for some change before the WoW was received) other things we obviously can improve on (the actual method of BoM translation).
Thanks Orson for the clarification! I can understand your point of view.
AngryMormon, what I and others are saying, I think, is that it’s the polygamy/polyandry that is hardest to deal with (and the element of apparent unrighteous dominion), regardless of the age of the spouses, because it’s so foreign and repulsive to us. Having said that, the specific ages of the wives doesn’t bother me in the slightest, mostly because even the youngest age (14) was not abnormal back then and the oldest age and circumstance (58) obviously wasn’t about sex. (not the age, in and of itself, but the circumstances) The other issue is whether it was primarily about sex for Joseph – or if it started that way but morphed into something else. “Common sense” to us says it had to be about or focused on sex, and there is reasonable evidence that a large percentage of the “marriages” were consummated – but the evidence suggests that many of them weren’t and that many of those that were didn’t involve continued sex. At the most basic level, what I’m saying is that I think it was WAY more complex than most people are willing to consider – and I include most LDS members (and even many leaders) in that group of people.
Just to illustrate the point about the age issue:
The average marriage age for women in Joseph’s time in that part of the country was around 20-22; the average age of the women who were sealed to Joseph was about 30. There were three who were 14 or 15, but the other thirty were exactly in the average age range for his time or older – and, in three or four cases (can’t remember without looking again), they were 50 or older. So, speaking generally, I can’t see Joseph as someone who was after young girls.
Also, what Orson said is critical, imo.
johnh wrote:Shawn…14 years old is not a woman…and telling her it will save her family in the eternities is pretty manipulative and doctrinally unsound…unless prophets having calling an election made sure somehow translates to everyone in his family
14 years old is not a woman in TODAY’S reckoning.I do have the same concerns regarding the other stuff you wrote there. Going into a dark hole…….horray
P.S. There’s enough stuff to worry about without bringing conjecture into the mix. I am here to apologize and admit I am eating crow. I have learned that three women who were married to another man had sex with Joseph: Sarah Ann Whitney, Mary Heron, and Sylvia Sessions. This is according to Brian Hales in the “12 Myths Regarding Joseph Smith’s Polygamy”I am sorry. Everyone can pretty much disregard what I have previously wrote about Joseph.
Shawn wrote:I am here to apologize and admit I am eating crow. I have learned that three women who were married to another man had sex with Joseph: Sarah Ann Whitney, Mary Heron, and Sylvia Sessions. This is according to Brian Hales in the
“12 Myths Regarding Joseph Smith’s Polygamy”I am sorry. Everyone can pretty much disregard what I have previously wrote about Joseph.
I also listened to that podcast and the thing that really bothers me about the whole thing is whether JS had sex with one woman other than Emma or 35 women and it was not sanctioned by God then there is a problem. Brian Hales attempted to justify some of the relationships bases on his research while dismissing others and at the same time saying JS was OK to hide it all from Emma and Hyrum and all the other leaders until 1843. The lies, the manner it happened and the coverup all feels so wrong to me, but the whole concept of polygamy is not that hard for me to feel OK about.
Given it’s history we can instead say you have learned that three women who were married to another man (probably/appear to have/is claimed to have) had sex with Joseph… Shawn wrote:I am here to apologize and admit I am eating crow. I have learned that three women who were married to another man had sex with Joseph: Sarah Ann Whitney, Mary Heron, and Sylvia Sessions. This is according to Brian Hales in the
“12 Myths Regarding Joseph Smith’s Polygamy”I am sorry. Everyone can pretty much disregard what I have previously wrote about Joseph.
Not saying it’s right… but… forgetting the polygamous aspect… Marrying fourteen year olds was neither illegal nor uncommon back then (and still isn’t in some parts of the world) In some parts of Europe the age of consent is 12, in others 15 or 16 etc.
Edgar Allen Poe married Clemmie at 13. Their marriage was never consummated. She died not long after.
And as someone once said, “Elvis may be corrupting the youth of today, but Jerry Lee Lewis is marrying them.”
Mrs Myra Lewis was 14, I believe. Jerry Lee Lewis’ marital life has been complex.
http://m.gawker.com/5898022/jerry-lee-lewis-marries-the-ex+wife-of-his-underage-ex+wifes-brother church0333 wrote:I also listened to that podcast and the thing that really bothers me about the whole thing is whether JS had sex with one woman other than Emma or 35 women and it was not sanctioned by God then there is a problem. Brian Hales attempted to justify some of the relationships bases on his research while dismissing others and at the same time saying JS was OK to hide it all from Emma and Hyrum and all the other leaders until 1843. The lies, the manner it happened and the coverup all feels so wrong to me, but the whole concept of polygamy is not that hard for me to feel OK about.
Things Joseph did are inappropriate and shocking according to society, but there is still a chance that, in my view:1. grievous sins were not committed – I can more about this possibility later.
2. grievous sins were committed but he was somehow still a prophet (wouldn’t be the first).
3. he was a prophet for a time and then fell – I have not considered the implications of this enough.
mackay11 wrote:Given it’s history we can instead say you have learned that three women who were married to another man (probably/appear to have/is claimed to have) had sex with Joseph…
I see what you mean, but the evidence appears to be strong enough that he did. Hales claims that if JS did have sex with a women who was legally married to another man, then she was NOT also having sex with that other man. Something to think about I guess. It’s still bizarre, of course.Quote:Hales claims that if JS did have sex with a women who was legally married to another man, then she was NOT also having sex with that other man.
Fwiw, I think that is a stupid claim, as worded.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:Hales claims that if JS did have sex with a women who was legally married to another man, then she was NOT also having sex with that other man.
Fwiw, I think that is a stupid claim, as worded.
I suppose Hales has reasons for stating that, but I am not privy to them. I am tired.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.