- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The latest essay is out and can be found here in LDS.orgIt is on the beginnings of Polygamy.
The highlights
They admit JS married a 14 year old girl (they use the words “sealed a few months before her 15th birthday”, I guess it doesn’t sound as bad?)
They openly bring up that in the eternities procreation continues and the bringing forth of babies
They openly admitted that Fanny Alger was a plural wife.
They admit that JS was threatened with a sword by an angle if he didn’t comply, and say sometimes the Lord does this kind of thing to get people to do things.
They try to explain why lying about polygamy was not really lying. (footnote: 22. In the denials, “polygamy” was understood to mean the marriage of one man to more than one woman but without Church sanction.
They bring up the Law of Sarah and explain why it wasn’t followed, but don’t mention that D&C 132 specifically states that if Emma didn’t accept the marriages, she would be destroyed.
OK, I just finished reading both of them twice! My overall impression: They are not great, but they also are not bad. Lots of skillful language used and carefully crafted words. That’s why it took so long for them to come out. I believe they will help the general member be more comfortable with our past, but do nothing for those that already have an axe to grind. They are for the faithfull. Sheldon wrote:OK, I just finished reading both of them twice! My overall impression: They are not great, but they also are not bad. Lots of skillful language used and carefully crafted words. That’s why it took so long for them to come out. I believe they will help the general member be more comfortable with our past, but do nothing for those that already have an axe to grind. They are for the faithfull.
To be fair, Sheldon, I think they’re all mostly meant for the faithful. While they can and sometimes do strike down the antis (they can’t criticize something as secret that’s on the website), I think for the most part they are aimed at orthodox types in order to be able to answer their own questions and the questions of others. I think that works fine for the “average” questioner – those that don’t necessarily delve very deeply.
It should also be pointed out, because it hasn’t been pointed out on our forums yet, that there is a video and explanation of temple garments that has also recently been released.
These types of comments are significant to me in the essay: Quote:Although the Lord commanded the adoption—and later the cessation—of plural marriage in the latter days, He did not give exact instructions on how to obey the commandment.
Quote:Some ambiguity will always accompany our knowledge about this issue. Like the participants, we “see through a glass, darkly” and are asked to walk by faith.
Quote:The precise nature of these relationships in the next life is not known, and many family relationships will be sorted out in the life to come. Latter-day Saints are encouraged to trust in our wise Heavenly Father, who loves His children and does all things for their growth and salvation.
The message consistent on many of these controversial topics is simple…”we don’t know, and it will be figured out in the next life.”
The more orthodox members are reminded that there are many things we do not “know”, I think the more comfortable we’ll all be in church, rather than a peer pressure to value certainty of things that are religious and faith-based in nature…therefore unknowable.
The essay has many faithful tinted reasonable arguments around polygamy. But clearly, they are presented as “possible explanations”, and therefore I am equally open to other explanations on the subject. I don’t expect to ever make sense of the practice.
The hand-waving bugs me, I’m not gonna lie. I’ve wished for years that the LDS Church needs to crap or get off the pot on the polygamy question. I still don’t feel like they’ve done that. One thing I’ve always wondered about is the “it was to raise seed” explanation of polygamy. Of course one man + 47 wives will produce a whole lot of children. But so will 47 men + 47 wives. And from what I’ve read, there was actually a pretty even mix of men and women – so do the other 46 men just not get to enter into the new and everlasting covenant and raise seed of their own? If it was for raising seed, why marry post-menopausal widows? Is the Church saying that Joseph Smith was having sex with teenagers while married to Emma? Next time we go to visit Nauvoo, will the senior couple missionaries be telling us about JS’ multiple wives in the tours? And if the Lord’s version of marriage is between one man and one woman, does that mean there’s only one Heavenly Mother? Why can men still be sealed to multiple women? For me, there are way, WAY more questions than these essays can touch.
It’s funny, I *just* listened to the Mormon Expressions podcast on polygamy. It was really interesting, so I guess the issue has been on my mind.
I just read both of them, and once again I am realizing that things I hear from outside sources of the church about it’s history are being confirmed by these articles. You hear in conference some of the apostles telling us not to read those kinds of sources, and yet they so far seem to be true. It is also interesting that all of these articles are worded as possible explanations, meaning that they are most likely the kindest reading of the history possible. They don’t deny the possibility of much worse interpretations. One thing I noticed specifically about the one talking about the start of polygamy, is it doesn’t mention that Emma denied that Joseph practiced polygamy on her death bed. They say since there is no record we don’t know how she took all this. It did mention that she accepted some of the wives because they lived in their home, but I don’t know if that is fair to say, since she may not have known they were his wives, the article admits that some of Joseph’s wives were kept from Emma. Anyway, my overall feeling now is blech
:sick: I hate this topic and personally do not believe God ever commanded polygamy. Even the story of an angel with a sword doesn’t sound much like God, more like Satan deceiving Joseph. But whatever, these articles seem to just be well researched speculation. It’s been interesting to see what they’ll do next, but these are clearly not intended for people like me.I have always had a hard time reconciling the story of the angel with the sword: Quote:During the third and final appearance, the angel came with a drawn sword, threatening Joseph with destruction unless he went forward and obeyed the commandment fully.
and D&C 121:41
Quote:41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
In my mind, this hardly seems like the same God. I’m sure that there are some who would tell me that God can except himself from how he expects us to behave, but that feels pretty hollow here. In fact, this particular dichotomy is a primary contributor to my questioning / FC / falling out with the church / whatever you want to call it.
I guess I am with others here when I say that I think it is good the church is addressing this publicly but I find no answers in the article.
I would think someone with the avatar of Sheldon would have started this post out with “Bazinga!” Going to need to set some time apart to study these.
As frustrating slow as it seems to be, maybe the brethren are addressing many of the issues (as much as they can) as fast as they can. With such carefully worded essays, I am sure they take time to get everyone willing to say, “OK”
I understand the impulse in others to justify what went on, but I have no interestin doing it. On the main points, it’s exactly what I feared it would be. I feel that the essay gives people like me no breathing room. They are exactly what I expected in many ways and better than I expected in some ways. I don’t think they are worse than I expected in any particular way – not what I hoped in an ideal world, but I can accept them for now. There is NO way the Church is going to condemn polygamy completely (not just because it was instituted by Joseph, but also because so many early saints believed so passionately in it, even many who struggled with it), so I don’t hold out any hope for that. As much as I don’t like some things (particularly the angel with the drawn sword aspect, even though I think someone subject to visions could have been a good person, had such a vision and have had it not be revelation from God), I am not surprised, disappointed, upset or any other negative reaction about these essays. I think they went as far as they could go right now – and I’m really glad they are worded as carefully as they are. I think that is a good sign that the people who wrote and authorized them understand these are difficult issues and that there are conflicting ways to view them.
These and others would have been worded very differently when I was a young adult, and I an happy for that change in orientation.
Interesting that Fanny Alger was mentioned. Also the “law of Sarah”. A wife must be asked if she agrees to another wife but if she doesn’t, the husband can do it anyway. I can see this as another way to get things out in the open but for me it just confirms what I already believed. From the second essay : Quote:In this legal setting, President Smith sought to protect the Church while stating the truth. His testimony conveyed a distinction Church leaders had long understood: the Manifesto removed the divine command for the Church collectively to sustain and defend plural marriage; it had not, up to this time, prohibited individuals from continuing to practice or perform plural marriage as a matter of religious conscience.
?
I got to agree with journeygirl on this one – blech :sick: . But on the positive side, they are finally publishing something about it, though it still does not honestly discuss it. To me, the overall tone of the essays seems to be aimed at TBMs who are beginning to be exposed to polygamy by Google and folks like us as a means for them to say “See, yeah, polygamy happened and it was all guided by God”. I guess I’m not sure the Church could have gone any further discussing it with the array of membership we have and the hand they have been dealt with this issue. Still, I hope they disclose more on their own as more people find out about polygamy through reputable sources on the Internet.Any in depth study of “the principle” can’t help but make one see what a mess it was. I’ll admit that this is one of my hot buttons. But seriously, the blessings promised the Kimballs if their fourteen year old daughter married Joseph?! As I recall, the angel with the drawn sword was to get Zina (already married to Henry) to marry Joseph. That seems like complete manipulation to me and is uncharacteristic of the God who I personally have come to know.
This is a very hard issue for me because of my personal experience at a fairly young age. I lost my first wife when she was only 23. She had a terminal disease and as we discussed what I would do after she died, this painful topic came up in our conversations. For a long time, she did not want me to get married in the temple after she died, but within the last few weeks of her life, she gave her permission. She wanted me to be happy in the rest of my life and she knew that in our LDS lifestyle, that any “good Mormon girl” that could be a future wife to me would require a temple marriage. I was deeply touched that she would see my anguish and give that type of permission when she struggled with it too. If that isn’t an act of true love, I don’t know what is. I am approaching my 25th anniversary with my second wife who I married in the temple – a wonderful woman who amazes me daily.
That is not the end of the story with what was going on at the time I was soon to be losing my first wife – there is more to it that is just, well, it confirms what a mess polygamy is to me. During the time she was in and out of the hospital, she had a very kind nurse that we got close to. This happened over the course of a few years. The nurse was not much older than us and LDS . She had lost her husband who she married in the temple. In the LDS church, we all know that temple ceremonies only allow men to marry multiple times and not women. She was remarried to another LDS man outside the temple of course and I know it was difficult for her to think about it. Would the kids she planned to have be hers in the eternities?? What a hard thing to ponder!
I do not believe polygamy is inspired or anything of the like in the 19th century or now. There is simply too much suffering associated with it to comprehend. I hope the church continues to morph on this topic and reaches a point when it can truly provide some comfort to those in pain from it. The essays are a good first step.
NewLight, I can certainly see how this topic is extra poignant to you. I hope you find peace.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.