- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Tom Haws, Thanks for that link to the short stories of each of the 32 wives. I just finished reading it last night and it literally made me sick. I could never believe in a God that would tell Joseph Smith to secretly marry other women behind Emma’s back and go about it like he did with these women. Especially, the very young ones. And then he sends some of their husbands on missions and marries them. I can certainly understand why William Law was upset and I was glad to read that some of the women told him off and turned him down. I have also read in church history and journal of discourse some of the awful things top church leaders have said about how they have to have polygamy otherwise they would have to resort to prostitutes (which Salt Lake had their houses of in the early years). And Orson, thanks for answering my question. I will definitely get that book. Jesus said that on the principle of love hang all the laws and the prophets and what Joseph Smith did in this area was not a loving thing to do to women. I believe he brought forth certain truths that I will hold fast too, but this part of church history is so ugly to me.
I just read the wife link. How does one become an “apologetic” for what happened? That link made me ill – even if only 50% of it is true – it’s still TOO MUCH. It gives me a whole new appreciation and perspective on William Law. Maybe William was the evil person the church has made him out to be? I was reading back through some posts on another forum I used to partake in. I had forgotten I had asked about Joseph Smiths wives and polyandry on that site. I shall copy and paste the answer I recieved from a very wise woman I must say! “While a few of the marriages were likely consummated, there is a very, very good probability that the majority were not. (For instance, it would be pretty odd for not one single solitary child to have been born to any of Joseph’s wives except Emma. Birth control in the early 1800s was not exactly what it is today and if Joseph were having intimate relations with even a few of these 48 women, you’d expect to see a few children as a result. Only Emma had children.)Many of these women were sealed to Joseph for one reason and one reason alone — that they might fulfill one of the requirements to attain Exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom. They understood that celestial marriage is an eternal principle. Their own husbands were either disinterested or unworthy to receive the blessings of the temple, and since they wanted these blessings for themselves, they were sealed to Joseph, a man they realized they could be sealed to in the next life. They continued to live with their husbands and to have children with their husbands. Their sealings to Joseph were to be for the next life, not for this one. Some of the women were very young, as you pointed out. Many, many young girls married at the age of 14 and 15 back in those days, though. It was not at all unusual, even though it kind of strikes us today as pretty shocking. The vast majority know that he was sealed to a number of different women at the same time. Plural marriage, while no longer practiced, is not something we’re ashamed of. It was, after all, practiced in Old Testament times by some of God’s most faithful servants. I’m sure you know, for instance, that Abraham had more than one wife. It was commanded by God in the early days of the Church and those who were asked to practice it did so. At its heighth, however, probably only about 5% of the Church’s men had more than one wife. Many of them took on a second wife after the Saints had crossed the plains and were living in what is now Utah. Life was extremely difficult for a single woman back in the western frontier. Many of these men married second and third wives who would have otherwise been forced to try to get along on their own.”
That actually makes sense to me. I dont know what they were thinking..we never will until of course we meet them – then I for one will be sure to ask them what exactly they were doing!!
With regards to BY, by all accounts Emma couldnt stand him so there is the chance that he is just a horrid man.
NotSure2008 wrote:While a few of the marriages were likely consummated, there is a very, very good probability that the majority were not. (For instance, it would be pretty odd for not one single solitary child to have been born to any of Joseph’s wives except Emma. Birth control in the early 1800s was not exactly what it is today and if Joseph were having intimate relations with even a few of these 48 women, you’d expect to see a few children as a result. Only Emma had children.)
hmmm… children born from any of his married wives could be easily passed off as belonging to their husbands. As far as his other wives… I have read probably more than I should have… statements made by Sarah Pratt, and questionable practices of JS private doctor John C. Bennett who may have known how to take care of unwanted pregnancies. I think I ought to refrain from commenting anymore on this thread. I have very strong and not so nice feelings… and do recognize that I don’t know what really happened so I will leave it at that.
NotSure2008 wrote:That actually makes sense to me. I dont know what they were thinking..we never will until of course we meet them – then I for one will be sure to ask them what exactly they were doing!!
Good attitude.
ALL areas of lifeis asking too much. I just read the link from allquieton. http://restorationbookstore.org/jsfp-index.htmhttp://restorationbookstore.org/jsfp-index.htm” class=”bbcode_url”> Fascinating stuff. — I’ve heard this theory before, but this link was really really well done and brought up some interested “alternatives” to question. It troubled me almost as much as reading the site with the biographies of all of JS supposed wives. Could it all have been a conspiracy by BY and HCK? Was it a cover up? Did JS summon BY to a church court to discuss polygamy, and did BY send JS to his death to cover up his polygamist lifestyle and avoid church court proceedings that JS was bringing against him, and then destroyed the evidence? Was BY the author of Polygamy — from the influence of Cochranites and his time in England reading about the “experimentation” that was happening at the time? Was Snow and Bennett romantically involved? Did William Law unwittingly play into the hands of BY and HCK by “outing” the “innocent” prophet and in affect causing his death? Was it the BY faction that persuaded JS to order the press burned – knowing they would blame JS for the deed?
More questions than answers.
EITHER WAY — it is NOT a good history for the LDS church. The LDS polygamy chapter stinks. I don’t like or want to accept either of the the two options discussed in this thread. They both make me sick. Sometimes I wish I could just go back to the sanitized version of church history – the stage 3 version – and forget all this stuff.
cwald wrote:Sometimes I wish I could just go back to the sanitized version of church history – the stage 3 version – and forget all this stuff.
Oh how would it be to be blissfully ignorant! Unfortunately I think too much and ask too many questions. I actually love any new knowledge I obtain. The hard part for me is knowing I can’t share anything without hurting people. Don’t want to hurt anyone… but keeping my feelings to myself can be painful as well. Soooo thankful for this site.
Thats what this site is for flowerdrops – we cant ask these questions in Church because of those that do prefer to go through life with their blinders on. Some just havent come across this part of church history yet. When I was having scripture study with a friend the other day and I mentined something about JS having a 14 year old wife to which my friend replied “Emma wasnt 14 was she?” – when I mentioned that I meant one of his other wives…she was quite shocked and had no idea that JS had any other wife than Emma (of course there is the option that he didnt and its all a conspiracy..). You cant believe anything from those years. The very fact that they think William Lee has an allerby just because he wrote it in his diary shows how silly people thought back then! You can easily kill someone and then while writing in your diary pretend you were not there! I know people who to hide from their life has it is make up stories in their diaries so they can believe their life is somehting which it isnt! I suppose its like when a young child goes through a terrible traumatic event and develops a multi-personality disorder – the extra personalities protect the original one.
As for the children, I have heard stories that there has been DNA testing, and so far all has come back negative. You can place a child into another family, but you cant change DNA. Regarding abortions, I doubt he would have been able to do it so often and have a living mother at the end of it. If he tried, I am pretty sure the woman would have died on most occasions purely through hygeine etc. Just as a note, I am not saying this is what I think happened, just that it is one of the many possibilities.
I am heading into this with the intent of following the principles I agree with and I have personally recieved confirmation on. If in the future a revelation comes that polygamy is to be re-instated (which I highly doubt it will!), I wouldnt take the prophets word for it straight away, I would pray myself and then and only then choose the path I would like to follow. Some of course would disagree with this course of action, but surely through all of this its God we should listen to first and foremost??
flowerdrops wrote:NotSure2008 wrote:That actually makes sense to me. I dont know what they were thinking..we never will until of course we meet them – then I for one will be sure to ask them what exactly they were doing!!
Good attitude.
ALL areas of lifeis asking too much. I am not entirely convinced that a MALE GA can be better in the knowledge of ALL areas of life for a woman?? Anyone who thought that would be daft in my opinion – they are men after all and what do men know about women??
😆 NotSure2008 wrote:they are men after all and what do men know about women??
😆 Not a whole hell of a lot. I admit.
LaLaLove wrote:Every time I see this subject I can’t help but think of the disrespect and flat out mockery of these women. They were real. They were involved with these men because of their faith and they are completely ignored and erased as if they never existed. Even though I think polygamy was in no way inspired … these relationships are kind of thrown about in books, lessons, etc … as if they were monogamous. It’s a beating around the bush … thats getting a little too dishonest, imo. Sure it isn’t pretty but it was real and involved multiple women with more faith than I will ever have.
This is another thing that bothers me almost as much as some of the sordid details of Joseph Smith’s antics, basically the way they want to whitewash the official Church history and pretend all this information doesn’t exist. It’s like they are afraid of their own shadow. I’m sure they rationalize this lack of full disclosure (“milk before meat”) as an attempt to protect people’s beliefs for their own good because they worry that many members don’t have enough faith to withstand this kind of test.
The problem is that they have built up so much of their story around the idea of the restoration and exclusive succession of authority and glorifying prophets and apostles as if they are beyond reproach that it’s almost like they don’t feel like they can ever admit some of this openly because they’ve basically painted themselves into a corner. The implications are that they really don’t have any moral high ground to stand on but because this is too painful to acknowledge they have gone into full denial mode instead. Why prolong the agony if this information is never going to go away (Luke 8:17)? They might as well face it and deal with it rather than trying to hide from it the way they have so far.
Personally, I think they should lighten up and not take themselves so seriously and try to focus on Christian fellowship more than prophets and authority so much. It seems like they could tell the Joseph Smith story and let people take it for what it’s worth to them without making it such a focal point with the expectation that all members absolutely need to believe this no matter what. If that means losing some members and tithing revenues I still think it would be more honorable than just having people devote half their lives to the Church only to find out about some of these hard questions about polygamy, the Book of Abraham, treasure hunting, etc. later on and be left feeling like they were deliberately deceived and then to add insult to injury other members will disrespect and mistreat them as supposed evil apostates.
I agree with you Devils Advocate and so many of you on this group. Women in the old and new testament have always been marginalized as not being as important as men. I hate it when I see this in various countries in the world. Us women go through hell during pregnancies, childbirth, and taking care of colicky babies and we deserve so much respect for all we go through bringing men into the world. It is very difficult to feel like someone or an organization mis-represented itself in such serious ways. When I was in the LTM learning the discussions and German language, I was often exhausted and wasn’t sure if I wanted to continue on my mission. My testimony was mostly based on my convert parents testimony and the santized church version sounded good to me. But, when the stress of hard times come, you need a stronger testimony of your own. So, I really prayed to know if Joseph Smith was a prophet while in the LTM. No answer ever came, but my ward had just thrown me a big going away party and given me all this money to go on a mission. I was too embarrassed to go back and felt that I might grow from this experience and get a stronger testimony later. I am glad I went on a mission but the tough times in Europe as a missionary and with difficult companions also made me struggle even more with my testimony and have more questions than ever. I did get a testimony of the law of eternal progression and that we could become gods someday. That made sense to me as well as the trinity being 3 separate personages and degrees of glory. I had just thought polygamy was a temporary thing to build the church and help homeless women. My friend in Denmark said the sister missionaries in his ward didn’t even know JS had any other wives besides Emma, let alone married 14 year olds. Now, I believe JS was a fallen prophet and in the Jeff Warrens cateogory which deeply disturbs me. It’s hard to believe that those early church leaders had all these problems and predjudices. It does shake my faith and make me wonder what I can believe in anymore.
My home teacher and his wife came by yesterday, and the young missionarie elders the other day. They are all cheerful and nice wanting to bring an inactive like me back (which is as it should be). I in no way want to shake their faith as they seem happy in their bliss. I guess I have to see this like I saw my dad. He was a wonderful man in so many ways, but did some really bad stuff at times. I still love him for all the good he did in my life. Then I look at my oldest brother, whom I adored and had so much fun with. He went on a stake mission and seemed to have a strong testimony of the church. After he died, I found out from my sister that he had sexually abused her from the time she was 5-16 years old. It shocked and devestated me. He was doing this abuse while he was on his stake mission. He spoke in one of our stake conferences during that time and the whole stake loved him because he had such a great sense of humor and strong testimony. I became so angry and wanted to beat the crap out of my brother if I could have resurrected him and then killed him again. My only peace is in a just God and had to turn my brother over to Him. I guess I have to do the same with any church leaders who did bad stuff. Disilluitionment is hard to deal with. If someone admits their faults and mistakes and tries to make them right, I can forgive that. But, when leaders just lie and cover up their sins and pretend to be righteous that is so much worse as it causes good people to loose faith. Sorry, if I am going on a tangent here, but you all know how difficult this is.
NotSure2008 wrote:I was reading back through some posts on another forum I used to partake in. I had forgotten I had asked about Joseph Smiths wives and polyandry on that site. I shall copy and paste the answer I recieved from a very wise woman I must say!
….That actually makes sense to me.
I can understand why, as they help support a desire to show complete inerrancy and protect our beliefs that God is at the helm of this church and we’re truly led by prophets generally above reproach. I must say that I do not, by any means, mock why people believe in such arguments, as they have caused me pause in the past as well, and seemed to pacify me for a time. On the surface, they seem to make sense, (especially when viewed individually, and not as a whole). However,….This reply is chock full of apologetics, much of which are inaccurate, and frankly sound like excuses designed to bypass the moral credulity of good, decent people. Even my own amateur attempts at information gathering can poke holes in this.
Quote:At its heighth, however, probably only about 5% of the Church’s men had more than one wife. Many of them took on a second wife after the Saints had crossed the plains and were living in what is now Utah
.
Even Hinkley in interviews perpetuated the only 2-3% myth, it was actually closer to 20% if I recall correctly, which I believe a FAIR article points out).
Quote:While a few of the marriages were likely consummated, there is a very, very good probability that the majority were not. (For instance, it would be pretty odd for not one single solitary child to have been born to any of Joseph’s wives except Emma. Birth control in the early 1800s was not exactly what it is today and if Joseph were having intimate relations with even a few of these 48 women, you’d expect to see a few children as a result. Only Emma had children.)
As far as the DNA testing goes, not sure on that one, as I have yet to actually read anything scholarly on that, but the “fact” that there weren’t many children sired by JS isn’t a real valid argument. Fertility is pretty hit and miss, add in the “stress” of the secrecy, that many children died in childbirth, or spontaneously aborted, and we still have a number of afidavits stating marriages were consummated, also should be considered. And even if not all marriages were sexual (consummated sounds so much cleaner, doesn’t it?), weren’t the fact that some were significant enough? Or do we consider that adultery is only bad if you have sex with more than 3 or more women? C’mon, let’s not get insulting.
Quote:Many of these women were sealed to Joseph for one reason and one reason alone — that they might fulfill one of the requirements to attain Exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom. They understood that celestial marriage is an eternal principle. Their own husbands were either disinterested or unworthy to receive the blessings of the temple, and since they wanted these blessings for themselves, they were sealed to Joseph, a man they realized they could be sealed to in the next life. They continued to live with their husbands and to have children with their husbands. Their sealings to Joseph were to be for the next life, not for this one.
Then why did JS bother to see the women at all (letter saved asking to see one of his recently married wives). As the revelation reads, polygamy was for also for progeny, not just “sealing”. So, why don’t we just go ahead and do this spiritual sealing for all of those women who don’t have husbands today, or are in part member marriages, to “ensure” they’ll get their reward? The practice of sealings to GA’s was declared erroneous by a later prophet, so why did it occur at all, since we have never had a time in the church w/o a prophet who could receive revelation for the whole church? Even if we give a little latitude to the exodus, and wait a few years for God to speak, but 50+? And men were also sealed to leadership…? And what of the reports of Emma being very incensed with many women, throwing them out of the house, and watching him all the time if this was truly only “spiritual wifery”, which was also denied by the church? Read the account of Henry Jacobs, and others. Disinterested? Not even, and what of it? Can not God make right in the afterworld? Why demean and disrupt a marriage in this life by insisting that secret ordinances be performed with or without the consent of the husband?
Quote:Some of the women were very young, as you pointed out. Many, many young girls married at the age of 14 and 15 back in those days, though. It was not at all unusual, even though it kind of strikes us today as pretty shocking
.
Not true. Plain and simple, and many resources on the net will show this. It was not usual or typical, especially when you add in all the other factors. Besides, women and teens weren’t approaching the prophet and asking him to be their husband, out of a love interest, he was approaching them (or their parents), and making deals, and saying an angel with a flaming sword was commanding him, almost against his own will, to do this. Nope, not the same at all.
Quote:The vast majority know that he was sealed to a number of different women at the same time. Plural marriage, while no longer practiced, is not something we’re ashamed of.
Wrong again, otherwise boards like these wouldn’t be discussing such topics. If we’re not ashamed, why did Hinkley claim it wasn’t doctrinal during an interview? If we’re not ashamed, why don’t we teach it in our “teachings of the prophets” manuals or significantly in GD? We continually claim to the world that “we’ve moved on”, but you can’t simply gloss over something as significant as polygamy while simultaneously holding to a different moral standard today, and claiming you’re the only true church. We’re not ashamed, but we certainly aren’t very willing to discuss it, even within our own membership.Quote:Life was extremely difficult for a single woman back in the western frontier. Many of these men married second and third wives who would have otherwise been forced to try to get along on their own.
Even a cursory reading on the state of many of these wives, and there are many Mormons who have the actual journals of some of these women, show that frequently, they really were left on their own. To be fair, some did thrive better with their sister wives, making the best of it, some got educated, but many were simply used and replaced with younger wives and had to make due w/o a husband to help w/ the farm.At any rate, you can post this response over on NOM, and I’m sure others more knowledgeable can show the problems with it w/ the documented support (I don’t have the supported documents easily available). For me, polygamy cannot be morally justified, truly, in light of today’s LDS moral guidelines, which the church also claims are explicitly unchangeable from the beginning as it is God’s
de factomoral standard. The snippets we get in the OT about it don’t exactly elevate it to any Godly sense, either. So, resorting back to “because God said so”, is not only dismissive, it opens one up to all kinds of potential for spiritual abuse, which is exactly what I believe occurred with polygamy. The church’s reliance on authoritarinism and a hierarchy only perpetuates, albeit in a lesser fashion, similar types of abuses. Almost any argument gets mud on somebody, so I can’t believe that any of it was inspired by God, who last time I checked is “Perfect”,…which again brings to question as to why God would continue to allow it for such a long time, with all the pain and suffering it caused then, and for all the testimonies it smashes today (God’s foreknowledge didn’t see that coming?)…it really does damn the church the more you get into it. Given the church’s moral strictness and punishing behavior on sexual indiscretions today (even things like MB!), why should members allow such latitude in its leadership in the past? It really strikes me as incredulous, but that’s just me. Latterday Skeptic
Bravo, Latter-day skeptic! Thank you for writing this. God gave us a heart and a mind to use both. Isaiah 1:18 says, “Let us reason together.” This is something we all try to do on this group and I love that. I too wanted for so long to believe the unbelievable in order to have faith in the church and its leaders. It truly is like wanting to believe your husband is not cheating on you and you rationalize all the good people that keep telling you they have seen your husband do this and this. Eventually, I came to the point that I would rather know the truth than to live a lie. And believe me that was a painful place for me to be because I loved the church with all my heart. Now, I just have to sort out what’s good from the bad and hold fast to that. I am not one to throw the baby out with the bath water. Quote:Not true. Plain and simple, and many resources on the net will show this. It was not usual or typical, especially when you add in all the other factors. Besides, women and teens weren’t approaching the prophet and asking him to be their husband, out of a love interest, he was approaching them (or their parents), and making deals, and saying an angel with a flaming sword was commanding him, almost against his own will, to do this. Nope, not the same at all.
I have looked into the age thing (away from religion) – my understanding of history from that era (and of course I could be wrong) is that generally it was very different from now. Dowrys were still involved and many families who were poor would effectively “sell” their daughters to survive. Of course they used the term “Marry” instead – but it was all around money in those days. I read a wonderful true story about a woman from the late 1900s so after JS era whose family had no money so she couldnt marry her true love (long story, but he was not good anyway so did her a favour! but anyway…)..a very kind clergyman offered to take her on with no dowry (that was sweet!). Many of these girls were very young. Back in those days – age wasnt an issue – children started work down the mines at the ages of 6 in some cases and girls were considered “marriage material” as soon as they were fertile. The average age was 18-20 to be married which yes is older than 14, but it wasnt unheard of for a 14/15/16 year old to marry and it was certainly in higher proportions than today.
Back to religion – I honestly dont know what happened in JS era and what they were doing! I intend to ask them in the CK. I was talking to a friend about this, about how I struggled with some of the history of the Church and especially polygamy (you sound like me a few months back actually). I have come to accept (for me) that there are parts of the Church history I dont like, I dont understand, but there is also parts of history in general I dont like or dont understand (especially being british – we were barbarians centuries ago – still are in some regards!!!
😆 but I dont run to another country!). I have decided that the basic principles of the Church/lifestyle I agree with and want to live – it does have its good points also which for me anyway far outweigh the bad.Thats what I love about this site though..it lets people express their opinions in a safe environment and without fear of being judged (I do it anyway, dont bother me! hehe)
Quote:Given the church’s moral strictness and punishing behavior on sexual indiscretions today (even things like MB!), why should members allow such latitude in its leadership in the past? It really strikes me as incredulous, but that’s just me.
Yes the Church does have a moral strictness HOWEVER from what I have seen in members, many members do things they shouldnt, they break some of the principles and just keep it between them and God. Its easy to forget that the important part here is God..noone else. This of course is just my view and how I live WITH the Church. Now I know that some principles requires a leaders help for repentence, however I dont think MB is one (if I am understanding MB correctly!), I think that is a private thing and its upto the individual to keep it to themselves and not make it known.
Maybe I am just stubborn, but I have never been the sort of person to follow like a robot, I have my own views, my own ways and I will follow the prophet AFTER praying myself and deciding if I agree with it or not. When I first joined the church, my parents thought it was a cult and I said no its not, cults use brainwashing and I am too stubborn and independent to be brainwashed
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.