- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Beefster wrote:
Step forward: reading FAIRLDS and discovering that there is no evidence that Joseph’s polyandry was sexual in nature. Points for Joseph Smith.
For me this is not an area I worry about.
Q: Did JS behave immorally and unethically in coercing marriage and sex from women that he had significant control and authority over? A: Yes
No matter how you slice it, JS acted poorly and it left collateral damage in the lives of people involved.
I cannot pat JS on the back for “no evidence” that he would/might have taken advantage of my wife when there is substantial evidence that he would/might have taken advantage of my daughter.
The question for me is how to reconcile the church being good and worthwhile when its founder could do bad things and hurt people.
I never said anything about the other marriages. 😆 Lucy Walker’s in particular is reprehensible given the circumstances.I think this thread goes along nicely with the concurrent threat we have: Kirby and Misplaced Faith
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=8894 ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=8894 The first question I want to ask after my trust has been broken or lost is “Do I want to put my trust in X again, and why?” There are lots of potential answers:
-This was a mistake on their/both our parts, and overall the relationship is good so I want to do the work necessary to gain back trust.
-I put too much trust in X, but we can continue to have a relationship if I lower my expectations.
-I just have to stick it out for X amount of time (school, job, relocation) because I know it’ll be over. I don’t have to trust, but I do have to deal.
-I misplaced my trust in the first place through ignorance, naivete, etc. and I need to learn to place my trust in different ways or in different entities/relationships.
And on and on.
What’s most difficult for me lately is dealing with the fact that I misplaced my faith and trust, and even though that is what my family/friends/community was doing, it didn’t make it right and still doesn’t today. I believe that everyone does the best they think they’re capable of, so I can’t blame anyone and that includes myself. I believe I know differently so I will now act differently.
Additionally, organizations act like organisms (probably because they’re run by organisms, namely humans) – they’re wired for survival. Especially in our litigation-happy society, I can’t blame the Church for wanting to survive while not doing certain actions that would be simultaneously cathartic for some people yet open the flood gates for litigation. I don’t care how many times lay members or GAs say that this church is single-handedly driven by Christ; humans are the ones carrying out the work so a human organization is what we get. I’m the fool if I expect anything different.
Or, if Jesus really is driving the Church, perhaps sometimes this happens:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/GrhYIi4.jpg [/img] Beefster wrote:
Yesterday was 1 step forward, 2 steps back.Step forward: reading FAIRLDS and discovering that there is no evidence that Joseph’s polyandry was sexual in nature. Points for Joseph Smith.
2 Steps back: the church has taken down a few statistical websites:
https://ldschurchtemples.org/statistics/units/https://ldschurchtemples.org/statistics/units/” class=”bbcode_url”> http://ldsunitgrowth.blogspot.com/http://ldsunitgrowth.blogspot.com/” class=”bbcode_url”>
The two steps back is also interesting. I often (usually weekly) visit both of those sites. ldschurchtemples.org in particular offered stats about individual units (down to the ward/branch level) that were created or discontinued pretty much day by day. I always wondered where they got this information from. Not to shake anybody’s faith here, but it was surprising to me how many units were discontinued in a week when I first discovered the site . FWIW, there were always several wards or branches and often entire stakes (usually reassigning the words/branches, but some of those discontinued as well). It was a good indicator of where the church is doing poorly (which was often pointed out on the blog as well). FWIW, the church is doing poorly in Asia (particularly South Korea), all of Europe, parts of the US and Canada, and parts of South America. I honestly suspect Pres. Nelson may step up unit closures/combinations. Lastly, I do see this action as at least two steps back in transparency.
And FWIW on the 1 step forward, there doesn’t appear to be evidence that JS had sex with any of them – but there’s no evidence the other way around either. It’s pretty hard for me to believe he did not have sex with the mysterious Fanny Alger, and given the circumstances of some of the later ones I don’t buy he didn’t have sex with at least some of them as well.
DarkJedi wrote:
And FWIW on the 1 step forward, there doesn’t appear to be evidence that JS had sex with any of them – but there’s no evidence the other way around either. It’s pretty hard for me to believe he did not have sex with the mysterious Fanny Alger, and given the circumstances of some of the later ones I don’t buy he didn’t have sex with at least some of them as well.
Here’s what I believe. JS got into trouble with Fanny Alger. That’s the only way I can explain all the hush-hush, suspicious circumstances, and historical records. It was adultery, and JS was ashamed of it.
As for the rest… We know BY bore children with 16 of his wives. BY also had many other wives that were non-conjugal; so it is possible that Joseph Smith only had sexual relations with Emma. Joseph Smith only had children with his own wife. That’s not to say you can’t engage in “marital relations” without having kids. But then there’s also the fact that Brigham Young was not a good, honest man IMHO. I could easily see him twist the truth concerning Joseph Smith’s polygamous practice.
I suspect Joseph Smith had sex with most of his wives who were not married to other men. There were 8 potential children of Joseph that all give DNA evidence that he was not the father, so going off pure chance (and poor intuition) would suggest that he did not have sex with them around their ovulations or he used some form of 19th century birth control. The easiest thing would be to say that he probably didn’t have sex with all of his wives, especially the polyandrous ones. But then running the numbers indicates that monthly sex (assuming 100% 1-shot fertility of both partners) with each wife gives him a roughly 75% chance of not fathering any of those 8 children. Good timing and primitive birth control can easily reduce that chance, especially when 8-11 of his wives are having sex with other men.
He probably had less sex than that, so his chances of not fathering children except with Emma are higher than you might intuitively expect.
Beefster wrote:
I suspect Joseph Smith had sex with most of his wives who were not married to other men.
Brian Hales (The LDS polygamy apologist) seems to feel strongly that already married women that married JS therefore ceased to have marital relations with their original husband. The wife may continue to live with the original husband but supposedly that was just for show to keep polygamy a secret. Doctrinally, the idea is that all earthy covenants and promises not made through God’s sealing power were done away. Therefore already married people are now unencumbered.
But back to my point… it all seems like splitting hairs to me.
JS married two sisters which was forbidden in the bible.
JS married a mother and a daughter which was forbidden in the bible.
JS did not tell his wife of each new marriage beforehand, denying Emma the opportunity to approve of these marriages under the law of Sarah.
JS used his position of authority to coerce marriage from young women he had authority over.
JS abandoned some of his wives once Emma made things difficult – leaving them in their now reduced marriageable state.
[Begin Sarcasm]
But, maybe JS did not sleep with his wives that were concurrently married to other men. Or, if he did, then surely those women were not having sexual relations with their legal husbands during that period. Really?!?!
[End Sarcasm]
It matters not to me if the polyandry of the Nauvoo period included actual sexual polyandry or if that was a line they refused to cross. It does not help me to feel any better about the whole thing. Not one bit.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.