- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Oh, and I just re-read my comment after reading yours. I meant to type “opponent of polygamy”, but typed “opponent of the Church”, instead. That is a serious typo. I am going back and changing the original comment to reflect that mistake. Old-Timer wrote:Oh, and I just re-read my comment after reading yours. I meant to type “opponent of polygamy”, but typed “opponent of the Church”, instead. That is a serious typo. I am going back and changing the original comment to reflect that mistake.
Ray,
I hate to nit-pick but Clayton had 10 wives and married the last one in 1870 nine years before he died. He was never an opponent of polygamy. Probably he was one of its biggest supporters.
I’ll have to go back and re-read the stuff I read from the other sources. It’s probably early dementia kicking in, and perhaps I simply am conflating him and someone else, but I thought he was one of those practicing polygamists who complained the whole time. If I am just mixing up names, I apologize. As bad as I am with names, it’s a real possibility. (I mean that seriously. Usually, I try to go back and read things before I comment about what a particular person said, specifically because of how difficult it is for me to remember specific names and attach statements to specific people. I didn’t do that in this case, and it very well could be biting me in the butt now.)
Old-Timer, I think you’re thinking of William McLellin. He also has famous published journals, and he did leave and oppose the church. Curt, I for one am not disagreeing with your main point. I do not see anything divine about the way polygamy was practiced in our church. After you allow yourself some time to let it sink in then maybe you can come back to the tangents that we are trying to introduce. There was a time in my crisis where I did not see myself being able to ever have a positive productive relationship with the church again. Today that attitude has turned 180 degrees. The question you can consider – and it doesn’t have to be a rush decision – is do you want to have a positive and productive relationship with the church? The key for me was learning about Fowler’s stages of faith, about non-absolutist faith, it also came in embracing the metaphorical and not worrying so much about the literal (at least for a while). I wish you well.
William McClellin – I’m sure you’re right, Orson. I’ll go back and re-read some stuff when I get a chance tonight. Sorry, curt.
Valoel wrote:
Did JS think he needed to restore polygamy because he was so Bible-focused, a “restorationist” and found it in the Old Testament? That is possible.Know what I don’t like about that line of reasoning? It tries to explain some things as restoration of all things, but then selectively picks and chooses which things get restored.
If you are going to restore “all things” and go back to the O.T. to restore polygamy, then what about stoning disobedient children? And, what about marrying your brother’s wife if he dies without leaving seed? There are all kinds of crazy laws in the O.T. that didn’t get restored. I’m not arguing that they should be, just that the logic is a little inconsistent.
mcarp, I’m not sure I agree with the OT restoration line completely (although Joseph certainly viewed himself as a restorer of all things right and proper), but there is a HUGE difference between social constructs and legal practices. It’s very easy to believe in “restoring” old social constructs while still rejecting old laws and punishments and other legal trappings. I was mostly saying it seems like Joseph Smith believed he was restoring certain appropriate OT practices. I am not claiming so much he was right or wrong, but it seems like that was important to him at times. So that is a possible explantion. I really am not attached to that being the single right answer. As usual, life is complex. I think that could have played a part in the development of polygamy — one part of the puzzle, maybe. JS seemed to believe it. That’s my main point. Hmmm. I kind of think he saw that the OT people had multiple wives, thought to himself, “Hey, that would be kind of awesome,” then asked about it. But that’s just one opinion. It changes from time to time, but it sure is a weird thing to ask about, isn’t it? If you had the bat phone to God, is that really on your top 10 list? magicmusician wrote:First – I CAN UNDERSTAND TOTALLY why it would be used. At the time there were certain situations where women’s husbands had passed on and then they were left on their own. And I gather property ownership could have been something of an issue – particularly for those women in the chuch. (maybe not expressed it totally brilliantly but gives you the idea)
Although there are a variety of circumstances under which this may be true, this generally held idea by church members is simply not descriptive of what actually happened. Very little of the polygamy that occurred could be framed under this umbrella. Unfortunately the idea that there were more women than men in the church as a reason or justification of polygamy has been repeated over and over and has taken on a near doctrinal “believability.” In the first several decades of the history of the church, there were always been more men than women. You can easily see that in the US census statistics for Utah. Elder Widstoe also attempted to put this rumor or myth to rest when he said:
Quote:“The implied assumption in this theory, that there have been more female than male members in the Church, is not supported by existing evidence. On the contrary, there seems always to have been more males than females in the Church….
“The United States census records from 1850 to 1940, and all available Church records, uniformly show a preponderance of males in Utha, and in the Church. Indeed, the excess in Utah has usually been larger than for the whole United State… there was no surplus of women.”
– Apostle John A. Widstoe, Apostle, Evidences and Reconciliations, pp. 390-392
OK I stand corrected So what was it all about then?
Personally, if I were to put aside my own questions about whether or not the actual practice was inspired and handled “correctly” and address only the “good parts version”, I can see two main “critical reasons” for polygamy: 1) to create a new “House of Israel”/”distinctive “Kingdom of God” (through polygamy and the isolation is caused) – as much of an actual new ethnic group as is possible in less than 100 years;
2) to shatter the Victorian idea that monogamy is the order of heaven and will be eternally.
There are all kinds of implications of #2 that still aren’t contemplated by even most liberal members, and I think it is even more important than #1. That’s my own opinion, however, since my views on inter-personal relationships and creation in the next life are radically different than the vast majority of members.
Well thing is that in the next life a husband and wife are supposed to be “sealed” and then to their familes and stuff and with all of the other works being done for those that have already passed
we will all be sealed to each other to some extent
so I would be sealed to my wife
and she would have been sealed to all of her relatives (eventually)
and me to mine
and each of them to each of their family members as the family tree goes up
So we all gonna have one awesome party!
lol
Old-Timer wrote:Personally, if I were to put aside my own questions about whether or not the actual practice was inspired and handled “correctly” and address only the “good parts version”, I can see two main “critical reasons” for polygamy:
1) to create a new “House of Israel”/”distinctive “Kingdom of God” (through polygamy and the isolation is caused) – as much of an actual new ethnic group as is possible in less than 100 years;
2) to shatter the Victorian idea that monogamy is the order of heaven and will be eternally.
There are all kinds of implications of #2 that still aren’t contemplated by even most liberal members, and I think it is even more important than #1. That’s my own opinion, however, since my views on inter-personal relationships and creation in the next life are radically different than the vast majority of members.
It is an impossible task, IMO, to build a testimony upon a foundation that has so many pieces missing. The historical record is missing too many pieces to be a good foundation for faith. It is the same with the Reformationists, Protestant sects, Catholics, etc.
Personal experience and personal witness have fewer missing peices IMO, because it is directly related to our time in the here and now, and our situation. Not the experiences of the past or other people.
Another consideration is that we don’t know all the finer details of how “sealings” were practiced back then. We have records that show other men being sealed to Joseph. This doesn’t mean they were homosexual, but it means that a tie or bond was created between people and families to extend into the next life. There are just too many pieces missing in order to base one’s current faith on the past.
You say that but can i post this question What about the life of Jesus and accounts thereof – there are a huge number of years of his life that we have no details of arent there
So wouldnt that cause the same problems?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.