- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Heber13 wrote:
I think the difference to me is an affair is cheating on a wife who is not agreeable to it. Sarah agreed to give Abraham the slave.
I’m not really trying to defend polygamy, I don’t like the idea. Just trying to not be emotionally attached to the issue one way or another. I respect your opinions, though.
I’m sure I sound a lot more emotional about the topic than I intend to. I can get passionate when trying to prove my position.
😳 I used to have no problem with polygamy-even thought I would have no problem practicing it. After study and prayer I feel much differently.The problem with the “consent” issue is that consent is not necessary according to D&C 132.
Quote:D&C 132:65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.
So, if a woman says “no I do not consent to you marrying so-and-so” her husband is EXEMPT from needing her permission and can do it anyway. Not only that-the wife is a transgressor.
I’m sorry, but that does not make me feel like an equal partner. Actually, it doesn’t make me feel like God cares about me.
I guess I have problems with slavery, too. Concubines, slave wives…
In the case where JS married other men’s wives. I just can’t see how that is loving or harmonious. It still seems to objectify women (your wife is hot, I want to marry her). I just can’t wrap my head around this being Christlike. I also can’t see how this isn’t adultery. D&C 132 seems to say you can take virgins or women of men who commited adultery. There isn’t anything about your neighbor’s wife.
Read D&C 132 very closely. You might notice that in each case of “adultery” the woman will be destroyed. But not the man.
I have also noticed that in the previous revelations where men were chastized for adultery they were never threatened with destruction.
In 132 Emma is threatened with destruction several times if she refuses to accept polygamy.
Okay, yeah, I am totally emotionally attached to my belief that polygamy is wrong. I admit it! As a woman I cannot read D&C 132 and feel good. Where is the “good news?”
Well, so I know my view is a bit heterodox on this, but yes, I think JS lied. And I don’t think it was kosher. Emma lied, too, and I also don’t think that was kosher, although she also lied to herself a lot. And I do think polygamy is sexist and a bad practice (find me someone who is not Mormon or Muslim who doesn’t agree). OTOH, knowing that it’s not something I have to deal with, I don’t want to judge uncharitably those who felt they had to do it even though it was repugnant to them (although I’m cool with judging them uncharitably if they were in it for the fringe benefits). And I often think JS was inevitably a dead man at this point, perhaps because he was fallen, or perhaps because he was so flawed. He was certainly painting himself into a corner. Or maybe he just outlived his usefulness. Quote:Okay, yeah, I am totally emotionally attached to my belief that polygamy is wrong. I admit it! As a woman I cannot read D&C 132 and feel good. Where is the “good news?”
I read 132 last Sunday, I’m going back to read it again tonight.
I also can’t accept God looks at His daughters differently than His sons. It just wouldn’t make sense.
Heber13 wrote:Quote:Okay, yeah, I am totally emotionally attached to my belief that polygamy is wrong. I admit it! As a woman I cannot read D&C 132 and feel good. Where is the “good news?”
I read 132 last Sunday, I’m going back to read it again tonight.
I also can’t accept God looks at His daughters differently than His sons. It just wouldn’t make sense.
I’m going to read the whole thing again, too. I think I will specifically look for positive things. It’s just so dang hard to look past all the threatened destruction.
BTW, just so it’s crystal clear, I didn’t mean my comment to be an excuse for Joseph lying about polygamy. I simply was explaining why I believe he lied about it. I don’t think it was “right” from an objective standpoint, but I understand it from a practical standpoint. However, I really do think there is a proper time and a place to lie. I’ll address that in the other post about bearing false witness.
Heber13 wrote:jmb, I always enjoy reading your posts…its too bad we don’t live in the same geographic area and could go to lunch or something.
Well, I’m glad someone does. Sometimes I feel like a heretic even amongst heretics. Maybe it’s just my nature.😯 Heber13 wrote:However, I still view Joseph as a fallible prophet, but a prophet that really had his visions, and he was motivated to act only in what he thought God was wanting him to do. He made mistakes, was chastised for some, but continued to seek God’s will. And if so, God was involved in Joseph’s life and had a hand in the establishment and growth of the church, despite weaknesses of men. Some things God didn’t care about, so if Joseph had ideas to print money or run for president or destroy the Nauvoo Expositor, that was how God lets things play out according to free agency, including the martyrdom. I don’t believe God got involved to punish the saints and make them leave Kirtland, but allowed others free agency to drive the saints and the church would move forward with a plan in Nauvoo, then French Quarters, then Utah.
You certainly could be right. My one big problem with this idea is the lack of consistency. I wouldn’t expect a prophet to be perfect, but I would expect, if he really had God as his guide, to be reliable. How does one separate when “God didn’t care” and when He did? After all, after Joseph sent a group of men up to sell the copyright to the BoM in Canada, upon a revelation from God, and they failed, Joseph mentioned that some revelations are from God, some from man, and some from the Devil. How are we to know? This is why, to me, Joseph wasn’t a fallen prophet. I don’t think there is such a thing. The underlying assumption in a “fallen prophet” is that he wasn’t “fallen” before. Well what does that mean? He screwed up in various things his whole life. He made false revelations while making true ones. He made important, profound insights, and then the next moment said something stupid. What does this mean? I view Joseph as a prophet, in the same way as you or me, or anyone else (which basically means almost nothing). Joseph did have charisma, charm, great intelligence, an amazing drive, leadership skills, and had insight into some very progressive and enlightening ideas. Does this mean all the ordinances, doctrines, and other things he “revealed” are true? Not to me. Not any more than I would believe if you started getting “revelations” about a new church and new ordinances (no offense).Heber13 wrote:I don’t mean to turn the debate into Joseph was or was not a prophet, I’m sure that is another thread. I guess I’m establishing that if I come from that line of thought, and am not ready to reject Joseph as a fallen prophet, how do I reconcile this polygamy/polandry thing … or does it necessitate the stance that the church cannot hold to current doctrines and claims if established on lies and falsehoods and all the current church leaders are ignorant or involved in a great conspiracy.
No, it doesn’t necessitate anything. Part of this process is becoming comfortable with paradox. Feel free to believe whatever works for you. For me, it is not an issue of prophet vs. fallen prophet, lies, falsehoods, or a great conspiracy. The current leaders (just my guess) have normal orthodox testimonies. This, IMHO, stems from the clear incentive of their life’s work, social position, and professional position, along with a lot of psychology (confirmation bias), spiritual experiences, etc. I don’t feel they’re in a conspiracy.For me, it comes down to reliability. Who is my best guide through life? Well, it’s me. I have a whole lot of tools (arguably more than any group of people have ever had – thanks to the internet). This includes my spirituality, cognitive thinking, intuition, books, people, experiences, etc. etc. To be honest, Heber13, I know we’ve had this discussion so I won’t do it again, but for me, letting go of absolute Truths helped me to accept that the church can claim its doctrines, and ordinances if it wants. It doesn’t make them true. And for me, the BoM doesn’t make Joseph’s angelic visitations, external realities. In fact, the teachings of the BoM, along with Joseph’s claims doesn’t make the BoM a historical record. And a spiritual experience after praying about the BoM doesn’t mean the church is God’s one true church, or that the BoM is anything more than a 19th century work (although it certainly could be historical).
Once again, all this is my opinion, I wouldn’t try to argue with you or anyone else over it. Joseph is an enigma, as I’ve said before. My explanation tries to look for simple, fewer logical leaps, well established human patterns, and well understood psychological principles. I heavily resist jumping to the conclusion of God, eschatology, and physical external realities. These things can’t be proven, and often don’t pass the normal critical thinking tests that we use in so many other parts of our lives (independent observations, testing every link in the argument chain, Occam’s Razor, and most important, whether or not the claim can be falsified).
Heber13 wrote:Jmb, in your deconstruction of your beliefs then, do you view Joseph Smith like Mohammed … a spiritual philosopher and nothing more?
Oh man, this is hard. Analyzing your statement and phrasing raises some interesting questions. You seem to be implying that you believe Mohammed was just a spiritual philosopher. Is this accurate? In my mind, the parallels between Joseph and Muhammed are striking. I see little reason to believe one’s story over the other (except that we have better history with regard to Joseph’s life). They both talked with angels, both wrote an inspired book, both were progressive, and persecuted in their day. Their theologies, of course, were very different, but there are striking similarities. Have you read the Quran, and prayed to know if it represents the “one true church”?To answer, I think Joseph was a prophet, just like Muhammed is/was a prophet. Both have insightful ideas I can learn from. I currently don’t accept either of the stories as external realities.
Heber13 wrote:And to bring it back to topic, do you believe Polygamy is “wrong” or it doesn’t matter?
“Wrong” implies an absolute, so I would shy away from that. I’m sure there have been situations where it was the best practical thing. For me, yes, it is wrong, and I would not engage in it no matter what authority told me to. Do I think Joseph was authorized by God to do it and that an angel threatened to kill him if he didn’t? No.
Heber13 wrote:Can you view the issue of polygamy as separate from the issue of whether Joseph Smith saw God or not?
Well, yes, they are separate issues, but to me it all follows the same pattern. Grant Palmer, in “An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins” talks about the “spiritual eyes” concept. I think during those times, culturally, it was popular to accept things seen with “spiritual eyes” as a physical external realities.*DISCLAIMER: I’m speaking this from a TBM definition standpoint (just to clarify)
I will say this, and I entertained this notion for quite some time (before I learned more about psychology). I think it is possible that Joseph was a prophet in the orthodox TBM sense, but then became a fallen prophet due to his overzealous nature. To me, this would invalidate the LDS church authority claims. In fact, I have often wondered if the Community of Christ church makes more sense as they have rejected this part of Joseph’s life (and even made it optional to believe in the historicity of the BoM).
In reality, Heber13, I’m more interested to see how you resolve this issue in your mind. Please keep us posted.
Heber13 wrote:Perhaps that is why the church doesn’t teach it today to new members. It doesn’t matter. It is not that we are being dishonest to new members, but there are things that do matter that we need to teach them (baptism, Holy Ghost, endowments, temple marraige–to 1 wife).
Whether or not this matters is entirely subjective. To me, this is not a justification to not explain this to new members. I don’t think they have to give a full account, but there should be easy access to investigators, from the church, about these delicate, controversial issues. It isnotfor us to decide what matters and what doesn’t when teaching others. We teach them openly, and honestly, and let them make the decision themselves. Yes, this is an absolute from me. I’m quite passionate about being open and honest about life changing commitments. I know you weren’t necessarily advocating this, Heber13, I’m responding generally to the idea, not necessarily to you.
When I wrote the two comments above, I hadn’t finished reading all the comments. It seems the discussion turned into a question of whether or not Joseph lied. I think the evidence speaks for itself. Yes, we can spend all day trying to reinterpret what it means to lie, and whether or not it was justified, but I think the evidence, in this case, reaches the highly probable to near certainty (at least for me), that he did in fact lie, and it was for self-preservation. And while hawk is right, he was already a dead man late in the game, he had been lying about it (at least to Emma) since marrying Fannie Alger. That’s a long time to lie! Also, Heber13, the book to read is “In sacred loneliness” by Todd Compton. I think the evidence is pretty good that Joseph had 33 wives and 13 (I think, I could be off a bit) polyandrous wives. He had sex with many of them, even the polyandrous ones, and probably fathered at least one child. I think the evidence is pretty strong for all of this. Take a look at
http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.orghttp://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org” class=”bbcode_url”> Of course Joseph was not forthcoming to everyone regading his plural marriages. You could say that it was self-preservation … or it could have been for the preservation of a new and everlasting principle of the gospel that hadn’t been revealed to the Church as a whole yet. I’ve always looked at it as…Joseph had been commanded to live this principle…He knew Emma would not approve…He was simply being obedient.
As for the polyandrous wives, the evidence of those being rampant sexual relations is pretty thin to me. It appears that all DNA testing that has been done has proven that Joseph was, in fact, not the father of the children in question.
Josephine Lyons was probably his daughter however. DNA tests should tell us soon. At any rate, I do feel it was justified at the time.
My 2 cents..mileage may vary.
jmb275 wrote:When I wrote the two comments above, I hadn’t finished reading all the comments. It seems the discussion turned into a question of whether or not Joseph lied. I think the evidence speaks for itself. Yes, we can spend all day trying to reinterpret what it means to lie, and whether or not it was justified, but I think the evidence, in this case, reaches the highly probable to near certainty (at least for me), that he did in fact lie, and it was for self-preservation. And while hawk is right, he was already a dead man late in the game, he had been lying about it (at least to Emma) since marrying Fannie Alger. That’s a long time to lie!
I’d like to comment. I do think that Joseph lied at times. But I think to characterize him as “lying about it since marrying Fannie Alger” is too much of a blanket statement, for my taste. I think his status with Emma in terms of coming clean vs. hiding (lying) things was very fluid, perhaps in a correlation of sorts with how Emma was taking things. There is a lot of evidence that Emma knew about polygamy throughout this period. Sometimes she tolerated it, sometimes she hated it. As an aside, I personally think she ALWAYS hated it, but the evidence reveals that in her interactions with Joseph and the others involved, at times she seemed to have made peace with it. I think that was a facade to her genuine internal feelings, done in an effort to be ‘obedient’, or whatever.
jmb275 wrote:Also, Heber13, the book to read is “In sacred loneliness” by Todd Compton. I think the evidence is pretty good that Joseph had 33 wives and 13 (I think, I could be off a bit) polyandrous wives.
Yeah, that’s the book to read, in my opinion also. My take on the book is that Todd is a man who would like to be considered an active, believing Mormon, by his own personal comment. He is a meticulous researcher and pretty good at evenhanded commentary, with one glaring exception: He can’t stand even the idea of polygamy. Considering his extensive research and journal reading, I honestly can’t blame him. He’s seen some very uncomfortable things in the lives of LDS people who lived the Principle, and his conclusions are valid.
OTOH, I have a somewhat different view of Polygamy. My family (GGrandfather/GGrandmother level) were all living in the Mexican polygamist colonies. All had good marriages, although one GGF in particular did marry a younger wife, wherein his 1st two wives felt badly, it’s true. Nevertheless, in the end they managed to live in unity and ‘made good’. All my ancestors (except one GGGrandfather) did really well with the Principle. Reading their journals is a marvelous, faith promoting experience.
Compton concentrated on Joseph’s wives, and things did not go as well. Heber C. Kimball & Brigham Young I think tried to do the ‘right’ (!!) thing, and did not do right by every wife, no doubt. It is tragic.
jmb275 wrote:He had sex with many of them, even the polyandrous ones, and probably fathered at least one child. I think the evidence is pretty strong for all of this. Take a look at
http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.orghttp://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org” class=”bbcode_url”>
I disagree. There is circumstantial evidence for intimacy from about 4 of the sealings (I hesitate to say wives, due to potentially incorrect connotations) and there are the affadavits from the mid 1800’s from his wives. None of these are conclusive nor are they indisputable. J. Lyons testimony is problematic and could easily be the same situation as Heber J. Grant, that is, a child of Joseph by *sealing*. I don’t think any of this is obvious, one way or the other. Of nine potential physical offspring of Joseph in polygamist relations (source: Ugo Perego), four have been proven negative, 3 are incomplete (perhaps underway, Josephine in particular) and 2 are impossible to check.Just my TBM (!!) view…
HiJolly
Plural marriage (in all its various permutations) as practiced in the early decades of the Church while Joseph was living was incredibly complex – and fluid and “experimental” in many ways. It appears to me that they were trying to figure out exactly what “the Principle” meant in practical terms.Personally, I lean toward the communal sealing version being the ideal, where everyone was “married” to everyone else in a allegorical sense – and actual sexual intimacy quite quickly wasn’t a major, central part of most situations. (I see it as an approximation of the “council of the gods” concept, through which I believe spirit children are created somehow.) Joseph was an unabashed religious liberal. He was famous / notorious for proclaiming the “big picture” principle in many things, then having to go through an evolving and messy implementation process that was very much an experimentation exercise. That’s true of temple work, the United Order, church organizational structure, the failed bank, etc. – and I see that same pattern for plural marriage.
Brigham Young, otoh, wasn’t a “visionary” man. He was very conservative at the core. By his own admission, he was an administrator with a rock solid belief in the work Joseph initiated. He saw himself primarily as a caretaker, and he “cut to the chase” in many things – streamlining and simplifying much in order to carve out a community in isolation from the world. I think “traditional polygamy” made the most sense to him, so he streamlined the practice and focused on what he believed was the central aspect of “the Principle”. I don’t agree with him on that point, but I also think his doing so (as difficult and wrenching as it was) created a distinct ethnicity in a sense – and that, I believe, did as much as anything else to propel the Church through its most hellish years. Some say the Church would not have been persecuted as it was without polygamy, but I disagree. Polygamy was the hammer used by the federal government, but I believe the growing power and population and influence of the Church was the primary motivating factor for the politicians who used polygamy to justify their actions to the general populace.
In saying all of this, I am NOT saying I believe plural marriage as practiced at any time was implemented “purely” as I personally believe it was intended – certainly not at the end under Pres. Young. However, I am saying that I have come to believe that “the Principle” itself (as Joseph seems to have understood it toward the end of his life) is one I can accept – that “marital relationships” in the hereafter are radically different than what we have and understand now – that eternal creation entails much more of a collective, cooperative, communal work than we tend to imagine – that “sexual activity” is different than “intimacy” – that intimacy continues on but sexual activity (imo) probably does not – etc.
That’s how I make sense of plural marriage and polygamy – by trying to place them in context of everything I understand about Joseph and Brigham and trying to see the “principle” behind the amorphous practices in our history.
you guys are all so freakin smart. Great ideas, and you know, it really made me feel good as I read through it because the polygamy thing has bothered me for a while, but I really tried to just move on and not make it a huge issue and kind of told myself to stay away from it. I’m not sure why, maybe a little fear I’d read something I didn’t want to get invovled in, but mostly because I wanted to focus on important things in my daily life today, like how I try to get over my pride (a daily struggle for me!). That keeps me busy enough rather than digging into things I may never figure out – my mind is different now, but that is what I’ve thought for years. However the topic always seems to come back, and I think I’m just ready to dig into this, and get a point where I can be knowledgable enough about it I can develop my opinion on the matter, feel fine about it, and move on. I believe the process will help me know how to handle other topics as well. The pursuit of the knowledge may be more rewarding than the actual knowledge received, we’ll see.
I will certainly read the book: In Sacred Loneliness.
I will continue to read, pray, and post my thoughts. I have many thougts after reading jmb275, HiJolley, and Ray’s responses to my posts, so I will respond to those when I can find time to go through that.
jmb275 wrote:In reality, Heber13, I’m more interested to see how you resolve this issue in your mind. Please keep us posted.jmb275
I will also keep you posted on how I resolve this in my mind. I appreciate all your responses and will keep close to the forum.
Maybe I’ll chip away at this a litle at a time. First:
jmb275 wrote:After all, after Joseph sent a group of men up to sell the copyright to the BoM in Canada, upon a revelation from God, and they failed, Joseph mentioned that some revelations are from God, some from man, and some from the Devil. How are we to know?
I think revelations from God lead to good things. “God is good all the time, all the time God is good” as my non-LDS friend always reminds me. If it is good, it comes from God. The tricky thing is we don’t know if it is good or bad until we see the fruits of it. This is faith…to try something hoping for the right outcome. It becomes knowledge when we see the fruit. How can we have faith if it might be from God, or man, or the devil? By having faith that if we are truly seeking God, it will be for our benefit, regardless of the outcome.
Even if it seems the interpretation of the revelation is wrong (i.e. “I should never have sent those guys to Canada”), the result could be a learning experience you get by failing. Why doesn’t God just tell us everything so we don’t have prophets make mistakes? Because this life is a time to prepare to live with Him, and it requires a test of faith to prove us. We benefit from that. The mistakes are made by men and women, not God, but God allows them for the benefit of men and women.
This then leads back to the discussion on if prophets can be fallible. I think they can. But my confidence is in God that He is not. And while we may not understand when He gets involved and when He doesn’t, His ways are higher than ours, so I will learn from my experiences and continue to have faith I will be led to know what is right for me, even if the “right” thing for me is to figure it out on my own and possibly be wrong in doing so. It is not random or subjective or self-fulfilling prophecy, I think it is seeking God’s will and accepting sometimes God will be directly involved, and sometimes He won’t, either way, I will keep my faith it is good for me.
I don’t think God is concerned about proving to us He is right all the time and can direct His prophets to be right all the time. I think He is concerned in bringing to pass the Immortality and Eternal Life of His children, which requires us to leave the Garden of Eden and learn from this dreary world. We must experience this life, not intellectually think it through…we did that in the pre-existence and it was not sufficient for our progression.
So how are we to KNOW? By learning the characterstics of God and seeking after His will and accepting things by faith until one day it becomes pure knowledge.
Curt, How do you interpret faith in your life? Are you more scientifically inclined, so faith doesn’t have a place in your life, or does it have a place? Sorry I haven’t read all the comments, but I’m just trying to get up to speed quickly.
mormonheretic wrote:Curt,
How do you interpret faith in your life? Are you more scientifically inclined, so faith doesn’t have a place in your life, or does it have a place? Sorry I haven’t read all the comments, but I’m just trying to get up to speed quickly.
I haven’t seen Curt in a while…HiJolly
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.