- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Old-Timer wrote:
Frankly, when I hear that “polygamy was to take care of the widows because men died”, I dismiss it as not being a valid, comprehensive justification – just like so much of what was said to justify the Priesthood ban. Yes, there were some cases of that here and there, but it wasn’t close to the main reason, imo.
I don’t like the angel with the drawn sword justification (even though I’m not convinced at all that Joseph made it up), but I am okay with the plural marriage / sealing stuff mostly because it wasn’t one codified, rigid structure. I see searching and experimentation and an expansive theology being born in that time period – a breaking away from societal norms in a way that was “liberating” and grounded in a theology that I can accept, albeit in my own unique way. (by believing in the type of Council of the Gods structure I’ve described previously that fits non-sexual, non-traditional marriage sealings quite well)
Utah-era polygamy is very different. I see it as constricting the previous vision and forcing a simpler societal organization onto what had been complex and expansive. I don’t see polygamy as revolutionary, evolutionary or visionary; I see it as a backward-looking entrenchment – the opposite of how I see the earlier movement, especially with dynastic and communal sealing. If Joseph had lived, I believe what would have evolved would have been that type of focus on the sealing of the entire human population and not just the much more narrow sealing of couples and immediate family that developed under Brigham Young.
Joseph was an experimenter. What was Emma?
Ray, I completely agree that Nauvoo era polygamy was not “take care of the widows.” However, after reading “More Wives than One”, there was a much larger element of taking care of widows in Utah. I agree that it doesn’t explain the whole story, but Daines (a BYU professor) says that they would often pair a poor woman with a rich man, and it was a way to lift the poor out of poverty. Frankly, when I read Rough Stone Rolling, I got the heebee jeebees about polygamy. I didn’t like the polyandrous sealings at all. Brigham completely removed this aspect in Utah, and Daines book made me feel better about polygamy. (I even told her that when I met her in person.) The constricting that you find in Utah was a good thing, IMO. I didn’t like the free-wheeling of Joseph Smith. As far as sealing the entire human family, there’s a post at W&T about sealing, and I’d be curious to hear your thoughts. I just don’t understand why we seal children to parents–perhaps I’m stuck on the constricted BY version of sealing. See
http://www.wheatandtares.org/12137/bic-whats-the-point/ Quote:Joseph was an experimenter. What was Emma?
An amazing woman who was very different in personality than her husband and who, I believe, is guaranteed a place in Heaven because she went through Hell already.
What a great way to put it:) Cadence brought up some poignant thoughts.
Cadence wrote:This is the type of mental anguish and gymnastics you put yourself through when you try so very hard to hang on to some belief the church is true.
I have experienced mental anguish when I have considered that the church is not true. It would also require some mental gymnastics to disbelieve in the veracity of the Book of Mormon and the calling of Joseph Smith due to some experiences I’ve had. There’s a reason people endure in church.
Quote:Somehow you try and make things like PM sound rational. If you look at it from the outside as opposed to an insider trying to make sense of it all, it is much more plausible to just say the church was a construct of Joseph, and all the revelations were just his opinions. Delusional or pious fraud it makes no difference to the truth claim. In reality most issues tend to make more sense when you take the approach it was all fiction.
It doesn’t seem plausible for me to believe it was all made up by Joseph. There is so much that is good and divine in the church.
Quote:Imagine just being able to say PM was just another brain spasm on the part of Joseph. No analysis needed. No trying to nuance crazy beliefs to find them palatable. It was all made up!!!
My wife and I purchased a house a few years ago and then we found out it has some screwy plumbing. We still live there.
Quote:So until we get something definitive I am going with the explanation of doctrine based on fiction. If others want to grind the gears of philosophical debate I understand why. at one point I was the same way until I became exhausted with digging for explanations that never were to be had.
I admit I am getting exhausted searching for explanations and I would like to rest from it. Perhaps one key, though, is to hold on to the faith we have.Shawn wrote: Quote:Cadence brought up some poignant thoughts.
Quote:This is the type of mental anguish and gymnastics you put yourself through when you try so very hard to hang on to some belief the church is true.
I have experienced mental anguish when I have considered that the church is not true. It would also require some mental gymnastics to disbelieve in the veracity of the Book of Mormon and the calling of Joseph Smith due to some experiences I’ve had. There’s a reason people endure in church.
Quote:Somehow you try and make things like PM sound rational. If you look at it from the outside as opposed to an insider trying to make sense of it all, it is much more plausible to just say the church was a construct of Joseph, and all the revelations were just his opinions. Delusional or pious fraud it makes no difference to the truth claim. In reality most issues tend to make more sense when you take the approach it was all fiction.
It doesn’t seem plausible for me to believe it all made up by Joseph. There is so much that is good and divine in the church.
Quote:Imagine just being able to say PM was just another brain spasm on the part of Joseph. No analysis needed. No trying to nuance crazy beliefs to find them palatable. It was all made up!!!
My wife and I purchased a house a few years ago and then we found out it has some screwy plumbing. We still live there.
Quote:So until we get something definitive I am going with the explanation of doctrine based on fiction. If others want to grind the gears of philosophical debate I understand why. at one point I was the same way until I became exhausted with digging for explanations that never were to be had.
I admit I am getting exhausted searching for explanations and I would like to rest from it. Perhaps one key, though, is to hold on to the faith we have.
If I’m a gymnast, I could say it this way: I no longer participate in the Polygamy Was/Is God’s Will for Young Girls and Women individual event. I don’t participate because it’s injurious to my soul. I am still on the team unless they kick me off.
Polygamy as an institution flourishes at an extreme end of female oppression, but it helps those who are the most oppressed (anyone unmarriageable with no means of self-support). It only exists where women do not have means for financial independence, including where it exists today in countries that don’t allow women to drive or own property. Interestingly, the way it was practiced in the early church was not to further oppress, but in part to relieve some of the oppression inherent for women. (I personally believe the biggest motivator was leaders who wanted to build a dynastic posterity, though). It had some upsides (some women could pursue careers because other wives pooled child care resources, and as previously mentioned, women were free to divorce). To consider it better than full equality for women is ludicrous, though. Hawkgrrrl +1 Old-Timer wrote:Quote:Joseph was an experimenter. What was Emma?
An amazing woman who was very different in personality than her husband and who, I believe, is guaranteed a place in Heaven because she went through Hell already.
Emma was reason, Emma was stability, Emma was grounding.
Emma went on to love and marry another imperfect man and was able to find a measure of happiness and peace. Emma cared for her aged mother-in-law Lucy Mack until her death. Emma held her family together after the death of JS as she had done while he was still alive – even in the face of continued tragedy like the mentle illness of her son (David Hyrum?). Emma was vocal in defending the interests of her family – when the interests of church and family divided – she chose family.
Emma was reason, Emma was stability, Emma was grounding.
I really like that, Roy. Emma was the string that kept Joseph’s kite from flying into the sun – even when that kite got burned and eventually destroyed by flying too close to the sun. I really think Joseph’s life would have been shorter and even more chaotic without Emma. I think it is obvious from the records that they loved each other deeply – and that they complemented each other almost completely. It’s hard to express how much I admire and respect Emma, even with her own flaws.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.