Gazelam wrote:didn't Emma at some point just tell him to do what he had to do, but she didn't want to know about it because she had such a hard time with the doctrine? isn't that why there were those she was unaware of? In every case where they tried to have the plural wives live with them, Emma eventually wanted them out.
I've never seen anyone make this claim. Do you have a source for any of this? This theory of a "don't ask, don't tell" Emma sort of makes Joseph look better, but I'm afraid there's no truth to it whatsoever.
I don't have sources at the ready, but could locate them if need be...
I also question Gaz's assertion:
didn't Emma at some point just tell him to do what he had to do, but she didn't want to know about it because she had such a hard time with the doctrine? isn't that why there were those she was unaware of? In every case where they tried to have the plural wives live with them, Emma eventually wanted them out.
because there were "wives" before Emma was even clued in on it. So her lack of awareness can't date from after the doctrine was explained to her.
(I hope that makes sense. I haven't been visited by Mr. Coffee yet this morning. I need him for my loose dynastic ties...)
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
Todd Compton mentions dynastic ties in his book. I would imagine that all sorts of things were said about polygamy/polyandry between Emma and Joseph. I know there is speculation that Emma had once suggested she marry William Law (what's good for the goose is good for the gander) and we now have D&C 132's "don't you dare consider doing what Joseph is doing" response to show for it. I'd kick my husband's tail if, every time we had an argument, he pulled a God revelation into the mix. "It is too true! It is too right! God even says so! Nanananana."
Gross.
"I think one of the great mysteries of the gospel is that anyone still believes it." Sethbag, MADB, Feb 22 2008
Any other guy in the world who did what Joseph Smith did, would be hung out to dry by the Joseph Smith defenders.
But because it is Joseph Smith he gets all sorts of excuses to justify, rationalize, diminish the perverted and cruel behavior
... the dynasty thing, the "Joseph Smith was just learning" idea, the "God said" excuse, the "flaming sword" threat, the "we don't know all about it" garbage, the "other prophets were bad guys too" stuff....
I mean seriously....
We have a history filled with cult/spiritual/political/powerful guys who have acted similarly and they are all condemned and criticized, but Joseph Smith gets a free pass. :-(
WOW!
~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
Gazelam wrote:didn't Emma at some point just tell him to do what he had to do, but she didn't want to know about it because she had such a hard time with the doctrine? isn't that why there were those she was unaware of? In every case where they tried to have the plural wives live with them, Emma eventually wanted them out.
I've never seen anyone make this claim. Do you have a source for any of this? This theory of a "don't ask, don't tell" Emma sort of makes Joseph look better, but I'm afraid there's no truth to it whatsoever.
I also have never heard this and I have read almost every LDS polygamy book out there. There was a point where she was bribed by Joseph to never speak of polygamy again if he would buy her a horse she really wanted. I think this may be what you are referring to. I don't know how reliable the source is on that story but I believe it's in the book "Mormon Enigma."
If you read "In Sacred Loneliness" you can find many examples of the deceit going on with women Emma trusted. For example, Emma eventually submits herself to the command of plural marriage and offers the Partridge sisters to Joseph. Turned out he was already married to them and had to perform a second sealing to fool Emma.
"Happiness is the object and design of our existence... That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another." Joseph Smith
Trinity wrote:Todd Compton mentions dynastic ties in his book. I would imagine that all sorts of things were said about polygamy/polyandry between Emma and Joseph. I know there is speculation that Emma had once suggested she marry William Law (what's good for the goose is good for the gander) and we now have D&C 132's "don't you dare consider doing what Joseph is doing" response to show for it. I'd kick my husband's tail if, every time we had an argument, he pulled a God revelation into the mix. "It is too true! It is too right! God even says so! Nanananana."
Gross.
There is also speculation that the scripture in 132 is offering Emma a divorce but to read the verse it sounds more like an offer of polyandry with William Law.
51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.
"Happiness is the object and design of our existence... That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another." Joseph Smith
Sec 132 is what it is: as cruel a joke as has ever been played on a group of vulnerable women. And until it's removed from the canon, our leaders can huff and puff 'til the cows come home, but the joke continues.
harmony wrote:Sec 132 is what it is: as cruel a joke as has ever been played on a group of vulnerable women. And until it's removed from the canon, our leaders can huff and puff 'til the cows come home, but the joke continues.
If they remove that section and declare it the fraud that my conscience tells me it is, I would consider going back to the LDS church. I can't stomach supporting an organization with sexist, immoral doctrine.
"Happiness is the object and design of our existence... That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another." Joseph Smith
One of the big problems with the argument that all of Joseph's plural marriages were platonic sealings, is that all of the women who recorded the events of the proposal talk about how shocked they were. They struggled with the idea. In a few cases, Joseph gave them a day to think and pray about it. He claimed that even he was reluctant, but an angel was threatening his life if he failed to obey. This is exactly the reaction one would expect if these were actual marriages that involved real changes in their lives. It is inconsistent with an Eternity-only dynastic sealing.
harmony wrote:Sec 132 is what it is: as cruel a joke as has ever been played on a group of vulnerable women. And until it's removed from the canon, our leaders can huff and puff 'til the cows come home, but the joke continues.
If they remove that section and declare it the fraud that my conscience tells me it is, I would consider going back to the LDS church. I can't stomach supporting an organization with sexist, immoral doctrine.
I know why they can't do as you and I wish them to, but that doesn't change the wrongness of basic idea. If they were to delete it, they would have to admit that Joseph was wrong, that Brigham was wrong, that the pioneers suffered for something that wasn't God-given. It wouldn't be as easy as giving up the priesthood ban, which though a rotten concept to the core, wasn't basic to the doctrines of the church. Polygamy wasn't a policy. Polygamy was basic to being a Mormon. Giving up polygamy would be like giving up the priesthood. And it's not gonna happen. No matter what they believe or how much they hate it (and there's certainly nothing to indicate that they hate it like I do), they can't and won't change it. The cost far outweighs the utility.