Joseph and Fanny-Asking for Will's Opinion in Particular

[_beastie]

Easy to judge now when much time has passed and when the world has changed. But back then, people were a different breed. We already know that there was much intolerance in American society. The puritan influence is still strong never mind back in the early 1830's. And we need to remember the intolerance shown to the american indian and the african american. Difference was not looked upon kindly.

But you did prove one point that I have made: fanny's reputation remained intact through it all. Her family, future husband, children showed her no disrespect about her relationship with Joseph Smith. It was not viewed as disgusting or immoral. In fact, she chose to keep it private. And this speaks volumes about fanny and how she viewed the relationship and also how her future husband viewed it. Moreover, it is quite interesting to read the posts of the moral cops on this thread. It kinda makes me laugh to hear the condemnation and disgust. You guys sound like Oliver, but I don't think that you guys will come back to the church like Oliver and bear your testimony of the Book of Mormon on your deathbed.

If it is life or death, I do think that you will lie too both to the community and to the government.

Society was intolerant towards polygamy as well as towards adultery. Her reputation outside Mormonism would have been impacted by one as well as the other, so if her reputation remained intact outside her family unit, it probably had to do with secrecy about the event. Families are different, and have a different standard of judgment.

No matter what happened at the time of their sexual relationship, there is no doubt that it was later presented as a marriage, so her family would accept it as such. This does not necessarily mean that, at the time of the relationship, that it was a “marriage”.

by the way, I’m not arguing against it being a “marriage” like Joseph Smith’s other relationships, but I think you are not presenting a strong argument for that case by emphasizing her reputation.

Does it kinda make you laugh to think about Emma’s reaction, as well?

[_truth dancer]

Finally, the thirteenth article of faith states, "... if there is anything virtuous, lovely, of good report, or praiseworthy, we seek after these things." Yet, the inner circle, had to lie to members, the government, and the community because their behavior was considered so disgusting and immoral? God says, polygamy breaks the hearts of his daughters, something clearly not virtuous and praiseworthy.

It is what it is.

Easy to judge now when much time has passed and when the world has changed. But back then, people were a different breed. We already know that there was much intolerance in American society. The puritan influence is still strong never mind back in the early 1830's. And we need to remember the intolerance shown to the american indian and the african american. Difference was not looked upon kindly.

You misunderstand... I'm suggesting that AT THE TIME, polygamy and adultery were not considered virtuous and lovely. Not by a long stretch. Even those men who seemed to want it knew it was not considered lovely or of good report; if it was considered virtuous and lovely, they would not have lied about this fiasco.

But you did prove one point that I have made: fanny's reputation remained intact through it all. Her family, future husband, children showed her no disrespect about her relationship with Joseph Smith.

Of course not... they all claimed she was married, because Joseph Smith most likely claimed it was so. This means nothing at all.

It was not viewed as disgusting or immoral.

Of course it was. Are you kidding?

Obviously after Joseph Smith told everyone that it was God's will to reinstate this practice, and they believed him and things started to change but certainly polygamy and adultery were considered of Satan, prior to Joseph Smith gathering his women.

In fact, she chose to keep it private.

Yes, most people keep their secret affairs private. So?

And this speaks volumes about fanny and how she viewed the relationship and also how her future husband viewed it. Moreover, it is quite interesting to read the posts of the moral cops on this thread. It kinda makes me laugh to hear the condemnation and disgust. You guys sound like Oliver, but I don't think that you guys will come back to the church like Oliver and bear your testimony of the Book of Mormon on your deathbed.

My point is not about the alternative relationships of LDS polygamists. It is about the incredible way humans have to justify and rationalize what we want to believe.

Again, I'm asserting that AT THE TIME, this practice was not considered virtuous or lovely by the community, by civilized society, even by members (prior to their devotion to Joseph Smith).

And, no I won't be testifying of something in which I do not believe.

If it is life or death, I do think that you will lie too both to the community and to the government.

Again, my point is... why does God require lies to bring forth truth?

And, where was God if this most important, essential-for-exaltation requirement was truly necessary? God seemed to be completely absent right up until the LDS church was required by law to do away with this practice.

Did it ever cross your mind that maybe Joseph Smith got it wrong and it was God who was on the side of the US government intervening in the world to get the church back in line with the teachings of Christ? You know the teaching about a husband having ONE wife, and the two shall be as one, and they shall cleave unto each other and NONE OTHER? Remember that little nugget of truth?

[_Jason Bourne]

I mentioned earlier that fanny didn't seem to have a problem with her sealing to Joseph Smith. Neither did her parents. Now if Fanny and Joe were in the barn having a go at it and were not sealed, I can see a problem developing with the family. Also, critics seem to imply that fanny was a rather loose woman when they imply that she was horny toading it with Joe.

Now fanny to my knowledge never said a negative word against Joe and neither did her family. Plus, her husband seemed to have no problem with fanny's past which implies that all was on the up and up with her and joe. We seem to forget that purity and virginity were in vogue back then for ladies.

And so, all in all, I would say that fanny believed herself to be married to Joseph Smith and sealed to him for eternity. And she didn't seem to be troubled by it.

This is only my opinion of course.

But really the only thing I can say is so what? So what that Fanny and he family were a ok with this. Does that make it right? Let me see, Fanny and her family were believers in Joseph. If Joseph used the idea of polygamy in order to use his power and influence to gain favor with women and perhaps to find a religious way to avoid committing adultery then of course his followers who conceded to the practice would be fine with it.

As for Fanny's later husband do you really think given the day and age he would air how he did or did not feel about Fanny's past relationships?

[_William Schryver]

You're farther gone than I realized …

You don’t know the half of it.

Jacob condemns David and Solomon's practice it total. He leaves no wiggle room like we find in D&C 132:

… Did the Lord change his mind?

Reading Comprehension 101.

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

Here, obviously, is the “wiggle room” you claim to not be present in the words of Jacob.

And it’s not that hard to figure out: the Lord is saying the men of Jacob’s time are not authorized to take multiple wives; but there are circumstances under which God may very well “command” his people to do otherwise.

I have no doubt that polygamy may have worked for some families.

Maybe you should talk to Roger, then. He’s apparently convinced himself that EVERY SINGLE CASE of plural marriage was marked by heartache, pain, and sorrow. That is clearly not an accurate recital of the history of polygyny in early Mormonism.

There are all sorts of historical practices that the modern world rightfully and thankfully have left behind for the most part. Slavery for example. Human sacrifice as well. Caste systems and the order of peasantry and serfs seem mostly gone from the earth.

I don’t equate polygyny with any of the social ills you describe above. Slavery? Human Sacrifice? And Polygyny? ”One of these things is not like the other. One of these things just doesn’t belong.”

I would really like you or anyone else to list some specific reasons for which you consider consensual polygyny a social ill.

I am highly dubious you would be tolerant about polygamy from any other source but Joseph Smith and the LDS Church.

You’d be wrong, then. Quite frankly, I can discern no particular social ill arising from the practice of polygyny. (I deliberately make the distincition between polygyny and polyandry. I believe a definite social ill would arise from the widespread practice of polyandry; specifically that the birthrate would plummet.)

Polygyny has been a common practice throughout human history, especially among cultures trying to obtain or maintain a foothold in a particular time and place. It tends to die out once a culture becomes well-established. Thus, you see divine sanction of polygyny among the Israelites liberated from Egypt—which is precisely the paradigm in which the early Mormons viewed themselves.

I feel no moral compunction towards the practice of polygyny, per se, although I appreciate that some do. My response to them is: live and let live. Unless you can demonstrate some greater social ill arising from the practice, I submit that it all comes down to a question of taste and natural proclivities. I certainly don’t consider Joseph Smith morally deficient on account of his introduction of this practice among the early Saints. If anything, I consider him remarkably courageous to have done it, especially when you take into account the prevailing sensibilities of his fellow countrymen at the time. That he was able to convince a significant number of his followers to accept the practice is a telling tribute to the power of the logic with which he must have presented his case.

[_karl61]

something I found:


http://polygyny.dukeofmarshall.com/

Polygamy - Marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time.

Polygyny - The state or practice of having more than one wife or female mate at one time.

Polyandry - The state or practice of having more than one husband or male mate at one time.

Bigamy - The act of entering into a marriage with one person while still legally married to another.

Polyfidelity and/or Polyamory refers to all forms of multi-partner relating between adults which are ethical and consensual.

[_karl61]

Will wrote:

"If anything, I consider him remarkably courageous to have done it, especially when you take into account the prevailing sensibilities of his fellow countrymen at the time. That he was able to convince a significant number of his followers to accept the practice is a telling tribute to the power of the logic with which he must have presented his case."

I thought he was forced to participate in an illegal practice by an angel.

[_karl61]

also, if they were not virgins then they could not participate.

[_Jason Bourne]

Jacob condemns David and Solomon's practice it total. He leaves no wiggle room like we find in D&C 132:

… Did the Lord change his mind?

Reading Comprehension 101.

Hardly. Below you parse and fail to compare the verses in question.

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

Here, obviously, is the “wiggle room” you claim to not be present in the words of Jacob.[/quote]


That may or may not leave wiggle room. However it leaves no wiggle room for David and Solomon who Jacob says were committing abominations, no exception. But D&C 132 says they were ok except for those things that were not given to them of the Lord. 132 let's them have many wives and concubines but Jacob calls them all abominations.

And it’s not that hard to figure out: the Lord is saying the men of Jacob’s time are not authorized to take multiple wives; but there are circumstances under which God may very well “command” his people to do otherwise.

Apparently Jacob did not think that God commanded David and Solomon.
.

There are all sorts of historical practices that the modern world rightfully and thankfully have left behind for the most part. Slavery for example. Human sacrifice as well. Caste systems and the order of peasantry and serfs seem mostly gone from the earth.

I don’t equate polygyny with any of the social ills you describe above. Slavery? Human Sacrifice? And Polygyny? ”One of these things is not like the other. One of these things just doesn’t belong.”

Clearly. And there are degrees of social ills. Some worse than others. My point is historical precedence does not make a practice ok.

I would really like you or anyone else to list some specific reasons for which you consider consensual polygyny a social ill.

I do not have a problem with consensual polygyny. I do have a problem when powerful persons, often powerful charismatic religious leaders, think God tells them to practice it and they use that position in order to persuade women who believe they are speaking for God to enter a practice they might otherwise reject. When Joseph says to a woman that God picked her for him before the world was and she needs to become his wife and if she does she gets exaltation, well, maybe God did say that but I am awfully suspicious.

I am highly dubious you would be tolerant about polygamy from any other source but Joseph Smith and the LDS Church.

You’d be wrong, then. Quite frankly, I can discern no particular social ill arising from the practice of polygyny. (I deliberately make the distincition between polygyny and polyandry. I believe a definite social ill would arise from the widespread practice of polyandry; specifically that the birthrate would plummet.)

Ok

So do you condemn the practice of polyandry by Joseph Smith?

Thus, you see divine sanction of polygyny among the Israelites liberated from Egypt—which is precisely the paradigm in which the early Mormons viewed themselves.

There is no divine sanction of plural wives in the Old Testament. Rather it seems God tolerated and cultural practice. There is nothing in the Bible like plural wives in order to be exalted.

. If anything, I consider him remarkably courageous to have done it, especially when you take into account the prevailing sensibilities of his fellow countrymen at the time. That he was able to convince a significant number of his followers to accept the practice is a telling tribute to the power of the logic with which he must have presented his case.

Do you think his followers that rejected the practice equally courageous?

[_beastie]

You’d be wrong, then. Quite frankly, I can discern no particular social ill arising from the practice of polygyny. (I deliberately make the distincition between polygyny and polyandry. I believe a definite social ill would arise from the widespread practice of polyandry; specifically that the birthrate would plummet.)

The birth rate would decline with polygyny, as well, as compared to monogamy. Obviously a female with less access to her male partner will conceive less often than a female with constant access to her male partner. One of the most common misunderstandings about LDS polygamy was that it was to increase the birth rate in general. It was not. It was to increase the reproductive rate of specific males within the community.

And that is one of the most common and serious social ills of polygyny – it creates an underclass of males who do not have access to females. This creates social unrest and potential violence, which is why cultures that engage in polygyny tend to have governments that are based on one powerful leader who is willing and able to use force to quell the unrest that will result in the unmated male population.

[_William Schryver]

The birth rate would decline with polygyny, as well, as compared to monogamy.

You're wrong. And I think you know it, but if you disagree, then I invite you to prove your assertion.

I do know that there are folks in Russia right now calling for the legalization of polygyny in order to boost their sagging birth rates. Do they know something you don't?

Obviously a female with less access to her male partner will conceive less often than a female with constant access to her male partner.

"Obviously?"

Are you serious?

How much "access" is required?

I guarantee you that a man with three wives would not find it difficult to impregnate all three of them in the course of any given year.

A motivated man could probably impregnate all three in the course of any given day.