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

[_Yoda]

Once that purpose was achieved, it was time to set aside the practice for the time being--a decision I also agree with.

In your opinion, do you think this practice will come back during our lifetime? (You and I are the same age, so, let's say within the next 20-30 years.)

Also, do you see plural marriage as something that everyone in the highest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom will practice, or do you think it will only be certain families?

I'm curious about your thoughts on it being a requirement for all. That is what I have trouble with.

This might be true with some women.

In my experience, with my wife, the mere thought of sex got her pregnant.

Or at least it seemed that way for the first two or three ... <grin>

That's a dangerous subject. LOL We thought we were "done", and I got pregnant at 40. We have a 20 year old, a 17 year old, and a 5 year old.

[_William Schryver]

So, however much sense the following narrative--which assumes an established practice of polygamy, a culture in which polygamous marriages were matter of fact, and Joseph Smith was quick to authorize marriages--may have made to Mosiah Hancock in his context of writing, it makes no sense in its alleged original context ...

Don,

I cannot express enough how refreshing it is to have someone who approaches the study of history in a logical fashion. I get so frustrated with so many of the absurd assumptions made by 21st century people talking about things that went on in the 1830s. And most of it is because they have never really read contemporary accounts, or journals, or even novels written in the 19th century. To understand these people, you need to read what they wrote within the context of their culture.

[_William Schryver]

lizzie:

In your opinion, do you think this practice will come back during our lifetime?

No, I don’t. And, frankly, it’s probably already too late to benefit me. Geez, I can barely keep up with the current demands being placed on my performance!

Also, do you see plural marriage as something that everyone in the highest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom will practice, or do you think it will only be certain families?

I think we know next to nothing about how marriage, and connubial relations, and reproduction, and etc. will be practiced in the next life—the various conjectures of various 19th century Mormons notwithstanding.

I'm curious about your thoughts on it being a requirement for all.

Again, I think we know next to nothing about how marriage, and connubial relations, and reproduction, and etc. will be practiced in the next life—the various conjectures of various 19th century Mormons notwithstanding.

[_DonBradley]

Don,

I cannot express enough how refreshing it is to have someone who approaches the study of history in a logical fashion. I get so frustrated with so many of the absurd assumptions made by 21st century people talking about things that went on in the 1830s. And most of it is because they have never really read contemporary accounts, or journals, or even novels written in the 19th century. To understand these people, you need to read what they wrote within the context of their culture.

Why thank you, Will! It's a pleasure to talk with someone who feels my pain almost every time I pick up an LDS work of historical fiction!

It would be really wonderful if we had more works to help 21st century readers really understand the thoughts and experience of those of the 19th.

Don

[_William Schryver]

Don,

I cannot express enough how refreshing it is to have someone who approaches the study of history in a logical fashion. I get so frustrated with so many of the absurd assumptions made by 21st century people talking about things that went on in the 1830s. And most of it is because they have never really read contemporary accounts, or journals, or even novels written in the 19th century. To understand these people, you need to read what they wrote within the context of their culture.

Why thank you, Will! It's a pleasure to talk with someone who feels my pain almost every time I pick up an LDS work of historical fiction!

It would be really wonderful if we had more works to help 21st century readers really understand the thoughts and experience of those of the 19th.

Don

It would help if people would actually read works from the era in question. For example, I wanted to understand the life and times of my ancestors who were in the Martin Handcart Company. So what did I read? Not Gerald Lund's book on the topic, but Dickens, of course. Hard Times was written specifically about the people among whom my ancestors lived before they left England. I also read Engels' The Condition of the Working Class in England. Engels actually lived among my ancestors in Manchester and wrote about their lives.

If you want to understand how people thought during the age of Mormon polygamy, there is much to read out there. Read their journals and their letters to one another. Read letters to home from Civil War soldiers, for example. There is a good example of how a man thought in 1860s America.

They didn't think like us! They didn't write like us! They didn't have the same sense of morality, or decency, or propriety.

In many ways, I think we would greatly offend them. That's why any discussion of plural marriage in the 19th century has simply got to take place after a serious study of the times in question. Our current discussions of the practice in that era are so rife with presentism that it distorts the entire conversation, and leads to no greater understanding about what was really going on at the time. <sigh>

[Guest]

Same goes for the anti-Mormon mobs -- it's problematic to criticize their activity, too, because we don't know what it was like to live back then.

[_DarkHelmet]

They didn't think like us! They didn't write like us! They didn't have the same sense of morality, or decency, or propriety.

In many ways, I think we would greatly offend them. That's why any discussion of plural marriage in the 19th century has simply got to take place after a serious study of the times in question. Our current discussions of the practice in that era are so rife with presentism that it distorts the entire conversation, and leads to no greater understanding about what was really going on at the time. <sigh>

Should we spend the same amount of time studying the mindset of the Missourians who persecuted the saints? Perhaps we should spend time seriously studying the men who murdered Joseph Smith to really understand them. It was a different time. Those men didn't have the same sense of morality, or decency, or propriety.

[_DonBradley]

Should we spend the same amount of time studying the mindset of the Missourians who persecuted the saints? Perhaps we should spend time seriously studying the men who murdered Joseph Smith to really understand them. It was a different time. Those men didn't have the same sense of morality, or decency, or propriety.

Perhaps your expecting a rebuttal from Will? I would think that understanding any historical event entails coming to understand the mindset of those involved, regardless of whether you think they're good guys or bad guys (or anything in between).

Don

[_DonBradley]

It would help if people would actually read works from the era in question. For example, I wanted to understand the life and times of my ancestors who were in the Martin Handcart Company. So what did I read? Not Gerald Lund's book on the topic, but Dickens, of course. Hard Times was written specifically about the people among whom my ancestors lived before they left England. I also read Engels' The Condition of the Working Class in England. Engels actually lived among my ancestors in Manchester and wrote about their lives.

That's smart, Will--and very cool. I will have to do more of this!

Don

[_beastie]

It far easier to imagine this story coming out of a faulty 1896 memory and imagination in long-polygamous Utah than an actual 1833 sequence of events in monogamous early Kirtland.

Thanks for the clarification, Don, now I follow your point and agree. Human memory is a tricky thing, and very susceptible to redaction.