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

[_JohnStuartMill]

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.

This is a great book but one that is very rarely recommended because of its socialist leanings. Engels' book demonstrates the evils of early capitalism and why there was a need for socialism. And from it, Engels and Marx began a long partnership in demonstrating the evils of capitalism.

I don't want to go too off-topic, so I'm not going to directly rebut what you're saying here, but I will point you to a book that does a very fair job of describing how the problems of capitalism are usually shared by socialism: http://www.amazon.com/Road-Serfdom-Docu ... 269&sr=8-1

[_Brackite]

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.

There is absolutely NO Evidence whatsoever, that the Phrase, '[raise up seed unto me', in Jacob 2:30, refers to that the Lord God will command His People to enter into the Practice of Polygamy. The Lord God intends to command His People to marry Monogamously, in order to be able to raise up a righteous seed unto Him. This is really meaning raising up righteous children, righteous sons and righteous daughters, unto the Lord God. It can and will be done through the Practice of Monogamy. The Lord God intends to raise up a righteous seed unto Him, through Monogamy, (NOT Polygamy), as can be clearly seen when correctly comparing Jacob 2:30 to 1 Nephi 7:1, and then correctly comparing 1 Nephi 7:1 to 1 Nephi 16:7-8.

Here is Jacob 2:30, Compared to 1 Nephi 7:1:

Jacob 2:30:

[30] 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.


1 Nephi 7:1:

[1] And now I would that ye might know, that after my father, Lehi, had made an end of prophesying concerning his seed, it came to pass that the Lord spake unto him again, saying that it was not meet for him, Lehi, that he should take his family into the wilderness alone; but that his sons should take daughters to wife, that they might raise up seed unto the Lord in the land of promise.

Now, Here is 1 Nephi 7:1, Compared to 1 Nephi 16:7-8:

1 Nephi 7:1:

[1] And now I would that ye might know, that after my father, Lehi, had made an end of prophesying concerning his seed, it came to pass that the Lord spake unto him again, saying that it was not meet for him, Lehi, that he should take his family into the wilderness alone; but that his sons should take daughters to wife, that they might raise up seed unto the Lord in the land of promise.


1 Nephi 16:7-8:

[7] And it came to pass that I, Nephi, took one of the daughters of Ishmael to wife; and also, my brethren took of the daughters of Ishmael to wife; and also Zoram took the eldest daughter of Ishmael to wife.

[8] And thus my father had fulfilled all the commandments of the Lord which had been given unto him. And also, I, Nephi, had been blessed of the Lord exceedingly.

Nephi and his brethren took just one wife each, in order to be able to raise up seed unto the Lord God.
Nephi and his brethren did fulfill the Commandment of the Lord God, with them just taking one wife each, in order to be able to raise up righteous seed unto the Lord God.
A Righteous Man is able to raise up a righteous seed unto the Lord God, with having just one righteous wife.


Here is how Jacob Chapter Two, Verse 30 is Correctly interpreted and read:

[30] For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people [To Marry Monogamously]; otherwise they shall [will] hearken unto these things [The Sins of Polygamy].

A lot of LDS Apologists have read the words, 'shall hearken' in Jacob 2:30 as imperative, and/or as a commandment, 'must hearken.' However, I have found three other places in the Book of Mormon were the words 'shall hearken' occur. These three places in the Book of Mormon where the words shall hearken occur at are in 1 Nephi 14:1, 2 Nephi 3:23, and 2 Nephi 28:31.

Here is 1 Nephi 14:1:

[1] And it shall come to pass, that if the Gentiles shall hearken unto the Lamb of God in that day that he shall manifest himself unto them in word, and also in power, in very deed, unto the taking away of their stumbling blocks --

Here is 2 Nephi 2:23:

[23] Wherefore, because of this covenant thou art blessed; for thy seed shall not be destroyed, for they shall hearken unto the words of the book.

Now, Here is 2 Nephi 28:31:

[31] Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost.

In all those three other Passages in the Book of Mormon, the words 'shall hearken' is Not read as imperative, and/or as a commandment 'must hearken,' but the words 'shall hearken' in those three places in the Book of Mormon is correctly read as 'will hearken.' The same thing also goes for Jacob 2:30. The words 'shall hearken' in Jacob 2:30 is Not read as imperative, and/or as a commandment 'must hearken, but the words 'shall hearken' in Jacob 2:30 is correctly read as descriptive, as 'will hearken.' A lot of the men of the People were willing to hearken unto the Sins of Polygamy. (Please See e.g. Jacob 1:15 & Jacob 2:34.).

And, Here is (again) how Jacob Chapter Two, Verse 30 is correctly interpreted and read:

[30] For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people [To Marry Monogamously]; otherwise they shall [will] hearken unto these things [The Sins of Polygamy].

[_beastie]

Here’s some evidence on how early LDS dealt with the shortage of females:

"Brethren, I want you to understand that it is not to be as it has been heretofore. The brother missionaries have been in the habit of picking out the prettiest women for themselves before they get here, and bringing on the ugly ones for us; hereafter you have to bring them all here before taking any of them, and let us all have a fair shake."
- Apostle Heber C. Kimball, The Lion of the Lord, New York, 1969, pp.129-30.
and again...

"I say to those who are elected to go on missions, remember they are not your sheep: they belong to Him that sends you. Then do not make a choice of any of those sheep; do not make selections before they are brought home and put into the fold. You under stand that. Amen"
- Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p.256.

http://www.i4m.com/think/polygamy/polygamy_widows.htm

During the reformation, Wilford Woodruff noted that:

Apostle Wilford Woodruff complained "there is hardly a girl 14 years old in Utah but what is married, or just going to be."

http://historytogo.utah.gov/salt_lake_t ... 60902.html

by the way, Will, you’ve spent quite a bit of time on the birth rate issue, but have ignored the fact that polygyny creates an underclass of unmarried men, with the attendant social ills that can create. Are you ever going to address that social ill?

[_Brackite]

Here is again how Jacob Chapter Two, Verse 30 is correctly interpreted and read:

[30] For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people [To Marry Monogamously]; otherwise they shall [will] hearken unto these things [The Sins of Polygamy].

And, The Lord God through the Prophet Jacob, decribes what happens when the men hearken unto the Sins of Polygamy.
And, Here is (again) Jacob Chapter Two, Verses 31 through 33:

Jacob: 2:31-33:

[31] For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.

[32] And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.

[33] For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.

[_Mary]

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.

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.

Will, as good as Charles Dickens was in terms of writing about what went on in the 19th century, could I add to your list the following:

The Classic Slum: Robert Roberts

(deals with Salford in particular)

Larkrise to Candleford: Flora Thompson

(for conditions in the more rural areas - and a personal favourite of mine as it mirrors the experience of many of my ancestors)

I dispute that those people living in the 19th Century didn't have the same sense of morality, decency, or propriety as we do now. In fact their sense of morality, decency and propriety was such that illegitimacy was often a matter of great shame. Polygamy and actually the rise of Mormonism itself would never have gotten a foothold in the UK in that time period. Only in America (as they say!!)...

Over here in the UK, I could also argue that 'Victorian values' didn't really break down until the 1960's for a variety of reasons, including the introduction of the contraceptive pill for women in about 1963, and the breakdown of the class system and attitudes to women began to break down in the 1st and 2nd World Wars...(though remnants of the class system still remain...something which drives me nuts..)

Mary

[The Stig]

beastlie:

Will, you’ve spent quite a bit of time on the birth rate issue, but have ignored the fact that polygyny creates an underclass of unmarried men, with the attendant social ills that can create. Are you ever going to address that social ill?

In the first place, there is no evidence I have ever seen that there was an appreciable “underclass of unmarried men” in 19th century Mormondom. Plural marriage was simply not practiced widely enough to produce such a state of affairs. Anyone who wanted to get married could and did. There was no discernible shortage of females at any point in 19th century Utah.

Besides, we all understood that your question was rhetorical in nature. Just as your repeated implication that polygyny decreased the birthrate in frontier Utah. It didn’t. And your example of Brigham Young’s number of wives and offspring does very little to shed light on the topic. Many of his wives became such when they were no longer fecund, or they were apparently barren (e.g. Amelia Folsom). The only logical way to examine the effect of polygyny on birthrate would be to study only those cases where a man married young women and remained married to them throughout their window of fecundity.

Of course, you are quite notorious for manipulating or misusing “evidence” to serve your agenda, so I was not surprised to see you do so in this instance.

The bottom line is that I’m not arguing that polygyny was designed to do anything except dramatically increase the quantity of offspring for specific and selected individuals. It most definitely succeeded in that respect.

[_why me]

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.

I think that it makes a good argument. First, you are assuming that it was not a marrige in the beginning and only became a marriage out of necessity. But if Oliver is correct, rumors among the family would have been ripe. But they do not seem to be any rumors circuating about her and joseph. What we do have is family support for the relatioship. And at the end of the day, we have fanny leaving with her family and moving to a different town---where she met her future husband.

And her future husband most likely knew about Joseph Smith. But that did not stop him and fanny from having many children together.

Now if I would take the position of a critic, I would need to question fanny's reason for bedding Joseph Smith. Was she a loose woman? Was she a slut? Was she sex hungry for a sixteen year old? For after all it takes two to tango and she could have said no.

Or everything could have been on the up and up.

[_William Schryver]

Brickbat:

Here is again how Jacob Chapter Two, Verse 30 is correctly interpreted and read:

Thus saith the Prophet Brickbat!

What, did you not know?

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

And, lest there be any confusion or doubt, I will state categorically that your interpretation is WRONG. Very, very, very WRONG.

So there.

[_why me]

Over here in the UK, I could also argue that 'Victorian values' didn't really break down until the 1960's for a variety of reasons, including the introduction of the contraceptive pill for women in about 1963, and the breakdown of the class system and attitudes to women began to break down in the 1st and 2nd World Wars...(though remnants of the class system still remain...something which drives me nuts..)

Mary

Victorian values were not actually present among the upper class who were awash in sexual diviations. A pretty vibrant subculture was present in victorian england among the upper class.

However, in America it was not victorian values but puritan values that held sway and this would require a religous implication. This is why that it would have been difficult to engage in premarital sex without loss of reputation and respect. Fanny would have been no exception.

But fanny did not seem to have a problem. The problem seems to exist in the mind of the critic.

[_karl61]

why me wrote:

'Now if I would take the position of a critic, I would need to question fanny's reason for bedding Joseph Smith. Was she a loose woman? Was she a slut? Was she sex hungry for a sixteen year old? For after all it takes two to tango and she could have said no."

DUDE - HAVE YOU NO DIGNITY.