Flashback: A Tale of Two Marriage Systems

[_DarkHelmet]

remember this FAIR article?

http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf

What do you think the reaction would be if you gave a lesson based on this article in Gospel Doctrine class? Has anyone given this lesson?

[_Stormy Waters]

From the article

Heber’s first introduction to the plural marriage system came when Joseph informed him that he wanted his wife for himself. Heber was devastated at such a request after all that he had already sacrificed. He fasted and prayed for three days after which he apparently received spiritual direction. He took his wife, Vilate, to Joseph and presented her. Joseph wept at their act of “faith, devotion, and obedience.” It was never Joseph’s intention to take Heber’s wife. It was a trial that both had passed.

I think president Monson should resume these tests. Let's see how many of today's members pass.
How the hell did I ever believe in this BS? I can't remember how I used to rationalize this kind of information.

[_DarkHelmet]

From the article

Heber’s first introduction to the plural marriage system came when Joseph informed him that he wanted his wife for himself. Heber was devastated at such a request after all that he had already sacrificed. He fasted and prayed for three days after which he apparently received spiritual direction. He took his wife, Vilate, to Joseph and presented her. Joseph wept at their act of “faith, devotion, and obedience.” It was never Joseph’s intention to take Heber’s wife. It was a trial that both had passed.

Unfortunately, for some of the other guys, it was Joseph's intention to take their wife, and he did. At least they still passed the test.

I love how the article makes it sound like it was a trial for Joseph to take these men's wives.

[_Stormy Waters]

From the article.

Zina came one step closer to realizing her divine potential when she, at the age of 20, became the eternal marital companion of Joseph on October 27, 1841. She was one of the first instances of this type of marriage. Henry stood as an official witness when Zina was later resealed to Joseph in 1846, with Brigham Young standing as proxy. Similar to Joseph’s marriage to Zina’s sister, Presendia, where Heber C. Kimball assumed matters of temporal welfare after Joseph’s death, so it also was in this case with Brigham Young assuming the role of time-only caretaker as he was sealed to Zina for time only in this same ceremony. Henry, while undoubtedly heart broken, went on to faithfully serve in the Church despite what seems impossible circumstances from a detached modern-day perspective.

I can't help bad for this Henry character. Why didn't God command Joseph to share Emma to test his faith? Detached modern-day perspective my ass. I think the modern day church should continue to have the prophet ask for man's wives for consistency's sake

[_Stormy Waters]

To answer the OP, what if this lesson was given in Gospel Doctrine.

Obviously this information should have a negative reaction from those not already exposed to this information. It's disturbing and creepy.

As a TBM, personally I would have gone home and tried to put this information out of my mind. Since it would have made me uncomfortable to think about. Although information such as this certainly planted seeds of doubt in my mind.

I think many members would run to the 'gospel expert' (Bishop/Seminary teacher) in their lives to try to help them reconcile this information. Eventually they'd probably just go back to square one "The church is true and that's all that matters." Their testimonies would be the safest as the expert would likely filter the information that was given them.

A few may run to sites like FAIR. But sites like FAIR often lead to exposure of more difficult if not impossible questions. Some I think would eventually lose their testimonies. Others would default back to "I know the church is true, and that's all that matters." Overall this was my experience with internet apologetics, the answers weren't satisfying and I started to reading articles on topics unrelated to my original questions which led to more questions. Eventually I buried my head in the sand for a couple of years and I simply ignored the difficult questions.

Other members already know about stuff like this, and wouldn't have any problem with it. I wish there was a way to know what percentage of Mormons are aware of facts like these.

[_Jason Bourne]

I have read half of it and will get back to it. My first thought is it sure take a lot of mental gymnastics to explain away or at least get cozy with something that really does seem odd, strange and even abominable, even if it really was a marriage only for the eternities. Someone was given???? really??? to Joseph Smith before this life? More than his first wife? Come on.

On the other hand if one makes a lot of assumptions, Joseph Smith was really a prophet, you really do have to be sealed to get the highest reward God wants, and so on, the arguments will make a lot of compelling sense and at least quiet what causes most rational persons some sense of concern about this activity. And again this is something most LDS would out rightly reject from anyone else.

The other thing I wondered as I read was if sealing is so important the Church really needs to bring back plural marriage as well as polyandry, which was very short lived. Today there are more worthy single sisters then men and there are a lot of sisters who are active who have inactive or non member husbands. Why not bring it all back and do it in a just for eternity sense. Sister Smith, who has in inactive husband can be sealed just for eternity to Bishop Jones. She stays married for time in non member husband and continues to live with him but has Bishop Jones for her eternal hubbie, along with Sister Jones and a few other ladies. And this should be especially compelling if they have some special connection because Sister Smith baked the Bishop a plate of cookies when he was sick and they now have some connection. Sort of like the paper says Joseph Smith had with some connection with some of the ladies he did polyandry with.

[_harmony]

The other thing I wondered as I read was if sealing is so important the Church really needs to bring back plural marriage as well as polyandry, which was very short lived. Today there are more worthy single sisters then men and there are a lot of sisters who are active who have inactive or non member husbands. Why not bring it all back and do it in a just for eternity sense. Sister Smith, who has in inactive husband can be sealed just for eternity to Bishop Jones. She stays married for time in non member husband and continues to live with him but has Bishop Jones for her eternal hubbie, along with Sister Jones and a few other ladies. And this should be especially compelling if they have some special connection because Sister Smith baked the Bishop a plate of cookies when he was sick and they now have some connection. Sort of like the paper says Joseph Smith had with some connection with some of the ladies he did polyandry with.

What a great idea! The sealing part was never condemned, if I remember right. It was the living together that pissed people off. So there is no reason for polygamy/polyandry to not be practiced today, the same as it was then. All those 60+ year old leaders who are lusting in their hearts after the 20 something girls would have dreams of eternal access.

I can tell ya, though... my single 34 year old daughter would still be single.

[_ludwigm]

And this should be especially compelling if they have some special connection because Sister Smith baked the Bishop a plate of cookies when he was sick and they now have some connection.

I remember the story...

6. So Amnon lay down, and made himself sick: and when the king was come to see him, Amnon said unto the king, I pray thee, let Tamar my sister come, and make me a couple of cakes in my sight, that I may eat at her hand.
7. Then David sent home to Tamar, saying, Go now to thy brother Amnon's house, and dress him meat.
8. So Tamar went to her brother Amnon's house; and he was laid down. And she took flour, and kneaded it, and made cakes in his sight, and did bake the cakes.
9. And she took a pan, and poured them out before him; but he refused to eat. And Amnon said, Have out all men from me. And they went out every man from him.
10. And Amnon said unto Tamar, Bring the meat into the chamber, that I may eat of thine hand. And Tamar took the cakes which she had made, and brought them into the chamber to Amnon her brother.
11. And when she had brought them unto him to eat, he took hold of her, and said unto her, Come lie with me, my sister.
12. And she answered him, Nay, my brother, do not force me; for no such thing ought to be done in Israel: do not thou this folly.
13. And I, whither shall I cause my shame to go? and as for thee, thou shalt be as one of the fools in Israel. Now therefore, I pray thee, speak unto the king; for he will not withhold me from thee.
14. Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger than she, forced her, and lay with her.

[_cafe crema]

From the FAIR article:

Heber was devastated at such a request after all that he had already sacrificed. He fasted and prayed for three day after which he apparently received spiritual direction. He took his wife, Vilate, to Joseph and presented her. Joseph wept at their act of "faith, devotion and obedience. It was never Joseph's intention to take Hever's wife. It was a trial that both had passed. Joseph then sealed Heber an Vilate together as eternal companions. John Taylor was another who faced this challenge and passed with the same results. After Taylor informed the prophet that he could have his wife, Joseph said that he did not want her, rather, he simply wanted to know where he stood. Brigham Yougn was yet another who was willing to give his wife, but again was informed that it was only a test.


What would a man of God say, who felt aright, when Joseph him for his money? He woulds, "Yes, and I wish I had more to help build up the kingdom of God". Or if he came and said, "I want your wife?" "O yes, he would say, "here she is, there are plenty more"

Women as objects to be handed from one man to another, really there can be no lower status assigned to any human being as that of property or object to be disposed of at the owners will. While one might argue that women in general at that time held a different position than they do today, I don't know of any strain of thought in western civilization contemporaneous with Joseph Smith in which a man could give his wife to another man to be his wife. These days it's the stuff of pimps, drug dealers and addicts, though there is the occasional "prophet" who makes these types of demand. If this type of stuff is typical I'm guessing they don't direct people inquiring in the LDS church to the stuff there, I can't imagine any of my friends reacting any other way than "FTS".