You are correct. There was early confusion as there were no clear rules set except for those in Section 132 (which came later in the timeline)
Why, in the event of having unclear “guidance” on how to proceed, did Joseph default having multiple sexual relationships behind his wife’s back? Rather than defaulting to doing nothing until such a time as it was clear? I think it’s a rather rhetorical question, because we all know why. But I’d love to see you wrangle an excuse out.
Sec 132 Revelation: July 12, 1843
Oops! Joe bagging babes after that:
Almera Woodward Johnson August 1843
Olive Grey Frost September 17, 1843
Melissa Lott September 20, 1843
Fanny Young (Murray) November 2, 1843
"There will come a time when the rich own all the media, and it will be impossible for the public to make an informed opinion." Albert Einstein, ~1949 "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
When encountering concerns about polygamy, the proper attitude is to step back and consider the full historical arc rather than becoming distracted by the specific fears, moral tensions, or institutional improvised measures present at the time. Retroactive revelations introduced to account for earlier intimacies and indiscretions are both natural and expected, and should never be confused with convenient justifications for what might otherwise appear—through an unsuitably modern lens—as adultery.
Above all, remember, dear reader: if the current prophet assures you that all is well, then by golly, all is well—and any lingering moral discomfort should be understood not as a problem with the past, but rather as an opportunity to bring your conscience into better alignment with the present.
I appear to have reached 2nd Quorum of 70 status by post count alone. As I understand it, that means I have responsibility without authority, and influence without keys. Father will be so proud.
For modern non-Mormons, polygamy is the Mormon punchline. You hear about ancient American Christian Jews, and modern Apostles and Prophets, and think, Wha? It’s weird enough that you almost have to keep listening, just to see where the heck it could be going, but then you hear about all Smith’s women, and it’s obvious how it all fits: oh, a sex cult, of course.
Bada-bum.
Hi Physics Guy. I'm sure you are aware that polygamy has deeper origins than some might think/realize. Here is a timeline:
September 1823- Moroni appears to Joseph Smith and quotes prophecies about the restoration of sealing keys.
June 1829- Joseph Smith translates the Book of Jacob in the Book of Mormon, which includes teachings on when polygamy is authorized by God.
June 1830- just one year later Joseph Smith begins his inspired translation, or revision, of the Bible, which later sources identify as an early catalyst for Joseph becoming aware of plural marriage as part of the restoration.
It goes on from there. Often, in the discussion on polygamy, its original roots are overlooked in restoration timeline.
Reducing it all to "sex cult" would seem a bit naïve and simplistic. Not to ignore, however, all of the scandalous and sensational writing that has been done on the subject from Nauvoo to the present (whisperings even before that). On the outside looking in it can definitely be interpreted and looked at as being "cultish" as you seem to be settled on in your beliefs.
In relation to this particular thread, we are seeing a division within the church in regards to those that will follow the leaders and the established doctrines and beliefs and those that are going a different way and then publicizing/preaching it. As has been said many times now over the years, however, "Keep your eye on the prophet" and hearken to his words.
If one does so they will stay/find themselves in the mainstream of the church. If they don't, they won't. Pretty simple, right? And now in the age of the internet we can see this dynamic in all of its glory.
When encountering concerns about polygamy, the proper attitude is to step back and consider the full historical arc rather than becoming distracted by the specific fears, moral tensions, or institutional improvised measures present at the time. Retroactive revelations introduced to account for earlier intimacies and indiscretions are both natural and expected, and should never be confused with convenient justifications for what might otherwise appear—through an unsuitably modern lens—as adultery.
Above all, remember, dear reader: if the current prophet assures you that all is well, then by golly, all is well—and any lingering moral discomfort should be understood not as a problem with the past, but rather as an opportunity to bring your conscience into better alignment with the present.
Yes, considering the historical arc IS important. That’s what I’m asking that we do. You seem to be looking at things in isolation on the time line of events and ignoring the beginning stages of ‘the arc’. Other posters have been doing the same thing.
You’re right, it’s weak as a punchline. It just happens to be an effective explanation, at least for the foundational history. There really isn’t a better punchline, probably because it’s not funny to begin with. What’s weird is everything kept working the same way after the polygamy stopped. Same authority, same retroactive revelations, same expectations of alignment, just fewer wives.
Yes, considering the historical arc IS important. That’s what I’m asking that we do. You seem to be looking at things in isolation on the time line of events and ignoring the beginning stages of ‘the arc’. Other posters have been doing the same thing.
Regards,
MG
I agree that the arc matters. I just think it starts earlier than you’re placing it. The arc doesn’t really begin with later theological retroaction, but with behavior—most clearly with Fanny Alger, and arguably between Joseph and Oliver even before the Book of Mormon was published.
You’re right, it’s weak as a punchline. It just happens to be an effective explanation, at least for the foundational history. There really isn’t a better punchline, probably because it’s not funny to begin with. What’s weird is everything kept working the same way after the polygamy stopped. Same authority, same retroactive revelations, same expectations of alignment, just fewer wives.
Apparently you also are unwilling/unable to look at the full historical arc. You are hung up on partial history and the stuff that came out of Nauvoo after John C. Bennett and Co. had their heyday in the writings of the time that then became 'history'. Accepted history among the critics.
You've got to go back to the beginning of the time line. Or...maybe you don't?
Yes, considering the historical arc IS important. That’s what I’m asking that we do. You seem to be looking at things in isolation on the time line of events and ignoring the beginning stages of ‘the arc’. Other posters have been doing the same thing.
Regards,
MG
I agree that the arc matters. I just think it starts earlier than you’re placing it. The arc doesn’t really begin with later theological retroaction, but with behavior—most clearly with Fanny Alger, and arguably between Joseph and Oliver even before the Book of Mormon was published.
