LDS Freedom Forum

The following paragraph is taken from the church's book "Saints, Vol. 1: The Standard of Truth" (chapter 40, pg. 489-490).

"In choosing to be sealed to Joseph, Emily trusted in her witness that she was acting in obedience to the Lord’s commandment. She and her sister Eliza continued to keep their marriages private. They and the others who practiced plural marriage never referred to it as polygamy, which they considered a worldly term, not a priesthood ordinance.30 When Joseph or someone else condemned “polygamy” or “spiritual wifery” in public, those who practiced plural marriage understood that they were not referring to their covenant relationships.31"

A weak side-step attempt is made here to explain away the evidence of Joseph Smith publicly condemning and denouncing polygamy (plural marriage). The argument made is that there was a difference between the terms "plural marriage", "polygamy", and "spiritual wifery"; and that when Joseph made such statements denouncing polygamy, he wasn't referring to their "celestial plural marriages". "They and the others who practiced plural marriage never referred to it as polygamy": this is just silly.

There is no documentation or public sermon explaining the difference between "plural marriage" and "polygamy". We are making assumptions that those who were secretly practicing polygamy were told the difference between each by Joseph, of which we have no evidence.

The sources attached in the book, link such an idea back to George A. Smith and Eliza R. Snow, years after the matter.

Whether intended or not, the book and apologies at FAIRmormon suggest there are semantics involved. If the claim is that it was a matter of what it was called, we can throw that argument out the window as we know Joseph condemned "plural marriage" as well as "polygamy". To say Joseph condemned polygamy and spiritual wifery, and yet did not condemn "celestial plural marriage" is silly.

"Walked up and down St[reet] with Scribe and gave instructions to try those who were preaching, teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives on this Law. Joseph forbids it and the practice thereof. No man shall have but one wife. [rest of page blank] {page 116} (Scott H. Faulring, ed., An American Prophet's Record: The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith, 417)

Like I said in another post:

If you've read everything Joseph and Hyrum said on the topic(FROM SOURCES DURING THEIR LIFETIME AND NOT HE SAID SHE SAID 30 YEARS LATER BY POLYGAMISTS), you'd understand that he equated every possible version of plural marriage, call it whatever term you want, to adultery. He left no room to interpret his words any other way. He and Hyrum very explicitly condemned every possible way you could describe a man having more than one wife, and also explicitly made it clear that no man should ever have more than one wife. There's no where else to turn.

Either he lied over and over and over again.

OR

He didn't actually practice or preach it.

Period.

And then this:

Something you appear to be missing is that, yes, Joseph found himself defending himself saying he did not commit adultery. Well guess what? This wasn't just in response to someone saying "Joseph committed adultery".

It was in response to someone saying "Joseph has other wives".

Now, if you accuse me of having 3 side wives, and I say "That's a lie, I'd never commit adultery", you could easily understand that I believe plural marriage to be adultery.

Context + Logic = Clarity

Joseph clearly tied all possible forms and terms for plural marriage/celestial marriage/ bigamy/wifery to adultery.

Zathura wrote: ↑February 19th, 2020, 12:19 pm Like I said in another post:

If you've read everything Joseph and Hyrum said on the topic(FROM SOURCES DURING THEIR LIFETIME AND NOT HE SAID SHE SAID 30 YEARS LATER BY POLYGAMISTS), you'd understand that he equated every possible version of plural marriage, call it whatever term you want, to adultery. He left no room to interpret his words any other way. He and Hyrum very explicitly condemned every possible way you could describe a man having more than one wife, and also explicitly made it clear that no man should ever have more than one wife. There's no where else to turn.

Either he lied over and over and over again.

OR

He didn't actually practice or preach it.

Period.

And then this:

Something you appear to be missing is that, yes, Joseph found himself defending himself saying he did not commit adultery. Well guess what? This wasn't just in response to someone saying "Joseph committed adultery".

It was in response to someone saying "Joseph has other wives".

Now, if you accuse me of having 3 side wives, and I say "That's a lie, I'd never commit adultery", you could easily understand that I believe plural marriage to be adultery.

Context + Logic = Clarity

Joseph clearly tied all possible forms and terms for plural marriage/celestial marriage/ bigamy/wifery to adultery.

"I have taught all the strong doctrines publicly, and always taught stronger doctrines in public than in private."
-Joseph Smith

TylerDurden wrote: ↑February 19th, 2020, 12:32 pm

Zathura wrote: ↑February 19th, 2020, 12:19 pm Like I said in another post:

If you've read everything Joseph and Hyrum said on the topic(FROM SOURCES DURING THEIR LIFETIME AND NOT HE SAID SHE SAID 30 YEARS LATER BY POLYGAMISTS), you'd understand that he equated every possible version of plural marriage, call it whatever term you want, to adultery. He left no room to interpret his words any other way. He and Hyrum very explicitly condemned every possible way you could describe a man having more than one wife, and also explicitly made it clear that no man should ever have more than one wife. There's no where else to turn.

Either he lied over and over and over again.

OR

He didn't actually practice or preach it.

Period.

And then this:

Something you appear to be missing is that, yes, Joseph found himself defending himself saying he did not commit adultery. Well guess what? This wasn't just in response to someone saying "Joseph committed adultery".

It was in response to someone saying "Joseph has other wives".

Now, if you accuse me of having 3 side wives, and I say "That's a lie, I'd never commit adultery", you could easily understand that I believe plural marriage to be adultery.

Context + Logic = Clarity

Joseph clearly tied all possible forms and terms for plural marriage/celestial marriage/ bigamy/wifery to adultery.

"I have taught all the strong doctrines publicly, and always taught stronger doctrines in public than in private."
-Joseph Smith

That’s a new one. Where is that from?

TylerDurden wrote: ↑February 19th, 2020, 11:21 am The following paragraph is taken from the church's book "Saints, Vol. 1: The Standard of Truth" (chapter 40, pg. 489-490).

"In choosing to be sealed to Joseph, Emily trusted in her witness that she was acting in obedience to the Lord’s commandment. She and her sister Eliza continued to keep their marriages private. They and the others who practiced plural marriage never referred to it as polygamy, which they considered a worldly term, not a priesthood ordinance.30 When Joseph or someone else condemned “polygamy” or “spiritual wifery” in public, those who practiced plural marriage understood that they were not referring to their covenant relationships.31"

A weak side-step attempt is made here to explain away the evidence of Joseph Smith publicly condemning and denouncing polygamy (plural marriage). The argument made is that there was a difference between the terms "plural marriage", "polygamy", and "spiritual wifery"; and that when Joseph made such statements denouncing polygamy, he wasn't referring to their "celestial plural marriages". "They and the others who practiced plural marriage never referred to it as polygamy": this is just silly.

There is no documentation or public sermon explaining the difference between "plural marriage" and "polygamy". We are making assumptions that those who were secretly practicing polygamy were told the difference between each by Joseph, of which we have no evidence.

The sources attached in the book, link such an idea back to George A. Smith and Eliza R. Snow, years after the matter.

Whether intended or not, the book and apologies at FAIRmormon suggest there are semantics involved. If the claim is that it was a matter of what it was called, we can throw that argument out the window as we know Joseph condemned "plural marriage" as well as "polygamy". To say Joseph condemned polygamy and spiritual wifery, and yet did not condemn "celestial plural marriage" is silly.

"Walked up and down St[reet] with Scribe and gave instructions to try those who were preaching, teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives on this Law. Joseph forbids it and the practice thereof. No man shall have but one wife. [rest of page blank] {page 116} (Scott H. Faulring, ed., An American Prophet's Record: The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith, 417)

Plural marriage and polygamy and bigamy:
A man having more than one wife.
A woman having more than one husband.
A woman having more than one 'wife'.
A man having more than one 'husband'.

Too broad a term.

Polygyny:
A man having more than one wife.
Also called plurality of the wives.

We have direct evidence from ancient scripture and explicit confirmation in contemporary scripture that polygyny is not condemned, except for when it is not allowed by God. The Book of Mormon gives one reason.

I'm not saying I'm 100% certain that's what Joseph Smith was doing. I am, however, saying that semantics matter, and it is plausible that Joseph understood that point, even if he wasn't even completely aware of the different definitions early on (maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, I don't know). I may go in later and see if there are any footnotes about sources for their claims in the history book.

In a topic like polygyny, it's important to take each statement of Joseph in context and answer the following questions.
1. When he said "no," was it a permanent law, or a temporary commandment, like we learn in Jacob?
2. When he used the terms "plural marriage" or "polygamy," was he talking about polygyny every time? Did his understanding of the definition of the terms change over time?
3. When he said he didn't practice it, had he made a covenant to God and wife to not reveal his practice of it? Or had God commanded him to keep it private until a later time. Or did he just know inside that it would cause too much chaos and violence, so he felt it justified to hide the truth? Did he fully understand how to navigate that, balancing honesty with fidelity to his covenant, God's command, or a knowledge of the circumstances?

Zathura wrote: ↑February 19th, 2020, 12:41 pm

TylerDurden wrote: ↑February 19th, 2020, 12:32 pm

Zathura wrote: ↑February 19th, 2020, 12:19 pm Like I said in another post:

If you've read everything Joseph and Hyrum said on the topic(FROM SOURCES DURING THEIR LIFETIME AND NOT HE SAID SHE SAID 30 YEARS LATER BY POLYGAMISTS), you'd understand that he equated every possible version of plural marriage, call it whatever term you want, to adultery. He left no room to interpret his words any other way. He and Hyrum very explicitly condemned every possible way you could describe a man having more than one wife, and also explicitly made it clear that no man should ever have more than one wife. There's no where else to turn.

Either he lied over and over and over again.

OR

He didn't actually practice or preach it.

Period.

And then this:

Something you appear to be missing is that, yes, Joseph found himself defending himself saying he did not commit adultery. Well guess what? This wasn't just in response to someone saying "Joseph committed adultery".

It was in response to someone saying "Joseph has other wives".

Now, if you accuse me of having 3 side wives, and I say "That's a lie, I'd never commit adultery", you could easily understand that I believe plural marriage to be adultery.

Context + Logic = Clarity

Joseph clearly tied all possible forms and terms for plural marriage/celestial marriage/ bigamy/wifery to adultery.

"I have taught all the strong doctrines publicly, and always taught stronger doctrines in public than in private."
-Joseph Smith

That’s a new one. Where is that from?

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... -bullock/1

Wow. Get ready to do some brain calisthenics....a lot of mental gymnastics required to square the spin with the facts.

TylerDurden wrote: ↑February 19th, 2020, 11:21 am The following paragraph is taken from the church's book "Saints, Vol. 1: The Standard of Truth" (chapter 40, pg. 489-490).

"In choosing to be sealed to Joseph, Emily trusted in her witness that she was acting in obedience to the Lord’s commandment. She and her sister Eliza continued to keep their marriages private. They and the others who practiced plural marriage never referred to it as polygamy, which they considered a worldly term, not a priesthood ordinance.30 When Joseph or someone else condemned “polygamy” or “spiritual wifery” in public, those who practiced plural marriage understood that they were not referring to their covenant relationships.31"

A weak side-step attempt is made here to explain away the evidence of Joseph Smith publicly condemning and denouncing polygamy (plural marriage). The argument made is that there was a difference between the terms "plural marriage", "polygamy", and "spiritual wifery"; and that when Joseph made such statements denouncing polygamy, he wasn't referring to their "celestial plural marriages". "They and the others who practiced plural marriage never referred to it as polygamy": this is just silly.

There is no documentation or public sermon explaining the difference between "plural marriage" and "polygamy". We are making assumptions that those who were secretly practicing polygamy were told the difference between each by Joseph, of which we have no evidence.

The sources attached in the book, link such an idea back to George A. Smith and Eliza R. Snow, years after the matter.

Whether intended or not, the book and apologies at FAIRmormon suggest there are semantics involved. If the claim is that it was a matter of what it was called, we can throw that argument out the window as we know Joseph condemned "plural marriage" as well as "polygamy". To say Joseph condemned polygamy and spiritual wifery, and yet did not condemn "celestial plural marriage" is silly.

"Walked up and down St[reet] with Scribe and gave instructions to try those who were preaching, teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives on this Law. Joseph forbids it and the practice thereof. No man shall have but one wife. [rest of page blank] {page 116} (Scott H. Faulring, ed., An American Prophet's Record: The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith, 417)

No weaker, or any less silly than your perception or interpretation of the topic.

Too much evidence exists, some of it better known than others, that the practice of "sealing" was confused with "plural marriage"/"polygamy".

I have such evidence within my personal family history archives. I won't get into details other than to say that I have an ancestor who was sealed to Joseph -- an event they attended to together with Emma there, too -- and Joseph himself was the author of the idea. He suggested it. He recommended it.

This ancestor and Joseph never lived together, never had children together, and to my knowledge never even were together again physically in the same room. However, on the records of the Church, they were then sealed and remain so.

This event was confirmed again years later by a letter from...a man who later became president of the Church.

There is no doubt in my mind that it happened.

Several years ago this ancestor's name came up on a list made by an anti-Mormon author as one of Joseph's plural wives, accusing them both of having had a lurid affair while her husband was on a mission. Since that publishing the falsehood has been repeated as fact by several "historians".

To me this has been quite instructive. Unless I can see the written, tangible paper with verifiable evidence that it is in the handwriting of the person making the statement I've decided I will believe NO "historian". To many histories are written to push an agenda. Artifacts in my personal possession showcase a far more complex situation regarding plural marriage during those generations and I have many ancestors who lived it. What I have, to me, very closely aligns with D&C 132.

We also have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight decades later to see the outcome of these people's lives. Many of them lived tragic lives -- not that those chose such tragic circumstances but rather that's just the way the world was. In my view, plural marriage at times was a merciful thing, saving lives that were otherwise destroyed by other events. You never hear that from "historians". All you hear are the breathless, sordid assumptions about plural marriage being about nothing but sex and abuse. Frankly, in the evidence I hold, I cannot even find a suggestion of those elements at all. And I'm not talking just one or two situations -- I'm talking DOZENS. In other words, both from within and without of the Church, I believe we have been given a distorted and oft times false portrayal of what really happened and why.

I urge great caution of anyone casting judgement on anything done by people who are no longer here to explain or defend their actions. For anyone to stand in judgement of them is a fool's errand and you do it at the peril of the judgment you will bring upon yourself.

LOL

Phantom wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 11:02 am Too much evidence exists, some of it better known than others, that the practice of "sealing" was confused with "plural marriage"/"polygamy".

I have such evidence within my personal family history archives. I won't get into details other than to say that I have an ancestor who was sealed to Joseph -- an event they attended to together with Emma there, too -- and Joseph himself was the author of the idea. He suggested it. He recommended it.

This ancestor and Joseph never lived together, never had children together, and to my knowledge never even were together again physically in the same room. However, on the records of the Church, they were then sealed and remain so.

This event was confirmed again years later by a letter from...a man who later became president of the Church.

There is no doubt in my mind that it happened.

Several years ago this ancestor's name came up on a list made by an anti-Mormon author as one of Joseph's plural wives, accusing them both of having had a lurid affair while her husband was on a mission. Since that publishing the falsehood has been repeated as fact by several "historians".

To me this has been quite instructive. Unless I can see the written, tangible paper with verifiable evidence that it is in the handwriting of the person making the statement I've decided I will believe NO "historian". To many histories are written to push an agenda. Artifacts in my personal possession showcase a far more complex situation regarding plural marriage during those generations and I have many ancestors who lived it. What I have, to me, very closely aligns with D&C 132.

We also have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight decades later to see the outcome of these people's lives. Many of them lived tragic lives -- not that those chose such tragic circumstances but rather that's just the way the world was. In my view, plural marriage at times was a merciful thing, saving lives that were otherwise destroyed by other events. You never hear that from "historians". All you hear are the breathless, sordid assumptions about plural marriage being about nothing but sex and abuse. Frankly, in the evidence I hold, I cannot even find a suggestion of those elements at all. And I'm not talking just one or two situations -- I'm talking DOZENS. In other words, both from within and without of the Church, I believe we have been given a distorted and oft times false portrayal of what really happened and why.

I urge great caution of anyone casting judgement on anything done by people who are no longer here to explain or defend their actions. For anyone to stand in judgement of them is a fool's errand and you do it at the peril of the judgment you will bring upon yourself.

I agree that sealings have been confused for plural marriages. But I don't believe these sealings were actually binding. They were a symbol being taught by Joseph. I believe he was "representing" the Lord in a way, showing others to come unto Christ to become sealed together. I believe only the Lord can personally seal a couple together, and not man in earthly temples.

TylerDurden wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 11:07 am I agree that sealings have been confused for plural marriages. But I don't believe these sealings were actually binding. They were a symbol being taught by Joseph. I believe he was "representing" the Lord in a way, showing others to come unto Christ to become sealed together. Only the Lord can personally seal a couple together.

To those involved I can tell you that on a very personal level they were not only binding but they were considered central to their salvation, right or wrong that may be.

I just think on this subject there are too many smug "experts" who in reality don't know what they are talking about.

EmmaLee wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 11:06 amLOL

How unspeakably cruel.

Phantom wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 11:02 am Too much evidence exists, some of it better known than others, that the practice of "sealing" was confused with "plural marriage"/"polygamy".

I have such evidence within my personal family history archives. I won't get into details other than to say that I have an ancestor who was sealed to Joseph -- an event they attended to together with Emma there, too -- and Joseph himself was the author of the idea. He suggested it. He recommended it.

This ancestor and Joseph never lived together, never had children together, and to my knowledge never even were together again physically in the same room. However, on the records of the Church, they were then sealed and remain so.

This event was confirmed again years later by a letter from...a man who later became president of the Church.

There is no doubt in my mind that it happened.

Several years ago this ancestor's name came up on a list made by an anti-Mormon author as one of Joseph's plural wives, accusing them both of having had a lurid affair while her husband was on a mission. Since that publishing the falsehood has been repeated as fact by several "historians".

To me this has been quite instructive. Unless I can see the written, tangible paper with verifiable evidence that it is in the handwriting of the person making the statement I've decided I will believe NO "historian". To many histories are written to push an agenda. Artifacts in my personal possession showcase a far more complex situation regarding plural marriage during those generations and I have many ancestors who lived it. What I have, to me, very closely aligns with D&C 132.

We also have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight decades later to see the outcome of these people's lives. Many of them lived tragic lives -- not that those chose such tragic circumstances but rather that's just the way the world was. In my view, plural marriage at times was a merciful thing, saving lives that were otherwise destroyed by other events. You never hear that from "historians". All you hear are the breathless, sordid assumptions about plural marriage being about nothing but sex and abuse. Frankly, in the evidence I hold, I cannot even find a suggestion of those elements at all. And I'm not talking just one or two situations -- I'm talking DOZENS. In other words, both from within and without of the Church, I believe we have been given a distorted and oft times false portrayal of what really happened and why.

I urge great caution of anyone casting judgement on anything done by people who are no longer here to explain or defend their actions. For anyone to stand in judgement of them is a fool's errand and you do it at the peril of the judgment you will bring upon yourself.

This. Is. Ultimately. A similar. Conclusion. To What I reached. Especially considering that my ancestors were under similar circumstances to yours, though it goes through Joseph F Smith (twice) and Thomas Sasson Smith.

The relationship between a father and a mother brings children into mortality. That father and that mother are accountable for their personal actions and motivations individually.

None of us - I believe - experience ideal childhood and youth. When it comes to the adult child's personal actions and motivations, hopefully there will be an improved spiritual consciousness and conscience as a result of greater reliance on The Holy Spirit rather than on entrenched cultural/social norms.

I'm not sure j Golden Kimball had a lot of respect for his father. He was witness to his mother's isolation and hardship. Perhaps some extended 'nuclear families' experienced a more loving environment. I don't know.

We need to build on the genetic history we've been given, and find happiness in what we can accomplish as the Sons & Daughters of Christ as led by the Holy Spirit.

Said J Golden, in Conference:

“I honor my father for his faith, courage, and integrity to God the Father and to His Son, Jesus Christ. He was one of the first chosen apostles that never desired the Prophet’s place—his hands never shook, his knees never trembled, and he was true and steadfast to the Church and to the Prophet Joseph Smith. . . .I take pride in being a son of my father, and as long as I live I shall never fail to honor my father and his successors and try to be as loyal and true and steadfast in the faith as they have been”

Lots of sad stories of abandonment in my family and my husband's family history. I know many families made it work, but it was incredibly hard for the women in particular - a huge sacrifice.

A few stories at this link and a few below:

https://www.salon.com/2014/05/31/inside ... mon_woman/

"My ancestor was the 4th and youngest wife of a prominent citizen in Southern Utah. While her husband (30 years her senior) and his three other wives lived in a lovely home in town, my ancestor lived in a wagon box for a year while she and her children homesteaded the Beaver Dam Wash. Hannah and her six children worked the homestead planting the orchards, gardens and crops, building the dams to irrigate their land, and tending the cattle, horses and poultry. They were essentially alone with her husband visiting only occasionally. When my ancestor’s sixth and last child was born, her husband asked what the child’s name should be. Without hesitation, my ancestor replied, “Exile.”"


"On my mother’s side, my great grandmother was the 2nd wife. She, her children, and the 3rd wife started a dairy farm on the shores of Utah Lake, often pulling the plow themselves to clear the land. Once it was thriving, the profit was used to support the first family in town. My grandfather was never allowed to go to school because as the oldest son, he took the younger children to school and then had to return to the farm to do all the chores. He became a contractor. He also developed dementia/altheimers in his 60’s, and I have often wondered if it was because of the deprivation of his life because as far as I know no one else in the family has developed it. The killer is that after the farm was doing well, the patriach (George Thomas Peay) and his first wife, co-signed a note on the farm to secure a loan for a friend. When the friend defaulted, my great grandmother (2nd wife), her children, the 3rd wife and her children were kicked off the farm. My greatgrandmother lived in a 5 feet by 6 feet cabin. In the winter the water would come up into the cabin. My mother used to brag that at the time of his death, the Patriarch came to my nearly dead greatgrandmother. For forgiveness ?"


My great Aunt was one of 6 children from my great great grandfather’s 2nd wife. He served time in federal pen. for polygamy. She was born around 1890. She was raised in SLC. Her sentiments echoed this article. I had lots of discussions with her when I was in college and living in Utah. She said the younger polygamist kids were stigmatized, called names like polygs. It wasn’t very fun growing up as a polygamist child. Of course she was in a city. SLC, not in the country My grandfather left home at 14, not that uncommon then. Common sense says it had to be tough. In my opinion anyone who thinks it was rosy has a misconception.

A few years ago [May 1869 to April 1870] I obtained the affidavits of as many as I knew of, with a few exceptions, who received personal instructions or commandment from The Prophet respecting the Subject of celestial marriage [,] all of which are filed away in the H.O. [Historian’s Office]…. When the subject first came before my mind I must say I was astonished at the scarcity of evidence, I might say almost total absence of direct evidence upon the Subject, as connected with the Prophet Joseph himself. There was nothing written and but few living who were personally knowing to the fact that Joseph Taught the principle. True much had been written in support of the Doctrine, bearing upon scriptural-and rational evidences, but not a word, except the Revelation itself. Showing that the The Prophet was the Author-under God…. (Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, Volume 1: History, Brian C. Hales, p. 9)

I think that this quote from Joseph F. Smith speaks volumes.

(Said J Golden, in Conference 1930)

“I honor my father for his faith, courage, and integrity to God the Father and to His Son, Jesus Christ. He was one of the first chosen apostles that never desired the Prophet’s place—his hands never shook, his knees never trembled, and he was true and steadfast to the Church and to the Prophet Joseph Smith. . . .I take pride in being a son of my father, and as long as I live I shall never fail to honor my father and his successors and try to be as loyal and true and steadfast in the faith as they have been”

The above tribute to Heber C. Kimball was made 62 years after J. Golden's father died in 1868 when J. Golden was only 15-years old. I'm not sure one of 65 other children in the 'extended' family could have formed so exalted an opinion of a man he hardly knew in mortality. I imagine Heber C. Kimball's reputation within the aristocracy of The Church was well established and honored by 1930.

How could a member of the First Council of the Seventy do or say anything to contradict the sunshine of so glorious a contribution as his father's to the establishment of The Church?

[Heber C Kimball’s] death left [his wife] Christeen destitute—at least at first. Heber died intestate, and the settlement was a long, drawn-out, complicated affair.

J. Golden summed it up this way:

“Finally, we starved out. Just couldn’t make it. Mother sewed for Z.C.M.I. at those early starvation prices, kept boarders, with poor surroundings and accommodations, as by this time we had been booted out of father’s mansion and lived in a two-room house. Mother went to Brother Brigham repeatedly to secure a position for me, but to no avail. I suppose there were too many others who wanted work. So we were left to hustle for ourselves, and that’s how I became a hustler” [Claude Richards, J. Golden Kimball: The Story of a Unique Personality (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1934, 25)].

Mindfields wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 2:12 pm A few years ago [May 1869 to April 1870] I obtained the affidavits of as many as I knew of, with a few exceptions, who received personal instructions or commandment from The Prophet respecting the Subject of celestial marriage [,] all of which are filed away in the H.O. [Historian’s Office]…. When the subject first came before my mind I must say I was astonished at the scarcity of evidence, I might say almost total absence of direct evidence upon the Subject, as connected with the Prophet Joseph himself. There was nothing written and but few living who were personally knowing to the fact that Joseph Taught the principle. True much had been written in support of the Doctrine, bearing upon scriptural-and rational evidences, but not a word, except the Revelation itself. Showing that the The Prophet was the Author-under God…. (Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, Volume 1: History, Brian C. Hales, p. 9)

I think that this quote from Joseph F. Smith speaks volumes.

That book from Brian C. Hales has been widely criticized for...let's just say a slanted view.

In the case of the ancestor I referenced I have letters in the hand of Daniel Wells and...Joseph F. Smith, confirming the ordinance and the circumstances behind it. Those letters are in the Church History library for anyone to review.

Facts are indeed stubborn things.

buffalo_girl wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 3:29 pm
How could a member of the First Council of the Seventy do or say anything to contradict the sunshine of so glorious a contribution as his father's to the establishment of The Church?

[Heber C Kimball’s] death left [his wife] Christeen destitute—at least at first. Heber died intestate, and the settlement was a long, drawn-out, complicated affair.

J. Golden summed it up this way:

“Finally, we starved out. Just couldn’t make it. Mother sewed for Z.C.M.I. at those early starvation prices, kept boarders, with poor surroundings and accommodations, as by this time we had been booted out of father’s mansion and lived in a two-room house. Mother went to Brother Brigham repeatedly to secure a position for me, but to no avail. I suppose there were too many others who wanted work. So we were left to hustle for ourselves, and that’s how I became a hustler” [Claude Richards, J. Golden Kimball: The Story of a Unique Personality (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1934, 25)].

I think it could be fairly said that many living plural marriage were destitute. Was it the fault of men like Heber Kimball or the fault of those who pursued them? Or merely the fault of circumstances in pioneering a frontier?

Most of the women in my ancesty who were plural wives were defacto single mothers, living miles away from their working spouses.

THEY CHOSE that life. It was kind of like how Brigham described the Church leaving Missouri. "We left voluntarily...because we had to".

Are we to condemn these people, and the sacred principle they were following, years later?

Or should we admire them? Thank them? Learn from them?

...as by this time we had been booted out of father’s mansion and lived in a two-room house.

I guess I'm struggling to discover a Principle of Charity in a man being able to afford a mansion - out of which a 'wife' and three children could be ejected to fend for themselves - without some thought for their provision or at the least, direction from Church leadership to assist them in establishing a direction for self-reliance!

Wouldn't you think so illustrious a Patriarch's wives and children would warrant some direction toward temporal security? Did these folks comprehend Christian Charity? Evidence would suggest they did not.

Facts are indeed stubborn things.

They sure are.

Phantom wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 3:39 pm

buffalo_girl wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 3:29 pm
How could a member of the First Council of the Seventy do or say anything to contradict the sunshine of so glorious a contribution as his father's to the establishment of The Church?

[Heber C Kimball’s] death left [his wife] Christeen destitute—at least at first. Heber died intestate, and the settlement was a long, drawn-out, complicated affair.

J. Golden summed it up this way:

“Finally, we starved out. Just couldn’t make it. Mother sewed for Z.C.M.I. at those early starvation prices, kept boarders, with poor surroundings and accommodations, as by this time we had been booted out of father’s mansion and lived in a two-room house. Mother went to Brother Brigham repeatedly to secure a position for me, but to no avail. I suppose there were too many others who wanted work. So we were left to hustle for ourselves, and that’s how I became a hustler” [Claude Richards, J. Golden Kimball: The Story of a Unique Personality (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1934, 25)].

I think it could be fairly said that many living plural marriage were destitute. Was it the fault of men like Heber Kimball or the fault of those who pursued them? Or merely the fault of circumstances in pioneering a frontier?

Most of the women in my ancesty who were plural wives were defacto single mothers, living miles away from their working spouses.

THEY CHOSE that life. It was kind of like how Brigham described the Church leaving Missouri. "We left voluntarily...because we had to".

Are we to condemn these people, and the sacred principle they were following, years later?

Or should we admire them? Thank them? Learn from them?

We should not condemn them, as they did what they felt was right. But the Lord permitted them to live this way for 40 years to see if they could progress, and they didn't. They couldn't succeed at living the United Order, which would have helped solve the destitute wives problem. And when they did try living the United Order, they ran into a problem - like in Orderville - you soon have too many dissatisfied men who leave the order because many of the women are choosing to marry the men with the biggest houses. So the outcast men start leaving and the order falls apart. Today the polygamous groups solve this problem by accusing the men of small infractions against the prophet's orders (or make up false accusations) and kick the boys and men out for disobedience.

Phantom wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 11:16 am

EmmaLee wrote: ↑February 20th, 2020, 11:06 amLOL

How unspeakably cruel.

?

And that's for Bee Pr.... er, I mean, Connie, too; as well as you, Arenera.