Not angry, just done - fMh polygamy post

Public forum for topics that don't fit into the other categories.
User avatar
LookingHard
Posts: 2950
Joined: 20 Oct 2014, 12:11

Re: Not angry, just done - fMh polygamy post

Post by LookingHard » 24 Aug 2016, 05:49

nibbler wrote:Bonus if they do it during a prayer while people's eyes are closed. :twisted: :angel:
They could also do it in the audit report section.

GBSmith
Posts: 975
Joined: 24 Apr 2010, 08:51

Re: Not angry, just done - fMh polygamy post

Post by GBSmith » 24 Aug 2016, 06:12

At least the author should have mentioned that she was a plural wife of JS at the same time she was legally married to Henry Jacobs. The feedback idea was a good one. I'll let you know if I get a response.

Ann
Posts: 2576
Joined: 09 Sep 2012, 02:17

Re: Not angry, just done - fMh polygamy post

Post by Ann » 24 Aug 2016, 07:31

How would the church go about correcting something like this?
All I can say is that the church had a real opportunity in the essays to deal with many "somethings like this," and they squandered it. (Can y'all tell? I'm still extremely disappointed in those.)

There could have been blanket statements that addressed a hundred or a thousand like somethings at a time, but they didn't do it.

Combing through all church publications is not practical. Revising the essays is doable. And it would be welcome evidence to modern LDS women and girls that we and our leaders are on the same planet. It's not that polygamy happened; it's how they want us to view and talk about it now that is so objectionable.
"Preachers err by trying to talk people into belief; better they reveal the radiance of their own discovery." - Joseph Campbell

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes." - Marcel Proust

"Therefore they said unto him, How were thine eyes opened? He answered and said unto them, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed my eyes...." - John 9:10-11

User avatar
Shawn
Posts: 707
Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 14:22
Location: Utah

Re: Not angry, just done - fMh polygamy post

Post by Shawn » 24 Aug 2016, 11:06

I actually found that article about Zina last week and I don't like it. The article “Zina and Her Men” (FairMormon link) makes it clear that Henry did not desert them. It states:
After the 1844 death of Joseph Smith, the Saints in Nauvoo redoubled their efforts to complete the temple. Early on the morning of January 3, 1846, Henry and Zina received their washings, anointings, and endowments, being among the first company through the temple that day. A month later they were back in the temple, on February 2, 1846. On this day Zina received her second anointing from Parley P. Pratt, but there is no record of such being done for Henry. The records, however, do indicate that sealings were performed that day that involved Zina:
Joseph Smith (martyred) Dec 23, 1805 Sharon, Windsor Co. Vermont

Zina Diantha Huntington Jan 31 – 1821 Watertown, Jefferson Co. N.Y. were sealed husband & wife for time & all eternity (Prest. Brigham Young acting proxy for the deceased).

Brigham Young & Zina Diantha Smith were then sealed husband & wife for time by H.C. Kimball in presence of William D. Huntington, & Henry B. Jacobs & J.D.L. Young, Henry B. Jacobs expressed his willingness that it should be so in the presence of these witnesses done at 15 m. to 6.

Franklin D. Richards Clk
So Henry was actually there when Brigham and Zina were sealed. Also this:
When Henry and Zina were forced out of Nauvoo a week later as part of the general exodus from the city, they left as husband and wife...There is no doubt that the marriage of Henry and Zina dissolved at Mt. Pisgah; it was here for a very short time–just a matter of days–that they last lived together.
However, there is little support for the idea that Brigham told Henry to go find a different wife:
Critics of the early Saints have, often with glee, latched onto William Hall’s story and used it as a prime example of ecclesiastical abuse, pitting a powerful Brigham Young against a penniless and ill Henry Jacobs, with Zina as some kind of prize for the winner of their imagined contest. It is easy to understand how one might see things that way; it is certainly the way that William Hall portrayed the episode:
At a place called, by the Mormons, Pisgah, in Iowa, as they were passing through to Council Bluffs, Brigham Young spoke in this wise, in the hearing of hundreds: He said it was time for men who were walking in other men’s shoes to step out of them. “Brother Jacobs,” he says, “the woman you claim for a wife does not belong to you. She is the spiritual wife of brother Joseph, sealed up to him. I am his proxy, and she, in this behalf, with her children, are my property. You can go where you please, and get another, but be sure to get one of your own kindred spirit.”
The immediate problem with such a statement is that there is no contemporary corroboration for it. Hall states that Brigham’s statement was made in the hearing of hundreds of people, yet there are no other diaries that indicate such a statement or, indeed, any statement from Brigham to Henry...

Ann
Posts: 2576
Joined: 09 Sep 2012, 02:17

Re: Not angry, just done - fMh polygamy post

Post by Ann » 24 Aug 2016, 13:25

I'm trying harder to be open-minded and pleasant about the people at FAIR. I think the recent conference speakers are generating a lot of good discussion. Plus, it's not like I know any of them personally. And I wouldn't want them to talk about me not knowing me

But the above is a perfect example of what I can't stand about their approach. This isn't a game of "Gotcha!" So what, SO WHAT, that the gleeful accusation of critics can't be corroborated in this instance? What the does record as a whole - all the journals and reminiscences of all the women included - say about Mormon polygamy? There is cajoling and coercion in abundance. Speak to that. Stop talking about Abrahamic tests or "misunderstandings." Start hearing with a modern woman's ears what the church is saying: The coercion that went on was God's will and we must keep this door ajar...because ya never know. Are you serious?

Shawn, I'm not criticizing bringing up the "rest of the story" here. Hope you know that.

Last thing: To my mind, the real "immediate problem with such a statement" is that is sounds just like things that BY did say on many other verified occasions.
"Preachers err by trying to talk people into belief; better they reveal the radiance of their own discovery." - Joseph Campbell

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes." - Marcel Proust

"Therefore they said unto him, How were thine eyes opened? He answered and said unto them, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed my eyes...." - John 9:10-11

GBSmith
Posts: 975
Joined: 24 Apr 2010, 08:51

Re: Not angry, just done - fMh polygamy post

Post by GBSmith » 24 Aug 2016, 13:55

Ann wrote: Last thing: To my mind, the real "immediate problem with such a statement" is that is sounds just like things that BY did say on many other verified occasions.
Let the church say amen.

Roy
Posts: 6187
Joined: 07 Oct 2010, 14:16
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Not angry, just done - fMh polygamy post

Post by Roy » 24 Aug 2016, 17:43

Shawn wrote: You can go where you please, and get another, but be sure to get one of your own kindred spirit.”
If this statement is true then it would provide one more evidence of the doctrine of "kindred spirits" (essentially that there were spirits that had pre-existing relationships and commitments in the pre-mortal life. Somewhat like "soul mates.") underpinning the practice of polygamy.
"It is not so much the pain and suffering of life which crushes the individual as it is its meaninglessness and hopelessness." C. A. Elwood

“It is not the function of religion to answer all the questions about God’s moral government of the universe, but to give one courage, through faith, to go on in the face of questions he never finds the answer to in his present status.” TPC: Harold B. Lee 223

"I struggle now with establishing my faith that God may always be there, but may not always need to intervene" Heber13

Curt Sunshine
Site Admin
Posts: 16842
Joined: 21 Oct 2008, 20:24

Re: Not angry, just done - fMh polygamy post

Post by Curt Sunshine » 25 Aug 2016, 11:15

To be fair to FAIR, that article is from the 2006 FAIR conference.

I am quite certain it would be different if written by the current organization.
I see through my glass, darkly - as I play my saxophone in harmony with the other instruments in God's orchestra. (h/t Elder Joseph Wirthlin)

Even if people view many things differently, the core Gospel principles (LOVE; belief in the unseen but hoped; self-reflective change; symbolic cleansing; striving to recognize the will of the divine; never giving up) are universal.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken

Ann
Posts: 2576
Joined: 09 Sep 2012, 02:17

Re: Not angry, just done - fMh polygamy post

Post by Ann » 26 Aug 2016, 01:01

Curt Sunshine wrote:To be fair to FAIR, that article is from the 2006 FAIR conference.

I am quite certain it would be different if written by the current organization.
I can agree. I don't read at FAIR. Do they routinely revisit and revise, I wonder.
"Preachers err by trying to talk people into belief; better they reveal the radiance of their own discovery." - Joseph Campbell

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes." - Marcel Proust

"Therefore they said unto him, How were thine eyes opened? He answered and said unto them, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed my eyes...." - John 9:10-11

User avatar
LookingHard
Posts: 2950
Joined: 20 Oct 2014, 12:11

Re: Not angry, just done - fMh polygamy post

Post by LookingHard » 26 Aug 2016, 04:58

I do sense that FAIR has made a change. I by and large wrote off the "old" FAIR as it didn't answer almost any of my questions / concerns. It felt too much of "you are making too big of a deal out of this" along with "twist your head this way to see that problem in a better light" and "turn your head totally different to see this other issue" and even "stand on your head". They had a few other issues I won't go into.

But the new podcast (thanks hawkgrrrl for getting me to start listening again) is really quite different than the old ones and they are bringing in some really different authors - most are not even LDS. They bring some really interesting topics and seem to be suggesting to really be more nuanced.

And with their latest conference with Mason's talk and some comments by Boyd Peterson, it is clear they are trying a different tactic.

Post Reply