Article on marriage

[Emower]

Just learned about the article on marriage the other day on the year of polygamy podcast. Wow. So, I am kind of past looking for proof of lies anymore, buuuuuut....
Wow. So, he gets caught with his pants down with fanny, denies denies denies, and even comes out with a section in the D&C about a man only having one woman and this is what we believe. That doesn't get taken out until 1875! But we also get D&C 132, complete with condemnations. I mean cmon! Fairmormon can't even spin that.

[Give It Time]

{{{Emower}}}

I'm so sorry for the rude shock. I have no wisdom. I only hope this adorable picture will lift your spirits.



As this is the first time I've done this, I'll grace you with the background. I was eating dinner with family and I was getting up on my feminist soapbox. My son's friend was, mercifully, ignoring me and scrolling through the pictures on her phone. She came to some pictures of her cat just as my eyes fell on her phone. The effect was immediate. I love cats. They are my soul siblings. I saw the pictures of her cat and I instantly stopped mid-speech, mid-sentence, mid-word. I felt happy chemicals flood my brain. I knew, at that moment, I had found a major destressor and major mood lifter for me. I'm sure I'm not alone because I think this might be why the internet belongs to cats.

While, it may seem facetious, I'm dead serious when I offer the above picture of total cuteness as some sort of lame attempt at comfort, because finding just one more lie to add to the pile is never fun.

[Korihor]

Just when you think you're approaching the bottom of the rabbit hole...


It never ceases to amaze me.

[Emower]

Thanks Give it Time. That is a calming picture.

Did anyone else know about this? There really isn't much out there about this. Fairmormon has a section, and that's it. Not even the exmo sites talk about it.

[Give It Time]

I read it in Mormon Enigma. I also knew it long ago when I was young and naive. I was quite into history and church history, but I also went on a pilgrimage trip to Ohio, the Whitmer Farm and Nauvoo. In each of these places, all the history was addressed, because the anti-Mormon wolves were literally baying at the gates with this information. It kept the historical sites honest. So, yes. I grew up hearing it and I found out about it on my own simply because I was interested.

Thing is I loved this church. No icky history could dissuade me. I was also quite naive. Something like twenty years passed before I heard the stories, again. I was a lot less naive. I was made a primary teacher. The lesson about the historical event was pretty boring. I remembered the actual story as being much more interesting, but couldn't remember why. In the interest of livening up my lesson, I looked up these stories online. Nothing in the church sites, so I tried Wikipedia. The stories were fair and balanced and didn't come across as anti. The problem is they didn't look good to my adult understanding. They didn't look good, at all. I did this with about three lessons, shelving each time, because my life was falling apart. I really needed my testimony to cope.

Interesting pulling up this memory this way. Thank you. Anyway, when I came across this as an adult, by then I was really well versed in abuser's ways and the was discovering all the ways the church had been abusive right from the start. It was part of my overall shock: but the church is supposed to be good, the leaders are supposed to be led by God, but the church absolutely doesn't condone abuse in any form! But I was really getting jaded, I had read in Mormon Enigma how Joseph had literally kicked someone out of his house. That is physical abuse performed publicly on someone who is not a member of his household. That is a thoroughly entrenched sense of entitlement to abuse. If you pull up a wheel of abuse, you'll see all kinds of abuse: financial, emotional, sexual, spiritual, etc. A person who does one will do the others. I was already being reminded of abusive behavior by Brigham Young by reading Mormon Enigma. I guess my response was more to see that the abuse was there all along. For me it was a full realization, rather than a rude shock. To me it was more about the full picture of my life and why I was where I was making sense. The pieces were fitting together and the picture wasn't attractive.

In hindsight, I can see why a member refuses to look at these things. I said it when I shelved these things. The gospel is beautiful and good. It enriches my sense of purpose in life and it helps me cope (and my husband was abusive the thought of his changing and being loving and kind because of his priesthood and the gospel was major for me). Too much was at stake to put my testimony in jeopardy. Having said all that, I'm embarrassed at how morally blind I allowed myself to be. When I realized how much I'd just accepted, I was angry at my culture for encouraging me to accept, but I was also angry at myself.

Interesting how our discoveries are kind of parallel, but definitely different.

[Palerider]

If this article on marriage is what I think it is then I think I've already heard of it but just in case I haven't, can you/someone, narrow down the search as to where to find it on the year of polygamy website? Please? There's a lot of material there....

[blazerb]

I learned about the article on marriage in institute 20+ years ago. I was told it was removed because it was not written by JS. But, then I learned the article on government was adopted at the same time is JS's absence. I just set it on my shelf where it weighed things down. I contributed in my own small way to the lies by not talking about it. I guess I still am.

[Emower]

If this article on marriage is what I think it is then I think I've already heard of it but just in case I haven't, can you/someone, narrow down the search as to where to find it on the year of polygamy website? Please? There's a lot of material there....

First episode, about fanny Alger. It isn't talked about much, just in passing. It isn't long, it just says that the belief and practice of the church is to have one wife only. It's just so obviously contradictory that I am surprised it was included, and more surprised that stayed there for so long.

[Corsair]

Just learned about the article on marriage the other day on the year of polygamy podcast. Wow. So, I am kind of past looking for proof of lies anymore, buuuuuut....
Wow. So, he gets caught with his pants down with fanny, denies denies denies, and even comes out with a section in the D&C about a man only having one woman and this is what we believe. That doesn't get taken out until 1875! But we also get D&C 132, complete with condemnations. I mean cmon! Fairmormon can't even spin that.

I think you underestimate the persistence and creativity of an apologist. The usual explanation I have seen is that it was a poorly recorded incident and Oliver and Emma simply did not understand what was going on. The heading of section 132 cleverly mentions:

evidence indicates that some of the principles involved in this revelation were known by the Prophet as early as 1831

The "evidence" was this incident where Joseph engaged with Fanny in the barn. This was Joseph's first attempt to fulfill the commandment to live the Doctrine of Plural Marriage and he simply did not understand everything that God wanted him to do. So Joseph decides to just make his best attempt and made the colossally poor decision to not let Emma know about this "incident" beforehand.

[Palerider]

So Joseph decides to just make his best attempt and made the colossally poor decision to not let Emma know about this "incident" beforehand.

As any stand-up, courageous, authoritative prophet of the Most High God would do....

After all, we all know there's no going back to God and asking for clarification...

[blazerb]

The "evidence" was this incident where Joseph engaged with Fanny in the barn. This was Joseph's first attempt to fulfill the commandment to live the Doctrine of Plural Marriage and he simply did not understand everything that God wanted him to do. So Joseph decides to just make his best attempt and made the colossally poor decision to not let Emma know about this "incident" beforehand.

He was also reportedly telling men that they would take native American women as wives in addition to their current wives.

[The Beast]

This was Joseph's first attempt to fulfill the commandment to live the Doctrine of Plural Marriage and he simply did not understand everything that God wanted him to do.

So the only part he fully understood at that point was the "f***ing in the barn" part? I know he justified it to everyone who called him out on it by crossing his fingers behind his back and thinking to himself, "It's OK, we're married."

[Emower]

I understand the Alger incident spin. I don't agree with it, but I follow the gymnastics.

I don't understand this article on marriage. The church and apologist's belief is that Joseph knew about plural marriage before he goes and celestializes with Fanny. He also told Mary rollins lightner when she was twelve that she would be his wife.

So if he knew about polygamy in 1831, why in the world would he allow a publication in scripture, as doctrine, a document proclaiming we can only have one wife! The only explanation that makes any sense is that he was trying to put out fires with whatever sounded good at the time. Like palerider said, like any good upstanding prophet of the most high god would do.
Either he was lying about polygamy or he was lying with the article on marriage. I think most of us would agree that he was actually lying about both, and everything else.

[Give It Time]

Was the phrase about the general populous of saints not being ready for the concept of plural marriage ever used? I remember being told that was the reason.