Mormon history and marriage question

[HiJolly]

Originally Posted by Rize

<snip> and saw that he married 11 women who were already married, often without the husbands consent. He also married 8 girls under the age of 18? Is this common knowledge, and how does the church justify him marrying women and girls who were already married? (underlined emphasis HiJolly's)

Please provide evidence to that point.

I've read the sources. There is no statement nor account in the original sources that I've read, nor in the books that talk about polyandry that I've read, that justify this kind of statement.

On the other hand, I have heard several people say this, who are not friends of the Prophet nor friends of the Church. Never with clear sources to support the statement, though.

HiJolly

[Loudmouth_Mormon]

The early days of the church and the early years in Utah is a fascinating period. Brigham Young has been likened to "an American Moses" for leading 'his people' to freedom. And if we remember our Bible stories, Moses and Aaron really had their hands full. The people had come up with some pretty dumb stuff like worshipping golden idols and whatnot. Aaron ended up doing some wrong things he regretted.

So rocky tidbits from early years of the restoration don't bug me as much as the next guy over. I was reading somewhere that there were some men who were getting sealed to Joseph for a time. Obviously, a learning curve had to be come down and people didn't have everything all figured out right from the get-go.

[Backroads]

Is it wrong that I'm immaturely amused at men being sealed to Joseph Smith?

[HiJolly]

It had to do with the doctrine of adoption, which BY eventually discontinued.


HiJolly

[MrShorty]

It had to do with the doctrine of adoption, which BY eventually discontinued.

Pardon my ignorance, but does this mean that some in the early church felt a need to be adopted into Joseph's family? Perhaps because their own family didn't join the church or some such situation? Is it possible some of the sealings mentioned in the OP refer to similar "child/father" sealings? Usually when we think of "sealing" in this context, we automatically assume "husband/wife" sealing, but it also seems appropriate to think of "parent/child" sealings as well?

[HiJolly]

Originally Posted by MrShorty

Pardon my ignorance, but does this mean that some in the early church felt a need to be adopted into Joseph's family?

Yes, we know that this is the case in most of the sealings. However, it's not really that simple when we take everything into account.

Originally Posted by MrShorty

Perhaps because their own family didn't join the church or some such situation?

I don't think so.

Originally Posted by MrShorty

Is it possible some of the sealings mentioned in the OP refer to similar "child/father" sealings?

Quite possible, IMO. One would need to read the studies (books like "In Sacred Loneliness" by Todd Compton, for example) and then make one's own conclusion. But of course we don't REALLY know unless we get revelation on the topic. From a scholarly POV, we can't really know, because they're not around to lay it out clearly for us.

Originally Posted by MrShorty

Usually when we think of "sealing" in this context, we automatically assume "husband/wife" sealing, but it also seems appropriate to think of "parent/child" sealings as well?

Yes, thanks to the discontinued adoption sealing practice, this is definitely a part of the equation. How far it applies, how certain an explanation it is, we don't fully know.

HiJolly

[mordorbund]

Originally Posted by MrShorty

Pardon my ignorance, but does this mean that some in the early church felt a need to be adopted into Joseph's family? Perhaps because their own family didn't join the church or some such situation? Is it possible some of the sealings mentioned in the OP refer to similar "child/father" sealings? Usually when we think of "sealing" in this context, we automatically assume "husband/wife" sealing, but it also seems appropriate to think of "parent/child" sealings as well?

I'm not too sure about the motivation, but the practice was as you described it - sealing indivuduals to Prophets and Apostles. That practice stopped under Wilford Woodruff:

“I have not felt satisfied, neither did President Taylor, neither has any man since the Prophet Joseph who has attended to the ordinance of adoption in the temples of our God. We have felt that there was more to be revealed upon this subject than we had received. Revelations were given to us in the St. George Temple, which President Young presented to the Church of God. Changes were made there, and we still have more changes to make, in order to satisfy our Heavenly Father, satisfy our dead and ourselves. I will tell you what some of them are. I have prayed over this matter, and my brethren have. We have felt, as President Taylor said, that we have got to have more revelation concerning sealing under the law of adoption. Well, what are these changes? One of them is the principle of adoption. In the commencement of adopting men and women in the Temple at Nauvoo, a great many persons were adopted to different men who were not of the lineage of their fathers. . . .

“Now, what are the feelings of Israel? They have felt that they wanted to be adopted to somebody. . . . When I went before the Lord to know who I should be adopted to (we were then being adopted to prophets and apostles), the Spirit of God said to me, ‘Have you not a father, who begot you?’ ‘Yes, I have.’ ‘Then why not honor him? Why not be adopted [sealed] to him?’ ‘Yes,’ says I, ‘that is right.’ I was [sealed] to my father, and should have had my father sealed to his father, and so on back; and the duty that I want every man who presides over a temple to see performed from this day henceforth and forever, unless the Lord Almighty commands otherwise, is, let every man be [sealed] to his father. When a man receives the endowments, [seal] him to his father; not to Wilford Woodruff, nor to any other man outside the lineage of his fathers. That is the will of God to this people. . . .

“In my prayers the Lord revealed to me, that it was my duty to say to all Israel to carry this principle out, and in fulfillment of that revelation I lay it before this people. I say to all men who are laboring in these temples, carry out this principle, and then we will make one step in advance of what we have had before. Myself and counselors conversed upon this and were agreed upon it, and afterwards we laid it before all the Apostles who were here . . . , and the Lord revealed to every one of these men—and they would bear testimony to it if they were to speak—that that was the word of the Lord to them. I never met with anything in my life in this Church that there was more unity upon than there was upon that principle. They all feel right about it, and that it is our duty. . . . The Spirit of God will be with us in this matter. We want the Latter-day Saints from this time to trace their genealogies as far as they can, and to be sealed to their fathers and mothers. Have children sealed to their parents, and run this chain through as far as you can get it” ( Millennial Star, 337–39).

You can find this quote in The Holy Temple by Boyd K Packer. Or in the Wilford Woodruff manual.

[Blackmarch]

Originally Posted by Rize

I was doing some reading on LDS history and came across a few things I didn't know before. I was reading about Joseph Smith's marriages and wives and saw that he married 11 women who were already married...

I have not been able to find good info on this, other than at one point he approached the apostles and told them that he had to marry their wives or be sealed to them one of the two.. this caused a large split. After this as I understand it, the remaining apostles kept their marriages with their wives, and JS did not pursue a marriage simultaneusly with their wives. (as i seem to recall)
My conclusions are is either
1) it was a test much like how abraham was tested with his son
or
2) They were to be sealed to JS for after this life.

neither of which is strong enough evidence that God was not with JS, or evidence that he was acting selfishly.

, often without the husbands consent.

I have not been able to find good info on this. The sources i have been directed to by critics who tried using this same argument have either been 3rd or 4th hand accounts, or had no information on that exact subject and have left me to assume that the critics were pulling things from it from between the lines.

He also married 8 girls under the age of 18?

that practice was quite common in the past... and even further in the past marriage was usually between 13-15 years of age.

Is this common knowledge, and how does the church justify him marrying women and girls who were already married?

Most of this stuff the church has no need to justify any more than they have to justify Abrahams attempted killing of his only son.
I imagine most the folks in the church that start really researching its history or who have had discussions with critics and have remained in the church are aware of these things.

[Kamperfoelie]

It was my understanding that with the newly restored faith and church all covenants made before the restoration were considered void -since the ordinances were performed without the required authority.

As such the consent of the husbands would have been irrelevant as they would retroactively not be married.

Reading the thread caused me to wonder if Joseph needed to be remarried to Emma and if there is any record of this ever happening?

[beefche]

No, any marriages that were legal and lawful were not void. The proper authority did marry them.

Any ordinances done (such as baptism, marriage sealing, etc) would be void as THOSE were not done by the proper authority.