Discussão:Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Marriages to young women - Histórico de revisões

RogerNicholson: moved Talk:Joseph Smith and polygamy/Marriages to young women to Talk:Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Marriages to young women

2009-10-03T01:15:49Z

moved Talk:Joseph Smith and polygamy/Marriages to young women to Talk:Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Marriages to young women

← Revisão anterior	Revisão das 01h15min de 3 de outubro de 2009
(Sem diferenças)

RogerNicholson: Talk:Joseph Smith's marriages to young women moved to Talk:Joseph Smith and polygamy/Marriages to young women: subpage

2008-06-10T14:18:10Z

Talk:Joseph Smith's marriages to young women moved to Talk:Joseph Smith and polygamy/Marriages to young women: subpage

← Revisão anterior	Revisão das 14h18min de 10 de junho de 2008
(Sem diferenças)

TanyaSpackman: /* I defer */

2006-08-20T20:08:05Z

I defer

← Revisão anterior		Revisão das 20h08min de 20 de agosto de 2006
Linha 111:		Linha 111:
	--[[User:SuzanneArmitage\|SuzanneArmitage]] 10:31, 18 Aug 2006 (MDT)		--[[User:SuzanneArmitage\|SuzanneArmitage]] 10:31, 18 Aug 2006 (MDT)

	* Thanks. Yes, he is LDS. He was quite helpful to me when I first entered the world of LDS apologetics.		* Thanks. Yes, he is LDS. He was quite helpful to me when I first entered the world of LDS apologetics. [[User:TanyaSpackman\|TanyaSpackman]] 14:08, 20 Aug 2006 (MDT)

	==Sexual fixation==		==Sexual fixation==

TanyaSpackman: /* I defer */

2006-08-20T20:06:27Z

I defer

← Revisão anterior		Revisão das 20h06min de 20 de agosto de 2006
Linha 110:		Linha 110:

	--[[User:SuzanneArmitage\|SuzanneArmitage]] 10:31, 18 Aug 2006 (MDT)		--[[User:SuzanneArmitage\|SuzanneArmitage]] 10:31, 18 Aug 2006 (MDT)

			* Thanks. Yes, he is LDS. He was quite helpful to me when I first entered the world of LDS apologetics.

	==Sexual fixation==		==Sexual fixation==

SuzanneArmitage: /* I defer */

2006-08-18T16:37:15Z

I defer

← Revisão anterior		Revisão das 16h37min de 18 de agosto de 2006
Linha 93:		Linha 93:
	*Excellent. This is why I asked before I changed anything, as this is a topic I know little about. Thanks for the response Suzanne. Would you object if I sent your response to Scott via email (just so he knows his comments were considered), or would you rather I didn't? [[User:TanyaSpackman\|TanyaSpackman]] 08:35, 18 Aug 2006 (MDT)		*Excellent. This is why I asked before I changed anything, as this is a topic I know little about. Thanks for the response Suzanne. Would you object if I sent your response to Scott via email (just so he knows his comments were considered), or would you rather I didn't? [[User:TanyaSpackman\|TanyaSpackman]] 08:35, 18 Aug 2006 (MDT)

	* Below is an edited version that you can send Scott (you can edit it or rephrase):		* Below is an edited version that you can send Scott (you can edit it or rephrase). Is your friend LDS?:

	1. Scott is reading things that just aren't there. FAIR is NOT using the HMK journal to indicate that because she never mentions any intimacy, that there wasn't any.		1. Scott is reading things that just aren't there. FAIR is NOT using the HMK journal to indicate that because she never mentions any intimacy, that there wasn't any.

SuzanneArmitage: /* I defer */

2006-08-18T16:32:52Z

I defer

← Revisão anterior		Revisão das 16h32min de 18 de agosto de 2006
Linha 108:		Linha 108:

	In the end it is my opinion that it was left up to the woman whether the marriage would involve sexual relations. Some wives chose not to. Of Brigham Young's 55(?) wives only 16 were connubial. This doesn't mean that they weren't "raising up seed." These sister-wives were called aunts by the children and helped in the rearing of children. You could say these were just unorthodox extended families. I do know that Emmeline B. Wells is the one who asked Daniel H. Wells to marry her. Why? To help her raise her children. Why not? He was a bishop, well-to-do, he gave her her own house, etc ...anyways, that's for another topic.		In the end it is my opinion that it was left up to the woman whether the marriage would involve sexual relations. Some wives chose not to. Of Brigham Young's 55(?) wives only 16 were connubial. This doesn't mean that they weren't "raising up seed." These sister-wives were called aunts by the children and helped in the rearing of children. You could say these were just unorthodox extended families. I do know that Emmeline B. Wells is the one who asked Daniel H. Wells to marry her. Why? To help her raise her children. Why not? He was a bishop, well-to-do, he gave her her own house, etc ...anyways, that's for another topic.

	~~>>>>>>>>>>~~

	~~Speaking of theories:~~

	I came across an interesting quote this morning which kind of jives with my pet theory about plural marriage. If one believes Joseph Smith was a prophet, then the question one needs to ask is why would God command plural marriage? My theory is that it was because the Saints failed to live the United Order.

	Interestingly, Martha Cragun Cox (a plural wife) wrote in her journal: "...We usually bought cloth by the bolt and whoever needed most was served first. In fact we had in our home an almost perfect United Order. No one can tell the advantages of that system until he has lived it."
	~~- Kenneth W. Godfrey, Audrey M. Godfrey, and Jill Mulvay Derr, eds., "Women's Voices: An Untold History of the Latter-day Saints, 1830-1900" (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1982), 286.~~

	Helen Mar Whitney said that plural marriage had been a secret blessing to many Saints. Think of the widows who lost their husbands, young women who lost their fathers, husbands who lost their wives and had were left with small children. It's easy to dismiss the thought in today's society when women can go out and get a relatively good paying job and so on but back then that just wasn't so. Emmeline Wells tried it and it was too difficult. And to dismiss it and say, well the Saints should have looked after the less fortunate, well sad to say that had failed. If I remember correctly the Saints tried to live the United Order twice(?) and failed both times.

	--[[User:SuzanneArmitage\|SuzanneArmitage]] 10:31, 18 Aug 2006 (MDT)		--[[User:SuzanneArmitage\|SuzanneArmitage]] 10:31, 18 Aug 2006 (MDT)

SuzanneArmitage: /* I defer */

2006-08-18T16:31:51Z

I defer

@@ Linha 92: / Linha 92: @@
 ===I defer===
 *Excellent.  This is why I asked before I changed anything, as this is a topic I know little about.  Thanks for the response Suzanne.  Would you object if I sent your response to Scott via email (just so he knows his comments were considered), or would you rather I didn't? [[User:TanyaSpackman|TanyaSpackman]] 08:35, 18 Aug 2006 (MDT)
 ==Sexual fixation==

TanyaSpackman: /* Here we go... */

2006-08-18T14:36:12Z

Here we go...

← Revisão anterior		Revisão das 14h36min de 18 de agosto de 2006
Linha 89:		Linha 89:

	--[[User:SuzanneArmitage\|SuzanneArmitage]] 03:21, 18 Aug 2006 (MDT)		--[[User:SuzanneArmitage\|SuzanneArmitage]] 03:21, 18 Aug 2006 (MDT)

			===I defer===
			*Excellent. This is why I asked before I changed anything, as this is a topic I know little about. Thanks for the response Suzanne. Would you object if I sent your response to Scott via email (just so he knows his comments were considered), or would you rather I didn't? [[User:TanyaSpackman\|TanyaSpackman]] 08:35, 18 Aug 2006 (MDT)

	==Sexual fixation==		==Sexual fixation==

TanyaSpackman em 14h35min de 18 de agosto de 2006

2006-08-18T14:35:50Z

← Revisão anterior		Revisão das 14h35min de 18 de agosto de 2006
Linha 36:		Linha 36:
	[[User:TanyaSpackman\|TanyaSpackman]] 08:09, 10 Aug 2006 (MDT)		[[User:TanyaSpackman\|TanyaSpackman]] 08:09, 10 Aug 2006 (MDT)

	~~===I defer===~~
	*Excellent. This is why I asked before I changed anything, as this is a topic I know little about. Thanks for the response Suzanne. Would you object if I sent your response to Scott via email (just so he knows his comments were considered), or would you rather I didn't? [[User:TanyaSpackman\|TanyaSpackman]] 08:35, 18 Aug 2006 (MDT)

	===Here we go...===		===Here we go...===

TanyaSpackman: /* Here we go... */

2006-08-18T14:35:23Z

Here we go...

← Revisão anterior		Revisão das 14h35min de 18 de agosto de 2006
Linha 35:		Linha 35:
	----		----
	[[User:TanyaSpackman\|TanyaSpackman]] 08:09, 10 Aug 2006 (MDT)		[[User:TanyaSpackman\|TanyaSpackman]] 08:09, 10 Aug 2006 (MDT)

			===I defer===
			*Excellent. This is why I asked before I changed anything, as this is a topic I know little about. Thanks for the response Suzanne. Would you object if I sent your response to Scott via email (just so he knows his comments were considered), or would you rather I didn't? [[User:TanyaSpackman\|TanyaSpackman]] 08:35, 18 Aug 2006 (MDT)

	===Here we go...===		===Here we go...===