Plural Marriage/Polygamy?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

As a side note to what you have linked in your signature, no reputable historian accepts it, and I'm completely serious. There is overwhelming evidence to the contrary my friend. For this very reason the RLDS church now acknowledges that Joseph practiced it, but is happy to say that their church never participated in it.

If you're going to be honest about investigating history, especially when it comes to your faith's vehement denial of historical polygamy, I suggest you start here.

I am finished arguing with LDS folks over this issue. I simply link to the information and people can read and decide for themselves.

Oh, and I could really care less what the Community of Christ (they are not the RLDS Church any longer) has to say in relation to this issue, as they are apostates who have broken the covenant and changed the ordinances. They are simply pandering to Protestant Christianity and will be dealt with by the Lord in His own due time.

[LDS Guy 1986]

I am finished arguing with LDS folks over this issue. I simply link to the information and people can read and decide for themselves.

Oh, and I could really care less what the Community of Christ (they are not the RLDS Church any longer) has to say in relation to this issue, as they are apostates who have broken the covenant and changed the ordinances. They are simply pandering to Protestant Christianity and will be dealt with by the Lord in His own due time.

All he is doing is presenting the accusations against your evidence, doesn't those who seek to decide also need to understand the criticisms of you claims?

Ignoring criticisms is not very scholarly as far as I have been taught.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

All he is doing is presenting the accusations against your evidence, doesn't those who seek to decide also need to understand the criticisms of you claims?

Ignoring criticisms is not very scholarly as far as I have been taught.

I am simply informing him that if he expects his post to lead to a debate, none will be forthcoming. The scriptures are plain. The books will be opened and you will be judged according to its words.

Seems LDS do plenty of ignoring of criticism. Has even a single LDS member on this site read through the research done by Richard Price? I am 99.9% sure the answer is "No".

[TAO]

Seems LDS do plenty of ignoring of criticism. Has even a single LDS member on this site read through the research done by Richard Price? I am 99.9% sure the answer is "No".

I browsed through it about a month ago if I remember correctly.

[Tribunal]

BookofMormonLuvr, I read through the site you referenced and thought it was pretty interesting.

What I would like to know is when, where, how, and why did the sealing ordinances spread to the institution of polygamy? In my studies I find it hard to believe that it was Joseph Smith who introduced sealings into polygamy.

[Alan]

I am finished arguing with LDS folks over this issue. I simply link to the information and people can read and decide for themselves.

Oh, and I could really care less what the Community of Christ (they are not the RLDS Church any longer) has to say in relation to this issue, as they are apostates who have broken the covenant and changed the ordinances. They are simply pandering to Protestant Christianity and will be dealt with by the Lord in His own due time.

BookofMormonLvr,

The RLDS church permitted the practice of polygamy amongst it's members in India (see RLDS D&C 150).

[BookofMormonLuvr]

BookofMormonLvr,

The RLDS church permitted the practice of polygamy amongst it's members in India (see RLDS D&C 150).

My D&C ends with Section 144 and the revelations of Israel A. Smith...

http://restorationbo...tegory_Code=29c

**Wally B. and his Pa were on the road to apostacy and anything given by them is highly suspect. Thus they are not included in the RRLDS D&C. But the Lectures on Faith are back in it.**

[BookofMormonLuvr]

BookofMormonLuvr, I read through the site you referenced and thought it was pretty interesting.

What I would like to know is when, where, how, and why did the sealing ordinances spread to the institution of polygamy? In my studies I find it hard to believe that it was Joseph Smith who introduced sealings into polygamy.

I'll be the first to admit I don't have the answer to your question. I do know that LDS records indicate that a bunch of women supposedly married to Joseph Smith were "sealed" to him after he was murdered.

[Questing Beast]

In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith gives ample firsthand evidence of Joseph Smith's relationships. There is no possibility of believing that he had sexual relations only with Emma. And Brigham Young was already a polygamist in Nauvoo before Joseph's death.

Many years later (c. 1869), Joseph Smith III et al. the RLDS leadership visited Salt Lake City to get affidavits from the rumored widows of Joseph Smith: to the intent of showing that polygamy had not been practiced in Nauvoo and that Brigham Young was the instigator of it - such being Joseph Smith III's belief because of his mother's assertions on the subject, to whit: that her first husband, Joseph Smith, had not taught or practiced polygamy, but that it was all a creation of the "Brighamites". The affidavits showed clearly that these women (now sealed to Brigham et al. the "General Authorities" - mainly first presidency) had indeed been sealed to Joseph Smith "for time and for eternity". "For time" was understood to mean in this life, in every way as a wife including sexual congress (e.g. "I lived with him as his wife" was further clarification often used); so the RLDS went away denied the success of their mission. The LDS reaction to this affidavit-collecting "mission" of the RLDS was to inspire many more men and women (even some non Mormon witnesses) to submit their own affidavits to the truth of Mormon polygamy as taught by Joseph Smith in the Nauvoo period.

("One hundred and more affidavits in relation to the introduction of celestial and plural marriage are on file in the historian's Office, Salt Lake City, and are the expressions of eye and ear witnesses, who know that the Prophet Joseph Smith introduced and taught celestial and plural marriage." - Joseph Fielding Smith;"Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage: A Discussion"; the Deseret News Press, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1905. The affidavits referred to date mostly from the summer of 1869, and through 1902.)

I include here one affidavit as exemplary of the language used: that of Lucy Walker:

"I was a plural wife of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and was married for time and eternity in Nauvoo, State of Illinois, on the first day of May, 1843, by Elder William Clayton. The Prophet was then living with his first wife, Emma Smith, and I know that she gave her consent to the marriage of at least four women to her husband as plural wives, and she was well aware that he associated and cohabited with them as wives. The names of these women are Eliza and Emily Partridge, and Maria and Sarah Lawrence, all of whom knew that I too was his wife.

"When the Prophet Joseph Smith mentioned the principle of plural marriage to me I felt indignant, and so expressed myself to him, because my feelings and education were averse to anything of that nature. But he assured me that this doctrine had been revealed to him of the Lord, and that I was entitled to receive a testimony of its divine origin for myself. He counseled me to pray to the Lord, which I did, and thereupon received from Him a powerful and irresistible testimony of the truthfulness and divinity of plural marriage, which testimony has abided with me ever since.

"On the 8th day of February, 1845, I was married for time (sic) to President Heber C. Kimball, and bore to him nine children. And in this connection allow me to say to his everlasting credit that during the whole of my married life with him he never failed to regard me as the wife for eternity of his devoted friend, the Prophet Joseph Smith.

[signed] "Lucy Walker Smith Kimball. Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 17th day of December, 1902. [seal.] James Jack, Notary Public"

[Alan]

My D&C ends with Section 144 and the revelations of Israel A. Smith...

http://restorationbo...tegory_Code=29c

**Wally B. and his Pa were on the road to apostacy and anything given by them is highly suspect. Thus they are not included in the RRLDS D&C. But the Lectures on Faith are back in it.**

Forgive me BookofMormonLvr, but that seems a little convenient. Most Restoration Branch members I am aquainted with cut off a little before RLDS D&C 156; and I think it would be true to say that it is unlikely there would be a Restoration Branch movement, the Remnant Church, the Restoration LDS, the Conference of Restoration Elders etc without Section 156.

As I said previously though, it appears that the RLDS are right to point out that Joseph, who seemed to have no trouble getting Emma pregnant, had no children with any of these "wives". This is why I believe Joseph did not view them as wives in the same way as he did Emma. In other words, he was sealed to these women but had no physical relations with them. This is the only conclusion that can be drawn given the conspicuous lack of any real evidence to the contrary ie. offspring.

Affidavit evidence is unreliable as there are convincing ones on both sides of the argument. Not least, Emma's.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Forgive me BookofMormonLvr, but that seems a little convenient. Most Restoration Branch members I am aquainted with cut off a little before RLDS D&C 156; and I think it would be true to say that it is unlikely there would be a Restoration Branch movement, the Remnant Church, the Restoration LDS, the Conference of Restoration Elders etc without Section 156.

As I said previously though, it appears that the RLDS are right to point out that Joseph, who seemed to have no trouble getting Emma pregnant, had no children with any of these "wives". This is why I believe Joseph did not view them as wives in the same way as he did Emma. In other words, he was sealed to these women but had no physical relations with them. This is the only conclusion that can be drawn given the conspicuous lack of any real evidence to the contrary ie. offspring.

Affidavit evidence is unreliable as there are convincing ones on both sides of the argument. Not least, Emma's.

It is true that as the apostasy within the RLDS Church grew it was not recognized by many at its inception. Fortunately, as the errors grew and became more egregious many were awoken from their slumber and formed the Restoration RLDS Branches after trying, fruitlessly, to steer the church back to its founding principles. And evidence of the recognition of errors is the present D&C used by the members of the Restoration RLDS Branches (which I linked to). I am thankful to be associated with a people who can learn and grew from history and is now more vigilant then ever in guarding the Restoration faith from heresies.

[Alan]

It is true that as the apostasy within the RLDS Church grew it was not recognized by many at its inception. Fortunately, as the errors grew and became more egregious many were awoken from their slumber and formed the Restoration RLDS Branches after trying, fruitlessly, to steer the church back to its founding principles. And evidence of the recognition of errors is the present D&C used by the members of the Restoration RLDS Branches (which I linked to). I am thankful to be associated with a people who can learn and grew from history and is now more vigilant then ever in guarding the Restoration faith from heresies.

BookofMormonLvr,

I know members of the Community of Christ who think you guys are the apostates!

My question is, how will you know if God calls a new prophet - perhaps even "one mighty and strong"? The Remnant Church certainly think he already has. So by what criteria would such an individual be measured. Certainly the much trumpeted (by the RLDS) provisions of D&C 43 are now firmly out of the question as there is no one to appoint a successor. So what chance of acceptance would a modern Joseph Smith type have if he claimed a prophetic call?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

BookofMormonLvr,

I know members of the Community of Christ who think you guys are the apostates!

And? That has nothing to do with the point I was making.

My question is, how will you know if God calls a new prophet - perhaps even "one mighty and strong"? The Remnant Church certainly think he already has. So by what criteria would such an individual be measured. Certainly the much trumpeted (by the RLDS) provisions of D&C 43 are now firmly out of the question as there is no one to appoint a successor. So what chance of acceptance would a modern Joseph Smith type have if he claimed a prophetic call?

I hope I have lived my life in such a way, following the example of Christ that I will recognize when the Lord moves in this regard. I personally haven't felt that Fred Larsen is the man, but I am open to the Spirit revealing to me otherwise.

My personal belief, as of right now, is that the prophecy uttered by Joseph to Emma concerning her unborn child, David Hyrum, as he was being led away to Carthage...

"Though shalt bear a child, and though he should be incarcerated in solid rock, yet shall he come out and make his mark on the world. Call his name David." - Joseph Smith to his wife Emma, June 1844

...is in part the calling out of a prophet from his bloodline, and that the final prophet will come through David Hyrum's bloodline.

[Questing Beast]

There are affidavits, and then there are a weight of them.

You can choose to live with selective judgment, I cannot. When the things I think I know are based on as much evidence as I have been exposed to, then I must accept the conclusions therefrom. To deny evidence, while accepting it from the same source(s) to suit a paradigm of particulars, is a form of dishonest judgment. For instance, the mainstream LDS Church always quotes from the selected characters of the "restoration"; yet dismisses contradictory or inconsistent quotations as unreliable or incorrect, etc. How the LDS Church can pick and choose which quotes (affidavits) are legitimate and which are dismissible as evidence, is a continual poser. And of course, this selectivity is easily answered by adherence to a singular "history"; any other version, any version that confronts the "faithful history", is de facto inadmissible.

So you have a wealth of evidence (the copious statements of the women themselves) that Joseph Smith engaged in sexual relations. And since we have not (to date) documented a single descendant by one of his polygamous wives, it is asserted that Emma, Oliver Cowdery, the Law brothers, et al. a ton of witnesses to Joseph Smith's "adulteries" were somehow all mistaken?

Todd Compton offered several reasons why we have no documented offspring of Joseph Smith by other women. A secrecy was involved right up to his death; ergo, no "legitimate" child was possible. Any pregnancies of his polyandrous wives would result in children taking the name of their publicly known "father". Another cause (none of these are exclusive) was the stress of Joseph's later life: he often went into hiding, making sexual congress an infrequent matter, and contributing to his own physical stress which could have affected his fertility from time to time. In fact we just don't know if he produced any or even many children. Certainly his offspring by Emma were quite numerous. But it is a known fact that c. 10% of fertile individuals when they have sex are not fertile as a couple for a variety of physical reasons. Added together, there is ample evidence that Joseph Smith both engaged in sex with many/most of his polygamous wives, and did not leave very many children behind. Some were recognized as the children of other men. But some might have been told the truth by their mothers. One documented case exists: Sylvia Sessions

[semlogo]

Polygamy or plural marriage, and is it the same thing?

If Joseph's only children were with Emma, it could mean (and I think some mean to suggest) that his only active, earthly, sexual relationship was with Emma.

Is that possible?

Is it possible that he taught plural marriage (in the sense of being sealed for a future life), but never taught polygamy?

(I don't know, and that's what confusses me.)

My understanding is that several of his wives are on record saying that their marriage was consummated. As to why no children resulted (that we know of), who knows?

[Scott Lloyd]

My understanding is that several of his wives are on record saying that their marriage was consummated.

CFR

[kolipoki09]

...is in part the calling out of a prophet from his bloodline, and that the final prophet will come through David Hyrum's bloodline.

So if David Hyrum believed that his father was a polygamist (which he did), does that mean the RRLDS Church is in apostasy too?

[semlogo]

CFR

I would think it would be obvious that he consummated all his marriages - Brigham certainly did. Why this needs a CFR is a mystery to me. Marriage is about procreation.

Anyway, not having time to dig up the original sources, this site references many. It's an ex-mormon site, but as far as I know the quotes and citations are correct.

http://entreated.blogspot.com/2008/12/evidence-that-joseph-had-sex-with-his.html

[Alan]

There are affidavits, and then there are a weight of them.

You can choose to live with selective judgment, I cannot. When the things I think I know are based on as much evidence as I have been exposed to, then I must accept the conclusions therefrom. To deny evidence, while accepting it from the same source(s) to suit a paradigm of particulars, is a form of dishonest judgment. For instance, the mainstream LDS Church always quotes from the selected characters of the "restoration"; yet dismisses contradictory or inconsistent quotations as unreliable or incorrect, etc. How the LDS Church can pick and choose which quotes (affidavits) are legitimate and which are dismissible as evidence, is a continual poser. And of course, this selectivity is easily answered by adherence to a singular "history"; any other version, any version that confronts the "faithful history", is de facto inadmissible.

So you have a wealth of evidence (the copious statements of the women themselves) that Joseph Smith engaged in sexual relations. And since we have not (to date) documented a single descendant by one of his polygamous wives, it is asserted that Emma, Oliver Cowdery, the Law brothers, et al. a ton of witnesses to Joseph Smith's "adulteries" were somehow all mistaken?

Todd Compton offered several reasons why we have no documented offspring of Joseph Smith by other women. A secrecy was involved right up to his death; ergo, no "legitimate" child was possible. Any pregnancies of his polyandrous wives would result in children taking the name of their publicly known "father". Another cause (none of these are exclusive) was the stress of Joseph's later life: he often went into hiding, making sexual congress an infrequent matter, and contributing to his own physical stress which could have affected his fertility from time to time. In fact we just don't know if he produced any or even many children. Certainly his offspring by Emma were quite numerous. But it is a known fact that c. 10% of fertile individuals when they have sex are not fertile as a couple for a variety of physical reasons. Added together, there is ample evidence that Joseph Smith both engaged in sex with many/most of his polygamous wives, and did not leave very many children behind. Some were recognized as the children of other men. But some might have been told the truth by their mothers. One documented case exists: Sylvia Sessions

[BookofMormonLuvr]

So if David Hyrum believed that his father was a polygamist (which he did), does that mean the RRLDS Church is in apostasy too?

CFR

And even if he did, his confusion would have nothing to do with the claims of the RRLDS.

[Alan]

I understand David had only one child, and spent much of his life in a mental asylum.

Does this child have any descendents today?

[Nomad]

I think the evidence that Joseph Smith consummated at least some of his plural marriages is pretty persuasive. I think he was not only well within his rights (and within the bounds of righteousness) to do so, but that he was probably obligated to do so in order to set the example for those of his followers to whom he taught the principle in Nauvoo. That said, I don't believe there is persuasive evidence that he consummated ALL of his plural marriages--for example, the marriage to Helen Mar Kimball--and would not have until she (and some of the others) grew older. This was the policy and counsel followed by most of the later practitioners of plural marriage in Utah, and I think it is logical to assume the practice originated in Joseph Smith's example in Nauvoo.

My impression from reading Joseph Smith's personal writings and those of people around him indicates that he tried very hard to both fulfil the commandments relative to plural marriage and to do so in a manner that would not invite accusations of debauchery. It would have been a fine line to walk, but I think he did so quite admirably. That there are no definitive offspring from his liasons with his plural wives is, I believe, evidence of the fact that those liasons were few and far between. I also suspect this was due partly to the fact that he really didn't have a lot of opportunity, and partly to the fact that he never got over his instinctive reluctance to be with any women other than his first wife Emma.

[kolipoki09]

CFR

And even if he did, his confusion would have nothing to do with the claims of the RRLDS.

So firsthand accounts of many of Joseph Smith's closest associates are to be dismissed as "confusing?" If the RRLDS claim that Joseph NEVER practiced polygamy, and that the true successor to the prophetic line rests within the line of David Hyrum, don't you find it a little ironic that David believed his father was a polygamist?

If you don't believe me, go ahead an read his journals from his missions through Utah and Southeast Idaho.

http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/82msp7zf9780252023996.html

As Richard Howard notes:

"These months in Utah, however, and especially the months spent there on his second mission in 1872, confronted David with the plural marriage issue in ways that forced him to come to conclusions about his father that were radically different from anything he had ever suspected could be true. The foundation of his previous stance on this matter was swept away by evidences of his father's active role in the inception of plural marriage. Avery wisely avoids oversimplifying this issue as the cause of David's mental and emotional breakdown, but she correctly identifies it as an important element in his sustained illness after 1872."

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I understand David had only one child, and spent much of his life in a mental asylum.

Does this child have any descendents today?

There are, in fact, descendants. David's are listed at the end...

"Joseph Smith, Jr. family tree

From the Family tree that I have

Joseph Jr. had 4 sons (that lived)

Joseph III,

Fredrick G. Williams,

Alexander Hale,

and David Hyram.

Joseph III had 6 sons,

F. M.,

Israel A.,

Hale Washington,

Richard Clarke,

William Wallace,

and Reginald Archer.

F. M. had no sons,

Israel A, had 2 sons,

Joseph (who died at age 24)

and Don Carlos,

Don Carlos had 2 sons,

Joseph Perrine who has a son Christopher,

and Israel A. (Ike, Who I believe is a Priest in the CoC church).

Hale Washington had no sons.

Richard Clarke appears to have had 2 sons,

Alan Yorke (descendents Unknown),

and Jone? who had a son

Steven Scott.

William Wallace had a son

Wallace Bunnell who had no sons.

Reginald Archer had no sons.

Alexander Hale had 4 sons,

Fredrick Alexander,

Don Alvin,

Joseph George,

and Arthur Marion.

Fredrick Alexander had 4 sons,

Alexander David (descendants unknown),

Glaud Leslie, who had 2 sons,

William Hopkins (descendants unknown),

and Glaud Leslie Jr. who had no sons,

Fredrick A., who had no sons,

and Harold LeGrande (Descendants unknown).

Don Alvin had 3 sons

Carlos McAllister, who had a son,

Don Carlos (descendants unknown),

Marion Don, who had a son

James Butler (descendants unknown),

and Maxwell Alexis who had a son

Robert Wendall (descendants unknown).

Joseph George had one son,

Paul Daudelin (descendants unknown).

Arthur Marion had 4 sons,

Karl Kendall (no sons),

Alexander Martin had 1 son

Verl Leon, descendants unknown),

Arthur G. had 1 son,

Kenneth Arthur, descendants unknown),

and Joseph Fredric (descendants unknown).

David Hyrum had 1 son,

Elbert A. had 3 sons,

Lynn Elbert (whose children I believe were adopted),

Ronald Gibson (descendants unknown), and

Lawrence David (descendants unknown).

By Dale Volskay"

[CA Steve]

I think the evidence that Joseph Smith consummated at least some of his plural marriages is pretty persuasive. I think he was not only well within his rights (and within the bounds of righteousness) to do so, but that he was probably obligated to do so in order to set the example for those of his followers to whom he taught the principle in Nauvoo. That said, I don't believe there is persuasive evidence that he consummated ALL of his plural marriages--for example, the marriage to Helen Mar Kimball--and would not have until she (and some of the others) grew older. This was the policy and counsel followed by most of the later practitioners of plural marriage in Utah, and I think it is logical to assume the practice originated in Joseph Smith's example in Nauvoo.

My impression from reading Joseph Smith's personal writings and those of people around him indicates that he tried very hard to both fulfil the commandments relative to plural marriage and to do so in a manner that would not invite accusations of debauchery. It would have been a fine line to walk, but I think he did so quite admirably. That there are no definitive offspring from his liasons with his plural wives is, I believe, evidence of the fact that those liasons were few and far between. I also suspect this was due partly to the fact that he really didn't have a lot of opportunity, and partly to the fact that he never got over his instinctive reluctance to be with any women other than his first wife Emma.

Do you believe he consummated his relationship (was it a marriage?) with Fanny Algers?