A post worth repeating . . .

[Mark Beesley]

The following was posted very early this morning by whitedlace on page 16 of the Bad Feelings about Section 132 thread. It is uncommonly beautiful and poignant and deserves a decided bump.

wiltedlace Posted: Oct 20 2005, 02:27 AM

This was first revealed to Joseph Smith when he was translating the Book of Mormon with his pregnant wife, Emma. She of course flipped out, we all know that, and I would have certainly done the same thing. He recounted to her of how he "wrestled" with the Lord for hours and how he became angry and thought to put the work down before he would do this, he cried to Him, he begged Him, but the Lord's will would not be denied. "Remember, remember that it is not the work of God that is frustrated, but the work of men"(DC 3:3). She told him that she would go on as if nothing had been said as long as he promised to never speak of it again. Shortly thereafter she gave birth to a still child. I don't presume to know that this has any co-relation to the events in this discussion, this is just how things happened. In all, by the time that this precept was actually practiced, she had lost six children to death.

The truth is that Emma never wanted to accept this practice, (not that I blame her) but I feel that eventually, she did. Her feelings were of course that she did not want to share her husband, oh, the magnitude of what she felt is not hard to imagine. When Joseph got out of (I believe it was) Liberty Jail, he was a different man. He was more serious-minded and as his time wound down he nearly raced to teach the Apostles all that was required of him to teach them. As a result, he could no longer appease Emma by putting off the Lord. Many people think that this was in conjunction with the "eternal families" (aka new and everlasting covenant) doctrine, but in actuality they were just established closely around the same time, yet were not given as revelation to be instituted together. Just because I nibble on grapes while I cook does not mean I will be throwing them in with my chili, I just happened to be eating them at the same time. The reason that they are both mentioned in DC 132 is because of why it was written in the first place. It was written in answer to a plea from Hyrum Smith. He felt assured that if Joseph would just write down the revelation(s) that he had received and let him take them to Emma to read that she would know of their truth. It was this same manuscript that she once hid and destroyed by ripping to pieces, though by then there were copies made.

The practice was intially started by just a few members and they all had similarly painful experiences in their quest to accept it and wrote down some truly heart-wrenching tales. None of those who were given this precept found it to be easy and it was truly a test of faith for all of them even then. It's just too much easier to believe that they dove right in and celebrated their upcoming consummations, but in truth, these men cherished their wives and were devout men of God who were willing to stand in opposition to evil in all things. Being instructed in this surely shook all of their testimonies, if it hadn't been so, then they would never have been chosen to live it.

Anyway, just a few people, I believe it was four families at first, and only one of them actually had to immediately take someone else to wife, (other than Hyrum who took his widowed sister-in-law). The others were just taught this and were not asked to live it right away. In the instance mentioned above of someone having to take a wife, he struggled with it so much that he thought he would just have to be damned and would have left the church if his wife had not come to him after fasting to know what was wrong with her husband. She then explained to him that the Lord had revealed to her what was required of him. They wept together, both hating what was happening, but accepting that it was the Lord's will. One person of whom this was later required was noted as stating that it caused that he "desired the grave" rather than to have to practice it.

So, at this time, when this was taught, there was a "substitute" apostle by the name of John C. Bennett. He was more of an "acting" counselor to the prophet as most of the Apostles were on a mission in England. He was also the mayor, but his esteemed positions were due to his charismatic nature and the pity Joseph naively took upon him.

A brief history of John C. Bennett: he was one of the first people to join the church after it came to Commerce, (later named Nauvoo) and because of his legal background was greatly responsible for the "Nauvoo Charter" which was a life-saving piece of legislature. Indeed it was this that put him in such a great light to the prophet. This charter protected Joseph and the inhabitants of Nauvoo from being extradicted out of Illinois for ficticious crimes, or accusations that did not have sufficient evidence. It was this piece of legislature that prolonged his life, but the retraction of it is part of what ended it. Shortly after that he was made mayor to go along with his "private" profession of being a doctor whose expertise was in the field of knowing of "womanly ways." The technical term now would be gynecologist, but that was just a front for his womanizing ways. He was an attractive "bachelor" who was known for making evening dinner "appointments" with his clients at their homes while their husbands (or fathers) were away. The number of "clients" he eventually ended up consorting with is estimated to be around 20 who were previously faithful and virtuous LDS women. The point is that his true colors began to come out, but it was too late. His efforts to "forsake" his sins had failed and when a letter from his abandoned wife and children made it into town as a warning to all pretty women he was already well into his old tricks.

Unfortunately, being in the leadership position he was in, he was present for some of the instruction from JS about plurality of wives as scribe from what I understand. He was one of the men who ran with it, though he was never actually instructed to practice it. He used his corrupted take on this precept to take advantage of Orson Hyde's wife while he was gone "dedicating the holy land for the return of the children of Abraham." She was lonely and openly had repeated visits with him while Orson was gone, but when he came back home this aspect of the affair was denied completely and the blame was placed upon Joseph being the guilty party instead. This law was not to take wives from their husbands, and did not nullify sealings to deceased husbands. By then John C. Bennett had fled Nauvoo and was hiding with the ex-members and antis who later came to publish the one issue of the "Mormon Expositer" that railed untruths and slanderous rumors about this practice termed by John C. Bennett as "spiritual wifery." It was this event that later secured the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum Smith.

Anyway, so moving on, Orson left the church and then after his wife (who truly did love him, but had been "seduced") admitted the truth to him he came back into the church. I believe it was his leaving that caused for John Taylor to be placed ahead of him in succession to the prophet.

So, that is where most of the rumors spewed from. These rumors actually served a great purpose in the Lord's plan at that time. It made it so that most people who did not have to actively live this precept were left instead to determine whether or not for themselves if they believed that it was a true precept while living their lives in the midst of powerful rumors and speculation. Basically it was Zion's camp all over again in that they were merely called to be willing to fight (in this case accept), but in the end it turned out that they did not have to actually go to war (or live it). It was a harsh weeding out of the tares from the wheat. Much spiritual growth was established after the initial shock wore off. I won't go into all of the details of who did what with who, or how many people married who, but instead I will move on to my personal thoughts on this precept.

This chapter in the Doctrine and Covenants once caused me to feel the same way as your wife. I wept when I read it, I put it away in anger, and then I picked it back up. After feeling bewildered in my understanding of those very same words about Emma being destroyed I closed my eyes and prayed to be able to know if that chapter was really a true doctrine from the Lord. I closed the book and laid my head back on my pillow and sniffled a bit more as I pondered it in my head. I was not immediately blessed with any miraculous manifestations, I just had a quiet comforting knowledge that the only definite answer I was going to get right away was to "Wait" for an answer. So I did. I was content to wait, I had enough of a testimony that I would allow the Lord to work on His own time, so I didn't have to know right away. I just continued with my daily reading of scriptures to finish the Doctrine and Covenants and I then moved on to the Pearl of Great Price and so on.

It was about a month later that while I was dawdling by myself in the foyer after a church social that I saw a table with a sign above it that said "FREE." I love to read and this table was piled up high with some rather sad-looking books. I felt sorry for them (probably silly of me, I know) and grabbed some of the worst from the table. I got a Hymnal without a cover, some teaching manuals that were now "loose-leaf" and an old RS book. I was thumbing through some out-dated Ensigns when one leapt out at me. On the cover of this 1980 something issue was a beautiful portrait of Emma Smith. The title of the article implied that it would contain information about her from a current descendant. It was Emma's side of the story of the restoration. I grabbed it knowing that in it I would find the answers I needed. I read it that very night curled up in bed.

It would be nice to say that I read it and immediately was blessed to know that 132 was God's law and not Man's lust, but that just isn't what happened. What actually happened is that while I read of her life, and as I looked at the timeline of her trials I wept uncontrollably. Her other trials were so paramount in comparison to this one that had been a stumbling block of mine. I found little information about polygamy there but what I needed in order to believe that God's will was done was near the end of the article.

It was a report taken of some of her last words before she died as recorded by one of her children. She had stayed in Nauvoo, cared for the mother of a prophet, lived to see only four out or eleven children make it to adulthood and as she lay dying she testified of her firm belief in the restoration. She declared that she has always believed that it was the Lord's work that had been done and that nothing had ever shaken her testimony of that. She stated that Joseph was a prophet of the Lord and upon the brink of death she wept with joy as she described a vision of seeing him right there before her, waiting for her with her son in his arms. (Oh how she loved that man!) She wept while smiling in pure bliss as she mindlessly fingered the necklace around her neck that Joseph had given her so many years before--she had never taken it off. She died so filled with the comforting spirit of the Lord that she had a contentment that was immeasurable. I don't know at what point she accepted this principle if ever, but I do know that she was not destroyed either in life or in spirit because the Holy Spirit has testified to me of that fact. It was this special knowledge that caused me to be able to put the issue aside for good and move forward in faith that this was indeed of God.

Later I discovered the other things that I have written, and I understand the inner workings much better than I did before. Without ever having went back and re-reading 132 I discovered that we must all be "proved" like Abraham was. (I planned to start again on the DC when I finished the Bible front to back, and then the BOM thing by the end of the year thing came up and so I haven't read it in quite a while).

I imagine that this is our trial: to accept a practice that (thankfully) doesn't involve our direct participation as something that the Lord once instituted. I weep for those who suffered under this, but I also know that there were many who were blessed because of it. There were some who not only lived it, but appreciated it. Either way, I am grateful for the faith of the pioneers that lived this, and to the Lord for bringing me into the world at a time when I wouldn't have to. If we do have to deal with this in the afterlife, that is when I will deal with that, for now, I am grateful that it wasn't our only son instead that we were asked to sacrifice. When I look at my precious little man.... well, that I am afraid I would have had a much harder time with.

[salvar774]

mbeesley and wiltedlace Thank you .

[Dale]

I have seen what's reported to be the 1831 revelation and all it talks about is single men marrying the Lamanites. Reportedly Joseph Smith added a polygamous interpretation three years later when asked about it's meaning.

I understand Emma Smith did not know anything about polygamy until the Nauvoo period of church history. I dispute the claim by Todd Comptom In his book In Sacred Lonliness that Fanny Alger was Joseph Smith's first plural wife. I read his documentation & disagree with his conclusions.

John C. Bennets claims have been refuted in the Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy book, and in the continuing Vision magazine articles. Some of the earlier articles are online at http://www.restorationbookstore.org

Sarah Pratt admitted to Joseph Smith the 3rd that Joseph Smith had not tried to seduce her as was originally claimed. Two seperate Vision magazine articles online cover's Orson Pratts & Sarah Pratt's episodes.

They are among a minority of restoration believers who believe D.&C. 132 is not authentic. They base this on the original of D.&C. 132 being destroyed. And allegations of Jame's Whithead that he had been shown the original of D.&C 132 and the 1852 copy wasn't the same. Richard Price's The Polygamy Conspiracies article presenting some of his case against D.&C. 132 is online at http://www.hopeofzion.com/articles/polygamy_conspiracies.htm

[cinepro]

[John C. Bennett] used his corrupted take on this precept to take advantage of Orson Hyde's wife while he was gone "dedicating the holy land for the return of the children of Abraham." She was lonely and openly had repeated visits with him while Orson was gone, but when he came back home this aspect of the affair was denied completely and the blame was placed upon Joseph being the guilty party instead. This law was not to take wives from their husbands, and did not nullify sealings to deceased husbands. By then John C. Bennett had fled Nauvoo and was hiding with the ex-members and antis who later came to publish the one issue of the "Mormon Expositer" that railed untruths and slanderous rumors about this practice termed by John C. Bennett as "spiritual wifery." It was this event that later secured the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum Smith.

What is your source for this story, specifically the report about Bennett seducing Nancy Hyde?

Richard S. Von Wagoner is apparently ignorant of your sources, and we should let him and other researchers into Nauvoo-era polygamy know. It seems Joseph made a journal entry indicating the he had been sealed to Nancy Hyde in Orson's absence!

On 2 December 1841, while Orson Hyde was absorbed in his historic mission to the Holy Land, Smith revealed a divine directive ordering church printer Ebenezer Robinson to take Nancy Hyde and her children into his home, the first floor suite of the Times and Seasons office on the corner of Bain and Water streets. The revelation concluded: "[L]et my handmaid Nancy Marinda Hyde hearken to the counsel of my servant Joseph in all things whatsoever he shall teach unto her, and it shall be a blessing upon her and upon her children after her, unto her justification, saith the Lord."34 An entry four months later in the prophet's personal diary notes that Nancy was sealed to him in April 1842, one of several relationships contracted with married women during his lifetime.35

Evidently Hyde, although sealed to the prophet, was shared with Smith's scribe, Apostle Willard Richards, whose wife was in Massachusetts. Ebenezer Robinson wrote that in late January 1842, after his family was forced to vacate the printing office, "Willard Richards nailed down the windows, and fired off his revolver in the street after dark, and commenced living with Mrs. Nancy Marinda Hyde."36 John C. Bennett, former member of the First Presidency, wrote of Richards "Hyde-ing" and "Mrs. Hyde and Dr. Richards" residing at the printing office "on special business."37

Sidney Rigdon, later commenting on Hyde's and Richard's illicit relationship, exclaimed in an 1845 letter:

If R[ichards] should take a notion to H[yde]'s wife in his absence, all that is necessary to be done is to be sealed. No harm done, no adultery committed; only taking a little advantage of rights of priesthood. And after R[ichards] has gone the round of dissipation with H[yde]'s wife, she is afterwards turned over to S[mith] and thus the poor silly woman becomes the actual dupe to two designing men, under the sanctimonious garb of rights of the royal priesthood.38

Richard S. Van Wagoner, "Sidney Rigdon: A Portrait of Religious Excess", p.294

Anyway, so moving on, Orson left the church and then after his wife (who truly did love him, but had been "seduced") admitted the truth to him he came back into the church. I believe it was his leaving that caused for John Taylor to be placed ahead of him in succession to the prophet.

OK, now you're all mixed up, because it was Orson Pratt, not Hyde, who lost his seniority in the quorum while in Nauvoo. Since both were involved in controversial episodes in Nauvoo era Polygamy, you need to get your stories straight (perhaps some references would help?) before you go much further. Orson Hyde lost his seniority because he sided with Thomas Marsh against the Prophet in Missouri in 1838.

Here's the short version of the Pratt saga:

The prophet faced rejection more than once. In the spring of 1842 Smith told Sarah Pratt, wife of Apostle Orson Pratt, that the Lord wanted him to take her as his "spiritual wife." Sarah refused Smith's offer and eventually exposed him to her husband. when he confronted Smith, Orson Pratt was excommunicated, but he was reinstated five months later. After Smith's death, Pratt himself took plural wives and he became the primary apologist for plural marriage when it was officially announced in Utah in 1852. Sarah ultimately left both Orson and the church; she labeled polygamy the "direst curse" which "completely demoralizes good men, and makes bad men correspondingly worse. As for the women," she wrote, "well, God help them."84

Nauvoo Roots of Mormon Polygamy, 1841-46: A Preliminary Demographic Report

George D. Smith

Dialogue, Vol.27, No.1, p.25

I won't go into all of the details of who did what with who, or how many people married who, but instead I will move on to my personal thoughts on this precept.

Based on the details you have gone into, that's probably for the better.

It was about a month later that while I was dawdling by myself in the foyer after a church social that I saw a table with a sign above it that said "FREE." I love to read and this table was piled up high with some rather sad-looking books. I felt sorry for them (probably silly of me, I know) and grabbed some of the worst from the table. I got a Hymnal without a cover, some teaching manuals that were now "loose-leaf" and an old RS book. I was thumbing through some out-dated Ensigns when one leapt out at me. On the cover of this 1980 something issue was a beautiful portrait of Emma Smith. The title of the article implied that it would contain information about her from a current descendant. It was Emma's side of the story of the restoration. I grabbed it knowing that in it I would find the answers I needed. I read it that very night curled up in bed.

Have you read the text of Emma's interview with her son? Have you read "Mormon Engima"? I'm glad an Ensign article about Emma's life was so helpful to you, but considering her post-1844 life, I'm not sure an Ensign article is the best source of info.

I'm all for people feeling good about Section 132, but I'm not sure I would recommend the course of action you took.

[Dale]

But when Joseph's diaries say sealed to Nancy Hyde did it mean adulterous relations were shared, or that the sealing did not apply to sharing marital relations in mortality? I looked up the name Nancy Hyde in Todd Comtoms In Sacred Lonliness & saw no evidence that an improper affair occurred between Nancy & Joseph Smith. So at most she was borrowed in name only in Orson Hyde's absence to be sealed to Joseph Smith.

I do not know several on the polyandrous list who were told to remain & be faithful to their mortal husbands.

[cinepro]

But when Joseph's diaries say sealed to Nancy Hyde did it mean adulterous relations were shared, or that the sealing did not apply to sharing marital relations in mortality?

Nice try, but if Joseph were sealed to her, it wouldn't have been adulterous.

This paragraph is interesting:

The question of how many children came from Smith's plural marriages has never been answered decisively. Josephine L. Fisher wrote that her mother, Sylvia Sessions, told her "that [Josephine] was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith." Prescindia Huntington Buell once said that "she did not know whether Mr. Buel or the Prophet was the father of her son [Oliver]." Researchers have tentatively identified eight children that Joseph Smith may have had by his plural wives. Emily Partridge observed: "Spiritual wives, as we were then termed, were not very numerous in those days and a spiritual baby was a rarity indeed."

Nauvoo Roots of Mormon Polygamy, 1841-46:

A Preliminary Demographic Report

George D. Smith

Dialogue, Vol.27, No.1, p.12

Here's what's odd about these quotes.

Even if Sylvia Sessions was wrong, and Josephine wasn't the daughter of Joseph, why would she say such a thing if she hadn't been having marital relations with him? Same with Emily Partridge, and numerous other accounts. They always leave open the possibility of a child, and the only way that could be possible would be if they had sex at least once.

Otherwise, they know they are lying, and to what purpose? Especially if there is something wrong with it. Did one of the wives lie about this, and then the others had to pretend they also consumated their sealings because they didn't want to be the only one who Joseph declined? Isn't that a really weird thing to lie about?

[Dale]

There's no evidence of adultury between her & Joseph Smith. Adultury always involves sexuality. Without sexual intercourse no adultury was committed. My little New Webster's Dictionary defines adultury as "sexual intercourse, with other than a lawful mate? So I am correct when defeding Joseph Smith of the charge he committed adultury with her.

[Nighthawke]

I understand Emma Smith did not know anything about polygamy until the Nauvoo period of church history.

hmmm, don't be so sure. Ever read Section 132 v-e-r-y carefully?

[Alpha_FemaleCA]

It's BECAUSE of section 132 that those polygamists exist in Colorado City/Hilldale. UNTIL that is removed from the "scriptures" you'll continue to have these fundamentalists.

[Pahoran]

It's BECAUSE of section 132 that those polygamists exist in Colorado City/Hilldale. UNTIL that is removed from the "scriptures" you'll continue to have these fundamentalists.

Your days here are certainly numbered, Alpha, so I'll just point out a couple of things for future reference, if you ever decide to engage in a real dialogue with Latter-day Saints.

We don't have "scriptures" in scare quotes, we have Scriptures.

Just because nothing is sacred to you, that is no reason to project your un-values onto us. Discuss our faith with respect or go away.

Of course removing Section 132 from our Scriptures isn't going to stop the activities of those apostates any more than adding Official Declaration 1 did. And I'm sure you're not nearly as ignorant as you pretend to be when you claim that it would. After all, those people are nothing to do with us, they do not acknowledge our authority, and if we did make that change, they'd simply holler about it.

No, the only reason you--or any anti-Mormon--would like to see us make such a change is so that you can then exploit it to your own polemical advantage.

Regards,

Pahoran

[wiltedlace]

Cinepro,

I have lists of sources, but frankly, I don't like your tone.

[Dill Pickles]

Cinepro,

I have lists of sources, but frankly, I don't like your tone.

from the Pickle jar: it's customary on this board to post the source of any non-original material. So if you have sources, they should have been posted within your initial post. And what about cinepro's tone is offensive? He's respectful, and just because he doesn't agree with you doesn't make him or his tone out of line. He's been here a long time, and although I don't always agree with him, he's never disrespectful of the church or church leaders.

[Sheelah]

It's BECAUSE of section 132 that those polygamists exist in Colorado City/Hilldale. UNTIL that is removed from the "scriptures" you'll continue to have these fundamentalists.

Your days here are certainly numbered, Alpha, so I'll just point out a couple of things for future reference, if you ever decide to engage in a real dialogue with Latter-day Saints.

She was banned off a LDS women's board I go to several times under various names. She started out pretty confrontational and direct, but by the third of fourth name (alpha was last) she had toned it down.

But I see she's back in all her glory

[Dale]

I understand Emma Smith did not know anything about polygamy until the Nauvoo period of church history.

hmmm, don't be so sure. Ever read Section 132 v-e-r-y carefully?

I am not sure D.&C. 132 is an authentic reproduction of the July 12th 1843 revelation. It may be but that's not necessarily the case.

----------

In regards to Sylvia I do not feel she lied to Josephine. I am open to her being viewed as an adopted spiritual daughter to the prophet Joseph. I just will not grant her status as Joseph Smith's daughter without the DNA test results they are trying to do finished.

Prescindia Buell never said that she didn't know who the father of her children was. I think Ettie V. Smith reported she had heard her say that. She has been accused of mixing fiction and fact in her writings. I may have to double check my information on her.

Emily & Eliza Partride I do know their affidavits about Joseph Smith did make it to court & were rejected for legal reasons. I do not know whether they did, or did not consumnate their relationship with Joseph. I think it's uncharitable to accuse them of lying.

A lot of the claim's of children were second-hand. Not one of these rumors has been traceable to a real proveable child. So instead of firm children proven by historical facts alone we are reduced to DNA studies to confirm, or deny the remaining five candidates for Joseph's polygamous children. Prescindia children were hers & Normans children by DNA studies recently done.

-------------

I got an e-mail stating my comments about the original post were uneccessary. Sorry if I offended the person who wrote me. I may be wrong about anything I said. I meant no offense. The original post was worth repeating. In critiquing it from my perspective I didn't mean people should not feel the spirit of the post that was repeated. I apologize to the person. I will withdraw from only this post & make no futher comments in this post out of respect to the person who expressed the concern.

[dimbulb]

I have lists of sources, but frankly, I don't like your tone.

I'm not sure what about cinepro's tone bothered you, but he has the facts right.

And he makes an excellent point: If Joseph never had relations with any of these married women, why would they have wondered if he fathered their children? Such speculation on their parts makes no sense unless they indeed consummated the marriages.

[Nighthawke]

I understand Emma Smith did not know anything about polygamy until the Nauvoo period of church history.

hmmm, don't be so sure. Ever read Section 132 v-e-r-y carefully?

I am not sure D.&C. 132 is an authentic reproduction of the July 12th 1843 revelation. It may be but that's not necessarily the case.

You know, this is the same reason why the LDS Church was cautious about the Joseph Smith Translation until just recently. But thanks to recent dialogue between key members/scholars/historians of the RLDS (now Community of Christ) and the LDS it was established that (ta da!) the RLDS did not tamper with the Joseph Smith Translation. Ever stop to think that maybe the LDS didn't tamper with section 132 either?

[dimbulb]

You know, this is the same reason why the LDS Church was cautious about the Joseph Smith Translation until just recently. But thanks to recent dialogue between key members/scholars/historians of the RLDS (now Community of Christ) and the LDS it was established that (ta da!) the RLDS did not tamper with the Joseph Smith Translation. Ever stop to think that maybe the LDS didn't tamper with section 132 either?

It's really hard to say whether this reflects the original or not. There are not many original manuscripts, if any, of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants. We do know that many that were printed in the Book of Commandments were extensively revised when they were published in the Doctrine and Covenants. So the analogy to the JST doesn't quite work.

[Nighthawke]

[John C. Bennett] used his corrupted take on this precept to take advantage of Orson Hyde's wife while he was gone "dedicating the holy land for the return of the children of Abraham." She was lonely and openly had repeated visits with him while Orson was gone, but when he came back home this aspect of the affair was denied completely and the blame was placed upon Joseph being the guilty party instead. This law was not to take wives from their husbands, and did not nullify sealings to deceased husbands. By then John C. Bennett had fled Nauvoo and was hiding with the ex-members and antis who later came to publish the one issue of the "Mormon Expositer" that railed untruths and slanderous rumors about this practice termed by John C. Bennett as "spiritual wifery." It was this event that later secured the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum Smith.

What is your source for this story, specifically the report about Bennett seducing Nancy Hyde?

*sigh* There are unfortunately several errors in wiltedlace's summary... it wasn't while Orson Hyde was in the Holy Land... but while Orson Pratt was in England... the wife being Sarah Pratt. Orson Pratt was excommunicated but was reinstated two months later "on a technicality that Pratt had not been officially excommunicated". (Richard L. Bushman, "Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling", p. 467).

(I was hoping to not get involved in another thread but unfortunately I'm back once more. *another sigh*)

I've said it before, the worst place to learn about Mormonism and polygamy is the Internet. If anyone wants to learn more, please pick up a well-researched, reputable book from your library (or via interlibrary loan) or if you want to purchase a book then you need look no further than the FAIR bookstore which has pretty good book prices.

At this point in time I recommend Kathryn Daynes' "More Wives Than One" (University of Illinois) and Richard L. Bushman's "Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling" (Alfred A. Knopf).

Upcoming: Kathryn Daynes, Lowell Bennion and Lisa McCasline are presently working on a book entitled "Plural Wives and Tangled Lives: Polygamy

[Nighthawke]

[John C. Bennett] used his corrupted take on this precept to take advantage of Orson Hyde's wife while he was gone "dedicating the holy land for the return of the children of Abraham." She was lonely and openly had repeated visits with him while Orson was gone, but when he came back home this aspect of the affair was denied completely and the blame was placed upon Joseph being the guilty party instead. This law was not to take wives from their husbands, and did not nullify sealings to deceased husbands. By then John C. Bennett had fled Nauvoo and was hiding with the ex-members and antis who later came to publish the one issue of the "Mormon Expositer" that railed untruths and slanderous rumors about this practice termed by John C. Bennett as "spiritual wifery." It was this event that later secured the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum Smith.

What is your source for this story, specifically the report about Bennett seducing Nancy Hyde?

Oops, I forgot something. Re: The report about Bennett seducing not Nancy Hyde but Sarah Pratt. Richard Bushman writes:

Bennett's disclosure stunned Orson Pratt. Had the Prophet tried to seduce his wife? To make matters worse, a story circulated of Bennett's possible involvement with Sarah. Nauvoo residents swore they witnessed long nocturnal visits and glimpses of the two in compromising positions. The non-Mormon but friendly Nauvoo resident Jacob Backenstos signed an affidavit stating flatly that Bennett had "illicit intercourse with Mrs. Orson Pratt." In public meeting, Joseph spoke openly about Bennett's relations with Sister Pratt.(32)

(32) Bennett, History of the Saints, 231-32; J.B. Backenstos, Affidavit, July 28, 2842, in Affidavits and Certificates; JS, Journal, July 15, 1842, in The Papers of Joseph Smith, 2:399. The date of the public discussion differs in the accounts, Joseph's journal dates it as July 15; the Sangamo Journal, July 14. England, Orson Pratt, 79.

- Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, p. 466

That's it for me, I'll check again later.

[Rollo Tomasi]

A very thoughtful post by wiltedlace. I would offer the following corrections and clarifications:

This was first revealed to Joseph Smith when he was translating the Book of Mormon ....

Actually, it is generally believed that JS received the revelation no earlier than Feb. 1831, when he was working on the Inspired Version of the Bible and he started asking questions about Old Testament polygamous prophets (see the introductory note to D&C 132 and verse 1 of that section). The BofM was translated (mostly) in mid-1829, well before this time.

She told him that she would go on as if nothing had been said as long as he promised to never speak of it again.

I'm confused by this. Yes, on April 30, 1831 (around the time it is believed Joseph received the plural marriage revelation), Emma gave birth to twins who died that same day, but I know of no evidence that Joseph told Emma about this revelation at that time. There are accounts that in 1830 Joseph may have acted improperly toward a local girl in Harmony, PA, which led to Joseph's quick departure from Harmony with Emma. Or perhaps your statement relates to the account of William McLellin, who in an 1872 letter to Joseph Smith III, told of how he visited Emma in 1847, when she confirmed the rumored story that Joseph had "committed an act with a Miss Hill -- a hired girl." McLellin said this happened around the time of Joseph III's birth (on November 6, 1832). According to McLellin, "Emma saw him, and spoke to him. He desisted, but Mrs. Smith refused to be satisfied. He called in Dr. Williams, O. Cowdery, and S. Rigdon to reconcile Emma. But she told them just as the circumstances took place. He found he was caught. He confessed humbly, and begged forgiveness. Emma and all forgave him. She told me this story was true!!" (Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History, p. 5). The fact that Emma forgave him seems somewhat consistent with your statement.

The truth is that Emma never wanted to accept this practice, (not that I blame her) but I feel that eventually, she did.

I don't know this to be the case; from what I've read she never truly accepted the revelation (which may explain the Lord's many threats toward Emma in D&C 132), and certainly not later in life. I think she had a firm testimony in the restored Gospel, but never in this particular revelation.

Many people think that this was in conjunction with the "eternal families" (aka new and everlasting covenant) doctrine, but in actuality they were just established closely around the same time, yet were not given as revelation to be instituted together.

I know of no evidence that D&C 132 was given as separate revelations. From what I've read, the revelation was always presented as one (according to the journal of William Clayton, who wrote that revelation as dictated by Joseph in 1843). Eternal marriage, as preached in the early days of the Church, was a concept within the context of plural marriage. I can't imagine there would be any objection to the teaching that a man could be married to his wife for eternity -- the real controversy was that this was to occur within the system of plural marriage -- a man married each wife individually, but he married many women in the system of plural marriage. Indeed, Joseph married/sealed several women for time and eternity before he was sealed to Emma on May 28, 1843. (Van Wagoner, p. 15, n.11). The two are not mutually exclusive, which is what the controversy was all about.

So, at this time, when this was taught, there was a "substitute" apostle by the name of John C. Bennett.

[dimbulb]

Thank you for such a thoughtful and well-explained post, Rollo. If nothing else, maybe some people will begin to understand why this troubles us. I don't expect things to be black and white, but this practice seems to me to be very ugly and hurtful to the people involved. I know a lot of you don't see it that way, and that's OK with me. But it is not easy for some of us to work out.

[Nighthawke]

Yes, 1840's Nauvoo was a crazy place that caused many people (especially Victorian-age women) an awful lot of heartache and hardship. I'm glad wiltedlace has found peace with D&C 132. I have not, and have serious doubts that such a horrible practice that harmed so many innocent people, had anything to do with God. But that's my problem to work out.

And yet these Victorian-age women stayed in the Church, defended plural marriage not only in Utah but across the US including travelling to Washington to plead their case in person with President Hayes. They left behind testimonies of the truthfulness of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, of Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, and of plural marriage as being the will of God.

Well meaning people tried to "save" these women, sending missionaries to Utah to educate them (didn't work), building a lovely and expensive refuge for these polygamous women to escape to (didn't work), the train for them to escape on (didn't work), giving them the vote so they could vote their way out (didn't work), et cetera.

Yet Mormon women proved surprisingly recalcitrant when Protestant anti-polygamy activists offered themselves up as liberators, sisters, and friends. Mormon women

[cinepro]

Bennett's disclosure stunned Orson Pratt. Had the Prophet tried to seduce his wife? To make matters worse, a story circulated of Bennett's possible involvement with Sarah. Nauvoo residents swore they witnessed long nocturnal visits and glimpses of the two in compromising positions. The non-Mormon but friendly Nauvoo resident Jacob Backenstos signed an affidavit stating flatly that Bennett had "illicit intercourse with Mrs. Orson Pratt." In public meeting, Joseph spoke openly about Bennett's relations with Sister Pratt.(32)

(32) Bennett, History of the Saints, 231-32; J.B. Backenstos, Affidavit, July 28, 2842, in Affidavits and Certificates; JS, Journal, July 15, 1842, in The Papers of Joseph Smith, 2:399. The date of the public discussion differs in the accounts, Joseph's journal dates it as July 15; the Sangamo Journal, July 14. England, Orson Pratt, 79.

- Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, p. 466

That's it for me, I'll check again later.

As noted by Rollo, it's very confusing, because there were two Orsons in Church leadership in Nauvoo:

Orson Hyde

Orson Pratt

Both of their wives are involved in the stories of Nauvoo-era polygamy, and both Orsons received disipline and censure from the Church in their lives.

But their stories are different in many ways, and we should probably try to keep them clear. The first post in this thread refers to Orson Hyde and his wife Nancy (Marinda) Hyde.

Orson Hyde was the one who was ex'd in 1838 for going against Joseph Smith, was later reinstated, and dedicated the Holy Land. Later in life, he never got along with Brigham Young, and missed out on being the third prophet becuase of his previous excommunication and subsequent loss of seniority in the quorum.

Joseph was sealed to Nancy Hyde in April of 1842.

The story of Orson and Sarah Pratt went a little differently. Here's Richard Von Wagoner's take on the tale:

Bennett would play a major role in the controversy that would follow Sarah Pratt all her life. Sometime in late 1840 or early 1841, Joseph confided to his friend that he was smitten by the "amiable and accomplished" Sarah Pratt and wanted her for "one of his spiritual wives, for the Lord had given her to him as a special favor for his faithfulness" (emphasis in original). Shortly afterward, the two men took some of Bennett's sewing to Sarah's house. During the visit, as Bennett describes it, Joseph said, "Sister Pratt, the Lord has given you to me as one of my spiritual wives. I have the blessings of Jacob granted me, as God granted holy men of old, and as I have long looked upon you with favor, and an earnest desire of connubial bliss, I hope you will not repulse or deny me." "And is that the great secret that I am not to utter," Sarah replied. "Am I called upon to break the marriage covenant, and prove recreant to my lawful husband! I never will." She added, "I care not for the blessings of Jacob. I have one good husband, and that is enough for me." But according to Bennett, the Prophet was persistent. Finally Sarah angrily told him on a subsequent visit, "Joseph, if you ever attempt any thing of the kind with me again, I will make a full disclosure to Mr. Pratt on his return home. Depend upon it, I will certainly do it." "Sister Pratt," the Prophet responded, "I hope you will not expose me, for if I suffer, all must suffer; so do not expose me. Will you promise me that you will not do it?" "If you will never insult me again," Sarah replied, "I will not expose you unless strong circumstances should require it." "If you should tell," the Prophet added, "I will ruin your reputation, remember that" (Bennett 1842a, 228-31; emphasis in original) .

According to Bennett, Sarah kept her promise. Even Orson did not know of the incident. Later Sarah recalled that "shortly after Joseph made his propositions to me . . . they enraged me so that I refused to accept any help from the tithing house or the bishop." She also added that "Bennett, who was of a sarcastic turn of mind, used to come and tell me about Joseph to tease and irritate me" (Wyl 1886, 61) .

Nearly a year after Orson's return to Nauvoo, in mid-July 1841, another incident, according to Bennett, forced Sarah to tell Orson of the Prophet's behavior. If one believes Bennett's account, Joseph kissed Sarah in his counselor's presence. Sarah caused a commotion that apparently roused at least one neighbor, Mary Ettie V. Smith, who lived across the street from the Pratts. She recalled eighteen years later that during the fracas "Sarah ordered the Prophet out of the house, and the Prophet used obscene language to her" declaring that he had found John C. Bennett "in bed with her" (Green 1859, 31).

Bennett recounts (1842a, 231) that when Sarah told her husband of the Prophet's behavior, Orson approached Joseph and told him "never to offer an insult of the like again." Though full details of the confrontation between the two men have not been uncovered, it seems certain from subsequent events that Joseph not only denied Sarah's allegations, but accused her of being Bennett's paramour. Orson believed Sarah, however, a position that caused serious difficulties between him and Joseph Smith.

The rift between Joseph and Orson Pratt became public on 11 May 1842, one day after Sarah had given birth to daughter Celestia Larissa, when Church leaders announced that John C. Bennett would be disfellowshipped. According to Bennett, Orson Pratt refused to sign the announcement because, as he put it, "he knew nothing against him" (Bennett 1842a, 40-41). Perhaps as a result of this mild resistance, six days later, on 17 May, Joseph Smith wrote to Church Recorder James Sloan, "You will be so good as to permit Bennett to withdraw his name from the Church record, if he desires to do so, and this with the best of feelings towards you and General Bennett" (Bennett 1842a, 40-41). Two days later at a Nauvoo City Council meeting where Bennett turned over the mayorship to the Prophet, Joseph asked Bennett if he had anything against him. The former mayor responded: "I know what I am about, and the heads of the Church know what they are about, I expect. I have no difficulty with the heads of the Church. I publicly avow that any one who has said that I have stated that General Smith has given me authority to hold illicit intercourse with women is a liar in the face of God" (HC 5:38).

Bennett was referring to widely circulated rumors about polygamy or "spiritual wifery," as it was usually called in Nauvoo. Accusations and denials abounded. For example, in mid-January 1842, Martha Brotherton, a young Nauvoo woman, was allegedly approached by Brigham Young in Joseph Smith's private office. "Were it lawful and right," Brotherton reported Young as saying, "could [you] accept of me for your husband and companion? . . . Brother Joseph has had a revelation from God that it is lawful and right for a man to have two wives; for as it was in the days of Abraham, so it shall be in these last days . . . if you will accept of me, I will take you straight to the celestial kingdom." Brigham then left the room and returned ten minutes later with the Prophet. "Just go ahead, and do as Brigham wants you to," Brotherton reported Smith as saying. "I know that this is lawful and right . . . I have the keys of the kingdom, and whatever I bind on earth is bound in heaven, and whatever I loose on earth is loosed in heaven." Martha noted she begged for time to consider, then left for Saint Louis, where she published her story in the 15 July 1842 St. Louis Bulletin.

Hyrum Smith, believing Joseph's public posture that polygamy was not sanctioned, addressed the Saints on 7 April 1842 "in contradiction of a report in circulation about Elders Heber C. Kimball, Brigham Young, himself, and others of the Twelve, alleging that a sister had been shut in a room for several days, and that they had endeavored to induce her to believe in having two wives." Joseph then addressed the group: "There is no person that is acquainted with our principles who would believe such lies" (HC 4:585-86).

............................

Joseph continued to be infuriated by Pratt, Rigdon, and Robinson's refusal to certify his "high moral character." As his brother Hyrum addressed the Saints on 25 August, the Prophet appeared, causing a stir. Taking the stand, he admonished the Twelve and others to "support the character of the prophet, the Lord's anointed." He lashed out at "O[rson] Pratt and others of the same class [who] caused trouble by telling stories to people who would betray me, and they must believe these stories because his Wife told him so!" "And as to all that Orson Pratt, Sidney Rigdon, or George W. Robinson can do to prevent me," the Prophet concluded, "I can kick them off my heels, as many as you can name" (Manuscript History, 29 Aug. 1842).

Smith continued with a plea for volunteers to "disabuse the public mind in relation to these false statements of Dr. J. C. Bennett." To provide ample ammunition to the 380 elders who volunteered, the Church press printed on 31 August a special edition of The Wasp which contained "Affidavits and Certificates, Disproving the Statements and Affidavits contained In John C. Bennett's Letters." To discredit Sarah Pratt's accusations, the publication contained a 23 July 1842 letter allegedly from Stephen A. Goddard, whom Sarah had boarded with in 1840, to Orson Pratt:

. . . considering it a duty upon me I now communicate unto you some things relative to Dr. Bennett and your wife.... I took your wife into my house because she was destitute of a house, Oct. 6, 1840, and from the first night, until the last, with the exception of one night, it being nearly a month, the Dr. was there as sure as the night came.... One night they took their chairs out of doors and remained there we supposed until 12 o'clock or after; at another time they went over to the house where you now live and came back after dark, or about that time. We went over several times late in the evening while she lived in the house of Dr. Foster, and were most sure to find Dr. Bennett and your wife together, as it were, man and wife.

The special edition also contained a sworn statement from Stephen Goddard's wife Zeruiah: "I would further state that from my own observation, I am satisfied that their conduct was anything but virtuous, and I know Mrs. Pratt is not a woman of truth, and I believe the statements which Dr. Bennett made concerning Joseph Smith are false, and fabricated for the purpose of covering his own iniquities, and enabling him to practice his base designs on the innocent."

Years later, when disaffected from the Church, Sarah gave her account of the Goddard incident:

In his endeavors to ruin my character Joseph went so far as to publish an extra-sheet containing affidavits against my reputation. When this sheet was brought to me I discovered to my astonishment the names of two people on it, man and wife, with whom I had boarded for a certain time.... I went to their house; the man left the house hurriedly when he saw me coming. I found the wife and said to her rather excitedly: "What does it all mean?" She began to sob. "It is not my fault" said she. "Hyrum Smith came to our house, with the affidavits all written out, and forced us to sign them. 'Joseph and the Church must be saved,' said he. We saw that resistance was useless, they would have ruined us; so we signed the papers" (Wyl 1886, 62-63; emphasis in original).

The Goddard story had serious problems that even Sarah did not point out. John C. Bennett had been appointed 4 October 1840 to help Joseph Smith draft the Nauvoo Charter and was selected as a delegate to lobby the passage of the bill through the legislature at Springfield, almost a hundred miles away. That Bennett could draft the complicated documents, travel to and from Springfield, and be with Sarah Pratt every night except one during a one-month period, seems highly improbable. In addition, it seems unlikely that if Sarah and Bennett were having an affair they would flaunt their illicit behavior before the Goddards-- personal friends of Orson Pratt.

Sarah M. Pratt:

The Shaping of An Apostate

Richard S. Van Wagoner

Dialogue, Vol.19, No.2, p.72 - p.73

The whole dialogue article is here:

http://content.lib.utah.edu/cgi-bin/docvie...e&CISOPTR=19553

Sarah Pratt has a really interesting story, especially for those who only get the Ensign version of Utah pioneer life.

[dimbulb]

I stand rebuked. How could anyone find such behavior troubling?

Thanks for an enlightening and interesting post, cinepro.

[Jaybear]

Nighthawk:

Well meaning people tried to "save" these women, sending missionaries to Utah to educate them (didn't work), building a lovely and expensive refuge for these polygamous women to escape to (didn't work), the train for them to escape on (didn't work), giving them the vote so they could vote their way out (didn't work), et cetera.

You are correct the most effective tactic employed by well meaning people to curb polygamy was to hit the Church where it hurt the most, its pocketbook.

Btw, your post does not offer compelling support for the divine nature of the doctine of polgyamy, but a stark reminder of the powerfully dangerous force of relgious indoctrination. One need only look to the women of Hildale and Colorado City to see the product of religious indoctrination. Here are otherwise decent, God fearing testimony bearing women, who at the direction of the lord's chosen pophet will leave a husband accused of apostacy and marry his brother. Women that will give away their 13 year old girls to men in their 40s and 50s, and step aside when their sons are forced out of the cult, to maintain a suitable inventory of brides.

The LDS church owes a debt of gratitude for the US Govt. for its well meaning effort to force the Lord's Church to suspend the practice of polygamy. It is hard to imagine what Utah would be like if the LDS church had succeeded in challenging the constitutionality of the laws against polygamy.