Do All Churches “Hide” History?

[Palerider]

You are still asking a different question than what the study was asking, though I am perfectly happy to grant that is something that should be included in any extended analysis of the issue.

Here is what is stated as the study's aim:

Note the study was performed to address just certain of the criticisms against Joseph Smith, one of which is a claim that JS was a pervert for marrying young women such as Hitchens describing him as a "serial practitioner of statutory rape". One can use the age of the wives of men who were similar in age to Joseph Smith to demonstrate that in and of itself, the age of the women was not outside the acceptable range. IOW, it was solely the polygyny that was abnormal for the culture so he might have been a pervert for marrying multiple women all at once (he could after all have married only the young women one after the other if each had died and left him a widower likely without comment except for his bad luck at losing wives), but by his society's standards the age of the women was acceptable.

The point is to isolate the sensationalized presentist claims of perversion (such as statutory rape) apart from the realistic claims of abnormality (polygyny). Your position that one can't compare his plural marriages with monogamous ones places the polygyny as the only essential characteristic of his marriages....which is, imo, an unfounded assumption.

I would agree that Joseph was not a rapist (even statutory) or even "perverted" in the normal sense of the word. But if the study is to ask "Did Joseph break the laws of his society" then the answer is undoubtedly "yes" because plural marriage was and is illegal in the United States. But regarding your hypothesis: " (he could after all have married only the young women one after the other if each had died and left him a widower likely without comment except for his bad luck at losing wives), but by his society's standards the age of the women was acceptable." IMO needs a little more honesty applied. Please tell me that if your nearly forty year old neighbor living in Victorian times had had the (strange I know) opportunity of marrying 9 or 10 times and consistently picked girls under 18, that even your Victorian sensibilities of propriety would not have been challenged? It isn't the occasional marriage of an older man to a younger woman (in those times) that I find questionable. It is the repetitive nature of Joseph's choices.

Aside from that, I'd just like to know your opinion of why there had to be so many regardless of age? If the command was to enter into plural marriage, wouldn't two, three, or even four have been more than sufficient?

[Calm]

I would agree that Joseph was not a rapist (even statutory) or even "perverted" in the normal sense of the word. But if the study is to ask "Did Joseph break the laws of his society" then the answer is undoubtedly "yes" because plural marriage was and is illegal in the United States.

That would depend on how one defines "plural marriage" and exactly how Joseph practiced it, of which we know little. If you define "plural marriage" as a religious sealing without any marital intimacy, I'd like to see you demonstrate that was illegal at the time that Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage. Since his plural marriages were not civil marriages, I don't see how they could be considered bigamy either, at best they could be considered adultery I would think (though I'm not going to pretend I have any background in legal studies, I am going by what seems logical to me), so if adultery was illegal, it is possible that if there were sexual relations that he was engaging in an illegal practice. In any case, the religious sealings in and of themselves were not illegal at the time and unless you can demonstrate that there was physical intimacies, I am not sure how you can confidently proclaim that he was breaking the law.

Just to avoid that rabbit trail, I am not suggesting that all of his plural marriages were platonic, ceremonial religious sealings only. I believe there is enough evidence that there was likely a few of the relationship that were consummated. I believe there is strong evidence that there was no physical intimacy in the youngest marriage with HM Kimball (Compton and most other scholars hold this position as well, I believe), there is no evidence one way or either for any other marriages under the age of 17 (though this depends on what age one accepts for Alger's relationship) and strong evidence imo for one of the 17 year old for having no physical intimacy. Also the lack of any likely offspring (according to DNA studies) among his plural wives when compared to his very prolific marriage with Emma (9 or 10 children IIRC) would seem to suggest that if the purpose of these marriages were to satisfy his lust, he wasn't terribly successful at that part of it even if he was successful at 'obtaining women' for his collection. It seems to me that it is much more likely that physical relationships were limited to a few of the women and did not occur all that often (very few reports over all of witnesses IIRC)...again strange behaviour for a man who engaged in polygyny for lustful purposes, not strange if his purpose was to use sealings to create a new form of an extended celestial/eternal family based on dynastic principles.

But regarding your hypothesis: " (he could after all have married only the young women one after the other if each had died and left him a widower likely without comment except for his bad luck at losing wives), but by his society's standards the age of the women was acceptable." IMO needs a little more honesty applied. Please tell me that if your nearly forty year old neighbor living in Victorian times had had the (strange I know) opportunity of marrying 9 or 10 times and consistently picked girls under 18, that even your Victorian sensibilities of propriety would not have been challenged?

As a totally off topic comment, I love how critics will describe Joseph as "nearly forty" but pretty much always use the age of 14 for Helen (who has three months short of 15), the lower numbers for his wives, the higher number for him. I wonder why?

add-on: Note this comment in the article...

To my knowledge, the issue of age disparity was not a charge raised by critics in Joseph's day. It is difficult to prove a negative, but the absence of much comment on this point is probably best explained by the fact that plural marriage was scandalous, but marriages with teenage women were, if not the norm, at least not uncommon enough to occasion comment.

It is not as if there wasn't plenty of opportunity to comment about the age disparity at the same time as condemning his plural marriages. That we have plenty of commentary on the issue of plural marriage, but little or none on age disparity needs explaining if someone thinks of it as an issue for his culture.

The situation (of multiple marriages one after another) would be strange enough that it would likely draw comment, yes. I was trying to figure out an analogy that demonstrated that Joseph's choices weren't unusual for his time, rather it was the fact he had multiple choices that was at issue. I'm not sure that I can think of an analogy that works because having even five wives 'serially' is just too unusual no matter what their ages are. As to marrying one woman under the age of 18, I don't see how if this is moral, why monogamously marrying multiple women under the age of 18 would be immoral. What is the rationale? He's attracted to younger women? Wouldn't that likely be the same rationale for the man marrying one woman under the age of 18.

And this doesn't really relate to Joseph because he didn't just choose women under the age of 18.

So like you said, let's be honest about his actual choices since that is pretty much all we have to judge him by save his claim for being commanded by God to do so...you can speculate about the reasons all you want, but the fact remains that Joseph did not choose to marry 10 women under the age of 18 one after another as in your example. Only one fifth of his marriages were under the age of 18, a total of 7 out of 33.

It isn't the occasional marriage of an older man to a younger woman (in those times) that I find questionable. It is the repetitive nature of Joseph's choices.

I don't see 7 out of 33 as establishing any repetitive pattern, especially when 9 of his wives were his age (37) or older with 4 of those 50 and older, meaning likely menopausal or postmenopausal, not exactly in the bloom of life (especially if the view I've gotten from reading literature from that era is correct where any women over the age of 30 was considered a spinster and viewed as having few 'prospects). In fact, while it is true that his first likely wife, Fanny Alger was either 16 or 18, he did not marry another woman under the age of 20 until his fifteenth wife, Sarah Whitney and only three of those wives were under the age of 27 (one 20, two 23) and after his fifteenth wife, the numbers were equally spread between older than 27 and younger than. So I don't see any repetitive pattern of marrying younger women here.

Aside from that, I'd just like to know your opinion of why there had to be so many regardless of age? If the command was to enter into plural marriage, wouldn't two, three, or even four have been more than sufficient?

That would depend on the reasons for the sealings in the first, second and third place. If it was simply to satisfy the command to engage in plural marriage, then it makes sense that he would take as few as wives as he felt met the requirement. If Joseph understood the purpose of sealings to be the creation of an extended heavenly family, then I believe it makes sense to have it as large as possible. Since his behaviour followed the first pattern first (one wife possibly in 33, then a likely sealing only marriage in 38 followed three years later with three marriages spread out in 41) and then he shifted into having many more marriages/sealings take place (28 between Jan of 42 and Nov 43), it fits for me a pattern of evolving understanding as he gained in knowledge of the purpose of plural marriage/sealings after his faithful obedience to the commandment. Given time, I think it likely his understanding would have continued to evolve (line upon line is an established scriptural principle where prophets have been given revelation after demonstrating obedience) to something closer to what we have today. I think the dynastic idea was more likely a result of scriptural and cultural interpretation than revelation and I believe the revelation given to President Woodruff clarified the purpose of sealings for eternal families further.

[Palerider]

Please get permission to post his own comments so you won't have to paraphrase.

In the meantime I would be interested in knowing how you would construct a study in order to study the differences and similarities between JS's plural marriages to the monogamous marriages of his culture.

Calmoriah,

I am posting verbatim, copied from his email, my professor's comments. I didn't get his permission to do so although I don't think he would mind, but I am redacting his name just in case. Take it for what it's worth.

A couple of comments:

1) Never get into a discussion involving religion and marital (thinly veiled sexual) practices and assume that logic will win out; it won't happen, so don't go there. Rationales can be built and defended without evidence.

2) I quickly reviewed the site that you mentioned and its appears that the author's singular purpose was to explain -- and not necessarily defend - the practice of polygamy in the LDS culture at that time. Contrary to your contention, this is not a study, it is merely a socio-demographic explanation of the practice. And consistent with your contention, a more proper comparison would have been to examine the age distribution of wives across other polygamous culture during the same time period. Although the author tries this, it is inadequate: there is a huge literature in sociology and family sociology on this subject. Likewise, historically, polygamous marriages (aside from a few cult wackos) were constructed to either maximize population growth (usually associated with geographic areas with high infant or childhood mortality) or wealth accumulation. Or both. Likewise, wives and children (and cows) were considered chattel - the more you could afford to maintain, the higher your status within the community. In this case, age of the wives is not relevant other than to maximize fecundity; as the wife gets older the less likely she is to have children - so you have to getting getting young wives (especially in times where life expectancy is short); conversely, the older the man gets, the marriages become less about offspring and more about securing and maintaining political and economic footings.

I hope this helps - but I am sure it will not settle the argument between you and your associates (see point 1).

--

Regards,

Ph.D.

Center for Social Dynamics And Complexity

Professor, School of Social & Family Dynamics

Arizona State University

Tempe, AZ 85287-4804

[Calm]

And consistent with your contention, a more proper comparison would have been to examine the age distribution of wives across other polygamous culture during the same time period.

Except for the problem that the reason for the comparison was to demonstrate what was considered right in proper in his own culture, not in other ones.

Let me see if this makes more sense---the comparison was done to answer this question: among the men who Joseph lived among, when they became aware of his multiple marriages, would they likely say to themselves "that is something I would never do" in regards to the ages of and age disparity with the women he was sealed to (even if one assumes they would have said "I would never marry more than one woman at a time" based on the evidence that the vast majority of men in that culture did not).

Or put another way, would women of the various ages of his wives if walking down the street looked at Joseph without knowing who he was tell themselves "I wouldn't mind marrying him" or would they think such a relationship totally inappropriate due to their respective ages.....

Besides the parallels of specific behaviours established with the demographics of his culture, there is also the lack of evidence for any criticisms along these lines until a much later date.

[Libs]

That would depend on how one defines "plural marriage" and exactly how Joseph practiced it, of which we know little. If you define "plural marriage" as a religious sealing without any marital intimacy, I'd like to see you demonstrate that was illegal at the time that Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage. Since his plural marriages were not civil marriages, I don't see how they could be considered bigamy either, at best they could be considered adultery I would think (though I'm not going to pretend I have any background in legal studies, I am going by what seems logical to me), so if adultery was illegal, it is possible that if there were sexual relations that he was engaging in an illegal practice. In any case, the religious sealings in and of themselves were not illegal at the time and unless you can demonstrate that there was physical intimacies, I am not sure how you can confidently proclaim that he was breaking the law.

Just to avoid that rabbit trail, I am not suggesting that all of his plural marriages were platonic, ceremonial religious sealings only. I believe there is enough evidence that there was likely a few of the relationship that were consummated. I believe there is strong evidence that there was no physical intimacy in the youngest marriage with HM Kimball (Compton and most other scholars hold this position as well, I believe), there is no evidence one way or either for any other marriages under the age of 17 (though this depends on what age one accepts for Alger's relationship) and strong evidence imo for one of the 17 year old for having no physical intimacy. Also the lack of any likely offspring (according to DNA studies) among his plural wives when compared to his very prolific marriage with Emma (9 or 10 children IIRC) would seem to suggest that if the purpose of these marriages were to satisfy his lust, he wasn't terribly successful at that part of it even if he was successful at 'obtaining women' for his collection. It seems to me that it is much more likely that physical relationships were limited to a few of the women and did not occur all that often (very few reports over all of witnesses IIRC)...again strange behaviour for a man who engaged in polygyny for lustful purposes, not strange if his purpose was to use sealings to create a new form of an extended celestial/eternal family based on dynastic principles.

As a totally off topic comment, I love how critics will describe Joseph as "nearly forty" but pretty much always use the age of 14 for Helen (who has three months short of 15), the lower numbers for his wives, the higher number for him. I wonder why?

add-on: Note this comment in the article...

It is not as if there wasn't plenty of opportunity to comment about the age disparity at the same time as condemning his plural marriages. That we have plenty of commentary on the issue of plural marriage, but little or none on age disparity needs explaining if someone thinks of it as an issue for his culture.

The situation (of multiple marriages one after another) would be strange enough that it would likely draw comment, yes. I was trying to figure out an analogy that demonstrated that Joseph's choices weren't unusual for his time, rather it was the fact he had multiple choices that was at issue. I'm not sure that I can think of an analogy that works because having even five wives 'serially' is just too unusual no matter what their ages are. As to marrying one woman under the age of 18, I don't see how if this is moral, why monogamously marrying multiple women under the age of 18 would be immoral. What is the rationale? He's attracted to younger women? Wouldn't that likely be the same rationale for the man marrying one woman under the age of 18.

And this doesn't really relate to Joseph because he didn't just choose women under the age of 18.

So like you said, let's be honest about his actual choices since that is pretty much all we have to judge him by save his claim for being commanded by God to do so...you can speculate about the reasons all you want, but the fact remains that Joseph did not choose to marry 10 women under the age of 18 one after another as in your example. Only one fifth of his marriages were under the age of 18, a total of 7 out of 33. I don't see 7 out of 33 as establishing any repetitive pattern, especially when 9 of his wives were his age (37) or older with 4 of those 50 and older, meaning likely menopausal or postmenopausal, not exactly in the bloom of life (especially if the view I've gotten from reading literature from that era is correct where any women over the age of 30 was considered a spinster and viewed as having few 'prospects). In fact, while it is true that his first likely wife, Fanny Alger was either 16 or 18, he did not marry another woman under the age of 20 until his fifteenth wife, Sarah Whitney and only three of those wives were under the age of 27 (one 20, two 23) and after his fifteenth wife, the numbers were equally spread between older than 27 and younger than. So I don't see any repetitive pattern of marrying younger women here.

That would depend on the reasons for the sealings in the first, second and third place. If it was simply to satisfy the command to engage in plural marriage, then it makes sense that he would take as few as wives as he felt met the requirement. If Joseph understood the purpose of sealings to be the creation of an extended heavenly family, then I believe it makes sense to have it as large as possible. Since his behaviour followed the first pattern first (one wife possibly in 33, then a likely sealing only marriage in 38 followed three years later with three marriages spread out in 41) and then he shifted into having many more marriages/sealings take place (28 between Jan of 42 and Nov 43), it fits for me a pattern of evolving understanding as he gained in knowledge of the purpose of plural marriage/sealings after his faithful obedience to the commandment. Given time, I think it likely his understanding would have continued to evolve (line upon line is an established scriptural principle where prophets have been given revelation after demonstrating obedience) to something closer to what we have today. I think the dynastic idea was more likely a result of scriptural and cultural interpretation than revelation and I believe the revelation given to President Woodruff clarified the purpose of sealings for eternal families further.

This was a very good post, Cal. I don't think I've ever seen Joseph's polygamy explained like that.

The article I read (from FAIR) was mostly about trying to justify polygamy in terms of "civil disobedience". It seemed to imply that polygamy was against the law, that Joseph Smith was doing something illegal, but justified in doing it, because he was following the greater law of God.

[cksalmon]

Denomination in the end is little more than a designation of any subgroup, whether it be a denomination of baptists, or christianity, or denomination of theists in general.

Again, that's just not how the term is used. You're misusing to your own end.

The term is vague and not workable since baptists often do consider themselves distinct on a religious level with Catholics.

Whether or not Baptists consider themselves "consider themselves distinct on a religious level with Catholics," the word "denomination," in the way that I've used it, is neither vague nor unusable. You just aren't using it correctly.

...ask any Baptist about "Mormons" and they will tell you that it is a different religion, not a different denomination of the religion they follow.

Quite so, since the two groups affirm as core elements of their respective faiths beliefs that are mutually contradictory. That's certainly not the case with the denominations I put forth for consideration. (I never mentioned Roman Catholics, by the way.)

Suddenly we end up with "not denominations of Christianity" (all claiming to be the one true followers of Christ), but different "religions" that claim to be the true followers of Christ. If you posit a Baptist and ask them if they are of the same religion as Catholics, only a different denomination, you will be in for a most unpleasent suprise.

Depends who you ask. But, again, I referred only to Protestant denominations--not RCC. The Roman Catholic Church certainly does not consider itself one denomination among many. As with Mormonism, the traditional position of the Roman Catholic Church has been to view itself as the One True Church ("extra ecclesiam nulla salus"). But, again, depends who you ask.

But, I never said Roman Catholicism was just another denomination amongst many in the sense that I'm using the term.

Your tendency to do what?

Well, of course, I'm referring to your charge that I "tend to overlook that most of those who do the complaining don't want the actual story, they want 'their version' of it." That's what you wrote about me. I have no idea what you're referring to, but there it is.

Do you believe you have an objective version that is somehow perfectly contextual and in effect unassailable? If you believe so, then you have achieved what no historian in modern times believes to be possible. One wonders how you have achieved such a miracle when others will acknowledge that such is not possible?

You're being overly dramatic. I was referring to your opaque reference to my purported tendency to overlook the duplicity of people who complain a lot about Mormonism--or something.

And whether I speak of denomination or religion, the two can be collapsed since a baptist does not consider the catholic church to be a shared religion. Indeed they reject the Catholic church in both authority and difference in theology.

That's precisely the point at which the two cannot be collapsed; that's the point at which the word actually has meaning. I'll let you have the last word on that, though, since we don't seem to be making any headway.

People take their denomination to heart and identify with it closely. And their religion.

You indicated that there's no difference, so I'm not sure how you intend the distinction.

Now to your questions.

1-The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is a Christian church, we follow Christ, and we claim He leads our church. Many churches consider ours to be a separate religion, but we identify ours as Christian. We follow Christ and His teachings.

...

Do you mean in the sense that a true source can be a subset of other groups?

...

But with these versions being pushed in my face, I generally try to raise points that bring into question "their version" of my denomination's history, unfortunately many will hear none of it. Hence giving rise to my statement point.

I certainly don't want to put words in your mouth, but I'm still not clear on how you view CoJCoLDS. You've referred to it as a Christian church and as a denomination. You appear to be saying either that it's one denomination amongst many or that there were/are various and sundry "Christianities" out there, each as legitimate as any other (a view popular among certain unbelieving and/or apostate biblical scholars--and some Mormons too).

At any rate, thanks for the discussion, Jeff.

cks

PS. If you see a lot of italicization above, it's not intentional. It appears to be gone now.

[Calm]

This was a very good post, Cal. I don't think I've ever seen Joseph's polygamy explained like that.

The article I read (from FAIR) was mostly about trying to justify polygamy in terms of "civil disobedience". It seemed to imply that polygamy was against the law, that Joseph Smith was doing something illegal, but justified in doing it, because he was following the greater law of God.

Which article was that?

Oh, and thank you btw for the compliment.

[Libs]

Which article was that?

Oh, and thank you btw for the compliment.

Well, I had to go looking for it, because I read it quite some time ago. This is the one.

http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf

Polygamy was certainly declared illegal during the Utah-era anti-polygamy crusade, and arguably illegal under the Illinois anti-bigamy statutes. This is hardly new information, and Church members and their critics knew it.9 Modern

members of the Church generally miss the significance of this fact, however: the practice of polygamy was a clear case of civil disobedience.

The decision to defy the [anti-polygamy laws] was a painful exception to an otherwise firm commitment to the rule of law and order. Significantly, however, in choosing to defy the law, the Latter-day Saints were actually following in an American tradition of civil disobedience. On various previous occasions, including the years before the Revolutionary War, Americans had found certain laws offensive to their fundamental values and had decided openly to violate them.…Even though declared constitutional, the law was still repugnant to all [the Saints’] values,

and they were willing to face harassment, exile, or imprisonment rather than bow to its demands.10

[Calm]

Well, I had to go looking for it, because I read it quite some time ago. This is the one.

http://www.fairlds.o...evarication.pdf

IIRC, I understood the claim of civil disobedience here is being applied to the latter practice in Utah where they were willing to go to jail, etc. rather than stop (and only did stop the practice after the revelation where the Lord directed them to stop). I'll have to go and reread the whole article to see if my understanding was wrong.

add-on: Yep, the civil disobedience section talks about the anti-polygamy laws which were laws that specifically targeted plural marriage. These came into being in the Utah period, not during JS's time. IIRC, the law suits and other legal actions brought against him did not include ones for polygamy.

The only justification I am aware of for polygamy that we have any actual evidence for (as opposed to speculation) is that God commanded it. IIRC, Widtsoe points this out in his Evidences and Reconciliations. So bottomline as far as I am concerned is that judging plural marriage among the LDS as right or wrong is a faith position and I don't try and argue that someone is wrong if they state they don't believe that God commanded it, unlike my willingness to debate something like a claim that Joseph's only or primary reason for engaging in polygamy was to satisfy his lust for younger women or women in general which I think can be disproved or at least demonstrated unlikely based on the data.

I also think that pointing out that the Saints' behaviour in regards to the laws created specifically to target LDS plural marriage was civil disobedience is correct, one only has to read the declaration to see that, imo.

[Libs]

It mentions Nauvoo, as well, in that first paragraph I quoted. But, your explanation makes more sense, if they were not being married by the State, but rather in religious sealings (that really had nothing to do with the State of Illinois)..

[Palerider]

Except for the problem that the reason for the comparison was to demonstrate what was considered right in proper in his own culture, not in other ones.

Let me see if this makes more sense---the comparison was done to answer this question: among the men who Joseph lived among, when they became aware of his multiple marriages, would they likely say to themselves "that is something I would never do" in regards to the ages of and age disparity with the women he was sealed to (even if one assumes they would have said "I would never marry more than one woman at a time" based on the evidence that the vast majority of men in that culture did not).

Or put another way, would women of the various ages of his wives if walking down the street looked at Joseph without knowing who he was tell themselves "I wouldn't mind marrying him" or would they think such a relationship totally inappropriate due to their respective ages.....

Besides the parallels of specific behaviours established with the demographics of his culture, there is also the lack of evidence for any criticisms along these lines until a much later date.

Your quote:

"Creating a new theory for each situation is not all that helpful."

Look......., you're dealing in the entirely hypothetical now. You're saying, "We can conclude that Joseph Smith was doing something that was socially acceptable in marrying teenage girls because (by comparison) occasionally in his culture and time period, an older man would marry a teenage girl and it was accepted by society.

The problem with that theory is that there is no comparison..........

It becomes incomparable because of the number of opportunities for choice.

Now....if you could show me a study or comparison from Joseph's time period, demonstrating that out of 20,000 men who each had approximately 30 wives, and of those thirty the number of teenage wives equaled aproximately thirty percent of the total number of wives each man had, I would say:

Hey! You're absolutely right! Joseph falls right in line with the normative morals of his day. Those bad old critics are just trying to smear his good name.......

Otherwise you're just "dancin' with the devil"..............

Also I just don't buy the great difference between sealing and eternal marriage or the aspect that he wasn't conjugal with the majority of his wives. The BofM states that the main reason for instituting plural wives is to build up seed to the Lord. Obviously Brigham and all the rest of the pluralists were following Joseph's example because they most certainly had marital relations with their wives. Why would Joseph have been any different? Just because the church hasn't found any DNA matches has nothing to do with whether the man had intimacy with his wives. The lack of children doesn't mean you aren't physically engaged.

Compton writes:

"Because of claims by Reorganized Latter-day Saints that Joseph was not really married polygamously in the full (i.e., sexual) sense of the term, Utah Mormons (including Joseph's wives) affirmed repeatedly that Joseph had physical sexual relations with his plural wives-despite the Victorian conventions in nineteenth-century American religion which otherwise would have prevented mention of sexual relations in marriage."

- Faithful Mormon Melissa Lott (Smith Willes) testified that she had been Joseph's wife "in very deed." (Affidavit of Melissa Willes, 3 Aug. 1893, Temple Lot case, 98, 105; Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 156.)

- In a court affidavit, faithful Mormon Joseph Noble wrote that Joseph told him he had spent the night with Louisa Beaman. (Temple Lot Case, 427)

- Emily D. Partridge (Smith Young) said she "roomed" with Joseph the night following her marriage to him and said that she had "carnal intercourse" with him. (Temple Lot case (complete transcript), 364, 367, 384; see Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 15.)

In total, 13 faithful latter-day saint women who were married to Joseph Smith swore court affidavits that they had sexual relations with him.

- Joseph Smith's personal secretary records that on May 22nd, 1843, Smith's first wife Emma found Joseph and Eliza Partridge secluded in an upstairs bedroom at the Smith home. Emma was devastated.

William Clayton's journal entry for 23 May (see Smith, 105-106)

- Smith's secretary William Clayton also recorded a visit to young Almera Johnson on May 16, 1843: "Prest. Joseph and I went to B[enjamin] F. Johnsons to sleep." Johnson himself later noted that on this visit Smith stayed with Almera "as man and wife" and "occupied the same room and bed with my sister, that the previous month he had occupied with the daughter of the late Bishop Partridge as his wife." Almera Johnson also confirmed her secret marriage to Joseph Smith: "I lived with the prophet Joseph as his wife and he visited me at the home of my brother Benjamin F." (Zimmerman, I Knew the Prophets, 44. See also "The Origin of Plural Marriage, Joseph F. Smith, Jr., Deseret News Press, page 70-71.) - Faithful Mormon and Stake President Angus Cannon told Joseph Smith's son: "Brother Heber C. Kimball, I am informed, asked [Eliza R. Snow] the question if she was not a virgin although married to Joseph Smith and afterwards to Brigham Young, when she replied in a private gathering, "I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that."" (Stake President Angus M. Cannon, statement of interview with Joseph III, 23, LDS archives.)

[Calm]

It mentions Nauvoo, as well, in that first paragraph I quoted. But, your explanation makes more sense, if they were not being married by the State, but rather in religious sealings (that really had nothing to do with the State of Illinois)..

I believe that plural marriages/sealings were never considered a civil institution, but only a religious one. IIRC, the claim that the marriage wasn't civilly recognized and therefore alimony could not be civilly enforced was used in BY's divorce case. But my memory could be wrong and perhaps it was only after the feds got involved and declared plural marriages invalid that they were no longer recognized as civil ceremonies by LDS.

[Calm]

The problem with that theory is that there is no comparison..........

Since it is obvious that we do not agree on this, how about we just state that each of us has made our argument and leave it at that.

Also I just don't buy the great difference between sealing and eternal marriage or the aspect that he wasn't conjugal with the majority of his wives.

It is quite possible that he was conjugal with the majority of his wives. I'm not going to argue against that. I have never been one who insists that "sealing" is never equivalent to "marriage". I will argue against conjugal intimacies being a frequent occurrence and therefore the primary reason for the plural marriage was to satisfy his lust, especially with younger women.

Majority of his wives....let us assume then that he had physical intimacies with at least 20 of them. If polygamy was for the purpose of satisfying his lust, one would assume that he was having relations quite often, at least as often as he had them with Emma (I am not saying with each of his plural wives, rather in toto). Yet during the time period that Joseph practiced plural marriage (from '33 or so to his death in '44), his wife Emma had five children but there is no evidence of any children from his plural marriages, while one would assume that if he was having significant physical relationships with 20 other women there would be quite a number of children to show for it.

As far as I am aware (and your quotes back this up) most descriptions of physical intimacy are talking about one known occasion. I do not assume that this demonstrates that if he had physical relations with a wife it only happened once, but rather that it means that these occasions were quite infrequent or there would have been more reports....and likely some offspring, and thus it's problematic for those who insist that lust was his motivation.

PS: I have to admit that I have a short attention span and am getting really bored with this conversation as it seems I am mostly repeating myself. Would you mind terribly much if we just dropped it for now, perhaps to reopen it in the future if one of us comes up with something new and therefore capable of keeping my attention for a few minutes....pretty please?

[Calm]

Wait, give me just five more minutes on this subject before we close it down....

Something occurred to me that I don't remember seeing you respond to and there ain't no way I'm going back and rereading all of our posts to find it so I'm just going to ask it again....

Would you agree that the lack of evidence of negative commentary about the age of his wives at that time (as opposed to much later on) in the presence of significant negative commentary about the polygamy itself would indicate that the age of his wives was likely not considered an issue (otherwise we would be able to find some complaints about it as we can find plenty of them these days side by side with the complaints of polygamy). Given that one can't proved an attitude if one doesn't have anyone discussing it, it at least seems to indicate that the issue is more or less a nonissue if no one is bothering to talk about it.

[Palerider]

Wait, give me just five more minutes on this subject before we close it down....

Something occurred to me that I don't remember seeing you respond to and there ain't no way I'm going back and rereading all of our posts to find it so I'm just going to ask it again....

Would you agree that the lack of evidence of negative commentary about the age of his wives at that time (as opposed to much later on) in the presence of significant negative commentary about the polygamy itself would indicate that the age of his wives was likely not considered an issue (otherwise we would be able to find some complaints about it as we can find plenty of them these days side by side with the complaints of polygamy). Given that one can't proved an attitude if one doesn't have anyone discussing it, it at least seems to indicate that the issue is more or less a nonissue if no one is bothering to talk about it.

Well, it took me about five minutes to find this quote from Sarah Pratt, wife of Orson. It was given in an 1877 (I believe) interview. I think with a litle more research there's probably plenty more out there to bring your conclusion into question.

"Here was my husband, gray headed, taking to his bed young girls in mockery of marriage. Of course there could be no joy for him in such an intercourse except for the indulgence of his fanaticism and of something else, perhaps, which I hesitate to mention."

I'm sure you are familiar with some of her history.

As to your former suggestion, I'm willing to give it a rest. Thanks for your indulgence

[Calm]

Well, it took me about five minutes to find this quote from Sarah Pratt, wife of Orson. It was given in an 1877 (I believe) interview. I think with a litle more research there's probably plenty more out there to bring your conclusion into question.

"Here was my husband, gray headed, taking to his bed young girls in mockery of marriage. Of course there could be no joy for him in such an intercourse except for the indulgence of his fanaticism and of something else, perhaps, which I hesitate to mention."

Not terribly impressed with it considering how it is not from the Nauvoo time period and isn't even about Joseph Smith.

[Palerider]

Not terribly impressed with it considering how it is not from the Nauvoo time period and isn't even about Joseph Smith.

Plenty close for me

[Calm]

So I realized it might have looked like I just blew off your friend's response when in fact I greatly appreciate it when people make the extra effort to seek out experts' opinions and such. I should have taken the time to explain that, but was in the middle of something and was hopping back and forth between that and the computer so was neglectful. It was very kind of him as well to contribute even though Also I too have my expert to consult and was having that discussion at the same time, my expert being easily accessible across the dinner table since my husband is a full professor who does this kind of research all the time, his Ph.D being in Organizational Psych. I was relatively secure in my own opinion having taken way too many stat and research classes seeking my own degree in clinical psych, but that was eons ago so I doublechecked with him and others who participated in the chapter/article just in case.

It might be helpful to look at the more detailed paper that chapter/article was based off of. See:

Craig L. Foster, David Keller, and Gregory L. Smith, “The Age Joseph

Smith’s Plural Wives in Social and Demographic Context,” in Newell G.

Bringhurst and Craig L. Foster eds., The Persistence of Polygamy: Joseph

Smith and the Origins of Mormon Polygamy, (Independence, John Whitmer

Books Press 2010), 152-183

Here is an online version dealing with the stats that might be helpful as well:

http://www.fairblog.org/2010/12/18/timely-statistics-vindicate-the-prophet/

If you want to continue to challenge the inappropriateness of using a society's own population to determine what is normal behaviour for that society, then I would suggest that you write the FAIR elist

as FAIR is always appreciative when people make suggestions to improve their writings and they have much longer attention spans than I do.

[Calm]

Plenty close for me

If this is your usual standard for appropriate references (using a man of 66 years instead of 36 when the issue is age disparity, 30 years after the fact and not in the same state when the issue is a particular culture in a particular time and place and claiming one such quote means "there's plenty more out there"), then I can see why you are so confidant in your own position so often.

[Palerider]

If this is your usual standard for appropriate references (using a man of 66 years instead of 36 when the issue is age disparity, 30 years after the fact and not in the same state when the issue is a particular culture in a particular time and place and claiming one such quote means "there's plenty more out there"), then I can see why you are so confidant in your own position so often.

Having given this some thought overnight, it dawned on me how ridiculous it would be to even expect contemporary outcries from the general public, owing to the secretive nature of the marriages themselves! Very few people were actually privy to the specific women Joseph had married and they were those who were also practising in the deceit. They weren't talking!

The only reason the public even suspected there was plural marriage occuring at all was because of a few insiders such as William Law who had been approached with and rejected the principle. By publishing the Expositor he was trying to inform the church as much as the public in general.

That Makes Sis. Pratt's expression even more valuable because she was actually critical from inside the church rather than an outsider.

Regarding how much is "out there" in the form of critisizm, I think it an appropriate issue for research and intend to do some more. The fact that it took me five minutes to find the one I did in the face of your claim that there wasn't ANY, shows me your bias in approaching these matters. Have you even made the most miniscule attempt to check the veracity of the claims coming from your side or are you just looking for the "evidence" that supports your own rationale?

Also the disparity in age has always been only a partial issue for me. The youth of some of the girls involved (for some of them truly were more "girls" than "women") regardless of the age of the men, might be more appropriate to primitive societies in the stone age rather than U.S. Edwardian/Victorian society.

I think we're done here.............

[Calm]

Having given this some thought overnight, it dawned on me how ridiculous it would be to even expect contemporary outcries from the general public, owing to the secretive nature of the marriages themselves! Very few people were actually privy to the specific women Joseph had married and they were those who were also practising in the deceit. They weren't talking!

This is definitely a possibility. However, later outcry (beginning in the late 50s about Utah polygamy) was focused on the "greybeards" so the age disparity involving JS again doesn't seem like a major issue at that later time.

The fact that it took me five minutes to find the one I did in the face of your claim that there wasn't ANY, shows me your bias in approaching these matters.

Except that your claim is not in line with what I was talking about. Perhaps your bias is preventing you from addressing my specific claims.

Also the disparity in age has always been only a partial issue for me.

Whether or not this was an issue for you, it was the issue being discussed in the article and by myself.

The youth of some of the girls involved (for some of them truly were more "girls" than "women") regardless of the age of the men, might be more appropriate to primitive societies in the stone age rather than U.S. Edwardian/Victorian society.

And yet girls of that age were being civilly married in the US Edwardian/Victorian society and the discussion at hand was not whether or not you disapproved of young girls that age getting married, but whether people in JS's culture disapproved of them getting married. The census data as well as the age of consent laws (where present) would suggest it was not an issue for them.

As far as my own research, I've done quite a lot in the past from which I drew my personal conclusions though I have modified them from time to time when I come across new things like the demographic comparison made. At this point, the sources I am using (rather than doing my own hands on research) have demonstrated their ability to do accurate and informative research in the past when they've discussed something I have more knowledge about so I have no problem admitting that I am relying on them at this time for my claim here of little to no contemporary comments among JS's peers about the age disparity or youth of his wives.

Ack, I just can't stop myself from responding....

[Calm]

Soon after Emily refused Joseph’s letter, Elizabeth Durfee, who had married Joseph the previous year....

Eliza, Elvira and Elizabeth D. had married Joseph Smith a year earlier.

Came across this:

Elizabeth Durfee. Compton overargues the evidence for Mrs. Durfee (see p. 260). Yet his "many" sources boil down to two—her name abbreviated on Bennett's list and an ambiguous statement attributed to Sarah Pratt by the hostile journalist Wyl. The remaining bits of Compton's "strong case" are inferences. As mentioned, no one knows whether Bennett relied on knowledge or rumor, particularly when he provides a name without any supporting information on the supposed marriage. And assuming Sarah Pratt is accurately quoted, we are still in doubt about where she obtained her information. In Sacred Loneliness misleads the reader by claiming that "Sarah Pratt mentions that she heard a Mrs. Durfee in Salt Lake City profess to have been one of Smith's wives" (p. 260). But this changes the actual report of Sarah's comments on Mrs. Durfee: "I don't think she was ever sealed to him, though it may have been the case after Joseph's death. . . At all events, she boasted here in Salt Lake of having been one of Joseph's wives" (p. 701). So the document is not clear on whether Sarah heard Mrs. Durfee's comments firsthand. Since Mrs. Durfee helped the Prophet in contacting prospective wives, her connection with teaching polygamy could easily evolve into an assumption of participation in the practice.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=10&num=2&id=290

If I read your quotes closely enough, any claim that Elizabeth is married to Joseph is in the commentary. While E Durfee is demonstrated as a go-between in the actual journal, there is not sufficient evidence to assume she was also married to the Prophet...and thus your conclusion that he married older women so they could help persuade the younger ones falls apart since your only example is quite possibly not an actual example.

[why me]

That may be so, but I didn't grow up in the LDS Church. I was a convert. I think I kind of vaguely knew Joseph had other wives, but it was never discussed in any detail. Emma is the only one I heard about. Definitely, didn't know the ages of some of his wives or that he had been sealed to other men's wives, while their husbands were still living.

You brought up a good point with your first comment. It should be discussed in sunday school or priesthood. And the information should be in the manuals, especially when the lds church was discussing the teachings of JS. Most lds history is faith promoting, especially the polygamy of JS. When one reads the testimony of some of his wives about why they accepted to become a plural wife, one gets the feeling that they had a very religious experience before they accepted. However, the lds church actually does not hide that JS was a polygamist. Young lds learn about it in seminary and it is in the lds published book: Church History in the Fulness of Times which I believe the young use in class. Howver the fine details of the wives are omitted.

[why me]

Having given this some thought overnight, it dawned on me how ridiculous it would be to even expect contemporary outcries from the general public, owing to the secretive nature of the marriages themselves! Very few people were actually privy to the specific women Joseph had married and they were those who were also practising in the deceit. They weren't talking!

The only reason the public even suspected there was plural marriage occuring at all was because of a few insiders such as William Law who had been approached with and rejected the principle. By publishing the Expositor he was trying to inform the church as much as the public in general.

That Makes Sis. Pratt's expression even more valuable because she was actually critical from inside the church rather than an outsider.

I think we're done here.............

The secrecy of polygamy was necesssary for the survivial of the saints. I do not believe that the practice would have been secret if the early lds would have been allowed to practice their faith without persecution. The fact that the lds were persecuted for other aspects of their faith, compelled them to keep the practice of polygamy secret until they got to Utah.

If JS would have made a public announcement about polygamy, the protestant mobs would have been at the gate prepared to burn the homes of the early saints and commit murder. The idea was to build Nauvoo into a model city and practice the faith in peace. Both of which would have been destroyed with a public announcement of polygamy. In any case, with the destruction of the Expositor, the murder of JS was a done deal and Nauvoo never became what it could have become.

[why me]

I believe that plural marriages/sealings were never considered a civil institution, but only a religious one. IIRC, the claim that the marriage wasn't civilly recognized and therefore alimony could not be civilly enforced was used in BY's divorce case. But my memory could be wrong and perhaps it was only after the feds got involved and declared plural marriages invalid that they were no longer recognized as civil ceremonies by LDS.

We also need to remember that fanny alger married not that long after she left the mormon settlement. It seems that her sealing to JS did not hinder her marriage to Soloman Custer, if so she would have been a bigamist.