Was Joseph Smith A Polygamist?

[Thinking]

On another thread, Alan wrote:

There is no proof Joseph was a polygamist. Evidence can be taken both ways and there was certainly an incentive for history revision in Utah. In fact, it is well understood that church history was back-written to accomodate certain things.

However, I come back to the fundamental issue here. Joseph said he saw a vision in the grove, he said he translated the plates, he said he received the priesthood keys from heavenly messengers, and he said he was not a polygamist. It really is that simple to me.

Like many here, I used to believe Joseph was a polygamist but it is only when I really looked at the evidence that I changed my mind.

I'm interested to find out how many on this board believe as Alan does.

[Deborah]

Yes he was and I'm not sure why anyone has an issue with this but accepts that Brigham Young was a polygamist.

[LeSellers]

What confuses me is the typically unchallenged assumption that polygyny is evil, per se.

• It is a successful mating strategy that has worked for millennia.
  
• It helps women and hurts men (the latter alone ought to mean that feminists should support it).
  
• It ensures that children will have a father and a mother married to each other and an ongoing family for their support and rearing.
  
• It increases women's independence.
  
• It makes girl children more "valuable" (hence, it makes abortion and infanticide for sexual selection of boys less likely, thus giving girls a better chance of survival).
  
• It impels men to make themselves more desirable to women so as to attract mate(s).
  
• It is a major improvement over serial polygyny and "mistressing" for both women and their children.
  

I am failing to see the cause for so much rancor against the principle.

Lehi

Edited April 5, 2012 by LeSellers

[blueadept]

I am failing to see the cause for so much rancor against the principle.

Lehi

In today's day and age, I don't believe non-LDS have any major rancor against the practice.  I've prayed about it and simply received a negative answer that it's a correct teaching.  Your list gives the obvious benefits of the practice and justifies the actions of Joseph Smith which LDS apologists should do.  In studying the issue, Joseph Smith and practice of polygyny does not bring me closer to Christ and I prefer not to do the mental gymnastics to prove the answer I've received was wrong but respect the LDS POV.  I'm glad it works for you all. There's no sense in demonizing LDS on this IMO. Edited April 5, 2012 by blueadept

[CV75]

Other: I am a faithful LDS and while Jospeh Smith can arguably be labeled a polygamist, that would be a very short-sighted and incomplete description. He was more truthfully the Prophet of the Restoration who, among many other doctrines, covenants, ordinances, miracles, accomplishments and practices, instituted and practiced temple plural marriage by way of commandment.

Edited April 5, 2012 by CV75

[thesometimesaint]

Blueadept:

While I'm just as glad not to practice polygamy in this life polygamy has been part of Judao-Christian belief for millenia. While it MAY improve prospective male mate behavior. there is no evidence for that, it is just as likely to discourage young adult males from even attempting to find a mate.

[kolipoki09]

On another thread, Alan wrote:

I'm interested to find out how many on this board believe as Alan does.

It has been my experience that those who are championing the "Joseph as NOT a polygamist" mantra within LDS ranks do so for one of at least two reasons (though there are doubtless others):

1. They were never taught that Joseph practiced it, and thus assumed that he never did.

2. They encounter fundamentalist apologetic RLDS literature (usually authored by Richard Price) that causes them to reconsider whether Joseph practiced polygamy.

Restoration Branch apologists love Price's work, though I am unaware of any actual historians who agree with him on the polygamy issue.

This discussion comes up from time to time. I was involved in one about a year ago that included Alan, among others.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/53490-plural-marriagepolygamy/

[blueadept]

Blueadept:

While I'm just as glad not to practice polygamy in this life polygamy has been part of Judao-Christian belief for millenia. While it MAY improve prospective male mate behavior. there is no evidence for that, it is just as likely to discourage young adult males from even attempting to find a mate.

While it was obviously a part of the OT and I respect LDS apologists referencing that to justify the commandment given to Joseph Smith, I still prefer not doing the mental gymnastics.The RCC has definitely taught in the Catechism that it's not a good practice which enforces my answer I received in prayer. Obviously, our churches DO NOT agree on this. So be it.

[David T]

I understand even the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS) has, relatively recently, finally accepted and acknowledged that Joseph did, indeed, engage in plural marriage. At least their current President appears to.

[kolipoki09]

I understand even the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS) has, relatively recently, finally accepted and acknowledged that Joseph did, indeed, engage in plural marriage. At least their current President appears to.

Former Prophet-President W. Grant McMurray has even stated that there is "no credible historian" arguing that Joseph never practiced polygamy. But for most RLDS/CoC members maintaining the old belief, McMurray isn't and never was a prophet.

Whether McMurray is committing a "No true Scotsman" fallacy is still up for debate, but I too am unaware of any trained historian (particularly those with privileged access to primary sources) both in and out of the Church that is arguing that Joseph didn't practice it.

[Jaybear]

I voted no. At best, he was a polygamist in name only.

I don't consider Smith relationship to these other women to be a real marriage, in any sense of the word.

[Buzzard]

I voted no. At best, he was a polygamist in name only.

I don't consider Smith relationship to these other women to be a real marriage, in any sense of the word.

My personal take, after reading a fair amount of both apologetic writings and source documents-and applying my own brain to the task, is that JS certainly was a polygamist, but not nearly on the scale that one would think based on the number of recorded sealings. Most of these women-and as near as I can tell, every one of these that involved a polyandrous sealing-were sealed to JS, but did not have a physically consummated relationship. Call it adoption, call it dynastic marriage, I don't know exactly what I would call it, but JS clearly did not bed 34-51 women(That's the range I have seen on the number of JS's marriages). But because a few of them were consummated, many anti's just assume all of them were.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Buzzard

[thesometimesaint]

Buzzard:

There is proof for only one of those marriages being consummated. The one with Emma.

[Rob Bowman]

Buzzard,

You wrote:

My personal take, after reading a fair amount of both apologetic writings and source documents-and applying my own brain to the task, is that JS certainly was a polygamist, but not nearly on the scale that one would think based on the number of recorded sealings. Most of these women-and as near as I can tell, every one of these that involved a polyandrous sealing-were sealed to JS, but did not have a physically consummated relationship. Call it adoption, call it dynastic marriage, I don't know exactly what I would call it, but JS clearly did not bed 34-51 women(That's the range I have seen on the number of JS's marriages). But because a few of them were consummated, many anti's just assume all of them were.

I don't know the source for the numbers you cited. I certainly don't think there were 51. The usual number is around 33.

Frankly, it isn't much of a defense to argue that although Joseph married 33 women he only consummated the marriage with, say, a dozen of them, or even three of them. I don't know how many of the marriages were consummated and frankly I don't care. We don't think better of a man who has a harem of thirty women because he only sleeps with a few of them. But the evidence shows that Joseph did have marital relations with at least some of them, including some of the "polyandrous" plural wives.

[Mansquatch]

In today's day and age, I don't believe non-LDS have any major rancor against the practice. I've prayed about it and simply received a negative answer that it's a correct teaching. Your list gives the obvious benefits of the practice and justifies the actions of Joseph Smith which LDS apologists should do. In studying the issue, Joseph Smith and practice of polygyny does not bring me closer to Christ and I prefer not to do the mental gymnastics to prove the answer I've received was wrong but respect the LDS POV. I'm glad it works for you all. There's no sense in demonizing LDS on this IMO.

I would say you prayed and received a negative answer because it is an "abomination" to quote the Book of Mormon in Jacob 2.

[blueadept]

I would say you prayed and received a negative answer because it is an "abomination" to quote the Book of Mormon in Jacob 2.

I would disagree with that assumption and have been corrected in having that verse properly explained. I actually prefer the LDS understanding of that verse. Just saying...

[Stargazer]

What confuses me is the typically unchallenged assumption that polygyny is evil, per se.

• It is a successful mating strategy that has worked for millennia.
  
• It helps women and hurts men (the latter alone ought to mean that feminists should support it).
  
• It ensures that children will have a father and a mother married to each other and an ongoing family for their support and rearing.
  
• It increases women's independence.
  
• It makes girl children more "valuable" (hence, it makes abortion and infanticide for sexual selection of boys less likely, thus giving girls a better chance of survival).
  
• It impels men to make themselves more desirable to women so as to attract mate(s).
  
• It is a major improvement over serial polygyny and "mistressing" for both women and their children.
  

I am failing to see the cause for so much rancor against the principle.

Lehi

I haven't seen so many sensible points on the subject in a really loooonnnnggg time.

The problem women have with it (a Duh! moment if there ever was one) is that a woman would rather have the exclusiveness of a sole/soul mate relationship. And I can understand this. But a system such as a the LDS one, where for example Brigham Young told the brethren that as long as a wife was willing to put up with him, he had no business cutting her loose, unless SHE wanted it, the woman's position is secure. In the ideal case, at least.

[Buzzard]

Buzzard:

There is proof for only one of those marriages being consummated. The one with Emma.

If by proof, you mean children, then I agree. But a few-Eliza R. Snow comes to mind-actually lived under the same roof as Joseph and Emma. For the record, I have no problem with his polygamy.

[Stargazer]

While it was obviously a part of the OT and I respect LDS apologists referencing that to justify the commandment given to Joseph Smith, I still prefer not doing the mental gymnastics.The RCC has definitely taught in the Catechism that it's not a good practice which enforces my answer I received in prayer. Obviously, our churches DO NOT agree on this. So be it.

Luther, for example, had no problem with it, per se. When Henry VIII was trying to shed his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, he apparently communicated with Luther and was advised by him that divorce or annulment was unfair to Catherine, and that he should just take a second wife. History would have been considerably different if Henry had simply taken his advice. Luther on another occasion gave the same advice to another Europrean ruler (a prince or duke or something), and the advice was followed. In that case, Luther gave his tacit approval by sending one of his lieutenants to attend the wedding.

When Paul said to Timothy that a bishop should have one wife, his verbiage did not imply that that was the limit. IIRC.

[Buzzard]

Buzzard,

You wrote:

I don't know the source for the numbers you cited. I certainly don't think there were 51. The usual number is around 33.

Frankly, it isn't much of a defense to argue that although Joseph married 33 women he only consummated the marriage with, say, a dozen of them, or even three of them. I don't know how many of the marriages were consummated and frankly I don't care. We don't think better of a man who has a harem of thirty women because he only sleeps with a few of them. But the evidence shows that Joseph did have marital relations with at least some of them, including some of the "polyandrous" plural wives.

Well, Wickipedia, that fount of unimpeached truth and light, lists 44. Little import. And I think it does matter how many were sealings vs. marriages in every sense. As sometimessaint says, the only proof we have in the form of progeny is from his first marriage to Emma. But assuming-as I certainly do-that the reestablishment of plural marriage was a commandment from the Lord, to take say, three more "actual" wives, which gets you to the Muslim quota, is quite a bit different than four dozen. An no evidence other than anti-LDS screeds that I have seen leads me to think that he connsumated any of his polyandrous sealings.

The doctrine of sealing women to prophets, apostles, and other high church officials without it being an actual marriage continued thru most of the 19th century. I don't claim a perfect understanding of it, but it did happen. As near as I can imperfectly discern, it was done as a way of being closer to the eternal spirtual privleges accorded to men who would be at the head of a gospel dispensation. And neither Joseph nor the other church leaders who participated in this practice can be reasonably accused of being sexually insatiable, since by and large their lives demonstrated otherwise.

Finally, my apologies for rambling. I do that sometimes.

[Calm]

Alan said his position was based on what he believed was Joseph's denial of practicing polygamy.

I am not sure how that places BY though as he claimed Joseph did practice it, so if one accepts Alan's interpretation of Joseph's comment, it is contradicted by BY's comments so it would appear as if one of them is lying.

Personally I think that Joseph was very careful in how he used language and while I don't think he lied but told the truth by using technical loopholes, I believe the goal was to deceive those who did not know and those who did would understand what he was saying (for example he used a specific term "plural marriage" and denied participating in "spiritual wifery" which would have been seen as much the same thing by outsiders, but seen as a corrupt and unauthorized practice by those Joseph was teaching).

[Mansquatch]

I would disagree with that assumption and have been corrected in having that verse properly explained. I actually prefer the LDS understanding of that verse. Just saying...

I am LDS and what I am talking about spans several verses. Polygamy is an abomination unless the Lord commands otherwise; just as in the Bible.

I am curious now as to why you believe or feel that you were given a negative answer about the religious teaching of polygamy, if it is not because the practice is an abomination and wrong.

[Buzzard]

I haven't seen so many sensible points on the subject in a really loooonnnnggg time.

The problem women have with it (a Duh! moment if there ever was one) is that a woman would rather have the exclusiveness of a sole/soul mate relationship. And I can understand this. But a system such as a the LDS one, where for example Brigham Young told the brethren that as long as a wife was willing to put up with him, he had no business cutting her loose, unless SHE wanted it, the woman's position is secure. In the ideal case, at least.

I lived in St. George, UT back in the 70's, and knew a man who had two moms quite well. When we asked him once if his mothers ever fought about sharing the same husband, he replied that he never once saw his moms fight, but they ganged up on his dad every day. So for those of you who joke about polygamy coming back, be careful what you wish for....

[blueadept]

It comes down to the simple fact that the issue of polygamy does not bring me closer to Christ.

In the same sense, I've always been amused by the mental gymnastics LDS have performed in justifying the practice in your history and how there is nothing wrong with it. I was amused by Stargazer's inference that Luther had no issues on the subject. I obviously agree to disagree in what the practice should be since the time that Jesus was among us. The inferences that Jesus could have been a polygamist is hysterical.

[Log]

There has also been laughter at the inference that Jesus could have been a monogamist.

I commend this article to those who have a desire to know more about the role polygamy played.