Was Joseph Smith A Polygamist?

[Stargazer]

I'm not acting like a nanny or a playground monitor. I'm telling you that you know where the exit from the Church is.

I'm not acting like a nanny or a playground monitor, either, but may I suggest that you stop inviting people to leave the Church because they don't happen to agree with your notions of what they ought to believe as members?

[Damien the Leper]

I'm not acting like a nanny or a playground monitor, either, but may I suggest that you stop inviting people to leave the Church because they don't happen to agree with your notions of what they ought to believe as members?

Thanks, Stargazer. This is the point I was trying to make.

[Evangeline]

In the wife that I researched, Helen Mar Kimball, he was very inaccurate in the way he structured the quotes to say something Helen never actually said and in a quite dramatically wrong way. I would only use the site to collect a quote to google on to find a site that presents the entire quote in its actual context and hopefully with other writings of the individual.

Good point. Thanks for the heads up. I did feel uncomfortable with trusting everything on that website, especially since it appears to be a mystery who actually runs it.

[Log]

I'm not acting like a nanny or a playground monitor, either, but may I suggest that you stop inviting people to leave the Church because they don't happen to agree with your notions of what they ought to believe as members?

You may suggest whatever you like! That's the benefit of living in a free country.

Incidentally, this is the conversation you butted in on (briefly):

ME: Joseph Smith is the Prophet of the Restoration and he needs no defending for doing that which the Lord commanded.

VAL: Such notions should be rejected outright.

ME: You know where the door is.

You are being rude.

[Mansquatch]

I think that it's perfectly legitimate that God would give blueadept an answer to his prayer that said polygamy isn't for him. If I asked about it, I would get the same answer, and for the same reason

That's what I was saying. I get the same answer because it is wrong for us. I must say I do not expect a reinstatement of the practice though.

[Stargazer]

You may suggest whatever you like! That's the benefit of living in a free country.

Incidentally, this is the conversation you butted in on (briefly):

ME: Joseph Smith is the Prophet of the Restoration and he needs no defending for doing that which the Lord commanded.

VAL: Such notions should be rejected outright.

ME: You know where the door is.

I saw it already.

Look, the idea that the Prophet needs no defending is highly subjective. If I acknowledge to you that he is the Prophet, then you need not defend him to me. If, on the other hand, there is a person who does not believe, or who is wavering in belief in Joseph as The Prophet, then defense is not only appropriate, it is necessary. Valentinius strikes me as very much wavering, and a gentle defense of the Prophet is completely appropriate. I don't know why you think otherwise.

And it doesn't require a defense with all guns blazing, either. I think I shall leave the negative defenses to the Lord.

I should like to make very clear that I have a very strong testimony of Joseph Smith as God's chosen Prophet in the opening of the Last Dispensation. I do not believe that Joseph was a perfect man, but he seems to have gotten darned close to it by the end of his life. Better than I have accomplished in approaching twice Joseph's llfespan. I am convinced that Joseph did indeed do exactly what God commanded in respect of plural marriage, and I consider that principle to be divinely commanded. I do not have squeamish feelings about it that I need to repress.

I just hope I am never asked to live the principle, at least in this life. I have an indication that if I am faithful in this life that I will be required to live it in the eternities. That's fine. It ought to be easier then.

[Stargazer]

That's what I was saying. I get the same answer because it is wrong for us. I must say I do not expect a reinstatement of the practice though.

I do. The Millenium is the most likely time for its reinstatement, in my view.

[Log]

StarG,

I agree with most of your post. There was more said which precludes fruitful discussion on the point.

With respect to polygamy, I don't expect a reinstatement, unless there is a genuine dearth of men.

Did you read my article? (mine as in my reference, not my authorship)

Edited April 6, 2012 by Log

[Stargazer]

StarG,

I agree with most of your post. There was more said which precludes fruitful discussion on the point.

With respect to polygamy, I don't expect a reinstatement, unless there is a genuine dearth of men.

Did you read my article? (mine as in my reference, not my authorship)

I have not read it. I will soon, I hope. Time is short and I am spending too much time here as it is.

I do believe there will be a genuine dearth of men after the tribulation.

Thanks, I know you do. You just need to chill out a bit more at times...

[why me]

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.

I tend to go with Ausgustine:

That the holy fathers of olden times after Abraham, and before him, to whom God gave His testimony that "they pleased Him," [Heb. 11:4-6] thus used their wives, no one who is a Christian ought to doubt, since it was permitted to certain individuals amongst them to have a plurality of wives, where the reason was for the multiplication of their offspring, not the desire of varying gratification.. . . In the advance, however, of the human race, it came to pass that to certain good men were united a plurality of good wives, --- many to each; and from this it would seem that moderation sought rather unity on one side for dignity, while nature permitted plurality on the other side for fecundity. For on natural principles it is more feasible for one to have dominion over many, than for many to have dominion over one (A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Volume 5, page 267).

And here is Martin Luther:

During the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther said, “I confess for my part that if a man wishes to marry two or more wives, I cannot forbid him for it does not contradict the Scripture.”

[why me]

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.

I provided the exact quotation. However, the catholic church and Protestant sect at that time were very much aware of monarchy and power. If Luther did not go along with monarchical power he knew that the monarchies could go somewhere else for spiritual belief. .

Edited April 6, 2012 by why me

[Alan]

Interesting thread.

A further question....

Who is faithful LDS but thinks Joseph was a liar?

I say this because this seems to be what most people are saying. I find this position completely baffling and totally untenable. Have you thought about the implications of such a position? We LDS happily quote from Emma Smith when she describes the plates, the translation process etc, but then claim she is untruthful when she states very forcefully that Joseph had no wife but her. Joseph stated publicly, more than once, that he was not a polyamist and that he only had Emma.

So, which is it to be; Joseph the liar or Joseph the truth-teller?

[why me]

Interesting thread.

A further question....

Who is faithful LDS but thinks Joseph was a liar?

I say this because this seems to be what most people are saying. I find this position completely baffling and totally untenable. Have you thought about the implications of such a position? We LDS happily quote from Emma Smith when she describes the plates, the translation process etc, but then claim she is untruthful when she states very forcefully that Joseph had no wife but her.

I think that Emma was against polygamy and at times she did change her mind about her husband being sealed to other women. But in general she was against it. She lied to her son Joseph Smith III and it wasn't until he came to utah did he discover the truth. Also, the church which Joseph Smith III was president of believed that Joseph was not a polygamist but the son knew the truth after he went to Utah.

We have no idea just how we react to situationw until these situations are upon us. It was such with Emma. She was more prone to the Kirkland Joseph than the Nauvoo Joseph.

Edited April 6, 2012 by why me

[why me]

Who is faithful LDS but thinks Joseph was a liar? Joseph stated publicly, more than once, that he was not a polyamist and that he only had Emma.

So, which is it to be; Joseph the liar or Joseph the truth-teller?

Joseph was also between a rock and a hard place. He knew that if polygamy was made public, the wrath of the mobs could be upon the saints. The environment was such that polygamy would have put an lit match on the mormon situation among the mobs. But certainly, the women involved knew that Joseph was a polygamist. As did the families of the polygamous wives. To my knowledge it was not a secret for many members. Hard to keep such a thing quiet. But the public, is a different matter.

When the saints separated themselves from the population and settled in Utah, polygamy was out in the open because the environment was different. However, when the federal govenment got wind of it, problems were on the horizon for the utah saints. Imagine the problems if the saints in Nauvoo made it known about polygamy.

Edited April 6, 2012 by why me

[Rob Bowman]

Mark,

You wrote:

Joseph Smith is the Prophet of the Restoration and he needs no defending for doing that which the Lord commanded.

Ah, but did the Lord command it? That is the question. I'm no prophet, but even I need no defense for doing what the Lord commanded. What needs defending is the claim that the Lord commanded anyone to marry dozens of women including the wives of other men.

[why me]

Mark,

You wrote:

Ah, but did the Lord command it? That is the question. I'm no prophet, but even I need no defense for doing what the Lord commanded. What needs defending is the claim that the Lord commanded anyone to marry dozens of women including the wives of other men.

We need to discuss why he would marry most of these women during a two year period. Something was happening. After Fanny Alger he put the practice on the shelf, most likely ignoring the commandment because of the reaction of emma. However eight years later the pratice began again. Why? Was an angel threatening him with a sword? A touch of libido? He certainly was a man in a hurry. What do you think?

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Bowman:

See David of the Old Testament.

[Mansquatch]

I do. The Millenium is the most likely time for its reinstatement, in my view.

I would be interested in sources that lead you to this conclusion. I did however think there was supposed to be peace during the millennium.

[Calm]

Interesting thread.

A further question....

Who is faithful LDS but thinks Joseph was a liar?.....

So, which is it to be; Joseph the liar or Joseph the truth-teller?

So does this mean you believe Brigham Young lied about Joseph's involvement?

Serious question as I am wondering what benefit it brings a faithful LDS to shift the deception from Joseph to Brigham.

Edited April 6, 2012 by calmoriah

[Rob Bowman]

thesometimesaint,

You wrote:

See David of the Old Testament.

Indeed. An excellent example of why polygamy is not a good idea.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Bowman:

Actually it is a very good example of God being for polygamy. God gives David Sauls' wives, and says he would give David more.

[Buzzard]

thesometimesaint,

You wrote:

Indeed. An excellent example of why polygamy is not a good idea.

Woah. Hold on. An Evangelical apologist stating that polygamy in the OT is wrong? Don't you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible? Does a rereading of 2 Samuel 12 refresh your memory? To wit:

7 ¶And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith theLord God of Israel, I ^aanointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and ifthat had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

Since the Bible states clearly that God had given David plural wives, I would be interested in knowing how Mr. Bowman takes from that that plural marriage is wrong. Could be fascinating....

[Rob Bowman]

why me,

You wrote:

We need to discuss why he would marry most of these women during a two year period. Something was happening. After Fanny Alger he put the practice on the shelf, most likely ignoring the commandment because of the reaction of emma. However eight years later the pratice began again. Why? Was an angel threatening him with a sword? A touch of libido? He certainly was a man in a hurry. What do you think?

The question calls for speculation. I don't give the story of the angel threatening Joseph with a sword any credence (sorry, some angel stories are simply less credible than others). There were at least two women (Lucinda Harris and Louisa Beaman) taken in plural marriage between Alger and the steady stream of women taken from Dec. 1841 to Nov. 1843. Whether Joseph was in a hurry or out of control during those two years is an interesting question, but neither explanation justifies the practice.

[Rob Bowman]

Buzzard,

You wrote:

Woah. Hold on. An Evangelical apologist stating that polygamy in the OT is wrong? Don't you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible?

Do you? If you don't, is your argument merely ad hominem, or do you actually accept what 2 Samuel 12 says?

You wrote:

Does a rereading of 2 Samuel 12 refresh your memory? To wit:

anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and ifthat had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

Since the Bible states clearly that God had given David plural wives, I would be interested in knowing how Mr. Bowman takes from that that plural marriage is wrong. Could be fascinating....

In David's culture polygamy was the norm, one that God tolerated (and in the Torah, regulated) but did not approve. The Torah warned that Israel's kings should not take multiple wives (Deut. 17:17), but Saul, David, and Solomon ignored this warning. When Saul died and was succeeded by David, David came into possession of Saul's estate including his harem, as was customary in that culture. It was in this context that God "gave" Saul's wives to David -- meaning that in the sovereignty of God this is what happened, not that God approved of David practicing polygamy. David's family troubles with Amnon, Tamar, and Absalom would seem to illustrate the predictable kinds of trouble that can come from polygamy.

[blueadept]

Woah.  Hold on.  An Evangelical apologist stating that polygamy in the OT is wrong?  Don't you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible?  Does a rereading of 2 Samuel 12 refresh your memory? To wit:

anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and ifthat had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

Since the Bible states clearly that God had given David plural wives, I would be interested in knowing how Mr. Bowman takes from that that plural marriage is wrong.  Could be fascinating....

It may have been good intentions but IMHO the results were bad.  LDS seem to focus on the intentions and everyone else focuses on the results.My 2 cents Edited April 6, 2012 by blueadept