Joseph Smith And Polygamy

[why me]

No, not ignorant of the First Vision, or of the restoration of the priesthood, or of Haun's Mill, or of the 1856 handcart companies—but the Church has made it a practice to avoid teaching its members about the more controversial aspects of its history. Even in the Internet age, most Latter-day Saints are still unaware of Joseph Smith's youthful scrying, his secret polygamy, his failed attempt to translate the Kinderhook Plates, his secret anointing as king, etc. None of those things made it into the Joseph Smith movie shown at Temple Square or into the Church's most recent historical primer for youth and adults, Our Heritage.

What church teaches their congregation its history? I see none. Does the lutheran church teach the history of the lutheran church in all its complexities, especially the more controversial sayings of Martin Luther on sundays or any other day during the week? Does the catholic church have their own history book, covering all aspects of catholicism, including the more controversial actions of the popes? Etc, etc.

I think that the mormon church needs to have a thousand page history book, studied and updated every year until it becomes too heavy to carry. Then, perhaps malcontents will be happy. And as I said, this thousand page book can be edited by critics so their interpretation gets important attention.

[Darren10]

I am under the impression he has a multitude of other very pressing issues. I wonder though does he have an obligation to make sure every voter knows this?

Indeed he does but ,as you know, he's Mormon and therefore will not talk his polygamous past (wink wink).

Edited July 6, 2012 by Darren10

[Darren10]

here's and interesting take (bold mine):

Subsequently, in 1890, President Wilford Woodruff, fourth president of the Church, received what Latter-day Saints believe to be a revelation in which God withdrew the command to practice plural marriage. He issued what has come to be known as the "Manifesto," a written declaration to Church members and the public at large that stopped the practice of plural marriage.

Today Church members honor and respect the sacrifices made by those who practiced polygamy in the early days of the Church. However, the practice is banned in the Church, and no person can practice plural marriage and remain a member.

The standard doctrine of the Church is monogamy, as it always has been, as indicated in the Book of Mormon (Jacob, chapter 2): “Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none. … For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.”

Polygamy

Despte its practice of polygamy, the LDS church has always followed monogamous marriages as its standard. So, would introducing regular emphasis on polygamy help make clear to both members and non members alike that the LDS Church's standard is monogamy? Note the great schisms of the LDS church when it banned polygamy. Would teaching polygamy regularly, especially focusing on Joseph Smith initiating polygamy, in church help keep the Saints unified or would it create division?

Edited July 6, 2012 by Darren10

[Darren10]

This helps answer the question of the average age of marriage in the 1830s (bold mine):

Much of the argument Egan makes for similarities between FLDS polygamy and early Mormon marriage practices relates to the claim of "sexual manipulation" of children as evidenced by the age of marriage. In fact, men and women often married at a much younger age in the 19th century than we find acceptable today. Historian Kathryn Daynes, who has studied the subject in depth, says that although the female average age at marriage in the United States during the nineteenth century was twenty or older, a girl marrying at age 15 was not uncommon and certainly was not considered abused. The common-law marriage age for women was 12. Historically, outside of northwestern Europe, women at 14 to 16 were assumed to be ready for marriage.

Polygamy Then and Now

[Thinking]

What was the median age for women to marry in the 1830s.

This list comprises the LDS prophets and apostles who were married before the Church came to Utah. I included William Clayton to replace William E. McLellan because his wife’s age was not known. Each woman is the first wife of the husband.

Bathsheba Bigler was 15 years old in 1841 when she married George A. Smith (24).

Lucy Harris was 16 years old in 1808 when she married Martin Harris (25).

Vilate Murray was 16 years old in 1822 when she married Heber C. Kimball (21).

Julia A Jolley was 16 years old in 1831 when she married David Whitmer (26).

Susan Armelda Poteet was 16 years old in 1832 when she married Luke S. Johnson (26).

Maria Louisa Tanner was 17 years old in 1835 when she married Amasa M. Lyman (22).

Catherine Whitmer was 18 years old in 1825 when she married Hiram Page (25).

Sarah Long was 18 years old in 1834 when she married Lyman E. Johnson (22).

Sarah Marinda Bates was 19 years old in 1836 when she married Orson Pratt (24).

Ruth Moon was 19 years old in 1836 when she married William Clayton (22).

Artemesia Beman was 19 years old in 1838 when she married Erastus Snow (20).

Jane Snyder was 19 years old in 1842 when she married Franklin D. Richards (21).

Lucy Mack was 21 years old in 1796 when she married Joseph Smith, Sr (24).

Elizabeth Godkin was 21 years old in 1820 when she married Thomas B. Marsh (21).

Jerusha Barden was 21 years old in 1826 when she married Hyrum Smith (26).

Phoebe Ann Babcock was 21 years old in 1828 when she married David W. Patten (29).

Betsey Thompson was 21 years old in 1831 when she married John E. Page (34).

Caroline Amanda Grant was 21 years old in 1833 when she married William Smith (21).

Marinda Nancy Johnson was 21 years old in 1834 when she married Orson Hyde (29).

Jennetta Richards was 21 years old in 1838 when she married Willard Richards (34).

Harriet Benton was 22 years old in 1823 when she married Lyman Wight (26).

Elizabeth Schott was 22 years old in 1825 when she married Jacob Whitmer (25).

Emma Hale was 22 years old in 1827 when she married Joseph Smith (21).

Elizabeth Ann Whitmer was 22 years old in 1832 when she married Oliver Cowdery (26).

Miriam Works was 23 years old in 1824 when she married Brigham Young (23).

Pamelia Andrus was 23 years old in 1832 when she married Ezra T. Benson (21).

Ann Schott was 24 years old in 1825 when she married Christian Whitmer (27).

Sarah Jackson was 24 years old in 1833 when she married John Whitmer (30).

Sarah DeArmon Pea was 24 years old in 1838 when she married Charles C. Rich (28).

Vashti Higley was 25 years old in 1832 when she married Peter Whitmer, Jr (23).

Mary Bailey was 26 years old in 1834 when she married Samuel H. Smith (26).

Thankful Halsey was 30 years old in 1827 when she married Parley P. Pratt (20).

Phoebe Whittemore Carter was 30 years old in 1837 when she married Wilford Woodruff (30).

Susannah Lowell was 32 years old in 1836 when she married John F. Boynton (24).

Mary Adaline Goddard was 33 years old in 1845 when she married Lorenzo Snow (31).

Leonora Cannon was 36 years old in 1833 when she married John Taylor (24).

Cynthia Ann (maiden name and birth date unknown) in 1829 married William E. McLellan (23).

The largest age difference between a teenage bride and her husband was 10 years.

The average age of marriage for the women in the list is 22.1 years. The median age is 21 years.

The average age of marriage for the men in the list is 25.0 years. The median age is 24.5 years.

This cut & paste from a virulently anti-Mormon site. Plagiarism is a thread ban offense.

[Darren10]

Here's a great insight into teaching polygamy as the critics would want (italics original):

“If the Church allowed critics and opponents to choose the ground on which its battles are fought, it would risk being distracted from the focus and mission it has pursued successfully for nearly 180 years. Instead, the Church itself will determine its own course as it continues to preach the restored gospel of Jesus Christ

throughout the world.”²

Sharing the Gospel with Confidence: 9th paragraph under, "1. Don’t let irrelevant issues drown out more important subjects".

[LindaLDS]

Wow, I haven't posted on Mormon Dialogue for dog's years! Anyway

This is probably off-topic, and maybe no one really cares, but I ran into RLBaty in another venue, and he is claiming great victory here. This is what he said:

"The historical importance of my scheduled appearance, by invitation, on the Van Hale show has increased somewhat as a result of what appears to be the MormonDialogue management shutting me out of their place, after I was invited (indirectly) to appear there, in the "mouth of the Mormon lion".

As I wrote about this elsewhere, I also now write here:

(I guess we may be talking about this with Van Hale come Sunday if he produces that radio show with me as his guest.)

I shut the mouths of the Mormon lions!

Looks like it!"

Just thought I'd let you all know. Personally, I really don't blame anyone for banning him.

[Darren10]

Here's from the manual Truth Restored:

Although polygamy is no longer practiced in the Church, no account of the Church’s history can be complete without some discussion of the practice. It was first announced by Joseph Smith at Nauvoo in 1842. Many of those close to him knew of it and accepted it as a principle of divine pronouncement. However, it was not publicly taught until 1852.

Chapter 13: Years Of Endurance

[Darren10]

Linda #232;

I shut the mouths of the Mormon lions!

Well, now I'm totally wanting to "take the poll".

To each his own.

[Calm]

Interestingly, I just stumbled across an article that talks about how Bathsheba got engaged to George A Smith when she was 11 or 12.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2005/07/bathsheba-w-smith-witness-to-history?lang=eng

When Latter-day Saint missionaries knocked on the Biglers’ door, they found the entire family spiritually ready for the message of the restored gospel.

“I believed the Book of Mormon to be a divine record,” wrote Bathsheba, “and that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God. I knew by the spirit of the Lord, which I received in answer to prayer, that these things were true. On the 21st of August 1837, I was baptized.”²

One of the missionaries was George A. Smith, a cousin of the Prophet Joseph Smith. During the next six months, Bathsheba and George became friends and agreed to marry when she was older.

They got married 4 years later in 1841.

From Helen Mar Kimball's description of her life after the sealing to JS, it would appear that the sealing was equivalent to a betrothal in practice. IIRC, it was not uncommon later on for a younger wife to stay at home with her parents until older at which time she would join her husband as an actual wife, basically a formalized betrothal, something more formal than what is now seen as an engagement.

I am not making a claim this was viewed as "normal" by nonLDS society at that time and place in history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erusin

[treehugger]

Me either. The lds church can be the only church to allow exmembers and malcontents the opportunity to have influence in what is taught during meetings and lessons. Now that I think about it, there should be more talks about these subjects in sacrament meetings. With this correlated effort of education, we should make the members obsolutely sick of the topics so that they can ask themselves why are we learning about polygamy, polyandry and polygny over and over again and how is this leading us closer to god?

My purpose for starting this discussion was to show the critics and interested parties that polygamy and joseph's role in it is on lds.org. They should be celebrating. Instead, many are still complaining.

Whyme, what you have not addressed is the years and decades that past prior to the website and specifically the page you link. What were the sources, from the Church, that specifically informed a Member of the Church of Joseph Smith practicing polygamy.

Quite frankly, I am not sure why I was initially "uncomfortable" when I learned of Joseph Smiths polygamy. I am not sure why it is an issue for people, I have forgotten what ever "concern" I had, not sure why it seems a deal breaker for people.

In your defense, I have read from ex-Mormons, that when they learned of Joseph Smith's polygamy it was some kind of big shock. The most recent I read was from a Salon.com article - I think that was the site.

[Calm]

What were the sources, from the Church, that specifically informed a Member of the Church of Joseph Smith practicing polygamy.

Institute manuals in addition to sec 132 at least, which were available for purchase to regular members btw, have it listed for at least the past 35 years and probably closer to 50 by the copyright date of the manual I am thinking of. No, they did not go into polyandry, at least the current one or list all the possible wives. Haven't checked on the older one for that topic.

PS: I am not saying I don't believe stories of Saints who have somehow missed it when reading or going to Institute or whatever. As a teen, my younger sister didn't know the story of David and Goliath, while I knew the OT stories backwards and forwards, including all the juicy bits. However, she was a much better swimmer than I was. To each their own...

Edited July 6, 2012 by calmoriah

[why me]

Quite frankly, I am not sure why I was initially "uncomfortable" when I learned of Joseph Smiths polygamy. I am not sure why it is an issue for people, I have forgotten what ever "concern" I had, not sure why it seems a deal breaker for people.

In your defense, I have read from ex-Mormons, that when they learned of Joseph Smith's polygamy it was some kind of big shock. The most recent I read was from a Salon.com article - I think that was the site.

Here is what I think happens: member who did not know about Joseph's polygamy finds out from critic sites on the internet. This member also reads just how shocked these members were that JS practiced polygamy. The member reads more on it from other critic sites through searching google. And reads more stories of shocked members losing faith and becoming bitter about the church hiding its history. Finally, member also becomes bitter, discouraged, betrayed and angered and ends up posting on an exmormon site too.

However, the member can also read FAIR and other mormon sites to find a different point of view about polygamy etc. Unfortunately by that time happens, the member is so disappointed that no explanation seems reasonable. That is my take on it for many members.

[Nevo]

So, would introducing regular emphasis on polygamy help make clear to both members and non members alike that the LDS Church's standard is monogamy? Note the great schisms of the LDS church when it banned polygamy. Would teaching polygamy regularly, especially focusing on Joseph Smith initiating polygamy, in church help keep the Saints unified or would it create division?

There is a difference between the Church being open and honest about Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy and "teaching polygamy regularly" to the members. I don't think the Church's current strategy of trying to conceal controversial aspects of Joseph's polygamy from its members is tenable in the long term. But neither do I think they should place particular emphasis on it, and certainly not on polygamy generally. I think the Church should acknowledge it and move on, as they have done with the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Edited July 6, 2012 by Nevo

[thesometimesaint]

Treehugger:

This is a deliberate diversion.

The OP is about Joseph Smith, who translated the plates which translation is know today as the "Book Of Mormon".

Many members of the LDS Church do not know of Joseph Smith's polygamy nor the uncomfortable accepted details (polygamist marriages to women who were legally married to other men) of the polygamist marriages.

I'm nothing special except to my wife, kids, and Grandkids. If I knew there is no excuse for anyone not knowing.

Why should I be uncomfortable with Josephs' polygamy, and not with Abraham's, or many of the Old Testament Prophets? Personally while I have no desire for its return here in mortality. I'm not opposed to it in the next life. Why should I refuse if God asks me to do it?

[Nevo]

Here's from the manual Truth Restored:

Chapter 13: Years Of Endurance

Yes, and notice how this manual misleadingly states that the 1890 Manifesto "declared an end to the practice of entering into plural marriage. Since that time the Church has neither practiced nor sanctioned entering into such marriages."

As B. Carmon Hardy points out, "We now know that, in fact, hundreds of new plural unions were performed by church officials and with church approval for twenty or more years after 1890. The polygamous marriages concerned involved bishops, stake presidents and apostles. At least seven members of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, and possibly President Woodruff himself, took new plural companions after the Manifesto. The evidence for this is overwhelming" ("That 'Same Old Question of Polygamy and Polygamous Living:' Some Recent Findings Regarding Nineteenth and Early Twentieth-Century Mormon Polygamy," Utah Historical Quarterly 73, no. 3 [2005]: 221).

The page why me linked in the opening post is more accurate: "Just as the practice of plural marriage among the Latter-day Saints began gradually, the ending of the practice after the Manifesto was also gradual. Some plural marriages were performed after the Manifesto, particularly in Mexico and Canada. In 1904, President Joseph F. Smith called for a vote from the Church membership that all post-Manifesto plural marriages be prohibited worldwide."

[Closet Doubter]

I would think that if the lessons were about polygamy or polyandry and polgyny (for calmoriah) , you would have a point. But since the lessons are not about polygamy, polyandry or polygyny (for calmoriah ) it may be tough to introduce it. How would you do it? How about this: Joseph Smith's wife emma, one of several of his wives, claimed that Joseph stuck his head in a hat while translating the book of mormon. Would that be okay? Please let me know so I can contact the writers of the manuals.

There actually was a lesson about 10 years ago where they talked about polygamy. It was an actual lesson from the lesson manual. It's the only time I remember a lesson that talked about polygamy. Since then, there has not to my knowledge been a lesson during the one out of four years that church history is taught where polygamy has been discussed. I can accept that mistakes were made and polygamy occurred. I can accept that the leaders of the church were not perfect. I can accept that Joseph in his weakness had an affair with Fanny Alger. What I have an extremely hard time accepting is the church purposely presenting the information on its history in a way that paints a different picture than what actually happened. Again, by the Church's own definition of lying, when information is left out in a way to present something differently than the truth, it is lying (lesson 31 of gospel principals).

[Calm]

I can accept that Joseph in his weakness had an affair with Fanny Alger.

There is good evidence that this was a sealing, a statement by her brother, IIRC.

edit...not quite correctly: http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives/Fanny_Alger

Edited July 6, 2012 by calmoriah

[Closet Doubter]

I think that every lesson in Relief Society should discuss polygamy, polygyny, and polyandry just in case the principles are reinstated. I also think that the church should hence forth stress this aspect of its history to the membership as a whole. It is expecially important that seminarians learn these principles. This way, critics cannot complain that the church avoids such issues. I also made a suggestion that the exmormons, critics and malcontents can edit the manuals before they are published. What do you think of this idea?

I think you are getting a little worked up. I think everyone knows that the Church doesn't need to dwell on this subject but it should be discussed when we have the year that Church history is taught. Polygamy was probably the teaching of the church during the 19th century that caused the most angst among both church members and non members. If history isn't important than why do we discuss it every 4 years? If it is important, than it should be taught with warts and all. We don't need to dwell on the warts the entire year but we should still let the members know about the warts.

[Closet Doubter]

What church teaches their congregation its history? I see none. Does the lutheran church teach the history of the lutheran church in all its complexities, especially the more controversial sayings of Martin Luther on sundays or any other day during the week? Does the catholic church have their own history book, covering all aspects of catholicism, including the more controversial actions of the popes? Etc, etc.

I think that the mormon church needs to have a thousand page history book, studied and updated every year until it becomes too heavy to carry. Then, perhaps malcontents will be happy. And as I said, this thousand page book can be edited by critics so their interpretation gets important attention.

If Church history is not important than the Church shouldn't waste any of our time teaching it. If Church history is important, then it should be taught honestly and accurately. The Church doesn't need to dwell on the warts in the correlated lessons of Sunday School, Priesthood, Relief Society, and Seminary but it should at least mention the warts. The writers of the correlated lessons are their own worst enemy's because people think they know their Church history and when they find out what was left out (sometimes by going to LDS.org and sometimes through exmormon or new order mormon sites) they feel they were lied to and then wonder what else the Church is leaving out. The official church sources then loose credibility in the eyes of members and non members alike.

[Closet Doubter]

here's and interesting take (bold mine):

Polygamy

Despte its practice of polygamy, the LDS church has always followed monogamous marriages as its standard. So, would introducing regular emphasis on polygamy help make clear to both members and non members alike that the LDS Church's standard is monogamy? Note the great schisms of the LDS church when it banned polygamy. Would teaching polygamy regularly, especially focusing on Joseph Smith initiating polygamy, in church help keep the Saints unified or would it create division?

This is a perfect example you are giving of the Church purposely presenting information in a way to present a different picture than what actually was the case (ie lieing). When the Church taught that only polygamists would be exalted in the celestial kingdom (Journal of Discourses volume 2 page 276 plus other locations in the JoD), the Church can't honestly say that Monogamy was the standard. The majority of members decided they would rather not be exalted to the third degree of the Celestial kingdom and become Gods than live in polygamy. For the most part, polygamists were those called to leadership positions. At one point, Brigham Young declared to all those in Stake Presidencies, Bishopricks, and High Councils that they had one year to take a second wife if not already living in polygamy or they would be released from their positions (early 1870's).

[Calm]

When the Church taught that only polygamists would be exalted in the celestial kingdom (Journal of Discourses volume 2 page 276 plus other locations in the JoD)

Please use the actual quote. My memory says BY said the principle had to be accepted, but not practiced by all. It makes no sense that monogamy was not understood to be as eligible for the highest kingdom as plural marriage; too many faithful saints, including leaders at the time were not in plural marriages. Why bother sealing any monogamous marriages until they were participating in plural marriage if the marriages were invalid eternally speaking (since marriage only exists in the highest level of the Celestial kingdom?) Edited July 6, 2012 by calmoriah

[Closet Doubter]

Here is what I think happens: member who did not know about Joseph's polygamy finds out from critic sites on the internet. This member also reads just how shocked these members were that JS practiced polygamy. The member reads more on it from other critic sites through searching google. And reads more stories of shocked members losing faith and becoming bitter about the church hiding its history. Finally, member also becomes bitter, discouraged, betrayed and angered and ends up posting on an exmormon site too.

However, the member can also read FAIR and other mormon sites to find a different point of view about polygamy etc. Unfortunately by that time happens, the member is so disappointed that no explanation seems reasonable. That is my take on it for many members.

You hit the nail on the head with this post. This is similar to what happened to me. I always new about polygamy but just hazy undetailed information. The stuff going on in southern Utah / Arizona along with a lesson about 10 years ago in Sunday School peaked my curiosity and I googled for more information. I found information on both anti and pro Church sites. Some of the "Anti" vitriol was so bad that I discounted the information but likewise some of the "Pro" information was so biased and left so much out that I also had to discount what I read. When I ran across quotes by Packer and Oaks instructing teachers to purposly leave out a lot of information as being "not useful" I began to understand why my knowledge of the subject was so sketchy. At this point I don't trust official Church information much more than I trust "Anti" information. I am a little bitter at the Church now because I should be able to trust thier official writings but can't because of their official policy of obfuscation.

[Closet Doubter]

There is good evidence that this was a sealing, a statement by her brother, IIRC.

edit...not quite correctly: http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives/Fanny_Alger

The sealing authority had not yet been restored. Based on reports of Emma's reation when she caught them consumating this "sealing", it was more probably and affair. If it was an affair, does it negate Joseph being a prophet? Absolutely not. David was a great prophet and king. He had weaknesses just as we all have.

[selek1]

The sealing authority had not yet been restored. Based on reports of Emma's reation when she caught them consumating this "sealing", it was more probably and affair. If it was an affair, does it negate Joseph being a prophet? Absolutely not. David was a great prophet and king. He had weaknesses just as we all have.

Call For References, please.

There's a lot of salacious speculation and rumor-mongering out there masquerading as "scholarship"- and most of that comes in most handy when you're out of Charmin.

Where and when did Emma "catch them" "consumating the 'sealing'"?