Joseph Smith And Polygamy

[selek1]

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.

Again, Call For References.

Where- precisely- is this "official policy of obfuscation" published and decreed?

For the record- the Tanner's web site doesn't count.

So far, all you've offered us are the trite and tired, standard anti-Mo talking points.

We are not persuaded.

[Calm]

The sealing authority had not yet been restored.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Polygamy_book/Introduction_of_eternal_marriage

Some have wondered how the first plural marriages (such as the Alger marriage) could have occurred before the 1836 restoration of the sealing keys in the Kirtland temple (see DC 110:). Again, this confusion occurs because we tend to conflate several ideas. They were not all initially wrapped together in one doctrine:

• plural marriage - the idea that one could be married (in mortality) to more than one woman: being taught by 1831.
  
• eternal marriage - the idea that a man and spouse could be sealed and remain together beyond the grave: being taught by 1835.
  
• "celestial" marriage - the combination of the above two ideas, in which all marriages—plural and monogamous—could last beyond the grave via the sealing powers: implemented by 1840-41.
  

Thus, the marriage to Fanny would have occurred under the understanding #1 above. The concept of sealing beyond the grave came later.

[Tacenda]

Below is an excerpt that I found interesting, concerning hiding Joseph's polygamy, that I read in an article that Richard L. Bushman wrote about from the book titled "From Mission to Madness" by Valeen Tippetts Avery. The book was written about Joseph's youngest son, David Hyrum Smith. Apparently Emma denied that Joseph ever practiced polygamy to her sons. And while on a mission for the RLDS, David was in Utah and heard that his father did indeed practice it. He was so against polygamy or plural wifery that some think it drove him insane to think that his father practiced it. And as you read further in the article David later spent half his life in a mental institution.

http://findarticles....9/ai_n28792487/

Excerpt:

By temperament, David Smith was not particularly well suited for missionary work among the Utah Saints. Gifted as a musician, artist, and poet, he wrote as much about the landscapes he passed through on his missions to Utah as he did about the people to whom he preached. As a child, he had been coddled by visitors who admired his beauty and talent, and by nature he wanted to be loved rather than go to war with the Utah Mormons. Yet he learned to do battle, and he became an effective spokesman for the anti-polygamy position. When his Utah cousin, Joseph F. Smith, brought out evidence of Joseph Smith's involvement in polygamy gleaned from his former wives, David Smith countered with the public denials of plural marriage in the Nauvoo years. He was egged on by the Utah leaders' attacks on his adored mother. The Utah Saints blamed Emma for deceiving her sons about a practice that she knew full well her husband had engaged in.

Edited July 6, 2012 by Tacenda

[Rob Bowman]

thesometimesaint,

You wrote:

Why should I be uncomfortable with Josephs' polygamy, and not with Abraham's, or many of the Old Testament Prophets?

That's easy. Assuming for the sake of argument that we think Abraham's polygamy was perfectly fine (which I don't), there are several reasons why we should still be extremely troubled by Joseph's polygamy but not Abraham's:

• Abraham did not repeatedly lie by denying that he was practicing polygamy when he was. Joseph did.
  
• Abraham did not falsely claim that God commanded him to practice polygamy (at the point of an angel's sword, no less!). Joseph did.
  
• Abraham's polygamy was not contrary to the cultural and legal norms of his culture. Joseph's was.
  
• Abraham did not "marry" over thirty women. Joseph did.
  
• Abraham did not "marry" women who were currently already married to living men. Joseph did.
  
• Abraham did not practice polygamy after the New Testament, which clearly teaches monogamy (e.g., 1 Tim. 3:2). Joseph did.
  

You wrote:

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?

You shouldn't, but of course it is at least an open question whether we should believe Joseph Smith's claim that God ordered (not "asked") him to do it.

[Nevo]

http://en.fairmormon...ternal_marriage:

"Thus, the marriage to Fanny would have occurred under the understanding #1 above. The concept of sealing beyond the grave came later."

But this goes against the cherished belief of many on this board that Joseph really a monogamist: he was never actually married to any woman other than Emma; he was only sealed to them!

[selek1]

Below is an excerpt that I found interesting, concerning hiding Joseph's polygamy, that I read in an article that Richard L. Bushman wrote about from the book titled "From Mission to Madness" by Valeen Tippetts Avery. The book was written about Joseph's youngest son, David Hyrum Smith. Apparently Emma denied that Joseph ever practiced polygamy to her sons. And while on a mission for the RLDS, David was in Utah and heard that his father did indeed practice it. He was so against polygamy or plural wifery that some think it drove him insane to think that his father practiced it. And as you read further in the article David later spent half his life in a mental institution.

Gotta love the "some think" weasel wording.

"Some think" is a rhetorical cop-out, designed to float a controversial or offensive idea without taking moral or intellectual responsibility for it.

"Some think" that JFK was murdered by a conspiracy involving his own Vice President and the country's top oath-bound law enforcement agents.

"Some think" that the moon landings were faked.

"Some think" that Salt Lake City and the Mormon Church are secretly run by lizard-men living in the tunnels beneath Temple Square.

"Some think" that the Earth is flat.

"Some think" that Pepsi is fit for human consumption.

David Smith was, by all accounts, a brilliant and gifted, but ultimately mentally unstable human being.

He was sucked into the family's religious turmoil, eventually lost his testimony vis-a-vis religion in general, and as his mental instability grew, led an increasingly unhappy life before finally being insitutionalized.

Attributing his illness and decline to any single factor is an exercise in mendacity and demagoguery.

Ironically, the full article does not support your innuendo (charge is far too strong a word for the smear you offered)- nor does the book being reviewed (by Valeen Tippetts Avery).

[Closet Doubter]

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?)

I was going by memory and I got this way off. I apologize. The actual quote I was thinking of is in JoD Vol 11 page 269 and the actual quote is this by Brigham Young: "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them."

The idea that all a person had to do was be sealed in the temple monogamously to be exalted wasn't taught until after the second manifesto (see Quinn's paper in Dialogue). My great grandparents were both endowed but not sealed. My brother figured this out and we were sealed for them in the Salt Lake temple in 1986. I thought it was strange that they were active members, living about 30 minutes from a temple, but never had their marriage sealed. Sealing wasn't important to them because they had no plans to become polygamous and therefore would not become gods but would instead be angels to gods. I didn't understand this until I started reading from the JoD and other sources.

[Tacenda]

Gotta love the "some think" weasel wording.

"Some think" is a rhetorical cop-out, designed to float a controversial or offensive idea without taking moral or intellectual responsibility for it.

"Some think" that JFK was murdered by a conspiracy involving his own Vice President and the country's top oath-bound law enforcement agents.

"Some think" that the moon landings were faked.

"Some think" that Salt Lake City and the Mormon Church are secretly run by lizard-men living in the tunnels beneath Temple Square.

"Some think" that the Earth is flat.

"Some think" that Pepsi is fit for human consumption.

David Smith was, by all accounts, a brilliant and gifted, but ultimately mentally unstable human being.

He was sucked into the family's religious turmoil, eventually lost his testimony vis-a-vis religion in general, and as his mental instability grew, led an increasingly unhappy life before finally being insitutionalized.

Attributing his illness and decline to any single factor is an exercise in mendacity and demagoguery.

Ironically, the full article does not support your innuendo (charge is far too strong a word for the smear you offered)- nor does the book being reviewed (by Valeen Tippetts Avery).

Touche' Selek 1! I guess I should have said I think, along with others that David had the mental breakdown because in reading more about it, it occurred soon after his trip to Utah and having his cousin convince him of his father's polygamy. Heck, I'm nearly half insane after finding things I've learned about the church in my old age. So I can only imagine what it would do to David!

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Bowman:

thesometimesaint,

You wrote:

That's easy. Assuming for the sake of argument that we think Abraham's polygamy was perfectly fine (which I don't), there are several reasons why we should still be extremely troubled by Joseph's polygamy but not Abraham's:

• Abraham did not repeatedly lie by denying that he was practicing polygamy when he was. Joseph did.
  
• Abraham did not falsely claim that God commanded him to practice polygamy (at the point of an angel's sword, no less!). Joseph did.
  
• Abraham's polygamy was not contrary to the cultural and legal norms of his culture. Joseph's was.
  
• Abraham did not "marry" over thirty women. Joseph did.
  
• Abraham did not "marry" women who were currently already married to living men. Joseph did.
  
• Abraham did not practice polygamy after the New Testament, which clearly teaches monogamy (e.g., 1 Tim. 3:2). Joseph did.
  

You wrote:

You shouldn't, but of course it is at least an open question whether we should believe Joseph Smith's claim that God ordered (not "asked") him to do it.

1. Abraham seemed have a problem of lying to Pharaoh about his "sister".

2. CFR that God didn't command Joseph to practice polygamy.

3. Irrelevant

4. David did, and Solomon had more.

5. David did, and so did Solomon

6. You might want to read the actual history of polygamy, before making such silly statements.

There is no functional difference between the two.

[selek1]

That's easy. Assuming for the sake of argument that we think Abraham's polygamy was perfectly fine (which I don't), there are several reasons why we should still be extremely troubled by Joseph's polygamy but not Abraham's:

Gotta love the a priori reasoning and special pleadings inherent in any Bowman screed.

Let not mere facts stand in the way of his holy crusade!

Abraham did not repeatedly lie by denying that he was practicing polygamy when he was. Joseph did.

This is both an argument from silence and a circular argument. First and foremost, Abraham did lie about his marriage to Sarai- telling Pharoah the woman was his sister, rather than his wife. Worse, after Pharoah had set his sights on Sarah, Abraham used that indiscretion as blackmail to ensure the Pharaoh's friendship.

Abraham did not falsely claim that God commanded him to practice polygamy (at the point of an angel's sword, no less!). Joseph did.

Question begging. Bowman does not know that the story is false. He assumes it is so- but he has no evidence to that effect.

Abraham's polygamy was not contrary to the cultural and legal norms of his culture. Joseph's was.

I'll keep that excuse in mind the next time you go on a tear regarding Sodom and Gamorrah. According to your rationale, their behavior was acceptable, since it was in accord with the cultural and legal norms of their time.

Abraham did not "marry" over thirty women. Joseph did.

Argument from silence. You have no idea how many women Abraham actually married. Only two are recorded (Sarai and Hagar). There may have been many more. Also, you are deliberately conflating terms for polemical advantage: Joseph was sealed to a large number of women (some after he died). There is very little evidence to indicate that these were "marriages" in the conventional sense.

Abraham did not "marry" women who were currently already married to living men. Joseph did.

Again- you are conflating terms in order to exacerbate the shock value. Joseph was sealed- not married- to women whose husbands were still living. Some of these men were in apostacy, others were not. There is, however, no evidence that these were "marriages" in the conventional understanding of the word.

Abraham did not practice polygamy after the New Testament, which clearly teaches monogamy (e.g., 1 Tim. 3:2). Joseph did.

More question begging. Your interpretation of Scripture (couched loudly and comfortably in tradition and contemporary morality) demands monogamy. Unfortunately, you are in no position to dictate terms to God.

[selek1]

I guess I should have said I think, along with others that David had the mental breakdown because in reading more about it, it occurred soon after his trip to Utah and having his cousin convince him of his father's polygamy. Heck, I'm nearly half insane after finding things I've learned about the church in my old age. So I can only imagine what it would do to David!

Correlation does not equal causation.

Just because David's condition worsened after eating a plate of carrots does not mean that carrots caused (or exacerbated) his condition.

While the trip and its attendant revelations were undoubtedly hard on the young man, it is disingenuous and offensive (and frankly, illogical) to cite these as causal to his condition.

[Tacenda]

Correlation does not equal causation.

Just because David's condition worsened after eating a plate of carrots does not mean that carrots caused (or exacerbated) his condition.

While the trip and its attendant revelations were undoubtedly hard on the young man, it is disingenuous and offensive (and frankly, illogical) to cite these as causal to his condition.

Okay, okay, danged if you're right again.

[Calm]

I was going by memory and I got this way off. I apologize. The actual quote I was thinking of is in JoD Vol 11 page 269 and the actual quote is this by Brigham Young: "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them."

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_polygamy/Brigham_Young_said_that_the_only_men_who_become_gods_are_those_that_practice_polygamy

The entire quote says something different:

We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us...It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.^[1] (emphasis added)

[selek1]

Okay, okay, danged if you're right again.

It happens once or twice a millenium.

In point of fact, however, I agree with you that the enormous emotional strain could not have helped David's (presumably) already fragile mental state.

I do not (and would not) dismiss the very real stress and emotional rollercoaster that attends this sort of upheaval in the life of the faithful believer- but neither should we leap to unwarranted conclusions (no matter how attractive they are to our presumptions and preferences).

[Calm]

Apparently Emma denied that Joseph ever practiced polygamy to her sons. And while on a mission for the RLDS, David was in Utah and heard that his father did indeed practice it. He was so against polygamy or plural wifery that some think it drove him insane to think that his father practiced it.

Even more immediate than the idea of his father's practice of polygamy was his mother lying to him about it. That would have likely been very disturbing.

[Rob Bowman]

thesometimesaint,

Your numbered points (responding to my post) appear below followed by my comments.

1. Abraham seemed have a problem of lying to Pharaoh about his "sister".

Yes, and he was wrong to do so! But he was not wrong to be married to Sarai (Sarah). Furthermore, my point still stands, which is that Abraham did not lie about practicing polygamy.

2. CFR that God didn't command Joseph to practice polygamy.

Come now. That isn't a proper CFR. I didn't claim and don't need to have a "reference" in which God says "I never commanded Joseph Smith to practice polygamy." I am entitled to express my opinion that Joseph's claim was false. If you like, you can revise my second point by omitting the word "falsely," and the contrast between Abraham and Joseph Smith is still plain as day.

3. Irrelevant

I would think it highly relevant that Abraham's polygamy was an accepted part of his pagan, pre-Israelite culture and perfectly legal, whereas Joseph's polygamy was abhorred by his Christian culture and rejected by law.

4. David did, and Solomon had more.

5. David did, and so did Solomon.

I expected this. So, you concede that Abraham did not. Was David's and Solomon's having many wives a good thing or a bad thing (hint: see Deut. 17:17)?

6. You might want to read the actual history of polygamy, before making such silly statements.

Feel free to educate me, wise guy, about how the actual history of polygamy in any way undermines my sixth contrast between Abraham and Joseph Smith.

[Rob Bowman]

selek,

I will pass over most of your post (some of your objections have already been answered in my previous post; others are simply not serious arguments), but I will respond to the following claim:

I'll keep that excuse in mind the next time you go on a tear regarding Sodom and Gamorrah. According to your rationale, their behavior was acceptable, since it was in accord with the cultural and legal norms of their time.

You are mistaken. The behavior of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah was immoral by the standards of that time. The Lord pointed out to Abraham that "the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great" (Gen. 18:20), indicating that the wickedness of those cities resulted in people crying out for relief. The attempt by the men of Sodom to assault Lot's houseguests was by ancient cultural standards quite wicked (cf. Gen. 19:4-9).

[selek1]

The behavior of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah was immoral by the standards of that time. The Lord pointed out to Abraham that "the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great" (Gen. 18:20), indicating that the wickedness of those cities resulted in people crying out for relief. The attempt by the men of Sodom to assault Lot's houseguests was by ancient cultural standards quite wicked (cf. Gen. 19:4-9).

Note that you are shifting the goalposts once again. No one contends that Sodom and Gomorrah were anything but wicked in the Lord's sight- but that's not what you claimed.

You appealed to the cultural and legal norms of his culture, not the Lord.

If the behavior was against the cultural and legal norms of the time, why was it that the people had to call on God to provide relief?

To whom was the outcry in 18:20 directed? To the Lord. Not to the contemporary moral or legal authorities.

Your reference to Genesis 19: 4-9 says nothing about the action being contrary to contemporary norms- in fact, it points out that the entire male population of the city turned out for the spectacle.

I also wonder what Lot's offer to turn his virgin daughters over to tender mercies of the crowd says about the acceptable cultural norm.

In any case- Sodom and Gomorrah were condemned by God's command, not the "cultural norms" of the day- Joseph was likewise vindicated by divine commandment, rather than the "cultural norms" of his day.

Edited July 6, 2012 by selek1

[yootaw]

What evidence is there that Joseph's polygamous unions were not consummated (at least the ones that occurred while he was living). It seems clear that polygamous unions were sexual after Josephs time, why not during?

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Bowman:

1.. So it's fine with you to lie about incest?

2. You are entitled to your opinion, but that opinion should at least be based on facts. Wild hair opinions are just that wild hair opinions.

3. If you are restoring an ancient principle modern practices are an irrelevancy. Otherwise yours is just a special pleading.

4. Read what I said. I said other prophets in the OT. That would of course include others besides Abraham.

6. Offenders for a Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints, Aspen Books, Salt Lake City, UT, 1992, pp.154-156: "Christian history demonstrates beyond question that polygamy cannot be used as a club with which to drive the Mormons from Christendom. It is too blunt an instrument, and would chase too many obvious Christians from the fold as well. The sixth century Arab Christian kings of Lakhm and Ghassan were polygamists, for instance, as were the contemporary Christians of Ethiopia [1]. Pope Clement VII, faced with the threat of a continent-dividing divorce, considered bigamy as a solution to the problem of Henry VIII. Was he, with such thoughts, flirting with becoming a non-Christian? [2] Did Martin Luther cease to be a Christian when he made the same suggestion, in September 1531, to King Henry's envoy, Robert Barnes? [3] Nearly a decade later, Luther counselled Philip of Hesse to take Margaret von der Sale as a second wife. He justified the idea from the Old Testament, as the Mormons would in a later century. Furthermore, he suggested public denial. (Generally, he had written in an earlier letter, he favored monogamy, remarking that "a Christian is not free to marry several wives unless God commands him to go beyond the liberty which is conditioned by love.") [4] But when Philip actually did marry Margaret in March of 1540, he did so - contrary to Luther's counsel - publicly. Indeed, the marriage was performed by Philip's Lutheran chaplain and in the presence of Luther's chief lieutenants, Philip Melanchthon and Martin Bucer. Needless to say, a storm of controversy broke out. Writing to John Frederick of Saxony on 10 June 1540, Luther declared, "I am not ashamed of the counsel I gave even if it should become known throughout the world. Because it is unpleasant, however, I should prefer, if possible, to have it kept quiet." [5] Was Luther a pagan? Did his associates, Bucer and Melanchthon, leave Christianity when they joined in Luther's advice? [6] Of course not. This was "Christianity Polygamy in the Sixteenth Century," as Elder Orson Pratt termed it in a well informed 1853 article. [7] Citing the statement by Luther, Melanchthon, and Bucer, to the effect that "the Gospel hath neither recalled nor forbid what was permitted in the law of Moses with respect to marriage," Elder Pratt quite correctly concluded that the case of Philip of Hesse "proves most conclusively, that those Divines did sincerely believe it to be just as legal and lawful for a Christian to have two wives as to have one only." [8]

Yet many Protestant Christians today are convinced that polygamy disqualifies Latter-day Saints from acceptance within Christendom. Why? "What is surprising," notes Manas Buthelezi, "is that the Christian Church has raised this essentially cultural matter to a level of a soteriological absolute." [9]

Many observers of Christianity in Africa, including the illustrious modern theologian Karl Rahner, have raised serious questions about whether Indo-European marital custom really belongs to the essence of being Christian. [10] "Let it be publicly declared," writes H. W. Turner, that a polygamous African church may still be classed as a Christian church." [11] But if a "polygamous African church" can be called Christian, why cannot a once-polygamous American church? Anti-Mormons would not, we assume, want to claim that the definition of "Christian" differs between Africa and North America.

[Darren10]

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.

I can't answer that per se but I hardly think the subject was not taught.

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.

Persoanlly, I would not trust the vasy majority of things printed at Salon.com. This includes accounts from exmormons. There's a very strong bias against Mormons at that site.

Edited July 6, 2012 by Darren10

[selek1]

What evidence is there that Joseph's polygamous unions were not consummated (at least the ones that occurred while he was living).

Actually, we cannot prove that they were not consummated (which is asking us to prove a negative).

If fact, the burden of proof is one those who wish to prove that those sealings were consummated as marriages- evidence which is sorely lacking.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Children_of_polygamous_marriages

It seems clear that polygamous unions were sexual after Josephs time, why not during?

The almost absolute lack of evidence to that effect is a pretty steep hurdle to overcome.

[thesometimesaint]

yopotaw:

A factor of course would be the lack of children except with Emma.

[KevinG]

Sometimesaint- did you just quote an eeeevil apologist?

[Darren10]

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.

While I can agree there could bwe a bit more mentioning of polygamy and Joseph Smith, I don't think the LDS Church is being dishonest to its 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.

Even there I do not thin it is trying to "conceal" plygamy. Anyone who wants to find out about it can and do. Polyandry as well. What's the need to? I don't speak of everything I do with my family and that's not "concealing" the information, I just don't find it relevant.

I think the Church should acknowledge it and move on, as they have done with the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

They have and do acknowledge it and move on. You seem to demand that they go back and speak more about it.