Joseph Smith And Polygamy

[thesometimesaint]

KevinG:

If they're evil or not I don't know. But as I do agree with it...

[Darren10]

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."

Let me redirect the bold if you will:

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."

Which plural marriages were performed "with church approval"? I'm not saying there weren't any, just which are they?

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."

Sounds to me that Joseph F. Smith pivoted "the Church" to condemn post Manifesto plural marriages.

[Darren10]

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.

ummmm, no. Polygamy was not a mistake and there was no affair with Fanny Agler. Period.

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.

Reread your own post. That's what'sdisturbing and repainting reality.

[LindaLDS]

Linda #232;

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

To each his own.

I always find it fascinating when they mistake ignoring them with WINNING!

[Darren10]

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).

Just FYI, calling the Church a 'liar" or others here is a no-no. Tread carefully with that.

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)

Journal of Discourse, is not "the Church", it is selective "discouirses" or "talks" given by specific LDS leaders. When Brigham young or anyone else gives a "discourse", it is NOT binding on "the Church". When the First presidency and Qurom of the Twelve unamisnoulsy announces something and it is voted upon by the general church embership, *that* is binding. The official doctrine is that celestial marriage is essential for exaltation; not plural marriage.

the Church can't honestly say that Monogamy was the standard.

Sure it can, because it is. Today monogamy isn't the LDS standard? What planet are you living on? In the past it was the standard as well. Plural marriages were the exception, not the rule.

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.

Huh?

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).

Unless you can show a reliable source for that, I say, "no, he did not."

Bishoprick

Heh. Freudian slip, I'm sure.

Edited July 6, 2012 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Based on reports of Emma's reation when she caught them consumating this "sealing", it was more probably and affair.

Nonesnese. That NEVER happened. You need to read better sources.

Edited July 6, 2012 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Calmoriah #252;

You did your own research!!! My legal fees are now paid in full. Good job, Sister!!!

(I did get your gender correct, didn't I?)

[LindaLDS]

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?

For one thing, if he had consummated all those marriages, he wouldn't have had time for anything else. Not to mention things like, NO one has THAT much stamina, and since birth control was not even a concept I think, where are all the children that would inevitably have come from a lot of these unions?

And if all he wanted was pookie, he could have had that without marrying them. It worked for John Bennett, the women fell for it, and he wasn't even the prophet.

[William Schryver]

For one thing, if he had consummated all those marriages, he wouldn't have had time for anything else. Not to mention things like, NO one has THAT much stamina, and since birth control was not even a concept I think, where are all the children that would inevitably have come from a lot of these unions?

And if all he wanted was pookie, he could have had that without marrying them. It worked for John Bennett, the women fell for it, and he wasn't even the prophet.

"Pookie?"

I've never heard that term applied in the fashion you seem to understand it. Here's the Urban Dictionary definition: pookie

I'm familiar with a somewhat similar term, but I won't use it here.

[treehugger]

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.

Whyme, thank you for the response. However, your response does not address how members learned, from Church materials, about Joseph Smith and his polygamist wives.

Som, in this thread, mentioned Zina Young - on lds.org she is refferred to as Zina Young (no mention of Smith in her name nor mention of her marriage to Joseph Smith)

Only after close to half a century in the Church did I learn of Joseph Smiths polyagmay....and I did not learn about from the Church.

[William Schryver]

Only after close to half a century in the Church did I learn of Joseph Smiths polyagmay....and I did not learn about from the Church.

It took you that long to get to the end of the Doctrine & Covenants?

[Darren10]

"From Mission to Madness"

It may be me but shouldn't that title alone throw up a red flag in terms of bias? My understanding is that Emma taught her children that their father, Joseph Smith Jr., did not teach polygamy and it was Brigham Young who made it public. Emma hated plygamy 9who could blame her) but knew of an absolute certainty that her husband was God's chosen prophet. While David Smith's moment of truth, that his father, Joseph Smith Jr., did practice plygamy, may have shocked him I don't think he went insane from it.

[KevinG]

Whyme, thank you for the response. However, your response does not address how members learned, from Church materials, about Joseph Smith and his polygamist wives.

Som, in this thread, mentioned Zina Young - on lds.org she is refferred to as Zina Young (no mention of Smith in her name nor mention of her marriage to Joseph Smith)

Only after close to half a century in the Church did I learn of Joseph Smiths polyagmay....and I did not learn about from the Church.

FYI she wasn't Zina Smith until after her sealing to Brigham for time and Joseph for eternity. She turned Joseph down before marrying Henry Jacobs. She wasn't sealed to Joseph until after his death.

This is a great example of where people get part of the story and don't continue to learn what sealings were really about. Hint: It has less to do with this life than the next.

[yootaw]

For one thing, if he had consummated all those marriages, he wouldn't have had time for anything else. Not to mention things like, NO one has THAT much stamina, and since birth control was not even a concept I think, where are all the children that would inevitably have come from a lot of these unions?

And if all he wanted was pookie, he could have had that without marrying them. It worked for John Bennett, the women fell for it, and he wasn't even the prophet.

So, did the nature of polygamous marriages change after Joseph? Not motivations for, but nature of? If so, why?

[KevinG]

So, did the nature of polygamous marriages change after Joseph? Not motivations for, but nature of? If so, why?

More knowledge on how to practice and open practice over time. IMO

[Calm]

(I did get your gender correct, didn't I?)

Yep.

[Darren10]

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.
  

I think there's a correlation between your first and third bullet point, don't you, Rob? Also, while Joseph was married / sealed to many more women than we know from Abraham, (and I know this is shakey ground to post here so i'll carefully wod me argument) we know that Abraham did things to ensure that all his wives bore his children. There is no evidence anywhere that Joseph Smith did any such thing. As selek pointed out to you, there's no reason to consider Joseph Smith's marriages were done and lived in a conventional. Abraham's most deifintely was.

[Rob Bowman]

selek1,

You apparently are so mad at me being here that you aren't thinking clearly about what I am saying. Yes, I quoted the Lord, but I pointed out that what the Lord said indicated that it was not merely his view that the cities were wicked but the experience of those who were crying out because of it. Their outcry clearly presupposes that they thought what happening was bad.

You also tried to argue that if the men of the city as a whole were in favor of a particular act of wickedness this means that the act was within the bounds of generally accepted cultural or legal norms of that period. If you will simply think about this a minute apart from your zeal to attack anything I say you will see that such a claim is ridiculous. The Third Reich committed all sorts of war crimes, including (obviously) the Holocaust, but they could not plausibly argue that these heinous acts of wickedness were simply normal in their society.

This question about Sodom and Gomorrah is a distraction from the issue under discussion here. The question was asked why people should be troubled by Joseph Smith's polygamy but not Abraham's. I presented six contrasts between the two practices, one of which was that polygamy was culturally and legally acceptable in Abraham's day but not in Joseph's. The point in this contrast was not that everything that is culturally and legally acceptable in a particular place and time is morally acceptable. The point is that Joseph flouted both cultural convention and the law by his practice, something Abraham did not do. Now, if you insist on claiming that Joseph was justified in doing so, have at it, but Abraham will not do as precedent.

If you have to appeal to Nazis or other criminals to win arguments it is time to leave the thread.

[Darren10]

For one thing, if he had consummated all those marriages, he wouldn't have had time for anything else. Not to mention things like, NO one has THAT much stamina, and since birth control was not even a concept I think, where are all the children that would inevitably have come from a lot of these unions?

And if all he wanted was pookie, he could have had that without marrying them. It worked for John Bennett, the women fell for it, and he wasn't even the prophet.

LOL!!!

Hehehe, you said, "pookie".

[Rob Bowman]

Darren,

You wrote:

I think there's a correlation between your first and third bullet point, don't you, Rob?

In other words, Joseph lied about practicing polygamy because society wouldn't approve. Of course. But since when do prophets lie about taking a stand for what God commands out of fear of reprisals from society? Is this a good defense of Joseph's lying?

You wrote:

Also, while Joseph was married / sealed to many more women than we know from Abraham, (and I know this is shakey ground to post here so i'll carefully wod me argument) we know that Abraham did things to ensure that all his wives bore his children. There is no evidence anywhere that Joseph Smith did any such thing. As selek pointed out to you, there's no reason to consider Joseph Smith's marriages were done and lived in a conventional. Abraham's most deifintely was.

All you are doing here is drawing a seventh contrast between Abraham's polygamy and Joseph's. How is this helping the original argument I was rebutting?

[KevinG]

When God commands it it is morally acceptable.

[Calm]

It took you that long to get to the end of the Doctrine & Covenants?

That could be the comeback line of the week.....

[William Schryver]

FYI she wasn't Zina Smith until after her sealing to Brigham for time and Joseph for eternity. She turned Joseph down before marrying Henry Jacobs. She wasn't sealed to Joseph until after his death.

This is a great example of where people get part of the story and don't continue to learn what sealings were really about. Hint: It has less to do with this life than the next.

Zina Huntington Jacobs Smith Young was married to Joseph Smith on October 27, 1841, when she was seven months pregnant with Henry Jacobs child.

She has a very interesting story, to say the least.

[Rob Bowman]

KevinG,

You wrote:

When God commands it it is morally acceptable.

Yes. On the other hand, when we already have been told by God not to do it, and someone claims that God told him to do it, we know that God did not command it.

[William Schryver]

The point is that Joseph flouted both cultural convention and the law by his practice, something Abraham did not do. Now, if you insist on claiming that Joseph was justified in doing so, have at it, but Abraham will not do as precedent.

What's most fascinating to me is that the same people who would condemn Joseph Smith for flouting "cultural convention and the law" by practicing plural marriage, would likewise condemn Brigham Young for NOT flouting "cultural convention and the law" by joining ranks with the antebellum abolitionists.

Funny how that works, isn't it?