Joseph Smith And Polygamy

[William Schryver]

KevinG,

You wrote:

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.

Where and when did that happen?

[Darren10]

Darren,

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?

Not only would society not accept it but they would persecute him and the Mormons in general for it. Even if it was morally wrong to lie (I don't think it was, I think Joseph Smith, like abraham, was following the promptings of the Holy Spirit regarding polygamy and how to present their marriages tothe public), it's really not a bad sin. Peter denied knowing Jesus. Strictly speaking, that's blashphamy against God himself but I don't think God would be too hard on Peter, considering the circumstances.

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?

Yes, this does help. Abraham had sexual relations with his wives (isn't that adultery, punishable by death under the Law if his practice was sinnful which you yourself mplied it was?), Joseph Smith did not except for Emma. (This is what I meant that about being on "shakey ground" here. We're not supposed to "sexualize" Joseph Smith's marriages but at this point I don't know how else to reply to you).

[Darren10]

KevinG,

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.

We should not kill but didn't Jehovah lead armies to victory? What about the Caananites when the Hebrews entered into the promised land?

[Rob Bowman]

William,

You asked:

Where and when did that happen?

1 Timothy 3:2, for example (the significance of which I discussed in some detail in an earlier thread here).

[Rob Bowman]

William,

You wrote:

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?

I don't condemn him on that issue, so your argument fails here.

[selek1]

selek1,

You apparently are so mad at me being here that you aren't thinking clearly about what I am saying.

Leave off the mind-reading and answer the argument.

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.

Which does not, unfortunately demonstrate that their view was the majority or even the norm.

If anything, the fact that the bulk of the population of Sodom and Gomorrah were onboard for the assault suggests that it was the local norm. Lot and his family were the distinct minority, especially when one considers that Abraham was unable to find even good ten men in the city.

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.

That's a fantastic application of Handwavium 213 but it doesn't obscure the fact that you appealed to the contemporary morality.

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.

You presented a foolish and tendentious argument and are now back-pedalling madly trying to distance yourself from it.

The point in this contrast was not that everything that is culturally and legally acceptable in a particular place and time is morally acceptable.

You argued that Joseph's polygamy should be condemned because it violated the surrounding cultural norms. Now you are trying to retreat from that shallow and tendentious position.

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.

Abraham was your precedent not mine.

And the smuggled-in assertion that Joseph was in violation of the law is not represented in fact.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Bowman:

That verse doesn't support your position.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

[Rob Bowman]

Darren,

You wrote:

Not only would society not accept it but they would persecute him and the Mormons in general for it. Even if it was morally wrong to lie (I don't think it was, I think Joseph Smith, like abraham, was following the promptings of the Holy Spirit regarding polygamy and how to present their marriages tothe public), it's really not a bad sin. Peter denied knowing Jesus. Strictly speaking, that's blashphamy against God himself but I don't think God would be too hard on Peter, considering the circumstances.

The issue is not how hard God would be on someone. What Peter did was wrong. It was also cowardly. But oh by the way, this happened before Christ died on the cross and rose from the dead, before the Holy Spirit came on the apostles in power, and before Peter began functioning as a prophetic figure in the early Christian movement. What's Joseph Smith's excuse?

You wrote:

Yes, this does help. Abraham had sexual relations with his wives (isn't that adultery, punishable by death under the Law if his practice was sinnful which you yourself mplied it was?), Joseph Smith did not except for Emma. (This is what I meant that about being on "shakey ground" here. We're not supposed to "sexualize" Joseph Smith's marriages but at this point I don't know how else to reply to you).

No, Abraham having relations with his wives was not adultery, because once he had legally bound himself to those wives they were in fact his wives. By its nature marriage was a public act, a contract made between two people, and Abraham was actually married to his wives. Joseph was not legally married to anyone except Emma.

That Joseph Smith had relations only with Emma is at least debatable, and completely ruins the Mormon apologetic appeal to Abraham as precedent for Joseph's polygamy.

Mormons seem double-minded about Joseph's polygamy. On the one hand, he was supposedly acting in the venerable tradition of Abraham, David, and Solomon. On the other hand, he wasn't really married to any of those women, supposedly did not regard them as wives, and supposedly didn't have marital relations with them. Yet D&C 132 explicitly uses the plural term wives four times in reference to the "principle" of plural marriage. Was it, or was it not, really marriage? Was Joseph's practice that of an entirely different principle than, say, Brigham Young's practice? The defense "Joseph wasn't really married to those women" just doesn't work.

[Rob Bowman]

thesometimesaint,

You wrote:

That verse doesn't support your position.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

I've discussed the passage in another thread.

[Rob Bowman]

selek1,

You wrote:

You argued that Joseph's polygamy should be condemned because it violated the surrounding cultural norms. Now you are trying to retreat from that shallow and tendentious position.

Abraham was your precedent not mine.

Please go back and read my first post in this thread, where you will find that your statements here are mistaken.

[Darren10]

William,

I don't condemn him on that issue, so your argument fails here.

So it's good that Brigham young bucked the social norm?

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Bowman:

And you were wrong there to.

[Rob Bowman]

Huh?

Edited to add: I'm guessing you mean I was wrong about 1 Timothy 3:2 in the other thread. Well, feel free to show me.

Rob Bowman:

And you were wrong there to.

Edited July 6, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Rob Bowman]

Darren,

You asked:

So it's good that Brigham young bucked the social norm?

I haven't addressed this subject, which appears to be yet another diversion. There was no one social norm at the time. Rather, there was intense conflict over what the norms should be.

I see that my point about cultural standards went flying over people's heads here. Look: there was no anti-polygamy sentiment in 2000 BC. Polygamy was normal. No one questioned it. This point cannot be overturned, and you cannot accuse me of inconsistency, by bringing up an issue I have not addressed in which conflicting social values and norms were in play.

[Closet Doubter]

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...amous_marriages

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

Either you are being disengenuous or you don't know your Church history very well. I don't have the sources at my fingertips to cite but during the Temple Lot lawsuit in the 1850's Brigham Young had many of the wives of Joseph Smith give legal depositions stating that their marriages were not merely symbolic but were complete marriages. You can look it up to get the exact wording but they were stating the marriages were sexual without giving specific details.

[William Schryver]

William,

You asked:

1 Timothy 3:2, for example (the significance of which I discussed in some detail in an earlier thread here).

Apparently you fail to appreciate the fact that Joseph Smith did not consider God beholden to whatever you imagine to be His immutable law. That's why this is one of the most important concepts Joseph Smith revealed to mankind:

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said that thou shalt not kill, -- at another time he said thou shalt utterly destroy. This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted -- by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.

[yootaw]

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?

Funny how the same people that accept the sexual nature of Brigham's marriages being unwilling to allow the same in Joseph's.

[ERayR]

Either you are being disengenuous or you don't know your Church history very well. I don't have the sources at my fingertips to cite but during the Temple Lot lawsuit in the 1850's Brigham Young had many of the wives of Joseph Smith give legal depositions stating that their marriages were not merely symbolic but were complete marriages. You can look it up to get the exact wording but they were stating the marriages were sexual without giving specific details.

Do you mean to say one can not be married unless one has sexual relations? I don't think sexual relations are a requirement for a marriage to be valid.

[thesometimesaint]

yootaw:

There is a big difference between willingness to accept something and proving it.

[Darren10]

Darren,

You wrote:

The issue is not how hard God would be on someone. What Peter did was wrong. It was also cowardly. But oh by the way, this happened before Christ died on the cross and rose from the dead, before the Holy Spirit came on the apostles in power, and before Peter began functioning as a prophetic figure in the early Christian movement. What's Joseph Smith's excuse?

It may have been before the tie of Pentacaust but I don't think you arwe suggesting that Peter did not havethe Holy spirit in him to witness of Jesus' divinity:

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the ^aChrist, the ^bSon of the ^cliving God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon ^aBar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not ^brevealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven

(Mather 16)

Isn't that testimony with power? Granted it was not yet time to tell the world that Jesus was the Christ but no doubt Peter knew this by power from on high (directly from the Most High God) ansd you acknowledged my main point: "What Peter did was wrong. It was also cowardly.". Exactly. And yet I do not think, due tothe circumstances, God will be too hard on Peter. He knew God in the flesh first hand and yet denied knowing Him at all. So, even if Joseph Smith was worng to deny polygamy while practicing it, which, again, I do not think it was wrong for he was following the Holy Spirit, just like Abraham, it really isn't that bad of a sin whereas aultery is. according to you positionthat Abraham was wrong to enter into polygamy than what else was he but an adulterer? underthe Law, he should have been put to death. Same with Moses yet both were servants of God in their polygamy, this is explicitly declared upon Moses (numbers 12:1-15). Despite the immediate "social norm" - Aaron and miriam - opposing Moses marrying an Ethiopian woman, God stood by him as His servant. And God NEVER condemned Abraham, nor Moses for polygamy, implying that they were adulterers is foundless.

No, Abraham having relations with his wives was not adultery, because once he had legally bound himself to those wives they were in fact his wives. By its nature marriage was a public act, a contract made between two people, and Abraham was actually married to his wives. Joseph was not legally married to anyone except Emma.

So when people marry today, let's say by eloping, consumate their marriage before announcing their pmmarriage publicly, than they are adulterers? Huh? And what legal bounds did a men have with their wives wives in the US beyond being punished for adultery?

That Joseph Smith had relations only with Emma is at least debatable, and completely ruins the Mormon apologetic appeal to Abraham as precedent for Joseph's polygamy.

No, it's no debatable unless you presume guilt without evidence. We know for sure that Abraham and Moses produced children from more than one woman. not only did Joseph Smith not produce any offspring except with Emma butthere is not journal entry, testimony, or spoken word from anyone from Joseph Smith, Emma Smith, any of Joseph Smith's wives, their kin (brothers, sister, parents, etc.) that joseph smith's behavior wassexual. that's a lot of silence for Smith's supposed dalliances. (LOL, "pookies"). the best you'll come up with is affidavits filed in court in Utah long after Joseph Smith's death claiming childbirth by Joseph Smith. That's weak and i do not consider that as "evidence". I can file an affidavit in the very same manner against anyone I want.

Mormons seem double-minded about Joseph's polygamy. On the one hand, he was supposedly acting in the venerable tradition of Abraham, David, and Solomon. On the other hand, he wasn't really married to any of those women, supposedly did not regard them as wives, and supposedly didn't have marital relations with them.

He introduced the *principle* of plural marriage. Acting in conventional marital manners with plural wives came frm people after Joseph Smith introduced the practice.

Yet D&C 132 explicitly uses the plural term wives four times in reference to the "principle" of plural marriage.

Yup, 'principle' of plural marriage.

Was it, or was it not, really marriage? Was Joseph's practice that of an entirely different principle than, say, Brigham Young's practice? The defense "Joseph wasn't really married to those women" just doesn't work.

With Joseph Smith it was the principle of marriage, not actual conventional marriages. He was *really married*, just not in a conventional sense. If you can offer evidence ("CFR" anyone ) to the contrary, you yourself cannot claim they were conventional marriages.

[Darren10]

Darren,

I haven't addressed this subject, which appears to be yet another diversion. There was no one social norm at the time. Rather, there was intense conflict over what the norms should be.

You supported Brigham Young's abolitionist positions yet abolitionism was against the social norm. So, you support him bucking the social norm, correct?

Look: there was no anti-polygamy sentiment in 2000 BC. Polygamy was normal. No one questioned it.

They didn't question slavery neither.

This point cannot be overturned, and you cannot accuse me of inconsistency, by bringing up an issue I have not addressed in which conflicting social values and norms were in play.

I think I just did.

[Darren10]

Funny how the same people that accept the sexual nature of Brigham's marriages being unwilling to allow the same in Joseph's.

We know Brigham Young produced children from multiple women. We know of no single child produced by Joseph Smith with anyone except Emma. Period.

[Darren10]

#316;

Quote

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said that thou shalt not kill, -- at another time he said thou shalt utterly destroy. This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted -- by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.

Preach it, brother!!!

[yootaw]

yootaw:

There is a big difference between willingness to accept something and proving it.

Agreed. I'm confused as to why the idea of Joseph's relationships being sexual is such a sticking point. What am I missing?

[Rob Bowman]

William,

You wrote:

Apparently you fail to appreciate the fact that Joseph Smith did not consider God beholden to whatever you imagine to be His immutable law. That's why this is one of the most important concepts Joseph Smith revealed to mankind:

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said that thou shalt not kill, -- at another time he said thou shalt utterly destroy. This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted -- by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.

Ah yes. The Prophet's rationalization for trying to manipulate women into becoming his "wives." I appreciate what Joseph was doing more than you, I'm afraid.