Joseph Smith And Polygamy

[William Schryver]

I agree, but that doesn't describe what I wrote. Webb's use of LDS terminology is beside the point.

Well, I think you've misunderstood my point in raising that issue in the first place. But it's really not that important, so I won't continue that line of discussion, except to say that I'm inclined to make many distinctions, even within a single narrative testimony, as to which elements seem reliable and which don't, even in the case where the majority of the testimony appears reliable.

The fact is, we really are not much in disagreement when it comes to this particular issue. I'm not one to attempt to distance Joseph Smith from sexual relationships with his plural wives, with the exception of those cases where it just plain seems not to have occurred, such as with Helen Mar Kimball. I think if one of Joseph's wives was "of age" and opportunity presented itself, those marriages were likely consummated, and I don't have a problem with that.

[Calm]

I wonder if Doug is aware that the Church certainly acknowledges Fanny Alger as a plural wife of Joseph Smith?

LDS perhaps, not RLDS. He referred to the RLDS for records, IIRC. Can't remember if he is RLDS or LDS. Doesn't post enough.

[LindaLDS]

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

When Joseph was preaching it, it was mostly for getting into the Celestial Kingdom. I think they thought that everyone had to be sealed, in one way or another, to the prophet, or at least, an apostle.

When the Saints got to the Salt Lake valley, it was also for survival. While there might have been enough MEN to go around, there were more women than there were worthy priesthood holders. Some of Brigham Young's wives were older than him, and he married them just so that they would have a husband's name and support. Then there was bringing children into the world, for spiritual and temporal reasons. BTW, it was discovered that women in polygamous marriages had fewer children than women in monogamous marriages, on average.

[LindaLDS]

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

I think it's because many people want to think that Joseph Smith was some horny little SOB and he wanted some "pookie" so he married these women because they would not unless they were married. They seem to think "marriage=SEX!".

[Calm]

While there might have been enough MEN to go around, there were more women than there were worthy priesthood holders.

I would be interested if you have stats for this as I heard this as a possibility, but no one was sure how one could measure it.

It was also an economic benefit to immigrant women. I believe it was Kathryn Daynes who found that women who had immigrated to Utah, often without support of family, would get married into a plural marriage sooner (but not more often...at least I don't remember the stats for comparing frequency) than when they were married into a monogamous one. This made sense because most commonly it was those men who were in better economic status who were involved in plural marriage....especially since it was relatively easy for a woman to get a divorce if she was unsatisfied with a plural marriage and remarry.

My memory says that Brigham Young said that he would never stand in the way of or even may have encouraged a woman choosing a monogamous marriage over a plural one, which would be very strange if he had the idea that exaltation required a plural marriage arrangement. Perhaps someone else whose memory is better can more accurate frame it so it can be found or even cite it if they know where to find it.

Edited July 8, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I think it's because many people want to think that Joseph Smith was some horny little SOB and he wanted some "pookie" so he married these women because they would not unless they were married. They seem to think "marriage=SEX!".

I think there is also discomfort due to the reticence in speaking of polygamy in public as well as not telling Emma all the details prior to being married to some of his wives. They interpret the actions to keep it private as lying so instead they prefer to think of him not being involved in actual marriages.

A contemporary journal describes the reaction to Joseph's attempt to teach this doctrine: When the prophet “went to his dinner,” [Joseph Lee] Robinson wrote, “as it might be expected several of the first women of the church collected at the Prophet’s house with his wife [and] said thus to the prophet Joseph O mister Smith you have done it now it will never do it is all but Blassphemy you must take back what you have said to day is it is outrageous it would ruin us as a people.” So in the afternoon session Smith again took the stand, according to Robinson, and said “Brethren and Sisters I take back what we said this morning and leave it as though there had been nothing said.”^[1]

Joseph tried to teach the doctrine, but it was rejected by many Saints, including Emma, his wife. Joseph then began to teach the doctrine privately to those who would obey.

Keeping the doctrine private was also necessary because the enemies of the Church would have used it as another justification for their assault on the Saints. Orson Hyde looked back on the Nauvoo days and indicated what the consequences of disclosure would have been: In olden times they might have passed through the same circumstances as some of the Latter-day Saints had to in Illinois. What would it have done for us, if they had known that many of us had more than one wife when we lived in Illinois? They would have broken us up, doubtless, worse than they did.^[2]

It is thus important to realize that the public preaching of polygamy—or announcing it to the general Church membership, thereby informing the public by proxy—was simply not a feasible plan. Critics of Joseph's choice want their audience to ignore the danger to him and the Saints.

See: Gregory L. Smith, "Polygamy, Prophets, and Prevarication: Frequently and Rarely Asked Questions about the Initiation, Practice, and Cessation of Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," FAIR, 2005. PDF link

http://en.fairmormon...iding_the_truth

Also, starting on page 10: http://www.fairlds.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/smith-Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf

Like obedience to civil law, honesty and integrity are foundational values to the Church of Jesus Christ. Indeed, the success which critics have in troubling members of the Church with tales of polygamy and its deceptive circum- stances is, in a way, a compliment to the Church. If the Church as an institution typically taught its members to have a casual disregard for the truth, a discovery that Jo- seph Smith had deceived others about polygamy would not be troubling to most. But, because the Church (contrary to the suggestions of some critics) really does teach its mem- bers to aspire to live elevated lives of moral rectitude, the discovery that deception was involved with polygamy can come as something of a shock. Disillusionment can ensue if we follow the critics in assuming that because Joseph occasionally misled others in this specific context, he must therefore have lied about everything else, and been abso- lutely unworthy of trust.

But, as we have seen, the practice of polygamy must be viewed in its moral context as an act of religious devotion which the Saints were unwilling to forego simply because the state or society disapproved.....

[snip]

Joseph considered the doctrine essential for the Church,49 and it would seem that he offered the Church members at least one public opportunity to hear about plural marriage, but they refused it. So, Joseph continued to teach the doc- trine, but in private. Are other more faithful members to be forbidden knowledge which some refused to receive?

Edited July 8, 2012 by calmoriah

[Hayds]

You are new here. My point was more simple. The lds church does not hide that Joseph practiced polygamy as critics claim. Many exmormons have claimed that the church hides Joseph's polygamy. It doesn't. It is on the church's official website. And that was my point for all lurkers here: one can read it on the lds.org site with a good explanation.

This is true now, but that was not always the case. The church is loosening up on the "Faith Promoting" angle and is delving into a more accurate and open portrayal of their history thanks to the web.

I wouldn't say the church hid this stuff. They just conveniently left it out of the narrative. 10-20 years ago this stuff would have been harder to find in mainstream LDS publications. Again, I am not saying this was impossible info to find out, just more difficult.

I like the new openness of the church in relation to it's history.

[thesometimesaint]

Hays:

Not hard at all

See "History of the Church" vol 1-7 and index

See " Comprehensive History of the Church" vol 1-6

See "Doctrine and Covenants"

[why me]

This is true now, but that was not always the case. The church is loosening up on the "Faith Promoting" angle and is delving into a more accurate and open portrayal of their history thanks to the web.

I wouldn't say the church hid this stuff. They just conveniently left it out of the narrative. 10-20 years ago this stuff would have been harder to find in mainstream LDS publications. Again, I am not saying this was impossible info to find out, just more difficult.

I like the new openness of the church in relation to it's history.

The saints who went west with Brigham knew that Joseph was sealed to other men's wives and they knew that Joseph was a polygamist. So, this knowledge was in the church for quite a long time and the members had very little problems with it. But somewhere along the line it was forgotten. It was no longer important. But when that came to pass, I have no idea. But in utah some of Joseph's wives bear his last name on their tombstone. So, someone must have known. But when was it all forgotten?

[why me]

When Joseph was preaching it, it was mostly for getting into the Celestial Kingdom. I think they thought that everyone had to be sealed, in one way or another, to the prophet, or at least, an apostle.

When the Saints got to the Salt Lake valley, it was also for survival. While there might have been enough MEN to go around, there were more women than there were worthy priesthood holders. Some of Brigham Young's wives were older than him, and he married them just so that they would have a husband's name and support. Then there was bringing children into the world, for spiritual and temporal reasons. BTW, it was discovered that women in polygamous marriages had fewer children than women in monogamous marriages, on average.

I also think that while in Nauvoo, the practice needed to be secret among the saints. Maybe this was even a select group of saints. One reason for this was because if the knowledge would have reached Warsaw and the surrounding areas, all heck would have broken loose. And the saints could have been killed. But when they left Nauvoo, there was no reason to hide the practice anymore and it began to be practiced openly and proudly as a sacrifice and obeying heavenly father's will.

[Calm]

Hays:

Not hard at all

See "History of the Church" vol 1-7 and index

See " Comprehensive History of the Church" vol 1-6

See "Doctrine and Covenants"

Also it's been in the same institute manual for 30 plus years.....

[Darren10]

The source regarding Alger's alleged pregnancy is Chauncey Webb. Greg Smith admits that "Webb was in a position to know about Fanny’s pregnancy" (Fanny lived with the Webbs after her expulsion from the Smith home) but thinks "there is reason to doubt this claim"—the main reason being that Webb's statement was given after he had left the Church, therefore he is a hostile source. Greg Smith suggests that Webb just made it up. That's a possibility, but I see no reason to assume that Webb is lying. If Webb was simply out to slander the Prophet, why did he characterize the relationship as a marriage ("sealing") rather than an extramarital affair? Also, as Don Bradley observes, Fanny's quick marriage to Solomon Custer in November 1836 is consistent with her being pregnant ("a swift marriage was her only chance to avoid the stigma that an illegitimate birth would bring to her and the child"). Bradley suggests that the child was "probably stillborn or deceased in infancy." Chauncey Webb's wife, Eliza Jane Webb, may have alluded to this when she stated that "Joseph never had any living children by his polygamous women..." (see Bradley, "Mormon Polygamy before Nauvoo?", 36, 44n86; emphasis added). Of Fanny's children with Solomon Custer, four out of nine died in infancy.

Thank you for that reply. In addition to reasons I previously posted, I still do not find the Webbs as a reliable source for Fanny Alger, it seems concluding her pregny by Joseph Smith is purely circumstancial. However, due to calmoriah's post Ill amend my previous postion of there being no evidence to indicate that Jseph Smith had sexual relations with anyone except Emma Smith to there being limited evidence to that conclusion. That is a big step considering the years I've been making my previous argument to others. I am interested in reading Don Bradely.

[Darren10]

Calmoriah #365;

Thank you for that post. The reliablity of those claiming Joseph Smith had sexual relations with at least some of his polygamous wives is strong. Lucy Walker and a book attributed to Heber C. Kimball are good, reliable sources and most definitely not enemies to Joseph Smith. However, I still cannot conclude, even to the possibility of, there having been sexual relations between Joseph Smith and anyone but Emma Smith. Even these reliable sources are a) second hand and b) circumstancial. Also, of the professors who claim that in Utah mormons provided lots of evidence of itamacy between Brother Joseph and his plural wives, if what they are referring to are the affidavits, I find that reference very week. Filing affidavits 50 years after the prophet's death is not strong in any stretch of the imagination though I do give credit that the sources (some of Joseph's wives themselves) provide no reason to doubt in terms of their character as far as I know.

[Darren10]

When the Saints got to the Salt Lake valley, it was also for survival. While there might have been enough MEN to go around, there were more women than there were worthy priesthood holders. Some of Brigham Young's wives were older than him, and he married them just so that they would have a husband's name and support. Then there was bringing children into the world, for spiritual and temporal reasons. BTW, it was discovered that women in polygamous marriages had fewer children than women in monogamous marriages, on average.

Which is one reason I reject the notion that polygamy was practiced (purely) for survival purposes. I think the bottom line is that it was a commandment of God (for some) and directed by the Spirit of the Lord.

Edited July 8, 2012 by Darren10

[Calm]

Filing affidavits 50 years after the prophet's death is not strong in any stretch of the imagination though I do give credit that the sources (some of Joseph's wives themselves) provide no reason to doubt in terms of their character as far as I know.

There were good reasons for those in Utah to push for the idea that Joseph had consummated at least some of his marriages since it would have demonstrated that the Utah LDS Church was the legitimate core of Joseph's church, not just an offshoot. So I can understand if some people doubt the motivation behind the affidavits, but as you say these women were known to have good characters.

One has to judge for oneself whether or not to believe them, I do think in civil discourse remaining open to both possibilities (in other words understanding how reasonable people can come up with two opposite conclusions from the same data) and not condemning either those who doubt them or those who believe them no matter what our personal conclusions are will help to avoid accusations of lying, seeing the world through rose coloured glasses, etc.

[Calm]

Which is one reason I reject the notion that polygamy was practiced (purely) for survival purposes. I think the bottom line is that it was a commandment of God (for some) and directed by the Spirit of the Lord.

John Widtsoe says in his book Evidences, etc., that there was only one reason why polygamy was practiced and that was because it was commanded by God. I think that is all the reason that is needed, but it is interesting to see what effect it had on the people involved, how it shaped their society economically, etc.

I have a great...grandmother who informed her husband it was time for him to choose a second wife. It did not make life easier for any of them from what I could tell, but my ggggrandmother described the experience as having given to her the opportunity to learn how to love as God loves, she saw the family's relationship as a celestial one and the experience was turning them into celestial people for which she expressed real joy and thanksgiving. It was a very impressive passage and I kick myself because I can't find it now.....urgghhh.

Edited July 8, 2012 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

John Widtsoe says in his book Evidences, etc., that there was only one reason why polygamy was practiced and that was because it was commanded by God. I think that is all the reason that is needed, but it is interesting to see what effect it had on the people involved, how it shaped their society economically, etc.

I have a great...grandmother who informed her husband it was time for him to choose a second wife. It did not make life easier for any of them from what I could tell, but my ggggrandmother described the experience as having given to her the opportunity to learn how to love as God loves, she saw the family's relationship as a celestial one and the experience was turning them into celestial people for which she expressed real joy and thanksgiving. It was a very impressive passage and I kick myself because I can't find it now.....urgghhh.

The did have an understanding beyond a great many of this generation and I for one believe they were and will continue to be blessed for their willingness to be obtain a testimony of and to be obedient to the revelations as given.

[Darren10]

There were good reasons for those in Utah to push for the idea that Joseph had consummated at least some of his marriages since it would have demonstrated that the Utah LDS Church was the legitimate core of Joseph's church, not just an offshoot. So I can understand if some people doubt the motivation behind the affidavits, but as you say these women were known to have good characters.

I do not doubt the good character of any of these women. As I noted previously, that helps strengthen their court testimony. I do rest a lot of doubt upon the timing. Waiting five decades to file an affidavit is quite a long time and frankly, if their motivation was to authenticate the LDS Churhc's authority as opposed ot splinter groups who remained behind in the United States whole the "Brighamites" travelled to what is now present-day Utah casts further doubt in my mind as to the accuracy of these affidavits. it also raises a question in my mind: if their affidavits were to "authenticate" the LDS Church's authority, why wait 50 years ot do so when the LDS Church's authority was challeneged from the get go, namely, Emma Smith's departure from the LDS Church? (NOTE: I strictly withhold casting any negative judgement upon her, nor do I in any way view her life choices negatively beyond the fact that the "correct choice" should have been to stay within the LDS Church.)

But, again, I do not question these women's character.

[Darren10]

John Widtsoe says in his book Evidences, etc., that there was only one reason why polygamy was practiced and that was because it was commanded by God. I think that is all the reason that is needed, but it is interesting to see what effect it had on the people involved, how it shaped their society economically, etc.

I have a great...grandmother who informed her husband it was time for him to choose a second wife. It did not make life easier for any of them from what I could tell, but my ggggrandmother described the experience as having given to her the opportunity to learn how to love as God loves, she saw the family's relationship as a celestial one and the experience was turning them into celestial people for which she expressed real joy and thanksgiving. It was a very impressive passage and I kick myself because I can't find it now.....urgghhh.

Very cool insight, calmoriah.

[Nevo]

Waiting five decades to file an affidavit is quite a long time and frankly, if their motivation was to authenticate the LDS Church's authority . . . casts further doubt in my mind as to the accuracy of these affidavits. it also raises a question in my mind: if their affidavits were to "authenticate" the LDS Church's authority, why wait 50 years to do so when the LDS Church's authority was challenged from the get go, namely, Emma Smith's departure from the LDS Church?

Actually, Emily and Eliza Partridge first swore affidavits about their marriage to Joseph Smith in 1869—when Joseph F. Smith began collecting affidavits regarding Joseph Smith's practice of plural marriage (the collection eventually grew to 75 affidavits, of which 24 were published). Emily also later gave two depositions in the Temple Lot case. In her second deposition, given on 19 March 1892, she was questioned specifically about whether her marriage to Joseph Smith included physical intimacy. She answered the questions, but with some reluctance:

Q. Who roomed with Joseph Smith that night, the night of that day the 11th of May 1843 when you say you and your sister were married to Joseph Smith?

A. Well I don't want to answer that question.

Q. [by Mr. Hall] Well answer it if you can, if you know?

A. Well it was myself.

(Temple Lot Case transcript, 363-364, quoted in H. Michael Marquardt, The Rise of Mormonism, 1816–1844 [Longwood, FL: Xulon Press, 2005], 601)

I'm not sure what incentive Emily Partridge would have to lie about this. Testifying to physical intimacy certainly wasn't necessary to authenticate the Utah Church's authority. All that was needed was to show that Joseph taught and practiced polygamy—and plenty were willing to testify to that. The vast majority of the affidavits and witness statements collected in the 1870s and 1880s regarding Joseph Smith's plural marriage said nothing about consummation.

In any case, we can say this much: there is nothing in the testimonies of Emily Partridge, Melissa Lott, Lucy Walker, Eliza Snow, Benjamin Johnson, Joseph Bates Noble, et al., that is not consistent with what we know about plural marriages in Joseph Smith's lifetime. As the editors of the recently released second volume of Joseph Smith's journals note, "William Clayton provides the best contemporaneous evidence that at least some plural marriages in Nauvoo in Joseph Smith's lifetime involved conjugal relations"—since Clayton's plural wife, Margaret Moon, gave birth to a baby boy on 18 February 1844 (see p. xxv, n52).

Edited July 9, 2012 by Nevo

[Storm Rider]

Nevo, has this child's progeny had their DNA tested yet? I had heard that all known descendent's that have claimed to result from Joseph Smith have all be demonstrated to be unsupported except for Emma's children.

[Calm]

if their affidavits were to "authenticate" the LDS Church's authority, why wait 50 years ot do so when the LDS Church's authority was challeneged from the get go, namely, Emma Smith's departure from the LDS Church?

I believe it had to do with a lawsuit for the temple property either in Kirtland or Missouri, which church was the authentic one would end up with the property...so there wasn't a lot of reason to do so earlier as far as I know.

add-on: looks like I am getting the two collections somewhat meshed together in my head, should go reread the details to refresh them.

Edited July 9, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Very cool insight, calmoriah.

She expressed the belief that only living in plural marriage would give someone the opportunity to grow spiritually to that degree.

It was a beautiful story and it is somewhere out there on the internet. At least I can rest assured that someone in the family has it and is interested in getting it published. Hopefully if I ever get back into genealogy again, I will come across it just by going though all the family records one at a time, lol. It would be worth it.

[Calm]

Nevo, has this child's progeny had their DNA tested yet? I had heard that all known descendent's that have claimed to result from Joseph Smith have all be demonstrated to be unsupported except for Emma's children.

He is talking about Clayton's plural wife, not Joseph's. It does demonstrate that there was some expectation of children as a result of plural marriages among those practicing the principle during Joseph's lifetime, that plural marriage for the purpose of children was not something Brigham Young came up with as some have suggested that Joseph taught plural marriage as a purely spiritual relationship and Brigham corrupted it for pleasure and desire to inflate his family.

I best stop...took another knock out punch tonight and not only has it become difficult to get the letters on the screen in the right order...I've given up on them being the right colour and I am growing fond of the furry, twirlly bits floating off of them, but once I do at least get them on the page they start dancing around and sticking their tongues out at me and trying to play cricket of all things....must had been that last British mystery was watching earlier. They were walking around Oxford solving crimes and it has lended local colour to my hallucination, I was expecting something more in live with bunting or fencing or something a bit more highbrow....ah, now they are all so sad and sloopy and just drippy to the bottom of the box...must be off, got to wonder why one drug has such unpredictable effects even after years of taking it. ...oh well, off to bed while the flashing lights are so entertaining....

[Vance]

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.

And don't forget these Christians.

http://www.christianpolygamy.com/

http://www.lovenotforce.com/

http://www.truthbearer.org/

http://www.christian-polygamy.com/