Joseph Smith And Polygamy

[Darren10]

Good sport. I can't afford it now. John Browning was a Mormon, you knew?

Oh, yes I did know. My father-in-law even sent me a big biography on Browning but insisted on its return shortly thereafter. Utahans (sp?) know about Browning as well.

[spartacus]

The problem is that plural marriage is no longer practiced/taught by the Church.

It's against the law of the land. (See Articles of Faith about obeying the law.)

It was rescinded. It's against church doctrine/teachings.

And you can be excommunicated for promoting it as such.

I would say:

-The problem is that plural marriage is no longer practiced (among just the living - and that's used as an excuse for spiritual polygamy (two living, one deceased) - and it is not taught by the Church.

-The problem is that it has always been illegal (if you have polygamy, you have bigamy).

-The problem is that the Articles of Faith were written before or during (I can't remember off the top of my head) Joseph's illegal polygamy/bigamy.

-The problem is that it was rescinded, but still practiced. And I'll have to do some more research to give you the evidence of presidential involvement. Unless someone else wants to be helpful, or just honest.

-The problem is that it is said to be not doctrine but it is still in scripture (DnC 132). If Doctrine and Covenants is not "doctrine," what is? Sure the "all living participants" PRACTICE of polygamy is denied as official "doctrine"/policy, but the belief in polygamy IS still doctrine, else why is it still in Scripture?

-If you can get excommunicated for "promoting it as such", I assume you are speaking of the PRACTICE of All-living participant polygamy. If not, then whoever is producing copies of Doctrine and Covenants that include Section 132 better watch out. That, and whoever has let those people get away with it for over a century better shape up or Heavenly Father may not like it. But if Heavenly Father hasn't done anything about it for over a century, then.... or maybe Heavenly Father HAS done something about it?

[Darren10]

If polygamy "means one man having more than one living wife at the same time", how does "his marriages to other men's wives" elicit your claims "But that's not polygamy."? I really find this astounding. LDS and non-LDS lists of Joseph Smith's "plural wives" and "polygamous" relationships include these women that were already married. Even the Church genealogy website includes these marriages - if they were living women and they were married to Joseph, how were they not polygamous?

I think why me addresed this 9with me) far better than I could have. So, according to his definition of "polygamy", you are correct, this would be polygamy. What I was getting with Bowman was that this thread is a bout polygamy, not polyandry which is wha he was stearing towards. The two are related but I'm interested in the polygamous aspect of Joseph Smith right now. Not his polydanering which "why me" successfully argues - though I won't necessarily use his defined terms here on out - made the women polyanderous; not Joseph Smith).

I can see how Joseph Smith's marriages to other men's wives were in violation of DnC 132, as these women (certainly some of them if not all) were not virgins (v.61), nor "vowed to no other man" (v.61, v.63) So, in this sense, I can agree with you - "But that's not (God's Lawful) polygamy".

I could see them as violations *IF* they were sexual in nature which I have concluded were not nor were they ever sexual.

Edited July 5, 2012 by Darren10

[spartacus]

I think why me addresed this 9with me) far better than I could have. So, according to his definition of "polygamy", you are correct, this would be polygamy. What I was getting with Bowman was that this thread is a bout polygamy, not polyandry which is wha he was stearing towards. The two are related but I'm interested in the polygamous aspect of Joseph Smith right now. Not his polydanering which "why me" successfully argues - though I won't necessarily use his defined terms here on out - made the women polyanderous; not Joseph Smith).

I could see them as violations *IF* they were sexual in nature which I have concluded were not nor were they ever sexual.

I could go with you, perhaps, except for that David-Joab move that Joseph did with one of these polyandrous unions. I really need to go to bed, so I'll try to get this evidence later too. The point is why would he have to maneuver in such a way if it was not sexual, why would there be quotes about people being "tested" by Joseph asking for their wife? Again, EVEN IF it wasn't sexual in this life, there must have been something to it in the next for these maneuvers and tests to be necessary or testing at all. And, unlike one who disagreed with me here about spiritual polygamy, the spiritual is more significant (permanent) than this estate. So either its still significant and that's the reason for the maneuver and the testing quotes or why the maneuver and the quote?

[Darren10]

spartacus #77;

First off, I'd say that, yes, polygamy is practiced among the sealings of the dead. A man may get seal to one woman and than t another if his first wife dies. My understanding is that women initially could not get sealed to another man after his passing but that may have changed and, simply put, it'll all get sorted out in the afterlife. "Family" in the eternities, I thin, holds a much larger scope than what we do in mortality.

Second, While bigamy was illegal in Illinois and polygamy natually violates [anti-bigamy laws], I think the LDS were exercising their freedom of religious conscience which was most ineed, and still is, allowed under the Illinois constitution. The legalities fell on the side to ban polygamy and so be it.

Third, I honestly do not think polygamy ws practiced by LDS top leaders, nor permitted, after it was rescinded.

Forth, while citing D&C 132, do not forget that the LDS Church believes in ving revelation. Thus the "Official Declaration 1", which is also found in the D&C is also doctrine.

UPDATE: Edited for clarification as to what I meant. Clarification placed in brackets.

Edited July 5, 2012 by Darren10

[Darren10]

I could go with you, perhaps, except for that David-Joab move that Joseph did with one of these polyandrous unions. I really need to go to bed, so I'll try to get this evidence later too. The point is why would he have to maneuver in such a way if it was not sexual, why would there be quotes about people being "tested" by Joseph asking for their wife? Again, EVEN IF it wasn't sexual in this life, there must have been something to it in the next for these maneuvers and tests to be necessary or testing at all. And, unlike one who disagreed with me here about spiritual polygamy, the spiritual is more significant (permanent) than this estate. So either its still significant and that's the reason for the maneuver and the testing quotes or why the maneuver and the quote?

I think "tested" would be an act of faith, regardless of the nature of the test. Even in an asexual relation, It would be *very* difficult for me to give up my wife to anyone else, even a prophet of God. That to do so I would *most definitely* need to hear the voice of God confirming to me that I was doing His will.

Rest well. You're smarter than I. I'll be up for a bit longer.

[spartacus]

Critics have claimed, and I am referring to active internet exmembers, that the church hides the fact that Joseph practiced polygamy. For many, they claim that they never knew this. But there it is on the church website. No hiding.

That it is on the website NOW says nothing of when these people were members. Do we know how long that page has been there?

Of course its on the website now; the Church has to do something with all the polygamy talk in the public.

No matter how long the webpage has been there, as I said above, you need more evidence than an exact word search of "polygamy" on a website to state that people have no reason even NOW to not know about Joseph Smith's polygamy. Oh, you can also get to it by going through the Gospel directory, but how many people go through that entry by entry, page by page? If they did, then they probably are the type of person that is likely to already have done research or discussed things enough to come across Joseph Smith's polygamy. There's just not very many people like this.

[spartacus]

Was it on the Church website in 1977 when I started attending seminary in California?

I will tell you what I was taught about polygamy from my seminary and Sunday school teachers.

Many men were killed by anti-mormons, and polygamy was introduced so that the widows could have husbands. Joseph Smith had only two or three wives, and only because the Lord commanded it.

All the evidence is against your last statements. See the Church genealogy site - it disproves you last statement. Just look up Joseph Smith's marriages. Knowledge of the number of men killed by anti-mormons and population statistics deny your prior statement.

[spartacus]

I think that this was common folklore among many mormons and they taught it to their students. But my point was simple: Joseph's polygamy is on the official church website. Nothing is hidden. Now about polyandry. Men cannot be polyandrists. Only women can. Joseph regardless if he were sealed to other men's wives would still be a polygamist. However, the married women who consented to be sealed to him could technically be termed polyandrists. (if such a word exists) In other words, it is the women who practiced polyandry and not Joseph.

Ok this is the last one I'm replying to tonight, I promise:

I don't know what kind of semantics this "he can't be a polyandrist because he's a man" is, but it doesn't seem right in any way. Are you saying that women can't be polygamists because they are women? I'm pretty sure we consider the women of polygamous marriages polygamists. Does the LDS church not excommunicate women for polygamy?

Even if you are trying to say something about who chooses to marry multiple partners (of the opposite sex) is the one who is the "-ist", was it not Joseph Smith who initiated these relationships? Is it not Joseph Smith who introduced this multi-husband/one wife practice in the first place? I think this dispels verbal tricks about men can't be polyandrists, and it certainly dispatches the claim that Joseph Smith was not a polyandrist. He started it among the LDS, he initiated the particular relationships, if anyone was a polyandrist, it was Joseph Smith.

[Nemesis]

I could go with you, perhaps, except for that David-Joab move that Joseph did with one of these polyandrous unions. I really need to go to bed, so I'll try to get this evidence later too. The point is why would he have to maneuver in such a way if it was not sexual, why would there be quotes about people being "tested" by Joseph asking for their wife? Again, EVEN IF it wasn't sexual in this life, there must have been something to it in the next for these maneuvers and tests to be necessary or testing at all. And, unlike one who disagreed with me here about spiritual polygamy, the spiritual is more significant (permanent) than this estate. So either its still significant and that's the reason for the maneuver and the testing quotes or why the maneuver and the quote?

Do not turn this into a thread that speculates on sexual relations.

Nemesis

[Rob Bowman]

Darren,

I had written:

"Again, my CFR (call for references) was not for ex-Mormons stating that they did not learn about Joseph's plural wives from LDS Church sources. My CFR was for 'critics' stating that the LDS Church never acknowledges that Joseph engaged in the practice."

You replied:

They claim that they never knew Joseph Smith practiced polygamy *because* the LDS Church never taught them it. They say it never taught them it because the LDS church hides this historic fact as a secret. As why me's point is, this is a bogus charge. Purely fallacious.

So far, not one quotation has been provided that shows anyone claiming that the LDS Church hides Joseph's polygamy as a secret. An ex-Mormon saying that the Church never taught him about Joseph's polygamy doesn't meet my CFR. It can be true both that the Church never taught these former Mormons about Joseph's polygamy and that the Church does mention it in some of its publications.

[Rob Bowman]

why me,

You wrote:

But my point was simple: Joseph's polygamy is on the official church website. Nothing is hidden.

First, as I have repeatedly pointed out, no one has yet produced a quotation from anyone (ex-Mormon, "critic," or whatever) asserting that references to Joseph's polygamy cannot be found in any LDS source.

Second, naturally the LDS Church's official website will have some references to the practice, especially now that information about the subject is so freely and widely available and easily accessible on the web. The LDS Church has had to address the fact that it is no longer possible to shield its members from damaging information except by presenting that information itself in the most faith-promoting way it can. So we have recently seen a new "openness" about such matters as Joseph's polygamy and his multiple accounts of the First Vision -- an openness forced on the Church by the fact that the material is too easily available to its members from other sources. Adding to the urgency of addressing this issue is the fact that the polygamy of LDS splinter groups, especially the FLDS, has been in the news a lot during the past decade.

Third, although the LDS Church's official website has pages commenting on Joseph's polygamy, it is not true that "nothing is hidden." I have done some searching on the website, and as best I can determine the site contains no references to the large number of women whom Joseph took as his wives (over thirty), no references to the fact that some of these wives were already married to men still living, and no references to Joseph's statements publicly denying that he was practicing plural marriage.

[CV75]

The Pageant heavily emphasizes the opposition that Mormons experienced in the days of Joseph and Brigham, but one would never know that the practice of plural marriage was one of the main reasons for that opposition.

we all know the reason for opposition lies far deeper than specific points of religious intolerance and politics, but more importantly (since obviously the pageant is just that: a pageant) do you mean no one is paying attention to the picketers?!?!

[Rob Bowman]

CV75,

You wrote:

we all know the reason for opposition lies far deeper than specific points of religious intolerance and politics, but more importantly (since obviously the pageant is just that: a pageant) do you mean no one is paying attention to the picketers?!?!

I'm afraid I don't understand the point of your question.

[CV75]

I'm afraid I don't understand the point of your question.

The point of my question, in context of your attending the Manti Pageant (which by nature is a performance of a historical scene where the emphasis is more artistic and celebratory than on presenting an in-depth socio-political religious analysis), where the organizers know the protesters (who are fueled more by a spirit of ignorance and contention than by serious doctrinal differences) will assemble and assert a negative message (which includes bringing up the topic of polygamy) and to some extent either allow or acquiesce to it, is to find out why it was not evident by the protesters’ juxtaposition to the pageantry that polygamy was and still is a point of opposition.

[Jaybear]

So far, not one quotation has been provided that shows anyone claiming that the LDS Church hides Joseph's polygamy as a secret. An ex-Mormon saying that the Church never taught him about Joseph's polygamy doesn't meet my CFR. It can be true both that the Church never taught these former Mormons about Joseph's polygamy and that the Church does mention it in some of its publications.

Why me is trying to refute an argument that no seasoned critic has or would make.

[thesometimesaint]

No true Irishman argument.

[DBMormon]

If you will change the word polygamy to polyandry, you can use me as one reference.

Regardless of the reasoning and purpose, It is impossible to find polyandry in a current church source that is accesible to others up until recently or if at all.( LDS.ORG, church manual, General Conference Talk, or Church Magazine)

I will avoid saying they hid it but certainly they avoided it.

Don't bite my head off unless this isn't factual - I am not creating the reason or motiff, just that it isn't there

Edited July 5, 2012 by DBMormon

[Jaybear]

No true Irishman argument.

I think the proper term is a straw man argument.

[Nevo]

Joseph's polygamy is on the official church website. Nothing is hidden.

No, nothing at all.

[Rob Bowman]

CV75,

You wrote:

The point of my question, in context of your attending the Manti Pageant (which by nature is a performance of a historical scene where the emphasis is more artistic and celebratory than on presenting an in-depth socio-political religious analysis),...

No one's suggesting the pageant should have been "an in-depth socio-political religious analysis," so that's a straw-man objection to my comment.

...where the organizers know the protesters (who are fueled more by a spirit of ignorance and contention than by serious doctrinal differences)...

That doesn't fit my observation.

...will assemble and assert a negative message (which includes bringing up the topic of polygamy) and to some extent either allow or acquiesce to it, is to find out why it was not evident by the protesters’ juxtaposition to the pageantry that polygamy was and still is a point of opposition.

Is this supposed to explain why the pageant doesn't mention polygamy? Did it ever mention it, even before the evangelicals came to witness to Mormons there? I don't follow your reasoning.

[Tacenda]

There is substanital lack of information on this website:

http://www.lds.org/churchhistory/presidents/leaders.jsp

If you click on Significant Events it shows the marriages of several presidents of the church but has left off many . For instance, if you click on Joseph Smith it has his wife as Emma. But when you click Brigham Young there is no wife listed. And several presidents after him are left blank, until you get to George Albert Smith and from then on it lists the wives again. Pretty interesting I believe. I don't know why they just didn't just leave all the wives unlisted, because it seems odd to any outsider.

[Rob Bowman]

Tacenda,

That's a very interesting and telling point you make.

[DBMormon]

If you click on Significant Events it shows the marriages of several presidents of the church but has left off many . For instance, if you click on Joseph Smith it has his wife as Emma. But when you click Brigham Young there is no wife listed. And several presidents after him are left blank, until you get to George Albert Smith and from then on it lists the wives again. Pretty interesting I believe. I don't know why they just didn't just leave all the wives unlisted, because it seems odd to any outsider.

Interesting I agree, telling... not so much as we would be making an assumption on the reason why. In Joseph's case how do you list all the wives with absolute certainity that every one was wife in the way you and I understand it and that some are thought of as his wife but that he actually had not been sealed to in this life. No one is absolute certain of this list. With the prophets that follow.... I don't know

Edited July 5, 2012 by DBMormon

[Darren10]

Tacenda;

That's interesting. I've no idea why 6/8 of the LDS presidents have no spouse listed. I don't think Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith, or Heber J. Grant practiced polygamy, at least not during their presidencies. So why the referenced presidents have no listing oftheir marriages is not clear. I agree that it's confusing to outsiders as it would be confusing to insiders as well. I just sent the website feedback on this observation.