A Problem With Emma Smith

[Lamanite]

She may have seen the period from 1839 to his death....Our minds can pull off some pretty crazy things to help us adapt to difficult situations.

I think someone could make a case based on some iffy sources that Emma probably knew something was a little "off" with Joseph's as early as '31. But I do believe that by '41 she definitely knew something was going down and it wasn't going to be good. Sometimes when I step back and blend all the information we have on Emma and the Nauvoo era together it kind of seems like a bad acid trip of bright colors and dark corners. (That's probably because I'm projecting my own acid trip of a life to hers.) Describing Nauvoo as "bitter sweet" would be an understatement, IMO.

I agree that our minds can fabricate and accept lots of "crazy things" to help us cope with traumatic situations and events. It's kind of like disassociation in cases of abuse. But my opinion on Emma is that after Joseph's death she was more than likely pretending that things were different. I don't think she ever really believed that Joseph never practiced polygamy.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Edited October 26, 2012 by Lamanite

[Tacenda]

I'm embarrassed to say that I found an LDS copy of the Book of Mormon in my library. I'm sure it was a free missionary copy, being copywrited in 1981. This is how the passage is worded in the LDS edition I found:

..."For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph. Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts..." (Jacob 2:23-28 LDS)

This again is the same passage from the RLDS edition I posted above for comparison purposes:

..."For behold, thus saith the Lord, This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures: for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives, and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph. Wherefore, I, the Lord God, will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none: For I, the Lord God, delighteth in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me: thus saith the Lord of hosts..." (Jacob 2:32-37 RLDS)

When compared side by side, both versions say: No man shall have more than one wife~~God led Lehi out Jerusalem so he could raise up a righteous "branch" (not seed) unto himself~~polygamy is seen by God as a whoredom, even an abomination before him. So doing this is real bad thing and in the LDS version the next verse (29) reads: This people shall keep my commandments or cursed will be the land for their sakes. Regardless of what happened in the past. From the time this passage was first given to man and written down to today, polygamy was not a good thing for the church to engage in or something I believe God would never go back and change his mind.

We will need to agree to disagree on this point and move on. From what I posted above, I believe both the LDS and RLDS editions are almost identical here (besides versification) and boldly makes clear that polygamy (at least for this restoration movement) was absolutely prohibited. Even worse, if we did it then even the land would be cursed! For me, I see no wiggle room whatsoever to ever justify the practice of polygamy. As to the curse this would bring upon the people the LDS version goes on to say (verse 33) that the men who do this will be visited with a sore curse, even unto destruction.

In my opinion, we saw the effects of this curse upon our ancestors and the terrible hardships they bore, leading to a fragmentation of the original movement into many pieces. I believe that each splinter group formed around what they believed the original mission and message of the "restoration movement" to be. I still think the restoration movement is far larger than what we can even barely imagine!

Thank you for responding and please accept this in the good spirit intended.

You're preaching to the choir, me.....

[jwhitlock]

I'm embarrassed to say that I found an LDS copy of the Book of Mormon in my library. I'm sure it was a free missionary copy, being copywrited in 1981. This is how the passage is worded in the LDS edition I found:

..."For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph. Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts..." (Jacob 2:23-28 LDS)

This again is the same passage from the RLDS edition I posted above for comparison purposes:

..."For behold, thus saith the Lord, This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures: for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives, and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph. Wherefore, I, the Lord God, will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none: For I, the Lord God, delighteth in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me: thus saith the Lord of hosts..." (Jacob 2:32-37 RLDS)

When compared side by side, both versions say: No man shall have more than one wife~~God led Lehi out Jerusalem so he could raise up a righteous "branch" (not seed) unto himself~~polygamy is seen by God as a whoredom, even an abomination before him. So doing this is real bad thing and in the LDS version the next verse (29) reads: This people shall keep my commandments or cursed will be the land for their sakes. Regardless of what happened in the past. From the time this passage was first given to man and written down to today, polygamy was not a good thing for the church to engage in or something I believe God would never go back and change his mind.

We will need to agree to disagree on this point and move on. From what I posted above, I believe both the LDS and RLDS editions are almost identical here (besides versification) and boldly makes clear that polygamy (at least for this restoration movement) was absolutely prohibited. Even worse, if we did it then even the land would be cursed! For me, I see no wiggle room whatsoever to ever justify the practice of polygamy. As to the curse this would bring upon the people the LDS version goes on to say (verse 33) that the men who do this will be visited with a sore curse, even unto destruction.

In my opinion, we saw the effects of this curse upon our ancestors and the terrible hardships they bore, leading to a fragmentation of the original movement into many pieces. I believe that each splinter group formed around what they believed the original mission and message of the "restoration movement" to be. I still think the restoration movement is far larger than what we can even barely imagine!

Thank you for responding and please accept this in the good spirit intended.

Why you keep ignoring verse 30 in the LDS - and in the 1830 edition - that I quoted is beyond me. That's what qualifies the entire passage and makes clear the point that the Lord sanctions polygamy only when He commands it. As I explained, the Nephites were under condemnation for doing the practice for the purpose of committing whoredoms - which is clear in what you've quoted - and the Lord had NOT commanded them in that thing. That, of course, is very clear when verse 30 is included. The Lord does NOT condemn the practice in general, only when not commanded by Him.

The only thing I'm interested in at this point is whether the RLDS version has removed what verse 30 says; I suppose that it would be around verse 39 in the RLDS revision. Perhaps you'd like to comment to that directly, rather than rehashing the same point.

Other than that, the concept that somehow all of the splinter groups are still valid parts of the effects of the restored gospel is far too Protestant a notion for me to swallow.

I appreciate the effort you're making - except for not addressing verse 30 - but this claim that the Book of Mormon forbids polygamy in all cases is just wrong. What you've posted here is contradicted by the fact that the Lord did not condemn the polygamy of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and instead blessed them and prospered them and chose them and their progeny as His people - until they, in turn, failed to keep His commandments and engaged in practices outside of what He sanctioned for them. Jacob is telling the Nephites here that they're doing the same thing - practicing polygamy for the purpose of committing whoredoms, without it being commanded by the Lord - and hence, they are under condemnation.

In fact, far from what you portray here, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints still grew and prospered - even through challenges - over time while they continued to practice polygamy as commanded by the Lord. Contrast that with the RLDS church, which never really took hold, and in its present form as the CoC bears very little resemblance to anything associated with the restored gospel. I suspect that their rejection of a commandment of the Lord, along with their apostasy from the authorized Church, is why they, even as the largest offshoot, have languished in comparison to what the authorized Church has accomplished over the years.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

The verses are the same in both editions- a Book of Mormon is a Book of Mormon is a Book of Mormon. I don't know why Steve is leaving it out, as there are perfectly reasonable alternative interpretations based on the text.

But, now that we are clear that ALL editions read the same. Ya'll can get back to arguing.

[Alan]

Personally, I think that he is right. Why would Emma allow an entire church to be started on a principle that she knew was a lie? Why would she allow another church to be started that would claim that Joseph never practiced polygamy. My take on it is simple. Emma allowed this lie to get out of control and she couldn't take it back. So the web grew and grew and Emma could no longer control it and a new church was formed based on a lie.

In my view she allowed this to happen precisely because it wasn't a lie. She knew Joseph didn't practice polygamy and was consistent in that view 'til the day she died.

[Damien the Leper]

The verses are the same in both editions- a Book of Mormon is a Book of Mormon is a Book of Mormon. I don't know why Steve is leaving it out, as there are perfectly reasonable alternative interpretations based on the text.

But, now that we are clear that ALL editions read the same. Ya'll can get back to arguing.

Who's Steve?

[why me]

In my view she allowed this to happen precisely because it wasn't a lie. She knew Joseph didn't practice polygamy and was consistent in that view 'til the day she died.

I believe that his polygamy is a done deal. Too many witnesses to the fact. The prolblem still arises about why she allowed a church to be founded with a false foundation and misled the believers in that church. This huge and very deceptive on her part.

[why me]

I think someone could make a case based on some iffy sources that Emma probably knew something was a little "off" with Joseph's as early as '31. But I do believe that by '41 she definitely knew something was going down and it wasn't going to be good. Sometimes when I step back and blend all the information we have on Emma and the Nauvoo era together it kind of seems like a bad acid trip of bright colors and dark corners. (That's probably because I'm projecting my own acid trip of a life to hers.) Describing Nauvoo as "bitter sweet" would be an understatement, IMO.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Emma knew about fanny and sent her packing. She was no fan of polygamy and the practiced stopped. However, several years went by with Joseph putting off the practice until he could not put it off anymore. And then he began to marry 30 women in a two year period. It needs to be said that there was no secret with the marriages since Joseph would ask family members if it were okay for him to marry their relative.

We also tend to forget the spiritual experiences that these women had when they prayed about the principle. The experience was very powerful.

[Thunderfire]

What I quoted qualifies the practice of polygamy to be done only when God commands it. If what I quoted is not found in the RLDS version, then it has been removed on purpose by them to fit their doctrine.

I have been away and unable to respond. Yes, you are correct and I was wrong. That particular passage is there and I completely missed it. Yet I am glad that I had time to think about it prior to responding.

I wanted to think about it in light of the prior verses which God calls polygamy an whoredom, even an abomination in his sight. I simply cannot fathom God ever asking us to do something he finds so revolting. For me, if God asked us to do this then he would become unreliable at his word and would cease to be God. But to your point, you were correct and I stand corrected. Have a blessed Sunday!

[blackstrap]

The killing of one human being by another is an abomination to God also. It is expressly forbidden in clear commandments. And yet, there are times when the Lord allows it and there are times when He has commanded it. So, what are we to say? Is there not a similarity here?

[jwhitlock]

I have been away and unable to respond. Yes, you are correct and I was wrong. That particular passage is there and I completely missed it. Yet I am glad that I had time to think about it prior to responding.

I wanted to think about it in light of the prior verses which God calls polygamy an whoredom, even an abomination in his sight. I simply cannot fathom God ever asking us to do something he finds so revolting. For me, if God asked us to do this then he would become unreliable at his word and would cease to be God. But to your point, you were correct and I stand corrected. Have a blessed Sunday!

I appreciate your response.

However, again, God doesn't call polygamy an abomination; he calls what David and Solomon did in expanding polygamy outside of what the Lord had authorized, and what the Nephites were doing without the Lord commanding as an abomination. They were doing something on their own that was permissible only when the Lord commands it.

Blackstrap gave a good example of a commandment (Thou shalt not kill) that can be overridden by His direct command for specific situations in specific times. Another example is sexual relations; they are forbidden except within the bounds of marriage. The key is that when it concerns practices commanded or forbidden by God, He has the right to redirect as needed under certain circumstances. The real question to an outsider in those circumstances, is whether God actually authorized the exception. That's why if Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, it's not whether polygamy is right or wrong, but rather whether God commanded him as a prophet to institute the practice among the Latter-day Saints.

I am firmly convinced that God did so command him, and so any presentist prohibition I may feel at the practice is irrelevant.

[treeface]

To the best of my knowledge, DNA testing of supposed children of Joseph Smith by some of his alleged plural wives has failed to produce a "smoking gun". That doesn't prove he didn't have sex with them, but it does add weight to the argument that he did not, especially since the exception to the anti-polylgamy rule laid out in the book of Jacob would for the purpose of "to raise up seed".

I know there is a great deal of testimony on record from women claiming to have been Joseph Smith's wife in word and deed, but I am suspicous of those claims, as I think they may have been motivated by a desire to support the Church and the Prophet (Brigham Young at the time). I don't think the record of 19th century Mormon women on the witness stand is very good. My understanding is that, when the government was attempting to put polygamist men on trial, they would put the wives on the witness stand to try to figure out who was the first (and therefore legal) wife, because she would be the only one who couldn't be compelled to testify against her husband. The polygamst women consistently developed amnesia on the witness stand about the order of marriages. My point being, 19th century Mormon women weren't averse to lying under oath for what they believed to be a good cause.

I used to believe unquestioningly that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy in the same form as it was openly practiced by Brigham Young, but now I'm not so sure.

[Calm]

I wanted to think about it in light of the prior verses which God calls polygamy an whoredom, even an abomination in his sight. I simply cannot fathom God ever asking us to do something he finds so revolting.

I would agree. Therefore it makes sense to me to understand the abomination not as polygamy itself, but certain practices of polygamy...such as the multiplying of wives that is discussed in the Bible, meaning excessive numbers of wives, as well as taking wives based on lust such as what happened with David (note that Nathan the prophet says God gave all his other wives to David save Bathsheba) or for political reasons as did Solomon rather that to fulfill God's command to love and cleave unto others or to raise seed to him (as demonstrated by his command to participate in a Levirate marriage).

[Calm]

The polygamst women consistently developed amnesia on the witness stand about the order of marriages. My point being, 19th century Mormon women weren't averse to lying under oath for what they believed to be a good cause.

Refusing to testify or discuss something is not the same thing as lying about it.

[treeface]

Refusing to testify or discuss something is not the same thing as lying about it.

Sure it is, if you've taken an oath to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".

[Calm]

And being forced to take an oath and testify against oneself is against the law in my understanding, thus negating that oath....which doesn't make sense anyway in conjunction with the right not to self incriminate. Did the women actually state they would tell the truth, the whole truth, etc?

[treeface]

And being forced to take an oath and testify against oneself is against the law in my understanding, thus negating that oath....which doesn't make sense anyway in conjunction with the right not to self incriminate. Did the women actually state they would tell the truth, the whole truth, etc?

As far as I know, the women were indeed under oath in a court of law.

This was during the time when the federal government was cracking down on the Mormons for polygamy, prior to the Manifesto. The women weren't on trial, so they were not being asked to testify againt themselves. It was the men who were being arrested and put on trial.

The court could not compel a wife to testify against her husband, but that protection did not extend beyond the first wife, as the subsequent marriages were not recognized by the court as being legal and valid. But before it could do so, the court had to establish exactly who the first wife was. So the women were subponeaed and placed on the witness stand, under oath, and that is where the "amnesia" would manifest. Apparently such testimony was widely reported by the newspapers back East, and if didn't do much to improve the image of the Mormons.

[USU78]

Sure it is, if you've taken an oath to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".

Nothing wrong with answering the question asked. If they ask a XIXth Century polyg wife if her husband were a polygamist, they'd answer no.

If the stupid prosecutors had asked whether said men were living "The Principle," he'd have gotten a whole lot more convictions.

But this begs a very serious question: why were these people being prosecuted? And why were the prosecutors' bosses so very keen on destroying the spousal privilege in order to get convictions against a peaceful populace that was under the guns of the US Army?

[treeface]

Nothing wrong with answering the question asked. If they ask a XIXth Century polyg wife if her husband were a polygamist, they'd answer no.

If the stupid prosecutors had asked whether said men were living "The Principle," he'd have gotten a whole lot more convictions.

The first step for the prosecution was establishing who the legitimate (first) wife was, as she could not be compelled to testify against her husband. Subsequent wives could be, as they were not his wives in the eyes of the law. That's the stage in the court proceedings that I was referring to. By successfully preventing the prosecution from establishing who the first wife was, the women avoided being asked the kinds of questions you posted.

But this begs a very serious question...

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

(Sorry, couldn't resist... somehow that seemed in character for your avatar.)

Pardon the off-topic diversion...

Many people misuse the phrase "begs the question", as at first glance it seems to mean "raises the question". A better translation of the original Latin would have been "assumes the starting point". The logical fallacy of "begging the question" is to assume as true from the beginning the very point that is being argued.

Here is an example of begging the question: "Let us assume that treeface is infallible. When someone infallible speaks, what they say is true. So when treeface says that he is infallible, we may rest assured that it is the truth. Therefore, we know that treeface is infallible."

...why were these people being prosecuted? And why were the prosecutors' bosses so very keen on destroying the spousal privilege in order to get convictions against a peaceful populace that was under the guns of the US Army?

Good questions, but I'm not qualified to answer them fully. I'll just venture that "live and let live" probably wasn't their motto.

[Alan]

I believe that his polygamy is a done deal. Too many witnesses to the fact. The prolblem still arises about why she allowed a church to be founded with a false foundation and misled the believers in that church. This huge and very deceptive on her part.

Not so. Joseph was sealed to others, that is true. But that did not constitute a marriage in the traditional sense (he didn't live with them or sleep with them). Emma knew, in my view, that what was going on in Utah was not what Joseph had practiced. She threw her lot in with the RLDS in good faith in my view because she believed the Utah leadership to be in error. She was also aware of the fact that Joseph had designated JSIII as his successor. Therefore, combining these two (and doubtless other) points in her mind, from her viewpoint the RLDS seemed the only way forward. She did not deliberately deceive anyone and genuinely believed she was doing the right thing.

[Tacenda]

Not so. Joseph was sealed to others, that is true. But that did not constitute a marriage in the traditional sense (he didn't live with them or sleep with them). Emma knew, in my view, that what was going on in Utah was not what Joseph had practiced. She threw her lot in with the RLDS in good faith in my view because she believed the Utah leadership to be in error. She was also aware of the fact that Joseph had designated JSIII as his successor. Therefore, combining these two (and doubtless other) points in her mind, from her viewpoint the RLDS seemed the only way forward. She did not deliberately deceive anyone and genuinely believed she was doing the right thing.

So did the church go into apostasy by living polygamy like BY instead of being sealed like JS? Edited October 30, 2012 by Tacenda

[ERayR]

So did the church go into apostasy by living polygamy like BY instead of being sealed like JS?

No.

[jwhitlock]

Not so. Joseph was sealed to others, that is true. But that did not constitute a marriage in the traditional sense (he didn't live with them or sleep with them). Emma knew, in my view, that what was going on in Utah was not what Joseph had practiced. She threw her lot in with the RLDS in good faith in my view because she believed the Utah leadership to be in error. She was also aware of the fact that Joseph had designated JSIII as his successor. Therefore, combining these two (and doubtless other) points in her mind, from her viewpoint the RLDS seemed the only way forward. She did not deliberately deceive anyone and genuinely believed she was doing the right thing.

Two of the statements here are questionable; first, what was practiced in Utah was not inconsistent with what Joseph had taught or practiced. Second, it is doubtful that Joseph designated his son as his successor. There is a preponderance of evidence that Joseph designated the Twelve to take over the leadership of the Church once he was no longer around.

[treeface]

... it is doubtful that Joseph designated his son as his successor. There is a preponderance of evidence that Joseph designated the Twelve to take over the leadership of the Church once he was no longer around.

I am certainly no scholar on this subject. From what I can tell, Joseph Smith designated Hyrum as prophet in 1843, and Brigham later said that Joseph had designated Hyrum to take his place, but obviously that didn't work out.

A quick internet search produced this page, indicating that Joseph Smith III was designated by Joseph to be his successor on multiple occasions; I think this would have to be refuted rather than ignored, unless there was clearly a stronger claim that the Twelve were so designated: http://restorationbo...thsuccessor.htm

Can you provide a reference showing that the Twelve were designated by Joseph to take over when he was gone?

Thanks.

[ERayR]

Two of the statements here are questionable; first, what was practiced in Utah was not inconsistent with what Joseph had taught or practiced. Second, it is doubtful that Joseph designated his son as his successor. There is a preponderance of evidence that Joseph designated the Twelve to take over the leadership of the Church once he was no longer around.

The winter and spring of 1843–44 was a time of great tension in Nauvoo, as Joseph Smith’s enemies increased their efforts to destroy him and the Church. Knowing his mortal ministry would soon come to a close, the Prophet met frequently with members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to instruct them and to give them the priesthood keys necessary to govern the Church. These preparations culminated in a meeting with the Apostles and a few other close associates in March 1844. In this extraordinary council, the Prophet charged the Twelve to govern the Church after his death, explaining that he had conferred upon them all the ordinances, authority, and keys necessary to do so. “I roll the burden and responsibility of leading this church off from my shoulders on to yours,” he declared. “Now, round up your shoulders and stand under it like men; for the Lord is going to let me rest awhile.”1

1. Quoted in declaration of the Twelve Apostles (undated draft), reporting Mar. 1844 meeting; in Brigham Young, Office Files 1832–78, Church Archives, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah.