Joseph Smith'S Polygamy

[bu11fr0g]

There is a comprehensive 3-volume description of Joseph Smith's polygamy from the perspective of aMormon apologist. This will soon be published.

Website from the author is here:

http://josephsmithspolygamy.com/

This site and books deals with all the controversial aspects and shows the way a knowledgable believer can make it through this quagmire.

[Alan]

None of this stuff is new. It's all the old "he says, she says" nonsense that's been floating around for decades.

Joseph was not a polygamist in my view. He was sealed to a number of people but that does not constitute a marriage. I was sealed to my parents when I was 15, but no one has ever interpreted that as a marriage.

It is only now, when the terms "sealing" and "marriage" have become synonamous (sic?) that we read things into the records that were never meant to be there.

Yes, there are affidvitts, but they exist on both sides of the question. But as we all know, it is very difficult to prove a negative. So what did Joseph have to say about this during his lifetime?

Said Joseph shortly before his death:

"I had been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives.......... I am innocent of all these charges......... What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can find only one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers."

This is straight from the horses mouth and I believe Joseph over any historian, or any other church leader for that matter.

[Tacenda]

None of this stuff is new. It's all the old "he says, she says" nonsense that's been floating around for decades.

Joseph was not a polygamist in my view. He was sealed to a number of people but that does not constitute a marriage. I was sealed to my parents when I was 15, but no one has ever interpreted that as a marriage.

It is only now, when the terms "sealing" and "marriage" have become synonamous (sic?) that we read things into the records that were never meant to be there.

Yes, there are affidvitts, but they exist on both sides of the question. But as we all know, it is very difficult to prove a negative. So what did Joseph have to say about this during his lifetime?

Said Joseph shortly before his death:

"I had been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives.......... I am innocent of all these charges......... What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can find only one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers."

This is straight from the horses mouth and I believe Joseph over any historian, or any other church leader for that matter.

Whatever floats your boat Alan.

[changed]

There's no question about what BY did, or what Abraham did... at some point you have to face the reality that polygamy is in fact part of the plan of salvation.

[Teancum]

There's no question about what BY did, or what Abraham did... at some point you have to face the reality that polygamy is in fact part of the plan of salvation.

I guess one has to conclude either that or that it was all from JS's mind, whatever his justification for it. I think it likely the latter.

[changed]

I guess one has to conclude either that or that it was all from JS's mind, whatever his justification for it. I think it likely the latter.

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob lived it well before Joseph did.... JS did not invent the practice.

[thesometimesaint]

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob lived it well before Joseph did.... JS did not invent the practice.

Partially correct. Both Abraham and Jacob were polygamous. However Issac had only one wife Rebekah.

[Teancum]

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob lived it well before Joseph did.... JS did not invent the practice.

I really don't care. I am not really into arguing about it. I am not sure there was a real Abraham, Isaac or Jacob. But if there were, the OT polygamy is nothing like LDS JS polygamy. I see nothing that required people in the OT to practice is as part of the plan of salvation. I see nothing that required it for exaltation as 19th century Momronism taught. I see it as a cultural practice long out dated by the time JS came on the scene.

[thesometimesaint]

I really don't care. I am not really into arguing about it. I am not sure there was a real Abraham, Isaac or Jacob. But if there were, the OT polygamy is nothing like LDS JS polygamy. I see nothing that required people in the OT to practice is as part of the plan of salvation. I see nothing that required it for exaltation as 19th century Momronism taught. I see it as a cultural practice long out dated by the time JS came on the scene.

It is only a requirement if the Lord tells you to do it.

[Tacenda]

Polygamy was required for exaltation in the early LDS teachings. People like me have to just lump it. Or it eats one alive.

[changed]

I posted two other scriptures recently..

Genesis 16:1 NOW Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.

Luke 1:38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

the rest of the post is here.

Polygamy was required for exaltation in the early LDS teachings. People like me have to just lump it. Or it eats one alive.

I think you can do more than just lump it... it is similar to contemplating the atonement, a horror to think about, but when you understand it, you can't help but be grateful for it too.

Edited February 23, 2013 by changed

[Teancum]

It is only a requirement if the Lord tells you to do it.

Yep and I am pretty certain God did not telll JS to institute this practice.

[Teancum]

Polygamy was required for exaltation in the early LDS teachings. People like me have to just lump it. Or it eats one alive.

Or conclude it was a whole lot of hooey. Same as we do when others do it and say God told them.

Will I get in trouble for that vague reference? Seems like the board police here do not like such comparisons. If yes I will edit it out.

[Alan]

I personally question the provenance of D&C 132.

Many sections of the D&C have been altered, or amalgamated etc in the past. An example of this revisionist activity is that after the martyrdom the church historian was instructed to revisit and re-write church history where it was felt necessary to do so.

Therefore, my personal view is that D&C 132 was altered in the light of the current church practice at the time (somewhere around 1852). I am not accusing anyone of dishonesty; they may well have altered it because they wanted it to be more honest or in line with current practice. Their motivation was honest.

The clue for me is that D&C 132 appears to be in response to a question from Joseph regarding the polygamous practices of David and Solomon, among others. I find this puzzling given that Jacob, in the BoM, clearly states that what David and Solomon did was an abomination before God, and it is condemned in no uncertain terms. I cannot understand, therefore, why Joseph would even think of asking this question.

I also think we have to put the situation that faced Joseph and the church in the context of the time and place. There is no doubt that many Cochranites did join the church. This was a sect/community who practiced polygamy. They even called it "spiritual wifery". It is more than likely that those who joined the church continued to practice polygamy. This is why the church's enemies accused Mormon's of practicing plural marriage so early on, and why the church's 1835 statement on marriage was included in the D&C at the time. Indeed it states "inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy; we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman one husband.......

For me, the real evidence (not affidavitts from people who have a vested interest in plural marriage) is all on favour of my position that Joseph was a monogamist.

[Tacenda]

I personally question the provenance of D&C 132.

Many sections of the D&C have been altered, or amalgamated etc in the past. An example of this revisionist activity is that after the martyrdom the church historian was instructed to revisit and re-write church history where it was felt necessary to do so.

Therefore, my personal view is that D&C 132 was altered in the light of the current church practice at the time (somewhere around 1852). I am not accusing anyone of dishonesty; they may well have altered it because they wanted it to be more honest or in line with current practice. Their motivation was honest.

The clue for me is that D&C 132 appears to be in response to a question from Joseph regarding the polygamous practices of David and Solomon, among others. I find this puzzling given that Jacob, in the BoM, clearly states that what David and Solomon did was an abomination before God, and it is condemned in no uncertain terms. I cannot understand, therefore, why Joseph would even think of asking this question.

I also think we have to put the situation that faced Joseph and the church in the context of the time and place. There is no doubt that many Cochranites did join the church. This was a sect/community who practiced polygamy. They even called it "spiritual wifery". It is more than likely that those who joined the church continued to practice polygamy. This is why the church's enemies accused Mormon's of practicing plural marriage so early on, and why the church's 1835 statement on marriage was included in the D&C at the time. Indeed it states "inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy; we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman one husband.......

For me, the real evidence (not affidavitts from people who have a vested interest in plural marriage) is all on favour of my position that Joseph was a monogamist.

Have you listened to the podcasts with Brian Hales yet? It's pretty convincing, Brian reiterates the reason for polygamy is for exaltation and creating spirit children for the worlds created by future Gods. He is explicit in this. There isn't any wiggle room for another scenerio. It does look better IMO if JS is establishing polygamy for this. Do you believe that you will be like our HF? You have to know that in the LDS church we believe we'll become Gods (meat). Why do you think BY and JS married all those women? Definitely not for fun or to fulfill sexual desires, but I do leave the door open to the thought that maybe JS started out with an affair with Fanny and then turned it into the whole....create worlds and need many wifes to procreate spirits.... theory. It may all be make believe or it may all be true, still trying to figure that all out.

[changed]

... the BoM, clearly states that what David and Solomon did was an abomination before God, and it is condemned in no uncertain terms.

child sacrifice is also condemned in no uncertain terms, and yet Abraham was still asked to sacrifice his child, and the atonement is still real. I believe a similar situation exists with polygamy. Polygamy is something that all God-fearing righteous people abhor - as much as they abhor child sacrifice. It not anything that anyone would seek after or want, just like no one would want Jesus to die, but the demands of justice required it, and there was no other way whereby salvation could come to pass save through that painful gate. There must be opposition in all things - for every pure beautiful principle, there is an equally defiled and repulsive opposite - that opposite must be faced and overcome if the beautiful principle is to be fully realized.

It may all be make believe or it may all be true, still trying to figure that all out.

Have you felt the Spirit? If you haven't yet, know that is the path you must take. It's real, it's all painfully, and gloriously real.

Edited February 23, 2013 by changed

[Teancum]

I personally question the provenance of D&C 132.

Many sections of the D&C have been altered, or amalgamated etc in the past. An example of this revisionist activity is that after the martyrdom the church historian was instructed to revisit and re-write church history where it was felt necessary to do so.

Therefore, my personal view is that D&C 132 was altered in the light of the current church practice at the time (somewhere around 1852). I am not accusing anyone of dishonesty; they may well have altered it because they wanted it to be more honest or in line with current practice. Their motivation was honest.

The clue for me is that D&C 132 appears to be in response to a question from Joseph regarding the polygamous practices of David and Solomon, among others. I find this puzzling given that Jacob, in the BoM, clearly states that what David and Solomon did was an abomination before God, and it is condemned in no uncertain terms. I cannot understand, therefore, why Joseph would even think of asking this question.

I also think we have to put the situation that faced Joseph and the church in the context of the time and place. There is no doubt that many Cochranites did join the church. This was a sect/community who practiced polygamy. They even called it "spiritual wifery". It is more than likely that those who joined the church continued to practice polygamy. This is why the church's enemies accused Mormon's of practicing plural marriage so early on, and why the church's 1835 statement on marriage was included in the D&C at the time. Indeed it states "inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy; we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman one husband.......

For me, the real evidence (not affidavitts from people who have a vested interest in plural marriage) is all on favour of my position that Joseph was a monogamist.

Well Alan to each his own. But I think the weight of the evidence is so massively against your conclusion that I am surprised when one can come to that point. And I wonder what we gain when we argue Smith was a monogamist and that polygamy was the production of those who led the Church after Joseph was killed. What do you gain be preserving Joseph if his successors added polygamy to the church later? What does that say about them.

It seems such rationalization is a step beyond so many who want to argue that JS practiced plural marriage but it was mostly non sexual. Again what is to be gained by that when we know is succesors practiced plural marrige in its fullest sense?

As you why Jospeph would asks about David and crew? Well perhaps we was looking to justify his affair with Fanny Alger or had other motives? I do not know really. But the evidence is huge that JS did take on many wives, some young and some that were already married to other men who in some cases were good active Latter-day Saints.

[rpn]

I used to think we created spirit children in the eternities like we do on earth. But if resurrected beings did that, spirit children would have the same part of divinity that gave the same exclusive power to our Savior. And that would not at all replicate our mortal experience on this earth. So I think the way of creation has to be different than what we do on earth and therefore doesn't require lots of women per man.

[Alan]

Well Alan to each his own. But I think the weight of the evidence is so massively against your conclusion that I am surprised when one can come to that point. And I wonder what we gain when we argue Smith was a monogamist and that polygamy was the production of those who led the Church after Joseph was killed. What do you gain be preserving Joseph if his successors added polygamy to the church later? What does that say about them.

It seems such rationalization is a step beyond so many who want to argue that JS practiced plural marriage but it was mostly non sexual. Again what is to be gained by that when we know is succesors practiced plural marrige in its fullest sense?

As you why Jospeph would asks about David and crew? Well perhaps we was looking to justify his affair with Fanny Alger or had other motives? I do not know really. But the evidence is huge that JS did take on many wives, some young and some that were already married to other men who in some cases were good active Latter-day Saints.

But that is just not the case. You think the evidence is huge because that is what you have heard others say. Most of this "huge" amount of evidence can be discounted when it's provenance is investigated.

In my earlier post I pointed out that Joseph was sealed to a number of people, but that this did not constitute marriage. When we take these two points into account (the unreliabilty of many of the affidavitts/accounts and the nature of the sealings), there really isn't much left.

I'm not disputing that his successors practiced polygamy in the full sense of the word, but we have to be honest and accept the fact that it didn't really get us anywhere.

[why me]

Polygamy was required for exaltation in the early LDS teachings. People like me have to just lump it. Or it eats one alive.

I guess that you find the spiritual experiences of the women not important. For some, it would have been a resounding no without such powerful spiritual experiences after praying about the principle.

[changed]

I used to think we created spirit children in the eternities like we do on earth. But if resurrected beings did that, spirit children would have the same part of divinity that gave the same exclusive power to our Savior. And that would not at all replicate our mortal experience on this earth. So I think the way of creation has to be different than what we do on earth and therefore doesn't require lots of women per man.

We can learn from our Mother Eve quite a bit I think. Eve, in her perfect form, did not bear children. The current process that we are familiar with was instituted through the fall of mankind, and is not the perfect celestial pathway. Consider that we are given the knowledge of two different births here on Earth though - our natural birth to our mother, and our baptismal birth when we reach the age of accountability. Why are infant baptisms an abomination? The more perfect birth is one in which both parties are accountable and choose one another, where there are mutual covenants... I think the baptismal birth teaches us what perfect birth is, and also teaches why both births are necessary, why both sets of parents (earthly and heavenly) are necessary. Through one we gain experience and knowledge - then once accountable, and only once we are accountable, can we participate in the higher form of birth. I think the patterns of heaven are similar to the patterns that are now on the Earth - that in heaven, we made covenants, chose who to follow, and through those covenants and choices became children to those we allowed to come within our heart.

Edited February 23, 2013 by changed

[thesometimesaint]

Polygamy was required for exaltation in the early LDS teachings. People like me have to just lump it. Or it eats one alive.

Nope. Only a small percentage of members ever engaged in polygamy. It was only a requirement for those that were commanded.

[Alan]

Nope. Only a small percentage of members ever engaged in polygamy. It was only a requirement for those that were commanded.

By whom?

[Tacenda]

I used to think we created spirit children in the eternities like we do on earth. But if resurrected beings did that, spirit children would have the same part of divinity that gave the same exclusive power to our Savior. And that would not at all replicate our mortal experience on this earth. So I think the way of creation has to be different than what we do on earth and therefore doesn't require lots of women per man.

I've heard this before from people on the board, maybe you? Why the need for polygamy then? Does that discount the church living it? Because we would more than likely still be living it if it weren't for the need to gain statehood.

Quote from this website:

http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/statehood_and_the_progressive_era/struggleforstatehoodchronology.html.

"On September 24, 1890, LDS President Wilford Woodruff drafted the text of a momentous announcement. After conferring with other church leaders, he issued what has since been called the Woodruff Manifesto to the Associated Press on September 25. Woodruff's key sentence stated: "I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land." It was published in many newspapers across the country, and, though some doubted its authenticity or sincerity, it signaled a major shift of direction in church doctrine and practice and cleared the path toward statehood".

[Teancum]

But that is just not the case. You think the evidence is huge because that is what you have heard others say. Most of this "huge" amount of evidence can be discounted when it's provenance is investigated.

In my earlier post I pointed out that Joseph was sealed to a number of people, but that this did not constitute marriage. When we take these two points into account (the unreliabilty of many of the affidavitts/accounts and the nature of the sealings), there really isn't much left.

I'm not disputing that his successors practiced polygamy in the full sense of the word, but we have to be honest and accept the fact that it didn't really get us anywhere.

Alan my conclusions is based on many hours of reading competent historians on this subject. Not one of them..no not one.. has reached anything like your conclusion.

And why do you conclude the affidavits are unreliable? Really? All of them from so many persons?

Of course I agree polygamy got the church little benefit though some argue it made a crop of great leaders from children being born into families that were solid in the Church. But it has been an albatross around the neck of the Church for over a hundred years. I am sure the current leaders wish that they did not have to deal with the historical fall out that comes from polygamy.