Wrestling With Polyandry

[Duncan]

To be frank, Joseph Smith's polyandry is one of the reasons why nearly eight years ago I left the Church. I put it in my exit letter when I had my name removed from the Church's membership records. When (as most of you know about) I returned to the Church some five years later, I had to come to terms with the issue, at least somewhat.

I still find it one of the more difficult issues in early Church history. Even without Joseph's polyandrous sealings including sexuality, I find it disturbing to think of a man having another man's wife sealed to him for eternity. It's possible this was the right thing to do under the circumstances, and I can certainly see possible reasons that Joseph may have thought he should do this. But I think it's a mistake to dismiss it as simply unproblematic. If a member engaged in similar behavior today, they would be excoriated, or worse, and the sealings would be cancelled. The whole thing is distressing.

While I don't know fully what to make of Joseph Smith's polyandrous sealings, I feel completely confident that he made real errors in how he put polygamy into practice. Why? Because revelation to Joseph Smith says so!

Joseph's revelation on polygamy, given in the context of his conflict with Emma over the rightness of his behavior, mentions his "sins" and "transgressions" and also his "trespasses against" Emma (D&C 132:50,56,60). To say that Joseph practiced plural marriage perfectly, with no moral errors and no wrongs with respect to Emma, is thus not to defend his revelation on the subject, but to deny it. The revelation justifies Joseph's polygamous marrying only in a general way. While it affirms that he was commanded to take multiple wives, it also indicates that he erred in some of how he did it, that he needed to make an "offering" for these transgressions (vs. 60), and that he needed to be--and was--forgiven for these wrongs.

If God can both acknowledge that Joseph made errors and forgive them, then we are in the best possible company in doing the same.

Don

beautiful! I guess for me, I am trying to get into my own marriage! as for me and my house I want a woman!

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Just where do you think God's chosen people came from...

Read about Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel... his four wives who gave him a total among them of 12 sons and one daughter... the 12 going on to become the 12 tribes of Israel.

Leah: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, and daughter Dina

Rachel: Joseph (the last child to be born)

Bilhah: Dan, Naphtali

Zilpah: Gad, Asher

GG

Yes his "chosen people" and the name of Israel. Is from one of the most extreme example of polygamist. The very name we call ourselves, and the Christ chose to be "his" people, with no exceptions. He only lets us in by choosing him and his linage, and we only get to be with by freely choosing. Why is Joseph so bad and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob so great that God himself only attaching his name to these three polygamist. "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob"...His (Elohiem and Christ's) words.

[tagriffy]

Yes, the question of whether William Law was offered to Emma is separate from the question of whether some such offer was made. I have a long-term project on D&C 132 in which I try to determine what the nature of the "offer" referred to was.

Don

I look forward to that.

What Law actually stated is that Joseph had never spoken to him at all about swapping spouses, though Law added that he "believed" Joseph had offered to furnish Emma another man as a "substitute."

Don

Even if Law was not the particular person Joseph offered to Emma, doesn't it still amount to the same thing as offering a polyandrous marriage?

Thank you to those who've offered their thoughts on they would deal with it if Joseph Smith practiced sexual polyandry.

Now I have--I think--an even tougher question: How would you explain it to others, particularly non-members, if clear evidence for this were put out, and they learned about it?

I have a much easier time seeing how I'd deal with this issue personally than I do seeing how I would help a member of tender faith or a non-member deal with it.

Don

I would just say it happened. If there was something iniquitous involved, I'd acknowledge that. Prophets are human, just like the rest of us.

[tagriffy]

While I don't know fully what to make of Joseph Smith's polyandrous sealings, I feel completely confident that he made real errors in how he put polygamy into practice. Why? Because revelation to Joseph Smith says so!

Joseph's revelation on polygamy, given in the context of his conflict with Emma over the rightness of his behavior, mentions his "sins" and "transgressions" and also his "trespasses against" Emma (D&C 132:50,56,60). To say that Joseph practiced plural marriage perfectly, with no moral errors and no wrongs with respect to Emma, is thus not to defend his revelation on the subject, but to deny it. The revelation justifies Joseph's polygamous marrying only in a general way. While it affirms that he was commanded to take multiple wives, it also indicates that he erred in some of how he did it, that he needed to make an "offering" for these transgressions (vs. 60), and that he needed to be--and was--forgiven for these wrongs.

If God can both acknowledge that Joseph made errors and forgive them, then we are in the best possible company in doing the same.

Don

Oh, I like this. It says the same thing I would say, but goes into much better detail. I think I'm going to adopt it.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I have never understood why this is such a big deal.

Let's look at a worst case scenario and assume that Joseph was therefore a fallen prophet at this closing period of his life.

How does that negate everything else he did?

If Thomas Jefferson was a philanderer, does that diminish the importance or significance of the Declaration of Independence?

Did David's final sins destroy the significance of all that went before including the psalms?

It wouldn't- which is why we have the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) and the Church of Jesus Christ (Monongahela, PA).

I, personally, am of the middle camp, which believes Joseph told the truth when he, on multiple occassions, denied teaching or practicing plural marraige, polygamy, spiritual wifery or whatever one may choose to call it.

[Nevo]

To be frank, Joseph Smith's polyandry is one of the reasons why nearly eight years ago I left the Church. I put it in my exit letter when I had my name removed from the Church's membership records. When (as most of you know about) I returned to the Church some five years later, I had to come to terms with the issue, at least somewhat.

Hi Don,

Yes, I remember your former stance quite well, having attempted on at least one occasion (probably not very successfully) to defend Joseph's behavior to you. In fact, the question you put then was similar to your question in this thread: "The proper challenge of the apologist confronted with the harm caused by Joseph's polyandrous marrying is not to justify the harm, but to explain how Joseph Smith can still be a prophet despite how deeply he wronged others."

I made a good faith effort then to defend the Prophet but I'm not so sure anymore that all aspects of his practice of polygamy can or ought to be defended. This was confirmed to me recently when I read Gary Bergera's JWHA Journal article, "Vox Joseph, Vox Dei," which left me with the uncomfortable sense that the doctrine was at least as much Joseph's as it was God's.

[tagriffy]

I made a good faith effort then to defend the Prophet but I'm not so sure anymore that all aspects of his practice of polygamy can or ought to be defended. This was confirmed to me recently when I read Gary Bergera's JWHA Journal article, "Vox Joseph, Vox Dei," which left me with the uncomfortable sense that the doctrine was at least as much Joseph's as it was God's.

I would consider that true of all revelation, not just with Joseph Smith.

[bcuzbcuz]

Just where do you think God's chosen people came from...

Read about Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel... his four wives who gave him a total among them of 12 sons and one daughter... the 12 going on to become the 12 tribes of Israel.

Leah: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, and daughter Dina

Rachel: Joseph, Benjamin (the last child to be born)

Bilhah: Dan, Naphtali

Zilpah: Gad, Asher

GG

.

Some men, more than 2000 years ago said God would sanction polygamy, but Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. When is adultery wrong but 300 concubines OK? why do some insist that such a number was sanctoned by the Lord. Isn' t it just the case of the winner gets to write the history?

Joseph Smith was the leader and prophet and held a position of authority. Who as a follower of Joseph would dare to rebuke Joseph ( other than Emma) and refuse what Joseph wanted. Joseph took multiple wives, he also took wives of women already married.

If Monson did a similar action today, who would march in step to the new doctrine?

[Glenn101]

I think I am just sad that so many people have not had significant spiritual experiences to reinforce their faith enough so that some of the messy things in the past of Mormonisim become relatively unimportant. My early experiences were so profound as to cause me to over look those things.

Those have been my feelings/thoughts all along. I have a firm testimony of the restored gospel, of Joseph Smith as a prophet, and the prophet of the Restoration of the gospel. I don't know enough about what happened in those early days to make any type of informed judgment. Anyone who makes a judgment is making only a partially informed judgment.

Polygamy itself is not troubling to me (as long as I don't have to practice it in this mortal frame of existence). I am not troubled by the so called polyandry. Unless I am ill-informed, Joseph was not sealed to anyone who was already sealed to another, and most of those sealings were for eternity, not time and eternity. Mary Rollins Lightner said that she was sealed to Joseph for time and eternity, but I do not know if that was the actual case. I do not have access to the records.

I would be really troubled by sexual activity on the part of Joseph with any of the women to which he was sealed who were still married to another man. But it would not destroy my faith in his prophetic calling, the Book of Mormon, or the Restoration of the Gospel. It is much like that of David. He had his calling as a king and evidently as a prophet king, but also had a mortal failing for which Nathan the prophet called him out.

We have no record of Joseph being called out by another prophet, which would have had to be the quorum of the twelve. There was a lot of mumbling and grumbling and apostasy, but there was no one or group of men who called Joseph out via revelation from the Lord, as did Nathan with David.

The position that QB and others take, that information gleaned from books such as "In Sacred Loneliness" by Todd Compton is enough to divest Joseph of any reason to be called a prophet is completely off the mark. Israel nee Jacob did not lose his prophetic calling by the taking of several wives. In fact, it was after he had taken several wives that his name was changed from Jacob to Israel.

I am not troubled by the secrecy surrounding the polygamy issue in Nauvoo. I don't know how much Joseph "went behind Emma's back" in the case. But Emma had been given the information, the commandment. How well she handled it is another question, and one that will be between her, Joseph, and God, as will any mistakes that Joseph may have made.

As Don Bradley pointed out, Joseph was excoriated and forgiven by God for some unnamed sins against Emma. We do not know what they were, and it really is not our business. It was between God, Joseph, and Emma.

As another poster has pointed out, visions and revelations by several people subsequent to his death affirm that Joseph is held in pretty high esteem by God maybe should be an indication to all of us mortals to let God handle those things and for us to get on with working out our own salvation with a bit of fear and trembling rather than waste out time judging people that we never knew about things we really do not know.

Glenn

Edited June 2, 2013 by Glenn101

[mfbukowski]

I think we just don't have enough information...so I do not believe he was a fallen Prophet, but just as all men are...complicated. We are talking of someone who sealed his testimony with his blood, quote from our own scripture. Who had John Taylor sing a "Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief", while he read the scriptures...does not sound like a fallen Prophet, and it pains me that so many think, well lets just jettison the man because we don't get him so our PR will improve. Also David is a bad example to compare to Joseph, but I assure you they were both men after God's own heart. I know it is not fashionable, even on pro-Mormon sites, but I love the man! Thank God for him...many who claim to have a strong testimony, will met him one day, know why certain things were done and weep that we sought to belittle him to be more liked. I marveled at the author of this thread and his homecoming to the Church, how well he was treated...now this? These are the things "I" struggle with! I can assure you CARMella, Russ B, Arron Saft or James Banta are making good use of this on CARM.

Please re-read my post. You completely misunderstood the whole thing

The entire point was that even IF Joseph was a "fallen prophet" which he was not, it would be irrelevant to the validity of his revelations.

If the folks at CARM see that as something in their favor, they are drastically mistaken, and even stupider than I thought.

[mfbukowski]

I have a much easier time seeing how I'd deal with this issue personally than I do seeing how I would help a member of tender faith or a non-member deal with it.

I agree- that's much more difficult.

I would still go with the Thomas Jefferson argument if the individual was convinced that Joseph was therefore "fallen" because of his actions. In other words, even if Jefferson was a philanderer that does not negate the significance of the Declaration of Independence nor the validity of the idea that

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

But for some reason that seems difficult for people to understand- but was exactly my thought on confronting this issue myself. It made no difference to me.

It really made no difference to me- any more than if it would be proven that any other philosopher I admire were proven to have a moral weakness in his character.

So obviously you must have discovered a "smoking gun" and are wondering at the effects of publishing that information. I say let the chips fall where they may. You cannot shield people forever.

[Questing Beast]

I'm confused. There are biblical prophets (e.g., Abraham, Moses, Hosea, and others) who were polygamists; so, clearly, one can practice polygamy and be a prophet "in the biblical sense."

When you refer to "even one woman," do you mean if Joseph Smith had a polyandrous sexual relationship with even one woman he couldn't be a prophet?

Don

Yes, that is what I mean. Biblical polygany, the same kind practiced in Islam, is "okay" as far as it goes. Polyandry, with other men's wives in the sexual way, no way....

[Questing Beast]

It wouldn't- which is why we have the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) and the Church of Jesus Christ (Monongahela, PA).

I, personally, am of the middle camp, which believes Joseph told the truth when he, on multiple occassions, denied teaching or practicing plural marraige, polygamy, spiritual wifery or whatever one may choose to call it.

Incredible. You as much as accuse all those women of being the most egregious of liars....

[Questing Beast]

...

The position that QB and others take, that information gleaned from books such as "In Sacred Loneliness" by Todd Compton is enough to divest Joseph of any reason to be called a prophet is completely off the mark. Israel nee Jacob did not lose his prophetic calling by the taking of several wives. In fact, it was after he had taken several wives that his name was changed from Jacob to Israel.

I am not troubled by the secrecy surrounding the polygamy issue in Nauvoo. I don't know how much Joseph "went behind Emma's back" in the case. But Emma had been given the information, the commandment. How well she handled it is another question, and one that will be between her, Joseph, and God, as will any mistakes that Joseph may have made.

As Don Bradley pointed out, Joseph was excoriated and forgiven by God for some unnamed sins against Emma. We do not know what they were, and it really is not our business. It was between God, Joseph, and Emma.

As another poster has pointed out, visions and revelations by several people subsequent to his death affirm that Joseph is held in pretty high esteem by God maybe should be an indication to all of us mortals to let God handle those things and for us to get on with working out our own salvation with a bit of fear and trembling rather than waste out time judging people that we never knew about things we really do not know.

Glenn

Your faith is your province. Apparently you take the biblical accounts verbatim as literal history. I do not. Nor do I, can I, take early Mormon history as a simple explanation of how "God" always does things. So I don't look at scripture to justify or condemn anyone, not even JS. I believe he was a sincerely religious man. He was also flawed fundamentally. That apparently doesn't matter, when the religion takes off in a big way. Success is its own validation. Brian David Mitchell quoted scripture and "plagiarized" the heck out of it, unsuccessfully, so he is viewed (rightly so) as an unhinged nutjob, not a religion maker. If you look at Muhammad, he appears to Western mores as at least as big a nut as Mitchell, but for some now lost reason his rhetoric in Medina fell on receptive ears and he got a religious army together and won enough victories to impress more people and the rest, as the saying goes, "is history". There is nothing at all valid about Islam as a "revealed" religion, it borrows from Judeo-Christianity and Arab culture and superstition. But it suited the time and place. Mormonism suited the time and place. Many people at the time were disaffected with the preachers and their sectarian wars, etc. When a charismatic, religious man produced a new scripture and doctrines that suited the Bible well enough, and it grew, that was the difference between the doctrines being those of a nutjob or a "prophet". Simple and the end of the discussion for me. All religions are manmade and always have been. "God" does not call prophets that subsequently condemn all non converts to ultimate damnation of whatever stripe. "God" is never finished with us, no not even one of us. Eternity is plenty long enough for everyone to "get it". "God" never created a single soul to fail. What would be the point of that?...

[DonBradley]

It wouldn't- which is why we have the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) and the Church of Jesus Christ (Monongahela, PA).

I, personally, am of the middle camp, which believes Joseph told the truth when he, on multiple occassions, denied teaching or practicing plural marraige, polygamy, spiritual wifery or whatever one may choose to call it.

While I know this position to be false, I wish that it were true. It would simplify things--greatly. So, while I can handle knowing the overwhelming evidence that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy (and that he covered it up), I envy you.

BTW, are you Utah LDS, or in one of those other denominations you mentioned?

Don

[DonBradley]

As Don Bradley pointed out, Joseph was excoriated and forgiven by God for some unnamed sins against Emma. We do not know what they were, and it really is not our business. It was between God, Joseph, and Emma.

I like that, Glenn.

Don

[DonBradley]

While I have overwhelming reason to perceive this position as false, I wish that it were true. It would simplify things--greatly. So, while I can handle knowing the evidence that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy (and that he covered it up), I envy you.

BTW, are you Utah LDS, or in one of those other denominations you mentioned?

Don

[why me]

How right you are. Is there any way you can look at the actual history as recorded and not see it as a cheating spouse?

I can only go by the spiritual experiences of those women involved when they prayed about the principle. Many had spiritual experiences that were profound. And not one women who was sealed to Joseph claimed that he was a lustful toad.

[tagriffy]

I can only go by the spiritual experiences of those women involved when they prayed about the principle. Many had spiritual experiences that were profound. And not one women who was sealed to Joseph claimed that he was a lustful toad.

Is that saying much? Have all the women sealed to Joseph left behind statements?

[why me]

I still find it one of the more difficult issues in early Church history. Even without Joseph's polyandrous sealings including sexuality, I find it disturbing to think of a man having another man's wife sealed to him for eternity.

Don

We also have the problem with the spiritual experience of Zina when she prayed about the principle. What to make of that experience. Should we just exclude it? One thing that I find amazing is that those future sealed wives who prayed about the principle before they accepted usually had a spiritual experience that they could not deny. Zina, Lucy, etc. are examples. If i deny their spiritual experiences than I can more or less deny my own spiritual experiences within the church, especially the spiritual experience that I received after praying about the book of mormon.

[DonBradley]

Yes, as I think a couple of folks here have sagely pointed out, it seems rather sexist to reject all the accounts by the women sealed to Joseph Smith who reported spiritual experiences testifying of polygamy, and to instead just view them as "dupes." It is far more respectful to these women to take them, and therefore their own spiritual experiences and consequent decisions, seriously.

Don

[tagriffy]

We also have the problem with the spiritual experience of Zina when she prayed about the principle. What to make of that experience. Should we just exclude it? One thing that I find amazing is that those future sealed wives who prayed about the principle before they accepted usually had a spiritual experience that they could not deny. Zina, Lucy, etc. are examples. If i deny their spiritual experiences than I can more or less deny my own spiritual experiences within the church, especially the spiritual experience that I received after praying about the book of mormon.

Oh, I don't think it would be necessary to go quite that far. Consider this thought experiment. According to Compton, for example, there is reason to believe Helen Mar Whitney did not fully understand what she was getting into when she was sealed to Joseph. Assuming she had a spiritual experience prior to the sealing (mind you, I do not have the full story), then, in theory, one could say her experience was based on asking the wrong question. We would therefore be justified in setting aside that experience without having to deny one's own experience about the Book of Mormon.

[tagriffy]

Yes, as I think a couple of folks here have sagely pointed out, it seems rather sexist to reject all the accounts by the women sealed to Joseph Smith who reported spiritual experiences testifying of polygamy, and to instead just view them as "dupes." It is far more respectful to these women to take them, and therefore their own spiritual experiences and consequent decisions, seriously.

Don

For the record, the thought experiment I proposed in my previous post is meant to suggest taking their experiences seriously.

[JarMan]

To answer Don's original post, sexual polyandry could be a deal-breaker for me. Not for the truth of the Book of Mormon. But for what Joseph Smith became.

As to tagriffy's question about why it matters anymore than polygamy, for me there are a couple of reasons. Polygamy was sanctioned in the OT so it's not hard to justify it more recently based on that alone. Also, I tend to look at the institution of polygamy in the early church as something that both carmelised the saints and separated them from the "gentiles." It may sound counter-intuitive, but I wonder if they could have held together so well without the persecutions and other hardships they endured. Polyandry doesn't avail itself of these two justifications which are both valid for polygamy.

Also, I was aware of JS's and BY's polygamy from an early age. But I had never heard of polyandry discussed until a few years ago on this board. So if it turns out that JS did practice sexual polyandry that would qualify as something that the church has covered up. Again, this is something that makes polyandry a different problem than polygamy.

But here's a question for those who don't think sexual polyandry is a deal-breaker: Is there anything that JS could have done that would be a deal-breaker?

[Garden Girl]

But here's a question for those who don't think sexual polyandry is a deal-breaker: Is there anything that JS could have done that would be a deal-breaker?

Hello JarMan...

While I'm not bothered by polygamy (though I'm thankful it's in the past), the question of polyandry is more troublesome to most... but nevertheless, for me that doesn't negate all the wonderful principles found in the Plan of Salvation, nor the spiritual experience I had upon accepting Moroni's challenge in regard to the Book of Mormon, nor does it affect my testimony of general gospel principles, nor the numerous times I've had confirmation of the gospel through prayer and by the still small voice etc. If Joseph erred on the issue of polyandry, then he erred... I can leave that to the Lord. To me it does not change his prophetic role in the restoration...

GG