Evidence That Joseph Only Had One Wife?

[ERayR]

Not possible my friend.

Joseph stated publicly that he had only one wife, denied being a polygamist, and further stated that he could prove all those who said otherwise to be liars.

He cannot have been both truthful and a polygamist.

What he said was true, from a certain point of view.

[bcuzbcuz]

What he said was true, from a certain point of view.

Who is the greatest contortionist? Joseph or those who try to find consistancy in his contradictions?

[Alan]

I agree with the webbles.

Alan, if you don't believe Joseph Smith lived polygamy, then you must believe Brigham Young and other church leaders who knew Joseph Smith were not truthful. Do you believe the church went astray after Brigham became prophet?

Good question.

Was BY right to teach the Adam-God doctrine and excommunicate one of the apostles for not believing it, when an apostle (or anyone else) who preached it now would be excommunicated for preaching false doctrine? That's a subject for another thread. But Brigham was no Joseph.

As I have said, Joseph was sealed to a number of people. No one understood this to mean marriage until it was re-interpreted during the Utah period. Brigham and others had already made their sealings "physical" in Nauvoo, so to re-interpret Joseph's sealings in this way suited the situation.

Brigham never claimed to see God, nor translate plates. Joseph did and has asked us to believe him. Therefore, his, and not Brigham's, truthfulness is absolutely critical. We have to trust him.

If it can be proved that he blatently lied in the way many on this board believe, then his entire testimony is devalued irrevocably.

[Alan]

What he said was true, from a certain point of view.

How so?

[ERayR]

Who is the greatest contortionist? Joseph or those who try to find consistancy in his contradictions?

Who cares? Not me. All this is, as I have said numerous times, irrelevant.

[ERayR]

How so?

See post #30.

[Alan]

Who is the greatest contortionist? Joseph or those who try to find consistancy in his contradictions?

What you don't seem to understand is that there is no contradiction here. There is no contemporary evidence from the time and the place. None at all. Ziltch.

No contortion required.

[Alan]

Who cares? Not me. All this is, as I have said numerous times, irrelevant.

Good for you.

[Johnnie Cake]

Joseph Smith was a truthful man and he was a polygamist.

So did this truthful man lie when he claimed to only have one wife, Emma?

You are getting to your last warning. Stop the button pushing.

[webbles]

Not possible my friend.

Joseph stated publicly that he had only one wife, denied being a polygamist, and further stated that he could prove all those who said otherwise to be liars.

He cannot have been both truthful and a polygamist.

I think most of us would consider Christ to be truthful but if you compare Luke 9:21 and Mark 9:9

And he straitly charged them, and commanded them to tell no man that thing;

And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.

to John 18:20

Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

At first glance, it kind of seems like Christ lied to the high priest.

Another point is Abraham 2: 24

Let her say unto the Egyptians, she is thy sister, and thy soul shall live.

If God can command Abraham to lie, why can't He do the same with Joseph Smith?

[LordUther]

I think most of us would consider Christ to be truthful but if you compare Luke 9:21 and Mark 9:9

to John 18:20

At first glance, it kind of seems like Christ lied to the high priest.

Another point is Abraham 2: 24

If God can command Abraham to lie, why can't He do the same with Joseph Smith?

I love this post! Nephi started out his ministry as a murderer, a thief & liar. An act does make a sin, going against the will of God is what makes something a sin. At a time when the Saints were being murdered & hunted down for their beliefs does it bother me if Joseph lied about polygamy, not one whit. If the Lord commands it then so it should be. The passage in Jacob about monogamy is a telling one. In Jacob 2 tells us that monogamy is the standard and in vs 30 the Lord tells us that if he desires to raise up seed unto him he will command otherwise. This principle is sound through all Gods commands...this is my standard but if there is a greater cause then I will command otherwise.

[canard78]

See post #30.

Thanks for the contribution ERayR. As usual when challenged say 'who cares anyway.'

[Questing Beast]

Alan, contemporary accounts relate JS performing plural marriages, AS marriages. And JS is described as married and associating with women as a husband. What you are asserting is that those are not original passages, but were instead "back written", i.e. excised and interpolated during the "Utah" period....

[Alan]

What you are asserting is that those are not original passages, but were instead "back written", i.e. excised and interpolated during the "Utah" period....

You're right, that is what I am asserting because it is provable. Most historians agree that the back-writing of church history was extensive under Brigham, and that it began within weeks of Joseph's death. Historical revision was commonplace at this time, it wasn't unique to the church. I'm at work right now, and I am at a Stake leadership meeting tonight, but tomorrow I'll post a very good example of this.

Don't get me wrong, I don't fall into the "Joseph good, Brigham bad" camp. Brigham had his stewardship and that is a matter for him. He did state that he had a personal revelation regarding polygamy while he was in England but kept it to himself. He said this was long before it was ever heard of in the church. So I accept what he says, as I don't think he was a liar either. but when he states that Joseph taught him about plural marriage etc, I believe he is mistaken because he is looking at the doctrine of sealing through the plural marriage lens (just as we do today), and that is the nub of the problem in my view.

To answer an earlier point made elsewhere on this thread, why would Joseph lie about polygamy? His enemies fully believed he was polygamous anyway and had done for years, so an admission would not have been a game changer.

As for the quotes from scripture regarding Jesus charging the apostles to "tell no man" - that is not the same as lying. Keeping quiet is not lying. If the apostles had come down from the mountain and said nothing, that is not lying. If they had said, when asked what happened on the mountain, "sorry I can't say", that would not be lying. But if they had said "nothing happened", that would have been a lie.

[Questing Beast]

While providing your "evidence" that JS knew nothing about "plurality of wives" doctrine, please address the numerous scattered pieces of evidence from others that clearly describe JS as performing "marriages", combined with the many documented children that were the outcome of Nauvoo polygamy....

[rockpond]

You're right, that is what I am asserting because it is provable. Most historians agree that the back-writing of church history was extensive under Brigham, and that it began within weeks of Joseph's death. Historical revision was commonplace at this time, it wasn't unique to the church. I'm at work right now, and I am at a Stake leadership meeting tonight, but tomorrow I'll post a very good example of this.

Don't get me wrong, I don't fall into the "Joseph good, Brigham bad" camp. Brigham had his stewardship and that is a matter for him. He did state that he had a personal revelation regarding polygamy while he was in England but kept it to himself. He said this was long before it was ever heard of in the church. So I accept what he says, as I don't think he was a liar either. but when he states that Joseph taught him about plural marriage etc, I believe he is mistaken because he is looking at the doctrine of sealing through the plural marriage lens (just as we do today), and that is the nub of the problem in my view.

To answer an earlier point made elsewhere on this thread, why would Joseph lie about polygamy? His enemies fully believed he was polygamous anyway and had done for years, so an admission would not have been a game changer.

As for the quotes from scripture regarding Jesus charging the apostles to "tell no man" - that is not the same as lying. Keeping quiet is not lying. If the apostles had come down from the mountain and said nothing, that is not lying. If they had said, when asked what happened on the mountain, "sorry I can't say", that would not be lying. But if they had said "nothing happened", that would have been a lie.

So just to make sure I understand correctly (because I am sincerely interested in your thoughts/research on this)...

You believe that JS was sealed to multiple women but that none of those (other than Emma) were considered marriages in either a civil or spiritual sense. They were just sealings. Is that correct?

[Sleeper Cell]

All of the so-called evidence for his involvement ... is mostly from people deeply involved in plural marriage in Utah and in whose interest it is to implicate Joseph (perhaps well-meaning), and who interpret Joseph's behaviour through a Utah lens.

Joseph had an even stronger motive to publicly deny his involvement than the Utah polygamists had to affirm his involvement.

I believe Joseph was a truthful man. That means I believe what he says. He states catagorically just weeks before his death that he has only one wife and that he is not a polygamist....

Joseph was never afraid to state the truth, and did it boldly all of his lfe. To charge him with deceit in this regard does him a great disservice. ...

I believe that when Joseph said he saw the Lord in a pillar of light, he was telling the truth. I believe that when he says he translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God, he was telling the truth. And I believe that when he said he was not a polygamist, he was telling the truth.

I have never understood this reasoning.

Sometimes good people sin. Sometimes truthful people lie. Sometimes brave men are afraid. That doesn’t make them bad or untruthful people or cowards. That makes them human. Frankly, I think we do Joseph a great disservice when we attempt to portray him otherwise

We don’t discount Peter’s testimony of Jesus because he lied about knowing Him. Peter lied because he was afraid for his own life. Even if one believes that Joseph lied about polygamy, he was arguably also trying to protect the lives of others.

[webbles]

As for the quotes from scripture regarding Jesus charging the apostles to "tell no man" - that is not the same as lying. Keeping quiet is not lying. If the apostles had come down from the mountain and said nothing, that is not lying. If they had said, when asked what happened on the mountain, "sorry I can't say", that would not be lying. But if they had said "nothing happened", that would have been a lie.

That's not what I was pointing out. Christ obviously taught them something at the Mount of Transfiguration and also taught them about Him being the Son of God (or at least affirmed that). In both of those cases, He told them not to tell anyone but instead to keep it a secret. But then He goes and tells the High Priest that He hasn't taught anything in secret. But we have at least two cases where it looks He actually did teach something in secret. So it looks like He was lying to the High Priest.

[EllenMaksoud]

This is comical. I had previously learned that he had 80 "wives", but it was about property rights, and were likely not consummated. It did not matter to me then either. When you look at David and then Solomon, what cause is there to have a ruction?

Edited June 26, 2013 by EllenMaksoud

[ERayR]

Thanks for the contribution ERayR. As usual when challenged say 'who cares anyway.'

You need to start reading for comprehension. My position is if you have received your revelatory experience that the Book of Mormon was translated by Joseph Smith through the gift and power of God and that he restored the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the saving ordinances, Then it is irrelevant to us at this point in time. Yes who should care it is irrelevant. There are much more pressing issues than something 100 years in the past.

Edited June 26, 2013 by ERayR

[Alan]

So just to make sure I understand correctly (because I am sincerely interested in your thoughts/research on this)...

You believe that JS was sealed to multiple women but that none of those (other than Emma) were considered marriages in either a civil or spiritual sense. They were just sealings. Is that correct?

Spot on!

[Alan]

While providing your "evidence" that JS knew nothing about "plurality of wives" doctrine, please address the numerous scattered pieces of evidence from others that clearly describe JS as performing "marriages", combined with the many documented children that were the outcome of Nauvoo polygamy....

Joseph had no children other than those with Emma. DNA evidence has proved that.

The sealings were only described as marriages after the fact, and in most cases many years after the fact. There is no contemporary evidence that Joseph was involved in plural marriage at all from the Nauvoo era. None!

[canard78]

Joseph had no children other than those with Emma. DNA evidence has proved that.

The sealings were only described as marriages after the fact, and in most cases many years after the fact. There is no contemporary evidence that Joseph was involved in plural marriage at all from the Nauvoo era. None!

But what about QB's question about children from the Nauvoo polygamy era? Is there not evidence of this?

Also, what are the implications for BY. If he was part of this big history re-write, isn't that a bit of an indictment against him?

[webbles]

Doesn't the Fanny Alger affair have contemporary evidence?

[Nevo]

Joseph had no children other than those with Emma. DNA evidence has proved that.

False.

The sealings were only described as marriages after the fact, and in most cases many years after the fact.

False. When William Clayton recorded Lucy Walker's sealing to Joseph Smith in his journal, he wrote "At 10 m J to LW" [Clayton Journal, 1 May 1843].

There is no contemporary evidence that Joseph was involved in plural marriage at all from the Nauvoo era. None!

False.