Evidence That Joseph Only Had One Wife?

[Avatar4321]

In my experience those who claim the evidence of Joseph's polygamy is overwhelming have never really looked at the evidence. None of this evidence is contemporary, none of it. There are no journal entries at the time which implicate Joseph. They are all written later, much later.

It is known, for example, that the History of the Church was comprehensively revised after the Prophets death, with many words, and even whole sentences inserted or deleted to make it appear that Joseph approved of or taught plural marriage. The originals did no such thing. This is a provable fact.

As for D&C 132; it's provenance is suspect at best and very little of it speaks of plural marriage anyway. Given the proven behaviour of the church leaders regarding the doctoring of the History of the Church etc, the claim that it came from Joseph in it's perfect form is highly questionable. Where is the original? Apparently burned in the fire by the hand of Emma, the document we have is, apparently, a copy. Horsefeathers! Of all the revelations in the D&C how many had copies made? Only this one, apparently. Making copies was not usually done. in fact, there is no record of it ever being done. Very convenient methinks.

As I said previously, Joseph was sealed to a number of people. There is some evidence I understand, that he was also sealed to some men while he was alive. However, I have yet to see that evidence so I don't rely on it. However, there were certainly men sealed to Joseph after the Prophets death. Brigham Young being one them. Are we to believe that Joseph and Brigham are actually married?

Like i said before, sealing and marriage are not the same thing and just because someone later considered them the same thing and recorded that interpretation in their back-written journal, does not make it so.

While I haven't seen evidence that Joseph's multiple marriages were anything other than sealing for Eternity, I am a bit surprised at your claim there were no copies made of other revelations besides 132. From my understanding, there were many copies of the revelations made. In fact, the Missionaries would carry around the revelations and when they ran into fellow missionaries they would copy the revelations for one another.

The most popular revelation was Section 87. The least popular was Section 89.

[Alan]

While I haven't seen evidence that Joseph's multiple marriages were anything other than sealing for Eternity, I am a bit surprised at your claim there were no copies made of other revelations besides 132. From my understanding, there were many copies of the revelations made. In fact, the Missionaries would carry around the revelations and when they ran into fellow missionaries they would copy the revelations for one another.

The most popular revelation was Section 87. The least popular was Section 89.

Others made copies of course.

But in this case the claim is made that even before the ink was dry, so to speak, a copy was made. The story goes that Hyrum took the original as it had just fallen from the lips of the Prophet, to Emma. She, according to everyone apart from Emma and Hyrum of course, burned it. But fortunately a copy had been made. This was not done with any other revelation.

Actually, Richard Price has illustrated that, if the reported timeline is correct, it would have been physically impossible to have made a copy in the time available.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Alan

[webbles]

How do we know it wasn't?

The whole thing is devalued.

Whose hand was D&C 132 written in? Answer: William Clayton.

When was it produced? Answer: 1852, eight years after Joseph's death.

Was Clayton a prominent polygamist? Answer: Yes he was.

It's not difficult is it!

I notice that no one has commented on the re-written journal entry (which was by Willard Richards by the way) which totally changed the meaning of the entry to mean the opposite of what was originally said.

Can we really trust these re-written documents? I think you know my answer.

I went and looked at the re-written journal entry that you mentioned. It appears that the journal itself wasn't modified. It was modified when they copied the text into the History of the Church. The reason we know it was re-written was because we went back to the original document (his journal) and discovered that it was different from what was in the History of the Church. So the journal was actually the primary document and wasn't modified. Do you have any evidence that the journal itself was re-written or just that they modified the text when they copied it into other documents? CFR that the journal itself was ever modified.

[webbles]

Others made copies of course.

But in this case the claim is made that even before the ink was dry, so to speak, a copy was made. The story goes that Hyrum took the original as it had just fallen from the lips of the Prophet, to Emma. She, according to everyone apart from Emma and Hyrum of course, burned it. But fortunately a copy had been made. This was not done with any other revelation.

Actually, Richard Price has illustrated that, if the reported timeline is correct, it would have been physically impossible to have made a copy in the time available.

I've always heard the story that after the original had been burnt, Joseph re-wrote it down from memory or as a new revelation. So there wasn't a copy before the burning but it was made after the fact.

But I'd love to see the timeline from Richard Price. Do you have a link for that?

Edited June 27, 2013 by webbles

[Nevo]

I guess this could have two meanings. Which one did you mean Nevo?

According to Webster's 1828 dictionary, scrape in the context in which Cowdery used it meant "difficulty; perplexity; distress; that which harasses." Cowdery was certainly not referring to an abortion (the D&C method of performing abortions hadn't been invented yet).

[Tacenda]

According to Webster's 1828 dictionary, scrape in the context in which Cowdery used it meant "difficulty; perplexity; distress; that which harasses." Cowdery was certainly not referring to an abortion (the D&C method of performing abortions hadn't been invented yet).

Has there been any mention of Bennett performing abortions on the thread? I read once that he did by way of some type of medicine, a lot better than the type I've invisioned.

[Alan]

According to Webster's 1828 dictionary, scrape in the context in which Cowdery used it meant "difficulty; perplexity; distress; that which harasses." Cowdery was certainly not referring to an abortion (the D&C method of performing abortions hadn't been invented yet).

Okey dokey. My mistake. Thanks for putting me right.