Contemporary Evidence Of Joseph'S Polygamy

[Alan]

I think we can all agree that Brigham Young and others started polygamy while Joseph Smith was still alive. If I remember correctly, a few polygamous wives even had children before Joseph died. So how were these men able to convince these women that Joseph was publicly lying? These women were there in Nauvoo, they heard Joseph Smith publicly deny polygamy. What prevented them from personally asking Joseph? If I was a polygamous wife and I heard the prophet say that polygamy was wrong and then I saw one of the councilors in the first presidency get reprimanded for practicing polygamy, why would I trust the Brigham's word?

Bennett tried this approach and it failed for him. Why did it work for Brigham?

I don't know the answer.

But I expect the truth would have emerged had Joseph lived longer. There is some evidence that Joseph was preparing to take action against the polygamists and that the Smith family knew what Brigham had been doing. But that evidence too suffers from the fact it was recalled after the fact. It isn't contemporary. This problem cuts both ways.

This is why I insist on contemporay evidence, because anyone can say anything to suit their agenda, or find someone to say something that suits their agenda, after the fact.

What we do have is contemporary evidence of Joseph denying he was involved. He is either thruthful or he is a liar.

I choose to believe him.

[cinepro]

In the Work & the Glory series, once they built the Nauvoo temple they were doing work all day & night before they were run out. Was this just something different, like marriage sealings only?

Decades from now, this day will be remembered as the moment when someone used "The Work and the Glory" as a historical reference for the first time, thus ushering in a new era in Mormon scholarship and apologetics.

I'm just glad I was here to share the moment, and I thank you for this privilege.

[Alan]

Why doesn't "proxy work" also mean "baptisms for the dead"?

It does. These were done in the river.

[webbles]

I don't know the answer.

But I expect the truth would have emerged had Joseph lived longer. There is some evidence that Joseph was preparing to take action against the polygamists and that the Smith family knew what Brigham had been doing. But that evidence too suffers from the fact it was recalled after the fact. It isn't contemporary. This problem cuts both ways.

This is why I insist on contemporay evidence, because anyone can say anything to suit their agenda, or find someone to say something that suits their agenda, after the fact.

What we do have is contemporary evidence of Joseph denying he was involved. He is either thruthful or he is a liar.

I choose to believe him.

But you seem to be very selective on the contemporary evidence. Pretty much if it isn't Joseph Smith or if it doesn't support your view, you won't accept it. You just say that the evidence was re-written, made up, etc.

Edited June 27, 2013 by webbles

[cinepro]

It does. These were done in the river.

Seriously?

29 For a baptismal font there is not upon the earth, that they, my saints, may be baptized for those who are dead—

30 For this ordinance belongeth to my house, and cannot be acceptable to me, only in the days of your poverty, wherein ye are not able to build a house unto me.

D&C 124 (Nauvoo, 1841)

[Questing Beast]

Doesn't mention plural marriage once.

What's your point?

Obvious context. What was Law talking about otherwise? Everyone wrote indirectly about the subject of plurality of wives in Nauvoo....

[Tacenda]

Decades from now, this day will be remembered as the moment when someone used "The Work and the Glory" as a historical reference for the first time, thus ushering in a new era in Mormon scholarship and apologetics.

I'm just glad I was here to share the moment, and I thank you for this privilege.

He provided references throughout, so factual, worked for me.

[Calm]

Decades from now, this day will be remembered as the moment when someone used "The Work and the Glory" as a historical reference for the first time, thus ushering in a new era in Mormon scholarship and apologetics.

If only....I believe it's been over 5 years since I saw this happen before, can't remember the first time it did...

[Alan]

Obvious context. What was Law talking about otherwise? Everyone wrote indirectly about the subject of plurality of wives in Nauvoo....

So if he had said Joseph is a polygamist, that's proof positive that Joseph was a polygamist.

If he didn't say Joseph was a polygamist, that is also proof positive that Joseph was a polygamist.

Let's keep logic out of this.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Alan

[Alan]

Seriously?

Yes, seriously.

I'm not aware of the baptistry being used, or even ready to be used, in the Nauvoo Temple; but if someone could show that I'm wrong I'll stand corrected.

It's not relevant for our present purpose however.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Alan

[Alan]

But you seem to be very selective on the contemporary evidence. Pretty much if it isn't Joseph Smith or if it doesn't support your view, you won't accept it. You just say that the evidence was re-written, made up, etc.

The reason I am suspicious of the History of the Church, Clayton's diary etc, is precisely because they cannot be relied upon to be contemporary.

Don't you see that the fact that they underwent review and adjustment at all devalues them to some extent. Especially when we discover that the original said the opposite of what the "new improved version" has been altered to say.

I believe Joseph. I do not believe that I, as a believing Latter-day Saint, should rely on Joseph's enemies for accurate information about him when it differs from what he has publicly stated. We dismiss the claims of apostates today, but for some reason reverence those from the past. It's quite bizarre when you think about it.

I'll take Joseph over Bennett, Higbee, Law and any other apostate any day.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Alan

[Brian 2.0]

But you seem to be very selective on the contemporary evidence. Pretty much if it isn't Joseph Smith or if it doesn't support your view, you won't accept it. You just say that the evidence was re-written, made up, etc.

Confirmation bias at its finest.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[ERayR]

In the Work & the Glory series, once they built the Nauvoo temple they were doing work all day & night before they were run out. Was this just something different, like marriage sealings only?

Tacenda I am sure you know "The Work and The Glory" is fiction? Not hardly reference material. However, I must concede it is as good or better than some of the reference material used by some critics.

Carry on.

[ERayR]

Obvious context. What was Law talking about otherwise? Everyone wrote indirectly about the subject of plurality of wives in Nauvoo....

Law was an impeccable witness?????

[cinepro]

Yes, seriously.

I'm not aware of the baptistry being used, or even ready to be used, in the Nauvoo Temple; but if someone could show that I'm wrong I'll stand corrected.

It's not relevant for our present purpose however.

This article, page 92, starting with the third paragraph.

[Nevo]

The reason I am suspicious of the History of the Church, Clayton's diary etc, is precisely because they cannot be relied upon to be contemporary. Don't you see that the fact that they underwent review and adjustment at all devalues them to some extent. Especially when we discover that the original said the opposite of what the "new improved version" has been altered to say.

Why do you keep lumping Clayton's diary in with the History of the Church? They're two different documents. Yes, the History of the Church was edited and revised over several decades by numerous hands, that's well known. But William Clayton's diary was a contemporaneous record kept by...William Clayton. You claim that Clayton's diary is unreliable but you've offered no evidence at all for this assertion. None.

At one point you claimed that Todd Compton had said the diary was back-written (and therefore compromised as a historical source), but when you were challenged to provide a reference you fell silent. As indeed you were right to, since Compton makes extensive use of Clayton's diary as a primary source in his book, In Sacred Loneliness.

If you have evidence that Clayton's diary is not contemporary with the events it records, then by all means present it. Otherwise your assertion is merely wishful thinking.

I believe Joseph. I do not believe that I, as a believing Latter-day Saint, should rely on Joseph's enemies for accurate information about him when it differs from what he has publicly stated. We dismiss the claims of apostates today, but for some reason reverence those from the past. It's quite bizarre when you think about it.

It's also quite bizarre when you think about it that a self-professed believing Latter-day Saint would imagine that Brigham Young and indeed almost the entire Quorum of the Twelve were egregious adulterers and covenant-breakers who perpetuated a lie for decades afterwards to cover their sins, and yet were still somehow fit to lead the Church after Joseph's death.

Edited June 28, 2013 by Nevo

[Questing Beast]

So if he had said Joseph is a polygamist, that's proof positive that Joseph was a polygamist.

If he didn't say Joseph was a polygamist, that is also proof positive that Joseph was a polygamist.

Let's keep logic out of this.

Wm Law was devoted to JS and tried to get him to change, and after writing that diary entry he organized the Expositor. That's your context. The Expositor stopped being ambiguous and brought the whole polygamy thing into the open, but only after Wm Law broke finally with JS and the Church. So the 1 January 1844 entry is evidence for JS being involved and it is contemporary and not altered in any way.

JS knew what was going on and even Hyrum was ignorant of it until a year before his death, he preached against it in public, and asserted that any rumors were lies. But he presented Section 132 to Emma personally. If you can't accept such historical facts then you have no Church history to follow except what you construct for yourself. Are you afraid that if JS "falls" to the level of a dissembler or even a liar, that God falls with him? Or that there is no God? What?

"God" is much bigger than JS, the world Is more than we know. JS is one religion maker in a long human history of religion makers. God works with all of them....

[Thinking]

Section 101 of the 1835 D&C is interesting.

Verse 4: "All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled. 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, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."

There was at least a perception that some in the church were practicing polygamy, else this part of the verse would not have been included.

There is also the Nauvoo Expositor.

"Inasmuch as we have for years borne with the individual follies and iniquities of Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, and many other official characters in the Church of Jesus Christ, (conceiving it a duty incumbent upon us so to bear,) and having labored with them repeatedly with all Christian love, meekness and humbility, yet to no effect, feel as if forbearance has ceased to be a virtue, and hope of reformation vain; and inasmuch as they have introduced false and damnable doctrines into the Church, such as a plurality of gods above the God of this universe and his ability to fall with all his creations; the plurality of wives, for time and eternity"

[Nevo]

So the 1 January 1844 entry is evidence for JS being involved

There are other entries in Law's diary that are considerably more explicit about Joseph's involvement in polygamy. For example, the following:

8 [January 1844] I was passing along the street near my house, when call'd to by Joseph Smith, he said I was injuring him by telling evil of him, he could not name any one that I talked to, he said my wife was injuring him and that Wilson Law was doing so too; he could not give any authority but was very angry, and told me that I no longer had a place in the Quorum, and that he had cut me off from the first Presidency and appointed another in my place. Some unpleasant words ensued. I told him his cause was not only unjust but dishonourable, &c. &c.

I confess I feel annoyed very much by such unprecedented treatment for it is illegal, inasmuch as I was appointed by revelation (so called) first and twice after the unanimous voice of the general Conferences, —but I feel relieved from a most embarrassing situation I cannot fellowship the abominations which I verily know are practiced by this man, concequently I am glad to be free from him, and from so vile an association—

I thank God that he opened my understanding to know between truth and error, in relation to plurality & community of wives, and that I had fortitude to tell Joseph that it was of the Devil and that he should put it down & I feel that I have opposed a base error and that the eternal God is on my side, and if I am persecuted it is because I vindicate principles of virtue and justice, not that I wish to injure any man, but I love the truth, and hate to see the virtuous destroyed and brought down into corruption and vice, and finally cast upon the world as unclean—

March 29. Since my last conversation with Joseph Smith which was on the 8th Jan'y I have had no association with him, as I do not wish to associate with evil doers; he has in the meantime been using all his influence to destroy me, he has employed every vile and corrupt man and woman in the city over whom he has any power to circulate evil reports as false as the author of lies, about me and my wife, but he has failed to accomplish his object, for our names yet stand fair and untarnished in the estimation of the virtuous and the good; we find the better part of the community to be our friends; they feel disgusted with Smith's course for it has been most disgusting lothsome to the virtuous mind, lust, falsehood, injustice, and cruelty have characterized his course towards me & mine in such an unparalleled degree that the unprejudiced could not but see it, and abhor the man and his base acts,—

Hyrum Smith was here a few days ago. He beg'd for peace; we told him of the corrupt operation which had been practised upon us; he could not deny it, but said he was sorry as we had always been good friends to him and Joseph and had done much good for the church &c &c. I told him I was ready for an investigation before the Conference, and that there I would bring their abominations to light; he said there would not be an investigation before [the] Conference, that they wanted peace. I told him then to cease their abominations, for they were from Hell & that I knew it. he said they were not doing anything in the plurality of wife business now, and that he had published a piece against it; when I came to examine the piece referred to I found that it amounted to this, that no one should preach or practice such things unless by revelation (of course through Hyrum or Joseph). I told Hyrum that we stood defensive, we would defend the truth, we would defend ourselves both in character and in person.

Ap. 7. I have learned that my case cannot be brought before the Conference as the Smiths are determined that no exposure of their wicked deeds shall be made to the Conference, but if any charges be preferred they will insult and abuse the person daring to make the charges & then turn the investigation over to the High Council and some particular High Priests, so I have concluded to let the matter rest at present.

April 15. . . . Since Conference Almon Babbit came to me, and said, that Joseph Smith wished a reconciliation and that if I would let all drop and say nothing about it, and be friendly, he would restore me to my office of the first Presidency and raise me higher than ever, & would send me a writing to that effect. I told Mr. Babbit that I could not be bought, that if J. Smith wanted reconciliation with me he must make public acknowledgment and cease from his abominations &c.

(Quotes from Lyndon W. Cook, William Law. Biographical Essay, Nauvoo Diary, Correspondence, Interview [Orem, UT: Grandin Book Company, 1994], 46–50)

Edited June 28, 2013 by Nevo

[Tacenda]

Tacenda I am sure you know "The Work and The Glory" is fiction? Not hardly reference material. However, I must concede it is as good or better than some of the reference material used by some critics.

Carry on.

Haha, I know it's a fictional story with some fact interspersed in. I know I'm dumb, but not that dumb.

[Alan]

It's also quite bizarre when you think about it that a self-professed believing Latter-day Saint would imagine that Brigham Young and indeed almost the entire Quorum of the Twelve were egregious adulterers and covenant-breakers who perpetuated a lie for decades afterwards to cover their sins, and yet were still somehow fit to lead the Church after Joseph's death.

Now my friend, when did I ever say that?

I have said consistently that Joseph was sealed to a number of women. These were sealings and expected to be of full force in the eternities. They were not marriages in the way we understand the term. Joseph did not live with these women, nor did he have intimate relations with them, nor was there any offspring. That is what I have said.

It is pretty obvious that Brigham and others interpreted the sealing covenant differently. I personally believe they interpreted it incorrectly, as it caused the church no end of trouble and still does. Polygamy brought us to the brink of bankruptcy and was the main cause of the church's stagnation in terms of growth through missionary labours for many decades. The church was forced to abandon the principle and it seems likely to me that had plural marriage never been practiced, the church would be in a much better position today.

However, I have said that Brigham was sincere. I don't believe he deliberately sinned and lied to cover the sin, but I did point out that all 5 doctrines and practices for which Brigham is known 1) Adam-God, 2)Polygamy, 3) Blood Atonement, 4) Co-operative Economics, 5) Priesthood ban on Blacks, have all, every one of them, been dropped by the church. Like I said before, a man, any man (including Brigham) can be sincere, but sincerely wrong.

I have pointed out too that many documents from the Nauvoo period have been revised since they were written and in a way that changes the meaning. I gave one very obvious example. This means that documents which are presented as being contemporary to that period often are not, but have been re-interpreted later in the light of new information, doctrine or practice.

I have also pointed out that Joseph was consistent in his public denunciation of polygamy, and even had polygamists disciplined. I have ventured that the whole basis for the church's legitimacy rests on the truthfulness of Joseph's claims. The first vision, the plates, angelic ministrations and so on. His honesty is crucial to our claims. I have therefore pointed out that to claim he was lying when he declared that he was married to only one wife undermines his legitimacy in this regard.

I have also stated out that to seek succor for the position that he practiced polygamy from rabid apostates and bitter personal enemies of Joseph is ridiculous in my view and smacks of desperation. I personally discount these sources, especially as there are other sources which provide evidence to the contrary from individuals friendly to Joseph. Who is more likely to tell the truth about him, his enemies or his friends?

Both are motivated for different reasons and can exaggerate their claims. Therefore, a middle position is probably closer to the truth of the matter. That is why I maintain he was sealed to a number of women, but married only to Emma.

I believe Joseph told the truth.

P.S. If anyone is interested in reading up on the evidence against Joseph practicing polygamy please follow this link http://restorationbookstore.org/jsfp-index.htm

There's a lot to get through (and you need to ignore the anti-Brigham stuff) but it's worth it in my view. Volume Two is particularly useful.

Edited June 28, 2013 by Alan

[DonBradley]

Where is your evidence that William Clayton's diaries have been revised?

And have you considered Joseph Smith's Nauvoo diary, which he had kept for him by Willard Richards?

Don

[DonBradley]

Evidence from the Nauvoo period or before that indicates that Joseph Smith taught and personally practiced polygamy includes:

• Oliver Cowdery letter to Warren Cowdery, 21 January 1838
  
• John C. Bennett, History of the Saints (1842)
  
• William Clayton Nauvoo diaries
  
• William Law Nauvoo diary
  
• D&C 132
  
• [Francis Higbee], "Buckeye's Lamentation for Want of More Wives," Warsaw Message (7 February 1844): 1
  
• Nauvoo Expositor (7 June 1844)
  

Also, the fact that two of Joseph's brothers, nearly all of the Quorum of the Twelve, and 43 percent of the men initiated into Joseph Smith's Anointed Quorum (and 58 percent of those who received their second anointing) practiced polygamy is strong evidence that Joseph approved of it.

We can also add Oliver Olney's various 1842 private writings and 1843 publication.

Don

[Questing Beast]

...

P.S. If anyone is interested in reading up on the evidence against Joseph practicing polygamy please follow this link http://restorationbo.../jsfp-index.htm

There's a lot to get through (and you need to ignore the anti-Brigham stuff) but it's worth it in my view. Volume Two is particularly useful.

Heh, talk about taking evidence out of contemporary context: virtually everything in the first three chapters of that book are long after the time described, and recollections from RLDS bias. If your bona fide history sources must be from contemporary Nauvoo, why are you giving credence or even the time of day to a biased non contemporary compilation?...

[ALarson]

Alan, I'd still like to see the references regarding your assertion that William Clayton's diary has been altered or revised. I am very interested in seeing what you have.

Alan?