Contemporary Evidence Of Joseph'S Polygamy

[Bikeemikey]

This sets up an interesting quandary...

Either:Joseph was a monogamist and the next generation of the church rewrote history to suit their (non-divinely sanctioned) polygamy.

Or: Joseph did practice polygamy and he lied about it and got lots of other people to do the same.

I think I prefer the first option. There is plenty of evidence the BY was not the best source of doctrine (but was a great leader and motivator of people). Adam/God, blood atonement, blacks and the priesthood. There's a long list of things that should have never been said/done. Maybe polygamy's another one of his.

Having said that, given they sealed (dead) Joseph to his wives for eternity in Nauvoo temple, the polygamy 'conspiracy' started within a few months of his death. That seems like a stretch of the imagination.

You've acknowledged elsewhere that he was sealed to other women. Do you simply not accept those as (consummated) marriage relationships because of a lack of evidence?

If you go with the first option it is a pretty quick slope to the point where you are confronted with the notion the church losing its divine mantel with the death of JS.

I think the the second one is more palatable. Better JS lying for practical and pragmatic reasons than BY being our first totally useless prophet.

[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?

Bumping this in hopes that Alan will respond with his sources for his statements about William Clayton's diaries being revised. Thanks in advance!

[Questing Beast]

Yes, any proof that original diaries and journals, letters, etc., have been altered/revised to back write Church history, will be greatly appreciated. I cannot envision this any more readily than I can see how "changing the 116 lost manuscript pages" of the BoM would have accomplished anything. A copy of the original (with its changes) would demand a view of the original 116 pages, just as surely as a copy of Clayton's diary with the changes would demand a view of Clayton's original diary....

[Alan]

Yes, any proof that original diaries and journals, letters, etc., have been altered/revised to back write Church history, will be greatly appreciated. I cannot envision this any more readily than I can see how "changing the 116 lost manuscript pages" of the BoM would have accomplished anything. A copy of the original (with its changes) would demand a view of the original 116 pages, just as surely as a copy of Clayton's diary with the changes would demand a view of Clayton's original diary....

Actually, as I understand it, Clayton's diary was not exactly "back-written" in that it was changed, but in that it was written some time after the events and the dates stated.

[Questing Beast]

So you are asserting that Clayton rewrote his diary as you did your missionary journal? What is the evidence for this?...

[Alan]

So you are asserting that Clayton rewrote his diary as you did your missionary journal? What is the evidence for this?...

No. I said he wrote it later.

[MichelleD]

Actually, as I understand it, Clayton's diary was not exactly "back-written" in that it was changed, but in that it was written some time after the events and the dates stated.

That's not true. Much of William Clayton's Nauvoo diary was released when Andrew Ehat was working on his thesis at BYU and had been given access to it in the church archives. Ehat was extremely upset about what transpired and frantically tried to gather up all copies that were made without his (or the church's permission). Do a google search for this. You can order a copy of Clayton's diary online and it was a day by day current diary kept by him (NOT back dated as you state above) and there is much written in them regarding his own polygamy, Joseph Smith's polygamy and others who lived it in Nauvoo with Joseph's knowledge and permission and participation.

[MichelleD]

Oops. I meant to say it was not written "some time after the events".

[Alan]

...it was a day by day current diary kept by him (NOT back dated as you state above) and there is much written in them regarding his own polygamy, Joseph Smith's polygamy and others who lived it in Nauvoo with Joseph's knowledge and permission and participation.

I beg to differ. This cannot be known.

If you read my mission journal (without my confession) you would assume it was a day to day diary. It wasn't.

I can see I will have to post the material I have read on this subject.

Give me some time to locate it.

[MichelleD]

I beg to differ. This cannot be known.

If you read my mission journal (without my confession) you would assume it was a day to day diary. It wasn't.

I can see I will have to post the material I have read on this subject.

Give me some time to locate it.

Who do you believe wrote Clayton's diaries if he didn't?

You would be accusing someone of doing something dishonest if you want us to believe someone wrote them later pretending or making it appear that Clayton wrote them.

[Calm]

Actually I think he is saying that Clayton wrote his diary as if it was day to day, but in reality probably did it as chunks at a time or perhaps filled in gaps in his record much later on, but he will have to be specific because I am not sure how that later would be done and the first likely could be told from the way things are written and could be checked with other records of the time for accuracy.

[ALarson]

Actually I think he is saying that Clayton wrote his diary as if it was day to day, but in reality probably did it as chunks at a time or perhaps filled in gaps in his record much later on, but he will have to be specific because I am not sure how that later would be done and the first likely could be told from the way things are written and could be checked with other records of the time for accuracy.

I think that's what Alan is stating too. But then, this would mean that he believes that Clayton was not honest in his writing his diary later to make it appear as if it was a day to day journal and that Clayton lied about Joseph Smith living polygamy and others living it (including himself) with Joseph's blessing.

Alan's accusations (of all journals and Brigham Young's statements plus many others) just would have to include so many lies and so many people that it would have been quite impossible to organize and carry out successfully, IMO.

But, I am interested in seeing the evidence Alan has collected regarding Clayton's journals.

Alan, have you read the journal sections that were made public due to Ehat's experience with his thesis at BYU? These sections would have been very difficult to back date or even write later as they are written. Ehat even sued to try to keep them from being published.

Edited July 1, 2013 by ALarson

[Questing Beast]

No, Alan is saying that Wm Clayton wrote his "daily diary" after the fact (how long after the fact, he does not say), making it appear to be a "Nauvoo period" daily account, when what it really is, is a "from memory" with generous interpolation and manipulation to make out LDS polygamy as having been started in Nauvoo by JS, which Alan does not believe to be the case. Wm Clayton, therefore, is not a "contemporary Nauvoo source", but a later source. This should get interesting....

[George Miller]

Actually, as I understand it, Clayton's diary was not exactly "back-written" in that it was changed, but in that it was written some time after the events and the dates stated.

So what you are saying is that Clayton decided to back write a total of 1,170 entries in three different journals assumably years after the fact. Wow!!!! Clayton must have had an incredible memory. Many of the entries contain such mundane information that would only be included at the time, since at a distance these entries would have been deemed inconsequential. Given the nature of the published entries, I find your claim unlikely. I too would love to hear what evidence you have to substantiate your assertion. Additionally, I really wish you would use your critical scholarly eye in examining the work of Richard and Pamela Price. The reasoning in their publications is extremely problematic.

Edited July 2, 2013 by George Miller

[ALarson]

So what you are saying is that Clayton decided to back write a total of 1,170 entries in three different journals assumably years after the fact. Wow!!!! Clayton must have had an incredible memory. Many of the entries contain such mundane information that would only be included at the time, since at a distance these entries would have been deemed inconsequential. Given the nature of the published entries, I find your claim unlikely. I too would love to hear what evidence you have to substantiate your assertion. Additionally, I really wish you would use your critical scholarly eye in examining the work of Richard and Pamela Price. The reasoning in their publications is extremely problematic.

I agree with both points above. Last night I pulled out the copy of Clayton's diary I ordered online (the excerpts that upset Ehat when they got out to the public) and there is really no way (IMO) this was anything but a daily diary kept by Clayton. You're right about inconsequential, mundane details (that one wouldn't recall took place on a specific day) mixed in with great information on what was going on with the inner circle of men in church leadership regarding polygamy, etc.

I also agree with your statement about the Prices' book. I read it hoping to be convinced that Joseph never lived polygamy, but was extremely disappointed in their quality of writing, research and analysis. Also, they made many errors in the timeline.

[iamse7en]

And you can't just look at contemporary evidence only, though it may have greater historical weight. You still have dozens of people, both friends and enemies of the church, all with varying incentives and motivations report either a few or many years later, detailing their witness of Joseph both preaching and practicing the principle. And these accounts largely corroborates each other in significant detail. Did these dozens, many of whom belong to sides that hate each other all conspire together? If you've read the entire body of evidence, it really is impossible to deny that Joseph didn't preach and practice it. You have to ignore so much evidence and throw it out on very whimsical arguments that it really destroys any credibility you have. I'm sorry to say it, but I've read too many historical sources, whether contemporary or not, primary or not, early or not from various books of evidence of Joseph's polygamy that I have to conclude that that person in denial has zero objectivity and thus no credibility.

Read works by Brian Hales, Don Bradley, George Smith, Richard Van Wagoner, Michael Quinn, and Todd Compton. Read all the sources and weight each one differently and just be honest with yourself.

[ALarson]

The History of the Church or William Clayton's diaries for example have been extensively revised and back-written and are therefore unreliable for our present purpose.

Bumped for Alan (Rock) to provide a CFR for this as he promised to return and post.

[Questing Beast]

So far, Alan has not made this "interesting". "I'm waitiiing"....

Edited July 22, 2013 by Questing Beast

[iamse7en]

There is no evidence that Clayon back wrote his journal entries. Neither is there evidence of an orchestrated conspiracy from hundreds of people both friends and foes to the church. The position is simply nonsensical.

[EllenMaksoud]

As some of you may have gathered, I am in a small minority in the church who believe Joseph Smith was not a polygamist. So I would like to invite anyone to present contemporary evidence from the Nauvoo period or before, that proves his involvement.

In doing so, please be careful regardingthe dates. Just because something is specifically dated does not mean it was actually written then. The History of the Church or William Clayton's diaries for example have been extensively revised and back-written and are therefore unreliable for our present purpose.

Many thanks.

Having been Mormon only a short time, I still have met those who were from polygamist families. Practically speaking, the practice continued until the late 1940's. So "backwriting", the idea came from somewhere. And it went on for a long time. Hmmm Then you have Emma Smith who insisted it did not go on. In the face of conflicting testimony, what should we do? One story I read insisted that he had 80 wives, and that beats the 72 virgins in Muslim Heaven.

Think about it. If it happened at all, perhaps it was mostly to vicariously provide women with property rights. I don't actually know if JS is known to have off spring from more than one wife. Brigham Young practiced it didn't He? The official Mormon.org page says that it was stopped in 1890, but we know it went on longer. I do not understand all of this.

[ALarson]

There is no evidence that Clayon back wrote his journal entries. Neither is there evidence of an orchestrated conspiracy from hundreds of people both friends and foes to the church. The position is simply nonsensical.

I agree. I also have to believe that Alan knows this too (his lack of response makes that very obvious).

[Thinking]

I find it interesting that so many of you are defending Clayton's journal. Yet if the subject is the Kinderhook Plates, Clayton was somehow mistaken.

[Questing Beast]

Not comparable. Kinderhook plates are a specific incident. Life in Nauvoo, recorded on a virtual daily basis at the time, is not something that anyone could concoct many years after the fact of polygamy in Utah territory to make it look like JS made it up. The details in Clayton's journal(s) either support the fact that JS instituted and practiced polygamy as "marriage", or they do not. We are waiting for "Alan" to show that Clayton's journals were backwritten to accomplish that feat....

[webbles]

Having been Mormon only a short time, I still have met those who were from polygamist families. Practically speaking, the practice continued until the late 1940's. So "backwriting", the idea came from somewhere. And it went on for a long time. Hmmm Then you have Emma Smith who insisted it did not go on. In the face of conflicting testimony, what should we do? One story I read insisted that he had 80 wives, and that beats the 72 virgins in Muslim Heaven.

Think about it. If it happened at all, perhaps it was mostly to vicariously provide women with property rights. I don't actually know if JS is known to have off spring from more than one wife. Brigham Young practiced it didn't He? The official Mormon.org page says that it was stopped in 1890, but we know it went on longer. I do not understand all of this.

Any new polygamy after the Second Manifesto (in 1904) was cause for excommunication. Around 1910 is when they really started excommunicating polygamists. If you were sealed before 1904, it varied on if the husband stayed with the other wives or if they split up completely. http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_polygamy/Practiced_after_the_Manifesto has some information about that.

So far, all of Joseph Smith's possible offspring from his other wives have turned out to negative. But there are several offspring that died before they could have children and a few others are not possible yet with the current technology. See http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Children_of_polygamous_marriages for more info on that.

[EllenMaksoud]

Any new polygamy after the Second Manifesto (in 1904) was cause for excommunication. Around 1910 is when they really started excommunicating polygamists. If you were sealed before 1904, it varied on if the husband stayed with the other wives or if they split up completely. http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_polygamy/Practiced_after_the_Manifesto has some information about that.

So far, all of Joseph Smith's possible offspring from his other wives have turned out to negative. But there are several offspring that died before they could have children and a few others are not possible yet with the current technology. See http://en.fairmormon...amous_marriages for more info on that.

As much secrecy as I see going on, I disagree about polygamy. Were I going to be into that today no one would be told, It would be sacred within the family. I think the FLDS must be exhibitionists and have a persecution complex. No one would know about them if they were doing everything to please Heavenly Father. It was Warren Jeff's little game and he let it go to his head. Heavenly Father would call for it again if he saw the need. We all center our thinking on culture like it is today. What would our culture look like if we had pandemics, famines, and war at the same time? I hope that you do not feel I am being argumentative and disrespectful.

I'm from a culture where polygamy is allowed, though none of the women like it.

Edited July 23, 2013 by EllenMaksoud