Brigham Young?

[Alan]

ALarson,

You said, 9 posts back, that Prophets had sworn under oath that Joseph was a polygamist. This is significant evidence that I may be mistaken.

Therefore, show me.

Edited February 15, 2014 by Alan

[ALarson]

ALarson,

You said, 9 posts back, that Prophets had sworn under oath that Joseph was a polygamist. This is significant evidence that I may be mistaken.

Therefore, show me.

Sorry, if you read my statement leaving out the part in parenthesis, it makes more sense. I'll admit I could have stated it better, but I was saying that some of the early saints had sworn out affidavits and would have been lying under oath.  

 

This part:  "(including the next few Prophets)" was only referring to what was directly following about them having to have lied about Joseph's polygamy.  

 

Here's my quote:

"It simply comes down to accepting this or believing that many early sants (including the next few Prophets) told blatant lies about Joseph Smith and that some of them even swore to these lies under oath,"

 

 

Hope that clarifies what I meant.  Again, I could have done a better job of stating what I meant.

 

As far as I know, no Prophets swore under oath that Joseph lived polygamy but that would be interesting to look up.

Edited February 15, 2014 by ALarson

[Stone holm]

Sorry, if you read my statement leaving out the part in parenthesis, it makes more sense. I'll admit I could have stated it better, but I was saying that some of the early saints had sworn out affidavits and would have been lying under oath.  

 

This part:  "(including the next few Prophets)" was only referring to what was directly following about them having to have lied about Joseph's polygamy.  

 

Here's my quote:

 

Hope that clarifies what I meant.  Again, I could have done a better job of stating what I meant.

 

As far as I know, no Prophets swore under oath that Joseph lived polygamy but that would be interesting to look up.

Bushman makes references to the affidavits in Rough Stone Rolling , most of the affidavits as I recall him mentioning were from women

[Stone holm]

Sidney Rigdon was trying to downplay Joseph's role in poligamy, as I recall the RLDS did not include the 132 Section in their D & C.

[Coreyb]

Sidney Rigdon was trying to downplay Joseph's role in poligamy, as I recall the RLDS did not include the 132 Section in their D & C.

Rigdon wasn't in Nauvoo during most of Joseph Smiths polygamous activities. No, the RLDS never added it. They had no reason/desire to, plus they probably didn't have a copy. The LDS didn't add it until 1876 when Orson Pratt edited the D&C. This is probably why many in the RLDS accused Brigham or others of fabricating the document and saying it came from Joseph.

[Stone holm]

Rigdon wasn't in Nauvoo during most of Joseph Smiths polygamous activities. No, the RLDS never added it. They had no reason/desire to, plus they probably didn't have a copy. The LDS didn't add it until 1876 when Orson Pratt edited the D&C. This is probably why many in the RLDS accused Brigham or others of fabricating the document and saying it came from Joseph.

Yeah, I remember a guide at the RLDS controlled Kirtland Temple going on about the Three Witnesses being excommunicated while Joseph was away, etc. Somehow failed to mention two coming back into the Church. Why would they have questioned Orson Pratt?

[Alan]

Bushman makes references to the affidavits in Rough Stone Rolling , most of the affidavits as I recall him mentioning were from women

 

Are you aware that many of these affidavits are unsigned?

Are you also aware that there are a number of sworn affidavits on the other side of the argument?

In my study of this issue I have come to regard all affidavits, no matter which side of the debate they support, as suspicious. They are just not reliable enough to base my beliefs upon.

[Stone holm]

Are you aware that many of these affidavits are unsigned?

Are you also aware that there are a number of sworn affidavits on the other side of the argument?

In my study of this issue I have come to regard all affidavits, no matter which side of the debate they support, as suspicious. They are just not reliable enough to base my beliefs upon.

Yeah, I wouldn't base my beliefs on affidavits either. But looking at the situation, I just do not find the concept that Joseph did not have plural wives very credible.

[Tacenda]

Yeah, I wouldn't base my beliefs on affidavits either. But looking at the situation, I just do not find the concept that Joseph did not have plural wives very credible.

My life would be a lot different if he didn't.

[Coreyb]

Are you aware that many of these affidavits are unsigned?

Are you also aware that there are a number of sworn affidavits on the other side of the argument?

In my study of this issue I have come to regard all affidavits, no matter which side of the debate they support, as suspicious. They are just not reliable enough to base my beliefs upon.

What exactly do you base this belief on? Joseph swearing he didn't practice polygamy (kinda like an affidavit)? Emma swearing Joseph didn't practice it (also like an affidavit)? The affidavit of the relief society? The tenuous fact that Joseph didn't father any other children by other women? Or that most affidavits that he did practice polygamy are not current? I think that just about exhausts your options. For a guy who doesn't like affidavits, that seems to be where most of your evidence lies.

[Alan]

Yeah, I wouldn't base my beliefs on affidavits either. But looking at the situation, I just do not find the concept that Joseph did not have plural wives very credible.

 

To be honest, I don't see our positions as all that different.

I think we would agree that Joseph was legally and lawfully married to Emma, and only Emma. Given that polygamy was not legal or lawful, I believe this is uncontroversial.

Given that the Lord's standard is that we are not to have sexual relations other than with our husband or wife to whom we are legally and lawfully wedded, and that we accept that Joseph was not legally and lawfully married to anyone but Emma, it follows that claims that he was polygamous (as we understand it, ie. sex, children etc) must be incorrect, unless we are laying a charge of adultery at his feet.

Therefore, Joseph told the truth when he said that he had only one wife and was not polygamous.

However, it is also clearly the case that Joseph participated in a number of sealing ceremonies where women were sealed to him. Some of these women were legally and lawfully married to their husbands and remained so.

I have never disputed that Joseph was sealed to a number of women. But I have and do dispute that he was married (meaning sex, children etc) to them. 

 

So it appears that this all boils down to sex. To prove your position you have to prove that he had sexual relations with these women. This you cannot do. Issue, in the form of children, from those relations would be sufficient evidence to prove the point but the evidence points the opposite way.

Then we have Joseph's public denial. Some say he was afraid, but Joseph was afraid of nothing. He suffered intense persecution all of his life and was not afraid to declare the truth to anyone. His enemies always believed he was a liar and a polygamist anyway (the accusation had followed him around for years) so public denials would not have changed their view. 

 

Let's remind ourselves of what Joseph said on the last occasion (just a month before his death) in which he denied involvement:

 

"Another indictment has been got up against me [this is the polygamy charge]. It appears a holy prophet [William Law] has risen up, and he has testified against me. God knows... that the charges against me are false.

I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives. I mean to live and proclaim the truth as long as I can.

This new holy prophet [Willian Law] has gone to Carthage and swore that I told him that I was guilty of adultery. This spiritual wifeism!.... William Law... swears that I have committed adultery. I wish the grand jury would tell me who they [the alleged wives] are - whether it will be a curse or a blessing to me....

A man asked me whether the commandment was given that a man may have seven wives; and now the new prophet has charged me with adultery...... Wilson Law [William's brother] also swears that I told him I was guilty of adultery...... I have rattled chains before in a dungeon for truth's sake. I am innocent of all these charges and you can bear witness of my innocence, for you know me yourselves........ What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can find only one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers."

- Joseph smith Jr., History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6:410-411

 

"I have rattled chains before in a dungeon for truth's sake" - powerful words. Not the words of a man afraid of his persecutors.

 

To be honest, I could sit here all day citing evidence of Joseph's denials, or the back writing of church history to make Joseph appear to favour polygamy when the original meaning was the opposite, or even affidavits from people who said he swore to them he was not a polygamist.... and so on. But I'm not going to. I believe Joseph was a truthful man. He told the truth when he said he saw God; he told the truth when he said he translated the plates; he told the truth when he said he received the priesthood; and he told the truth when he said he had only one wife.

 

So why does my position bother people so much? Personally, I don't think my position about Joseph specifically concerns them. It is the consequences of that position that concerns them most in my view. What does it say about Brigham and other church leaders? That is where most people get all hot and bothered. What are the implications? Which brings me right back to the OP.

 

So, just humour me for a moment.

Suppose my belief about Joseph just happens to be correct. What do you think this would mean for Brigham etc? Would it change our view? What about US government opposition and triumph over the "principle"? Could that have been God-sanctioned? If it does change our view about brother Brigham, in what way? Would this be fatal or can we work around it?

Edited February 17, 2014 by Alan

[JLHPROF]

To be honest, I don't see our positions as all that different.

I think we would agree that Joseph was legally and lawfully married to Emma, and only Emma. Given that polygamy was not legal or lawful, I believe this is uncontroversial.

 

This, I can agree with.

 

 

Given that the Lord's standard is that we are not to have sexual relations other than with our husband or wife to whom we are legally and lawfully wedded, and that we accept that Joseph was not legally and lawfully married to anyone but Emma, it follows that claims that he was polygamous (as we understand it, ie. sex, children etc) must be incorrect, unless we are laying a charge of adultery at his feet.

Therefore, Joseph told the truth when he said that he had only one wife and was not polygamous.

 

Your definition of "legally & lawfully married" is in error.  If we accept that the marriage ceremony is an eternal ordinance established before the foundations of this earth as Joseph taught, then legal/lawful marriage cannot be equated with civil marriage.  State authorized marriage is a relatively new concept and has only existed for a few hundred years (with sporadic appearances in history). 

Given this fact, when the Lord refers to our legal/lawful spouses he must be referring to something else, like a legal adminstrator/the priesthood and to the laws of marriage which he established.  Based on historical and scriptural precedent the legal/lawful marriage that God refers to cannot refer to civil marriage, but to a legally administered marriage ceremony in accordance with the law of God.  And that makes all Joseph's wives his "legal" wives, unless we are bogged down in our mortal viewpoints.

 

However, it is also clearly the case that Joseph participated in a number of sealing ceremonies where women were sealed to him. Some of these women were legally and lawfully married to their husbands and remained so.

I have never disputed that Joseph was sealed to a number of women. But I have and do dispute that he was married (meaning sex, children etc) to them. 

 

 

Despite repeated requests you have yet to describe the nature of these sealings that you say weren't marriages.  In Mormonism there are only two recorded types of sealings (with one strange exception) - husband/wife and parent/child.   These women were not his children and must be his wives.  Now, did Joseph live/sleep  with all these women as man and wife?  Of course not.  But that doesn't make them any less wives.

 

And I don't deny your evidence provided in the rest of the post that Joseph publicly denied plural marriages, he absolutely did.  And at the same time he performed plural  marriage ceremonies for Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, his brother Hyrum, and at least 16 other men during his life.  Many of these men had children with their wives even if he didn't with his.

I think it's a bit of a stretch of the imagination to say that Joseph would have encouraged his apostles and friends to participate in adultery while at the same time maintaining his own innocence.

Edited February 17, 2014 by JLHPROF

[ALarson]

This, I can agree with.  And I don't deny your evidence that Joseph publicly denied plural marriages, he absolutely did.  And at the same time he performed plural  marriage ceremonies for Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, his brother Hyrum, and at least 16 other men during his life.  Many of these men had children with their wives.

 

I think it's a bit of a stretch of the imagination to say that Joseph would have encouraged his apostles and friends to participate in adultery while at the same time maintaining his own innocence.

Exactly.  Why wouldn't Joseph have excommunicated or disciplined these other apostles and church members?  That makes no sense at all.  Combine this with all the other evidence and IMO there is no doubt that Joseph lived polygamy too.

Edited February 17, 2014 by ALarson

[David T]

Joseph appears to have understood Priesthood authority concerning marriage to trump that of the Law. It was a combo spiritual and temporal matter. He held that he had the authority to create marriages acceptable in the eyes of God, as well as to disolve those made under a lesser covenant. See D&C 22. While this is generally understood in relationship to Baptism, one can easily see how this principle could be interpreted and understood in relation to other covenants as well. And there's evidence that it very well was. A great referenced filled discussion of this is in the Hales volumes. Really, dude. You seriously need to check it out.

Edited February 17, 2014 by David T

[Alan]

 

 

Your definition of "legally & lawfully married" is in error.  If we accept that the marriage ceremony is an eternal ordinance established before the foundations of this earth as Joseph taught, then legal/lawful marriage cannot be equated with civil marriage.  State authorized marriage is a relatively new concept and has only existed for a few hundred years (with sporadic appearances in history). 

Given this fact, when the Lord refers to our legal/lawful spouses he must be referring to something else, like a legal adminstrator/the priesthood and to the laws of marriage which he established.  Based on historical and scriptural precedent the legal/lawful marriage that God refers to cannot refer to civil marriage, but to a legally administered marriage ceremony in accordance with the law of God.  And that makes all Joseph's wives his "legal" wives, unless we are bogged down in our mortal viewpoints.

 

 

 

Well, in my view I'm afraid you are mistaken.

The phrase "legally and lawfully wedded" will be familiar to all who particiipate in temple ordinances. One does not have to be sealed or have a temple marriage to participate in this ordinance. One can be married civily ie, legally and lawfully, and still participate in the endowment for oneself and for the deceased. Therefore, it appears the phrase means exactly what it says, as phrases often do.

 

The other point made regarding Joseph performing sealings for others I would have thought was so obvious I'm surprised it was raised. The sealings of Hyrum and Brigham etc were on the same terms as Joseph's. Why would they be any different? I really don't understand why anyone raised this.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Alan

[JLHPROF]

Well, in my view I'm afraid you are mistaken.

The phrase "legally and lawfully wedded" will be familiar to all who particiipate in temple ordinances. One does not have to be sealed or have a temple marriage to participate in this ordinance. One can be married civily ie, legally and lawfully, and still participate in the endowment for oneself and for the deceased. Therefore, it appears the phrase means exactly what it says, as phrases often do.

 

Oh, I am well experienced in the temple ordinances.  If the sealing ordinance and the endowment is eternal and unchanging and was established before the foundation of the world then we can assume that all God's servants participated in the same ordinance.  In that case what did "legal and lawful" refer to when Abraham married Sarah (or Hagar for that matter).  What did legal and lawful refer to when Adam and Eve were married?  What did legal and lawful refer to when Noah married his wife?  Moses?  What did legal and lawful refer to when Joseph Smith performed his first non-temple but church marriages without a license (which he did later obtain)?  Legal and lawful does NOT refer to state authorized marriages.

And you still haven't explained the nature of the ceremony used when Joseph was sealed to his wives if it wasn't a marriage ceremony.

 

 

The other point made regarding Joseph performing sealings for others I would have thought was so obvious I'm surprised it was raised. The sealings of Hyrum and Brigham etc were on the same terms as Joseph's. Why would they be any different? I really don't understand why anyone raised this.

 

It was raised because you said that under the terms of these "sealings" it would have been adultery to have children with the plural wives.  And that's what most of these men that Joseph taught and performed sealings for did.  If the terms were "no sex" Joseph didn't make it very clear when he was teaching them and sealing them.

I mean, come on.  Of course Joseph and these other brethren had sex with many of their plural wives.  I don't have any immediate records to post as reference (nor do I have time to scour the birth records of Nauvoo), but I am sure if we looked we would find children being born in plural unions during the life of Joseph Smith to good and faithful priesthood leaders.  All with Joseph's approval in my opinion since he performed the marriages.

Edited February 17, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Alan]

  Legal and lawful does NOT refer to state authorized marriages.

 

 

Yes it does.

Ask the Temple President next time you go.

 

 

Note: I have already asked this question.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Alan

[Alan]

 

 Of course Joseph... had sex with many [his] plural wives. 

 

CFR

[JLHPROF]

CFR

 

You know full well the references to this, and you have already dismissed them for various reasons.  I see no point in posting them again.  And you fail to address why Joseph would allow his fellow priesthood leaders to have sex and children with their plural wives if the terms of the sealing forbade it.

 

 Yes it does.

Ask the Temple President next time you go.

 

Note: I have already asked this question.

 

That still doesn't explain how it would have applied throughout history to other eternal sealings where no state marriage even existed.

Edited February 17, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Alan]

You know full well the references to this, and you have already dismissed them for various reasons.  I see no point in posting them again.

 

Not so my friend.

There are no references proving that Joseph had sexual relations with those women. You can't post them because they don't exist.

[ALarson]

It was raised because you said that under the terms of these "sealings" it would have been adultery to have children with the plural wives.  And that's what most of these men that Joseph taught and performed sealings for did.  If the terms were "no sex" Joseph didn't make it very clear when he was teaching them and sealing them.

I mean, come on.  Of course Joseph and these other brethren had sex with many of their plural wives.  I don't have any immediate records to post as reference (nor do I have time to scour the birth records of Nauvoo), but I am sure if we looked we would find children being born in plural unions during the life of Joseph Smith to good and faithful priesthood leaders.  All with Joseph's approval in my opinion since he performed the marriages.

Here's a few of the children who were from polygamous marriages in Nauvoo prior to Joseph's death:

 

- Adelmon Kimball,born October or November, 1842 to Heber C. Kimbal and his 2nd wife, Sarah Peak Noon.

 

- Lucini Cahoon was born to Reynolds Cahoon and his 2nd, Lucina Johnson in 1843.

 

- George Omer Noble was born in April, 1843 to Joseph Bates Noble and his second wife, Sarah B. Alley.

 

So Alan, why weren't these men named above, excommunicated or disciplined for adultery?

[JLHPROF]

Not so my friend.

There are no references proving that Joseph had sexual relations with those women. You can't post them because they don't exist.

 

Yes, I can, but you just dismiss them as "not contemporary" or some other ridiculous reason.  You are fully aware of the statements of the women sealed to Joseph concerning sex.  But you don't consider them valid for various reasons.

And the additional condemning proof to your theory that Joseph was sealed only but never had plural wives/relations is the fact that so many of the men he sealed to plural wives did have relations/children with their wives and Joseph never disciplined anyone for it (see ALarson's post).  It was authorized.  Why would it be different for the one authorizing it.

Edited February 17, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Alan]

Here's a few of the children who were from polygamous marriages in Nauvoo prior to Joseph's death:

 

- Adelmon Kimball,born October or November, 1842 to Heber C. Kimbal and his 2nd wife, Sarah Peak Noon.

 

- Lucini Cahoon was born to Reynolds Cahoon and his 2nd, Lucina Johnson in 1843.

 

- George Omer Noble was born in April, 1843 to Joseph Bates Noble and his second wife, Sarah B. Alley.

 

So Alan, why weren't these men named above, excommunicated or disciplined for adultery?

 

The absence of disciplinary action is not proof that Joseph approved.

Any disciplinary action would have to have been brought by the Nauvoo Stake president. As you probably know, William Marks has stated that is exactly what Joseph asked him to do.

 

However, we're getting away from the issue. The fact that these men had sexual relations with the women to whom they had been sealed does not prove that Joseph did. We might as well say that you must have had porridge for breakfast this morning because I did!

The proof that these other men had sex with these women is in the fact they had children. That is all the proof we need. But Joseph produced no children except those for whom Emma was the mother.

 

But that does bring me back to my "humour me" question. I think it is pretty clear that there is no proof that Joseph had sexual relations with any of the women to whom he was sealed. You may believe he did, but there is no proof - none at all. So, for arguments sake, let's say that he didn't. Let assume that his relations with these women were just as I have described.

What then, should we make of Utah polygamy, especially in view of the fact that it was, on the whole, an absolute disaster for the church.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Alan

[ALarson]

After reading the response in the post above, I'm done discussing this with Alan.  No amount of evidence or proof or just plain old common sense gets through to him.  Believe what you wish, Alan. You have every right to do so.

[JLHPROF]

For arguments sake, let's say that he didn't. Let assume that his relations with these women were just as I have described.

What then, should we make of Utah polygamy, especially in view of the fact that it was, on the whole, a disaster for the church.

 

Well, then we would do like we always do in the Church, and assume "further light and knowledge on the subject" was received by the leaders. 

 And as such, then even Utah Polygamy would have come from God.  Because God will never allow any prophet to lead us astray.

Edited February 17, 2014 by JLHPROF