Ok There Seems To Be A Problem With Polygamy In The Church's Past

[Alan]

For anyone who might be interested, Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy Vol. 2 has just been published in paperback.

See www.restorationbookstore.org

[ERayR]

The Church doesn't see marriage licenses as mere formalities, but as a binding commitment in this life.

 

It isn't the license that is the binding commitment.  It is the ordinance of marriage and the vows exchanged that is the binding commitment.  The license is to comply with civil law.  The license is and can be nothing more than permission from the state.

[JLHPROF]

For anyone who might be interested, Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy Vol. 2 has just been published in paperback.

See www.restorationbookstore.org

 

Great...

 

But seriously, I am surprised the Community of Christ is still publishing these since the academic community has dismissed their methodology and conclusions.  I am also surprised since the CoC have finally admitted that Joseph DID live polygamy as history shows and stopped claiming otherwise.  By publishing this it almost seems like they don't want to let the issue go.

[omni]

1. Why would it be different? Because the Church DIDN'T see marriage licenses as binding until after plural marriage was discontinued. If they did why would they all choose to commit adultery? In the days of polygamy the US government was viewed little better than Babylon. Priesthood authority was considered the ONLY binding authority. And I have CFR'd this historical fact a few times in the past.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63134-is-the-church-being-completely-honest/page-13

and http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/61921-top-10-mistakes/page-3

Starting in Nauvoo up until the end of polygamy priesthood was supreme, the only marriage that really counted, and the only way to commit adultery was to break the marriage covenant.

Therefore, Joseph and the Church did not consider plural marriage adultery at all because only priesthood marriage counted. It WAS different in Joseph's case.

2. That is a very good question. It would require a study of Mormon marriage beliefs before the restoration of authority in 1836. Joseph is only linked to 2 or 3 women prior to the restoration of the sealing keys. He probably considered them to be common-law marriages, if they were in fact marriages as many claim. Also, we know that even prior to the sealing keys Joseph had little regard for earthly marriage laws and state laws. One of the first complaints against him was for marrying people without a license.

See: https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=7111

The Articles of Faith teach us to obey the laws of the land. This seems more like a case of trying to fit God's laws into Joseph's actions instead of the other way around.

[omni]

It isn't the license that is the binding commitment. It is the ordinance of marriage and the vows exchanged that is the binding commitment. The license is to comply with civil law. The license is and can be nothing more than permission from the state.

When mentioning marriage license, I was referring to the general institution of marriage.

[ERayR]

When mentioning marriage license, I was referring to the general institution of marriage.

 

But that is not what you said.

 

And your point? 

Edited September 11, 2014 by ERayR

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[USU78]

The Community of Christ isn't publishing the book. It has always been self-published.

 

I would be shocked if the CofC published such a thing.  The Restoration Branches?  In a heartbeat.  Dunno who's the money behind this (anybody else know?), but my money'd be on an RB consortium or individual.

Edited September 11, 2014 by USU78

[omni]

But that is not what you said.

And your point?

I assumed it was obvious since we were discussing civil marriage vs sealings. My point was that civil marriages are still a valid form of marriage. If a man who is civilly married sleeps with another women, he is still committing adultery even if he wasn't sealed to his wife. Why wasn't this the case in the early church?

[Calm]

Great...

 

But seriously, I am surprised the Community of Christ is still publishing these since the academic community has dismissed their methodology and conclusions.  I am also surprised since the CoC have finally admitted that Joseph DID live polygamy as history shows and stopped claiming otherwise.  By publishing this it almost seems like they don't want to let the issue go.

It looks like a private concern, Price Publishing Company, not the CoC.

[Alan]

It looks like a private concern, Price Publishing Company, not the CoC.

 

Price Publishing Company is a private concern owned by Richard and Pamela Price. Well, actually, just Pamela really because Richard died earlier this year.

There is also a Vol. 3 but it hasn't been published yet, though it is available online.

 

The publishing company has nothing to do with the CofC. The Price's were members of the RLDS Church but eventually left in 1984 following the liberal takeover of the church. I believe they were involved with the Restoration Branch movement.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Alan

[USU78]

Price Publishing Company is a private concern owned by Richard and Pamela Price. Well, actually, just Pamela really because Richard died earlier this year.

There is also a Vol. 3 but it hasn't been published yet, though it is available online.

 

The publishing company has nothing to do with the CofC. The Price's were members of the RLDS Church but eventually left in 1984 following the liberal takeover of the church. I believe they were involved with the Restoration Branch movement.

 

There you go.

[JLHPROF]

The Articles of Faith teach us to obey the laws of the land. This seems more like a case of trying to fit God's laws into Joseph's actions instead of the other way around.

 

We are never to obey the laws of the land when they contradict the laws of God.  It is a misconception that the laws of the land will always fit with the laws of God.  When SSM or abortion became legal the Church didn't change its position.

I don't believe in obeying any law that goes against God, and in truth, neither does the Church but they can't say that.

[JLHPROF]

The Community of Christ isn't publishing the book. It has always been self-published.

 

 

I would be shocked if the CofC published such a thing.  The Restoration Branches?  In a heartbeat.  Dunno who's the money behind this (anybody else know?), but my money'd be on an RB consortium or individual.

 

 

It looks like a private concern, Price Publishing Company, not the CoC.

 

 

Price Publishing Company is a private concern owned by Richard and Pamela Price. Well, actually, just Pamela really because Richard died earlier this year.

There is also a Vol. 3 but it hasn't been published yet, though it is available online.

 

The publishing company has nothing to do with the CofC. The Price's were members of the RLDS Church but eventually left in 1984 following the liberal takeover of the church. I believe they were involved with the Restoration Branch movement.

 

My apologies to the CoC.  But the authors are clearly from a biased break away sect of Mormonism.  And their first volume was dismissed academically as flawed.  Why would any member want to take the word of such a volume?

[JLHPROF]

I assumed it was obvious since we were discussing civil marriage vs sealings. My point was that civil marriages are still a valid form of marriage. If a man who is civilly married sleeps with another women, he is still committing adultery even if he wasn't sealed to his wife. Why wasn't this the case in the early church?

 

And I already explained:  Civil Marriage (aka state authorized) was NOT considered a binding form of marriage in the early Church.  I have provided the references to back that up.

Therefore, no polygamist was considered an adulterer in the early church because they were married by a "higher authority", the priesthood.

[omni]

And I already explained:  Civil Marriage (aka state authorized) was NOT considered a binding form of marriage in the early Church.  I have provided the references to back that up.

Therefore, no polygamist was considered an adulterer in the early church because they were married by a "higher authority", the priesthood.

So were all the early Saints that hadn't been sealed living in sin?

[Jeanne]

I feel like if polygamy is okay in the eternities..well even on earth..why don't we just throw love out the window?  I don't like this and I don't think any woman should.  It is demeaning and makes no sense what so ever!

[ERayR]

I feel like if polygamy is okay in the eternities..well even on earth..why don't we just throw love out the window?  I don't like this and I don't think any woman should.  It is demeaning and makes no sense what so ever!

 

But why should everybody be held to what you are comfortable with?  In the eternities no one will ever be forced to participate in that which they are not comfortable with.  Whether any woman is or should be comfortable with it is and should be their own choice not yours.

 

Love and polygamy need not be in opposition.  One does not exclude the other.

Edited September 12, 2014 by ERayR

[VideoGameJunkie]

I feel in heaven there will be no jealousy, so polygamy could work for the prophets that practiced it.

[saemo]

Actually no, that is not a FACT or even a fact, but a fabrication:

"Claim #1 – Nancy Marinda Johnson

So, right into it, claim number one, Nancy Miranda Johnson. I’m using Van Wagoner here because he gives the most evidence, if you will, or the most examples. So, we’ll use him as a base and we’ll go into the others as we need it, just to see how different authors handle the evidence. This is a quotation from him, on page 4, note. This is right out of the gate, this is what you get:

…allegations in Hiram, Ohio, reportedly caused problems for Smith in 1832. One account related that on 24 March [1832] a mob of men pulled Smith from his bed, beat him, and then covered him with a coat of tar and feathers. Eli Johnson, who allegedly participated in the attack “because he suspected Joseph of being intimate with his sister, Nancy Marinda Johnson, … was screaming for Joseph’s castration” (Brodie 1975, 119) – Van Wagoner, 4.

Wow, juicy stuff!

The only source for this claim, you’ll notice, is Fawn Brodie—that should send your antennae twitching right there. When I first encountered this passage, I didn’t know who Brodie was, so I was naÔve. So, already, we have a common phenomenon that you’ll see over and over again—the critical sources on this matter repeatedly quote each other. Getting back to what the actual source is takes a good deal of work.

There’s more. If you bother to check the endnotes to Van Wagoner’s book, you will then read this (I’ve added the emphasis):

“That an incident between Smith and Nancy Johnson precipitated the mobbing is unlikely. Sidney Rigdon was attacked just as viciously by the group as was Smith. And the leader of the mob, Simonds Ryder [you know, Mr. You-can't-spell-my-name-right], later said that the attack occurred because members of the mob had found some documents that led them to believe “the horrid fact that a plot was laid to take their property from them and place it under the control of Smith” (Hill 1977, 146). Besides, John Johnson had no son Eli. His only sons were John, Jr., Luke, Olmstead, and Lyman (Newell and Avery 1984, 41).”"

"Completely unmentioned by either Van Wagoner or George Smith is a testimony from the despoiled maiden herself, Miranda Hyde, who did not have a good experience with plural marriage and cannot be described, I think, as someone who would’ve been thought one of its boosters. But, she said this,

“Here I feel like bearing my testimony that during the whole year that Joseph was an inmate of my father’s house I never saw aught in his daily life or conversation to make me doubt his divine mission.”4"http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2009-fair-conference/2009-everything-you-always-wanted-to-know-about-plural-marriage-but-were-afraid-to-ask

Fine, if that is how you see it. I see a pattern, of young women/girls who Smith lived with, as a guest in a home, or they as a guest in his, end up being propositioned by Smith. I find that to be creepy. Like he never stopped looking, ever unfaithful. What would anyone find in this to be praiseworthy?

To then have someone say, you only accept what you're comfortable with? Dear Lord, sin is the most comfortable to many. "I'm not going to make you do anything you're not comfortable with." Yikes. Sorry, that is also a creepy thing to say. But that isn't how Smith put it did he? Didn't he claim to be threatened by an angel with a flaming sword. " I don't want to but an angel with a flaming sword is forcing me!"

Whatever.

Edited September 12, 2014 by saemo

[Alan]

Personally, I believe plural marriage in church history will soon be explained away in similar terms to the priesthood ban.

"We don't know why it happened, we're not sure it's doctrinal, we've moved passed it, it belongs to the history books, we are moving forward, we are monogamists and always will be......"

[Calm]

Fine, if that is how you see it.

You posted something as "FACT" which I demonstrated the scholars and sources don't show as a fact, but as a fabrication and your response is "fine, if that is how you see it".  Hmm….

 

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history-2/pre-kirtland/

 

. Like he never stopped looking, ever unfaithful.

This is not quite accurate either.  The Smiths were met in 1825 and married in 1827.  The first reported relationship was with Fanny Alger, a young woman who worked in the Smith's home, iirc.  The marriage allegedly took place in 1835.  There is a lack of reliable evidence for any other relationship before 1841, 6 years later.  So ten years with no sign he was out there "looking, ever unfaithful", one relationship occurs, and then another 6 years where nothing untoward most likely happens according to reliable scholarship.

 

Once discovered by Emma Smith, the Prophet’s plural marriage to Fanny Alger ended quickly. Fanny was banished from the Smith home and after boarding with neighbors for a few weeks, left the area with her family on their way to Missouri. Stopping in Indiana, she married a non-Mormon and lived out her life there away from the Saints. While one confusing piece of evidence could support that Joseph was involved with Fanny Alger and a “Miss Hill” in Kirtland, further investigations supports that “Miss Hill” was a conflation and not a real person. Joseph Smith received the sealing keys in 1836 but did not mention them publicly or use them to seal a monogamous or polygamous marriage until the spring of 1841. While several authors affirm that the Prophet was involved with other women during the 1836–1841 period, a review of the documentation raises multiple weighty concerns, suggesting that such allegations are not reliable.

1841:

 

While available documentation is limited, it appears that Joseph Smith married Louisa Beaman in April 1841 in a “time and eternity” plural sealing. Then, up to eleven of the next twelve plural marriages and proposals were to legally married women. Joseph then was placed between a resolute angel commanding polygamy and Emma, who would not tolerate it. Seeking to appease this immense tension, he evidently sought to avoid “time and eternity” sealings to previously unmarried women with whom conjugal relations would be expected and contract nonsexual “eternity only” marriages to civilly wed females. The angel eventually reappeared and rejected Joseph Smith’s polygamous strategy compelling him to teach the doctrines to others, mandate their compliance, and for him to personally proceed by marrying new plural wives for “time and eternity.” Accordingly, the Prophet proposed to Nancy Rigdon and penned a sophisticated doctrinal argument to her that were fruitless. Understanding whether Joseph Smith also sought Sidney’s participation and support is at present indiscernible. The angel’s third visit signaled a change in plural marriage practices in Nauvoo. As spring turned into summer of 1842, a new formidable challenge would confront the Prophet.

1842:

Available evidence strongly supports that John C. Bennett’s licentiousness was simply an extension of his pre-Nauvoo adulterous behaviors. While living among the Saints he was clearly positioned to hear rumors of the Joseph Smith’s new marital teachings from secondary sources that he later exploited in his sexual conquests. However, months after leaving, Bennett admitted he was never taught by Joseph Smith concerning eternalmarriage implying he never received instructions from the Prophet concerning any aspect of the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, including polygamy. A closer look at both Bennett’s lascivious behaviors and the Prophet’s restoration of polygamous marriage supports that the two processes ran a parallel course that never truly intersected.  Church President Joseph F. Smith, who was born in 1838, wrote this summary 1903 for a national publication,

During the period immediately preceding the assassination of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, what was known as “spiritual wifeism” was secretly taught by pretended latter-day Saints, who subsequently apostatized and became the bitterest and most unscrupulous enemies of the “Mormons.”  Among them was the notorious John C. Bennett, who led away several foolish men and women by his wiles.  It was that false and vicious doctrine that was denied by affidavit and by official declaration as being sanctioned by the church.  The principle of celestial and plural marriage, as made known in the revelation of 1843, is not to be confounded with Bennett’s system of lust. 

It appears that shortly after his arrival in Nauvoo, Joseph Smith learned of John C. Bennett’s past licentiousness, which he did not expose due to Bennett’s promises to reform.  Joseph later expressed regret for extending mercy. Bennett’s influence undoubtedly complicated the already complex process of secretly expanding the practice of plural marriage in Nauvoo.  Joseph stopped his own plural sealings for several months and apparently did not allow others to enter into the practice until the following year.

 

1843:

 

While a number of men and women entered polygamous unions in 1843, the Prophet’s primary focus of attention undoubtedly centered on his legal wife, Emma. Her initial acceptance and then cyclic support understandably created a constant tension. In May she participated in four plural ceremonies, even placing the hand of one plural wife upon Joseph’s. Almost immediately she seems to have regretted her decision and fought the principle until Hyrum, Joseph’s brother, suggested he dictate a revelation to assuage her concerns.  The revelation was recorded on July 12th, now section 132, and presented to Emma by Hyrum who received a severe rebuke. Emma continued to struggle through July and August, but then mellowed and allowed Joseph to be sealed to one additional plural wife in September. At that time she also served as matron to the sacred temple endowment ordinances then being secretly introduced to the members. It is possible that by November her feelings had again soured, but available documents fail to provide solid evidences regarding the private dynamics between the Prophet and Emma.

 

1844:

 

During the last year of Joseph Smith’s life, he successfully shared the secret teaching of plural marriage with dozens of other Latter-day Saints. At his death, 115 men and women had entered into polygamous relationships by his authority. Emma’s rocky acceptance eventually morphed into a truce with Joseph marrying no additional wives after November of 1843. Joseph’s Second Counselor in the First Presidency, William Law, rejected plural marriage and Joseph Smith. Starting his own newspaper, the Nauvoo Expositor, he began the series of actions that ended in the martyrdom. In the 1860s William Marks asserted that Joseph had intended to abandon polygamy, but his claims are problematic. Numerous evidences regarding the Prophet’s last weeks and months support he had no such intentions.

 

 

If one actually looks at his life over time, even if one assumes that the marriages were motivated by a lack of fidelity, the evidence is not one of a man always on the prowl.  

 

I am sure that there are plenty of things JS actually did that people will find creepy.  Outright fabrication or exaggerations aren't needed and only discredit the person appealing to them.

Edited September 12, 2014 by calmoriah

[saemo]

You posted something as "FACT" which I demonstrated the scholars and sources don't show as a fact, but as a fabrication and your response is "fine, if that is how you see it".  Hmm….

 

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history-2/pre-kirtland/

 

This is not quite accurate either.  The Smiths were met in 1825 and married in 1827.  The first reported relationship was with Fanny Alger, a young woman who worked in the Smith's home, iirc.  The marriage allegedly took place in 1835.  There is a lack of reliable evidence for any other relationship before 1841, 6 years later.  So ten years with no sign he was out there "looking, ever unfaithful", one relationship occurs, and then another 6 years where nothing untoward most likely happens according to reliable scholarship.

 

1841:

 

1842:

 

1843:

 

 

1844:

 

 

If one actually looks at his life over time, even if one assumes that the marriages were motivated by a lack of fidelity, the evidence is not one of a man always on the prowl.  

 

I am sure that there are plenty of things JS actually did that people will find creepy.  Outright fabrication or exaggerations aren't needed and only discredit the person appealing to them.

The only problem I see with the tarring account, is that Eli Johnson was named as a brother, whereas he was an uncle. Still, an upset relative. Still, I don't see how there is any religious persecution at the root of the incident.

 

You must have a different standard for marriage than I do. I'm strictly monogamous, meaning, if my husband brought home ONE other woman, I'd certainly view that as unfaithful. I would view the known 33 accounts of marital wandering as a pretty good indication that the husband is ever looking, ever unfaithful, and I'd be wondering how many more there were.

 

Maybe that's just me.

[Teancum]

And I already explained:  Civil Marriage (aka state authorized) was NOT considered a binding form of marriage in the early Church.  I have provided the references to back that up.

Therefore, no polygamist was considered an adulterer in the early church because they were married by a "higher authority", the priesthood.

 

Well that is certainly convenient is it not? So someone simply said, "Ahh yes, the marriage we had that the state sanctioned, well it is not really marriage at all so we can do something else." 

 

Sorry, while they may not have considered it adultery it still legally certainly was.

 

Wether or not it was in God's eyes is up for debate.

[JLHPROF]

Well that is certainly convenient is it not? So someone simply said, "Ahh yes, the marriage we had that the state sanctioned, well it is not really marriage at all so we can do something else." 

 

Sorry, while they may not have considered it adultery it still legally certainly was.

 

Wether or not it was in God's eyes is up for debate.

 

I disagree that it was simply "convenient" but I agree with the rest of your post.

 

Legally, polygamy was and is adultery.  You can only have one legal marriage so any kind of additional relationship is legal adultery.

 

Whether it was in God's eyes depend on how God actually views civil marriage/state marriage licenses.

If we believe that God accepts civil marriage as valid and binding then every polygamist was guilty of adultery.

If we believe that God only considers the priesthood marriage covenant as binding then only the violation of that covenant is adultery.

Personally, I take the latter view and don't consider state/civil marriage as having anything to do with God.  It is simply a social construct for legal purposes and has nothing to do with my religious belief.  My marriage is the temple ceremony and priesthood authority my wife and I were joined under.  Nothing more, nothing less.