Evidence For An 1831 Date For Section 132?

[stemelbow]

It's evidence supporting Phelps' recollection of a need to marry the "natives" it doesn't however support plural marriage. Phelps seems to have drawn that conclusion by himself from what may (or may not) have been said in 1834.

Interesting. I didn't catch that. It could very well be that leaving the wife in the states is assumed to be a split of the marriage?

[canard78]

Interesting. I didn't catch that. It could very well be that leaving the wife in the states is assumed to be a split of the marriage?

Indeed. It does support Phelps isn't simply making up the marriage to the "Lamanites" but 40 years later could have applied more to it than Joseph intended in 1830.

Even if Joseph is shown to be pondering the question of plural marriage in 1831 (and there's scant evidence for it), that's still not evidence that he's been sitting on a revelation in 1843 for 10+ years.

[stemelbow]

Indeed. It does support Phelps isn't simply making up the marriage to the "Lamanites" but 40 years later could have applied more to it than Joseph intended in 1830.

Even if Joseph is shown to be pondering the question of plural marriage in 1831 (and there's scant evidence for it), that's still not evidence that he's been sitting on a revelation in 1843 for 10+ years.

Except it could be that he received some revelation or word on it in 1831, so principles behind the '43 revelation. I think it's still possible the wording of the revelation heading is correct, but it's really hard to support the 1831 date based on the historic data. And without that it really makes it hard to argue that JS' "affair" with Alger, for instance, isn't anything more than he sinning. Then again it's really hard to argue that Joseph and Alger had sexual relations based solely on the data. Cowdery calling a dirty nasty affair, or whatever, doesn't require sexual relations. It could have been the dirty nasty affair he objected to was Joseph marrying Fanny.

I like Hales' take on all of this--you simply haven't to just go with what the evidence suggests. I know people disagree that that's what Hales does.

[cinepro]

Yes. It would be presentism to take out the frontier in some of those marriages (and divorces). The only thing that matters in this conversation is whether or not the Church considers it to be so.

 

Using that as the standard, in what way could it be said that "the Church" considered Joseph married to Fanny? 

[Jeanne]

I know that this is an older thread but I was going through this to get correct on some dates.  My question though has nothing to do with the timing.  During the 1830's and maybe prior, it was said that other religions also had "communities" of plural marriages.  Did they come under any condemnation under the law?  I didn't know this as it seemed that it was only the mormons who were in trouble all the time. 

 

Regards,

Jeanne

[Guest]

Section 132 intro says:

"Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, evidence indicates that some of the principles involved in this revelation were known by the Prophet as early as 1831."

I've seen no evidence presented by the church for this and the attempted evidence I've seen, in other places, is mostly dated to the 1860s.

An 1831 date is essential for the Alger "affair" which may have been only 2-3 years later. Where is the evidence?

This has been known forever. It was Hyrum who convinced to put it in a formal revelation in Nauvoo in 1843 or 1844 so he could take it to Emma. No secret at all here. The interesting thing is Hyrum told him to use the U&T, which was believed to have been taken by Moroni with the plates. Edited November 9, 2014 by Pa Pa

[canard78]

This has been known forever. It was Hyrum who convinced to put it in a formal revelation in Nauvoo in 1843 or 1844 so he could take it to Emma. No secret at all here.

I'm asking for 1831 evidence of the revelation. There is next to none until 1860s.

The 1843 date for its transcription is strong. Even Joseph's detractors support this:

In the lat- ter part of tho summer* 1843, the Patriarch, Hyium Smith, did in the High Council, of which I was a mem- ber, introducer what he said was a revelation given through the Proph- et; that the said Hyrura Smith did essay to read tho said revelation in the said Council, that according to his reading thera was contained the following doctrines; 1st. the sealing up of persons to eternal life, against all sins, save thai of sheding inno- cent blood or of consenting thereto; 2nd, the doctrine of a plurality of wivesfor marrying virgins; that "Da- vid and Solomon had many wives, yet in this they sinned not save in the matter *of Uriah, This revelation with" other evideucey that the afore said heresies were taught arid prac- ticed in the Church; determined me to leave tlie office of first counsellor to the> president of the Church at Nauvoo, inasmuch as I dared not teaeh or administer such laws

https://archive.org/details/NauvooExpositor1844

The interesting thing is Hyrum told him to use the U&T, which was believed to have been taken by Moroni with the plates.

Not nessesarily.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Urim_and_Thummim

[cinepro]

I'm asking for 1831 evidence of the revelation. There is next to none until 1860s.

The 1843 date for its transcription is strong. Even Joseph's detractors support this:

https://archive.org/details/NauvooExpositor1844

Not nessesarily.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Urim_and_Thummim

 

I don't think the argument is that the text of section 132 was revealed before 1843.  The argument is that the principles of section 132 (i.e. polygamy) were known before 1843, and as far back as the early 1830s.  Whether this is based on anything other than the logical reality that it appears Joseph Smith was taking plural wives back then, so it must have been revealed, I don't know.

[Tacenda]

In answer to Jeanne's post #30:  I read where there were Elders in our church who proselyted these polygamist communities and I think converted them.  Maybe that's how it infiltrated through somewhat.

Edited November 9, 2014 by Tacenda

[canard78]

I don't think the argument is that the text of section 132 was revealed before 1843. The argument is that the principles of section 132 (i.e. polygamy) were known before 1843, and as far back as the early 1830s. Whether this is based on anything other than the logical reality that it appears Joseph Smith was taking plural wives back then, so it must have been revealed, I don't know.

You're right. The intro to 132 says:

Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, evidence indicates that some of the principles involved in this revelation were known by the Prophet as early as 1831.

The new essay however goes a step further:

The revelation on plural marriage was not written down until 1843, but its early verses suggest that part of it emerged from Joseph Smith’s study of the Old Testament in 1831. People who knew Joseph well later stated he received the revelation about that time.4 The revelation, recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 132, states that Joseph prayed to know why God justified Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, and Solomon in having many wives. The Lord responded that He had commanded them to enter into the practice.5

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng

The footnotes all reference dates in 1870s+

There's a pretty strong assumption being made, one that is echoed in this thread. That is that Joseph was studying the OT in 1831 and the 1843 revelation shows that at some point before 1843 he was enquiring about the OT polygamous patriarchs.

It's a pretty big assumption with very little evidence.

Joseph was also studying the bible in 1820 and asking lots of questions then. Doesn't mean he was asking about plural marriage then, so why assume he did so in 1831?

Recollections in the 1860s, 70s and 80s from people who were, at the time, trying to defend and justify Utah polygamy is not a particularly reliable source. I'm not calling them liars I'm just saying that necessity could easily distort memory, even if it's a well-meaning memory.

[canard78]

In answer to Jeanne's post #30: I read where there were Elders in our church who proselyted these polygamist communities and I think converted them. Maybe that's how it infiltrated through somewhat.

You probably mean this:

Latter Day Saint historical sources indicate that as early as 1832, Mormon missionaries were converting followers of religious leader Jacob Cochran, who went into hiding in 1830 to escape imprisonment for practicing polygamy. Mormons held two conferences at Saco, Maine, the center of Cochranism, on June 13, 1834,[37] and August 21, 1835. At the latter conference, at least seven of the twelve newly-ordained Mormon apostles were in attendance,[38][39][40] including Brigham Young. Young became acquainted with Cochran's followers as he made several missionary journeys through Cochranite territory from Boston to Saco,[41] and later married Augusta Adams Cobb, a former Cochranite, as one of his plural wives.[42][43] Others who spent time among the Cochranites were Orson Hyde and Smith's younger brother, Samuel.[44]

Among Cochran's marital innovations was "spiritual wifery". Ridlon wrote in 1895, "tradition assumes that [Cochran] received frequent consignments of spiritual consorts, and that such were invariably the most robust and attractive women in the community."[45] Some new Cochranites remained polygamists, and moved from the east coast to the Mormon community of Kirtland, Ohio.[46] Rumors of Mormon polygamy began to become public, enough to be denied in Mormon publications[47][48][49] and mentioned in Mormon scripture in 1835...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Latter_Day_Saint_polygamy

[Tacenda]

nevermind

Edited November 9, 2014 by Tacenda

[Guest]

I'm asking for 1831 evidence of the revelation. There is next to none until 1860s.

The 1843 date for its transcription is strong. Even Joseph's detractors support this:

https://archive.org/details/NauvooExpositor1844

Not nessesarily. http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Urim_and_Thummim

The 1843 is not just strong but an absolute.

[Sleeper Cell]

Section 132 intro says:

"Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, evidence indicates that some of the principles involved in this revelation were known by the Prophet as early as 1831."

I've seen no evidence presented by the church for this and the attempted evidence I've seen, in other places, is mostly dated to the 1860s.

An 1831 date is essential for the Alger "affair" which may have been only 2-3 years later. Where is the evidence?

The Book of Mormon, (published in 1830).  At a minimum, Jacob 2 indicates that the Lord authorized some instances of polygamy in the past, and reserves the right to command His people to practice polygamy in the future.

[Grudunza]

The Book of Mormon, (published in 1830). At a minimum, Jacob 2 indicates that the Lord authorized some instances of polygamy in the past, and reserves the right to command His people to practice polygamy in the future.

Yeah, I know that's a common takeaway to justify polygamy, but when I read that chapter it feels very different... There is a repeated emphasis on how wrong polygamy is, stated over and over in very harsh terms. And I think it may be a generous reading of verse 30 to think that even refers to polygamy.

[Grundelwalken]

They were married in the same way FLDS men are married to plural wives...illegally. It is more of a "spiritual" wife than a legal wife.

 

I agree, the Alger episode is a problem. Legally JS marriage to Fanny was as legit as if I married 2 gay men in a state where it is illegal. They may call themselves married but they wouldn't have the legal rights. All they would have, like JS and Fanny, was a way to ease their guilt about extramarital sex.

This is such a cynical comment!!

Do you really KNOW what the circumstances were? Were you there when The Lord gave the revelation? Did you interview all the witnesses and deduce the truth from their statements? Right, and neither did I.

Oh, I forgot, because we live in the "enlightened age" there is no doubt that Joseph was nothing but a lecherous wolf, preying on the unsuspecting of his flock. I sincerely hope that The Lord does not use the same method of judgment as expressed by so many who make these assumptions.

As a believer in the doctrines and principles of the Restored Gospel, I am more inclined to accept that I DON'T have all the answers but I DO know the end result is something sacred and holy. Therefore, I will not make judgments on things that have little bearing on my testimony and even less documentation in history.

Joseph is The Prophet of the Restoration and will be honored throughout the eternities for his sacrifice and the resulting slanders to his name.

Yes, I know this is probably a violation of some sort so I will bow out of the discussion for now. MW

[Silhouette]

As a believer in the doctrines and principles of the Restored Gospel, I am more inclined to accept that I DON'T have all the answers but I DO know the end result is something sacred and holy. Therefore, I will not make judgments on things that have little bearing on my testimony and even less documentation in history.

MW

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I've always believed that, whatever is "wrong" about the Gospel, if anything, it will be made right in the end. I have faith in this, and am able to pretty much shrug off things that I don't quite understand, and things that are "controversial" in the Church have no bearing on my testimony.

And there is no need for you to bow out. You have as much right as anyone else to voice your opinion about things. I found your post interesting and of value to the discussion.

Best Regards,

Melanie

[Calm]

Groundsel, no violation there I can see but not a mod so just saying from my reading of the rules.

[Sleeper Cell]

Yeah, I know that's a common takeaway to justify polygamy, but when I read that chapter it feels very different... There is a repeated emphasis on how wrong polygamy is, stated over and over in very harsh terms. And I think it may be a generous reading of verse 30 to think that even refers to polygamy.

I did not cite the Book of Mormon to justify polygamy, but as evidence that “some of the principles involved were known by the Prophet as early as1831.”  Indeed, the whole point of Jacob 2 is that one cannot justify one’s own polygamy by appealing to the scriptures.  

[JLHPROF]

I did not cite the Book of Mormon to justify polygamy, but as evidence that “some of the principles involved were known by the Prophet as early as1831.”  Indeed, the whole point of Jacob 2 is that one cannot justify one’s own polygamy by appealing to the scriptures.  

 

No, the whole point of Jacob 2 is that if polygamy is lived unrighteously then it will be withdrawn.  But when God commands us to live it then it better be lived righteously.

That is the whole point of Jacob 2.

[Grudunza]

No, the whole point of Jacob 2 is that if polygamy is lived unrighteously then it will be withdrawn.  But when God commands us to live it then it better be lived righteously.

That is the whole point of Jacob 2.

Where in Jacob 2 do you read that as the "whole point"?  When I read that chapter there is a big overarching point that is hammered again and again and again... that polygamy is wrong.   And there's that little hint in verse 30 that may possibly justify polygamy when commanded by the Lord, but I read a pretty detailed exegesis of that chapter recently (will try to find the reference later) that had a convincing argument that verse 30 doesn't imply justification of polygamy...  If anything, in context of the whole chapter, that verse is a mere afterthought or aside to the main insistence of several other verses that polygamy is a no-no. 

[JLHPROF]

Where in Jacob 2 do you read that as the "whole point"?  When I read that chapter there is a big overarching point that is hammered again and again and again... that polygamy is wrong.   And there's that little hint in verse 30 that may possibly justify polygamy when commanded by the Lord, but I read a pretty detailed exegesis of that chapter recently (will try to find the reference later) that had a convincing argument that verse 30 doesn't imply justification of polygamy...  If anything, in context of the whole chapter, that verse is a mere afterthought or aside to the main insistence of several other verses that polygamy is a no-no. 

 

Jacob 2 on Polygamy

23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

 

D&C 132 explains wherein David sinned (taking a wife that God did not give him) and we also know where Solomon sinned (taking wives/concubines from other cultures or religions that led him astray).  Those were their sins in polygamy.  Under the Mosaic law of the time (that Jacob was operating) polygamy was acceptable.

 

25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

 

The Ban

 

 

31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.

32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.

33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.

34 And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.

35 Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds.

 

Wickedness while living polygamy - the reason for the ban.  Whoredoms, stealing wives, abusing wives and children.  Polygamy is not the sin.  Wickedness, like Solomon and David became, is the sin.

Edited November 10, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Nevo]

As Valerie Hudson Cassler has noted, "outside of a commandment to perform an Abrahamic sacrifice, an Abrahamic sacrifice is always an abomination." So too with polygamy, per Jacob 2. Outside of a specific command to practice polygamy, it is an abomination. This is also the Church's position: "The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that monogamy is God’s standard for marriage unless He declares otherwise." Polygamy has never been and never will be the norm.

[rockpond]

Wickedness while living polygamy - the reason for the ban.  Whoredoms, stealing wives, abusing wives and children.  Polygamy is not the sin.  Wickedness, like Solomon and David became, is the sin.

 

The definition of "whoredom" per the 1828 dictionary includes lewdness and fornication.  Could lewdness include marrying a 14 year old who is 23 years your junior?  Using spiritual authority to pressure a young girl to marry you?

 

"Stealing wives" -- Could that include sending men on missions and then marrying their wives?

 

"Abusing wives" -- Does that include lying to them?

Edited November 10, 2014 by rockpond

[JLHPROF]

The definition of "whoredom" per the 1828 dictionary includes lewdness and fornication.  Could lewdness include marrying a 14 year old who is 23 years your junior?  Using spiritual authority to pressure a young girl to marry you?

 

The age argument?  Not in 1800s America (as I've shown SO many times with sources).  And the coercion argument?  Debatable.

 

"Stealing wives" -- Could that include sending men on missions and then marrying their wives?

 

Records show that happened once, with a possible second where the man was already on a mission not sent (yet it is exaggerated to appear as many  men all the time).  And the husband stayed faithful the whole time.

 

"Abusing wives" -- Does that include lying to them?

 

I would think it could.   But if you refer to Emma, she knew of plural marriage.  She sustained Joseph in plural marriage.  She performed the law of Sarah with at least 4 wives.  And she then rejected and fought plural marriage.  He would have told her of every marriage had she not fought the keeping of God's law.  But pearls before swine.