On Despising Apostate Sanctimony

[omni]

Then Joseph could have married his sister, like the first children of Adam and Eve did. After all, moral standards do not change just because society disapproves of them.

You're just digging yourself a bigger whole by excusing bad behavior with more bad behavior.

[JLHPROF]

You're just digging yourself a bigger whole by excusing bad behavior with more bad behavior.

 

There was NO bad behavior.  Seriously, how many times does this have to be explained.

Joseph did nothing wrong where plural marriage was concerned.  And there is nothing to any claim that he did.

Just because someone thinks he did something wrong according to their own moral opinions, doesn't make it so in the eyes of God.

Edited November 5, 2014 by JLHPROF

[mormonnewb]

Because if Joseph was an unrepentant adulterer from his Kirtland days then EVERYTHING he restored after that, from the sealing keys to the temple endowment, to eternal marriage to an awful lot of theology would be suspect.

 

God does not tolerate sin, and would NOT allow an adulterer into his presence, let alone continue to restore truth through him.

You may be able to accept that Joseph had an adulterous affair with Fanny Alger in 1834 and received the sealing keys from resurrected prophets and was visited by the Savior in 1836, but it simply would not have happened.

And that's the end of Mormonism.

 

I don't believe that this view squares with the Biblical record because it appears that God works through sinners all of the time.  In fact, I think that one of our prophets recently reminded us that He works through imperfect people because that's all He has to work with.  I submit that He even works through the unrepentant.

 

Take, for example, Samson.  He repeatedly broke the commandments, and not just by sleeping with Delilah.  He ate the honey out of the lion's carcass.  Yet, the Lord did not take His strength from Samson.  Sure, in the end, the Lord removed His strength, but not before Samson had achieved great victories for his people.

 

And certainly, I don't have to remind you of David's great transgression.  Yet, the Lord didn't remove him from the throne of Israel.  Nor did the Lord curse all of his descendants.  In fact, the Lord arranged for Christ to come directly from the blood line of David and Bathsheba.  If that is the Lord withdrawing from sin, I'd like to get me some of that withdrawal.

 

Seriously, what part of the Bible am I ignoring that shows that God has a "zero tolerance" policy when it comes to transgression?  In fact, isn't that the ENTIRE point of the atonement?  That we are ALL bound to mess up, but that there is forgiveness?  And that this forgiveness does not have a 72-hour return policy?  In other words, just because someone doesn't repent immediately, it doesn't mean that HF just gives up on them and says, "Next!"  Instead, He works with us, even in the midst of our sinful ways, because to paraphrase the modern day prophet, "That's the only time that he has with us."

[omni]

I don't believe it IS a moral standard that changed. The whole concept of 18 being adult enough to marry is a 20th century societal concept and has no bearing on morality from God whatsoever.

Basically - you're getting it backwards. The moral standard wasn't wrong for the first 5900 years of the earth. The moral standard for the last 100 years is arbitrary and comes from society, not God. There is no sin in marrying a 15 year old. There never has been.

Mary the mother of Christ, who had God's child was about 13 at the time and was engaged to Joseph. Clearly God had no issue with a married 13 year old giving birth.

When we say Joseph did something wrong because morals don't change, what we forget is that our current societal morals ARE the change.

Accusing Joseph Smith of violating some moral standard by marrying a 14 year old is 100% B.S.

So would you be more upset if your hypothetical 14-year-old daughter came home alone one night wearing a short shirt and a spaghetti strap shirt or if she came home dressed modestly, but with a 38-year-old boyfriend (assuming he is an otherwise righteous priesthood holder)?

[stemelbow]

I don't believe it IS a moral standard that changed.  The whole concept of 18 being adult enough to marry is a 20th century societal concept and has no bearing on morality from God whatsoever.

 

Basically - you're getting it backwards.  The moral standard wasn't wrong for the first 5900 years of the earth.  The moral standard for the last 100 years is arbitrary and comes from society, not God.  There is no sin in marrying a 15 year old.  There never has been.

Mary the mother of Christ, who had God's child was about 13 at the time and was engaged to Joseph.  Clearly God had no issue with a married 13 year old giving birth.

 

When we say Joseph did something wrong because morals don't change, what we forget is that our current societal morals ARE the change.

 

Accusing Joseph Smith of violating some moral standard by marrying a 14 year old is 100% B.S.

I thought it was a sin to date before your 16 and even after 16 it is bad to date exclusively.

[mormonnewb]

Because if Joseph was an unrepentant adulterer from his Kirtland days then EVERYTHING he restored after that, from the sealing keys to the temple endowment, to eternal marriage to an awful lot of theology would be suspect.

 

God does not tolerate sin, and would NOT allow an adulterer into his presence, let alone continue to restore truth through him.

You may be able to accept that Joseph had an adulterous affair with Fanny Alger in 1834 and received the sealing keys from resurrected prophets and was visited by the Savior in 1836, but it simply would not have happened.

And that's the end of Mormonism.

 

And, by the way, why must JS be an "unrepentant adulterer"?  Why can't he just be someone who got it wrong -- who thought he was doing right when he wasn't?  Does HF not work through those in error either?  I really hope that isn't the case, because if it is, I'm [insert your favorite metaphor / expletive].  And I suspect, so are you, my friend

[JLHPROF]

I thought it was a sin to date before your 16 and even after 16 it is bad to date exclusively.

 

Someone should have told Christ's mother that...

[cinepro]

I thought it was a sin to date before your 16 and even after 16 it is bad to date exclusively.

 

Until you're in your mid-20s, at which point "stop hanging out and start dating!"

[stemelbow]

Here is some sage counsel from Brother Brigham:

 

I recollect a conversation I had with a priest who was an old friend of ours, before I was personally acquainted with the Prophet Joseph. I clipped every argument he advanced, until at last he came out and began to rail against 'Joe Smith'. . . . I said, hold on, brother Gillmore, here is the doctrine, here is the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the revelations that have come through Joseph Smith the Prophet. I have never seen him, and do not know his private character. The doctrine he teaches is all I know about the matter, bring anything against that if you can. As to anything else I do not care. If he acts like a devil, he has brought forth a doctrine that will save us, if we will abide it. He may get drunk every day of his life, sleep with his neighbor's wife every night, run horses and gamble, I do not care anything about that, for I never embrace any man in my faith. But the doctrine he has produced will save you and me, and the whole world; and if you can find fault with that, find it. He said, 'I have done.'

It is the fashion in the world to embrace men in their faith, or a fine meeting house, or a genteel congregation, thinking, 'O, what perfect order, and how pretty they look; how straight they walk to meeting, and how long their faces are during the services; how pretty that deacon looks under the pulpit; the people are so pretty, the meeting house is so nice, that we want to join such a pretty people.' Such feelings will take a people to hell. Embrace a doctrine that will purge sin and iniquity from your hearts, and sanctify you before God, and you are right, no matter how others act. (JD 4:77–78)

 

Where Joseph is concerned, I take the good with the bad. Like many who knew him well, I can truthfully say that he did things that I do not approve of—such as publicly denouncing Sarah Pratt as a "whore from her mother's breast" after she spurned his marriage proposal, faking revelations, abusing his authority, etc.—but I also believe that he was a Prophet of God who produced saving doctrines. And, despite his rough edges, I feel great affection and admiration for the man.

That's pretty much the opposite of how the Church preaches it today. we are to come off as the most happy and delightful people on earth in order to get people to join the fold.

[stemelbow]

Someone should have told Christ's mother that...

Exactly. So why are we preaching to kids these days that it's sinful to date before 16?

[cinepro]

There was NO bad behavior.  Seriously, how many times does this have to be explained.

Joseph did nothing wrong where plural marriage was concerned.  And there is nothing to any claim that he did.

Just because someone thinks he did something wrong according to their own moral opinions, doesn't make it so in the eyes of God.

 

I still think that, according to the moral guidelines taught by the Church itself, there are serious problems with the timing and nature of the arrangement with Fanny Alger. 

[stemelbow]

Until you're in your mid-20s, at which point "stop hanging out and start dating!"

mid-20s seems a tad old for such advice. By their mid-20s single fellas in particular are already a problem, at least that's kinda what I gathered from Elder Cook.

Edited November 5, 2014 by stemelbow

[JLHPROF]

So would you be more upset if your hypothetical 14-year-old daughter came home alone one night wearing a short shirt and a spaghetti strap shirt or if she came home dressed modestly, but with a 38-year-old boyfriend (assuming he is an otherwise righteous priesthood holder)?

 

You want me to say I'd be ok with my 14yo dating a 38yo?  I'm as much a product of our current societal beliefs as you are.  It would rub me the wrong way.  And my daughter would be as much a product of the society she was raised in and completely unready for marriage.  And frankly, the 38yo in today's society that wanted to date a 14yo would also be acting out of an unusual interest.  It would not be normal for me, her, or him.  But it still wouldn't be a sin.

 

Do I believe that it is a SIN or immoral in the eyes of God?  No.  Absolutely not, and there is no scripture that teaches so.

Do I believe that had I lived in the 1800's and a 40 year old man had asked me to court my 16 year old daughter and I knew him to be an honorable and worthy priesthood holder that I would have any issue with it?  I would have NO issue with it.

And if I had been properly taught the law of Plural Marriage and my 16yo daughter wanted to marry an honorable 40yo priesthood holder who already had 3 wives would I say yes?  You betcha - just as Heber C. Kimball did.

[stemelbow]

You want me to say I'd be ok with my 14yo dating a 38yo?  I'm as much a product of our current societal beliefs as you are.  It would rub me the wrong way.  And my daughter would be as much a product of the society she was raised in and completely unready for marriage.  And frankly, the 38yo in today's society that wanted to date a 14yo would also be acting out of an unusual interest.  It would not be normal for me, her, or him.  But it still wouldn't be a sin.

It's nothing but sin, if ya ask me.

 

Do I believe that it is a SIN or immoral in the eyes of God?  No.  Absolutely not, and there is no scripture that teaches so.

Must there be a scripture to define each sin before we can accept it as such?

Do I believe that had I lived in the 1800's and a 40 year old man had asked me to court my 16 year old daughter and I knew him to be an honorable and worthy priesthood holder that I would have any issue with it?  I would have NO issue with it.

Easy to say now.

And if I had been properly taught the law of Plural Marriage and my 16yo daughter wanted to marry an honorable 40yo priesthood holder who already had 3 wives would I say yes?  You betcha - just as Heber C. Kimball did.

I would first ask, "daughter, what's going on in your life to give you the impression it'd be good to marry a 40 year old?" feeling to at least some extent that I've failed her.

[JLHPROF]

It's nothing but sin, if ya ask me.

Must there be a scripture to define each sin before we can accept it as such?

 

 

Fortunately you don't get to define sin, only God does.  So yes, there must be something from God defining anything as sin.  He is the ONLY one who gets to decide what is sinful.

 

 

Easy to say now.

 

I would first ask, "daughter, what's going on in your life to give you the impression it'd be good to marry a 40 year old?" feeling to at least some extent that I've failed her.

 

I'm glad that others were more able to trust God, exercise faith, and pass these Abrahamic tests.  I can only hope I would.

[stemelbow]

Fortunately you don't get to define sin, only God does.  So yes, there must be something from God defining anything as sin.  He is the ONLY one who gets to decide what is sinful.

I don't doubt that, but I do doubt that the scriptures exhaust God's words or commands.

  

I'm glad that others were more able to trust God, exercise faith, and pass these Abrahamic tests.  I can only hope I would.

An interesting thought for me is, if this whole polygamy thing got introduced and everyone rejected even Joseph. Within a couple more years it was completely forgotten about and we only learned about it recently via historical research. We would then say, without doubt, "they passed the test. They were told they must practice polygamy but it was only a test to see if they would do it. I'm so so glad they were able to trust God, exercise faith, and pass this Abrahamic test".

[sethpayne]

There was NO bad behavior.  Seriously, how many times does this have to be explained.

Joseph did nothing wrong where plural marriage was concerned.  And there is nothing to any claim that he did.

Just because someone thinks he did something wrong according to their own moral opinions, doesn't make it so in the eyes of God.

 

What do you make of William Marks' testimony about what the Prophet told him in Nauvoo?

[stemelbow]

What do you make of William Marks' testimony about what the Prophet told him in Nauvoo?

Do you mind quoting it for the lot of us to contemplate?

[TOmNossor]

Ta

 

Well thought out and said as always, TOm...sure wish you posted more.

Thank you!

But do not wish such on me!

Glad you hold down the fort around here!!

Charity, TOm

[JLHPROF]

What do you make of William Marks' testimony about what the Prophet told him in Nauvoo?

 

Do you mind quoting it for the lot of us to contemplate?

 

I'm assuming you mean the abandoment theory.  Brian Hales addresses it more thoroughly than I could:

 

In the years after the Prophet’s martyrdom, William Marks, who had served as the President of the Nauvoo Stake in 1843, reported that Joseph Smith had planned to abandon polygamy.

30 Marks wrote in 1853:

When the doctrine of polygamy was introduced into the church as a principle of exaltation, I took a decided stand against it; which stand rendered me quite unpopular with many of the leading ones of the church. . . . Joseph, however, became convinced before his death that he had done wrong; for about three weeks before his death, I met him one morning in the street, and he said to me, “Brother Marks . . .We are a ruined people.” I asked, how so? He said: “This doctrine of polygamy, or Spiritual-wife system, that has been taught and practiced among us, will prove our destruction and overthrow. I have been deceived,” said he, “in reference to its practice; it is wrong; it is a curse to mankind, and we shall have to leave the United States soon, unless it can be put down and its practice stopped in the church. Now,’ said he,’ Brother Marks, you have not received this doctrine, and how glad I am. I want you to go into the high council and I will have charges preferred against all who practice this doctrine, and I want you to try them by the laws of the church, and cut them off, if they will not repent and cease the practice of this doctrine.”31

 

Believing that Joseph Smith commissioned William Marks to bring the polygamists to trial is problematic for several reasons. Marks asserted: “He [Joseph Smith] said that he would go before the Congregation and proclaim against it, and I must go into the High Council, and he would prefer charges against those in transgression, and I must sever them from the church.”32 Such a move would have brought increased publicity to plural marriage and additional criticism and persecution. Since the Prophet had secretly authorized all plural marriages, he knew who was involved, obviating the need to dispatch stake leaders on a witch hunt. He could have identified every practicing polygamist and directly approached them, which would have minimized additional gossip and rumors.

It is true that Stake President Marks was esteemed as a high Church leader in Nauvoo, not unlike General Authorities today.33 However, eleven of the thirty polygamous men held higher authority, being either members of the Twelve Apostles or the First Presidency.34 Neither Marks nor the Nauvoo High Council were authorized to “severe” these polygamists from the Church (see D&C 107: 23–24, 78–80). Ironically, most of members of the high council had also accepted the revelation on polygamy the year before (D&C 132) when it was read to them. Therefore, commissioning those very high councilors to “severe” anyone for polygamy was illogical, if not impossible.

Joseph Smith’s personal behavior seems to also contradict the assertion that he was giving up plural marriage. As observed, he married no additional plural wives after November 1843. However, limited evidence indicates that he may have discussed eternal sealings to up to three women after that date, perhaps as late as May 13, 1844.35 He was apparently turned down in each case, but his persistence in personally seeking additional plural sealings, even if only for “eternity,” suggests a continued dedication to the principle.

In addition, available documents show that the Prophet continued to authorize new plural marriages through April and into May of 1843. Ezra T. Benson, Theodore Turley, and Erastus Snow were sealed to polygamous brides in April.36The last recorded plural union occurred on May 8 between Brigham Young and Clarissa Caroline Decker.37

Also, Joseph Smith continued to privately teach plural marriage through at least May. Amasa Lyman remembered being taught about plural marriage a few days prior to the April 1844 General Conference: “A few days subsequent to the Conference, I had an interview with the Prophet, in which he taught me some principles, not yet published, on celestial marriage, and on the day of my parting with him, he said as he warmly grasped my hand for the last time, brother Amasa, go and practice on the principles I have taught you, and God bless you.”38 Similarly, Apostle George A. Smith recalled in 1869: “My last conversation with him [Joseph Smith] on this subject [plural marriage] occurred just previous to my departure from Nauvoo (May 9, 1844). . . . In his last conversation, he administered a little chastisement to me for not stepping forward as he had indicated in patriarchal marriage.”39 George had yet to marry a plural wife. As observed, Charles C. Rich signed an affidavit that in May of 1844 “as he was about starting on a mission to the State of Michigan, Hyrum Smith, patriarch, taught him the principle of polygamy or celestial marriage.”40

Joseph’s continued eternal sealing proposals (possibly as late as May 13), his authorization for others to enter polygamous unions (as late as May , and his persistent promotion of plural marriage among his followers (May 9 or later) support that his feelings regarding polygamy did not change prior to June 1844. William Marks related that Joseph’s conversation denouncing plural marriage occurred “three weeks before his death” or around June 6. Perhaps Joseph had such a change of heart during the first week of June, but this seems unlikely and other parts of Marks’ recollection are implausible. Brigham Young remembered that with respect to plural marriage: “Joseph was worn out with it,” but added: “I never knew that he denied the doctrine of polygamy. Some have said that he did, but I do not believe he ever did.”41

Add to that the conversation wasn't reported until 1853 (a decade later) at which time William Marks had just:

" left the Strangites between 1853 and 1855, loosely affiliating himself with other Latter Day Saint denominations. During this time he associated with Zenas H. Gurley, Jason W. Briggs and William W. Blair. The four were convinced that succession in the presidency of the church must be lineal, descending from father to son, and promoted the idea of aReorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Between 1853 and 1859 they approached Joseph Smith III dozens of times to convince him to take leadership of the RLDS movement, which Smith III eventually did."  - Wikipedia

 

 

He was just trying to get the Smith family to join with them in founding the RLDS Church.  Sounds like a pretty convenient memory to me.

Edited November 5, 2014 by JLHPROF

[TOmNossor]

God does not tolerate sin, and would NOT allow an adulterer into his presence, let alone continue to restore truth through him.

You may be able to accept that Joseph had an adulterous affair with Fanny Alger in 1834 and received the sealing keys from resurrected prophets and was visited by the Savior in 1836, but it simply would not have happened.

And that's the end of Mormonism.

Before I go off and express why I think it reasonable to believe Joseph was not the author of polygamy let me offer a different view than the one you here espouse.

Joseph Smith was quite clear that he was a flawed man.

Other church leaders, future prophets, looked at him and said that his faults are in some way encouraging to them in that there was hope for them.

The BOM says that if there are any mistakes in it they are the mistakes of men because God doesn't make mistakes.

Paul has a thorn in his flesh of which he is never rid (not to mention the fact that before his conversion he was responsible for killing Christians).

 

Are you sure you are not setting down stakes in the ground and saying that beyond this point is "the end of Mormonism."  I am not sure Joseph would have been in agreement with that.  I do not feel compelled by history to view Joseph as the author of polygamy, and I am willing to point to the flaws I see in the reasoning employed by those who do.  But, I have no desire to suggest they need to get their view of Joseph "right" or they should find the door.  I have paid little attention to KiwiMormon and I believe I lean towards the view that KiwiMormon's online efforts are NOT something in which a faithful LDS should engage.  I am also not familiar with all posts made by Nevo and fewer still from Mormonnewb, but I would place their concerns and comments in a different category than those of KiwiMormon.  Faith seeking understanding should be applauded in MANY forms, even many forms with which I disagree.

 

When I think about this or that question in the church I harken back to what it must have been like to be a member in 1950's.  Folks like George Romney (and maybe David O. Mckay in his very private moments among ONLY friends) probably spoke about the future equality in the church.  Folks like a very good man with whom I have spent a little time, former mission president and stake patriarch from my wife's family, may have been quite certain that the George Romney's of the world were apostates in sheep's clothing (I form this opinion about him mostly from a book in his library that was signed by him and his kids, and the fact that he was a 1950's man in Mississippi).  I lack the prophetic foresight to be David O. McKay, but may I not be one who says, "Not in my Mormonism" about things that one day are well accepted (or even about most things that are one day abandoned by the faithful, but faithful they were before and after).

Charity, TOm

Edited November 5, 2014 by TOmNossor

[sethpayne]

I'm assuming you mean the abandoment theory.  Brian Hales addresses it more thoroughly than I could:

Add to that the conversation wasn't reported until 1853 (a decade later) at which time William Marks had just:

 

He was just trying to get the Smith family to join with them in founding the RLDS Church.  Sounds like a pretty convenient memory to me.

 

Agreed that as uncorroborated testimony it does sound pretty convenient.  I personally don't think Marks' statement can be accepted at face value.  Especially, Brian notes, the claims about trying those involved with polygamy.

 

Of course, Compton goes into the fact that Joseph's behavior in ceasing new marriages in the months leading up to his murder are consistent with Marks' claim that Joseph had a change of heart.  Of course, there are plenty of other things that could explain the cessation too.  

 

When I look at this I simply think that if one wants to think Joseph changed his mind etc... they may be taking a view that is not very well supported but at its not outrageous either.  Add to that the those who continued polygamy after Joseph were not in Nauvoo for several months (that i'm aware of, at least -- if there are exceptions I'd be curious to know) before the murder and you have a *plausible* scenario.  Not likely, but not an absurd proposition either.

 

Overall I think polygamy was bad for the Church.  Polygamy was a factor in:

 

1.  Joseph's murder

2.  The removal of the Saints from IL

3.  The federal occupation of Utah

4.  The seizure of Church property

5.  The imprisonment of Church leaders

6.  The Reed Smoot affair

7.  Mormon fundamentalism

8.  The expansion of federal power into the defining marriage business

 

I know that the argument is made that polygamy simply leads to an increase of righteous offspring but I'm not sure this logic holds up.  Bachelorhood rates in Utah were outrageous during the early Utah period and so sure, certain men were able to have very large families while many many men simply went without wives or families.  So unless we want to say all of these bachelors simply were not worthy of raising up "seed", I don't know that the Jacob-based justification works.  

 

At the same time I don't know if using terms like "spiritual abuse" really adds anything substantive to the conversation.  I forget who made this point on the PBS special from 2007 but had Joseph simply wanted to satisfy his libido there would have been much simpler ways to do this.

Edited November 5, 2014 by sethpayne

[TOmNossor]

All of that said, I don't think Joseph's libido was a negligible factor in the introduction of polygamy, for the some of the same reasons that mormonnewb mentioned. Joseph was a larger-than-life, charismatic personality. As I once heard Richard Bushman describe it, he filled a room. He had enormous reserves of energy and creativity, was gregarious and expansive, and loved people. He also had great power and influence and tended towards grandiosity at times. Such personalities also tend to have strong sex drives. I see no reason to think that Joseph was an exception to this general rule. Or to reject outright the possibility that Joseph may have sublimated such desires into a "lust for kin" as Bushman called it—a yearning for "familial plenitude."

Hello Nevo (and Mormonnewb again),

It must be heady stuff being a prophet of God.  I have a vague memory of a new member of the twelve saying that older members told him that the Saints would fawn over him like he was some great one, but that he should NEVER let it go to his head (I think this was a Stake conference, but wherever it was, it was etched into my mind as if he was talking to me personally).

 

When you say, "Such personalities also tend to have strong sex drives..." I cannot disagree.  But when it comes to applying this generality to a specific instance, I see this as a weaker piece of evidence than you might. 

 

At the risk of having one of my cherished thoughts dented or worse, let me share this.  I see in history Joseph doing a number of odd things and one in particular has always impressed me.  Joseph convinced a group of folks that he received a book from God.  Joseph convinced a group of folks that he was a prophet (one who speaks for God).  "Such personalities" have tended to hold to their unique power, but I do not believe Joseph followed this pattern.  He celebrated when there were witnesses of the BOM other than him.  He was constantly trying to define some church order which had others in authority with him.  And perhaps most unusual he taught that EVERYONE could receive revelation not just him.

 

Admittedly the latter Nauvoo practice of polygamy informs my view of Fanny Alger, but we have much more information on latter polygamy than we do on Fanny Alger.  And where does his "strong sex drive" go when he has not practiced polygamy for many years.  Surely a strong personality such as his would not need to have such dry spells.

 

Now, "lust for kin" is not something I am too opposed to.  I think Joseph's sealing practices evidence that he wanted "kin."  Dynastic weldings seem to be part of polygamy through the surviving record.  And since I am not a "no sex with any plural wife" advocate, I could even see this drive polygamous sex too.  I just think Joseph had many things he placed more importance upon than having sexual relations with plural wives. 

 

 

Mormonnewb asked why must we (I) defend Joseph Smith from the accusation that he was responsible for polygamy because he like most men had a sexual appetite.

My first exposure to Joseph Smith's polygamy was a book I pulled off the shelf at the LDS book store (it is now Deseret Books, but at the time it was the only local LDS book store in the area).  I am about 95% sure it was Todd Compton's book.  I was frozen and reading for what was probably close to 1 hour, but seemed longer.  I walked away believing that polygamy was probably a failing of Joseph Smith's (like I still think the priesthood ban was largely a failure of Brigham Young's).  I was a little surprised reading what I was reading in a "faithful" LDS book, but I flowed along with it thinking that if that explanation was good enough for the LDS author of the LDS book in the LDS book store, it was good enough for me.  I have moved.

I have come to believe that "strong sex drive" explains so little of Joseph Smith's polygamy that it should be viewed as a failed theory.  Natural enough for me to believe as a sexed-up man of the 21st century, but not possessing the explanatory power necessary to form a solid thesis.  I know Nevo is better informed than I am and you probably are too, but that is my take.

Charity, TOm

[JLHPROF]

Overall I think polygamy was bad for the Church.  Polygamy was a factor in:

 

1.  Joseph's murder

2.  The removal of the Saints from IL

3.  The federal occupation of Utah

4.  The seizure of Church property

5.  The imprisonment of Church leaders

6.  The Reed Smoot affair

7.  Mormon fundamentalism

8.  The expansion of federal power into the defining marriage business

 

 

To this I say a big "so what?"

People tried to live a commandment of God and suffered persecution.  So what else is new.

The argument that plural marriage led to serious persecution so it must be bad doesn't hold a ounce of truth.  Persecution, sacrifice, hatred of the world, etc are requirements.  If they stop it is due to apostasy.

[Nevo]

Admittedly the latter Nauvoo practice of polygamy informs my view of Fanny Alger, but we have much more information on latter polygamy than we do on Fanny Alger.  And where does his "strong sex drive" go when he has not practiced polygamy for many years.  Surely a strong personality such as his would not need to have such dry spells. . . .  I just think Joseph had many things he placed more importance upon than having sexual relations with plural wives. 

 

I completely agree that plural marriage, for Joseph, was not primarily about sex. Given the large number of women involved, it appears that forging familial connections and securing for himself and others "crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds" took precedence over "raising up seed" in Joseph's mind.

 

I do not think Joseph Smith came up with polygamy simply to satisfy a raging libido.The issue is a lot more complicated than that. As B. Carmon Hardy noted many years ago, "the problem of distinguishing between sexual interest and religious inspiration in the case of Joseph Smith and his associates is extraordinarily complex. Apart from rumors of his attraction to women, there is implication in Joseph's reported claim to have seen, long before he married them, all his wives in vision. And one need not be a psychoanalyst to recognize symbolism in Joseph's claim that an angel appeared to him, sword drawn, commanding activity. His advice to William Clayton that, so far as additional wives were concerned, Clayton had a right to all he could get, is also telling. . . . And, despite insistence that accepting polygamy was a moral trial, one cannot help agreeing with Jan Shipps's observation that, quite soon enough, many came to resemble children suddenly told that eating candy was good for them. This notwithstanding, Joseph displayed an astonishingly principled commitment to the doctrine. . ." (Hardy, Solemn Covenant, 9).

I accept that Fanny Alger was a plural wife. But I also find it noteworthy that Fanny Alger was, by all accounts, very attractive, and that those who knew Joseph best—Emma, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris—all viewed the relationship as an extramarital affair. It wasn't as though none of them could imagine Joseph being capable of such a thing. Then there is the well-known (though possibly apocryphal) account of Eliza R. Snow, who, when asked "if she was not a virgin although married to Joseph Smith and afterwards to Brigham Young," replied: "I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that." This and the fact that Joseph's phrenological reports consistently recorded high scores for "amativeness" suggest to me that Joseph projected interest in the opposite sex.

 

I have no idea whether Joseph's libido factored into the introduction of polygamy or not. I allow the possibility that it did (albeit subconsciously). But I am equally open to the possibility that he pursued it for purely religious reasons. Either way, I believe that he believed that polygamy was divinely mandated.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Nevo