Yet Another Polygamy Article

[rockpond]

Why should it bother me that Solomon needed 700 wives and 300 concubines?

 

It doesn't need to bother you.

[Nevo]

I would also add that Joseph felt inspired to marry the young women who lived with Emma and him in Nauvoo, including Lucy Walker (age 17), Emily and Eliza Partridge (19 & 22), Sarah and Maria Lawrence (17 & 19) and Melissa Lott (age 19). In fact, I would challenge anyone to name a woman between the age of 16 - 25 who lived with the Smith's in Nauvoo who Joseph wasn't inspired to marry. 

 

God might work in mysterious ways, but there really isn't anything mysterious about that.

 

Small quibble, but I think Sarah and Maria Lawrence were Emma's idea.

 

Anyway, to answer your challenge: Jane Manning James (but see this).

[Nevo]

Classic Presentism.

 

Exactly. Jane Eyre anyone? Rochester was 37 and Jane 18 when they met. He was the master of the house and she was a lowly governess. And he already had a living wife! This sort of thing was no big deal to Victorians.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Nevo

[cinepro]

Classic Presentism.

 

It wasn't okay back then either.

[Avatar4321]

Abraham had more than two wives

[Tacenda]

I would also add that Joseph felt inspired to marry the young women who lived with Emma and him in Nauvoo, including Lucy Walker (age 17), Emily and Eliza Partridge (19 & 22), Sarah and Maria Lawrence (17 & 19) and Melissa Lott (age 19). In fact, I would challenge anyone to name a woman between the age of 16 - 25 who lived with the Smith's in Nauvoo who Joseph wasn't inspired to marry. 

 

God might work in mysterious ways, but there really isn't anything mysterious about that.

And a few were a lot younger when they met Joseph for the first time.

[Buzzard]

I'll tell you what is viewing the events of the 1840's through the lens of 2014, is the idea that since JS had a few dozen wives, he had to have been a perverted old man, lusting after the young bodies he saw all around him.  We have discussed this before on this board, 30+ marriages does not equal 30+ consummations in the case of Joseph.  Certainly more wives in the full sense than Emma, but the majority were closer to what we would consider adoption.  With certainly, he did not lay a hand on Helen Mar Kimball (the 14 year old), and it seems pretty clear that his polyandrous marriages were for eternity only, and were understood by all involved to not threaten the existing marriages of these women.  Of all the criticisms laid at Joseph, the husbands of these women were not among the critics.  In fact, it's my understanding that some of there remained close friends with Joseph even after their wives were sealed to him in the eternities. I'm sorry, no one is so charismatic that he could take my wife to bed, call it a marriage, and I am happy about that and continue my close association with him.  There is also the DNA-certified fact that none of these polygamous unions produced children.  And thanks to his marriage with Emma, we know that JS had no problems getting his wife with child. 

I don't know and no one knows exactly how many of his marriages were physically consummated, but all evidence indicates that most of them were not. So I think we can discard the calumny of an oversexed JS running around Nauvoo marrying and bedding a goodly part of the female populous.   

And Brigham did not have 50+ wives.  The best estimate I have seen in 26-still enough to keep him busy, I'm sure, though at least some of those were the widows of JS that he took in to provide for.  The real king of providing for widows and abandoned women was Heber C. Kimball, who had 45 wives, but only nine bore him children.  I read somewhere about a farmer out in Southern Utah who had 45 children by five wives.  That's what I call a high batting average!

[Silhouette]

I'll tell you what is viewing the events of the 1840's through the lens of 2014, is the idea that since JS had a few dozen wives, he had to have been a perverted old man, lusting after the young bodies he saw all around him. We have discussed this before on this board, 30+ marriages does not equal 30+ consummations in the case of Joseph. Certainly more wives in the full sense than Emma, but the majority were closer to what we would consider adoption. With certainly, he did not lay a hand on Helen Mar Kimball (the 14 year old), and it seems pretty clear that his polyandrous marriages were for eternity only, and were understood by all involved to not threaten the existing marriages of these women. Of all the criticisms laid at Joseph, the husbands of these women were not among the critics. In fact, it's my understanding that some of there remained close friends with Joseph even after their wives were sealed to him in the eternities. I'm sorry, no one is so charismatic that he could take my wife to bed, call it a marriage, and I am happy about that and continue my close association with him. There is also the DNA-certified fact that none of these polygamous unions produced children. And thanks to his marriage with Emma, we know that JS had no problems getting his wife with child.

I don't know and no one knows exactly how many of his marriages were physically consummated, but all evidence indicates that most of them were not. So I think we can discard the calumny of an oversexed JS running around Nauvoo marrying and bedding a goodly part of the female populous.

And Brigham did not have 50+ wives. The best estimate I have seen in 26-still enough to keep him busy, I'm sure, though at least some of those were the widows of JS that he took in to provide for. The real king of providing for widows and abandoned women was Heber C. Kimball, who had 45 wives, but only nine bore him children. I read somewhere about a farmer out in Southern Utah who had 45 children by five wives. That's what I call a high batting average!

Hi, Buzzard:

I'm not arguing with your comments, I'm just trying to learn something, and I hope you won't view my question as trying to argue. I enjoy your posts, and look forward to reading more.

My question is that if Joseph took the wives of other men for sealing purposes only, what would be the reason that they weren't sealed to their own husbands?

Do you think these could be instances when the woman can be sealed to more than one man, as has been mentioned in other topics here before? I understand that this practice can happen today, but all parties must be deceased, or is that incorrect?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts on this.

Best Wishes,

Melanie

[Nevo]

With certainly, he did not lay a hand on Helen Mar Kimball (the 14 year old), and it seems pretty clear that his polyandrous marriages were for eternity only, and were understood by all involved to not threaten the existing marriages of these women. . . .

 

There is also the DNA-certified fact that none of these polygamous unions produced children.

 

I don't disagree with most of what you said, but if we're going to be accurate . . .

• It is not known whether or not the sealing to Helen Mar Kimball involved sexual relations. As BYU historian J. Spencer Fluhman has noted, "Readers concerned about whether or not the marriage was consummated are left without conclusive evidence for or against. In all her reminiscing, Helen neither confirmed nor denied a physical relationship."

   

• DNA testing has not—and cannot—establish that none of Joseph Smith's polygamous unions produced children (DNA testing requires living descendants). As Brian C. Hales notes, "Reviewing available evidence supports the birth of two, possibly three children to Joseph Smith and his plural wives."

[Calm]

" I understand that this practice can happen today, but all parties must be deceased, or is that incorrect? "

Some exceptions are made now while the woman is living and has a deceased first husband, but it is done through applying to the First Presidency and it is not listed as an option in the Handbook. There have been reports of this going way back but it appears to becoming more common or at least due to the Internet more commonly reported.

Edited November 13, 2014 by calmoriah

[JLHPROF]

Hi, Buzzard:

I'm not arguing with your comments, I'm just trying to learn something, and I hope you won't view my question as trying to argue. I enjoy your posts, and look forward to reading more.

My question is that if Joseph took the wives of other men for sealing purposes only, what would be the reason that they weren't sealed to their own husbands?

Do you think these could be instances when the woman can be sealed to more than one man, as has been mentioned in other topics here before? I understand that this practice can happen today, but all parties must be deceased, or is that incorrect?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts on this.

Best Wishes,

Melanie

 

Of the recorded (14ish) polyandrous marriages only 5 had husbands to whom they could be sealed for eternity.  This would mean that 9 of them were sealed to Joseph in order to have an eternal companion and receive exaltation, something their earthly husbands were unable or unwilling to provide.  Walking away from exaltation and remaining single was not an option to them.

 

So that leaves a recorded 5 husband/wife pairs where the woman could have been sealed to the man instead of Joseph:

- Patty Bartlett and David Sessions

- Marinda Nancy Johnson and Orson Hyde

- Elvira Cowles and Jonathan Holmes

- Elizabeth and Jabez Durfee

- Zina Huntington and Henry Jacobs

 

Considering the desire of the average saint to enter into exaltation, I think it's safe to say why the other 9 were sealed to Joseph.  As for these 5 women - these are the ones that give the most cause for concern of all Joseph's sealings.

 

Of these 5, 4 of the husbands are on record as allowing their wives to be sealed to Joseph (and the fifth we have no record of).  In 4/5 of these cases the husband and wife both agreed that she should be part of Joseph's family in eternity.  The only possible doctrinal explanation we have for why came from Brigham Young:

 

The second way in which a wife can be separated from her husband while he continues to be faithful to his God and his priesthood I have not revealed except to a few persons in this church, and a few have received it from Joseph the Prophet as well as myself. If a woman can find a man holding the keys of the priesthood with higher power and authority than her husband, and he is disposed to take her, he can do so, otherwise she has got to remain where she is.

 

This doctrine really rubs against anything we can accept today, but it also fully explains what happened with these 5 women and possibly why the 5 men would have allowed the sealings to Joseph.  These women may have been the "few" that received it from Joseph.

 

Other than that, I know of no explanation.

[carbon dioxide]

 

As I've said before, I don't have a problem with the practice of polygamy.  I think it should be legal here in the U.S.

 

As for my reaction... the reasons for my disagreement with the early practice of polygamy in the church...

1. Joseph didn't follow his own revelation.
2. Joseph lied about the practice.
3. Joseph hid it from his wife.
4. Timing of the revelation, restoration of the sealing power, and entrance into polygamy is problematic for me.
5. Quantity of wives
6. Coercion by one in authority
7. The Lord can apparently send an angel with a drawn sword to get Joseph to marry more women but couldn't get prophets and apostles to stop teaching false reasons for the priesthood ban for over a century.
8. I see the fruits of polygamy as being overwhelmingly negative.

 

Perhaps if people were not so negative about the practice of polygamy and Emma had been more faithful, he would not have had to lie or do things in secret.  If people demand to be told the truth, they have the responsiblity and obligation to handle the truth in a mature way.  Did Joseph Smith and others make mistakes?  Of course they did.  Does one really expect any of the early Saints to start a practice and not drop the ball a lot.  I think they did the best they could under the circumstances and Monday morning quarterbacking  over a 100 years later is easy.  I suppose that every person who complains about how things were done back then would not have done any better if they lived back then and attempted to live the commandment.  Look at other issues like how the United Order failed.  Or look at the failures that occurred when the pioneers came to Utah.  Success usually does not occur immediately but occurs over time after a series of failures and learning from mistakes.  I suppose that if polygamy was instituted again, things would be a lot different.  Mainly because we can learn from the mistakes that was done previously and do things differently. But the mistakes need to be done first so that one can grow from them.

 

Joseph Smith was not perfect but I will declare before the world and God that if I was in Joseph Smith position, I would not have done any better than he did.  I probably would have made more mistakes than he did.  I believe that for those that get the opportunity to see Joseph Smith in the spirit world and attempt to lecture Joseph Smith on how he practiced polygamy, he will respond with something like "And you really think you would have done a better job considered the situations and circumstances that I was in"  I think the answer to his question  will be silence. 

Edited November 14, 2014 by carbon dioxide

[Hamba Tuhan]

Now if my Bishop were to call me in and tell me that I was to tke two of the widow or single women of the ward as wives I guarantee you he and I would have a long serious discussion.

 

Followed, in my case, with a long, serious discussion with my stake president, then my area president, and possibly one of the Twelve. All of which would absolutey have to be followed up with a very long, very serious discussion with the Lord Himself.

 

The end point of which, it seems to me, being roughly where the early Saints found themselves ... and why so many of them were able to move forward, often in dramatic reversal to their earlier feelings.

[Silhouette]

" I understand that this practice can happen today, but all parties must be deceased, or is that incorrect? "

Some exceptions are made now while the woman is living and has a deceased first husband, but it is done through applying to the First Presidency and it is not listed as an option in the Handbook. There have been reports of this going way back but it appears to becoming more common or at least due to the Internet more commonly reported.

Thanks for your comments on this process. I've wondered about it ever since I heard of it just recently on this forum, I believe.Your explanation clarifies it for me, and I appreciate that.

[Silhouette]

Deleted. DUH-ble post.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Silhouette

[Silhouette]

Of the recorded (14ish) polyandrous marriages only 5 had husbands to whom they could be sealed for eternity. This would mean that 9 of them were sealed to Joseph in order to have an eternal companion and receive exaltation, something their earthly husbands were unable or unwilling to provide. Walking away from exaltation and remaining single was not an option to them.

So that leaves a recorded 5 husband/wife pairs where the woman could have been sealed to the man instead of Joseph:

- Patty Bartlett and David Sessions

- Marinda Nancy Johnson and Orson Hyde

- Elvira Cowles and Jonathan Holmes

- Elizabeth and Jabez Durfee

- Zina Huntington and Henry Jacobs

Considering the desire of the average saint to enter into exaltation, I think it's safe to say why the other 9 were sealed to Joseph. As for these 5 women - these are the ones that give the most cause for concern of all Joseph's sealings.

Of these 5, 4 of the husbands are on record as allowing their wives to be sealed to Joseph (and the fifth we have no record of). In 4/5 of these cases the husband and wife both agreed that she should be part of Joseph's family in eternity. The only possible doctrinal explanation we have for why came from Brigham Young:

This doctrine really rubs against anything we can accept today, but it also fully explains what happened with these 5 women and possibly why the 5 men would have allowed the sealings to Joseph. These women may have been the "few" that received it from Joseph.

Other than that, I know of no explanation.

Thanks for this information. I'm left wondering what could have caused some of those husbands to be unwilling or unable to be sealed to their wives. I guess speculation is useless because probably no one will ever have an answer for such a question. But looking at exaltation from those saints' point of view, I guess I can see why they would want to be sealed to someone whom they felt had a sure ticket to exaltation.

I guess they didn't have the knowledge that we do today about every worthy member, whether male or female, can be married to a mate in the millennium, and still attain exaltation. At least I think thats correct, the way I understand it. I have an 83 year old friend who has never been married. I would hate to think that she wouldn't make exaltation just because she didn't find a man to be sealed to in this life. (Although, on a lighter note, she is in St. George this very minute, spending the week with a gentleman she met on LDS Singles, who is also in his 80's. They have separate rooms at the same hotel...it's so cute! So maybe she'll get sealed after all... She lives here in Northern California, and he lives in the Pacific Northwest, and they each flew to Vegas to meet, then rented a car and drove to St. George.)

But I digress. In a bad way. Back to the topic:

I can see where the comments of Brigham Young would be troublesome today. Getting wives through Priesthood seniority sounds like a rather cold and indifferent way to do things, and I'm glad we don't practice it today.

Thank you again for your comments and information. I'm grateful for your response.

[Buzzard]

Hi, Buzzard:

I'm not arguing with your comments, I'm just trying to learn something, and I hope you won't view my question as trying to argue. I enjoy your posts, and look forward to reading more.

My question is that if Joseph took the wives of other men for sealing purposes only, what would be the reason that they weren't sealed to their own husbands?

Do you think these could be instances when the woman can be sealed to more than one man, as has been mentioned in other topics here before? I understand that this practice can happen today, but all parties must be deceased, or is that incorrect?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts on this.

Best Wishes,

Melanie

Well, some of your questions have been answered better than I could.  The only thing I think I could add is just my amateur, non-scholarly opinion. And that comes down to the marriage/adoption difference. I wasn't there, and those  who were didn't leave a lot of history behind, but IMHO, I wonder if these women, and maybe their husbands, viewed these sealing much less like a marriage that would be consummated in eternity, but rather like a certainty that they would be part of Joseph's family in the afterlife, maybe even bringing their husbands along.  One of the reasons we scratch our heads about this is that it seems so different from the way the church is run now. 

Well, that much is true. The question is whether we are willing to wait a few decades when we can ask those involved exactly what was going on.  Anything we come up with now is what we used to call in the retail business a SWAG: a Scientific Wild-A**ed Guess.

[Silhouette]

Well, some of your questions have been answered better than I could. The only thing I think I could add is just my amateur, non-scholarly opinion. And that comes down to the marriage/adoption difference. I wasn't there, and those who were didn't leave a lot of history behind, but IMHO, I wonder if these women, and maybe their husbands, viewed these sealing much less like a marriage that would be consummated in eternity, but rather like a certainty that they would be part of Joseph's family in the afterlife, maybe even bringing their husbands along. One of the reasons we scratch our heads about this is that it seems so different from the way the church is run now.

Well, that much is true. The question is whether we are willing to wait a few decades when we can ask those involved exactly what was going on. Anything we come up with now is what we used to call in the retail business a SWAG: a Scientific Wild-A**ed Guess.

Well, your comments are welcome too. Any thoughts on this topic are appreciated.

And I've written down about SWAG! I really did. I'm going to use that LOL.

[Grudunza]

Polygamy is still a very sensitive issue for many, and important for all to reconcile with our faith and our history, so although I think the Church did a good thing to publish these articles, I can understand the difficulty and time needed for some to process all of it.  After all, those struggling Saints might indeed be intensely studying their Book of Mormons and may thereby find polygamy described as involving... 

 

...grosser crime 

grosser crimes

iniquity

understanding not the scriptures

excusing themselves in committing whoredoms

David and Solomon's polygamy abominable

the Lord not suffering his people to do as them of old

one wife only, and no concubines

whoredoms are an abomination

cursed land

sorrow

mourning of daughters

wickedness and abominations

cries of the fair daughters

daughters led away captive

sore curse, unto destruction

shall not commit whoredoms like them of old

great condemnation

greater iniquities

broken hearts of wives

lost confidence of children

bad examples

sobbings of hearts

many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds

So I can appreciate some struggling with the concept of polygamy entered into by the prophet of our dispensation, when it is so harshly condemned in the very work that he translated by the gift and power of God.  And I know that verse 30 is supposed to be what we would point out to those struggling Saints to justify the practice, but I'm finding it difficult to confirm that interpretation with the breadth and depth of all that comes before and after it.  For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people... to engage in the practice that I am repeatedly and fervently describing as wickedness and involving iniquity and whoredoms and abominations and sorrow and broken hearts and mourning and bad examples and lack of understanding of the scriptures??

[Buzzard]

Grudunza, I don't think it was the practice of polygamy Jacob was condemning, but the sexual immorality of the people as a whole.  It does seem that some were using polygamy as a cover for what they were doing, And Jacob, as the prophet in their day, was discontinuing the practice. 

[rockpond]

Perhaps if people were not so negative about the practice of polygamy and Emma had been more faithful, he would not have had to lie or do things in secret.  If people demand to be told the truth, they have the responsiblity and obligation to handle the truth in a mature way.  Did Joseph Smith and others make mistakes?  Of course they did.  Does one really expect any of the early Saints to start a practice and not drop the ball a lot.  I think they did the best they could under the circumstances and Monday morning quarterbacking  over a 100 years later is easy.  I suppose that every person who complains about how things were done back then would not have done any better if they lived back then and attempted to live the commandment.  Look at other issues like how the United Order failed.  Or look at the failures that occurred when the pioneers came to Utah.  Success usually does not occur immediately but occurs over time after a series of failures and learning from mistakes.  I suppose that if polygamy was instituted again, things would be a lot different.  Mainly because we can learn from the mistakes that was done previously and do things differently. But the mistakes need to be done first so that one can grow from them.

 

Joseph Smith was not perfect but I will declare before the world and God that if I was in Joseph Smith position, I would not have done any better than he did.  I probably would have made more mistakes than he did.  I believe that for those that get the opportunity to see Joseph Smith in the spirit world and attempt to lecture Joseph Smith on how he practiced polygamy, he will respond with something like "And you really think you would have done a better job considered the situations and circumstances that I was in"  I think the answer to his question  will be silence. 

 

I am not Monday-morning quarterbacking Joseph.  I certainly could not have led as well as he did.  You said that if we ask for the truth we have a responsibility to handle it maturely.  This is me handling the truth maturely when I say that I believe Joseph's practice of polygamy was in error.  I still believe in him as the prophet of the restoration but, for me, the truth... the historical record... of the practice indicates that it wasn't right.

 

I agree with much of what you've said in this post but your opening line really rubs me the wrong way.  Are you saying that Joseph had to lie and do things in secret because of Emma's lack of faithfulness?  I think such a conclusion is unwarranted and grossly unfair to Emma.

[Grudunza]

Grudunza, I don't think it was the practice of polygamy Jacob was condemning, but the sexual immorality of the people as a whole. It does seem that some were using polygamy as a cover for what they were doing, And Jacob, as the prophet in their day, was discontinuing the practice.

Verse 23 specifically refers to multiple wives as the catalyst for everything that follows in that chapter. Certainly sexual immorality in general is part of all that, and some of the later verses and references may be more general in their condemnation of sexual sin, but there does seem to be a particular emphasis on the polygamy, that kicks everything off and is referred to several times, and even in Jacob 3.

Edited November 14, 2014 by Grudunza

[KevinG]

Envy and favoring one family line over the other is at least part of what did Jacob and his family in.  Not the practice of polygamy itself.

 

You could write the same chapter about a monogamous husband that favored one child over the other, with the same results.

[Robert F. Smith]

Grudunza, I don't think it was the practice of polygamy Jacob was condemning, but the sexual immorality of the people as a whole.  It does seem that some were using polygamy as a cover for what they were doing, And Jacob, as the prophet in their day, was discontinuing the practice. 

On orders from Lehi.

[Robert F. Smith]

I am not Monday-morning quarterbacking Joseph.  I certainly could not have led as well as he did.  You said that if we ask for the truth we have a responsibility to handle it maturely.  This is me handling the truth maturely when I say that I believe Joseph's practice of polygamy was in error.  I still believe in him as the prophet of the restoration but, for me, the truth... the historical record... of the practice indicates that it wasn't right.

 

I agree with much of what you've said in this post but your opening line really rubs me the wrong way.  Are you saying that Joseph had to lie and do things in secret because of Emma's lack of faithfulness?  I think such a conclusion is unwarranted and grossly unfair to Emma.

Then ask yourself why Emma lied later in life when asked whether Joseph had multiple wives.  This was a very sensitive subject for her, just as it was for those asking her (her son Joseph III and his RLDS associates), who had a preconceived set of assumptions which could not be challenged for at least another century.  Of course Joseph Jr lied in such instances.  He had enough trouble with matters outside the family and certainly sought peace at home.  I would be very surprised if he did not lie under such circumstances.