Joseph Smith's Polygamy

[Teancum]

When necessary, Abraham was quick with a lie -- to Pharaoh, for example, hiding the fact that Sarah was his wife.

Your own defamation of Uncle Abe is contained in your claim that "at least for me Joseph could simply not be the one special one that had divine sanction from God for something that seems so ungodly." You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but why would you attempt to separate your frank opinion of modern events from those in the Bible? That's right: Presentism . . .

Abraham taking Hagar is a concubine was nothing like LDS plural marriage for exaltation. You read back into the Bible something that does not seem to be there at all.

Even so, there

is lots in the Bible I would not use the make good an ethical choices in today's world.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Teancum

[ttribe]

When necessary, Abraham was quick with a lie -- to Pharaoh, for example, hiding the fact that Sarah was his wife.

 

Your own defamation of Uncle Abe is contained in your claim that "at least for me Joseph could simply not be the one special one that had divine sanction from God for something that seems so ungodly."  You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but why would you attempt to separate your frank opinion of modern events from those in the Bible?  That's right:  Presentism . . .

 

It can't be "Presentism" if he holds the same opinion of the Biblical people and their actions.

[TheSkepticChristian]

If you are referring to me with this, you don't understand my position, at all.

 

no one understands your position

Edited August 17, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[ttribe]

no one understands your position

 

Oh really?  You speak for "everyone", do you?

[thesometimesaint]

Krakauer's inclusion of history on Joseph Smith was completely ancillary to the events in question.  It's also unsurprising that any outsider has a distorted view of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, et al.  That being said, it doesn't change the fact that each of these groups is part of the legacy left behind by Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy; whether we, in the mainstream LDS Church like it, or not.

 

Ever hear of guilt by association?

[ALarson]

I know Joeseph knew a few of his wives as children or pre-teen age.

 

This states that Joseph met 27 of his future wives while he was in Ohio:

When the Smiths moved to Ohio in 1831, Joseph there met the majority of his future wives. Most of them were still adolescents - the children of his close associates.

As Joseph was expelled by his neighbors from New York to Ohio, then to Missouri, during the 1830's, the homes of friends or converts along the way offered temporary refuge.This is where Smith became acquainted with the young daughters and women he would marry a decade later. They were the daughters of friends in the families where he stayed. Some of them were very young when he met them and were as young as fourteen when he married them over a decade later.

Joseph made other acquaintances in his early life that presaged the plural marriages he would consummate in the 1840s. His relationships in Ohio with various families and their daughters allowed him to invite the young women into his further confidence when they were older. Most were with their families in Ohio, where Smith had sent missionaries from western New York in 1830. Then Smith issued a revelation in January 1831 ordering his followers to sell their property and trek 300 miles west to Kirtland, which he designated as a city of refuge for the church's converts. Joseph became acquainted there with some twenty-seven of the women who would later become his wives.                                                                                                          - Nauvoo Polygamy:....but we called it celestial marriage  By George D. Smith

 

 

I know that many have issues with this book, but I would like to see his research on this one point.  It is interesting.

 

Even if accurate, I think it only shows that for the majority of his wives, Joseph went to families he trusted and approached women that he had known for years.

Edited August 17, 2015 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

This states that Joseph met 27 of his future wives while he was in Ohio:

 

 

I know that many have issues with this book, but I would like to see his research on this one point.  It is interesting.

 

Even if accurate, I think it only shows that for the majority of his wives, Joseph went to families he trusted and approached women that he had known for years.

 

A number of the wives worked as domestic help in the Smith home or otherwise lived with Joseph and Emma.

[Guest]

I think it's great that she acknowledges that there are legitimate reasons why people experience genuine shock and pain when they find out about this stuff. I wish I could agree with their take on polygamy, but I appreciate her expressing empathy for people who struggle with this.

I have always thought the practice to be repugnant, both in the Bible and in the Church. I think this is what so many never took part. Reading the Bible you can see that it is a bankrupt institution leading to amped up jealousy and even murder. Abraham turned out Hagar and Ishmael into the desert to die like dogs. Jacob, was at best what every polygamous father is; absent for the most part, allowing unrighteous behavior to run rampant. But, we do know that God has allowed (Relutantly, and undesired) polygamy at times but as Jacob taught abhors the practice. The question for many is why they are so accepting of this practice among the great patriarchs, but fall apart and lose their way when it comes to Joseph!

[ALarson]

A number of the wives worked as domestic help in the Smith home or otherwise lived with Joseph and Emma.

Yes.  I have to believe that these are the ones that really hurt and upset Emma (along with many of the others).  She worked closely with many of these girls and loved them like a daughter.

 

However 2 of them (the Partridge sisters) are the girls that Emma gave Joseph her permission to marry (although they were already married to him unbeknownst to her, so a mock wedding took place for her benefit).

 

There are a lot of interesting details when you start studying Joseph's polygamy and polyandry.

Edited August 17, 2015 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

I have always thought the practice to be repugnant, both in the Bible and in the Church. I think this is what so many never took part. Reading the Bible you can see that it is a bankrupt institution leading to amped up jealousy and even murder. Abraham turned out Hagar and Ishmael into the desert to die like dogs. Jacob, was at best what every polygamous father is; absent for the most part, allowing unrighteous behavior to run rampant. But, we do know that God has allowed (Relutantly, and undesired) polygamy at times but as Jacob taught abhors the practice. The question for many is why they are so accepting of this practice among the great patriarchs, but fall apart and lose their way when it comes to Joseph!

 

I can't answer for anyone else, but for me, it was the secrecy and deceit, and what I consider coercion. 

[ALarson]

I can't answer for anyone else, but for me, it was the secrecy and deceit, and what I consider coercion. 

Yes, I agree.  The lies and deceit (especially involving Emma) are problematic for many members.  But even if members come to terms with all of that, Joseph's polyandry is another difficult issue.

[jkwilliams]

Yes, I agree.  The lies and deceit (especially involving Emma) are problematic for many members.  But even if members come to terms with all of that, Joseph's polyandry is another difficult issue.

 

It's difficult to defend, isn't it?

[ALarson]

It's difficult to defend, isn't it?

I don't try to defend it but I have tried to understand it.  I have come to the conclusion that it was a mistake that still haunts the church today.  

Edited August 17, 2015 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

I don't try to defend it but I have tried to understand it.  I have come to the conclusion that it was a mistake that still haunts the church today.  

 

I used to try to defend it, but you can see the result.

[Guest]

I can't answer for anyone else, but for me, it was the secrecy and deceit, and what I consider coercion.

This was an ancient practice being practiced in America...once found out Joseph lost his life. Another Joseph (Joseph Standing) died near my home in Georgia. It would be like Abraham in our day being asked to sacrifice his son Issca and then calling DFAX and the police to give his plans and where to find him. While on the subject of Abraham, since he did the same, should everyone now be an atheist.

[jkwilliams]

This was an ancient practice being practiced in America...once found out Joseph lost his life. Another Joseph (Joseph Standing) died near my home in Georgia. It would be like Abraham in our day being asked to sacrifice his son Issca and then calling DFAX and the police to give his plans and where to find him. While on the subject of Abraham, since he did the same, should everyone now be an atheist.

 

As I said, I can speak only for myself. I got tired of rationalizing what Joseph Smith did. That's all. 

[ttribe]

Ever hear of guilt by association?

 

Yes, but what does that have to do with anything I said?

Edited August 17, 2015 by ttribe

[Bobbieaware]

As I said, I can speak only for myself. I got tired of rationalizing what Joseph Smith did. That's all.

It's not so easy for those of us who in fulfillment of Moroni's promise have received a sure witness of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon. When one has that sure witness, he or she if forced to confront the stunning incongruity of why would a God, who has infinite foreknowledge, have chosen such an imperfect human vessel to bring forth a holy and miraculous book of scripture (a book that mightily inspires me to love God and to do his will each and every time I read it)? It seems especially strange that God, with that infinite foreknowledge, would have chosen a lascivious man as his agent to restore the Church of Jesus Christ to the earth when there are so many prophecies that testify before the Latter-day Kingdom will triumph in total victory.

So those of us who possess the sure knowledge that the Book of Mormon is true, and that the Restored Churvh will triumph, put Joseph Smith's polygamy in a special category among those things pertaining to the Lord's latter-day work that we acknowledge we do not yet have the divine insight to understand. Paul said the deep things of God will often appear to be evil to those who lack a sufficient degree of spiritual enlightenment and wisdom; and because they lack the gift of spiritually enlightened discernment they are prone to call good evil and evil good. To a one who lacks the spiritual ability to discern whether the deep things of God are good from evil, they might very well be found among those who say Abraham"s attempted sacrifice of Issac was an horrific act of child abuse; while those who do have sufficient spiritual wisdom and discernment realize that attempted sacrifice was one of the world's greatest acts of faith and love.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[jkwilliams]

It's not so easy for those of us who in fulfillment of Moroni's promise have received a sure witness of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon. When one has that sure witness, he or she if forced to confront the stunning incongruity of why would a God, who has infinite foreknowledge, would have chosen such an imperfect human vessel to bring forth a holy and miraculous book of scripture (a book that mightily inspires me to love God and to do his will each and every time I read it)? It seems especially strange that God, with that infinite foreknowledge, would have chosen a lascivious man as his agent to restore the Church of Jesus Christ to the earth when there are so many prophecies that testify before the Latter-day Kingdom will triumph in total victory.

So those of us who possess the sure knowledge that the Book of Mormon is true, and that the Restored Churvh will triumph, put Joseph Smith's polygamy in a special category among those things pertaining to the Lord's latter-day work that we acknowledge we do not yet have the divine insight to understand. Paul said the deep things of God will often appear to be evil to those who lack a sufficient degree of spiritual enlightenment; and wisdom, and because they lack spiritually enlightened discernment they are prone to call good evil and evil good. To a one who lacks the spiritual ability to discern whether the deep things of God are good from evil, they might very well be found among those who say Abraham"s attempted sacrifice of Issac was an horrific act of child abuse; while those who do have sufficient spiritual wisdom and discernment realize that attempted sacrifice was one of the world's greatest acts of faith and love.

 

You've worked it out for yourself, and that's great. I did exactly what you describe for many years until I couldn't do it anymore. Once that rationalization went, so did the rest of them. Yeah, I know, you think people like me never had a testimony to begin with. 

[ALarson]

So those of us who possess the sure knowledge that the Book of Mormon is true, and that the Restored Churvh will triumph, put Joseph Smith's polygamy in a special category among those things pertaining to the Lord's latter-day work that we acknowledge we do not yet have the divine insight to understand. 

I think that "special category" is called a shelf.  I get that this works for many and it obviously helps you deal with the uncomfortable details regarding Joseph's polygamy.  Like jkswilliams stated "that's great".

 

Can you do the same with Joseph's practice of polyandry?  Do you believe Joseph was commanded to live that as well?

Edited August 17, 2015 by ALarson

[SteveO]

I posted the link to the essays on my family facebook page and was accused of pushing anti mormon propaganda. When I showed them that the link was to the official LDS.org site, several testimonies were posted and then I got the silent treatment.

I think it will take a while for the full weight of the essays and announcements like the seer stone to sink in and be digested by many of the members. For many, this big departure from the things that were not taught by their church for many decades.

Sorry if this seems I am getting off topic, but this seems to me to be an example of exactly what is wrong with the church today and in the recent past.

I've long since quit going to temples in the Salt Lake Valley--I usually end up leaving irritated to the point of anger at the irreverent "social hall" atmosphere. Fast and testimony meeting in my married student ward is an exercise of modern day Rameumptom...

The point is when Elder Holland said not too long ago about the want for a convinient God--I think he was speaking not only about those outside the church with regards to social issues--but about a good number of the church membership who seem to be on cruise control and coasting. Where is the "working out [of our] salvation with fear and trembling"? The church becomes a social thing for many members, just another watered down version of Christianity. What are the odds that the family members of sun stoned even bothered to click the links he posted? How is this willful ignorance the fault of the church?

I can't remeber the last time I've been 100% comfortable with my faith and spirituality. The Church of Jesus Christ constantly makes me uncomfortable. It pushes my limits, constantly has me questioning where I stand and my personal progression. The more I see of this board, the more and more I'm inclined to believe those posting questions are probably closer to where they should be spiritually than they themselves would be willing to think.

Back to the topic--my big issue happens to be polyandry. For me, it really is trying to fit the square in the round hole. I just can't figure it out. But also for me, the Book of Mormon is the single biggest anchor that refuses to let me lose my faith. And so I place the issue of Polyandry on the shelf--not forgotten--but with the understanding that it isn't enough to make me question the divine calling of Joseph Smith. Just my 2 cents

[ALarson]

Back to the topic--my big issue happens to be polyandry. For me, it really is trying to fit the square in the round hole. I just can't figure it out. But also for me, the Book of Mormon is the single biggest anchor that refuses to let me lose my faith. And so I place the issue of Polyandry on the shelf--not forgotten--but with the understanding that it isn't enough to make me question the divine calling of Joseph Smith. Just my 2 cents

I had almost come to terms with learning the details surrounding Joseph's polygamy (or at least was close to being able to shelf them) when I learned about Joseph marrying other mens' wives.

 

Nowhere has polyandry been commanded by God (that I can find).

 

If Joseph felt he needed to restore the principle of plural marriage (even though I believe it hadn't previously been commanded), I could possibly accept that.  But, why did Joseph add polyandry? Did that need to be restored as well?

[rockpond]

I had almost come to terms with learning the details surrounding Joseph's polygamy (or at least was close to being able to shelf them) when I learned about Joseph marrying other mens' wives.

 

Nowhere has polyandry been commanded by God (that I can find).

 

God pretty much commanded the opposite at the end of section 132.

[SteveO]

I had almost come to terms with learning the details surrounding Joseph's polygamy (or at least was close to being able to shelf them) when I learned about Joseph marrying other mens' wives.

Nowhere has polyandry been commanded by God (that I can find).

If Joseph felt he needed to restore the principle of plural marriage (even though I believe it hadn't previously been commanded), I could possibly accept that. But, why did Joseph add polyandry? Did that need to be restored as well?

The best I can come up with is what Joseph said to (I believe Brigham) that if he revealed everything he knew about the nature of God--that no one would be a member of the church. I think Polyandry is something of an incomplete record. Maybe Joseph commented on it and it was never written down, etc. it's not a great answer, but it's all I got at the moment.

[Calm]

I have always thought the practice to be repugnant, both in the Bible and in the Church. I think this is what so many never took part. Reading the Bible you can see that it is a bankrupt institution leading to amped up jealousy and even murder. Abraham turned out Hagar and Ishmael into the desert to die like dogs. Jacob, was at best what every polygamous father is; absent for the most part, allowing unrighteous behavior to run rampant. But, we do know that God has allowed (Relutantly, and undesired) polygamy at times but as Jacob taught abhors the practice. The question for many is why they are so accepting of this practice among the great patriarchs, but fall apart and lose their way when it comes to Joseph!

Abraham, if the scriptures are to be believed, did not in the least think they would die like dogs but fare very well...at least eventually as he was promised by the Lord:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2021&version=NRSV

Any mistreatment of Hagar and Ishmael seems to me to stem primarily from the institution of slavery and the view of Hagar as a second class citizen even before she is seen as a surrogate mother for Sarah's child, who then because Ishmael is a child of a slave apparently has the right to dump him..

And I don't see Jacob as any more an absentee father than a dad who sends his kids off to college and sends a younger brother to visit. They were apparently all grown men and up to earning their own keep, even Joseph had to be in his teens and likely late. Otoh, the favouritism was an issue but that could have taken place just as easy in a monogamous home. It did in my grandpa's home and there were only two sons from one wife (no attempted murder, but my grandfather never was told by his dad he was loved or shown physical affection, while the other son was...or so it was reported by my grandmother, Grandpa never talked about it).

Not saying that polygyny in the Bible caused no problems, just that the particular ones pointed out here weren't really them (competition among the wives as repeated in most stories about them seems rampant, but then a man had the right to put aside a wife that was barren and a woman would be socially and financially destitute with no child to care for her).

Edited August 17, 2015 by calmoriah