Joseph Smith's Polyandry?

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

In the field where I work, there is something called the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve. You can set your standards for accepting "evidence" at any point along the curve, but as you become looser and looser in the amount of data you will accept, you begin to see more and more clutter, also referred to as "false alerts."

The first thing I am looking at is whether or not there were children.

That's a mistake and may explain a lot.

No children definitely does not mean no sex.  We have direct testimony from women who were married to Joseph and writings from other members.  That should hold a lot more weight than whether or not there were children.  Read what JLHPROF wrote a few posts up regarding this.

Edited June 22, 2016 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Meg Stout said:

In the field where I work, there is something called the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve. You can set your standards for accepting "evidence" at any point along the curve, but as you become looser and looser in the amount of data you will accept, you begin to see more and more clutter, also referred to as "false alerts."

The first thing I am looking at is whether or not there were children. Fawn Brodie and others set the standard as "If I can find any information that supports the possibility of a child born to a woman I think might have been Joseph's wife, then I'll list the kid."

I set the standard as "Is there physical evidence or reasonable likelihood that the child was conceived when the woman says she had covenanted with Joseph and he was still living." So far, it appears that there were no children produced by Joseph's activities with his plural wives.

The second thing I'm looking at is the credibility of the reports that Joseph engaged in sex with the women. I don't question that he was alone with them. Emily's statements in 1894 are clear that she was saying she had engaged in carnal intercourse with Joseph after she married him and that she was unwilling to state intercourse had occurred only one time. While this seems quite solid, I point out that Emily had a motivation to ensure that the court believed she'd been intimate with Joseph. It doesn't mean that she did lie, but it suggests that her testimony should be qualified. That said, there is every reason to think that Joseph would have felt it was appropriate to consummate his union with Emily Partridge, as Emma had agreed with the union and we have evidence of other men consummating their relationships with plural wives in May 1843 (Joseph B. Noble, William Clayton, possibly Heber C. Kimball). We don't have difinite statements on this from Eliza Partridge, but one can suppose that had she lived to testify in 1894, she might have said the kind of things we see Emily say. On the other hand, Sarah Lawrence claimed that there was no intimacy involved in her covenant with Joseph Smith, an assertion that made many people rather upset with her. Sarah Lawrence's suggestion that there was no sexual intimacy involved in her covenant with Joseph suggests that we cannot simply extend Emily's testimony to suggest that other single girls in mid 1843 consummated their unions with Joseph.

The other instance that I am inclined to include is the report that Malissa Lott consummated the union with Joseph. Malissa testified to this in general terms. The intriguing source of the details for this is an RLDS apostate who was attempting to destroy the RLDS Church, so the motivation of the source combines with the late date to permit a certain level of skepticism. However details mentioned by the RLDS apostate are correct (e.g., that the children's bedroom was adjacent to the room where Emma and Joseph slept). Malissa also makes sense as a wife Joseph would seek to bear a child with, as her father was in a position to protect her.

Because Louisa Beaman had so many years to conceive, had she been intimate with Joseph, and because she subsequently proved to be so very fertile when united with Brigham Young, I downgrade the likelihood that Joseph engaged in intimacy with Louisa, despite what her brother-in-law reported.

Looking at Emma Hale, we see an instance where Joseph apparently refrained from consummating the marriage on the wedding night. Emma married Joseph in January, but would not conceive until September. Joseph had been told, after Alvin died, that there was another person who was to accompany him to retrieve the golden plates. Apparently that person was Emma. So while Joseph was intent on securing her as wife, he may not have wanted her to be either pregnant or newly delivered of a child when it came time to attempt to retrieve the plates. So in Joseph's history we see evidence that suggests Joseph was not in the habit of automatically consummating a marriage as soon as ceremony made the interaction acceptable.

The standard approach for many commenting on this is "wife means wife which means sex." Also, few if any of those commenting are acknowledging the illicit intercourse heresy that Joseph and Emma were combatting in 1842, which would have significantly reduced the likelihood that Joseph and Emma would have been willing to risk allowing the activities of righteous men and their plural wives to be confused with the gross iniquity that had pervaded Nauvoo in 1841-1842.

My standard for proclaiming someone a conjugal wife of Joseph Smith is simply more restrictive that the standard others are happy to use.

So, to summarize:

1. You believe that, if no child was born to a specific union, there was no sexual component.

2. Emily Partridge wasn't being entirely truthful when she said she had slept with Joseph, been in bed with him, roomed with him, and had carnal intercourse.

3. Malissa Lott was being "general" when she said she had roomed and cohabited with Joseph as his wife "in very deed" and when she explained why she hadn't borne children to Joseph: "Through no fault of either of us, lack of proper conditions on my part probably, or it might be in the wisdom of the Almighty that we should have none."

4. Louisa Beaman's lack of conception means she was not intimate with Joseph but spent the night in bed with him doing something else. This of course assumes that the alternative is that she and Joseph were regularly intimate (an assumption I don't think anyone has made and that the historical record doesn't support).

5. Emma didn't conceive immediately upon marrying Joseph Smith, so they must not have had sex until after they had been married for several months. 

Yes, indeed, your standards are "more restrictive." Yikes.

[jkwilliams]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's a mistake and may explain a lot.

No children definitely does not mean no sex.  We have direct testimony from women who were married to Joseph and writings from other members.  That should hold a lot more weight than whether or not there were children.  Read what JLHPROF wrote a few posts up regarding this.

Correct. Again, the question that I haven't seen answered is why Meg needs to discount the testimony of those involved. It makes no sense to me.

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, juliann said:

You haven't read accounts if you don't acknowledge classes of wives. The first wife was often considered to deserve more even by the additional wives. The worst was when there were favorites, usually the newest or youngest. One of the reasons I don't care much for BY is his choosing of favorites at the expense of the others, to the point the neglected wives enjoyed watching the come down of the current favorite when the next took her place.

Whatever JS was trying to do, it was done badly and with a sick system. I think he tried to manage the anti-woman nature of polygamy by also allowing polyandry. But BY then institutionalized the worst parts of it while restricting women's choices while expanding men's.

There has been a strain of scholarship that has used sex to prop up JS's character, making it dependent on him not having relations with married women even as he was having sex with.multiple unmarried women. It is contorted thinking and downright strange, in my opinion.  And it will blow up in their faces because the investigation is just beginning to move away from the older narrow thinking. (And in this I applaud Meg though I wish she had something based on more respectful treatment of women and the evidence.)

With all of the women's records just now going digital, it is foolish to be drawing lines in the sand. We haven't begun to understand what happened and what we do know almost always comes from the men rather than the women who were the vast majority of the polygamists. The denial brings up images of those who mocked the idea that others could have come to the American continent by other means than the land bridge. Or those who draw lines in the sand with BOM evidences...if it isn't in front of their faces right now it doesn't exist and will never be found to.

I am well aware that classes of wives did exist.
But there is nothing theological written on that.  That was mortal men trying to create a mortal system by which they could live a heavenly law.
The scriptures and even the teachings of the prophets did not encourage men to rank their wives.
Perhaps it was a misconception that came from Sarah/Hagar or Jacob's two wives and their handmaidens.

Edited June 22, 2016 by JLHPROF

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

Correct. Again, the question that I haven't seen answered is why Meg needs to discount the testimony of those involved.

Except to claim that they were all lying and that's insulting and absurd.

[Meg Stout]

Hi ALarson,

Obviously not every sexual interaction produces a child.

We have testimony produced under a variety of conditions, some of which is from individuals who are providing at best second hand evidence. In the cases where the accounts are first hand, the language at times falls short of asserting actual sex occurred. Even for those times when the language is fairly solid, the person giving the account had motivations.

You are misreading what I wrote. I am saying that indicator #1 would be "child was produced."

None of Joseph's plural wives produced a child that can be confidently attributed to Joseph Smith. In the case of all the DNA analyses, the child in question has been proven to not be the child of Joseph Smith.

There are other indicators, and some of these are persuasive. However they are not positive indications that sex necessarily occurred. In each case where the woman involved indicated unmistakeable that sex had occurred, the woman was not married to anyone else and the interaction occurred during a time when Emma was supportive of plural marriage being practiced. We also see that other men married to plural wives engender children at these times (May 1843, after December 1843).

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

In each case where the woman involved indicated unmistakeable that sex had occurred, the woman was not married to anyone else and the interaction occurred during a time when Emma was supportive of plural marriage being practiced. 

Not correct. Emily Partridge says that she slept with, roomed with, and had carnal intercourse with Joseph after the first marriage, which means this happened without Emma's knowledge and consent. 

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

Hi ALarson,

Obviously not every sexual interaction produces a child.

We have testimony produced under a variety of conditions, some of which is from individuals who are providing at best second hand evidence. In the cases where the accounts are first hand, the language at times falls short of asserting actual sex occurred. Even for those times when the language is fairly solid, the person giving the account had motivations.

So, they were lying?  This gets tiring 

I should have stuck to not engaging with you and I'll go back to that after this post.

I just cannot even follow most of your insane reasoning as to why you've come up with the theories and fiction you've come up with for your conclusions.  It's a shame too (your faulty reasoning) because you seem to have spent a great deal of time on this topic reading and writing.  I do implore you to open your mind and listen to many on here who are extremely well read and knowledgeable on this topic.  

Please, quit taking things personally and just read and learn.

.

Edited June 22, 2016 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ALarson said:

So, they were lying?  This gets tiring 

I should have stuck to not engaging with you and I'll go back to that after this post.

I just cannot even follow most of your insane reasoning as to why you've come up with the theories and fiction you've come up for you conclusions.  It's a shame too (your faulty reasoning) because you seem to have spent a great deal of time on this topic reading and writing.  I do implore you to open your mind and listen to many on here who are extremely well read and knowledgeable on this topic.  

Quit taking things personally and just read and learn.

This thread shows the selective nature of the use of sources. The women who testified under oath (and whose testimony is corroborated) are either lying or misremembering, but a late statement by Sarah Lawrence that she was not married to Joseph Smith is taken as evidence that her relationship with him was not consummated.

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

This thread shows the selective nature of the use of sources. The women who testified under oath (and whose testimony is corroborated) are either lying or misremembering, but a late statement by Sarah Lawrence that she was not married to Joseph Smith is taken as evidence that her relationship with him was not consummated.

Yup.  And Meg also uses The Nauvoo Expositor as a source when it's needed to support one of her theories regarding the  "Bennett and his Strikers" sex ring.  But then of course it only contains vicious lies about Joseph.  I've rarely seen such selective use of sources.  

 

[Meg Stout]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

[If] every plural marriage was consummated on the wedding night we still have to account for several unpleasant facts.  To list a few I can think of: 1) Joseph had sex with minors.  2) He also had sex with (and was married to) women who were already married and remained married (and apparently sexually active.) 3) Out of the "upwards of 30" women he had sex with none bore a child despite the his own teaching that one primary purpose of plural marriage was to raise up a righteous posterity...  

I can't speak for Meg, (and I'm not just here defending her) but I believe that there are many different ways to reconcile 1, 2, and 3.  Meg's explanation is admittedly unlikely... I don't see anywhere where her current theory (as put forward in her book) directly contradicts the available historical evidence.  Again, I don't personally believe her explanation to be correct.  I don't find any compelling reason to accept it as factual.  At the same time, I find it more likely (given current historical evidence) than say Fawn Brodie's explanations.  

Hi kllindley,

If this is what you intended to write, I am heartened: "I don't see anywhere where her current theory (as put forward in her book) directly contradicts the available historical evidence."

I'm mainly trying to point out that there was a nasty sexual heresy in Nauvoo from 1841-1842 that explains why Joseph reached out to so very many women and subsequent secrecy was informed by trying to prevent the sexual heresy from gaining a foothold in Mormon society, as well as protecting the reputations of those who had repented. In light of the sexual heresy, I propose that Joseph's covenants with women other than Emma were rarely consummated (though they might have been had Joseph not been killed).

Given that Joseph had reached out to covenant with so very many individuals, combined with the threats Brigham was left to deal with, plural marriage became much more prevalent that is appropriate under normal circumstances. This eventually made it difficult to end plural marriage. It took the removal of three junior apostles to halt the immediate internal threat, but John and Lorin Woolley took it upon themselves to continue the practice in the face of being excommunicated from the Church.

Given that you say "I don't personally believe her explanation to be correct," could you clarify which of the phrases or sentences in the above concise summary you find to be wrong?

Thanks!

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

The conversation about the sealing was between Heber C. Kimball and Sylvia concerning the sealing. Heber then met the four children. Phebe does not say what Heber talked with them about, just that he met them. The upshot is that he advised Sylvia to remain in Utah so the children could "receive the teachings of the gospel without conflicting opinions."

As I have noted, the first time Phebe notes a time frame for the sealing is when she and Josephine were called jointly to Sylvia's bedside just before her death to reveal the information that Josephine was Joseph's daughter. Also I have noted where previous to that communication Phebe seemed to be under the impression that she and her Clark siblings were the only ones that been born under that sealing covenant.

It can certainly be read that way. And, as I have also noted, the circumstances in Nauvoo at the time (which have not been addressed by those who hold different opinions) make that a rational and plausible interpretation of the data.

Glenn

I agree that there is enough ambiguity for your reading, though I think the multiple references and theway they are put together by here makes my reading more likely.  And I think that may be all I will say on the board for a number of hours so please don'tfeel obliged to respond.

[Meg Stout]

4 hours ago, JulieM said:

If you no longer believe in your meat theory, what do you now believe Emily meant by her testinony under oath?  

Here are the questions asked of Emily and her answers:

"Q. Had you roomed with him prior to … the night after you were married the last time?

A. No sir, not roomed with him.

Q. Well had you slept with him?

A. Yes sir.

Q. [Had you] slept with him … before the fourth of March 1843 [their marriage date]?

A. No sir. …

Q. Did you ever live with Joseph Smith after you were married to him after that first night that you roomed together?

A. No sir. Emma knew that we were married to him, but she never allowed us to live with him. . . .

Q. Do you make the declaration now that you ever roomed with him at any time?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Do you make the declaration that you ever slept with him in the same bed?

A. Yes sir.

Q. How many nights?

A. One.

Q. Only one night.

A. Yes sir.

Q. Then you only slept with him in the same bed one night?

A. No sir.

Q. Did you ever have carnal intercourse with Joseph Smith?

A. Yes sir.

Q. How many nights?

A. I could not tell you.

Q. Do you make the declaration that you ever slept with him but one night?

A. Yes sir.

Q. And that was the only time and place that you ever were in bed with him?

A. No sir.

Q. Were you in bed with him at any time before . . . you were married?

A. No sir, not before I was married to him. I never was."

I think Emily meant to convey that she had carnal intercourse (sex) with Joseph after they were married. From this set of answers, it is not clear if she meant to say that she had sex with Joseph after the March ceremony or the May ceremony.

I have proposed that the second set of ceremonies was to signal to a larger group that Emma agreed with the practice of plural marriage, a small group but including individuals such as James Whitehead. I don't think it follows that the first marriages involving Emily and Eliza were necessarily conducted without Emma's knowledge and approval. From Emily's later account, she and Joseph went their separate ways on the night of the March ceremony, so even if the first marriage was followed by sexual relations, sex apparently didn't happen the first night.

Edited June 22, 2016 by Meg Stout

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

I'm mainly trying to point out that there was a nasty sexual heresy in Nauvoo from 1841-1842

Yes, there was.  All historians recognize the Bennett and Foster and Hillis passing off "spiritual wifery" was approved by Joseph when he certainly did not.

Quote

 that explains why Joseph reached out to so very many women and subsequent secrecy was informed by trying to prevent the sexual heresy from gaining a foothold in Mormon society, as well as protecting the reputations of those who had repented. In light of the sexual heresy, I propose that Joseph's covenants with women other than Emma were rarely consummated (though they might have been had Joseph not been killed).

And here begin the leaps of theory without historical evidence.
You imply here that the only or at least a primary reason for Joseph's marriages were to protect women from being caught up in the Bennett snare.  You appear to imply that Joseph covenanted with these women to protect them, allow them to repent, and had no intention of having relationships with them.
This is just not true and insults these women AND Joseph thoroughly.

Quote

Given that Joseph had reached out to covenant with so very many individuals, combined with the threats Brigham was left to deal with, plural marriage became much more prevalent that is appropriate under normal circumstances.

Utter hogwash. This idea that Brigham expanded something that Joseph never intended is without historical merit.

Quote

This eventually made it difficult to end plural marriage. It took the removal of three junior apostles to halt the immediate internal threat, but John and Lorin Woolley took it upon themselves to continue the practice in the face of being excommunicated from the Church.

Again, utter hogwash.  You know your history, but your suppositions do not match the history.

Edited June 22, 2016 by JLHPROF

[kllindley]

23 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

1. You believe that, if no child was born to a specific union, there was no sexual component.

2. Emily Partridge wasn't being entirely truthful when she said she had slept with Joseph, been in bed with him, roomed with him, and had carnal intercourse.

3. Malissa Lott was being "general" when she said she had roomed and cohabited with Joseph as his wife "in very deed" and when she explained why she hadn't borne children to Joseph: "Through no fault of either of us, lack of proper conditions on my part probably, or it might be in the wisdom of the Almighty that we should have none."

4. Louisa Beaman's lack of conception means she was not intimate with Joseph but spent the night in bed with him doing something else. This of course assumes that the alternative is that she and Joseph were regularly intimate (an assumption I don't think anyone has made and that the historical record doesn't support).

5. Emma didn't conceive immediately upon marrying Joseph Smith, so they must not have had sex until after they had been married for several months. 

Yes, indeed, your standards are "more restrictive." Yikes.

Again, from someone who doesn't even subscribe to Meg's theory, this is either deliberate misrepresentation or just really, really poor reading comprehension.  1) She believes that unless a child was born to a specific union it remains possible that there was no sexual component in at least some of those relationships.  2, 3, 4) Yes, that is one possibility.  Meg believes that she may have been inspired or even directly told to misrepresent the nature of the relationship.  Everyone has to believe that at least some historical testimony about Nauvoo Polygamy is false.  This explanation would appear to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.  Except Bennet and William Smith.  5) 9 months.  the only consecutive 9 months after marriage when Emma isn't pregnant or nursing.  And  Meg says "may," evidence suggests" not "must."

 

 

16 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Again, from someone who doesn't even subscribe to Meg's theory, this is either deliberate misrepresentation or just really, really poor reading comprehension.  1) She believes that unless a child was born to a specific union it remains possible that there was no sexual component in at least some of those relationships.  2, 3, 4) Yes, that is one possibility.  Meg believes that she may have been inspired or even directly told to misrepresent the nature of the relationship.  Everyone has to believe that at least some historical testimony about Nauvoo Polygamy is false.  This explanation would appear to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.  Except Bennet and William Smith.  5) 9 months.  the only consecutive 9 months after marriage when Emma isn't pregnant or nursing.  And  Meg says "may," evidence suggests" not "must."

It's not "may" when she uses words such as "likely wasn't consummated." ¡Dame un descanso, por favor!

[stemelbow]

15 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

Hi kllindley,

If this is what you intended to write, I am heartened: "I don't see anywhere where her current theory (as put forward in her book) directly contradicts the available historical evidence."

I'm mainly trying to point out that there was a nasty sexual heresy in Nauvoo from 1841-1842 that explains why Joseph reached out to so very many women and subsequent secrecy was informed by trying to prevent the sexual heresy from gaining a foothold in Mormon society, as well as protecting the reputations of those who had repented. In light of the sexual heresy, I propose that Joseph's covenants with women other than Emma were rarely consummated (though they might have been had Joseph not been killed).

I'm confused what your point is if you acknowledge that Joseph rarely consummated some of the marriages.  Is that it?  Joseph didn't consummate them regularly so he's not that bad?  His wasn't the sexual heresy problem?  Is yoru larger concern about women who were married to other men sleeping with more than one man?  Joseph would be granted a pass? 

 

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

So the no children when he maybe had relations once or twice with only some plural wives and not at the correct time of the month statistically presents very little challenge to whether these marriages were consummated.  Given the situations, the odds were against a child, not for.

Except that the prevailing narrative is that Joseph was implementing a system specifically for the purpose of producing children.  Even if we were just talking about sex, would you really give that advice to a teenage boy?  "Don't worry about condoms or oral contraceptives.  You can have sex with up to 30 different women over the course of several years and the odds are you won't end up knocking a girl up."   

 

I appreciate that you admit that it is possible that not all of Joseph's marriages were consummated. This is what I believe as well, I also believe many were.  

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Meg Stout said:

Because you are staunchly positioned in the camp of the majority opinions, you feel confident casting unspecific aspersions at my work. 

 

It would help your critique of us if most of those responding here to your work in a critical fashion actually were so positioned, but this isn't so from what I have read of their posts elsewhere on this subject and others as well as knowledge of my own position, which is pretty much limited to plural marriage was a revelation and how, what and why everything else happened still hasn't been settled due to the lack of materials and the ambiguity of what we have though there are lots of possibilities, some much more likely though then others.

Again this critique demonstrates to me your consistent methodology of allowing your bias to interpret what you read beyond an appropriate level and then jumping to faulty conclusions based on that.  If this is happening here very consistently in your posts and happened in your blog very consistently imo, what reason can you give me that it is not likely to be happening in your book?  Have you changed your opinion on any substantive matter from what you wrote in the blog?

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

It would help your critique of us if most of those responding here to your work in a critical fashion actually were so positioned, but this isn't so from what I have read of their posts elsewhere on this subject and others as well as knowledge of my own position, which is pretty much limited to plural marriage was a revelation and how, what and why everything else happened still hasn't been settled due to the lack of materials and the ambiguity of what we have though there are lots of possibilities, some much more likely though then others.

Again this critique demonstrates to me your consistent methodology of allowing your bias to interpret what you read beyond an appropriate level and then jumping to faulty conclusions based on that.  If this is happening here very consistently in your posts and happened in your blog very consistently imo, what reason can you give me that it is not likely to be happening in your book?  Have you changed your opinion on any substantive matter from what you wrote in the blog?

It doesn't occur to her that other people have read the primary sources and reached their own conclusions, or that they have read through her material and found it unpersuasive. Rather than try to persuade others that she's right, she simply dismisses them as being biased in favor of "the majority opinions." 

[kllindley]

19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Utter hogwash. This idea that Brigham expanded something that Joseph never intended is without historical merit.

Do I read you correctly when you say that there is no historical merit to suggesting that Brigham Young expanded things that Joseph never intended?    

[Calm]

6 hours ago, JulieM said:

That's not correct.  Phebe stated that her Mother "had spoken often of her 'special sealing' to the Prophet Joseph Smith".

Do you really believe this means that Sylvia spoke often about the sealing on her deathbed?

I believe Glenn means that Phebe might not have known the date and thus did not know that Josephine was born after the sealing until the deathbed conversation.

[ALarson]

24 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, there was.  All historians recognize the Bennett and Foster and Hillis passing off "spiritual wifery" was approved by Joseph when he certainly did not.

And here begin the leaps of theory without historical evidence.
You imply here that the only or at least a primary reason for Joseph's marriages were to protect women from being caught up in the Bennett snare.  You appear to imply that Joseph covenanted with these women to protect them, allow them to repent, and had no intention of having relationships with them.
This is just not true and insults these women AND Joseph thoroughly.

Utter hogwash. This idea that Brigham expanded something that Joseph never intended is without historical merit.

Again, utter hogwash.  You know your history, but your suppositions do not match the history.

I'm out of rep points or I would have given you 20 for this post if I could!!!  

So, I'm just quoting you....

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

Do I read you correctly when you say that there is no historical merit to suggesting that Brigham Young expanded things that Joseph never intended?   

Correct.
Joseph had no more loyal follower than Brigham. 
If by expanded you mean systemized and made more widespread of course he did that.  Church population grew, so did the application of Joseph's teachings by Brigham.
If by expanded you mean took doctrines in directions Joseph never would have I completely disagree.  Brigham understood Joseph's teachings and was unfalteringly loyal to maintaining them.

[juliann]

51 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I am well aware that classes of wives did exist.
But there is nothing theological written on that.  That was mortal men trying to create a mortal system by which they could live a heavenly law.
The scriptures and even the teachings of the prophets did not encourage men to rank their wives.
Perhaps it was a misconception that came from Sarah/Hagar or Jacob's two wives and their handmaidens.

Misconception? There is nothing more theological than Sarah and Hagar! That is the story of polygamy (although "handmaiden" is overly generous, they were slaves.) Our theology is rooted in the Abraham narratives. And it was the prophets who did "rank" their wives, aka, showing blatant favoritism. Are you really unfamiliar with BY's two sequential favorites and the devastating effect it had on the others? He didn't even try to hide it. That they didn't teach what they practiced means there isn't much heaven in this. ut

But I fear this is a derail so we can simply agree to disagree.