Joseph Smith's Polyandry?

[Jeanne]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yep. Whether we like it or not, we must deal with Joseph Smith as he was, not as we wish him to be. When we put someone on a pedestal like that, we are destined to be disappointed.

Oh...welcome to my world  When I reactivated I put this man on such a high pedestal that it was crushing! 

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I very clearly did not say anyone on this thread was talking about child molestation or adultery.  That is disingenuous.  I answered why anyone would want to believe Meg's explanation.  The answer I gave is that there are many people who do claim those things.  And regarding Emma's knowledge and consent, I do believe that consummation matters at least a little bit.  I can understand Joseph justifying not telling her as long as he didn't intend (at that time) on consummating the relationship.  That is still a sin in my eyes, but one I can live with more easily than having sex behind her back.   

I was not trying to be disingenuous, so sorry for misreading you. If we accept what the Partridge sisters and Benjamin Johnson tell us, it's clear that marriages were consummated without Emma's knowledge or consent. I think this is why there is such a desperation to deny that talk about sleeping with, rooming with, being in bed with, and engaging in carnal intercourse means sex.

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

Hi stemelbow,

As I consider the data, I find reasons to suspect Joseph rarely consummated his covenants with women other than Emma Hale, and the times that he did apparently consummate the marriages were when the woman involved in the covenant was not married to someone else and at times when Emma approved.

Well thanks for the response.  This is really tenuous stuff if you ask me.  Trying to find evidence that Emma approved of sex with other women seems difficult--an impossible standard to meet.  Trying to find evidence of sex between two people from that long ago is difficult or another near impossible standard.  But, then again, no one here seems to argue he surely had sex with all women he was sealed to either. 

 

11 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

I don't believe Joseph was the source of the sexual heresy, though things Joseph did or said would lead the seducers to claim in the fall of 1841 that Joseph did teach spiritual wifery, a claim William Smith and others would use to coerce women to participate in illicit intercourse.

With the exception of Esther Dutcher [Smith], the women who were married to faithful Mormon men simply failed to conceive children during the duration of their simultaneous covenant with Joseph. In every case where we have been able to evaluate the claim that Joseph produced the children born to married women, the DNA proves that Joseph Smith was not the biological father.  While some persist in arguing that Joseph had sex with married women, the data does not support that this occurred.

But why does that matter?  He might have had sex with them and we wouldn't know.  If we find record of the women or Joseph saying they did have sex are we to treat such records with skepticism because we don't want to think Joseph had sex with any of them?  It feels like that's what you've done, and I'm guessing that's why you're getting such a push back here.  If he had sex with one of his wives other than Emma, he could have had sex with others.  We simply wouldn't know.  But it's too tenuous to argue too strongly either way, if you ask me. 

 

11 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

Proponents of a Joseph who engaged in polyandrous relations point out that lack of children doesn't prove lack of sex. Folks like me point out that lack of children is also consistent with the possibility that there was not polyandrous sex in Joseph's covenants with married women. The DNA for Joseph Albert Smith (Esther Dutcher's 1844 son) has not been evaluated. However in the case of Esther Dutcher [Smith], it appears that she had been propositioned by the heretical seducers in the spring of 1842.

Ok.  Fine.  If all you are really after is to say it's possible Joseph didn't have sex with them, then so be it.  But that also requires that you acknowledge the possibility he did have sex with them. 

11 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

I'm not sure what you mean "Joseph would be granted a pass." Joseph had been commanded to restore the principle that plural marriage was permissible. He did this. Some opine that Joseph engaged in sexual relations with young teens (Helen Mar, Nancy Winchester) and married women (Sylvia Lyons, Presendia Buell, Zina Huntington, Mary Elizabeth Lightner). However the only support for such aberrant sexual relations is the inference that all marriages were consummated and in some cases verbal statements that could be interpreted in several ways.

I personally grant that Joseph might not have had sex with some of his wives.  BUt I readily acknowledge that the women who claimed to have slept with him, most likely did.  I grant they still might not have, but it'd be silly to argue with their claim without good reason. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Jeanne said:

Oh...welcome to my world  When I reactivated I put this man on such a high pedestal that it was crushing! 

Many years ago I read Fawn Brodie's book and thought her version of Joseph as charlatan was a bit of a caricature, but then so is the squeaky clean version I was taught growing up in the church. I figured that the truth was probably somewhere in the middle, and that opinion hasn't changed.

[Glenn101]

7 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?

Julie, maybe I did not explain that clearly. I said that the first time Phebe says anything about a time frame, i.e. anything about Sylvia giving a time frame is when she and Josephine were summoned to Sylvia's death bed. 

Glenn

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Rain said:

I really don't know enough about what is written to make any calls on this,  but I remember reading back in college in one of my marriage and family therapy classes (and no, I can't give a reference at this point) that this happens more often than one might assume. Even today there are couples who choose not to for various reasons.  So I'm not going to make assumptions, in either direction, on Joseph and Louisa based just on that they shared a bed.

Why do you all keep pulling me back!?!

Rain, my memory from my own psych class discussions and elsewhere is that lack of consummation is not generally intended, but a result of being unable to follow through for either psychological or physical reasons.  Is this your impression or had the data been upgraded since mycollege days (70s,early 80s).  There will undoubtedly be some who choose not to even for emotionally healthy reasons...not wanting to use birth control, but believing it unwise to get pregnant, but my understanding is this type of choice is usually rare, more likely to put off getting married instead.

I think the additional input from wives that they did have sex in their relations without any discussion of delay would lean the evidence away from lack of consummation when married, at least in most cases.  But given the lack of details with many, possibilities are still very open and solid conclusions that are then used to develop theories promoted as close to airtight, if not airtight, should not be made.

I think people should be putting theory making on hold until the digitizing Juliann was speaking of is done.  This is a great new opportunity and if people step into the theory stage too early, they may too heavily bias their interpretation filters.

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

Many years ago I read Fawn Brodie's book and thought her version of Joseph as charlatan was a bit of a caricature, but then so is the squeaky clean version I was taught growing up in the church. I figured that the truth was probably somewhere in the middle, and that opinion hasn't changed.

I am happy for you that you are able to hold such middle ground.  I read Brodie's book.Bushman and all this after I was so convinced of his goodness.  My mistake I believe was thinking that God would not have a fallen man as a prophet.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Jeanne said:

I am happy for you that you are able to hold such middle ground.  I read Brodie's book.Bushman and all this after I was so convinced of his goodness.  My mistake I believe was thinking that God would not have a fallen man as a prophet.

I believe it was either Wilford Woodruff or Lorenzo Snow who said he was glad he saw Joseph's faults because seeing how great a work God did through a flawed man gave him hope for himself. I think that's the right attitude to have with church leaders.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Julie, maybe I did not explain that clearly. I said that the first time Phebe says anything about a time frame, i.e. anything about Sylvia giving a time frame is when she and Josephine were summoned to Sylvia's death bed. 

Glenn

Which means what exactly?  Time frame for the sealing to have occurred?  So that Phebe and perhaps other of the children knew of the sealing, but not when it took place and therefore they all could have assumed it took place after May 1843 when Josephine would have been likely conceived until Sylvia clarified on her deathbed?

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, kllindley said:

 

Exactly!  That is why I am so confused.  Meg looks at the data and presents a possible explanation, one that does not contradict historical fact.  And people come unglued.  The sarcasm, eye-rolling emojis, and attacks on her character and intelligence. 

And Exactly!  That is why Meg is so quick to admit that it is very possible that he did have sex.  The assumption that he didn't have sex with his plural wives is not necessary to her overall explanation.  In order to accept that Joseph "may" not have had sex with a 14 year old or before Emma knew about things we at least have to accept that some of the plural marriages were not consummated immediately.  Nothing more.  

Well good.  I was reading her book she linked to for us and I didn't see the same type of message, necessarily, that I'm seeing from her here.  But I didn't read it all.  It looks good on the face of it.  and I'm happy if that is the case.  The problem seems to be not that she is leaving it at it's possible they didn't have sex, but it seems she arguing against the opposite position with next to nothing, while dismissing the only evidence we could possibly have--the actual women's voices. 

[Meg Stout]

13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Then why do you insult people for being "neurologically typical, which means you are more strongly influenced by the prevailing theories expressed by your peers than by data" or assume that people are offended because of some ancestor they think you're insulting? My problem with your stuff is that it is selective with sources and takes unfounded leaps from one assumption to the next, as long as it fits the narrative. That most people here see that does not mean they are being unfair or attacking you personally.

It isn't an insult (being neurologically typical). It is a feature. It is simply a feature that comes with certain strengths, one of which is being more strongly persuaded by peer pressure than not. This is an important factor in how people become civilized. But sometimes when an incorrect belief (e.g., the world is flat) is held by the majority, being neurologically typical can interfere with accepting a new but true characterization of reality.

Perhaps no one here is insulted on behalf of a particular ancestor. In correspondence from 2014 I was made aware that my suggestion that Vinson Knight was the Brother Knight who had gone to loose conduct was very upsetting to someone who is his descendant. Similarly, I was told that it was beyond the pall for me to tarnish the good name of Emily Partridge by suggesting that her 1894 testimony was in any way less than entirely truthful. As I've said here, I'm inclined to believe she was telling truth about having sexual intercourse with Joseph following their marriage, though it represents a late recollection that was produced under strong motivation. I still feel her statements over the years indicate that she never understood that spiritual wifery and plural marriage weren't the same thing. I know of at least one scholar who vehemently disagrees with my analysis of Eliza Snow's poetry, but this is based on their regard for Eliza rather than by assessing where I have erred in my analysis.

You keep quoting from my early 2013/2014 blog posts, which I have said were not representative of where I ended up. Please stop doing so.

Also, you characterized me as only responding to one of the 25 questions you had about my posts, but you didn't clarify that it was that you only felt one of my responses met your criteria for documentary evidence. I attempted to answer the others (and have re-answered them on your blog today again). I tried to post those answers here, but apparently there is some rule that prohibits copying more than a certain number of characters into these windows.

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I believe it was either Wilford Woodruff or Lorenzo Snow who said he was glad he saw Joseph's faults because seeing how great a work God did through a flawed man gave him hope for himself. I think that's the right attitude to have with church leaders.

I like that too..but some of us would have been hung out to dry if we did some of the things JS did. 

[Glenn101]

6 hours ago, ALarson said:

You can't seriously believe that Sylvia's children did not know they were sealed for eternity to Joseph (we have statements from one of them stating that Sylvia spoke of her "special sealing" to the Prophet Joseph Smith "often"). Do you think Sylvia would have led them to believe they were sealed to Heber C. Kimball for eternity?  I'm pretty appalled at how much dishonesty and deceit you're accusing Sylvia of being involved in.  

.

Al,

   I am beginning to understand things a bit better. Go back and read my posts up to this point. Read the reference link also. Sylvia had a conversation with Heber C. Kimball about her "special sealing" to Joseph Smith. I said nothing about the children being sealed to Heber C. Kimball. I intimated nothing about it. The Clark children believed that they were born under the covenant of that sealing and thus were the spiritual children of Joseph Smith. What I was noting was that the conversation concerning the sealing of Sylvia to Joseph Smith took place between Sylvia and Heber. She was seeking advice on whether to remain in Utah or return to Iowa. Phebe said that Heber then met the children. The resulting advice from Heber was for her to remain in Utah,

Glenn

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

It isn't an insult (being neurologically typical). It is a feature. It is simply a feature that comes with certain strengths, one of which is being more strongly persuaded by peer pressure than not. This is an important factor in how people become civilized. But sometimes when an incorrect belief (e.g., the world is flat) is held by the majority, being neurologically typical can interfere with accepting a new but true characterization of reality.

Perhaps no one here is insulted on behalf of a particular ancestor. In correspondence from 2014 I was made aware that my suggestion that Vinson Knight was the Brother Knight who had gone to loose conduct was very upsetting to someone who is his descendant. Similarly, I was told that it was beyond the pall for me to tarnish the good name of Emily Partridge by suggesting that her 1894 testimony was in any way less than entirely truthful. As I've said here, I'm inclined to believe she was telling truth about having sexual intercourse with Joseph following their marriage, though it represents a late recollection that was produced under strong motivation. I still feel her statements over the years indicate that she never understood that spiritual wifery and plural marriage weren't the same thing. I know of at least one scholar who vehemently disagrees with my analysis of Eliza Snow's poetry, but this is based on their regard for Eliza rather than by assessing where I have erred in my analysis.

You keep quoting from my early 2013/2014 blog posts, which I have said were not representative of where I ended up. Please stop doing so.

Also, you characterized me as only responding to one of the 25 questions you had about my posts, but you didn't clarify that it was that you only felt one of my responses met your criteria for documentary evidence. I attempted to answer the others (and have re-answered them on your blog today again). I tried to post those answers here, but apparently there is some rule that prohibits copying more than a certain number of characters into these windows.

The insult is in saying that people are just predisposed to accept the majority opinions. As for my blog, I simply asked you for documentary evidence for a list of assertions you made. You provided one documentary source for one assertion, and that was it. Either way, you are still insisting that the marriages were likely not consummated, are you not? Otherwise, there's no need for the painful parsing of the testimony of those involved.

I have read the primary sources for the Bennett scandal, as you obviously have, but I read it much differently than you do. For me, Bennett knew about Joseph's practice of plural marriage and used that to get what he wanted for himself and his friends. In the resulting scandal, Joseph did everything he could to distance himself from Bennett's behavior, but it's interesting that he was much more lenient with those he thought kept his secrets; those who didn't were the ones who were punished more severely. But there's no evidence that the Bennett scandal prompted a wide-ranging investigation to root out the "sex ring," as you put it, let alone that it was this investigation that explains the reasons why Joseph married so many women. It's just not there. That you can't see that is not my problem.

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I like that too..but some of us would have been hung out to dry if we did some of the things JS did. 

Oh, I know. In the end, I just couldn't defend a lot of it anymore.

[Meg Stout]

24 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

How many people actually hang around to watch people in bed together...

According to Matilda Nyman, she did (reported seeing Dr. Bennett and Catherine Fuller having sexual intercourse with one another, to support why she was confident in her statement that Widow Fuller was guilty of "the same.").

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I like that too..but some of us would have been hung out to dry if we did some of the things JS did. 

Oh, I know. In the end, I just couldn't defend a lot of it anymore.

[ttribe]

26 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

How many people actually hang around to watch people in bed together...

LOL!  Every heard of the "Internet"?  It's filled with sites devoted to exactly that.

[kllindley]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

Evidence for this narrative and that it is the prevailing one, please.

Quote

The Lord’s law of marriage is monogamy unless he commands otherwise to help establish the House of Israel (see Encyclopedia of Mormonism Vol. 3, pp. 1091-1095).

Quote

Many Mormons believe that one of the reasons the Lord may have sanctioned polygamy for a time was that it allowed the struggling Latter-day Saints to raise up a "righteous seed" of second- and third-generation Mormons to build the kingdom. Because of polygamy, Mormon families in the nineteenth century were able to obey the Lord's commandment to "be fruitful and multiply," sometimes having two or three times as many children as they may have had with only one child bearer. What's more, polygamy attached women and children to men who had made a strong commitment to the Church, because those men were the most likely to enter into plural marriage.

Quote

Q. Why then did Mormons practice polygamy if the standard law is one man and one woman? A. Although the standard is one man and one woman, the Book of Mormon indicates that the Lord can make an exception to this rule, and if God commands his people, plural marriage can be practiced (Jacob 2:30). This apparently was the case in the Bible, when prophets such as Abraham, Jacob, and Moses had plural wives, and for a brief period of time it was also the case for some Latter-day Saints.  The Book of Mormon hints that part of the purpose of plural marriage is to “raise up seed unto me” (Jacob 2:30) and “to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment” (Doctrine and Covenants 132:63). 

Quote

 

Latter-day Saints do not understand all of God’s purposes in instituting, through His prophets, the practice of plural marriage. The Book of Mormon identifies one reason for God to command it: to increase the number of children born in the gospel covenant in order to “raise up seed unto [the Lord].”³

Plural marriage did result in the birth of large numbers of children within faithful Latter-day Saint homes. 

 

 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Meg Stout said:

According to Matilda Nyman, she did (reported seeing Dr. Bennett and Catherine Fuller having sexual intercourse with one another, to support why she was confident in her statement that Widow Fuller was guilty of "the same.").

Hah.  some of us who happen upon such events don't intend to.  There's probably been a few times in my life if questioned I'd report I've seen certain people so engage. "yep...I saw it...or something at least close to it." 

[JLHPROF]

52 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

I'm not sure what you mean "Joseph would be granted a pass." Joseph had been commanded to restore the principle that plural marriage was permissible. He did this. Some opine that Joseph engaged in sexual relations with young teens (Helen Mar, Nancy Winchester) and married women (Sylvia Lyons, Presendia Buell, Zina Huntington, Mary Elizabeth Lightner). However the only support for such aberrant sexual relations is the inference that all marriages were consummated and in some cases verbal statements that could be interpreted in several ways.

I think I prefer accepting this as historical fact rather than inventing convoluted explanations not found in history.
Joseph did nothing wrong.  What you call aberrant may well be perfectly correct in the eyes of God.  His marriages to "young" teens and his marriages to women with civil marriages  violate no scriptural standard and no commandment of God.  So I will take them as history records them, no other theorizing needed.

Making up "non-consummation" theories is not the best way to explain Joseph's relationships with these women.

[Jeanne]

8 minutes ago, ttribe said:

LOL!  Every heard of the "Internet"?  It's filled with sites devoted to exactly that.

Huh...I gotta get out more..then..maybe not.

[Meg Stout]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The insult is in saying that people are just predisposed to accept the majority opinions. As for my blog, I simply asked you for documentary evidence for a list of assertions you made. You provided one documentary source for one assertion, and that was it. Either way, you are still insisting that the marriages were likely not consummated, are you not? Otherwise, there's no need for the painful parsing of the testimony of those involved.

I have read the primary sources for the Bennett scandal, as you obviously have, but I read it much differently than you do. For me, Bennett knew about Joseph's practice of plural marriage and used that to get what he wanted for himself and his friends. In the resulting scandal, Joseph did everything he could to distance himself from Bennett's behavior, but it's interesting that he was much more lenient with those he thought kept his secrets; those who didn't were the ones who were punished more severely. But there's no evidence that the Bennett scandal prompted a wide-ranging investigation to root out the "sex ring," as you put it, let alone that it was this investigation that explains the reasons why Joseph married so many women. It's just not there. That you can't see that is not my problem.

Hi John,

To repeat, I responded to all your questions (and did so again today). You are the one who decided that only one source met your standards for documentary evidence. It would be polite if you clarified that you felt only one of my answers qualified as what you considered evidence, rather than continually proclaiming that I didn't answer at all.

I am suggesting that the insistence that Joseph consummated every relationship for which there is the slightest possible support (as well as any marriage where there isn't strong evidence to the contrary) is preventing people from understanding what was going on.

Regarding Bennett, when would he have been sufficiently trusted to be told about plural marriage? When Joseph talked with Dimick Huntington and Joseph Bates Noble (both long-time followers) in the fall of 1840, they indicate that he told them he was putting his life in their hands to talk of it. Bennett had only been with the Mormons since August 1840, and was away in Springfield from roughly October through December 1840. In January Joseph pronounced a blessing on Bennett, but he learned of accusations against Bennett sufficiently early that George Miller was able to travel to investigate the allegations and report on his findings by March 2, 1841. According to the 1844 testimonies before the Municipal Court, Francis Higbee and John Bennett were brought before the authorities in July 1841 for participating in adultery, the nature of which John Taylor found so distasteful that he wouldn't describe it fully in the newspaper.

You don't accept that the Bennett scandal was wide-ranging, but that doesn't mean there is no evidence. It is merely evidence that you are not willing to consider.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think I prefer accepting this as historical fact rather than inventing convoluted explanations not found in history.
Joseph did nothing wrong.  What you call aberrant may well be perfectly correct in the eyes of God.  His marriages to "young" teens and his marriages to women with civil marriages  violate no scriptural standard and no commandment of God.  So I will take them as history records them, no other theorizing needed.

Making up "non-consummation" theories is not the best way to explain Joseph's relationships with these women.

Well what about D&C 132? 

Quote

And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

 62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

 63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

The law doesn't suggest he can espouse ladies who aren't virgins.  That doesn't seem spelled out.  Now verse 66 says, "I will reveal more unto you, hereafter; therefore, let this suffice for the present. " But we don't know what else was revealed, I suppose.

[ALarson]

22 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Al,

   I am beginning to understand things a bit better. Go back and read my posts up to this point. Read the reference link also. Sylvia had a conversation with Heber C. Kimball about her "special sealing" to Joseph Smith. I said nothing about the children being sealed to Heber C. Kimball. I intimated nothing about it. The Clark children believed that they were born under the covenant of that sealing and thus were the spiritual children of Joseph Smith. What I was noting was that the conversation concerning the sealing of Sylvia to Joseph Smith took place between Sylvia and Heber. She was seeking advice on whether to remain in Utah or return to Iowa. Phebe said that Heber then met the children. The resulting advice from Heber was for her to remain in Utah,

Glenn

I guess I'm trying to understand what you're saying here too.

Do you believe that Sylvia spoke of her "special sealing" to others but never to Josephine until she was on her deathbed?  Do you believe that her 3 children (from her marriage to Ezekiel Clark)  knew they were born under the covenant of her sealing to Joseph, but that she'd kept it a secret from Josephine?