Joseph Smith's Polyandry?

[JLHPROF]

58 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

Hi JLHPROF,

Can you point me to a definite paper that explores the spiritual wifery heresy and clarifies that Joseph was not the source of that heresy? Gary Bergera's paper in the Whitmer Journal seemed to indicate that the High Council testimonies had been intended to hide Joseph's polygamy.

To what end?  More academic squabbling?

It is entirely possible that Joseph's polygamy was the source of Bennett's spiritual wifery heresy.
Satan often creates a counterfeit to counter the laws of God.

The "year of Bennett" and the spiritual wifery heresy (Spring 1841-Spring 1842) came after Joseph had begun polygamy.  To say his practice was in any way a reaction to Bennett's lechery is not in evidence.

Ockhams razor would seem to apply here.  Joseph received a revelation on polygamy as early as 1831 and seemingly took his first plural wives some time prior to 1840.
Bennett joined the Church AFTER polygamy was already revealed.  In Bennett's year he used the doctrine to create opportunities for sin.

The idea that Joseph only practiced polygamy as a response to Bennett, or worse, created the Bennett heresy,  is putting the cart before the horse and requires much selective manipulation of data to even come close to that conclusion.

[Gray]

54 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

Ah, but do you have children?

I'm pretty sure no third party has witnessed any intimate interaction between me and my husbands (married serially, not concurrently), and I'm sure my children would prefer to imagine that they were produced by immaculate conception. But I have children.

Yes, but there is no DNA evidence to definitively say that the child is mine. Therefore we should all assume the marriage remains unconsummated until such evidence arises. 

[Meg Stout]

14 minutes ago, kllindley said:

[quoted many things that suggested "raising up seed" was the primary purpose for the early Mormon practice of plural marriage]

Brigham Young (July 1843) explained that plural marriage allowed a man to be with all the wives he had loved. As Brigham was a remarried widower, this was an important point to him. He then suggested that if a man could, in eternity, righteously be with several wives he had loved in life, then it should not be prohibited to be with more than one wife in mortality.

Regarding raising up seed, the argument has been made that the actual number of children produced by women was smaller when they were involved in a plural marriage, possibly in part because the men were often off serving missions or in other regions of the Mormon settlements busily settling. In addition, the number of Mormon converts after 1852 declined significantly, which arguably reduced the total number of individuals who ended up having the "chance" to be raised in Mormon households.

It is true that plural marriage produced more progeny for each male involved. And these men tended to be hyper-dedicated to Mormonism.

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

To what end?  More academic squabbling?

It is entirely possible that Joseph's polygamy was the source of Bennett's spiritual wifery heresy.
Satan often creates a counterfeit to counter the laws of God.

The "year of Bennett" and the spiritual wifery heresy (Spring 1841-Spring 1842) came after Joseph had begun polygamy.  To say his practice was in any way a reaction to Bennett's lechery is not in evidence.

Ockhams razor would seem to apply here.  Joseph received a revelation on polygamy as early as 1831 and seemingly took his first plural wives some time prior to 1840.
Bennett joined the Church AFTER polygamy was already revealed.  In Bennett's year he used the doctrine to create opportunities for sin.

The idea that Joseph only practiced polygamy as a response to Bennett, or worse, created the Bennett heresy,  is putting the cart before the horse and requires much selective manipulation of data to even come close to that conclusion.

Bingo.

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well what about D&C 132?

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.

This again.
I think we've been over the various meanings of "virgin" on this board before.
I don't believe it has anything to do with whether these women were virgins or not, but more accurately addressed purity and chastity.

[kllindley]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

To say his practice was in any way a reaction to Bennett's lechery is not in evidence.

Is this really what you believe she is saying?  Because it isn't.  Hint: She documents all of the dates and simply suggests that perhaps some of the women whom Joseph subsequently married has also been victims.  Were they?  I don't know.  I don't think anyone knows.  Meg does go further and suggest that Joseph might not have married so many women if it weren't for the Bennett situation.  Is that some insulting, terrible thing?  

 

I don't get it. It's just frustrating to see people mock a sincere person for things she is not saying.  

[kllindley]

7 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

Brigham Young (July 1843) explained that plural marriage allowed a man to be with all the wives he had loved. As Brigham was a remarried widower, this was an important point to him. He then suggested that if a man could, in eternity, righteously be with several wives he had loved in life, then it should not be prohibited to be with more than one wife in mortality.

Regarding raising up seed, the argument has been made that the actual number of children produced by women was smaller when they were involved in a plural marriage, possibly in part because the men were often off serving missions or in other regions of the Mormon settlements busily settling. In addition, the number of Mormon converts after 1852 declined significantly, which arguably reduced the total number of individuals who ended up having the "chance" to be raised in Mormon households.

It is true that plural marriage produced more progeny for each male involved. And these men tended to be hyper-dedicated to Mormonism.

Meg,

I was only responding to a request for a reference to support my claim that there is a neither-unheard-of-nor-directly-disavowed narrative that would further complicate the claim (not necessarily being made by anyone here) that Joseph was having sex with his wives every night but managed to never have a child with anyone except Emma. 

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Is this really what you believe she is saying?  Because it isn't.  Hint: She documents all of the dates and simply suggests that perhaps some of the women whom Joseph subsequently married has also been victims.  Were they?  I don't know.  I don't think anyone knows.  Meg does go further and suggest that Joseph might not have married so many women if it weren't for the Bennett situation.  Is that some insulting, terrible thing?

 

I don't get it. It's just frustrating to see people mock a sincere person for things she is not saying.

 

I said "To say his practice was in any way a reaction to Bennett's lechery is not in evidence."  Just two hours ago she wrote:

Quote

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).

 

So yes, that IS what she is saying.   She is saying that a primary reason for Joseph practicing polygamy was to stop Bennett's schemes and implies that his wives were some of Bennett's victims.
If you believe that is why Joseph married his wives you really don't understand the practice or the prophet.

[jkwilliams]

12 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Is this really what you believe she is saying?  Because it isn't.  Hint: She documents all of the dates and simply suggests that perhaps some of the women whom Joseph subsequently married has also been victims.  Were they?  I don't know.  I don't think anyone knows.  Meg does go further and suggest that Joseph might not have married so many women if it weren't for the Bennett situation.  Is that some insulting, terrible thing?  

 

I don't get it. It's just frustrating to see people mock a sincere person for things she is not saying.  

Who is mocking her? Her position is that the plural marriages were not so much marriages as attempts to root out a sex scandal and protect its victims. That is an astonishing claim, given the evidence, and it cries out for documentary support. It isn't mocking to ask that she provide such support or note that she hasn't provided it. 

[kllindley]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

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).

Do you really not see that there is a difference between what Meg wrote (underlined above) and " . . . that explains why Joseph practiced polygamy. . . ."  Meg documents at length Joseph's struggle with implementing polygamy and states that it is possible that some of the wives were married as a result of the Bennett scandal.  Not all.  Just that if Bennett had never come to Nauvoo, Joseph may not have had as many plural wives as he did.  If you think there is no way Joseph could have made a single mistake in implementing polygamy then you really don't understand the practice or the prophet.   

[jkwilliams]

30 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

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.

Now you're misrepresenting me. CFR that I said the Bennett scandal was not wide-ranging. I said there's no evidence of a wide-ranging investigation involving Joseph, Emma, and these wives/victims/detectives  

Let me just say that a documentary source means just that: a source that can be documented or cited. It's not that I have some idiosyncratic definition.

[Glenn101]

38 minutes ago, Calm said:

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?

I have not read Brian Hales' book, "Joseph Smith's Polygamy" but it is reported here that Josephine was sealed by proxy to Joseph Smith in 1846 after Winsor Lyon was rebaptized and with his permission. I have not mentioned this before because I was trying to find an accessible primary source for this information. If that was the case, it would seem that Sylvia was sealed to Joseph twice. Once soon after Winsor was excommunicated and left Nauvoo for a time, and then by proxy after Joseph's death. This second proxy sealing occurred after Josephine was born but obviously before the birth of Phebe and her Clark siblings. The second sealing may have been the only one that Sylvia publicized, witht he first one remaining a secret only divulged on her death bed. It would fit the known facts pretty well.

Glenn

[ALarson]

35 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It is entirely possible that Joseph's polygamy was the source of Bennett's spiritual wifery heresy.

I believe that's exactly what happened.  Bennett lived with Joseph for months (until July 1841, iirc, and a few months after Joseph married Louisa Beaman) and they were very close. Joseph sustained Bennett to be the assistant to the president of the church in conference shortly after he arrived in Nauvoo.   Bennett was made Mayor of Nauvoo and Chancellor of the University of the City of Nauvoo.

Bennett performed marriages that Joseph attended up until 1842. 

Joseph trusted Bennett and lived to regret it, IMO.  I know there were some fallings out between them, and again iirc, 2 disciplinary courts held on Bennett.   I believe Bennett took Joseph's restored doctrine and abused it and went off the rails, so to speak.  That's at least how I see things happening. 

There could really be an entire thread on this one topic.  Bennett is an interesting study and I think all agree that he was a scoundrel.  But unfortunately, Joseph trusted him for at least awhile and Bennett betrayed that trust.

But, I've seen no evidence to support this being the reason for Joseph taking on plural wives (to save them from Bennett's seductions).  That's a pretty ridiculous theory.

.

 

Edited June 22, 2016 by ALarson

[kllindley]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Who is mocking her? Her position is that the plural marriages were not so much marriages as attempts to root out a sex scandal and protect its victims. That is an astonishing claim, given the evidence, and it cries out for documentary support. It isn't mocking to ask that she provide such support or note that she hasn't provided it. 

Her position is that the  some of his plural marriages were not so much marriages as attempts to root out a sex scandal and protect its victims.  This is astonishing?  And she has provided significant support that this is possible (not probable, not conclusive).  

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Do you really not see that there is a difference between what Meg wrote (underlined above) and " . . . that explains why Joseph practiced polygamy. . . ."  Meg documents at length Joseph's struggle with implementing polygamy and states that it is possible that some of the wives were married as a result of the Bennett scandal.  Not all.  Just that if Bennett had never come to Nauvoo, Joseph may not have had as many plural wives as he did.  If you think there is no way Joseph could have made a single mistake in implementing polygamy then you really don't understand the practice or the prophet.   

When I read her blog, iirc it was a substantial majority of the wives that were married for their involvement, either as a reward for their help in the detective work of determining who was involved or as victims, who often due to have some form of VD or even being pregnant (such as Eliza R Snow) would likely never be able to be in an honorable monogamous marriage.

Has she changed her position on this in the book?

[jkwilliams]

18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

I said "To say his practice was in any way a reaction to Bennett's lechery is not in evidence."  Just two hours ago she wrote:

 

So yes, that IS what she is saying.   She is saying that a primary reason for Joseph practicing polygamy was to stop Bennett's schemes and implies that his wives were some of Bennett's victims.
If you believe that is why Joseph married his wives you really don't understand the practice or the prophet.

Yes, that is what she said, indeed. 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I have not read Brian Hales' book, "Joseph Smith's Polygamy" but it is reported here that Josephine was sealed by proxy to Joseph Smith in 1846 after Winsor Lyon was rebaptized and with his permission. I have not mentioned this before because I was trying to find an accessible primary source for this information. If that was the case, it would seem that Sylvia was sealed to Joseph twice. Once soon after Winsor was excommunicated and left Nauvoo for a time, and then by proxy after Joseph's death. This second proxy sealing occurred after Josephine was born but obviously before the birth of Phebe and her Clark siblings. The second sealing may have been the only one that Sylvia publicized, witht he first one remaining a secret only divulged on her death bed. It would fit the known facts pretty well.

Glenn

Thanks for the clarifacation.  Very helpful.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

When I read her blog, iirc it was a substantial majority of the wives that were married for their involvement, either as a reward for their help in the detective work of determining who was involved or as victims, who often due to have some form of VD or even being pregnant (such as Eliza R Snow) would likely never be able to be in an honorable monogamous marriage.

Has she changed her position on this in the book?

If she has, it's news to me. 

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Her position is that the  some of his plural marriages were not so much marriages as attempts to root out a sex scandal and protect its victims.  This is astonishing?  And she has provided significant support that this is possible (not probable, not conclusive).  

See JLHPROF's post above. 

[Calm]

From the blog to show in general what I am talking about, previous posts of hers lists names in detail:

"We have a lack of the fruit we would expect had sex been the activity, a lack noted even in the 1800s when Joseph’s sons were trying to convert the Saints away from polygamy. Though largely forgotten, we have a rich history of amazing spiritual works that were the fruit particularly of those women who had been Joseph’s plural wives, and who appear to have taught the rest of the female community of Saints. Given the lack of children, confirmed by DNA analysis, the most reasonable explanation is that Joseph was teaching these women rather than having sex with them during the times we know of him spending time alone with the women.

The Last Straw

The almost frenetic collection of marriages Joseph contracted as a result of the investigation into Bennett’s illicit sex was followed by a collection of marriages contracted with women suspected of having been hurt by Bennett or the investigation, and culminated in a last flurry of marriages associated with the introduction of plural marriage to an inner circle of faithful."

http://www.millennialstar.org/those-virtuous-and-pure/

[ALarson]

22 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I have not read Brian Hales' book, "Joseph Smith's Polygamy" but it is reported here that Josephine was sealed by proxy to Joseph Smith in 1846 after Winsor Lyon was rebaptized and with his permission. I have not mentioned this before because I was trying to find an accessible primary source for this information. If that was the case, it would seem that Sylvia was sealed to Joseph twice. Once soon after Winsor was excommunicated and left Nauvoo for a time, and then by proxy after Joseph's death. This second proxy sealing occurred after Josephine was born but obviously before the birth of Phebe and her Clark siblings. The second sealing may have been the only one that Sylvia publicized, witht he first one remaining a secret only divulged on her death bed. It would fit the known facts pretty well.

Glenn

No, it wouldn't.  Phebe wrote that her Mother spoke of her "special sealing" to Joseph often.  But, Sylvia stated to Josephine that she was revealing something to her that no other person knew.  So it still doesn't fit that she was telling Josephine about the sealing (using either date for the sealing).  I'm not sure why you can't see this. 

.

Edited June 22, 2016 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

From the blog to show in general what I am talking about, previous posts of hers lists names in detail:

"We have a lack of the fruit we would expect had sex been the activity, a lack noted even in the 1800s when Joseph’s sons were trying to convert the Saints away from polygamy. Though largely forgotten, we have a rich history of amazing spiritual works that were the fruit particularly of those women who had been Joseph’s plural wives, and who appear to have taught the rest of the female community of Saints. Given the lack of children, confirmed by DNA analysis, the most reasonable explanation is that Joseph was teaching these women rather than having sex with them during the times we know of him spending time alone with the women.

The Last Straw

The almost frenetic collection of marriages Joseph contracted as a result of the investigation into Bennett’s illicit sex was followed by a collection of marriages contracted with women suspected of having been hurt by Bennett or the investigation, and culminated in a last flurry of marriages associated with the introduction of plural marriage to an inner circle of faithful."

http://www.millennialstar.org/those-virtuous-and-pure/

I don't see any other way of reading this than how you and I read it. I guess I should feel good that my interpretation is the same as yours, as I have nothing but respect and admiration for the fair and intelligent approach you show consistently. 

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

The Last Straw

The almost frenetic collection of marriages Joseph contracted as a result of the investigation into Bennett’s illicit sex was followed by a collection of marriages contracted with women suspected of having been hurt by Bennett or the investigation, and culminated in a last flurry of marriages associated with the introduction of plural marriage to an inner circle of faithful."

http://www.millennialstar.org/those-virtuous-and-pure/

What utter nonsense.  Joseph established an eternal law by direct command of God, and he did it before Bennett ever came on the scene and misused the principle.
To set this as the motivation for Joseph's marriages requires ignoring the doctrines Joseph taught on plural marriage at the same time it was being instituted.

Plural marriage was not a social program.  It wasn't "due to lack of men due to persecution".  It wasn't "to quickly increase the number of Mormons".  It wasn't out of "pity for the abused".  And it wasn't to "save women who had been seduced".

This was a doctrinal, theological law given by revelation.  Any notion that Joseph practiced it for any reason other than God commanded the restoration of the law is not in keeping with what Joseph himself and his successors all taught.  And frankly, it's an insult to Joseph, and to his wives to claim they were seduced by Bennett.
 

 

[hope_for_things]

24 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I believe that's exactly what happened.  Bennett lived with Joseph for months (until July 1841, iirc, and a few months after Joseph married Louisa Beaman) and they were very close. Joseph sustained Bennett to be the assistant to the president of the church in conference shortly after he arrived in Nauvoo.   Bennett was made Mayor of Nauvoo and Chancellor of the University of the City of Nauvoo.

Bennett performed marriages that Joseph attended up until 1842. 

Joseph trusted Bennett and lived to regret it, IMO.  I know there were some fallings out between them, and again iirc, 2 disciplinary courts held on Bennett.   I believe Bennett took Joseph's restored doctrine and abused it and went off the rails, so to speak.  That's at least how I see things happening. 

There could really be an entire thread on this one topic.  Bennett is an interesting study and I think all agree that he was a scoundrel.  But unfortunately, Joseph trusted him for at least awhile and Bennett betrayed that trust.

But, I've seen no evidence to support this being the reason for Joseph taking on plural wives (to save them from Bennett's seductions).  That's a pretty ridiculous theory.

.

 

How do we know that Bennett "went off the rails"?  Is there evidence for this?  Perhaps Joseph felt like Bennett's polygamy somehow challenged his authority, similar to the Hiram Page seer stone scenario?  I honestly don't know, but I'm curious to better understand what specifically it was about Bennett's behavior that was so much different that Joseph's behavior during this time period.  I'm not expert on any of this, have read a few books on Polygamy, but I'm still learning, so be patient with me.  :-)  

[Jeanne]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

From the blog to show in general what I am talking about, previous posts of hers lists names in detail:

"We have a lack of the fruit we would expect had sex been the activity, a lack noted even in the 1800s when Joseph’s sons were trying to convert the Saints away from polygamy. Though largely forgotten, we have a rich history of amazing spiritual works that were the fruit particularly of those women who had been Joseph’s plural wives, and who appear to have taught the rest of the female community of Saints. Given the lack of children, confirmed by DNA analysis, the most reasonable explanation is that Joseph was teaching these women rather than having sex with them during the times we know of him spending time alone with the women.

The Last Straw

The almost frenetic collection of marriages Joseph contracted as a result of the investigation into Bennett’s illicit sex was followed by a collection of marriages contracted with women suspected of having been hurt by Bennett or the investigation, and culminated in a last flurry of marriages associated with the introduction of plural marriage to an inner circle of faithful."

http://www.millennialstar.org/those-virtuous-and-pure/

Sounds like Bennett kept Joseph a busy man!  He could hardly keep up.  This is a fantasy!