Joseph Smith's Polyandry?

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Meg Stout said:

You seem certain that Joseph didn't disclose his relationships to Emma until much later.

Well, Joseph had been married to Emily and Eliza Partridge for months without Emma's knowledge.  That's why they had to have a mock ceremony and be sealed a second time to Joseph (this time with Emma's approval who was unaware they were already Joseph's plural wives.)

As far as Emma learning about Joseph's other wives, I'd say that if Fanny was the first, Emma found out after the fact.  But iirc, Emma knew about the practice of polygamy for a couple of years before she accepted it (albeit briefly).  I believe that many or most wives that Joseph took prior to that were done without Emma's knowledge (or she found out after they were married).

Edited June 23, 2016 by ALarson

[Meg Stout]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for the Clayton reference, thats interesting.  I'm not certain about any of this, and I'm open to alternative explanations.  How early do you think Joseph told Emma about his polygamy?  The Relief Society statement in the T&S Oct 1, 1842 would seem to indicate that Emma didn't know about it in late 1842.  Do you have evidence that she may have known about it earlier?  

Hi hope_for_things,

In my opinion, Joseph would never have married Fanny Alger or even brought her into the Smith household without letting Emma know that he was under commandment to practice biblical marriage, a commandment Joseph appears to have received in early 1831 while translating Genesis 17 in the Bible. This is why I look to possible reasons other than an outraged Emma finding Joseph and Fanny in the barn having sex as the reason for Emma's outrage in 1836. We know Jonathan Holmes was a bachelor a few months younger than Joseph Smith who had lived in the Smith household for 16 months prior to Fanny's departure. A couple of years after Fanny left, Jonathan would be married out of the Smith house, taking for his bride the 16-year-old Marietta Carter.

The T&S statement in Oct 1842 would have been reporting on spiritual wifery and polygamy-as-adultery, not on the biblical plural marriage.

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, Joseph had been married to Emily and Eliza Partridge for months without Emma's knowledge.  That's why they had to have a mock ceremony and be sealed a second time to Joseph (this time with Emma's approval who was unaware they were already Joseph's plural wives.)

As far as Emma learning about Joseph's other wives, I'd say that Fanny was the first and Emma found out after the fact.

That is what the evidence shows in both of those cases. Saying "he wouldn't have done that" rests on no evidence but wishful thinking. 

[Meg Stout]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I am very curious if you can help me understand this accusation that I've heard some scholars make, Brian Hales in particular, the accusation that Bennett was promoting "spiritual wifery".  These scholars are drawing a clear distinction between this, and what we today call plural marriage.  I've read a lot of quotes from early church leaders using the terms Celestial Marriage, Plural Marriage, Spiritual Wifery, interchangeably in the early days.  Is there evidence to the contrary? 

The matter is confusing to us because people usually assume they are all the same thing, or make things even more confused by presuming that they can simplify things by inserting [polygamy] in the place of the original terms.

Some people didn't understand that there was a difference.  Emily Partridge, for instance, suggested in her later memoirs that when asked by Sister Durfee about spiritual wives that this was the same kind of thing as the plural marriage she would later enter into with Joseph. William Smith thought spiritual wifery was acceptable and preached to that effect in 1845. The women who listened to his speech hid their faces under their handkerchiefs in disgust, and John Taylor rebutted his sermon.

[Meg Stout]

35 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

To take a wife has nothing to do with to take to bed.

It has to do with the "give" and "receive" part of the sealing ceremony.

It's just that the Clayton journal entry is months after the two marriages uniting Joseph to the Partridges and months after the promise to Emma (seemingly granting her another husband) was rescinded with D&C 132.

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

Hi hope_for_things,

In my opinion, Joseph would never have married Fanny Alger or even brought her into the Smith household without letting Emma know that he was under commandment to practice biblical marriage, a commandment Joseph appears to have received in early 1831 while translating Genesis 17 in the Bible. This is why I look to possible reasons other than an outraged Emma finding Joseph and Fanny in the barn having sex as the reason for Emma's outrage in 1836. We know Jonathan Holmes was a bachelor a few months younger than Joseph Smith who had lived in the Smith household for 16 months prior to Fanny's departure. 

The old Jonathan fell in love with Fanny theory...again?  What evidence can you provide that this took place?

[Meg Stout]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The old Jonathan fell in love with Fanny theory...again?  What evidence can you provide that this took place?

Hi ALarson,

As I have said at least one other time, I don't offer it as a necessary occurrence. But Jonathan and Fanny lived together in the Smith household as apparently single people for over a year. Jonathan was getting 'old' at age 30+, so finding a wife and getting married like his two cousins would have been a normal and understandable impulse.

[ALarson]

26 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

As I have said at least one other time, I don't offer it as a necessary occurrence. But Jonathan and Fanny lived together in the Smith household as apparently single people for over a year. Jonathan was getting 'old' at age 30+, so finding a wife and getting married like his two cousins would have been a normal and understandable impulse.

So you just made up a story and then said this may have been why Emma and Oliver were enraged?  You have absolutely no evidence for this and you just fabricated it.  How do you expect anyone to consider you to be a serious historian or journalist?  

.

 

 

Edited June 23, 2016 by ALarson

[hope_for_things]

40 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

Hi hope_for_things,

In my opinion, Joseph would never have married Fanny Alger or even brought her into the Smith household without letting Emma know that he was under commandment to practice biblical marriage, a commandment Joseph appears to have received in early 1831 while translating Genesis 17 in the Bible. This is why I look to possible reasons other than an outraged Emma finding Joseph and Fanny in the barn having sex as the reason for Emma's outrage in 1836. We know Jonathan Holmes was a bachelor a few months younger than Joseph Smith who had lived in the Smith household for 16 months prior to Fanny's departure. A couple of years after Fanny left, Jonathan would be married out of the Smith house, taking for his bride the 16-year-old Marietta Carter.

The T&S statement in Oct 1842 would have been reporting on spiritual wifery and polygamy-as-adultery, not on the biblical plural marriage.

I haven't seen any strong evidence for the 1831 speculation of a polygamy commandment.  I'm familiar with the Erza Booth letter and the later recollection by someone, was it William McClellan in the 1850s, can't find the reference at the moment.  If there is other evidence of Joseph receiving this commandment in 1831, solid evidence, I would be interested in seeing it because this is a key point in thinking about his motivations with Fanny Alger.  For me, the evidence that this was an adulterous affair is much stronger than the evidence for this being part of Joseph's theology around Celestial Marriage.   

As for Emma knowing about polygamy earlier, I would still like to know if other evidence exists to support your claim.  I don't see much strength in the distinction between spiritual wifery and polygamy in 1842.  

[hope_for_things]

45 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

The matter is confusing to us because people usually assume they are all the same thing, or make things even more confused by presuming that they can simplify things by inserting [polygamy] in the place of the original terms.

Some people didn't understand that there was a difference.  Emily Partridge, for instance, suggested in her later memoirs that when asked by Sister Durfee about spiritual wives that this was the same kind of thing as the plural marriage she would later enter into with Joseph. William Smith thought spiritual wifery was acceptable and preached to that effect in 1845. The women who listened to his speech hid their faces under their handkerchiefs in disgust, and John Taylor rebutted his sermon.

Yes, I think I've read the statement from Emily.  I would love to see a strong argument for a distinction between the two.  Do you know if any scholarly papers have been written about this?  I've read most of what Brian Hales has to say about it on his website, but I haven't bought his 3 volume series, I did read the Laura Hales synopsis book.  I haven't read any compelling arguments that would convince me that there was a clear difference in these practices or terms in Nauvoo.  

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

As for Emma knowing about polygamy earlier, I would still like to know if other evidence exists to support your claim. 

When you say "earlier", how early are you talking about here?  I tend to believe Emma didn't know about the revelation or restoration of plural marriage until 1841 or so (but I'd need to look this up again).  If there is evidence she knew earlier than this (other than someone just saying that she "must have known" or "had to have known"), I'd love to see it.  I'll look again and what I have on this too.

.

Edited June 23, 2016 by ALarson

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

When you say "earlier", how early are you talking about here?  I tend to believe Emma didn't know about the revelation or restoration of plural marriage until 1841 or so (but I'd need to look this up again).  If there is evidence she knew earlier than this (other than someone just saying that she "must have known" or "had to have known"), I'd love to see it.  I'll look again and what I have on this too.

.

Meg is the one who suggested Emma knew about Polygamy earlier than most people think.  Meg said: 

Quote

William Clayton's journal entry (August 1843) mentions that Joseph feared Emma would pitch on him and obtain a divorce if he accepter her offer to take E & E  P (presumably Emily and Eliza Partridge) as wives.

If it weren't for Emily's 1894 testimony, one might argue that the Clayton journal entry suggests Joseph hadn't already taken E & E P as his wives, if one reads "taken" as to take to bed.

You seem certain that Joseph didn't disclose his relationships to Emma until much later. That is not the only explanation for the data we have.

I'm interested in hearing evidence to the contrary as well.  Why do you think she may have knows about it as early as 1841?  The work she did in the RS trying to root out Polygamy, and the statement in Oct 1842 denying polygamy, all suggests to me that Joseph hadn't told her about it until sometime after Oct 1842, but I'm open to other evidence.  

[Meg Stout]

22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I haven't seen any strong evidence for the 1831 speculation of a polygamy commandment.  I'm familiar with the Erza Booth letter and the later recollection by someone, was it William McClellan in the 1850s, can't find the reference at the moment.  If there is other evidence of Joseph receiving this commandment in 1831, solid evidence, I would be interested in seeing it because this is a key point in thinking about his motivations with Fanny Alger.  For me, the evidence that this was an adulterous affair is much stronger than the evidence for this being part of Joseph's theology around Celestial Marriage.   

As for Emma knowing about polygamy earlier, I would still like to know if other evidence exists to support your claim.  I don't see much strength in the distinction between spiritual wifery and polygamy in 1842.  

Hi hope_for_things,

The primary source for the 1831 revelation is Erastus Snow, who documented late in life a conversation he'd had with Joseph in 1843, where Joseph said that he'd received the revelation while translating a passage about the blessings of the fathers being given to the sons while translating in Genesis. Since Joseph stopped translating Genesis in 1831 based on the commandment in D&C 45 and the only Genesis chapter Joseph translated that resembles Erastus' description is Genesis 17, it appears the revelation was originally received in 1831. The 1831 revelation is also mentioned in the History of the Church somewhere and in Bancroft's 1800s History of Utah. So it is obscure, but not unknown.

[ALarson]

27 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm interested in hearing evidence to the contrary as well.  Why do you think she may have knows about it as early as 1841?    

Of course I don't know for sure.  

Here is what Andrew F. Ehat writes:

Quote

In some respects May of 1843 must have been an incredibly happy month for the Prophet.  If he was delighted with the unexpected conversion of his brother, Hyrum to eternal and plural marriage, it could only have been the fitting cap of events of similar surprise that occurred a few days before.  For without doubt the most perplexing thing Joseph Smith faced during the two years of the active practice of plural marriage in the church was the fact that neither his wife Emma nor his brother Hyrum accepted the principle.  Never had Emma in those twenty-four months given Joseph a wife in plural marriage.  Never had Hyrum stepped forward to assist in teaching or performing the ordinance of eternal and plural marriage.

But Ehat also writes: 

Quote

 

...that after the sealings took place in May 1843 [that Emma approved of] and the revelation on eternal and plural marriage was recorded in July 1843, William Law, William Marks and Emma Smith had their first in-depth knowledge of the extent of the practice of plural marriage.

 

 

Edited June 23, 2016 by ALarson

[Eek!]

18 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

The primary source for the 1831 revelation is Erastus Snow, who documented late in life a conversation he'd had with Joseph in 1843, where Joseph said that he'd received the revelation while translating a passage about the blessings of the fathers being given to the sons while translating in Genesis. Since Joseph stopped translating Genesis in 1831 based on the commandment in D&C 45 and the only Genesis chapter Joseph translated that resembles Erastus' description is Genesis 17, it appears the revelation was originally received in 1831. The 1831 revelation is also mentioned in the History of the Church somewhere and in Bancroft's 1800s History of Utah. So it is obscure, but not unknown.

I used to have a book that John A. Widstoe had written about Joseph Smith, and assuming my decades-old memory isn't playing tricks on me, Widstoe quoted George Albert Smith as stating (sometime in the 1870's or 1880's IIRC) words to the effect that the women who were to become Joseph's future plural wives were revealed to him (Joseph) as early as 1831, even though some of these women were not acquainted with either the Church or with Joseph at the time.   IF (<- and that's a big "if") my recollection is correct, Widstoe's quote of George Albert Smith might help corroborate the 1831 evidence. 

Edited June 23, 2016 by Eek!

[Meg Stout]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The work [Emma] did in the RS trying to root out Polygamy, and the statement in Oct 1842 denying polygamy, all suggests to me that Joseph hadn't told her about it until sometime after Oct 1842, but I'm open to other evidence.  

Per my analysis, Emma was fighting the illicit intercourse heresy. This does not equate to her fighting Joseph and the doctrine of plural marriage.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Eek! said:

I used to have a book that John A. Widstoe had written about Joseph Smith....

This book?

https://deseretbook.com/p/joseph-smith-seeker-after-truth-prophet-god-john-widtsoe-78658?variant_id=19626-ebook

[JulieM]

3 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

Per my analysis, Emma was fighting the illicit intercourse heresy. 

What evidence or statements do you have to support this?

[Meg Stout]

42 minutes ago, JulieM said:

What evidence or statements do you have to support this?

For one, that Joseph is in the meetings with Emma, also telling the women that those who have transgressed must be cast out of their society. On May 26, 1842, Joseph almost certainly knew of the several women who had confessed before the High Council, along with others like Lucy Munjar who had been cast out of Relief Society. He is recorded as having said:

"they are our fellows — we lov’d them once. Shall we not encourage them to reformation?

“We have not forgiven them seventy times— perhaps we have not forgiven them once. There is now a day of salvation to such as repent and reform— they should be cast out from this Society, yet we should woo them to return to God lest they escape not the damnation of hell!” 

[Eek!]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

This book?

https://deseretbook.com/p/joseph-smith-seeker-after-truth-prophet-god-john-widtsoe-78658?variant_id=19626-ebook

I think that was it.   Thanks!

[Meg Stout]

3 hours ago, Eek! said:

I used to have a book that John A. Widstoe had written about Joseph Smith, and assuming my decades-old memory isn't playing tricks on me, Widstoe quoted George Albert Smith as stating (sometime in the 1870's or 1880's IIRC) words to the effect that the women who were to become Joseph's future plural wives were revealed to him (Joseph) as early as 1831, even though some of these women were not acquainted with either the Church or with Joseph at the time.   IF (<- and that's a big "if") my recollection is correct, Widstoe's quote of George Albert Smith might help corroborate the 1831 evidence. 

Erastus Snow wrote that Joseph explained in 1843 “that when He was translating the Scriptures that part of it were one of the Old Prophets was dividing His property to His offspring ^Then it was that the Lord revealed unto him^” Erastus Snow returned to Nauvoo in April 1843 but the discussion could only have occurred at a time when Joseph would have said “That the time had come now when the principle should be practiced.” See Bergera, Gary James, “Identifying the Earliest Polygamists, 1841-44,” Dialogue Vol. 38, No. 3 p. 37.

For information about when Joseph was translating the Genesis chapters, see Jackson, Kent P. and Robert J. Matthews, Joseph Smith’s New Translation of the Bible: The Original Manuscripts, 2004. Multiple early historians suggest the revelation on plural marriage was received in February or March of 1831, including B. H. Roberts (History of the Church V:XXIX), Joseph F. Smith (1882 funeral address), and Hubert Howe Bancroft (1889, History of Utah).

I mention these because it is different to say "Joseph started hankering after his future dream brides in 1831" and "Joseph received revelation regarding the nature of marriage while studying the account of the Abrahamic Covenant in 1831."

Edited June 24, 2016 by Meg Stout

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, Eek! said:

I think that was it.   Thanks!

Unfortunately while googlebooks show a few "wives" references, nothing pops up similar and it doesn't allow greater searching.  However, maybe someone here has it?

[JulieM]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

Of course I don't know for sure.  

Here is what Andrew F. Ehat writes:

In some respects May of 1843 must have been an incredibly happy month for the Prophet.  If he was delighted with the unexpected conversion of his brother, Hyrum to eternal and plural marriage, it could only have been the fitting cap of events of similar surprise that occurred a few days before.  For without doubt the most perplexing thing Joseph Smith faced during the two years of the active practice of plural marriage in the church was the fact that neither his wife Emma nor his brother Hyrum accepted the principle.  Never had Emma in those twenty-four months given Joseph a wife in plural marriage.  Never had Hyrum stepped forward to assist in teaching or performing the ordinance of eternal and plural marriage.

I wasn't aware that Hyrum didn't accept the principle just as Emma didn't (until 1843).

Hyrum did live polygamy, didn't he?

Edited June 24, 2016 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

29 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I wasn't aware that Hyrum didn't accept the principle just as Emma didn't (until 1843).

Hyrum did live polygamy, didn't he?

Yes, Hyrum had at least 5 known living and one deceased wives when he died.
- Jerusha Barden (deceased)
- Mary Fielding
- Mercy Fielding (time only)
- Catherine Phillips
- Lydia Dibble Granger
- (Mary) Louisa Sanger

Edited June 24, 2016 by JLHPROF

[JulieM]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, Hyrum had at least 5 known living and one deceased wives when he died.
- Jerusha Barden (deceased)
- Mary Fielding
- Mercy Fielding (time only)
- Catherine Phillips
- Lydia Dibble Granger
- (Mary) Louisa Sanger

Thank you for the info, JLHPROF.

He must have married them all within approximately the last year of his life, right?

Did he have any children with his plural wives?