Seven wives or one? Did Joseph lie?

[JulieM]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

First example discussed was Joseph not telling Emma he was already married to the Lawerence? sisters and going through a second marriage with them after she selected them as plural wives for him (anyone wonder why she didn't choose someone older if the age difference was an issue back then?

It was the Partridge sisters (Emily was 19 years old and Eliza was 22 years old, so I wouldn't think their ages should have been an issue for anyone).

IMO, what took place here with Joseph staging a mock wedding for Emma (rather than telling her the truth that he'd already married both sisters months earlier), is a pretty clear cut case of a lie of omission.  I'm not sure how anyone can see it differently but I'm interested in other's thoughts.  I believe that Joseph very definitely deceived  Emma in this instance.

Motivations and reasons can also be discussed, of course.  I know many will believe Joseph was justified or that it was necessary to deceive Emma here.  

Edited March 10, 2017 by JulieM

[Tacenda]

27 minutes ago, JulieM said:

It was the Partridge sisters (Emily was 19 years old and Eliza was 22 years old, so I wouldn't think their ages should have been an issue for anyone).

IMO, what took place here with Joseph staging a mock wedding for Emma (rather than telling her the truth that he'd already married both sisters months earlier), is a pretty clear cut case of a lie of omission.  I'm not sure how anyone can see it differently but I'm interested in other's thoughts.  I believe that Joseph very definitely deceived  Emma in this instance.

Motivations and reasons can also be discussed, of course.  I know many will believe Joseph was justified or that it was necessary to deceive Emma here.  

Par for the course. 

My problem with Joseph Smith, is going to the Lord about polygamy. Is that how the church was restored? By JS asking if he should restore things? Things that went on in the Old Testament, not the New Testament when Jesus Christ came and did away with most of what JS tries to restore. There was no need for it. Jesus came, He was the Good News and there wasn't a need for the laws anymore. Not that polygamy was commanded anyway. The only time it may have been commanded is with the law of marrying your brother's wife if the brother dies, and in that case, we don't even know if the living brother was already married. Also, where in the Bible is there polyandry? 

[juliann]

It is a lost cause to insist there was no deception. But I also think that is what Joseph was told off for in the D&C where his sins had to be forgiven. I think he made a mess of whatever he was trying to do but I don't find that surprising given what he was up against in general. Unfortunately, Joseph and Emma have been presented as rock solid love birds when in reality Emma was ready to divorce him as this went on. The more I read about polygamy, the plainer it becomes that women had to be ignored....or erased from history in order to uphold polygamy.  Like Emma's, it isn't pretty when full accounts are put back in. 

So it shouldn't be about what happened, it is about what you expect from a prophet. I go with the "if they are a prophet, why don't they give us the cure for cancer" school of thought. It doesn't work like that. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

You've made an effective argument here. But most people, even members, when they see the basic facts of this, they come to conclusion that Joseph was deceitful and have a lot of empathy for Emma. Most find a way to come to terms with this and it doesn't affect their testimony. In terms of strategy for LDS Apologetics, it might be best to concede this one to retain credibility. 

I don't consider myself an apologist, and I don't count on coming across as especially credible (thank heavens on both counts!)! My personal approach to other people's history, especially second-hand history, is to be very careful and healthily skeptical (disciplined) on what constitutes "basic facts" in an obviously messy record, and very liberal on accepting the variables that might affect the quality and interpretation of the record on a number of fronts.

In terms of the Church's strategy, I think the essays are effective in giving people the opportunity to understand the themes, principles and attitudes that are most important to consider once they come across a question such as this. And the essays are simply there to support the much larger and more involved mission that is discerned by resonating with gospel themes, principles and attitudes.

[Jeanne]

41 minutes ago, JulieM said:

It was the Partridge sisters (Emily was 19 years old and Eliza was 22 years old, so I wouldn't think their ages should have been an issue for anyone).

IMO, what took place here with Joseph staging a mock wedding for Emma (rather than telling her the truth that he'd already married both sisters months earlier), is a pretty clear cut case of a lie of omission.  I'm not sure how anyone can see it differently but I'm interested in other's thoughts.  I believe that Joseph very definitely deceived  Emma in this instance.

Motivations and reasons can also be discussed, of course.  I know many will believe Joseph was justified or that it was necessary to deceive Emma here.  

One of my biggest questions in the whole thing..and would have made Joseph's eternal marriages (sealings) easier to understand..was why did he and the Lord not have him sealed first to Emma?  Can one imagine how that might have felt to her..and maybe she did wonder herself.  I hope someone has some good answers for this..but she would have at least felt like Joseph was still hers..this whole angel with a sword thing could have been avoided...if she had been more inclusive.

[CV75]

51 minutes ago, juliann said:

I think it is time to drop the "apologetic" division now that Mormon Studies is in full swing, along with Church support. It came time to drop the "anti-Mormon" but apologist is still used like it is meaningful in all instances....and usually intended to poison the well. 

The problem isn't whether he "lied" or not. It is in the religiously motivated reaction to it and individual reactions should have no place in the narrative itself. That is the standard that Mormon Studies is upholding and the standard that allows us to have meaningful across the spectrum of belief or non-belief discussions. As I listen to the handed down faith promoting stories in Sunday school lessons, I am reminded that this is the era where we have to reevaluate sources. All of us.  

I think some are eager to consider a point of view such as mine as “apologetic” or as informed by “faith-promoting stories” in an effort to swing the pendulum away from the mores of a past generation, promote an ancillary agenda, etc., not that all of such efforts are necessarily bad when standing on their own merits. As a result, “basic facts” (that aren’t so much so) too often take on a life and a credibility of their own through popular investiture of authority.

[omni]

What I find most amazing about this quote is the (seemingly) ease with which he is able to declare something with such vigor and sincerity that he clearly knows is not true.  

Most honest people when forced to lie in public would be hemming and hawing, stumbling over their words, but not Joseph.  If one didn't know better, he might think this wasn't Joseph's first attempt at stretching the truth.

[JulieM]

38 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I don't consider myself an apologist, and I don't count on coming across as especially credible (thank heavens on both counts!)! My personal approach to other people's history, especially second-hand history, is to be very careful and healthily skeptical (disciplined) on what constitutes "basic facts" in an obviously messy record, and very liberal on accepting the variables that might affect the quality and interpretation of the record on a number of fronts.

There are good, reliable references for what took place with the Partridge sisters (first hand records, sealing records, etc., and references for how Emma briefly accepted polygamy and received her own work done at that time and so on).  How do you feel about Joseph deceiving Emma with the mock sealings?

 

Edited March 10, 2017 by JulieM

[juliann]

12 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

One of my biggest questions in the whole thing..and would have made Joseph's eternal marriages (sealings) easier to understand..was why did he and the Lord not have him sealed first to Emma?  Can one imagine how that might have felt to her..and maybe she did wonder herself.  I hope someone has some good answers for this..but she would have at least felt like Joseph was still hers..this whole angel with a sword thing could have been avoided...if she had been more inclusive.

BTW, the angel with the sword story sources are being questioned now....as all such traditional stories should. What always struck me as odd about that story is that it was told as if it was a fear of dying rather than a fear of displeasing the Lord. 

I am on to another polygamy book, Living the Principle: My Progenitors and Polygamy by a Cannon family descendant. It is still about elite members, Leonora Taylor, etc. But it gives a more complete picture. What I am seeing in the recent spate of books...by women....is that they give both sides. For example, Leonora really really disliked one of the sister wives and considered her evil.  These are the stories we never hear when the glowing tales of how wonderfully they all worked together are told, just as we don't hear about Emma's struggles. I expect to see more family histories come out and I don't think we will break through the loggerjam of what the heck this was all about until we hear from the women who were the overwhelming population in polygamy. 

I tune out all the sealing stuff now that it has been turned into a "did women get more sex partners than they are entitled to" house of cards. I think trying to decide from one mention or so that it was "eternal" vs "time" is nonsense and agenda driven. So until that diversion dies down, and it will, I don't see much hope of gleaning much more. Meanwhile, I think sealings at that time were in such a raw stage that it doesn't matter much to me who was first or last. And who knows, maybe they were in a bad patch in their marriage at that time. 

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

BTW, the angel with the sword story sources are being questioned now....as all such traditional stories should. What always struck me as odd about that story is that it was told as if it was a fear of dying rather than a fear of displeasing the Lord. 

I am on to another polygamy book, Living the Principle: My Progenitors and Polygamy by a Cannon family descendant. It is still about elite members, Leonora Taylor, etc. But it gives a more complete picture. What I am seeing in the recent spate of books...by women....is that they give both sides. For example, Leonora really really disliked one of the sister wives and considered her evil.  These are the stories we never hear when the glowing tales of how wonderfully they all worked together are told, just as we don't hear about Emma's struggles. I expect to see more family histories come out and I don't think we will break through the loggerjam of what the heck this was all about until we hear from the women who were the overwhelming population in polygamy. 

I tune out all the sealing stuff now that it has been turned into a "did women get more sex partners than they are entitled to" house of cards. I think trying to decide from one mention or so that it was "eternal" vs "time" is nonsense and agenda driven. So until that diversion dies down, and it will, I don't see much hope of gleaning much more. Meanwhile, I think sealings at that time were in such a raw stage that it doesn't matter much to me who was first or last. And who knows, maybe they were in a bad patch in their marriage at that time. 

Thanks for the info..I might check in to some of these books. I know there is a new one out there..Thanks again! 

[juliann]

20 minutes ago, omni said:

What I find most amazing about this quote is the (seemingly) ease with which he is able to declare something with such vigor and sincerity that he clearly knows is not true.  

Most honest people when forced to lie in public would be hemming and hawing, stumbling over their words, but not Joseph.  If one didn't know better, he might think this wasn't Joseph's first attempt at stretching the truth.

You are aware that he had to deal with over 200 lawsuits in his short lived adventures....you are aware his communication skills had to be beyond awesome to attract such a following....

Of course he was careful in how he said things given his life and death situation. He fibbed!  And my world hasn't ended.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

It was the Partridge sisters (Emily was 19 years old and Eliza was 22 years old, so I wouldn't think their ages should have been an issue for anyone). 

Lawrence sisters were also 'given' (dislike that word very much in connection with marriage, but that was how Sarah? said it) to Joseph by Emma.  Iirc, one of them was 17, the other 19, but may be off on that.

I think I think of the Partridge sisters as more famous and therefore the mock marriage participants, but then 'catch' myself because I think I am going there because of another Partridge family and think it must be the Lawrences instead.  Maybe this time the right set will take.

Edited March 10, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Par for the course. 

My problem with Joseph Smith, is going to the Lord about polygamy. Is that how the church was restored? By JS asking if he should restore things? Things that went on in the Old Testament, not the New Testament when Jesus Christ came and did away with most of what JS tries to restore. There was no need for it. Jesus came, He was the Good News and there wasn't a need for the laws anymore. Not that polygamy was commanded anyway. The only time it may have been commanded is with the law of marrying your brother's wife if the brother dies, and in that case, we don't even know if the living brother was already married. Also, where in the Bible is there polyandry? 

I see it as Joseph being told he was going to need to restore some aspects and then him wondering what else needed to be done.  I disagree that most of what Joseph restored wasn't needed because of Jesus.  Do you believe the Ten Commandments were no longer needed because of Christ, but that is another topic.  Perhaps you should start one on what needed to be restored, what didn't.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

It is a lost cause to insist there was no deception. But I also think that is what Joseph was told off for in the D&C where his sins had to be forgiven. I think he made a mess of whatever he was trying to do but I don't find that surprising given what he was up against in general. Unfortunately, Joseph and Emma have been presented as rock solid love birds when in reality Emma was ready to divorce him as this went on.

Emma was rather forceful, imo, and possibly as dominant as Joseph was in the relationship.  Joseph put effort into trying to get Emma to accept his ideas and he made at least some effort to support her (word of wisdom revelation was motivated by her, various homes and money projects).  She basically told her father to get lost when she eloped with Joseph.  She later seems to have convinced her father to support them in part to do translation of something her dad never bought into.  She was the older of the two, more educated, quite attractive, from a well off family.  Unlikely to have lacked for suitors.  She could have left Joseph anytime I get the impression and headed home for her well off family.  Looking at the places of death, besides her parents, most of her siblings died in Illinois, so perhaps she contributed to their conversions (assuming that was why they were in Illinois, need to study that more).  We have stories of women leaving family and husbands to join the faith.  The reverse probably happened as well, so why not Emma who was probably in a better position to do so than many.  But she didn't run for home even after Joseph was killed.  Her parents were dead by then (dad died in 38?, Mom in 42?), but I believe a brother or two or three was still around (she had a number of siblings) close by apparently.  Instead she is the one, pregnant, who cares for Lucy, Joseph's mom, instead of suggesting William (understandable, he comes across as a self centered flake) when he got backor Katherine or Sophronia, who also stayed in Illinois?

Edited March 10, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

From the original thread...

CV:  "

I think in this passage of History of the Church he was defending himself against charges of adultery, not trying to misdirect people from his polygamy. It think it is wrongly used as n example of the latter. He is clearly not on the offensive at this point, so only refers to an accurate picture of what he was doing (and that was not adultery) by making an appeal to the many witnesses and records he offered up for examination, and by discrediting his detractors. In a way he has nothing to prove, being cast in a defendant role."

 

The problem with separating adultery and polygamy for Joseph in my view is they were one and the same.  He is not being accused as he relates of having affairs outside of marriage.  He is being accused of having multiple marriages and that being adultery.  If he denies the adultery, he denies the marriages.

•  

Edited March 10, 2017 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I still think we are much better served by acknowledging statements of deceit and moving on to understand Joseph's beliefs than we are served by trying to explain away the statements as not really deceitful.

 

5 hours ago, Ahab said:

I think we are much better served by thinking that we don't know enough about his "relationships" to know what was going on, and by not thinking of Joseph as someone who was deceitful.

It is always helpful to recall that, despite considerable and continuing efforts (genetic investigation), no offspring of Joseph are known -- except by his wife Emma.  In the case of Thomas Jefferson at least we have actual DNA evidence.  We need not talk of any sort of deceit until we have the evidence.  Meantime, I like to conjure up the problem which confronts those contending against evil powers when they are asked to rat out those working in the Lord's Vineyard.  In the case of the nun Sister Simplice who lied to protect Jean Valjean, and in the cases of members of the anti-Nazi underground, are lies ever justified?

[strappinglad]

If the quotations in the OP are a true example of Josephs vaunted mastery of communication skills, something is seriously out of whack. Talk about wobbly trains of thought.

In our very recent past we have an example of a statement made and recorded in public about Sweden. Immediately there were many statements about what was said, what was meant, what was REALLY meant, etc. We can now easily access what was actually said, but it makes no difference at all. Now consider the quotes in the OP. We cannot access what was actually said and what we do have is removed in time and place. So, may I suggest that we parse specific word order at our peril.

Those who believe that Joseph was God's ' marionette ' need to spend a bit of time reviewing what the scriptures say about the actions and behaviors of all the various prophets spoken about. I think Joseph did the best he could and that , at times, it wasn't good enough and that , at times, he really put his foot in it. Jonah ran away from his calling. Noah got drunk. Joseph in Egypt caused severe stress among his brothers by fibbing about their stealing, Then there is Elijah ( Elisha? ) and the children and bear incident .Abraham ' fibbed ' to Pharaoh. Peter was less than enthusiastic about giving the gospel to the Gentiles. Remind me, which prophet married a prostitute to make a point about Israel's faithfulness.I wonder whose idea that was.( And I'm sure he never had intimate relations with her as that would be unprophet-like )

Did JS not always say the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth when it came to polygamy? I come down on the side of probably. Did he have his reasons, and maybe good ones? Again, probably.

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, strappinglad said:

If the quotations in the OP are a true example of Josephs vaunted mastery of communication skills, something is seriously out of whack. Talk about wobbly trains of thought.

In our very recent past we have an example of a statement made and recorded in public about Sweden. Immediately there were many statements about what was said, what was meant, what was REALLY meant, etc. We can now easily access what was actually said, but it makes no difference at all. Now consider the quotes in the OP. We cannot access what was actually said and what we do have is removed in time and place. So, may I suggest that we parse specific word order at our peril.

Those who believe that Joseph was God's ' marionette ' need to spend a bit of time reviewing what the scriptures say about the actions and behaviors of all the various prophets spoken about. I think Joseph did the best he could and that , at times, it wasn't good enough and that , at times, he really put his foot in it. Jonah ran away from his calling. Noah got drunk. Joseph in Egypt caused severe stress among his brothers by fibbing about their stealing, Then there is Elijah ( Elisha? ) and the children and bear incident .Abraham ' fibbed ' to Pharaoh. Peter was less than enthusiastic about giving the gospel to the Gentiles. Remind me, which prophet married a prostitute to make a point about Israel's faithfulness.I wonder whose idea that was.( And I'm sure he never had intimate relations with her as that would be unprophet-like )

Did JS not always say the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth when it came to polygamy? I come down on the side of probably. Did he have his reasons, and maybe good ones? Again, probably.

So the dilemma is knowing what to believe of anything Joseph Smith produced, and why. Do the prevailing Church doctrines instituted by Joseph get prioritised over other, less "canonised" things instituted by Joseph?

How does any one of us solve this and decide? Is that decision different if we don't start with premise that he was a prophet? What if we clear the table first and examine the evidence?

[Alan]

Joseph didn't lie about plural marriage.

When he said he had no involvement in it he was telling the truth.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

 if we don't start with premise that he was a prophet? What if we clear the table first and examine the evidence?

What do you propose examining?  If the premise is value if Joseph gave these without a prophetic inspiration, why should we given him any more attention than one of the books he has been alleged to copy from?  H

[bsjkki]

2 hours ago, Alan said:

Joseph didn't lie about plural marriage.

When he said he had no involvement in it he was telling the truth.

As someone who has just started reading source documents on Joseph Smith and the polygamy question...on an emotional level, I would rather your position be true. I would rather believe BY was a misguided liar that was meant to bring the church west and keep it together and got everyone else to support him and lie for him too. Joseph Smiths lack of children from others and believing he was marrying all these women when he seems to have been very busy-when did he have time? But that would mean, many lied about being married to Joseph and all those affidavits were false.

The fact Eliza seems to have lied at some time and that Emma always refuted the stories is troubling. The fact Section 132 was brought forward publicly 7 years after Joseph's death, makes everything seem to be a murky, historical mess.

All I can say is I wish you are right but fear you are not.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

What do you propose examining?  If the premise is value if Joseph gave these without a prophetic inspiration, why should we given him any more attention than one of the books he has been alleged to copy from?  H

I propose figuring out why his claim of prophet should be considered in the first place. What evidence supports it? What evidence makes it less likely? And this, without using feelings as evidence. 

Then openly say where we stand based on objective evidence, so each of us personally can clearly understand where we use feelings, if at all, to bridge the gap.

[Alan]

31 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

As someone who has just started reading source documents on Joseph Smith and the polygamy question...on an emotional level, I would rather your position be true. I would rather believe BY was a misguided liar that was meant to bring the church west and keep it together and got everyone else to support him and lie for him too. Joseph Smiths lack of children from others and believing he was marrying all these women when he seems to have been very busy-when did he have time? But that would mean, many lied about being married to Joseph and all those affidavits were false.

The fact Eliza seems to have lied at some time and that Emma always refuted the stories is troubling. The fact Section 132 was brought forward publicly 7 years after Joseph's death, makes everything seem to be a murky, historical mess.

All I can say is I wish you are right but fear you are not.

I am right.

I have studied this question for years and always believed the party line. Then I began to study the most reliable evidence. Not that supplied by Joseph's enemies like Bennett or Law, but contemporary accounts by his close friends and acquaintances. There are lots of accounts written after the fact, mostly decades after, by those who had, for one reason or another, a vested interest in Joseph's involvement; but those contemporary with Joseph clearly provide sufficient evidence to form the conclusion I have formed.

In my view Joseph was involved in dynastic sealings and nothing more.

Edited March 10, 2017 by Alan

[omni]

10 hours ago, juliann said:

You are aware that he had to deal with over 200 lawsuits in his short lived adventures....you are aware his communication skills had to be beyond awesome to attract such a following....

Of course he was careful in how he said things given his life and death situation. He fibbed!  And my world hasn't ended.

I'm not sure how his 200 lawsuits are relevant as he would have presumably been telling truth in those, right?

Remember, we are talking about the head of this dispensation, shouldn't have telling such a public lie to the Saints (among others) been like pulling teeth?  There's no brief, sheepish denial while he tries to change the subject, no it appears Joseph declares his "fib" with vigor, with...familiarity.

 Let's take for example President Monson, another excellent communicator, who also happens be be an honest man.  Were he to publicly lie to the Saints about such a serious matter, I doubt he would be able to do so with such defiance and conviction.  Perhaps I'm reading too much into this all, but to me I see it as a tell.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Alan said:

I am right.

I have studied this question for years and always believed the party line. Then I began to study the most reliable evidence. Not that supplied by Joseph's enemies like Bennett or Law, but contemporary accounts by his close friends and acquaintances. There are lots of accounts written after the fact, mostly decades after, by those who had, for one reason or another, a vested interest in Joseph's involvement; but those contemporary with Joseph clearly provide sufficient evidence to form the conclusion I have formed.

In my view Joseph was involved in dynastic sealings and nothing more.

Cohabitation is not required for dynastic sealings:

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng&old=true