Seven wives or one? Did Joseph lie?

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

If there had been an accusation in the past shortly after the Church begun (was there or was that hyperbole by Joseph and the accusations started several years later?) and Joseph made it clear he was addressing only that claim, than the "could only find one" is not in the least deceptive, imo.  So I can see the position as a fairly reasonable reading, but too dependent on "if he was saying...", too many conditionals, to be the most probable correct interpretation..

Given the context of Law's accusation, that he was defending not against past accusations, but a current one, I can see him showing there was a history of false accusations of adultery/plural marriage (the claim it was all about adultery and not about plural marriage is problematic because he doesn't refer to affairs, but "wives") to dismiss the current one by association, but the language used suggests to me strongly he was referring to the current accusation.  I am open to it being misreported, but given the total lack of acknowledgement publicly of practicing any form of plural marriage, .I don't see a strong argument for suggesting this comment of denial is an outlier of his usual speech and therefore should be dismissed as an inaccurate recording.

add-on:  the Church was founded in 1830.  Fanny Alger possibly married Joseph in 1838.   That seems too long for that to be an early accusation of "seven wives".  Where is Nevo when I need him.

Anyone know the earliest polygamy accusation currently known?

I must say I can't even follow this line of reasoning very far.  All we have record of is Joseph saying at the present that he can only find one wife, when in fact he had several at that time.  The question being put to him seems to be about a current practice of adultery as tied to polygamist relationships or spiritual wives.  To dismiss this as not untrue, or true if you will, because it could have been recorded wrong and that Joseph only seemed to suggest he didn't have many wives early in his marriage seems to be a blatant misread.  He used present tense language when you denounced that he had more than one wife.  He might have justified the lie by thinking that GOd asked him to practice it and to keep it secret, sure.  But that doesn't mean it's not a lie. 

[stemelbow]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

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?

Calm,  I'm really confused by your guesswork here.  WHo knows why Emma didn't leave Joseph?  Some people are intent on staying no matter what.  I think it's true she was a couple of times as ready to leave as she could have been, but her love for him never ceased.  It's way hard to get over and way hard to act rational when such emotions are involved. 

[stemelbow]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

•  

THus, deception.  It wasn't just that he was accused of adultery, he was accused of both and he denied both.  It could have been that he never had relations with any of the women he married, but it'd still be deception to say he was not married to them when he was. 

[stemelbow]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

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?

The OP doesn't ask whether lies are justified.  the question being examined here is whether there is evidence that Joseph lied.  It doesn't matter if he had sexual relations with any of his wives.  If he claimed to not have more than one wife, when he did, then he is being deceptive.  Seems to be case closed to me. 

[stemelbow]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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?

I think how you've framed this.  I think at best our understanding of what is a prophet should be questioned. 

[Meadowchik]

24 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think how you've framed this.  I think at best our understanding of what is a prophet should be questioned. 

Yes. I asked someone on the board recently if, for them, there was a line in the sand that would disqualify someone's claim to be prophet. The response was that it sounded like a gotcha question. Well, of course! That's the heart of objectivity: establishing a standard and then observing whether or not it is met.

I'm afraid that with the Church, we learn of these things once we've already invested usually a great deal emotionally,  and through our personal relationships, that we often prefer to not disprove our preconceptions. Indeed, with the confidentiality used by those praticing plural marriage, that's what has always happened in the Church:

Obtain the commitment before full disclosure.

Thus it is extremely difficult to navigate through our own biases to evaluate. It's painful.

Edited March 10, 2017 by Meadowchik

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

THus, deception.  It wasn't just that he was accused of adultery, he was accused of both and he denied both.  It could have been that he never had relations with any of the women he married, but it'd still be deception to say he was not married to them when he was. 

It's interesting to see that some here will concede that there was deception involved with Joseph's polygamy but then fight using the word "lie".  (I'm not referring to you as I don't see you doing this.)

But, can someone deceive without lying?  Is there a difference?

Joseph deceived Emma at least with the mock marriages of the Partridge sisters if not at other times when he married girls and women without her knowledge.  Could he have done this without lying to her?

 

 

Edited March 10, 2017 by JulieM

[CV75]

15 hours ago, JulieM said:

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?

I’ve been focusing on the report from the Tennessee conference [correction: the speech was given in Nauvoo; the report is under the subheading for the conference], so I will answer this with a few general principles. One is that I don’t tend to evaluate such things by my feelings, and I don’t pretend to know what goes on in peoples’ heads.

Do you apply the same standard to the "good, reliable references" you refer to above that deems the Tennessee conference to be a good, reliable reference for JS not speaking defensively against charges of adultery? If so, that is quite problematic, but in any case the proof of deception and mock officiating is simply not there given the other facts surrounding how the practice and principles operated in that time-frame and how the covenant and ordinance was constructed.

Another general principle that applies to this is that the blessings of temple sealings and the redemption that follows is that the person receives the blessings as though he always had them. The participants were given precisely that opportunity. And just as partaking of sacrament each will is not a mock ordinance; neither would be a second sealing ordinance, renewing vows under a new set of circumstances (internal and external), just as we do each week.

And another general principle is, what someone only supposes to be another person’s intentions is not fully reliable, eve if it is written down.

Someone mentioned the belief that the D&C shows that Joseph was forgiven of these alleged sins concerning plural marriage, the implication I think being that the problems are dead issues. I’m not sure which revelation that is: D&C 29 (1830); 62 (1831); 90 (1833); or 110 (1836), and some of these (and others) include other individuals being forgiven... but that would be surely prophetic since the Partridge marriages occurred in 1843 and the Tennessee conference in 1844, and a good many plural marriages were performed all along. I don’t think we can know what sins these revelations cover, and since there is no forgiveness mentioned in the later revelations, does that mean the Lord and JS  gave up on forgiveness? And what about Emma: nothing after 1830!

Edited March 10, 2017 by CV75

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Calm,  I'm really confused by your guesswork here.  WHo knows why Emma didn't leave Joseph?  Some people are intent on staying no matter what.  I think it's true she was a couple of times as ready to leave as she could have been, but her love for him never ceased.  It's way hard to get over and way hard to act rational when such emotions are involved. 

And in those days I wonder how accepted divorce was, I have even read that divorce was taboo.

[JulieM]

25 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I’ve been focusing on the report from the Tennessee conference, so I will answer this with a few general principles. One is that I don’t tend to evaluate such things by my feelings, and I don’t pretend to know what goes on in peoples’ heads.

 

Do you apply the same standard to the "good, reliable references" you refer to above that deems the Tennessee conference to be a good, reliable reference for JS not speaking defensively against charges of adultery? If so, that is quite problematic, but in any case the proof of deception and mock officiating is simply not there given the other facts surrounding how the practice and principles operated in that time-frame and how the covenant and ordinance was constructed.

 

Another general principle that applies to this is that the blessings of temple sealings and the redemption that follows is that the person receives the blessings as though he always had them. The participants were given precisely that opportunity. And just as partaking of sacrament each will is not a mock ordinance; neither would be a second sealing ordinance, renewing vows under a new set of circumstances (internal and external), just as we do each week.

 

And another general principle is, what someone only supposes to be another person’s intentions is not fully reliable, eve if it is written down.

 

Someone mentioned the belief that the D&C shows that Joseph was forgiven of these alleged sins concerning plural marriage, the implication I think being that the problems are dead issues. I’m not sure which revelation that is: D&C 29 (1830); 62 (1831); 90 (1833); or 110 (1836), and some of these (and others) include other individuals being forgiven... but that would be surely prophetic since the Partridge marriages occurred in 1843 and the Tennessee conference in 1844, and a good many plural marriages were performed all along. I don’t think we can know what sins these revelations cover, and since there is no forgiveness mentioned in the later revelations, does that mean the Lord and JS  gave up on forgiveness? And what about Emma: nothing after 1830!

You're really good at dodging and deflecting! (And writing long answers without really answering a direct question).

Do you believe Joseph deceived Emma with the mock marriages/sealings with the Partridge sisters?  

These sisters and Joseph were already married months earlier without Emma's knowledge and rather than Joseph telling her this, he had the marriages and sealings repeated representing them to Emma as if it was the first time these took place.  

If you don't want to answer, just say so.  But the question in bold is a straight forward question with a yes or no answer. 

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

You're really good at dodging and deflecting! (And writing long answers without really answering a direct question).

Do you believe Joseph deceived Emma with the mock marriages/sealings with the Partridge sisters?  

These sisters and Joseph were already married months earlier without Emma's knowledge and rather than Joseph telling her this, he had the marriages and sealings repeated representing them to Emma as if it was the first time these took place.  

If you don't want to answer, just say so.  But the question in bold is a straight forward question with a yes or no answer. 

I guess we need to have more patience with those like CV75, even though their patience with the disillusioned LDS wears very thin. 

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

You're really good at dodging and deflecting! (And writing long answers without really answering a direct question).

Do you believe Joseph deceived Emma with the mock marriages/sealings with the Partridge sisters?  

These sisters and Joseph were already married months earlier without Emma's knowledge and rather than Joseph telling her this, he had the marriages and sealings repeated representing them to Emma as if it was the first time these took place.  

If you don't want to answer, just say so.  But the question in bold is a straight forward question with a yes or no answer. 

This kind of deflection is what I call.."yeah but"..."yeah but"... a lot of words where nothing is said. 

[JLHPROF]

33 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Do you believe Joseph deceived Emma with the mock marriages/sealings with the Partridge sisters?  

Yes.
I believe he withheld information that would have hurt her.
Kind of like God does with us.

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes.
I believe he withheld information that would have hurt her.
Kind of like God does with us.

I like your honesty! Rather than defend at all costs things the leaders say or do wrong, just telling it like it is. I'm sure JS didn't want to hurt Emma, but he did.

[Jeanne]

13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes.
I believe he withheld information that would have hurt her.
Kind of like God does with us.

Thank you for coming through with your honesty...

[CV75]

40 minutes ago, JulieM said:

You're really good at dodging and deflecting! (And writing long answers without really answering a direct question).

Do you believe Joseph deceived Emma with the mock marriages/sealings with the Partridge sisters?  

These sisters and Joseph were already married months earlier without Emma's knowledge and rather than Joseph telling her this, he had the marriages and sealings repeated representing them to Emma as if it was the first time these took place.  

If you don't want to answer, just say so.  But the question in bold is a straight forward question with a yes or no answer. 

I simply do not see the "question in bold" as "a straight forward question with a yes or no answer." The previous thread seemed to get bogged down with semantics, and this question carries the same bias and baggage ("deceived" and "mock"). My answer is much the same as the one I gave above.

I do accept for working purposes that the sisters had secretly entered a plural marriage with Joseph and then a second ordinance was performed with Emma's knowledge, consent and participation. The evidence that I am working from, as well as recognizing there is plenty we do not know, simply does not allow the conclusion that the second ordinance was a misrepresented or mock ordinance for deceptive purposes, much of which I explained in my previous answer.

 

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

I do accept for working purposes that the sisters had secretly entered a plural marriage with Joseph and then a second ordinance was performed with Emma's knowledge, consent and participation.

If you accept that then acknowledgement of some level of deceit on Joseph's part is implicit in that acceptance.

[JulieM]

19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes.
I believe he withheld information that would have hurt her.
Kind of like God does with us.

Thank you for having the courage and integrity to honestly answer.  

I agree that Joseph deceived Emma here to avoid hurting her.  

I always appreciate your honesty and enjoy reading and learning from you. 

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

Thank you for having the courage and integrity to honestly answer.  

I agree that Joseph deceived Emma here to avoid hurting her.  

I always appreciate your honesty and enjoy reading and learning from you. 

I agree.  I believe JHLPROF sees reality and deals with it better than others..when people do this, I listen.  The church needs to have people really listen..thus, the need to see things as they are.

[JulieM]

16 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I do accept for working purposes that the sisters had secretly entered a plural marriage with Joseph and then a second ordinance was performed with Emma's knowledge, consent and participation. 

I think "secretly" is the key word above.  That and the fact that the second sealing was done under the guise (for Emma) of it being the first sealing/marriage to both sisters was deceit.  

We can discuss why Joseph felt he needed to do the first sealings without Emma's knowledge (the "secretly" part) and why he deceived her by presenting the second sealings as if they were the first ones, but I'm not sure how you continue to deny the deception involved here.

Edited March 10, 2017 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I agree.  I believe JHLPROF sees reality and deals with it better than others..when people do this, I listen.  The church needs to have people really listen..thus, the need to see things as they are.

What the Church NEEDS is to do a better job teaching its members how to accept truth when it conflicts with their traditions or feelings instead of walking away from the Church.  The time of avoiding troubling things being the best path is long past.
That problem has always existed and continues to this day.  It was one of Joseph's biggest frustrations.

Edited March 10, 2017 by JLHPROF

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

What the Church NEEDS is to do a better job teaching its members how to accept truth when it conflicts with their traditions or feelings instead of walking away from the Church.  The time of avoiding troubling things being the best path is long past.
That problem has always existed and continues to this day.  It was one of Joseph's biggest frustrations.

I agree.

Apologetic answers (or avoidance of answering) may have used to work on some, but those days are gone, IMO.

Rambling denials are ineffective when members have questions and they want truthful, straightforward answers.

 

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I agree.

Apologetic answers (or avoidance of answering) may have used to work on some, but those days are gone, IMO.

Rambling denials are ineffective when members have questions and they want truthful, straightforward answers.

 

And I agree with you, I'll bet there are some out there that have decided to ride it out, with the new transparency the church is showing.

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I agree.

Apologetic answers (or avoidance of answering) may have used to work on some, but those days are gone, IMO.

Rambling denials are ineffective when members have questions and they want truthful, straightforward answers.

 

The problem is, the straightforward answers require change in thought and feeling on the part of the member.
The onus of change is as much on the person asking the question as it is on the Church to provide the truthful answer.

Plural marriage is as good an example as any.  Those asking the questions concerning Joseph and his polygamous marriages seem to be hoping the Church will come out and say "he did something bad".  That should never happen.
The Church needs to teach the questioner that what Joseph did was right, why it was right, and how to accept it, even though it rubs against our traditions and feelings.
Much better than either pretending polygamy didn't happen, or allowing them to think polygamy was a mistake.

Edited March 10, 2017 by JLHPROF

[JulieM]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The problem is, the straightforward answers require change in thought and feeling on the part of the member.
The onus of change is as much on the person asking the question as it is on the Church to provide the truthful answer.

Plural marriage is as good an example as any.  Those asking the questions concerning Joseph and his polygamous marriages seem to be hoping the Church will come out and say "he did something bad".  That should never happen.
The Church needs to teach the questioner that what Joseph did was right, why it was right, and how to accept it, even though it rubs against our traditions and feelings.

I think that's the best approach for the church now.  But be honest about what took place and how polygamy was lived (like you are!).

 

Edited March 10, 2017 by JulieM