Seven wives or one? Did Joseph lie?

[Tacenda]

19 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.
Much better than either pretending polygamy didn't happen, or allowing them to think polygamy was a mistake.

I don't agree that polygamy is right really, I guess I can see some cases for it. But do agree that the church needs to be totally open about the past. And when they changed the wording in the "Teachings of the Presidents of the Church" manual with Brigham Young and changed wives to wife, that is an example of the church shying away. Plus the nonexistence of it at the Brigham Young home and in Palmyra. If the church continues to shy away from it, then that tells me they may not believe that it was right to begin with. 

Edited March 10, 2017 by Tacenda

[juliann]

1 hour 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.

 

Whenever someone defends their viewpoint, it is apologetic. We really really need to drop that label to even have straightforward discussions when it is used to dismiss the other guy. 

Nor do we need to convince every single poster they are wrong. I think it is indisputable JS "lied" (again, an unnecessarily inflammatory word) and I support the Church overall, thus I am technically an apologist. So what is with tying me to avoidance of answering merely to diminish someone else?

 

[JulieM]

40 minutes ago, juliann said:

Whenever someone defends their viewpoint, it is apologetic. We really really need to drop that label to even have straightforward discussions when it is used to dismiss the other guy. 

Nor do we need to convince every single poster they are wrong. I think it is indisputable JS "lied" (again, an unnecessarily inflammatory word) and I support the Church overall, thus I am technically an apologist. So what is with tying me to avoidance of answering merely to diminish someone else?

 

I always appreciate your honest answers. I wouldn't consider you to be one who won't deal with the facts straight on.  I may not agree with all your conclusions, but I'd put you with JLHPROF when it comes to your willingness to be open on any topic.

And, I agree about the apologist term (same about the label of antiMormon or other labels).  I'll work on that.  It's just frustrating to try to get some answers from a few posters here (but they are under no obligation to answer of course). The best discussions at least for me, are a back and forth of honesty and not avoidance or deflecting.  I'll be the first to admit if I don't know something or if I'm proven wrong too and love to learn here. 

With a discussion like this topic, there should be some basics we could agree on (from records, journals, etc.) and then we could move on to a more interesting discussion, IMO (as others have suggested to.)

ETA:

I just read your post again and I'm not sure what you're referring to here:

"So what is with tying me to avoidance of answering merely to diminish someone else?"

Where have I done that?  If it appeared I did, it was unintentional as I don't feel that way about you!

Edited March 10, 2017 by JulieM

[CV75]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

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

Not at all. The facts bear out, for me, exactly what I said they do. I think anything more than that is leaping to conclusions. But thank you for showing how semantics can falsely / artificially / seemingly / incorrectly / erroneously / inaccurately (pick your adverb; I do not wish to offend!) imply that the facts bear out more than that, which when done in behalf of another is like putting words in his mouth.

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

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.

That is what "secretly" might imply to you, but not to me. But thank you for showing how semantics can falsely / artificially / seemingly / incorrectly / erroneously / inaccurately (pick your adverb; I do not wish to offend!) imply that the facts bear out more than that, especially for me. Surely you would not want to put words in my mouth.

I bet that secretly you acknowledge on some level that I’m right!

I am satisfied that the sisters had secretly entered a plural marriage with Joseph and then a second ordinance was performed with Emma's knowledge without any evidence of or requisite deceit on Joseph’s part.

If you would like to discuss, based on the historical account, the reason(s) plural marriage was kept secret, and the reason(s) second ordinances were performed, you’d have to begin with better documentation than has been used so far, and as far as discussing deceit goes, that would have to include reliable witnesses or confessions of deceitful intent and deceitful execution of secrecy and ordinances. Opinions wouldn’t count.

Edited March 10, 2017 by CV75

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

I see why you want to ignore the question of justification when lives are at stake.  Perhaps because we live in a world in which there is no privacy and a complete lack of decorum, it is so easy to just make a slimey claim without considering the consequences.  Deception is certainly called for in some cases, whether by Jesus or Joseph Smith.  it is sometimes the right and necessary thing to do.  That is the perspective which you fail to bring to his issue.

[rongo]

3 hours ago, JulieM said:

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?

This was a discussion point in a talk I had with a member last night (with his bishop). Regarding Nauvoo polygamy, his concern was not only Joseph Smith lying about it, but at least 30 others as well (lying about it to protect him and the Church). 

The only real defense of it is if God told them to. I know that many people recoil in horror at that ("God would never do that!"), but if he a) commanded certain people to live polygamy and b) commanded them not to tell anyone, then that put them in a really tough spot. 

He has commanded people not to talk about or tell anyone about things before (e.g., Mount of Transfiguration). When asked, "What were you doing? Where were you?", and answer they gave would have been "deceitful/prevaricating/outright lying." In that case, there would have been nothing for them to do but to lie, in some form. 

Playing semantic games to make it so that Joseph Smith (and others; it wasn't just him in Nauvoo) wasn't lying makes it worse with people who are struggling. The last thing you want to is to be a "Baghdad Bob" spin doctor.

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I see why you want to ignore the question of justification when lives are at stake.  Perhaps because we live in a world in which there is no privacy and a complete lack of decorum, it is so easy to just make a slimey claim without considering the consequences.  Deception is certainly called for in some cases, whether by Jesus or Joseph Smith.  it is sometimes the right and necessary thing to do.  That is the perspective which you fail to bring to his issue.

Keeping secrets is a key part of much of Mormon theology.

[JulieM]

31 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I am satisfied that the sisters had secretly entered a plural marriage with Joseph and then a second ordinance was performed with Emma's knowledge without any evidence of or requisite deceit on Joseph’s part.

So, you believe Emma knew it wasn't the first sealing or marriage performed between Joseph and the sisters (or knew that Joseph had already been married to them for months)?

I'm just trying to understand what you believe here.

I can see that if you believe she knew, then that would not be a deception.  How do you think she found out?

Edited March 10, 2017 by JulieM

[Tacenda]

21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Not at all. The facts bear out, for me, exactly what I said they do. I think anything more than that is leaping to conclusions. But thank you for showing how semantics can falsely / artificially / seemingly / incorrectly / erroneously / inaccurately (pick your adverb; I do not wish to offend!) imply that the facts bear out more than that, which when done in behalf of another is like putting words in his mouth.

That is what "secretly" might imply to you, but not to me. But thank you for showing how semantics can falsely / artificially / seemingly / incorrectly / erroneously / inaccurately (pick your adverb; I do not wish to offend!) imply that the facts bear out more than that, especially for me. Surely you would not want to put words in my mouth.

I bet that secretly you acknowledge on some level that I’m right!

I am satisfied that the sisters had secretly entered a plural marriage with Joseph and then a second ordinance was performed with Emma's knowledge without any evidence of or requisite deceit on Joseph’s part.

If you would like to discuss, based on the historical account, the reason(s) plural marriage was kept secret, and the reason(s) second ordinances were performed, you’d have to begin with better documentation than has been used so far, and as far as discussing deceit goes, that would have to include reliable witnesses or confessions of deceitful intent and deceitful execution of secrecy and ordinances. Opinions wouldn’t count.

I guess the only way to tell if it was deceit is if he told Emma that this was the first ceremony, I see your point somewhat. But if it walks like a duck....

[blueglass]

21 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Keeping secrets is a key part of much of Mormon theology.

Which is why members aren't that great at member missionary work.  We covenant 3:1 to "never reveal", yet we need to proclaim the gospel to all D&Cov 33:7-11.  With this dissonance in play the net result is less member referrals. 

[blueglass]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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.  

Adultery was a supremely dangerous word to use around Joseph Smith.  “If a man commit adultery, he cannot receive the celestial kingdom of God. Even if he is saved in any kingdom, it cannot be the celestial kingdom” - Joseph Smith Jr. (HC 6:81 Sat. 25-Nov-1843)

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Which is why members aren't that great at member missionary work.  We covenant 3:1 to "never reveal", yet we need to proclaim the gospel to all D&Cov 33:7-11.  With this dissonance in play the net result is less member referrals.

I don't see any dissonance there.  I think you are reaching a bit.
Proclaiming the first principles to the world and keeping private the deeper things of God are hardly a great conflict.

Christ told us not to cast our pearls before swine.
Joseph said:

• "The reason we do not have secrets of the Lord revealed unto us is because we do not keep them but reveal them; We do not keep our own secrets, but reveal our difficulties to the world, even to our enemies, then how would we keep the secrets of the Lord? I can keep a secret till Doomsday." 
  Joseph Smith, 19 Dec. 1841 Recorded in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p. 195

Neither of those conflict with spreading the message of Christ and the atonement.

[blueglass]

4 hours ago, JulieM said:

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?

 

It's certainly not the first time.  We have the famous quote from Joseph's letter to Nancy Rigdon.  When Rigdon confronted Joseph he backed down and denied.  Then more evidence was presented and Nancy called him out on it. 

George W. Robinson reported that when Smith came to Rigdon's home, the enraged father asked for an explanation. The prophet 'attempted to deny it at first,' Robinson said, 'and face her down with the lie; but she told the facts with so much earnestness, and the fact of a letter being present, which he had caused to be written to her on the same subject, the day after the attempt made on her virtue,' that ultimately 'he could not withstand the testimony; he then and there acknowledged that every word of Miss Rigdon's testimony was true'  

John Rigdon:  'Nancy was one of those excitable women and she went into the room and said, "Joseph Smith, you are telling that which is not true. You did make such a proposition to me and you know it [crossed out in the original]: 'The woman who was there said to Nancy, "Are you not afraid to call the Lord's anointed a cursed liar?" "No," she replied, "I am not for he does lie and he knows it"' . 

[Jeanne]

15 minutes ago, blueglass said:

It's certainly not the first time.  We have the famous quote from Joseph's letter to Nancy Rigdon.  When Rigdon confronted Joseph he backed down and denied.  Then more evidence was presented and Nancy called him out on it. 

George W. Robinson reported that when Smith came to Rigdon's home, the enraged father asked for an explanation. The prophet 'attempted to deny it at first,' Robinson said, 'and face her down with the lie; but she told the facts with so much earnestness, and the fact of a letter being present, which he had caused to be written to her on the same subject, the day after the attempt made on her virtue,' that ultimately 'he could not withstand the testimony; he then and there acknowledged that every word of Miss Rigdon's testimony was true'  

John Rigdon:  'Nancy was one of those excitable women and she went into the room and said, "Joseph Smith, you are telling that which is not true. You did make such a proposition to me and you know it [crossed out in the original]: 'The woman who was there said to Nancy, "Are you not afraid to call the Lord's anointed a cursed liar?" "No," she replied, "I am not for he does lie and he knows it"' . 

I forgot about this.  His denial speaks volumes for lies and omissions.  There is a thin line between these two words.

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

This was a discussion point in a talk I had with a member last night (with his bishop). Regarding Nauvoo polygamy, his concern was not only Joseph Smith lying about it, but at least 30 others as well (lying about it to protect him and the Church). 

The only real defense of it is if God told them to. I know that many people recoil in horror at that ("God would never do that!"), but if he a) commanded certain people to live polygamy and b) commanded them not to tell anyone, then that put them in a really tough spot. 

He has commanded people not to talk about or tell anyone about things before (e.g., Mount of Transfiguration). When asked, "What were you doing? Where were you?", and answer they gave would have been "deceitful/prevaricating/outright lying." In that case, there would have been nothing for them to do but to lie, in some form. 

Playing semantic games to make it so that Joseph Smith (and others; it wasn't just him in Nauvoo) wasn't lying makes it worse with people who are struggling. 

I agree.  It insults their intelligence when all they want is honesty and help.

I think most are mainly troubled with any deception between spouses (Joseph with Emma).  The other secrets that had to be kept in order to live polygamy are more understandable, but to believe that God would command you to do something that could hurt or betray your spouse is difficult for many to accept.  It is for me.

Was this your meeting with the guy who'd read the CES letter?  If so, please post about it (if you want).  Maybe start another thread?

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I think most are mainly troubled with any deception between spouses (Joseph with Emma).

I think there is an aspect of this that is often overlooked - Emma was NOT Joseph's only wife.

A lot of times it seems like we look at this as Joseph and Emma and "those other women".
And I understand where that comes from - she was his first wife, the wife he was married to the longest, and the wife he raised children with.

But in the grand scheme of things Eliza R. Snow, Zina Huntington, Mary Rollins, Helen Kimball, these were ALL his spouses.  He was their husband. 
It amazes me that it's always "poor old Emma".  What about these other women who were prevented from having lives and families with their husband?  I'm afraid I have just as much sympathy for them as I do for Emma.  Maybe more.

Imagine having a spouse that you could never see, didn't get the opportunity to raise a family with, and had cruelly taken from you and you weren't even able to publicly mourn him.

But I do understand why so many feel for her.  Mostly because she seemed to have less of a say than everyone else involved.

Edited March 10, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

Just because I see it as a reasonable possibility, I prefer to work with what we have.  And that also seems consistent with everything else we have on the topic.  So my conclusion is that it is most probably recorded correctly and therefore present tense and that the context is clear that the only form of adultery he was talking about was polygamy, therefore he was lying at this time.

While I accept the may not have recorded correctly argument as a possibility, I find the nonpolygamy adultery a nonstarter myself.

[JulieM]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

But in the grand scheme of things Eliza R. Snow, Zina Huntington, Mary Rollins, Helen Kimball, these were ALL his spouses.  He was their husband. 
It amazes me that it's always "poor old Emma".  What about these other women who were prevented from having lives and families with their husband?  I'm afraid I have just as much sympathy for them as I do for Emma. 

Many of his wives did have husbands though.  Who was prevented from having husbands and children? (Sincere question.)  Joseph seemed fine with any of them marrying.  

I do think it's different with Emma and Joseph (vs. Brigham Young for example).  Brigham lived openly with his wives.  I wonder how many members even know the name of his legal wife?

But all members know Emma.  They feel Joseph and Emma had a great love story and they know about her sufferings.  Then when they learn the details regarding Joseph's polygamy, it's even more heartbreaking to read about that.

 

Edited March 10, 2017 by JulieM

[CV75]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

So, you believe Emma knew it wasn't the first sealing or marriage performed between Joseph and the sisters (or knew that Joseph had already been married to them for months)?

I'm just trying to understand what you believe here.

I can see that if you believe she knew, then that would not be a deception.  How do you think she found out?

I believe I haven’t all the facts, and so I’m not speculating on what Emma knew.

I don’t believe those who have taken a strong position possess more or better facts than I do, but I’ve observed that they express a stronger bias and something they would like to do or see done about it.

As you point out, there is so much more that could have been going on. Some might say she was highly intelligent, perceptive, resigned to the possibilities of secret marriages, close to the Lord and loyal to Joseph, conflicted and experiencing denial, and of course less commendable things, but any of that is no more or less indemonstrable than saying that Joseph pulled one over on her.

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I guess the only way to tell if it was deceit is if he told Emma that this was the first ceremony, I see your point somewhat. But if it walks like a duck....

That’s one way, but I’m not looking for tailor-made evidence, just what good evidence presents. There are plenty of expert researchers who I’m sure will discover more information that can offer more reliable interpretation. But seeing things that are not there (as I suggested above) is a matter of bias.

[Calm]

8 hours 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. 

I am not trying to prove anything here, but describing why I see Emma as a woman who wasn't a wimp being pushed around by her husband, but an intelligent, forceful woman who made choices to care and love a rather expanded family, including her husbands.  She had great strength and had, imo, from what I have read over time, significant influence over Joseph.  My guess is that she didn't stay because she had to, as many women in that time would have since their choices were stay married or live in poverty and maybe lose kids as well; but she stayed because no matter how hard it got, she wanted to be with Joseph though she came close.  While it is pretty obvious Joseph did significant things without telling her, she pretty much did the same thing with the RS announcement.  Love that.  She was willing to take the fight public and use politics just like him in other areas of his life.

Even in her second marriage, reading about the relationship, I think it conveys a strong woman willing to take on her husband's foibles without giving up on him (he actually did produce an illegitimate child and she took the child and mother in and was known for her kindness in raising them), but also not someone who just took it silently with bowed head.  Even the death of Joseph didn't weaken her as she pushed back hard on Brigham when it came to the estate.

Edited March 10, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

6 hours ago, JulieM said:

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?

Yes, I think they can.  One can tell the truth in such a way one knows it will be misunderstood.  It is too confusing in my opinion to label that "a lie" as it is "truth" and and saying something is both a truth and a lie for most people is illogical, though at times a "lie of omission" works but since most shorten that to "lie" in the rest of the conversation I think it still contributes to confusion and misunderstanding and too much argument over the label as opposed to the behaviour.  Plus I am not sure "omission" is precise enough to cover all the other forms of deception not included in direct lying.  That is why I prefer to use deception as that doesn't inherently mean someone is not telling the truth, but is broader cover all forms of misleading manipulation.

Edited March 10, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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

Divorce is quite taboo, but there was still separation.  That was another relatively common approach...one of the spouses just took off.

[Jeanne]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not trying to prove anything here, but describing why I see Emma as a woman who wasn't a wimp being pushed around by her husband, but an intelligent, forceful woman who made choices to care and love a rather expanded family, including her husbands.  She had great strength and had, imo, from what I have read over time, significant influence over Joseph.  My guess is that she didn't stay because she had to, as many women in that time would have since their choices were stay married or live in poverty and maybe lose kids as well; but she stayed because no matter how hard it got, she wanted to be with Joseph though she came close.  While it is pretty obvious Joseph did significant things without telling her, she pretty much did the same thing with the RS announcement.  Love that.  She was willing to take the fight public and use politics just like him in other areas of his life.

Even in her second marriage, reading about the relationship, I think it conveys a strong woman willing to take on her husband's foibles without giving up on him (he actually did produce an illegitimate child and she took the child and mother in and was known for her kindness in raising them), but also not someone who just took it silently with bowed head.  Even the death of Joseph didn't weaken her as she pushed back hard on Brigham when it came to the estate.

I love your take on Emma and I agree.she wasn't  wimp..and though she could show some real strength..her compassion for others..especially children gave her a certain tenderness.  This doesn't mean she used her temper wisely....(do any of us?) This is why I have often perhaps misunderstood how she could not see that there were lies all around her..She was not stupid and yet Joseph seemed to be able to if not lie directly..hide so many things.

[JulieM]

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yes, I think they can.  One can tell the truth in such a way one knows it will be misunderstood.  It is too confusing in my opinion to label that "a lie" as it is "truth" and and saying something is both a truth and a lie for most people is illogical, though at times a "lie of omission" works but since most shorten that to "lie" in the rest of the conversation I think it still contributes to confusion and misunderstanding and too much argument over the label as opposed to the behaviour.  Plus I am not sure "omission" is precise enough to cover all the other forms of deception not included in direct lying. 

Isn't that the same thing Dehlin was talking about regarding how to pass a temple recommend interview?   (I think it was Dehlin?).  Doing that was highly criticized here iirc.

Edited March 10, 2017 by JulieM

[rongo]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

Was this your meeting with the guy who'd read the CES letter?  If so, please post about it (if you want).  Maybe start another thread?

More details followed, I think on page 9.