Seven wives or one? Did Joseph lie?

[Tacenda]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

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

In my reading, I read that the men would get custody of the children if the wife wanted the divorce. 

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

In my reading, I read that the men would get custody of the children if the wife wanted the divorce. 

Funny, I was under the impression that the children went with the mother.
I'll have to look into that.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, JulieM said:

 

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.  

They weren't necessary mock ceremonies though.  They did multiple baptisms at that time.  We even do nonlegal, but religious ceremonies these days for renewing one's vows.  We don't knowingly repeat sealings these days, but my memory is pushing at me they at least repeated some when the temple was done and possibly another time.  Seeing how they were just beginning with them, I would give the benefit of the doubt that those participating didn't see it as a sham.  I don't think the language goes that direction, though I don't think it goes the other way (as in gosh, we were all excited to get sealed again).  Need to find that reference.

The deception comes in by not telling Emma they were repeats.  Those involved may or may not have felt the ceremony had meaning.  I have been trying to find the full quote of one of the sisters that stated Joseph thought it best not to share that info with Emma, but all I get have ....  Got to go dig up Mormon Enigma as it is the citation used.

So I would rewrite the question as "do you believe Joseph deceived Emma by not intentionally informing her of the prior sealings?"

Edited March 11, 2017 by Calm

[juliann]

7 hours ago, JulieM said:

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!

 

I was referring to this mention of apologetic which seems to be given equivalency with avoidence:  " Apologetic answers (or avoidance of answering) may have used to work on some, but those days are gone, IMO."  I have no doubt that is not what you intended because I am familiar with you. But....

There is nothing "apologetic" about negative traits, those traits belong to individuals. IMO, it is impossible to do apologetics without acknowledging the obvious....another reason I would not give that an apologetic label.

[JulieM]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

They weren't necessary mock ceremonies though.  They did multiple baptisms at that time.  We even do nonlegal, but religious ceremonies these days for renewing one's vows.  We don't knowingly repeat sealings these days, but my memory is pushing at me they at least repeated some when the temple was done and possibly another time.  Seeing how they were just beginning with them, I would give the benefit of the doubt that those participating didn't see it as a sham.  I don't think the language goes that direction, though I don't think it goes the other way (as in gosh, we were all excited to get sealed again).  Need to find that reference.

The deception comes in by not telling Emma they were repeats.  Those involved may or may not have felt the ceremony had meaning.  I have been trying to find the full quote of one of the sisters that stated Joseph thought it best not to share that info with Emma, but all I get have ....  Got to go dig up Mormon Enigma as it is the citation used.

So I would rewrite the question as "do you believe Joseph deceived Emma by not intentionally informing her of the prior sealings?"

I agree...good input and thoughts.  Thanks Calm.  I wondered about trying to find a better term than "mock"....maybe duplicate?  I do believe it's not necessary to do ordinances more than the first time but I know it's still done.

Edited March 11, 2017 by JulieM

[Calm]

Duplicate is just fine in my view.

[JLHPROF]

11 hours ago, JulieM said:

I agree...good input and thoughts.  Thanks Calm.  I wondered about trying to find a better term than "mock"....maybe duplicate?  I do believe it's not necessary to do ordinances more than the first time but I know it's still done.

I have maybe a different possibility.

Many ordinances were believed ok to repeat in the early days of the Church.  Baptisms were repeated often.  (Brigham is said to have been baptized over a dozen times in his life).  Sealings and endowments performed outside temple walls were sometimes repeated when a temple became available.  There was a focus on being more correct.

Perhaps we are forgetting about the "Law of Sarah" ceremony.  I can see Joseph considering giving Emma the opportunity to participate in the "Law of Sarah" ceremony as being a more correct and more complete living of the plural marriage ordinances.  That alone would give him motivation to repeat the ordinance.

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I have maybe a different possibility.

Many ordinances were believed ok to repeat in the early days of the Church.  Baptisms were repeated often.  (Brigham is said to have been baptized over a dozen times in his life).  Sealings and endowments performed outside temple walls were sometimes repeated when a temple became available.  There was a focus on being more correct.

Perhaps we are forgetting about the "Law of Sarah" ceremony.  I can see Joseph considering giving Emma the opportunity to participate in the "Law of Sarah" ceremony as being a more correct and more complete living of the plural marriage ordinances.  That alone would give him motivation to repeat the ordinance.

Possibly.  Is there any evidence this was the case here?  I'd really be interested in anything you have on this.

But either way, I feel there was deception involved (unless Joseph told Emma about the first sealings).

Emily and Eliza were not even to tell each other about their sealings to Joseph. 

Emily wrote:

“neither of us [Eliza and Emily] knew about the other at the time, everything was so secret.”

Here's what she wrote about Emma:

“I do not know why she [Emma] gave us to him, unless she thought we were where she could watch us better...” 

“To save the family trouble Brother Joseph thought it best to have another ceremony performed...[Emma] had her feelings, and so we thought there was no use in saying anything about it so long as she had chosen us herself...Accordingly...we were sealed to JS a second time, in Emma’s presence.” 

That next week, Emma received her endowment.  

Emily writes this about Emma changing her mind:

“We remained in the family several months after this...She sent for us one day to come to her room. Joseph was present, looking like a martyr. Emma said some very hard things ...She would rather her blood would run...than be polluted in this manner...Joseph came to us and shook hands with us, and the understanding was that all was ended between us. I for one meant to keep this promise I was forced to make.”  

"We looked upon the covenants we had made as sacred”.   

“I think Emma always regretted having any hand in getting us into such trying circumstances.  But she need not have blamed herself for that... for it would have been the same with or without her consent.."

I do think Joseph was in a difficult position when Emma finally gave him permission to marry the Partridge sisters after he had already secretly married them.  I'm sure he was very happy about Emma's change of mind and didn't want to make her angry or upset by revealing this to her.  He wanted her to accept the principle and receive her endowment.

This is what maybe we should be discussing here (Joseph's motives or reasons for not telling Emma).  But, I'm not sure how anyone who studies this can't see that there was deception involved.

 

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

Possibly.  Is there any evidence this was the case here?  I'd really be interested in anything you have on this.

But either way, I feel there was deception involved (unless Joseph told Emma about the first sealings).

Emily and Eliza were not even to tell each other about their sealings to Joseph. 

Emily wrote:

“neither of us [Eliza and Emily] knew about the other at the time, everything was so secret.”

Here's what she wrote about Emma:

“I do not know why she [Emma] gave us to him, unless she thought we were where she could watch us better...” 

“To save the family trouble Brother Joseph thought it best to have another ceremony performed...[Emma] had her feelings, and so we thought there was no use in saying anything about it so long as she had chosen us herself...Accordingly...we were sealed to JS a second time, in Emma’s presence.” 

That next week, Emma received her endowment.  

Emily writes this about Emma changing her mind:

“We remained in the family several months after this...She sent for us one day to come to her room. Joseph was present, looking like a martyr. Emma said some very hard things ...She would rather her blood would run...than be polluted in this manner...Joseph came to us and shook hands with us, and the understanding was that all was ended between us. I for one meant to keep this promise I was forced to make.”  

"We looked upon the covenants we had made as sacred”.   

“I think Emma always regretted having any hand in getting us into such trying circumstances.  But she need not have blamed herself for that... for it would have been the same with or without her consent.."

I do think Joseph was in a difficult position when Emma finally gave him permission to marry the Partridge sisters after he had already secretly married them.  I'm sure he was very happy about Emma's change of mind and didn't want to make her angry or upset by revealing this to her.  He wanted her to accept the principle and receive her endowment.

This is what maybe we should be discussing here (Joseph's motives or reasons for not telling Emma).  But, I'm not sure how anyone who studies this can't see that there was deception involved.

 

Oh, I wasn't saying there was no deception.  There clearly was.
But I was explaining that Joseph may have had more than one reason to perform the ordinance a second time and that neither ceremony was "fake" or "mock".

[Calm]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

Possibly.  Is there any evidence this was the case here?  I'd really be interested in anything you have on this.

But either way, I feel there was deception involved (unless Joseph told Emma about the first sealings).

Emily and Eliza were not even to tell each other about their sealings to Joseph. 

Emily wrote:

“neither of us [Eliza and Emily] knew about the other at the time, everything was so secret.”

Here's what she wrote about Emma:

“I do not know why she [Emma] gave us to him, unless she thought we were where she could watch us better...” 

“To save the family trouble Brother Joseph thought it best to have another ceremony performed...[Emma] had her feelings, and so we thought there was no use in saying anything about it so long as she had chosen us herself...Accordingly...we were sealed to JS a second time, in Emma’s presence.” 

That next week, Emma received her endowment.  

Emily writes this about Emma changing her mind:

“We remained in the family several months after this...She sent for us one day to come to her room. Joseph was present, looking like a martyr. Emma said some very hard things ...She would rather her blood would run...than be polluted in this manner...Joseph came to us and shook hands with us, and the understanding was that all was ended between us. I for one meant to keep this promise I was forced to make.”  

"We looked upon the covenants we had made as sacred”.   

“I think Emma always regretted having any hand in getting us into such trying circumstances.  But she need not have blamed herself for that... for it would have been the same with or without her consent.."

I do think Joseph was in a difficult position when Emma finally gave him permission to marry the Partridge sisters after he had already secretly married them.  I'm sure he was very happy about Emma's change of mind and didn't want to make her angry or upset by revealing this to her.  He wanted her to accept the principle and receive her endowment.

This is what maybe we should be discussing here (Joseph's motives or reasons for not telling Emma).  But, I'm not sure how anyone who studies this can't see that there was deception involved.

 

Julie, do you have the original quote?  ... makes me nervous, especially from certain websites, like the Wives of JS one as they really misquoted Helen Mar Kimball by combining comments from different writings as if they were one and setting up the footnote system poorly with no links so as to be able to read what was said in context. (I analyzed that years ago, unfortunately a thread that got deleted in one of the upgrades.  I don't believe it has been updated, but it might have been.

[JulieM]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Oh, I wasn't saying there was no deception.  There clearly was.
But I was explaining that Joseph may have had more than one reason to perform the ordinance a second time and that neither ceremony was "fake" or "mock".

Ok, got it.  All you bring here is so interesting to me!  Thanks.

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Julie, do you have the original quote?  ... makes me nervous, especially from certain websites, like the Wives of JS one as they really misquoted Helen Mar Kimball by combining comments from different writings as if they were one and setting up the footnote system poorly with no links so as to be able to read what was said in context. (I analyzed that years ago, unfortunately a thread that got deleted in one of the upgrades.  I don't believe it has been updated, but it might have been.

I would be interested in the entire writings of Emily too.  I'll try to find a source if I get the chance today.  Good point.

ETA:

I found this (there's more of the quotes from what I can see with a quick scan):

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/plural-wives-overview/emily-dow-partridge/

I'll keep looking when I get a chance too.

 

Edited March 11, 2017 by JulieM

[CV75]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

Duplicate is just fine in my view.

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Oh, I wasn't saying there was no deception.  There clearly was.
But I was explaining that Joseph may have had more than one reason to perform the ordinance a second time and that neither ceremony was "fake" or "mock".

I'm glad I was able to stimulate some discussion rationalizing duplicate ordinances and Emily Partidge's attempt to explain them yesterday, without anyone replying to me about it!

It seems the credence in the conclusion that Joseph Smith lied about plural marriage is based on a single line of text where verbal tense carries far more weight than the broader context, without recognizing how often the present tense is used in the arguments describing what JS was doing and meaning!

My read is that he saw Emma as his only wife under the terms of civil law in 1827 and as his only wife under those same terms in 1844. It seems to me that in making the Nauvoo comments he was describing his reaction as newlywed in the first reference, and then separating and compartmentalizing church and state within the scope of his 1844 responsibilities in the second. It is an ingenious rhetorical device.

It seems the credence in the conclusion that Joseph Smith lied to Emma specifically is based on circumstantial evidence and personal bias, which do not count for context. Given all we know about Emma and the considerations I pointed out yesterday regarding her, I see that she was separating and compartmentalizing church and state as well, within the scope of her commitments.

Some will conclude that he lied and condemn him, some forgive him, and some justify him. Some like me can’t conclude that he lied based on the most crucial evidence that seems to have been presented.

[Calm]

Strange editing again, though it may not alter meaning (why delete "pure"?).  Need to doublecheck, this is supposedly from Rough Stone Rolling, but my copy was borrowed years ago and haven't replaced it.  Obviously there is more.  Need to find the rest.  Iirc, he cites Mormon Enigma, which likely has multiple quotes he combined into one again.

"She sent for us one day to come to her room. Joseph was present, looking like a martyr. Emma said some very hard things – Joseph should give us up or blood should flow. She would rather her blood would run pure than be poluted in this manner. Such interviews were quite common, but the last time she called us to her room, I felt quite indignant, and was determined it should be the last, for it was becoming monotonous, and I am ashamed to say, I felt indignant towards Joseph for submitting to Emma.  Emma wanted the marriages to the Partridge girls ended. Emily said, “Joseph asked her [Emma] if we made her the promises she required, if she would cease to trouble us, and not persist in our marrying some one else.  She made the promise. Joseph came to us and shook hands with us, and the understanding was that all was ended between us.” Later he said to Emily privately, “You know my hands are tied. And he looked as if he would sink into the earth.” Emma wanted the girls out of the house and the city. Emily said later that “my sister and I were cast off. 40

 

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Emma wanted the marriages to the Partridge girls ended.

Such a strange request.  How exactly did she think that would work?  The marriages were never ended.  All she did was play Sarah to their Hagar.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I'm glad I was able to stimulate some discussion rationalizing duplicate ordinances and Emily Partidge's attempt to explain them yesterday, without anyone replying to me about it!

It seems the credence in the conclusion that Joseph Smith lied about plural marriage is based on a single line of text where verbal tense carries far more weight than the broader context, without recognizing how often the present tense is used in the arguments describing what JS was doing and meaning!...

It seems the credence in the conclusion that Joseph Smith lied to Emma specifically is based on circumstantial evidence and personal bias, which do not count for context..

 

CV, I believe I understand your position.  In my opinion, if you refuse to see any form of deception in the reported remarriage of the Partridge sisters and if you insist on treating "adultery" and "plural marriage" in Joseph's statement as two separate issues when the only form of adultery he is discussing is accusation of multiple marriages, then I don't particularly feel a need to discuss it with you any more.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Such a strange request.  How exactly did she think that would work?  The marriages were never ended.  All she did was play Sarah to their Hagar.

It reads as her trying to marry them off to someone else.  Whether she saw that as ending the marriage or she was simply concerned there be no more relationship during mortality, I can't tell.

Edited March 11, 2017 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

It reads as her trying to marry them off to someone else.  Whether she saw that as ending the marriage or she was simply concerned there be no more relationship during mortality, I can't tell.

Either way, I wonder if she really understood "eternal marriage" at this point.
And technically if she did participate in a Law of Sarah ceremony and then went back on it she broke a covenant.
We are very sympathetic to Emma's situation, and I'm sure the Lord is too, but breaking of covenants carries a certain seriousness and repercussions to the act.

[Calm]

I think I may have found the full quote, but not able to copy.  I will have to see if I am right about the WoJS quote as it is some length, it may have been just poor editing and I need to apologize.

https://books.google.com/books?id=dLgUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA240&lpg=PA240&dq="we+remained+in+the+family+several+months"+partridge&source=bl&ots=SQiihrLa0_&sig=wugGWQ_9CvM_PBnm_taI3Yk0C6E&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj6ssbu-87SAhWLv1QKHSm-DawQ6AEIJTAB#v=onepage&q="we remained in the family several months" partridge&f=false

edit:  not the full quote, only partial.  Suspicions confirmed, no apology necessary.  Too bad.

Edited March 11, 2017 by Calm

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think I may have found the full quote, but not able to copy.  I will have to see if I am right about the WoJS quote as it is some length, it may have been just poor editing and I need to apologize.

https://books.google.com/books?id=dLgUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA240&lpg=PA240&dq="we+remained+in+the+family+several+months"+partridge&source=bl&ots=SQiihrLa0_&sig=wugGWQ_9CvM_PBnm_taI3Yk0C6E&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj6ssbu-87SAhWLv1QKHSm-DawQ6AEIJTAB#v=onepage&q="we remained in the family several months" partridge&f=false

Thanks Calm for posting this.  I'll try to take a look at it later today!

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Either way, I wonder if she really understood "eternal marriage" at this point.
And technically if she did participate in a Law of Sarah ceremony and then went back on it she broke a covenant.
We are very sympathetic to Emma's situation, and I'm sure the Lord is too, but breaking of covenants carries a certain seriousness and repercussions to the act.

Treating young women under her care in a somewhat abusive manner is more than enough for me.  Understandable and it is quite possible Eliza exaggerated as she does describe herself as "indignant" or neglected to mention behaviour on her or her sister's part that was provoking, aside from Emma's alleged obsession they never be alone with Joseph.  She sounds resentful of her treatment by both, especially resenting Emma for causing Joseph to look less than admirable.

[Calm]

Going to try dictation....words are correct I think, punctuation later.  It looks like another case of misrepsenting what was said as this is only  part of it.  Never trust WoJS to tell the whole story, imo.

 "My sister Eliza and I having now arrived at an age in which we might earn our own living and perhaps contribute something to help hour mother and the smaller children were considering what we had better do when the Prophet Joseph and his wife Emma offered us a home in their family and they treated us with great kindness.  we had been there about a year when the principle of plural marriage was made known to us and I was married to Joseph Smith on the fourth of  march 1843, Elder Heber C Kimball performing the ceremony.  my sister Eliza was also married to Joseph a few days later this was done without the knowledge of Emma Smith two months afterward she consented to give her husband two wives provided he would give her the privilege of choosing them she accordingly chose my sister Eliza and myself and to save family trouble brother Joseph thought it best to have another ceremony  performed. accordingly on 11 May 1843 we were sealed to Joseph Smith a second time in Emma's presence she giving her free and full consent thereto.  From that very hour however Emma was our bitter enemy.  We remained in the family several months after this but things went from bad to worse until we are obliged to leave the house and find another home.  Emma desired us to leave the city but after considering the matter over we decided to remain with our friends.  after the Prophet's Joseph's  death I was married to president brigham young according to the laws of proxy."

[JulieM]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

Going to try dictation....words are correct I think, punctuation later.  It looks like another case of misrepsenting what was said as this is only  part of it.  Never trust WoJS to tell the whole story, imo.

 "My sister Eliza and I having now arrived at an age in which we might earn our own living and perhaps contribute something to help hour mother and the smaller children were considering what we had better do when the Prophet Joseph and his wife Emma offered us a home in their family and they treated us with great kindness.  we had been there about a year when the principle of plural marriage was made known to us and I was married to Joseph Smith on the fourth of  march 1843, Elder Heber C Kimball performing the ceremony.  my sister Eliza was also married to Joseph a few days later this was done without the knowledge of Emma Smith two months afterward she consented to give her husband two wives provided he would give her the privilege of choosing them she accordingly chose my sister Eliza and myself and to save family trouble brother Joseph thought it best to have another ceremony  performed. accordingly on 11 May 1843 we were sealed to Joseph Smith a second time in Emma's presence she giving her free and full consent thereto.  From that very hour however Emma was our bitter enemy.  We remained in the family several months after this but things went from bad to worse until we are obliged to leave the house and find another home.  Emma desired us to leave the city but after considering the matter over we decided to remain with our friends.  after the Prophet's Joseph's  death I was married to president brigham young according to the laws of proxy."

Ok, I'm on my phone now so it's hard to do a side by side comparison.  I still see the deception ("without the knowledge of Emma" part), so are you addressing what you and JLHPROF are discussing?  If not, can you be more specific as to what you're referencing?

I do like seeing the entire quote rather than having a bunch of eclipses, so thanks for posting this.  I'll also look closer at it when I can get on my computer and can do a better comparison.

[Tacenda]

40 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Either way, I wonder if she really understood "eternal marriage" at this point.
And technically if she did participate in a Law of Sarah ceremony and then went back on it she broke a covenant.
We are very sympathetic to Emma's situation, and I'm sure the Lord is too, but breaking of covenants carries a certain seriousness and repercussions to the act.

Why does Joseph Smith use the "Law of Sarah", to establish polygamy? The law is that Sarah needed to get pregnant to fulfill God's promise to Abraham and the only way that could happen is if she offered Hagar to her husband to make that happen. Emma could have children, Joseph using this to convince those that polygamy or celestial marriage was a commandment, IMO, is a stretch. Sorry JL, I know that you disagree.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Sarah-Hagar.html Quick synopsis..

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Why does Joseph Smith use the "Law of Sarah", to establish polygamy? The law is that Sarah needed to get pregnant to fulfill God's promise to Abraham and the only way that could happen is if she offered Hagar to her husband to make that happen. Emma could have children, Joseph using this to convince those that polygamy or celestial marriage was a commandment, IMO, is a stretch. Sorry JL, I know that you disagree.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Sarah-Hagar.html Quick synopsis..

If you believe Joseph made the whole thing up then you could say Joseph "used the Law of Sarah".
If you believe D&C 132 is the Lord speaking then the Law of Sarah is NOT about having children.