Seven wives or one? Did Joseph lie?

[Tacenda]

15 minutes ago, JulieM said:

This just made me sad to read.  That must have been awful for all involved.

I hadn't previously read a lot of what you posted, Calm.  Thanks for searching it out and finding the original source.  It's fascinating to read what both sisters wrote.

 

IMNSHO, I think Emma felt guilty that she consented to have Joseph marry the Partridge sisters. I think she hunted them all the time to make sure they weren't intimate with Joseph. I wonder if the sisters' mother was even aware. Imagine giving young girls to your husband while they were in your household, how that would feel. I give Emma an out here.

[JLHPROF]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

"As in her autobiographical sketches, Emily emphasized that Emma “had chosen myself and my sister, and we were married in her presence again because we thought [it] proper to say nothing about the former marriage, and it was done over again on the 11th of May 1843 in her presence, and she gave her consent fully and freely and voluntarily.”

 

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Things remained as they were for a few months when sometime in the first part of May, Emma told Joseph that she would give him two wives if he would let her choose them for him.  She chose my sister and me and helped explain the principles to us.  We did not make much trouble, but were sealed in her presence with the full and free consent.

To me this indicates that Emma probably participated in the Law of Sarah ceremony part of the plural marriage and entered into that covenant.
Covenants are not so easily broken as many think.

[halconero]

21 hours ago, Jeanne said:

That he was not a prophet and polygamy did not come from God.  Period.

We would have to include a whole bunch of other prophets and the Saviour himself under the false prophet label if complete and utter transparency in all things is the standard.

[JulieM]

28 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

To me this indicates that Emma probably participated in the Law of Sarah ceremony part of the plural marriage and entered into that covenant.

I agree.  I think this was also the case with the Lawrence sisters.  I don't know if her acceptance of them was as short lived as with the Partridge sisters though, do you know?  Either way, she gave her permission from what the statements and records show.

I do think that Emma tried really hard to accept and believe.  She wanted to support Joseph.  I cannot even imagine how difficult all of that was for her.

Edited March 12, 2017 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I agree.  I think this was also the case with the Lawrence sisters.  I don't know if her acceptance of them was as short lived as with the Partridge sisters though, do you know?  Either way, she gave her permission from what the statements and records show.

I do think that Emma tried really hard to accept and believe.  She wanted to support Joseph.  I cannot even imagine how difficult all of that was for her.

To me that is like someone being baptized into the Church just because a spouse is a member.
It doesn't require any testimony and makes the whole situation more difficult. 

I don't believe Emma had a testimony of plural marriage and that made it much harder for her.  She wanted to support Joseph but that wasn't enough.  Joseph had no choice but to go forward instead of waiting for her to gain that testimony.  I am curious if Emma sought that testimony or fought it.  I don't see the Lord withholding a witness if she sought it with an open heart.

You compare this to Vilate Kimball's experience where she received her testimony before Heber entered plural marriage.  She had her trials in plural marriage too but she knew what God wanted and that it was right.
 

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

To me that is like someone being baptized into the Church just because a spouse is a member.
It doesn't require any testimony and makes the whole situation more difficult. 

I don't believe Emma had a testimony of plural marriage and that made it much harder for her.  She wanted to support Joseph but that wasn't enough.  Joseph had no choice but to go forward instead of waiting for her to gain that testimony.  I am curious if Emma sought that testimony or fought it.  I don't see the Lord withholding a witness if she sought it with an open heart.

You compare this to Vilate Kimball's experience where she received her testimony before Heber entered plural marriage.  She had her trials in plural marriage too but she knew what God wanted and that it was right.
 

Would have been nice if Emma had known this all before she ran away with Joseph.

[Jeanne]

Thanks...I will put this on order!!

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, halconero said:

We would have to include a whole bunch of other prophets and the Saviour himself under the false prophet label if complete and utter transparency in all things is the standard.

I don't think it is a requirement to have a prophet to believe in the Savior. 

[JulieM]

42 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't believe Emma had a testimony of plural marriage and that made it much harder for her.  She wanted to support Joseph but that wasn't enough.  Joseph had no choice but to go forward instead of waiting for her to gain that testimony.
 

There's always a choice.  Each one of us just has to determine whether Joseph did  the right thing or if he should have waited and not gone forward behind Emma's back (at least at first).  

What if Joseph ended up not living plural marriage and it was Brigham who was able to restore it? Would Joseph still have been a prophet?

Edited March 12, 2017 by JulieM

[CV75]

On 3/11/2017 at 0:17 PM, Calm said:

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.

Thank you But my position is not a matter of refusing to see deception (on either of those points), as I did not interpret anyone demanding that of me or imposing any obligation that I do see it. But if that was the intent for the invitation to participate in this thread (Posted Thursday at 03:27 PM), which in retrospect I could have taken more literally, I understand why you no longer need to discuss it.

But a “duplicate” ordinance is not a “remarriage”... …so if that has anything to do with the perception of deception, it should be revisited, for no one may refuse another a legitimate ordinance (even a secret one) under the terms set forth by the Lord through His presiding oracle. Emma’s lack of knowledge was not a function of deception, but of lack of eligibility for participation in and rights to the first ordinance as it was designed and performed for the Partridge sisters.

I would like to see any injunctions for multiple marriages, otherwise Joseph’s statement could not have possibly addressed the accusation of multiple marriages. All that I can find relate to adultery.

As I mentioned, some will conclude that Joseph Smith lied on one or both counts and condemn him, some forgive him, some justify him, some empathizing with a perceived moral or ethical dilemma and some not, and some allow for grace. Some (like me) don’t see from the evidence that he lied in the first place. Obviously not for discussion at this point (unless someone wants to), but only for consideration: someone like me will not have to repent for condemning, forgiving or justifying him (or for persuading others to do so) in the event that no sin was committed, and more especially should new evidence show that one was, since I allow for grace already!

Edited March 12, 2017 by CV75

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, JulieM said:

There's always a choice.  Each one of us just has to determine whether Joseph did  the right thing or if he should have waited and not gone forward behind Emma's back (at least at first).  

What if Joseph ended up not living plural marriage and it was Brigham who was able to restore it? Would Joseph still have been a prophet?

So if Emma had gained her testimony and been ok with all Joseph's plural marriages that would have made everything ok?
That puts all the control of Joseph's progression and obedience to God in Emma's hands.
If Joseph's only mistake was to move forward with a law of God before his wife was ready to move with him I think that is a forgivable one.  Everyone progresses at their own speed.

If God wanted Brigham to restore it instead of Joseph I would see no issue with that.  But Joseph received the revelation.  I will say that as head of the dispensation I don't think Joseph was in a position to not live one of the laws.

[JLHPROF]

33 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I don't think it is a requirement to have a prophet to believe in the Savior. 

Without prophecy there is no testimony of Christ (Rev 19:10) and without prophets God does not act (Amos 3:7).  That's Biblical.

Revelation 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Amos 3: 7 Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

I agree.  I think this was also the case with the Lawrence sisters.  I don't know if her acceptance of them was as short lived as with the Partridge sisters though, do you know?  Either way, she gave her permission from what the statements and records show.

I do think that Emma tried really hard to accept and believe.  She wanted to support Joseph.  I cannot even imagine how difficult all of that was for her.

From what I read, she was less upset over the Lawrence sisters it would seem.  Perhaps they were closer or more accommodating to her wishes.  It would be a good idea to read everything that is had on Emma and eternal marriage and plural marriage.  Just the sisters' reportsdo not provide a full view.  I will try to find anything the lawrences say and then see if I can find quotes from what Mormon Enigma sees relevant, but they post about 40 or 50 pages of stuff, so I may end up posting links only.

[JulieM]

25 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So if Emma had gained her testimony and been ok with all Joseph's plural marriages that would have made everything ok?
That puts all the control of Joseph's progression and obedience to God in Emma's hands.

What if Emma had prayed about it and was inspired and knew it was wrong for Joseph to live it?  I have to believe she did much praying regarding the principle of plural marriage.  Should she have gone against any answers that she received?

And, I do think that many today who learn the details of Joseph's polygamy would feel more supportive of it if Emma hadn't been so betrayed and hurt as his wife.  That's just my opinion, but I do think more would accept it.  Of course, not all would and many would still object to other details.

Most accept Brigham and other early member's polygamy because it was more out in the open.

Edited March 12, 2017 by JulieM

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Thank you But my position is not a matter of refusing to see deception (on either of those points), as I did not interpret anyone demanding that of me or imposing any obligation that I do see it. But if that was the intent for the invitation to participate in this thread (Posted Thursday at 03:27 PM), which in retrospect I could have taken more literally, I understand why you no longer need to discuss it.

But a “duplicate” ordinance is not a “remarriage”... …so if that has anything to do with the perception of deception, it should be revisited, for no one may refuse another a legitimate ordinance (even a secret one) under the terms set forth by the Lord through His presiding oracle. Emma’s lack of knowledge was not a function of deception, but of lack of eligibility for participation in and rights to the first ordinance as it was designed and performed for the Partridge sisters.

I would like to see any injunctions for multiple marriages, otherwise Joseph’s statement could not have possibly addressed the accusation of multiple marriages. All that I can find relate to adultery.

As I mentioned, some will conclude that Joseph Smith lied on one or both counts and condemn him, some forgive him, some justify him, some empathizing with a perceived moral or ethical dilemma and some not, and some allow for grace. Some (like me) don’t see from the evidence that he lied in the first place. Obviously not for discussion at this point (unless someone wants to), but only for consideration: someone like me will not have to repent for condemning, forgiving or justifying him (or for persuading others to do so) in the event that no sin was committed, and more especially should new evidence show that one was, since I allow for grace already!

I do not insist that you accept it.  I just don't see much more to talk about since we will just be repeating ourselves.

I am not arguing against the second ordinance as being invalid.  I do think it makes a difference to have Emma involved where before she was not.  But that does not remove the issue that she was not told the ordinance had been previously performed without her.

As to the rest, I have said already my position on it and do not feel a need to repeat myself.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Would have been nice if Emma had known this all before she ran away with Joseph.

And when in marriage has anyone known "all" beforehand?  Joseph didn't know lol or maybe he would have stayed home in bed with his head under the blanket like any intelligent person would have before committing to go all in by going out and getting the plates.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I do not insist that you accept it.  I just don't see much more to talk about since we will just be repeating ourselves.

I am not arguing against the second ordinance as being invalid.  I do think it makes a difference to have Emma involved where before she was not.  But that does not remove the issue that she was not told the ordinance had been previously performed without her.

As to the rest, I have said already my position on it and do not feel a need to repeat myself.

I am not asking you to repeat anything, and I acknowledge that you were trying to persuade me until you pointed out my “refusal”. I do not take this as insistence on your part—you said that about me in my not being persuaded!

I also understand that you do consider the second ordinance as valid. I was pointing out that considering it a “remarriage” suggests a view that the first one wasn’t valid—in essence that it was “annulled” and “replaced” by the second. I can understand this if it was felt the first marriage was conducted under deceptive circumstances, which you do. But how is the first ordinance deemed as valid as the second if the first was performed under less-than-upright terms?

I’m not concerned about defending disparate positions, but in discussing what can still be explored. I don’t think we’ve covered all the ground we can, especially the points and questions that have gone unacknowledged. But if there is no interest based on my level of persuasion, that is OK with me.

[bcuzbcuz]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

http://partridge.parkinsonfamily.org/histories/emily-what-i-remember.keys.htm

"When I was eighteen years old, Joseph said to me one day, “Emily, if you will not betray me, I will tell you something for your benefit.”  Of course I would keep his secret,............  

...........he asked me if I would burn it if he would write me a letter.   .........

Mrs. Durfee came to me one day and said that Joseph..........   wanted me for a wife. ........

......... I cannot tell you all Joseph said, but he said the Lord had commanded to enter into plural marriage and had given me to him...........

..........Well, I was married then and there.  Joseph went home his way and I went my way alone.  A strange of way of getting married wasn’t it.  Brother Kimball married us on the 4th  of March, 1843.

Things remained as they were for a few months when sometime in the first part of May, Emma told Joseph that she would give him two wives if he would let her choose them for him.  She chose my sister and me and helped explain the principles to us.  We did not make much trouble, but were sealed in her presence with the full and free consent.  It was the 11th  of May,

but before the day was over, she turned around, or repented what she had done, and kept Joseph up till very late in the night talking to him.  

She kept close watch of us.  

If we were missing for a few minutes and Joseph was not at home, the house was searched from top to bottom, and from one end to the other.  If we were not found, the neighbor-hood was searched until we were found.  She sent for us......  

Joseph was present looking like a martyr.  Emma said some very hard things.  Joseph should give us up.  She would rather her blood would run pure than be polluted in this manner. 

........ I am ashamed to say that I felt indignant toward Joseph for submitting to Emma.  But I see now that he could do no different.  

When we went in, Joseph was there, his countenance was the perfect picture of despair.  I cannot remember all that passed at that time, but she insisted that we should promise to break our covenants that we had made before God.  Joseph asked her if we made the promises she required, if she would cease to trouble us, and not persist in our marrying someone else.  She made the promise.  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 the promise I was forced to make......

Emma could not rest until she had gotten us out of the house,.......

 

I found the complete story a fascinating account of an abuse of power. Joseph initiated contact with Emily, he being a charismatic church leader, a proclaimed prophet who spoke with God, and she, an innocent, naive, 18 year old. He formulates a secret communication between them, asking that she destroy any evidence, which leads to them marrying in secret, without any informination to Emma.

Emma has obviously witnessed Joseph's machinations. According to Emily, Emma doesn't trust Joseph as far as she can spit. 

Emma, at some point, gave in to Joseph's pleading. We know from other records that Hyrum and other church leaders petitioned Emma on numerous occasions to accept Joseph's declarations of holy establishment of polygamy. But again, from Emily's record, (and there are other testimonies as well) Emma reversed and regretted her decision to go along with the idea of plural wives. Emma turned Emily and her sister Eliza from their come. 

In words that remind me of the Stockholm Syndrome, Emily feels pity for Joseph and criticizes Emma's strong chastizement of Joseph. Joseph, according to Emily's account, looked like a martyr, a perfect picture of despair. 

I read this whole account with nothing but disgust. Joseph married two young sisters without informing his wife, Emma. Between the time of Emily marrying Joseph, by Kimball, in March of 1843, to the re-marrying of the two sisters, on the 11th of May, some two months later, we know that Emma was unaware that Joseph had already married the girls. 

I see dishonesty from Joseph to  Emma. Not the kind of communication that is necessary between a husband and wife. Not the kind of communication befitting a Mormon marraiage. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I am not asking you to repeat anything, and I acknowledge that you were trying to persuade me until you pointed out my “refusal”. I do not take this as insistence on your part—you said that about me in my not being persuaded!

 

I also understand that you do consider the second ordinance as valid. I was pointing out that considering it a “remarriage” suggests a view that the first one wasn’t valid—in essence that it was “annulled” and “replaced” by the second. I can understand this if it was felt the first marriage was conducted under deceptive circumstances, which you do. But how is the first ordinance deemed as valid as the second if the first was performed under less-than-upright terms?

 

I’m not concerned about defending disparate positions, but in discussing what can still be explored. I don’t think we’ve covered all the ground we can, especially the points and questions that have gone unacknowledged. But if there is no interest based on my level of persuasion, that is OK with me.

 

I am not trying to persuade anyone to my point of view.

I also don't like to repeat myself more than a couple of times when dealing with the same post.  If there is no movement in a conversation in developing thought, I tend to bow out.  I didn't and don't see additional nuances being explored here, either by you or me, in the areas I am interested in.

I try to put information out there and present ways it can be reasonably interpreted.  I don't care much what interpretation others choose as long as there isn't a rejection of others' interpretations as also reasonable if I see them as mostly reasonable.  Given history, I never expect to be persuasive, but I hope to be informative.

If I said something carelessly that gave a different impression than the above, my apologies.  Sleep has been off lately, quite possible it is affecting the quality of my posts.

Edited March 12, 2017 by Calm

[Tacenda]

25 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I found the complete story a fascinating account of an abuse of power. Joseph initiated contact with Emily, he being a charismatic church leader, a proclaimed prophet who spoke with God, and she, an innocent, naive, 18 year old. He formulates a secret communication between them, asking that she destroy any evidence, which leads to them marrying in secret, without any informination to Emma.

Emma has obviously witnessed Joseph's machinations. According to Emily, Emma doesn't trust Joseph as far as she can spit. 

Emma, at some point, gave in to Joseph's pleading. We know from other records that Hyrum and other church leaders petitioned Emma on numerous occasions to accept Joseph's declarations of holy establishment of polygamy. But again, from Emily's record, (and there are other testimonies as well) Emma reversed and regretted her decision to go along with the idea of plural wives. Emma turned Emily and her sister Eliza from their come. 

In words that remind me of the Stockholm Syndrome, Emily feels pity for Joseph and criticizes Emma's strong chastizement of Joseph. Joseph, according to Emily's account, looked like a martyr, a perfect picture of despair. 

I read this whole account with nothing but disgust. Joseph married two young sisters without informing his wife, Emma. Between the time of Emily marrying Joseph, by Kimball, in March of 1843, to the re-marrying of the two sisters, on the 11th of May, some two months later, we know that Emma was unaware that Joseph had already married the girls. 

I see dishonesty from Joseph to  Emma. Not the kind of communication that is necessary between a husband and wife. Not the kind of communication befitting a Mormon marraiage. 

In my over 30 years of marriage I never thought about my husband having to live polygamy in the afterlife. But since reading about the new and everlasting covenant of marriage (it was never told to me that D&C 132 meant polygamy, at least for the modern church), I now wonder how many LDS men out there think about it and wonder about women they meet and if they'll be married to them.

I haven't read the book that Juliann mentioned....Carol Lynn Pearson's book "Ghost of Eternal Polygamy"... where she writes about women that have that to worry about. Luckily, I now don't have to worry it will happen, in my skepticism of it's truthfulness.

Edited March 12, 2017 by Tacenda

[Calm]

Mormon Enigma, if I read it correctly, posits the reason Emma became so hostile was that was the point she realized her son could be pulled into the practice one day...it was not going away on its own.  I barely looked at that and I didn't register their evidence besides his age, but it does appear in regards to their interpretation that it just wasn't about Emma's lack of desire to share her husband.  Plus they suggest there was nothing else that Emma questioned Joseph in terms of doctrine.  Makes it complicated if he is claiming revelation here as always before, she must struggle in justifying to herself this rejection while willingness to accept all others...was it her weakness or his?  

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I am not trying to persuade anyone to my point of view.

I also don't like to repeat myself more than a couple of times when dealing with the same post.  If there is no movement in a conversation in developing thought, I tend to bow out.  I didn't and don't see additional nuances being explored here, either by you or me, in the areas I am interested in.

I try to put information out there and present ways it can be reasonably interpreted.  I don't care much what interpretation others choose as long as there isn't a rejection of others' interpretations as also reasonable if I see them as mostly reasonable.  Given history, I never expect to be persuasive, but I hope to be informative.

If I said something carelessly that gave a different impression than the above, my apologies.  Sleep has been off lately, quite possible it is affecting the quality of my posts.

No problem... You must know by now that once I get started it's hard for me to stop :), and I'm trying to be informative as well, though I peel the layers back a bit slowly! Have a good rest.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

No problem... You must know by now that once I get started it's hard for me to stop :), and I'm trying to be informative as well, though I peel the layers back a bit slowly! Have a good rest.

Same here.  The vast majority of times we are in agreement and often I don't feel I need to respond because you say it better.

[stemelbow]

On ‎3‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 1:00 PM, 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.

Nah...I want to.  I don't think lives are at stake though.  That feels pretty dramatic here.  I don't see how deception in this case is warranted, though.  It feels like distraction from the issue at hand. 

[stemelbow]

On ‎3‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 2:27 PM, Calm said:

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.

Ok.  I'm confused I thought you were saying he was not lying.  If you agree he was clearly lying, then I have no issue.  Thanks.