What if Joseph didn't practice plural marriage?

[Alan]

42 minutes ago, JulieM said:

But everyone else lied?  Other church leaders, faithful women and the next few Proohets who knew Joseph all lied too?  And there are contemporary evidence and writings, but you refuse to read them it seems.

Also I’ve been following this thread and I’ll issues another CFR for what you said about William Clayton’s journal.  

CFR 

Please provide a source supporting your claim.  You stated you have one and would post it.  I’ve been waiting to read what’s in the source you said you have.

I'm still waiting for you to link to Sister Woodward's "contemporary" evidence.

[stemelbow]

23 hours ago, Alan said:

I have already covered this.

Dynastical sealings became "marriages" in Utah newspeak hindsight.

In what way was dynastical sealings not marriage?  Are you saying things like Joseph being sealed to Eliza didn't mean they were married, it meant that in the eternities they'd be married?  If so, I'm not sure I see the point in making the division between the two.  

[Alan]

34 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

 

If Joseph had lived polygamously, would that change your view about his claims about the other events you reference?

Hard to say.

I would certainly have much less respect for him. And I would have to view everything he said through a different lens. It would be difficult.

But thankfully he didn't live polygamously, so it's not going to be an issue.

[JulieM]

17 minutes ago, Alan said:

I'm still waiting for you to link to Sister Woodward's "contemporary" evidence.

I’m not familiar with her (and didn’t post about her), but I’d love to read her writings if she personally knew and loved Emma and Joseph.  I think you’ve been given links to other contemporary sources though, iirc (where you can read letters from 1843).  You can purchase a copy of William Clayton’s journal at Amazon (that’s where I bought mine, it’s petty cheap too and I’ll double check for you to see if it’s still available there). That’s another contemporary source.

But you need to respond to the CFR’s (two now).  Or withdraw your claim that you have a source for what you stated about Clayton’s journal.  Or just pull it back because you can’t find a source and say it’s just an opinion you have.

Edited May 4, 2018 by JulieM

[JulieM]

30 minutes ago, Alan said:

Hard to say.

I would certainly have much less respect for him. And I would have to view everything he said through a different lens. It would be difficult.

And that’s why I think you’re so afraid to actually look at the sources (after being shown there are indeed contemporary ones plus all of the other writings and statements from good members of the church who personally knew Joseph and knew he lived polygamy).  Also others have posted about the fact that plural wives gave birth to children (some when Joseph was alive) in Nauvoo (which proves your theory that Nauvoo polygamy didn’t involve sexual relations isn’t true). You seem to refuse to discuss those to.  You want to believe so badly that Joseph never lived it that you seem to choose to ignore all of this.

But you’ll get reported if you keep blowing off the CFR’s.  Just an FYI 

Edited May 4, 2018 by JulieM

[Alan]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

In what way was dynastical sealings not marriage?  Are you saying things like Joseph being sealed to Eliza didn't mean they were married, it meant that in the eternities they'd be married?  If so, I'm not sure I see the point in making the division between the two.  

That is absolutely what I'm saying, but married is the wrong word. Sealed is the word we use, and for good reason. Sealing is done to bind people together.

A few months after I joined the church at age 14, I was sealed to my parents. I didn't marry them. But the sealing ensures (with certain caveats) that we will be bound to each other beyond mortality. Since then I have been sealed to my wife, our children have been sealed to their spouses who in turn are sealed to their parents, siblings etc.

Over here in the mother country the distinction is very clear. I got married to my wife in a public legal ceremony witnessed by many people, just as was required in the Nauvoo church as mandated at the time in what was then D&C 111 I believe. Then, in a separate ceremony in a different place, we were sealed. However, before we were sealed we were no less married. The church recognized that we were married in the eyes of the state and of God.

It is my belief that in Nauvoo the sealing power was viewed as a way for families to be joined together. It is known that Joseph's sealing to Helen Mar Kimball was dynastical in nature (she said that was her understanding) and that her parents were keen for this to occur so that their family would be connected to the prophet. This so easy to understand; I don't know why so many people get their knickers in a twist about it.

 

 

[JulieM]

9 minutes ago, Alan said:

It is my belief that in Nauvoo the sealing power was viewed as a way for families to be joined together. It is known that Joseph's sealing to Helen Mar Kimball was dynastical in nature (she said that was her understanding) and that her parents were keen for this to occur so that their family would be connected to the prophet. 

And yet, Heber had children with his plural wife while Joseph was still living.  You keep avoiding discussing the children born in Nauvoo to plural wives (with their polygamous husbands).  These were marriages just like Utah polygamy was.

Edited May 4, 2018 by JulieM

[Marginal Gains]

36 minutes ago, Alan said:

Hard to say.

I would certainly have much less respect for him. And I would have to view everything he said through a different lens. It would be difficult.

But thankfully he didn't live polygamously, so it's not going to be an issue.

Thanks for your candour.

What would be required, from an evidentiary point of view, for you to accept that he was polygamous?

How do you feel about the Church for now overtly portraying him as a polygamist?

Edited May 4, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, Alan said:

That is absolutely what I'm saying, but married is the wrong word. Sealed is the word we use, and for good reason. Sealing is done to bind people together.

A few months after I joined the church at age 14, I was sealed to my parents. I didn't marry them. But the sealing ensures (with certain caveats) that we will be bound to each other beyond mortality. Since then I have been sealed to my wife, our children have been sealed to their spouses who in turn are sealed to their parents, siblings etc.

Over here in the mother country the distinction is very clear. I got married to my wife in a public legal ceremony witnessed by many people, just as was required in the Nauvoo church as mandated at the time in what was then D&C 111 I believe. Then, in a separate ceremony in a different place, we were sealed. However, before we were sealed we were no less married. The church recognized that we were married in the eyes of the state and of God.

It is my belief that in Nauvoo the sealing power was viewed as a way for families to be joined together. It is known that Joseph's sealing to Helen Mar Kimball was dynastical in nature (she said that was her understanding) and that her parents were keen for this to occur so that their family would be connected to the prophet. This so easy to understand; I don't know why so many people get their knickers in a twist about it.

 

 

So for me, I'd start by showing things like, Helen did think she was not married to Joseph but was sealed to him in a dynastic way.  I think Brian Hales some years ago referenced a poem by Helen to show she saw it as dynastic only, but I think that really turned out that it could be interpreted in different ways.  That seemed at a moment a one piece of evidence he had hung his hat on.  It sounds to me you think you have more than just something like that.  Well what is it?  

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Alan said:

I'm still waiting for you to link to Sister Woodward's "contemporary" evidence.

Hey Alan, I did post a source where this information is (the thesis of Andrew F. Ehat's).  He was given access to sources in the church archives (including the Nauvoo Clayton Diary and Jane's writings).  But here's the page number for that and link again:

https://onewhoiswatching.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/ehat-succession.pdf

(Starts on page 53)

You'd asked for a source regarding anyone stating that there were problems between Joseph and Emma over the principle of polygamy.  Here's what  Ehat (and Jane) writes about Emma:

Quote

One glimpse of her vacillation is captured in the following reminiscence of Maria Jane Woodward, one of the girls who worked in the Mansion Home at this time.(267) After all the other workers had gone to bed, the young nineteen-year-old Jane continued to work. She overheard Joseph and Emma talking and then heard Emma crying -- "in trouble about something."

Joseph went to the door and found Jane in the adjoining room. He requested Jane to go to Hyrum's home and ask Hyrum to come to the Mansion House. When Hyrum arrived and went into the back room, Jane heard Hyrum say, "Well Sister Emma, what is the matter?" Jane heard nothing more.

The following day, as Jane was working upstairs making beds, Emma came up and said, "It was you that Joseph came to when he sent for Hyrum last night was it? I said, "Yes Ma'am." Then she told me to sit down on the bed by her and we both sat down on the bed that I was making. She looked very sad and cast down, and there she said to me, "The  principle of plural marriage is right, but I am like other women, I am naturally jealous hearted and can talk back to Joseph as long as any wife can talk back to her husband, but what I want to say to you is this. You heard me finding fault with the principle. I want to say that that principle is right, it is from our Father in Heaven," and then she again spoke of her jealousy. . . . "What I said I have got [to] repent of. The principle is right but I am jealous hearted. Now never tell anybody that you heard me find fault with Joseph of that principle. The principle is right and if I or you or anyone else finds fault with that principle we have got to humble ourselves and repent of it."

Jane then recalled that Emma concluded the interview by saying, "I do not know why it is that Brother Hyrum holds such a controlling power over my spirit but when he comes to me and speaks to me I am melted to tears and I cannot talk back to him." Perhaps Emma did not talk back to him because she knew of his earlier deep antipathy towards the principle -- something she could never know whether Joseph ever experienced.

 

I really do highly recommend you read this thesis, Alan.  It's filled with excellent information and sources (some contemporary as you've requested and some that were never writen about prior to this).  This thesis gives such a good chronology of what took place and why Joseph felt he could not always be publicly honest regarding the fact he was living polygamy.  It's written in a very faithful and supportive manner pertaining to all of this too.  If you really sincerely want to know the truth here, I think you shouldn't be afraid to search into some sources such as this one.

Of course, you can continue to ignore all of these (and other source and evidence) and believe as you wish.  I respect your right to do that too.

Edited May 4, 2018 by ALarson

[Alan]

56 minutes ago, JulieM said:

And that’s why I think you’re so afraid to actually look at the sources (after being shown there are indeed contemporary ones plus all of the other writings and statements from good members of the church who personally knew Joseph and knew he lived polygamy).  Also others have posted about the fact that plural wives give birth to children (some when Joseph was alive) in Nauvoo.  You seem to refuse to discuss those to.  You want to believe so badly that Joseph never lived it that you seem to choose to ignore all of this.

But you’ll get reported if you keep blowing off the CFR’s.  Just an FYI 

Wow... you know me so well!

The truth is I have read all of the same stuff you have. Hales, Compton etc and even the anti-(ex)Mormon Fawn Brodie. Remember, I mentioned that I used to believe as you do. In fact, I was quite pro-polygamy at one point when I was young (as a lot of young men are, but never publicly admit). So I have read the sources you quote, albeit via these commentators and others.

What I didn't realize at the time was that there is an alternative narrative. I thought Joseph practicing polygamy was, as you Americans say, a slam dunk. I mean, everyone knows it's a fact.... don't they? Well it turns out they don't. In fact there is a body of evidence (not proof) pointing in the other direction. This is because there is often more than one way to interpret evidence. When evidence is looked at in various ways, very different conclusions are possible... sometimes even probable.

And then we see the back written and doctored History of the Church, where pro-polygamy statements attributed to Joseph were inserted after he was dead and which completely altered the original meaning of the record. I'm sure you don't need me to CFR that! But one question bugged me... why? Why go to the trouble unless they were attempting to alter history like Winston Smith in 1984.  Then I came across other things like for example, a wordprint analysis of Section 132. It's conclusion?... Joseph Smith was not the author.

So for me, the evidence was quite convincing on both sides. Admittedly more on the traditional LDS interpretation than the other, but nevertheless it clearly was not a slam dunk.

Having become aware of Joseph's strenuous public denial of his involvement in polygamy I felt a very strong impression come to me in the form of a question. "Joseph Smith, a truth teller or a deceiver?".  I sided with Joseph.

Edited May 4, 2018 by Alan
Grammer

[Alan]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Hey Alan, I did post a source where this information is (the thesis of Ehat's).  He was given access to sources in the church archives (including the Nauvoo Clayton Diary and Jane's writings).  But here's the page number for that and link again:

https://onewhoiswatching.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/ehat-succession.pdf

(Starts on page 53)

You'd asked for a source regarding anyone stating that there were problems between Joseph and Emma over the principle of polygamy.  Here's what  Ehat (and Jane) writes about Emma:

 

Thanks for this. Clearly it is not contemporary as it is based on a "reminiscence".

You did say you understood what contemporary evidence means, did you not?

[ALarson]

7 hours ago, Alan said:

You have not provided 2 contemporary sources at all.

Yes, I have.  The William Clayton Diary and the Kimball letters written in 1843 (with a link to where these are quoted and sourced by Ehat).

Now, you need to honor the CFR I issued or withdraw it.  I'm not into reporting people, but I will since you're being so flippant about it.  You did say you had a source backing up what you stated regarding William Clayton's Diary.

Please provide the source or withdraw your statement.

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, Alan said:

Thanks for this. Clearly it is not contemporary as it is based on a "reminiscence".

You've been given two contemporary sources.

I was responding to your request for a source regarding Woodward's writings stating that's why you've provided no source yet in response to the CFR:

1 hour ago, Alan said:

I'm still waiting for you to link to Sister Woodward's "contemporary" evidence.

ETA:

And, here's a link to where you can purchase the actual Nauvoo writings of William Clayton (definitely a contemporary source):

https://www.amazon.com/Claytons-Secret-Writings-Uncovered-Secretary/dp/B000OWKXHO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1525443326&sr=8-1&keywords=William+Clayton+Tanners

Have you read all that is contained in here?  If not, you can for only $6.75!  (Or buy a used copy for $165.76....hmmmm hard decision ).  If you've not read this diary, then I'm not sure how you can make the claims you have regarding it.

Edited May 4, 2018 by ALarson

[ALarson]

33 minutes ago, Alan said:

And then we see the back written and doctored History of the Church, where pro-polygamy statements attributed to Joseph were inserted after he was dead and which completely altered the original meaning of the record.

CFR

This is the same claim you seem to be making about William Clayton's diary (CFR still not answered on that one).  Please provide sources backing up that original claim (and now the above claims).

You're sure persistent about insisting members here give you sources, but not very responsive when we ask for yours supporting your statements.

Edited May 4, 2018 by ALarson

[Alan]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

CFR

This is the same claim you seem to be making about William Clayton's diary (CFR still not answered on that one).  Please provide sources backing up that (and now the above claims).

You have got to be kidding me!!!

Everyone who knows anything about this issue knows that the History of the Church was doctored. Seriously? You need me to CFR this? How can you comment on this subject and accuse me of not reading important sources when you don't even know this!

Come on, you're joking right?

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Alan said:

The truth is I have read all of the same stuff you have.t there is a body of evidence (not proof) pointing in the other direction. This is because there is often more than one way to interpret evidence. When evidence is looked at in various ways, very different conclusions are possible... sometimes even probable.

And then we see the back written and doctored History of the Church, where pro-polygamy statements attributed to Joseph were inserted after he was dead and which completely altered the original meaning of the record. 

Who is it you believe spent all the time it would take to change all those writings?

Do you own a copy of Clayton’s actual writings from Nauvoo or have you even read all of them? It’s very interesting to read.  A day by day journal and record (and not just about information on Joseph, Emma and plural marriage, but others too and other really interesting information that was taking place at that important time).

I honestly don’t understand how you can believe so many really good saints lied and so many strong church leaders lied.  You think they lied in what they spoke, wrote and swore to under oath.  

You must really think poorly of all of them!

Edited May 4, 2018 by JulieM

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, Alan said:

You have got to be kidding me!!!

Everyone who knows anything about this issue knows that the History of the Church was doctored.

Adding lies about Joseph living polygamy?

I’ve never heard that!!  I’m sure it was edited but not with lies (I hope not at least).  Maybe to make it more accurate.

Again, who do you think did that?

Edited May 4, 2018 by JulieM

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, Alan said:

You have got to be kidding me!!!

Everyone who knows anything about this issue knows that the History of the Church was doctored.

Not in the manner you're claiming it was done (lies added) and also with how you're claiming that other writings (including Clayton's diary) were doctored.

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

So for me, I'd start by showing things like, Helen did think she was not married to Joseph but was sealed to him in a dynastic way.  I think Brian Hales some years ago referenced a poem by Helen to show she saw it as dynastic only, but I think that really turned out that it could be interpreted in different ways.  That seemed at a moment a one piece of evidence he had hung his hat on.  It sounds to me you think you have more than just something like that.  Well what is it?  

I think he’s selective about which parts he believes and what parts he throws out.  Anything not supportive of his theory is someone telling a lie or rewriting member’s journals to tell lies about Joseph.  It’s weird to do that if he really wants to get at the truth!!!

Edited May 4, 2018 by JulieM

[Alan]

Joseph and polygamy.docx

Joseph and polygamy2.docx

Joseph and polygamy3.docx

Not very good with technology. Hope these upload ok. They are from Van Wagoner's Mormon Polygamy: A History (footnote page 303)

Edited May 4, 2018 by Alan
Clarification

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, Alan said:

Joseph and polygamy.docx

Joseph and polygamy2.docx

Joseph and polygamy3.docx

Not very good with technology. Hope these upload ok. They are from Van Wagoner's Mormon Polygamy: A History (footnote page 303)

Those don't answer the CFR regarding William Clayton's diary being altered.   The last one sort of supports your claim that the history was "doctored" (not the word I'd use...), but not to tell lies about Joseph.

By the way....others have asked, but I haven't seen you answer this.  Just who do you believe would have added to or altered Clayton's diary?

Edited May 4, 2018 by ALarson

[Alan]

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Those don't answer the CFR regarding William Clayton's diary being altered.   The last one sort of supports your claim that the history was "doctored" (not the word I'd use...), but not to tell lies about Joseph.

By the way....others have asked, but I haven't seen you answer this.  Just who do you believe would have added to or altered Clayton's diary?

Regarding Clayton's diary, no idea.

I'm still trying to hunt down the reference to the anomaly in his diary and will post it as soon as I can find it. Bear with me because I am useless with technology.

Your comment about my references is interesting. Why do you suppose it was changed to say the opposite of what it said originally?

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Hey Alan, I did post a source where this information is (the thesis of Andrew F. Ehat's).  He was given access to sources in the church archives (including the Nauvoo Clayton Diary and Jane's writings).  But here's the page number for that and link again:

https://onewhoiswatching.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/ehat-succession.pdf

(Starts on page 53)

You'd asked for a source regarding anyone stating that there were problems between Joseph and Emma over the principle of polygamy.  Here's what  Ehat (and Jane) writes about Emma:

“One glimpse of her vacillation is captured in the following reminiscence of Maria Jane Woodward, one of the girls who worked in the Mansion Home at this time.(267) After all the other workers had gone to bed, the young nineteen-year-old Jane continued to work. She overheard Joseph and Emma talking and then heard Emma crying -- "in trouble about something."

Joseph went to the door and found Jane in the adjoining room. He requested Jane to go to Hyrum's home and ask Hyrum to come to the Mansion House. When Hyrum arrived and went into the back room, Jane heard Hyrum say, "Well Sister Emma, what is the matter?" Jane heard nothing more.

The following day, as Jane was working upstairs making beds, Emma came up and said, "It was you that Joseph came to when he sent for Hyrum last night was it? I said, "Yes Ma'am." Then she told me to sit down on the bed by her and we both sat down on the bed that I was making. She looked very sad and cast down, and there she said to me, "The  principle of plural marriage is right, but I am like other women, I am naturally jealous hearted and can talk back to Joseph as long as any wife can talk back to her husband, but what I want to say to you is this. You heard me finding fault with the principle. I want to say that that principle is right, it is from our Father in Heaven," and then she again spoke of her jealousy. . . . "What I said I have got [to] repent of. The principle is right but I am jealous hearted. Now never tell anybody that you heard me find fault with Joseph of that principle. The principle is right and if I or you or anyone else finds fault with that principle we have got to humble ourselves and repent of it." 

Jane then recalled that Emma concluded the interview by saying, "I do not know why it is that Brother Hyrum holds such a controlling power over my spirit but when he comes to me and speaks to me I am melted to tears and I cannot talk back to him." Perhaps Emma did not talk back to him because she knew of his earlier deep antipathy towards the principle -- something she could never know whether Joseph ever experienced.”

I’m just now seeing this!  That is so interesting to read!  What happened to Maria Jane Woodward?  Did she stay in the church?

It sounds like Emma had a really close relationship with Hyrum!

 

[Jeanne]

In all of this...no matter the different characteristics of Emma..I so feel for her.  For some reason in all these years..I have held a better reverence for Hyrum than Joseph.  In many ways he was more upfront in his disagreements and yet followed the prophet.  In this, he must have had more empathy for others in their struggles with Joseph and polygamy.