What if Joseph didn't practice plural marriage?

[Alan]

24 minutes ago, JulieM said:

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!

 

Laying aside the fact that this is not a contemporary source as was first claimed, and that it was the reminiscing of an older woman about something she claims happened when she was still a teenager; I am forced to ask how reliable she is. She, apparently agreed to Emma's request not to say anything and then promptly broke her promise. Some friend!

And this is typical of much of the so-called evidence presented to apparently prove Joseph's participation. Overheard conversations in hushed tones, rumours, gossip, nods and winks, the list goes on. And yet bona fide recorded statements from both Joseph and Hyrum deny the practice. It should also be borne in mind that Emma was vehemently consistent in her denial of plural marriage until the day she died.

[ALarson]

28 minutes ago, Alan said:

Laying aside the fact that this is not a contemporary source as was first claimed, and that it was the reminiscing of an older woman about something she claims happened when she was still a teenager; I am forced to ask how reliable she is. She, apparently agreed to Emma's request not to say anything and then promptly broke her promise. Some friend!

Come on Alan.  That's really being uncharitable.  She did keep the secret until all knew that Joseph had lived polygamy and also knew of Emma's issues with it.  It's a sweet story, IMO and one that shows they were all human and kind.

So, do you believe she was lying regarding her account of what took place?

Also in answer to Julie's question, Maria Jane Woodward remained a faithful latter day saint, went out to Utah and passed away in 1911, in Huntington, Utah.

Here's from her history:

Quote

 

"When she arrived in Nauvoo, Emma Smith, the Prophet's wife, felt compassion for her so young and alone, took her to her home.  She lived there for three years.  Some of the time in the mansion House, helping the family and learning to dearly love Emma, Prophet Joseph, and Hyrum.

....Through her acquaintance with the Smith family, she loved them as her own."

 

 

 

Edited May 4, 2018 by ALarson

[ALarson]

31 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

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. 

I think the incident that Woodward told. indicates that she felt close to Hyrum and knew he'd understand her feelings.

Ehat adds this after he quotes her writings:

Quote

Perhaps she [Emma] did not talk back to him [Hyrum] because she knew of his earlier deep antipathy towards the principle--something she could never know whether Joseph experienced.  She had a dichotomy of emotions towards this doctrine.

 

[Alan]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Come on Alan.  That's really being uncharitable.  She did keep the secret until all knew that Joseph had lived polygamy and also knew of Emma's issues with it. 

 

 

Or alternatively, she waited until Emma was dead and wasn't in a position to refute it.

[Hestia]

We received a report (sent yesterday but just seen today) about Alan not having answered a CFR.  I'm trying to figure out if the CFR is still standing or if the situation has been resolved without reading the whole thread.  

Free free to report again if this issue is still standing.  I'll be checking periodically throughout the day.  If I no new reports come in then I'm going to assume everything has been handled.

 

[JulieM]

8 minutes ago, Hestia said:

We received a report (sent yesterday but just seen today) about Alan not having answered a CFR.  I'm trying to figure out if the CFR is still standing or if the situation has been resolved without reading the whole thread.  

Free free to report again if this issue is still standing.  I'll be checking periodically throughout the day.  If I no new reports come in then I'm going to assume everything has been handled.

 

I haven’t seen that he has met the CFR about the William Clayton journal being altered.  He posted today finally that he’s still searching for his source.

(And just to be clear, to others, I didn’t report you Alan!  But I did issue a second CFR because I am really interested in you posting what you have and you appeared to not be taking the two requests seriously!)

[Alan]

1 hour ago, Hestia said:

We received a report (sent yesterday but just seen today) about Alan not having answered a CFR.  I'm trying to figure out if the CFR is still standing or if the situation has been resolved without reading the whole thread.  

Free free to report again if this issue is still standing.  I'll be checking periodically throughout the day.  If I no new reports come in then I'm going to assume everything has been handled.

 

What about people who claim they can reference something, but when they finally do it turns out that it isn't what they claimed and never was?

Also, I said I was still looking for the William Clayton reference. I did qualify it at the time by saying I had read it somewhere but couldn't remember where.

And I did post the History of the Church reference as one or two people made the usual "CFR" comment (I think they think they're being clever when they do that) because they didn't believe it existed and couldn't be bothered to do a simple google search. Soon proved them wrong.

Edited May 4, 2018 by Alan

[ALarson]

33 minutes ago, Alan said:

Also, I said I was still looking for the William Clayton reference. I did qualify it at the time by saying I had read it somewhere but couldn't remember where.

Hi Alan, I'm fine if you need more time now.  

But you did state (the bolded part is what I'd like to see your references for):

Quote

Some will say that Clayton's diary is contemporary to the alleged events, but recent examination has thrown that into doubt. It appears historical revisionism, which was absolutely rife in the 19th century, may well have compromised Clayton's account.

And you then posted this that I believe another CFR was issued for (not by me, but I'd like to see where someone has written that this took place):

Quote

I'll try to find the link to the William Clayton issue. I came across it quite recently. If I remember rightly, for some reason(!) he apparently left off writing in his normal diary and recorded all the Joseph Smith polygamy stuff in another completely different diary, and then picked up writing in his original diary again.

I'm also ok if you just want to withdraw those statements and we can move on....your choice   

Edited May 4, 2018 by ALarson

[ttribe]

Alan, I have two sincere questions - 

1) It seems, to me, that your position on polygamy is more in line with the RLDS/Community of Christ.  Why have you stayed with the Utah LDS Church if you believe it is wrong about Joseph practicing polygamy and you believe every prophet was wrong in the practice from Brigham Young through Wilford Woodruff?

2) Do you realize you've created situation where, if it can be shown unequivocally that Joseph Smith was dishonest about anything (not just polygamy), then your entire belief system crashes?

[Alan]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

Alan, I have two sincere questions - 

1) It seems, to me, that your position on polygamy is more in line with the RLDS/Community of Christ.  Why have you stayed with the Utah LDS Church if you believe it is wrong about Joseph practicing polygamy and you believe every prophet was wrong in the practice from Brigham Young through Wilford Woodruff?

2) Do you realize you've created situation where, if it can be shown unequivocally that Joseph Smith was dishonest about anything (not just polygamy), then your entire belief system crashes?

I find it interesting that you have assumed that I believe Brigham et al were wrong in practicing plural marriage as they did. I never said that anywhere.

I simply stated that Joseph didn't practice it.

With regard to your second question, if he was diliberately deceptive and hypocritical in matters affecting salvation, then yes.

Edited May 4, 2018 by Alan
Clarity

[Alan]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Hi Alan, I'm fine if you need more time now.  

But you did state (the bolded part is what I'd like to see your references for):

And you then posted this that I believe another CFR was issued for (not by me, but I'd like to see where someone has written that this took place):

I'm also ok if you just want to withdraw those statements and we can move on....your choice   

I will find it.

Of course, it won't do any good because you and others have made up your minds on this matter, as have I. The difference is that you all appear somehow threatened or at least challenged by my position, whereas I care not one jot what you all believe regarding this matter. 

Remember the thread is entitled "What if Joseph didn't practice plural marriage?".... I didn't start the thread!

Edited May 4, 2018 by Alan
Additional comment

[Calm]

Alan, perhaps you are remembering the problems of the publication of WC's journals by Smith?

Quote

the result so far as an intimate chronicle is concerned is an abridgement that leaves the worst kind of imbalance it is not a scholarly abridgement based on a consistent rationale concerning what is important enough to include or insignificant enough to leave out for example echats excerpts reveal some problems be- tween joseph and emma but the original journals show with equal clarity that the two were very close and very much in love clayton saw the problems but he also saw the prophet and his wife working together for a common cause in a variety of ways the excerpts largely obscure that fact 

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3055&context=byusq

[Jeanne]

Hmmm..just catching up on this thread.  Joseph practiced polygamy over 30 times...I mean ..until he got it right!!! Practicing makes perfect. (sarcasm)  but the whole idea that he didn't from all sides takes away some reasons for the D&C...moving in and out of towns...and coming west.  Not to mention that Emma would have got so upset over nothing???

Edited May 4, 2018 by Jeanne

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Alan, perhaps you are remembering the problems of the publication of WC's journals by Smith?

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3055&context=byusq

You know, Calm....you might be right.  He may be talking about something different than the actual copy of the Nauvoo diary kept by William Clayton (which definitely is a contemporary source).  Alan hasn't responded (that I have seen) to whether or not he owns a copy or has actually read through the diary.  It could explain a lot if he has the two confused.  

I'm honestly ready to just move on and let him out of the CFR.  I doubt he can show or prove what he's claimed (actually I'm pretty close to saying I know he can't, but I was curious to read what sources he had.)

Edited May 4, 2018 by ALarson

[ttribe]

3 hours ago, Alan said:

I find it interesting that you have assumed that I believe Brigham et al were wrong in practicing plural marriage as they did. I never said that anywhere.

I simply stated that Joseph didn't practice it.

With regard to your second question, if he was diliberately deceptive and hypocritical in matters affecting salvation, then yes.

What did you mean by this, then (below, in bold)?

On 5/3/2018 at 8:41 AM, Alan said:

I am right. I don't know why it happened; I can speculate as well as the next guy, but I don't know.

Regarding the activities of Brigham & Co, this thread is about Joseph not Brigham. But seeing as you ask, I believe that taking the sealing beyond it's dynastical purpose was unfortunate. Certainly the church's progress has suffered significantly as a result. The fact that the Lord had to intervene to stop it, despite the determination of the leadership to continue no matter what, suggests to me they were out of line.

The church's essay is incorrect.

There are no contemporary accounts of a rift between Joseph and Emma. Indeed Emma (the Elect Lady) repeatedly stated that there wasn't, and that Joseph never had marital relations with any other woman.

Joseph did not have an affair with Fanny Alger.

 

Edited May 5, 2018 by ttribe

[Alan]

5 hours ago, ttribe said:

What did you mean by this, then (below, in bold)?

 

Clearly an observation of the reality of the situation.

 

 

[Marginal Gains]

20 hours 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.

 

19 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

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?

Hi Alan, I think our conversation may have gotten lost in the plethora of posts you’re getting. Here’s where we were up to...

[Alan]

2 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

 

Hi Alan, I think our conversation may have gotten lost in the plethora of posts you’re getting. Here’s where we were up to...

With regards to evidence, nothing could convince me short of the Lord or Joseph himself.

I am disappointed with the church essays. Mostly because they represent an abdication of responsibility from the leadership in my view, though I understand why they did it. I can't imagine Brigham requesting so-called scholars to produce doctrinal essays for the church membership. The fact is we are not required to believe essays as a test of faith, and I don't.

[ALarson]

2 hours ago, Alan said:

I am disappointed with the church essays. Mostly because they represent an abdication of responsibility from the leadership in my view, though I understand why they did it.

So, do you believe the leaders are still lying about Joseph's polygamy (as earlier Prophets and leaders did who knew Joseph) or do you believe they are deceived?

[ttribe]

7 hours ago, Alan said:

Clearly an observation of the reality of the situation.

 

 

So, you do think they were wrong. Got it.

[Alan]

9 hours ago, ALarson said:

So, do you believe the leaders are still lying about Joseph's polygamy (as earlier Prophets and leaders did who knew Joseph) or do you believe they are deceived?

They are mistaken.

[ALarson]

15 hours ago, Alan said:

They are mistaken.

Well, deceived is one of the synonyms for mistaken  

Either the church leaders have not looked at all of the evidence, records, contemporary writings, affidavits and other writings from those who knew Joseph, or they have studied them and they believe them. That would mean they were deceived by what you claim are lies and are deceived by writings that you claim were altered.  Also, if they have read them all and don't believe Joseph lived polygamy, then they would know the essays didn't represent their honest beliefs.

You won't respond to much of the good evidence provided to you (such as all the children born to Nauvoo plural marriages when you claim they were dynastic sealings only until the saints came out to Utah and started practicing a different type of polygamy).  Children were born to plural wives while Joseph was still alive.  How does that fit with your dynastic sealings only theory?

You also refuse to comment on the Kimball letters written in 1843 and they are very definitely a contemporary source (something you are really hung up on and insistent about).  The William Clayton journal is definitely a contemporary source and then you claim it was later altered (but have no proof of that...at least not that you've posted).

I know that you have this all neatly wrapped up and I respect everyone's right to make their own conclusions, but this one is a huge head scratcher and you appear to be very selective regarding what you'll read and what you won't look at (such as the sources that have been posted here for you that you at least appear to have not read).  But I see you don't have any desire to dig deeper into this and you're happy with what you believe.  

I'm also releasing you from the  CFR (regarding having evidence that Clayton's Nauvoo diary was altered), because I highly doubt you could find anything other than someone speculating about it.  If you do find what you were searching for, please post it though.  I would be interested in reading what you have.

 

Edited May 6, 2018 by ALarson

[Alan]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

Well, deceived is one of the synonyms for mistaken  

Either the church leaders have not looked at all of the evidence, records, contemporary writings, affidavits and other writings from those who knew Joseph, or they have studied them and they believe them. That would mean they were deceived by what you claim are lies and are deceived by writings that you claim were altered.  Also, if they have read them all and don't believe Joseph lived polygamy, then they would know the essays didn't represent their honest beliefs.

You won't respond to much of the good evidence provided to you (such as all the children born to Nauvoo plural marriages when you claim they were dynastic sealings only until the saints came out to Utah and started practicing a different type of polygamy).  Children were born to plural wives while Joseph was still alive.  How does that fit with your dynastic sealings only theory?

You also refuse to comment on the Kimball letters written in 1843 and they are very definitely a contemporary source (something you are really hung up on and insistent about).  The William Clayton journal is definitely a contemporary source and then you claim it was later altered (but have no proof of that...at least not that you've posted).

I know that you have this all neatly wrapped up and I respect everyone's right to make their own conclusions, but this one is a huge head scratcher and you appear to be very selective regarding what you'll read and what you won't look at (such as the sources that have been posted here for you that you at least appear to have not read).  But I see you don't have any desire to dig deeper into this and you're happy with what you believe.  

I'm also releasing you from the  CFR (regarding having evidence that Clayton's Nauvoo diary was altered), because I highly doubt you could find anything other than someone speculating about it.  If you do find what you were searching for, please post it though.  I would be interested in reading what you have.

 

Deceived and mistaken are not the same thing and I'm pretty sure you know that. Please desist from putting words in my mouth.

When I said "mistaken" that is exactly what I meant.

Edited May 6, 2018 by Alan
Spelling

[ALarson]

18 minutes ago, Alan said:

When I said "mistaken" that is exactly what I meant.

So, do you believe they've looked at all of the evidence, records, journals, affidavits, etc., and just come to the wrong conclusions?

Edited May 6, 2018 by ALarson

[Marginal Gains]

On 5/5/2018 at 12:35 PM, Alan said:

With regards to evidence, nothing could convince me short of the Lord or Joseph himself.

I am disappointed with the church essays. Mostly because they represent an abdication of responsibility from the leadership in my view, though I understand why they did it. I can't imagine Brigham requesting so-called scholars to produce doctrinal essays for the church membership. The fact is we are not required to believe essays as a test of faith, and I don't.

Even though you think Church leaders have abdicated their responsibility, do you still sustain them?