nuclearfuels Posted November 15, 2021 Posted November 15, 2021 51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to aprove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice. (emphasis added) I'm looking for sources to answer this question. Thanks 1
Teancum Posted November 15, 2021 Posted November 15, 2021 3 hours ago, nuclearfuels said: 51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to aprove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice. (emphasis added) I'm looking for sources to answer this question. Thanks Some think a polyandrous husband. Allegedly Joseph offered this to appease her. Allegedly she wanted William Law. But William Law denies there was an arrangement for this but did say this: Joseph Smith never proposed anything of the kind to me or to my wife; both he and Emma knew our sentiments in relation to spiritual wives and polygamy; knew that we were immoveably opposed to polygamy in any and every form…[but Law did believe] that Joseph offered to furnish his wife, Emma, with a substitute, for him, by way of compensation for his neglect of her, on condition that she would stop her opposition to polygamy and permit him to enjoy his young wives in peace and keep some of them in the house.[4]:176 See Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, 2nd edition, (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1994).:176-177 The conclude that "Its meaning [the verse in D&C 132] remains a mystery. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_Did_Joseph_Smith_offer_to_trade_Jane_Law_for_Emma_Smith_in_a_wife_swap_with_William_Law%3F 3
Teancum Posted November 16, 2021 Posted November 16, 2021 8 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: William Law I don't disagree but William would have had no part of it. And he denies that there was an arrangement. See my post above. Plus evidence of this seems scant. 1
webbles Posted November 16, 2021 Posted November 16, 2021 Another idea that has been raised is that it was a divorce. From the same link that Teancum used, it quotes Ann Eliza Webb Young: Quote One particular passage [of D&C 132] is said to refer to a matrimonial scene in which a threat was held out that the life of the Elect Lady should be terminated [84] by poison. She is here commanded to "stay herself, and partake not" of that which Joseph had offered her. It is, however, only right to add that the Mormon exponents of the Revelation say that this passage refers to an offer which Joseph had made to sacrifice his own personal feelings, and to accede to a divorce between Emma and himself. In these few lines more is disclosed of the Prophet's domestic life and difficulties than he probably was aware of. I give these paragraphs in full, that the reader may judge for himself. [She then cites D&C 132:51–60] Also of interest is that a few days after Emma was shown the revelation, Joseph had William Clayton deed over a bunch of property to Emma. From Clayton's journal: Quote Joseph told me to deed all the unencumbered lots to E[mma] and the children. He appears much troubled about E[mma] Quote Made Deed for 1/2 S[team] B[oat] Maid of Iowa from Joseph to Emma. Also a Deed to E[mma] for over 60 city lots. The earliest record we have of Joseph possibly offering Emma to marry William Law comes from Joseph H. Jackson. He's the first one that talks about it in his book "The adventures and experience of Joseph H. Jackson : disclosing the depths of Mormon villany practiced in Nauvoo" (published 1844). You can read it over at https://archive.org/details/adventuresexperi00jack/mode/2up. The story can be found on page 21 in the paragraph that starts "It was shortly after the adventure I have related above (15th of January, 1844)".
webbles Posted November 16, 2021 Posted November 16, 2021 17 minutes ago, Teancum said: I don't disagree but William would have had no part of it. And he denies that there was an arrangement. See my post above. Plus evidence of this seems scant. Evidence is extremely scant. The story comes from an antaganist (Joseph H. Jackson) who probably had no insider knowledge. He never became a member and Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery never found any reference to him in any of the records of the councils of the church, both secret and non (page 176 in Mormon Enigma). As you mentioned, William Law denied it as well in 1887. And Jackson says it was 1844 when Joseph was trying to get Jane Law but D&C 132 had already been written (and destroyed) in 1843. 3
Teancum Posted November 16, 2021 Posted November 16, 2021 (edited) 12 hours ago, webbles said: Evidence is extremely scant. The story comes from an antaganist (Joseph H. Jackson) who probably had no insider knowledge. He never became a member and Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery never found any reference to him in any of the records of the councils of the church, both secret and non (page 176 in Mormon Enigma). As you mentioned, William Law denied it as well in 1887. And Jackson says it was 1844 when Joseph was trying to get Jane Law but D&C 132 had already been written (and destroyed) in 1843. The FAIR link I posted covers all of that. Yet WIlliam Law said that Joseph did offer Emma another husband just not William. See the quote in my post above. Edited November 16, 2021 by Teancum
juliann Posted November 20, 2021 Posted November 20, 2021 To take this seriously would require an admission that JS approved polyandry. To date, not even the permission given for it in 132 is acknowledged by those who think they have to defend JS by denying it. 3
Olmec Donald Posted November 20, 2021 Posted November 20, 2021 (edited) 12 minutes ago, juliann said: To date, not even the permission given for it in 132 is acknowledged... The implications of verse 41? Or is there something else? Edited November 20, 2021 by Olmec Donald
webbles Posted November 20, 2021 Posted November 20, 2021 On 11/16/2021 at 6:52 AM, Teancum said: The FAIR link I posted covers all of that. Yet WIlliam Law said that Joseph did offer Emma another husband just not William. See the quote in my post above. I was talking about the idea that the verse in the revelation was talking about offering Law to Emma. The evidence for that particular offer, is extremely scant. ------------------ As for the entire idea of offering a husband to Emma in addition to Joseph, I don't think the statement from William Law is a good source. It is in a letter that he wrote to Dr. W. Wyl in response to the book that Dr. W. Wyl had written "Mormon Portraits". In that book (which parts of it can be found at http://olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1886WWyl.htm), Wyl writes out the entire revelation. When he gets to verse 51 (which is numbered 20 in his version and is on page 107-108 of the book), he adds a note that says: Quote * I will explain this. Conspicuous among "all the women," Joe "wanted," was pretty Jane Law; and in "General" William Law's house Emma had once sought refuge after a pitched battle with Mine Anointed. A transfer of marital partners was at one time on the tapis, but Emma would not be induced to "partake." This I have from one who personally knew of the proposed swap. Oh, those "special instructions!" That statement is pretty much the same as what Joseph Jackson said so Jackson is likely Wyl's source. And Jackson almost definitely made that story up. Law, in his letter (which you can find at https://william-law.org/publications/the-mormons-in-nauvoo-three-letters-from-william-law-on-mormonism-an-honest-mans-view-and-remorse-the-daily-tribune-salt-lake-city-3-july-1887/), says: Quote On page 108 you speak of “swapping wives,” and state that you have it from one who knows. Now let me say to you that I never heard of it till I read it in your book. Your informant must have been deceived or willfully lied to you. Joseph Smith never proposed anything of the kind to me or to my wife; both he and Emma knew our sentiments in relation to spiritual wives and polygamy; knew that we were immoveably [sic] opposed to polygamy in any and every form; that we were so subsequent events proved. The story may have grown out of the fact that Joseph offered to furnish his wife, Emma, with a substitute for him, by way of compensation for his neglect of her, on condition that she would forever stop her opposition to polygamy and permit him to enjoy his young wives in peace and keep some of them in her house and to be well treated, etc. So Law does say that Joseph offered to furnish Emma with a "substitute". But I don't think Law is a good source at this time. A few months later, Wyl interviews Law and publishes it in the Salt Lake Tribune (found at https://william-law.org/publications/dr-w-wyl-wilhelm-ritter-von-wymetal-interview-with-william-law-in-shullsburg-wisconsin-30-march-1887-the-daily-tribune-salt-lake-city-31-july-1887/). Here's some quotes about Joseph and Emma from the interview: Quote Emma complained about Joseph”s living with the L[awrence] girls, but not very violently. It is my conviction that she was his full accomplice, that she was not a bit better than he. Quote “Well, I told you that she used to complain to me about Joseph”s escapades whenever she met me on the street. She spoke repeatedly about that pretended revelation. She said once: “The revelation says I must submit or be destroyed. Well, I guess I have to submit.” On another day she said: “Joe and I have settled our troubles on the basis of equal rights.” * * * Emma was a full accomplice of Joseph”s crimes. She was a large, coarse woman, as deep a woman as there was, always full of schemes and smooth as oil. They were worthy of each other, she was not a particle better than he.” Quote Joseph was very free in his talk about his women. He told me one day of a certain girl and remarked, that she had given him more pleasure than any girl he had ever enjoyed. I told him it was horrible to talk like this.” The bolded items just don't match with what we know of Emma or Joseph. So, if Law is willing to make up things in this interview that demean both Joseph and Emma, then I don't see why he wouldn't do the same thing in the original letter. Especially since in the original letter, he is trying to push the idea of the "wife swap" away from him and his wife.
Popular Post The Nehor Posted November 20, 2021 Popular Post Posted November 20, 2021 It is amazing how Joseph Smith was so open with those who were radically opposed to him and just told them everything. Quite the idiot. 5
Rivers Posted November 24, 2021 Posted November 24, 2021 Maybe there was another man that would have taken Emma had they gotten divorced. So a remarriage rather than a polyandrous marriage.
amo Posted November 29, 2021 Posted November 29, 2021 (edited) On 11/15/2021 at 2:17 PM, nuclearfuels said: 51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to aprove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice. (emphasis added) I'm looking for sources to answer this question. Thanks Unfortunately, we didn’t get a chance to have a lesson on these sections (129-132) in our ward (stake conference Sunday), nor this particular verse (51) has been discussed or spoken of in any of the many podcasts I've listened to... Edited November 29, 2021 by amo Correction of typos...
Tacenda Posted November 29, 2021 Posted November 29, 2021 4 hours ago, amo said: Unfortunately, we didn’t get a chance to have a lesson on these sections (129-132) in our ward (stake conference Sunday), nor this particular verse (51) has been discussed or spoken of in any of the many podcasts I've listened to... Oh, how convenient.
Recommended Posts