Raise Up Seed Unto Me

[kimpearson]

An interesting point is that many of the children of those early polygamist marriages of Church leaders became inactive or left the Church.   My wife's family are direct decedents of Wilford Woodruff and many of his children became inactive with a history of alcoholism in the family.  My polygamist ancestor was a powerful local leader in Spanish Fork Utah and Mona Utah.  When he had to pick one wife to live with under manifesto, the other wife and children pretty much all left the Church.  That was a pattern repeated in many polygamist families.  Of course with so many children, only a few had to stay active in the Church to create large numbers of posterity of active decedents.  I run into nonmembers all the time that are decedents of polygamous marriages in the early church.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, kimpearson said:

An interesting point is that many of the children of those early polygamist marriages of Church leaders became inactive or left the Church.   My wife's family are direct decedents of Wilford Woodruff and many of his children became inactive with a history of alcoholism in the family.  My polygamist ancestor was a powerful local leader in Spanish Fork Utah and Mona Utah.  When he had to pick one wife to live with under manifesto, the other wife and children pretty much all left the Church.  That was a pattern repeated in many polygamist families.  Of course with so many children, only a few had to stay active in the Church to create large numbers of posterity of active decedents.  I run into nonmembers all the time that are decedents of polygamous marriages in the early church.

I have always wondered if the ratio of those descendants who stayed in the faith was different for polygamous families vs monogamous.

[Bernard Gui]

A few interesting comments::::

Erastus Snow 1883 

…[to justify] themselves in their whoredoms by referring to what is written in the Jewish Scriptures concerning David and Solomon and other men having many wives and concubines, which Jacob informed the Nephites was an abomination in the sight of the Lord, and gave unto them a commandment that not any man among them should have save it be one wife, and concubines they should have none, saying that the Lord " delighteth in the chastity of woman." And in the same connection the Lord said: "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.” Now, there was a reason why the Lord gave this commandment to the Nephites. But this reason did not exist when the Lord called Abraham and promised that his seed should be like the sand upon the sea shore for number. He recognized the righteousness of a plurality of wives, and never at any time did he restrict them from the days of Abraham until Christ, so far as we have any ....commandment to the Nephites. But this reason did not exist when the Lord called Abraham and promised that his seed should be like the sand upon the sea shore for number. He recognized the righteousness of a plurality of wives, and never at any time did he restrict them from the days of Abraham until Christ, so far as we have any record in the Jewish Scriptures. But there were reasons, as I said before, why he restricted the Nephites, but in this restriction He intimated that when the time should come that He should raise up seed unto himself, He would command His people. Now, when the Lord raised up the Prophet Joseph to lay the foundation of this Church, He found monogamy instead of polygamy to be the rule of Christendom, and He enjoined, in the early revelations to this Church, that every woman cleave unto her husband, and that every man cleave unto his wife and none else, saying that he that looketh upon a woman to lust after her who is not his wife hath committed adultery already with her

Orson Pratt 1869 

…The same God that commanded one branch of the House of Israel in America, to take but one wife when the numbers of the two sexes were about equal, gave a different command to the hosts of Israel in Palestine. But let us see the qualifying clause given in the Book of Mormon on this subject. After having reminded the people of the commandment delivered by Lehi in regard to monogamy, the Lord says, "For if I will raise up seed unto me I will command my people, otherwise they shall hearken unto these things;" that is, if I will raise up seed among my people of the House of Israel, according to the law that exists among the tribes of Israel I will give them a commandment on the subject, but if I do not give this commandment they shall hearken to the law which I give unto their father Lehi. That is the meaning of the passage, and this very passage goes to prove that plurality

Orson Pratt 1859 

…Here, then, we perceive that there are things which God forbids, and which it would be abominable for his people to do, unless he should revoke that commandment in certain cases. Because certain individuals among the Nephites, in ancient days, were expressly forbidden to take two wives, that did not prohibit the Lord from giving them a commandment, and making an exception, when he should see proper to raise up seed unto himself. The substance of this idea in that book is that -- When I the Lord shall command you to raise up seed unto myself, then it shall be right; but otherwise thou shalt hearken unto these things -- namely, the law against polygamy. But when we go to the Jewish record, we find nothing that forbids the children of Israel from taking as many wives as they thought proper.

Has God ever condemned it by his own voice? Have his angels ever been sent forth to inform the nations who have practised this thing that they were in transgression? Has he ever spoken against it by any inspired writer? Has any Patriarch, Prophet, Apostle, angel, or even the Son of God himself, ever condemned polygamy? We may give a general answer, without investigating this subject, and say to the world, We have no information of that kind of record, except what we find in the Book of Mormon. There it was positively forbidden to be practised by the ancient Nephites. The Book of Mormon, therefore, is the only record (professing to be Divine) which condemns plurality of wives as being a practice exceedingly abominable before God. But even that sacred book makes an exception in substance as follows -- "Except I the Lord command my people." The same Book of Mormon and the same article that commanded the Nephites that they should not marry more than one wife, made an exception. Let this be understood- "Unless I the Lord shall command them." We can draw the conclusion from this, that there were some things not right in the sight of God, unless he should command them. We can draw the same conclusion from the Bible, that there were many things which the Lord would not suffer his children to do, unless he particularly commanded them to…

Let us now come to the record in the Book of Mormon, when the Lord led forth Lehi and Nephi, and Ishmael and his two sons and five daughters out of the land of Jerusalem to the land of America, the males and females were about equal in number. There were Nephi, Sam, Laman and Lemuel, the four sons of Lehi, and Zoram, brought out of Jerusalem. How many daughters of Ishmael were unmarried? Just five. Would it have been just under these circumstances to ordain plurality among them? No. Why? Because the males and females were equal in number and they were all under the guidance of the Almighty, hence it would have been unjust, and the Lord gave a revelation—the only one on record I believe—in which a command was ever given to any branch of Israel to be confined to the monogamic system. In this case the Lord through His servant Lehi, gave a command that they should have but one wife. The Lord had a perfect right to vary His commands in this respect according to circumstances as He did in others, as recorded in the Bible. There we find that the domestic relations were governed according to the mind and will of God, and were varied according to circumstances, as he thought proper.

By and by, after the death of Lehi, some of his posterity began to disregard the strict law that God had given to their father, and took more wives than one, and the Lord put them in mind, through His servant Jacob, one of the sons of Lehi, of this law, and told them that they were transgressing it, and then referred to David and Solomon, as having committed abomination in His sight. The Bible also tells us that they sinned in the sight of God; not in taking wives legally, but only in those they took illegally, in doing which they brought wrath and condemnation upon their heads.

But because the Lord dealt thus with the small branch of the House of Israel that came to America, under their peculiar circumstances, there are those at the present day who will appeal to this passage in the Book of Mormon as something universally applicable in regard to man's domestic relations. The same God that commanded one branch of the House of Israel in America, to take but one wife when the numbers of the two sexes were about equal, gave a different command to the hosts of Israel in Palestine. But let us see the qualifying clause given in the Book of Mormon on this subject. After having reminded the people of the commandment delivered by Lehi in regard to monogamy, the Lord says, “For if I will raise up seed unto me I will command my people, otherwise they shall hearken unto these things;” that is, if I will raise up seed among my people of the House of Israel, according to the law that exists among the tribes of Israel I will give them a commandment on the subject, but if I do not give this commandment they shall hearken to the law which I gave unto their father Lehi. That is the meaning of the passage, and this very passage goes to prove that plurality was a principle God did approve under circumstances when it was authorized by Him…

You cannot condemn us temporally, or spiritually, or by the civil law; neither can you condemn us by the Bible. There is no law that condemns us, unless the law in the Book of Mormon does so; and I have already shown that the Book of Mormon does not, provided the Lord has commanded it. But if we have not been commanded in regard to this matter, then there is one thing that will condemn us, and that is the Book of Mormon. This is a little more strict than any other Divine revelation, in regard to polygamy. Thirteen years after the publication of the Book of Mormon, the same Prophet that translated the Book of Mormon received a revelation upon marriage, which commanded certain individuals in this Church to take unto themselves a plurality of wives for time and all eternity, declaring that it is a righteous principle, and was practiced by inspired men in times of old. In obedience to this commandment, many have gone forth and taken upon themselves a plurality of wives; consequently, they are not condemned in this thing, so far as the Book of Mormon is concerned; and we consider this book to be a part and portion of our religious creed; and the Constitution of America gives people a right to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences. 

John Nicholson June 1881

There is a statement in the Scriptures something like the following: “To the pure all things are pure.” Titus 1:15 Now there are many who attribute the existence of our marital institutions to a desire on the part of the men who form this Church to minister to the lower instincts and passions of their natures. I do not say that in every instance the Church is free from this kind of crime, for crime I consider it is; but I say that when such is the case, when a man enters into this holy bond, whether it be in taking more wives than one, merely for the gratification of his passions he infringes upon a law of God, of nature and of this Church, for this Church decides that its members shall be pure in every respect; therefore those who are governed by impure instincts, feelings and sentiments are departing from the genius, the spirit, and the true practice of this Church, whoever they may be. But this is not the purpose. There are purposes in the mind of Jehovah in regard to this principle, at least we accept them as such. God has decreed that in this day He will build up His Kingdom, and we are seeking to build it up, and as it is said in the Book of Mormon that was brought forth by the power of God, through the instrumentality of Joseph Smith, that if the Lord should desire to raise up children to himself, that He shall command His people, otherwise they shall not practice the principle of plural marriage. Jacob 2:30 Our Elders go abroad into the nations; they sound the trumpet of the Gospel both long and loud. But although they meet with some success, the numbers that hear their testimony and embrace it are comparatively few, compared with the great masses, that disregard their message. This kingdom must have people, and if the people of the world will not come and join with us and build up the kingdom of God, we will build it from the internal strength within itself. Let a person who does not believe in this go through this Territory from north to south and from east to west, and see the flocks of beautiful children who are growing up in the midst of this people, who will aid in bearing off this kingdom. 

Brigham Young April 1861

If the plurality of wives is to pander to the low passions of men and women, the sooner it is abolished the better. “How far would you go in abolishing it?” I would say, if the Lord should reveal that it is his will to go so far as to become a Shaking Quaker, Amen to it, and let the sexes have no connection. If so far as for a man to have but one wife, let it be so. The word and will of the Lord is what I want—the will and mind of God. He has revealed his mind and will. The time is coming when the Lord is going to raise up a holy nation. He will bring up a royal Priesthood upon the earth, and he has introduced a plurality of wives for that express purpose, and not to gratify lustful passion in the least. I would rather take my valise in my hand today, and never see a wife or a child again, and preach the Gospel until I go into the grave, than to live as I do, unless God commands it. I never entered into the order of plurality of wives to gratify passion. And were I now asked whether I desired and wanted another wife, my reply would be, It should be one by whom the Spirit will bring forth noble children. I am almost sixty years old; and if I now live for passion, I pray the Lord Almighty to take my life from the earth.

Edited November 16, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[SeekingUnderstanding]

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The polygamy background in the lineages of Church members  — estimated at about 20 percent just now — is bound to increase, not decrease, over time as more recent converts and their progeny intermarry with those who have polygamy in their ancestry. This is due to the “everyone is descended from Charlemagne” mathematical phenomenon in genealogical descendancy.  
 

To put it another way, a little bit of yeast eventually leavens the whole loaf, but the leavening process is hastened by increasing the amount of yeast. 

This line of thinking has always baffled me. Polygamy needs to stand or fall on its own merits. Not how many people are descended from it. With near 100 percent certainty I can say that we are all descended from polygamists, heroes, villains, kings, murderers, upstanding citizens and thieves. And just because we all have a thief in our ancestry somewhere, that doesn’t mean I’d recommend the practice. 

[Scott Lloyd]

25 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This line of thinking has always baffled me. Polygamy needs to stand or fall on its own merits. Not how many people are descended from it. With near 100 percent certainty I can say that we are all descended from polygamists, heroes, villains, kings, murderers, upstanding citizens and thieves. And just because we all have a thief in our ancestry somewhere, that doesn’t mean I’d recommend the practice. 

It’s not all that difficult to grasp when one realizes the propensity of parents and grandparents to transmit their values and cherished beliefs to their progeny. Conceivably, such values and beliefs are then largely carried forward across multiple generations. 

Those who were called upon to practice plurality of wives were typically among the most stalwart and faithful members of the Church. With two or more lines of descendants stemming from a faithful Latter-day Saint father, the chances were increased that the values and beliefs he espoused would be perpetuated across succeeding generations. 
 

In my genealogical lines, I have one great-grandfather who was a polygamist. I never knew him, nor do I know a whole lot about him. But I dare say my dedication to the restored gospel of Christ is in some measure due to such dedication that he instilled in his children that they in turn carried forward to their own progeny. 
 

The concept that the Lord uses the principle of plurality of wives to “raise up seed” unto Him is eminently sensible and reasonable to me. 

[JAHS]

57 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This line of thinking has always baffled me. Polygamy needs to stand or fall on its own merits. Not how many people are descended from it. With near 100 percent certainty I can say that we are all descended from polygamists, heroes, villains, kings, murderers, upstanding citizens and thieves. And just because we all have a thief in our ancestry somewhere, that doesn’t mean I’d recommend the practice. 

Jessie James and I are 2nd cousins 4 times removed.  Also King Edward 1 also known as Longshanks, whom the Scotts considered to be a villain. And then there's a hero named Spencer W. Kimball who shares a common ancestor with me. It took all kinds to make me who I am today. 😊

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This line of thinking has always baffled me. Polygamy needs to stand or fall on its own merits. Not how many people are descended from it. With near 100 percent certainty I can say that we are all descended from polygamists, heroes, villains, kings, murderers, upstanding citizens and thieves. And just because we all have a thief in our ancestry somewhere, that doesn’t mean I’d recommend the practice. 

What if who is descended from it is one of the merits of Polygamy though?  The 12 tribes only exist because of polygamy, for example, so in that way it's impossible to separate the merits of polygamy from the descendents of it.  

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Jessie James and I are 2nd cousins 4 times removed.  Also King Edward 1 also known as Longshanks, whom the Scotts considered to be a villain. And then there's a hero named Spencer W. Kimball who shares a common ancestor with me. It took all kinds to make me who I am today. 😊

Did Jesse James promulgate his outlaw lifestyle as a belief system to his children with the intent that it be carried forward to succeeding generations of his descendants? My great-grandfather did so with his belief system as a Latter-day Saint. 

Edited November 16, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[SeekingUnderstanding]

47 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What if who is descended from it is one of the merits of Polygamy though?  The 12 tribes only exist because of polygamy, for example, so in that way it's impossible to separate the merits of polygamy from the descendents of it.  

Are you saying that the Lord couldn’t have found 12 righteous men somewhere? I mean I am familiar with the Bible and Jacob’s sons. It’s not like they were the epitome of righteousness. And to get to 12, we are talking Abraham’s grandchildren and great grandchildren. My parents are monogamous and they have 21 grandchildren. So not really seeing why polygamy is necessary here. At all. 

Edited November 16, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My great-grandfather did so with his belief system as a Latter-day Saint. 

It’s too bad that you were unable to do this with your children since you aren’t a polygamist. 

[JAHS]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Did Jesse James promulgate his outlaw lifestyle as a belief system to his children with the intent that it be carried forward to succeeding generations of his descendants? My great-grandfather did so with his belief system as a Latter-day Saint. 

Not Jesse James, but my great great grandfather John Rex Winder(1st counselor in the First Presidency of the Church) did.

[pogi]

20 hours ago, rongo said:

a) numerical progeny, and b) consolidating fatherhood in specific lines.

19th century Mormon polygamy was a mix of the two. The birthrate didn't vastly outstrip monogamous marriage, but it did dramatically increase the "market share" of progeny under "preferred" fathers. 

It's amazing to me how, even today, with a lot of first and second generation members, Mormon polygamy is still in people's backgrounds when they research it. I think the impact is much more spiritual and intangible than simple genetics. When God commands it, He has a specific purpose in mind for it. 

If that truly was the purpose of polygamy, one is left to wonder how Joseph Smith fulfilled that purpose in being commanded to live polygamy.   You would think that he would be a "preferred' father, but where are all the offspring from these polygamous wives? 

Edited November 16, 2021 by pogi

[JAHS]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

If that truly was the purpose of polygamy, one is left to wonder how Joseph Smith fulfilled that purpose in being commanded to live polygamy.   You would think that he would be a "preferred' father, but where are all the offspring from these polygamous wives? 

When Joseph first instituted the doctrine of plural marriage I don't think we really know for sure at what level he was practicing it. We do know that most of the women he was sealed too were for eternity only; not for this life. And for others we have no proof that he physically consummated any of the other marriages, since there have been no offspring identified. I think the full definition of plural marriage didn't really start until the time of Brigham Young.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

15 minutes ago, JAHS said:

We do know that most of the women he was sealed too were for eternity only

CFR

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, pogi said:

If that truly was the purpose of polygamy, one is left to wonder how Joseph Smith fulfilled that purpose in being commanded to live polygamy.   You would think that he would be a "preferred' father, but where are all the offspring from these polygamous wives? 

Joseph Smith’s role was to be a conduit for the commandment from God to institute the principle and practice among His people, however temporarily that practice remained in place. Joseph set the example by entering into the practice himself, but he was hounded by his enemies until the day he died, cut down by his enemies at a young age.  Had he been left in peace to practice his beliefs, I think it quite likely he would have fulfilled the commandment as diligently as did Brigham Young or his other successors in the presidency of the Church. 

[Scott Lloyd]

33 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Not Jesse James, but my great great grandfather John Rex Winder(1st counselor in the First Presidency of the Church) did.

Good for him. I hope you get my point that it’s a bad comparison to place Jesse James alongside faithful Latter-day Saints in terms of the propensity to influence future generations. 

[Scott Lloyd]

49 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It’s too bad that you were unable to do this with your children since you aren’t a polygamist. 

The practice of plurality of wives served its purpose and there is no longer a need for it. It helped the Church membership reach a critical mass so that the Church was strong enough to survive and to fulfill the grand commission to carry the restored gospel to the nations of the earth. We in the Church today are the beneficiaries of the obedience and faithfulness of our ancestors in this matter. 

Those who purport to have even a basic understanding of the principle should know that the practice is always intended to be temporary, with monogamy being the rule and plural marriage being the exception. 

[rongo]

33 minutes ago, pogi said:

If that truly was the purpose of polygamy, one is left to wonder how Joseph Smith fulfilled that purpose in being commanded to live polygamy.   You would think that he would be a "preferred' father, but where are all the offspring from these polygamous wives? 

I think Joseph was called to institute it, but the details weren't spoon-fed to him. He did the best he could under difficult circumstances. While I'm open to him having had sex with at least some of his wives (I believe he did, but don't have evidence beyond the Utah affidavits of the wives, which were made to counter RLDS missionaries' claims in the 1860s that Joseph had nothing to do with polygamy), he was on the run and in hiding so much during the time period of the sealings that I doubt he had much opportunity. So, it wasn't for lack of trying to fulfill the purposes of polygamy; he did the best he could.

I think the letter to the Whitneys that critics mutilate to attack Joseph and Mormon polygamy supports the polygamy reasons. George D. Smith (Signature Books) wrote at "The Secular Humanist" (link no longer works):

"It was the summer of 1842 when thirty-six-year-old Joseph Smith, hiding from the law down by the Mississippi River in Illinois, confessed: 'My feelings are so strong for you . . . come and see me in this my lonely retreat . . . now is the time to afford me succour (sic) . . . I have a room intirely (sic) by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect saf[e]ty, I know it is the will of God that you should comfort me.' Three weeks earlier, seventeen-year-old Sarah Ann Whitney had secretly become the fourteenth plural wife of Joseph Smith, founder and leader of the millennialist Latter-day Saints (LDS)."

The actual letter is pretty revealing (I'm not going to 'sic' all of the unconventional grammar and usage items) of the manipulation to forward an agenda (portraying trysts with teenagers). George D. Smith's excerpts for the above are bolded and underlined:

"Dear, and Beloved, Brother and Sister, Whitney, and &c.--

I take this oppertunity to communi[c]ate, some of my feelings, privetely at this time, which I want you three Eternaly to keep in your own bosams; for my feelings are so strong for you since what has pased lately between us, that the time of my abscence from you seems so long, and dreary, that it seems, as if I could not live long in this way: and if you three would come and see me in this my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief, of mind, if those with whom I am alied, do love me, now is the time to afford me succour, in the days of exile, for you know I foretold you of these things. I am now at Carlos Graingers, Just back of Brother Hyrams farm, it is only one mile from town, the nights are very pleasant indeed, all three of you can come and See me in the fore part of the night, let Brother Whitney come a little a head, and nock at the south East corner of the house at the window; it is next to the cornfield, I have a room intirely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect safty, I know it is the will of God that you should comfort me now in this time of afiliction, or not at [al]l[] now is the time or never, but I hav[e] no kneed of saying any such thing, to you, for I know the goodness of your hearts, and that you will do the will of the Lord, when it is made known to you; the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma [Smith] comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty: only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroick undertakeing; but so much the greater frendship, and the more Joy, when I see you I will tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper, burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it. one thing I want to see you for it is to git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c. you will pardon me for my earnestness on this subject when you consider how lonesome I must be, your good feelings know how to make every allowance for me, I close my letter, I think Emma [Smith, his first wife] wont come tonight[,] if she dont fail to come to night. I subscribe myself your most obedient, and affectionate, companion, and friend."

---

Instead of arranging sex with teenagers in secret dives, Joseph was arranging to seal the parents and daughter to him (and the daughter to him as a wife). The overarching purpose was dynastic sealing and the law of adoption. While I think the intent to "raise up seed" was there, the circumstances were truly difficult. 

There is a strong family tradition that Josephine Lyons was Joseph Smith's daughter, but DNA testing ruled that out. It is surprising that there aren't yet any verified descendants of Joseph Smith other than through Emma. 

 

[Olmec Donald]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

If that truly was the purpose of polygamy, one is left to wonder how Joseph Smith fulfilled that purpose in being commanded to live polygamy.   You would think that he would be a "preferred' father, but where are all the offspring from these polygamous wives? 

I have wondered the same thing.  Joseph's detractors accused him of "spiritual wifery", which sounds more like a sealing for eternity than an active marriage union in the here-and-now.  And based on the number of proven offspring by his polygamous wives (zero), in contrast with other polygamists, maybe "spiritual wifery" was a reasonably accurate description.

The language in Section 132 includes the wording "for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth", which apparently Joseph did not do, as you point out. 

(At one time I wondered whether Section 132 could have been "manufactured" after Joseph was killed.  But apparently the existing copy of Section 132 is in William Clayton's handwriting, so there is no "smoking gun" evidence that the document postdates Joseph Smith.  William Clayton lived for a long time after that so it's theoretically possible that he and Brigham created the document after the fact, but unless a forensic analysis of the paper and ink so indicates, imo the preponderance of the evidence is that it is an 1843 document.)

So back to your post.  What are your thoughts on how Joseph practiced polygamy, versus how Brigham practiced it? 

edit: While I was writing several others much more knowledgeable than me posted, so no need for you to reply unless you'd like to. 

 

 

 

Edited November 16, 2021 by Olmec Donald

[rongo]

13 hours ago, kimpearson said:

An interesting point is that many of the children of those early polygamist marriages of Church leaders became inactive or left the Church.   My wife's family are direct decedents of Wilford Woodruff and many of his children became inactive with a history of alcoholism in the family.  My polygamist ancestor was a powerful local leader in Spanish Fork Utah and Mona Utah.  When he had to pick one wife to live with under manifesto, the other wife and children pretty much all left the Church.  That was a pattern repeated in many polygamist families.  Of course with so many children, only a few had to stay active in the Church to create large numbers of posterity of active decedents.  I run into nonmembers all the time that are decedents of polygamous marriages in the early church.

This is anecdotal, though. How many is "many," compared to those who have remained faithful?

My polygamous ancestors weren't high-ups in the Church (most were quite poor. My last name line had to eat the seed potatoes with his three wives and children to survive the winter), and the ratio of active to inactive or non-member is extremely high. 

If one could research such a vast and spreading field, it would be very interesting to compare the outcomes over time. In some/many cases, people who get baptized are unwitting descendants of Mormon polygamy (as they come to find out). It could be that the "long game" with lineages is influenced by polygamy, even when it doesn't look that way in the short term. 

[pogi]

36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Joseph Smith’s role was to be a conduit for the commandment from God to institute the principle and practice among His people, however temporarily that practice remained in place. Joseph set the example by entering into the practice himself, but he was hounded by his enemies until the day he died, cut down by his enemies at a young age.  Had he been left in peace to practice his beliefs, I think it quite likely he would have fulfilled the commandment as diligently as did Brigham Young or his other successors in the presidency of the Church. 

This doesn't explain why he didn't raise any seed during the nearly 10 years he practiced polygamy.  If that was indeed the purpose of the practice I don't think it can be said that he "set the example" of how to live it. 

 

[pogi]

28 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think Joseph was called to institute it, but the details weren't spoon-fed to him. He did the best he could under difficult circumstances. While I'm open to him having had sex with at least some of his wives (I believe he did, but don't have evidence beyond the Utah affidavits of the wives, which were made to counter RLDS missionaries' claims in the 1860s that Joseph had nothing to do with polygamy), he was on the run and in hiding so much during the time period of the sealings that I doubt he had much opportunity. So, it wasn't for lack of trying to fulfill the purposes of polygamy; he did the best he could.

I think the letter to the Whitneys that critics mutilate to attack Joseph and Mormon polygamy supports the polygamy reasons. George D. Smith (Signature Books) wrote at "The Secular Humanist" (link no longer works):

"It was the summer of 1842 when thirty-six-year-old Joseph Smith, hiding from the law down by the Mississippi River in Illinois, confessed: 'My feelings are so strong for you . . . come and see me in this my lonely retreat . . . now is the time to afford me succour (sic) . . . I have a room intirely (sic) by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect saf[e]ty, I know it is the will of God that you should comfort me.' Three weeks earlier, seventeen-year-old Sarah Ann Whitney had secretly become the fourteenth plural wife of Joseph Smith, founder and leader of the millennialist Latter-day Saints (LDS)."

The actual letter is pretty revealing (I'm not going to 'sic' all of the unconventional grammar and usage items) of the manipulation to forward an agenda (portraying trysts with teenagers). George D. Smith's excerpts for the above are bolded and underlined:

"Dear, and Beloved, Brother and Sister, Whitney, and &c.--

I take this oppertunity to communi[c]ate, some of my feelings, privetely at this time, which I want you three Eternaly to keep in your own bosams; for my feelings are so strong for you since what has pased lately between us, that the time of my abscence from you seems so long, and dreary, that it seems, as if I could not live long in this way: and if you three would come and see me in this my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief, of mind, if those with whom I am alied, do love me, now is the time to afford me succour, in the days of exile, for you know I foretold you of these things. I am now at Carlos Graingers, Just back of Brother Hyrams farm, it is only one mile from town, the nights are very pleasant indeed, all three of you can come and See me in the fore part of the night, let Brother Whitney come a little a head, and nock at the south East corner of the house at the window; it is next to the cornfield, I have a room intirely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect safty, I know it is the will of God that you should comfort me now in this time of afiliction, or not at [al]l[] now is the time or never, but I hav[e] no kneed of saying any such thing, to you, for I know the goodness of your hearts, and that you will do the will of the Lord, when it is made known to you; the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma [Smith] comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty: only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroick undertakeing; but so much the greater frendship, and the more Joy, when I see you I will tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper, burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it. one thing I want to see you for it is to git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c. you will pardon me for my earnestness on this subject when you consider how lonesome I must be, your good feelings know how to make every allowance for me, I close my letter, I think Emma [Smith, his first wife] wont come tonight[,] if she dont fail to come to night. I subscribe myself your most obedient, and affectionate, companion, and friend."

---

Instead of arranging sex with teenagers in secret dives, Joseph was arranging to seal the parents and daughter to him (and the daughter to him as a wife). The overarching purpose was dynastic sealing and the law of adoption. While I think the intent to "raise up seed" was there, the circumstances were truly difficult. 

There is a strong family tradition that Josephine Lyons was Joseph Smith's daughter, but DNA testing ruled that out. It is surprising that there aren't yet any verified descendants of Joseph Smith other than through Emma. 

I think he had more than ample opportunity to fulfill the purpose of the law in the nearly 10 years that he practiced it.  It seems clear that the purpose of multiplying was fully revealed to him in section 132, after all.  

Quote

 

...and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.

...Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children;

...for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

 

I found this part almost comical:

Quote

the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma [Smith] comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty: 

The deceit, to me, is truly sad.  I feel so bad for Emma, and I can't understand how this is not in violation of section 132 which says:

Quote

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified

It seems that the first wife must consent for it to be justified.  Clearly, Emma did not consent to this and it was all done behind her back, for the safety of the Whitney's - and Joseph.  

[pogi]

45 minutes ago, Olmec Donald said:

So back to your post.  What are your thoughts on how Joseph practiced polygamy, versus how Brigham practiced it? 

My thoughts are still in the works.  I still have many questions myself.  

[Scott Lloyd]

32 minutes ago, pogi said:

This doesn't explain why he didn't raise any seed during the nearly 10 years he practiced polygamy.  If that was indeed the purpose of the practice I don't think it can be said that he "set the example" of how to live it. 

 

I think that remark is made from a standpoint of ignorance. 

[pogi]

While we are on the subject of 132, I have a question about these passages:

Quote

 

41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.

42 If she be not in the new and everlasting covenant, and she be with another man, she has committed adultery.

 

It seems that the Lord is leaving open the possibility for sanctioned polyandry via "the holy anointing" in the "new and everlasting covenant".  Am I misreading that?  If so, why then is not a widow allowed to be sealed to a new husband?