Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Historical Monogamy Doctrine website


Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, PortalToParis said:

I think there were two other maybe-polygamous children born previous to the martyrdom, one of whom died in infancy, and the other doesn't have the mother confirmed as a polygamous wife:

There's a few more than 2.  I went through the list of all polygamous marriages before 1844 at https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V34N0102_135.pdf and looked up family records in familysearch.org.

Here's what I found (these are all polygamous marriages):

  • Theodore Turley married Mary Clift in 1842 and had Jason Clift later in 1842
  • Reynolds Cahoon married Lucina Roberts in 1842 and had Lucina Cahoon 1843
  • Heber C Kimball married Sarah Peake in 1842 and had Adelbert Kimball in 1842 (this might be the former husband's son) and had Henry Kimball in 1844
  • Lorenzo Dow Young married Harriet Wheeler in 1843 and had John Young in 1844
  • Joseph B Noble married Sarah Alley in 1843 and had George Noble 1844
  • William Clayton married Margaret Moon in 1843 and had Daniel Clayton in 1844
  • Benjamin Mitchell married Lovina Buckwalter in 1843 and had Joseph Mitchel in 1844
  • John Bair and married Lucinda Owen in 1843 and had Lillian Blair in 1844

 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Calm said:

Because they are the men’s possessions?

If a man can have multiple wives, why not a woman multiple husbands?

D&c 132

im with ya it isn’t equal but yea they are the men’s possessions according to the scriptures. When there is talk of “giving” a wife to so and so… yea it’s like boys getting a new toy when tired of the old one. Doesn’t look like to women get any say in it except to agree to it. Well or they can be destroyed. I guess that qualifies as having say in it. 

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

He shouldn’t marry other mens wives. Pack it up however you want that is adultery right there if he had sex with any who were married to other men. Also I believe dc 132 states specifically a women is only to have one husband. 

I guess that what you get when you get caught doing all this and have to get revelation all if a sudden to justify it. 

his whole program was as messed up as a football bat. 

Or rather he simply sealed unsealed women to himself, their lives otherwise remained unchanged. No evidence that he had sex with other men's wives. The only "polygamy children" were from just the polyandrous women, and all those children were children of their husband's according to modern DNA tests. Thus there are arguments whether Joseph was a polygamist at all, or what we've been discussing, he's not exactly our idea of what a polygamist is. Sealing himself to married and very pregnant woman (7 months, even in his time, wasn't considered a medically healthy time to have sex) makes it seem he was avoiding sex with these women. According to Don.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, webbles said:

The problem with saying that sealings could be platonic was that there were no sealings between two men, two women, father/child, mother/child.  The only sealings were between man and women.  I think a better explanation is that sealings == marriage (either in this life or the next).  The concept of sealings expanding beyond marriage didn't occur till after Joseph died when Brigham was inspired to start the "Law of Adoption".

I think that there is a challenge here that should be recognized. The fact that there were no sealings of adoption until after Joseph Smith's death doesn't mean that the teachings weren't there. It is difficult to believe, for example, that the fully developed theology of the organization of the Celestial Kingdom - which requires sealings other than those between men and women - would be published in 1847 without there having been earlier developments. There is the expressed concern that such sealings required temples (and we note that while some of the 'temple' ordinances were performed outside of temples between Nauvoo and the completion of the first temple out west (St. George), adoptive sealings were not one of these. So we need to be careful with this.

The other thing is that we have anecdotal evidence (problematic because of dates). Consider, for example, that Jane Manning James claimed that the offer made to her to be sealed to her was not a sealing between husband and wife but a sealing of adoption. This offer was allegedly made in 1844 by Emma Smith, before Joseph's death. These kinds of narratives (while possibly influenced by later developments) suggest that in 1844, the theology behind these sealings was in progress - even if (due to the absence of a temple) the sealings were not yet being performed.

I think that we need to be careful in attempting to attribute all of this to Brigham Young.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Diamondhands69 said:

D&c 132

im with ya it isn’t equal but yea they are the men’s possessions according to the scriptures. When there is talk of “giving” a wife to so and so… yea it’s like boys getting a new toy when tired of the old one. Doesn’t look like to women get any say in it except to agree to it. Well or they can be destroyed. I guess that qualifies as having say in it. 

What non-sense are you talking about? He did ask the women, but certainly you should ask the husband, property or not, right? Call for references that women who refused would be destroyed. What's with the feigned surprise? Dramatic effect? You seem to already know many things, though half is wrong.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

What non-sense are you talking about? He did ask the women, but certainly you should ask the husband, property or not, right? Call for references that women who refused would be destroyed. What's with the feigned surprise? Dramatic effect? You seem to already know many things, though half is wrong.

Dc 132:51-54 Emma

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Calm said:

If a man can have multiple wives, why not a woman multiple husbands?

Indeed.

Quote

"I will now say, not only to our delegate to Congress, but to the Elders who leave the body of the Church, that he thought that all the cats and kittens were let out of the bag when brother Pratt went back last fall, and published the Revelation concerning the plurality of wives: it was thought there was no other cat to let out. But allow me to tell you, Elders of Israel, and delegates to Congress, you may expect an eternity of cats, that have not yet escaped from the bag. Bless your souls, there is no end to them, for if there is not one thing, there will always be another." (Brigham Young, J of D, 1953)

I think some of these cats that are still in the bag are going to really surprise us.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Nope. Emma was not told she'd be destroyed if she didn't marry Joseph.

If she didn’t support him marrying other women. She was compelled to support polygamy or be destroyed. Basically JS wrote this into the “scripture” to get out of trouble. Additionally- I’m not sure if the timeline but Emma wasn’t the first to be sealed to JS. I’m betting it took place after she found out about all this adulterous behavior. Prob when dc 132 was presented to her. 

Edited by Diamondhands69
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

If she didn’t support him marrying other women. She was compelled to support polygamy or be destroyed. Basically JS wrote this into the “scripture” to get out of trouble. Additionally- I’m not sure if the timeline but Emma wasn’t the first to be sealed to JS. I’m betting it took place after she found out about all this adulterous behavior. Prob when dc 132 was presented to her. 

D&C 132 is dated to July 12, 1843.  The Partridge and Lawrence sisters were approved by Emma in May of 1843, before the revelation.

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

If she didn’t support him marrying other women. She was compelled to support polygamy or be destroyed. Basically JS wrote this into the “scripture” to get out of trouble. Additionally- I’m not sure if the timeline but Emma wasn’t the first to be sealed to JS. I’m betting it took place after she found out about all this adulterous behavior. Prob when dc 132 was presented to her. 

Much of the context of these verses is only known to Emma, Joseph Smith, and the Lord. However, this seems to be about her own marriage, about remaining faithful, etc. The word "destroyed" in verse 41 is applied those who violate their covenants, means they will be separated from God. Though I don't suppose it is beyond repentance to become not destroyed again. But Emma was faithful, so I don't think we'll ever know what would have happened. 132 was a late entry. 

Link to comment
On 12/13/2023 at 5:29 PM, Pyreaux said:

Its been a long time since I read up on the Temple Lot case. LDS Church lost the case because they couldn't prove Joseph was a polygamist. The Church had journals were the women told their children they were the child of Joseph. But of the 8, 7 were male, and they had decedents, so Y-chromosomal DNA tests were done and none of them were Joseph's. I don't think they are lying; I think they simply believed the child was Sealed to Joseph. The Ward Radio's historian seems almost positive most all of Joseph wives were already pregnant when he married/Sealed them. 

I was under the impression that Don Bradley thought only the first 4 plural marriages, after Fanny Alger, were pregnant at the time of their marriage to Joseph. Both he and Brian Hales have plenty of first-hand accounts that Joseph did consummate some of the marriages after those first ones.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, PortalToParis said:

Though that's all history stuff, what did you think of its arguments of polygamy not being a doctrinally sound practice?

Here's my notes on sections that I considered to deal with “doctrinally sound practice”:

  • #18

    • 132:1,37 - The mention that Isaac only had one wife in the Bible as a refutation is a red-herring to me.  We already believe that the Bible doesn't contain every detail.  So, why can't Joseph (or any other prophet) reveal that Isaac had an extra wife.

    • 132:1 - Abraham being commanded to take a wife has the same argument as above.

    • 132:7 - The "never but one on the earth at a time" has been taught as saying that only one person has access to all the keys.  And if D&C 132 was a fabrication by Brigham, then it has the same problems in his day so why would he have included it?

    • 132:26 - She needs to read up on the Second Annointing ordinance. Also, William Clayton wrote in his journal on May 16, 1843 (quoting Joseph Smith): “nothing but the unpardonable sin can prevent him (me) from inheriting eternal glory”

    • 132:36-37 - Maybe a better example would be Nephi killing Laban.  He was commanded to kill Laban even though he was also commanded to not kill.

    • 132:37 - Same argument as the first part

    • 132:38 - will discuss in the later section where she gets more into Jacob

    • 132:38 - Same argument as the first part (also, there is several traditions that Moses did marry while he was a prince of Egypt and left her when he fled into the desert)

    • 132:1,37- 38 - Yes, we aren't supposed to have concubines.  But Abraham and Jacob absolutely did have concubines and there is no known condemnation against them for having concubines so not sure why she is saying they sinned.

    • 132:41 - Marriage isn't the only "new and everlasting covenant".  D&C 22:1 calls baptism a "new and everlasting covenant".  So why can't the Relief Society talk about the sisters in the "new and everlasting covenant"?

    • 132: 54 - I agree that verse 54 (and the few around it) are difficult to accept.  I've seen some speculation that D&C 132 was a more personal revelation to Emma and that if Joseph had not died so soon, he would have changed it to not be so personal.  I've also seen speculation that the first part of D&C 132 is the original and Brigham added on the part related to Emma.  But this idea of destroying if someone doesn't accept God's will does show up several times in the Bible so it isn't really new.

    • The rest are similar to my comment about verse 54

  • #19 – Yes, section 132 kind of contradicts those. But God has changed commandments over the years (we don’t practice animal sacrifice) so there isn’t a problem with a newer revelation changing a former revelation. And we know that there are righteous men who did practice polygamy (Abraham and Jacob) and Hyrum also is sealed to two wives. So, I really don’t see a problem with these verses considering everything else.

  • #20 – I don’t see any issues. Even with D&C 132, we still believe David and Solomon messed up.

  • #21 – I’ve seen that reading before and it is interesting. But I really don’t care doctrinally since God can give later commandments that supersede previous ones. So if Jacob did say that polygamy was against the commandments, that has no bearing in whether Joseph received a commandment to practice polygamy.

  • #22 – The printer’s manuscript has “father”. When it was first published, a mistake was introduced that changed it to “fathers”. That was corrected in the 1981 LDS edition but the RLDS hasn’t corrected theirs. Also, Abraham and Jacob were polygamous and so the commandment obviously didn’t affect them and the Law of Moses required Levirate marriages which can cause polygamous marriages.

  • #23 – I also don’t think God only commands polygamy to “raise up seed”. I think that was just told to Jacob or something he reasoned out.

  • #24 – Agreed. But I don’t see that as a problem with D&C 132

  • #25, #26 – Agreed

  • #29 – Agreed. That doesn’t negate the fact that Abraham, Jacob, and Hyrum are polygamists.

  • #30 – God has sent destroying angels before to force people to obey (see the story of Balaam). It doesn’t remove agency. Also, some of the accounts are second-hand since some of the wives talked about Joseph telling them. See https://ensignpeakfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Encouraging-Joseph-Smith-to-Practice-Plural-Marriage-The-Accounts-of-the-Angel-with-a-Drawn-Sword.pdf with all the accounts.

  • #31 – This was before Hyrum had been taught polygamy and as I mentioned in an earlier post, this (to me) shows that Hyrum knew of the story and was trying to refute it.

  • #32 – I don’t see how the angel story contradicts those statements.

And I just noticed that #73 is messed up. The line after the martyrdom says “July – December 1845” but the line above it was “January – June 1844”. So that made me think that one line was July 1844 – December 1845 which would really through off the graph. But then I noticed that the Westward Trek line was put in 1847 when it should have been in 1846. And looking at the marriages, they didn’t have a lot of marriages in 1847 but instead had them in 1846. So I think all the years after the “Martyrdom” line is off by one. But that graph isn’t actually showing what she thinks it is showing. The large number of sealings right after the martyrdom were Brigham and Heber being sealed to Joseph’s wives. And the large number of sealings right before the “Westward Trek” was because of the looming loss of the temple. Since being married is a requirement to make it to the Celestial Kingdom and the temple is about to be lost, it makes sense for a bunch of women to ask to get sealed while the temple is available.

Link to comment

What gets frustrating to me are those who dis polygamy but then support SSM.   I was having a conversation with someone who did not believe polygamy came from God.  Ok I can accept a different point of view then though one can write a whole essay on the subject of polygamy in the scriptures.   At least there is something there even if one does not like it.  Yet while polygamy could not be accepted by this person, the view that same sex marriage could be something that God approves of even though we have not got a revelation regarding it yet.  So polygamy bad regardless of what is in the scriptures but same sex marriage might be ok even though there is not even the most remote evidence that it would ever be accepted by God.   It was such a frustrating conversation to have.  

Link to comment
2 hours ago, filovirus said:

I was under the impression that Don Bradley thought only the first 4 plural marriages, after Fanny Alger, were pregnant at the time of their marriage to Joseph. Both he and Brian Hales have plenty of first-hand accounts that Joseph did consummate some of the marriages after those first ones.

Three out of the four as one of them was likely a levirate type marriage, the widow of his dead brother, Don Carlos.  There has been no mention of her being pregnant that I am aware of.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
22 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

What gets frustrating to me are those who dis polygamy but then support SSM.   I was having a conversation with someone who did not believe polygamy came from God.  Ok I can accept a different point of view then though one can write a whole essay on the subject of polygamy in the scriptures.   At least there is something there even if one does not like it.  Yet while polygamy could not be accepted by this person, the view that same sex marriage could be something that God approves of even though we have not got a revelation regarding it yet.  So polygamy bad regardless of what is in the scriptures but same sex marriage might be ok even though there is not even the most remote evidence that it would ever be accepted by God.   It was such a frustrating conversation to have.  

Criticism of polygamy, usually actually polygyny, generally is centered on the inequality of the power dynamics of most polygynous societies over the centuries where women have fewer rights than men and may have little to no say over who they marry or the ability to survive if they refused the marriage arrangements of their parents.  Then once married practically speaking many cultures did give more power to the first wives, which often left second wives as second class citizens…more like third, since the first wife would be second class as female.  And men could marry again without approval or even telling their wives.

 I was reading a story of a polygamous wife in Asia, I believe, a while back, and her husband basically just married another woman, bought her a house and moved in with her, abandoning his first wife, who he had promised never to have any more wives when they were married.  He withheld money, etc intent on forcing her to not only accept his second wife, but assume the subservient position to her…she was ‘favoured’ to in essence become the slave of the woman who supplanted her.

Polygyny in general is not great for women in terms of freedom, advancement, or health and longevity.  There are a lot of reasons to be concerned even beyond the hardship of simply having to share your spouse with another and the mess that can make with love and depth of companionship and the sense of support one gets.

However, many of the common characteristics of polygynous societies are absent in the early Saints’ communities because they weren’t the typical polygynous culture.  They had no long lasting history of polygyny.  It was an experiment with practices somewhat fluid and more options available.  My guess is because plural marriage was a new practice for the Saints, the worst of the polygyny system was avoided because it was not the norm of their society; monogamy was.  It was relatively easy to get a divorce from a polygamous marriage, especially if able to remarry.  Men were told to get their wives’ approval at least in a few talks I have read and I know many stories where the wife was the one pushing to begin what she saw as a religious duty and blessing and choosing the woman to join them.  It might seem to some in those relationships, the wife held more power of the couple, at least in some ways.  It being a frontier society probably made it easier for society to adapt and given it was seen as a religious duty, many women saw plural marriage as a more advanced position than monogamy (my gggmother was one of them, expressing her pity for the poor incompetent dears who could barely handle one home).

Still female Saints didn’t have equal rights and the freedoms of men back then, but it wasn’t plural marriage that put them in that position, it was the greater American/European society.  In some ways in plural relationships women were treated with greater trust in their abilities and decision making as many ran their own households which also included farms as their husband had property in multiple places, travel took time and even with only three or four (most common were two wives) wives, that meant most of the year the wife was on her own.  Still being unpaid housekeepers and farm mangers for their absentee husband is going to be viewed as inequality by most in our society.  And not all such marriages were done well, there was abuse and jealousy, favoritism in some marriages.

But to sum up when taking about inequality and rights with plural marriage it is about the differences of such rights between the couple.  Most concerns are over the women involved having a lower quality of life with less of her needs met than she would have in a monogamous marriage.  since it is the husband being shared that creates the inequality, then they see the solution to be not sharing a husband.
 

When talking about inequality and rights with same sex marriage they are discussing rights of the couple compared to other married couples, something very different as those are given by society to the couple, as well as acceptance, etc.  The solution to lacking of rights in a society is usually to give them those right.

The two situations are quite different things.  I don’t see the reason that it’s strange or inconsistent for one to be against plural marriages, but for same sex masrigae.

 

Link to comment
10 hours ago, webbles said:
  • #32 – I don’t see how the angel story contradicts those statements.

And I just noticed that #73 is messed up. The line after the martyrdom says “July – December 1845” but the line above it was “January – June 1844”. So that made me think that one line was July 1844 – December 1845 which would really through off the graph. But then I noticed that the Westward Trek line was put in 1847 when it should have been in 1846. And looking at the marriages, they didn’t have a lot of marriages in 1847 but instead had them in 1846. So I think all the years after the “Martyrdom” line is off by one.

You're right that the graph is off, which is a big oversight, and the earlier polygamous births not being mentioned seems to be a big oversight too -- I definitely want to go back to see all those records of births myself as I haven't heard of them before. I wouldn't fault the site author if she hadn't heard of them either as it appears the author of Joseph Smith's Monogamy also missed most of those.

Point #32 shows the verses stating to obey the laws of the land, and that no one needs to break the laws of the land in order to follow the Lord. An angel commanding Joseph Smith to practice polygamy would have then been commanding Joseph Smith to break the law, which I think undoubtedly to be the point she's making. Even Nephi killing Laban and taking the brass plates was justified under the law at the time, as Laban was actively trying to kill Nephi and his brothers, and had earlier stolen their property. Nephi killing Laban was justified under self defense, and taking the plates that Laban owned was justified as retrieving value of stolen property. The Lord specifically orchestrated events, by letting Nephi and his brothers be subjected to theft and attempted murder, so that Nephi would be without sin or crime by killing Laban and taking his plates.

Link to comment

A question I really want to ask anyone regarding the last point, in which she recommends to pray for the truth about polygamy to the Lord -- how many of you who have studied this topic have already done so, and what if any divine response do you feel you've received? Has anyone here felt they've received personal revelation regarding polygamy, either regarding historical events or itself as a doctrine? If so I'd love to hear!

Link to comment
20 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

What gets frustrating to me are those who dis polygamy but then support SSM.   I was having a conversation with someone who did not believe polygamy came from God.  Ok I can accept a different point of view then though one can write a whole essay on the subject of polygamy in the scriptures.   At least there is something there even if one does not like it.  Yet while polygamy could not be accepted by this person, the view that same sex marriage could be something that God approves of even though we have not got a revelation regarding it yet.  So polygamy bad regardless of what is in the scriptures but same sex marriage might be ok even though there is not even the most remote evidence that it would ever be accepted by God.   It was such a frustrating conversation to have.  

I don't think it's an equal summation. SSM isn't coerced or told to practice it and it came from God. Or have a drawn sword put to you if you don't live SSM. 

I don't have a problem if it's consenting adults, which is usually at least 18, but morally I do have problems with polygamy and the problems that can happen. I don't have problems with SSM, I think it's better for gays to be married rather than go from partner to partner. 

Link to comment
On 12/13/2023 at 12:14 PM, PortalToParis said:

Posting a website written by a faithful LDS sister member, on the topic of Joseph Smith not having instituted polygamy as doctrine. Have any of you read it?

historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine

Is this Michelle Stone or someone else?

Link to comment
On 12/22/2023 at 9:27 PM, PortalToParis said:

Point #32 shows the verses stating to obey the laws of the land, and that no one needs to break the laws of the land in order to follow the Lord.

Initially, were they breaking the laws of the land though?  They were not seeking legal recognition of the marriages iirc.  The government had to make laws to make plural marriage clearly illegal (1882 I believe, but maybe earlier in 1862).  Utah was even forced to include cohabitation as illegal which was legal in some states.  Many considered these laws as unconstitutional.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

I am not sure of the purpose of this thread and all the effort put into the question itself. Books. More books. Articles. Conversations. Arguments.

Yet Brigham Young was still a "prophet" right?  I affirm that incidentally and really don't care about his personal business.

My testimony is that Joseph and all ordained as prophets WERE/ ARE just that.

So let me get to the point.

If Joseph had sex with anyone but Emma, then the church is a lie, and we get to stay home and watch football on Sundays?

That's ok.

I'll still be there. 

I don't like football that much anyway.

Humans are humans.  The Adam and Eve story teaches that, and there us opposition in all things.

And I am actually not watching football even today, Jan 1, anyway. ;)

 

 

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yet Brigham Young was still a "prophet" right?  I affirm that incidentally and really don't care about his personal business.

My guess is those who believe Brigham lied about plural marriage don’t see him as a prophet, only Joseph….especially those who think Brigham conspired to kill Joseph to take his place (this is too often where the Joseph was a monogamist arguments lead to these days).  Quite a few of these proponents are leaving the Church and joining Snuffer or other groups or just doing their own version.  Mike Stroud is another figure in this group.

Phil Davis of the Doctrine of Christ group may be the one who got the latest surge in anti polygamy interest among members really going, I haven’t followed it close enough to be sure of that.  Snuffer was pushing it, but Davis added the Brigham Young murdered Joseph Smith plot (even made a movie about it) and the loss of the Melchizedek priesthood to the story.

https://religiondispatches.org/a-new-mormon-religion-has-taken-qanon-conspiracies-and-canonized-them-as-doctrine/

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

My guess is those who believe Brigham lied about plural marriage don’t see him as a prophet, only Joseph….especially those who think Brigham conspired to kill Joseph to take his place (this is too often where the Joseph was a monogamist arguments lead to these days).  Quite a few of these proponents are leaving the Church and joining Snuffer’s or other groups or just doing their own version.

The website in the OP seemed to push the angle that polygamy was just another invalid doctrine from Brigham Young, like Adam-God and the priesthood ban.  Not that he was a false prophet.  But that might have just been an attempt to make it easier to digest for readers vs saying Brigham was a false prophet.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...