Why 1820? Doesn't 1823 Make More Sense?

[Devobah]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

You are likely imagining the way kings and others had harems. Plural marriage was not like that. Sometimes there were sexual relationships, sometimes not.  Brigham had 57 children with 16 of his wives.  Sometimes he was just sealed to them and didn’t live with them.  He married some because they asked him to be married for some reason.  Others he persuaded to marry him and possibly even pressured some, but plenty of women told him “no” including some who later changed their minds.

There were also a number of divorces for those who practiced plural marriage which were relatively easy for the women to get, the men not so easy.  Google says ten of Brigham’s wives divorced him.  I know of only one that was nasty, but my opinion was she was an exception in many ways, she had already married, had two children and divorced that husband before her family told her to marry Young.  It seems her reason to marry him was the financial benefit…which was an acceptable reason at that time when women were not allowed to be very independent.  She also insisted on having a large property of her own.  He had no children with her.  She divorced BY after a few years.  She went on to another marriage where he had been married when she stayed in their home, whether or not anything happened that led to him getting divorced and marrying her is unknown as far as I know.  She later divorced him.  She is probably the best known as she wrote an anti Mormon book and gave lectures for a time (probably the smartest way to support herself and her two children) and others used her story for their books.

For Brigham the 56 number would have been the total number, not at one time.  Though he had more than enough at one time to raise eyebrows, I am not trying to downplay the fact he had a massive number of wives, just trying to be accurate.  It is extremely well known in the Church and I thought was the most commonly known thing about the early Church known all over the world.

It is best to read the Church’s essay on it and then the Saints text that I think I pointed you to before.  It will tell the story in a faithful way with good historical evidence.

My view:  The vast majority of Saints participating in plural marriage were marrying because they saw it as a command from God and believed that eternal posterity (having children and them having children forever and ever) was the purpose of eternal existence…which got understood to mean it was good for men to have more wives to have more children and the wives benefited from being part of the husband’s eternal kingdom.

Women even came at times and asked to be married to many leaders and wealthy men, especially single female immigrants that lacked families to help support them.  Parents wanted their children married/sealed to spiritual leaders as well as they saw this would help their families in the eternities.

The Church was new and not all revelation was clear and some of the reasoning filling in the gaps of knowledge went a bit wonky imo.

Brigham Young’s marriages are pretty well documented. 

Wikipedia has a chart of those mostly confirmed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Brigham_Young's_wives

If you are interested, the best way to learn this is reading the Church essay and then if you want, come here and ask for what you don’t understand rather than insisting stuff isn’t true.

I haven't read much into Post-Nauvoo polygamy and Utah polygamy. I always wondered if Brigham went about it differently than Joseph did. There seems to be evidence suggesting that Joseph knew of the basics of plural marriage (multiple wives) before the actual revelation was written down defining the procedure of plural marriage and the marriage covenant and sealing power.

From what I do know about plural marriage, I also don't believe it is a requirement for exaltation as even in SLC a majority of the saints weren't practicing it. It seemed to be only for a few and those in the higher roles of the Church. I don't know how much truth is in this story, but I think that this goes back to Joseph's time. The reason was that plural marriage was a huge responsibility as you are in care for multiple people and you should trust God through the process. It's not just having wives and multiplying and replenishing the earth (I know that's a part of it). I think it was Samuel (Joseph's brother) who, when he heard about the doctrine, got a bit too excited for what it implied and Joseph rebuked him. I think I read it somewhere but I can't remember where.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

How did you find out that Joseph Smith had a real photo from himself? 📸

 

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, Devobah said:

haven't read much into Post-Nauvoo polygamy and Utah polygamy. I always wondered if Brigham went about it differently than Joseph did.

From what I have read, not as in depth as it should be, I think Joseph and Brigham looked on it differently and certainly practiced it differently, but we have little from Joseph and most has been filtered through others.

I see Joseph most concerned for others in his efforts to create a celestial heaven on earth.  He was trying to fulfill the commandment and what he saw the purpose was while protecting Emma, this originally being sealed to pregnant wives of other men.  In a few months after the sealings, there was already a child (if they survived birth) who would be raised up to the Lord, dedicated to him perhaps.  He seems to have wanted to tie his inner circle to him as a family.  Sealings were for the benefit as much of the group involved as the individuals.  I don’t know if he looked past his closest associates to when plural marriage would have been opened up to the rest of the Church or if he ever intended it to be, but sealings seemed to be more about making eternal connections for him, growing his family by sealing as equals even rather than looking at the number of children as the benefit of more marriages.  There were several men iirc who had lost their first wife and they were sealed to her as well as their second and plural wives in Nauvoo, thus wives and husbands were eternal companions.   Hyrum Smith married a widow and was sealed in proxy for her first husband, so any children he had by her would be considered her first husband’s by our current understanding (which is incomplete imo since we will all be adults in the afterlife so what does being a parent and a child mean then?)

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/revelations-in-context/mercy-thompson-and-the-revelation-on-marriage?lang=eng#title1

By the time Brigham was in Utah, they were having an occasional arguments between men at times about who would be the father and who would be the son in the Law of Adoption sealings (they couldn’t yet be sealed to some one who hadn’t accepted the gospel in life, so they were sealing themselves as children to leaders).  Plural marriage was part of developing a hierarchy.  

Brigham seems to have sincerely treated some of the men sealed to him as sons as if they were his sons. There seems to me to be much more talk about increasing one’s glory through the number of children or for women being sealed to someone with higher priesthood power and the references to wives treated them more as possessions that as someone working with them to achieve exaltation together.  Sealings, both plural marriages and law of adoption sealings seemed to have shifted some to building one’s later kingdom rather than a communal effort.  Bluntly, language seems to have shifted to view plural families as a sign of status ( though not solely that)…more children, born in the covenant or sealed by adoption meant a larger kingdom for a man.

For women, instead of developing a celestial relationship of love with one’s husband, being able to have an eternal relationship with him as it appears to have been first viewed, plural sealings were being taught as a way to overcome the Curse of Eve, which meant not being as emotionally dependent on one’s husband if I understand the correctly…a practical explanation and given the Protestant view of women at the time, the interpretations of what the Curse of Eve meant for women, it’s not surprising that female Saints were hoping for something that could break out of that less than attractive position.

Edited December 5, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

This is how it was officially introduced to the Church:

Quote

I well recollect the time God restored the everlasting the priesthood certain ordinances placed upon my head the blessings Abraham Isaac and Jacob why says one I never thought of it why did not you think of it why not look upon Abraham's blessings for the Lord blessed him with innumerable seed as the sand upon the sea shore so if you obey the laws shall inherit the blessings of Abraham how does he get along to get this mighty kingdom did he do it all through one wife suppose he got it all by his wife Sarah alone no Sarah gave certain woman name of Hagar to Abraham and by her a seed was raised up unto Abraham is this all no we read of quite a number I think of ten dozen wives Abraham had after Sarah's death

. . .

but again there is another reason why this plurality should exist among the Latter-day Saints I have already given you one reason and that is that you might inherit the blessings made to Abraham Isaac and Jacob and receive a continuation of your posterity that they may become a[s] numerous as sand upon

Innumerable seed….

https://bhroberts.org/records/7Xrrkc-d87tTh/orson_pratt_announces_the_practice_of_plural_marriage_among_the_latter_day_saints

[webbles]

22 minutes ago, Devobah said:

I haven't read much into Post-Nauvoo polygamy and Utah polygamy. I always wondered if Brigham went about it differently than Joseph did. There seems to be evidence suggesting that Joseph knew of the basics of plural marriage (multiple wives) before the actual revelation was written down defining the procedure of plural marriage and the marriage covenant and sealing power.

Section 132 was written down on July 12, 1843.  By that time, Joseph had been sealed to more than 20 women.  Emma had participated in several of those sealings.  Brigham Young was sealed to one additional wife.  There looks to be about 5-10 other men who had also started practicing polygamy.  Many of these men aren't apostles.  I believe the first polygamous baby was born by then as well or at least pregnant.  So Section 132 is really late in the process.

Brigham probably went about it differently but there were many other men and women who were personally taught it by Joseph.  So I think what was practiced in Utah is really similar to what was taught by Joseph.  I think the requirements of secrecy in Nauvoo had a major affect on how it could be practiced vs the openness in Utah.

[Dario_M]

38 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

What is that? 

[Calm]

53 minutes ago, Devobah said:

think it was Samuel (Joseph's brother) who, when he heard about the doctrine, got a bit too excited for what it implied and Joseph rebuked him. I think I read it somewhere but I can't remember where.

Most likely William, he was not the most stable of individuals.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

What is that? 

The discussion of the discovery of the photo

[Devobah]

7 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

What is that? 

The thread itself talks about a photo discovered from around 1844 that is attributed to being a photo of Joseph Smith. We only have paintings as to what he looked like up until that point (2022). It was a pretty big discovery as 1. It was from Joseph's great-great-great grandson and 2. (once again) we didn't have a clear cut image outside of description from other people.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, webbles said:

believe the first polygamous baby was born by then as well or at least pregnant.

Especially since most of the first five? wives of Joseph after Fanny Alger years before were likely very pregnant at the time of the sealing (they were married to other men, the children were not Joseph’s biological children).   That would jumpstart the process of ‘raising up’ children.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2023-old/knowing-brother-joseph-how-the-historical-record-demonstrates-the-prophets-religious-sincerity

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Devobah said:

The thread itself talks about a photo discovered from around 1844 that is attributed to being a photo of Joseph Smith. We only have paintings as to what he looked like up until that point (2022). It was a pretty big discovery as 1. It was from Joseph's great-great-great grandson and 2. (once again) we didn't have a clear cut image outside of description from other people.

Iirc, there was also comparison to the death masks, though I may be confusing it with another claimed find.

[Dario_M]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

The discussion of the discovery of the photo

Okay as long as it is not about that discussion about Joseph Smith. Because i will not be a part of that anymore. Lord have mercy. 

Edited December 5, 2024 by Dario_M

[telnetd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Iirc, there was also comparison to the death masks, though I may be confusing it with another claimed find.

@Devobah

The death mask is mentioned here too.

https://www.thechurchnews.com/2022/7/22/23278321/church-statement-photo-of-joseph-smith-found-in-locket/

https://www.thechurchnews.com/2019/6/26/23215163/joseph-smith-martyrdom-death-masks-hyrum/

[Devobah]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Iirc, there was also comparison to the death masks, though I may be confusing it with another claimed find.

Yes that's correct! The original purpose of my comment was more on the photo and how we didn't have one up until that discovery. I went on a slight tangent. My bad

[Devobah]

4 minutes ago, telnetd said:

@Devobah

The death mask is mentioned here too.

https://www.thechurchnews.com/2022/7/22/23278321/church-statement-photo-of-joseph-smith-found-in-locket/

https://www.thechurchnews.com/2019/6/26/23215163/joseph-smith-martyrdom-death-masks-hyrum/

Thanks for the links! I got distracted from my original intent of the comment, which was that we didn't have a photo of Joseph.

[tana]

What I see as possibly incongruent is, If J.Smith was marrying partners for eternity only and not for time, it must have been pretty important to God for some reason to have J. assemble his wives while he was in the mortal. If it's so important to assemble ones wives while in the flesh, why was J. the only man in the history of men to have ever been given that accommodation?

Edited December 6, 2024 by tana
Insensitivity.

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, tana said:

J. assemble his harem

And that has me leaving the conversation…

Equating plural marriage to a harem is not a serious, civil conversation

Edited December 5, 2024 by Calm

[tana]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

And that has me leaving the conversation…

Equating plural marriage to a harem is not a serious, civil conversation

This must feel like a game of eternal whac-a-mole. You've been on here a long time answering the same q's over and over. I'm sure my little 'gotcha' here has been put down many times over the years.  I don't know why there isn't a pinned thread with all the pat answers in it to direct people to. Anyway, carry on

[webbles]

3 hours ago, tana said:

What I see as possibly incongruent is, If J.Smith was marrying partners for eternity only and not for time, it must have been pretty important to God for some reason to have J. assemble his wives while he was in the mortal. If it's so important to assemble ones wives while in the flesh, why was J. the only man in the history of men to have ever been given that accommodation?

Early polygamy is a little weird.  I don't think that is the right way to ask the question.  For instance, John Bernhisel wrote an affidavit in Joseph's journal stating that Joseph sealed him (John) to 11 women.  All of them are deceased; many of them are relatives of his (sisters, cousins, etc).  You can see the affidavit at https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-december-1842-june-1844-book-3-15-july-1843-29-february-1844/152.  Why did he do that?  Did he really think that his sister, Maria, was now his wife?  Was he assembling wives for the eternities?  The affidavit wasn't written till 1868 so maybe there's some memory issues going on.

Now a days, when we talk about sealings, we assume that the couple will be husband/wife in the eternities.  But early polygamy doesn't quite fit that.  There are cases where it does (Hyrum publicly talked about his sealing to both of his wives and he seems to be talking about spousal relationships) but John Bernhisel (who was a bachelor at the time) doesn't.  For me, John's situation feels similar to the later Adoption sealings.  People wanted to be sealed to someone who they knew was going to the Celestial Kingdom.  If the choice was between being sealed to your parent who hadn't joined the church vs being sealed to an apostle, the answer was easy.  John wanted to help his female relations and so he was sealed to them.  I feel like that same idea fits with many of Joseph's polyandrous relations.

[tana]

10 hours ago, webbles said:

Early polygamy is a little weird.  I don't think that is the right way to ask the question.  For instance, John Bernhisel wrote an affidavit in Joseph's journal stating that Joseph sealed him (John) to 11 women.  All of them are deceased; many of them are relatives of his (sisters, cousins, etc).  You can see the affidavit at https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-december-1842-june-1844-book-3-15-july-1843-29-february-1844/152.  Why did he do that?  Did he really think that his sister, Maria, was now his wife?  Was he assembling wives for the eternities?  The affidavit wasn't written till 1868 so maybe there's some memory issues going on.

Now a days, when we talk about sealings, we assume that the couple will be husband/wife in the eternities.  But early polygamy doesn't quite fit that.  There are cases where it does (Hyrum publicly talked about his sealing to both of his wives and he seems to be talking about spousal relationships) but John Bernhisel (who was a bachelor at the time) doesn't.  For me, John's situation feels similar to the later Adoption sealings.  People wanted to be sealed to someone who they knew was going to the Celestial Kingdom.  If the choice was between being sealed to your parent who hadn't joined the church vs being sealed to an apostle, the answer was easy.  John wanted to help his female relations and so he was sealed to them.  I feel like that same idea fits with many of Joseph's polyandrous relations.

 

OK, but adding a few more saints who practiced the sealings doesn't really return fire on my position.

Google says 100 billion people have existed on earth so far. So, if the way of existence truly does fit LDS theory of plural wives in the hereafter, 99.99999999 % of people will have to pick their wives later. Not in the flesh. That makes me believe that the theme that J. and the handful of people who did get to pick while in the flesh is incongruent with it being of dire importance to do so.

[webbles]

4 hours ago, tana said:

 

OK, but adding a few more saints who practiced the sealings doesn't really return fire on my position.

Google says 100 billion people have existed on earth so far. So, if the way of existence truly does fit LDS theory of plural wives in the hereafter, 99.99999999 % of people will have to pick their wives later. Not in the flesh. That makes me believe that the theme that J. and the handful of people who did get to pick while in the flesh is incongruent with it being of dire importance to do so.

What is the "LDS theory of plural wives in the hereafter"?  I don't plan on being a polygamist in the hereafter.  I don't see why 99.9999999% of the people have to pick a wife later.  Why do they need to pick a wife?

Also, the Celestial Kingdom is probably going to be closer to a 50/50 split of men and women.  We believe that all children who die under the age of accountability reach the Celestial Kingdom.  That's a LOT of kids.  And deaths at that age are fairly equal.

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, webbles said:

nd deaths at that age are fairly equal.

And lean more male typically where there is a difference.

[tana]

On 12/6/2024 at 5:44 AM, tana said:

 

OK, but adding a few more saints who practiced the sealings doesn't really return fire on my position.

Google says 100 billion people have existed on earth so far. So, if the way of existence truly does fit LDS theory of plural wives in the hereafter, 99.99999999 % of people will have to pick their wives later. Not in the flesh. That makes me believe that the theme that J. and the handful of people who did get to pick while in the flesh is incongruent with it being of dire importance to do so.

 

19 hours ago, webbles said:

What is the "LDS theory of plural wives in the hereafter"?  I don't plan on being a polygamist in the hereafter.  I don't see why 99.9999999% of the people have to pick a wife later.  Why do they need to pick a wife?

 

I don't blame you at all for not believing in plural marriage in the afterlife. But, clearly, Joseph, Brigham, and all the early saints did. So, my point stands.

Edited December 7, 2024 by tana

[webbles]

12 hours ago, tana said:

 

I don't blame you at all for not believing in plural marriage in the afterlife. But, clearly, Joseph, Brigham, and all the early saints did. So, my point stands.

I didn't say I don't believe that people will be polygamist in the hereafter.  I do believe that there are polygamist in the hereafter. I just don't see myself being one.

I'm not sure what your point is.

[sunstoned]

The teaching of polygamy within the LDS community is a contested doctrine, and for many, it offers little to no comfort. I know my mother worried about this throughout most of her life. If there is a loving God, then no one should be forced into a union they do not desire.  My mother has long passed, and I hope she has found peace.  As for me, I would be glad to see the Brethren disavow the teaching of plural wives.