Teach children about plural marriage?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 hours ago, JAHS said:

In both David's and Solomon's cases, some of their wives and concubines were "received not of me", as God explains in D&C 132:38. And that is what was abominable before the Lord, as stated in Jacob 2:24
Then in verse 30 he 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."

 

4 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Or context "for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son... which thing was abominable before me... [However] if I will... raise up seed unto me, I will command my people." It was not the multiple wives that was abominable, what was abominable was abuse and how not all of them were approved by the Lord, but some were.

"[Of a king] Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away" (Deuteronomy 17:14-20)

"I gave thee thy... wives into thy bosom... and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things." (2 Samuel 12:7-8)

There were some posters in the Dan McClellen thread arguing against the idea that Latter-day Saints believe in the univocality of scripture. Here is exhibit A that they very much do. 

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

I'm curious what age range you are using for the "younger ones".  Under 18?  Under 20?  Under 25?  I'll have to double check but I think many of the under 18 had connections to Joseph that didn't require any grooming from older women.  For example, the youngest, Helen Kimball, would have been groomed by her own parents.  Sarah Whitney (17) would have had her parents do it as well.  Lucy Walker (17) was living in Joseph's house as his foster daughter and she stated that Joseph approached her directly.  Emily Partridge (barely 19) was approached first by Joseph and then Elizabeth Durfee (an older wife, 50) approached her as well, so older wives did participate some time.  But I don't think it was all that often.

 

I am not sure really. I would need to review the long list of wives but regardless of some that you mention, it seems to me that the older women could have still had significant influence on younger women, say 14 to 25, that the practice they were being pressured into was a ok.

 

3 hours ago, webbles said:

There is an old statement published in 1844 that does say that "[Joseph] had in his employ certain old women, called "Mothers in Zion", such as Mrs. Taylor, old Madam Durfee, and old Madam Sessions ... if Joseph wishes to make a spiritual wife of a certain young lady, he would send one of these women to her."  (page 13 at https://archive.org/details/narrativeofadven00jack/page/12/mode/2up).  I don't have much faith, though, that the person stating this actually knew of it.  Because he also later says that "[Joseph] boasted to me that he in this manner from the commencement of his career had seduced 400 women."  Elizabeth Durfee did approach at least one women (Emily), but, per Emily, it was done differently than described and it doesn't look very much like grooming.

Interesting.

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, blackstrap said:

One does not have to go to polygamy to be told that one should follow the command of God even if one is told to do something that really goes against one's moral beliefs. The story of Nephi and Laban in the first chapters of the BoM brings that message clearly.

Well there is something to aspire to. 🙄

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, JAHS said:

Even though God allowed the Old Testament prophets to have plural wives? 

D&C 132:38 "David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me."
If it was not sanctioned by God I feel sorry for all those wives, as well as the ones in the early days of the restored church. Also I would not be here now if it were not for plural marriage.

A Cultural issue.  And it was not a commandment like Joseph pretended it was.

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

I would love to know the thought process back then given Joseph and others’ prior beliefs.  I wonder if plural marriage was easier to accept given polygyny was in the Bible than accepting God having a wife and literal spirit children.  And if somehow the teaching of eternal marriage and spirit children, etc got tangled up in Joseph’s head with polygyny because the topic came up when Joseph asked about the polygynous wives in the Bible.  And so God used Joseph’s mixed up understanding to jumpstart the eternal family doctrine.

I do think the practice of plural marriage created a very strong core of church leaders and committed general membership for a couple of generations.  I don’t know if it was necessary and that is why God commanded or allowed it, but my guess is if there was a reason for plural marriage, that was it.  Not saying there weren’t committed monogamous Saints, but plural marriage created a very strong core identity for Saints of up to my generation imo.  With the influx of converts (from 1960 to 1990) the identity shifted more to other things imo (WoW and the temple, the Book of Mormon itself become more significant).

Anyone know the timeline on what Joseph was saying about God’s relationship to mortals and about women’s role in heaven and eternal families?  

Also, when was the first monogamous only sealing for a man done (he wasn’t involved in any polygynous marriages as well)?

Do you ever consider he just used this as a way to have access to many other women both for sexual reasons as well as a control motivation?  And not just control over other women but control over the inner circle of other men he told about and pushed them to practice it?

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Do you ever consider he just used this as a way to have access to many other women both for sexual reasons as well as a control motivation?  And not just control over other women but control over the inner circle of other men he told about and pushed them to practice it?

Yep…

I frequently do thought experiments of assuming critics are right.

Edited December 18, 2024 by Calm

[Tacenda]

I had no idea the problems in the Kingston polygamist group could be so destructive. Hulu has a recent documentary on the FLDS and the Kingston groups. Both are horrendous as far as their leaders causing so much harm to all. The scariest among the super hideous and awful abuse already is the babies being born with birth defects. They don't keep birth or death certificates so we don't know how many have been killed. It's because the leader believes in a one true blood stemming from Christ. So there is incest galore and inbreeding which cause the strange deformities or among many, kidney disease. I cannot believe Utah hasn't prosecuted or put a stop to these abuses yet. There have been some, but not enough. These groups put a bad light on the mainstream church. The documentary has Brian Hale's commenting on the history behind polygamy. This and many other reasons is why I don't think the church should be doing this with the children, it's not something they should learn at such a young age, and it shouldn't be a teaching either, IMO. 

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

The evidence for a "mock sealing" comes from later accounts, particularly from some of Joseph Smith’s supposed wives, it is not universally accepted as a verified historical fact. Emma Smith seemed to express knowledge of some of Joseph's marriages, particularly later on. There is still no direct, first-hand testimony from Emma herself that she was unaware of all of Joseph's plural marriages.

Well Emma denied to her sons that their father practiced plural marriage.  I think the evidence of the mock marriages is pretty sound.

18 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

The existence of a "mock sealing" might suggest that Joseph was trying to protect Emma or prevent emotional distress. Or it shows the same complexity and discretion that surrounded the entire practice itself, so determining Emma's knowledge of the situation is complicated.

Or a simpler answer. He was lying through his teeth to her and did not want to get caught lying. 

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Do you ever consider he just used this as a way to have access to many other women both for sexual reasons as well as a control motivation?  And not just control over other women but control over the inner circle of other men he told about and pushed them to practice it?

With the plethora of descendants of Joseph Smith by these wives maybe you're rig....

🧐

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

With the plethora of descendants of Joseph Smith by these wives maybe you're rig....

🧐

Or he was careful not to get them pregnant.

[sunstoned]

On 12/17/2024 at 3:10 PM, Teancum said:

Or maybe not and Joseph just told them that.

Yes, I'm going to go with Occam's razor on this.

[sunstoned]

On 12/17/2024 at 3:18 PM, Teancum said:

I knew about polygamy is a child as well. It is always a puzzlement to me when people say they never knew. It is right there in D&C 132.

 

I learned about polygamy in early morning seminary.  What I didn't learn about was the way it was practiced with the lies and deception, the young teenage victims, and the polyandry.  I learned about these things much later.

[ZealouslyStriving]

22 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Or he was careful not to get them pregnant.

Riiiight.....

Emma got pregnant if he came within spitting distance. Surely if he was going around bedding young ladies in to fulfill his insatiable appetite for  s-x, at least one of those would've produced offspring.

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Riiiight.....

Emma got pregnant if he came within spitting distance. Surely if he was going around bedding young ladies in to fulfill his insatiable appetite for  s-x, at least one of those would've produced offspring.

 

The need to track a woman’s cycle as well as other birth control methods*** could not have been hidden from the women involved, imo.  Maybe he could have fooled inexperienced young women in using condoms, but surely they would realized later on when more experienced what he had done…or any other method a man can use to try and prevent conception.  I think to be as effective as it appears to have been if he had been having frequent sex, the woman would need to be involved.

Some might think that is why he started with pregnant women, but during that time they believed sex risked the life of the baby**** and I think it highly unlikely the expecting mothers would be okay with that.  

I think there is one claim out there that Bennett performed abortions for Joseph, if it really happened, I would expect a lot more.  There is no hint from any of the women or husbands involved that they saw birth control or abortion or risking an unborn baby’s life as appropriate behaviour and certainly from the men involved, the idea to have as many children as possible comes across quite strongly as a later teaching, which would make Joseph’s behaviour questionable later on at the very least if he acted in a way to prevent children.

While I suppose embarrassment about being used might keep most or even all of the women from speaking publicly, I think the heartache would have driven some of them to share privately and eventually there would be something leaking out about their disappointment or anger over being manipulated if Joseph had insisted on using the birth control methods available at the time and even more so if he had pressured them to get abortions.  

If it wasn’t about sex, but about power, actual physical contact may have been rare as he might have just been satisfied with the idea of possessing…but that seems highly unlikely from the way those close to him talked about how he treated them in my view, so I think it unlikely.  I think he was sincere (in the sense of truly believing it was a commandment) in his efforts as well as reluctant at times because of Emma; why he believed it was a commandment, what he was actually told by the Spirit and what he believed he heard I am less secure in drawing conclusions.

***https://artsci.case.edu/dittrick/online-exhibits/history-of-birth-control/contraception-in-america-1800-1900/

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

Edited December 19, 2024 by Calm

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Riiiight.....

Emma got pregnant if he came within spitting distance. Surely if he was going around bedding young ladies in to fulfill his insatiable appetite for  s-x, at least one of those would've produced offspring.

 

There are lots of ways to have and enjoy sex that lessen or eliminate the risk of pregnancy.

Joseph may have been deliberate about this to avoid further conflict with Emma.

[Tacenda]

Joseph often mentions his sins in his past and one of the reasons he prayed in the grove. Could it be he had a problem with women as far as liking their companionship a little too much.

[Teancum]

11 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

With the plethora of descendants of Joseph Smith by these wives maybe you're rig....

🧐

Well maybe you were not aware but one can have sexual relations and not produce children. Even in the 1840s.  And there was also abortion then. 

[Teancum]

8 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Riiiight.....

Emma got pregnant if he came within spitting distance. Surely if he was going around bedding young ladies in to fulfill his insatiable appetite for  s-x, at least one of those would've produced offspring.

 

But he intended that Emma get pregnant. With his other relations he likely did not want them to get pregnant so he would have taken steps to prevent that.  And his pretend revelation actually says the purpose of taking more wives is to make babies.  So do tell, why did you think Joseph took many wives. Assuming it really was from God do you think he did  not have sexual relations with his so called wives?  Also, are you aware that many self proclaimed "prophetic" religious leaders frequently bring in sex with many women in one form or another. Think David Koresh. It is quite common among Alpha Males that use a made up religion to control people. It is funnythat LDS beleivers go to the mat and do all sorts of mental gyrations to keep the awful practice of Smith's polygamy on the shelf. For anyone else, not so much.  But hey, poor Joseph, he was just doing what God commanded. He was really sad about it. And really sad he had to lie about it and sneak around.  Poor Joseph.🙄

[nuclearfuels]

On 12/17/2024 at 11:31 AM, JAHS said:

good idea?

My ancestors and my wife's ancestors practiced polygamy, fulfilling what was then a calling issued by those with the priesthood keys. 
Personally - I'm looking forward to when this practice is legalized, normalized, and re-institutionalized.

Jewish, Islamic and Christian Patriarchs who also practiced polygamy:

• Abraham: Had two wives, Sarah and Hagar (Genesis 16:1-4, 21:1-21).

• Jacob: Had four wives: Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, and Zilpah (Genesis 29:1-30, 30:1-24).

• Esau: Had three wives: Adah, Basemath, and Oholibamah (Genesis 36:2-5).

• Moses: Had two wives, Zipporah and a Cushite woman (Exodus 2:21, 18:1-6, Numbers 12:1).

• Gideon: Had many wives (Judges 8:30).

• Elkanah: Had two wives, Hannah and Peninnah (1 Samuel 1:1-2).

• David: Had multiple wives, including Michal, Abigail, Bathsheba, and others (1 Samuel 18:20-27, 25:39-44, 2 Samuel 5:13-16, 11:1-27).

• Solomon: Had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:1-3).

Islamic Leaders

• Prophet Muhammad (570-632 CE): Had multiple wives, including Aisha, Sawda, Hafsa, Zaynab, Umm Salama, Zaynab bint Jahsh, and Juwayriyya. [1]

• Abu Bakr (573-634 CE): First caliph of Islam, had multiple wives. [2]

• Umar ibn Al-Khattab (586-644 CE): Second caliph of Islam, had multiple wives. [3]

• Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent (1494-1566 CE): Ottoman sultan, had multiple wives and concubines. [4]

Buddhist Leaders

• Siddhartha Gautama's father, Suddhodana (6th century BCE): King of the Shakya kingdom, had multiple wives. [5]

• Ashoka the Great (304-232 BCE): Indian emperor, had multiple wives and concubines. [6]

Hindu Leaders

• Krishna (1500 BCE): Hindu deity and prince, had multiple wives, including Rukmini, Satyabhama, and Jambavati. [7]

• Dasharatha (1500 BCE): King of Ayodhya, had multiple wives, including Kaushalya, Sumitra, and Kaikeyi. [8]

• Ravana (1500 BCE): King of Lanka, had multiple wives and concubines. [9]

References:

[1] Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 3, Number 29.
[2] Ibn Hisham, "Sirat Rasul Allah" (The Life of the Prophet Muhammad).
[3] Al-Tabari, "The History of al-Tabari".
[4] Leslie P. Peirce, "The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire".
[5] Hermann Oldenberg, "Buddha: His Life, His Doctrine, His Order".
[6] Romila Thapar, "Aśoka and the Mauryan Empire".
[7] Bhagavata Purana, Book 10.
[8] Ramayana, Book 2.
[9] Ramayana, Book 3.

[Pyreaux]

14 hours ago, Teancum said:

Well Emma denied to her sons that their father practiced plural marriage.  I think the evidence of the mock marriages is pretty sound.

Or a simpler answer. He was lying through his teeth to her and did not want to get caught lying. 

Yet, anyone who actually studied this history concludes that plural marriage was extremely complicated as there were less convoluted ways one could achieve the same "simple" ends, most of it was beyond intimacy, many wives were very old, very young, already married, and very pregnant, and some were even just "tests". It.s not a simple matter. Even Richard L. Bushman approaches the topic with a balanced perspective, taking into account various sources and testimonies. His work supports the idea that the purpose of plural marriage was often about sealing families together in the afterlife, not necessarily about physical relationships.

The "mock sealings" that took place were part of a complex and evolving practice, this was a part of its development. Particularly in the sealings of young women like Helen Mar Kimball and Sarah Ann Whitney were not intended to be a conventional marriages in the sense we understand it today. Emma wasn't lying, these marriages were not necessarily viewed by all participants as "marriages" in the common sense but were related to eternal family relationships as understood in LDS theology.

I don't know what the evidence is you think is sound. (Reference?) Testimonies and historical accounts about "mock sealings" might be based on misunderstanding, hearsay, or retroactive interpretations. To frame Smith’s actions as "lying" simplifies the much more complex context in which these events took place.

10 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Yes, I'm going to go with Occam's razor on this.

Illogical. Reductio ad Absurdum - reducing a complex situation to an overly simplistic accusation. While "lying" may be part of the story for some (i.e., Smith's selective disclosure), it doesn’t capture the full scope of motivations and beliefs that were in play.

Occam's razor doesn't work here, there is no working appeal to simplicity for a deeply contentious historical issue with multiple dimensions. The situation involved religious beliefs, social pressures, and personal relationships, all of which defy a simple "either/or" approach. It is not like a scientific or purely logical problem where the simple solution to two equal but competing hypothesis typically holds. History is not a simple matter. In the case of Joseph Smith history, it was a deeply complex and multi-faceted issue, involved a range of relationships with varying degrees of intimacy and purpose. Some were very old, already married, or involved for reasons beyond sexual relations, such as spiritual tests, mere sealings, or creating alliances. The diversity of these relationships makes it difficult to apply a simple, one-size-fits-all explanation.

Edited December 19, 2024 by Pyreaux

[rodheadlee]

On 12/17/2024 at 10:19 AM, Senator said:

Indoctrination?

Sure, choose your favorite word with a negative connotation.

And if they don't teach about polygamy then you accuse them of hiding the history of the church. 

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

My ancestors and my wife's ancestors practiced polygamy, fulfilling what was then a calling issued by those with the priesthood keys. 
Personally - I'm looking forward to when this practice is legalized, normalized, and re-institutionalized.

Including the women with multiple husbands part?

4 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Jewish, Islamic and Christian Patriarchs who also practiced polygamy:

Oh boy.

4 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

• Abraham: Had two wives, Sarah and Hagar (Genesis 16:1-4, 21:1-21).

• Jacob: Had four wives: Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, and Zilpah (Genesis 29:1-30, 30:1-24).

• Esau: Had three wives: Adah, Basemath, and Oholibamah (Genesis 36:2-5).

• Moses: Had two wives, Zipporah and a Cushite woman (Exodus 2:21, 18:1-6, Numbers 12:1).

• Gideon: Had many wives (Judges 8:30).

• Elkanah: Had two wives, Hannah and Peninnah (1 Samuel 1:1-2).

• David: Had multiple wives, including Michal, Abigail, Bathsheba, and others (1 Samuel 18:20-27, 25:39-44, 2 Samuel 5:13-16, 11:1-27).

• Solomon: Had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:1-3).

 

Islamic Leaders

• Prophet Muhammad (570-632 CE): Had multiple wives, including Aisha, Sawda, Hafsa, Zaynab, Umm Salama, Zaynab bint Jahsh, and Juwayriyya. [1]

• Abu Bakr (573-634 CE): First caliph of Islam, had multiple wives. [2]

• Umar ibn Al-Khattab (586-644 CE): Second caliph of Islam, had multiple wives. [3]

• Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent (1494-1566 CE): Ottoman sultan, had multiple wives and concubines. [4]

Buddhist Leaders

• Siddhartha Gautama's father, Suddhodana (6th century BCE): King of the Shakya kingdom, had multiple wives. [5]

• Ashoka the Great (304-232 BCE): Indian emperor, had multiple wives and concubines. [6]

Hindu Leaders

• Krishna (1500 BCE): Hindu deity and prince, had multiple wives, including Rukmini, Satyabhama, and Jambavati. [7]

• Dasharatha (1500 BCE): King of Ayodhya, had multiple wives, including Kaushalya, Sumitra, and Kaikeyi. [8]

• Ravana (1500 BCE): King of Lanka, had multiple wives and concubines. [9]

References:

[1] Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 3, Number 29.
[2] Ibn Hisham, "Sirat Rasul Allah" (The Life of the Prophet Muhammad).
[3] Al-Tabari, "The History of al-Tabari".
[4] Leslie P. Peirce, "The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire".
[5] Hermann Oldenberg, "Buddha: His Life, His Doctrine, His Order".
[6] Romila Thapar, "Aśoka and the Mauryan Empire".
[7] Bhagavata Purana, Book 10.
[8] Ramayana, Book 2.
[9] Ramayana, Book 3.

In the Jewish list those all either went badly or we have no information about how it went.

Virtually every aristocrat in Islam had multiple wives and it was key to clan alliances. Buddhism and Hinduism have both largely discarded polygamy as more trouble than they are worth.

I am not knocking the institution as a whole. In my days of sin and vice I practiced polyamory. It can work but it isn’t easy. It is much harder and MUCH more unfair when it is restricted to only one sex having the option to pursue other relationships.

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Yet, anyone who actually studied this history concludes that plural marriage was extremely complicated as there were less convoluted ways one could achieve the same "simple" ends, most of it was beyond intimacy, many wives were very old, very young, already married, and very pregnant, and some were even just "tests". It.s not a simple matter. Even Richard L. Bushman approaches the topic with a balanced perspective, taking into account various sources and testimonies. His work supports the idea that the purpose of plural marriage was often about sealing families together in the afterlife, not necessarily about physical relationships.

The "mock sealings" that took place were part of a complex and evolving practice, this was a part of its development. Particularly in the sealings of young women like Helen Mar Kimball and Sarah Ann Whitney were not intended to be a conventional marriages in the sense we understand it today. Emma wasn't lying, these marriages were not necessarily viewed by all participants as "marriages" in the common sense but were related to eternal family relationships as understood in LDS theology.

I don't know what the evidence is you think is sound. (Reference?) Testimonies and historical accounts about "mock sealings" might be based on misunderstanding, hearsay, or retroactive interpretations. To frame Smith’s actions as "lying" simplifies the much more complex context in which these events took place.

Yea no. I have studied the history quite extensively and quite frankly find your approach as a direct attempt to muddy the waters so to speak, and this in order to make it more palatable. Perhaps tyou do this for yourself in order to not reject it as divinely directed or whatever. Bushman does the same thing. Just like he does with Smith's treasure digging and fake peepstone speculating that this was perhaps a tutorials for the BoM translation and further prophetic abilities. You and Bushman and other apologists do all sorts of gyrations downplaying testimony that paint Joseph in a poor light and even reading into history something that Joseph or others never claimed about the practice. Things like I have bolded above.  D&C 132 does NOT say it was just to bind families in the after life. It specifically commands that it is to produce children in the covenant. So no, you don't get to spin it.  You do this for Joseph but I doubt you would ever give such latitude and so on to sny other person who did the things Smith did.  And no. Lying is lying and Joseph and other flat out lied.  

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Joseph often mentions his sins in his past and one of the reasons he prayed in the grove. Could it be he had a problem with women as far as liking their companionship a little too much.

At 14? Maybe. But if he was a massive horndog I would think his many detractors would have mentioned that. Unless he was controlling it until later I suppose.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

The "mock sealings" that took place were part of a complex and evolving practice, this was a part of its development.

That doesn’t make sense to me.  The repeat ceremony was not for a ritual purpose.

Quote

That month, she selected Eliza and Emily Partridge, who were then ages twenty-three and nineteen and living in the Smith household, as potential marriage partners to JS. In fact, JS had already been sealed to the sisters two months earlier. JS and the Partridge sisters sought to avoid confrontation by repeating the marriages, with Emma’s blessing, as if for the first time.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/church-historians-press/jsp-revelations/dc-132-1843_07_12_000?lang=eng#p5