Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Joseph Smith Polygamy


Ron

Recommended Posts

ALL:

For the record

I'll turn 54 on July 11. I converted at the age of 20. I'm a convert of 34 years. So I'm probably one of the "Oldsters" here.

I did not served a mission for the Church, as Viet Nam was hot and heavy at the time. And I was doing my best not to be a "Mud Stomper".

I'm married with 3 grown men for children, all are successful and married. I have 2 Grandchildren, a boy and a girl.

I knew all there was to know about JS poligamy a long time before I joined, as I am a avid reader. It did not bother me then. I doesn't bother me now. If God, through His Church, asked me to practice it in this life, I would. But I would be a most reluctant servant.

Link to comment
So I take it then that I've been a Mormon at least as long as you were.

That's possible; I certainly couldn't say.

Longer than 42 years?

Actually I think we may be able to date AM's active Church involvement with some degree of precision.

In a recent thread, she said that BYU wards used to be branches; so she remembers that time. She does not, however, remember the time before the branches, when they were known as "student wards." She claims to have a "photographic memory," so this was clearly before her time. The change from student wards to branches took place in the mid 70's, IIRC, and was done to allow greater student participation in leadership.

If you know when the branches became wards again, we can nail down a range of years for her presumed involvement.

Mind you, she also claimed to remember an incident that certainly did not happen while she was allegedly employed in an unnamed department of the Church bureaucracy, so maybe her memory is not quite as "photographic" as she thinks it is.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

mnn727:

So, you were not aware of polygamy in the early LDS Church??

I was aware, but was under the impression that it was Brigham Young only except for spiritual sealings to Joseph Smith after he was martyred.

What is it that disturbs you about it? Does it also disturb you that the Patriarchs of the Bible practiced it and there were definatly children involved there?

For some reason I never really was bothered by the ancient polygamy in the Bible. It seemed so long ago that I never really thought about it.

What is it about sex that makes you uncomfortable? You realize we do not practice celebacy like the RCC do?

I'm not uncomfortable with sex in general. I do feel that between me and my wife sex is something that is sacred and fidelity is the pillar that holds it together. I also have a daughter and I feel very protective of her sexuality. So after all of these years of active membership to realize that JS likely had sex secretly with someone's young daughter and other husbands wives while married to Emma is absolutely shocking and makes me sick to my stomach.

Are you aware that until the early to mid 1900's that the average age of girls getting married was 14 and that the legal age in many states until WW2 was 12 or 13? I believe there are still 3 states left wheere a girl can get married at 14 with parental permission. Here is a link to a website that shows the age of sexual consent around the world today-- some places are as low as 12 years old!! http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

I wasn't aware of this. If that is true then it helps a little but the young age isn't the biggest issue for me, more so that fact that he was married to Emma at the time. For example, if I had found out that Joseph Smith only had a single young wife it wouldn't be so shocking but finding out this late in the game that he had 30+ wives including young girls is shocking.

Link to comment

Hi,

The problem is much of the information we have on these cases were collected in a sloppy manner. Due to Joseph 3rds belief his father was not an earthly polygamist a need was felt to contradict him. Nobody thought of cross-examining them with whether you as a party to the ceremony was it an agreement thought to go into effect in the afterlife only. Helen Mar Kimball did say she thought it only a ceremony. After his death she didn't know what to think. It does not look like Joseph behaved improperly towards her.

In the Temple Lot case testimony of sexuality was given in that case. Joseph Noble claimed that a honeymoon had occured in the Louisa Beaman & Joseph case. What's always left out is the decision of the judge which went against his claim. Legally Joseph Smith Jr. was exonerated of polygamy in the case. There is some evidence of marriage speculation notwith-standing the decision & I leave it up to personal belief as to the nature & extent of polygamy & Joseph's involvement.

Sincerely,

Dale

Link to comment

Hello There,

Why? Does it bother you that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Moses, David, and possibly Jesus were poligamists? It is not helpful to apply late Western Civilization morality to ancient peoples.

What??? Jesus was Not a Polygamist. Plus also Isaac was Not a Polygamist.

During the early 19th Century is was quite common for older men to have "teenage" brides. In many states until very recently a female could be married as young as 12/13. The term teenage was not used until much later. You simply went from child to adult. The problem comes when you try to impose late 20th/early 21st Century morality on 19th Century people.

It was Not common for Already Married Men in their 30s and 40s in the early 19th Century to marry girls as young 13 and 14 years old.

Take it Easy!

Link to comment
If you know when the branches became wards again, we can nail down a range of years for her presumed involvement.

What's to "nail down?"

I've already given sufficient information for many people to accurately date it, assuming it's not just "presumed involvement," as you suggest.

I've indicated I was at BYU at some of the same time that Daniel Peterson was a student there, and that we knew some of the same people.

I've indicated that I was taught by Cleon Skousen, Karen Lynn, David Paulsen and Jim Falcouner, among others.

I've indicated that I was acquainted with Bruce Bastian when he was director of the BYU Cougar (Marching) Band.

I've indicated that Monroe McKay was one of my branch presidents at BYU.

I've indicated that I worked for the LDS Church in 1978, at the time of the announcement regarding blacks and the priesthood.

On a previous post on this board, on April 11th, in response to a question from another poster about how many sacrament meetings I'd ever attended, I posted the following:

No, JS was not mentioned outside the one occurence( I believe I said that), and it is not unusual in my experience. How many sacrament meetings have you attended?

In my lifetime? Over a thousand.

If you're also including Fast and Testimony meetings, then more.

Do you want to know how many at which I've been a speaker? How many at which I was the organist or chorister, or performed in any sense musically?

Those numbers would be somewhat harder to determine.

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=7746&st=30#

Link to comment

Thanks to everyone for the responses so far.

I'm still wondering if someone can help me reconcile that fact that if by chance the relationships weren't meant to be sexual why didn't Joseph Smith make it perfectly clear that they were not to be sexual.

I learned in church somewhere that we should "avoid the appearance of evil". If I was commanded by God to marry someone elses wife I would make sure that it was well known and documented that it wasn't sexual. I would want to avoid giving the impression that it was ok to have sex with someone elses wife (adultery). Especially JS being a prophet and all I feel he would have made it clear to those involved.

It seems unlikely to me that there would not be evidence of at least one person hearing JS mention that the relationships were not meant to be sexual in nature.

Link to comment
For example, if I had found out that Joseph Smith only had a single young wife it wouldn't be so shocking but finding out this late in the game that he had 30+ wives including young girls is shocking.

Why is Joseph Smiths having more than one wife more disturbing than Brigham Young having more than one wife?

I know that both men had women sealed to them after the men died - just look at the sealing dates and compare it to J.S. and B.Y.'s death dates.

Sealing back then did not always mean marriage, heck, there were even men sealed to men and servants sealed to their bosses.

Frankly, I know of no proof that J.S. polygamy was ever more than spiritual, but I know with 100% assuradity that Brigham Young fathered children by just about every wife he had. Why is one shocking to you and one not shocking to you?

Help me to understand this.

If I was commanded by God to marry someone elses wife I would make sure that it was well known and documented that it wasn't sexual
Have you any proof that it WAS sexual in these cases? I certainly never heard of anything documented about this. And I am talking proof that stands up under investigation, not some Anti-LDS claim.
Link to comment
ALL:

For the record

I'll turn 54 on July 11. I converted at the age of 20. I'm a convert of 34 years. So I'm probably one of the "Oldsters" here.

I did not served a mission for the Church, as Viet Nam was hot and heavy at the time. And I was doing my best not to be a "Mud Stomper".

I'm married with 3 grown men for children, all are successful and married. I have 2 Grandchildren, a boy and a girl.

I knew all there was to know about JS poligamy a long time before I joined, as I am a avid reader. It did not bother me then. I doesn't bother me now. If God, through His Church, asked me to practice it in this life, I would. But I would be a most reluctant servant.

This is an interesting perspective but then really demonstates a revealing point about either the lds chruch's paranoia about its' history or the lds culture in general:

Where can one find, as offered in an official capacity, anything about the history of polygamy (or much of the history of the lds church for that matter) and the wives, reasons, relationships, and facts of Smith's supposed divine revealtion in his practice of it.

All we have is information from supposed self proclaimed experts who write articles for FAIR or FARMS and both those sites have this big bilboard that say, to the same effect:

"All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of FAIR, and should not be interpreted as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice."

And when you do get the rare opportunity to get Hinckley or any other lds "supposed prophet" to actually come out from hiding behind the confines of temple square and actually make an unprotected public apperance, you get one of those great forthright and confident responses of :

"well, we don't know much about that," or the ever convincing: " that's all behind us now"

So what can they really do when they don't have good facts or supportable history behind them? That is the only reason FAIR and FARMS exist and why, in my opinion, these sights are subsidized by the chuch to put out their propaganda that they will not "OFFICIALLY" stand behind. It is called, in its' simplest form:

PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY

While the prophet and his apostles will never go on the record for anything, they simply have the local ward bishops refer people to the articles of Peterson, Hamblin, Clark, Sorenson, etc. etc. etc........ on sites like this, and tell them to look at all the letters behind their degrees.

But again, what is the first disclaimer on sites like this that is always provided in thesmallest of print:

"All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of FAIR, and should not be interpreted as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice."

With all of the supposed revelatory powers of a "seer", it should be of no surprise why no prophet, or no official statements can be found of this, or much other, history of the lds church can be found in an official capacity.

I suppose though, that in all fairness, we should at least give credit to Michael Watson in his attempt to be honest with the letter he issued on behalf of the First Presidency in 1990.

I would love to find out where one can go to get an "offical" answer from the church.

Perhaps the benefit of having untrained theologians and lay people leading for you. We can always say with the most confidence, "they did not understand doctrine and were only speaking for themselves."

[font size edited by moderator]

Link to comment

Joseph's polygamous relationships began in about 1831. that's about four years before the new and everlasting covenant regarding the plurality of wives was given. The D&C containing that doctrine wasn't first published until 1835. It looks like Joseph Smith was practicing "polygamy" years before God told him to. I think a better description of it is adultry. Let's see who agrees with me? Oliver Cowdery writing to his brother Warren in 1838 said "When he (JS) was there we had some conversation in which in every instance I did not fail to affirm that what I had said was strictly true. A dirty, nasty, filthy affair of his and Fanny Alger's was talked over in which I strictly declared that I had never deviated from the truth in the matter, and as I supposed was admited by himself." The lds church lists fanny as one of Joseph's earliest plural wives. In the BoM "a man is to have but one wife" in the D&C a man can "have ten virgins and cannot commit adultry" David Whitmer gives his thoughts, "Some of the Latter Day Saints have claimed that God had the same right to authorize brother Joseph to add to any revelations certain words and facts, that he had to give him any revelations at all: but only those who are trusting in an arm of flesh and are in spiritual blindness, would pretend to make this claim; that God would give his servants some revelations, command them to publish them in his book of commandments, and then authorize them to change and add to them some words which change and reverse the original meaning: as if God had changed his mind after giving his word. No brethren! God does not change and work in any such manner as this." Who are Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer? Two of the witnesses of the book of mormon...

-another question/point -So why doesn't the LDS church heed this command/warning from D&C 132:4-"For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye b-damned

Link to comment
What's more I highly doubt you could show me anything from the official curriculum materials of the Church either present (they're virtually all availble on line at the Church's official Web site ) or past that would lead anyone intentionally to believe otherwise.

From the LDS Church Education System (CES) website, the student manual for Presidents of the Church (Religion 345). You'll note that the chapter on Joseph Smith notes only one marriage, and the chapter on Brigham Young lists two:

http://www.ldsces.org/inst_manuals/pres-sm/manualindex.asp

Link to comment
QUOTE (Proverbs_28_1 @ Jun 7 2005, 09:25 PM)

QUOTE 

If it were completely non-sexual, why even call it a "marriage?" Why not an adoption? 

You are a catholic and stating that we shouldn't call it marriage if it is non-sexual. But in your own religion Nuns are frequently called THE BRIDE OF CHRIST. Why not just "Adopted by Christ". I'm POSITIVE they have not had sexual relations with our LORD.

Peace,

Adam 

Do you think the two are comparable?

Yes I do.

Link to comment
Where can one find, as offered in an official capacity, anything about the history of polygamy (or much of the history of the lds church for that matter) and the wives, reasons, relationships, and facts of Smith's supposed divine revealtion in his practice of it.

Well, since you asked. Some might want to try their ward libraries. This is where I picked up "Mormon Sisters: Women in Early Utah", ed. Claudia L. Bushman which has several chapters re: plural marriage. It was originally published in 1976 and was recently re-released.

Some ward libraries have copies of the 1978 Brigham Young University Press book "Sister Saints", ed. Vicky Burgess-Olson. This book has numerous accounts of plural wives and an excellent overview of polygamy in the introduction.

Another good book is "A Woman's View: Helen Mar Whitney's Reminiscences of Early Church History" printed by BYU Religious Studies Centre in 1997. Wherein she mentions her marriage to Joseph Smith. Her 1881 autobiography provides the following testimony:

I am thankful that [God] has brought me through the furnace of affliction & that He has condesended to show me that the promises made to me the morning that I was sealed to the Prophet of God will not fail & I would not have the chain broken for I have had a view of the principle of eternal salvation & the perfect union which this sealing power will bring to the human family & with the help of our Heavenly Father I am determined to so live that I can claim those promises.

- Helen Mar Kimball Smith Whitney, 30 March 1881.

Another one often found in ward libraries is "Women of Covenant: The Story of Relief Society" by Jill Mulvey Derr, Janath Russell Cannon and Maureen Ursenbach Beecher published in 1992 by Brigham Young University Press. This book is often quoted in the Ensign and women's conference talks.

One could also read the series: "Life Writings of Frontier Women" ed. by Maureen Ursenbach Beecher. Volume 7, which I just purchased, came out a couple of weeks ago.

Also recommended is "More Wives Than One: Transformation of the Mormon Marriage System 1840-1910" by Kathryn M. Daynes. Dr. Daynes and Ben Bennion spoke about their upcoming book at the recent Mormon History Association which I was able to attend, Dr. Daynes was kind enough to autograph my copy of her book. BYU's History Department's Fall 2004 newsletter reports on several projects of Mormon history by Kathryn Daynes:

Kathryn Daynes continues her study of Mormon plural marriage in the nineteenth century. She is working on a book with Ben Bennion exploring various facets of polygamy throughout Utah entitled "Plural Wives and Tangled Lives: Polygamy

Link to comment
So you're asserting that these women who entered into "polygamous marriages" with Joseph Smith were essentially entering a religious order, which was non-sexual, similar to nuns?

That's an interesting spin on it, if that's the case.

What the heck? Where did you get that out of what I said. I took issue of how you classified marriage.

You said and I quote:

If it were completely non-sexual, why even call it a "marriage?" Why not an adoption?
Link to comment

Hi,

Of course with polygamy one would expect sexuality. But because Joseph Smith's plural marriages didn't all involve sex that would suggest sex wasn't the motivation. I suggest it looks like people were recruited into a ceremony that was for eternal not earthly duration.

I also caution with 33 cases of plural marriage it's possible people mixed untruths with the truth. Joseph 3rd interviewed Melissa Lott Willes & I dissagree with Todd Comptom that she told the truth about sexuality between her & Joseph. I felt his interview of her was most powerful. Her own sisters doubted this claim & sided with Joseph 3rd. It's possible that to please others she made up this claim of sexuality because pressure was placed on her to testify to that effect. The documentation for these cases comes from things like affidavit's, personal memories, letters, diaries & journals.

Joseph 3rd felt his father had possibly made agreements or associations for worlds to come that got misrepresented as earthly plural marriages years later. But his use of the word possibly may be read as him carefully allowing for some earthly polygamy. He saw the Melissa Willes Family Bible marriage of "Married my daughter to Joseph Smith" & gave his explanation in the RLDS Saint's Herald.

Sincerely,

Dale

Link to comment
So you're asserting that these women who entered into "polygamous marriages" with Joseph Smith were essentially entering a religious order, which was non-sexual, similar to nuns?

That's an interesting spin on it, if that's the case.

What the heck? Where did you get that out of what I said. I took issue of how you classified marriage.

One can describe a McDonald's hamburger as the happy marriage of bread and meat, and that's another use of the term entirely, but I don't think that's how Joseph Smith intended his polygamous marriages to be, any more than I think he intended them to be parallel to "brides of Christ," or "the Bride of Christ" (as in the Church), both of which are intended to be mystical unions.

The point is not how anyone else uses the term, but how Joseph Smith intended it.

He reported receiving a revelation on celestial marriage. He purportedly engaged in multiple marriages to women at the same time.

The originator of this thread has some questions about whether those marriages were indeed sexual; it would seem that there are divergent opinions, even within LDS posters, on that score.

If you don't understand the distinctions, I'm sorry. But your logic is flawed, regardless of how I, or anyone else, answers your questions.

I should have rephrased my original question to state, "If it were completely non-sexual, why (would Joseph Smith) even call it a "marriage?" Why not an adoption?"

Perhaps that would have been clearer.

We are trying to employ some deductive reasoning here, and use of language might be relevant.

To humor you, here are responses to your questions, despite the fact that I believe they are irrelevant:

1. Nuns inside the Catholic religion are often refered to as Brides of Christ. YES

2. Do these Nuns have sex with Christ? NO

3. If they do not have sex with Christ, should we refer to them as simply "Adopted by Christ" instead of bride to fit your semantic spin. NO (not relevant)

4. When Christ comes to meet the bridegroom (The Church) will he have sex with it? NO

5. If Christ does not have sex with the bridegroom upon coming to earth, should the scriptures instead be changed to suit your use of the word. NO. (again, not relevant)

6. Are you intellectually honest? YES (to the best of my knowledge and ability)

7. If you are Intellectually honest, have you asked the Catholic Church to amend the usage of bride, and marriage to suit your semantic spin? NO (again, not relevant, and you do not see the distinction)

Link to comment

mnn727:

Why is Joseph Smiths having more than one wife more disturbing than Brigham Young having more than one wife?

I can think of a few reasons why it is more disturbing to me about Joseph Smith than Brigham Young:

1) I've heard about Brigham Young polygamy since I was a teenager and at the time I wasn't in the mode of questioning my beliefs. The only time I heard about Joseph Smith polygamy I was given the impression that it was just Anti-mormon. I mean if we're talking a couple of wives here I could probably swallow it, but 30+ and never having heard of it, thats insane! Since I found out I have told two people of my discovery, my wife and my sister. Neither of them new about it either so I don't think its all my fault that I never heard. Based on my experience I would guess that a large percentage of the church population doesn't know about it and the ones who do don't know the full extent.

2) I could be wrong, but I'm not aware of Brigham Young marrying 14 year olds or other mens wives.

3) That Joseph Smith practiced it secretly and lied was dishonest. I could be wrong but I think Brigham Young was honest and open about his Polygamy.

I know that both men had women sealed to them after the men died - just look at the sealing dates and compare it to J.S. and B.Y.'s death dates.

Sealing back then did not always mean marriage, heck, there were even men sealed to men and servants sealed to their bosses.

This is the kind of evidence I'm looking for. Is there any evidence that Josephs Polyandrous marriages were just sealings? If so, I would love to know, thats the main point of me starting this thread was to find out. Like I've said, you would think Joseph would want to make it clear to everybody that there wasn't sex involved so I would expect to see something.

Frankly, I know of no proof that J.S. polygamy was ever more than spiritual, but I know with 100% assuradity that Brigham Young fathered children by just about every wife he had. Why is one shocking to you and one not shocking to you?

Help me to understand this.

See my three points above.

Have you any proof that it WAS sexual in these cases? I certainly never heard of anything documented about this. And I am talking proof that stands up under investigation, not some Anti-LDS claim.

It may not stand up in an investigation, but my gut instinct tells me that if Joseph Smith got married and didn't specifically state that it wasn't sexual then I'm going to assume that it was. When you combine the evidence that says he was sexual in some cases with the lack of evidence that he wasn't sexual in others, its hard for me not to come to the conclusion that he likely was in all cases (or if he wasn't it isn't because he thought it was wrong, just that the circumstances didn't permit it or there wasn't chemistry, etc).

Link to comment

Everyone cool it. This has been hashed and rehashed. You are speaking about leaders that are honored by the LDS church. You are on an LDS board. If you cannot be civil and discuss this topic without pejoratives and invective you will go on the queue.

Link to comment
This is the kind of evidence I'm looking for.

Early plural marriage in Nauvoo is a bit complicated. There were reasons for secrecy and denials, one of which were that some members were going off and practising their own version of polygamy:

Some members, on the other hand, not only accepted the radical new doctrine, but began to practice their own version of polygamy, either in the mistaken view that the practice was open to all or using the prophet's purported example as a justification for their own unsanctioned liaisons. Ironically, it was this same Oliver Cowdery along with other leading elders, loyalists later alleged, who initiated extramarital relationships in spite of Smith's insistence that they were unauthorized to do so. He alone held the keys to legitimize the practice, he taught; nonetheless, once word of the practice spread, self-prescribed polygamy became a magnet for sexual opportunists like John Bennett, who invoked "spiritual wifery" as a cloak for what amounted to seduction pure and simple. He was exposed and excommunicated, and others who entered the practice without authorization found themselves rebuked and corrected.

- Terryl L. Givens, University of Richmond, "Latter-day Saint Experience in America", 2004. p. 70.

There were attempts at a public announcement of the principle of plural marriage in Nauvoo. As for polyandry, I suggest you read Bachman's article for which I posted a reference in my earlier post.

Also, in case you're not aware, since you started this thread you can ask the moderators to keep it on track. Discussions on plural marriage tend to derail quickly into innuendo, rumours, et cetera. Plus

Link to comment
Based on my experience I would guess that a large percentage of the church population doesn't know about it and the ones who do don't know the full extent.

Perhaps for members living outside of UT, ID, AZ, & CO. Or members who do not have pioneer ancestors. It is definitely not something that the Church brings up much anymore or goes into any detail about.

Like I've said, you would think Joseph would want to make it clear to everybody that there wasn't sex involved so I would expect to see something.

Yes, if it was only to guarantee that these young ladies made it to the celestial kingdom then there would be no need to lie about it to Emma. He could have sealed them to him as his daughters not his wives. I could understand him not wanting to publicize the teaching because everyone would want to be saved by being sealed to him. But then this is part of what led to the law of adoption confusion.

It may not stand up in an investigation, but my gut instinct tells me that if Joseph Smith got married and didn't specifically state that it wasn't sexual then I'm going to assume that it was.

Even if he wasn't it does not mean he had no intention to had he lived longer. Also if they were sealed to him for eternity as his "wives" then we should assume that even if nothing happened in this life he intended for it to happen in the eternities. So there is no reason to argue about what he did or didn't do in mortality. The teaching is clear that men who practiced plural marriage would have their wives for eternity and they would be able to enjoy marital relations with their wives for eternity in the CK. Thus it cannot be argued that JS never intended to have sex with these women.

Link to comment

Ron: So after all of these years of active membership to realize that JS likely had sex secretly with someone's young daughter and other husbands wives while married to Emma is absolutely shocking and makes me sick to my stomach.

John Corrill: Wow, I know that feeling all too well. Ron, when I learned about this, I had been a life long member of 35 years. I too wondered if anyone else knew about Joseph Smith's polygamy. I was unable to find anyone amongst my family or associates who were aware. It was frustrating, and I wondered if I was being deceived in some way.

Finally, I was able to find some information that I could trust. Mostly it was the actual writings of these women. I found I could not trust much of the interepretations/commentary by others. Way too much mis-information. It's impossible to get the a clear picture of the whole story from one source, because everyone promotes/edits, etc according to thier own bias.

I felt best reading the stories that the women told themselves. Interpretations by both critics and defenders are interesting, and useful to read, but also contain much mis-information. The clearest and best picture comes from reading the actual stories these women themselves told. Many of the writings Nighthawke has provided, although by themselves give a limited view, will have excellent references to the actual writings of these women. Compton's "In Sacred Loneliness" is huge and useful, but also gives a partial view.

For what it's worth, my own conclusion is that these women were not lying when they said they had sex and children with Joseph Smith. Defenders (Bachman, etc) view this as wholesome and God commanded. Critics view it as inappropriate. I have my own opinion, but I will refrain from sharing it because I really, really want this post to to get through the screening process I am presently subject to here on the FAIR board.

All the best to you Ron, as you sort through your emotions and values regarding this issue.

Link to comment

Hi,

Ron the difficulty with polygamy discussions is people have a hard time dealing with the practice which they dislike. David & Solomon had many more wives. I bet they even married young. David wanted Uriah

I doubt Joseph stole anybody's wives. Unless the continuing DNA studies confirm Josephine Fisher the daughter of the married Sylvia Sessions was Joseph's it's more likely to me they were recruited to participate in for all practical purposes looks close to a pretend marriage ceremony. The women continued to live with their living husbands. I havn't seen any unquestionable evidence Joseph Smith Jr. ever behaved improperly with any married woman.

On her death bed Sylvia Sessions had purportedly told her daughter she was Joseph's daughter. Whether this meant in a spiritual adopted sense or biological status remains to be seen. I am open to the test results findings on the DNA tests they are doing on eight candidates of possible children of Joseph Smith Jr. I understand the tests have eliminated three out of the eight candidates. The rests of the tests either need more Smith DNA, or have complecations that make the testing difficult. I assume that the tests arn't impossible, or against the remaining candidates or the test results would be published as is. I of course want the tests to either put down rumors or confirm them as fact.

How do I prove those polyandrous cases were sealings for time & eternity only meant for eternity? Simply I notice Mary Lightner claimed Joseph told her to remain faithful to her husband. I saw no claim of sex in that case to build such a case on. I basically looked up the married women & read the same proofs Todd Comptom did In Sacred Lonliness. I read his commentary & then formed my own ideas.

One claim by Ann Eliza webb Young was that a married woman confessed to her she had to hide Joseph's visits from her husband. Such an story can be easily fabricated. She was an anti-Mormon & an ex-wife of Brigham Young to boot.

D.&C. 132 prohibit's earthly polyandry. The women were supposed to be virgins.D.&C. 132:61) Also it probibits women being proposed to who were vowed to other men.(vs.61)

Sincerely,

Dale

Link to comment

Ave,

And that is why I do not take you seriously. Why do NUNs call themselves brides of christ if they aren't really his bride. It goes both ways. You use semantics and spin. Silly me for actually taking you serious.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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