Joseph Smith Polygamy

[Orange Zodiac]

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

However, Joseph indicated that since these women had not been married to their husbands according to the new and everlasting covenant they were not bound to their husbands and were thus free to select another more appropriate mate with whom to be sealed to for eternity.

I seem to recall BY or JS telling a husband whose wife had been sealed to them that their wife had decided that she was a better spiritual match with them than their current husband and that the husband should like wise go out and find a woman more suited to their personality. I think it was BY.

[Scott Lloyd]

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

I suggest you go back to the CES site and examine the Institute student manual for the Doctrine and Covenants course of study, which covers Section 132, the revelation received by Joseph Smith on the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, including the doctrine of plurality of wives. While you're at it, check out the student manual Church History in the Fulness of Times, which includes a chapter on plural marriage in Nauvoo.

As these texts are used today in the Church Educational System contemporaneously with the one you cited, I don't see that your citation (essentially an argument from silence) qualifies as evidence for your claim that "it wasn't always taught that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, at least not to the extent that is known or acknowledged today." Do you have anything else to cite?

By the way, why do you keep bringing up Brigham Young, whose practice of plural marriage is well-known, both inside and outside the Church? I thought your claim had to do with Joseph Smith.

[Scott Lloyd]

Longer than 42 years?

Yes.

Are you including the years since your falling away? You seemed unaware, for example, that the Brigham Young manual you cited was used not just in Relief Society, but in Melchizidek Priesthood classes as well.

[truth dancer]

Hi Ron...

To address your original question...

I would hope there would be a record somewhere of Joseph Smith letting someone know that the relationship wasn't intended to be sexual, to "avoid the appearance of evil".

I am not aware of, nor do I think there is anything suggesting the relationships between JS and his many "wives" was NOT intended to be sexual.

If seems clear to me, from reading the stories of many of these women that indeed these relationships were intended (and some were) to be sexual in nature.

If these relationships were just intended as some form of assurity for eternal life I don't think it would have been such a difficult trial for these women to agree to it all. As John Corrill suggested, the writings of the women are pretty powerful and give us insight into how they viewed the situation. It seemed to be rather heartwrenching for many.

I'm not sure if you are aware that the original D&C (I believe sec 101) clearly denounced polygamy. It was not until many years later that this section was removed and replaced with sec 132.

Also a website you may want to check out: www.wivesofjosephsmith.org

Good luck...

~dancer~

edit... to correct website info

[Nighthawke]

Also a website you may want to check out:

[ave maria]

Longer than 42 years?

Yes.

Are you including the years since your falling away?

You can refer to it as "falling away" if you prefer, but that wouldn't be an inaccurate characterization.

When I discovered that Mormonism was in error, I returned to the Church which Jesus Christ established, and the church to which my ancestors had been faithful for the first 1500 years of its existence.

I believe that was a positive, enlightening personal spiritual journey, but if you'd prefer to describe it in terms less flattering, it's certainly your prerogative. But it wouldn't be accurate, any more than characterizing new converts to the LDS faith as those who've "fallen away" from other faiths.

You seemed unaware, for example, that the Brigham Young manual you cited was used not just in Relief Society, but in Melchizidek Priesthood classes as well.

I was not unaware that it was used for both.

[ave maria]

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

I suggest you go back to the CES site and examine the Institute student manual for the Doctrine and Covenants course of study, which covers Section 132, the revelation received by Joseph Smith on the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, including the doctrine of plurality of wives. While you're at it, check out the student manual Church History in the Fulness of Times, which includes a chapter on plural marriage in Nauvoo.

As these texts are used today in the Church Educational System contemporaneously with the one you cited, I don't see that your citation (essentially an argument from silence) qualifies as evidence for your claim that "it wasn't always taught that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, at least not to the extent that is known or acknowledged today." Do you have anything else to cite?

By the way, why do you keep bringing up Brigham Young, whose practice of plural marriage is well-known, both inside and outside the Church? I thought your claim had to do with Joseph Smith.

Ironically, even before I posted this particular post last night, I'd prepared a post with excerpts from several of the student manuals, including that one, for comparison purposes, and lost it in an unexpected disconnect from my online server.

I didn't have what it took to recompose that particular post last night, but I'll see if I can't try to go back and get the relevant sections from those student manuals, as they were interesting for comparison purposes.

[Scott Lloyd]

Longer than 42 years?

Yes.

Are you including the years since your falling away?

You can refer to it as "falling away" if you prefer, but that wouldn't be an inaccurate characterization.

When I discovered that Mormonism was in error, I returned to the Church which Jesus Christ established, and the church to which my ancestors had been faithful for the first 1500 years of its existence.

I believe that was a positive, enlightening personal spiritual journey, but if you'd prefer to describe it in terms less flattering, it's certainly your prerogative. But it wouldn't be accurate, any more than characterizing new converts to the LDS faith as those who've "fallen away" from other faiths.

You seemed unaware, for example, that the Brigham Young manual you cited was used not just in Relief Society, but in Melchizidek Priesthood classes as well.

I was not unaware that it was used for both.

Yet you chose to refer to it as a Relief Society manual. It would seem someone well acquainted with Church teaching and curriculum would have been more likely to characterize it as a manual for both Relief Society and Melchizidek Priesthood classes.

[Scott Lloyd]

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

I suggest you go back to the CES site and examine the Institute student manual for the Doctrine and Covenants course of study, which covers Section 132, the revelation received by Joseph Smith on the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, including the doctrine of plurality of wives. While you're at it, check out the student manual Church History in the Fulness of Times, which includes a chapter on plural marriage in Nauvoo.

As these texts are used today in the Church Educational System contemporaneously with the one you cited, I don't see that your citation (essentially an argument from silence) qualifies as evidence for your claim that "it wasn't always taught that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, at least not to the extent that is known or acknowledged today." Do you have anything else to cite?

By the way, why do you keep bringing up Brigham Young, whose practice of plural marriage is well-known, both inside and outside the Church? I thought your claim had to do with Joseph Smith.

Ironically, even before I posted this particular post last night, I'd prepared a post with excerpts from several of the student manuals, including that one, for comparison purposes, and lost it in an unexpected disconnect from my online server.

I didn't have what it took to recompose that particular post last night, but I'll see if I can't try to go back and get the relevant sections from those student manuals, as they were interesting for comparison purposes.

I can refer you, for example, to pages 255-256 of Church History in the Fulness of Times, wherein the text dwells on Joseph receiving the revelation on plural marriage, his efforts to engage in the practice himself and his teaching of it to members of the Twelve.

And on page 327 of Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual is a "Historical Background" section discussing Joseph's having received the revelation on plural marriage, his speaking of it with William Clayton and with Hyrum Smith, and Hyrum's offering to convince Joseph's wife Emma of its truth. And subsequent pages contain specific commentary on the verses in the D&C 132 dealing with plural marriage.

I must say I'm scratching my head as to why you would present a book's single chapter containing a cursory survey of Joseph's life as evidence the Church does not teach that he engaged in plural marriage when you knew about these contemporaneous texts that both contain information on that topic.

[Scott Lloyd]

Longer than 42 years?

Yes.

Are you including the years since your falling away?

You can refer to it as "falling away" if you prefer, but that wouldn't be an inaccurate characterization.

When I discovered that Mormonism was in error, I returned to the Church which Jesus Christ established, and the church to which my ancestors had been faithful for the first 1500 years of its existence.

I believe that was a positive, enlightening personal spiritual journey, but if you'd prefer to describe it in terms less flattering, it's certainly your prerogative. But it wouldn't be accurate, any more than characterizing new converts to the LDS faith as those who've "fallen away" from other faiths.

Obviously you have your perspective and I have mine. I thought that term might be a bit less jarring that the harsher-sounding apostasy. But I will try to refrain from using either if it bothers you.

Incidentally, I don't mind if people from other faiths refer to their own ex-adherents as having "fallen away."

[mnn727]

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.

And why is that? Have you personally done any detailed research on this? Do you know of any children proven to be Fathered by J.S. other than through Emma?

Are you aware that Emma, to her dying day swore that Joseph was NOT married to anyone else, however she never claimed he was not 'sealed' to other women?

Are you aware of JSIII doing a very complete investigation and deciding that there was no proof that JS ever married other women, although due to the sealings he left the matter open for other people to decide for themselves?

As far as you and your family not knowing JS was 'sealed' to other women, all I can say is that I was fully aware of it before I converted so the information is not hidden. Heck, A quick search at FamilySearch.com these days (not around when I converted) shows names and dates, out of 23 sealings 4 were done after his death proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that sealings were not always for the purpose of Earthly marriage.

Everyone mentions Helen Mar Kimbal, but how about Fanny Young who was a 60 year old widow at the time of sealing, you think that was all about sex? How about 59 year old never married before, Rhonda Richards?

***and I want to note here that I have nothing against older women, however women in the 1800's had hard lives and in old photo's most of them look it also. Somehow I just can't believe that a sealing to a 60 year old woman in the 1840's was all about sex.

Personally, I believe you are doing yourself a grave injustice by assuming an attitude of "Guilty unless proven innocent", especially since it only took me about 5 minutes to look at dates of sealing and birth and death dates of every woman he was sealed to and death dates of any prior husbands on FamilySearch. Like JS's son JSIII I also can find NO evidence of any marriages - only sealings, however unlike you it would not bother me a bit.

[rameumptom]

Hi Ron... Welcome to the board...

I've read arguments that there is no proof that he had sexual relations with the really young girls or in the Polyandrous relationships.

Short of DNA proof of offspring there is nothing that could really prove JS had sex with the girls or already married women, not to mention the single women he "married."

Have you read, "In Search of Lonliness?" It may give you a sense of what was involved in these relationships.

~dancer~

For Joseph Smith, the idea of plural marriage and sealings seemed to be different than for Brigham Young. Joseph was sealed not only to women, but to men, also. Regardless of what D. Michael Quinn might think, there is no evidence that Joseph was homosexual, either. Does no evidence in this case mean that he was actively sexual with men? I highly doubt it.

For Joseph, the sealing was not for sex, but for sealing people together in one great family. Did he have sex with any of his plural wives? We simply do not know. Speculation can rage forever, but the answer is: we don't know.

Now, if Joseph DID have sex with his teenage brides, so what? Why should that be a terrible thing, given it was normal in his day to marry teen brides, AND it was commanded of God? Why should such offend our 21st century sensibilities, when there are worse events that God allowed in the Bible. How about Abraham sacrificing his son? How about Jacob deceiving his father Isaac so he could obtain the blessing? How about Moses and Joshua totally annihilating cities of men, women and children? How about Samuel spearing an unarmed king? Are these okay, but Joseph's actions are not? Is it because they have been dead longer that it is okay with us? Or is it because God commanded it, and we have a mindset to accept God's commands in the Bible?

The real issue is: was Joseph called of God to be a prophet?

If he was, then all these tangential issues of polygamy, treasure hunting, false prophecies, etc., all are moot.

And there is only one way to find out if he was a prophet of God. Moroni 10:3-5 holds that answer: ponder it with an open mind, study it out, and then ask with sincerity and real intent.

[ave maria]

Obviously you have your perspective and I have mine. I thought that term might be a bit less jarring that the harsher-sounding apostasy.

I'm not certain it's logically possible to "apostasize" from a faith that is itself in apostasy.

But I will try to refrain from using either if it bothers you.

Thank you. I don't mind if you ask when I realized the LDS Church was in error, or when I became less active, or when I converted to Catholicism.

Incidentally, I don't mind if people from other faiths refer to their own ex-adherents as having "fallen away."

I'm not familiar with it as being popular terminology in Catholic circles. One would generally refer to someone as being a "lapsed Catholic" perhaps, or having converted to another faith.

For example, I doubt anyone who knew Father Jordan Vajda has referred to him as having "fallen away." "Left the Church," perhaps, or "converted to Mormonism," perhaps, but the Catholic Church considers someone "once a Catholic, always a Catholic" (and certainly once one is ordained a priest, that cannot be removed or taken away, so he is still considered a Catholic priest in the eyes of the Catholic Church). Therefore, all those who are now LDS or other non-Catholic faiths who were once Catholic are still regarded as Catholic by the Catholic Church, so disparaging terms are rarely used regarding them.

If someone is in full-blown heresy, they might be referred to as a heretic, but excommunications are rare and reserved for special situations.

[Golden Tapir]

We as LDS are quick to say that H.F. reveals His thoughts/intents.directions to people here on earth through Prophets.

Are we saying that there was SO Much good in Polygamy that it 'had to be' restored in this dispensation? Certainly other things- practices, procedures, policies that were in force in prior times = effect earlier were not.

Were Polygamy and Eternal marriage were SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO linked that they 'had to be' 'restored' at about the same time?

In some people's thinking, P is what turns people away from the church. Certainly H.F. knew that P would be tough to swallow in our age, with our sensibilites regarding marriage. Was this a case of Him 'shoving something down our throat' (just to 'prove' a point?)?

just wondering.

[ave maria]

I must say I'm scratching my head as to why you would present a book's single chapter containing a cursory survey of Joseph's life as evidence the Church does not teach that he engaged in plural marriage when you knew about these contemporaneous texts that both contain information on that topic.

Scott--

Your challenge was simply as follows:

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.

And I believe the reference I cited was an appropriate response to that challenge.

I already indicated I had prepared a post with several other references to CES manuals in it, separate from that post, and was not able to post it last night (if you've never composed a lengthy post for a discussion board, and then lost it in the posting process, you're likely the only person I've ever known who's escaped that particular fate).

Your statement was issued as a general challenge, as I interpreted it. Perhaps I interpreted it incorrectly. It seems to me that if an entire CES manual on Presidents of the Church omits information regarding their plural marriages, that's relevant to your challenge, whether or not other CES manuals contain information regarding them (and I'll address that in a separate post, when I try to reconfigure the one I lost last night).

[Rollo Tomasi]

Ron:

Having briefly read through this thread, I will offer my comments on what several people have said:

1. It has been my general experience in the Church that active members are indeed under the impression that JS did not himself practice polygamy -- most think the active practice started with BY (even if it was JS who received the revelation). And many of those who have a basic understanding of Church history and know that JS married other women, think the unions were spiritual in nature and had no sexual aspect. And very few, imo, know anything about the polyandry. This is just my observation based on years of teaching various classes.

And I think these misimpressions are even promoted in the Church today. For example, in the booklet Our Heritage handed out in all Gospel Doctrine classes this year, the polygamy issue is briefly mentioned, but totally out of sequence and doesn't exactly say that JS participated in the practice. Rather than discuss the issue during that part of the book that deals with JS's lifetime, it is not mentioned until after discussing the Church's Jubilee Conference in 1880 (p. 97) in discussing the persecution facing Utah at that time. And note how the manual reads in terms of JS's receiving the revelation:

"The Prophet prayed for understanding and learned that at certain times, for specific purposes, following divinely given laws, plural marriage was approved and directed by God. Joseph Smith also learned that with divine approval, some Latter-day Saints would soon be chosen by priesthood authority to marry more than one wife. A number of Latter-day Saints practiced plural marriage in Nauvoo, but a public announcement of this doctrine and practice was not made until the August 1852 general conference in Salt Lake City."

Now, this quote is technically correct, but I couldn't help but notice that Joseph is only specifically named in receiving the revelation, not the practice itself (and polyandry certainly is not mentioned). Of course, any member who has a rudimentary understanding of Church history will realize that "some" and "a number" of LDS practicing polygamy in Nauvoo included JS, but others who are ignorant of Church history or new to the Church could use this to support their belief that JS did not himself practice polygamy. Even today, we can see how the Church tiptoes around the subject.

2. Since the primary basis for polygamy seems to be for the Lord "to raise up a righteous seed," I think it's obvious that polygamy, in general, was to involve sexual relations. Sure, some older women were sealed to JS, and probably no sexual aspect existed, but I think it probably did with the younger ladies (as many of them have claimed). I think this probably also occurred with the polyandrous wives (even Helen Mar Kimball suggests there was something more than a mere sealing to JS; she relates in her journal how upset she was when she was expected to stop flirting with boys because she was now married to the Prophet -- btw, Helen was still several months from her 15th birthday when she married Joseph).

3. The 1998 BY Priesthood/RS manual, towards the beginning, indeed has an historical timeline of BY's life which makes him out to be a monogamist (or at least downplays his polygamy) -- the timeline included the date of his first marriage, and after the first wife died, the date for BY's second marriage is given ... but no other marriages are mentioned. If they didn't want to mention his other marriages, then they should have left out the first two, imo. Otherwise, it appears misleading. A similar tactic was used in the Church Almanac -- in one section there are very brief bios of each of the past presidents of the Church -- JS's bio mentions his marriage to Emma, but no other marriages -- the bios for BY to Heber Grant (all polygamists) do not mention any marriages at all, not even the first ones -- but starting with George Albert Smith through GBH (all monogamists) the first wives (and second and third wives, if the prior ones had died) are named. For me, the clear implication is to make out JS as a monogamist (or, like the BY manual, downplay his polygamy). Another case of whitewashing Church history, imo.

4. A good source for all this, in addition to Compton's book, is Richard S. Van Wagoner's Mormon Polygamy (Signature Books, 2nd ed. 1989). I found it very detailed and insightful.

[Nighthawke]

We as LDS are quick to say that H.F. reveals His thoughts/intents.directions to people here on earth through Prophets.

"We" are?

[mnn727]

1. It has been my general experience in the Church that active members are indeed under the impression that JS did not himself practice polygamy -- most think the active practice started with BY (even if it was JS who received the revelation).

Oh, come on now. It certainly is not hidden away. I know about it before I converted. Even the series "The Work and the Glory" (Mormonisms best selling historical novels) details it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Obviously you have your perspective and I have mine. I thought that term might be a bit less jarring that the harsher-sounding apostasy.

I'm not certain it's logically possible to "apostasize" from a faith that is itself in apostasy.

A popular dictionary that I use defines apostasy simiply as "an abandoning of what one has believed in , as a faith, cause, or principles." The word therefore seems apt regardless of what belief one is forsaking.

But I will try to refrain from using either if it bothers you.

Thank you. I don't mind if you ask when I realized the LDS Church was in error,

Obviously, I'm not going to say that, since I strongly disagree the LDS Church is in error.

or when I became less active, or when I converted to Catholicism.

I don't believe "less-active" is accurate in your case either. I'll choose the latter as an acceptably neutral expression.

Incidentally, I don't mind if people from other faiths refer to their own ex-adherents as having "fallen away."

I'm not familiar with it as being popular terminology in Catholic circles.

I didn't say it was popular terminology. I just said I wouldn't mind if someone used it. Ergo, I don't regard it as an example of what you call "a disparaging term."

[Scott Lloyd]

I must say I'm scratching my head as to why you would present a book's single chapter containing a cursory survey of Joseph's life as evidence the Church does not teach that he engaged in plural marriage when you knew about these contemporaneous texts that both contain information on that topic.

Scott--

Your challenge was simply as follows:

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.

And the challenge still stands. I don't buy it that leaving out mention of polygamy in a single chapter of a broadly focused text amounts to an intentional effort to mislead people, especially when it can easily be shown that other texts, to which the same students are apt to be exposed, contain clear information about it.

[truth dancer]

Hi R...

I see it a bit differently.

Why would Helen write the following if the sealing was just about having eternal life?

  "[He explained] the principle of Celestial marrage...After which he said to me,

[Scott Lloyd]

Ron:

Having briefly read through this thread, I will offer my comments on what several people have said:

1. It has been my general experience in the Church that active members are indeed under the impression that JS did not himself practice polygamy -- most think the active practice started with BY (even if it was JS who received the revelation).

And I would counter that with my general experience, which has been the opposite.

[ave maria]

I'm not certain it's logically possible to "apostasize" from a faith that is itself in apostasy.

A popular dictionary that I use defines apostasy simiply as "an abandoning of what one has believed in , as a faith, cause, or principles." The word therefore seems apt regardless of what belief one is forsaking.

I never abandoned my faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ, which basic principles had been taught to me in my childhood in the context of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I abandoned an organization that did not authentically represent Christ's Church and was in error.

Thank you.  I don't mind if you ask when I realized the LDS Church was in error,

Obviously, I'm not going to say that, since I strongly disagree the LDS Church is in error.

Noted. I should have phrased that "when I decided for myself that the LDS Church might be in error," or "when I decided that I didn't believe the LDS Church was true."

or when I became less active, or when I converted to Catholicism.

I don't believe "less-active" is accurate in your case either. I'll choose the latter as an acceptably neutral expression.

I was using it as in the past tense, not the present.

Incidentally, I don't mind if people from other faiths refer to their own ex-adherents as having "fallen away."

I'm not familiar with it as being popular terminology in Catholic circles.

I didn't say it was popular terminology. I just said I wouldn't mind if someone used it.

Yes, noted.

[ave maria]

I must say I'm scratching my head as to why you would present a book's single chapter containing a cursory survey of Joseph's life as evidence the Church does not teach that he engaged in plural marriage when you knew about these contemporaneous texts that both contain information on that topic.

Scott--

Your challenge was simply as follows:

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.

And the challenge still stands. I don't buy it that leaving out mention of polygamy in a single chapter of a broadly focused text amounts to an intentional effort to mislead people, especially when it can easily be shown that other texts, to which the same students are apt to be exposed, contain clear information about it.

Would you prefer to post that "clear information" before I do?

I have a relatively busy day ahead of me today, and it might be a while before I can get to it. Then we can all take a look to see whether or not it's clear or complete.

[Scott Lloyd]

A similar tactic was used in the Church Almanac -- in one section there are very brief bios of each of the past presidents of the Church -- JS's bio mentions his marriage to Emma, but no other marriages -- the bios for BY to Heber Grant (all polygamists) do not mention any marriages at all, not even the first ones -- but starting with George Albert Smith through GBH (all monogamists) the first wives (and second and third wives, if the prior ones had died) are named. For me, the clear implication is to make out JS as a monogamist (or, like the BY manual, downplay his polygamy). Another case of whitewashing Church history, imo.

What RHT neglects to mention here (and he and I have had exchanges about this before) is that the same almanac refers elsewhere, in the "Historical Chronology of the Church" to the practice of plural marriage by Church leaders.

He will try to tell you that such mentions are "buried," but the fact is they are in the same typeface and practically the same point size as the very abbreviated bios of which he makes mention.