Joseph Smith Polygamy

[SlackTime]

Hi Ed...

No need to argue.

Hmmm not sure to what you are referring. I'm trying to respectfully respond to your comment.

You said that Jesus had spoken out on polygamy.

No... Lets be clear.... I said, "As I recall, my understanding (based on non LDS teachings) was that polygamy was similar to slavery... a practice that was cultural and when Jesus came he made sure everyone knew it was totally wrong...."

I described what I was taught and what my understanding was as a child given non lds beliefs. I shared scriptures that were taught to me as a child, regarding the importance of only having one wife.

It really doesn't fit what you described. That is; Christ's denunciation of polygamy.

Again, I was not trying to argue or defend a position. I was responding to Bertram, and sharing (to the best of my memory) my understanding as a ten year old, from teachings I received from NON LDS sources.

Hope that clears things up for you.

~dancer~

You mentioned arguments and I was saying we didn't need one.... doesn't matter

And ok, I guess I understand that you were saying that you THOUGHT, based on the non-LDS teachings, you had heard that there was such a scripture in the Gospels.

If this is so then we're good

-Ed

[truth dancer]

Hey Bertram...

AND there's more!!

Fire away!!!

God does not "speak" to man!!....so you "threw" out the OT!!!

I think there are some very lovely teachings in the OT... some not so lovely!

So, who spoke to whom, in the New Testament??.....If God spoke to man there.....will you also "throw" out the NT???

Again, I don't think God is a man/being speaking to a few men. I think the NT is also filled with some very lovely teachings... some not so lovely!

I think humankind has found many ways to understand their existence and to make sense of their world. I think myth is truth in a metaphorical sense... as Joseph Campbell suggests.... we can look for the connotation not the denotation.

Not saying I'm right... just how I see it...

~dancer~

[mnn727]

Where in the Old Testament do you see God commanding someone to take more than one wife?

2 Samuel 12:7

[SlackTime]

Where in the Old Testament do you see God commanding someone to take more than one wife?

2 Samuel 12:7

[Bertram]

truth dancer'

"And there's more" was/is a catch-phrase of a local comedian....who always cut short the applause to tell another joke!

So, once again, and I hope in conclusion...the Bible is just a lovely book to you.

I am sorry that the wonderful message of God is not fot you...YET!!!

I also agree with you that the Bible is a wonderful piece of literature as well, particularly the KJV.

HOWEVER, MAY I PROFESS MY BELIEF TO YOU THAT IT IS INDEED GOD'S WORD.

God's Love.

[truth dancer]

Hi Bertram...

So, once again, and I hope in conclusion...the Bible is just a lovely book to you.

Well, hmmm not exactly. I think the Bible (and all other scripture and sacred writings throughout the world) is men's (women's in some cases) attempt to understand God. I think it is filled with stories, teachings, myths, truths, ideas, wisdom, history etc. etc. and is a wonderful collection of the "truths" as humans could understand them at that time and place.... it is areally a book about humanity's search for God/source/truth/understanding/meaning.... a way to embrace the human journey.

I am sorry that the wonderful message of God is not fot you...YET!!!

While I do believe there is truth contained in the Bible I can't say that I really see the wonderful message in the same way as do most religions.

HOWEVER, MAY I PROFESS MY BELIEF TO YOU THAT IT IS INDEED GOD'S WORD.

Yes... you certainly may... I am always open to more light and knowledge.

~dancer~

[Orange Zodiac]

Where in the Old Testament do you see God commanding someone to take more than one wife?

2 Samuel 12:7

[Orange Zodiac]

You said that Jesus had spoken out on polygamy.

No... Lets be clear.... I said, "As I recall, my understanding (based on non LDS teachings) was that polygamy was similar to slavery... a practice that was cultural and when Jesus came he made sure everyone knew it was totally wrong...."

# 1 Tim. 3: 2

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Why should bishops only have one wife if plural marriage is the preferred marital arrangement for God? Wouldn't God want the leaders of his congregations to be an example of this principle to the other members? The other characteristics described sure make it sound like the bishop should be an example to the congregation.

[thesometimesaint]

lds8n't:

Just keep reading yu'll find the answer.

[Brackite]

Hello thesometimesaint,

Brackite:

Your right about Issac. My bad.

The Scriptures are silent on whether Jesus was married or not. and there is no official doctrine on it. But given that He was a Jew living in Isreal 2000 years ago.

Leads me to think that He was. Add in that He is called Rabbi, and Rabbis were required to be married, adds more. Add the Joseph(His earthly stepfather) was a faithful Jew, and fathers were to arrange for the maariage of their sons, adds even more. So to my mind He was mostly likely married.

I do agree that it is possible that Jesus was Married. However if Jesus was married, it would of only been to One woman. I strongly do Not believe that it was possible that Jesus was a Polygamous. I do however, believe that it was possible that Jesus married just Monogamously.

Take it easy!

[thesometimesaint]

Brackite:

I have not made up my mind if He was polygamous or not. I honestly don't know.

But as I said there some indications that he was. Possible it is.

[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?

Yes. As I indicated earlier this morning, I had last night compiled some of the statements from the CES manuals, and lost the post. That was prior to your citing the Doctrine and Covenants student manual.

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.

Your wish is my command. Let's see whether or not it contains "clear information."

From the Church Educational System (CES) student manual, "Doctrine and Covenants"

It is clear that the Prophet Joseph Smith received section 132 before it was recorded but delayed making it known. The Prophet knew the Lord

[Nighthawke]

Arguably, the last entry, from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article on Joseph Smith, is the most forthcoming. But note that both that article, and the excerpt from the "Church History in the Fulness of Times" manual, mention his first recorded plural marriage as Louisa Beaman in 1841; the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article on plural marriage, however, indicates "the only known plural marriage [during the 1830's] was that between Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger."

Are the entries clear? Are they misleading?

Was Fanny Alger's plural marriage to Joseph Smith ever recorded?

No. There is no specific date for Alger's marriage to Joseph Smith whereas the marriage ceremony for Beaman is well-documented. This matches what you've posted does it not?

[ave maria]

Arguably, the last entry, from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article on Joseph Smith, is the most forthcoming.

[Nighthawke]

Arguably, the last entry, from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article on Joseph Smith, is the most forthcoming.

[ave maria]

If I was unclear I might look up the footnotes/endnotes. Any notes listed? Bibliography?

Yes, a few.

In the case of the CES student manuals, they're of limited help.

[Orange Zodiac]

Where in the Old Testament do you see God commanding someone to take more than one wife?

2 Samuel 12:7

[Ron]

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?

I wasn't aware of either of these items. If there is any documentation online about this, please let me know and I'll take a look.

From http://www.cofchrist.org/seek/faq.asp

What position does Community of Christ take on Joseph Smith Jr.'s alleged involvement in polygamy?

As a policy, Community of Christ does not take positions on issues of history. We do however place great confidence in sound historical methodology as it relates to our church story. We believe that historians and other researchers should be free to come to whatever conclusions they feel are appropriate after

[thesometimesaint]

Ron:

We can speculate till the cows come home.

But the ONLY ONE that we have ANY PROOF that Joseph had sex with is Emma.

[ave maria]

Ron:

We can speculate till the cows come home.

But the ONLY ONE that we have ANY PROOF that Joseph had sex with is Emma.

And technically, we don't even have proof of that.

[thesometimesaint]

ave maria:

Just the children. LOL

[ave maria]

ave maria:

Just the children. LOL

Yes.

I was making something of a joke about how technically, one can't really even prove sex unless one was a participant or a witness.

Obviously it's reasonable to assume that Joseph was the natural father of Emma's children.

[Ron]

I still don't feel like anyone has addressed my initial question here.

I'd like some type of explanation why if Joseph Smith had intended for his marriages to other mens wives to be non-sexual, then why didn't he make sure that the parties involved knew that it wasn't sexual, to "avoid the appearance of evil".

This specific questions is really eating at me.

[ave maria]

I still don't feel like anyone has addressed my initial question here.

I'd like some type of explanation why if Joseph Smith had intended for his marriages to other mens wives to be non-sexual, then why didn't he make sure that the parties involved knew that it wasn't sexual, to "avoid the appearance of evil".

This specific questions is really eating at me.

It's a good question, Ron.

I can tell you that there were affadavits filed in the Temple Lot case where some of Joseph Smith's plural wives testified that they had had consummated the relationship:

Melissa Lott (Smith Willes) testified that she had been Joseph's wife "in very deed." (Affidavit of Melissa Willes, 3 Aug. 1893, Temple Lot case, 98, 105; see Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 156.)

In a court affidavit, faithful Mormon Joseph Noble wrote that Joseph told him he had spent the night with Louisa Beaman. (Temple Lot Case, 427)

Emily D. Partridge (Smith Young) said she "roomed" with Joseph the night following her marriage to him and said that she had "carnal intercourse" with him. (Temple Lot case (complete transcript), 364, 367, 384; see Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 15.)

(see Foster, Lawrence, Religion and Sexuality: The Shakers, the Mormons, and the Oneida Community," (University of Illinois Press, 1984).)

[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?

Yes. As I indicated earlier this morning, I had last night compiled some of the statements from the CES manuals, and lost the post. That was prior to your citing the Doctrine and Covenants student manual.

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.

Your wish is my command. Let's see whether or not it contains "clear information."

From the Church Educational System (CES) student manual, "Doctrine and Covenants"

It is clear that the Prophet Joseph Smith received section 132 before it was recorded but delayed making it known. The Prophet knew the Lord’s will on plural marriage within the new and everlasting covenant probably as early as 1831 (see History of the Church, 5:xxix). In March 1843 he spoke to William Clayton of eternal marriage. In July of that year, he was discussing the doctrine with his brother Hyrum in William Clayton’s presence when Hyrum said, “If you will write the revelation on celestial marriage, I will take it and read it to Emma, and I believe I can convince her of its truth, and you will hereafter have peace” (History of the Church, 5:xxxii).

http://www.ldsces.org/inst_manuals/dc-in/manualindex.asp

From the CES student manual, "Church History in the Fulness of Times"

Moreover, Joseph Smith and the Church were to accept the principle of plural marriage as part of the restoration of all things (see v. 45). Accustomed to conventional marriage patterns, the Prophet was at first understandably reluctant to engage in this new practice. Due to a lack of historical documentation, we do not know what his early attempts were to comply with the commandment in Ohio. His first recorded plural marriage in Nauvoo was to Louisa Beaman; it was performed by Bishop Joseph B. Noble on 5 April 1841.12 During the next three years Joseph took additional plural wives in accordance with the Lord’s commands. (emphasis mine)

http://www.ldsces.org/inst_manuals/chft/manualindex.asp

From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol. 3, "Plural Marriage"

Evidence for the practice of plural marriage during the 1830s is scant. Only a few knew about the still unwritten revelation, and perhaps the only known plural marriage was that between Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger. Nonetheless there were rumors, harbingers of challenges to come. (emphasis mine)

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/h...History_EOM.htm

And from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol. 3, "Joseph Smith"

As early as 1841, he introduced plural marriage, a necessary part of the restoration of the ancient order of things, to members of the Twelve and a few others. Although he had understood the principle since 1831 and apparently had married one plural wife several years earlier, he married his first recorded plural wife, Louisa Beaman, in 1841. During his remaining years, he married at least twenty-seven others.

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/h...Prophet_EOM.htm

Arguably, the last entry, from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article on Joseph Smith, is the most forthcoming. But note that both that article, and the excerpt from the "Church History in the Fulness of Times" manual, mention his first recorded plural marriage as Louisa Beaman in 1841; the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article on plural marriage, however, indicates "the only known plural marriage [during the 1830's] was that between Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger."

Are the entries clear? Are they misleading?

On their face, if that were all the information contained on the subject in a Church Educational System syllabus, would they "lead anyone intentionally to believe otherwise?"

I'll leave others to judge.

With regard to the CES manuals, what you have presented here is what I had already summarized and referenced with page numbers yesterday.

Obviously I do not think they are misleading, unclear or intentionally deceptive. It would amaze me if you thought so, even after having read some of your previous posts. I would be curious as to why.

To put it more succinctly, is there anything quoted here that would lead someone to believe that Joseph did not engage in plural marriage? That was the point of my question from which you extracted the partial quote -- "lead anyone intentionally to believe otherwise" -- above.