Joseph Smith Polygamy

[stn9]

Ron,

There are three types of marriage sealing in LDS theology. The most familiar and common is marriage for time and eternity. Some are aware that a second type

[Rollo Tomasi]

The third type should be immediately obvious: marriage for eternity only.

Joseph Smith entered into types 1 and 3 (type three was with married women) and there is historical evidence for this conclusion.

But we know that at least two of JS's polyandrous wives stated they were married to JS "for time and eternity" -- Mary Elizabeth Lightner and Patty Sessions. And a third polyandrous wife, Sylvia Sessions, told her daughter she was the daughter of JS (many scholars take this to mean "biological daughter" and seeing the picture of the adult Josephine I tend to agree), which certainly implies sexual relations typical of a "for time" marriage. You might be right that some polyandrous sealings were treated as "for eternity" only, but I think others were "for time and eternity."

[Ron]

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:

Thanks ave marie. I'm pretty much convinced that evidence and logic imply that Joseph Smith likely had physical relations with his wives who were not married to someone else, so I appreciate the evidence but thats not whats bothering me.

For some I believe the straw that breaks the camels back is the idea that he could have had physical relations to someone elses wife. To me that is inexcusable. What I've read so far indicates that there is not a lot evidence that JS had physical relations with his already married wives (although I've heard about DNA test are in the works). If it did happen, I'm not surprised at the lack of evidence because it wouldn't be something anyone would want to brag about. The lack of evidence to me does not mean it didn't happen.

Is what is surprising to me and almost condeming is that lack of evidence that the relationships were not meant to be physical. During 11 marriages I would think someone would have documented somewhere that they weren't meant to be physical. If Joseph Smith thought it was immoral for Polyandry to involve physical relations that he would have made that clear.

[ave maria]

If Joseph Smith thought it was immoral for Polyandry to involve physical relations that he would have made that clear.

I would tend to agree.

[stn9]

I argue that he did make it clear, that "eternity only" sealings excluded the heaven-sanction right to physical intimacy. That is evidenced in the known sources.

Based on her understanding of early Mormon marriages forms, Bathsheba W. Smith, wife of the apostle George A. Smith, could reconcile perhaps the most volatile case of pseudo-polyandry which was alleged to have occurred in Nauvoo

[Ron]

I argue that he did make it clear, that "eternity only" sealings excluded the heaven-sanction right to physical intimacy. That is evidenced in the known sources.

Based on her understanding of early Mormon marriages forms, Bathsheba W. Smith, wife of the apostle George A. Smith, could reconcile perhaps the most volatile case of pseudo-polyandry which was alleged to have occurred in Nauvoo

[Nighthawke]

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.

I don't believe he left a note behind saying "By the way, these marriages were sealings only."

All we can do, myself included, is ponder about it. It's interesting to note there are no children from any of these unions and yet we know that Joseph Smith was not impotent.

Finally, I just want to say that the only theological reason for plural marriage was "God commanded it." That it was "God's will". The members of the Church, both men and women who entered into plural marriage, left behind written testimonies that they received personal witnesses from God. They felt they were practicing plural marriage in strict obedience to God's will and that the practice was divinely inspired.

Latter-day Saints still believe that (see Doctrine and Covenants 132) although we are no longer required to practice it (see Manifesto).

edit here: Having read many journals and diaries, I've come across many, many instances where I can see that plural marriage was a blessing to those who practiced it--that is I can point to several different reasons for the practice. To justify it is more than possible, to defend it yes, of course, one doesn't even need to re-invent the wheel but simply point to what the early Saints published in books, articles, the Woman's Exponent, what they said to President and First Lady Hayes--but there is really only one correct answer: "God commanded it."

Any explanations/reasons would be possible answers to "Why did God command it?"

NH

[Rollo Tomasi]

It interesting to note there are no children from any of these unions and yet we know that Joseph Smith was not impotent.

There indeed is evidence that JS left behind children by his plural wives:

1. The affidavit of Josephine Rosetta Lyon, stating that her mother, Sylvia Sessions Lyon (a polyandrous wife of JS), told her she was the daughter of JS.

2. Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner's (another polyandrous wife of JS) statement in 1905 that "I knew he [JS] had three children. They told me. I think two of them are living today but they are not known as his children as they go by other names."

3. Lucy Smith, wife of Apostle George A. Smith, wrote in 1892 that George related "to me the circumstance of his calling on Joseph late one evening and he was just taking a wash and Joseph told him that one of his wives had just been confined and Emma was the Midwife and he had been assisting her. He told me this to prove to me that the women were married for time [as well as for eternity], as Emma had told me that Joseph never taught any such thing."

Source: Todd Compton's In Sacred Loneliness

[mnn727]

Rollo - You posted 2nd and 3rd hand accounts from 60 or more years after JS's death, why should I believe them?

[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.

As Ave Maria is apparently determined to ignore my above question, I will summarize here and say she has failed in her effort to show from Church curriculum materials any intent by the Church to mislead people with regard to Joseph Smith and the practice of plural marriage.

Furthermore, she has undercut her own contention by quoting from two Church Educational System student manuals that are in wide use by college-age Latter-day Saints and others.

[stn9]

Ron,

I think you understand that most people in the 19th century did not discuss their sexual lives in public, at least not explicitly. You must read the sources taking into account this fact.

Having said that, in 1898

[stn9]

mnn727: give me a break.

[mnn727]

mnn727: give me a break.

Gee, there's a brilliant answer

[Scott Lloyd]

mnn727: give me a break.

Gee, there's a brilliant answer

I don't get it. Why are you guys barking at each other? Aren't you on the same side?

[Scott Lloyd]

Ron,

I think you understand that most people in the 19th century did not discuss their sexual lives in public, at least not explicitly. You must read the sources taking into account this fact.

Having said that, in 1898—fifty-seven years after her sealing to the Prophet—Zina Diantha Huntington agreed to an interview with a lawyer sent by Joseph Smith III about the her marriage to Joseph Smith.

When he pressed Zina about the date of her sealing to Joseph, he responded: "Then it is a fact . . . is it not, that you married Mr. Smith at the same time you were married to Mr. Jacobs?" Zina replied: "What right have you to ask such questions? I was sealed to Joseph for eternity." (The interview was published in The Saints' Herald 52 [11 January 1905]: 28-30.)

The implication of his questioning was exactly what I have heard here (which I am against), which is that Joseph was intimate with a woman married to and being intimate with another man. SHe objected as it was getting into sexual questuions that she would not discuss as explicitly as a modern historian would wish. Her response to the implied accusation is exactly that she was sealed to Joseph at that point "for eternity." Her answer is clearly an attempt at countering the claim so implied!

Two points of Zina's interview are systematically missed by most commentors:

1. Zina more than once stated that she was sealed to Joseph Smith only "for eternity" by her brother in October of 1841.

2. Her statement that after the 1841 sealing to Joseph, Brigham Young performed sealed her to Smith "for time and eternity." This was her explanation as to why it was permissible to be sealed to Joseph Smith while being the wife of Henry Jacobs.

As I quoted elsewhere:

Orson Rega Card, Zina's grandson, while recorder in the Salt Lake Temple, discovered a slip of paper which Henry signed giving his consent for Zina to be sealed to Joseph (Recollection of Oa Jacobs Cannon, granddaughter of Henry Jacobs).

Also I add:

. . . when Zina Huntington was sealed to the Prophet [a second "for eternity" sealing, performed in the Nauvoo Temple], even though Henry Jacobs would not receive her even for "time only," yet he requested that a proper note of his faith be recorded in the official Nauvoo Temple records: "Henry B. Jacobs expressed his willingness that it should be so in presence of these witnesses."

Not only was Zina first married to Jacobs, then sealed to Joseph for eternity, then sealed again to Joseph for time and eternity (will the knowledge and consent of Jacobs), but she was then sealed in the Nauvoo Temple to the Prophet after his death, and then sealed to Brigham Young "for time only" with the knowledge and consent of Jacobs!

We have almost no direction on plural marriage by Joseph himself: Section 132 dictated to Clayton and what else? And yet we know he gave many, many private instruction on the principle and the practice. Erastus Snow recalled Joseph as teaching him: "[T]he law of the Lord concerning these things [is] exceedingly strict" (St. George Stake General Meeting Minutes, 17 June 1883, LDS Church Archives).

Then there is those last lines I posted earlier:

Q. But you don't mean to say that Joseph Smith had that man's wife living with him as his wife?

A. No sir, I mean that she was sealed to him for eternity....

No, meaning he was not living with her (in this life) as a wife. Does it have to be spelled out any clearer? Bathsheba's understanding of "eternity" sealings prohibits by definition sexual intimacy.

One can only speculate, but it occurs to me that, had Joseph lived to lead the Saints west to the Rocky Mountains, where it was at last safe to publicly discuss and practice plural marriage, the questions that trouble us today might long ago have been resolved.

[stn9]

I try never to be on the side of ignorace. I care not if one is a member of the Church or of any other classification. I am not interested in mere opinion. I want the to know and embrace the truth. I know Joseph Smith had many wives

[Ron]

Not only was Zina first married to Jacobs, then sealed to Joseph for eternity, then sealed again to Joseph for time and eternity (will the knowledge and consent of Jacobs)...

stn9, is your post implying that Joseph Smith was sealed for "Time and Eternity" to Zine Jacobs (another mans wife), not just "For Eternity"?

[gtaggart]

I try never to be on the side of ignorace. I care not if one is a member of the Church or of any other classification. I am not interested in mere opinion. I want the to know and embrace the truth. I know Joseph Smith had many wives

[T-Shirt]

I try never to be on the side of ignorace. I care not if one is a member of the Church or of any other classification. I am not interested in mere opinion. I want the to know and embrace the truth. I know Joseph Smith had many wives

[stn9]

Much of what we have about Joseph is reminiscent accounts from years after events, and while time does affect memory and memorial, there is a rather consistent and detailed picture of plural marriage practices and doctrine that can be pieced together. I have absolutely no reason to doubt, for instance, that 60 years does not change your knowledge of who fathered your daughter. The evidence that mnn727 was apparently dismissing is not that suspect to scholars in the subject.

Ron:

I don't have to claim Zina was sealed to Joseph first for eternity then at a later date for time and eternity because she claimed it. I do not have a url for the interview, though if I can find the time I may look for it (I have a friend who has a transcript from the Church Archives copy).

My recommendation to all is get into the sources and speak from an informed position.

[ave maria]

As Ave Maria is apparently determined to ignore my above question, I will summarize here and say she has failed in her effort to show from Church curriculum materials any intent by the Church to mislead people with regard to Joseph Smith and the practice of plural marriage.

Furthermore, she has undercut her own contention by quoting from two Church Educational System student manuals that are in wide use by college-age Latter-day Saints and others.

Actually, I was quite busy this afternoon and out of the house for much of it.

Let's try this one more time, for the record.

Here's what my actual statement (to you) was (on page one of this thread) regarding Joseph Smith, polygamy and the LDS Church:

I don't recall how long you've been LDS, or how old you are, but certainly in my lifetime, it wasn't always taught that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, at least not to the extent that is known or acknowledged today (that Brigham Young did was indeed taught in my youth, but the exact number of wives might have been downplayed). (emphasis mine)

Now, here's your response to me (also on page one of this thread), in which you issued a challenge:

I've lived a good long time now, probably as long or longer than most people on this board, and have been steeped in Mormonism through the course of that time. I don't remember ever being led to believe other than that Joseph Smith obeyed the commandment pertaining to plural marriage as well as teaching it to others. 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. (emphasis mine)

I then cited a number of references from official LDS Church Educational System (CES) student manuals.

I leave it to everyone else here to form their own opinion regarding whether or not those manuals constitute showing you anything "from the official curriculum materials of the Church either present. . .or past that would lead anyone intentionally to believe otherwise."

Anyone I assume to mean any one.

I put the citations out there in response to your challenge. Your opinion of them, mine, and everyone else's here might vary.

I do believe, however, that there are other LDS members, including possibly some posters on this board, who would agree with my statement as posted at the top of this particular post, ". . .in my lifetime, it wasn't always taught that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, at least not to the extent that is known or acknowledged today (that Brigham Young did was indeed taught in my youth, but the exact number of wives might have been downplayed).

[Opaline]

recovering from LDS inc.

[mnn727]

Gee, another person not willing to take responsibility for their own education.

Are there really this many people sitting waiting for everything to be spoon fed to them???

Funny that on the Churches FamilySearch website it takes about 2 minutes to figure it out if the Church is trying to hide it.

[Opaline]

leaving the church

[Pace Nielsen]

I'd consider myself an average member. I learned the most about polygamy on my mission while reading the D&C student manual while studying the D&C. But I knew long before that, that Joseph and Brigham had been polygamists.