Published By
I am scheduled to interview Mormon polygamy historian/expert Brian Hales tomorrow. He is a devout, believing LDS church member and is probably among the top 5 historians alive in terms of 1830/40 LDS polygamy knowledge.
The purpose of the interview is twofold:
- Brian wants to respond directly to Grant Palmer’s allegations of repeated sexual impropriety by Joseph Smith as communicated by Grant in this article and in this podcast. If you want to review Brian’s arguments in advance, you can reference this article: 2009 Hales FA and JS Pre-Nauvoo Reputation.
- We’re hopeful that in a part 2 of the interview we can address something like, “Top 10 Myths and Truths about Joseph Smith’s Polygamy”…..or “How to get comfortable with Joseph Smith’s Polygamy (if you desire to remain affiliated w/ the church, but are struggling.”
Thanks in advance!
John
What is the real story behind the disaffection of the Laws? How extensive was John C Bennett’s involvement in covering up Smith’s dalliances? Give us a faith promoting perspective on Section 132, verse by verse.
Totally agree with this question, Brad was faster on the draw.
Yes, please!
I would add the relationship of Emma and William law and those events as portrayed by Palmer v. Brian’s thoughts, in the verse by verse
Of all the Fundamentalist groups,; if you had to pick who was closer in authority which group is it?
The Laws are a bit challenging because evidence can be cited to support five different scenarios:
1. Jane Law approached Joseph Smith seeking to be sealed to him.
2. Joseph Smith approached Jane Law seeking to seduce her.
3. Joseph Smith approached Jane Law inviting her to be sealed to him.
4. Joseph or Emma suggested a “wife swap” between Emma and Jane Law.
5. Joseph Smith secretly sealed William and Jane Law to each other, but they rebelled anyway.
In the past authors have promoted one to the exclusion of the others (and some of the evidence is better), but I’m not sure we can now figure out exactly what happen. I talk about this in Chapter 31 of Volume 2. I’ve gotta run, but I think the evidence shows very conclusively that John Bennett never once sat down with Joseph Smith to learn about plural and eternal marriage.
Brian, after listening to the podcast, I don’t feel like we got much resolution on this one.
William Law in his letter to the Salt Lake Tribune 1887 denies that the wife swap thing was purposed, but he said that portion of the revelation was related to the offer of giving Emma a substitute.
Your interpretation that it is about a divorce seems like a stretch. The property piece fits, but the rest doesn’t make sense
Why would Joseph offer a divorce, why would the Lord command a divorce as a test? So just like you assume it’s a divorce, I can’t help but interpret as a man who made his wife mad, tried to make it better and appeased her with an offer to include her and then thought better of it and fabricated a revelation to cover his tracks. Even the fact that in your statements Josephs advisers tell him to him to dictate a revelation to convince her seems odd. It all seems of all the scriptures this one seems like the most plausibly fabricated to fit Josephs agenda.
Please also know that I am genuinely searching for an answer, by no means is my intention antagonistic. It’s a real sticking point that I can’t get around.
Justin mentions that there is a possibility that Joseph Smith could have fabricated revelations to fit his “agenda“(Possibility No. 1). Possibility No. 2 is that Joseph fabricated no revelations–they were all from God. Possibility No. 3 is that no revelation which appears in the Doctrine and Covenants was fabricated to fit Joseph’s agenda–they were all given by Jesus Christ himself in accordance with his Father’s plan. Those whose testimonies are strongest will believe that possibilities No. 2 and No. 3 have the highest probabilities of being correct. Or, at least, because of possibilities No. 2 and No. 3, they will remain content, faithful, and active in the Church until the day, perhaps in the next life, when the truth of this and all other controversies will be clearly revealed.
David, fair points, What are your thoughts on the specific parts of the revelation concerning the offer made to Emma (D&C 132:51), do you think that Emma asked for a companion in Law or is the scripture referring to a divorce? From your other posts it seems like you have a fair amount of knowledge in the history.
And the simple answer is that it’s all going to be sorted out. Sure it will, but that’s like saying I won’t cherish every second of this life with my family because I will have an eternity with them. Eternity is now and one should start enjoying it now, and our time to learn study and grow is now, not waiting to die to find out.
Possibilities are not limited to 3, there could be none of the revelations are from God, Some or most may also be possible. Asserting that No.2 and No. 3 have the highest probability of being correct is a big assertion considering all the people through out history who claim to have had revelation from God, if one’s worldview was from Islam they would say the same for the Quran. I happen to think that Joseph was inspired and revelation was likely, but to assert that it’s the highest probability seems like a stretch. Even with my belief it certainly seems like the least probable and most unlikely, the lack of probability is where the power of the whole thing lies.
To me the more probable possibility is that D&C 132.51 is referring to a divorce. Emma already had her Abrahamic test–having to endure Joseph’s plural marriages.
Possibilities No. 2 and No. 3 allow devout members of the Church to enjoy life in the here and now as well as in eternity. Possibility No. 1 and the other possibilities you mention surely cause distress and despair among those who desire to remain true to the faith, true to their testimonies, and true to themselves and their families who are active members of the Church. These are they who feel that possibilities No. 2 and No. 3 have the highest probability of being correct.
Those who think that No. 1 and the other possibilities you mention have a higher probability of being correct than No. 2 and 3 include those who never had a strong testimony of the gospel. Those who are consciously or subconsciously looking for an excuse to bail out because they are tired of paying tithes and offerings and attending Church meetings. Those who want to identify and associate with academics or intellectuals or friends who have already bailed out. Those who want to remain close to and be admired by friends and relatives who have left the Church or who are in the process of leaving it. Those who tend to look for or be fascinated by tabloid type reports of the un-virtuous, un-lovely, un-praiseworthy, or of bad behavior of important people. Those who are of a pessimistic or skeptical nature. Those who fail to dwell on the positive. Those who fail to give the benefit of the doubt. Those who fail to carefully consider alternate positive explanations and interpretations for difficult questions and controversies. Those who interpret advice, counsel, and instruction from scriptures and Church leaders as guilt trip devices rather than instruments of the Lord’s plan of happiness: “Man is that he might have joy.” “Happiness is the object and design of our existence.” “Now let us rejoice.” “Let the mountains shout for joy.”
Choosing between alternate possibilities and choosing between alternate teachings from books like the Quran requires that we “Prove all things and hold fast to that which is good” “Come let us reason together.” “And when ye shall receive these things,,,ask God…with a sincere heart, with real intent…”
Reasoning together includes realizing that the same negative approach used by those who find fault with the life and teachings of Joseph Smith can be used to find fault with any famous person who ever lived including the most perfect person who ever lived—Jesus Christ himself. We can find fault with and paint a negative portrait of anyone, including our closest friends and most beloved family members. Or we can be satisfied and content with the positive, e.g. above Possibilities No. 2 and No. 3.
According to Alexander Neibaur, while Joseph Smith was walking to his office, William’s wife, Jane, “beckoned” (sic) him to come into her home. As Joseph entered, Jane drew her arms around him and said, “If you won’t seal me to my husband, seal myself to you.” Joseph said, “Stand away,” and “gently pushed her aside, giving her a denial and going out.” When William returned home, Jane told him that Joseph had been there and wanted her to be married to him (Journal of Alexander Neibaur, 24 May 1844, LDS Church Archives. See also Hyrum Smith’s statement in the Nauvoo Neighbor, Extra, 17 June 1844, regarding William Law’s adulterous conduct. Both cited in Lyndon Cook, William Law, [Orem: Grandin Book Co. 1994] p. 26).
William Law wrote in his diary that Joseph “had lately endeavored to seduce my wife, and had found her a virtuous woman” (Ibid. p. 53). But that statement was later crossed out—no doubt because William realized that it was not true. Indeed, forty years later, William Law addressed an author of a book who had written about “swapping wives,” and said, “Your informant must have been deceived or willfully lied to you. Joseph Smith never proposed anything of the kind to me or to my wife…” (Ibid. p.104). William Law’s son, Judge Tommy J. Law said “What has been said about Joseph having made an attempt on her [my mother] is not true” (Ibid. p.133). Still, some critics continue to make much of the Jane Law “affair.”
For 150 years, critics have tried to prove Joseph Smith’s immorality by claiming that John C. Bennett, a close acquaintance of the prophet, learned about “spiritual wifery” from Joseph himself, and then went on to follow Joseph’s example by seducing women.
When William Law asked Bennett if these claims were true: “J.C. Bennett declared to me before God that Joseph Smith had never taught him such doctrines, and that he never told anyone that he (Joseph Smith) had taught any such things, and that anyone who said so told base lies; nevertheless, he said he [John] had done wrong, that he would not deny, but he would deny that he had used Joseph Smith’s name to accomplish his designs on any one; stating that he had no need of that, for that he could succeed without telling them that Joseph approbated such conduct. These statements he made to me of his own free will, in a private conversation which we had on the subject; there was no compulsion or threats used on my part…” Sworn to, and subscribed before a Justice of the Peace, within and for the county of Hancock, State of Illinois, July 20th 1842, cited in Lyndon Cook, William Law, [Orem: Grandin Book Co. 1994] p. 86-87. (Allen H. Richardson)
What was the attitude towards women who did not want to marry into a plural marriage situation?
+1
Quickly, JS was turned down by at least seven women. In five cases we only know about the proposal because the woman or someone close to her later mentioned it. In other words, JS did not retaliate so far as the records go. In two cases, Nancy Rigdon and Sarah Pratt, he responded to their allegations against him, but only after they made public their accusations.
These two women’s accusations were true, weren’t they? What exactly was Joseph’s response?
In light of the facts, how does one reconcile Smith’s polyandry, and the cognitive dissonance created when one is told to “follow the prophet, for he will not lead you astray”
My only question is how do we justify/explain polyandry?
I have not done extensive reading on this…
My apologist heart has come up with some justifications for rumors I’ve heard.
1. If he married a 14-year-old, it’s because that’s what people did back then. (true or not true?)
2. If he sent a woman’s husband to war and then married her, it’s because her husband was a abusive creep and he was saving her from him. (true or not true?)
I obviously really want to believe JS was a good guy…
I could do more research on it, but I don’t have time, hence the reason I listen to these podcasts while commuting instead. Please don’t assume we’re all experts on the history while you discuss. ;)
Thanks for all that you do!
I like these questions. I would like to know the social norms of the time, better.
What was the purpose of Joseph Smith marrying other (living) men’s wives.
Section 132 states that the purpose of plural marriage is to multiply and replenish the earth. If one’s belief is that J.S. never had sexual relationships with these wives, isn’t that going against the “purpose” of plural marraige?
Here maybe a discussion on the Law of Adoption and how it differs to current policy and how it applies to Polyandry.
If not sexual impropriety, suspected ot otherwise, what is the alternative explanation for the anger that motivated a mob to attack and nearly emasculate the Prophet in the Miranda Johnson matter?
+1
+1
And additionally, what can we glean from the fact that Joseph later married Miranda Johnson (Hyde)?
Mark, Brian Hales addresses that in his 2009 article FYI.
Good one.
How can Joseph Smith’s polygamous marriages before 1836 be reconciled with not having a Sealing ordinance in place?
Joseph was given the Apostleship by Peter, James and John. That’s what the accounts state. Our history records he was given the Mel. Priesthood which is technically wrong and led to a lot of confusion about priesthood confirmations between 1921 and 1957.
Joseph taught the apostleship holds all the keys ever given to man. He had the power to seal well before his 1st plural wife. :)
How does one reconcile the idea that Polygamy was “doctrine” in the early Church, and then Pres. Hinckley in his televised interview when asked about Polygamy, saying something to the effect that it is “not doctrine”?
Would God command man to practice polygamy if he does not practice it and if he does practice it then why? The purpose of polygammy is to reproduce faster, right? Why would we assume that Gods reproduce in the same way that humans do, and if they do then why would they need muliple women to reproduce when they are not constrained by time as we know it?
Paraphrasing a bit here, but God say “This is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the eternal life of man”. If bringing eternal life to his children increases God’s glory, then it would make sense to me that more heavenly wives = faster rate of heavenly children = more will gain eternal life and therefore increase God’s glory faster.
Thanks, Bill, this is exactly my point and what your saying is exactly what I used to tell myself when I was a TBM to explain the need for polygamy as an eternal law. However, my recent thinking is what is “faster” for God? If God is eternal, and has the eternities to make spirit children then there is no way that he can speed anything up. We are thinking about this from our perspective of time but Joseph Smith said that God views time as “one eternal now” and aside from what Joseph Smith taught, my understanding of eternity is that it is the opposite of time. So, why would an exalted being need more wives to have more spirit if he can have heavenly sex forever and why would he need, or even be able, to speed this process up if he doesn’t measure his existence with time?
This explanation of the need for polygamy (to speed up God’s work and glory) also assumes that heavenly mothers are pregnant with spirit children for a certain period of time like human mothers. I don’t know if they are, but I would guess not since they are exalted, perfect beings. Therefore a heavenly father would not need to use an additional wife in order to speed up the rate of producing heavenly children. This also assumes that heavenly parents create spirit children by having sex…
My understanding of God is a being that wouldn’t need polygamy.
I never thought about that before. Great questions.
I want to undersand the verse in 132 that Grant Palmer expained as Joseph offering Emma to have Law in the way he had other wives. This verse always confused me even before I knew much of the difficult history. Would love to hear his understanding of this scripture.
Melanie, my #1 Question also
Anything about the structure and purpose of the temple ceremony back then and it’s meaning today without the framework of polygamy to hold it up.
Additionally want to understand how in the early church it was taught that polygamy was necessary to get into CK and now it is taught that only Temple marrieag is necessary. Also why Brigham young seemed to flip flop on that issue.
[quote=”Melanie”]Additionally want to understand how in the early church it was taught that polygamy was necessary to get into CK and now it is taught that only Temple marrieag is necessary. Also why Brigham young seemed to flip flop on that issue.[/quote]
I would like to hear more about this as well. I would also like to know about several points of conflicting scripture in section 132. According to the revelation in D&C 132, the Lord states that He commanded Abraham to take Hagar as a second wife. In the Biblical account, this is clearly not the case. Sarah offers Hagar as a wife for Abraham because she sees that as the only way the seed of Abraham will be continued.
There is also conflict between D&C 132 and The Book of Mormon (the most correct book of scripture on the earth today). According to 132, Solomon’s wives were given to him by the Lord. In Jacob of the BOM, it states that the act of Solomon taking many wives was an abomination, and that the Lord had heard the cries of his fair daughters.
Again, why the “flip flop”?
Elizabeth, I can maybe take a shot at your 2 questions. Maybe it’s just confirmation bias on my part but I don’t see a conflict here because none of these statements specifically contradicts the others. If Abraham behaves remotely similar to the way we do, after his wife asked him to take Hagar, he certainly would have taken the issue to the Lord in prayer. The Bible says his wife gave him Hagar, the D&C says the Lord did. It is highly probable that both of these statements are true. They aren’t mutually exclusive statements.
As far as Solomon and David are concerned, here is the passage from D&C 132
“David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.”
Here it is from Jacob:
“Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me,”
The Lord is less detailed with Jacob, but his statement doesn’t contradict D&C. It’s similar to how the God can say the righteous will go to heaven and the wicked to hell, and later elaborate that there are degrees of glory. As I see it this isn’t a contradiction, it is a clarification.
we are taught that agency if one of the greatest gifts from God and he will not do anything to take that away. That logic was used to justify why God allowed the murder of the children at the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. So if this is the case, how could Joseph Smith ask women to marry him saying in effect God would destroyed him by an angel with a flaming sword unless he and the lady were married?
My only answer to that would be that the vast majority of God’s children do have their free agency, but there are scriptural accounts of some of his children being heavily persuaded to do his will. Jonah in the belly of a whale for trying to flee from God’s call for him to serve as one example. I don’t know what to think about Joseph’s statements that brought about some of his marriages, but I can make at least that scriptural argument about free agency.
Was Fanny Alger the first initiate into the principle? What value does Todd Compton’s book and subsequent responses to critique hold?
One justification for Blacks not receiving the priesthood was because the people were not ready; however, it seems they were ready to go against the social mores of the time and practice polygamy even when threatened with incarceration, etc. Confusing…
If it comes up, I would love to hear a question on the belief that polygamy will return, will be practiced by all in the celestial kingdom, etc. Although these beliefs are never discussed officially anymore, older quotes/beliefs pop up all the time. I would love a good rundown of what is and isn’t said, who said it, etc.
I’m interested in hearing the podcast! A few random questions:
I’ve heard some apologists teach that Joseph never had sexual relations with any of his polygamous wives (that they were only sealed to him to create spiritual bonds between families). Is this accurate?
How could Joseph properly be practicing polygamy with Fanny Alger well before he had received the sealing power? Wouldn’t he need this power and authority from God prior to sealing himself to these other women?
D&C 132 mentions the man who practices polygamy must receive the consent of his wife (prior to engaging another woman.) Did Joseph get clearance from Emma for his many wives?
Did Joseph coerce women into marrying him—telling some women and their families they would be damned if they did not enter into polygamous unions with him?
Do you believe Joseph could have been in error to practice polygamy the way he did? If he was in error, how was he worthy of the Spirit and able to restore the Church with the blessing and authority of God?
D&C 132 (along with many statements from early leaders) clearly indicates one must be in a polygamous relationship to reach the top degree of the Celestial Kingdom. Is this correct? And if it is, why don’t current leaders continue to teach this?
I’m a psychology grad student right now, so that background shapes this question a bit…
In studying personality, there are several personality archetypes that continually come up. One is what we might call the “cult leader.” He is energetic, enthusiastic, exciting, well-spoken, and has an animal magnetism. People are drawn to him, they adore him, they will follow him anywhere. All these things seem to fit Joseph Smith. A final facet of this personality type is a super high libido. Most cult leaders have some form of free-love policy going on, or selecting among the followers to share his bed on a regular basis. If Joseph fits this profile, then it shouldn’t be surprising if he also had a crazy high libido, and simply found a way to legitimize (religiously contextualize) what he wanted to do anyway.
So, what do you think of that idea? Basically that the high libido was part of his personality, and he either made up the law of polygamy, or else begged/hounded God to approve it until He (God) finally said ok, whatever, go ahead?
This year (2013) in Relief Society and Priesthood we are studying the life of Lorenzo Snow. In the Lorenzo Snow Manual, we read the following passage in the section entitled “The Life and Ministry of Lorenzo Snow:”
“When Lorenzo Snow gathered with the Saints in Nauvoo, he had determined that he would never get married, choosing instead to dedicate his life to preaching the gospel. His sister Eliza later observed, “To devote his time, his talents, his all to the ministry was his all-absorbing desire.” He felt that family life would somehow “lessen his usefulness” in the Lord’s work.48
“Lorenzo’s views on marriage and family began to change in 1843 when he spoke alone with the Prophet Joseph Smith on the banks of the Mississippi River. The Prophet testified of the revelation he had received regarding plural marriage. He told Lorenzo, “The Lord will open your way to receive and obey the law of Celestial Marriage.”49 With this counsel, Lorenzo began to understand that marriage was a commandment from the Lord and an essential part of Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness.
“In 1845, Lorenzo Snow entered into plural marriage, as then practiced in the Church, by marrying Charlotte Squires and Mary Adaline Goddard. He was later sealed to additional women. His devotion to his wives and children became part of his devotion to the work of the Lord.”
https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-lorenzo-snow/the-life-and-ministry-of-lorenzo-snow?lang=eng
By publishing this in an official church manual, the Church gives credibility to the suggestion that Joseph was teaching others about plural marriage. This leads to two questions:
1. Is the Church manual wrong (i.e., we should not believe the statement made by President Snow that he learned about plural marriage from Joseph Smith)?
2. If the Church manual is correct, does it make sense that Joseph would teach others about plural marriage, but not practice it himself? How do you reconcile this statement with public statements denying the practice?
Added to clarify: I may have misread Hales’ article. I read it as suggesting that Joseph did not participate in plural marriage. It seems that his article is limited to the pre-Nauvoo period.
It would be cool having another podcast where you have Palmer and Hales in a friendly back and forth discussion presenting their views and responses.
Why is Joseph Smith’s polygamy and marital relations treated entirely differently than Brigham Young’s and other early church leaders? Why is it considered to be “sexual impropriety” when Joseph Smith had sex with his plural wives but not for other Prophets who practiced the SAME principle?
I think the “rub” comes from the fact that JS would have been practicing polygamy before it was officially revealed, which makes the revelation seem like one of convenience or necessity, rather than one who’s heavenly time was due. If the latter is the case, then there isn’t a difference between JS and prophets / members that practiced polygamy, other than the fact that they would have believed that they were following God’s command through his prophet. The revelation was either true, or they were all to a greater or lesser degree, deceived.
I always wondered this as well. Everyone is so freaked out about JS’s polygamy and not BY, who clearly engaged in sexual relations with them?
So why would it be inappropriate for JS to have had sexual relations when it was okay for BY? It seems that people who acknowledge and accept that JS practiced polygamy are only doing so because they believe he didn’t have sex with them.
Obviously because joseph smith lied about practicing polygamy.
Why would you ever think that true prophets could or would lie to a whole church their whole life and run around after other women, let alone teenagers, behind their wife’s back, and abuse her in the most vile of ways?
Who would ever believe such a man was a true prophet? Especially when Christ warned us about watching out for ‘false prophets’, who by the way, usually always do such things as what Joseph is accused of doing.
Polygamy is completely contrary to Christ’s teachings and the scriptures, including the scriptures that Joseph gave us. Joseph taught that if anyone, even a prophet comes preaching polygamy or anything contrary to the scriptures or Christ, then you would know for sure they are false.
Thus Joseph would have known that polygamy was evil, just like he always said it was. But hardly anyone wants to believe Joseph’s repeated published & proven testimony that he never preached or practiced polygamy, yet most will believe the most vile unproven rumors & hearsay against a prophet of God.
Joseph clearly taught over & over that anyone, even prophets, who preach or practice or support polygamy will be damned.
If Joseph ever fell for polygamy then he said he too would be damned, but I believe Joseph, that he didn’t ever live polygamy and was instead framed with it by Brigham Young and those other leaders who wanted to live it, and thus after Joseph died they took out Joseph’s scriptures against it in the D&C and replaced them with the false revelation D&C 132.
Righteous people are are repulsed by polygamy and would never live it or desire it, and would know it’s a whoredom like the the ancient Prophets in the BoM, including Joseph Smith, always said it was, not to mention it is against Christ’s laws 1st & foremost.
Why do so many people so easily fall for polygamy and the hearsay against Joseph when there is no proof he ever believed in or lived polygamy?
I don’t know a single righteous man or woman who would ever live polygamy.
Are the following statements accurate?
1. If Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger were married “in their mind” then it certainly was not a legally sanctioned marriage at the time. In many ways no different from how polygamous unions today have a “wedding” that is not legally recognizable.
2. While it may seem palatable to view this relationship as a marriage, the fact that Fanny did not seek nor recieve a divorce prior to marrying lends credibility to the fact that she herself did not see herself as married to Joseph.
And lastly this question, why must so many current members of the church feel they must “make” Joseph’s polygamy make sense? just because he might have considered himself “married” to Fanny doesn’t make his secret relationship to a 14 year old servant while in a position of considerable influence over her above the board by any stretch of the imagination whether looking at it with 19th century morals or 21st century morals? Why will no one state simply, “Joseph’s morals and his internal justification are suspect at best and illegal and immoral at the least?” The theme of prophet with many failings runs througout the bible and yet so many feel they must try and impose perfection on Joseph by presenting his relationships as sanctioned by god and therefore not needing sanction by man. Which is sure convenient, but not necessarily accurate.
That is a top down problem. I would rather consider Joseph to be a man with very real human failings. That would make the Mormon gospel so much more powerful. But over time, the Church has done this leap frog from generation to generation to out spit shine, and polish Joseph into this one-foot-in-the-celestial-kingdom kind of guy from the previous generation. Through church art work, and Sunday school lessons, conference talks etc. To me, they’ve built a house of cards so to speak that can’t stand up to even a casual google search.
There are those who think that because prophets are imperfect that it makes it okay that we excuse this particular impropriety. If we commit a mere lie we lose the Spirit. How could he maintain his prophetic mantle while committing such serious sins? Can a fallen prophet still receive revelation while we just blow off his adultery/polygamy/polyandry? Just chalk it up to imperfection.
Bonita,
No of course not, prophets can’t lie, commit whoredoms like polygamy, and commit adultery or abuse their spouse anymore that we can & still maintain the Spirit or receive revelation.
Joseph was very clear on this, that even if prophets fell for polygamy or any other kind of sin they too would be damned just like anyone else.
Prophets have to be nearly perfect (especially be a completely faithful husband to their wife) to get righteous people & righteous women to follow them and believe in them.
Oh, and to continue the personality analysis thoughts…
Joseph taught that polygamy was a rule for some…
Then Brigham came along and taught polygamy as necessary for the celestial kingdom. But Joseph never taught that, right? So might we argue that Brigham was just trying to come up with some ‘groundbreaking revelation’ of his own to try to fill the big shoes Joseph had left behind?
In other words, Joseph started polygamy because of his own high libido.
And then Brigham made it even bigger because he wanted to be cool like Joseph?
Here are my questions for Brian:
1) Assume that Joseph Smith’s plural marriages were platonic and that their only purpose was to create dynastic relationships and eternal marriages. When Joseph married other men’s’ wives, these other men were put in a position of creating families and relationships with their wife and children here in mortality, and then being usurped by Joseph in eternity. How can this be squared with the Church’s emphasis on the importance of family relationships? It seems to me that even if Joseph’s polyandry was platonic, polyandry is still problematic?
2) It seems clear that Joseph repeatedly lied to Emma about these marriages (sexual or not), and that his plural wives were often in a position need to lie to keep the marriages hidden. How does Brian justify the lying? It seems to me that a man who communed with the creator of the universe would be more fearless about the truth. Doesn’t Joseph’s deception seems more consistent with an adulterer rather than a man who spoke face-to-face with God, Jesus, and angels on multiple occasions.
3) It also seems clear that when some women who refused Joseph’s proposal, Joseph called them liars and publically denigrated these women’s reputations. How does Brian reconcile Joseph’s behavior?
4) Given the items outlined in the previous questions, how does Brian believe a person with the following traits would judge Joseph’s polygamy: A person who was not raised LDS and has no family or friends who are LDS, a person who has no pre-conceived biases for or against Mormonism, a person who is intelligent, a person who is religious, and a person who is a spiritual seeker. Does Brian believe that such a person would conclude that Joseph’s plural marriages were sexual or platonic? Does Brian believe that such a person would be convinced that polygamy was commanded by God, or a creation out of Joseph’s mind?
I would also like to hear a discussion of Jeff’s first question about the ramifications of eternal polygamy and eternal polyandry. What if polygamy was always intended to be practiced in conjunction with polyandry, in a group marriage sense, but mysogyny kept women from being able to be sealed to more than one man? It seems that group marriages would be quite successful at binding a large number of individuals together. It seems that preventing women from being sealed to the husbands with whom they conceive children destroys rather than creates bonds.
The only form of polygamy permitted by D&C 132 is a union with a virgin after first giving the opportunity to the first wife to consent to the marriage. If the first wife doesn’t consent, the husband is exempt and may still take an additional wife, but the first wife must at least have the opportunity to consent. In case the first wife doesn’t consent, she will be “destroyed”. Also, the new wife must be a virgin before the marriage and be completely monogamous after the marriage or she will be destroyed (D&C 132: 41 & 63). It is interesting that the only prerequisite that is mentioned for the man is that he must desire another wife: “-if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another…”(v. 61). It doesn’t say that the man must get a specific revelation from the living prophet, although many Mormons assume today that this is what was meant.
D&C 132 is unequivocal on the point that polygamy is permitted only “to multiply and replenish the earth” and “bear the souls of men”. This would be consistent with the Book of Mormon prohibition on marriage except in the case where God commands it to “raise up seed” (Jacob 2:30).
How polygamy was actually practiced by Joseph Smith:
-Joseph married 11 women who were already married. Multiple husbands = Polyandry.
-These married women continued to live as husband and wife with their prior husband after marrying Joseph Smith. Joseph’s polygamy also included:
* Unions with teenagers as young as 14.
* Unions without the knowledge or consent of Emma.
* Unions without the knowledge or consent of the husband, in cases of polyandry.
* A union with an apostle’s wife while he was on a mission (Marinda Hyde).
* A union with a newlywed and pregnant woman (Zina Huntingon).
* Promises of salvation for the woman’s (or girl’s) entire family.
* Threats that Joseph would be slain by an angel with a drawn sword if they didn’t enter into the union (Huntington, Almera Woodard Johnson, Mary Lightner).
* Threats of loss of salvation if the woman didn’t agree to the union with Joseph Smith.
* Dishonesty in public sermons and written statements by Joseph Smith.
* Marriages to young women living in Joseph’s home as foster daughters (Lawrence sisters, Partridge sisters, Fanny Alger, Lucy Walker).
D&C 132:63 very clearly states that the only purpose of polygamy is to “multiply and replenish the earth” and “bear the souls of men”. Why did Joseph marry women who were already married? These women were obviously not virgins, which violated D&C 132. Zina Huntington had been married seven months and was pregnant with her first husband’s baby at the time she married Joseph; clearly she didn’t need any more help to “bear the souls of men”.
If God commands polygamy in situations where a high birth rate is necessary, why is there no mention of God commanding Adam or Noah to have many wives?
Also, verse 63 states that if the new wives are with another man after the polygamous marriage, they will be destroyed. Eleven of Joseph’s wives lived with their prior husbands after marrying Joseph Smith. Most of them lived on to old age. Why weren’t they “destroyed”?
How about the consent of the first wife, which receives so much attention in D&C 132? Emma was unaware of most of Joseph’s plural marriages, at least until after the fact, which violated D&C 132.
+1
It would also be great to hear Hales expound upon some of the scenarios/relationships mentioned in Jeremy’s post (historical accuracy/validity, etc).
You tie a beautiful noose, Jeremy. Or should I be complimenting the writer of Section 132?
+1
Jeremy,
History has shown that polygamy usually slows down the birthrate, the more wives a man has the less children each wife usually has.
Monogamy is the fastest way to raise up a righteous strong people.
That’s why Joseph Smith and Christ and the ancient Prophets taught that polygamy was a whoredom and an evil.
D&C 132 was something BY added many years after Joseph died and it proved itself false according to Joseph, for it is completely contrary to Christ & Joseph’s teachings and scriptures.
True prophets don’t lie, but false ones always do.
John,
Great to see a follow up.
I would really like any insight on the William Law and Emma Relationship, Palmer asserts that section 132 is related to taking William Law as her companion and Joseph/the Lords rebuke. In Palmer’s version it really makes the scripture have the appearance that it is just Joesph getting his way and a rather convenient revelation. This point specifically is a real sticking point in my personal journey. Any clarity around that specific topic from another thoughtful point of view would be outstanding!
I have been a loyal listener, although silent on the boards etc… but this specific issue is one that is worth making sure the question is addressed.
Side Note – Thanks for keeping Mormon stories going, huge loss if it did not, I look forward to every episode.
John:
I didn’t see anything in your FB post regarding Brian’s forthcoming set of books, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy. 3 volumes. $100.85. Published by Greg Kofford Books. We are having him in our store to speak and sign books on February 27. https://www.benchmarkbooks.com/evening-with-an-author-joseph-smiths-polygamy-hales-feb-27/
This will be the most detailed history published so far on the topic. If anyone listening to the podcast wants to read up on the subject this will be THE source.
What does Joseph’s polygamy teach us about God’s nature and character?
+1
If God believes in polygamy than he & Satan have the same doctrine, for Satan loves polygamy. Satan tries to get everyone to believe in it & live it, especially to believe that Joseph lived it.
But Joseph said he didn’t, and Brigham said he did, who you going to believe? A prophet of God who proved it by bring forth a whole book of scripture and preaching against such adultery & abuse as polygamy is?
Or are you going to believe in a man like Brigham Young who ran around after teenagers and believed that abusing women in the most vile ways was righteousness.
Lilli, my impression was that the point of this post was for us to present genuine and honest questions we wanted to see addressed in the interview and NOT for us to have you preach to us.
I would love to have these points addressed and not just hear the standard answer by historians that “Joseph lied and led the Church astray so that many didn’t believe in BY or Polygamy later on.”
I don’t know how anyone can read all of Christ’s, Joseph’s and the ancient prophet’s teachings against polygamy, and still believe men like BY and think he is righteous while teachings completely contrary to the scriptures, which is how Joseph said to spot false prophets and falsehoods.
This is what I would like to hear addressed. How he could ever believe Joseph or any true prophet could lived polygamy and treat his wife that way. Would this author really treat his wife that way? Or want his daughter treated like BY treated his wives? Would he really want such a abusive life for his wife & daughters? Does he really believe in a God who would?
Here are a few questions that did not get asked by Sarah Collett:
1. What do you make of President Hinckley’s belief that polygamy isn’t doctrinal, as stated on Larry King Live? Does his opinion as stated have hidden nuance, was he speaking as a man, or was he being prophetic given that polygamy has in many ways proved to be a train-wreck?
2. How does Brian reconcile President Hinckley’s thought with the teachings of earlier prophets that polygamy is essential to exaltation?
3. Any thoughts about William Law and the contents of the Nauvoo Expositor? After reading the Nauvoo Expositor, it seems to me that William Law was simply telling the truth as he saw it, but he has been vilified ever since.
4. John Taylor’s alleged 1886 revelation: Did it really happen, and what are the ramifications?
5. Should the LDS Church and people be doing more to help contemporary FLDS people who are presently very vulnerable and more open to assistance?
Thank you John. This is a very important interview, and Brian has done a great service to the Church with his truth-seeking.
Fanny Alger: Dirty, nasty, filthy affair? or divinely sanctioned dirty, nasty, filthy affair?
If the motivation wasn’t sexual, why all the lies and subterfuge?
Subsequent Church leaders taught that polygamy was the only way to ensure sexual morality. This would suggest that, at least in their eyes, there was a sexual motivation to practicing polygamy. Is it likely that Joseph Smith’s intentions were so very different?
Why was the marriage records of 14 yo brides at familysearch.org just updated to make them look older?
How can you reconcile polyandry, especially to wives of faithful LDS on missions?
How can honest, god-fearing men, who have an article of faith and scripture references that demand obeying the laws of the land…go on practicing polygamy when it was declared illegal?
Please comment on JS having sex with his multiple brides. For example Helen Mar Kimball?
If the purpose of polygamy was for many children to be brought up in LDS homes (have the gospel), why didn’t Joseph make this the primary focus of his polygomous relationships?
If something is of God, why would a prophet need to deny it, hide it, run around to brides in secrecy, etc?
How do you reconcile these scriptures with D&C 132 and the behaviors of the Prophets?
Jacob 2:24
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
“Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.” (History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 247)
Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; for I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things (Jacob 2:27-30).
Leviticus 18:18 (NKJV)
18 Nor shall you take a woman as a rival to her sister, to uncover her nakedness while the other is alive.
1 Timothy 3:2 (NKJV)
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;
Titus 1:6 (NKJV)
6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination.
Genesis 2:24 (NKJV)
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
The answer is that Joseph Smith, didn’t lie, he really meant that polygamy was an adulterous abusive whoredom in every case in history.
No one can contradict the BoM, which does not say that polygamy is ok in certain circumstances in Jacob 2:30, that was the interpretation of the the utah polygamists, it wasn’t the way Joseph Smith interpreted it, which was that unless God commands his people to keep his commandments, then they will always hearken unto whoredoms like polygamy, like we have seen is true these last 6000 years.
When doing work for our dead, we are able to seal women to multiple men. Do you foresee a time when in mortality women may also forego the arduous process of getting approval for a temple divorce and be able to be sealed to a second spouse of their choosing?
What does he make of Oliver Cowdery’s assertion that the Fanny Alger thing was a “dirty, nasty, filthy affair”?
Why is there such a big difference in how Joseph Smith practiced polygamy/polyandry and how Brigham Young and later Mormon leaders practiced it?
Has there ever been an explanation for why they practiced it so drastically differently?
How do you think the church should deal with this issue publicly going forward, particularly when it comes to Joseph Smith’s polyandry? Would it be better for church lesson manuals to explain it openly and clearly, and deal with the difficult questions that naturally arise around it, or is it better to ignore or minimize the issue in church history manuals — something many people see as misleading or dishonest?
I’m curious what is Brian’s take on the possible July 1831 revelation recounted by W.W. Phelps to Brigham Young. The letter is an account of a supposed revelation that the Elders of the Church “should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome, and Just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles.” The Elders being a part of the Lamanite Mission.
I realize that Phelps’ recollection is 30 years after the fact and made in the context of polygamy in Utah, and therefore shouldn’t be mistaken as an exact rendition a possible 1831 revelation. However, that doesn’t mean that such a revelation could not have taken place. Ezra Booth mentioned a similar revelation in an December 1831 letter to the Ohio Star, stating that: …it has been made known by revelation, that it will be pleasing to the Lord, should they form a matrimonial alliance with the natives; and by this means the Elders, who comply with the thing so pleasing to the Lord, and for which the Lord has promised to bless those who do it abundantly, gain a residence in the Indian territory, independent of the agent…” (Mormonism Unveiled: 220). Others, including Lyman Johnson, Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, and Mosiah Hancock, later recalled also learning of the doctrine from Joseph Smith in 1831 and 1832. Booth and Phelps recollections wouldn’t seem to be as legitimate if it wasn’t for the fact that not only are their multiple accounts of Joseph Smith’s teaching secretly teaching the doctrine as early as 1831 but the same time period also coincides with his translation of Genesis, which is often credited with spurring his curiosity in the patriarchs’ polygamy (something heavily emphasized in D&C 132).
Even Joseph F. Smith and FAIR concedes “that plural marriage was known by Joseph by early 1831. The Prophet was probably teaching the idea to a limited circle by the end of that year.” https://en.fairmormon.org/Polygamy_book/Initiation_of_the_practice
So what does Brian make of Phelp’s account of the 1831 revelation? Could it be legitimate? If so, what are the implications for the apologetic argument that becoming “white and delightsome” has nothing to do with race?
When did the idea that polygamy was to take care of widows and single women become popular, and what were the roots of the idea?
Well widows would violate section 132’s stipulation that the union be with a virgin. As for single women, polygamy and/or monogamy would “take care of single women” since one typically marries a single woman. Or did you mean “otherwise un-marriageable” single women?
1) Beyond what the record states, what are Brian Hales’ personal feelings on the issue? I seem to recall Terryl Givens essentially dismissing polygamy in a MS podcast, as have other more prominent believers. Can one accept polygamous practices and doctrine as purely a creation of Joseph, yet still be a TBM? If you can accept the gospel, but not polygamy or elements of Joseph Smith, where do you draw the line on other controversial issues?
2) Considering the number of people who take issue with Mormon polygamy and struggle with their testimonies as a result, does Hales (and perhaps the brethren) sympathize with those who lose their faith? Does he understand why this is such a big issue for a lot of people? Putting faith aside, are his arguments supporting revealed polygamy as strong as the “evidence” against the practice?
+1
I’d love to hear his thoughts on William Marks’ claim and/or the Cochranite theories…
Could he express his views on the women being coerced into polygamy through intimidation? I’m interested to hear more about the angel with a sword story that would smite Joseph if he didn’t marry them. Is this a legitimate story?
As legitimate as the journal entries the stories were taken from. It is of course possible that the person writing the journal remembered something wrong, or made it up, but to that degree, all of human history would be “suspect”. One such story came from the journal of Zina Huntington Jacobs.
“[Joseph] sent word to me by my brother, saying, ‘Tell Zina, I put it off and put it off till an angel with a drawn sword stood by me and told me if I did not establish that principle upon the earth I would lose my position and my life’”
No, Joseph taught how to tell a bad angel from a good one, for bad angels will come preaching or demanding things contrary to the scriptures or previous revelation, like polygamy was.
So that story proves itself false and something someone just made up to justify their polygamy. For Joseph would never have fallen for such an obvious falsehood from an angel, and a righteous man, let alone a true prophet, would have refused to abuse his wife by such a thing as polygamy.
Righteous men don’t fall for polygamy, they know that it’s against Christ’s teachings and especially his Golden Rule,which is the basis for all the laws & commandments of God.
What man would want the reverse done to him, and him sit home alone every night with the kids, hardly ever seeing his wife cause she is with her many other husbands, while he stays completely faithful and alone and raises the kids & does all the chores by himself. I have never known a man who would want or even be willing to do such.
If polygamy was of god, why all the lying, secrecy, and deception? Joseph’s denial wasn’t just a one-time event. It was a pattern of deceptive behavior that spanned at least 9 years of his life
“Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.” (D&C, 1835 edition Section 101:4)
Joseph Smith was already involved with polygamy when above D&C section was public.
Joseph denied being a polygamist his entire life. In fact, he made the following statement just a month before his death:
“…What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers.” (History of the Church, vol 6, p. 411)
Joseph Smith made this statement preaching from the stand to the Latter-day Saints in Nauvoo on Sunday May 26, 1844. At the time he had secretly taken dozens of wives.
Church-owned Familysearch.org clearly shows that Joseph was a polygamist. Yet, the above statement in LDS History of the Church shows Joseph Smith saying he never was a polygamist. Is the church lying about Joseph or did Joseph lie about his actions? What does that say about the church? What does this say about Joseph?
Shocker – He told the truth. Why is that so hard for people to believe. Why do people believe vile & gross hearsay, things they wouldn’t do themselves to their wife, let alone want done to their daughters, yet they believe a prophet would do such, instead of believe his pure & published repeated testimony that he never preached or practiced polygamy?
Probably because most men want polygamy to be ok with God and so they easily fall for it, thinking that prophets of God would do such things to their wife and thus they can do it too.
I would like Hales to answer the following:
Doctrine and Covenants 132 gives specific parameters for when plural marriage is acceptable to the Lord:
*The consent of the previous wife must be sought
*The plural wives must be virgins
*The plural wives must be vowed to no one else
*A man’s plural wives “are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth”
D&C 132:61-63
The Book of Mormon also specifies that the purpose of plural marriage is to raise up a seed to the Lord (i.e., have a lot of kids). Jacob 2:30
In practicing plural marriage, Joseph Smith:
*Frequently did not seek Emma’s consent/hid his plural marriages from Emma
*On January 17, 1842, married Mary Elizabeth Rollins, who was several months pregnant (obviously not a virgin)
*Entered polyandrous marriages with the wives of other men
*Had no known children with his plural wives
Joseph Smith continuously violated the requirements for plural marriage that the Lord revealed in D&C 132. We also learn from the Doctrine and Covenants that the powers of the priesthood can only be exercised in righteousness.
34 Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?
35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—
36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
D&C 121
Brian Hales: how do you reconcile the claim that Joseph Smith continued to be a prophet until his death with his violating the commandments about plural marriage, which would have caused the Spirit of the Lord to withdraw from him and his priesthood authority to cease?
Credit Darth J at: https://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=357915#p357915
I think that for most Mormons, the idea of polygamy is not a particularly troubling one. Even polyandry can be logically justified to a certain extent in most Mormon’s minds. What is most troubling to the average Mormon is the secrecy, the spiritual coercion (“do this or you’ll rot in hell”) and the outright dishonesty that surrounded the practice. Please ask Brother Hales for his opinion as to the reasons for the secrecy, the coercion, and the dishonesty.
And may I add a second question as well? This is a question I really like to ask to believers who are well-informed about the issues that often lead to disaffection among formerly devout Mormons. The question is this: Do you believe it is possible for an honest truth-seeker to legitimately come to the conclusion that the Church is not “true,” or do you believe that ALL honest truth-seekers will be blessed by the Spirit of revelation to the convincing of their minds and hearts?
Thanks.
I particularly like the framing of the questions in the first paragraph, Quincy.
Wasn’t polygamy illegal in every state where Joseph Smith practiced it?
The old D&C section 103 condemned polygamy. Some say that it was included against Joseph’s wishes. If this is true, why did Joseph use it to deny that polygamy was practiced in Nauvoo? Why did he publish a denouncement of polygamy including an endorsement including many of his plural wives stating that polygamy was not practiced in Nauvoo? Wasn’t this a lie and something a spokesman for God would assiduously avoid?
Joseph was outraged by the the Expositor’s charges enough to order the press illegally destroyed. Wasn’t the Expositor’s accusations essentially substantiated through the efforts of Brigham Young’s administration in defending polygamy?
Why if plural marriage is from God is there so much malfeasance and dishonesty associated with it?
Because truth is stranger & less believed than fiction.
Joseph didn’t lie, he always told the truth, and the scriptures he allowed in the D&C was exactly how he believed and preached.
It was BY who took out those scriptures and put in contrary doctrine to what Joseph taught, so that BY’s polygamy would look justified.
The truth is so easy to see if you are willing to.
In Hales 2009 “pre-Nauvoo JS reputation” article, he concedes that he believes that Fanny Alger was Joseph Smith’s first plural wife. Personally, this really affected my belief in Joseph’s prophetic mantel. I’m curious to know when Hales discovered this and how it affected him. I’m always disgusted by apologists who say that such discoveries didn’t affect their faith, or at least view of, JS is some way. Secondly, does he feel that the Church has an obligation to be more forthcoming with Joseph’s involvement with Alger to members of the Church? I would be willing to bet that 90%+ of active members today have no clue who Fanny Alger is. Many also have no idea on the number of women that JS actually married (at least 33, perhaps as many as 48).
How much of the evidence regarding polyandry is contemporary to Joseph’s life time.
Why should be believe any of the affidavits of the women claiming to be Joseph’s wives decades later when it was a member of the 1st presidency (Joseph F Smith) showing up on their doorstep asking for testimony. During a time that anthropologist Daymon Smith argues that it was both encouraged and a duty to throw off the enemies of the church through lying and subterfuge.
How the hell are we supposed to believe any of the testimony, for or against, when all lied through their teeth about it at some point.
We know Brigham tweeks the history of Nauvoo and leaves out Joseph’s campaigns against polygamy. It’s Joseph sermons against plural marriage that cause the women having sex with Bennett/Higbee and others to come clean and repent to their leaders which is how Joseph learns about it, then ordains a General Bishop (George Miller) to investigate it and ultimately exposes it.
Why would Joseph expose Bennett, if Joseph was balls deep in it and behind all the spiritual wivery in the first place.
Bennett and Law didn’t publish lists when they were supposed to be in the know. The closest thing to a list that I could find that is contemporary by his detractors is an innuendo in a Feb 1844 poem in the Warsaw newspaper by Wilson Law where he likens Joe’s snare has caught Snow~birds , Knight~engales and Partridges. Which is the only short list of wives until decades later.
How is it that the ones in his day that accused and fought Joseph about it, knew the least when lists are published decades later. Even William Laws 1887 interview by the Salt Lake newspaper only has him bring up the Lawrence sisters. You’d think he’d have more names to drop than that?
Here are some, I’m sure I can think of more
To what extent did the spiritual wifery ideas prevalent in new England restorationist societies influence Mormon Polygamy ?
I would like to know why garments were introduced as part of the secrecy of polygamy, why they were intertwined with masonry and why we wear them today when we no longer endorse polygamy. If your guest is like most church people, he will dodge the question and just say to wear them. I just don’t buy into that part of it anymore. Either they are a relic of polygamy or they aren’t.
Jacob, this is a very interesting point that I had not thought of previously, thanks for pointing out, something to put on my study list.
I firmly believe BY made up the temple and it is all bunk and completely contrary to what Joseph wanted the temple used for, which was more like chapels today, for sunday service, for all ages & even non-members, etc.
I don’t believe Joseph had anything to do with what is said & done in temples today, except for baptism for the dead.
My question, which might seem impertinent but is entirely sincere, is why historians feel it to be necessary to minimize the weaknesses and flaws of the Prophet Joseph, when Biblical precedents demonstrate quite clearly that God is able to work with deeply flawed human beings to bring about His purposes. The whitewashing of Joseph Smith’s life stands in stark contrast with these Biblical examples, and may frustrate accurate historical understanding. This whitewashing of the sins he confessed on more than one occasion to have committed is evident in the Joseph Smith History, where his own words regarding his failings were later edited to mitigate their apparent seriousness.
Joseph Smith said, “I don’t want you to think I am very righteous, for I am not very righteous.” Why should faithful historians contribute to the idolatry of the saints by ensuring that he appear as righteous as possible?
QUESTION – How can polyandry be justified when D&C 132:61-62 plainly states that other wives must be VIRGINS!
QUESTION – If the purpose of polygamy was to “raise up seed” unto the Lord, (Jacob 2:30), how come there are no children of record born to Joseph Smith from all of his 34? polygamous wives?
QUESTION – The BoM strongly teaches that David and Solomon’s plural wives and concubines were an abomination to the Lord. Doesn’t D&C 132:39 contradict this? (“…and in NONE of these things did he sin against me, save in the case of Uriah and his wife…)
What did the term friggen mean? Quinn mentions this in his paper responding to hales at the MHA meeting
Friggen was used by B.Y. but I don’t have the quote on me. It is in Turner’s biography. B.Y. was very clearly using as a course way of referring to the sex act.
Why did JS promise exaltation to the Kimball family if Helen Mar married him.
Why did JS smear the reputation of Nancy Rigdon and others who refused his proposals?
Really what was the reason for polyandry especially when some of these woman had active temple worthy husbands.
Why did the 19th century church leaders fight tooth and nail to keep plural marriage alive, make statements about how it would never be done away with and that the church would be in apostasy if it did only to capitulate to the US government for statehood. Looks like the US government was more powerful than God and his church.
Another one:
If D&C 132 says plural marriage is to raise up seed did JS fail to follow the purpose of this? Many apologists seem to want to down play these marriages as not being sexual but it seems that sex is an explicit command in order to make babies.
How does one justify Fanny Alger as a wife when the sealing power did not come until 1835.
I’d be interested in his answers to the following line of questions:
1- According to the revelation now known as D&C 132, what are the specific conditions under which polygamy is allowed?
2- How many plural wives did Joseph Smith have?
3- How many of Joseph Smith’s plural marriages met all of the conditions stipulated by D&C 132? Which ones?
For me the most troubling allegations against Joseph Smith include instances when he may have sought to marry the wife of another man without his knowledge. For example, there is evidence he married Orson Pratt’s wife while he was away traveling. When Orson returned he was devastated. Is this story true? If so, does God approve of Joseph’s action or was he acting as an uninspired man?
Tyson, interesting side note, Orson later took on multiple wives, and later on in life divorced his first wife. Was JS at least part at fault for this failed marriage?
Hales mentions that many allegations didn’t come out until many years later suggesting that they can not be taken as reliable. Here is one example: “As a second difficulty with Bond’s allegations, it seems unlikely that such an event, which occurred semi-publicly and involved at least twelve notable members of the community, had remained unmentioned for more than fifty years.”
However in the twenty documents he lists that refer to Joseph Smith’s relationship with Fanny Alger there is no mention of it having anything to do with a sealing for around 40 years. Seems like he’s using a double standard or cherry picking for truth.
Why was it so important for JS to have Helen Mar Kimball as his wife? why was he willing to offer the CK to her and her family in exchange for marriage? As explain by her diaries (or a letter, i cant remember) Helen believed this was to be a marriage on paper only and not a sexual union except, to her dismay, it was a sexual union. Why would JS have a sexual union with a child that was under the impression no sex would occur? Did he coerce her into sex? did he rape her? Were these the actions of man called and sustained by God?
This is in regards to polygamy more generally as practiced by others. Under what moral system is it okay for a man with an extreme amount of authority (e.g. prophet, seer and revelator), who is in his later years (e.g. Lorenzo Snow, 57 years old) to marry a 14-16 year old. Does this resonate with how he understands God’s morality? Does this seem consistent with any new testament teachings? From the outside, how does this look any different from what the FLDS do?
No, polygamy in any form is completely contrary to the Gospel and teachings of Jesus Christ and the New Testament, Book of Mormon and the original D&C that Joseph published.
As Joseph taught, no man or prophet in history has ever been nor ever will be authorized by God to live polygamy in any form. It is completely contrary to God’s eternal plan of monogamy.
According to Joseph Smith and ancient prophets, Satan is the author of all polygamy, and he is trying to get everyone to believe Joseph Smith lived it, and to believe that Joseph Smith lied his whole life when he said he didn’t.
Is polygamy required to achieve exaltation?
Brian gives his views on the subject at: https://www.mormonfundamentalism.com/NEWFILES/IsPMRequiredToday.htm
No, Joseph taught that if anyone falls for polygamy they will be damned, even prophets.
In June, 1841, Joseph had been appointed guardian for Maria and Sarah Lawrence and trustee for their estate. In 1842 both girls began living with Joseph and Emma in their home. In May 1843 Joseph took both sisters as his plural wives. Joseph was their husband, guardian, prophet, mayor, and trustee of the family estate.
Modern ethics suggest that relationships between someone in a position of authority, like a foster parent, and a teenager are improper due to the undue influence the adult may have. Would this have been viewed differently with a 19th century morality?
I didn’t know about the Lawrence Sisters before! He was 38 and they were his teenage foster daughters.
One or two more questions: 1. how does he deal with the changing of the d&c on the issue of polygamy. Initially it was in accord with the BOM (1 man for 1 woman) and later changed to what we have now. Especially considering that prior to Josephs death he stated, that “I never told you I was perfect but there was no error in the revelations”??? Bushman refers to the fact that Joseph had no problem changing the written revelations to reflect more accurately how he recieved them. However in this case such a complete change seems….. well it is difficult to understand and I really want to know how a faithful man comes to terms with that. And 2. how does he reconcile Josephs public statements such as the one where he said that he was accused of having multiple wives but he could only see one???frankly that was a lie and once again I am interested to see a faithful perspective.
From another post:
Wow. After listening to this and assuming Brian’s research is true, I’ve come to 3 conclusions:
1) Joseph committed adultery. How can you argue against this? Sealing or no sealing to Fanny, it was NOT a legal marriage, he was already married to Emma, AND Emma did NOT know about it. That is ADULTERY. There is no way around it. And even in the absence of sealing and sex, he still had a relationship with someone else behind Emma’s back. Ouch. What if our current Prophet did that today? Ouch.
2. Joseph broke the law. No way around it.
3. Joseph lied about it. No way around it.
Whilst I appreciate the great detail Brian has put into his research, I just can’t see how this information can strengthen the average member’s testimony Joseph Smith, or even assuage his or her concerns about the behavior and the practice. It’s everything but comforting.
And my last question: Why restore an old testament practice? That doesn’t coincide with everything I was taught growing up…that Christ’s atonement did away with old testament practices (ie Law of Moses).
Possibilities :)
1. Section 132 starts off annulling all unions, expectations associations etc done by man. Legal or not God is saying I do not recognize them. So technically Fanny would be Joseph’s first real wife recognized by God since Joseph and Emma were married before he received any claim to priesthood or authority.
The idea some have had that Joseph didn’t have the sealing power for Fanny to be a legit is also bad history. This stems from the account that Joseph was given the Melch. Priesthood by Peter James and John. I think Greg Prince shows that this cannot be the case since the term was not used until the latter half of the 1830’s. So what did the P,J&J confer? Well the accounts state that they were given the apostleship. That’s much different. Joseph is constantly saying that the apostleship holds all the keys ever given to men, which would include the sealing power. The apostleship was given to the 3 witnesses who then ordain the original 12. The apostleship was also given to the seventies clear up until B.H Roberts, who in secret went around re-ordaining people correctly after the priesthood conferral was changed in 1921. Joseph is also performing marriages as early as 1834 and using terminology to imply that these unions would be eternal. He had the sealing power technically to do it. D&C 2 says that Elijah would reveal the priesthood. So the Melch. Preisthood was something that Joseph learned that he had through a messenger that was already given to him. He did not need to be ordained to it, it came with the apostleship.
2. Breaking the law – D&C 98:4 – And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.
God’s free pass at rebellion, which is really the fundation of his treason charges. He was building a kingdom within the bounds of the US. I think God is saying it doesn’t matter what the law of the land is, if I command… you do it. This church was charged with building Zion, we been a complete failure at that.
The obeying the laws of the land ideas starts in the AoF and was adopted by the church 1890 right before the manifesto was presented. The legal wife lingo in the temple was a product of the churches battle with Polygamists in the early 20th century, it is not the original verbiage of the endowment.
3. Joseph lied, he sure did. Anyone who is honest would admit this.
4. Why restore old testament practices? Joseph’s interpretations of Paul was that we were to be the dispensation of the fullness of times. Meaning the truths, practices and covenants of old dispensations would be restored and renewed again in this dispensation.
On a side note Daniel 7 talks about a beast that would wear out the saints of the most high, that power would not be restored to them until the ancient of days came and gave it back. This beast thought to change their TIMES and their LAWS. That is quite significant if you are to be the dispensation of the fulness of TIMES if forced to change the TIMES then you are no longer claim to have a fulness.
So one possible interpretation of that is, the US wore out the Mormons, submitted them and the church and caused them to change the TIMES of Abraham, Moses, Enoch etc and give up the LAWS of Plural Marriage, Literal Gathering of Israel, Consecration. Which would probably answer any questions to why Wilford Woodruff received a revelation in Dec 1889 from God telling him roughly, You are in bondage and I will free you in mine own due time. In Bondage to what or whom. The US government and it’s acts that forced the saints into submission. The intent of WW’s revelation was to get an answer as to those who entered into plural marriage. Should they abandon it and break their covenants. The Lord’s response was they should live it and he will hold them to their covenants even though it is illegal.
Power would not be given back to them until the Ancient of Days shows up. Well a quick research into the Ancient of Days and Joseph’s teachings regarding his appearance in Daniel 7, tells us this hasn’t happened, it’s a future event or priesthood meeting at Adam-ondi-ahmen.
So this big mess the church is in right now could possibly be right where we’re supposed to be :) and since we can’t do a thing about it, just do the best you can with what light you’ve been given :)
John,
The only way I can see to rationalize polygamy/polyandry is the following:
Joseph Smith was human and flawed like every man that has ever lived on this earth. He desired to have multiple lives for whatever reason (power, control, lust, to help others attain salvation through their relationship to him, to teach patience and long suffering, to show a willingness to submit to all things). God tolerated/allowed him to do this, maybe figuring he would learn on his own it was not a good idea (just as he allowed Joseph to learn the hard way about loaning out the 116 page manuscript of the Book of Mormon).
Because Joseph taught polygamy, this error continued down through future generations. God tolerated its practice just as he did in Old Testament times allowing those members to learn for themselves THE HARD WAY. Finally when the government was ready to seize possession of all of the churches property, and the church as an organization was going to cease to exist, did God finally step in and say, “enough” this practice must now stop.
As for statements by past prophets that it polygamy required to enter the Celestial Kingdom and become a God…
Well those prophets were not speaking prophetically when they said it, rather it was their own personal opinion.
That is the only HONEST answer your guest can give, anything else is just APOLOGETIC SPIN/DAMAGE CONTROL!!!
It amazes me the great lengths people will go to excuse Joseph Smiths faults and errors. Rational people that would never make up excuses or try to justify things if anyone else had said or done them must put a spin on them to make sense of it all and keep believing.
John and James, there has got to be a tipping point, when is the man too flawed. It’s the crux of the discussion. I think that’s the point that John makes on if Monson where to take an additional wife, what if Monson decided to have a glass of wine with dinner. Even as a Prophet being a flawed man there has got to be a tipping point. This coming from a fairly active albeit not TBM.
So the new question that sparks is there anything that can’t be rationalized,
What could have happened that Hale would not see as being explainable and rational?
To quote a previous young men’s leader, I can justify and rationalize my self straight to hell for my own sins. He Breaks the law, commits adultery and lied about it, and we can rationalize that through revelation, and historical data missing etc… What if he killed a husband to get to the wife, maybe BOM story of Laban can rationalize, what about full on rape. What’s the tipping point or can everything be rationalized under the guise that he is flawed or that God commanded. My thoughts in that case go to David Karesh, Warren Jeffs, even Manson.
Did JS have sex with 16 year old Fanny Alger in that barn or any other situation? Was Emma aware of “plural marriage” prior to JS beginning to have sex and be married to other women? What else matters?
Why would God find it so incredibly important to “restore” polygamy at that very time and place when the church was still young and weak? And why would God want it kept a secret from everyone except JS for so long? Why would God not want to help Emma understand BEFORE it all started? Why not give her a head’s up that this is coming and that she should try to be faithful? Or is it possible JS was supposed to tell her, but did not?
How does Brian Hales reconcile with polygamy himself? What does Hales believe it truly means? Is it justified? Is it possible that polygamy was simply an honest (and gigantic) mistake of a man trying to build a religion as a continuation of the Christian scriptures he (JS) was exposed to? Is there room in Hales’ opinion to call one’s self a Latter-Day Saint if they were to believe polygamy was nothing more than the product of misinterpretation and a falsely justified manifestation of hidden desires?
IF Hales believes polygamy was false (deceptive, misleading, covering up…), then what is his reasoning for validating past LDS leadership and faith as a whole (trust/ethics issues, etc)? IF Hales believes polygamy is a true doctrine of God, then what does he make of the immediate negative moral and ethical feeling towards the idea of polygamy that most of humanity/society experiences? Should we just accept it as truth, regardless of its moral/logistical failings just because God says it’s cool?
How innocent does Hales feel the proponents and practitioners of polygamy are? There is no doubt that some men lived this lifestyle partly to get away with something (like a holy “get out of jail, free card”). How common does Hales think this was the case? And, when this was the case, what does it say about those men: were they displaying a less morally fortified character, or simply displaying more honesty?
Question – Why has there never been any mention of Joseph Smith’s polygamous/polyandrous wives in LDS lesson manuals, resulting in so many members being shocked when they find out?
Question – If polygamy was a direct commandment from God, essential for Exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom, why is this doctrine not taught openly, both to members and investigators?
Did early church leaders ever attempt to reconcile the doctrine of polygamy with Jacob 2:27-33? How do apologists reconcile the doctrine? (I would argue that even if it is to raise up a seed, polygamy—and the very idea of it—causes sorrow and mourning.)
Does Hales believe that JS took advantage of the “law of polygamy” even once to satisfy his sexual desires? If so, is that a greater sin than it is to be offended, as I am, by the thought that a supposed prophet would satisfy himself in that way? Am I in greater sin because I was offended by that and chose to find another faith that preaches basic christian values and live an honest and upright life outside of Mormonism?
Will polygamy be instituted again before the 2nd coming? During the second coming? If so, will it start in secret again? Will lying for the Lord be justified again as it was in the past in order to fulfill the Lord’s commandment?
If Thomas S Monson were taking additional wives as well as general authorities’ wives, and this came out to the general public, what would be a justified response of a faithful latter day saint? Of those not of the Mormon faith?
Will polygamy be part of the next life for the faithful?
Here is my question:
How does Brian reconcile Joseph’s plural marriages, which were in violation of IL’s bigamy law, with D&C 58:21?
“D&C 58:21
Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.”
Thanks
Which of the justifications you’re about to use to excuse Joseph’s polygamy *CAN’T* simultaneously be used to excuse Warren Jeffs’ polygamy?
If having many children was supposed to be one of the justifications for polygamy, why weren’t there more children to justify all of the plural wives?
I would love to know if any analysis has been done to test the merits of Jacob 2:30 with regards to polygamy. If it was instituted in order to raise a seed, do we have a fair measurement of incremental population growth among the saints from 1830-1900 specifically due to the practice?
To get a true measure, one might have to subtract those who left the faith due to polygamy that might have otherwise stayed, which might be impossible to do. But at least the incremental population growth would be something to consider, if polygamy was about growing the LDS population quickly.
A question I have is:
How do you reconcile Joseph Smith’s polyandry when it contridicts The Law of the Priesthood in D&C 132?
Just listened to the ATF interview, and something struck me in what Brian said there. He was stating that Polygamy must have been God’s will, because the only other option would be that it was motivated by sex. Are those the only two options? Couldn’t it be that Joseph’s desire was to restore all things, and he felt this was part of this process? Not God’s will, and not only motivated by having sexual relations with lots of people???
1. How prevalent was polygamy actually in early Utah history?
2. Did the early LDS Church have a phenomenon similar to the “lost boys” that the modern FLDS have? And are the FLDS even a good case study for early Mormon polygamy?
3. What evidence do we have of sexual consummation in Joseph Smith’s marriages? How many of the marriages involved sex, and how many of them seem to have not involved it?
4. Were polygamous unions any more abusive than monogamous ones historically?
5. What was Joseph Smith’s relationship with the husbands of the few married women he was sealed to – before and after the sealing ordinance?
6. Did Joseph Smith show any indication of taking the doctrine of “New and Everlasting Covenant” (i.e. plural marriage) any further than he already had right before his death? I mean – did he show signs of even more radical social experimentation than what he had already done by introducing polygyny?
7. Related to #6 – Is there any indication that Joseph intended to take polyandry any further than he did personally? Do you think that if Joseph had survived longer, polyandry might have become more widespread and accepted?
Here is one more:
Being “sealed” to somebody implies a deep spiritual connection. Given those eternal implications, which betrayal is worse–having sex with another woman behind your wife’s back, or getting sealed to another woman behind your wife’s back?
JOHN Dehlin: Many have mentioned the Sealing Power not in effect before 1836. Please respectfully press this question until a cogent answer is obtained. This to me is the biggest issue. I have never heard a reasonable answer yet and I would love to get my head around this one.
Marc – What’s the exact question you want asked?
Apologists will say JS got the sealing power from Peter, James, and John as part of the greater priesthood. Too bad JS didn’t remember the date this amazing event occurred, and only went public with it when BOM witnesses and others were leaving the church and he was losing credibility. How convenient!!!
I just listened to the “A Thoughtful Faith” podcast. A few questions:
Why no addressing of Joseph’s introducing Masonic elements into the temple ceremony? Speculation is that this was done to commit people to secrecy regarding the practice of polygamy. Can you comment on this?
How can the incident with Fanny not be considered “adulterous”? Or at least enough of a “dishonest betrayal” to warrant church discipline?
If the Lord’s instructions around finding and translating the Book of Mormon were so detailed and prescriptive for Joseph, why do you think the Lord did not just say something to the effect of, “Ok Joseph, here’s another commandment, and here’s exactly how you need to carry it out so that you maintain your integrity and don’t betray your wife.”? Why do you think he was allowed to bungle so much of it, knowing that it would create such a stumbling block for so many people then and now?
Why does the LDS Church ex-communicate men and women who contritely and remorsefully confess infidelity, but we bend over backward to give Joseph a pass? Did he ever confess or express remorse for hurting and betraying Emma?
Why did he lie about it?
Why did he break the law?
If the theology of plural marriage is so fundamental to Mormonism, why never a meaningful discussion of section 132 in Sunday School, Gospel Doctrine, Seminary, or addressed in General Conference?
Why do you think are we (the church) not honest with the rest of the world/media and just say that we theologically believe in plural marriage, and that we still practice it in our sealing ordinances today?
Why is it left to people like you to answer our questions? Where are our leaders on this matter? Do you ever see them being more forthright about the theology?
Were the black men that Joseph ordained to the Priesthood allowed to take plural wives? Could their wives have been white if they wanted?
Many of my family members wholeheartedly believe that it was practiced because of lack of men at the time. This is obviously not true, but the myth has been perpetuated by church members. Do you see the church ever actively dispelling all of the false and unsubstantiated reasons as to why it was practiced?
Why no room to believe that JS was inspired and even a prophet, but was flawed and made terrible mistakes on this matter?
Last question: Could Joseph pass today’s temple recommend interview question, “are you honest in your dealings with others?”
Why would you ever think Joseph lied about polygamy? Just because others say he did? Is that any reason to not believe a Prophet of God? Why would you ever think a true prophet could or would lie his whole life and deceive all the members of the Church like that, let alone why would you believe in a man who would do such?
I believe Joseph did not lie. I don’t understand how anyone, let alone a historian, could believe Joseph lied, especially since he knows the truth of how strongly Joseph preached against polygamy and how to tell falsehoods & false prophets, (by contrary doctrines like polygamy).
Lilli,
Suppose your husband married another woman. You don’t know about this marriage. In your mind you’re still his one and only. Is his action considered deceit? A lie? What is it, exactly?
Garrett,
That would be deceit. But I’m sorry, I don’t see your point.
I don’t believe Joseph ever lived polygamy, and thus didn’t deceive or lie to Emma (or the Church).
For in order for a man to be a true prophet he must be a near perfect husband and not lie or deceive his wife, let alone abuse her by polygamy.
John, I hope that you will not go easy on him because of your new found activity in the church. There are hard questions that need to be asked. Here are a couple of mine:
1.). Will he admit that at least on one occasion the reason Joseph Smith was tarred and feathered was due to unwanted advances on woman, and a doctor was present to castrate him, but he was tarred and feathered instead. Church manually always bring up the tar and feathering, but conveniently leave out the WHY!
2.). Give me one example in the Bible where God COMMANDS SOMEONE to live polygamy and when did he say it was REQUIRED for salvation?
3.). Current splinter groups that practice polygamy are just living the teachings of JS and other prophets. What would he say to the statement that THEY ARE THE FRUITS OF HIS WORK.
4.). Why would God command him to live polygamy, keep it secret from his wife, lie in public, hide behind and old D&C section that said marriage is between one man and one woman, violate government laws, have him marry woman only to marry them a second time so he could let Emma in on the secret?
5. Why is the first instance of polygamy in the Bible in Genesis 14 performed by THE SEED OF CAIN? if it was of God, why wasn’t the righteous people of the time doing it?
6. Why does every instance of polygamy in the Bible end badly? Hagar got kicked to the curb and thrown out…how is this different than Fanny Alger and others getting thrown out too?
7. Why are there two official declarations ending polygamy? If they were not serious about ending it after the first declaration and kept sanctioning more marriages, can’t he see how some fundamentalists would ignore the second declaration and keep practicing too? If the brethren give us a declaration today do we follow it or wait for the second declaration?
8. Why didn’t the men who took all these wives take care of them financially? Does he acknowledge that they were not provided for in many cases?
9. Apostle Pratt was sent to Jerusalem to open up the mission field there, and JS married his wife. Pratt later took on other wives, but later in life divorced his first wife. Is JS partly responsible for this divorce?
10. Early missions, were they wife finding expeditions for the men?
I could keep going but will stop. I hope you ask the hard questions and do not let incorrect or misleading answers slide by (like there were more woman than men thus requiring polygamy, this is bogus!)
Does the polygamy of Warren Jeffs differ substantially from Joseph Smith’s? In other words, if Mr. Jeffs has the belief that God has called him to lead His church, has he really done anything worse than was done by Joseph Smith or Brigham Young? Asked another way, should Smith and Young have been imprisoned for their practices? If not, was Mr. Jeffs wrongfully imprisoned?
Why did js lie to emma about poly?
1)What was the situation with teen marriages in 1830-40’s frontier america? did it happen? was it legal to marry a 14 year old back then?
2)What does he know about William Law’s situation and how trustworthy are the stories that come from Law and from Bennett? in his opinion
Why does the church allow members in Sunday School to repeat the falsehood that polygamy was practiced in Utah because so many men were killed on the Pioneer Trail? Utah censuses from the time show near equal numbers of men and women. Furthermore as it relates to the Prophet Joseph…if the church acknowledges that polygamy was practiced under Joseph Smith (obvious due to Doctrine and Covenants 132 being canonized) then why do the brethren allow members to ‘shoot from the hip’ in their discussion and rationalization of the reasons for polygamy?
I’m sorry. I gave this question before seeing Dr. Shades’.
Can’t wait for this.
How did the secret practice effect the disbanding of the Relief Society, or did it not have any influence. It seems like JS was going to make the RS even more important, with possible priesthood power, but then after Emma began looking into polygamy claims among the sisters, the RS was disbanded.
I think the Church has done a serious disservice to its members by not being more forthcoming about the “true history” of the prophet Joseph Smith. I think the worst part for most members is the feeling of being ‘lied to’. I can tolerate and accept a prophet with faults, who is mortal and trying and stumbling while trying to live a commandment he’s been given. What is harder is what feels like a multigenerational effort to conceal the truth of the past, and origins of the Church as if members would be incapable of handling it. Can’t recall which living apostle said it but, “Things that are true are not always uplifting.” This seems the encapsulation of the party line when it comes to the hard and fast facts of Church history, the reality of which is conspicuously at odds with everything taught in Sunday school and seminary. I have heard though via Joanna Brooks that the Church is currently in the process of reorganizing its program and manuals in respect to teaching the youth about Church History so that they are not bombarded by it later on in their lives, usually on their missions, by strangers. I hope this is true, because its about time. That’s what I would talk about if I were interviewing him. The gap between the known history of Joseph Smith and the version the Church has endorsed for years that leaves out the more painful truths.
a few seconds ago · Edited · Like · 5
1)Ever since reading Compton’s “In Sacred Loneliness”, Anderson’s and Bergera’s “Quorum of the Anointed”, and Buerger’s “The Mysteries of Godliness” I have felt that there is an undeniable connection between the secretness of the Endowment Ceremony and polygamy. The reason being that the first to enter polygamy were also member of the Quorum of the Anointed. In my mind it seems that keeping a secret like the tokens and penalties of the Endowment showed that you could be trusted with a secret like polygamy. Any insight?
2)I’ve always been bothered by what appears to be spiritual coercion with regards to Joseph and polygamy. Examples: The angel with a drawn sword telling Joseph he must enter into polygamy (this one almost sounds ad-hoc); telling a young woman’s family that the family’s salvation depended upon the daughter entering into polygamy.
3)Does he hold to the same idea the Compton does of Joseph wanting to form dynastic relationships in the afterlife as the reason for polygamy?
4)What is the earliest textual evidence we have of Joseph thinking about polygamy?
5)Dr. Kathleen Flake once said (I am paraphrasing here) “If your want to have a lot of sex with women, there are easier ways to go about it than forming an entire theology around it.” Agree or disagree?
6)Of Joseph’s first 10 polygamous marriages, why were 7 of them polyandrous? What’s going on here?
7)Were these marriages actually seen as “legal” in the sight of the state of Illinois? If not, should we consider them as being marriages? Later on with Brigham, he seems to be duplicitous about it as he tried to get out of some financial obligations with an ex-wife by stating they were never legally married.
8)What is your overarching view of polygamy? Totally from God? The beginning was from God and then things got screwy? None of it from God?
I’d love to hear about his relationship with Michael Quinn or his general commentary on his latest interactions with Quinn. His research and subsequent interpretations had Quinn coming out of the woodwork to directly challenge his claims. Hales even responded to Quinn’s book-long article with one of his own. They were very detailed, tedious, and circumstantial looks at each polyandrous case. I’d also love to hear his thoughts about Don Bradley as they have become close friends. Don Bradley specifically did research for Hales on the subject of Joseph Smith polygamy and yet Bradley re-gained his faith despite all the troubling details.
Brian basically argues that when Joseph got married to a woman for time and eternity, this nullified her previous covenants, including any prior marriage/sealing to a previous husband. If someone came along and nullified my covenants with my wife, thereby preventing me from spending eternity with her, I would be pissed. Especially if they failed to inform me until after the fact, as in the case of Esther Dutcher. How is this anything other than selfish, domineering, sociopathic, and emotionally abusive behavior?
In the 1890 manifesto Wilford Woodruff states, “I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.” What is the best explanation for why the church abandoned the practice worldwide instead of just in the US? Why not allow church members not constrained by US (or other) laws to enjoy the blessings of plural marriages?
If the church allowed polygamy again in countries with no laws against it would he see it as a positive change or a negative change and why?
Edited post:
No doubt the most disturbing account with regard to the effects of Mormon polygamy is the account of one, Warren Snow, a Bishop of the Church at Manti, San Pete County, Utah. He had several wives, but also desired another “fair, buxom young woman”, although she was already betrothed to another young man whom she dearly loved. After failed attempts to persuade both the young woman and her fiancée to have her as another plural wife (and even after attempting to send the man off on a mission), the young man was severely beaten, tied with his back to a bench, after which the ‘Bishop’ took out his bowie knife and CASTRATED him! To exacerbate this event, when Brigham Young learned of this and apparently was angry about it, did nothing against Snow and still left him in charge as Bishop of Manti ordering the matter to be hushed up.
It was also J. H. Beadle, editor of Bill Hickman’s autobiography ‘Brigam’s Destroying Angel’ who claimed, “The eunuch is the natural result of a polygamous society, and already several such cases have occurred in Utah.” Further, in the days of Joseph Smith proper, a convert to the church (Benjamin Winchester) claims that Hyrum Smith told him, “…when I spoke to him about the numerical equality of the male and the female sexes he explained that that difficulty could in time be surmounted by making eunuchs of surplus men who should be “hewers of wood and drawers of water,” and that the church dignitaries and the more worthy brethren would be left the choice of plenty of women.”
All-in-all, it really doesn’t matter a rat’s rump to me whether anyone accepts these accounts as accurate and verifiable or not. What does matter is that our species (homo sapiens) is not like some other species in which only the ‘alpha’ male gets to breed with the numerous females in ‘his’ heard. In fact, the demographics of fecundity has always been an almost perfect ratio of 1:1 male to female births. If it was otherwise, i.e., way more females than males are naturally born, then polygamy might have some valid basis for its justification. But this is NOT the case; it’s 1:1. God, ‘mother nature’, the evolutionary (science) of the natural laws of procreation for our species, or whatever you want to attribute it to, denotes one man has (‘marries’) ONE wife, i.e., MONOGAMY! Any departure from this FACT will only result in deletrious and dysfunctional problematic situations. And this applies to ANY society or culture ANYWHERE in the world at ANY TIME throughout the history of humanity. Having said this rather adamantly, sure, there may be RARE circumstances for which polygamy may be viable such as in the case of a ‘barren’ wife who is incapable of producing offspring for her husband, but circumstances such as these are obviously very delicate and subject to the ‘laws of the land’, etc., but to be sure, this is not to be the norm for our species.
Jacob 3:5
5 Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father—that they should have save it were one wife,
Jacob 1:1515 And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son.
Ether 10:5
5 And it came to pass that Riplakish did not do that which was right in the sight of the Lord, for he did have many wives and concubines, and did lay that upon men’s shoulders which was grievous to be borne;
I keep thinking about all those boys and men who would be “lost”, in other words, denied the blessing of marriage and family because of polygamy being “required” of those certain leaders. If the gospel teaches that family is important and that marriage is crucial to salvation, and if God loves ALL of his children (all of the males in the Church, included), then would he not want to bring to pass their immortality and eternal life also–at least give all men a chance to try to live the gospel within a family unit. It just doesn’t make sense to me–the numbers don’t add up. Are the nonmarriagable ones already prejudged and relegated to a lesser kingdom without even having the chance to have a wife?
Question 1. 2 nephi 26: 33 states men and women are equal (“alike”) in the eyes of the Lord. Then how can a fundamentally unequal practice such as polygamy be of God? IE men get exclusive relationships with multiple women, while women have to share only one man.
Question 2. In D&C132 some requirements are set for practising polygamy eg the plural wife should be a virgin and the first wife should give her consent. Why didn’t Joseph stick to the conditions laid out by the Lord in the revelation on celestial marriage. See D&C 132: 61
Lets not go with “it was a different time” statement. If it is wrong now, it was wrong then. It is sad that we justify evil in any manner. And what does evil look like? It looks justly wonderful.
I will take two virgins, three married women and throw in a couple of oldies but goodies that can cook and clean.
I am sure someone will justify my order with godly praise.
Question: The ‘correlated’ view of Church history has had the effect of putting early Church leaders on a pedestal and essentially making them ‘Superheroes’. With the pervasiveness of information to the contrary, these pedestals are now clearly being knocked down. What approach do you think the Church should take to make its history more honest and realistic, while still being faith-promoting?
+1 Good Question!
My question…
Why must polygamy be justified or reconciled if given from god?
Is the revelation of September 27, 1886 to John Taylor an authentic revelation? (The book that Hales authored with Max Anderson leaves one with the impression that it may not be authentic.)
How could that revelation be only about the “new and everlasting covenant” or temple marriage in general, as opposed to plural marriage? Does Hales seriously believe this? Good grief — look at the historical context!
Was not John W. Woolley every bit as involved in the perpetuation of new plural marriages as his son Lorin C. Woolley was? (Hales makes it seem as though Lorin Woolley hijacked the memory of John Woolley after he was dead in order to support his personal plan and lies about priesthood authority to perform plural marriages — it’s not so!)
What are the chances that four (or more depending on what evidence you accept) separate people, Lorin Woolley, John Woolley, Daniel Bateman, and Samuel Bateman, would support the idea that authority to perpetuate plural marriages was conferred by John Taylor in 1886 if the story was just a lie of Lorin Woolley?
Brian Hales doubts the statement of Lorin Woolley that John Taylor appeared to float in the air during the above-mentioned meeting in 1886 beceause it is seemingly outlandish, but is he aware that similar incidents of levitation are reported to have happened to George Q. Cannon at the Pulehu Chapel in Hawaii and to James Peter Olson as stated in his autobiography?
I have many more questions, but this should suffice for now.
@Brad: “Oh, have we decided to stop even pretending to ask questions for the interview and just have a personal therapy session now?”
I think JD is intelligent enough to extrapolate ‘questions’ aplenty from these sundry comments, most of which can hardly be construed as “therapy session(s)”.
I agree about most of the questions Paul. Even the transparently one-sided questions pushing an agenda. No complaints about them. I just wondered where the thread was going to go once the question-asking was played out.
I appreciate the questions – but acknowledge the complexity of the topic. I believe it is further complicated because the tradition views are full of inaccuracies. This is not just apologetics. So many people have promoted their assumptions in place of documented history. Thanks!
Brian, to what extent is it appropriate for people to judge historical incidents from their own cultural perspective? For example, I may read about the Aztecs and how blood sacrifices were an important aspect of their theology, but I think it’s entirely proper for me to openly state my abhorrence of the practice, even if I do acknowledge that I am culturally biased against it.
The same thing could be said of early Mormon polygamy. I completely agree that it’s important to distinguish between our own traditions and those of other historical periods. But as long as we do make that distinction clear, I think it’s also OK to make judgements about these traditions.
Wow…can’t wait for this interview! If you get time, could you explore the ins and outs and confusion over the Manifesto and the claims by the different fundamentalist groups regarding John Taylors revelations about poligamy.
In many cases LDS members often say that polygamy was necessary to build up the population of the church. However, I believe I’ve read in a couple different sources that historically there has always been more males than females in the church since the beginning.
To me this seems to diminish the point of increasing membership as there would technically be plenty of “studs” to go around.
Is this concept of increasing “church population/preistood population” a mormon folklore misnomer in a sense?
It does not appear that an excess of women in the Church was ever mentioned by Joseph Smith as a reason for plural marriage. Also, it may never have been a problem as you have observed. Joseph Smith gave three reasons for the establishment of polygamy: 1. to restore Old Testament plural marriage. 2. to provide devout families for noble premortal spirits. 3. to allow all worthy women to be sealed to a husband so they will not live “remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity” (D&C 132:17).
No righteous woman will be denied her own husband all to herself for eternity. To say otherwise is totally contrary to the prophets and scripture.
According to Joseph Smith, Christ, and ancient prophets, no woman has ever been asked nor will ever be asked to live polygamy, for they say it is a whoredom and not something God would ever ask, let alone allow.
Just read a bit of Brian’s article. He used the fact that Joseph Smith preached contrary to the accusations that were made against him. This is a weak argument, that would be like saying Ted Haggard was innocent because he was preaching against homosexuality.
I’m not sure what article you are reading, but I would agree with your logic. However, I believe that Fawn Brodie et. al. portrays the people around Joseph Smith like the 114 men and women who had entered into plural unions during his lifetime, like comic book characters. They are suppose to see Joseph acting like a hypocrite and yet say nothing about it. I believe that men like Brigham and John Taylor, women like ELiza and Zina were too intelligent to be duped and too devout to ignore the kinds of immoral behaviors Brodie ascribes to Joseph. I like Dan Vogel’s pious deceiver theory better because at least it acknowledges that JS behaved like a genuine prophet.
Although there is reason to believe that Joseph likely did have sex with the 11 women he married that already had husbands, it is even more troubling to think that if you had spent your whole life on earth living with your devoted spouse, fully intending to be married together in heaven for all eternity, just like you have enjoyed on earth, then the prophet says he wants your wife to be one of his many wives, you have to give her up. The children are also separated from either the father or the mother. Are we to believe that God actually commanded the prophet to do this and cause the wife, the first husband and the children, a lot of unnecessary anguish just so the prophet can have another unneeded wife in the hereafter?
For those who think that Joseph Smith practiced sexual polyandry, I would invite them to produce some evidence to support it and to deal with his teachings that declared such behavior to be adultery. None of the proponents have dealt with the Prophet’s teachings. They ignore them, which allows them to take the storylines any way they like. Nevertheless, it is very strange that fourteen (by my count) women would choose Joseph over their legal husband as their eternal spouse. I believe 11 of them were “eternity only” sealings – just for the next life – yes we have documentation that such did occur. Two of the other three (“time and eternity” sealings) were women who were separated from their husbands and in the last case, we just don’t have enough documentation to know what happened. What we can show is that there is no evidence showing that any of the men or women complained about Joseph allowing the sealings. It is weird and I understand people may be incredulous, but I invite them to get into the evidence and leave Fawn Brodie and other interpreter (including me for that matter) out of it.
Regardless of whether Joseph Smith practiced sexual polyandry we know that Brigham Young did. Brigham Young states that he was specifically taught and instructed on the practice of polygamy by Joseph himself. So either the practice of polygamy soon evolved into sexual polyandry or was that way from the beginning. If you argue that the commandment was not based in sexual polyandry but yet clearly evolved to involve such then it would appear to have become corrupted. A defiled commandment that was practiced most intensely at the highest levels of church. Why was the Church allowed to wallow for so long in a corrupted practice? Polygamy was one of the single most important and defining doctrines of the early church. Within Mormon history there is a recurring theme of convenient withdrawal of commandments (polygamy, blacks & priesthood) when the consequences of those practices becomes too high.
James, I wouldn’t call one of the worst systemic campaigns of organized religious persecution by the Federal government – unlawful arrests and jailing of husbands and fathers, stripping of children’s property rights, abeyance of civil liberties, government theft of church property, judicial abuse, and implementation of an early police state – AFTER all of which the church finally capitulated under duress “convenience.”
The label that this was out of convenience is insulting, and quite frankly obscene in light of this horrific scene of federal persecution.
If anything, I ought to be demanding a formal apology from President Obama for this horrible moment in American history right now.
The Federal government is most certainly the villain in this story. And most of the abuses of the FLDS that followed in the darkness of federally-enforced secrecy can be said to be more the fault of the United States federal government than anyone.
“Convenience” indeed. This church was on the brink of annihilation. We had no choice.
Brian, while the Mary Heron relationship is inconclusive, it cannot be dismissed out of hand either.
Big disclaimer here–I still need to read your book. I’m only basing these remarks on what I’ve read on your web site and seen from your Sunstone presentation. While I admire your detailed and painstaking work, I am troubled by how every single piece of evidence is used to exonerate JS rather than present him as a multifaceted individual with both positive and negative qualities. I am suspicious of your claims because your JS is like a cat that seems to always land on its feet. I would be more inclined to trust your characterizations if they were more willing to acknowledge challenges and difficulties in the JS polygamy narrative. Instead it seems almost totally to be just a point-by-point refutation of critics’ claims.
What does he think of comments like these that came from the First Presidency? “Brethren, I want you to understand that it is not to be as it has been heretofore. The brother missionaries have been in the habit of picking out the prettiest women for themselves before they get here, and bringing on the ugly ones for us; hereafter you have to bring them all here before taking any of them, and let us all have a fair shake.”
– Apostle Heber C. Kimball, First Counselor to Brigham Young, The Lion of the Lord, New York, 1969, pp 129-130.
I think it is entertaining and represents a very practical dynamic of polygamy. I don’t defend it, but in that time, the Saints were commanded to practice polygamy so competition would undoubtedly result. The bigger question is whether libido drove Joseph Smith to establish the practice in the first place. My books let the Nauvoo polygamists tell their own story and I believe that if any of them had thought for one minute the JS simply wanted sex, they would have dumped him and his religion in a second (and possibly rebelled). They believe it was commanded by God. Today, the only people who can believe God commanded Joseph are those who believe God was talking to him in the first place. Hence, only LDS will be able to believe these evidences and the rest will scoff and label me an apologist.
How does Mr. Hales reconcile (1) the LDS church’s 19th century insistance that the government had no right to dictate Mormon marriage practices, with (2) the modern LDS insistance that its current marriage practices should dictate those of the entire nation?
Great question Nick. Through all my research the one question I cannot answer sufficiently is simply, why did Joseph Smith’s God command him and his followers to practice polygamy? No other religious group in Judeo-Christian history were similarly commanded. The practice of plural marriage was always controlled by the “one” man holding the sealing keys. Between the 1840s and 1890, he taught plural marriage was commanded. In 1890, he (WIlford Woodruff) dictated that it was no longer commanded. Secret plural marriages persisted – an embarrassment to the Church. Then in 1904, the “one” man (Joseph F. Smith) removed the permission. Freelance polygamy has nothing to do with plural sealings because there is no authority. Hence, today, we believe God commanded PM between 1840s and 1890 and then removed the commandment in 1890 (placing us even with Book of Mormon peoples for example). God commands and God revokes. (D&C 56:4, 58:32)
No offense, Mr. Hales, but I honestly don’t see how your comment addresses my question whatsoever.
Read the first sentence again Nick.
I did read it, Seth. That’s part of the reason I know it’s not addressing what I asked in any way. I didn’t ask why early Mormons practiced plural marriage, nor why the subsequently stopped practicing plural marriage.
Two entries in Clayton’s diary have always intrigued me. The first where Clayton tells Joseph that his legal wife is complaining about his desire to have a second. Smith’s response is “You have a right to all you can get” Another mentions that he shared his bed with two women. Another is where Clayton wants to marry another sister from the same family and Smith says he received a revelation that restricted the number you could have from one family and could he talk to one for him (Smith)
I was reading the article by Brian in the link at the top of the page. At the beginning, I think he already answered this topic for everyone, maybe without knowing it. . “Such an image obviously depends, at least to some extent, on reading backward from the practice of polygamy in Nauvoo to the earlier period. ”
Back during the awesome 70s and 80’s music craze, people were playing records backwards to get alternative meaning to a song. Many found satanic messages. After all the dust settled, it was determined that when you play any record backwards it sounds strange. This went well until someone played a Mormon Tabernacle Choir record backwards and got the same result. The rock musicians laughed at the thought that they were doing this on purpose. Bottom line, records were not meant to be played backwards!
Why must we keep trying to play this Joseph Smith polygamy issue backwards and not accept what it really is? Because the truth sounds scary and creepy and we as a church cannot and will not accept this. We will continue to play this backwards until we hear it just the way that supports current standings. It will be debated and debated regardless if the slipper fits.
It sounds like Brian is a smart cookie and is very learned. I commend him for this. HOWEVEVER, all anyone is asking is why can’t anyone of any stature admit that Joseph messed up? It’s called fear with a capital F. It’s just plain dang scary to admit something that can rock your boat. Deep down everyone knows truth when they see it. We talk the talk but definitely don’t walk the walk.
This is why it will never be resolved . . .
1. As the dust settles from the profound phenomenon of Joseph Smith and the restoration, and as modern historical research brings to light more detail than we ever before realized we had, is not this generation required to be pioneers in a whole new way toward changing ourselves to a different and deepened understanding in order to harmonize with factual truth?
Background to this question:
“I am forcing them to look at sides of Joseph’s character they won’t like.”
“They are better off for knowing these things, but the transition to a fact-based understanding of the prophet will be painful.”
“Simply denying the validity of the criticism is not enough when facts are involved.”
“Passion, of course, can blind as well as enliven us.” (Quotes by Richard Lyman Bushman, taken from his book, “On the Road with Joseph Smith: An Author’s Diary.”)
“For Smith, there was no middle ground—and thus seemingly no middle ground for assessing him or his claims. However, Boston’s mayor Josiah Quincy, who interviewed Smith in 1844, was less dogmatic:
Such a rare human being is not to be disposed of by pelting his memory with unsavory epithets. Fanatic, impostor, charlatan, he may have been; but these hard names furnish no solution to the problem he presents to us. Fanatics and impostors are living and dying every day, and their memory is buried with them; but the wonderful influence which this founder of a religion exerted and still exerts throws him into relief before us, not as a rogue to be criminated, but as a phenomenon to be explained. …If the reader does not know just what to make of Joseph Smith, I cannot help him out of the difficulty. I myself stand helpless before the puzzle.
Quincy notwithstanding, I believe we must address what Jan Shipps, non-Mormon historian of the LDS experience, once termed the “prophet puzzle” if we ever hope to understand Smith and the church he founded.”—From Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, Dan Vogel, vii.
Does not modern research compel us to “middle ground”?
2. As one who has carefully researched most modern books on Joseph Smith (including Donna Hill, Bushman, Compton, Van Wagoner, Carmon Hardy, George Smith, Arrington, Gordon, Daynes, Bachman, Bergera, Brian C. Hales, etc.) my conscience no longer allows me to believe everything Joseph Smith taught, believed or did as being in harmony with God or truth—that we in fact have solemn burdens both as individuals and as an institution to differentiate truths from errors amidst ourselves, our claims, teachings and folklore (do we not?).
I choose to word this second question by using a great question asked in Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, 100, 179: “Why should Emma [or we] not question some of Joseph’s actions when he questioned them himself?”
There is nothing now more proven by LDS history than that Joseph Smith doubted and questioned the truth of some of what he believed and did (despite his self-confidence). And LDS polygamy is probably the most obvious example of a belief and practice that became deeply questionable and troublesome for Joseph; which leads to my 3rd question.
3. Can believing members believe and understand dramatically differently from one another and remain in the institution without being at enmity? Can we reason together without being so defensive and judgmental?
Brian C. Hales writes a chapter on “Plural Marriage: Commanded, Permitted, or Not Permitted” wherein he defends and promotes all three as being the truth. Can you understand and empathize with members who see this as incongruous with the scriptures and God’s character as being unchanging? While some members choose (or ignore) the dissonance (or even schizophrenia) involved in some claims amidst ourselves, can we at least acknowledge that things can be legitimately seen and understood in dramatically different ways? Does not defensively seeking to harmonize both monogamy and polygamy require “relativism” and contradiction inside ourselves and inside our “God” (who changes not) to a degree we keep condemning when similar contradiction or relativism is embraced or practiced by the world?
Hales shows some great acknowledgment of such dichotomies inherent in our religion and history:
“…sincerity is no protection against deception.”
“…traditions are strong enough to neutralize plain historical evidences.”
“…widely varying different revelations have been claimed, ushering recipients in a myriad of directions.” (Modern Polygamy and Mormon Fundamentalism: The Generations After the Manifesto, 465.)
“I grant you that there have been those in the past, including some of the leaders of the Church, who have in times of stress urged the brethren to enter into plural marriage and have left the inference that plural marriage was the only marriage that would obtain in the highest degree of Celestial Glory. But there is nothing in the revelation [D&C 132] nor in the actions and decisions of the Church itself that justifies that position….Don’t let anybody fool you into the idea that this so-called plural marriage that is being practiced, some of it in your own neighborhood, is going to be valid”—Hales, p. 219-220, using a Dec. 31, 1934 Melvin J. Ballard quote.
4. Do you see LDS history encouraging us to view the Manifesto as a course correction after mere mortal mistakes (“God, not the United States Congress, brought about the official discontinuance of plural marriage”—Our Heritage, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1996, 101)? Does the nature of mortality (and history) show that mortals (even true prophets) discover truth through a sometimes very tedious, slow, errant and evolutionary process, thereby necessitating that we understand how we need to stay in the arduous pursuit of truth more than using rhetoric or pretension as though we are already in possession of it?
Brian: “For those who think that Joseph Smith practiced sexual polyandry, I would invite them to produce some evidence to support it and to deal with his teachings that declared such behavior to be adultery.” This is known as the idealist fallacy. People say one thing and do another all the time. “I believe 11 of them were “eternity only” sealings – just for the next life.” Where is your evidence that JS treated polyandrous marriages different than other plural marriages? You are the one with the thesis that needs defending.
Brian: “So many people have promoted their assumptions in place of documented history.” That’s you. You take a principle of eternity-only marriage and apply it according to your bias and assumptions about JS’s character. You have no documentation that JS treated polyandrous marriages differently than other plural marriages. You are building an argument from silence, which is easy to do since there was a reluctance to talk about sexual behavior of any kind among Mormons and their contemporaries.
Dan: It is customary is real history to have some evidence to back one’s assertions. It seems to me that Brian is the critical historian here and you are the one jumping to unsupported conclusions and making accusations.
Documented history is interesting and, of course, has its place. However, considering reasonable possibilities is also important, especially for those who desire to remain true to the faith and to themselves despite the conclusions drawn by those who limit themselves to documented history. People who desire to remain true to the faith and true to themselves will be happy and content to remain active members of the church as long as positive possibilities can be postulated even if naysayers mock and scoff at those possibilities.
So no matter how revolted critics become at the very thought, there is a possibility that all of Joseph Smith’s marriages were within the bounds the Lord had set for him. Each alleged sexual incident can be explained and harmonized by this standard even if it can’t be proved by the type and amount of documentation critics prefer.
Furthermore, the type and amount of documentation critics prefer can lead to erroneous conclusions. This is true not just for Joseph Smith but for Jesus Christ himself. Documentation from the New Testament has been used to portray Jesus as just one more in a string of militant messiahs. This Jesus messiah twice drove money changers out of the temple and declared, “I came not to bring peace but the sword.” These alarming words and events and a string of others documented in the New Testament about Jesus Christ can be reasonably explained and harmonized.
Likewise, all alarming words and events documented about Joseph Smith can be explained and harmonized. This can be done for Joseph Smith, as for Jesus: (1) By looking beyond the “outward appearance” of the negative documentation. (2) By considering positive alternate interpretations of the negative documentation. (3) By a willingness to accept positive alternate possibilities even without the type and amount of documentation critics prefer. (4) By giving the “benefit of the doubt.” (5) By seeking in Church history and the life of Joseph Smith for the “virtuous, lovely, or of GOOD REPORT, or praiseworthy,” rather than for the un-virtuous, un-lovely, or of BAD REPORT or un-praiseworthy.
Is Mr. Hales not considering the deadly sword to implement God’s commandment. Did Pratt (Parley?) come back from his ‘mission’ and fall into depression because his wife, Nancy, had been approached by JS? Etc.,etc. Did some dastardly editor throw in such information to defame JS, to deceive posterity JS?
The man sees a mound and it’s Selph; he looks at papyrus and writes a book; conveniently reads about patriarchs’ multiple concubines/ wives and…What an Idea! goes to Mason temples, learns their stuff and lo! We have endowments (never mind the point-by-point similarity/plagiarism). Etc. etc. Is there a pattern here?
What consenting adults choose to do with their sexual lives is up to them. But when in the name of religion men control on the trusting, women and, in turn, children included, it’s brainwashing and abuse. For a funny but disturbingly real inside look at a modern Utah polygamist cult, I recommend Joanne Hanks’ new memoir “It’s Not About the Sex My A**.” Easy to find if you Google the author name or book title. Hanks is careful to draw a line between the cult she was in and mainstream Mormonism, but the latter does not come out much better for wear.
When will the third segment be available? I’m anxious to hear Brian’s reconciliation logic. For the last 30 years I’ve read about everything I could find (and have time to read) about Mormon history and, though I’m no expert, I think Brian deserves thanks from all of us, irrespective of our conclusions about the church and polygamy. As for the specific impetus for Brian’s appearance on Mormon Stories, by the time I finished reading Palmer’s book I thought he had stretched a number of claims and used some questionable sources but, on the other hand, what I did read was a man dealing with the disillusionment of a life’s work. For that I could not fault him.
The opposite is also possible. It is also possible that Joseph did not sin at all, that he did not have an excessively high libido, and that all of his sexual relations were within the bounds the Lord had set for him. Which possibility has the higher probability of being correct? It depends on whom you ask. To skeptical people, the “sin possibility” has a higher probability of being correct. To devout members of the Church with strong testimonies, the “no sin possibility” has the higher probability of being correct.
Members of the Church in this latter category include people who are willing to consider all types of apologetics, explanations, interpretations, counter arguments to each and every Church history incident or statement the skeptics use to support their opinions. These members of the Church look for the positive, the virtuous, the lovely, the good report, the praiseworthy, and give the benefit of the doubt. They include those who remain faithful and active in the Church because they were willing to listen to reasonable alternate possibilities and positive explanations of the same Church history incidents and statements which took the skeptics out of the Church. They include people who are content to stay in the Church even if there is ANY possibility that the positive explanations and alternate possibilities are correct. They include people who believe that “The letter killeth but the spirit giveth life” (2 Corinthians 3:6).
AlternatePossibilities, the alternatives you mention absolutely do exist, but not all of them are equally plausible. Even (or rather especially) a faithful church member should acknowledge that, considering they believe in “being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous” etc. So long as you are willing to weigh the evidence carefully and honestly, I see no reason why coming down on the side of belief is wrong. But so many faithful members are unwilling to even contemplate the possibility that they might be wrong. In my opinion, these types are not living up to their own creed.
Another way of saying “but not all of (the alternative possibilities) are equally plausible:” is to say that they all have different probabilities of being correct. It is up to each individual to decide which possibility is most plausible, i.e. which has the greatest probability of being correct. Some may not want to bother with that decision—they will want to stay active in the Church no matter how implausible (improbable) the positive possibilities and explanations of controversies might seem to those who have left the Church.
To the devout members of the Church with strong testimonies, part of being “true” in the phrase “We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men…” is being true to the Church. To them being “honest” in that phrase means being honest with themselves, recognizing that they have a strong testimony of the gospel and a strong sense of loyalty to it. To them being honest is to acknowledge that there are positive explanations for each controversy they might encounter. They would feel dishonest with themselves if they abandoned the Church just because some skeptical scholar or ex-Mormon intellectual declared the positive possibilities and explanations to be implausible.
Asking faithful members of the Church to start doubting and questioning the gospel and rejecting positive possibilities and explanations for the difficult questions and controversies is like asking them to start doubting and questioning the Bible, to start questioning and doubting whether or not God lives, whether or not Jesus is the Christ, whether or not Buddha, Mohammad, or Alexander the Great ever actually lived, etc. By considering positive possibilities and reasonable explanations, people can be honest with themselves without doubting and questioning the truthfulness of the Church because of negative interpretations and unflattering portraits of Joseph Smith painted by atheists, agnostics, skeptics,ex-Mormons, and disaffected members.
AlternatePossibilities, while I myself can formulate a number of reasonable justifications for staying loyal to the Church despite historical challenges, to advocate loyalty above all else is idolatrous and expressly against Joseph Smith’s first “grand fundamental principle of Mormonism,” which is to “receive truth, let it come from whence it may.” As J. Reuben Clark said, “If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.” To assume that one should be loyal to any institution regardless of its beliefs, practices or policies is idolatrous and no Church member who maintains this attitude can be exalted. At least that’s what Brigham Young said, and I personally agree with him.
“Asking faithful members of the Church to start doubting and questioning the gospel and rejecting positive possibilities and explanations for the difficult questions and controversies is like asking them to start doubting and questioning the Bible, to start questioning and doubting whether or not God lives, whether or not Jesus is the Christ, whether or not Buddha, Mohammad, or Alexander the Great ever actually lived, etc.”
These are all reasonable things to question, nay, things that we _should_ question, and to discourage such questions is to promote idolatry. In my opinion, (and I think Joseph Smith would agree) only people who have plumbed the depths of these questions can really call themselves true Mormons. If you are not even willing to contemplate the possibility of such things then you will never come close to the truth, the acquisition of which is an essential ingredient of true Mormonism.
Carl,
I agree it is wrong to be idolatrously loyal. But I also believe it is wrong to be negatively disloyal to Christ and his church. Being negatively disloyal to Christ and his church includes adopting and spreading negative interpretations of historical challenges without carefully and prayerfully studying, and at least giving credit, to counterarguments based on positive possibilities and alternate explanations.
Surely Joseph Smith’s first “grand fundamental principle of Mormonism which is to receive truth, let it come from when it may” refers to joyous, uplifting truth, not depressing, destructive, faith destroying truth. Examples of the latter include pornography, sexual exploits of the rich and famous, methods of murder, suicide, rape, torture; how best to embezzle or cheat one’s neighbor or bankrupt one’s business competitor; how maximize the killing of innocent people to accomplish terrorist aims, how best to suppress women and exploit the poor, etc. It cannot be a form of idolatry to refuse to consider the “truths” of these subjects as advocated and declared to be “reasonable” by their proponents. Are we really required to “plumb” the depths of these difficult issues? Is it really true that if we are not willing to contemplate the details such unsavory (to us) subjects that we will never come close to “the truth?”
Surely no one should feel obligated to plumb anti-scripture, anti-Christ, or anti-Mormon interpretations of historical statements and events any more than they should feel obligated to plumb the depths of the negative truths of the above subjects, especially if so doing will result in depression and a loss of faith. (“By their fruits ye shall know them.”) However, they should not condemn others who are interested in those subjects, e.g. to be prepared to defend the faith by presenting counter-arguments based on positive possibilities and reasonable explanations. This should be done no matter how vigorously skeptics and critics oppose positive approaches which seek for the virtuous, lovely, the good report, and praiseworthy rather than seeking for the un-virtuous, un-lovely, the bad report, and the un-praiseworthy behavior in the lives of historical personages.
I agree it is wrong to be idolatrously loyal. But I also believe it is wrong to be negatively disloyal to Christ and his church. Being negatively disloyal to Christ and his church includes adopting and spreading negative interpretations of historical challenges without carefully and prayerfully studying, and at least giving credit, to counterarguments based on positive possibilities and alternate explanations.
Joseph Smith’s first “grand fundamental principle of Mormonism which is to receive truth, let it come from when it may” must refer to joyous, uplifting truth, not depressing, destructive, faith destroying truth. Examples of the latter include pornography, sexual exploits of the rich and famous, methods of murder, suicide, rape, torture; how best to embezzle or cheat one’s neighbor or bankrupt one’s business competitor; how maximize the killing of innocent people to accomplish terrorist aims, how best to suppress women and exploit the poor, etc. It cannot be a form of idolatry to refuse to consider the “truths” of these subjects as advocated and declared to be “reasonable” by their proponents. Are we really required to “plumb” the depths of these difficult issues? Is it really true that if we are not willing to contemplate the details such unsavory (to us) subjects that we will never come close to “the truth?”
Surely no one should feel obligated to plumb anti-scripture, anti-Christ, or anti-Mormon interpretations of historical statements and events any more than they should feel obligated to plumb the depths of the negative truths of the above subjects, especially if so doing will result in depression and a loss of faith. (“By their fruits ye shall know them.”) However, they should not condemn others who are interested in those subjects, e.g. to be prepared to defend the faith by presenting counter-arguments based on positive possibilities and reasonable explanations. This should be done no matter how vigorously skeptics and critics oppose positive approaches which seek for the virtuous, lovely, the good report, and praiseworthy rather than seeking for the un-virtuous, un-lovely, the bad report, and the un-praiseworthy behavior in the lives of historical personages.
(I can’t find my following responsee to Carl’s comment about things he feels should be questioned. Please consider printing it just below Carl’s comment so that readers will not feel guilty if they don’t probe everything which some people like Carl feel they should probe.)
I agree it is wrong to be idolatrously loyal. But I also believe it is wrong to be negatively disloyal to Christ and his church. Being negatively disloyal to Christ and his church includes adopting and spreading negative interpretations of historical challenges without carefully and prayerfully studying, and at least giving credit, to counterarguments based on positive possibilities and alternate explanations.
Joseph Smith’s first “grand fundamental principle of Mormonism which is to receive truth, let it come from when it may” must refer to joyous, uplifting truth, not depressing, destructive, faith destroying truth. Examples of the latter include pornography, sexual exploits of the rich and famous, methods of murder, suicide, rape, torture; how best to embezzle or cheat one’s neighbor or bankrupt one’s business competitor; how maximize the killing of innocent people to accomplish terrorist aims, how best to suppress women and exploit the poor, etc. It cannot be a form of idolatry to refuse to consider the “truths” of these subjects as advocated and declared to be “reasonable” by their proponents. Are we really required to “plumb” the depths of these difficult issues? Is it really true that if we are not willing to contemplate the details such unsavory (to us) subjects that we will never come close to “the truth?”
Surely no one should feel obligated to plumb anti-scripture, anti-Christ, or anti-Mormon interpretations of historical statements and events any more than they should feel obligated to plumb the depths of the negative truths of the above subjects, especially if so doing will result in depression and a loss of faith. (“By their fruits ye shall know them.”) However, they should not condemn others who are interested in those subjects, e.g. to be prepared to defend the faith by presenting counter-arguments based on positive possibilities and reasonable explanations. This should be done no matter how vigorously skeptics and critics oppose positive approaches which seek for the virtuous, lovely, the good report, and praiseworthy rather than seeking for the un-virtuous, un-lovely, the bad report, and the un-praiseworthy behavior in the lives of historical personages.
AlternatePossibilities, you misunderstand me. I would respond to all your so-called “negative truths” that these are not really “truths” in the sense I am talking about. The conception of truth that seems most useful and productive to me is the pragmatic one: “truth is what works.” (For more info study William James and the philosophy of pragmatism) All truths that are conducive to human flourishing are the ones we should seek to understand and take advantage of. Clearly most of the negative “truths” you mention are not truths at all in the sense that they generally do not promote human flourishing. But neither is every single tradition taught in the mainstream Church today optimally conducive to human flourishing. This is where idolatry causes problems–when we cling to the “traditions of the fathers” (even Mormon ones) instead of being willing to accept truth no matter where we find it. And we most certainly do have our own fair share of Phariseeism, hypocrisy and truth denial in the Church.
I would just add that any truth about the misconduct of a church leader should not be denied merely because it is an unworthy example to follow. We can learn valuable lessons from misconduct. We can see the damage it causes and learn not to do it ourselves. Brigham Young heartily advocated the performing arts for precisely this reason–that when we see a Shakespearian tragedy, for example, despite all its murder and intrigue, we are seeing the negative consequences of sin. Confining our inputs to only Pollyanna-like positive feel-good ones is a surefire way to bring about an Orwellian dystopia.
A loving, all-wise God would command, decree, counsel, and “direct aright” many things that would produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people with loving concern for each individual. By this standard, the practice of polygamy was commanded by God–because it produced the greatest good for the greatest number of people until the time came when that standard could no longer be met, i.e. polygamy no longer was able to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people. In today’s non-agrarian, high-paced society a father does not have enough time to spend with one wife and five children, let alone five wives and fifty children. Because of this fact, polygamy would (relatively) soon have been revoked even without the impetus of the Edmunds-Tucker act.
That God can and does command and revoke doctrines and practices is obvious from Biblical precedent. The Law of Moses was revoked (“fulfilled”) and no longer required. Same with animal sacrifice and circumcision. Modern revelation further emphasizes that God can revoke previous doctrines and practices: “Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord” (D&C 56:4).
During the (relatively short) interval when polygamy was commanded by God, many women did not consider it to be demeaning. “And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by your name…” (Isaiah 4:1). Some savored the division of household labor between wives. Some considered polygamy far superior to Satan’s counterfeit—married men and woman conducting affairs with non-spouse partners.
The main reason for polygamy during the Old Testament phase of LDS Church history (up to the Manifestos) is given in Jacob 2:30: “For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me (by polygamy), I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.” (Parenthesis added). Someday it will be made clear that raising up righteous seed unto the Lord, i.e. righteous Church members who would remain firm steadfast, and immovable in keeping God’s commandments and in being highly effective missionaries, did result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people on Earth. The greater the number of strong, faithful missionaries, the greater the number of converts. The greater the number of converts, the greater the amount of joy and peace of mind in the world and in the greater amount of donations of time, tithes and offerings and humanitarian service which ultimately benefit the greatest number of people in the world.
Carl, your definition if truth is better than the technical definition of truth: Truth is that which is true whether or not it is pragmatic or conducive to human flourishing. You said, “All truths that are conducive to human flourishing are the ones we should seek to understand and take advantage of.” That’s good, but to me an even better definition is: “All truths that THE TRUE GOD KNOWS are conducive to human flourishing are the ones we should seek to understand and take advantage. If we don’t add the words “…the true God knows…,” then Nazis, Stalinists, Maoists, and Islamic extremists will feel justified in carrying out their murderous extremist methods in order to “”help humans (mankind) to flourish” in a peaceful world.
True prophets of God reveal the truths which God knows really do help mankind to flourish both in this life and the next. Helping mankind to flourish should surely mean doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. That standard sometimes requires some people to make sacrifices. The true God through his true prophets will define what those sacrifices must be. Or the true God will allow circumstances operating under natural law to produce that which will be best for most people in the long run. Outwardly some of the sacrifices may appear to be too hard or unfair, but careful, prayerful analysis will show them to indeed be true or, at least, that they have a high probability of being true in the eyes of devout Church members. The stronger the testimony of the gospel, the higher that probability will seem to people.
A powerful case can be made to support the testimony that every official, canonized doctrine taught in the mainstream Church today is optimally conducive to accomplishing the greatest good for the greatest number of people in the long run, even though some sacrifices are required for certain periods of time to accomplish that grand eternal objective.
(Correction of a typo:)
Carl, your definition of truth is better than the technical definition of truth: Truth is that which is true whether or not it is pragmatic or conducive to human flourishing. You said, “All truths that are conducive to human flourishing are the ones we should seek to understand and take advantage of.” That’s good, but to me an even better definition is: “All truths that THE TRUE GOD KNOWS are conducive to human flourishing are the ones we should seek to understand and take advantage. If we don’t add the words “…the true God knows…,” then Nazis, Stalinists, Maoists, and Islamic extremists will feel justified in carrying out their murderous extremist methods in order to “”help humans (mankind) to flourish” in a peaceful world.
True prophets of God reveal the truths which God knows really do help mankind to flourish both in this life and the next. Helping mankind to flourish should surely mean doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. That standard sometimes requires some people to make sacrifices. The true God through his true prophets will define what those sacrifices must be. Or the true God will allow circumstances operating under natural law to produce that which will be best for most people in the long run. Outwardly some of the sacrifices may appear to be too hard or unfair, but careful, prayerful analysis will show them to indeed be true or, at least, that they have a high probability of being true in the eyes of devout Church members. The stronger the testimony of the gospel, the higher that probability will seem to people.
A powerful case can be made to support the testimony that every official, canonized doctrine taught in the mainstream Church today is optimally conducive to accomplishing the greatest good for the greatest number of people in the long run, even though some sacrifices are required for certain periods of time to accomplish that grand eternal objective.