Joseph and Polygamy

[riverogue]

I am looking for the best answer to a puzzling question that I have been confronted with repeatedly about Joseph Smith's marriage to a 14 year old girl. I don't remember her name. But they say that Joseph Smith couldn't have been a true prophet of even a righteous person, because he married a 14 year old girl. Joseph had said to the effect, that he didn't want to marry her, but was told by an angel that if he didn't, he would be struck down by the angel with a sword. So he did marry the girl. Now-a-days everyone of us would write-off a man claiming this as another Warren Jeffs. How do I explain this to my non-member friends that bring this up?

[bytor2112]

It may seem odd from a 21st century perspective, but age wasn't an obstacle to marriage in the 19th century. Many of Joseph's marriages were dynastic in nature. In other words they were to unite families together and not for the purpose of procreation or as some might think to fulfill deviant sexual urges.

[Just_A_Guy]

Check out the website wivesofjosephsmith.org. Joseph married (IIRC) two fifteen-year-olds, but these were not representative of his wives generally (whose average age, IIRC, was about 28). It was just a different culture; people grew up fast and very young marriages--while hardly the norm--were not frowned upon to the degree that they are today.

[riverogue]

Bytors post makes sense to me. I have also just recalled reading about how Joseph Smith also sealed brothren who were good friends together too. Does anyone have anymore information on this matter and whether it is in fact true. If so, why do we not do this today? It seems to me that if all the righteous are sealed to their spouses, children, parents etc; many, if not all of us will one day be sealed to each other, anyway.

Edited December 2, 2009 by riverogue

[bytor2112]

Bytors post makes sense to me. I have also just recalled reading about how Joseph Smith also sealed brothren who were good friends together too. Does anyone have anymore information on this matter and whether it is in fact true. If so, why do we not do this today? It seems to me that if all the righteous are sealed to their spouses, children, parents etc; many, if not all of us will one day be sealed to each other, anyway.

Check out Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman....excellent. A lot of your questions are thoroughly and scholarly addressed.

[Snow]

I am looking for the best answer to a puzzling question that I have been confronted with repeatedly about Joseph Smith's marriage to a 14 year old girl. I don't remember her name. But they say that Joseph Smith couldn't have been a true prophet of even a righteous person, because he married a 14 year old girl. Joseph had said to the effect, that he didn't want to marry her, but was told by an angel that if he didn't, he would be struck down by the angel with a sword. So he did marry the girl. Now-a-days everyone of us would write-off a man claiming this as another Warren Jeffs. How do I explain this to my non-member friends that bring this up?

Can't be explained, you shouldn't even try. Todd Compton, the expert on that particular marriage thinks it was largely dynastic in purpose, to bind together the Smith and Kimball family but even so, it is too strange to explain. These days we don't believe that God orders people about and threatens to murder them if they don't comply - that kinda takes the free agency out of it and it is free agency, not coercion, that is fundamental to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

[hordak]

I'm kind of confused on the subject too.

You have FAIR explaining that they were just sealing, I.E. non sexual. And i think the evidence and DNA testing that has been done supports that.

But then you also have FAIR bringing up Abraham as an example. But IIRC the purpose of Abraham taking on concubines was to have kids/more kids and all the other Prophets and saints that practiced it did so as well.

So why did Joseph need to be sealed to these women? Particularly the ones who were married? What was different then?

[Just_A_Guy]

Bytors post makes sense to me. I have also just recalled reading about how Joseph Smith also sealed brothren who were good friends together too. Does anyone have anymore information on this matter and whether it is in fact true. If so, why do we not do this today?

It was called "adoption", and Wilford Woodruff discontinued the practice in favor of sealing parents to their natural-born children.

It seems to me that if all the righteous are sealed to their spouses, children, parents etc; many, if not all of us will one day be sealed to each other, anyway.

I think that's what Joseph Smith was driving at, yes. But it took some time for things to be set in their proper order.

[ttribe]

I'm kind of confused on the subject too.

You have FAIR explaining that they were just sealing, I.E. non sexual. And i think the evidence and DNA testing that has been done supports that.

But then you also have FAIR bringing up Abraham as an example. But IIRC the purpose of Abraham taking on concubines was to have kids/more kids and all the other Prophets and saints that practiced it did so as well.

So why did Joseph need to be sealed to these women? Particularly the ones who were married? What was different then?

I found this paper helpful - http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf

[Moksha]

Riverrogue if I remember right, there were two fourteen year olds. If for some unusual reason your friends do ask (not a normal topic in a conversation, if you know what I mean), just tell them that what is past is past and that nowadays polygamists are excommunicated.

[Vanhin]

For some reason this subject has never bothered me. I've been intrigued by it all, because it is so bizarre, but I have always felt that in the end there is a perfectly good explanation for it all. This mainly because I know Joseph Smith was prophet of God, and that God chooses righteous men as his prophets.

Though still rare, I don't think being married at 14 was completely unheard of for women during the 1800's. The 1850 census showed that roughly 2% of reported marriages were to 14-15 year old brides. Most brides appear to be between 16-18 however during that year. (source)

Anyway, no big deal to me. The Church is true, because God says so, so I'm not fazed by the weird stuff.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Moksha]

Except for a few dusty drawings, carvings, some writings and generations upon generation of begetting children, there is little evidence of sex before the 19th Century. (Forget the Kama Sutra, the Etruscan paintings or the Temple of Karnak - it spoils my argument). No videos, photographs or holo-projections are to be found.

Don't think there was ever any mention of sexual abstinence in polygamy. Are we sure this insistence that Joseph Smith was chaste, is not some misplaced bit of apologetics? The women who vouched that they were indeed Joseph Smith's polygamous wives, to disprove the RLDS claim that Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy, did not also vouch that they practiced chastity.

[Elphaba]

I am looking for the best answer to a puzzling question that I have been confronted with repeatedly about Joseph Smith's marriage to a 14 year old girl. I don't remember her name. But they say that Joseph Smith couldn't have been a true prophet of even a righteous person, because he married a 14 year old girl. Joseph had said to the effect, that he didn't want to marry her, but was told by an angel that if he didn't, he would be struck down by the angel with a sword. So he did marry the girl.

Joseph married two 14-year-old girls, but the one who is well-known is Helen Mar Kimball. Todd Compton believes, as others here have said, that this marriage was probably dynastic. While it is likely Joseph had sexual relations with some of his wives, there is no evidence Helen was one of them.

However, it was Zina Diantha Huntington, not Helen, who was told by Joseph that an angel with a drawn sword had stood over him and told him that if he did not establish polygamy, he would lose "his position and his life."

This was after Zina had been proposed to by both Joseph and Henry Jacobs. Zina had chosen and married Jacobs, but Joseph insisted she was to be his wife, and thus told her the story of the angel and the sword, which did persuade her.

So, Zina chose to marry Joseph while still married to Jacobs. It gets somewhat complicated, because Joseph was soon murdered, but rather than stay with Jacobs, she went on to marry Brigham.

I recommend Todd Compton's book if you're interested in Joseph's polygamy.

Elphaba

[Snow]

duplication

Edited December 3, 2009 by Snow

[Snow]

Don't think there was ever any mention of sexual abstinence in polygamy. Are we sure this insistence that Joseph Smith was chaste, is not some misplaced bit of apologetics? The women who vouched that they were indeed Joseph Smith's polygamous wives, to disprove the RLDS claim that Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy, did not also vouch that they practiced chastity.

Though it's hard to fathom, there are people right here on this message board that hop up and down to claim that Joseph Smith's wives were lying (and by extension the LDS Church that requested their affidavits) when they claim that they had actual marital relations with their husband.... ah, the mental gymnastics that apologists engage into defend their dogma.

[Gwen]

These days we don't believe that God orders people about and threatens to murder them if they don't comply - that kinda takes the free agency out of it and it is free agency, not coercion, that is fundamental to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Alma 32:

13 And now, because ye are compelled to be humble blessed are ye; for a man sometimes, if he is compelled to be humble, seeketh arepentance; and now surely, whosoever repenteth shall find mercy; and he that findeth mercy and bendureth to the end the same shall be saved. 14 And now, as I said unto you, that because ye were compelled to be ahumble ye were blessed, do ye not suppose that they are more blessed who truly humble themselves because of the word?

15 Yea, he that truly humbleth himself, and repenteth of his sins, and endureth to the end, the same shall be blessed—yea, much more blessed than they who are compelled to be humble because of their exceeding poverty.

16 Therefore, blessed are they who ahumble themselves without being bcompelled to be humble; or rather, in other words, blessed is he that believeth in the word of God, and is baptized without cstubbornness of heart, yea, without being brought to know the word, or even compelled to know, before they will believe.

would compelling count as coercion?

[bytor2112]

Can't be explained, you shouldn't even try. Todd Compton, the expert on that particular marriage thinks it was largely dynastic in purpose, to bind together the Smith and Kimball family but even so, it is too strange to explain. These days we don't believe that God orders people about and threatens to murder them if they don't comply - that kinda takes the free agency out of it and it is free agency, not coercion, that is fundamental to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

It's interesting that you say these days......surely the Mosaic Law would have to be viewed as coercion. Perhaps in the process of Restoring ALL things a bit of coercion was necessary. I agree that agency is fundamental to the Gospel....but not so much the Mosaic Law.

[bytebear]

Joseph married two 14-year-old girls, but the one who is well-known is Helen Mar Kimball. Todd Compton believes, as others here have said, that this marriage was probably dynastic. While it is likely Joseph had sexual relations with some of his wives, there is no evidence Helen was one of them.

However, it was Zina Diantha Huntington, not Helen, who was told by Joseph that an angel with a drawn sword had stood over him and told him that if he did not establish polygamy, he would lose "his position and his life."

This was after Zina had been proposed to by both Joseph and Henry Jacobs. Zina had chosen and married Jacobs, but Joseph insisted she was to be his wife, and thus told her the story of the angel and the sword, which did persuade her.

So, Zina chose to marry Joseph while still married to Jacobs. It gets somewhat complicated, because Joseph was soon murdered, but rather than stay with Jacobs, she went on to marry Brigham.

I recommend Todd Compton's book if you're interested in Joseph's polygamy.

Elphaba

I agree with the assessment of Helen Mar Kimball.

Wouldn't Zina Huntington be older than 14? I mean, if she was already married, why are we quibbling about her age? And isn't there a difference between a spiritual sealing and a carnal marriage? I see Smith's marriages as the former, and not the latter.

The other 14 year old that I am aware of was Fanny Alger, but there are some big problems with including her as a wife. First off, she did live with the Smith's and she got pregnant, and all fingers pointed to Joseph. So, to justify the situation, church leaders (mainly Brigham Young) touted her as a wife, and bolstered their justification for polygamy. But there are a couple problems. First, DNA has since proven that Smith was not the father. Second, he didn't even receive any revelations about polygamy until years later, and even then it took several more years before he was sealed to his next wife. If you look at the dates, there is a huge gap between Alger (1833) and the next wife Lucinda Morgan Harris (1838), and then the rest follow in 1841 (3 women), '42 (11 women) and '43 (14 women). Seems to me, something is not quite right there. And if smith were sleeping with upwards of 30 women, how come he only had children with Emma?

[Snow]

It's interesting that you say these days......surely the Mosaic Law would have to be viewed as coercion. Perhaps in the process of Restoring ALL things a bit of coercion was necessary. I agree that agency is fundamental to the Gospel....but not so much the Mosaic Law.

Do you find it interesting that God has never once said that He supported killing someone if they cursed their mother (Lev 20:9) - or that He agreed that anyone with a flat nose or damaged testicle cannot go to the altar of God (lev 21:16-20)?

Never - not even once.

Why do you suppose that God doesn't like people with birth defects and do you really think that God liked to burn people at the stake?

Edited December 5, 2009 by Snow

[Justice]

"Required" is part I can't answer.

I believe it is possible. I believe you may be asked, but I'm not certain all will be asked.

Does that make sense?

[bytor2112]

Do you find it interesting that God has never once said that He supported killing someone if they cursed their mother (Lev 20:9) - or that He agreed that anyone with a flat nose or damaged testicle cannot go to the altar of God (lev 21:16-20)?

Never - not even once.

Why do you suppose that God doesn't like people with birth defects and do you really think that God liked to burn people at the stake?

Not sure I follow you....your saying that in Leviticus 20, verse 1 "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,"....this is not the Lord speaking? I think the Lord was "preparing a nation of bondsmen and slaves and turning them into Priests and Kings" ....it required strict obedience and the sooner the rebels were sloughed off the better. (paraphrase quote: The Mortal Messiah).

Edited December 5, 2009 by bytor2112

[Snow]

5 Your lamb shall be without blemish...

(Old Testament | Exodus 12:5)

Obviously this is in similitude of the only begotten. Line upon line - now we can understand the spirit of the law without fulfilling the entire letter of the law. In order to fully understand the spirit of the thing, we are built upon a foundation where the letter of the law was upheld... Without a strong foundation, I don't think anyone would realize the seriousness of the thing, would not recognize our shortcomings fully, would see it as "no big deal" to go to the temple with imperfections. Yes, we go with imperfections, but because of our heritage, we are more aware of those imperfections, and are more apt to try and be more like the Savior... IMO

I suppose that you are referring to the verses that prohibit people with deformity and birth defects from approaching the altar.

The answer can't be that the person approaching the altar must be without blemish because all people have blemishes.

[Snow]

Not sure I follow you....your saying that in Leviticus 20, verse 1 "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,"....this is not the Lord speaking? I think the Lord was "preparing a nation of bondsmen and slaves and turning them into Priests and Kings" ....it required strict obedience and the sooner the rebels were sloughed off the better. (paraphrase quote: The Mortal Messiah).

You seem to be under the impression that if an anonymous text says that God said something, then that actually means that God said it.

You may believe in a God that discriminates against people with handicaps and wants people burned at the stake, but I believe in a God that is just and fair.

[Snow]

I'm curious to know why people concentrate so much on Joseph Smith, rather than on B.Y. (who was also a prophet) and others living under the same law.

Also, if polygamy is not required here, in this life, will it be required in the next life to attain godhood?

Because BY can be seen as just following instructions. JS is the originator and if he started polygamy and practiced it himself it opens up the possibility that he was simply following his own motives.

[bytor2112]

You seem to be under the impression that if an anonymous text says that God said something, then that actually means that God said it.

You may believe in a God that discriminates against people with handicaps and wants people burned at the stake, but I believe in a God that is just and fair.

Gotcha. So, just for clarification....your saying that if a scripture conflicts with your view of a just and fair God that it should be ignored...discredited or......? Are we to just look at these verses of scripture as more allegory and try to glean the author's intent. Or are you suggesting that these were simply barbaric people that used God as an excuse for there excesses?

Isn't there a danger in doing that? Slippery slope? Doesn't that just lead to creating the Gospel according to ....in your case..Snow?