Joseph and Polygamy

[Snow]

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......?

Do you think you are going to win a battle of clever word games with me bytor?

What I am saying is that you appear to believe in a God who wants to burn people up in fires and refuses to allow them to approach his altar if they have damaged testicles and I think that is a bunch of nonsense.

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?

Obviously burning people at the stake is barbaric. We wouldn't tolerate it today and I think that God is much more just and un-barbaric than we are. Moreover, I don't think God is evolving from a barbarian into what he is now. I think that is has alway not been a barbarian.

Much of the OT is a record of man's dealings with God written from some men's point of view.

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?

You may think that a God that doesn't discriminate against people with birth defects that he created and that doesn't torture people is a creation of a heretic - I'd say that is exactly the kind of God that the Gospel preaches - fair, just, benevolent.

As for danger... could you describe the danger that I face for believing that God doesn't care if you plant two kinds of crops in the same field?

[bytor2112]

Not trying to win a clever word game....just attempting to make sense out of what you are saying. I think I understand,,,,not sure.

So, what do you make of the Mosaic Law....man made or God given? God given laws and man made penalties?

[Moksha]

The other 14 year old that I am aware of was Fanny Alger, ...

The other 14 teen year old bride was Nancy Winchester. Fanny Alger was one of the 16 year olds.

[Snow]

Not trying to win a clever word game....just attempting to make sense out of what you are saying. I think I understand,,,,not sure.

So, what do you make of the Mosaic Law....man made or God given? God given laws and man made penalties?

Off hand - I'd say some of it is a bunch of nonsense. God is not unjust. God is not a bigot. God is not a barbaric killer. God is not nonsensical and capricious. Yet, you have to accept all those things if you accept Mosaic law as divine - either that or reconcile such things with a just and benevolent God by appealing to some great mystery.

If a person or a county or a religion today behaved in the way that the OT says that God behaved, we'd all label that religion/country as insane, barbaric and evil and, if they were in our jurisdiction, prosecute them and imprison them. Is that because we are less just and more capricious than the God described in the OT? No, it's because we are more enlightened and more moral.

Some of you try and reconcile apparently capricious and immoral behavior (attributed to God) by saying it's all a mystery. I, on the other hand, reconcile by saying that if it appears immoral, it's probably wrong or wrongly reported.

Let me ask you this... nowadays we members of the Church don't brutally kill people of other religions.

Why do you think that is? Could it because brutally killing people because they don't share your ideology is immoral?

Edited December 5, 2009 by Snow

[bytor2112]

So, what do we make of those scriptures? Why are they canonized? What value do we gain from studying them? I am guessing that you believe much of what is contained in the OT is false, then? I Have always found the OT to be.....frightening, BUT, accepted it as scripture and truth.

Off subject a bit, but, what about Nephi slaying Laban? Mis reported or ??

[TrueBlue32]

Different day back then. In fact I think it was Delaware in the 1830s attempted to change the common law marriage age from 12 years old to 7. Just take a look a historic laws of different states then and the average I think was 13 - 15 years of age. Average life span was 50 for men. Women usually younger because many would die giving birth.

[Snow]

So, what do we make of those scriptures? Why are they canonized?

I don't have an answer for you right now but do have a question - what do we make of the NT scriptures that are forgeries, ie 1st and 2nd Timothy and Titus?

What value do we gain from studying them? I am guessing that you believe much of what is contained in the OT is false, then? I Have always found the OT to be.....frightening, BUT, accepted it as scripture and truth.

I don't get any spiritual value from those kinds of scriptures - what value to you get from believing that God wants to torture people and give orders that are nonsensical?

The value I do get is a glimpse into religion making and its manmade influences.

When we see other religion, like say Hinduism that holds that the cow is sacred, we think that is just made up. When we see Islam that believes that they are supposed to murder non-belivers, we think they are evil. Why is it different with our religious tradition. How is the prohibition about wearing to types of cloth any more sensible than some odd Janist or Hindu beliefs? Why is it evil for Muslim to murder and torture in the name of religion but it's not bad for the Judeo-Chistian tradition to do the same?

Off subject a bit, but, what about Nephi slaying Laban? Mis reported or ??

I've tried arguing through it to see if I could arrive at some reasonable conclusion but haven't reconciled it satisfactorily yet - one way or the other.

[Elphaba]

Wouldn't Zina Huntington be older than 14?

I was not commenting on Zina’s age. I was clarifying that it was she, not Helen, to whom Joseph claimed he had been threatened by an angel with a sword if he did not practice polygamy.

Zina was not the only woman Joseph told this to while proposing. But she was the first.

I mean, if she was already married, why are we quibbling about her age?

I wasn‘t.

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.

I know you do. But you're wrong.

Historians agree there is good evidence Joseph had sex with eight of his wives: Fanny Alger, Sylvia Sessions Lyon, Almira Johnson, Melissa Lott, Emily Partridge, Eliza Partridge, Maria Lawrence, and Sarah Lawrence.

The other 14 year old that I am aware of was Fanny Alger,

Fanny was either 16 or 17.

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.

Once again, as I have asked for in the past when you’ve made this claim, what is your source?

Mormon historians, including Todd Compton, D. Michael Quinn, Linda King Newell, Valeen Tippetts Avery, and Richard Bushman all agree Fanny was Joseph’s first polygamous wife.

But there are a couple problems. First, DNA has since proven that Smith was not the father.

This is true, and I agree it is problematic. It is not proof, however, that Joseph and Fanny were not married.

Second, he didn't even receive any revelations about polygamy until years later,

Scholars believe he received the revelation in 1831.

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.

I don’t know what your point is. Are you denying there was even a relationship between Joseph and Fanny?

The gap in time is not problematic. The Church was struggling, and continued to struggle, until the height of its success in Nauvoo, which was in the early 1840s. Additionally, Emma had been furious at his relationship with Fanny and Joseph had suffered for it.

I can see Joseph choosing not to marry again until the Church was, as far as he knew, permanently established in Nauvoo and he could better manage it secretly. And he did, for a while.

And if smith were sleeping with upwards of 30 women, how come he only had children with Emma?

No one has ever suggested Joseph slept with all of his wives. The "upwards of 30 women" comment is a straw man.

Additionally, Joseph’s marriages were not constructed the way we typically think of marriage. He spent relatively very little time with each of his wives sans Emma. He did not provide for these wives, he did not live with them, and he did not publicly acknowledge them. So, if it turns out Joseph did not impregnate any of them, it wouldn’t be surprising, and it certainly doesn’t mean he wasn’t married to them.

The children historians thought were Joseph’s, prior to DNA technology, turn out not to have been his. But Sylvia Sessions, one of Joseph’s polyandrous wives, thought her daughter was Joseph’s. Prescendia Huntington said she did not know if her child was Joseph’s or not.

Unlike you, I do not believe women lie. Obviously Joseph did have sex with some of his wives. But, per wife, it could not have been often, and I don’t see it as strange there are no known descendants other than those from Emma.

Elphaba

[bytor2112]

I don't have an answer for you right now but do have a question - what do we make of the NT scriptures that are forgeries, ie 1st and 2nd Timothy and Titus?

Good question. To be honest, most of my scripture study centers around the BOM, D&C, POG and First 4 Books of NT. OT has always confused and spooked me. I have relied heavily on others for guidance regarding the OT.....just read The First Two Thousand Years by Skousen and The Promised Messiah by McConkie and am working on The Mortal Messiah by McConkie.

Your points have a lot of merit Snow. I will definitely give them some thought and prayer.

[bytebear]

The children historians thought were Joseph’s, prior to DNA technology, turn out not to have been his. But Sylvia Sessions, one of Joseph’s polyandrous wives, thought her daughter was Joseph’s. Prescendia Huntington said she did not know if her child was Joseph’s or not.

Unlike you, I do not believe women lie. Obviously Joseph did have sex with some of his wives. But, per wife, it could not have been often, and I don’t see it as strange there are no known descendants other than those from Emma.

Elphaba

I believe a woman traveling west with the Saints would have a lot to gain by claiming or at least alluding that her child was the son of the prophet Joseph Smith. Obviously some women claimed to be intimate with the prophet, but that doesn't mean they really were. And as you said the DNA evidence is troubling.

Edited December 6, 2009 by bytebear

[Just_A_Guy]

With all due respect, Bytebear, it strikes me that the well-known difficult circumstances under which Joseph F. Smith came west (and grew up) ought to put to rest any notion of women realistically expecting support from the Church by virtue of any relationship (real or alleged) to Joseph Smith.

[Snow]

I have relied heavily on others for guidance regarding the OT.....just read The First Two Thousand Years by Skousen and The Promised Messiah by McConkie and am working on The Mortal Messiah by McConkie.

Cool. I read The First Two Thousand Years by Skousen on my mission and have been meaning to pick it up again. I enjoyed the appendix on the Priesthood.

[Snow]

We are the ones evolving, not God.

Unless you believe that the OT was an accurate account of God - a god who was intent on torturing and killing people, a god very unlike God that we worship today.

The 10 commandments - did you know that the first set of 10 commandments, the ones Moses destroyed when he found them worshipping the golden cow - the first set was different than the second set? The first set contained something akin to the sermon on the mount - love your enemies etc. etc. it contained a higher law. They were not ready to live the higher law, did not have Jesus as an example to follow yet, so now we have the second set of 10 commandments. Can't love? well, let's start with just trying not to kill one another shall we?

Can I get a source please?

[Snow]

Most of the OT is not God speaking, it is Jesus BTW...

Jesus, btw, is God. ...And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen. (2 Nephi 31:21)

refined in the fire. If a fire is what it takes? than so be it. Id' rather be refined - no matter what it takes - than to be left wallowing in an unformed state...

I'd say the OT God, and the NT God, is a being who is set on refining us :)

What would it be like living before Jesus was here? Without an example to follow? Harsher laws for harsher times... I think it took a bit more to convince anyone to do/not do anything...

"If I have seen farther than others it is because I have stood on the shoulders of Giants" - Newton... if there are no shoulders to stand on? what can you see?

Same with the early church. They did not have much to stand on... they were making the foundation for others who would come later to stand on... a different time, with some different laws.

Okay - but I wasn't talking about a refiners fire. I was talking about all the killing and torturing attributed to God - and the nonsensical rules - like if a man has marital relations with his wife during her time of the month, they are both to be cast out from the people.

1. And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two other tables of stone, like unto the first, and I will write upon them also, the words of the law, according as they were written at the first on the tables which thou brakest; but it shall not be according to the first, for I will take away the priesthood out of their midst; therefore my holy order, and the ordinances thereof, shall not go before them; for my presence shall not go up in their midst, lest I destroy them.

2. But I will give unto them the law as at the first, but it shall be after the law of a carnal commandment; for I have sworn in my wrath, that they shall not enter into my presence, into my rest, in the days of their pilgrimage. Therefore do as I have commanded thee, and be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning unto mount Sinai,

(JST | Exodus 34:1 - 2)

There are some more sources for this, can't think of where I first read about it though, sorry.

I was asking for a source of your claim that the first set of tablets had something akin to the Sermon on the Mount - love your neighbor stuff.

[HiJolly]

I would like to make a couple of low-key comments re: Elphaba's comments.... Any comment I *don't* make suggests general agreement with Elphaba.

Bytebear: 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.

I know you do. But you're wrong.

No room for nuance there, is there? I agree with Bytebear that there is a *potential* difference. Obviously Joseph's sealings with other men were *not* marriages. While I know that Joseph's sealings to his plural wives involve evidence that some of these were not strictly platonic, nevertheless there is no 'smoking gun', no 'proof', to my point of view. See below in my comments re: women lying.

Historians agree there is good evidence Joseph had sex with eight of his wives: Fanny Alger, Sylvia Sessions Lyon, Almira Johnson, Melissa Lott, Emily Partridge, Eliza Partridge, Maria Lawrence, and Sarah Lawrence.

Historians, like scientists studying global warming, are not without disagreement on the various points of evidence and their interpretation. "good evidence" is clearly in the eye of the beholder, IMO. Certainly, Joseph had opportunity for carnal relations in these cases. Yet I see nothing compelling me to Elphaba's POV. At the same time I concede that sexual relations *may* have occurred, I just see nothing in the evidence to suggest it was *likely* or *probable*. To the argument of 'human nature' I would respond with the prevalent morality of the day. I seriously doubt any of us understand what it was like back then, without TV, movies, MTV, etc.

Additionally, Joseph’s marriages were not constructed the way we typically think of marriage. He spent relatively very little time with each of his wives sans Emma. He did not provide for these wives, he did not live with them, and he did not publicly acknowledge them. So, if it turns out Joseph did not impregnate any of them, it wouldn’t be surprising, and it certainly doesn’t mean he wasn’t married to them.

No question that Joseph was married to them, though many LDS do prefer the less-suggestive "sealed" word...

As to the children, I do think the fact that none have been found is evidence in favor of no sexual relations. Not proof, but evidence. I seriously doubt any birth control was being used, artificial or otherwise, and from his record with Emma, it is clear that he was quite virile.

Unlike you, I do not believe women lie. Obviously Joseph did have sex with some of his wives. But, per wife, it could not have been often, and I don’t see it as strange there are no known descendants other than those from Emma.

Elphaba

I know for a fact *some* women lie. Look at Emma re: polygamy. I'm not saying I wouldn't do the same in similar circumstances, but nevertheless, women certainly *do* lie. I really fail to grasp why you would say that, Elphaba. In fact, this whole post seems to be uncharacteristically full of absolute assertions from you. ???

In the case of the affidavits given by Joseph's wives in Utah, which were desperately sought by Joseph F. Smith for the Church as ammunition against the RLDS church's claims that Joseph had nothing to do with polygamy, I really believe these were practically (if not literally) coerced from those ladies, and would not be at all surprised if these sisters considered it their duty to be as helpful and perhaps suggestive as possible.

Maybe some of them even felt a need to counter-balance the denials of Emma? No evidence, but it's possible.

In reading what excerpts I could find of the affidavits (having read the same books as you, Elphaba), this thought came to me quite clearly. I know that this is not evidence of any sort, yet it has made an undeniable impact on me.

So yes, that's my opinion. I think the evidence available allows for it. I'm not saying what was 'right' and what was 'bad'. I just think that we should be cautious in making firm, certain claims.

HiJolly

[Snow]

I would like to make a couple of low-key comments re: Elphaba's comments.... Any comment I *don't* make suggests general agreement with Elphaba.

No room for nuance there, is there? I agree with Bytebear that there is a *potential* difference. Obviously Joseph's sealings with other men were *not* marriages. While I know that Joseph's sealings to his plural wives involve evidence that some of these were not strictly platonic, nevertheless there is no 'smoking gun', no 'proof', to my point of view. See below in my comments re: women lying.

Historians, like scientists studying global warming, are not without disagreement on the various points of evidence and their interpretation. "good evidence" is clearly in the eye of the beholder, IMO. Certainly, Joseph had opportunity for carnal relations in these cases. Yet I see nothing compelling me to Elphaba's POV. At the same time I concede that sexual relations *may* have occurred, I just see nothing in the evidence to suggest it was *likely* or *probable*. To the argument of 'human nature' I would respond with the prevalent morality of the day. I seriously doubt any of us understand what it was like back then, without TV, movies, MTV, etc.

No question that Joseph was married to them, though many LDS do prefer the less-suggestive "sealed" word...

As to the children, I do think the fact that none have been found is evidence in favor of no sexual relations. Not proof, but evidence. I seriously doubt any birth control was being used, artificial or otherwise, and from his record with Emma, it is clear that he was quite virile.

I know for a fact *some* women lie. Look at Emma re: polygamy. I'm not saying I wouldn't do the same in similar circumstances, but nevertheless, women certainly *do* lie. I really fail to grasp why you would say that, Elphaba. In fact, this whole post seems to be uncharacteristically full of absolute assertions from you. ???

In the case of the affidavits given by Joseph's wives in Utah, which were desperately sought by Joseph F. Smith for the Church as ammunition against the RLDS church's claims that Joseph had nothing to do with polygamy, I really believe these were practically (if not literally) coerced from those ladies, and would not be at all surprised if these sisters considered it their duty to be as helpful and perhaps suggestive as possible.

Maybe some of them even felt a need to counter-balance the denials of Emma? No evidence, but it's possible.

In reading what excerpts I could find of the affidavits (having read the same books as you, Elphaba), this thought came to me quite clearly. I know that this is not evidence of any sort, yet it has made an undeniable impact on me.

So yes, that's my opinion. I think the evidence available allows for it. I'm not saying what was 'right' and what was 'bad'. I just think that we should be cautious in making firm, certain claims.

HiJolly

Ten

Ten

Ten

... and a nine point five from the Soviet judge.

Oh the extreme mental gymnastics that some apologists with vault to in order to justify their dogma.

Who to believe... those sealed to JS in the New and Everlasting Covenant speaking of their own marriages, or an apologist who thinks they are all liars?

Edited December 9, 2009 by Snow

[Snow]

Sexual relations or no sexual relations, polygamy is necessary for the Plan of Salvation. The plan requires a Savior, and that Savior is born – to a mortal handmaid. The Savior has to be half mortal, hence the need for a mortal handmaid – and we all know from Sarah what a handmaid is. Mary was a virgin – it was not about sex. The only reason ever given for polygamy concerns bearing children. That is what it was used for in the case of Jesus, and that is what it may be used for in the eternities for anyone who is interested in becoming a God.. The point in looking at these issues with Joseph is perhaps a warning to some – prepare yourself, this is the kind of things that will be coming

Ima gonna say - you just made that all up. Not only is it not doctrinal, it doesn't even make sense... unless you have some real evidence that Mary was a polygamist and that Joseph was a polyandrist.

[Snow]

You almost sound as if you don't think the OT is scripture... Next year should be fun for you. Gos doctrine class will be over the OT :).

Of course it is scripture. It's been canonized. I just don't think that it is all literally and factually accurate.

...could you describe the danger that I face for believing that God doesn't care if you drink green tea? .... it's about the same type of question you know

No, I didn't claim that believing that God doesn't care about drinking green tea. I don't care if you do or don't nor do I care if you think God cares. On the other hand the other poster claimed that I face danger for believing as I do. If there is danger, it ought be a simple matter to state what the danger is.

[HiJolly]

Of course it is scripture. It's been canonized. I just don't think that it is all literally and factually accurate.

I agree, Snow. Same view. A lot of beautiful stuff there, even so.

I have really enjoyed being a gospel doctrine teacher this past year. Especially in the beginning of the year, when we were addressing early Church history every week. I am really sad that my main church calling will prevent me from teaching GD this coming year.

OTOH, there's no way I'd be willing to give up that main calling, it's even better than teaching Nursery!! Or Gospel Doctrine!

No more obscure references to the Zohar, 777 or the Bhagavad Gita...

OT wooot!! (sigh)

HiJolly

[Moksha]

The only reason ever given for polygamy concerns bearing children. That is what it was used for in the case of Jesus...

So God had himself sealed to Joseph's wife, the handmaid?

[Snow]

Mary was a handmaid.

38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord;

(New Testament | Luke 1:38)

Jesus is the product of Heavenly Father and one of HF's handmaids.

Anyone care to dispute that?

JS practiced polandry and polygamy too.

H.M. is perfect and immortal. Jesus had to be 1/2 mortal. Each after their own kind. Handmaids are the only way to beget saviors.

JMO...

LDS.org - Ensign Article - “One Thing Needfulâ€: Becoming Women of Greater Faith in Christ

Sr. Holland seems to think that Sarah is in similitude of H.M.

Jesus is the "only" begotten. what does "only" mean? It means H.M. has no begotten children. She uses handmaids to beget us all.

Ah... so you did just make it up.

No one asked if Mary was a "handmaid" (A woman attendant or servant - American Heritage). I asked for evidence that God was married to Mary.

I see you have none.

[deseretgov]

It doesn't seem a marriage between Heavenly Father and Mary would have been needed since it seems Heavenly Father didnt have a sexual relationship with Mary.

So no, Jesus was not an illegitimate child since Mary never had sex with anyone.

[Vanhin]

Mary was a handmaid.

38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord;

(New Testament | Luke 1:38)

Jesus is the product of Heavenly Father and one of HF's handmaids.

Anyone care to dispute that?

JS practiced polandry and polygamy too.

H.M. is perfect and immortal. Jesus had to be 1/2 mortal. Each after their own kind. Handmaids are the only way to beget saviors.

JMO...

LDS.org - Ensign Article - “One Thing Needfulâ€: Becoming Women of Greater Faith in Christ

Sr. Holland seems to think that Sarah is in similitude of H.M.

Jesus is the "only" begotten. what does "only" mean? It means H.M. has no begotten children. She uses handmaids to beget us all.

I totally understand what you are saying and I can see the logic behind it. Very interesting to say the least. That said, I think this is clearly in the realm of serious speculation. :)

Regards,

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

It doesn't seem a marriage between Heavenly Father and Mary would have been needed since it seems Heavenly Father didnt have a sexual relationship with Mary.

So no, Jesus was not an illegitimate child since Mary never had sex with anyone.

You are right, Mary was a virgin, but Heavenly Father did sire the Child nonetheless. Would marriage be needed if a man and a woman decided to have a child through artificial insemination and raise it together, where the child would be their literal offspring?

Regards,

Vanhin

[deseretgov]

You are right, Mary was a virgin, but Heavenly Father did sire the Child nonetheless. Would marriage be needed if a man and a woman decided to have a child through artificial insemination and raise it together, where the child would be their literal offspring?

Regards,

Vanhin

I think a better example, although just as crude, would be:

Is marriage required between a woman and a sperm donor, if a couple decided to have the wife impregnated from a bank?

Ok maybe mine is a bit more crude, but it conveys the situationa bit more accurately than your example. Heavenly father was the literal father of Christ but Joseph raised him with Mary.

Edited December 9, 2009 by deseretgov