I'm Shocked

[Windseeker]

I've been a member my whole life, served a mission..yada yada and it didn't really dawn on me until I was 40. All I knew about was Emma. I mean does anyone know any of the wives names other then Emma? In all the movies on his life I've seen it certainly doesn't depict his wives.

After comming to this realization, It doesn't discount all my experiences. Anyway. I still believe Joseph was a true Prophet of God.

I can relate to the OP and I don't really don't think it's necessary to impugn or disparage her.

[McLainDow]

It has been fairly easy for me to come to terms with Joseph Smith's polygamy, The Lord says he will choose the weak ones in the world to bring about his purposes. Joseph Smith did some things that I strongly disagree with but, does that mean that the gospel was not restored to the earth through him?

[Lakumi]

It never bothered me, the only thing that raised an eye brow was the Cockatrice thing in the BoM, that question was easily answered

[TalkativeIntrovert]

I've been a member of the church since I was 13 - I'm 26 now.

The only reason I know anything about the subject of this thread is through my own research online. It has never been discussed, or even mentioned in any church meeting or lesson I have attended for the last 13 years.

So I don't find this hard to believe at all.

My husband grew up in the church, I was converted, neither of us knew about this until I started reading a lot more on the internet.

[Quin]

I hate to say it, but just researching this on the internet is not making Joseph look like a good person, let alone a prophet of God.

".

I'm not sure why?

But let me back up a moment...

1) Are you aware that MOST people in the Old Testament, and many in the New Testament had multiple wives? Polygyny was standard practice in the biblical era.

2) That polygyny is still practiced in the "the holy land/ biblical geography" aka the Middle East.

It's easy to say/think "that's disgusting" about other people's practices. Most of the polygynous I know (middle eastern) HATE the idea of single marriage. Sure, it's a burden for the First Wife to bear, and although there are some upsides, mostly they veil it as negative. THE SAME WAY most westerners view multiple wives as negative. They think we're disgusting, we think they're disgusting... Almost always equals We Are Right. Aka WAR. Not everything different is disgusting. It's just different. With upsides and downsides like anything else.

3) It's hardly unreasonable, IMHO, that in a Restored gospel, that many things would be reset (like standard marriage practices), and then need to evolve. LOL. Personally, I think it would TAKE a prophet of God to convince, en masse, puritanical Americans that polygyny is a good idea. Our ancestors were reeeeally NOT known for their libertine ways. kwim?

[TalkativeIntrovert]

In twenty years you haven't heard the church say that we need to be diligent about studying the scriptures?

Hmm it seems to me that your shock is a result of expecting to be spoon fed in a church that tries to teach people to be self reliant (This would include spirituality)

This is the type of response that is turning me away from this board and one of the contributing factors for me becoming inactive a while back.

When I went inactive, I was constantly feeling like I was never good enough and never knew enough. It seems if you don't know everything there is something wrong with you. This of course means you don't ask question for fear of looking like an idiot - and your learning stops.

Not everyone can learn and understand everything from just reading a set of scriptures written in a language that may not be familiar.

The kicker is that Joseph's wives are not in the scriptures.

[estradling75]

This is the type of response that is turning me away from this board and one of the contributing factors for me becoming inactive a while back.

When I went inactive, I was constantly feeling like I was never good enough and never knew enough. It seems if you don't know everything there is something wrong with you. This of course means you don't ask question for fear of looking like an idiot - and your learning stops.

Not everyone can learn and understand everything from just reading a set of scriptures written in a language that may not be familiar.

The kicker is that Joseph's wives are not in the scriptures.

No Joseph Smith wife's are not... But the command to practice polygamy is. If we study the scriptures as commanded we should at some point come across it. If we are confused by it then we should study it and ask questions. Once we gain the basic understanding that it was commanded it should not be a Shock that it was practiced.

[pam]

The kicker is that Joseph's wives are not in the scriptures.

You're right. They aren't all mentioned in the scriptures. However Emma Smith is and she will and always will be the woman he loved and had children with.

[TalkativeIntrovert]

That is my point. What is in the scriptures is not what the history is.

So the criticism against the OP for not studying enough, or expecting to be spoon-fed, is invalid. No matter how much studying of the scriptures one may do, you will not find JS's polygamy.

I have no comment either way on what JS did, or even polygamy/polyandry specifically, I just take issue with criticism rather than help if someone's knowledge is lacking. I know it is due to my own reasons - I still don't know a lot, am still learning and don't like being made to feel "less" because of it.

Regardless of where each individual person is in regards to their knowledge, I am pretty sure no one knows everything perfectly.

[bytebear]

I never get why people are shocked. Mormon and polygamy are the most common linked items. Second is Donnie and Marie I think. I grew up knowing all about Brigham Young's many children, and we had church history lessons on how the prophets had to live in hiding over polygamy. They didn't specifically talk about Joseph Smith, but it was always clear that Brigham Young didn't just make it up one day.

These are lessons from when I was in primary. Maybe they changed the lesson plans, or maybe now that we have fewer members who have polygamy in their family tree, it's less personal, but the practice was always taught, and taught as a lesson in following the Lord despite great opposition. I think maybe things are just changing. The need isolation of Utah isn't so any more. Most members don't come from ancestors who crossed the plains.

So, for me, it's really no big deal. I do believe Smith's marriages were dynastic, symbolic. But even if some weren't, who cares. Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and pretty much all of the early church leadership for 50 years practiced polygamy. How can this possibly be seen as a secret. Why single out Joseph Smith other than to create a non-existent "gotcha" moment.

[estradling75]

That is my point. What is in the scriptures is not what the history is.

So the criticism against the OP for not studying enough, or expecting to be spoon-fed, is invalid. No matter how much studying of the scriptures one may do, you will not find JS's polygamy.

I have no comment either way on what JS did, or even polygamy/polyandry specifically, I just take issue with criticism rather than help if someone's knowledge is lacking. I know it is due to my own reasons - I still don't know a lot, am still learning and don't like being made to feel "less" because of it.

Regardless of where each individual person is in regards to their knowledge, I am pretty sure no one knows everything perfectly.

You made your point but you are missing mine... The church tells us to read the scriptures... If we read the scriptures at some point we are going to read D&C 132... While we might not fully understand all the ramifications of it but it is pretty clear on what it is commanding Joseph Smith and the other saints to practice polygamy. I can fully understand being shocked the first time a person is exposed to it. But to make the claim they have been a member for 20 years and they are just barely learning about it shows some serious neglect to a very fundamental aspect of learning about Christ (aka reading the scriptures)

[Zeitgeist]

I dated a Mormon woman from Utah and almost married her. She seemed like a very typical LDS woman with pleasant memories of her Mormon youth, a rock-solid happy faith, and a bookshelf full of tomes by LDS general authorities. Her Book of Mormon was almost unusable because of all the underlines and notes in the margins. She told me "no marriage" unless I was LDS, so I began reading about the LDS Church and its history. We had some deep conversations, and pretty soon it was rather clear that she had no knowledge whatsoever about Joseph Smith's wives.

[Lakumi]

I dated a Mormon woman from Utah and almost married her. She seemed like a very typical LDS woman with pleasant memories of her Mormon youth, a rock-solid happy faith, and a bookshelf full of tomes by LDS general authorities. Her Book of Mormon was almost unusable because of all the underlines and notes in the margins. She told me "no marriage" unless I was LDS, so I began reading about the LDS Church and its history. We had some deep conversations, and pretty soon it was rather clear that she had no knowledge whatsoever about Joseph Smith's wives.

I would never convert to marry someone

I also never understood why polygamy bothered people. I hear a lot of "they're trying to hide things from us/you" when, while the church doesn't talk about these things, it's not made any effort to hide its history.

The Catholic church hides its history, a lot (for example).

[Backroads]

I haven't even implied that the church has intended to hide their history. My only claim was that I wasn't surprised that the subject hasn't just "come up" in conversation, despite the OP being a member of the church for a lengthy period of time. You're referring to something entirely unrelated to my post, so I'm unsure as to why I was quoted?

I was quoting concerning your ability to accept a lack of knowledge on the OPs part, your lack of surprise. After that, I went on my own thought process.

No intention to make more of your post than that. If you prefer me to edit your quote out for clarification I'll be happy to.

[mnn727]

Are you aware that a number of his "wives" were sealed to him after his death?

There is a difference being sealed to someone and being married to someone.

[mnn727]

Joseph Smith being SEALED (not married) to a number of women.

Yes, the Church hides it on their websites and in books including the Doctrine and Covenants.

From the heading to D&C 132

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant and the principle of plural marriage. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, evidence indicates that some of the principles involved in this revelation were known by the Prophet as early as 1831.

If the revelation was given to Joseph Smith, do you really think he would not follow it?

What does it have to do with your salvation?

Edited October 27, 2013 by mnn727

[bytebear]

I dated a Mormon woman from Utah and almost married her. She seemed like a very typical LDS woman with pleasant memories of her Mormon youth, a rock-solid happy faith, and a bookshelf full of tomes by LDS general authorities. Her Book of Mormon was almost unusable because of all the underlines and notes in the margins. She told me "no marriage" unless I was LDS, so I began reading about the LDS Church and its history. We had some deep conversations, and pretty soon it was rather clear that she had no knowledge whatsoever about Joseph Smith's wives.

Did she know about polygamy at all? Did she know Brigham Young had many wives, and a whole bunch of kids? Was she really that uneducated on Mormon history?

[Maureen]

Just because he was sealed to them doesn't mean they ever lived as husband and wife or consummated the marriages. When sealing was a new revelation, in my opinion, it was a little misunderstood and not always implemented in the same way we do it today.

...So, for me, it's really no big deal. I do believe Smith's marriages were dynastic, symbolic. But even if some weren't, who cares. Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and pretty much all of the early church leadership for 50 years practiced polygamy. How can this possibly be seen as a secret. Why single out Joseph Smith other than to create a non-existent "gotcha" moment.

D&C 132:61 says:

And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

For some reason some members single out Joseph Smith as the man who was sealed to multiple women without actually being married to them. His relationship with these women did not involve sex. Why? Why is it acceptable that Brigham Young had multiple wives and children from them but not JS? D&C 132 is written to convey that plural marriage would involve sex. Why mention virgins and adultery if it did not mean that it would be acceptable for JS to have sexual relations with his wives?

M.

[bytebear]

D&C 132:61 says:

And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

For some reason some members single out Joseph Smith as the man who was sealed to multiple women without actually being married to them. His relationship with these women did not involve sex. Why? Why is it acceptable that Brigham Young had multiple wives and children from them but not JS? D&C 132 is written to convey that plural marriage would involve sex. Why mention virgins and adultery if it did not mean that it would be acceptable for JS to have sexual relations with his wives?

M.

My belief is that Joseph Smith was fulfilling the preparatory law, and Brigham Young fulfilled the fullness of the law. The primary purpose of the law is to "raise up a righteous seed" or in other words, to have a generation of children born to righteous fathers and mothers. Since Joseph Smith never had any children by his many wives other than Emma, I conclude, the Lord was preparing both the priesthood leadership and the women to accept this very difficult law in the next generation. The Lord and Joseph Smith knew that his life would be short, so the Lord prepared Brigham Young with the task of fulfilling the law completely.

[Anddenex]

When I first discovered the number of wives Joseph Smith had I was shocked myself, yet I am also shocked when a Church member is shocked that Joseph Smith had more than one wife. I will admit, I was even more shocked to discover Joseph Smith had been sealed to women who were married to other man; however, my shock soon faded away when a person actually reads the Holy Bible openly and without prejudice.

When people use the number 34 with more than one exclamation point I like to respond, "Ya I know, and yet he didn't even come close to King David or King Solomon." Imagine if the records of King David's wives and concubines were numbered by their ages. I am pretty sure, he probably was wedded to a few teenagers then as well, wouldn't be surprised either if a "x" number of the concubines were teenagers also. I mean 700 wives (20 times more than Joseph Smith -- and the Lord was willing to give him more), 300 hundred concubines (300 times more than Joseph Smith); but, for some reason people want to put exclamation marks behind 34 wives ( even bible believing Christians ).

In light of this, the reality again falls back to a simple question, "Did God call Joseph Smith as his prophet?" It doesn't matter how the world, through the internet, brush strokes his life on an open canvas. Also, we don't know much from history as to the reasons for the marriages, outside of what has been recorded, but was what that which has been recorded sufficient information to actually understand the reasoning? Thus, if Joseph Smith was a prophet, then let the world ( which is not of God ) paint Joseph Smith how they want to.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Anddenex

[Anddenex]

For some reason some members single out Joseph Smith as the man who was sealed to multiple women without actually being married to them. His relationship with these women did not involve sex. Why? Why is it acceptable that Brigham Young had multiple wives and children from them but not JS? D&C 132 is written to convey that plural marriage would involve sex. Why mention virgins and adultery if it did not mean that it would be acceptable for JS to have sexual relations with his wives?

M.

I agree with this line of thought, however I believe you are missing a critical point in the difference between marriage and sealings. A man may be sealed to a woman and legally, in the eyes of the Lord, not be able to be intimate with her.

A sealing represents a binding on earth and in heaven. A sealing of a man and woman on earth does not technically mean they are married such that intimate relations may happen. A sealing also represents a couple who not only have been sealed but also have been married.

The evidence to this truth is men and women who have divorced temporally while their sealing is still in tact. They are sealed, but not married. Thus, if sealed, but not married, and they enter into an intimate relationship they are subject to Church discipline because their intimate act is actually fornication.

I think it was very acceptable for Joseph Smith to have sexual relationships with those he was sealed and married to. Why not? As pertaining to those he was sealed to, now that is different than marriage, and I wish the Church kept better records.

Edited October 28, 2013 by Anddenex

[McLainDow]

I for one think it was wrong that Joseph Smith slept with women other them Emma but, My feeling is that it does not mean he was not a prophet. He was human. Many prophets in the old testament had character flaws but, through God did great things

The only item from this part of church history that has caused me any cognitive dissonance is the polyandry that went on. There is no example of polyandry in the old testament so, this was not a part of the restoration of all things, but I can to peace with it by chalking it up to the prophet being human,

[Quin]

I for one think it was wrong that Joseph Smith slept with women other them Emma but, My feeling is that it does not mean he was not a prophet. He was human. Many prophets in the old testament had character flaws but, through God did great things

The only item from this part of church history that has caused me any cognitive dissonance is the polyandry that went on. There is no example of polyandry in the old testament so, this was not a part of the restoration of all things, but I can to peace with it by chalking it up to the prophet being human,

Actually... I've always wondered about that.

Sooooooooooooooooo much of the OT/NT was taken out or altered in the King James Version (ESP anything having to do with women), and so much has been mistranslated over the years, or is open for debate.

A good friend of mine is a Classicist. She specializes in Ancient Greek.

Since there was no spacing in Ancient Greek, there are a lot of passages in the first translation of the Bible that the translators simply chose option A, instead of option B. (like the way to God is through me, rather than the way to god is through yourself)

Anyhow... Point being... Whenever something is pointed out as "not in the bible" I wonder if that's really true, or simply not in our version of it.

Also, one of the pretty cool things about having a living prophet.

Q

[McLainDow]

Actually... I've always wondered about that.

Sooooooooooooooooo much of the OT/NT was taken out or altered in the King James Version (ESP anything having to do with women), and so much has been mistranslated over the years, or is open for debate.

A good friend of mine is a Classicist. She specializes in Ancient Greek.

Since there was no spacing in Ancient Greek, there are a lot of passages in the first translation of the Bible that the translators simply chose option A, instead of option B. (like the way to God is through me, rather than the way to god is through yourself)

Anyhow... Point being... Whenever something is pointed out as "not in the bible" I wonder if that's really true, or simply not in our version of it.

Also, one of the pretty cool things about having a living prophet.

Q

I would love to learn Greek so I could read the NT in Greek. It adds so much richness to many passages. I once heard heard a lesson on the exchange between Peter and and the savior in John 21 that gives a totally different perspective on it and the person giving the lesson used the Greek NT. . A friend in my ward knows Greek and he said once it would have been interesting if Joseph Smith had been Greek and had translated from the plates directly to Greek. Guess I have a new thing to add to my bucket list.

[NeuroTypical]

For some reason some members single out Joseph Smith as the man who was sealed to multiple women without actually being married to them. His relationship with these women did not involve sex. Why?

I can't speak for "some members", but I think it may be the case because we're having a real hard time finding any biological offspring. Nookie made babies back in those days. Joseph made babies with Emma, but we don't really have much in the way of evidence for offspring with the other wives. I suppose such a notion may also help ease our minds when we hear about Joseph getting sealed to other men's wives, or getting sealed to them as young as 14, but it's hardly like we're grasping at straws to hold our shaky testimonies together in the face of overwhelming evidence of [insert horrible thing here]...

Why is it acceptable that Brigham Young had multiple wives and children from them but not JS?

Again, I can't speak for "some members", just myself. For me, it's not about acceptable and unacceptable, it's about offspring. Brigham's children (more than fifty of them) are well documented and findable. Out of the list of nine potential children from Joseph's sealings, five of them have been proven via DNA testing to not have Joseph as the father, and the rest remain unconfirmed.

I'm thinking here, that the issue isn't so much a mormon's bizarre and strange demanding that BY had sex and JS didn't. Instead, the issue is why so many folks (most of them critical to the faith to one extent or another) won't admit the plausibility. Maureen, you tell me: With the evidence supporting the notion that something is going on, why are some critics so unwilling to consider the possibility that Joseph's sealings didn't involve sex?

I mean, it doesn't really mean much to me one way or the other. If I find out tomorrow that the last four possible offspring from Joseph and someone other than Emma are from Joseph, ok - that's fine with me. The potential mothers were sealed to Joseph in their 20's, there's hardly any scandal there. Why is it such a big deal to you that they might not be his?