Acknowledgement of 1831 Revelation of Polygamy?

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

Roy wrote:

If this is true then it still doesn’t make me feel particularly good about what happened

I’m with you Roy. I’m not sure I’ve found anything to help me feel good about it…but there are some plausible explanations…just not ones I like.

Yep. Count me in.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

I don’t think there is any easy way out of this predicament. “If only JS hadn’t hesitated to take Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner as a plural wife when she was 15/16 when he was originally prompted, instead of waiting 8 years until she was 23 and married to someone else.” For some reason this doesn’t make me feel any better.

Is the concern here the prospective age? Don’t we all know that it was okay for men to marry 15-year-olds in the 19th century? We can’t apply today’s standards to that time period.

cwald wrote:

Heber13 wrote:

Roy wrote:

If this is true then it still doesn’t make me feel particularly good about what happened

I’m with you Roy. I’m not sure I’ve found anything to help me feel good about it…but there are some plausible explanations…just not ones I like.

Yep. Count me in.

The part that says “he did not consider it necessary to obtain civil marriage licenses or divorce decrees” is actually not outlandish! In the American frontier, a divorce decree was not always granted before one remarried. You guys need to be more objective.

[Anonymous]

The age issue doesn’t bother me, overall. I have a good family friend who is between my parents and me in age who was married in the temple at 16 – very happily and successfully. There are exceptions to every rule, and the youngest wives of Joseph Smith were exceptions. I don’t like it necessarily, having four daughters of my own, but the age issue itself isn’t a huge deal for me.

The biggest thing that bothers me about polygamy was that I believe the unrighteous dominion line was crossed – and that it was obvious and undeniable. The way it was practiced runs directly against D&C 121, imo – and, in fact, I personally believe that revelation (which I believe to have been truly a divine revelation) was largely a result of the way polygamy was approached – and Joseph finally “breaking” in a real way in Liberty Jail.

I think when you read D&C 121 with a eye on what might have caused it to be given, especially when you read the unrighteous dominion verses carefully, looking at every word that was used and how the whole thing was framed, it can be even more powerful than most members realize.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

shawn, everything the church says there in that website definition is accurate when it speaks of the history, but it’s still not complete. Joseph Smith may not have been so ‘inspired’ when he talked about this ‘principle’, in as far as he required married woman to participate in it with him, and many times without their active husbands’ knowledge of it. You can apologetically defend that as a test, but even the church is hesitant about broadcasting that part of the history.

Yes, the website does not give all the history. I was thinking the OP asked if the church acknowledged a revelation from 1831. Maybe I misunderstood.

wayfarer wrote:

the conclusion the church makes in the statement is that the principle of polygamy was a commandment. I would submit that this conclusion is suspect, given the nature of how polyandry was part of the bargain. To defend the ‘inspired’ nature of it, is to paint god as a bit of a monster with respect to testing and trying people’s loyalty within marriage, and then allowing the prophet to commit polyandry with other mens’ wives without their knowledge.

My understanding is that sealings to woman who were already married were spiritual only and that Joseph Smith did not live with the women or have sexual relations with them. I think there are one or two exceptions. It is noteworthy that some men actually stood in as proxy to have his wife sealed to the deceased Joseph Smith. I know that apologetics are not cool here, so I won’t say more.

wayfarer wrote:

But it doesn’t matter. I like what you originally said in a post: something to the effect that Joseph Smith commmitted polyandry, yet he is the prophet of the restoration. I have no issue with him being both a sinner and a prophet, and I suspect neither do you. I find it harmful, however, to try to defend his position on polyandry (specifically) — so I don’t bother, and I don’t think there are many people, scholars or otherwise, that would bother to defend polyandry either (although I recognize now that MH has corrected me that a few scholars defended polygamy/polygyny).

Yes, polyandry occurred and I won’t call Joseph Smith a sinner for it. Obviously, he wasn’t perfect, but we don’t know if any of those marriages or sealings were wrong. Why do we try to apply the standards of man to God?

[Anonymous]

i personally detest the appeal to occam’s razor, but the JS approach to polyandry/polygamy doesn’t make any sense.

Which is the more simple, and therefore the more plausible argument:

1. God commanded Joseph Smith to marry specific young teenagers, but when Joseph ‘dragged his feet’, he later commanded him to marry married women, thus causing a ‘test’ well beyond anything anyone could really handle, and creating a system that eventually brought about the near destruction of the church.

2. Joseph Smith let power get to his head and being an alpha-male narcissist, felt he could do anything he wanted and have any woman he wanted, and therefore used “Polygamy” as a cover-up for marital infidelity.

personally, I feel that Polygamy was one big screw-up. Literally.

[Anonymous]

#2

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

Shawn wrote:

Yes, the website does not give all the history. I was thinking the OP asked if the church acknowledged a revelation from 1831. Maybe I misunderstood.

Ok, so I think that it would be fair to say that the church does acknowledge this revelation and other evidence that Polygamy was on JS’s radar in 1831.

Shawn wrote:

My understanding is that sealings to woman who were already married were spiritual only and that Joseph Smith did not live with the women or have sexual relations with them. I think there are one or two exceptions. It is noteworthy that some men actually stood in as proxy to have his wife sealed to the deceased Joseph Smith. I know that apologetics are not cool here, so I won’t say more.

I also understand that the evidence on this matter is ambiguous but even apologetic sources state that:

If there was an intimate dimension in every one of these particular [polyandous] marriages, it is ultimately a matter of no consequence as [JS] “could not commit adultury with wives who belonged to him.”

So while it is impossible to prove that such relations didn’t happen within these polyandrous marriages and I understand that the evidence that might suggest that it did happen is no “smoking gun”, I am unaware that any of these women claiming that the marriages that they had to the Prophet did not include a physical element. If God commanded Joseph to marry specific women and God also gave Joseph the power to essentially anull civil marriages at will or the perspective that since these marriages weren’t sealed they weren’t true marriages anyway – then it wouldn’t matter if there was a sexual component to these marriages because there could be no “adultury with wives who belonged to him.” Unfortunately those two variables (what God commanded and what power God gave) are not knowable through our reasoning process, it is a matter of faith and spiritual confirmation. I respect that. :thumbup:

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

i personally detest the appeal to occam’s razor, but the JS approach to polyandry/polygamy doesn’t make any sense.

Which is the more simple, and therefore the more plausible argument:

1. God commanded Joseph Smith to marry specific young teenagers, but when Joseph ‘dragged his feet’, he later commanded him to marry married women, thus causing a ‘test’ well beyond anything anyone could really handle, and creating a system that eventually brought about the near destruction of the church.

2. Joseph Smith let power get to his head and being an alpha-male narcissist, felt he could do anything he wanted and have any woman he wanted, and therefore used “Polygamy” as a cover-up for marital infidelity.

personally, I feel that Polygamy was one big screw-up. Literally.

cwald wrote:

#2

Come on cwald, he was NOT an “alpha-male narcissist”. Many sources speak of his kindness and service. Joseph Smith is simply judged harshly.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

If God commanded Joseph to marry specific women and God also gave Joseph the power to essentially anull civil marriages at will or the perspective that since these marriages weren’t sealed they weren’t true marriages anyway – then it wouldn’t matter if there was a sexual component to these marriages because there could be no “adultury with wives who belonged to him.” Unfortunately those two variables (what God commanded and what power God gave) are not knowable through our reasoning process, it is a matter of faith and spiritual confirmation. I respect that. :thumbup:

I think it matters because Joseph Smith has been painted as a sex fiend. Maybe that argument is cockamamie.

[Anonymous]

As I’ve said before and I’ll say again, I don’t think we talk about it much in church because it is so darn messy and there are no good universally satisfying answers. I have stepped back and tried to consider the practice as a whole, hoping to see some good fruits now that we are 100 years beyond the end of the practice. All I can conclude is if it was vitally important that the church and members (especially plural wives) endure an extreme trial by fire, then maybe it had a purpose. Beyond that it becomes extremely difficult to find a positive outcome. Church membership and growth suffered, in the beginning and the end an extreme culture of secrecy and confusion was necessary, members didn’t know whether to believe public pronouncements or private winks from church leaders, etc.

Overall it is such a difficult subject in my mind it would become much easier to handle if we could give more weight to William Marks statement claiming Joseph told him shortly before his death — that he had been deceived and that the practice of plural marriage must be put down or it would destroy the church.

[Anonymous]

Shawn wrote:

Come on cwald, he was NOT an “alpha-male narcissist”. Many sources speak of his kindness and service. Joseph Smith is simply judged harshly.

I respectfully don’t share your opinion.

[Anonymous]

Shawn wrote:

Roy wrote:

If God commanded Joseph to marry specific women and God also gave Joseph the power to essentially annul civil marriages at will or the perspective that since these marriages weren’t sealed they weren’t true marriages anyway – then it wouldn’t matter if there was a sexual component to these marriages because there could be no “adultery with wives who belonged to him.” Unfortunately those two variables (what God commanded and what power God gave) are not knowable through our reasoning process, it is a matter of faith and spiritual confirmation. I respect that.

I think it matters because Joseph Smith has been painted as a sex fiend. Maybe that argument is cockamamie.

While I believe that there may be reasonable doubt as to whether any of the polyandry marriages included a sexual element, there appears to be significant evidence that at least some of Joseph’s polygynous marriages included this element. If it is ok for Joseph to have intercourse with his plural wives, I don’t understand why it matters if he didn’t have intercourse with some of them. I accept the proposition that sexual impulses where not the sole or even primary influence of the development of polygamy. I am also perfectly willing to accept the proposition that Joseph may not have consummated the plural marriages to the very young, the very old, and those married to other men already. I’m just not sure that this changes things. IOW, If I were married to 100 women and only had sex with 80 or 50 or 30 or 10 – I’m not sure that this tells you anything constructive about my motives or the relative morality of my actions.

[Anonymous]

Shawn, while I don’t see Joseph as a “sex fiend” or polygamy as primarily sexual in motivation, Joseph was human – and he was charismatic in every sense of the word – and he fit a well-established profile of a popular charismatic very well. I accept him as a prophet – but, in looking through our canonized scriptures, pretty much every charismatic prophet ever described appeared to be a bit nuts to people in his time. The same can be said about almost every (if not every) great innovator and political luminary, as well.

There’s something about true, extraordinary genius that borders on (at least) psychological diagnosis now.

I say again, if you want an interesting experience, read D&C 121 (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/121?lang=eng) as a free-standing and isolated revelation. Iow, read it only for what it says within its verses – independent of anything else. Read verses 1-6 and think about what Joseph is asking of the Lord (essentially to exercise unrighteous dominion); read verses 7-10 and think about what the Lord says in response (essentially, “Chill out and realize you’re not at that point yet.”); skip to the end and read verses 33-46 and think about those verses as a direct response to verses 1-6. Look at verse 37 and the use of “us” and “we” – then look at verse 39 and the use of “sad experience” and “almost all men”. Then, extend that understanding to other issues that might have been similar in nature – not alike in “topic” but similar in being the result of an exercise of unrighteous dominion.

Please actually do this. Don’t just read this comment; read the actual chapter as I’ve laid out here. It might be enlightening and help show the complex, wonderfully / terribly human that constituted Joseph, the man, and Joseph, the prophet.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Shawn, while I don’t see Joseph as a “sex fiend” or polygamy as primarily sexual in motivation, Joseph was human – and he was charismatic in every sense of the word – and he fit a well-established profile of a popular charismatic very well. I accept him as a prophet – but, in looking through our canonized scriptures, pretty much every charismatic prophet ever described appeared to be a bit nuts to people in his time. The same can be said about almost every (if not every) great innovator and political luminary, as well.

There’s something about true, extraordinary genius that borders on (at least) psychological diagnosis now.

I say again, if you want an interesting experience, read D&C 121 (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/121?lang=eng) as a free-standing and isolated revelation. Iow, read it only for what it says within its verses – independent of anything else. Read verses 1-6 and think about what Joseph is asking of the Lord (essentially to exercise unrighteous dominion); read verses 7-10 and think about what the Lord says in response (essentially, “Chill out and realize you’re not at that point yet.”); skip to the end and read verses 33-46 and think about those verses as a direct response to verses 1-6. Look at verse 37 and the use of “us” and “we” – then look at verse 39 and the use of “sad experience” and “almost all men”. Then, extend that understanding to other issues that might have been similar in nature – not alike in “topic” but similar in being the result of an exercise of unrighteous dominion.

Please actually do this. Don’t just read this comment; read the actual chapter as I’ve laid out here. It might be enlightening and help show the complex, wonderfully / terribly human that constituted Joseph, the man, and Joseph, the prophet.

I like that Ray…if only the “church” was guttsy enough to admit it as well.

Like Brian is oft to say…”the perceived cover-up is generally worse than the crime.”

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

Shawn wrote:

Come on cwald, he was NOT an “alpha-male narcissist”. Many sources speak of his kindness and service. Joseph Smith is simply judged harshly.

Kindness and service are often part of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, toward those in the circle of admirers. And praise toward the narcissist, regardless of what he does, is part of the entire drama around one:

Christopher Cary wrote:

“It was marvelous to see with what tenacity they held to their faith in the prophet, when they knew they had been robbed, abused and insulted.” (Pioneer and Personal Reminiscences, p. 45)

I think Ray’s post summarizes my position as well:

Old-Timer wrote:

I accept him as a prophet – but, in looking through our canonized scriptures, pretty much every charismatic prophet ever described appeared to be a bit nuts to people in his time. The same can be said about almost every (if not every) great innovator and political luminary, as well.

There’s something about true, extraordinary genius that borders on (at least) psychological diagnosis now.

One such psychological/psychiatric diagnosis was done by a psychiatrist, with plenty of caveats about the danger of such remote diagnosis: Robert Anderson’s Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon. Anderson demonstrates in great detail that the themes in the Book of Mormon justify a diagnosis of Joseph Smith’s potential Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). I find validity in the theory, recognizing it as such.

As well, here are some interesting quotes:

History of the Church, v6 wrote:

I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.

These words are characteristic of someone with a megalomaniac ego — for anyone to compare themselves favorably over and above Jesus, having the responsibility to be the Lord’s prophet, is way beyond the pale. Bear in mind that “History of the Church” is supposed to be the authoritative source of Joseph Smith’s teachings.

Well did Joseph Smith self-observe, “…as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion…”

Another quote, one of many similar, demonstrate the ego of the man:

Charlotte Haven wrote:

Sister Emma is very plain in her personal appearance, though we hear that she is very intelligent and benevolent, has great influence with her husband, and is generally beloved. She said very little to us, her whole attention being absorbed in what Joseph was saying. Joseph talked incessantly about himself, what he had done and could do more than other mortals, and remarked that he was a giant, physically and mentally. (“A Girl’s Letters from Nauvoo,” Overland Monthly, December 1890, p. 623)

examples of talk like this is evident from numerous sources, both fawningly pro-LDS and anti-, and everything in between. Joseph Smith was a powerful, charismatic personality, who was capable of building confidence in him by his very gaze. That confidence-building and self-aggrandizement was part of the complex personality of the prophet.

Joseph Smith’s confidence and power — driven by immense, narcissistic ego — enabled him to build a loyal following of saints — a critical mass to restore the same type of enthusiasm that launched early christianity. In this sense, “restoration” most definitely applies. After his death, and in true martyr fashion, his followers praised the man who communed with Jehovah, creating even more of a myth-structure than Joseph Smith himself was able to achieve. All the pecadillos (or not so small pecados) that Joseph Smith exhibited in life were either relegated to the memory hole, or in the case of polygamy, sanctified as the governing principle of the New and Everlasting Covenant.

[Author]

Posts