Did Joseph Smith Found or Fight Polygamy?

[allquieton]

Cadence’s thread was getting sidetracked so I will try to move the polygamy discussion here. My apologies for the distraction, Cadence.

The reason most people believe the JS polygamy story is b/c the Mormon Church does. I don’t deny there is evidence indicating JS was a polygamist. But I think the evidence against it is stronger. And I think people are generally unaware of the evidence against it.

Most people don’t know that Brigham Young and a few other early converts went on a mission to a polygamous religious community known as the Cochranites. This is a big piece of the puzzle–it suggests how polygamy may have crept into the Church. But JS had nothing to do with it as far as I can tell.

If you have read and understood the case against JS polygamy, and still believe it, that is one thing. But if you have only heard one side of the story, I hope don’t make up your mind just yet.

[Anonymous]

I also wanted to respond more to MisterCurie’s comment.

MisterCurie wrote:

The FLDS church seems to have a history of denying JS involvement in polygamy, so I’m not sure they are the most reliable source.

Making a claim that differs from widely accepted beliefs shouldn’t imply unreliability. It just requires evidence. Also, I believe they are former FLDS members.

MisterCurie wrote:

His son is hardly a reliable source due to his age at JS death. There are also quotes by Emma and his mother that suggest he was involved in polygamy. There are also private journal entries and sworn affidavits by his polygamous wives (who would be considered close to JS).

My point was that some people close to him said he had only one wife. It’s a good thing to take into account. And flat out denials seem much stronger than quotes that “suggest.”

The affadavits from the 1870’s seem very suspect to me. There is much reason to doubt them. I think they even have Eliza R. Snow on record early denying JS’s polygamy, then much later on, after his death, signing one of these affadavits.

MisterCurie wrote:

JS phrasing of his denial was parsed in a particular manner to maintain his integrity without revealing his doctrine of Celestial (plural) marriage.

But surely you can see that this is just your interpretation? I don’t get any of that from the text.

MisterCurie wrote:

D&C 101 was written and ratified when JS was not at the church conference. D&C 132 supports plural marriage. The Book of Mormon speaks positively of wine, does this prove JS did not reveal the WoW? The BoM presents a trinitarian view of God, does this refute God, Christ and HG being distinct personages in the Godhead?

As I understand it, there is much evidence for JS writing it. Also, Joseph was president of the Church and had it published and disseminated.

Tradition says JS wrote 132, but evidence suggests BY wrote it.

Wine is a light matter and the trinitarian view is debatable.The point is, it’s something to consider. Why would JS produce a book harshly condemning polygamy, and preach against it, if he wanted to introduce it? It’s one more instance of the traditional view not making sense.

MisterCurie wrote:

There are multiple diary accounts of plural marriage written at the time of the plural marriages. BY and Richards both record marriages of JS to other women. There are records of multiple sealings to other women (often after they were married).

I am not an expert on this, but I don’t think there are many accusations of polygamy before his death. And the authors do address this. JS had enemies lying about him before and after his death. Many of those making the accusations have been completely discredited–like John C. Bennett. Why believe JS’s enemies over himself, and his family’s, and many other people’s claims?

[Anonymous]

I like the DNA argument, so let’s be sure to post the sources here so we can discuss them.

First Deseret News article about the DNA research: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,600137517,00.html” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,600137517,00.html

Second Deseret News article about the DNA research and provides a good layman description of the research done: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695226318,00.html?pg=1” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695226318,00.html?pg=1

Website alluded to in the article: http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/DNA.htm” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/DNA.htm

Sorenson Molecular Geneology Foundation – layman description of Y chromosome: http://www.smgf.org/pages/ychromosome.jspx” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.smgf.org/pages/ychromosome.jspx

Sorenson Molecular Geneology Foundation – layman description of mtDNA: http://www.smgf.org/pages/mitochondrial.jspx” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.smgf.org/pages/mitochondrial.jspx (this is linked to on the wivesofjosephsmith page referring to testing descendants of Josephine Lyon for JS paternity, but it actually doesn’t make sense because mtDNA is only from women and does not explain the autosomal testing that must be done because mtDNA is not autosomal. As a side note, mtDNA is often studied with regard to the ancestry of the Native Americans, and indicates an Asian ancestry, rather than Middle Eastern.)

Are there other sources about the DNA evidence for JS paternity that you are aware of?

[Anonymous]

I am moving this thread to the Books and Media section, since the only option is a comparison of sources that make competing claims. I also changed the title to reflect the comparison better.

[Anonymous]

Some caveats on the DNA evidence:

(1) Only positive evidence is definitive for answering the general question of whether JS was involved in polygamous/extra-marital relationships. Negative evidence, while definitive for a specific question (such as was this child fathered by JS), is not definitive for the general question. JS could have been in polygamous relationships even without descendants. JS’s supposed early polygamous marriages were often to married women (who continued to live with their first husbands after the marriage), getting the timing right for fathering a child while splitting his time between multiple women, and trying to keep these relationships secret, would have made fathering children difficult.

(2) Y chromosome testing is only useful for direct, male descendants of JS (descended through an all-male line from JS). Y chromosome testing cannot answer whether daughters were fathered by JS or descendants of daughters. If a female comes between JS and the descendant, Y chromosome testing is useless. Y chromosome testing is also useless if the paternity of any of the descendants is questionable. Thus, multiple, male descendants from several tiers of the ancestry would be most useful. It appears that they Y chromosome of JS is fairly well established (through descendants of JS and Emma, as well as through descendants of Hyrum Smith – who shared the same dad as JS and thus has the same Y chromosome). All of these descendants have the same Y chromosome, so there is a high probability that we know JS Y chromosome.

(3) mtDNA is useless in determining paternity because only females pass on mtDNA.

(4) Autosomal testing is difficult as there are no known autosomal DNA specimens from JS, but is the only way to test for female descendants (and descendants through potential daughters or granddaughters of JS). Autosomal DNA testing would be much improved with an actual sample from JS.

[Anonymous]

I’m surprised that somebody doesn’t believe Joseph practiced polygamy…I’ve never met anybody (in modern times) that believes that. Have you read Compton’s “In Sacred Loneliness?” If so, how do you explain the hundreds of evidences he discusses?

Just very curious….

[Anonymous]

So, here is a diary entry contemporary to the time that is a great visual and very interesting. It can be viewed at http://culturalmormoncafeteria.blogspot.com/2009/11/brigham-youngs-cipher.html” class=”bbcode_url”>http://culturalmormoncafeteria.blogspot.com/2009/11/brigham-youngs-cipher.html

Brigham wrote a journal entry dated January 6th, 1842, in secret Masonic code. When finally translated, it read:

Quote:

I WAS TAKEN INTO THE LODGE

J SMITH W.A.S. AGNESS

I suppose this is slightly conjecture, but W.A.S. has been interpreted to mean “Wedded and Sealed”. Certainly this entry meant something significant if it was written in secret code.

Agnes was the widow of Don Carlos Smith, the youngest brother of Joseph Smith.

I start with this evidence, just because it is so visual and I think secret codes are cool.

[Anonymous]

Rix,

I’ve been meaning to but have not yet read In Sacred Loneliness.

The authors of JSFP show a mountain of evidence in the forms of journal entries, sworn statements, etc. that John C. Bennett and his circle of friends were seducing women in the Church by claiming JS secretly taught polygamy. Their closeness to the Prophet lent weight to their lies and persuasions. Sydney Rigdon’s daughter and probably Eliza R. Snow were among their victims. When Joseph sued him in court and prepared witnesses/statements for the trial, Bennett and co. fabricated testimonies and statements accusing JS of adultery, polygamy, etc. Probably this is where some of the evidence for JS polygamy comes from.

I guess I will have to read ISL to properly respond, but when you understand that there were enemies of JS motivated to lie about this particular thing, and that JS consistently and publicly refuted it, you also understand that the evidence must be scrutinized. You can’t take all these claims at face value. You have to understand who wrote it and who they were allied with.

One of the things that stood out to me in JSFP is how often, how clearly and how publicly the Prophet and his associates denied these accusations. You can say maybe JS was lying and not Bennett, but there are certain undisputed facts concerning Bennett’s character that overwhelmingly discredit him. Also, there is a sworn statement by Bennett confessing his guilt and declaring JS’s innocence. When JS sued him though he went back to blaming Joseph. In fact, Bennett continued to publicly attack Joseph’s character after being excommunicated, contributing greatly to anti-mormon sentiment in the area.

If you haven’t read up on this Bennett character, well, he is central to the whole mess. He is a sort of Amalickiah.

[Anonymous]

Lol–Okay, I have practically re-read 1/2 the book trying to answer y’all’s questions. I needed a refresher anyhow.

Here is an excerpt from the book. (Higbee was another member of Bennett’s circle, who confessed in writing to fornication and telling the lie that JS secretly preached polygamy. Like Bennett he later went back to the lie.)

JSFP wrote:

Even though the case against Chauncey L. Higbee did not come to trial at Carthage on October 3, 1842, it was a very significant factor in Joseph Smith’s fight against polygamy. It showed that Joseph vigorously contended against that evil doctrine in private and in public. If Joseph had been guilty, he certainly would not have sued a competent lawyer and insisted that the case be tried at Carthage among his enemies. Would a man with plural wives sue a lawyer—in the state of Illinois, where polygamy was a crime at that time (see Statutes of Illinois, Criminal Code,Section 121–122)? If Joseph had been guilty, Chauncey could have easily proven it, and no doubt Joseph would have gone to jail for that crime.

One needs to be aware that the women Chauncey chose for his witnesses were a part of “Bennett’s clique.” As already stated, his witnesses (those who were members of the Church) had suffered the shame of an investigation before the Nauvoo High Council. Dr. John C. Bennett published their names in newspapers across the land, and in his book, claiming that Joseph had attempted to take them as his plural wives. No doubt Chauncey hoped that by using these women as witnesses, he could convince the world that he was innocent and that Joseph was a polygamist, so the blame would be on Joseph and not himself. The cases of these women are to be treated later.

Because Joseph was innocent, he did not hesitate to have Chauncey arrested and charged. The case of The People vs. Chauncey L. Higbee attests to the innocence of the Prophet, and to his courageous fight to clear his and Emma’s names of the fraudulent charges that he had received a polygamous revelation and had plural wives.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for doing the research, allquieton.

It’s been quite a while since I read most of the books on Joseph’s polygamy, so I really can’t remember the details…and am not really interested in them today, but the bottom line is that I don’t remember meeting a church scholar/historian who believes Joseph didn’t practice polygamy. For me, it’s pretty much like the flat-earth society — I wouldn’t give them much credence, despite how passionate they are until they present some objective research that compels me to believe they have a point worth looking into.

I’m sure there are some, like conspiracy theorists in general, that believe despite the evidence to the contrary, that Joseph didn’t practice polygamy. The idea of those in his day denying it…even testifying to that effect, had very good reason to do so: it was illegal, it didn’t look good to Emma, and it was bad PR for the “prophet” to be doing it. That alone put the bar, the onus of presenting evidence otherwise extremely high for me. IOW, it’s like if I am having an affair, and if I have MUCH to lose if it comes out, then I will deny that it is happening — even if it is. I see Joseph this way.

That’s just where I am today…and I could be wrong.

[Anonymous]

Even if Joseph Smith never practiced or taught polygamy, Brigham Young sure did! The whole things still leaves most of the Mormon world in a conundrum. I guess the CoC/RLDS group is ok, but that’s about the only major group I can think of that benefits from proving JS was framed for polygamy.

I guess one could find resolution by deciding that Brigham Young, John Taylor and all the other Apostles and leaders up to Wilford Woodruf were lead astray. Then it all got fixed with the manifesto ending the practice (excluding post-manifesto continuation for a time).

I just don’t see really how proving JS was not a polygamist really helps much. I suppose it helps with a lot of people who are troubled by the younger women and the polyandrous relations (if those never happened).

[Anonymous]

allquieton wrote:

One of the things that stood out to me in JSFP is how often, how clearly and how publicly the Prophet and his associates denied these accusations. You can say maybe JS was lying and not Bennett, but there are certain undisputed facts concerning Bennett’s character that overwhelmingly discredit him. Also, there is a sworn statement by Bennett confessing his guilt and declaring JS’s innocence. When JS sued him though he went back to blaming Joseph. In fact, Bennett continued to publicly attack Joseph’s character after being excommunicated, contributing greatly to anti-mormon sentiment in the area.

All of the real Mormon history books I have read recognize that Bennett was a bad character and are skeptical of his statements about JS. They do not believe what Bennett said unless it can be corroborated by other non-antagonistic sources. His over-the-top statements about JS definately discredit him somewhat. On the other hand, JS did trust Bennett and Bennett was quickly promoted to a very high rank within the church, where he would have first-hand knowledge of polygamy. Most scholars believe that Bennett was introduced to polygamy by JS, but that he then tried to practice it without the knowledge of JS and subverted for his own sexual gratification. JS was not happy to have polygamy getting out of hand and he denounced Bennett. Bennett was upset because (1) he wanted to satisfy his own sexual desires, (2) he knew JS was practicing polygamy, and (3) he was humiliated in front of people. His statements about JS were quite exagerated, but scholar’s have found much evidence to support many of Bennett’s claims. Bennett’s confession of guilt was an attempt to salvage his position of power in the church, which JS promised to return to him if he would give the confession. When it didn’t work out that way, Bennett got upset and went back to his claims about JS, embellishing them even further. Bennett was definately a seedy character, but I view all of the events around Bennett as consistent with his character, (1) he was out for his own gratification and tried to use polygamy to those means, (2) he outed JS, with embellishment, because he was upset, (3) he “confessed” of JS innocence in a ploy to get back his power in the church, and (4) when it didn’t work we went back to his slander of JS.

[Anonymous]

allquieton wrote:

Lol–Okay, I have practically re-read 1/2 the book trying to answer y’all’s questions. I needed a refresher anyhow.

I tried to get the book through inter-library loan at my university, so hopefully it is available and I can read it too.

allquieton wrote:

Here is an excerpt from the book. (Higbee was another member of Bennett’s circle, who confessed in writing to fornication and telling the lie that JS secretly preached polygamy. Like Bennett he later went back to the lie.)

JSFP wrote:

Even though the case against Chauncey L. Higbee did not come to trial at Carthage on October 3, 1842, it was a very significant factor in Joseph Smith’s fight against polygamy. It showed that Joseph vigorously contended against that evil doctrine in private and in public. If Joseph had been guilty, he certainly would not have sued a competent lawyer and insisted that the case be tried at Carthage among his enemies. Would a man with plural wives sue a lawyer—in the state of Illinois, where polygamy was a crime at that time (see Statutes of Illinois, Criminal Code,Section 121–122)? If Joseph had been guilty, Chauncey could have easily proven it, and no doubt Joseph would have gone to jail for that crime.

Because Joseph was innocent, he did not hesitate to have Chauncey arrested and charged. The case of The People vs. Chauncey L. Higbee attests to the innocence of the Prophet, and to his courageous fight to clear his and Emma’s names of the fraudulent charges that he had received a polygamous revelation and had plural wives.

I view this argument (JS wouldn’t have sued if he were guilty) to be poor logic. I do not believe it clears JS of involvement in polygamy. I lump it together with Elder Holland’s poor logic from this last general conference, “In this their greatest—and last—hour of need, I ask you: would these men blaspheme before God by continuing to fix their lives, their honor, and their own search for eternal salvation on a book (and by implication a church and a ministry) they had fictitiously created out of whole cloth?” I can think of a half dozen reasons why JS may have sued Higbee, even if guilty of polygamy.

[Anonymous]

Rix wrote:

The idea of those in his day denying it…even testifying to that effect, had very good reason to do so: it was illegal, it didn’t look good to Emma, and it was bad PR for the “prophet” to be doing it. That alone put the bar, the onus of presenting evidence otherwise extremely high for me. IOW, it’s like if I am having an affair, and if I have MUCH to lose if it comes out, then I will deny that it is happening — even if it is. I see Joseph this way.

But to be fair, you have to consider that if JS was innocent of polygamy, this also gives him good reason to deny it. And when some of the people accusing him are known liars, his declared enemies, who already confessed to lying about him…The case gets much stronger.

[Anonymous]

Valoel,

I can see why it might be better to leave the whole thing alone. And why to some people the matter is irrelevant. But to me it’s important just to know the truth. Also, if JS did not practice polygamy, it clears up a lot of other things, such as screwy teachings by BY. I also find it reassuring that the Founder of the church at least was not corrupt. It gives more weight to the BoM. And it lets you know something about how God operates with regard to the Church.

[Author]

Posts