- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I just need to remind everyone of the mission of this site. Let’s honor Brian’s view and his right to it, express our own views and ask questions respectfully, etc. I’m not saying anyone has crossed the line in this thread. That hasn’t happened. However, this can be an explosive, emotional issue, so we need to be aware of that and not let the discussion spiral.
Quote:can anyone link some good resources for me about who Joseph Smiths wives were?
If possible, let’s try to refocus on the original question in the post itself.We always can find an older thread that is about polygamy itself and comment on it, bumping it up for further comments. brianhales wrote:Hi – I’ve been invited to this website and have enjoyed reading the comments. I’m also pretty thick-skinned so if someone wants to disagree with me, that is okay.
Regarding why JS practiced plural marriage, I see two issues. First, why was it
permitted? JS gave three reasons. First to restore OT polygamy (Acts 3:21; D&C 132:40, 45). I argue this is the ONLY reason he ever needed to give because Old Testament patriarchs never gave a reason for their practice of plural marriage. There is no marriage theology in the Old Testament. Joseph only needed to say, “They did it and I’m restoring it.” Fawn Brodie et alwho say JS gave us D&C 132 to satisfy his conscience and justify polygamy are wrong. He never needed to create an eternal marriage idealogy if all he wanted was to expand his sexual opportunities by implementing polygamy. Second, to multiply and replenish the earth and create devout families for noble premortal spirits (D&C 132:63). Several authors say this is the most important – depicting that plural marriage was all about sex. Respectfully I believe they are in error and would invite them to document the claim. While it wasn’t all about sex (see the third reason below), sex was one of the reasons. I’ve documented sexual relations in 12 of the plural marriages with ambiguous evidence for 3 more. However, none of those 15 women were 14, having sex with their legal husbands, or not sealed to Joseph.
Third and by far the most important reason plural marriage is needed in Joseph Smith theology is described in D&C 132:16-17. All men and women need a spouse to be exalted, otherwise they “remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity,” which is damnation. Polygamy allows all worthy women to be sealed to an eternal husband. D&C 132:61-63 explains how a woman cannot have two husbands but a man can have more than one wife and that the process is for “their [the plural wives’] exaltation in the eternal worlds” (v. 63). Section 132 provides only for there to be more worthy women at the final judgement. It isn’t something I have “figured out” or reckoned, it is just the only option D&C 132 describes.
The second issue is why was plural marriage
commandedbetween the early 1840s and 1890? No other group of God’s followers have ever be so commanded according to the Standard Works. JS reported an angel commanded him. I’ve collected 22 accounts from 9 men and women who knew Joseph personally referring to those visits. (Volume one of Joseph Smith’s Polygamy: History and Theology, chapter 
. However, no prophet or Church leader (then or since) has explained why it was then commandedand JS’s theology only describes why it needs to be permitted. Church leaders and members have suggested some reasons: (1) Women outnumbered men in the Church in Nauvoo and in Utah [not true]; (2) To bring needed trials and challenges [true but not mentioned by Joseph Smith]; (3) Publicity value [B.H. Roberts’ idea]; (4)To solve the world’s moral problems. [difficult argument to successfully promote]; and (5) Polygamy produces healthier parents and children [even more difficult to defend]. I’ve tried to be concise but hope it doesn’t sound overconfident.
I’m happy to discuss any point.I don’t expect everyone to see things my way, but I hope that those that see things differently will bring some historical documentation to discuss. Evidence is important because many authors have taken ambiguous evidence and spun it in extreme ways and their audiences are unaware. So much of what has been written about JS and plural marriage is misleading and inaccurate. Take Care,
Brian Hales
I’m glad Brian Hales is here.
🙂 I would like to discuss these points, but don’t know exactly how to do it, keeping in mind Ray’s reminder. Help? (I don’t know if it’s kosher to take someone else’s whole post and put it in a comment on another polygamy thread.) Thanks.Brian, In a previous comment, I compared biblical polygamy with D&C 132, and I stated that they didn’t appear very similar. What’s your take on that perspective?
You are correct Ray. I deleted my previous post. Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Yes, it’s fine to excerpt something from someone’s comment and start a new post to discuss it. It’s a great idea in this case, but I’m rushing right now, so someone else is going to have to do it. Hi Again, I apologize for not responding sooner. I’ve been at Sunstone and the preparations have taken some time.
Let me respond to some comments. I don’t know if it will help anyone, but I do believe that a lot of opinions have been expressed that are not consistent with the available evidence. People are entitled to believe what they want, but I sense that people on this site would like to have the evidence too.
First, there was a quote: “At Sunstone a few years ago, Brian made the claim that there were no polyandrous marriages.” This is accurate. I have never said there was no polyandry or at least it should never have been concluded that I said it.
I have insisted and continue insist that there is no polyandrous sexuality (one woman having sexual relations with two husbands). D&C 132:41-42 and 61-63 describe three polyandrous relationships and label them all adultery, in two cases saying the woman would be destroyed. I believe it is a blanket condemnation of sexual polyandry. There is evidence that this has always been the case in the Church. References to polyandry are few, but when asked in 1852, “What do you think of a woman having more husbands than one?” Brigham Young answered, “This is not known to the law.” Five years later Heber C. Kimball taught, “There has been a doctrine taught that a man can act as Proxy for another when absent – it has been practiced and it is known — & its damnable.” The following year Orson Pratt instructed: “God has strictly forbidden, in this Bible, plurality of husbands, and proclaimed against it in his law.” Pratt further explained: “Can a woman have more than one husband at the same time? No: Such a principle was never sanctioned by scripture. The object of marriage is to multiply the species, according to the command of God. A woman with one husband can fulfill this command, with greater facilities, than if she had a plurality; indeed, this would, in all probability, frustrate the great design of marriage, and prevent her from raising up a family. As a plurality of husbands, would not facilitate the increase of posterity, such a principle never was tolerated in scripture.” Belinda Marden Pratt wrote in 1854: “’Why not a plurality of husbands as well as a plurality of wives?’ To which I reply: 1st God has never commanded or sanctioned a plurality of husbands…” On October 8, 1869, Apostle George A. Smith taught that “a plurality of husbands is wrong.” His wife, Bathsheba Smith, was asked in 1892 if it would “be a violation of the laws of the church for one woman to have two husbands living at the same time…” She replied: “I think it would.” First Presidency Counselor Joseph F. Smith wrote in 1889: “Polyandry is wrong, physiologically, morally, and from a scriptural point of order. It is nowhere sanctioned in the Bible, nor by the law of God or nature and has not affinity with ‘Mormon’ plural marriage.” Elder Joseph Fielding Smith wrote in 1905: “Polygamy, in the sense of plurality of husbands and of wives never was practiced in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Utah or elsewhere.”
In addition, D&C 22:1 tells us that the new and everlasting covenant causes all old covenants to be “done away.” Hence from a religious standpoint, the legal covenant of a civilly married woman is “done away” as soon as she enters into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. She would not have two husbands with whom she could experience sexual relations, at least so far as Joseph Smith taught. Going back to her legal husband would be adultery because in the eyes of the Church, that marriage ended with the sealing.
Joseph was sealed to 14 women with legal husbands. It is complicated because the 14 sealings were not all the same. Contrary to Compton and Quinn’s assertions, “eternity only” sealings were performed in Nauvoo. That is, a woman whose husband was a non-member, like Ruth Vose Sayers, was allowed to be sealed to another man for eternity only, with no marriage on earth. Sayers was sealed to Joseph Smith “for eternity” only. Of the 14, I believe 11 were of this type. It is strange that several of the women were legally married to active Latter-day Saint men. In each case, the woman made the choice. Lucy Walker remembered the Prophet’s counsel: “A woman would have her choice, this was a privilege that could not be denied her.” Regardless, none of the men complained against Joseph Smith for allowing the sealings.
The three remaining women (of the 14) were sealed to Joseph for “time and eternity,” which included sexual relations. Two were already physically separated from their legal husbands, so there was no change in marital dynamics. The last woman, Mary Heron, is so poorly documented that anyone giving details is simply speculating, unless they’ve found something new (which would be great!).
Another comment on the site is: “So Hales is making the case that Joseph only had sex with 3 wives (Emma would be 4), and that sex was a much more minor aspect of polygamy than others would have you believe. I haven’t read the books, but I’m sure that Compton disagrees with Hales about there being only 3 that had sex with Joseph.” No, those numbers were only prior to February of 1842, the last visit of the angel (when he appears with a sword to command plural marriage). In fact, I have documented sexual relations in 12 of the 35 sealings, with ambiguous evidence in three more. Not included are the two 14-year-old wives, any polyandrous sexuality, and any woman to whom Joseph was not sealed. See appendix E in Volume 2 or go to
http://www.josephsmithspolygamy.com/JSPSexuality/MASTERJSPSexuality.html Another comment refers to Fanny Alger – “I like the scenario where JS develops strong feelings (love?) for a young woman (Fanny Alger) that lives in the Smith household and enters into a relationship with her. He feels so guilty about it that the idea of polygamy is developed out of his subconscious to assuage his guilt.” The problem is that Joseph Smith never needed to produce any theology to support polygamy. Fawn Brodie misses it by a mile. All Joseph had to say is that the Old Testament Patriarchs (think Abraham and Jacob) did it and I’m restoring it (Acts 3:21). End of discussion. There is no theology of marriage in the Old Testament. Teachings about eternal marriage and those found in the rest of D&C 132 did as much to hurt Joseph’s ability to practice plural marriage as they did to help them. People pushed back on the theology as well as the practice (think Nauvoo Expositor). The theology of plural and eternal marriage is entirely superfluous if he just wanted sex. All he had to say is they did it and I’m restoring it. Antagonists have a hard time explaining why he went to so much bother when he didn’t need to.
I hope this helps and I will try to stop by again.
Thanks!
Brian Hales
Brian, I copied your comment and posted it in a thread that was started to talk specifically with you about your view. Please go ahead and comment in that thread from now on.
The link is:
I feel like I need a shower after reading that. It’s righteous for a man to have plural wives, but it’s wicked for a women to have plural husbands?
Please.
Sounds like JS, BY etc didn’t like the idea of sharing a wife with other men. Hmmmm?
Misogyny at its best…right from the prophets’ mouths.
Polyandry was the only redeeming thing left for me when trying to deal with polygamy. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander…right?
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Quote:What’s good for the goose is good for the gander…right?
That’s my stance.
+1 Cwald!!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.