- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Ahoy all. Perhaps we don’t want to go down this road, and I would be fine if the moderators decide not to post this, but have any of you encountered the Journals of William Clayton? He was Joseph Smith’s secretary for two years in Navuoo, right up to Smith’s death. OMG! The discussion of polygamy is so blatant and unapologetic that it is startling. Below is one passage. There are many more like it. The issue is that Clayton wants to take another wife who is the sister of two of his wives. Joseph obviously has other ideas. “President Joseph told me he had lately had a new item of law revealed to him in relation to myself. He said the Lord had revealed to him that a man could only take 2 of a family except by express revelation and as I had said I intended to take Lydia he made this known to me for my benefit. To have more than two in a family was apt to cause wrangles and trouble. He finally asked if I would not give L[ydia] to him. I said I would so far as I had anything to do in it. He requested me to talk to her” (_An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton_, Goerge D. Smitn, ed. (Signature Books, 1995), p. 120.)
Is this pathological or what? I recognize standards have changed but even by the standards of the day this would appear pathological, and certainly many people thought it was. Doesn’t this destroy the spiritual excuse for polygamy? I mean today we would call these MEN manipulative, power-driven, sexist, nut cases, who created a religion to satisfy their own carnal desires, wouldn’t we?, don’t we? This is very, very disturbing to me. I have never read anything like this about polygamy. It is one thing for the historians to tell their tales but to hear this first hand from an intimate of JS, it’s just blowing my mind.
And, as I said, there are many other similar type passages in the journal.
Any thoughts. Curt
Polygamy is one the toughest topics in regard to Joseph Smith. It is probably THE single toughest one for me. Did JS make the whole thing up to manipulate people for his own desires? Yup. That is possible.
Did JS think he needed to restore polygamy because he was so Bible-focused, a “restorationist” and found it in the Old Testament? That is possible. This doesn’t address it being divinely inspired or not (or a mixture). He doesn’t seem to have followed even the traditional Old Testament rules, or the established rules of other cultures that practice polygamy. Maybe he started with something edgy but permissable, and took it too far? I think that is possible too.
Was it exactly as JS was quoted in that journal entry “the lord commanded such and such”? Possible… but hard to imagine. Possible. A lot of things are possible.
Defending JS’s practice of polygamy on logical or scriptural grounds is a tangled mess. What can I say? It’s really tough if William Clayton’s journals are accurate. It seems highly unlikely that William Clayton’s journals are pure fantasy. Even with the most generous allowance in favor of apologists, some of it has to be accurate.
For better or worse, I personally compartmentalize things. I can think that JS was inspired at times and wrong at times. That is how I approach it right now. I don’t throw out the things that I like to spare myself the discomfort of the things I dislike.
Polygamy for me really comes down to a few things First – I CAN UNDERSTAND TOTALLY why it would be used. At the time there were certain situations where women’s husbands had passed on and then they were left on their own. And I gather property ownership could have been something of an issue – particularly for those women in the chuch. (maybe not expressed it totally brilliantly but gives you the idea)
Nowadays I think ANY man who would take on a 2nd wife r even 3rd 4th 5th etc would have to be a little strange.
I couldnt handle the responsibility of a 2nd wife I am very happy with the one I have
I have seen documentaries on polygamy – and yes a lot of them focussed on the FLDS, and it did cause comment at work
I told them that those people were as much a part of my religion as the suicide bombers were to islam
As for the whole thing about polygamy in the next life – I dunno, and I am not going to beat myself up over it
Polygamy doesnt really effect us now – I am a little mre focussed on other aspects that do
I am NOT telling other people to ignore their concerns – this is just my own opinion
Hope my thoughts help
Hi Curt, this is an example to me of how revelation (that always must be interpreted through the imperfect human medium that we inhabit) can, and through notable example doesget interpreted incorrectly. Or is applied incorrectly. There are many troubling things about polygamy. I have a hard time with the idea that God would command something against the law that would require the compromise of integrity and credibility through the necessity of a public stance that differs from the private practice. Even after all this I don’t – I can’t – claim that one mistake (or even many mistakes) proves that nothing is inspired. The things that feel inspired to me I cherish and I live by. I constantly desire to learn and live by what is right, good, and true. This to me looks like the path to becoming more “Godly.” Learning to forgive others of their mistakes is something else that I strive for. Not that I have learned to – but I want to. I think this subject also ties back to the idea of “non-absolutist” faith. It doesn’t ALL have to be correct for some or even much of it to be useful and good.
I agree with Orson on this one. It also begs the question to me how much of inspiration is mixed in with wishful thinking. JS seemed to have a personality that might lead him toward that kind of attribution error; he was unusually open-minded, even suggestionable. If he had not been, it is highly unlikely that he would have been able to do what he had to do to let go of the creeds and comforts of the past that were handed down in other religions and strip those away in favor of a new view (a restoration) of the original church that Christ set forth. Likewise, whenever a prophet speaks, you hear their own voice coming through. That doesn’t make it uninspired, but it is filtered through the lens of their own understanding. They only ask about what they can fathom and are interested in. But to the sexism inherent in the statements in WC’s journal, bear in mind the blood-curdling way women have been talked about and treated as recently as the 1950s (or watch an episode of Mad Men). I realize that our standards for church members should be higher and for church leaders possibly higher still, but to evaluate statements about race or sex that are made so far in the past is problematic. From our modern sensibility, women were (or are by some) viewed as property or sex slaves paid in refrigerators instead of money. It was not even illegal to rape your own wife until the 1970s, and even then, try to find someone who could be convicted for it. I’m not justifying the ill treatment of women. I do personally believe polygamy was a bad system, but not necessarily worse for women or even as bad as the foundation of many marriages of that era and eras more recent.
I believe that most inspiration and revelation comes at the 30,000 foot level – that we receive it in broad, general terms and are left to figure out the details on our own. I also believe that there are many instances where God’s “Yes” answers to many of our prayers really are better translated as, “Sure, if that’s the best you can come up with, go ahead. You have agency, so deal with the consequences of it.” I see that to a GREAT degree in polygamy. I have NO problem, whatsoever, with the general concept of shattering the marital assumptions of a deeply Victorian age, and I have no problem with polygamy as a way to do it. My problems are with some of the applications of the concept – some of the ways in which it was put into action. I think Joseph received a broad revelation and was left to figure it out – and had mixed results as a result. I think there were some WONDERFUL results of the concept of eternal marriage and non-monogamy as a possibility in the hereafter, but I also think there were some TERRIBLE results of trying to figure it out.
I think that’s true of many things in our lives, and it’s one of the reasons I loathe Calvinism so much as a true abomination.
Well, you’re all a lot more tolerant/understanding than I am. The passage I quoted from WC’s journal seems to remove all of the so-called spiritual aspects of polygamy which might make it somewhat acceptable for those of us who have found it disturbing, esp that JS was himself a polygamist. It would appear there was lust involved after all. It also, I think, removes any doubt that JS consummated his polygamous marriages. That had, for me, remained a possibility. I think it was about sex and power, now, another nail in the coffin. curt wrote:It would appear there was lust involved after all. It also, I think, removes any doubt that JS consummated his polygamous marriages.
Does that really suprise you? I mean that as a serious question for contemplation. I know it is a shocking realization for most people. But stop and think about it? Do we really expect that Joseph Smith (or any other person) would have no passions or emotions about something as deeply wired into our humanity? We’re all here because we’ve been broken of overly idealistic concepts of leaders and people.
I know there’s an apologist argument out there that JS never “consumated” any additional marriages. His polygamy was denied too, from the moment of his death on by Emma and the RLDS faction (until much later when they simply couldn’t deny it anymore). There’s also the idea that polygamy was *only* around because there were not enough men (which is factually wrong), and people were just helping to support poor widows and their property rights. Those arguments really don’t hold water under much scrutiny.
Curt: Quote:The passage I quoted from WC’s journal seems to remove all of the so-called spiritual aspects of polygamy which might make it somewhat acceptable for those of us who have found it disturbing, esp that JS was himself a polygamist. It would appear there was lust involved after all.
Remember that this is in the journal of WC, not written by JS. There are various accounts of conversations about polygamy in which JS is quoted. The stories vary widely and rather than giving us a clear view of JS, I think they give us a clear view of how the person who wrote it viewed JS. That WC viewed JS as essentially a fellow wife-trader doesn’t mean it’s how JS viewed the matter, just that his actions and words didn’t contradict that in the mind of WC. Had JS edited WC’s journals (or even read them) he might have said to WC, “That’s not what I said. You misunderstood.” Dead people don’t get to do rebuttals.
Quote:It also, I think, removes any doubt that JS consummated his polygamous marriages. That had, for me, remained a possibility.
There are other sources that remove this doubt also, although there is doubt that ALL of his polygamous relationships were consummated. There’s strong reason to believe some were not consummated, although some doubtless were.
Quote:I think it was about sex and power, now, another nail in the coffin.
That begs the unanswered question, “what was polygamy to JS?” I can’t agree with you that it was all about sex and power. That’s one possibility, but there are many others. Truly, I don’t think we can know. I sincerely believe JS may not have even understood it. Consider the following possibilities:
– Did he see it as a “perk” of the job? (is that what you mean by sex & power)
– There was a widespread expectation at that time that evangelical/Holy Ghost spirit-heavy religious movements like Mormonism would lead to sexual orgies. Is there an inherent connection between feeling the spirit and sexuality?
– JS was seeking to understand two things at this time: the endowment and sealing. He was extremely open minded to whatever the spirit suggested. Did he get confused about what he was supposed to do and what sealings were for?
– Did he lust for sex or for kin? Was he just trying to increase the family around him (vs. have more wives)? In this case, Emma’s rejection of polygamy probably hindered him.
– Was polygamy necessary for the church to grow & thrive after his death in one way or another? So, while not necessary to him personally or in his lifetime, was it necessary for him to “lead the way” so others would accept it?
Anyway, there are many possibilities. Just wanted to throw a few out there. If it was for sex & power, it maybe met on the first requirement but didn’t do much for him on the second. If anything it reduced his power because so many early church members left over it, and it was clearly the key factor leading to his death.
Fwiw, it’s very difficult to parse words only for what they actually say and then to allow for subjectivity in personal records. This is a pretty big issue for myself and at this point I am on the same page as Curt. For most of my life I was under the impression it was done for the practical side of the times eg helping poor widows etc. Obviously now I know a bit more and cannot understand it as anything other then JS being way out there, BY following etc. I see the way it was practiced here on earth as being of man and not of God…well not the one I believe in anyway. Curt there was another thread a few weeks back which you should read if you havent already
http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=27http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=27” class=”bbcode_url”> I am aware of the issues surrounding use of historical sources. Lots of factors come into play in determining the veracity of a given source. In the case of William Clayton there is very little reason to doubt his account. Clearly, he did not make it up, so that’s out. Did he misunderstand JS? Always a possibility but highly unlikely. One of the things that is so amazing about the journals is that they record at one and the same time JS’s polygamy even as they record his public pronouncements denouncing it and claiming he had no part in it. This displays a brute honesty in the journals. No attempt to hide anything. It’s mind boggling really, how WC could be so complacent about the deception. Of course, he was a true believer and knew that polygamy could well destroy the church, and yet believed also it was of God and had to be practiced, so one can make some sense there but this gives a level of veracity to his journals as well. I really think we can pretty much take WC at his word. When JS counseled him not to take a third sister from the same family and then asked if he could have her instead I think we can believe him. This does not change some of the other observations discussed in this thread about how to make sense of polygamy but I think we can at least dispel, in this case, with the idea that the source itself is flawed. WC brings up another issue that I had never encountered before. Very intriguing entry. It is not long after JS was killed and he is having a conversation with Emma. She is unhappy with WC and they got into a verbal spat.
“. . . I then went to see Emma. I found her alone and began to talk to her and tell her what I thought Wood’s intended [sic] to do. She grew warm and said that all the business of the Trustee must be presented. We had no secrets that we must keep back from the public for she was determined to have everything settled now. I replied to her that there were many things which I was unwilling the world should know anything about and should not lend my hand to ruin the church. She then grew angry and said I had neglected her and the business, and there was nothing that had President Smith’s name to that should not be investigated. She said she had no secrets nor anything she was unwilling the whole world should know. I told her that there was some things which would be unwilling the public should know. She denied it. I said I knew things that she did not want the world to know. She said if I harbor’d any idea that she had ever done wrong it was false. I answered “what I have seen with my eyes and heard with my ears I could believe.” She said, if I said she had ever committed a crime I was a liar and I knew it. I replied Sister Emma I know I don’t lie and you know better what I know I know and although I never have told it to any soul on earth nor never intend to yet still it is the truth and I shall not deny it. She then several times called me a liar. . . .”
A footnote suggests this may refer to Emma having had several adulterous affairs as a reaction to JS’s polygamy. While this cannot be proven from this entry has anyone ever heard of this before?
Quote:A footnote suggests this may refer to Emma having had several adulterous affairs as a reaction to JS’s polygamy.
curt, that is pure speculation and I have not seen any proof in any of my research over the years.
Frankly, this is one of the reasons I have a problem with Clayton’s records. There are a number of things in them that simply don’t mesh with multiple sources I have read, and not all of those sources were sympathetic to Joseph or the Church. He became a very bitter opponent of polygamy, and was at odds with Joseph often during his membership.
I’m not saying that should disqualify what he wrote as inaccurate – not at all. I’m just saying that his personal accounts aren’t any more objective than others’ personal accounts – and he wasn’t any closer to Joseph than quite a few others who eventually left the Church but whose personal records don’t support his.
My concern is that I not take “rosy” depictions as Truth simply because they support my general, overall perspective of Joseph as a prophet – and that others not take “jaded” depictions as Truth simply because they support their general, overall perspective of Joseph as not a prophet. Polygamy, especially, is recorded in messy, conflicting, often contradictory ways – and it’s very difficult to separate out fact from fiction, the (relatively) objective from the (more) subjective, intentional distortion from unintentional distortion, etc.
In the end, honestly, I am left with three certain conclusions:
1) A LOT of people had MAJOR issues with it that drove them from the Church and led them to reject Joseph as a prophet.
2) A LOT of people had AMAZING spiritual experiences that allowed them to practice it and retain a testimony of Joseph and the Restoration.
3) A LOT of people were able to avoid living it, not approve of it, thank God they weren’t asked to practice it (and celebrate the Manifesto) and remain faithful, dedicated members to their dying days.
Those conclusions simply defy easy acceptance OR rejection – especially now that we are looking back at it over 150 years later.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:A footnote suggests this may refer to Emma having had several adulterous affairs as a reaction to JS’s polygamy.
curt, that is pure speculation and I have not seen any proof in any of my research over the years.
I agree. And I said as much. I have just never heard this claim before and wanted to know what others had heard about it.
Quote:Frankly, this is one of the reasons I have a problem with Clayton’s records. There are a number of things in them that simply don’t mesh with multiple sources I have read, and not all of those sources were sympathetic to Joseph or the Church. He became a very bitter opponent of the Church, and was at odds with Joseph often even during his membership.
I can’t agree here. Everything I have read says he remained loyal to the church throughout his life and bore his testimony to the end. But I realize I have turned this into a debate and that is not for this site. Sorry about that.
Fwiw, curt, I don’t see this as a debate at all.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.