Polgamy and What I've learned

[itsmerich]

Oh boy - our history is a mess. I've read From Mission to Madness and Jospeh Smith Revealed recently along with forums, etc.

Here's what I think based off what I've read.

1. We have D&C 132 - the history of this revelation is dubious at best. Locked in a drawer for over 6 years from BY, brought into exisistence from a "copy" that was supposedly "burned" by Emma Smith in the presence of Hyrum (any rational member would have rushed to save this piece of paper unless it was made of gas laden material). And I think (forgot first name) Clayton claimed the revelation was given via his journal entry. D&C 132 was added years later. A very weak background for a revelation given about polygamy

2. Overwhelming talks by JS supporting monogamy - no public discourse ever about plural marriage. If this was such a key revelation he would have reinforced this much more

3. Plural marriage was introduced very likely by apostles and others close to JS who took sealings into their definition to include "marriage/sexual relations" - they did this in secret - apparently some converts introduced this

4. BY and others for whatever reason pushed plural marriage but plural marriage's origin by JS is very very weak/thin. The accounts of others mainly support they were sealed to JS (and btw men were sealed to him as well).

5. So what of BY. Did he misunderstand, twist, corrupt the sealing teaching and used it to somehow justify having more than one wife? Well of all the evidence I've read I think he messed up. In all I dont see JS (via the evidence) as to introducing this - or at least in a manner that is unequivocally clear to the main body of saints.

6. Now here's the kicker. We know of Jacob 2 - and how I had been reading it - it seemed very clear that God was against PM. Well. I re-read it carefully and you should too - go ahead and read all of Jacob but here's two I want you to read extra carefully

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

Well - this sentence is read wrong. The second noun is concubines and that is broken by a , and another , and the word "thing" is singular. It refers to concubines not BOTH wives AND concubines. David/Solomon had concubines - THAT was abominable before God.

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

Now the book Joseph Smith Revealed doesn't agree with me here but read this scripture carefully. This is the exception is CLEAR and PLAIN view. Verse 30 states that God will (if he wants) raise up SEED unto himself by commandment meaning he CAN introduce plural marriage if he wants to. Now the ; breaks the thought up and reinforces that this is plural marriage as he says "OTHERWISE they shall hearken unto THESE THINGS (meaning monogamy). THIS does not contradict what the prior verses say about God telling the nephites to have one wife - UNLESS he commands them otherwise.

Okay so where does this leave us.

JS revelation on plural marriage in section 132 history is weak. When compared to all his public renouncements of plural marriage, no other offspring from those wives, lack of strong supporting evidence, etc., we just dont know. The evidence weighs in favor that 132 was a fraud (or at least parts of it). YET, he was constantly accused of plural marriage by a lot of people (yes a lot from dubious character people) but non the less where there's smoke there's fire. Maybe JS did lie. Woodrow wilson lied by saying PM was discontinued. Emma from what I've read seemed to want to also protect her remaining family by possibly lying about pm to save her reputation and just move on. BY - he from a lot of what I've read just didn't act like a loving prophet/man in many instances. Sure was he tired of being kicked around and wanted to protect the saints but BY may have just thought he was a prophet - how long was he a prophet and where's the outpouring of revelations from him?

So in conclusion - I used to be very pro polgamy - but all I care about is truth. Two camps are here - either they are lying or telling the truth. Only fasting/prayer may reveal the truth. But as we know one persons prayer will be different from anothers. If polygamy was a required doctrine for salvation then God would have unleashed himself and protected the saints (right?) In the end, I'm just as confused as when I started - evidence much more strongly supports JS did not endorse polygamy - if this is the case. BY grasped control - God was done w/ the saints with the condemnation and we're living on borrowed providence from God until the end time servant comes to restore the Church.

Always open to more insights ---

[Luke]

What I’ve learned about polygamy has been directly from God and I’ve learned that it is the marriage of the Gods and that Joseph Smith faithful taught and lived the Principle. That’s my testimony.

[XEmilyX]

132 is incorrect. And was created to confuse people about the celestial kingdom.
Love the feeling I have right no. Just got the mantle of prophet in front of this forum and I am now a prophet not just a servant. I am a servant. I am also a prophet and now I am even the millennium servant. I am to bring forth the millennium. I am so relaxed with this call and so excited to talk actually so anyway. 132 is incorrect, but it is not evil in a certain way because it happens in heaven somewhat. In heaven there is polygamous relationships and no you don't get to get one ever, but if you want one you can ask. Usually it's just monogamous up there anyway.
I am not on servant duty I am relaxing so I am now prophet. And if you despise me for being better than you then that's your problem you didn't study enough in the preearth life and do stuff you needed to be who you want to be down here so anyway. I am so great and I'm just good at this okay? Anyway bye.

[Gadianton Slayer]

May take a look at this if you haven’t yet:

viewtopic.php?t=66517

[BuriedTartaria]

Major respect to you for diving into two different takes on the situation. May we all be led to truth. Great thread.

[itsmerich]

May take a look at this if you haven’t yet:

viewtopic.php?t=66517

thank you will do

[cab]

Oh boy - our history is a mess. I've read From Mission to Madness and Jospeh Smith Revealed recently along with forums, etc.

Here's what I think based off what I've read.

1. We have D&C 132 - the history of this revelation is dubious at best. Locked in a drawer for over 6 years from BY, brought into exisistence from a "copy" that was supposedly "burned" by Emma Smith in the presence of Hyrum (any rational member would have rushed to save this piece of paper unless it was made of gas laden material). And I think (forgot first name) Clayton claimed the revelation was given via his journal entry. D&C 132 was added years later. A very weak background for a revelation given about polygamy

2. Overwhelming talks by JS supporting monogamy - no public discourse ever about plural marriage. If this was such a key revelation he would have reinforced this much more

3. Plural marriage was introduced very likely by apostles and others close to JS who took sealings into their definition to include "marriage/sexual relations" - they did this in secret - apparently some converts introduced this

4. BY and others for whatever reason pushed plural marriage but plural marriage's origin by JS is very very weak/thin. The accounts of others mainly support they were sealed to JS (and btw men were sealed to him as well).

5. So what of BY. Did he misunderstand, twist, corrupt the sealing teaching and used it to somehow justify having more than one wife? Well of all the evidence I've read I think he messed up. In all I dont see JS (via the evidence) as to introducing this - or at least in a manner that is unequivocally clear to the main body of saints.

6. Now here's the kicker. We know of Jacob 2 - and how I had been reading it - it seemed very clear that God was against PM. Well. I re-read it carefully and you should too - go ahead and read all of Jacob but here's two I want you to read extra carefully

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

Well - this sentence is read wrong. The second noun is concubines and that is broken by a , and another , and the word "thing" is singular. It refers to concubines not BOTH wives AND concubines. David/Solomon had concubines - THAT was abominable before God.

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

Now the book Joseph Smith Revealed doesn't agree with me here but read this scripture carefully. This is the exception is CLEAR and PLAIN view. Verse 30 states that God will (if he wants) raise up SEED unto himself by commandment meaning he CAN introduce plural marriage if he wants to. Now the ; breaks the thought up and reinforces that this is plural marriage as he says "OTHERWISE they shall hearken unto THESE THINGS (meaning monogamy). THIS does not contradict what the prior verses say about God telling the nephites to have one wife - UNLESS he commands them otherwise.

Okay so where does this leave us.

JS revelation on plural marriage in section 132 history is weak. When compared to all his public renouncements of plural marriage, no other offspring from those wives, lack of strong supporting evidence, etc., we just dont know. The evidence weighs in favor that 132 was a fraud (or at least parts of it). YET, he was constantly accused of plural marriage by a lot of people (yes a lot from dubious character people) but non the less where there's smoke there's fire. Maybe JS did lie. Woodrow wilson lied by saying PM was discontinued. Emma from what I've read seemed to want to also protect her remaining family by possibly lying about pm to save her reputation and just move on. BY - he from a lot of what I've read just didn't act like a loving prophet/man in many instances. Sure was he tired of being kicked around and wanted to protect the saints but BY may have just thought he was a prophet - how long was he a prophet and where's the outpouring of revelations from him?

So in conclusion - I used to be very pro polgamy - but all I care about is truth. Two camps are here - either they are lying or telling the truth. Only fasting/prayer may reveal the truth. But as we know one persons prayer will be different from anothers. If polygamy was a required doctrine for salvation then God would have unleashed himself and protected the saints (right?) In the end, I'm just as confused as when I started - evidence much more strongly supports JS did not endorse polygamy - if this is the case. BY grasped control - God was done w/ the saints with the condemnation and we're living on borrowed providence from God until the end time servant comes to restore the Church.

Always open to more insights ---

If you haven’t seen this yet, here’s good thread with a repository of evidence that Joseph and Hyrum fought polygamy.

viewtopic.php?t=63789

[Alexander]

What I’ve learned about polygamy has been directly from God and I’ve learned that it is the marriage of the Gods and that Joseph Smith faithful taught and lived the Principle. That’s my testimony.

[itsmerich]

Then there's this - I like how BY and others think they can just go in and edit JS journal and other church history
https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_ ... nal-entry/

[ithink]

Then there's this - I like how BY and others think they can just go in and edit JS journal and other church history
https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_ ... nal-entry/

Well they learned from the best, the Irishman old Joe Smith himself.

Quite the chameleon he was.

[BuriedTartaria]

Then there's this - I like how BY and others think they can just go in and edit JS journal and other church history
https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_ ... nal-entry/

Well they learned from the best, the Irishman old Joe Smith himself.

Quite the chameleon he was.

Your icon looks like a statue underwater. Are you a fellow believer in civilizations buried literally and perhaps also buried in a historical sense?

[cab]

Then there's this - I like how BY and others think they can just go in and edit JS journal and other church history
https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_ ... nal-entry/

If you want the Joseph Smith papers links to the before and after edits for the October 5, 1843 entry, here you go.

viewtopic.php?t=54035&hilit=October+5

[nodrog]

A good question would be, why did William Law apostasize? What does his journal say about Joseph and polgamy?

[Luke]

A good question would be, why did William Law apostasize? What does his journal say about Joseph and polgamy?

They just accuse him of lying in his own private journals

[Baurak Ale]

2. Overwhelming talks by JS supporting monogamy - no public discourse ever about plural marriage. If this was such a key revelation he would have reinforced this much more

Joseph tried to introduce it privately in Kirtland and got burned badly (the Fanny Algers incident).
When he later took it off the shelf in Nauvoo, he took a cue from Jesus and taught it in parable. You can read more here:
https://theology.science.blog/2020/12/2 ... e-talents/

[cab]

2. Overwhelming talks by JS supporting monogamy - no public discourse ever about plural marriage. If this was such a key revelation he would have reinforced this much more

Joseph tried to introduce it privately in Kirtland and got burned badly (the Fanny Algers incident).
When he later took it off the shelf in Nauvoo, he took a cue from Jesus and taught it in parable. You can read more here:
https://theology.science.blog/2020/12/2 ... e-talents/

It is amazing to me how the Nauvoo Expositor is celebrated by apologists, like in this article, as “The Honest Expositor” when Joseph Smith himself rejected it in the strongest possible terms. He said about the Expositor:

“It appears a holy prophet has arisen up [William Law, in the Nauvoo Expositor], and he has testified against me [regarding having multiple wives]... I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives…. what a thing it is to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one... I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers.” https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... -hawkins/3

I imagine that Joseph would have dismissed this theory in a similar way as he dismissed other such things circulated in his name - as nothing more than a “rigamarole of nonsense, folly, and trash.” Times and Seasons 4:2, Dec 1, 1842, pg 32.

[Luke]

2. Overwhelming talks by JS supporting monogamy - no public discourse ever about plural marriage. If this was such a key revelation he would have reinforced this much more

Joseph tried to introduce it privately in Kirtland and got burned badly (the Fanny Algers incident).
When he later took it off the shelf in Nauvoo, he took a cue from Jesus and taught it in parable. You can read more here:
https://theology.science.blog/2020/12/2 ... e-talents/

It is amazing to me how the Nauvoo Expositor is celebrated by apologists, like in this article, as “The Honest Expositor” when Joseph Smith himself rejected it in the strongest possible terms. He said about the Expositor:

“It appears a holy prophet has arisen up [William Law, in the Nauvoo Expositor], and he has testified against me [regarding having multiple wives]... I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives…. what a thing it is to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one... I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers.” https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... -hawkins/3

I imagine that Joseph would have dismissed this theory in a similar way as he dismissed other such things circulated in his name - as nothing more than a “rigamarole of nonsense, folly, and trash.” Times and Seasons 4:2, Dec 1, 1842, pg 32.

No, Joseph did not say that about the Expositor itself, because it was only published around 2 weeks later.

The Expositor contains affidavits describing the content of D&C 132 to a T, and stating that such was a revelation received by Joseph Smith.

For Brigham and co. to be supposedly involved in such a thing, to me, is beyond wild.

[cab]

2. Overwhelming talks by JS supporting monogamy - no public discourse ever about plural marriage. If this was such a key revelation he would have reinforced this much more

Joseph tried to introduce it privately in Kirtland and got burned badly (the Fanny Algers incident).
When he later took it off the shelf in Nauvoo, he took a cue from Jesus and taught it in parable. You can read more here:
https://theology.science.blog/2020/12/2 ... e-talents/

It is amazing to me how the Nauvoo Expositor is celebrated by apologists, like in this article, as “The Honest Expositor” when Joseph Smith himself rejected it in the strongest possible terms. He said about the Expositor:

“It appears a holy prophet has arisen up [William Law, in the Nauvoo Expositor], and he has testified against me [regarding having multiple wives]... I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives…. what a thing it is to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one... I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers.” https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... -hawkins/3

I imagine that Joseph would have dismissed this theory in a similar way as he dismissed other such things circulated in his name - as nothing more than a “rigamarole of nonsense, folly, and trash.” Times and Seasons 4:2, Dec 1, 1842, pg 32.

No, Joseph did not say that about the Expositor itself, because it was only published around 2 weeks later.

The Expositor contains affidavits describing the content of D&C 132 to a T, and stating that such was a revelation received by Joseph Smith.

For Brigham and co. to be supposedly involved in such a thing, to me, is beyond wild.

Thank you for the correction. Indeed the Expositor came out June 7 and these comments were on May 26.

Nevertheless Joseph was directly referring to the accusations William Law was making about him having multiple wives, which would subsequently appear in the Expositor, and which Joseph denied and said that these men were perjurers and liars.

You may choose to believe that the Expositor was “honest”, but I choose to believe Joseph was being honest.

As for the similarity in what was claimed in the Expositor and what then surfaces 8 years later in the purported revelation that would become section 132, this proves absolutely nothing, except that these ideas were likely being spread within some secret faction within the inner circles of Mormonism. Such is the power and poison of secret works and secret combinations.

I think it is plausible that there were three separate factions that were being plotted against one another, as described in this article:
https://m.facebook.com/notes/identifyin ... 053812560/

[Durzan]

Joseph tried to introduce it privately in Kirtland and got burned badly (the Fanny Algers incident).
When he later took it off the shelf in Nauvoo, he took a cue from Jesus and taught it in parable. You can read more here:
https://theology.science.blog/2020/12/2 ... e-talents/

It is amazing to me how the Nauvoo Expositor is celebrated by apologists, like in this article, as “The Honest Expositor” when Joseph Smith himself rejected it in the strongest possible terms. He said about the Expositor:

“It appears a holy prophet has arisen up [William Law, in the Nauvoo Expositor], and he has testified against me [regarding having multiple wives]... I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives…. what a thing it is to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one... I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers.” https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... -hawkins/3

I imagine that Joseph would have dismissed this theory in a similar way as he dismissed other such things circulated in his name - as nothing more than a “rigamarole of nonsense, folly, and trash.” Times and Seasons 4:2, Dec 1, 1842, pg 32.

No, Joseph did not say that about the Expositor itself, because it was only published around 2 weeks later.

The Expositor contains affidavits describing the content of D&C 132 to a T, and stating that such was a revelation received by Joseph Smith.

For Brigham and co. to be supposedly involved in such a thing, to me, is beyond wild.

Thank you for the correction. Indeed the Expositor came out June 7 and these comments were on May 26.

Nevertheless Joseph was directly referring to the accusations William Law was making about him having multiple wives, which would subsequently appear in the Expositor, and which Joseph denied and said that these men were perjurers and liars.

You may choose to believe that the Expositor was “honest”, but I choose to believe Joseph was being honest.

As for the similarity in what was claimed in the Expositor and what then surfaces 8 years later in the purported revelation that would become section 132, this proves absolutely nothing, except that these ideas were likely being spread within some secret faction within the inner circles of Mormonism. Such is the power and poison of secret works and secret combinations.

I think it is plausible that there were three separate factions that were being plotted against one another, as described in this article:
https://m.facebook.com/notes/identifyin ... 053812560/

Post was removed or the link was broken.

[cab]

It is amazing to me how the Nauvoo Expositor is celebrated by apologists, like in this article, as “The Honest Expositor” when Joseph Smith himself rejected it in the strongest possible terms. He said about the Expositor:

“It appears a holy prophet has arisen up [William Law, in the Nauvoo Expositor], and he has testified against me [regarding having multiple wives]... I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives…. what a thing it is to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one... I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers.” https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... -hawkins/3

I imagine that Joseph would have dismissed this theory in a similar way as he dismissed other such things circulated in his name - as nothing more than a “rigamarole of nonsense, folly, and trash.” Times and Seasons 4:2, Dec 1, 1842, pg 32.

No, Joseph did not say that about the Expositor itself, because it was only published around 2 weeks later.

The Expositor contains affidavits describing the content of D&C 132 to a T, and stating that such was a revelation received by Joseph Smith.

For Brigham and co. to be supposedly involved in such a thing, to me, is beyond wild.

Thank you for the correction. Indeed the Expositor came out June 7 and these comments were on May 26.

Nevertheless Joseph was directly referring to the accusations William Law was making about him having multiple wives, which would subsequently appear in the Expositor, and which Joseph denied and said that these men were perjurers and liars.

You may choose to believe that the Expositor was “honest”, but I choose to believe Joseph was being honest.

As for the similarity in what was claimed in the Expositor and what then surfaces 8 years later in the purported revelation that would become section 132, this proves absolutely nothing, except that these ideas were likely being spread within some secret faction within the inner circles of Mormonism. Such is the power and poison of secret works and secret combinations.

I think it is plausible that there were three separate factions that were being plotted against one another, as described in this article:
https://m.facebook.com/notes/identifyin ... 053812560/

Post was removed or the link was broken.

It works for me. Maybe you need to be signed in to Facebook?

[EvanLM]

oh satan does love his distractions, doesn't he . . . what a great thing to spend your time on . . .

[EvanLM]

simple . . BY asked God if they could live polygamy so women could gain land under the homestead act . . . women were not allowed to vote or hold land . . even froim their parent thus the use of dowry to replace an inheritance on their parents death. But the practice is a cultural practice use in times of need. Has NOTHING to do with exaltation but those who lived it as approved by God were NOT condemned.

this is so simple. When women's lot would be changed by law and they could hold land there was no more need for a cultural practice and no more approval from God. This is so easy. Do we believe WW spoke for God or not?

I know we all beleive that God does not bend . . .well yes he does but not because he is weak but because man is weak and cannot always accomplish what he needs to under the current cultural practices. . . so sometimes, God gives man a break or an advantage. . .

this is so easy

[Reluctant Watchman]

oh satan does love his distractions, doesn't he . . . what a great thing to spend your time on . . .

If Joseph condemned the practice, then we as a church essentially celebrated sexual abuse through BY. Chew on that for a minute. Sure, that may be a superfluous thing to some people.

[cab]

oh satan does love his distractions, doesn't he . . . what a great thing to spend your time on . . .

Just cause it’s not important to you it doesn’t mean it’s not important to someone else.
I happen to think this issue is far more important than all the debate on the vaccine…. But I’m not about to say that Satan is using it to distract you from more important things…

[Baurak Ale]

2. Overwhelming talks by JS supporting monogamy - no public discourse ever about plural marriage. If this was such a key revelation he would have reinforced this much more

Joseph tried to introduce it privately in Kirtland and got burned badly (the Fanny Algers incident).
When he later took it off the shelf in Nauvoo, he took a cue from Jesus and taught it in parable. You can read more here:
https://theology.science.blog/2020/12/2 ... e-talents/

It is amazing to me how the Nauvoo Expositor is celebrated by apologists, like in this article, as “The Honest Expositor” when Joseph Smith himself rejected it in the strongest possible terms. He said about the Expositor:

“It appears a holy prophet has arisen up [William Law, in the Nauvoo Expositor], and he has testified against me [regarding having multiple wives]... I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives…. what a thing it is to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one... I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers.” https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... -hawkins/3

I imagine that Joseph would have dismissed this theory in a similar way as he dismissed other such things circulated in his name - as nothing more than a “rigamarole of nonsense, folly, and trash.” Times and Seasons 4:2, Dec 1, 1842, pg 32.

Brian Hales has shown that Joseph’s statement about having one wife was one among a number of similar, cleverly worded denials where Joseph leaned on the state’s definition of marriage to get around being publicly outed.

To further understand the public denials, it’s important to understand the distinction Joseph, Hyrum, Brigham and others had in Nauvoo between the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage and spiritual wifery. The former was authorized polygamy under priesthood authority (again, not involving the state); the latter was a system of adultery that spun off from justifications extrapolated from Joseph’s private teachings on plural marriage and the forgiveness of all sins except murder.

Ironically it was those who were raising the hue and cry of virtue against Joseph in the Nauvoo Expositor who were themselves deflecting their involvement with these sins. Those abominations were what the brethren were publicly preaching against. Hence the oft repeated admonition for the mysteries to be taught only in Nauvoo as the true doctrine was liable to be distorted by unauthorized, speculative, or gossiping teachers.