Why people believe joseph was monogamist

[Benaishtart]

I find it really interesting how some people can believe something when it’s been PROVED blatantly false. It’s really hard to prove a negative when there’s evidence for the positive because you have to disprove ever possibility around the positive. My point is is that saying joseph is a monogamist is like saying the earth is flat or that the holocaust didn’t happen. It’s an epic conspiracy theory of enormous proportions. You essentially are creating theories based on theories that don’t make sense. For example flat earthers believe that millions are in on it and it just somehow hasn’t leaked even though we have solid concrete evidence of the contrary. We have corroborated journals affidavits and other histories to prove that Joseph Smith practiced and introduced polygamy. D&C 101 was written by Oliver Cowdery in response to the Fanny Alger incident. Even private letters from Joseph smith 3rd show that he believed that his father was a polygamist. My point is that we all know that Joseph smith practiced it and everyone who doesn’t agree is in absolute denial. Some just can’t accept it and they choose to believe something akin to the moon being made of cheese. It’s unfortunate we now live in a post modern post facts society where people are now starting to believe all sorts of crazy stuff even when proof shows that it is blatantly false. People who don’t believe in things that are proved and documented to be true have and psychological illness and it’s called denialism.

[Thinker]

Maybe it’s an attempt to understand why the church seems so different than how Joseph Smith began... and an attempt to restore the original beliefs. But who knows?

If polygamy was against Joseph’s prophetic revelation...
“...Would not Brigham Young and his successors have been adulterers, and thus unworthy to hold the Priesthood? What about eternal marriage? How do we separate the idea of eternal marriage from section 132, which clearly teaches plural marriage? Any other implications?”

“There is contemporary evidence to support Joseph's practice of polygamy. Not as much as some people would like, but the William Clayton journals are one piece, Cowdery's accusation in the Fanny Alger affair, Hyrum Smith comments. There are other evidences as well. All reputable historians that I'm aware of agree that Joseph practiced polygamy...”

“If Joseph himself never practiced polygamy but we still had D&C 132 as a revelation from God as you state, then something would change...Joseph would have disobeyed God. And the results for him personally would be truly terrible. To receive a revelation from God a refuse to follow it? Bad results.”

My guess is, as others have mentioned, that Joseph secretly practiced polygamy, Brigham - out in the “wilderness” west - practiced it openly.

[Silas]

I find it really interesting how some people can believe something when it’s been PROVED blatantly false. It’s really hard to prove a negative when there’s evidence for the positive because you have to disprove ever possibility around the positive. My point is is that saying joseph is a monogamist is like saying the earth is flat or that the holocaust didn’t happen. It’s an epic conspiracy theory of enormous proportions. You essentially are creating theories based on theories that don’t make sense. For example flat earthers believe that millions are in on it and it just somehow hasn’t leaked even though we have solid concrete evidence of the contrary. We have corroborated journals affidavits and other histories to prove that Joseph Smith practiced and introduced polygamy. D&C 101 was written by Oliver Cowdery in response to the Fanny Alger incident. Even private letters from Joseph smith 3rd show that he believed that his father was a polygamist. My point is that we all know that Joseph smith practiced it and everyone who doesn’t agree is in absolute denial. Some just can’t accept it and they choose to believe something akin to the moon being made of cheese. It’s unfortunate we now live in a post modern post facts society where people are now starting to believe all sorts of crazy stuff even when proof shows that it is blatantly false. People who don’t believe in things that are proved and documented to be true have and psychological illness and it’s called denialism.

Conspiracies happen. It is possible for a small group of people to tell a lie that then gets repeated over and over until it is generally accepted. It can appear that there is a lot of evidence for it when in reality most of what people think is evidence is just the masses constantly repeating the original deception. That part is at least feasible.

At first glance Joseph being a monogamist could theoretically fit that. It appears to be plausible that Brigham could have made it up and repeated it frequently until those of us in the church have heard it so much that we don’t question it.

I understand that line of reasoning. The problem with it is that you can go back and realize that it wasn’t just Brigham Young and a few of his friends saying this. All evidence points to Joseph being the originator of the practice.

[Robin Hood]

I find it really interesting how some people can believe something when it’s been PROVED blatantly false. It’s really hard to prove a negative when there’s evidence for the positive because you have to disprove ever possibility around the positive. My point is is that saying joseph is a monogamist is like saying the earth is flat or that the holocaust didn’t happen. It’s an epic conspiracy theory of enormous proportions. You essentially are creating theories based on theories that don’t make sense. For example flat earthers believe that millions are in on it and it just somehow hasn’t leaked even though we have solid concrete evidence of the contrary. We have corroborated journals affidavits and other histories to prove that Joseph Smith practiced and introduced polygamy. D&C 101 was written by Oliver Cowdery in response to the Fanny Alger incident. Even private letters from Joseph smith 3rd show that he believed that his father was a polygamist. My point is that we all know that Joseph smith practiced it and everyone who doesn’t agree is in absolute denial. Some just can’t accept it and they choose to believe something akin to the moon being made of cheese. It’s unfortunate we now live in a post modern post facts society where people are now starting to believe all sorts of crazy stuff even when proof shows that it is blatantly false. People who don’t believe in things that are proved and documented to be true have and psychological illness and it’s called denialism.

The basis of your position is flawed in my view.
I'm sure you understand the difference between proof and evidence.
While there is evidence which points toward Joseph's involvement, there is certainly no proof.

[ajax]

If he wasn’t then he was a lying lecherous man. Your choice.

[Silas]

If he wasn’t then he was a lying lecherous man. Your choice.

Or... plural marriage has its place within the gospel framework and God’s plan and Joseph operated within those bounds in righteousness.

[Robin Hood]

If he wasn’t then he was a lying lecherous man. Your choice.

Or... plural marriage has its place within the gospel framework and God’s plan and Joseph operated within those bounds in righteousness.

Since when is lying operating within the bounds of righteousness?

[Silas]

If he wasn’t then he was a lying lecherous man. Your choice.

Or... plural marriage has its place within the gospel framework and God’s plan and Joseph operated within those bounds in righteousness.

Since when is lying operating within the bounds of righteousness?

When honesty would conflict with a more important moral duty.

Sometimes our moral obligations conflict and we have to make a choice about what duty to fulfill.

I personally will lie, cheat, or kill if doing so is necessary to protect the lives of my family. I would look down on a man who would put the lives of innocents in danger just so he could pat himself on the back for his moral purity.

When the nazis come to your door and ask you if you have seen any Jews around and you’ve got Anne Frank in your attic, do you give her up so that no one can call you a liar?

[Thinker]

If he wasn’t then he was a lying lecherous man. Your choice.

Or... plural marriage has its place within the gospel framework and God’s plan and Joseph operated within those bounds in righteousness.

Since when is lying operating within the bounds of righteousness?

When honesty would conflict with a more important moral duty.

Sometimes our moral obligations conflict and we have to make a choice about what duty to fulfill.

I personally will lie, cheat, or kill if doing so is necessary to protect the lives of my family. I would look down on a man who would put the lives of innocents in danger just so he could pat himself on the back for his moral purity.

When the nazis come to your door and ask you if you have seen any Jews around and you’ve got Anne Frank in your attic, do you give her up so that no one can call you a liar?

There are exceptions to the commandment “thou shalt not bear false witness,” like when it comes to saving another’s life. Yet, was Joseph saving other lives by lying?

It is considered that his secretly marrying other mens’ wives and daughter’s was partly why many were so angry with him. Granted, I believe he was a prophet in seeing visions and leading people in better ways, yet I also believe his weaknesses hurt others and ultimately, himself.

[ajax]

You’re equating lying to your wife, sleeping around behind her back, lying to the saints, manipulating young girls, marrying women already married without the other mans knowledge to hiding Anne Frank?

[Silas]

You’re equating lying to your wife, sleeping around behind her back, lying to the saints, manipulating young girls, marrying women already married without the other mans knowledge to hiding Anne Frank?

Do you accept that there are exceptions to the moral duty of honesty?

[ajax]

Not ones that include secret liaisons with other men's wives all behind your wife's back, and manipulating young girls to marry and bed you for their salvation.

Sorry.

[ajax]

If these things happened, JS was a fraud. Not a secret lover for the Lord.
Combined with:
-scriptural plagiarism from KJV
-using Adam Clarke Commentary for much of the JST
-BoA "translation"

The case would be a slam dunk.

[marc]

Fact: There have been NO children/descendants of Joseph Smith found that were born outside of Joseph's and Emma's marriage. There exists to date no DNA evidence of it.

[ajax]

Fact: There have been NO children/descendants of Joseph Smith found that were born outside of Joseph's and Emma's marriage. There exists to date no DNA evidence of it.

This is true. Was he still however, marrying and manipulating in secrecy for dynastic purposes?

[MMbelieve]

You’re equating lying to your wife, sleeping around behind her back, lying to the saints, manipulating young girls, marrying women already married without the other mans knowledge to hiding Anne Frank?

Do you accept that there are exceptions to the moral duty of honesty?

If we believe that a LDS husband can marry another woman without his wife’s knowledge we are discouraging LDS women from marrying or being committed but then again, early church polygamy allowed women to switch husbands or divorce. All pretty negative stuff.

[marc]

Fact: There have been NO children/descendants of Joseph Smith found that were born outside of Joseph's and Emma's marriage. There exists to date no DNA evidence of it.

This is true. Was he still however, marrying and manipulating in secrecy for dynastic purposes?

There are all kinds of sources that give evidence for yes or no. The second fact remains that we really do not know. There is no proof. Ergo:

1. Joseph had no posterity without Emma.
2. We have no incontrovertible proof that he married anyone else.

[Mindfields]

It’s an epic conspiracy theory of enormous proportions.

You got that right it sure was except you have it backwards. There's a ton of hearsay and decades later remembrances but really no contemporary evidence to convict Joseph of practicing polygamy. So rather than being a blatant liar, perhaps he was telling the truth in his denials.

-“Know assuredly Dear brethren, that it is for the testimony of Jesus, that we are in bonds and in prison . . . .
Was it for committing adultery?  We are aware that false and slanderous reports have gone abroad, which have reached our ears, respecting this thing, which have been started by renegades, and spread by the dissenters, who are extremely active in spreading foul and libelous reports concerning us; thinking thereby to gain the fellowship of the world . . . . Some have reported that we not only dedicated our property, but likewise our families to the Lord, and Satan taking advantage of this has transfigured it into lasciviousness, a community of wives [polygamy], which things are an abomination in the sight of God.

-When we consecrate our property to the Lord, it is to administer to the wants of the poor and needy according to the laws of God, and when a man consecrates or dedicates his wife and children to the Lord, he does not give them to his brother or to his neighbor; which is contrary to the law of God, which says, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife.’  ‘He that looketh upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery already in his heart.’  Now for a man to consecrate his property, his wife and children to the Lord is nothing more nor less than to feed the hungry, cloth the naked, visit the widows and fatherless, the sick and afflicted; and do all he can to administer to their relief in their afflictions, and for himself and his house to serve the Lord.  In order to do this he and all his house must be virtuous and shun every appearance of evil.  Now if any person, has represented anything otherwise than what we now write they have willfully misrepresented us.” 
Times and Seasons[4] [April 1840]: 82–85

- “… some of your elders say, that a man having a certain priesthood, may has as many wives as he pleases, and that doctrine is taught here: I say unto you that that man teaches false doctrine, for there is no such doctrine taught here; neither is there any such thing practiced here.”  Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 474 (March, 1844)

- "MARRIAGE. v. 4 "Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy; we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again." 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, C1, p. 251 (1835)

-"...What a thing it is for a man 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." (History of the Church, vol 6, p. 411) Joseph Smith made this statement preaching from the stand to the Latter-day Saints in Nauvoo on Sunday May 26, 1844. 

-May 25th 1844 Thomas Bullock recorded a sermon given by Joseph Smith to address the dissenters at Nauvoo. This is an excerpt from that sermon:
Another indictment has been got up against me (the polygamy indictment). It appears a holy prophet (William Law) has arisen up, and he has testified against me (causing the polygamy indictment to be brought forth)….God knows, then, that the charges against me are false. 

-I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made on proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives.  I mean to live and proclaim the truth as long as I can.

-This new holy prophet (William Law) has gone to Carthage and swore that I had told him that I was guilty of adultery.  This spiritual wifeism! Why, a man dares not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this….William Law….swears that I have committed adultery.  I wish the grand jury would tell me who they (the alleged wives) are – whether it will be a curse or a blessing to me….

-A man asked me whether the commandment (revelation) was given that a man may have seven wives; and now the new prophet has charges me with adultery….Wilson Law (William’s brother) also swears that I told him I was guilty of adultery….I have rattled chains before in a dungeon for truth’s sake.  I am innocent of all these charges, and you can bear witness of my innocence, for you know me yourselves….What a thing it is for a man 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 (when charged with polygamy shortly after his marriage to Emma Hale); and I can prove them all perjurers. (LDS History of the Church 6:410-411).

[BruceRGilbert]

It is time to set the record straight and to vindicate the Prophet Joseph Smith from false accusations. I proclaim that he is exactly who he claimed to be and that would not mean, in any way shape or form, that he lied. I do not and will not knowingly support someone who practices blatant deception.

[Hosh]

I find it really interesting how some people can believe something when it’s been PROVED blatantly false. It’s really hard to prove a negative when there’s evidence for the positive because you have to disprove ever possibility around the positive. My point is is that saying joseph is a monogamist is like saying the earth is flat or that the holocaust didn’t happen. It’s an epic conspiracy theory of enormous proportions. You essentially are creating theories based on theories that don’t make sense. For example flat earthers believe that millions are in on it and it just somehow hasn’t leaked even though we have solid concrete evidence of the contrary. We have corroborated journals affidavits and other histories to prove that Joseph Smith practiced and introduced polygamy. D&C 101 was written by Oliver Cowdery in response to the Fanny Alger incident. Even private letters from Joseph smith 3rd show that he believed that his father was a polygamist. My point is that we all know that Joseph smith practiced it and everyone who doesn’t agree is in absolute denial. Some just can’t accept it and they choose to believe something akin to the moon being made of cheese. It’s unfortunate we now live in a post modern post facts society where people are now starting to believe all sorts of crazy stuff even when proof shows that it is blatantly false. People who don’t believe in things that are proved and documented to be true have and psychological illness and it’s called denialism.

Believe it or not your paradigm is not the only one that exists. From other paradigms, yours is the one that seems completely unfounded and not supported by the scriptures. Others have shared your paradigm of being totally convinced of Joseph's polygamous relationships and have had a complete paradigm shift and can see things in a totally new way of why it makes sense that he practiced monogomy. There is another perspective that exists you know. Just because you don't see it, doesn't make it not true.

[BruceRGilbert]

Hopefully three things can be established:
1.) Polygamy is the exception and not the rule.
2.) The "order" of the Celestial kingdom is not mutually exclusive of monogamy or polygamy.
3.) Joseph Smith did NOT practice polygamy.

We are well aware of the conditions prescribed in Jacob 2 as to the conditions where the practice of polygamy is acceptable. It is not a point of "condemnation" if it is commanded and/or accepted by the Lord. In ALL cases, this is the exception, rather than the rule. Women ARE NOT property. These things are governed by the Law of Sarah. It is not given for man to choose for himself.

Those "Patriarchs" who participated in such relationships, who were blessed by Heavenly Father, are "grandfathered" in and do not merit condemnation.

[4Joshua8]

Hopefully three things can be established:
1.) Polygamy is the exception and not the rule.
2.) The "order" of the Celestial kingdom is not mutually exclusive of monogamy or polygamy.
3.) Joseph Smith did NOT practice polygamy.

We are well aware of the conditions prescribed in Jacob 2 as to the conditions where the practice of polygamy is acceptable. It is not a point of "condemnation" if it is commanded and/or accepted by the Lord. In ALL cases, this is the exception, rather than the rule. Women ARE NOT property. These things are governed by the Law of Sarah. It is not given for man to choose for himself.

Those "Patriarchs" who participated in such relationships, who were blessed by Heavenly Father, are "grandfathered" in and do not merit condemnation.

I disagree.
1.) I believe that we'll find that plural marriage is quite common in exaltation, not rare. Monogamy is the norm in mortality, not God-sanctioned plural marriage, because we are wicked and don't live by righteous principles consistently. If we did live by righteous principles, I believe we would probably have God-sanctioned plural marriage today. This is why God forbids it, not because it is inherently wrong.
2.) "The order of the [exaltation] is not mutually exclusive of monogamy or polygamy." This may be true. I don't find reason to argue against it.
3.) Joseph Smith DID have plural wives; however, the conversation surrounding his practice of it is wildly out of context and misunderstood, and I feel certain that were he here to defend himself we would all have a much better understanding of what was going on.

Addition:
Note two contemporary plural marriage practitioners: President Nelson and President Oaks, both of which have two wives sealed to them. How many men have been sealed to plural wives since the manifesto? MANY. Therefore, plural marriage is STILL in practice today. If we say it isn't, we are saying we don't believe in the efficacy of the sealing, aren't we? I believe this is so obvious as to require willful blindness to deny it.

[Contemplator]

The problem that faces us when trying to resolve this question is that there is very little first person contemporaneous documentation of Joseph practicing polygamy. And none of the contemporaneous evidence establishes that Joseph practiced plural sexual union type of marriages. He was sealed to many women. He was also sealed to men. Beyond that, we really do not know just what was going on.

Here is the dilemma. Only 2, and maybe a couple of other, documents are contemporaneous first person accounts. None of them establish that Joseph was entering into plural sexual union marriages. The other evidence is all later, usually much later and self-serving, recollections and hearsay. The evidence we have is simply not dispositive. A careful reader can arrive at a conclusion that Joseph either practiced, or frought, polygamy. And neither claim can be falsified. Here are two good examples of attempts to consider all of the evidence:

Joseph practiced polygamy: https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/

Joseph fought polygamy: http://restorationbookstore.org/jsfp-index.htm

Do not dismiss either of these because of the bias of the authors. Rather, read carefully and see that both of these find support, but not proof, of what they are looking for. It is possible that there is no way to be certain on this topic. It is also possible that the answer we see tells us more about ourself than about Joseph.

[BruceRGilbert]

I disagree.
1.) I believe that we'll find that plural marriage is quite common in exaltation, not rare. Monogamy is the norm in mortality, not God-sanctioned plural marriage, because we are wicked and don't live by righteous principles consistently. If we did live by righteous principles, I believe we would probably have God-sanctioned plural marriage today. This is why God forbids it, not because it is inherently wrong.
2.) "The order of the [exaltation] is not mutually exclusive of monogamy or polygamy." This may be true. I don't find reason to argue against it.
3.) Joseph Smith DID have plural wives; however, the conversation surrounding his practice of it is wildly out of context and misunderstood, and I feel certain that were he here to defend himself we would all have a much better understanding of what was going on.

Addition:
Note two contemporary plural marriage practitioners: President Nelson and President Oaks, both of which have two wives sealed to them. How many men have been sealed to plural wives since the manifesto? MANY. Therefore, plural marriage is STILL in practice today. If we say it isn't, we are saying we don't believe in the efficacy of the sealing, aren't we? I believe this is so obvious as to require willful blindness to deny it.

I am grateful that you feel comfortable enough to express your opinion and you raise some valid points in the addition. For Brigham Young, et. al., I hope and suspect that Heavenly Father will accept their . . . situations. I, further suspect that it will remain the exception, rather than the rule.

I don't accept the notion of a righteous man practicing deception in the case of Joseph Smith.

Now, you have stated something very noteworthy in that Addition. I have a pony in the race on this one. It would please my soul if my father were to be sealed to both my Temple mom and my Birth mom. I would love having two Mothers. However, it is not my decision or place to impose my will upon them. There is this little matter called "agency," at play, here. I have a great deal of respect for Elder Richard G. Scott and his devotion to his one true love. I know that of which you speak and I do concur that such things are in the hands of a Heavenly Father who controls the circumstances surrounding life's duration and social engineering. It is in Him that we have to trust in terms of our callings. If I am willfully blind, it has to do with the acceptance of those who "lied" in preserving polygamy's practice post manifesto.

[Benaishtart]

What about Abraham lying about his Sarah being his sister?