LDS Freedom Forum

Oliver wrote to Joseph 6 months before Joseph died and said wicked men jealous of their relationship wanted Oliver out of the church and they succeeded in doing that. Oliver said wicked people spread falsehoods of the most foul and wicked kind and David defended Joseph as a monogamist while he was connected with him. David did later accept the polygamist stories of Joseph though.

This letter is referred to as Dear Brethren in a historical article about Joseph and Oliver, dated 12/25/1843 and referenced as being held at the Church History Library

Oliver's comments from the letter, the italicized underlining comes from Oliver, the non-italicized underlining comes from me:

“Now what I have to say concerning all the difficulty between myself and your church, together with those charges last refer[r]ed to, is simply this: I believed at the time, and still believe that ambitious and wicked men, envying the harmony existing between myself and the first elders of the church, and hoping to get into some other men’s birth right, by falsehoods the most foul and wicked, caused all this difficulty from beginning to end. They succeeded in getting myself out of the Church; but since they themselves have gone to perdition, out not old friends—long tried in the furnase [furnace] of affliction, to be friends still, even laying out of view any and all religious consideration?”

A letter from Oliver to his niece showed his attitude of condemnation of the practice of Polygamy by the saints in Utah. If he disapproved of it in conversation with his niece, I don't understand why he'd be so warm to Joseph in this letter, since as the accepted record stands, Joseph was practicing polygamy and Oliver knew about it

I think there is more to Oliver and Joseph than we have documented. The "scholarly" article I pulled this from acknowledges there are gaps of clear details of certain parts of Oliver's life and it is difficult to say what began his and Joseph's problems with each other.

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑December 29th, 2021, 3:52 pm Ex-mos love polygamy because they feel they can defend Joseph having practiced it... all based on second-hand accounts. TBMs have to love polygamy because their leaders would lose succession if otherwise.

I've had similar thoughts. How much rides on this for worldly view points to be "right" about Joseph and how much rides on this for a priestcraft to have authority, it feels biblical. If all of these people are wrong about Joseph's polygamy, the brilliant historians will be shown wrong (God loves upsetting the wisdom of the world), a great and spacious building built by priestcraft will have the rug completely pulled out from under them. The line has been drawn. The Great and Spacious building laughs at and mocks those who see enough room to suggest a conspiracy happened to destroy Joseph's character and he had but one wife. The storm will certainly get worse, but we are not alone in our defense of Joseph. We are never alone.


I don't have an answer for every polygamist story but our dear leaders and historical experts bought into fake documents about Joseph at least as recently as the 1980s. I believe they've bought into other lies intentionally and unintentionally. When you have so many conflicting statements and accounts of events of a religious movement like this (a movement you believe in), I think it's fair to reach a conclusion that conspiracies small and large have made a mess of things and I'm going to give Joseph the benefit of the doubt on polygamy.


If polygamy is honestly God's Celestial law, I sincerely believe He will send forth a prophet that will declare it with convincing revelation and a sufficient enough movement will form to bring people to that truth.

This is a perfect climate for polygamy to be legalized. With the legalization of same-sex marriage and the accepted attitude of "let consensual adults be consensual adults with each other, be tolerant" being such a valued message, polygamy could become legalized, easily, in the United States these days.


I see no movement though. I see no convincing prophet or servant bringing forth revelation from God to help God's children learn of this essential truth. I see a priestcraft that indulged in it while they had some freedom and space as a territory and then moved away from it for financial gain and political necessity.

And if Joseph were a polygamist, I see no bold public prophetic teaching of it. I just see someone hiding it. Brigham wasn't even a prophet, a self-proclaimed "Yankee-Guesser", he was bold and public about polygamy, but the prophet of the restoration couldn't be?


I see no real, bold prophetic work in Joseph's day of really getting this truth out to the public. And in this modern day movement of faithful Book of Mormon believers walking away from the church and the personalities and followings stemming from this movement, I don't see any of these individuals or groups adopting polygamy as having been a mistake to drop.


If this is of God, He will certainly send convincing, prophetic servants to declare it. We're sincerely waiting.....

BuriedTartaria wrote: ↑December 29th, 2021, 6:35 pm Oliver wrote to Joseph 6 months before Joseph died and said wicked men jealous of their relationship wanted Oliver out of the church and they succeeded in doing that. Oliver didn't mention anything about Fanny in that letter and David defended Joseph as a monogamist while he was connected with. David did later accept the polygamist stories of Joseph though.

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑December 29th, 2021, 3:52 pm Ex-mos love polygamy because they feel they can defend Joseph having practiced it... all based on second-hand accounts. TBMs have to love polygamy because their leaders would lose succession if otherwise.

I've had similar thoughts. How much rides on this for worldly view points to be "right" about Joseph and how much rides on this for a priestcraft to have authority, it feels biblical. If all of these people are wrong about Joseph's polygamy, the brilliant historians will be shown wrong (God loves upsetting the wisdom of the world), a great and spacious building built by priestcraft will have the rug completely pulled out from under them. The line has been drawn. The Great and Spacious building laughs at and mocks those who see enough room to suggest a conspiracy happened to destroy Joseph's character and he had but one wife. The storm will certainly get worse, but we are not alone in our defense of Joseph. We are never alone.

His name is being had for good and evil more over this subject than any other subject. Jacob 2 etc defines what the evil is and what the good is of this “subject”. I view him through the good.

“Your name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.”

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑December 29th, 2021, 6:20 pm

AstonishingGrunt wrote: ↑December 29th, 2021, 5:48 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑December 29th, 2021, 5:38 pm

AstonishingGrunt wrote: ↑December 29th, 2021, 5:14 pm

Tell that to Oliver Cowdery.

Regardless, you didn't actually answer my question. You just engage in sweeping dismissives.

Yeah, there are issues with Oliver and what he supposedly saw/heard.

And yes, I intentionally chose to dismiss you.

How astonishing.

I'm curious, RW, are you an active member of the mainstream church?

AstonishingGrunt wrote: ↑December 29th, 2021, 6:50 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑December 29th, 2021, 6:20 pm

AstonishingGrunt wrote: ↑December 29th, 2021, 5:48 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑December 29th, 2021, 5:38 pm
Yeah, there are issues with Oliver and what he supposedly saw/heard.

And yes, I intentionally chose to dismiss you.

How astonishing.

I'm curious, RW, are you an active member of the mainstream church?

A.G.,

You mean this church:

JST, Matthew 21:47–56. Compare Matthew 21:45–46
Jesus declares that He is the chief cornerstone. The gospel is offered to the Jews and then to the Gentiles. The wicked will be destroyed when Jesus returns.

47 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.
48 And they said among themselves, Shall this man think that he alone can spoil this great kingdom? And they were angry with him.
49 But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they learned that the multitude took him for a prophet.
50 And now his disciples came to him, and Jesus said unto them, Marvel ye at the words of the parable which I spake unto them?
51 Verily, I say unto you, I am the stone, and those wicked ones reject me.
52 I am the head of the corner. These Jews shall fall upon me, and shall be broken.
53 And the kingdom of God shall be taken from them, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof; (meaning the Gentiles.)
54 Wherefore, on whomsoever this stone shall fall, it shall grind him to powder.
55 And when the Lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, he will destroy those miserable, wicked men, and will let again his vineyard unto other husbandmen, even in the last days, who shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
56 And then understood they the parable which he spake unto them, that the Gentiles should be destroyed also, when the Lord should descend out of heaven to reign in his vineyard, which is the earth and the inhabitants thereof.

A.G., same church?

3nephi 16

9 And because of the mercies of the Father unto the Gentiles, and also the judgments of the Father upon my people who are of the house of Israel, verily, verily, I say unto you, that after all this, and I have caused my people who are of the house of Israel to be smitten, and to be afflicted, and to be slain, and to be cast out from among them, and to become hated by them, and to become a hiss and a byword among them—
10 And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them.
11 And then will I remember my covenant which I have made unto my people, O house of Israel, and I will bring my gospel unto them.
12 And I will show unto thee, O house of Israel, that the Gentiles shall not have power over you; but I will remember my covenant unto you, O house of Israel, and ye shall come unto the knowledge of the fulness of my gospel.
13 But if the Gentiles will repent and return unto me, saith the Father, behold they shall be numbered among my people, O house of Israel.

A.G.

Do you see anything in Jacob 2 that lines up with 3nephi 16:


Jacob 2:


And now I make an end of speaking unto you concerning this pride. And were it not that I must speak unto you concerning a grosser crime, my heart would rejoice exceedingly because of you.
23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
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.
31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.
32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.
33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.
34 And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.
35 Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds.

A.G., truly Joseph’s name is being had for good and EVIL more over this subject than any other subject. Do you agree? Jacob 2 etc defines what the evil is and what the good is of this “subject”. I view him through the GOOD. I want to believe and I believe his defining public stance on the subject of polygamy.


Moroni:
“Your name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.”

A.G., please take a listen / view this fellas research on the topic.

https://youtu.be/F5heXE5xS5w

AstonishingGrunt wrote: ↑December 29th, 2021, 6:50 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑December 29th, 2021, 6:20 pm

AstonishingGrunt wrote: ↑December 29th, 2021, 5:48 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑December 29th, 2021, 5:38 pm
Yeah, there are issues with Oliver and what he supposedly saw/heard.

And yes, I intentionally chose to dismiss you.

How astonishing.

I'm curious, RW, are you an active member of the mainstream church?

I haven’t attended church in about 7 months, but I love theology and strive for greater understanding with regards to the workings of the heavens. Currently I’m studying Universal Law and Hermeticism. Also, I’ll never feel comfortable in the LDS faith unless major cultural and doctrinal shifts happen. Here is my website with my viewpoint on a few key issues: www.reluctantwatchman.com

AstonishingGrunt wrote: ↑December 29th, 2021, 5:27 pm

All that tells me is that, like many polyandrous relationships, they had reason to believe the child could be from JS. The fact that they were married to two men at the same time certainly causes a problem in that regard, eh?

Regardless, the affidavits are but a smidgen of the total evidence. I don't find the affidavits to be particularly 'precious,' but I do find them to be a compelling piece when considered in the whole.

Really? Can anything good come out of such perversion as being married to two men at the same time? It’s an abomination and I am astonished that anyone would believe such a thing could lead to a celestial marriage!

IMO, those who are pro polygamy have trouble seeing the truth of its perversion because they are hoping to get the Mormon equivalent of 72 virgins, many wives in the hereafter, because it will solve all the problems they are having with the one wife they have in this life.

Being married to two men at the same time is an abomination before God and the entire polygamy argument crumbles to the ground.

Lineman1012 wrote: ↑December 29th, 2021, 10:24 pm
Being married to two men at the same time is an abomination before God and the entire polygamy argument crumbles to the ground.

Polyandry. Intimacy with anyone you form a connection with and make a commitment to (it's not hooking up, it's 'marriage'). It's evil and destroys marriages

A big, heavenly network of people being intimate with whomever. Waiting any day now for God to bless the world with prophets revealing this glorious truth. The political and social landscape is ready for it. There's no ground for the "the world isn't ready for it" argument anymore. Open marriages are ever expanding and there is now precedent from the equality movement to allow for different types of marriages to be recognized. There has literally never been a better moment in US history for God to push polygamy/polyandry forward and call servants to preach these truths.

But for some reason, God isn't sending messengers with that message

Here is an interesting timeline from the folks at Exonerating Joseph:
https://www.exoneratejoseph.com/p/he-fo ... ygamy.html

For those who support polygamy, and that Joseph also practiced it, you must also believe that he failed miserably at it. Jacob 2 states that the only intended purpose if sanctioned at all, was to raise up seed. Not a single child has proven to have been the seed of Joseph, other than his 9 children by Emma.

And on that note, the census records for Utah clearly show that there were more men than women. With the Brighamite saints living polygamy they were actually preventing or limiting the number of children that could be born and also creating a lot of bachelors. They were doing the exact opposite of what Jacob suggests in the BoM.

Oh, and I also found 4 different JST revisons to the Bible where Joseph ammended the words to condemn David and/or Solomon for their wickedness. Joseph wasn't ignorant of Jacob 2, D&C 132 is a sham.

Here is the video that covers the JST translation updates and other scriptures:

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑December 30th, 2021, 6:07 am Oh, and I also found 4 different JST revisons to the Bible where Joseph ammended the words to condemn David and/or Solomon for their wickedness. Joseph wasn't ignorant of Jacob 2, D&C 132 is a sham.

This is very interesting. I believe Joseph said the revisions to the Bible made those Bible verses to be how they are written in the Lord's bosom and that unless the church had the fulness of the scriptures (which the JST Bible was part of), the church would fail.

ithink wrote: ↑December 29th, 2021, 8:18 am

cab wrote: ↑November 6th, 2021, 8:56 am

BuriedTartaria wrote: ↑November 6th, 2021, 8:05 am I am neutral on whether or not Joseph was a polygamist.
I try to listen to both sides of the argument.
I think polygamy is wrong and evil and I find David Whitmer and Oliver's departure from Joseph highly noteworthy. I know it wasn't over polygamy but the Fanny situation played a role in Oliver leaving, it's interesting to note that David said while he believed Joseph got into the polygamy business he also said Joseph did not practice polygamy while he was involved with him. I find their voices and actions important while not finding them infallible as well. I feel like I can't really know Joseph with all the different things said about him. I think it is possible for someone of God to be besmirched and lied about but I have no way of knowing who he really is. So I appreciate the Book of Mormon he translated by the power of God but leave my appreciation for him there. The jury is out for me on his life and character.

I do find the rising voices of people questioning Joseph's polygamy to be compelling. David Snuffer has harmed the power his voice could hold by veering away from a Mormon comentator to a self-proclaimed prophet, but even if I don't necessarily believe his prophetic claims, I always listen to his thoughts on Mormonism and he has a lot of thoughts on Joseph being innocent of polygamy.

Even if you aren't a fan of Snuffer's movement, feelings questioning Joseph's polygamy are growing. Look at the work being done by Rob Fotheringham.


I don't have enough information to fairly assess biblical situations of what we assume to be "good" people engaged in polygamy. Those situations seem largely situational.
Thanks for this thread, great material.

This is how I feel as I listen to both sides of the Joseph/polygamy argument:




Joseph's dilapidated barn dream touches me in a very "my conscious is clear way". I don't know what to make of Joseph. But if that dream he gives is true, he seems like he was at peace at the end of his life.

But then again, I've read that Emma wrote to him implying he was a cowered fleeing Nauvoo after what happened with the Expositor. I've read an account of a non-Mormon bumping into Joseph near the end of his life. He described him as stocky, smoking and seemingly dealing with a lot of anxiety, a hairline dramatically receding, essentially looking like a panicked mess. Not a heroic, confident, calm figure.

I don't know what to think of Joseph, honestly.

I appreciate your very well reasoned line of thinking here

We will likely never truly know all the details…. But yeah, the point of my OP was not to reopen “the debate”, but rather to simply document the best I can what I’ve compiled for the alternative viewpoint.

The mainstream narrative is obviously well-documented, with plenty of evidence available. But it saddens me that this viewpoint (the viewpoint held by all of Joseph’s immediate family for many many years) is most often rejected out-of-hand.

My goal is to simply raise awareness to the fact that there is strong evidence for a different viewpoint that many members of the church would be very interested to investigate if they only knew of its existence.

Likewise, and perhaps most importantly, is the fact that we are in the midst of a wave of people leaving the church and losing all faith. We all know those who are throwing the baby out with the bath water. Such things as the CES letter use the low hanging fruit of Joseph’s polygamy to destroy his character, which often leads to the entire shelf of faith in the Lord breaking.

What is available here is an alternative viewpoint, which can be considered a faithful viewpoint in many respects. If people having a faith/truth crisis learn to see church history from an entirely new standpoint, they may be able to stop and consider the likelihood that they shouldn’t be so rash in their reactions and not make any hasty decisions…. After all, just about everything we think we know is either incomplete or incorrect to begin with…

What needs to be understood about Fanny Alger.

When Oliver Cowdery
accused Joseph of adultery with Fanny Alger, Joseph
insisted on only one thing: that the word adultery be taken out of Oliver's
accusation. Yet the only way Joseph could validate a relationship with Fanny by
removing adultery from the accusation would be to say that he and Fanny were
married and the union was legal and lawful. It is worthy to note that because
Joseph did not deny a relationship with Fanny, but only wished to modify the
nature of the relationship, he tacitly agrees that there was a relationship, and only
wanted clarification on how it was viewed. Besides this, there is a myriad of
evidence that there was a relationship between Fanny and Joseph, and no reputable
historian any longer denies this. Evidence exists that they were wed April or May
1833 but if so, neither Emma, nor Oliver, nor anyone else knew about it.
Some claim that the Fanny Alger incident was simply Joseph starting polygamy
in secret. Perhaps, but how would that work since the sealing power of Elijah
would apparently not yet be restored until 1836, three years later? What is clear is
that at some time Joseph simply assumed the authority to perform marriages. The
historian Quinn calls this “theocratic ethics”. On page 88 of Origins of Power,
Quinn relates how in November of 1835 Joseph married Newel Knight to the
already married Lydia Goldthwaithe with no authority to do so. Smith issued
marriage certificates for the marriages he performed, but previous to these
marriages there was no license issued because licenses to marry were issued not by
the mayor of any city in Illinois, but by state officials instead. (A Burnt Child)

There’s alot of conjecture and assumption in this statement by Quinn. Where does he show documentation for the claim that “the only thing Joseph wanted to have removed was the word ‘adultery’?

I’m not aware of adultery, or even the word ‘affair’ being used at all. Affair didn’t even mean then what it means now, to begin with. The original word was ‘scrape’, wasn’t it?

AstonishingGrunt wrote: ↑December 28th, 2021, 2:43 pm

cab wrote: ↑December 28th, 2021, 2:37 pm

AstonishingGrunt wrote: ↑December 27th, 2021, 1:42 pm Wait...people are still trying to say that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with polygamy? Oh, good grief. There is more than enough evidence to show that he had more than 30 'wives' and extra-marital (meaning, other than Emma) relationships, beginning with Fanny Alger. He married every single young woman who ever resided in and worked in his home. He sent men on missions and then married their wives. This is all well documented, and the Church even acknowledges as much. This controversy was settled long ago.

If you start looking into the sources documented in the OP you may start to see that this debate is far from settled.

Perhaps for you, it isn't.

ETA: Of course Emma lied! She had a vested interest in starting a new church with her son at the head, didn't want to move to Utah, and knew that polygamy was a part of the reason her husband was killed. It's well documented that she was in attendance at the sham second wedding to the Partridge sisters (http://wivesofjosephsmith.org/2021-Emil ... tridge.htm), and there's at least some reasonably based suspicion that Emma wanted William Law as a polyandrous husband. Brigham Young was a Class-A a*s*s*h*o*l*e and has plenty of lies of his own to answer for, but in this instance it's Emma who is being dishonest about the practice of polygamy. I don't blame her one bit, though. Not one bit.

Well documented haha. Go dig into the original sources cited and you’ll see that Emily Partridge’s account is very dubious. Her “reminisces” were written after she’d been married to Brigham for decades and her whole story about Joseph and Emma and their marriage was on the very final pages of her memoir (the main one cited by the church in “The Saints” Volumes) as if it was hastily added at the end of her writing.
The only thing well documented is that Emily Patridge’s claim are very late and very subject to her bias of having been a wife of Brigham for decades….

One thing we hardly talk about is how polyandry was also part of the supposed practice. To believe the church narrative we have to believe polyandry (one woman, multiple husbands)

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑December 29th, 2021, 7:43 pm

AstonishingGrunt wrote: ↑December 29th, 2021, 6:50 pm

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑December 29th, 2021, 6:20 pm

AstonishingGrunt wrote: ↑December 29th, 2021, 5:48 pm

How astonishing.

I'm curious, RW, are you an active member of the mainstream church?

I haven’t attended church in about 7 months, but I love theology and strive for greater understanding with regards to the workings of the heavens. Currently I’m studying Universal Law and Hermeticism. Also, I’ll never feel comfortable in the LDS faith unless major cultural and doctrinal shifts happen. Here is my website with my viewpoint on a few key issues: www.reluctantwatchman.com

Interesting. Seems like you might be a better fit with the Denver Snuffer crowd.

Lineman1012 wrote: ↑December 29th, 2021, 10:24 pm

AstonishingGrunt wrote: ↑December 29th, 2021, 5:27 pm

All that tells me is that, like many polyandrous relationships, they had reason to believe the child could be from JS. The fact that they were married to two men at the same time certainly causes a problem in that regard, eh?

Regardless, the affidavits are but a smidgen of the total evidence. I don't find the affidavits to be particularly 'precious,' but I do find them to be a compelling piece when considered in the whole.

Really? Can anything good come out of such perversion as being married to two men at the same time? It’s an abomination and I am astonished that anyone would believe such a thing could lead to a celestial marriage!

IMO, those who are pro polygamy have trouble seeing the truth of its perversion because they are hoping to get the Mormon equivalent of 72 virgins, many wives in the hereafter, because it will solve all the problems they are having with the one wife they have in this life.

Being married to two men at the same time is an abomination before God and the entire polygamy argument crumbles to the ground.

Sorry to bring so much cognitive dissonance into your life, but that is exactly what happened. JS married several women who were already married. He had a nice little practice of sending those men on missions overseas and then marrying their wives when the husbands were away.

For the record, I am neither pro-polygamy, nor pro-Joseph. Joseph's introduction of polygamy was one (of many) reasons I left the church.

cab wrote: ↑December 30th, 2021, 9:38 am

AstonishingGrunt wrote: ↑December 28th, 2021, 2:43 pm

cab wrote: ↑December 28th, 2021, 2:37 pm

AstonishingGrunt wrote: ↑December 27th, 2021, 1:42 pm Wait...people are still trying to say that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with polygamy? Oh, good grief. There is more than enough evidence to show that he had more than 30 'wives' and extra-marital (meaning, other than Emma) relationships, beginning with Fanny Alger. He married every single young woman who ever resided in and worked in his home. He sent men on missions and then married their wives. This is all well documented, and the Church even acknowledges as much. This controversy was settled long ago.

If you start looking into the sources documented in the OP you may start to see that this debate is far from settled.

Perhaps for you, it isn't.

ETA: Of course Emma lied! She had a vested interest in starting a new church with her son at the head, didn't want to move to Utah, and knew that polygamy was a part of the reason her husband was killed. It's well documented that she was in attendance at the sham second wedding to the Partridge sisters (http://wivesofjosephsmith.org/2021-Emil ... tridge.htm), and there's at least some reasonably based suspicion that Emma wanted William Law as a polyandrous husband. Brigham Young was a Class-A a*s*s*h*o*l*e and has plenty of lies of his own to answer for, but in this instance it's Emma who is being dishonest about the practice of polygamy. I don't blame her one bit, though. Not one bit.

Well documented haha. Go dig into the original sources cited and you’ll see that Emily Partridge’s account is very dubious. Her “reminisces” were written after she’d been married to Brigham for decades and her whole story about Joseph and Emma and their marriage was on the very final pages of her memoir (the main one cited by the church in “The Saints” Volumes) as if it was hastily added at the end of her writing.
The only thing well documented is that Emily Patridge’s claim are very late and very subject to her bias of having been a wife of Brigham for decades….

Well, it's in Eliza's journal, too. You can keep trying to pick on issues for one woman at a time here and there, but there are at least 33. Let that sink in...thirty...three.

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑December 30th, 2021, 9:50 am One thing we hardly talk about is how polyandry was also part of the supposed practice. To believe the church narrative we have to believe polyandry (one woman, multiple husbands)

Agreed, it is a necessary element of the historical record on JS's practice of polygamy.

cab wrote: ↑December 30th, 2021, 9:31 am

ithink wrote: ↑December 29th, 2021, 8:18 am

cab wrote: ↑November 6th, 2021, 8:56 am

BuriedTartaria wrote: ↑November 6th, 2021, 8:05 am I am neutral on whether or not Joseph was a polygamist.
I try to listen to both sides of the argument.
I think polygamy is wrong and evil and I find David Whitmer and Oliver's departure from Joseph highly noteworthy. I know it wasn't over polygamy but the Fanny situation played a role in Oliver leaving, it's interesting to note that David said while he believed Joseph got into the polygamy business he also said Joseph did not practice polygamy while he was involved with him. I find their voices and actions important while not finding them infallible as well. I feel like I can't really know Joseph with all the different things said about him. I think it is possible for someone of God to be besmirched and lied about but I have no way of knowing who he really is. So I appreciate the Book of Mormon he translated by the power of God but leave my appreciation for him there. The jury is out for me on his life and character.

I do find the rising voices of people questioning Joseph's polygamy to be compelling. David Snuffer has harmed the power his voice could hold by veering away from a Mormon comentator to a self-proclaimed prophet, but even if I don't necessarily believe his prophetic claims, I always listen to his thoughts on Mormonism and he has a lot of thoughts on Joseph being innocent of polygamy.

Even if you aren't a fan of Snuffer's movement, feelings questioning Joseph's polygamy are growing. Look at the work being done by Rob Fotheringham.


I don't have enough information to fairly assess biblical situations of what we assume to be "good" people engaged in polygamy. Those situations seem largely situational.
Thanks for this thread, great material.

This is how I feel as I listen to both sides of the Joseph/polygamy argument:




Joseph's dilapidated barn dream touches me in a very "my conscious is clear way". I don't know what to make of Joseph. But if that dream he gives is true, he seems like he was at peace at the end of his life.

But then again, I've read that Emma wrote to him implying he was a cowered fleeing Nauvoo after what happened with the Expositor. I've read an account of a non-Mormon bumping into Joseph near the end of his life. He described him as stocky, smoking and seemingly dealing with a lot of anxiety, a hairline dramatically receding, essentially looking like a panicked mess. Not a heroic, confident, calm figure.

I don't know what to think of Joseph, honestly.

I appreciate your very well reasoned line of thinking here

We will likely never truly know all the details…. But yeah, the point of my OP was not to reopen “the debate”, but rather to simply document the best I can what I’ve compiled for the alternative viewpoint.

The mainstream narrative is obviously well-documented, with plenty of evidence available. But it saddens me that this viewpoint (the viewpoint held by all of Joseph’s immediate family for many many years) is most often rejected out-of-hand.

My goal is to simply raise awareness to the fact that there is strong evidence for a different viewpoint that many members of the church would be very interested to investigate if they only knew of its existence.

Likewise, and perhaps most importantly, is the fact that we are in the midst of a wave of people leaving the church and losing all faith. We all know those who are throwing the baby out with the bath water. Such things as the CES letter use the low hanging fruit of Joseph’s polygamy to destroy his character, which often leads to the entire shelf of faith in the Lord breaking.

What is available here is an alternative viewpoint, which can be considered a faithful viewpoint in many respects. If people having a faith/truth crisis learn to see church history from an entirely new standpoint, they may be able to stop and consider the likelihood that they shouldn’t be so rash in their reactions and not make any hasty decisions…. After all, just about everything we think we know is either incomplete or incorrect to begin with…

What needs to be understood about Fanny Alger.

When Oliver Cowdery
accused Joseph of adultery with Fanny Alger, Joseph
insisted on only one thing: that the word adultery be taken out of Oliver's
accusation. Yet the only way Joseph could validate a relationship with Fanny by
removing adultery from the accusation would be to say that he and Fanny were
married and the union was legal and lawful. It is worthy to note that because
Joseph did not deny a relationship with Fanny, but only wished to modify the
nature of the relationship, he tacitly agrees that there was a relationship, and only
wanted clarification on how it was viewed. Besides this, there is a myriad of
evidence that there was a relationship between Fanny and Joseph, and no reputable
historian any longer denies this. Evidence exists that they were wed April or May
1833 but if so, neither Emma, nor Oliver, nor anyone else knew about it.
Some claim that the Fanny Alger incident was simply Joseph starting polygamy
in secret. Perhaps, but how would that work since the sealing power of Elijah
would apparently not yet be restored until 1836, three years later? What is clear is
that at some time Joseph simply assumed the authority to perform marriages. The
historian Quinn calls this “theocratic ethics”. On page 88 of Origins of Power,
Quinn relates how in November of 1835 Joseph married Newel Knight to the
already married Lydia Goldthwaithe with no authority to do so. Smith issued
marriage certificates for the marriages he performed, but previous to these
marriages there was no license issued because licenses to marry were issued not by
the mayor of any city in Illinois, but by state officials instead. (A Burnt Child)

There’s alot of conjecture and assumption in this statement by Quinn. Where does he show documentation for the claim that “the only thing Joseph wanted to have removed was the word ‘adultery’?

I’m not aware of adultery, or even the word ‘affair’ being used at all. Affair didn’t even mean then what it means now, to begin with. The original word was ‘scrape’, wasn’t it?

Oliver used the word 'affair.' For example, see footnote 54 - https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... 9662107914

AstonishingGrunt wrote: ↑December 30th, 2021, 10:00 am

cab wrote: ↑December 30th, 2021, 9:38 am

AstonishingGrunt wrote: ↑December 28th, 2021, 2:43 pm

cab wrote: ↑December 28th, 2021, 2:37 pm


If you start looking into the sources documented in the OP you may start to see that this debate is far from settled.

Perhaps for you, it isn't.

ETA: Of course Emma lied! She had a vested interest in starting a new church with her son at the head, didn't want to move to Utah, and knew that polygamy was a part of the reason her husband was killed. It's well documented that she was in attendance at the sham second wedding to the Partridge sisters (http://wivesofjosephsmith.org/2021-Emil ... tridge.htm), and there's at least some reasonably based suspicion that Emma wanted William Law as a polyandrous husband. Brigham Young was a Class-A a*s*s*h*o*l*e and has plenty of lies of his own to answer for, but in this instance it's Emma who is being dishonest about the practice of polygamy. I don't blame her one bit, though. Not one bit.

Well documented haha. Go dig into the original sources cited and you’ll see that Emily Partridge’s account is very dubious. Her “reminisces” were written after she’d been married to Brigham for decades and her whole story about Joseph and Emma and their marriage was on the very final pages of her memoir (the main one cited by the church in “The Saints” Volumes) as if it was hastily added at the end of her writing.
The only thing well documented is that Emily Patridge’s claim are very late and very subject to her bias of having been a wife of Brigham for decades….

Well, it's in Eliza's journal, too. You can keep trying to pick on issues for one woman at a time here and there, but there are at least 33. Let that sink in...thirty...three.

Is that the same Eliza who signed her name to a RS document stating that there was definitely no doctrine or practice of plural marriage in Nauvoo, while, according to the accepted narrative, being a plural wife of Joseph's?

You seem to have no problem with these plural wives being liars, unless they're signing a pre-written affidavit decades after the fact.

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑December 30th, 2021, 6:07 am For those who support polygamy, and that Joseph also practiced it, you must also believe that he failed miserably at it. Jacob 2 states that the only intended purpose if sanctioned at all, was to raise up seed. Not a single child has proven to have been the seed of Joseph, other than his 9 children by Emma.

You're assuming JS actually cared what Jacob 2 stated. But, yes, if he intended to follow the admonition in Jacob 2, then he did fail miserably at it. On the other hand, if he was just another charismatic religious fraud who gains a following and then used the situation to sleep with whomever he wished, then it seems he got exactly what he wanted. Spend a little time reading the book entitled Malignant Pied Pipers and you'll perhaps see that his movement followed nearly the exact same pattern as so many others. Moreover, IMO, had he not been killed at Carthage, the church and he would have engaged in an apocalyptic last stand in Nauvoo; a 19th century version of Waco, if you will.