Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr. and polygamy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
  1. April 2005 – February 2006
  2. February 2006 – April 2006
  3. April 2006 – April 2006

Contents

[edit] Church of Christ (Temple Lot) position on polygamy

Yesterday, I went to the Temple Lot visitor's center and spoke with Mr. William Sheldon about their church's position on this polygamy issue. He said to me, (if he was correct and if my memory serves me correctly - I may be mistaken) that:

  1. Their church suspects/thinks that Joseph Smith Jr. probably had something to do with the original introduction of the doctrine of polygamy.
  2. They believe that Joseph Smith Jr. never publicly advocated polygamy.
  3. They believe that Joseph Smith Jr. never practiced polygamy himself.
  4. They believe that Joseph Smith Jr. did write the "polygamy revelation" but that it was not inspired.
  5. They believe that Joseph Smith Jr., in the last few years before his death, was trying to "put down" (those were Mr. Sheldon's words, and I think he meant in the sense of "eliminate") the polygamy doctrine.
  6. They believe that Joseph Smith Jr. believed that polygamy was wrong at the time of his death, and would be preaching against it if he was alive today.

I may have gotten parts of this wrong, but I was given some pamphlets that I may be able to use to verify the accuracy of this information. Basically, it seemed an odd blend between the RLDS and LDS positions.

As I've been saying for a while now, this whole issue is not black-and-white, scholars-versus-crackpots history. This is a very controversial history that have intelligent people not only on "both sides" but on the sides of not only two, but a whole spectrum of different views. And yes, there is obviously a majority (particularly among academics) that subscribes to a certain view, but that does not make the majority view the objective truth. (or, in the case of Wikipedia, the Neutral Point of View) --BenMcLean 23:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

While I find this interesting - the above is all original research. Is there any publications on the views of this denomination.
I think I failed to mention that I got some pamphlets that ought to document those points, and that I will read through them and see if they are or contain credible sources. Research has to start somewhere. --BenMcLean 20:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Traditional RLDS position on polygamy

[edit] Source: http://www.centerplace.org/library/Study/GCRall.htm

Adopted April 7, 1870.

No. 107. That this conference do appoint a committee of five to draft and present before this conference shall adjourn a memorial to Congress in which shall be embodied an epitome of our faith, and especially a setting forth of our views on government, church policy, and polygamy.

(Said memorial, as approved by the conference, is as follows):

Memorial to Congress from a committee of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, on the claims and faith of the church.

Printed at the True Latter Day Saints' Herald Steam Book Office, Plano, Illinois.

To their Excellencies, the President and Vice President, and the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives of United States, in Congress Assembled:

Having learned that counter influences are at work to prevent or thwart the action proposed by Congress to remedy evils existing in the territory of Utah, and knowing that a claim to be "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" has been made by a large portion of the inhabitants of Utah Territory, and by other religious bodies than that which your memorialists represent, by whom doctrines are held and practiced which are at variance with the proper usages of civilized nations, and opposed to the law of our common country; and that these doctrines are claimed by those who practice them to be made binding upon them, as Latter Day Saints, by the revelations governing said church we, your memorialists, would respectfully call your attention to the following statement of facts:

1. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was organized on the sixth day of April, 1830, and was subsequently represented by its ministry and by the establishment of churches in many of the States, the Canadas, and Europe, under the ecclesiastical presidency of Joseph Smith, until June 27, 1844, when he and his brother Hyrum were killed at Carthage, Illinois.

2. At the time of the organizing of the church, and at all subsequent time prior to the dispersion of its members from Nauvoo, the church was simply an ecclesiastism; and, as such, could confer no privileges before the law not contained in the provisions of the law; nor authorize as a tenet that which was forbidden by the law of the State where the church might exist, or in contravention of the constitutional basis on which the church was built ── the word of God.

3. Under the presidency of Joseph Smith, the church became a corporate body, and adopted as a constitution or form of church government and discipline, the Scriptures, the Book of Mormon and Book of Doctrine and Covenants. The Bible and Book of Mormon have ever been the foundation on which the church has rested its faith, and there has been added to them the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, first published in the year 1835, and republished in 1845; the former edition during the presidential term of Joseph Smith, the latter edition under the regime of Brigham Young, as "President of the Twelve." This book, the "Book of Doctrine and Covenants," was, on the seventeenth day of August, 1835, presented to each and all the quorums of officers belonging to the church, separately, and acted upon by them; it was also presented to the Church in General assembly, and was adopted unanimously. It then became a part of the law of the church, and the church became bound by its provisions, equally as by those of the Bible and Book of Mormon. The doctrines and law of the church so established must ever remain the basis of its government; the endorsement of them an endorsement of the church, the departure from or denial of them a departure from or denial of the church.

4. We would respectfully urge our conviction that there can be no true Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints excepting that which is based on the law of the church, and that the observance of the law is not only the contradistinctive feature of the church, but of every individual member thereof. That we may not present an unsupported statement on so important a point, we most respectfully call attention to the following quotations from the Book of Covenants, which we submit as evidence:

Section 42, paragraph 5: "The Elders, Priests and Teachers of THIS CHURCH shall teach the principles of my gospel which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the FULLNESS OF THE GOSPEL, and they shall observe the covenants and church articles to do them, and these shall be their teachings." (Old edition, section 13.)

Section 42, paragraph 21: "Every person who belongeth to this church of Christ shall observe to keep all the commandments and covenants of the church." (Old edition, section 13.)

5. Having, we trust, set forth sufficiently clearly the binding character of the church, state and national law upon whoever may claim to be "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," your memorialists would beg permission to refer to the following items of church law found in the Bible, Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants, touching matters in which there is a direct antagonism between the church your memorialists represent and the church in Utah with which the government is at issue, and presenting the actual law on those points which are in disputation; ── and more especially upon the duties and privileges of the marriage relation:

BIBLE.

Malachi 2:14, 15: "Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy Youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously; yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the Spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth."

Matthew 19: 4‑6: "And he answered and said unto them Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

1 Corinthians 7 2: "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

BOOK OF MORMON.

Jacob 2: 6: ."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."

DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS.

Section 42, paragraph 7: "Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shall cleave unto her and none else; and he that looketh upon a woman to lust after her, shall deny the faith." (Old edition, section 13.)

Section 49:3: "And again, I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry, is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man; wherefore it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh." (Old edition, section 65.)

6. Again, and to conclude our direct evidence upon this point from the church law, we submit the following extract from the article on marriage, in which the minister officiating is required first to ascertain if there be any legal objections, and on becoming satisfied that there are none, the law thus instructs "He shall say, calling each by their names: 'You both mutually agree to be each other's companion, husband and wife, observing the legal rights belonging to this condition; that is, keeping yourselves WHOLLY FOR EACH OTHER AND FROM ALL OTHERS during your lives.' And when they have answered 'Yes,' he shall pronounce them 'husband and wife,' in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by virtue of the laws of the country and authority vested in him."

7. The claim put forth by the advocates of polygamy that a subsequent revelation authorizes the practice of polygamy, is rendered invalid by the law of the church in Book of Covenants, section 27, paragraph 4, which reads: "Neither shall anything be appointed unto any of this church contrary to the church covenants, for all things must be done in order and by common consent in the church." (Old edition, section 51.)

8. That polygamy could not become a tenet of the church while the church existed in the several States of the Union, is plainly indicated by a clause of the law governing the church from an early day, which reads: "Let no man break the laws of the land for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land." Book of Covenants, section 58, paragraph 5. (Old edition, section 18.)

9. In a careful examination of the publications of the gospel church from its earliest existence to the present time your memorialists have not found one single clause authorizing, justifying, or even permitting polygamy. The New Testament; the Book of Mormon; the Book of Covenants the standard works of the Latter Day Saints' Church; the periodicals of the church, embracing the Evening and Morning Star, the Messenger and Advocate, the Gospel Reflector, the Nauvoo Neighbor, the Times and Seasons, published in America; and the Millennial Star, published in England, are all silent on the question of polygamy, except wherein they refer to it historically, or to condemn either impliedly or directly its practice. The Scriptures are opposed to it, and the works published in the church of Latter Day Saints most unqualifiedly condemn it. Not even the body that now practices and teaches polygamy made any public profession of it till the year 1851, and not officially to the outside world before 1852.

10. Four months before the death of Joseph Smith, and seven months after polygamists date the receiving of a revelation which they assert came through him, authorizing polygamy, this same Joseph Smith published in the Times and Seasons a notice of the excommunication of a man for "preaching polygamy and other false and corrupt doctrines in the county of Lapeer, state of Michigan," in the following terse language: "This is to notify him and the church in general that he has been cut off from the church for HIS INIQUITY, and he is further notified to appear at the special conference on the 6th of April next to answer to these charges. ( Signed)

JOSEPH SMITH,

HYRUM SMITH,

Presidents of said Church.

This expulsion, we submit, could not have taken place had polygamy been made a church tenet seven months previously.

11. In addition to this, Mr. John Taylor, now one of the apostles of the polygamic doctrine, in a public discussion held in Boulogne, France, July 11, 1850, impliedly denied the doctrine of polygamy and. condemned it in the following language: "We are accused here of polygamy, and actions the most indelicate, obscene and disgusting, such than none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived." (Taylor’s Discussion, p. 8.)

12. We, your memorialists, would therefore submit for the consideration of Congress in its action on the Utah question, and in its legislation on the question of the right of Congress to interfere with polygamy as being a part of the faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints:

1st. That the law of the church found in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Covenants, books accepted by the polygamists themselves, expressly forbids to one man more than one living wife.

2nd. That the law contained in those books is the constitution of the church; that no law can obtain in the church in contravention thereof, and that therefore the pretended revelation on polygamy is illegal and of no force.

3rd. That in the "Remonstrance" presented to Congress from the polygamists of Utah, dated March 31, 1870, the non‑publication of this pretended revelation till the year 1852 is admitted in the following language:

"Eighteen years ago, and ten years before the passage of the anti‑polygamy act of 1862, one of our leading men, Elder Orson Pratt, was expressly deputed and sent to Washington to publish and lecture on the principles of plural marriage as practiced by us ── For ten years before the passage of the act of 1862, the principle was widely preached throughout the Union and the world, and was universally known and recognized as the principle of our holy faith."

4th. That the plea of polygamy not being at variance with the law of the land because not expressly in violation of any law on the statute book of the territory of Utah, is not admissible, for this reason, the polygamic revelation claims to have been given in 1843, when the church as a body was in Illinois, in which State bigamy, or polygamy, was then, as now, a crime.

5th. That polygamy, being a crime against the law of the state of Illinois, could not have been authorized by revelation from Him whom polygamists themselves affirm gave the revelation found in Book of Covenants section 58, paragraph 5, which declares: "Let no man break the law of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land; therefore be subject to the powers that be." (Old edition, section 18.)

6th. That the pretended revelation on polygamy was not published till 1852, is strong presumptive evidence that it was not in existence but even if it were, it would still be of no force in the church, as it contravenes revelations previously given to and accepted by the church, and is therefore precluded from becoming a church tenet by that clause of the church law before quoted, which declares, "Neither shall anything be appointed unto any of this church contrary to the church covenants."

13. It is known throughout the nation, and in many parts of the Old World, that there is an influential and rapidly growing organization of Latter Day Saints, separate and distinct from, and in this matter of polygamy, in church polity, and in the relations of the church to the Government entirely dissimilar and opposed to that which the Cullom Bill requires Congress to legislate upon.

14. This organization, known as the "Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," is now being represented in conference at Plano, Illinois, by delegates and visitors from many of the eastern, southern and western States from the Pacific States, the Territories, including Utah, and Great Britain. Your memorialists are a committee appointed by this conference, and as such, would respectfully present to their Excellencies, the President and Vice President of the United States, and to each of the Honorable Members of the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress assembled our views on the questions herein set forth and accompany them with an abstract of the Faith of the true Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in relation to governments and laws in general as published in 1835 and in 1845, and affirmed by the Reorganized Church at as early a date as 1853 and again in 1864; which faith, as so affirmed, is based upon the Bible, Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants:

[Here was quoted in full section 112 of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants.]

15. We, your memorialists, regret that a necessity exists for the faith of the Reorganized Church being presented in contradistinction to that of other churches claiming the same name that we bear; but there is so manifest a tendency to confound the Reorganized Church with the polygamic factions, that we deem it but just that we be placed aright upon the record, theologically, socially and morally, as well as politically. We therefore respectfully submit the following:

[Here was inserted a copy of the "Epitome of faith and doctrine of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints."]

16. In some States of the Union the church has not been without representatives for the past forty years, or nearly, and in these churches neither the theory nor practice of polygamy has ever obtained. The body which your memorialists represent is mostly composed of churches and members scattered throughout the land from Maine to California and from Florida to Minnesota ── all subscribing to the constitution of the church ── all opposed to polygamy.

17. In view of the foregoing facts, we your memorialists, would urge the validity of the claim of the Reorganized Church to be the Church of Latter Day Saints, and in urging this claim, declare unqualifiedly the faith of the body your memorialists represent that, according to the law of the church given under the presidency of Joseph Smith, no body of people can be properly considered "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" but that body which recognizes the constitutional provisions of the law under which the church obtained an existence; and as loyalty to the Government and a monogamic institution of marriage are absolutely and imperatively demanded by the law of the church, as necessary to govern it in its political and social relations, we do most fully, freely and unreservedly affirm that there is nothing required by the law or polity of the church that can render its members violators of the laws of the land in any of their legal provisions.

18. We, your memorialists, would therefore petition that in the consideration of the questions of polygamy and disloyalty, as affecting a body calling themselves the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, in the territory of Utah, the crimes of polygamy and disloyalty may not be made to stain the mantle of the pure faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, by such official sanction and legislation of your honorable bodies as shall, in order to legalize the crimes of a few hundreds of polygamists in Utah (many of whom we trust will yet abandon their folly), enstamp with infamy and disloyalty the faith of many thousands throughout the United States, whose bold stand in the hour of the Nation's trials, whose integrity of purpose and life, whose loyalty is unquestioned, and whose faith is that of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. And for the peace, prosperity and perpetuity of the Government your memorialists will ever pray.

JOSEPH SMITH,

ALEX. H. SMITH,

MARK H. FORSCUTT,

WM. W. BLAIR,

JOSIAH ELLS

Committee on Memorial.

Presented and read before the Annual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, held at Plano, Illinois, on the eleventh day of April, 1870, and adopted by said conference.

JOSEPH SMITH, President.

HENRY A. STEBBINS,

WM. H. GARRETT,

Clerks.

[edit] From "Differences That Persist Between the LDS and RLDS Churches" http://centerplace.org/library/books/DifferencesThatPersist.pdf Chapter 3

Reorganized Church representatives have vigorously maintained the following facts:

1. That no word from the pen of Joseph Smith favorable to polygamy is found in any authentic publication representing the church prior to his death.

2. That, to the contrary, the teachings of the Standard Books of the church all enjoin monogamy. These books include the Book of Mormon, translated by Joseph Smith; the Doctrine and Covenants, containing revelations given through him; and the Inspired Version of the Bible, as corrected by him. These he left to the church as its constitutional law, presumably representing his own mind and will as well as the mind and will of God. Furthermore, the official organ of the church, the Times and Seasons, shortly before his death, contained his signed denunciation of polygamy and notice of expulsion from the church of one who had advocated it (Times and Seasons, Volume 5, page 423, see also Volume 5, page 474; Volume 5, pages 490,491).

3. That his wife, Emma, of outstanding reputation for veracity, in her dying testimony denied that her husband ever had any other wife or ever sanctioned polygamy. She testified: "No such thing as polygamy, or spiritual wifery, was taught, publicly or privately, before my husband's death, that I have now, or ever had any knowledge of.... He had no other wife but me; nor did he to my knowledge ever have" (Church History, Volume 3, pages 355,356). Under the terms of the so-called revelation Joseph could not have taken another wife without Emma's knowledge.

4. That there is no public record of progeny born to Joseph Smith excepting by this on wife, Emma. Judge John F. Philips of the Circuit Court of the United States in his Temple Lot decision (1894) commented in that fact: "No such marriage ever occurred under the rules of the church, and no offspring came from the imputed illicit intercourse, although Joseph Smith was in the full vigor of young manhood and his wife, Emma, was giving birth to healthy children in regular order" (Decision of Judge Philips in the Temple Lot Case, pages 42,43; Federal Reporter, 60:937-959). During July, 1933, Inez Davis, then of the Church Historical Department, prepared a list of the direct posterity of Joseph and Emma Smith. At that time there were 159 living and 31 dead, making a total of 190 descendants born to Joseph Smith through the line of his one wife Emma Hale Smith, and to date no posterity ever in evidence is credited to him from any of the numerous alleged plural wives; 190 to 0 is a heavy score against a system allegedly set up to produce posterity.

5. That testimony of women who claimed they were his wives shows evidence of fraud and collusion and it does not "stand up in court." Two of them, thought to have clearer cases than others, actually did appear in person in the Temple Lot Suit and Judge Philips discredited their testimony in his decision (see Decision, pages 42,43).

6. That the motive for deception on the part of Brigham Young and his immediate associates is found in the fact that on the twenty-ninth day of August, 1852, when they first brought the alleged "revelation" to light they were deeply involved in polygamy and desired to claim the sanction of heaven for their marital ventures. No one of them was a prophet. Brigham Young never claimed to be the legal (rightful) prophetic successor to Joseph Smith (see page 42 of this tract). Unless he was this rightful successor he had no authority to present such a far-reaching revelation to the church. Consequently they invoked the name and the memory of Joseph Smith who was revered by the church as a prophet; and at one stroke secured the prestige of his and themselves came from under the onus of introducing the system which was destined to bring so much grief. On that day in 1852 when Brigham Young introduced the doctrine publicly he was, according to Utah biographers, the husband of twenty women. (See Pictures and Biographies of Brigham Young and His Wives, copyrighted 1896, and endorsed by the presidency of the Utah church.) This was in direct conflict with the constitutional law of the church. Something had to be done. Something was done.

Some of ths stuff in there may be helpful. --BenMcLean 21:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ben, in reviewing the sources I noticed that they were prior to 1958, is that correct? I am not sure that this is the current stance of the RLDS/CofC church today. In discussions with some of their historians, I would say their stance has changed. Is the position you are outlining above current or more in keeping with those who broke off from the RLDS in the '80s? Storm Rider (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
We could state the earlier stand and the current stand, and make clear which is which. Val42 21:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that might be the best path to take. I do think it would be important that some recognition to the evolution of the CofC position be noted as well as the stronger position taken by those who broke off who reject any possiblity of Joseph and Emma's participation in polygamy. Storm Rider (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the current Community of Christ has abandoned this position. [1] However, Restoration Branches have not. (which is why the old position is covered at the CenterPlace.org library where I found this information.)

I agree that stating the earlier stand and the current stand of the Community of Christ and making clear which is which is the right thing to do, but it should also be made clear that the stand of the Restoration Branches has not changed - that they/we support the traditional RLDS view. --BenMcLean 16:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh, just because there have been informal (i.e. people continuing in branches without an ongoing relationahip with the formal church organization, such as the Restoration Branches) and formal (i.e. declaring new presidents, creating new corporations, etc.) break-offs from the RLDS/CoC doesn't mean that the church itself has abandoned 100 years of history re: the stance on Smith & polygamy. The fact of the matter is that there are now less sanctions (and thefeore more freedom) on individuals to express a so-called 'liberal' view, as opposed to the negativity heaped on those with a so-called 'conservative' or traditional view, therefore people - including the current historian, and former historian Rochard Howard - have openly speculated on Smith's (alleged) involvement with plural marriage. If you walk into the RLDS/CoC HQ (The Auditorium) and ask, official policy still states that a) the church has always believed the doctrine to be wrong, b) the church historically has taught that Smith wasn't the author of polygamy, and c) if evidence is found to be historically accurate (as some in the church believe) that Smith was involved with polygamy, that doesn't make it right - and this still is mostly the same as Joseph Smith III's own position. The state of affairs is that conservative/traditional/restorationist folks from a RLDS background would be more apt IN GENERAL to support MOST THINGS that were printed in previous times (older Saint's Herald articles, older books by RLDS leaders, older missionary teaching series such as 'Go Ye and Teach', etc.), this including material on the whole plural marriage issue, than they would the more liberal/ecumenical/idealist recent CoC stance/material. Likewise, current eager and liberal CoC members nowadays would be more apt to discount and disregard older writings. These fact, however, do not mean that the church itself has altered its view, especially since things have always been historically cloudy on this issue, certainly even in Joseph Smith III's day (1860-early 1900s). In conclusion, it isn't correct to say that writings from 1860 to the 1970s no longer have any validity for CoC members or the CoC church officially, and the church has totally abandoned its former positions on this matter. Many have retained their church memberships who still agree with the words of Elbert A. Smith and other former leading church members who had a more traditional RLDS perspective on Smith's role. With respect, A Sniper

[edit] Nature of relationships

J. Smith was not perfect and he had many failures. We cannot prove beyond any doubt that he had more than one wife. Wait, we need to clear up our terms. Most people when they hear "husband" and "wife" they think of two people who have gone through a ceremony of some sort that "weds" them. That they spend their lives together in a close relationship, and that sexual relationship is typically part of this. Though some of these so called "wives" of Smith may have had sex with him, and others may have been "wed" to him how many fit the more classic definition of "wife," only one that we know of, Emma.

Some of the early plural "wives" listed are probably rather women who Smith had extra-marital affairs with and Latter-day Saints and other Latter Day Saints who embraced (or at one time embraced openly) polygamy have tried to sanitize by saying they were plural wives, and thus today Latter Day Saints who didn't embrace polygamy have just gone with the flow and called them plural wives for them plural wives and adultery are both bad, though they might feel a tad better that at least they thought they had a marriage bond so maybe it wasn't so bad...

Then there may be some who were "sealed" to smith in Nauvoo, but never wed, or thought of as wives for the present by him during his life. I think we need to really go through and decided: did they every have a wedding ceremony of some sort, or a sealing in Nauvoo temple when both were alive, if no, they were not husband and wife but if they had a sexual relationship together then, it was an affair.

If they had a wedding (though illegal) of this world then they were husband and wife, if they were just sealed in the temple and never had relations... then they were not husband and wife in the vernacular sense. —This unsigned comment was added by 4.242.9.56 (talk • contribs) .

I think it would be nice to have some sort of categorization. I know that the dataset is woefully incomplete, but at least a breakdown of who was sealed to him before and after he died should be obtainable. This set of names should be in a table, not a list, in order to accomodate the other columns of data, whatever they might be. What do you guys think? Ideas for column names? Wadsworth 18:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disclaimer paragraph on "marriage" vs. "sealing"

The whole paragraph on "There is a subtle difference between 'sealing' ... and 'marriage'..." has the ring of original research. The Church's own familysearch.org website currently lists Joseph Smith with 24 "marriage(s)", several of which they've added fairly recently, although four of them have marriage dates after Joseph's death. I don't think there's any reasonable basis for disputing, even softly as this paragraph does, the fact of Joseph Smith being "married" to many wives, and citing Compton as the best authority for there being 33 well-documented wives. I came here after hearing complaints of pro-Mormon bias on this article from non-Wikipedian readers. I think they have a point. I think for one thing the "sealing" v. "marriage" paragraph should be erased. Thoughts? - Reaverdrop 15:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, you see, an atheist could argue that there is no reasonable basis for disputing the "fact" that Jesus was an ordinary man ("ordinary" meaning non-divine) Wikipedia however, has a policy, (NPOV) that says you can't put that in an article as long as it's disputed - and the same thing applies as long as there are groups (such as mine) that do not accept the popular (LDS) interpretation of history. Wikipedia must remain neutral as to whether Joseph Smith Jr. had any wives (that he knew of) besides Emma Hale Smith. --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  18:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
When you compare Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, you see a large difference. Brigham had dozens of wives, each with their own family, and scores of children. He maintained multiple dwellings for this enormous family. In contrast, Joseph's wife was Emma. He only had one family, and one household, with only a couple of children. While it is interesting to note that he was sealed (married) to many other women, this did not really have much of an impact on his life. It is important to convey this information in this article, so that the reader will understand a little more about the man. The paragraph in question seems to do a reasonable job. If it is deleted, how shall we present the information? Wadsworth 18:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Response to User:Nerd42: Wikipedia doesn't say that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior either. It describes what different people believe about him. However the Joseph Smith-polygamy issue is different, because the facts are a matter of historical record, and no knowledgeable historian I've ever heard of, from atheists to devout BYU professors and the LDS Church's own official historian and official genealogical record, disputes the fact that Joseph Smith had many simultaneous wives. The only room for informed study and debate is the nature of those marriages. Denying the certainty of a historical record that is acknowledged as accurate by all knowledgeable parties is not neutrality, and not even POV; it would be revisionist. NPOV only extends to avoiding what is subject to knowledgeable, informed dispute.

Okay, I just read that you are RLDS which makes this make more sense. But I still have never seen historically based evidence from any of several conflicting schools of thought that dispute the factual record of JS having been married many times. And the origin of that whole paragraph makes sense now - but the whole paragraph is basically RLDS beliefs presented as fact, despite contradicting the historical record. I'd be fine with prefacing the whole paragraph with something like "Some people such as the RLDS church believe that..." Other than that I'd like to see you produce scholarly historical references that can make a reasonable argument based on evidence that JS never actually married anyone besides Emma, before we describe the factual historicity of Joseph Smith’s polygamy as in dispute in the article.

And I sympathize with you - I think the LDS church and everyone involved would have been far better off if they'd rejected the idea of polygamy, whatever its source. I think Emma, Jason Briggs and Zenos Gurley were much wiser than Brigham Young and his pals (my forefathers among them included).

Response to Wadsworth:It could do a more reasonable job by describing something like what you just did - that JS never practiced polygamy openly, his home life revolved only around Emma, and it's doubtful that he ever had children with anyone but Emma. - Reaverdrop 18:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Reaverdrop, okay, sounds good. When I have a decent block time, I'll revise the paragraph accordingly. On a personal note, I just have to ask a question, based on your statement about it being wiser to have rejected polygamy, "whatever its source". Do you really think it's "wiser" for a person to follow his or her own counsel, rather than do what God’s prophet instructs? Should the wisdom of men preclude faith in God? Should the Israelites have ignored Moses and returned to Egypt, when faced with the Red Sea blocking their path?
Some people look back at history and make noises like, "Wow, that Zion's Camp sure was a bad idea. Look at what a rough time they had, how many died! Their prophet, Joseph Smith, must have been mistaken." Others look at things differently, and realize that death isn't a bad end if one is living righteously, and note that virtually all of the leadership of the early church was comprised of people who were strengthened and tempered by that grueling ordeal.
So, what are the results of Polygamy? Utah had something of a population boom, for one thing. That was undeniably useful. Lots of people left the church, too; one could argue that these were the weaker elements, those with less faith, so the herd was thinned, the stronger remained. There was the Utah war, lots of persecution, unpleasant media attention... Mormons became known for polygamy, some awkward moments today as we defend their obedience in the face of widespread cultural scorn. As for myself, I am proud of my my forefathers, and their great faith to do the will of God, whatever the cost. Wadsworth 19:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I do in fact personally believe it is wiser for a person to follow their own rational understanding based on tangible, objective evidence, than to obey instructions from someone claiming to be a prophet of God, and I prefer to rely on human reasoning rather than faith in divine beings. I strongly suspect anyone who felt the same would have rejected polygamy, Zion's Camp, the often-deadly trek out west, the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and the sanctification of racial exclusion. I don't doubt the ability of different brands of faith to make any degree of suffering and loss of loved ones seem a price worth paying for some kind of intangible rewards promised to the faithful, which to me seems like one more good reason why faith is a dubious virtue, better to be avoided than embraced. - Reaverdrop 18:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Response to User:Reaverdrop: I know it's long, but if you'd read my comments (which are the reason/explanation for the current Disputed tag on the article) you would have seen my position with regards to what Wikipedia should do, which has not changed:
  1. That Wikipedia should list the "alleged" plural wives of Joseph Smith Jr.
  2. That Wikipedia should not present Joseph Smith Jr's approval or disapproval of the doctrine or practice of plural marriage as an established historical fact.
  3. That Wikipedia should fairly present the evidence of both positions without making a judgment.
My own personal position, is that Joseph Smith III was telling the truth, meaning Joseph Smith, Jr. was not only monogamous but a victim of an elaborate plot to make it appear otherwise by other people trying to use his name to justify their own actions. But I am not saying that Wikipedia should say that. Wikipedia should remain neutral in the controversy. You might say in the article that "most historians believe" something, but not that something is so unless it is not disputed. It is disputed. That is a fact. With a policy like NPOV, you can't make a judgment that this is unreasonable.
What the RLDS church historian said (if he actually said it) might not be representative of the members and branches of the church. If you look at Talk:Joseph Smith III, you'd see that I have removed the paragraph about the RLDS church historian because it is not sourced. --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  16:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding as to that, I was referring to the LDS church historian - who of course tried to downplay the significance and magnitude of polygamy, but acknowledged that JS practiced it. As for how to present JS and polygamy, I would like to follow your change, and explain what evidence shows that JS practiced polygamy, and mention that it is disputed by the RLDS Church, but I still think there's a need for some kind of reference for historical evidence the RLDS rely on to make that dispute. - Reaverdrop 18:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read all my earlier comments on this page. I don't mean to be rude here, but I would be repeating myself if I were to answer. --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  15:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see evidence that the current RLDS or Community of Christ does not recognize that Joseph Smith was a polygamist. Did I miss your reference elsewhere? I would also like to see statements for those sects that dispute that Joseph Smith was not a polygamist. The way to writing an excellent article and removing opportunity for conflict is to accurately reference statements with reputable sources. Storm Rider (talk) 05:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I just went to the Community of Christ site and found their response to the question, "What position does Community of Christ take on Joseph Smith Jr.’s alleged involvement in polygamy?" and their response[2].

Storm Rider -- I'm afraid your link doesn't work. Would you recheck and correct if possible? WBardwin 05:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC) -- Got through the third time. Strange? WBardwin 05:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand it. It worked for me, but I had a devil of time getting it to work the first time. I don't know what else to do to ensure it works at all times. Storm Rider (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I could see it. --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  18:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
"I would like to see evidence that the current RLDS or Community of Christ does not recognize that Joseph Smith was a polygamist." I would like to refer you first to my comment on this page from May 12 regarding the RLDS church historian's position and secondly to the Restoration Branches Wikipedia article I wrote - which touches on the details of the split between the Community of Christ and the Restoration Branches. It is indisputable that the RLDS church has traditionally defended Joseph Smith Jr. (The Community of Christ acknowledges this) against the accusations of polygamy. The Community of Christ however, in the opinion of the Restoration Branches, (and I can say this with some certainty) has not held to the traditional teachings of the RLDS church, hence the schism. --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  17:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Started corrections

I by no means think my recent edits to this page amount to a stable version of the article, but I think I have at least got the wheels turning on fixing some of the problems brought up here. I started by copying some text from [[Joseph Smith Jr.]] which makes a much better introduction to the article in my opinion, especially considering the new name. --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  17:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Although I rather like the change in introduction, there are a few things in the original we might want save and place in the rest of the article. However, the new conclusion to the article (moved to this page and placed below) is probably POV, and would be better discussed in a section for alternative views. A vast conspiracy?? Very unlikely, at least in my opinion. Do you have a source from your group's history, asserting or claiming this conspiracy that you could quote in an alternative section? WBardwin 05:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This would imply that a vast conspiracy took place within the LDS church to justify their controversial polygamous practices by linking them with Smith's name and reputation.

My initial thought was to just leave that out of the article after you brought it up. But, though Richard Price doesn't speak for the Restoration Branches by any means, he apparently believes this. [3] He says:

The truth is that Joseph Smith was “framed”— that is, the doctrine of polygamy which found its way into the Church came in through the Cochranites. It also came through three different groups of men who falsely claimed that Joseph was its author in order to justify their own evil activities. The Prophet Israel A. Smith understood this “framing” of his grandfather and wrote, “Joseph Smith was the greatest victim of fraud and conspiracy of the last 500 years. Nothing like it in recorded history. He was simply lied about when something had to be done to justify the filth and rottenness of Utah Mormon Polygamy” (letter to Mrs. Richard Price, September 17, 1956).

This is from the same page the article already links(ed) to. --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  17:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I personally find the controversy far more interesting than the list of wives, so I was glad to read about how this page became what it is. I've tried to clear up some sentence structure, mostly wordiness, but the bulk of the section which attmpts to present evidence of the minority opinion is quotations from historians. I think that the strongest evidence are Joseph's own statements. Cite the histoirans, but quote the historical figures.--ErinHowarth 06:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The whole thing needs some cleanup. First of all, there were no references for the numbers of members of groups, so I removed them. Second, the paragraphs are too long, and need to be broken up more for readability. Third, we need to keep one opinion in one section and another opinion in another section. Sentences are starting to argue with each other and contradict the ones before or after them. --BenMcLean 18:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Details regarding the plural wives

The list of wives should include details such as the evidence of the wedding, the age of the bride at the time of the marriage, her marital status, and any children born to her before Joseph died. For comparison sake, this list might also include Emma and their several children together. There is some very exciting research being done using DNA evidence to confirm or eliminate these children as possible descendants of Joseph Smith, so far, three boys have been eliminated, none have been confirmed.--ErinHowarth 06:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I agree with the Nerd42 Doctrine

  1. That Wikipedia should list the "alleged" plural wives of Joseph Smith Jr.
  2. That Wikipedia should not present Joseph Smith Jr's approval or disapproval of the doctrine or practice of plural marriage as an established historical fact.
  3. That Wikipedia should fairly present the evidence of both positions without making a judgment.

And I am going to try to help with covering the contraversy fairly. I think there might be some new developments in this area in the next few years. --BenMcLean 19:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Several of your edits today have removed references and, IMHO, have made the article inferior. The evidence of Joseph Smith's marriages/sealings is there for all to review. It is not only the LDS church who states the marriages existed, but every historian that has reviewed the documents.
Instead of deleting material, such as the number of Latter Day Saints that do not believe Joseph practised polygamy, why don't we just add references? It should not be difficult to do.
I realize that we need to be cognizant that this is an issue of faith for some individuals and so care should be taken in wording. However, the evidence of these sealings and/or marriages should be stated clearly and without reserve. Is that acceptable? It sounds that this is in keeping with your statement above.
I would prefer that you revert your edits today and bring your proposals to this page prior to any edits being made. We then can edit out of agreement rather than conflict. Is that acceptable? Cheers. Storm Rider (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think reverting the edits I made would help anything, though I do recognize that the article is greatly in need of improvement. If I removed references, then that had to have been a mistake. No references were given for the number of latter day saints in each group, and I fail to see the relevancy of how many members there are in the Community of Christ to whether or not Joseph Smith Jr. was a bigamist. --BenMcLean 19:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Your edits cast a significant doubt on Joseph Smith's knowing participation in plural marriage. Further, your edits attempt to make it sound that only historians of the LDS church support such ideas. Joseph Smith's teachings on plural marriage are well documented. His concious, knowing particpation in plural marriages, with Emma's knowledge and occaisionally support at times, is also well documented and supported by the vast majority of historians both inside and outside of the LDS Church and the Community of Christ. Your position is that of a very small minority of Saints, namely the Restoration Branches.
I understand that this is an issue of faith for members of the RBs, but it is disingenuous to portray the issue as if it is strongly in doubt or disputed by a significant minority. It is not. I know of no significant historian of the Latter Day Saint movement that holds an opinion other than Joseph Smith participated in plural marriage during his lifetime. One may argue or dispute that the marriages were never consumated or that Joseph did not live as man and wife with any of these marriages, but to say they did not exist is not defensible except as a position of faith. If you choose not to revert I undertand, but it will need to be reverted because it is not realistic. Storm Rider (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
History is not a science of consensus but of sources. It is not required that many people hold a minority opinion for that opinion to be significant. I think that this discussion has made it clear that whether or not Joseph Smith, Jr. taught or practiced polygamy is a matter of one's point of view. Resonable people can review the evidence and reach seperate conclusions; therefore, this article should present the evidence and refrain from drawing conclusions.--ErinHowarth 22:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with User:ErinHowarth --BenMcLean 18:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Cleanup" coming along nicely so far

There are a couple more things that I think need to be fixed:

  1. Some sentences still seem to be contradicting each other - the wording in the article needs to remain neutral on the issue(s) but when one side of the argument is making a point, another section should be started for the other side instead of adding "buts" to the sentence.
  2. The material in the summary on Joseph Smith Jr. needs to be shortened - and merged better with this article.
  3. Sources might be divided into "for" and "against" sections - it could get really messy when we get contradictory sources. --BenMcLean 18:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Question: Why are we quoting Richard Price? He is hardly a competent historian by practically anyone's standards. His work is never peer-reviewed; if he would submit his research for such review, it would never stand up. If you quote him, you should at least tell people he is an amateur historian, an excommunicated RLDS publicist, or something of the like. Evangelical historian Mark Noll once famously wrote that the scandal of the evangelical mind was that there was not much there. He wanted his fellow evangelicals to understand that they are not taken seriously because their work often does not measure up to any professional standards. Getting mad about something does not mean you have a coherent argument. Similarly, if Price or Restoration Branch folks that hold his views ever want to be taken seriously, they will have to do better homework and be willing to revise positions if they are wrong.
I disagree that the clean up is going well. I think this whole article is a disaster. It started out as a list of the plural wives of Joseph Smith, an interesting historical footnote that is reprinted in many books and other sources. Discussion revealed that historical evidence for this list is far from conclusive. But, now the entire focus of the article is on this discussion. The argument seems to have dissolved into a standoff between statements made by Joseph during his lifetime against the principle and statements made by Joseph’s associates after his death in support of the principle. This is very boring. I suggest that the structure of the article return to a list, but that each entry in the list must be justified and defended. That is, evidence or a rational must be given for each entry as well as the rational against inclusion. -ErinHowarth 17:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Boredom has nothing to do with neutrality in a contraversy. Nothing's wrong with having a list - but "None" or "None of the Above" (except Emma Hale Smith, of course) would have to be one of the items. --75.40.14.108 20:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clearing up a few issues

I would like to clear up the belief that Joseph Smith was a polygamist. He wasn't! He was NOT sealed to thrity-something women, he was merely sealing them to their own husbands, in the LDS Temple. To people who do not take the time to fully understand what happens in there, this might seem like polygamy, however, Joseph Smith was only marrying them to their husbands, not to himself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ophilius Grey203.97.94.110 (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for your comment. I believe we have now avoided any innuendo, and we have clearly given the points of view on the matter in the intro. I hope it is at least passing. Agape bright 22:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/s/Talk%7EJoseph_Smith%2C_Jr._and_polygamy_0634.html"