Does anyone know of verifiable quotes from recent general authorities denying that JS practiced polygamy? Even better, one in which the claim labels those saying are anti-mormon.

Did they label Fawn Brodie anti-mormon for her research into this?

No, but they've lied about the extent that polygamy was practiced, which in my opinion is no different.

"In accordance with a revelation to Joseph Smith, the practice of plural marriage—the marriage of one man to two or more women—was instituted among members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the early 1840s."
http://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-and-families-in-early-utah?lang=eng

Yet in the introduction to D&C 132 we have this:
"Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, evidence indicates that some of the principles involved in this revelation were known by the Prophet as early as 1831."

So, was plural marriage started in the early 1840's or was it the early 1830's? The Church officially makes both claims.

The 1831 date is a reference to Joseph teaching the brethern that even the married ones would be able to take Lamanite (i.e. Indian) women as wives. I do not believe that anyone ended up acting on this teaching, but LDS use it as an escape hatch for Joseph banging on Fanny Alger in 1835-1836.

The "evidence" that the principal of polygamy was known to Joseph Smith as early as 1831 is the fact that he was sleeping with women other than his wife MUCH before the 1843 "revelation"

Jesus,

I do not think you will find any such denials, just misdirection and de-emphasis like Hinckley did during one of his TV interviews. When asked about polygamy, he tried to downplay it and stated how it was practiced by a small number in the Church after they moved out west.

The best example I have been able to find of deliberate fraud on this topic comes from William E. Berrett's, "The Restored Church" (1973). It was reviewed and approved by the "Church Reading Committee", and received attention from members of the Quorum of the Twelve. My wife used it as a seminary manual in the late 1970s. The relevant excerpt follows (caps emphasis mine):

[For years after learning of the doctrine, through revelation from God, Joseph could not bring himself to practice it or teach others to do so. The whole Anglo-Saxon training of the Church was opposed to Plural Marriage, although IT HAD NEVER BEEN FORBIDDEN BY EITHER THE STATE OR FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.]


Did you catch that? Not forbidden by the state? Obviously, this is a lie, since bigamy was against the law in every state of the union. Or did he say not forbidden by the state consitution? Technically, it is true to say that bigamy was not forbidden by the state constitution or federal constitution, since that sort of thing is covered by statuatory law as opposed to being embedded directly into a constituion. The author obviously intended for the reader to see that as "not against the laws of the land", but was attempting to use a technicality to keep from printing something that was provably false. I would argue that this is the very definition of fraud, since it demonstrates that the author understood the truth, but deliberately attempted to mislead the reader.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2014 10:25AM by Facsimile 3.

F3-
That was the exact version I recall being taught as a teenager in the early 70's.

...Joseph Smith was legally charged with "polygamy and adultery" mere days before his death.

Also, if polygamy had been legal, Smith & Co. would have had no need to keep it secret or lie about practicing it.

And let's also remember the the 1835 D&C's "article on marriage" prohibited "the CRIMES of fornication and polygamy."

There are some supreme legal minds at the top :)

Weasel words.

Mormons are MASTERS of weasel words--when you seem to say one
thing but you say another.

"IT HAD NEVER BEEN FORBIDDEN BY EITHER THE STATE OR FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION"

Yep, never forbidden by the state CONSTITUTION or by the federal
CONSTITUTION. It was against STATE LAW and against FEDERAL LAW,
but just not in the respective constitutions.

The reader is given the impression that Joseph's polygamy was
legal. It wasn't.

I think all we need to know is that most TBM's have seen the various church movies that show Joe and Emma as an *amazing* and saintly couple.

That's what they see, that's what they file away in the back of their brain....

Everything else goes on the shelf

I don't think a church leader has ever said Joseph Smith didn't practice polygamy (at least recently).

However, none of them have made an effort to teach members that Joseph Smith had more than one wife. Only Emma is talked about in the church curriculum, so most members assume Joseph didn't practice polygamy.

I'm sure the church leaders are aware that members are making wrong assumptions due to lack of information.

I honestly don't know how it happens, but a TBM friend of mine was upset to find out that JS had practiced polygamy. She claimed that all her life had been JS was married to Emma, and nothing more. She said it was always Js and Emma, JS and Emma. It had never occurred to her that JS actually married someone else too. She implied that it was more an issue of grooming her to believe a falsehood by strongly pushing the one husband/one wife narrative while never so much as suggesting an alternative. The church never went there and neither did she.

Not hard for me to believe. I was 45 when I learned that Joseph had other wives. My introduction to the church and years of instruction never covered Smith being a polygamist. And I agree, all I heard was Joseph and Emma, what a great couple. How devoted they were to each other etc.

I subsequently taught youth in various classes, including seminary that Joseph Smith was only married to Emma.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2014 09:21PM by Doubting Thomas.

Facsimile 3 is on point here. Would also add that when Brigham and Co. hit Utah (part of Mexico until 1848) polygamy was also against the law in Mexico.

An international criminal.

I do not think we can overstate the importance of illegal polygamy. As a deluded TBM, I could have accepted all of it--polyandry, 14 year-old Helen Mar, etc.--but I could NEVER accept that the leaders were knowingly breaking the law AND publicly lying about it.

This was news to me as well. Multiple a-post-holes/profits went to jail and/or into hiding due to their illegal practice of polygamy.

Hmm, that is a good question. Can't say that I have ever heard a modern leader outright deny it, but they sure try to obfuscate.
For example, in this list of "Significant Events" in his life (http://www.lds.org/churchhistory/presidents/controllers/potcController.jsp?leader=1&topic=events) they only mention the marriage to Emma.

In the same article that Stumbling posted, the 7th paragraph makes an interesting statement that: "During the years that plural marriage was publicly taught, all Latter-day Saints were expected to accept the principle as a revelation from God. Not all, however, were expected to live it... Church leaders viewed plural marriage as a command to the Church generally, while recognizing that individuals who did not enter the practice could still stand approved of God. Women were free to choose their spouses, whether to enter into a polygamous or monogamous union, or whether to marry at all."

Kind of a different story from an angel with a flaming sword ready to destroy you, don't you think? I'm sure Helen Mar Kimball and several others would be surprised to know they were free to choose...

After all, early church leaders put it this way:

The Lord has said, that those who reject this principle reject their salvation, they shall be damned, saith the Lord; those to whom I reveal this law and they do not receive it, shall be damned. [p.224]
I want to prophesy that all men and women who oppose the revelation which God has given in relation to polygamy will find themselves in darkness; the Spirit of God will withdraw from them from the very moment of their opposition to that principle, until they will finally go down to hell and be damned, if they do not repent. [p.225]
Orson Pratt - Mormon apostle, Journal of Discourses 17:224-225

(Brigham Young, Joseph F. Smith, and others had similar things to say)

So -- early church leaders said do it or be damned but modern church leaders say, nah, they were totally free to choose. Yet in D&C 132 it says:
1 Verily, thus saith the Lord... as touching the principle and doctrine of... having many wives and concubines...
3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.
4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory...
6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.

So the Church is yet again contradicting itself.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2014 11:56AM by AngelCowgirl.

Also a different story from the teachings by Brigham Young et al that exaltation was only available to those who practiced plural marriage, and contrary to John Taylor's command (was it a revelation?) that all bishops and stake presidents must enter plural marriage else be removed from their callings.

I suppose it could be argued that entering the lowest level in the Celestial Kingdom as a servant still constitutes being "approved of God". I sincerely doubt, however, that members would read it that way.


Ahhh...I see that you added the Orson Pratt quote (one among many by leaders in that era), AngelCowgirl. Perfect.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2014 11:57AM by Facsimile 3.

Thank you. I have pages of notes on this crap because it was one of my big shelf issues even when I was TBM. Some day I will find time to organize it all into a coherent and easy-to-search document, lol.

I appreciate the quote you posted further up the thread where they tried to make it sound like they were well-within the law... that is one I had not seen before, so it's going in my overstuffed file!

I haven't researched this in detail, but I know of no statements by any GA denying that Smith practiced polygamy. However, the church as an institution has given the impression that he didn't, by concocting and perpetuating the myth that "19th-century Mormons practiced polygamy because so many men were killed by persecution and their widows needed husbands when they crossed the plains" blah blah blah.

Obviously, since the Mormons didn't go west until after Joseph Smith's death, the implication of that myth is that the Mormons didn't practice polygamy until after his death. And of course, that's what most Mormons today still believe, because the church doesn't publish much details of Smith's polygamy practice in mainstream, widely-accessible media. You can find a few hints and admissions in older publications, but you have to go back 30-40 years to find them. And few, or none of them, mention that those relationships included sex.

These days, when the "Ensign," for instance, publishes articles about Smith and Emma, they quote his love letters to her, and carry paintings of them dancing at balls, gazing lovingly into each other's eyes, as though there were no other women in Smith's life.

Here's some material I wrote years ago about the "polygamy was practiced because widows needed husbands" lie:

http://www.i4m.com/think/polygamy/polygamy_widows.htm

Thanks, Randy.

Excellent: clearly but soberly stated.

Tom in Paris

Pretty much whitewashes polygamy and why JS was taken to Carthage. I'll see if I can find a copy.

As you know, that argument breaks out periodically with "no evidence JS had sex with any of his wives," and then some of us bring the statements of women in Salt Lake who swore otherwise (in what was essentially the Victorian era), the claims of Sarah Pratt and Helen Mar Kimball.

Luckily, JS operated in a time before video...possible that a few unauthorized sex tapes would have shown up on the Internet filmed by some disgruntled wives...I'm going to get struck by lightening for speaking evil of the Lord's anointed...I'd better stay inside because I hear the thunder clapping...truly, I do hear the thunder...there is really a thunderstorm brewing outside (in February... in UT no less) :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2014 09:24PM by zenmaster.

It's hard for me to believe that modern members didn't know about JS's polygamy. Everyone knew it in the 1960s-1990s, when I was in the church. I never met anyone who was particularly bothered by it. There was an occasional joke over B. Young's household; something about meeting a woman he'd married for eternity and not recognizing her. Members who were descended from polygamous families were very proud of their heritage. Makes me wonder when this information was forgotten.

"It's hard for me to believe that modern members didn't know about JS's polygamy. Everyone knew it in the 1960s-1990s, when I was in the church. I never met anyone who was particularly bothered by it."

Several posters on this thread, and other posters on RFM on a regular basis, as well as other Mormons and Ex-Mormons in other media consistently state that they were NOT taught anything (or very little) about Joseph Smith practicing polygamy. I myself am one of those; the ONLY thing I remember hearing about, in a regular church class, over 20+ years of activity, was the incident where Joseph Smith demanded that Heber C. Kimball give Joseph his wife; but even then, the teacher cast that incident as only a test of Kimball's loyalty, and that Smith didn't actually mean it. I've also come across a couple of vague references to Smith's plural wives in the "Ensign" magazine, years ago, but with little detail.

And I *certainly* never heard or read anything from the church about Smith actually having sex with other women. In the few times the subject was ever brought up in church, the impression was given that Smith's "plural marriages" were sealings "for eternity" only, or that many women were sealed to Smith after his death. And in my 7-8 years of debating this issue with TBMs on the internet, almost all of them repeated those ideas---which shows that they had been taught the same misconceptions I had.

So, my request to you is that you provide us some documentation of your assertion above. Something from church-published manuals, magazines, etc. Your experience seems to be the opposite of most Mormons I've dialogued with over the last 17 years, so I'd like to know your background on it.

I remember in the 60s it was common to hear that Joseph was not a polygamist. He was however sealed to 30 women after death.

The thing is, often when TBMs do find out about Joseph Smith practicing polygamy, it's not the polygamy itself that horrifies them (most of them are aware that other mormons practiced it), it's the fact that they never knew about it.

...then obviously, no Mormon would ever be surprised or upset by it. Then again, if every Mormon was taught all the details about it, there'd be a lot fewer Mormons.

The worst is marrying other men's wives. Even a TBM can't justify that. The only way is to claim it must be spiritual and not sexual. Sexual? Other men's wives? Say it isn't so, Joe.

That almost makes certain "magazine entrepreneurs"look like pollyannas...and no, I'm not going to name names :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2014 09:40PM by zenmaster.

My former Seminary teacher nearly had me (an unbeliever) fooled when he taught this in class - That JS & "the Saints" were persecuted in Missouri because they were supposedly "abolitionists", and not because they were practicing polygamy.

...because they were abolitionists. That's a falsehood perpetuated by the church. As to your second point, they weren't persecuted in Missouri because of polygamy either, because polygamy was hardly known about or practiced during the Missouri period which ended in 1839. There were a few rumblings about polygamy in Kirtland (1831-35) and Missouri, but those came mostly from dissidents. Polygamy began in earnest, and criticism thereof, in Nauvoo beginning in 1839.

This is a huge document put together by the State of Missouri soon after the Missouri War. It is all the evidence and witness testimony gathered for/from Joseph Smith's preliminary hearing. The result was his indictment, to be held over for trial. As we know, he eventually bribed the guards, escaped, and never stood trial.

I haven't read the whole document, I did read the last half, the testimonies, it will take most of your day.

Most of the witnesses are Mormons who tell a bizarre tale about a book of Mormon prophesy that promised Mormons would rule the world. Their prophet told them the time of the prophesy was now, that the Indians would be their allies and that people would be moved by God and join their cause, that unseen angles would fight along side them. They would be like a rough stone rolling over the land. Now was time to establish the kingdom.

When Davies county fell so easily, they predicted that Richmond would be next, and they'd be in St. Louis before Christmas. This year Missouri, next year the United States.

The witnesses all saw their own little slice of it, but when you piece it together it is one wagon load of religious crazy.

For the defense there was 14 year old Nancy Rigdon who said Sampson Avard (Leader of the Danite Band) is a liar. And a teenage house maid who claimed Joseph Smith never left the house the day the witnesses said he gave that speech about OT stones and establishing kingdoms.

Later in an unofficial statement Hyrum Smith said the people of Davies county first burned some Mormon houses trying to get the Mormons riled up, but the Mormons were full of kindness and did not respond. So the Davies county people went crazy with frustration and burned their own homes down.

The Danite constitution and the war plans were captured and put into evidence.

As far as I know only one book was ever written, and judging by the FAIR Mormon review, it must be pretty good. It was written just before the internet took off, and I guess it didn't sell very well.

https://archive.org/details/documentcontaini00miss

BYU provided this document. The pages are out of order. So it is frustrating to read.

It seems to be a favorite tactic.

Rape Apology and Joseph Smith
By Molly

...."What would you say if I told you the story of a man who declared himself to be God’s messenger, published and circulated a document threatening his legal wife with death if she did not allow him to have sex with other women, told his male followers that their teenage daughters or legal wives needed to become his sexual partners or they would all be shut out of heaven, had sex with teenage girls living in his home as wards, and allowed his best friends to unwittingly defend him against all of this in a public setting? Chances are, if you are a practising member of the LDS Church, you would angrily tell me not to talk about your prophet that way.

While we’re on the subject of polygamy, I want to touch on the other big reason the LDS Church tries to avoid the subject: the entire approach of the LDS Church with regards to Joseph Smith’s behaviour has involved nothing but rape apology for 150 years. Polygamy practised in Utah was downright puritanical, with husbands and wives demonstrating the sort of Victorian prudery that you’d expect in a Brontë novel. Polygamy from 1852 to 1904 generally involved clearly defined relationships of choice. Threats of damnation to convince a prospective bride were unheard of, and unhappy plural wives were generally granted divorces when they asked for them. Joseph Smith’s activities, however, are difficult to describe without using the word rape. The rest of his relationships range from consensual to coerced to rape.

Rape! Well, then that’s a serious word. Is it really fair to call Joseph Smith a rapist?

Is there any evidence that Joseph Smith skulked down an alley and pounced on a girl in the darkness? Absolutely not. But rape includes coercing someone into sex through threats of violence. In Smith’s case, he abused the trust of his followers by threatening them with spiritual death if they did not provide him with sexual favours. A true believer in Mormonism would fear being shut out of heaven far more than mortal death. In the case of his wife, Emma, Smith was so serious about his threats of spiritual destruction that he had them canonised as scripture, adding spousal abuse to the mix. There’s no debate in my mind as to whether or not his sexual relationships with teenage girls taken into his home constitutes rape.

Women in Joseph Smith’s day were at greater disadvantage than they are now. They could not vote and had no legal existence apart from their fathers or husbands. They could own property in only limited circumstances, and could be socially and economically ruined by an extramarital affair. Divorce was difficult, sometimes illegal, and left a woman without financial resources. On top of all this, abuse of spiritual power is a horrific crime that does lasting damage to individuals and religious institutions. You would think this would bother the average LDS person, and that they would be in favour of getting the information out there and setting the record straight. I firmly stated my belief that Joseph Smith’s crimes need to be acknowledged as such, but I was told that they just don’t really matter.


http://mollymuses.wordpress.com/2010/07/19/rape-apology-and-joseph-smith/