Posted by:
lilburne
(
)
Date: October 24, 2014 09:11PM
This response is slightly academic and uses softer language to avoid TBM defensiveness:
To start, I'd like to congratulate the church on taking the brave step in publishing this essay. The acknowledgement and public confirmation of this matter from an authoritative LDS source has been needed for a long time. Many LDS members, myself included, have been accused of lying about Joseph Smith practicing polygamy and polyandry by less well informed members.
The essay appears well intentioned albeit very optimistic in its selection, presentation, and interpretation of the evidence - to the point of ignoring very relevant data that resides within the breadth of the historical record. As a result, the essay leaves itself open to criticism that it is designed to misrepresent or whitewash the churches actual history. What can be fairly said is that it does not attempt to offer a balanced view of the history.
Finally, and very significantly, this essay creates new contradictions and challenges in church history, for example, In 1844 Joseph Smith had a local newspaper, the Nauvoo Expositor, published by former Apostle William Law, destroyed for publishing what Smith stated were 'lies', with the paper accusing Joseph Smith of practicing Polygamy. Since the church is now officially confirming Joseph did actually practice polygamy, in doing so it is also confirming that William Law was telling the truth, and that his newspaper business, the Nauvoo Expositor, was destroyed and the printing press smashed under the orders of Joseph for the crime of telling the truth and printing a factual piece of information.
As a result, in publishing the essay the church must now reconcile how the violent destruction of peoples private property (and act which was already illegal in the US since it went directly against the 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech) and forceful suppression of factual information (along with the persecution of William Law as a liar for speaking what is now publically confirmed as the truth) can be resolved since the order came directly from the Prophet - who we are taught cannot lead men astray - and raises the question, does breaking the law qualify as astray?
To the essay:
The essay consists of 3088 words spanning 43 paragraphs. The title appears to constrain its scope to the Kirtland and Nauvoo period (which explains why the polygamy and polyandrous practices and teachings of Brigham Young and other later LDS Prophets and leaders are not introduced into evidence). It would be helpful if the essays included stated objectives, as the purpose of the work could then be directly measured against such. It would also help if the essays were given a publication date (I found three LDS plural marriage essays on line so working with them in order of publication is difficult when publication dates are not included). Finally, there is no acknowledged authorship for the essays, so we do not know whether the essay represents the research and work of a single author, or is a collective piece. Nor do we know whether the essays were penned by the General Authorities of the church, by Church Employees, or by Academics (or any mix of the above). In failing to cite the author(s) there is a risk that such essays could be easily dismissed as lacking authority, as some anonymous opinion. However, they do appear on the church's official website, so it may be reasonable to assume that they have gone through a review process and would have received some form of senior ecclesiastical sign off or approval prior to being published.
The first 5 paragraphs make a number of 'high level' claims that could be disputed. I will not dispute them in this review as some of them are open to subjective interpretation (both for and against). The most significant point in my opinion is in Para 2 "After receiving a revelation commanding him to practice plural marriage, Joseph Smith married multiple wives". This opening line in the second paragraphs confirms what many apologists and critics have long since known, but was uncommon knowledge amongst the membership, that Joseph Smith himself practiced plural marriage. What the essay does not do is offer a definition of Plural marriage. To many, the term simply means 'Polygamy' the marriage of one man to multiple women. However, it should also be noted that the reality of plural marriage is broader and extends to the practice of 'Polyandry' (a woman having more than one husband at the same time) with both polygamy and polyandry resulting in the criminal charge of Bigamy in the USA.
The essay doesn't go into detail about the number of wives or how many were polygamous or polyandrous, but the records on the church's own familysearch.org website reveal that Joseph Smith was married to 33 women, of which 11 were polyandrous marriages (marriages to more than one living man, including men whom Joseph had sent away on missions and had no idea that their wives had been approached by Joseph to become his plural wives).
Josephs first wife was Emma Hale, his second was the 16 year old Frances (Fanny) Alger, who worked for a time as a maid at the Smith home(estimated to have married Joseph between 1833 and 1835 although there is some debate over whether they were ever actually married despite it being recorded on the church site. There is also a record written by Oliver Cowdery, one of the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon in a letter to his brother Warren, which discusses this matter with concern and implies it was not a marriage but a sexual liaison - there are other statements to support this view given by Warren Parrish [secretary to Joseph], Benjamin Johnson, and George Gibbs).
One sizable challenge with a marriage to Fanny Alger is the reality that the Sealing authority had not at his point been restored and wasn't received until 1836, which would mean this would have to have been a civil marriage, but such marriages were illegal in the US. If that is the case then according to the law, Joseph Smith was both an adulterer and a bigamist. With no written record to clarify whether any special dispensation was claimed granted by Joseph from God there is nothing on the historical record to refute this charge.
The next problem arising here is with the 'Polyandrous' wives was that there was no legal precedent for plural marriage in the US. Both polygamy and polyandry were viewed as adultery by society at large. Although formal prohibitive legislation only came into effect later, the overwhelming view was that plural marriage was as illegal in the US as it was in the UK (the nation from which it had derived many of its laws). But more importantly, polyandrous marriage was certainly problematic even when compared with later revelations such as D&C 132 which in verses 61-63 states:
"61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.
63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; "
I draw specific attention to the point that these polyandrous wives were already espoused (married) to other men and would therefore have violated this direct commandment.
Moving on; paragraph 19, (I recognise I'm jumping over a lot of debatable material here but I'm constrained by time and facebook space), draws attention to the fact that Joseph Smith was married to the 14 year old Helen Mar kimball. The essay describes her age as 'several months before her 15th birthday' which simply means 14, but is perhaps attempting to diffuse the concern such an explicitly young age might create in the mind of readers. The essay attempts to imply that this relationship might not have been sexual by attempting to distinguish between a marriage for 'time and eternity' and a marriage for 'eternity'. However having read on this matter I don't feel this conclusion is safely supported by the evidence.
Firstly, there is no modern distinction in the church or recorded in revelation between a marriage for 'time and eternity' and a marriage for 'eternity' further, eternity includes time. There is no logical definition where the here and now is excluded from eternity, the term 'time and eternity' is actually a tautology since both effectively mean exactly the same thing, that is unless 'time' is being used as a distinction between now and the infinite future after death but again, there is no revelation on this in the 200 years since the church was founded.
Secondly, the purpose of plural marriage is made clear in D&C 132 which defines it in verse 63 as: "for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified." This can hardly happen if they are not having sex or if the marriage has no effect until after this life.
Thirdly, Helen Mar Kimball herself wrote about this marriage and the words she used implied it was clearly more than ceremonial, she also stated that it prevented her from going to dances and engaging with friends, which means that her social life in a temporal sense was being constrained in the same way it would be expected of a woman married under all of the traditional obligations to be constrained.
Finally, although it sits outside of the scope of this essay (in terms of the period in question) Brigham Young 'inherited' many of the wives of Joseph Smith after Josephs death and did proceed to have children with some of them.
The essay also fails to address the matter of choice with regard to these plural marriages. It is commonly thought by LDS women that wives had some say in whether their husbands participated in plural marriage, some choice with regard to the wives etc. However, this simply is not supported in either the historical record or in revelation. Again D&C 132 makes it clear when speaking of plural marriage that "64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law."
The essay moves on to address how Joseph and other early leaders felt about having to participate in plural marriage, expressing examples of their reluctance. It must be noted that these examples were penned by the men themselves so on the one hand carry the weight of being self authored. On the other hand, publishing such a view raises two issues;
1. How do we evidence that these feeling were genuine? If we assume for a moment that Joseph Smith made it all up to gain access to a large group of women for sex, would it not be reasonable to assume he might make up a story about reluctance to serve as a cover for his motives?
2. What does this mean for free agency if Joseph is being told by an Angel with a flaming sword who he should marry and if he does not proposition that woman that he will be killed. What does it mean for free agency for the woman (who in some instance such as that of Orson Hyde's wife Marinda, was married to Orson whom Joseph had sent away on a mission to the Holy Land, to be proposition by Joseph with his account of an angel with a flaming sword threatening him with death if he did not marry Marinda? What pressure would be on Marinda to acquiesce and say yes, would she wish the death of Joseph to be upon her? Would she wish her own damnation for refusing to give Joseph a 'portion of her love', or would she console herself that if she acquiesced to Josephs claim she'd receive guaranteed eternal life? Is it not fair to say that such promises and threats could fairly be construed by external observers as a form of sexual manipulation?
The essay also fails to address the torment the women underwent. With many of these women married to men that had been sent away, some of them felt compelled to marry Joseph and yet felt guilt or loss for doing this without their first husbands knowledge. Further, Zina Jacobs, married to Daniel Jacobs ended up married to Joseph Smith whilst Daniel was still alive.
After Josephs death she was claimed as an 'inheritance' by Brigham Young when taking over from Joseph. Brigham later wrote to Daniel and said; "Brother Jacobs,' he says, 'the woman you claim for a wife does not belong to you. She is the spiritual wife of brother Joseph, sealed up to him. I am his proxy, and she, in this behalf, with her children, are my property. You can go where you please, and get another, but be sure to get one of your own kindred spirit.' (Todd Compton - In Sacred Loneliness).
My final point in this review (which is much shorter and less detailed than I would like to have undertaken) notes that the essay does not really deal with the issue of Joseph publically denying plural marriage was happening in the church, making clear explicit statements in speeches and writing denying that he was practicing it.
For example:
"I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives. I mean to live and proclaim the truth as long as I can. This new holy prophet [William Law] has gone to Carthage and swore that I had told him that I was guilty of adultery. This spiritual wifeism! Why, a man does not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this...I wish the grand jury would tell me who they are - whether it will be a curse or blessing to me. I am quite tired of the fools asking me...What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers." - (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 6, pp. 410-411)
An 1838 letter written by Joseph which stated:
"We have heard that it is reported by some, that some of us should have said, that we not only dedicated our property, but our families also to the Lord; and Satan, taking advantage of this, has perverted it into licentiousness, such as a community of wives, which is an abomination in the sight of God." - History of the Church Vol 3, p 230
And finally, the article in the church newspaper Times and Seasons:
"TIMES AND SEASONS. CITY OF NAUVOO, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1844.
"As we have lately been credibly informed, that an Elder of the Church of Jesus Christ, of Latter day Saints, by the name of Hiram Brown, has been preaching Polygamy, and other false and corrupt doctrines, in the county of Lapeer, state of Michigan.
"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 make answer to these charges.
JOSEPH SMITH,
HYRUM SMITH,
Presidents of said Church." - (Times and Seasons, vol. 5, page 423)
You'll note the fact that these statements written by Joseph and Hyrum describe plural marriage as 'false and corrupt doctrines' despite the fact that joseph is secretly practicing it.
In closing:
This church essay is a useful start in addressing what is probably one of the top 5 most significant challenges facing the church.
All members of the church should now be in no doubt that from this we can conclude that the leader of the claimed Lords official church;
Joseph Smith did engage in both Polygamous and Polyandrous marriages.
That some (and the historic evidence implies possibly all) of these marriages involved a sexual relationship.
That Joseph Smith publically lied about to members and non members for years about the practice of plural marriage referring to it as a corrupt doctrine.
That in an attempt to conceal the practice of plural marriage men such as William Law (a member of the First Presidency who would not participate in Plural marriage and left the church and was excommunicated in an acrimonious split with Joseph with accusations of wrong doing by both parties) was publically called a liar and had his newspaper destroy for publishing what this essay now confirms was actually the truth.
I'm happy to make any updates or corrections to this review as required.