Question for Dr. Peterson Regarding Joseph Smith/Polygamy

[_Yoda]

Dr. Peterson,

This is a continuation of a conversation you began with Seven on the manuals thread. Since it veers into another category I would like to explore, let me begin with your response to her:

What I mean is that I believe him to have been a true prophet. I believe this on the basis of a number of lines of reasoning. One of those that I prefer involves the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon (on whom the classic book is Richard Lloyd Anderson's Investigating the Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, though some other recent materials, such as the new book on Oliver Cowdery edited by John Welch and Larry Morris, are also exceptionally valuable). I cannot get around the Witnesses. No counterexplanation for their claims seems to me even remotely plausible. Another involves the Book of Mormon itself. No counterexplanation for it strikes me as even remotely plausible, either. (I've published a fair amount on this. Much of it, but not all, is available on the FARMS or Maxwell Institute website.) Another superb recent book is John Welch, ed., Opening the Heavens. Some really stunning material.

I also believe him to have been sincere. Again, I have several bases for my conviction that he was sincere. One of those bases is his personality, as it is revealed in, for example, Dean Jessee's collection of The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith. These are writings that were never designed for publication. They are quite revealing. If he was not a sincere believer, I'm simply incapable of distinguishing sincerity from insincerity in anybody.

Finally, I believe the testimonies of scores of people who knew him very well that he was a good man. Many of these testimonies are included in Mark McConkie's recent book, Remembering Joseph.

It seems to me that you've bought into a very dark reading of Joseph's behavior at the origins of plural marriage. I don't think the sources compel so dark a reading, though I freely grant that they allow it. That's why I say that what we bring to the data deeply influences how we read it. Richard Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling offers a much more positive reading of the situation. I'm aware that some wish to dismiss him as a mere Mopologist spin-artist. They're free to do that, of course. But he is universally recognized (by reasonable observers, anyway, in and out of the Church) as a premiere American historian, and a very bright, sensitive, intelligent, competent, and honest man.

I hope that this helps. But if, as is likely, it doesn't, at least you should understand a bit better where I'm coming from.

The entire polygamy issue is one I have always struggled with as well. My question is this:

Do you think it is possible that Joseph WAS wrong when it came to polygamy? Could he have given into his own weaknesses in this aspect of the gospel and still have been a prophet who brought forth the Book of Mormon?

I believe the Book of Mormon to be true. I have a testimony of it. Nothing will take that away from me, which is why I stay active. However, I do have problems with the eternal ramifications and misogynistic implications surrounding the law of plural marriage.

There is much talk in the apologetic community about prophets "acting and speaking like men" as opposed to "acting and speaking like prophets". Could this plural marriage aspect be something where he faltered and was "speaking as a man"?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Do you think it is possible that Joseph WAS wrong when it came to polygamy? Could he have given into his own weaknesses in this aspect of the gospel and still have been a prophet who brought forth the Book of Mormon?

I surely think it's conceivable -- though I reject the idea -- that he was divinely inspired to produce the Book of Mormon but nothing else, or that, at some point, he became a fallen prophet.

I believe the Book of Mormon to be true. I have a testimony of it. Nothing will take that away from me, which is why I stay active. However, I do have problems with the eternal ramifications and misogynistic implications surrounding the law of plural marriage.

There is much talk in the apologetic community about prophets "acting and speaking like men" as opposed to "acting and speaking like prophets". Could this plural marriage aspect be something where he faltered and was "speaking as a man"?

It could be. (I don't believe it to be.) But I don't think that option is really available to a believing Latter-day Saint who values and wishes to maintain Mormonism as a whole. The revelation on plural marriage is too tightly interwoven with the doctrine of eternal marriage, for instance, for the two to be plausibly disentangled. If historical plural marriage is surrendered, I don't know that temple sealings can survive.

[_Blixa]

But I don't think that option is really available to a believing Latter-day Saint who values and wishes to maintain Mormonism as a whole. The revelation on plural marriage is too tightly interwoven with the doctrine of eternal marriage, for instance, for the two to be plausibly disentangled. If historical plural marriage is surrendered, I don't know that temple sealings can survive.

Thanks for your candor. I agree, it is an essential part of the entire framework which is why its still in scripture, though dropped from practice (perhaps I'm not phrasing that correctly).

[_harmony]

The revelation on plural marriage is too tightly interwoven with the doctrine of eternal marriage, for instance, for the two to be plausibly disentangled. If historical plural marriage is surrendered, I don't know that temple sealings can survive.

How so? Temple sealings take place daily without plural marriage.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Doctrine and Covenants 132 is the source for the doctrine of eternal marriage, just as it is the source for the doctrine of plural marriage.

Jettison Section 132 as merely Joseph's self-interested imagination and, yes, you get rid of polygamy. But, in that very act, you also toss out celestial marriage and the doctrine of the eternal family.

[_Yoda]

Doctrine and Covenants 132 is the source for the doctrine of eternal marriage, just as it is the source for the doctrine of plural marriage.

Jettison Section 132 as merely Joseph's self-interested imagination and, yes, you get rid of polygamy. But, in that very act, you also toss out celestial marriage and the doctrine of the eternal family.

Verses 51-66 are the controversial verses, in my opinion. If these verses were done away with, the doctrine of eternal marriage would still be intact.

[_harmony]

Doctrine and Covenants 132 is the source for the doctrine of eternal marriage, just as it is the source for the doctrine of plural marriage.

Jettison Section 132 as merely Joseph's self-interested imagination and, yes, you get rid of polygamy. But, in that very act, you also toss out celestial marriage and the doctrine of the eternal family.

Verses 51-66 are the controversial verses, in my opinion. If these verses were done away with, the doctrine of eternal marriage would still be intact.

Exactly. No need to throw the baby out just because the bathwater's dirty.

[_Jason Bourne]

Doctrine and Covenants 132 is the source for the doctrine of eternal marriage, just as it is the source for the doctrine of plural marriage.

Jettison Section 132 as merely Joseph's self-interested imagination and, yes, you get rid of polygamy. But, in that very act, you also toss out celestial marriage and the doctrine of the eternal family.

I thought this was the source of celestial marriage:

THE
DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
SECTION 131
Instructions by Joseph Smith the Prophet, given at Ramus, Illinois, May 16 and 17, 1843. HC 5: 392–393.
1–4, Celestial marriage is essential to exaltation in the highest heaven; 5–6, How men are sealed up unto eternal life; 7–8, All spirit is matter.
1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;
2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this border of the priesthood [meaning the new and deverlasting covenant of marriage];
3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.
4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

\

Apologists often argue that celestial marraige does not and did not even equal polygamy and the two are not the same, even though it seems 19th century LDS used celestial marriage and polygamy to mean the same. Can you clarify?

[_harmony]

Sec 132 is the best example ever written of scripture mingled with the teachings of men. Weed out the teachings of men, and it doesn't contradict the Book of Mormon at all.

[_Yoda]

Thanks to everyone who is participating on this thread. I would like to keep the respectful tone we have developed, so I am moving this topic to the Celestial Forum.

Dr. Peterson, I am looking forward to your further comments on some of the issues we've raised.