Presentism and the Persecutors of the Early Saints

[_Dwight Frye]

The cockles of my heart were warmed today when reading through the MAD thread, Did Joseph Smith Lie About Polygamy?

You cannot justify the treatment of the Prophet or his friends at Liberty Jail, Haun's mill, the expulsion in winter of the women and children from Missouri, or the final culmination at Carthage and the many other atrocities against the saints.

I'm not trying to justify it, just trying to understand it in balance. On the board that shall not be named there is an interesting thread on 'presentism' and the way it can be used to unfairly interpret 19th century practice. That argument can also be used with regard to the non-mormons at the time, in terms of the way they reacted to the Mormon Problem.

I'm sure Deborah will have none of it, but, anyway....

[_Pokatator]

Because, the LDS church has prospered against all adversity. And god has shown favor towards it.

Is church membership declining? Maybe. But the LDS church is not a popularity contest like some churches. It has a set of beliefs which it stands by and perhaps these beliefs are not popular but...it takes guts to stand up and say something that is not popular with the secular world.

why me I wonder why I, see a contradiction here. You seem to continually defend the church as true because of the numbers, because of the church enduring and existing through this and that and everything. Then you argue that the church is not a popularity contest. You're all over the place.

I think you argue to just be arguing. I don't you have the ability to look at both sides. You are about the most bias poster I have ever read.

[_TAK]

[quote="Dwight Frye"]The cockles of my heart were warmed today when reading through the MAD thread, Did Joseph Smith Lie About Polygamy?


You just can't make this sh*t up..
Joseph Smith lied about polygamy to protect the saints!!! LMAO!

[_Dwight Frye]

You just can't make this sh*t up..
Joseph Smith lied about polygamy to protect the saints!!! LMAO!

Yessiree. No different than lying to a Nazi to protect a Jew.

[_Runtu]

You have to be careful with the tarring and feathering incident, as the mention of Eli Johnson is secondhand. Problem is, Marinda Johnson did not have a brother named Eli. Her father, John Johnson, had nine children: Elsa, Fanny, John, Jr., Luke S., Olmsted, Lyman E., Emily, Marinda Nancy, and Mary.

There had been some suggestion that Joseph had acted inappropriately with Marinda (who was 17 at the time) and also that at least one of the brothers (probably Olmsted) had participated in the tarring and feathering. But there are not enough primary sources to say that the story (recounted by Brodie) is definitely true.

[_Seven]

I tend to go with the idea that Joseph took the scriptures seriously (just as I believe he did with the Grandison Newell story, where his (though botched) assassination would be justified by the Laban story in the Book of Mormon). He saw that Abraham was able (through Sarah) to take Hagar to wife to produce offspring, and felt that this was justification to take Fanny. (and perhaps later Nancy)

That's my take anyway.

Mary

But Emma was able to produce offspring (she birthed ten kids) so he didn't need a Hagar.

If Joseph took the scriptures seriously, it's funny that he ignored the section he translated in Jacob 2 from the Book of Mormon. Joseph's use of the Old Testament as justification for polygamy is the exact behavior Jacob condemned the people of Nephi for:

22 And now I make an end of speaking unto you concerning this pride. And were it not that I must speak unto you concerning a grosser crime, my heart would rejoice exceedingly because of you.
23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be
one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

If people felt the Old Testament was too ambiguous in God's approval or disapproval of polygamy, there can be no confusion after reading the Book of Mormon. This most correct scripture on earth makes it loud and clear that polygamy is an abomination to God. This is in complete contradiction to the Doctrine and Covenants section 132 and teachings by LDS Prophets on plural marriage. Ironically, many LDS use the "word of God only as far as it is translated correctly" Old Testament to defend Mormon polygamy.


Joseph was trying to model himself after Old Testament Prophets that practiced polygamy because he had a weakness for the female flesh. No different than the people of Nephi who were also using the Old Testament Prophets to justify polygamy. Notice in verse 25 God led Lehi and his famiy out of Jerusalem because of the polygamy practiced in that culture and by Prophets of old. God wanted to raise a righteous seed unto Him through monogamy. There is no loophole in verse 30.


Joseph getting caught with his pants down in that "dirty nasty affair" in 1833 with Fanny Alger, required him to come up with a revelation for his extracurricular activities. (hence D & C 132) He didn't have the sealing keys at the time of Fanny Alger to even enter the "authorized" polygamy that his own revelation required.


What better way to keep his esteemed position and power as their beloved Prophet after being accused of adultery than to restore secret concubinage? He gets to have his cake and eat it too.
This behavior is no different from other cults who command through Prophetic revelation to sleep with their leader.

[_Mary]

Seven, yes, I agree. Emma was no Sarah, but in Joseph's mind the situation itself may have given him the idea that taking a servant (Fanny) was permissable. I'm trying to be kind to Joseph here. I honestly can't work it out myself. It does seem that he patterned himself on the likes of David the Old Testament King in many but not all ways.

I also find problematic the polyandry side of things, for which there appears to be no biblical precedent at all. (unless anyone can tell me otherwise).

John, thanks for the information on Eli Johnson. That's interesting.

[_Runtu]

Seven, yes, I agree. Emma was no Sarah, but in Joseph's mind the situation itself may have given him the idea that taking a servant (Fanny) was permissable. I'm trying to be kind to Joseph here. I honestly can't work it out myself. It does seem that he patterned himself on the likes of David the Old Testament King in many but not all ways.

I also find problematic the polyandry side of things, for which there appears to be no biblical precedent at all. (unless anyone can tell me otherwise).

John, thanks for the information on Eli Johnson. That's interesting.

There was an actual Eli Johnson, but he wasn't one of the brothers. Joseph Smith mentions him (and Edward and John Johnson, Jr.) as participating in the attack. Simonds Ryder, who was one of the leaders of the attack, said that they were motivated by Joseph's attempting to take their property away from them. That's a whole other debate, but it suggests that Joseph's sexual impropriety was not a motivation.

[_Seven]

I also find problematic the polyandry side of things, for which there appears to be no biblical precedent at all. (unless anyone can tell me otherwise).

There also isn't a biblical precedant for the reasons Mormons practiced polygyny either. (i.e. as a requirement for exaltation)

[Anonymous]

I also find problematic the polyandry side of things, for which there appears to be no biblical precedent at all. (unless anyone can tell me otherwise).

Yeah, this seems to be the most troublesome aspect of polygamy for many.

Here is some information on Joseph Smith's marriages to already married women for any lurkers who have been misled by apologists that it was only platonic sealings.

Polyandry was practiced in the church to keep the principle secret (to protect Joseph Smith) until they were safely isolated in Utah. Once they were able to live plural marriage in the open, the women no longer cohabited with the first husband. Doctrinally women were able to "marry up" to a man holding a higher Priesthood.

In some cases, men pretended to be married to one of Joseph's wives. This is why there could also be offspring from Joseph Smith's plural marriages that we are unaware of.

"It was the rule rather than the exception for Smith to encourage a polyandrous wife to remain with her legal husband."
Faithful Mormon Joseph Kingsbury even wrote that he served as a surrogate husband for Joseph Smith:
"I according to Pres. Joseph Smith & council & others, I agreed to stand by Sarah Ann Whitney [sealed to Smith 27 July 1843] as though I was supposed to be her husband and a pretended marriage for the purpose of shielding them from the enemy and for the purpose of bringing out the purposes of God." (Elder Joseph Kingsbury, "History of Joseph Kingsbury Written by His Own Hand," page 5, Utah State Historical Society)

Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, a polyandrous wife to Joseph Smith, stated in 1905: "I know he [Joseph Smith] had six wives and I have known some of them from childhood up. I knew he had three children. They told me. I think two of them are living today but they are not known as his children as they go by other names." If true (and there is no reason to think it is not), this strongly suggests that Joseph sired children by women legally married to someone else (i.e., Joseph's children were raised bearing the legal husband's name). (see Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History, p. 49 n.3; Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness, p. 12).

- Faithful Mormon and wife of Joseph Smith, Sylvia Sessions (Lyon), on her deathbed told her daughter, Josephine, that she (Josephine) was the daughter of Joseph Smith. Josephine testified: "She (Sylvia) then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church." (Affidavit to Church Historian Andrew Jenson, 24 Feb. 1915)

If you look at the photo of Josephine, there is a striking resemblance to Joseph Smith.

Prescindia, who was Normal Buell's wife and simultaneously a "plural wife" of the Prophet Joseph Smith, said that she did not know whether her husband Norman "or the Prophet was the father of her son, Oliver." And a glance at a photo of Oliver shows a strong resemblance to Emma Smith's boys.
(Mary Ettie V. Smith, "Fifteen Years Among the Mormons", page 34; Fawn Brodie "No Man Knows My History" pages 301-302, 437-39)

In the mind of the women engaging in polyandry, this was not adultery because section 132 did away with their legal marriages. All contracts made between husband and wife that were not sealed by the higher Priesthood were null and void to those who were taught Celestial marriage by Joseph.

And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.