G.Palmer Mormon Discussions Podcast on Joseph Smith Sexual Allegations

[_Chap]

Not sure that polygamy was a mistake, but certainly the way it was practiced, was, in my opinion.

Now let's just do the (very simple) math. The numbers of men and women adults are roughly equal. If you set up a society where some men can marry as many women as they wish to, inevitably there will be, for each extra wife, a young man in that society who can never marry.

Think of the consequences of that in terms of lack of socialization for young males, thus increased crime and violence, and increased demand for prostitution - to say nothing of the fact that, in Mormon terms, such young men are deprived of exaltation because they cannot contract an eternal marriage (right?). The secular consequences are already becoming evident in China, as a combined consequence of the one-child policy and selective abortion of female fetuses, producing the same situation of men who can never find a wife.

The whole principle is clearly socially harmful. There is no way of practicing polygamy that does not have such results. And you are 'not sure that polygamy was a mistake'?

[_Equality]

I don't know of anyone else who said he abused them, either. The claim is that he coerced some of them. But you know, when you are a religious leader and a grown man, and you tell a teenage girl who is among your followers that she needs to marry you for her family to get into heaven, then sure, I can see a good faith argument for this being a mature, rational decision between mature and consenting adults.

The accusations have been made that Joseph Smith was a horny toad. Also that he was lustful and crazed sex. I don't see these accusations being made by any of his wives. As far I can see, the women were very respectful of Joseph Smith even after he died. No one claimed that he was sex crazed, lustful, insensitive and a bastard. Why should I think any different?

I don't think Hillary Clinton has ever accused William Jefferson Clinton publicly of being a horny toad. So, by your "logic," you should think of Bill Clinton as a faithful, moral, and upstanding person. Do you?

[_Mary]

Chap, I don't like polygamy. I would have thought though, that if you are going to practice polygamy, as many societies have done, and still do, then there has to be pretty strict rules around it. If we are going to use the Old Testament as an example (and yes, I know we can justify any behaviour from the Old Testament), then David committed no sin, except in taking another man's wife. Joseph appeared to ignore the rules for whatever reason. It seems to me that he thought he was above the law rather than subject to it.

[_Mary]

I do agree that in almost all instances polygamy is socially and spiritually harmful, but I don't want to say that it should never be practiced. There may be occasions when it would be necessary or have positive results in terms of the continuation of the species, if nothing else!! Just thinking, that when I was active here in the UK, when women outnumbered men by 10 to 1, there would have been a lot of happier women had there been polygamy around. Instead of a good deal of people I know, now pushing 50 and never having been married and knowing the joy of motherhood...!!

[_Equality]

33 wives at least.
11 were married with living husbands.
Double figures of them were teenagers when the 30+ year old Joseph married them.
Fanny Alger was before the sealing keys had been restored and so cannot be anything other than an example of lustful Joseph out for a quickie.

The reason polygamy was required was to produce seed - it was commanded for Joseph to have sex with them; did he disobey God?

And which one of these wives said that Joseph Smith was a horny toad? Which one said that he abused them? As far as I can tell, not one. And after he was murdered, no women claimed that he was lustful jerk who was in it for the sex. How to explain it? And fanny's parents never thought that this relationship with fanny was improper. Why should I think any different?

Here's one possible explanation--fear of repercussions from a powerful man who had control of an army of zealous followers, who had ordered the murder of Lilburn Boggs, had established a band of "avenging angels" to threaten, harass, intimidate, and hurt people who crossed him, and who had worked to destroy the reputations of women who had refused his advances and proposals:

"Sarah M. Pratt" by Richard A. Van Wagoner, Dialogue, Vol.19, No.2, p.72.
Sometime in late 1840 or early 1841, Joseph Smith confided to his friend that he was smitten by the "amiable and accomplished" Sarah Pratt and wanted her for "one of his spiritual wives, for the Lord had given her to him as a special favor for his faithfulness" (emphasis in original). Shortly afterward, the two men took some of Bennett's sewing to Sarah's house. During the visit, as Bennett describes it, Joseph said, "Sister Pratt, the Lord has given you to me as one of my spiritual wives. I have the blessings of Jacob granted me, as God granted holy men of old, and as I have long looked upon you with favor, and an earnest desire of connubial bliss, I hope you will not repulse or deny me." "And is that the great secret that I am not to utter," Sarah replied. "Am I called upon to break the marriage covenant, and prove recreant to my lawful husband! I never will." She added, "I care not for the blessings of Jacob. I have one good husband, and that is enough for me." But according to Bennett, the Prophet was persistent. Finally Sarah angrily told him on a subsequent visit, "Joseph, if you ever attempt any thing of the kind with me again, I will make a full disclosure to Mr. Pratt on his return home. Depend upon it, I will certainly do it." "Sister Pratt," the Prophet responded, "I hope you will not expose me, for if I suffer, all must suffer; so do not expose me. Will you promise me that you will not do it?" "If you will never insult me again," Sarah replied, "I will not expose you unless strong circumstances should require it." "If you should tell," the Prophet added, "I will ruin your reputation, remember that.

[_consiglieri]

Listening to part 2 of the interview this morning, Palmer answered a question nagging at me since a couple of years back when I read D&C 132 and wondered what the heck verse 51 was talking about:

Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.

It was clear to me when reading this verse that it was phrased in such a way as to speak of something offered to Emma without being specific enough for anybody else to know what it was just by reading it. I wrote in the margin of my scriptures, "What was offered to Emma???"

According to Grant Palmer (citing William Law), the unstated object of the revelation was William Law himself!

I failed to pick up on the clue in verse 54:

And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant, Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.

While recognizing we have only William Law's version (to my knowledge) that this is what happened, what am I to make of the fact that his version fits so well the revelation published by the Church in the current Book of Doctrine and Covenants?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Chap]

... when I was active here in the UK, when women outnumbered men by 10 to 1...

Surely you mean:

... when I was active here in the UK, when LDS women outnumbered men by 10 to 1...

?

I don't think there is any way a society can be asked to permit a special exception to monogamy for a religion that has more female members than male.

The practice of polygamy by more than a tiny minority leads to obvious social harm, as I think you concede. No sane modern society can sensibly permit it. Don't you agree?

[_Tobin]

I do agree that in almost all instances polygamy is socially and spiritually harmful, but I don't want to say that it should never be practiced. There may be occasions when it would be necessary or have positive results in terms of the continuation of the species, if nothing else!! Just thinking, that when I was active here in the UK, when women outnumbered men by 10 to 1, there would have been a lot of happier women had there been polygamy around. Instead of a good deal of people I know, now pushing 50 and never having been married and knowing the joy of motherhood...!!

Actually, I don't have a problem with polygamy if lived within certain guildlines. Providing support for widows or women that otherwise don't have an opportunity to get married and wish to have children seems a perfectly plausible rationale for it. However, if it is going to be embraced by a religion as being of God, then God needs to appear to the man and woman and tell them that this is what God wants them to do. This is the standard I would have aimed squarely at the Church and those professing such a belief.

Now, I do not know what occurred with Joseph Smith and his wives (and others involved at the time). I do not know what personal revelations they received. The suggetion is that Joseph Smith was engaged in wife swapping in an era in which such a thing would not have been tolerated by anyone. It is an assault on not only Joseph Smith but the women (and husbands) involved. I find it odd that none of the women he was married to recanted or accussed Joseph Smith of being morally depraved as they matured and reflected on what occurred.

Now as far the church admitting that polygamy was a sin as it was lived when it was brought to Utah; I doubt they will ever acknowledge that. However, I think it is very easy to argue that it was a sin since it almost destroyed the church later. IF the way they were conducting themselves was ordained of God, no power (not even the US government and all its armies) could have stopped the practice. I believe it is clear that was not the case and that is why it was stopped.

[Schreech]

... when I was active here in the UK, when women outnumbered men by 10 to 1...

Surely you mean:

... when I was active here in the UK, when LDS women outnumbered men by 10 to 1...

?

I don't think there is any way a society can be asked to permit a special exception to monogamy for a religion that has more female members than male.

The practice of polygamy by more than a tiny minority leads to obvious social harm, as I think you concede. No sane modern society can sensibly permit it. Don't you agree?

Yes and Yes!!:)


Meaning I should have said LDS women, and no modern society can sensibly permit it. But....I still think there might be occasions when it would be necessary, or productive... I'd hate to make a hard and fast rule about the way all societies should conduct themselves...

[_Mary]

Tobin, it's been a while since I went to his site, but if I remember correctly Dale Broadhurst had some information about 19th Century groups who experimented with different family organisations... I know the Oneida Society was around that time, 1848 I think, and as I remember Joseph had some dealings with other men/groups that were a good deal earlier than that.