[MisterCurie]

I actually don’t think it is going to be that different. It seems that the “Teachings of the Prophets” manuals have basically followed the same general pattern as each other and the Gospel Principles manual, a basic gospel principle is chosen and then quotes from the prophets that support the current interpretation of that principle are selected. The only difference is that quotes from various prophets are chosen this year. I don’t think the correlated “Teachings of the Prophets” manuals have deepened church membership understanding of church history or of views of each of the prophets, each manual is meant to further the current teachings of the church (notice the BY manual didn’t bring up any of the controversial teachings of BY, nor did the JS manual – that was not their purpose).

[MisterCurie]

allquieton wrote:

Oh, with the Section 132 revelation. Apparently it is in BY’s handwriting. And BY stated that the original was destroyed by Emma, but luckily he had the only surviving copy. Fishy, if you ask me. Also, he waited until 1876 to put it in the D+C replacing the Section 101 Article on Marriage (which specifically denies polygamy and preaches monogamy).

I could not find anything in JSFP that states the 132 revelation is in BY’s handwriting. I already presented the evidence from William Clayton (scribe of JS) supporting that JS “received” the “revelation.” William Marks (the head of the Nauvoo high council during the life of JS and later member of the RLDS First Presidency) is on the record at an RLDS trial attempting to determine the source of polygamy (held during the days of Joseph III) as stating that he saw the revelation on polygamy later known as D&C 132 during the life of JS and it was presented to the Nauvoo high council as a revelation. Joseph III refused to believe Marks as he could not believe his father was involved in polygamy. The Price’s spend an entire chapter (chapter 17) on justifying why an RLDS official (Isaac Sheen) who believed that JS started polygamy is not a credible source of knowledge. I find it interesting that they do not address William Marks statement recorded in the RLDS archives.

[MisterCurie]

allquieton wrote:

Lol–Okay, I have practically re-read 1/2 the book trying to answer y’all’s questions. I needed a refresher anyhow.

Here is an excerpt from the book. (Higbee was another member of Bennett’s circle, who confessed in writing to fornication and telling the lie that JS secretly preached polygamy. Like Bennett he later went back to the lie.)

JSFP wrote:

Even though the case against Chauncey L. Higbee did not come to trial at Carthage on October 3, 1842, it was a very significant factor in Joseph Smith’s fight against polygamy. It showed that Joseph vigorously contended against that evil doctrine in private and in public. If Joseph had been guilty, he certainly would not have sued a competent lawyer and insisted that the case be tried at Carthage among his enemies. Would a man with plural wives sue a lawyer—in the state of Illinois, where polygamy was a crime at that time (see Statutes of Illinois, Criminal Code,Section 121–122)? If Joseph had been guilty, Chauncey could have easily proven it, and no doubt Joseph would have gone to jail for that crime.

One needs to be aware that the women Chauncey chose for his witnesses were a part of “Bennett’s clique.” As already stated, his witnesses (those who were members of the Church) had suffered the shame of an investigation before the Nauvoo High Council. Dr. John C. Bennett published their names in newspapers across the land, and in his book, claiming that Joseph had attempted to take them as his plural wives. No doubt Chauncey hoped that by using these women as witnesses, he could convince the world that he was innocent and that Joseph was a polygamist, so the blame would be on Joseph and not himself. The cases of these women are to be treated later.

Because Joseph was innocent, he did not hesitate to have Chauncey arrested and charged. The case of The People vs. Chauncey L. Higbee attests to the innocence of the Prophet, and to his courageous fight to clear his and Emma’s names of the fraudulent charges that he had received a polygamous revelation and had plural wives.

As noted by the authors, this case actually never came to trial. The authors claim that JS was in hiding and could not attend the trial due to Bennett. This may be true, in the author’s own timeline given later in the book, the suit was initially filed in May, then Joseph went into hiding August 1842 through 1843. However, in mid-September, only a couple of weeks before the trial was scheduled, subpoena’s were sent out for witnesses for both Joseph Smith and Higbee to appear at the court. I find it highly curious that subpoenas were sent, but JS never appeared at the court.

[MisterCurie]

allquieton wrote:

I don’t have all the answers regarding Law. But:

1. The Higbees did confess to lying about Joseph. So did Bennett.

The Price’s refer to Law several times throughout their book, almost exclusively in a positive light as a witness for JS’s distance from polygamy. Law signed the affidavit saying he heard Bennett’s confession and knows of JS’s upstanding character. I find it a weakness in the Price’s argument that Law could have heard Bennett’s confession of JS’s innocence and yet later become convinced of JS’s involvement in polygamy (as published in the Expositor, quoted in an earlier post). Law likely became convinced after JS propositioned to his wife.

As for Bennett’s confession, I do not find it convincing. Knowing Bennett’s shady character, I suspect he only made the confession to try and keep his influential position within the church, when that was denied him, he turned against JS. Bennett’s confession contains the statement that JS never taught him anything about polygamy, but he also “confesses” that he never said anything about JS when convincing women to enter into polygamy with him. The entire issue at stake was Bennett’s involvement in polygamy and saying that JS sanctioned it. I am confused as to why JS would let such a statement stand, unless he was just happy to get his involvment in polygamy hidden through any means possible, so he was happy to have Bennett say that JS never taught him polygamy and Bennett never used JS as an excuse.

[MisterCurie]

So I got the book “Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy” through interlibrary loan and it does appear that the full contents of the book are located at the following website: http://restorationbookstore.org/jsfp-index.htm” class=”bbcode_url”>http://restorationbookstore.org/jsfp-index.htm, for anyone interested in reading it. They even have additional research that has been completed since the book was published. It is really a quick read and I just finished the book and I intend to read the additional material online.

Regarding the published book, I actually was not very impressed with the research. The book does not have the extensive research and footnoting that books such as “In Sacred Loneliness” do. Furthermore, I felt the author’s biases were clearly in favor of Joseph Smith and the RLDS church and against Brigham Young and the LDS church. Reading the book I felt that it was clearly written from the RLDS apologist perspective. The book is full of black and white statements, such as “If Joseph had been guilty of polygamy and yet published all this evidence claiming that he was not, then he was the greatest liar in history” (page 198) and “If Joseph were truthful, then he was a monogamist and was honest in declaring polygamy a false doctrine. If he were lying, he was a sinner, a coward, and a fallen prophet” (page 201). The authors also set up straw men arguments to easily knock down, such as disproving the stories of a very pregnant Eliza R. Snow being pushed down the stairs by Emma (which Compton also believes is probably inaccurate in most of its details, but innaccurate stories do not negate that Snow may have been a polygamist wife of Smith). The authors also take very thin evidence to create a romance between Snow and Bennett. While they “disprove” Snow’s marriage to Smith due to lack of diary entries, they are convinced of a marriage engagement between Snow and Bennett (even without any diary evidence to support it). Their chief arguement against Joseph’s involvement in polygamy seem to be (1) Joseph Smith’s good character, (2) Joseph Smith the III saying it is not true, and (3) the lack of proven children from JS because polygamy could only be for raising up children (I feel this argument depends on JS agreeing with later LDS viewpoints that God commands polygamy to raise righteous seed, but it may not have been JS’s intentions at all).

I think the authors provide some great evidence that polygamy is unlikely to be an inspired principle and is contradictory with early church teachings, but I do not feel that these are evidence against JS introducing polygamy as they suggest. Overall, I am not convinced by their argument against JS founding polygamy and feel that the evidence clearly supports JS as the founder of polygamy in Mormonism. I will post some additional information regarding the arguments from the book that have already been discussed (now that I have been able to read them for myself), and I will post additional information in favor of JS founding polygamy as presented in Compton’s book and other sources.

[MisterCurie]

One of the best documented plural marriages of JS was to 17 year old Sarah Ann Whitney, even when using contemporary sources. The information in this post was compiled into Chapter 14 of “In Sacred Loneliness.”

A “revelation” (although unpublised at the time) given on July 27, 1942 given through JS to Newel K. Whitney states:

Quote:

Verily, thus saith the Lord unto my servant N.K. Whitney, the thing that my servant Joseph Smith has made known unto you and your family and which you have agreed upon is right in mine eyes and shall be rewarded upon your heads with honor and immortality and eternal life to all your house, both old and young because of the lineage of my Priesthood, saith the Lord, it shall be upon you and upon your children after you from generation to generation, by virtue of the holy promise which I now make unto you, saith the Lord.

These are the words which you shall pronounce upon my servant Joseph and your daughter S.A. Whitney. They shall take each other by the hand and you shall say, “You both mutually agree,” calling them by name, “to be each other’s companion so long as you both shall live, preserving yourselves for each other and from all others and also throughout eternity, reserving only those rights which have been given to my servant Joseph by revelation and commandment and by legal authority in times passed. If you both agree to covenant and do this, I then give you, S.A. Whitney, my daughter, to Joseph Smith, to be his wife, to observe all the rights between you both that belong to that condition. I do it in my own name and in the name of my wife, your mother, and in the name of my holy progenitors, by the right of birth which is of priesthood, vested in my by revelation and commandment and promise of the living God, obtained by the Holy Melchisedeck Gethrow [Jethro] and others of the Holy Fathers, commanding in the name of the Lord all those powers to concentrate in you and through you to your posterity forever. All these things I do in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and through this order he may be glorified and that through the power of anointing David may reign King over Israel, which shall hereafter be revealed. Let immortality and eternal life hereafter be sealed upon your heads forever and ever.”

A few weeks after the wedding, JS was in hiding and wrote the following letter to Sarah Ann Whitney and her parents, which was supposed to be burned, but they did not follow this instruction:

Quote:

Nauvoo August 18th 1842

Dear, and Beloved, Brother and Sister, Whitney, and &c.—

I take this oppertunity to communi[c]ate, some of my feelings, privetely at this time, which I want you three Eternaly to keep in your own bosams; for my feelings are so strong for you since what has pased lately between us, that the time of my abscence from you seems so long, and dreary, that it seems, as if I could not live long in this way: and three would come and see me in this my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief, of mind, if those with whom I am alied, do love me; now is the time to afford me succour, in the days of exile, for you know I foretold you of these things. I am now at Carlos Graingers, Just back of Brother Hyrams farm, it is only one mile from town, the nights are very pleasant indeed, all three of you come come and See me in the fore part of the night, let Brother Whitney come a little a head, and nock at the south East corner of the house at window; it is next to the cornfield, I have a room intirely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect safty, I it is the will of God that you should comfort now in this time of affliction, or not at[ta]l now is the time or never, but I hav[e] no kneed of saying any such thing, to you, for I know the goodness of your hearts, and that you will do the will of the Lord, when it is made known to you; the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty: only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroick undertakeing; but so much the greater frendship, and the more Joy, when I see you I tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper, burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it. one thing I want to see you for is git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c. you wi will pardon me for my earnest=ness on when you consider how lonesome I must be, your good feelings know how to every allowance for me, I close my letter, I think Emma wont come tonight if she dont dont fail to come to night. I subscribe myself your most obedient, affectionate, companion, and friend.

Joseph Smith

Nine months after the marriage to JS, JS himself performed a marriage of Sarah Ann to Joseph Kingsbury on April 29, 1843. Kingsbury later gave this affidavit that it was a sham marriage to hide JS’s practice of polygamy:

Quote:

and on 29th of April 1843 I according to President Joseph Smith Couscil & others agreed to Stand by Sarah Ann Whitny as supposed to be her husband & had a preteded marriage for the purpose of Bringing about the purposes of God in these last days as Spoken by the mouth of the Prophets Isiah Jeremiah Ezekiel and also Joseph Smith, & Sarah Ann Should Recd a Great Glory Honor, & eternal lives and I Also Should Recd a Great Glory, Honor & eternal lives to the full desire of my heart in having my Companion Caroline in the first Resurection to claim her & no one have power to take her from me & we both shall be Crowned & enthroned together in the Celestial Kingdom of God Enjoying Each other’s Society in all of the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ & our little ones with us as is Received in this blessing that President Joseph Smith Sealed upon my head on the Twenty third day of March 1843

According to the “Sealing and Adoption Book A”, After JS’s death, on March 4, 1845, Joseph Kingsbury was sealed by Heber C. Kimball to his first wife, Caroline, for eternity, with Dorcas Adelia Moore standing proxy. Then he was sealed to Dorcas for time and eternity. Sarah Ann was not sealed to Kingsbury (supporting that this was a sham marriage). On March 17, Sarah Ann was sealed to Heber C. Kimball. According to the “A Book of Proxey” of the Nauvoo temple proxy sealings, Jan. 7 to Feb 5, 1846, on January 12th, 1846, after completion of the Nauvoo temple, Sarah Ann was sealed to eternity to JS with Heber C. Kimball standing proxy, then was sealed to Kimball for time (again Sarah Ann was not sealed to Kingsbury). On January 26, Kingsbury married Loenza A. Pond polygamously, but again was never sealed to Sarah Ann Whitney. During this time, it was common for JS’s polygamous wives to be sealed to Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, or other church leaders. These sealings support evidence of JS’s polygamous marriages.

[MisterCurie]

The authors of “Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy” argue that Cochranism is the original source of polygamy in the LDS church. I don’t debate that the Cochranite movement may have influenced JS’s thinking about polygamy, but I still think JS introduced polygamy.

http://restorationbookstore.org/articles/nopoligamy/jsfp-vol1/chp1.htm” class=”bbcode_url”>http://restorationbookstore.org/articles/nopoligamy/jsfp-vol1/chp1.htm

[MisterCurie]

allquieton wrote:

I don’t have all the answers regarding Law. But:

1. The Higbees did confess to lying about Joseph. So did Bennett.

2. Bennett kept lying (indisputably) about Joseph as long as he lived. He was a sworn enemy of JS.

3. Bennett and the Higbees and apparently the Fosters are all close associates. Law is tied in with the Higbees and the Fosters.

Regarding Law and Bennett, according to “Mormon Enigma”, page 339, endnote 35:

Mormon Enigma wrote:

William Law publicly defended Joseph’s character in the wake of John C. Bennett’s charges . . .[and] in September 1842 he left on a second mission to the Eastern states and this time preached against John C. Bennett.

[MisterCurie]

Here is a Sunstone article about William Clayton and his journal entries, many of which give insight into polygamy during JS lifetime and specifically state that JS encouraged Clayton’s polygamous relationships.

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/086-32-35.pdf” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/086-32-35.pdf

[MisterCurie]

I left “In Sacred Loneliness” at school, so I don’t have it as a source, but I have been looking up evidence for Polygamy in “Mormon Enigma” by Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery.

Evidence for D&C 132 being dictated by JS:

William Clayton was the scribe for JS and had intimate knowledge of the dealings of the Prophet and the church (who in full disclosure became a polygamist, presumably because he believed JS teachings about polygamy, but should be noted that he isn’t unbiased in relation to polygamy). He gave a statement in 1874 about when JS dictated the revelation no known as D&C 132. While the Prices discount that JS revealed D&C 132 and claim BY and the apostles later wrote D&C 132 and attributed it to JS, William Clayton’s diary provides contemporary support for his statement (although without much of the detail of the statement), where he wrote in an entry dated 12 July 1843:

William Clayton wrote:

This A.M. I wrote a Revelation consisting of 10 pages o nthe order of the priesthood, showing the designs in Moses, Abraham, David and Solomon having many wives & concubines &c. After it was wrote Prest. Joseph & Hyrum presented it and read it to E[mma] who said she did not believe a word of it and appeared very rebellious. (quoted in Mormon Enigma, page 335-336, endnote 89)

In William Clayton’s diary dated 16 August 1843:

William Clayton wrote:

This A.M. Joseph told me that sin[c]e Emma came back from St. Louis, she had resisted the P[rinciple] in toto, and he had to tell her he would relinquish all for her sake. She said she would give him E[liza] and E[mily] P[artridge] but he knew if he took them she would pitch on him, & obtain divorce & leave him. He however told me that he should not relinquish anything. (quoted in Mormon Enigma, page 158)

[MisterCurie]

allquieton wrote:

I guess the book info didn’t ever make it into the new thread. Thanks for pointing it out Tom.

Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy

by Richard and Pamela Price

Also they have a website with the entire content of the book on it:

http://restorationbookstore.org/jsfp-index.htm

Is this really the entire contents of the book? I was trying to get it through interlibrary loan at my University, but if it is available online I’d be happy to read it there.

allquieton wrote:

I don’t need JS to be perfect, or financially gifted, or the stick pulling champion of New York. I don’t need him to be anything.

But based on the evidence, I don’t think he was a polygamist. And so I say it.

I also don’t need JS to be anything, polygamist or otherwise. My disaffection was never really about polygamy and I don’t think proving JS was not polygamist would really influence my overall opinion much. I think the evidence supports that he practiced polygamy, but I’d be happy to be proven wrong. This thread has definately caused me to re-evaluate things as I read Compton’s book “In Sacred Loneliness” which I am still reading. The biographies of the women seems to be well researched, but I pay particular attention when Compton presents the evidence supporting the claim that each woman was a plural wife of JS. Some of the evidence is a bit tenuous.

[MisterCurie]

allquieton wrote:

I have a lot to respond to–please be patient with me.

Mister Curie,

I dug up some more info on William Law. Besides associating closely with the despicable Higbees, he apparently was in with some Fosters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Day_Saints

Could these be the same Fosters that apparently ran a brothel next to the temple in Nauvoo, with John C. Bennett?

http://en.fairmormon.org/Polygamy_book/John_C._Bennett/Brothel_at_Nauvoo

If so, I think it’s fair to throw out Law’s testimony as garbage.

I do not know if these are the same Fosters. However, I think it should be obvious from William Law’s testimony that he is condemning plural marriage. Unlike Bennett, who tried to justify his own promiscuity by implicating JS, Law is outright condeming such practices.

[MisterCurie]

On my mission, my companion and I blessed an elderly sick woman to be healed, she died a few days later.

We also blessed a different old lady to be at peace as she died, she soon recovered.

I guess we weren’t as “in tune” with the spirit as we thought we were . . .

[MisterCurie]

Heber13 wrote:

I think the danger of saying that personal truths are just as valid is that it assumes all people are rational and respectful of others. There are things that others may feel are personal truths to them, but can be wrong and should not be tolerated. This would be if their truth leads them to act in ways that harm others.

This is an interesting point. I just finished reading “The History of God” by Karen Armstrong, where she discusses the similarities between Christians, Jews, and Muslims in the view of God. Acts stemming from such “personal truth” are not unique to Islam. Chrisitanity had the Crusades. You could also argue that Christianity can claim the murder of the abortion doctor that was killed not long ago. Some would even argue that the Mormon church’s beliefs (and many other Chrisitans) are causing harm to the LGBT community. Fundamental monotheism has often been prone to allowing their “truth” to harm others, at least according to Karen Armstrong, when you look at religion in history.

[MisterCurie]

just me wrote:

No children were left that we have been able to find, so far. This is a witness to me that it was not “to raise up seed” to the Lord. Anyway, rumors swirled around Nauvoo that Bennett was helping women rid themselves of unwanted pregnancies (not something I care to think about or believe). Some people claim that women were sent away when they became pregnant.

People did know some methods for avoiding pregnancy back then. Some of the women he married were even pregnant at the time, so no chance of impregnating them. With infant mortality rates so high, it is possible that those few children who dies could have been his. We will never know.

It is certainly true that the infant mortality rate was quite high. In reading “In Sacred Loneliness” I’ve been struck with how often children died. I suppose it was quite common back then. In the beginning, JS seemed to choose married women. And with 30+ wives, it would have been difficult to get the timing right to get them pregnant, particularly with trying to keep it hidden from general knowledge.

Furthermore, as I mentioned previously, the only current DNA method that has been able to definitively prove paternity only works for male descendants through an all-male lineage from JS. That certainly narrows down the number of people that can be tested as being descended from JS.

[Author]

Posts