991: Debunking Polygamy Skeptics Claims (Mark Tensmeyer)

[@danvogel6802]

Legal rules of evidence do not apply to historical analysis as any historical primer will explain.

[@amertlich]

For me, this conversation doesn’t debunk the conflation theory, I.e for early saints, the term polygamy became synonymous with celestial marriage. Zina Huntington used the term “celestial marriage” when actually meaning polygamy as a clear indication these terms were conflated in her mind. William Marks also used these terms interchangeably, and rejected the revelation of celestial marriage which he conflated with polygamy: “Therefore when the doctrine of polygamy was introduced into the church as a principle of exaltation, I took a decided stand against it; which stand rendered me quite unpopular” His Methodist upbringing with strong Trinitarian tendencies make it understandable why a doctrine of exhalation would be hard to come to terms with, compounded by the conflation of polygamy would only solidify in Mark’s mind a corruption. Yet we don’t often quote the full statement from Marks. According to Marks, Joseph said: ‘We are a ruined people.’ I asked, how so? He said; ‘This doctrine of polygamy, or Spiritual-wife system, that has been taught and practiced among us, will prove our destruction and overthrow. I have been deceived,’ said he, ‘in reference to its practice; it is wrong; it is a curse to mankind, and we shall have to leave the United States soon, unless it can be put down, and its practice stopped in the church.’ Even Joseph underestimated the damage the conflation of these practices had caused while he was alive.

[@TheYgds]

I think the "conflation" was quite clear from all evidence from the time. Celestial marriage was Plural Marriage in the minds of many Saints over that time. Even if you can read D&C 132 as not stipulating such through textual analysis, this reading I think is quite anachronistic and ultimately today, purely apologetic.

[@amertlich]

​@@TheYgds I don't think a reasonable skeptic of polygamy would disagree. Even if one believes that Brigham Young "enhanced" the text beyond its original form, his changes would have aligned with his own understanding (or desires) and that of those around him, not in an anachronistic way. The real question is whether this reflects what Joseph, Hyrum, and Emma understood. The conspiracy wouldn't need to be large, as most people’s testimonies likely stemmed from a sincere belief based on a conflated view of celestial marriage and polygamy. If there was ever an opportunity since the deception of Eve for the adversary to capitalize on, this may have been one of his more successful attempts.

[@TheYgds]

@@amertlich I meant that the post-polygamy period reading is anachronistic, not Brigham's. I think Brigham understood Plural Marriage as being essential to exaltation, and I think (rightly or wrongly), he extracted that perception from Joseph. I don't think Plural Marriage is evil, or caused by Satan, nor do I think that perception was altogether incorrect or had any such malignant cause. It certainly lacked sufficient nuance, but I don't think it is illogical to reach that conclusion from D&C 132. What I do think happens is that people have extraordinary difficulties coping with the culture of the Celestial Kingdom. Its laws and principles often act against human intuitions. It (Plural Marriage, United Order, All things common, love everyone with complete magnanimity, etc) seems to be predicated on infinities, rather than finitudes. Such laws only makes sense in an environment where both person and product are inexhaustible.

[@amertlich]

@@TheYgds Just to confirm I understand, you don't think that the early Saints' understanding or perception of plural marriage was wrong or caused by malicious forces. You acknowledge that the interpretation by early saints of plural marriage lacked nuance and was oversimplified, yet you think it's the logical conclusion based on a reading of D&C 132? I agree that this is a plausible interpretation. But do you see why it's reasonable for skeptics to think this could be a misinterpretation, stemming from a conflated understanding? Is it possible that your view of celestial order, including polygamous relationships, is shaped by apologetics-or at least reflects faith in a belief you're committed to?

[@SeekTruth-f6d]

@@TheYgds There's a lot of "I think" in your statement.

[@Searcher-n3r]

Regarding the potential Cocharanite influence - a good point with maybe little influence from Orson Hyde and Samuel Smith - however, my understanding is that Brigham Young went along on a mission to that area - and one of his early plural wives (Augusta Adams) - who abandoned her husband in Boston to go with Brigham Young - had been involved with the Cocharanites

[@GospelTangents]

Is this part of the theory that started polygamy and not Joseph Smith?

[@ridersofthepurplesage]

Interesting. I always wanted to hear a lawyer perspective. I too have professional standards for examining evidence. As an Inspector General involved in performance audits and whistleblower allegations, we have to follow rules of evidence established by the Government Accountability Office. Within those rules are how to treat testimonial evidence. Here is what it says verbatim: Testimonial evidence obtained under conditions in which persons may speak freely is generally more reliable than evidence obtained under circumstances in which the persons may be intimidated. Testimonial evidence obtained from an individual who is not biased and has direct knowledge about the area is generally more reliable than testimonial evidence obtained from an individual who is biased or has indirect or partial knowledge about the area. Professional judgement is then used to determine the reasonableness of the testimonies. The trouble with a lot of the evidence that joseph practiced polygamy is that it falls under one or even both of these rules of testimonial evidence. Most of the women testifying about being married to joseph were at one time also married to Brigham, Wilford, John, Heber or some other LDS leader. This was their way of life that was being challenged. So that evidence, while it shouldn't be dismissed like Denver says, should probably not be relied on to make any conclusions on the matter. This is a very difficult subject for sure. My overall audit conclusion is that it cannot be determined. There is evidence for, and evidence against. There is a major data reliability issue. My conclusion is similar to the church's in that the evidence is fragmented, but i dont make any definitive conclusion on Joseph's polygamy like the church does. If there are major data reliability issues in an audit that cannot be resolved by some other means, then we don't make any conclusions or make recommendations to fix the data reliability concerns, which is probably not possible in this case. I think the best conclusion is to believe what you want. It won't be wrong either way. Which is a similar position to the Community of Christ. Thanks!

[@GospelTangents]

You may be interested in another lawyer, John Dinger, who has written on the subject that Joseph's denials were legal denials, not religious denials. See kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y5eZg3ShmK6Ihq8

[@aritzlizarragaolascoaga6254]

How about this? We are the bride and we’re the 10 virgins. Then the 10 virgins are ten brides, a plural marriage. Otherwise why the bride is never mentioned in the parable of the ten virgins? Moreover, why are they virgins if they’re not the brides? Who cares about the sexual status of invitees unless they’re brides? They’re not just simple invitees, but main characters, the brides.

[@steventurner3042]

Please have Jeremy Hoop on your podcast to discuss this important topic.

[@GospelTangents]

As soon as he publishes something in a peer reviewed journal, he is welcome to come on my show.

[@SeekTruth-f6d]

@@GospelTangents Rick it wouldn't matter if he published anything in any "peer reviewed journal", you have already made up your mind on the subject. In one of your previous video where you were talking to Brian Hales you stated that anyone claiming Joseph was a monogamist were morons.

[@GospelTangents]

​@@SeekTruth-f6d ​@SeekTruth-f6d I don't recall saying that, but I have always had a standing policy that if a skeptic wants to publish in a peer reviewed journal, they are welcome to come on my show. If you watch the last 15 minutes of this video I said that on camera. No skeptic so far has accepted the challenge.

[@ajenks9]

Very much enjoyed this conversation with Mark! Thank you Rick! As Mark argues that it’s basically impossible to have no bias about whether Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, it really basically boils down to whether you believe the words Joseph was recorded as saying about it during the time that he was alive. And that’s what this new movement is realizing. One thing that was brought up about the problem of evidence for polygamy skeptics is they have to provide “substantially more” speculation than the polygamy advocates. Let’s apply that to the idea of Joseph teaching and practicing polygamy in secret and lying about it in public. I think everyone can agree that the Book of Mormon, Joseph’s translation of the Old Testament, the articles in the Times and Seasons, the original Section 101 of the Doctrine and Covenants, are demonstrably “Joseph Smith approved” documents for what his public position was on polygamy and what he felt God authorized. At the very least, Joseph was a monogamist publicly. So, for Joseph privately practicing and teaching polygamy, and trying to keep it secret - you could argue that there is heck of a lot more speculation than not to support that position. It begs some questions. How did people who knew of Joseph’s private polygamy reconcile his public condemnation of the practice? Advocates would argue that they would expose Joseph publicly. So, then it begs more questions: Is there a start and end to Joseph’s secrecy and who knew of it and when? Is there evidence that Joseph made those he taught it to, or practiced it with, be sworn to secrecy? Did he invoke God in the secrecy? Is there evidence even after his death that shows Joseph believed or taught that God authorized his lying about the practice while breaking the law for it? Was Joseph lying to Emma about it? If so, for how long? If Section 132 was the key to proving the divine authorization of polygamy, did the secrecy get lifted then? Or at what point does the secrecy get lifted by those practicing it and believing it was of God? So, if you believe Joseph practiced and taught polygamy at all, you must admit that you don’t believe his words from that point on as a divinely authorized servant , and would probably be considered be a fallen prophet. I still haven’t even seen very much evidence that he tried to keep his polygamy a secret when claims of such were denounced publicly. In fact, didn’t Austin Cowles claim that it was being taught in the church? Finally, the point that Mark makes about “internal inconsistency” between Hyrum and Joseph’s denial is false. According to Willard Richards’ record, Joseph preached from the temple stand “showing the order in ancient days having nothing to do with the present time.”

[@Zeett09]

I’m not LDS but it seems that “secrecy” is a very important word for Mormonism. Looks to me that Smith started the secrecy component of the faith and it has carried forward to today.

[@GospelTangents]

You basically ignored all the evidence he gave, including evidence from people who hated Brigham Young.

[@GospelTangents]

@Zeett09 Mormons don't have a monopoly on "secrecy." "Secrecy" is important for anyone doing anything illegal like polygamy was/is.

[@Zeett09]

@ I just know that when I asked in the 1970’s about the temple goings on they said they could not tell me. I just didn’t understand why. Why is it so secret? I don’t think other faiths have secret ceremonies. I could be wrong. I come from a Catholic background where all the ceremonies are open to the public. It felt like Mormons had a layer of their faith that was not supposed to be shared with non members.

[@ajenks9]

⁠@@GospelTangentsProvide an example that I ignored.

[@trainwreck656]

So important to listen to his disclaimers up front. So basically lawyer opinions don’t apply and back to historical analysis. As for not polarizing, not going to happen when discussing this issue. Personally not accepting polygamy in any form, in any realm. If you want to prove that Joseph was a false person then you will reap that harvest.

[@scottvance74]

What is a false person? Joseph Smith (like every other human) was prone to lying in order to create the best possible public image of himself. Just because a person lies on one topic does not make them inherently evil or a liar on all topics. In the case of Joseph, there is significant evidence that he was not truthful regarding polygamy. There is also evidence that he could not interpret Egyptian characters correctly (book of Abraham project). Lastly, there is little evidence that the "reformed egyptian" characters he claimed to transcribe (i.e. the characters document) are ancient or meaningful. In spite of all of this, many people find meaning in his writings and teachings.

[@GospelTangents]

Mark is nicer to polygamy skeptics than most, that's for sure. You basically ignored all the evidence he gave.

[@SeekTruth-f6d]

@@GospelTangents "polygamy skeptics"?

[@matthewtolman5598]

From the very beginning, both you and your guest conflate when evidence is created and when that evidence is discovered and used. Not the big "gotcha" you think it is.

[@GospelTangents]

From the very beginning, you offer no specifics.