Joseph Smith’s Trial and Error Approach to Plural Marriage

[@Commenter2121]

You guys are heavily speculating here, like all historians do regarding Fanny Alger. You made the case that we can’t trust the McClellan or Hancock accounts, and that Oliver had to admit that he had no knowledge regarding an affair. Yet, then you go on to present this narrative as fact. This is right out of the Brian Hales playbook, Joseph did not have an affair with or marry Fanny.

[@MaddJacks]

“No coercion or force”, except Emma. I can’t believe all these third accounts make this believable. So many people lied, yet we believe them and not Joseph, and not Emma.

[@Kait272]

why don't you guys bother getting the timeline right? according to you Emma allowed joseph to marry 4 women and 'teach them the principle' (according to emily partridge)..... two months BEFORE this revelation was allegedly shown to emma. How does emma not know about the revelation and be able to teach it? Lets be honest about the contradictions here.

[@n.d.m.515]

The revelation was shown to Emma to have a written presentation that officializes the principal. The revelation had already been given and taught, but not put down on paper.

[@Kait272]

@@n.d.m.515 You have been lied too. Hyrum clearly denounced the entire story on april 8, 1844 in his general confrence talk...... have you read it?

[@truleecarpenter6917]

My friend became the 2nd wife when the first wife died young. She had a few children of her own and raised them along with the children of the 1st wife, Her husband gets to have both his wives in the eternities. My Aunt was left a widow with 4 kids when she was just 24 years old. She was sealed to her 1st husband. She remarried and spent 60 years with her 2nd husband. She made her kids promise to seal her to her 2nd husband following her and her 2nd husband's deaths. According to what we have been taught in the church, she will have to choose between her husbands. We are told that God is no respecter of persons. How is it fair for Gods sons to have more privileges than his daughters ( when it comes to the number of eternal spouses one can have)? That just doesn't seem right. I don't buy the argument that because of biology and time having 2 husbands isn't feasible in the eternities. Time is a mortal thing. If you have endless eternities to produce children, time isn't a factor. I will feel good about polygamy when both genders have the same rights and privileges.

[@littleredhen3218]

It may be that it will be just like Jesus said. They neither marry or are given in marriage.

[@michaelservetus5340]

@@littleredhen3218 In the Bible, the verb to "marry" describes what a man could do to become married, and the verb phrase to be "given in marriage" describes what would need to.occur in order for a woman to become married. So, when a father traditionally gives away the bride, that is when a woman is "given in marriage." You may or may not already understand, but the statement you referred to by Jesus is that in the resurrection (following the resurrection) men can no longer GET married as they could prior to the resurrection and women can no longer BE GIVEN in marriage as they could prior to the resurrection. Jesus did not say in any way that marriages for eternity would no longer be in effect in the resurrection.

[@davidtorbenson4686]

The "restitution of all things" angle makes no sense to me. Yes, it was practiced in the OT- though never articulated as a specific revelation. Then, the Savior came, and fulfilled the law - and instituted a higher law- and the New Testament clearly speaks against polygamy. Missionaries for decades gave the analogy of the Savior setting up his church when he was on the earth (like a mirror) - which broke like a mirror when the apostles and prophets were killed - and then His gospel was restored through Joseph Smith - bringing back the mirror that the Savior setup (which was after polygamy was done away with). I find it interesting that the angel would appear to Joseph - but not to Emma or any of the women/girls he was attempting to persuade. When I think of the Fanny Alger and Eliza R Snow debacles, I think of D&C 132:8.

[@michaelhutchings6602]

I see a lot of assumptions in your claims but no evidence.

[@StompMom5]

@michaelhutchings6602 What I'm continually amazed by are the amount of men defending this practice with all their might. I never realized we were...indeed a church of male hormones. I've been shocked at some of the comments I have read on other channels. I guess heaven will be eternal pleasure for the men. I don't know why I'm so surprised by the amount of men defending this. I mean....it seems God created women to be breeding cattle and prizes for righteous men. Yay.......🥳🥳🥳🥳. Heaven or hell.... at that point I'm not seeing much difference. In heaven the men have all they want while women wait in line(barf) in hell both get what they want🤦‍♀️ Ugh.......

[@andrewdurfee3896]

I know from doing some of my family history that angels did appear to women, sorry but your claim is just false.

[@RecoveringUGrad]

Uh…Christ never did away with polygamy and was never actually part of the law of Moses…which is what I believe you are referring to as “the law”. If I am wrong, then let me know, but I can’t imagine how you could be thinking of anything else because it was indeed the lesser law aka the law of carnal commandments/law of Moses that Christ fulfilled.he also said not one jot or title has passed away nor would it until all things are fulfilled and the earth has passed away…well, that hasn’t happened. Keep in mind that Moses was a descendent of Jacob/israel which means polygamy predated the law of Moses and went condemned. It’s condemned when criteria isn’t met. Matt 8:10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. 11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. So how is it that the kingdom of heaven is going to have thrones for the three great patriarchs who were also polygamists? Christ didn’t condemn them, yet you do. Where is polygamy clearly condemned in the New Testament? Pauls writing about a bishop only having one wife? That’s good advice. I can’t imagine being a bishop with multiple families. Besides, the office of bishop is an Aaronic priesthood calling. Was Christ mistaken or should he have run it by you first?

[@RecoveringUGrad]

And yet women rejected Joseph’s proposal and were free to do so. Your anti-mormon propaganda doesn’t talk about that along with a lot of things

[@JonLeavitt]

If prophets have to "figure it out" then are the prophets today also figuring it out? How would one know if anything ever said or done in the church has it figured out already before immense damage is caused and innocent people are irreparably harmed?

[@JonLeavitt]

@RecoveringUGrad A solid track record is also a wonderful guideline. There are a lot of people who don't ruin the lives of others. Those people would be a great start! Good luck!

[@n.d.m.515]

Moses didn't figure it out, and was kept out of the promised land. Peter and the Apostles didn't figure it out and had to learn much more after the Resurrection of Jesus. Even after that, Peter didn't figure it out and was accused of Paul for ignoring the non-Jewish believers. The only perfect person on this earth was Jesus Christ.

[@JonLeavitt]

@n.d.m.515 Great. According to your reply, people should just follow Jesus and ignore everyone else because anyone else is just as likely to harm you than to help you since Jesus hasn't revealed all to them yet. Thanks!

[@n.d.m.515]

​@@JonLeavittTo be honest, if Jesus was here on Earth that would be completely correct. However, Jesus isn't here on Earth at the moment, so we are left with his mortal imperfect representatives.

[@JonLeavitt]

@n.d.m.515 I appreciate the honesty. According to this paradigm though, at least some (if not most) are better off not following people who claim to speak for God and instead just focus on finding the route that connects them to God.

[@RealCleanFloors]

Perhaps it would have been better to fellowship the husband, rather then just seal the wife to another man do she could meet the everlasting covenant of marriage? If it is true doctrine. Why don't we still seal women in part member marriages to other men? It is all just too much to believe?

[@n.d.m.515]

Because it is still illegal. None of the polygamist marriages were considered a secular relationship, but the State still considered them marriages worthy of legal action against them.

[@MariaCandelaful]

When I was a Sunday School teacher for young members of the church, I had to postpone the lesson about plural marriage. I could not understand why the Lord this important revelation which brought so much trouble to the people at that time. I prayed and fasted about the topic and I received this answer: “Because Joseph Smith is the Prophet who has the keys of the restoration of all things in this dispensation.”. After this, I could give the lesson to the young members.

[@MaddJacks]

What is the purpose of sealing these women, who are already married, to Joseph? We have the beautiful doctrine, real doctrine of baptisms for the dead. These women could have been sealed for time and all eternity to their non-member legally and lawfully wed husbands, whom they chose in this life. Isn’t that one of the purpose for the work of the dead? And to say Joseph wasn’t given instructions by God on such an essential doctrine is ridiculous. Look at the detail he was given in restoring the priesthood. There is no way God would leave him in the dark when it came to his most important earthly relationship. And please don’t say it the Abraham faith thing. Abraham didn’t have to go through with it, our ancestors did. No faith comparison at all. I never use to care about this topic, but the more excuses I hear, the more twisted the story gets, the more journals I read, the more I know this is not of God. I can’t believe the angel and the sword came from one source. You guys just gave me one more reason to doubt.

[@phenomePaul]

You guys are brave for taking this on 💪 Thanks for what you're doing

[@MariaCandelaful]

Thank you for bring light to this controversial topic in the history of the church! ❤

[@JAMMMVR]

I love this episode I wish it was in Spanish too!

[@jeffreyelliottcruz8095]

This was noteworthy but I was somewhat curiously unsatisfying .My intuition was certainly not based upon Joseph's nor Oliver's character and conduct. The problem I have is that our Lord commands Joseph " to do the works of Abraham" and enter into a new and everlasting covenant. Clearly, at least to most people within the context of a new and everlasting covenant of marriage and to follow the works of Abraham, the law of Abraham and the great Patriarchs must be complied with pursuant to the command of the God of Abraham. This means that Joseph and certain other Saints literally had a new moral standard he ask the brethren, specifically, out this stage to comply. Understandably, the 2nd Elder of the church was reticenced to comply. The record from numerous sources appear to indicate Emma was openly hostile and if some accounts are to be believed a little violent. This would account for both Joseph's well known nobility in character and for his reluctance to fully inform Emma of all the facts. Most men have approached their wives with fear and trepidation on issues particular to inflaming and igniting a woman's passion. Better to wait for hopefully a more advantageous time. ( Which in the case of a very Victorian women with polygamy is probably never if one would desire to experience a moment's peace) In the mid 1800's even on the fringes of frontier America the morals, customs and traditions of the Victorian era was , in fact, the prevailing customs and operating morals among descent civilized society of the time. Polygamy was a practice the heathen Indians engaged in not civilized European society. And yet, the God of the great Patriarchs was asking the prophet Joseph to restore an ancient law and practice he really was not prepared to implement not fully understood and simply at that time didn't even approve. Hence, I believe wherein many of us fail , including, many authorities in the church is attempting to defend the prophet Joseph actions and conduct and the justification for polygamy within the context of western values. I believe this has been a voluminous mistake. Why? Well, because it is well known the prophet was a restorationist and the church was not a reformation ecclesiastical institution, but took great pride and care of defining herself as a restorationist church. In fact, the main LDS Church is considered by many as the flag ship of the restoration movement and the offshoots are well respected branches of the American restoration movement. Given those circumstances it is rather natural that the LDS restorationist movement restore the ancient laws and practices of the Great Patriarchs and the great High Priest Melchzhedick. Once such a restorationist foundation is appropriately laid, it becomes very clear that the prophet Joseph was attempting to practice and implement the ancient morals, customs and laws of Abraham. In terms of D&C 132 Victorian morays and customs were simply obsolete and just did not apply. Did Joseph misstep falling into embarrassing errors in the initial execution of the restoration of the laws of Abraham. Obviously, yes. The worse approach is to attempt to justify his behavior in terms of traditional western Victorian concepts and attitudes. Joseph will most probably come out the loser by that yard stick every time. Nonetheless, if one utilizes the laws, morals and customs of the era of the great Patriarchs one comes much closer to the intent behind the prophet Josephs personal conduct. Joseph was a restorationist and not a reformist. He should not be measured by Victorian standards but rather by Abrahamic standards. As an example, under the customs and common eccleslitical morals of the Victorian era, the prophet Joseph was an adulterer. The more one uses Victorian standards as a means of defense the worse it appears as so aptly indicated by Emma and Oliver. However, within the context of the workings of Abraham Joseph's conduct, although, awkward at first it was certainly not immoral nor adulterous. It is well settled pursuant to ancient law that a Patrarch did not commit adultery if he married a second, third , fourth wife. Also, if the first husband of a subsequent plural wife failed in his obligation of support, sexual relations to produce issue the second husband did not commit adultery because the first husband failed in his duty to protect, produce offspring etc. In fact, this may be a large part of the motivation for Abraham to lie to the Moabite traders lest the kill Abraham for failing to provide his duty to protect Sarai. A defense of our prophet is near possible utilizing Victorian standards as the measurement of morality. However , applying the moral and legal standards of Abraham and Melchzhedick, the prophet Joseph conduct is readily defensible and affirmatively justified.

[@littleredhen3218]

Eloquently written but false. I have to tell you that I just loved reading your comment. Very eloquent. But I disagree. First of all what do you mean by Melchizedek? Was he a polygamous patriarch? 2nd, where in the Bible did Abraham "live polygamy? Outside of cultural custom, that a married childless woman of means can toss her handmaid or shall I say bondwoman to her husband to perhaps " get a child by her"? God did not command Abraham. Or Jacob for that matter. They were both manipulated by their wife in order to get a baby! Which in Sarai's case backfired on her and she told her husband "thy WRONG be upon me!! In other words it was wrong on all accounts. No more children ensued via Abram and Hagar. Just the one, Ishmael. Not more. That means Abraham did cease and desist from sexual MARRITAL relations. The intended goal was accomplished. Trouble was Ishmael was NOT THE PROMISED SEED. FAIL. From them on some big changes take place. Abraham and Sarah get a new name. LDS will recognize this. Abraham is forgiven, Sarah miraculously conceives at the age of 90 the promised seed and Hagar and her son, are kicked out. God sanctioned! Abraham and Sarai are still in a monogamous marriage and remain like that for the rest of their lives. Hagar was not a wife by LDS standards. No patriarchal marriage going on here. Hagar was briefly called a wife by Sarai to justify the deed long enough to get a kid. She ended up not getting the kid. No covenant child there. They both should have waited on the Lord in that case. Fertility would have come along by miracle of God eventually. No surrogacy needed

[@littleredhen3218]

Oh the webs of lies we weave. The continuation of lies and deception perpetuated on and on and on...... Voices for the great deceiver just keep that narrative going. Regurgitate the lies, continue to confuse and lead souls astray.... You won't even be held accountable because you repeat these lies in ignorance.

[@devinhildebrandt2709]

What are you yapping about dude

[@josemonogamiaopoligamia7220]

Más terrible.

[@ClintThomsen]

Hold up… your very feminist colleague was a great example? Bro, don’t be part of the problem at BYU.

[@RyanMercer]

😊