Church Essays on Polygamy

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
RAB
captain of 100
Posts: 175

Re: Church Essays on Polygamy

Post by RAB »

jim wrote: November 14th, 2017, 12:05 pm Rensai, I'd recommend reading Andrew Ehat's essay - Joseph Smiths Introduction of Temple Ordinances
https://archive.org/details/EhatIntroOf ... rdinances2

I've struggled with the question of polygamy for a long time. I've read all of the Joseph Fought Polgamy books, and articles. I've tried to look up all scriptures talking about it (the closest you can get justifying it by scriptures alone apart from D&C 132 seem to be 2 Sam 12:1-8, Jacob 2:30, 2 Nephi 14:1). I'm not going to cite scriptures against it, or the bad examples against it because they're a lot more numerous. I just wanted to say I read the above essay and it made me at least consider it's possible the Lord can command it. It *might* be required under certain circumstances (only if the Lord ever commands it though, otherwise Adam, and Noah couldn't have been saved without it). I'm not sure if it was commanded, but I realized for me, I only need to do the things the Lord is commanding me now, and worrying about it now won't do me any good.
I also recommend Reluctant Polygamist by Meg Strout. The main thesis of the book is that Joseph was reluctant to practice it, but due to the spiritual wifery that was being practiced by John Bennett and others, and due to being commanded to, he used the true principle of plural marriage to shed light on it to those who were most vulnerable (widows and single sisters). Though some claimed to have had his children, it is very likely that he never consummated any of the marriages, because none of the women who were sealed to him ever bore children, unless they were already married to someone else. And of those children born to women married to others, none of them matched Joseph's DNA.

Some might struggle with the idea that Joseph sealed himself to other women, but of those he sealed himself to, they either had non-member husbands or husbands who had been excommunicated. Since being sealed to Joseph was a way to be a part of the New and Everlasting Covenant, the women wanted to be a part of the covenant and obviously questioned whether their husbands could ever get them there. One of the husbands even encouraged it because he thought it was all gibberish, but would make his wife happy. None of the husbands ever became upset at Joseph. It is most likely that Emma felt that plural marriage should not include sexual relations, and though 132 is clear that it can, it is likely that Joseph never consummated the marriages in respect of Emma's feelings. The dearth of DNA evidence which has debunked all claims that Joseph sired children with his wives, the view that birth control was evil (and people got arrested back then for even publishing about it), and the lack of any birth control in any event, make it extremely unlikely that Joseph ever consummated those sealings. Joseph never had problems getting Emma pregnant, and almost all the women he was sealed to had children with their husbands or the men they married after Joseph's death.

A further problem when reading historical accounts is that people often interchanged the term spiritual wifery with plural marriage or polygamy. Spiritual wifery was the idea that John C. Bennett and other men used to seduce widows, single sisters, and even Orson Pratt's wife while he was on his mission. These foul beings taught that if you had illicit sex and "no man knew" it was okay. That was the very thing Joseph and Emma tried to root out by teaching the correct principle of plural marriage. The big divide between Emma and Brigham was that Brigham understood what section 132 meant, that seed could be raised up through the plural wives, but Emma rejected it. But she definitely knew about Joseph's marriages and was even a part of the ceremony of some of them, and was fine with them so long as they did not include conjugal relations. So when Emma rejected polygamy or that Joseph ever practiced it, she was probably rejecting the idea that Joseph had sexual relations with those wives. And when Joseph claimed he was not a polygamist, well he may have been telling the truth at the time. In the context of sexual relations, that may be completely true. It could be further true if he was speaking about polygamy in the sense of spiritual wifery that Bennett was teaching.

Anyway, the truth is often far more complex than people would like to admit. For that reason, I highly recommend the book, Reluctant Polygamist. It tends to put things in context. The author was also one who always struggled with Joseph's polygamy. She did not set out to vindicate his character, but I think that is exactly what she has done. I think it also explains why Brigham and Emma had a falling out. Common belief is that it is because Emma thought Joseph Smith the III should be the prophet. He was just too young for that to really be a consideration. It is more likely the difference between how Brigham Young and she both considered plural marriage, Brigham understanding 132 to mean conjugal relations in that marriage are fine, and Emma rejecting that idea.

All that being said, while it is an interesting historical discussion, I have a testimony that both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were prophets. I had to ask the question about Brigham Young in order to understand that the true Church did successfully transition from Joseph to Brigham. Brigham Young may not have been perfect, nor was Joseph, but each was perfectly suited to their mission--Joseph to restore the gospel, and Brigham to be the example of how Church leadership succession would take place (following the example in the New Testament of filling vacancies of the apostleship, by the way) and lead the Mormons west to settle in the Rockies. That both men were suited for those missions there can be little doubt based on the results.

User avatar
sandman45
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1562

Re: Church Essays on Polygamy

Post by sandman45 »

Some of these statements could have been fabricated too like you said of the others about Joseph. Where is the proof ?

We have a fake revelation in 132.. ok where is the proof that it is fake? What about the unpublished revelations from John Taylor? or ones from John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and Orson Pratt? were those fake? or just left out because it didn't comply with the current desires of the saints at the time?

see https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/unpu ... day-saints

*Just asking questions not trying to attack :D *

I don't think I had seen some of these quotes and stuff you have mentioned before so thanks.

gardener4life
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1690

Re: Church Essays on Polygamy

Post by gardener4life »

I don't understand why you guys think you can argue against truth with created fictions. That' not how truth works. Truth is immovable and light from Heavenly Father. and if something is true its solid that you build on. You can't just decide to not follow it and create your own truth. Humans can't create our own truth, we can only follow what's given to us from God. I see a lot of people on this forum that ridiculously think they can create their own truths to justify not wanting to follow the real truth. You can see it in some comments above and on other posts. That's really not right. You are on shaky ground when you do that.

User avatar
Rensai
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1340

Re: Church Essays on Polygamy

Post by Rensai »

sandman45 wrote: November 14th, 2017, 4:22 pm We have a fake revelation in 132.. ok where is the proof that it is fake?
Well I could turn that question around and say where is the proof that it is real? But let me try to answer your question as best as I can.

One key that Joseph Smith taught in regards of knowing if a revelation came from God or not is whether or not it contradicts previous revelation from God or not.
How it may be asked was this known to be a bad angel? … by his contradicting a former revelation. – Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons 3, April 1, 1842
Many other leaders have reiterated the same thing. Here is another example.
“It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine” (Doctrines of Salvation,3:203).

Its also in the bible:
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8–9)
So on that basis, I think its actually fairly easy to disprove section 132. Lets look at some of the contradictions it contains. This isn't a comprehensive list, just the things I can think of right now as I quickly scan through section 132.

Starting with verse 1:
1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—

First problem. Isaac was not a polygamist. For a human to list him as one like his father and son is understandable, but for a revelation from God it is unacceptable and contradicts revealed scripture.

Second problem. God did not justify David and Solomon, just the opposite. Jacob 2:24
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
Doesn't sound like they are justified to me.

Third, it accuses Moses on polygamy and later in verse 38 it adds that he received many concubines.
38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.
This doesn't hold up. The bible makes it pretty clear Moses' first wife died before he took a second and there is no record of any concubines at all. As another piece of evidence, consider Jacob 2. The wicked Nephites are trying to justify polygamy based on David and Solomon. However, Moses was a far greater figure than either David or Solomon. If they had had any record or any indication that he was a polygamist, surely they would have used him as well to justify their polygamy.

Ok, next lets look at verse 26.
26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God.
This goes against so many scriptures. One of my favorite is 2 Nephi 28:8
2 Nephi 28:8 And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—HE WILL JUSTIFY IN COMMITTING A LITTLE SIN; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and IF IT SO BE THAT WE ARE GUILTY, GOD WILL BEAT US WITH A FEW STRIPES, AND AT LAST WE SHALL BE SAVED IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
2 Nephi 28 is telling us about practices of the wicked in the last days and this false doctrine is EXACTLY what section 132 is teaching.

Verse 34 and 35:
34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.

35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.

It says God commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife but Genesis 16:2 says:
2 And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.

We can further disprove that this was ever commanded by God by simply looking at the outcome. After Hagar bore Ishmael, not once did God acknowledge him as Abraham's son. He refused to give him the covenant. Further, this caused great hardship on all of them and Hagar and Ishmael were eventually banished, where they would have died, had not God felt sorry for them and intervened. After that, they went their separate ways. There was absolutely no good outcome from this encounter and no reason to reject the bible's account and believe God commanded it.

Now Verse 39:
39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

It says David's only sin was in the matter of Uriah and his wife. Again that contradicts Jacob 2.
38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.
verse 61-63:
61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.
For this verse, I just want to point out that the early polygamists espoused many women that were at the time married to other men or had been and certainly weren't virgins, making them all adulterer's who will be destroyed I guess. Further, they often married women without obtaining consent of the other wives. These things are all well documented. One quick example that I have handy, they accuse Joseph of marrying a woman who was already married and pregnant at the time of her marriage to Joseph, making them adulterers if it were true.
Mormon Historian Andrew Jenson published the names of twenty-seven women whom he alleged were Joseph's plural wives. Mary Elizabeth Rollins is listed as one of them (ibid., 234).

LDS genealogical records show that Mary Elizabeth Rollins was the wife of Adam Lightner, the mother of two little children, and was eight months pregnant with her third child in February 1842, the month in which LDS historians claim that she and Joseph were wed.

Mary Lightner made claims of angels who had allegedly visited her and Joseph, and directed both in the doctrine of plural marriage. Her statements were readily accepted in Utah, because she claimed that Brigham Young had married her to Joseph in 1842. Although she was living with and cohabiting with her husband, Adam Lightner, she had been sealed as a plural wife to Brigham Young for time in January 1846 (see John J. Stewart, Brigham Young and His Wives: And The True Story of Plural Marriage [Salt Lake City, Utah: Mercury Publishing Company, Inc., 1961], 89; see also Vision, December 2008, 25).
On to the next verse:
64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.
Wow, so much for agency. What about D&C 121:41?

D&C 121:41
41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
Ok, there's probably more, but that's what I came up with while quickly reading through section 132 for this post. Here are a few more problems with polygamy that the church or anyone here has ever been able to properly answer.

1) Why would Joseph have been commanded to practice polygamy to "raise up seed to the lord" when in fact, DNA testing shows he had no children except through Emma? Many now claim that he didn't actually have sex with any of these wives, but that doesn't help justify polygamy, that only explains the lack of Children. So why?

2) The official excuse is from the misinterpretation of Jacob 2:30. The church has often claimed that there were more women than men in the church so God commanded polygamy to "raise up seed." There are several problems with this excuse. First, I've already shown in past posts that census and church membership records both show that there were more men in the church at that time than women. Every woman could have her own husband. Further, in a strict comparison of 1 monogamous woman vs 1 polygamous woman, the monogamous woman will produce more children.
by Stephanie Pappas, Live Science Contributor | February 28, 2011

The Mormon shift from polygamy to monogamy in the 1800s reduced sexual pressures on men by more than half, according to a new study.

The change closed the reproductive gap between men with many wives and men with none. It also brought men’s competition for wives in line with wives’ competition for husbands.

The research also revealed that while polygamous men had dozens of children, the practice of having multiple wives (and thus sexual partners) had the opposite effect on women: For every wife added to the fold, the average number of children per wife dropped by one.

“The more wives a woman’s husband has, the fewer children she is going to have personally,” study author Michael Wade, a biologist at Indiana University Bloomington, told LiveScience. “That’s interesting, and evolutionary biologists would say then that polygamy is good for males and maybe not so good for females.”

Wade and his colleagues reported their findings in the March issue of the journal Evolution and Human Behavior.

Source:

Jacob A. Moorad, Daniel E.L. Promislow, Ken R. Smith, & Michael J. Wade, Mating System Change Reduces the Strength of Sexual Selection in an American Frontier Population of the 19th Century, 32 Evolution & Human Behavior 147 (March 2011).

http://www.livescience.com/13010-polyga ... women.html

I've already explained how Jacob 2:30 is read wrong, but here's something I came across last night that is interesting.

In Mosiah 21:17 it says:
17 Now there was a great number of women, more than there was of men; therefore king Limhi commanded that every man should impart to the support of the widows and their children, that they might not perish with hunger; and this they did because of the greatness of their number that had been slain.

The first interesting thought is that despite having a great number more women than men, instead of ordering polygamy, Limhi order the people to be more charitable and help support the widows. He did not tell them to start practicing polygamy, nor did any other BoM leader.

I also started thinking that this must have been pretty common among the Nephites with their constant state of war with the Lamanites. Perhaps not often to the same degree as Limhi's people, but to some extent, I would think its very likely there was commonly more women than men in their society, yet not once did they try to take advantage of the church's supposed Jacob 2:30 loophole and practice polygamy. To me that strongly suggests that they knew of no such loophole and understood Jacob 2:30 differently.

3) Jacob 2:23. All you pro-polygamy people keep ignoring it, yet it is as plain and clear as scripture can be.
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.
They understand not the scriptures. The scriptures do not support polygamy. Section 132 does. We are taught to reject it then because it contradicts scripture.

4) Now consider jacob 2:31-32
31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.

32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.
In order for God to command polygamy in the early church, we have to suppose that God loved his Nephite daughters more than those in the early church. Certainly the women living polygamy in the early days of the church suffered greatly. If God didn't want the Nephites doing polygamy because of the sorrow it caused his daughters, why would he want it in the early church?

5) Not only does the church's official history accuse Joseph of Polygamy, but also Polyandry and Pedophilia as well. Justify that if you can.

6) One last point. All you really need to consider to reject polygamy is a decent understanding of God's laws. God's laws complement and build upon each other to guide us towards perfection in smaller, easier steps. All his laws work this way, but I will use adultery as an example since it is the most relevant to the discussion.

The first law God gave on that topic was very basic, don't commit adultery. Without that, you really couldn't even have any kind of proper marriage. But we all know, even living that, there is plenty of room to hurt our spouses and be unfaithful. Flirting with someone at work, looking at porn, etc. Many things that are hurtful are allowed under that basic law. Living that lesser law is far better than no law, but still leaves much room for improvement.

Christ gave the higher law. Do not look upon a woman (or man) to lust after them. Now consider, the flirting, the porn, etc are all forbidden. Its harder to live, it sounds very restrictive, but the result is happier, better marriages. Its easy to see how this builds upon the lesser law that forbids adultery. We are slowly training and building towards perfection.

Finally of course, the ultimate goal is to fully live the first two great commandments. The rest are just baby steps towards that. Polygamy however, fails to live up to these laws in at least two big ways. First, it directly contradicts the higher law. No way you can go looking for more wives without lusting after other women. Secondly, it completely fails to live up to the second greatest commandment. Love your neighbor as yourself, or treat others as you want to be treated. Other than a few mental cases, no man on earth wants to share his wife. I know I certainly don't. Polygamy completely fails to treat the wives the way the men would want to be treated and thus is completely incompatible with the second great commandment.

OK, I'm done. Sorry that was so long. I hope some of you find this interesting. :D
Last edited by Rensai on November 15th, 2017, 6:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

Re: Church Essays on Polygamy

Post by Arenera »

Joseph received from God D&C 132.

Who wrote D&C 132
The provenance of LDS section 132 is sometimes criticized by those who believe Joseph Smith was a monogamist. Available manuscript data provides a credible historical background for the document that is today published in the LDS Doctrine and Covenants. William Clayton recorded in his journal that he wrote the original revelation on July 12, 1843 as it was dictated to him by the Prophet:

This A.M, I wrote a Revelation consisting of 10 pages on the order of the priesthood, showing the designs in Moses, Abraham, David and Solomon having many wives and concubines &c. After it was wrote Presidents Joseph and Hyrum presented it and read it to E[mma] who said she did not believe a word of it and appeared very rebellious.

Then one or two days later, Newell K. Whitney requested permission to have a copy made. Joseph C. Kingsbury described the copying process in 1886:

Bishop Newel K. Whitney handed me the Revelation… the day [after] it was written or the day following and stating what it was asked me to make a copy of it. I did so, and then read my copy of it to Bishop Whitney, who compared it with the original to which he held in his hand while I read to him. When I had finished reading, Bishop Whitney pronounced the copy correct and Hyrum Smith came into the room at the time to fetch the original. Bishop Whitney handed it to him. I will also state that this copy, as also the original are identically the same as published in the present edition [1876] of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants.

Sometime thereafter, Willard Richards made a copy of the Kingsbury manuscript.

The Richards and Kingsbury copies can be viewed here.

The existence of the Kingsbury copy was fortunate because the original Clayton document was destroyed within weeks of its creation.

In the months following its being committed to paper, multiple Nauvooans learned about the revelation and its contents. William Law reported in the Nauvoo Expositor published June 7, 1844:

I hereby certify that Hyrum Smith did, (in his office,) read to me a certain written document, which he said was a revelation from God, he said that he was with Joseph when it was received. He afterwards gave me the document to read, and I took it to my house, and read it, and showed it to my wife, and returned it next day. the revelation (so called) authorized certain men to have more wives than one at a time, in this world and in the world to come.

Jane Law signed a similar affidavit.[6] Others left records referring to the revelation with many saying they either handled it or heard it read to them. Mercy Rachel Thompson stated that she was privileged to keep the written revelation "some four or five days. Something like that." Lucy Walker testified that she saw the revelation "at the Nauvoo Mansion" where she was living.

Several documents affirm that the revelation was read to the Nauvoo High Council. One member, David Fullmer described what happened: "Dunbar Wilson made inquiry in relation to the subject of plurality of wives, as there were rumors about respecting it, and he was satisfied there was something in those rumors, and he wanted to know what it was. Upon which Hyrum Smith stepped across the road to his residence, and soon returned bringing with him a copy of the revelation on celestial marriage given to Joseph Smith July 12, 1843, and read the same to the High Council, and bore testimony to its truth." Seven other Nauvoo High Councilors and stake leaders, James Allred, Thomas Grover, William Huntington, Aaron Johnson, Leonard Soby, and Austin Cowles, left similar records.

Another witness of the revelation's existence is Cyrus Wheelock who recounted how Joseph Smith "had that revelation read to a group of three or four or five together" by his clerk.[11] He added: "there was a few of us in the woods, getting out of the way and we were talking and I heard about it." Others who recorded similar testimony were John Hawley, Franklin D. Richards, Ebenezer Robinson, James Leithead, Charles Smith, Mary Ann West, John Taylor, Jane Snyder Richards, and Charles Lambert.

Apostle George A. Smith reported in 1871: "In 1843 the law on celestial marriage was written, but not published, and was known only to perhaps one or two hundred persons." The quantity of testimonies from both believers and unbelievers regarding a revelation dictated by Joseph Smith in the summer of 1843 is important evidence that a document dealing with polygamy then existed.

Some critics contend that at some point the Kingsbury copy was changed, ostensibly by Brigham Young or under his direction. Evidence for this theory is thin. Historian Lyndon Cook described what happened next to the Kingsbury manuscript: "Newel K. Whitney preserved the Kingsbury copy of the revelation. In March of 1847, at Winter Quarters, Brigham Young asked Bishop Whitney for the Kingsbury copy, which transcript was published in 1852." In 1885, Helen Mar Kimball explained what occurred at Winter Quarters:

Sunday, the 14th [March 1847], my husband [Horace Whitney] penned in his journal: "By father's request I went and copied an important document, which took me the greater part of the day and into the night." The revelation on plural marriage was the "document" referred to, the bishop having the only one in existence, which he afterwards gave to President Young, retaining a copy.

March 14, 1847, entry in Horace Whitney's journal.

If emendations were made by Brigham Young, they would have occurred after he took possession of the document in March 1847.

However, the widespread knowledge of the revelation would have made successfully altering it more difficult. Success would have required a widespread intrigue involving many individuals. Kingsbury would have needed to collaborate by penning an altered (or new) revelation as directed by Brigham Young because Section 132 is a transcription of his manuscript and shows no sign of editing. (See video above of Kingsbury manuscript.)

While many Nauvoo polygamists may not have remembered details of the revelation, many other members were still alive who were familiar enough with its message to detect alterations.

Contemporaneous evidence corroborates some details in the Kingsbury copy. The testimonies of William and Jane Law as published in the Nauvoo Expositor, that the original revelation "authorized certain men to have more wives than one at a time, in this world and in the world to come," dovetail with Law's later recollections.

When asked in 1887, "What do you remember about Emma's relations to the revelation on celestial marriage?" Law replied: "Well, I told you that she used to complain to me about Joseph's escapades whenever she met me on the street. She spoke repeatedly about that pretended revelation. She said once: 'The revelation says I must submit or be destroyed. Well, I guess I have to submit.'"

Proponents of the altered revelation theory must also confront the question of why Brigham would have included verses 51-66 that deal with personal issues confronting the Prophet and his wife over plural marriage.

The sometimes confusing narrative in those verses documents Emma's awareness and a struggle between her and Joseph that fits their known marital tensions present in the summer of 1843.

It seems Brigham Young had no need to frame Joseph Smith as the initiator of the practice or the revelation. Multiple voices, early and late, friendly and unfriendly, verify Joseph as the originator.

maghdental
Hi, I'm new.
Posts: 1

Re: Church Essays on Polygamy

Post by maghdental »

thanks for share it

Post Reply