Many of my readers here share my particular distaste for the practice of polygamy amongst the early leadership of the Mormon Church, and many of you, like me have been taught that Polygamy is an eternal principle, but just not practiced right now.
Mrs Koda has grown so upset with what she's read about the early adoption of the principle, that she would like to go back in time to smack the originator of the practice and give him a swift kick to the groin.
What adds another level of distaste to the whole thing, is that for decades, the Mormon Church has lied about the practice and it's implementation, and while that is bad enough, discovering that early leaders were marrying other men's wives, and girls as young as 14 just leaves an unpleasant taste in everyone's mouth.
This whole things ties into the whole "I have the philosophy of Satan in the marrow of my bones" and that series of events some years ago, but I think I'll have to cover that little episode in another post.
So... The facts would appear to be... Founder of the Church secretly introduces polygamy, marries and has sexual relations with all kinds of woman and young girls, and this then leads to the total adoption of polygamy by the early LDS Church.
Or are those indeed the facts? Or what if the Church is lying about those, which kind of makes it appear as though they're lying about a lie, or some other twisted thing like that.
I started reading another blog post this morning by someone whose opinions and research have generally been quite good, but when I got to the part about how the founders involvement may actually be a fabrication, I about stopped reading... In fact I did, but then curiosity got the best of me, and I'm rather glad it did.
I'm still rather skeptical, and I need to do some serious research, but as I look at some of the other things I have problems with, this theory does hold some ground.
For instance...
Exclusion of blacks from the Church, wasn't something taught by Joseph Smith, it was introduced by Brigham Young.
Blood Atonement was introduced by Brigham Young as well.
Brigham Young, also messed with the succession in the early Church, and from what I have been taught and read, should not have become the next president. It would appear that position either belonged to Mr. Smith's son, or to a man named Sidney Rigdon.
There is much I need to re-research though, such as the burning of the Nauvoo Expositor and other such reported events, but I must admit, that reading the post, considering the theory and looking at other historical events that this theory may actually have some weight to it.
Perhaps I'll be paying a visit to the Community of Christ in the next few weeks.
Anyway, like I said, I'm still rather skeptical, but I think perhaps there is something to be gained by reading, sharing and considering the aforementioned blog post and the book on which it is based.
It's entitled...
Why I'm Abandoning Polygamy
I also heard about the claims that JS fought against polygamy and I had to check out the book, which I got through interlibrary loan. However, the full contents of the book are available online: http://restorationbookstore.org/jsfp-index.htm, as well as some additional chapters that were not included in the book. I highly recommend you read it if you are wondering about this issue.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I found the work to be an apologetic work for CoC and not a credible work of history. The authors are clearly biased and start with the assumption that JS was an inspired Prophet of God and therefore could not have instituted polygamy. I'm sticking with "In Sacred Loneliness" for now, but I'd love to have a discussion on the parts of the book that you find compelling.
I was wondering about that, since the authors are clearly CoC members and I know that for a long time that organization disavowed that the practice even happened.
ReplyDeleteI'll check it out though and then perhaps we can have that discussion!
Right off the bat, my concerns are:
Where did the Fanny Alger story come from?
What about Helen Mar Kimball, and her journal entries about the matter?
And was the destruction of the printing press at the Nauvoo expositor linked to this or was it for something else.
I'll check it out tonight though!
Wow Koda, that is an interesting theory indeed. However, whether or not Joseph Smith instituted polygamy is irrelevant to me. I don't know who said this first, but I like the quote "He who has nothing to hide, hides nothing". The simple fact that the church hides so much is a huge red flag and the reason I cannot believe in it.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with you there... I think what intrigues me is...
ReplyDeleteThey're obviously lying about stuff in the history, but what if what they're lying about isn't necessarily what we think they're lying about...
What if they're lying about the history of Joseph Smith, but only because the history they're trying to cover up, is the fabricated history put together by Brigham Young to promote his own personal agenda.
I have to wonder if perhaps it's a little bit of both...
If you are interested this is discussed here (http://forum.newordermormon.org/viewtopic.php?t=16379&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0)
ReplyDeleteIt seems that they start with two assumptions, i.e., 1) Joseph was a prophet and 2) prophets don't lie. Drop either assumption (or both), and their case is a lot shakier right off the bat.
ReplyDeleteI haven't read much in the book, but the analysis does seem to be skewed away from any kind of critique of Joseph Smith's life.
ReplyDeleteI think there is fairly sound evidence that he was involved in polygamy, but the part which has always interested me, was that he didn't seem to embrace or publicize his involvement in the practice. Which seems a little uncharacteristic.
This theory does seem to provide a possible explanation to that, but at the end of the day. As several people have said... It really doesn't matter what he did or didn't do. The fact that it has been twisted, covered up and lied about since, makes the whole thing pretty stinky.
I would definitely like to look into this more, purely from a curiosity stand point, and Anonymous - thanks for the link, I'll check that out as well.
Summaries of the research of multiple popular books on polygamy:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/
And remember...don't shoot the messenger.
For the record: I think the evidence clearly supports Joseph being a polygamist.
ReplyDeleteI read that post a few days ago. I wonder if we will ever really know how it all came about. I personally think that the evidence definitely points to Joseph Smith.
ReplyDeletePrior to all of my research into church history I actually remember being taught that Brigham Young was the one that introduced polygamy because so many men had died crossing into Utah. I was actually taught that it was only implemented to take care of widows. Imagine my surprise...
TJ, I'll have to check that out... And no worries about messenger shooting here!!
ReplyDeleteReina, I think most of us were taught the same thing, it was only instituted to take care of widows and help single women be able to own land. In most cases, they didn't even have intimate relations and it was all ordained and sanctioned by God...
So back to reality...
I suspect that there may be a little truth to some of the claims. It seems to me that Joseph Smith would pick up little ideas along the way and integrate them into his revelations.
The evidence would seem to appear that he had somewhat of a bigger than normal sexual appetite, either that or the man just had trouble keeping it in his pants.
So, when the idea of polygamy came along, I think he kind of adopted it.
The problem for him was, that I think he knew it was wrong (The BOM clearly teaches against it) and I think Emma's reaction probably helped out as well.
So knowing it was wrong, but wanting a little something, something on the side, I think he was very discreet and careful about it's implementation.
I'm of the opinion that following his death (Not sure it could be considered a martyrdom at this point) Brigham Young hi-jacked the organization. Brigham strikes me as the ultimate pig, and I suspect he likely took steps to make the history of Polygamy far more favorable to allow his greater adoption of it.
I suspect many of the claims in the book with respect to Mr. Young likely have an element of truth, but I suspect that Mr. Smith had far more involvement with the origins of the practice than they give him credit for.
Brigham Young, the hijacker? Ever wonder why Emma didn't make the journey West? My guess is she thought Brigham was full of shit.
ReplyDelete14 year old girls, destroying a man's livelihood (printing press), marrying other mens wives, stealing the mason's rituals at a known cost of death....I'm pretty sure old Joe was a martyr, but not for any cause you and I would be proud of. The crowd that murdered him could have easily included any one of the fathers of the girls Joe took to bed, any one of the husbands of the wives Joe "spiritually" married, any one of the family members whose ability to earn a living was destroyed with the printing press, or any one of many, many Masons who took an oath to KILL anyone who breeched their code of secrecy. Any one of these reasons would have been sufficient cause to murder him. I can only imagine that more than a few fellows in the crowd at Carthage fell into two or more of these categories of motivation.
Poor Joseph! Poor poor Joe.
At the end of the day, as long as we are still wrestling with the questions, then the church still has power over us....still has the ability to control our lives. The questions will never, EVER end.
I really liked the comment above about those who have nothing to hide, well, they hide nothing. Perhaps all of my questions relating to the church are perfectly set aside when I view the church not as the organization of God, but as a business entity whos bottom line is focused on the balance sheet. The church evolves as the majority of the investors begin to ask questions and demand answers. Policy changes by revelation from above when governments down below threaten the existence of the organization. The church is no different than any other business/church whose product is simply Jesus. Their niche is a more extreme clientele who wasn't/ isn't being fully served by main stream Jesus peddlers. They do what all good business men do....they deliver a good to an under served market by spiffing up a dull and worn out product.
Mormonism (religion) is no different than McDonald's. We all know McDonald's is not the best burger joint in town, but from a young age the kids demand McDonald's because they have been carefully trained to associate burgers with Ronald.
Ronald, Jesus, and Joe.
Where can I get a bowl of beans and rice?
Thanks for your mention of my article at Pure Mormonism, Koda.
ReplyDeleteI think you put it best when you mused about Brigham hijacking the church. Connie said something the other day about him that rang true for me. She said she couldn't imagine Joseph assigning those families to go off in other directions, leaving their friends to settle in the hinterlands. They had to spend the rest of their lives trying to eke out a thankless living in the deserts just so Brigham could lay claim to having population at all the borders of his Deseret kingdom.
I don't think Joseph would have ordered people's lives like that. Under him, the church was libertarian; under Brigham it became authoritarian.
As you and many of the commenter here have expressed, the whole subject of whether JS practiced polygamy has been a huge confusing puzzle. For me, "Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy" has served to make better sense of the puzzle than anything I've read that has come before.
The authors, by the way, reject the Church of Christ; they consider the CofC to have hijacked the reorganization. That said, I have similar thoughts to yours. I feel like I may owe the Reorgs an apology. I might even see if they or the CofC have a branch here in Sacramento and offer that apology in person.
I must admit I had wondered about their allegiance to the CoC given that the CoC now accepts that he did practice polygamy.
ReplyDeleteMotelloOffGrid... I thought your observation that as long as I still obsess over these questions I'm still a part of it, was a good one. I'm trying to find that balance between dealing with my past (and present in some cases) and getting sucked back into the crap... Heaven help any TBM who tries to tell me that I'm leaving because I just can't hack it as a member.
I don't know much about it, but my understanding is that the RLDS/CofC has factions too. There are (religiously) conservative RLDS who very much dislike the frankly liberal direction the CofC has taken (giving women the priesthood, de-emphasizing Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, etc.)
ReplyDeleteThe balance....for the record....ME TOO!!!! 30 plus years of thinking one way is not an easy thing to change. I walked into a church building yesterday for the first time since December's ward christmas party (I go to those in an effort to get a tithing refund...one piece of ham at a time!!!). In the foyer, I saw the usual pic of Jesus. I said out loud "what's up J?". It felt disrespectful and healthy all in the same moment. Disrespectful from the viewpoint of 30 years of training. Healthy from the viewpoint of 4 or 5 years of sober open minded thinking (and speaking). It felt great to be able to look at a picture of Christ and feel him as a brother - a man, rather than an untouchable higher class celebrity who I think I love and probably fear a little too. Keep up the open minded thinking...it's the only way I've found to freedom!
ReplyDelete