NOM

I wanted to just throw something out there for interest.

I have a friend in the Mo-Tab who is TBM. He acts as though he is educated and informed. I asked him about the polygamy and polyandry, and his response was classic: they were sealed for eternity and didn't have sex.

It always comes down to sex. And according to liars like Brian Hales (and yes Brian, I think you are a self deceived liar), unless someone wrote in their journal "We had sex as in penis in vagina last night"--unless it is explicitly written down like that, in first person handwriting, by multiple women, and even JS himself, you would conclude that we just don't know if they had sex.

It amazes me.

I guess JS really wasn't doing Fanny Alger--after all, we don't have on camera the very act, now do we.

duh

<<sorry for the snarkiness>>

I'm sure ol Joe didn't have sex with any of his wives except Emma. If I had 30 wives, would I have sex with all of them? Yes I would. I changed my mind. Joe was a horn dog. Fanny had come to live with them. A young girl in his home. This arrangement certainly would not be approved housing for BYU. He would have been kicked out if he attended BYU. His male hormones got the most of him and he lusted after Fanny and took her out back to the hay barn.

I agree your friend's response is irritating and does smack of sticking one's head in the sand. However the one trump card they hold is not the lack of steamy, explicit journal entries but the fact that there is no progeny.

There are plenty of theories as to why that is (including the, IMO, weak theory that he wasn't celestializing with these women) but it is an issue that needs addressing for anyone who believes Joseph was spreading his seed all over Illinois. It's why I was disappointed the recent DNA tests failed to connect Joseph to Josephine Lyons as it bolstered those who buy into Hales theory.

There are many written statements stating that Joesph Smith had sex with his wives. Here are just a few:

Emily D. Partridge (Smith Young) said she "roomed" with Joseph the night following her marriage to him and said that she had "carnal intercourse" with him. (Temple Lot case (complete transcript), 364, 367, 384; see Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 15.)

Smith's secretary William Clayton also recorded a visit to young Almera Johnson on May 16, 1843: "Prest. Joseph and I went to B[enjamin] F. Johnsons to sleep." Johnson himself later noted that on this visit Smith stayed with Almera "as man and wife" and "occupied the same room and bed with my sister, that the previous month he had occupied with the daughter of the late Bishop Partridge as his wife." Almera Johnson also confirmed her secret marriage to Joseph Smith: "I lived with the prophet Joseph as his wife and he visited me at the home of my brother Benjamin F." (Zimmerman, I Knew the Prophets, 44. See also "The Origin of Plural Marriage, Joseph F. Smith, Jr., Deseret News Press, page 70-71.)

Joseph Smith's personal secretary records that on May 22nd, 1843, Smith's first wife Emma found Joseph and Eliza Partridge secluded in an upstairs bedroom at the Smith home. Emma was devastated.
William Clayton's journal entry for 23 May (see Smith, 105-106)

Melissa Lott (Smith Willes) testified that she had been Joseph's wife "in very deed." (Affidavit of Melissa Willes, 3 Aug. 1893, Temple Lot case, 98, 105; Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 156.)

People dont read their scriptures enough i guess. It clearly states in D&C 132 the reasons for celestial marriage.

Ive had a couple conversations with people who say that same thing as your friend. I just say go read and study 132. Then lets talk.

Ive never got a response from them. They probably got through a few verses then fell asleep.

Rob4Hope wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 08, 2017 7:01 am

I wanted to just throw something out there for interest.

I have a friend in the Mo-Tab who is TBM. He acts as though he is educated and informed. I asked him about the polygamy and polyandry, and his response was classic: they were sealed for eternity and didn't have sex.

He should study the statements and affidavits given by some of Joseph's wives for the temple lot case (does he believe they lied under oath?). And, if he wasn't having sex with at least some of his plural wives, he wasn't living "the principle" as he'd been instructed to live it (as per D&C 132).

You might want to ask your friend why he believes Joseph lived polygamy differently than any of the other early church Prophets, leaders and members who lived polygamy. Why is he just fine with Brigham Young have sexual relations with his wives, but isn't ok with Joseph living the same exact principle in the same exact way? There is a huge double standard there.

Also, there were men who Joseph instructed how to live polygamy who had sexual relations with their plural wives in Nauvoo while Joseph was still living (and had children with these wives). Why wouldn't Joseph have disciplined them if they were living it incorrectly or in a manner different from how he'd instructed or was living it himself?

One more thought is that even if there was no sex, weren't the lies and betrayals immoral for a married man to sneak around and do? He secretly married other men's wives (who were active members of the church) and married young teenage girls (one the 14 year old daughter of his close friend and others who were Emma's housemaids that she loved like daughters). Most of his marriages were done behind Emma's back and caused her tremendous pain. How could an active member of the church justify doing this and remain in good standing (sex involved or not) if they were doing these things today?

There are several reasons that the "sealings for eternity only" excuse fails so badly. First is that getting married is considered legitimate grounds for immediately having sex for thousands of years. Claiming that sex did not occur puts the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of apologists. I have never in my life recorded a single intimate encounter in any medium whatsoever. But it is simply a foregone conclusion at some point withing 24 hours of the sealing. It's not our burden to prove that sex occurred. It's on Joseph Smith and his defenders to prove that his obvious access to women was strictly regulated by modern requirements of monogamy. Somehow Joseph Smith was different from virtually every other man in power throughout history.

Others have already pointed out the obvious sexual nature of polygamists after Joseph. I'm astonishingly skeptical that Joseph was the exception to the operation of plural marriage relations that were everywhere else in the church. The doctrine of plural marriage is so laden with importance to the early church, but no explanations are every really given. Simply having Abraham and Jacob engage in it sounds like Middle Eastern culture, not eternal doctrine. It's something we should move past, not revive.

The final insult of polygamy today afflicts Mormons who are living the strictest law of chastity today even to the point of fetishizing modesty. This stands in contrast to the obvious sexual relationships of every early LDS leader up to Heber J. Grant, the last practicing polygamist in role of prophet. The strict monogamy of Mormons is enforced with crushing guilt on unmarried youth and strict chastity among married adults. It's admirable as a whole, but then insulting to sing "Praise to the Man" (who had loads of wives, many of whom were teenagers and many who were married to other men).

Corsair wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 08, 2017 9:01 am

There are several reasons that the "sealings for eternity only" excuse fails so badly.

I agree. There are absolutely no records indicating that any of Joseph's marriages were for "eternity only". No documentation whatsoever.

We do know that there were these types of sealings at one time (but we don't know if it was during Joseph's time).

The eternity only argument is a construct of Brian Hales when he helped write the essays (and the footnotes are of his writings.)

I saw Vogel's youtube followup to the conclusive DNA evidence of Sessions child being her first husbands; I felt like it was a reasonable conclusion that she was having sex polyandrously with her "husbands". For JS to do that, according to his own doctrines, made her an adulteress. And yet, this spiritual leader didn't do anything I am aware of to take care of her soul?

I've heard in the past that JS claimed the prophet had the power to absolve sin,...not just for the church but for God himself. Was he saying: Hey Sylvia,...lets do it, and I will forgive you for it,....it will be OK.

I loved how Vogel went back and showed how Hales argument's changed to accommodate the new DNA evidence. The goal of all TBM is to defend the integrity of the prophet, at all costs. Truth doesn't matter; the only thing that matters is the prophets "image".

Brian Hales has an agenda,...and the truth is not part of it. How sad for ANY historian to sacrifice professional (and in this case I believe personal) integrity for the sake of a position. At this point, if he changes he perspective, it would be a devastating blow to his credibility. I'm sure he is in for life, regardless of how much he has to lie (and believe his own lies).

20/20hind wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 08, 2017 8:19 am

People dont read their scriptures enough i guess. It clearly states in D&C 132 the reasons for celestial marriage.

Ive had a couple conversations with people who say that same thing as your friend. I just say go read and study 132. Then lets talk.

Ive never got a response from them. They probably got through a few verses then fell asleep.

People don't read or remember anything. Is this just a product of the general culture out there?.....

The Book of Mormon sais the purpose of plural marriage is babies--raising up seed. Period. Section 132 goes down the same lines and is a purely misogynistic document. And, people don't read it or ask questions?

Everyone seems to bye the line from Hinckley--Oh...that was a long time ago. ... blah blah blah...

I think he sowed his oats, but I think it was all about power and control. Most of the wives were from good families, help shore up support and resources for himself.

He also met with other religious groups talking about "sealings etc." it fit a narrative that helped fuel his own self-delusions of who he was (supreme, the chosen vessel etc.)

Raylan Givens wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 09, 2017 10:20 pm

I think he sowed his oats, but I think it was all about power and control. Most of the wives were from good families, help shore up support and resources for himself.

He also met with other religious groups talking about "sealings etc." it fit a narrative that helped fuel his own self-delusions of who he was (supreme, the chosen vessel etc.)

On NOM 1.0 there was a poster who was either a police officer or a former one who said pretty much this. He stated an excellent case and they had been my private thoughts for quite awhile.

Sex may have been the means, but power and control were the motives. Sending the men out of town, created the opportunity.

Rob4Hope wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 08, 2017 1:21 pm

The Book of Mormon sais the purpose of plural marriage is babies--raising up seed. Period. Section 132 goes down the same lines and is a purely misogynistic document. And, people don't read it or ask questions?

Yep. What's funny is apologetic or anti (if you'll excuse the term) the way Smith practice polygamy is contrary to the standard works. The idea that he just didn't know what he's doing* is damnable and laughable, we're supposed to believe after a casual glance at the D&C that asking God for clarification was a wild idea that just wouldn't have occurred to Smith in such a scenario? Or was it that he didn't want to know? Or that God decided him flailing about was a good idea (I guess Jacob oversold his position)? None of these scenarios leaves us with a pretty picture.

*I have personally heard members try to argue that Smith was told to restore polygamy but not how, thus the weirdness of how he practiced it.

Dravin wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 10, 2017 6:39 am

Rob4Hope wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 08, 2017 1:21 pm

The Book of Mormon sais the purpose of plural marriage is babies--raising up seed. Period. Section 132 goes down the same lines and is a purely misogynistic document. And, people don't read it or ask questions?

*I have personally heard members try to argue that Smith was told to restore polygamy but not how, thus the weirdness of how he practiced it.

Yes, I've heard many say that in defense of some of things Joseph did (that he was just doing his best to restore polygamy without knowing how to do it for sure).

I always want to say, "So God sent an angel with a flaming sword to threaten to kill Joseph if he didn't start practicing polygamy, but that same God gave him no guidance on how to live it?"

What do members believe D&C132 is if not instructions or guidance? Joseph just didn't follow them.

One of the problems is that I believe most active members haven't ever read D&C 132 from beginning to end. They avoid doing so.

Dravin wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 10, 2017 6:39 am

*I have personally heard members try to argue that Smith was told to restore polygamy but not how, thus the weirdness of how he practiced it.

This is the story which lets my DW remain TBM but your point is well taken that the prophet is the one to receive the revelation to "get it right".

I have to get off this subject. My sought after apathy of peace is starting to feel the old anger rise.

No Tof wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 10, 2017 7:11 am

This is the story which lets my DW remain TBM but your point is well taken that the prophet is the one to receive the revelation to "get it right".

I have to get off this subject. My sought after apathy of peace is starting to feel the old anger rise.

I understand what you are saying here all the way. This is a really interesting position for a TBM to be in--and it is also a pickle of a pinch for those of us (like yourself) who have frustrations that rise to anger levels.

thanks for the comments...

AllieOop wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 10, 2017 6:58 am

I always want to say, "So God sent an angel with a flaming sword to threaten to kill Joseph if he didn't start practicing polygamy, but that same God gave him no guidance on how to live it?"

But beware of pedantic Mormons; they'll find the source and say, "It was a drawn sword, not a flaming sword", and discredit you entirely based on that minor mistake.

You know, there was info in the Bible on how they practiced polygamy. Joseph was familiar with that. There were also normal morals the said you don't have sex with a woman who is already married. There was also common human decency that said you don't coerce women into sex and that you do not use a position of authority to order a woman to have sex with you. There was also the standard of the time that said it was improper for a man of Joseph's age having sex with a 14 year old child. There were so many many things that were around that Joseph could have used to inform himself on how to practice polygamy that Joseph ignored. As well as the supposed revelation ordering polygamy that is recorded in DC 132.

Basically, the evidence does not say that Joseph was doing his best in a difficult situation. The real evidence says that Joseph felt he could hop into bed with anyone he got the hots for. I think it much more likely that Joseph used power to get sex rather than using sex to get more power. So, I respectfully disagree with those who say that he married women to get more influence and power. No, he used his influence and power to get sex with which ever woman he got the hots for.

Well, there was one wife who was about fifty that he used to talk his cute young things into the marriages. She could say that he was also married to her, and it would kind of normalize the situation for the cute young things. She may have been more about gaining influence, but it was influence used to get sex. Face it guys, Joseph was a horndog.

LSOF wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 10, 2017 11:47 am

AllieOop wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 10, 2017 6:58 am

I always want to say, "So God sent an angel with a flaming sword to threaten to kill Joseph if he didn't start practicing polygamy, but that same God gave him no guidance on how to live it?"

But beware of pedantic Mormons; they'll find the source and say, "It was a drawn sword, not a flaming sword", and discredit you entirely based on that minor mistake.

There were accounts using the word "flaming" and accounts using the word "drawn".

The accounts of a "flaming" sword came from Eliza R. Snow and from Orson F. Whitney (in the biography he wrote for his grandfather, Heber C. Kimball).

The account of the "drawn" sword came from Zina Huntington.

Maybe it was a flaming drawn sword



****************************

alas wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 10, 2017 12:26 pm

You know, there was info in the Bible on how they practiced polygamy. Joseph was familiar with that. There were also normal morals the said you don't have sex with a woman who is already married. There was also common human decency that said you don't coerce women into sex and that you do not use a position of authority to order a woman to have sex with you. There was also the standard of the time that said it was improper for a man of Joseph's age having sex with a 14 year old child. There were so many many things that were around that Joseph could have used to inform himself on how to practice polygamy that Joseph ignored. As well as the supposed revelation ordering polygamy that is recorded in DC 132.

Basically, the evidence does not say that Joseph was doing his best in a difficult situation. The real evidence says that Joseph felt he could hop into bed with anyone he got the hots for. I think it much more likely that Joseph used power to get sex rather than using sex to get more power. So, I respectfully disagree with those who say that he married women to get more influence and power. No, he used his influence and power to get sex with which ever woman he got the hots for.

Well, there was one wife who was about fifty that he used to talk his cute young things into the marriages. She could say that he was also married to her, and it would kind of normalize the situation for the cute young things. She may have been more about gaining influence, but it was influence used to get sex. Face it guys, Joseph was a horndog.

excellent summary. I think I will share this with DW.