FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Array
Joseph Smith/Polygamy: Difference between revisions
(→Implementation of plural marriage: added) |
(mod) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
{{summary}} | {{summary}} | ||
{{PolygamyPortal}} | {{PolygamyPortal}} | ||
== == | == == | ||
| Line 31: | Line 28: | ||
== == | == == | ||
{{Topics label}} | {{Topics label}} | ||
< | <onlyinclude> | ||
==Joseph's plural wives== | ==Joseph's plural wives== | ||
{{SummaryItem | {{SummaryItem | ||
| Line 40: | Line 36: | ||
}} | }} | ||
==Implementation of plural marriage== | ==Implementation of plural marriage== | ||
{{SummaryItem | {{SummaryItem | ||
|link=Polygamy book/Initiation of the practice | |link=Polygamy book/Initiation of the practice | ||
| Line 76: | Line 73: | ||
==Critics' claimed motivations for Joseph's implementation of plural marriage== | ==Critics' claimed motivations for Joseph's implementation of plural marriage== | ||
{{SummaryItem | {{SummaryItem | ||
|link=Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Lustful motives | |link=Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Lustful motives | ||
| Line 97: | Line 95: | ||
==Keeping plural marriage a secret== | ==Keeping plural marriage a secret== | ||
{{SummaryItem | {{SummaryItem | ||
|link=Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Hiding the truth | |link=Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Hiding the truth | ||
| Line 171: | Line 170: | ||
==Consequences of plural marriage== | ==Consequences of plural marriage== | ||
{{SummaryItem | {{SummaryItem | ||
|link=Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Children of polygamous marriages | |link=Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Children of polygamous marriages | ||
| Line 183: | Line 183: | ||
==Other issues related to the practice of polygamy== | ==Other issues related to the practice of polygamy== | ||
{{SummaryItem | {{SummaryItem | ||
|link=Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Sealing brother and sister together | |link=Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Sealing brother and sister together | ||
Revision as of 04:28, 29 September 2013
Joseph Smith and Polygamy
Important introductory material on plural marriage available here
| Answers portal |
| Plural marriage |
|
 RESOURCES
|
|---|
|
Joseph Smith era:
Post-Joseph Smith:
Post-Manifesto–present |
 PERSPECTIVES
|
 MEDIA
|
| OTHER PORTALS
|
Charles W. Penrose, Improvement Era, (September 1912)
Question 18: Was Joseph Smith, Jr., a polygamist?
Answer: Joseph Smith introduced and practiced plural marriage. The proofs of this are abundant and complete.[1]
Questions
Critics attack Joseph Smith for his introduction and practice of polygamy. These attacks usually focus on arguing that:
- Polygamy is unchristian or unbiblical
- Joseph hid the truth about the practice of polygamy
- Polygamy was illegal, and therefore improper
- Polygamy sprung from Joseph's carnal desires
- Joseph desired to marry young women
- Joseph married women who were already married to other men (polyandry).
To see citations to the critical sources for these claims, click here
Answer
Plural marriage was perhaps the greatest challenge to the early members of the Church. Critics are anxious to avoid putting the choices of early members in context, in an effort to make the early members look like reprobates or dupes. In doing so, they hope to discourage those who hear their version of events from even considering whether these men were true prophets of God.
Topics
Joseph's plural wives
Plural wives of Joseph Smith, Jr.
Summary: List of Joseph's plural wives, with links to critical claims related to specific plural wives of Joseph Smith, Jr.Implementation of plural marriage
Initiation of the practice
Summary: When and how did plural marriage begin in the Church?Was plural marriage actually adultery before 12 July 1843?
Summary: Critics claim that Lorenzo Snow's testimony shows that anyone who practiced plural marriage before the date that D&C 132 was written (12 July 1843) was guilty of adultery. Since Joseph had entered into plural marriages before that date, they conclude that Lorenzo was essentially admitting that Joseph was an adulterer.Works of Abraham
Summary: D&C 132 tells Joseph and others to "do the works of Abraham." What are the "works of Abraham?"Claims that polygamy is not Biblical
Summary: The criticism that polygamy is irreligious appeals to western sensibilities which favor monogamy, and argues that polygamy is inconsistent with biblical Christianity or (ironically) the Book of Mormon itself.Does the Book of Mormon condemn polygamy?
Summary: Critics use the Book of Jacob to show that the Book of Mormon condemns the practice of polygamy, and go on to claim that Joseph Smith ignored this restriction by introducing the doctrine of plural marriage.Early Christians on plural marriage
Summary: There is extensive, unequivocal evidence that polygamous relationships were condoned under various circumstances by biblical prophets, despite how uncomfortable this might make a modern Christian. Elder Orson Pratt was widely viewed as the victor in a three-day debate on this very point with Reverend John P. Newman, Chaplain of the U.S. Senate, in 1870.[2]Claims that polygamists are allowed to go beyond normal "bounds"
Summary: Critics claim that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young admitted that the practice of polygamy meant they were "free to go beyond the normal 'bounds'" and "the normal rules governing social interaction had not applied to" Joseph.Critics' claimed motivations for Joseph's implementation of plural marriage
Did Joseph have "lustful motives" for practicing polygamy?
Summary: Neutral observers have long understood that this attack is probably the weakest of them all. One might reasonably hold the opinion that Joseph was wrong, but in the face of the documentary evidence it is laughable to argue that he and his associates were insincere or that they were practicing their religion only for power and to satisfy carnal desires. Those who insist that “sex is the answer” reveal more about their own limited perspective than they do of the minds of the early Saints.Critical claims that Joseph had a youthful struggle with unchastity
Summary: Some critics charge that Joseph Smith had youthful struggles with immoral actions. They claim that these are what eventually led him to teach the doctrine of plural marriage.Early womanizer
Summary: Critics charge that Joseph Smith had a long history of "womanizing" before practicing plural marriage. This chapter includes Eliza Winters and Marinda Nancy Johnson.Sent husbands on missions to steal wives
Summary: Beginning with LDS dissident John C. Bennett, some have charged that Joseph would send men on missions in order to marry their wives. Does this claim match the historical evidence?Keeping plural marriage a secret
Hiding the truth about polygamy
Summary: It is true that Joseph did not always tell others about plural marriage. He did, however, make some attempt to teach the doctrine to the Saints. It is thus important to realize that the public preaching of polygamy—or announcing it to the general Church membership, thereby informing the public by proxy—was simply not a feasible plan. Critics of Joseph's choice want their audience to ignore the danger to him and the Saints.Illegal to practice polygamy?
Summary: Polygamy was certainly declared illegal during the Utah-era anti-polygamy crusade, and was arguably illegal under the Illinois anti-bigamy statutes. This is hardly new information, and Church members and their critics knew it. Modern members of the Church generally miss the significance of this fact, however: the practice of polygamy was a clear case of civil disobedience.Did Joseph write secret "love letters" to any of his polygamous wives?
Summary: Critics claim that on 18 August 1842 Joseph Smith wrote a “love letter” to Sarah Ann Whitney requesting a secret rendezvous or "tryst." Joseph had been sealed to Sarah Ann three weeks prior to this time. What does this letter actually say?Entering into plural marriage
Why was Joseph sealed to young women?
Summary: Critics argue that Joseph Smith's polygamous marriages to young women are evidence that he was immoral, perhaps even a pedophile.Fanny Alger and William McLellin
Summary: With a lone exception, there is no account after Joseph’s death of Emma admitting Joseph’s plural marriages in any source. The reported exception is recorded in a newspaper article and two letters written by excommunicated Latter-day Saint apostle William E. McLellin. The former apostle claimed to have visited Emma in 1847 and to have discussed Joseph’s relationship with Fanny Alger. McLellin also reported a tale he had heard about Joseph and Fanny Alger in which they were allegedly observed by Emma together in the barn.Women locked in a room
Summary: Were women locked in a room while Joseph attempted to persuade them?Did women turn Joseph down?
Summary: Some critics have claimed that significant pressure was put on women to practice plural marriage in Nauvoo. Did any of these women resist or refuse? What were the consequences of doing so?Complex plural marriages
Joseph Smith and polyandry
Summary: Joseph Smith was sealed to women who were married to men who were still living. Some of these men were even active members of the Church.Claimed mismanagement of the Lawrence estate
Summary: Joseph Smith was appointed the guardian of two daughters, Maria and Sarah Lawrence, and their inheritance. He later married them in plural marriage. The evidence shows that Joseph Smith faithfully discharged his legal duties, despite the claims made by some nineteeth-century and modern critics.How Emma Smith dealt with plural marriage
What was Emma's reaction to Joseph's practice of polygamy?
Summary: Critics contend that Emma Hale Smith either did not approve of the Prophet Joseph Smith having plural wives or know of the revelation concerning celestial marriage(s).- Eliza R. Snow and the stairs—
Brief Summary: Some charge that Eliza R. Snow, one of Joseph's plural wives, was pregnant by Joseph. According to the claim, a furious Emma pushed Eliza down the stairs, resulting in a miscarriage. (Click here for full article)∗ ∗ ∗ - Emma to be annihilated—
Brief Summary: In the revelation D&C 132 Emma was promised annihilation if she failed to 'abide this commandment.' (Click here for full article)∗ ∗ ∗ - Sealing of Emma to Joseph—
Brief Summary: Critics contend that although Emma Hale Smith was Joseph's first wife, that Joseph was sealed to other wives before being sealed to Emma. The assumption follows that Emma was not in a position to consent to Joseph's other marriages, since she was not longer the "first wife." (Click here for full article)∗ ∗ ∗
- Eliza R. Snow and the stairs—
Consequences of plural marriage
Did Joseph have any children through polygamous marriages?
Summary: Critics claim that Joseph Smith fathered children with some of his plural wives, and that he covered up the evidence of pregnancies. They also claim that Joseph Smith had intimate relations with other men’s wives to whom he had been sealed, and that children resulted from these unions. DNA testing has so far proven these allegations to be false.Sealing brother and sister together
Summary: Critics announce that Joseph "sealed" brothers and sisters together, perhaps hoping that readers will conclude that brothers and sisters were thus married and engaging in incestuous relationships.- Divorce issues in 19th century
Gospel Topics: "Divorce was therefore available to women who were unhappy in their marriages"
"Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah," Gospel Topics on LDS.org:
Church leaders recognized that plural marriages could be particularly difficult for women. Divorce was therefore available to women who were unhappy in their marriages; remarriage was also readily available.[1]
How were divorces formalized among Mormons on the frontier in the 19th century?
Some members of the Church remarried without obtaining a formal legal divorce
Some members of the Church remarried without obtaining a formal legal divorce. Was this adultery? Remarriage without a formal, legal divorce was the norm for the period, especially on the frontier and among the poor. These were the legal realities faced by nineteenth century Americans.
"Presentism" is an analytical fallacy in which past behavior is evaluated by modern standards or mores. Even worse than a historian's presentism is a historian exploiting the presentism of his readers. Critics do this repeatedly when they speak about legal issues. "Presentism," observed American Historical Association president Lynn Hunt, "at its worst, encourages a kind of moral complacency and self-congratulation. Interpreting the past in terms of present concerns usually leads us to find ourselves morally superior. . . . Our forbears constantly fail to measure up to our present-day standards." [2]
To remarry without a formal divorce was not an unusual thing in antebellum America
Louisa Rising married Edwin Woolley "without first divorcing her legal husband," the dust jacket of George D. Smith's Nauvoo Polygamy teases. We are reminded later that "though she was not divorced from her legal husband, she agreed to marry" (p. 345). Eleanor McLean also married Parley Pratt without divorcing her first husband. It appears that G. D. Smith hopes to capitalize on ignorance about nineteenth-century laws and practices regarding marriage and divorce. "From the standpoint of the legal historian," wrote one expert who is not a Latter-day Saint, "it is perhaps surprising that anyone prosecuted bigamy at all. Given the confusion over conflicting state laws on marriage, there were many ways to escape notice, if not conviction." [3] To remarry without a formal divorce was not an unusual thing in antebellum America.
Bigamy or, rather, serial monogamy (without divorce or death) was a common social experience in early America. Much of the time, serial monogamists were poor and transient people, for whom the property rights that came with a recognized marriage would not have been much of a concern, people whose lives only rarely intersected with the law of marriage. [4]
The legal apparatus for performing divorces was not always readily available
The Saints were often poor and spent most of their time on the frontier, where the legal apparatus of the state was particularly feeble. Women who had joined the church and traveled to Zion without their husbands were particularly likely to be poor, and also unlikely to be worried about property rights. Nor, not incidentally, were their husbands available for a formal divorce.
Does this mean that marriage in America was a free-for-all? Hardly, notes Nancy Cott:
When couples married informally, or reversed the order of divorce and remarriage, they were not simply acting privately, taking the law into their own hands. . . . A couple about to join or leave an intimate relationship looked for communal sanction. The surrounding local community provided the public oversight necessary. Without resort to the state apparatus, local informal policing by the community affirmed that marriage was a well-defined public institution as well as a contract made by consent. Carrying out the standard obligations of the marriage bargain—cohabitation, husband's support, wife's service—seems to have been much more central to the approbation of local communities at this time than how or when the marriage took place, and whether one of the partners had been married elsewhere before. [5]
It also should be remembered that because Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other Latter-day Saint leaders exercised exclusive jurisdiction over celestial or plural marriages, marriages conducted under their supervision had as much (or more) formal oversight as many traditional marriages in America during the first half of the nineteenth century. Critics of the Church offer us none of this information or perspective—with the result that some readers might be horrified by the "loose" marriage practices of the Saints.
Was it normal not to obtain a formal civil divorce in 19th century America?
To remarry without a formal divorce was not an unusual thing in pre-Civil War America
Some critics of Mormonism like to emphasize that some LDS members did not receive civil divorces before remarrying—either monogamously or polygamously. They either state or imply that this shows the Saints' cavalier attitude toward the law.
The Saints were often poor and spent most of their time on the frontier, where the legal apparatus of the state was particularly feeble. Women who had joined the church and traveled to Zion without their husbands were particularly likely to be poor, and also unlikely to be worried about property rights. Critics usually tell us nothing of all this—with the result that some credulous readers might be horrified by the "loose" marriage practices of the Saints. It also should be remembered that because Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other Latter-day Saint leaders exercised exclusive jurisdiction over celestial or plural marriages, marriages conducted under their supervision had as much (or more) formal oversight as many traditional marriages in America during the first half of the nineteenth century.
"From the standpoint of the legal historian," wrote one expert who is not a Latter-day Saint, "it is perhaps surprising that anyone prosecuted bigamy at all. Given the confusion over conflicting state laws on marriage, there were many ways to escape notice, if not conviction." [6]
Bigamy or, rather, serial monogamy (without divorce or death) was a common social experience in early America. Much of the time, serial monogamists were poor and transient people, for whom the property rights that came with a recognized marriage would not have been much of a concern, people whose lives only rarely intersected with the law of marriage. [7]
Nor, not incidentally, were their husbands available for a formal divorce.
Marriage in 19th century America was not a "free-for-all"
Does this mean that marriage in America was a free-for-all? Hardly, notes Nancy Cott:
When couples married informally, or reversed the order of divorce and remarriage, they were not simply acting privately, taking the law into their own hands. . . . A couple about to join or leave an intimate relationship looked for communal sanction. The surrounding local community provided the public oversight necessary. Without resort to the state apparatus, local informal policing by the community affirmed that marriage was a well-defined public institution as well as a contract made by consent. Carrying out the standard obligations of the marriage bargain—cohabitation, husband’s support, wife’s service—seems to have been much more central to the approbation of local communities at this time than how or when the marriage took place, and whether one of the partners had been married elsewhere before. [8]
Critical sources |
|
Was polygamy illegal in Nauvoo in the 1840s?
Summary: Contrary to popular belief, the plural marriages in Illinois were not illegal under the adultery statutes of the dayDid Joseph Smith violate marriage laws in Ohio by performing marriages for members who had not received formal divorces?
Summary: Formal divorces from the government were not required. That said, the marriage which receives the most criticism—of Newel Knight and Lydia Bailey—could not have been improper, since it was conducted after obtaining a license from the secular authorities and because Lydia's husband (who had abandoned her) later proved to be dead at the time. Ohio law also allowed spouses to consider themselves divorced and to remarry three years after an abandonment.Notes
- ↑ "Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah," Gospel Topics on LDS.org (2013)
- ↑ Lynn Hunt, "Against Presentism," Perspectives 40/5 (May 2002); available online at http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2002/0205/ (accessed 2 December 2008).
- ↑ Beverly J. Schwartzberg, "Grass Widows, Barbarians, and Bigamists: Fluid Marriage in Late Nineteenth-Century America" (PhD diss., University of California, Santa Barbara, 2001), 51–52.
- ↑ Hendrik Harlog, Man & Wife in America: A History (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), 87.
- ↑ Nancy F. Cott, Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), 37.
- ↑ Beverly J. Schwartzberg, "Grass Widows, Barbarians, and Bigamists: Fluid Marriage in Late Nineteenth-Century America" (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Santa Barbara, 2001), 51–52.
- ↑ Hendrik Harlog, Man & Wife in America: A History (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), 87
- ↑ Nancy F. Cott, Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), 37.
Videos
<videoflash>AciIEmqLUIc</videoflash>
== Notes ==
- [note] Charles W. Penrose, "Peculiar Questions Briefly Answered," Improvement Era 15 no. 11 (September 1912).
- [note] Orson Pratt and John Philip Newman, “Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?” Deseret News, 12–14 August 1874.
- [note] Bernard Shaw, The Future of Political Science in America; an Address by Mr. Bernard Shaw to the Academy of Political Science, at the Metropolitan Opera House, New York, on the 11th. April, 1933 (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1933) as cited in Richard Vetterli, Mormonism Americanism and Politics (Salt Lake City: Ensign Publishing, 1961), 461–462.
- [note] Brigham Young, "Plurality of Wives—The Free Agency of Man," (14 July 1855) Journal of Discourses 3:266-266.
- [note] Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy, 89.