Criticism of Mormonism/Video/Search for the Truth DVD/Polygamy

Joseph Smith's Character: Polygamy

Claim: "[In an LDS film] Joseph is even shown healing the sick in Nauvoo. Although this film is very emotional and inspiring it has no more reality to it than any other fictional story created by Hollywood. Let's now examine the historical documents about the true character of Joseph Smith." Joseph's healing accounts are well-attested to by multiple witnesses. The video would like to dismiss such things, but says absolutely nothing about the "historical documents" to prove that Joseph did perform healings on multiple occasions. The video wants to dismiss the historical accounts in a simple sentence—they never refer to Joseph's healings again. This is dishonest. Critics ought to be careful when dismissing or criticizing healing by God's power: the scribes and Pharisees likewise sought to minimize or negate the miraculous healings performed by Jesus by insisting that He was, in fact, wicked. (See, for example, Matthew 9꞉34, Matthew 12꞉13-14, Matthew 12꞉24, Mark 3꞉5-6, Luke 5꞉17-26, Luke 6꞉7, Luke 14꞉3-4, John 7꞉32, John 9꞉13, John 11꞉44-50, John 12꞉17-19). To read more: Personal failings of Joseph Smith Joseph Smith healings and miracles Claim: "An amazing experience like [the First Vision] should radically change a person's life but by the age of 21, Joseph was arrested and brought before a judge in Bainbridge, N.Y., for deceiving Josiah Stowell, charged for glass looking and sit before the court as a disorderly person." Joseph never claimed to be perfect, and mentioned that following his vision he made foolish errors. (JS-H 1꞉28However, the video attempts to deceive its viewers on numerous points, as discussed in the sections below. To read more: Personal failings of Joseph Smith Was Joseph found guilty? The video carefully avoids describing the outcome of this legal proceeding. The video apparently wants the listener to conclude that Joseph was found guilty in court—after all, there is no shame in being charged with a crime if one is found not guilty. (And, even a false conviction is no stain on a man's character—even Jesus Himself was falsely condemned.) But, these facts would not serve the video's purposes, so they say nothing about the outcome. In fact, the appearance before the judge was not a trial—as demonstrated by the Reverend Wesley Walters, a prolific anti-Mormon author. Therefore, he was not found guilty, and no trial was held. This is one more "historical document" from which the video wants to protect its viewers. To read more: History of 1826 court appearance Was Josiah Stowell deceived? Despite their claims that they are trying to "Search for the Truth," the video does not tell its viewers that Josiah Stowell testified for Joseph as a defense witness and did not believe that Joseph had defrauded him at all. Stowell testified of Joseph's claims, "Do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true." But, the Search for the Truth video will not tell you this part of the truth from the documents. To read more: History of 1826 court appearance If Stowell had no complaint, why was Joseph brought before the judge at all? The charges were brought by Stowell's family members, who seem worried that Josiah would accept Joseph's religious claims. In fact, Stowell joined the Church founded by Joseph, and remained a faithful member to the day of his death. Would the video's authors condemn Paul because he was brought before many courts because of religious persecution? (See Acts 23꞉6.) To read more: History of 1826 court appearance Claim: "The next year he falls for Emma Hale, a girl at whose home he lodged...." The reader will by now not be surprised that the video distorts in both what it says and does not say. Emma Hale was not "a girl"—she was, in fact, older than Joseph Smith (she was born 10 July 1804; Joseph was born 23 December 1805). She was an adult of twenty three at the time of their marriage (18 January 1827), but the video's goal of portraying Joseph as a rake and womanizer is made easier if they distort matters. Claim: "...Emma will prove to be a companion of such loyalty that the thought of breaking the heart of a woman like this would be unthinkable for most men, but not for Joseph Smith." It is no secret that plural marriage was extremely challenging for Emma. However, the authors give us no citations to demonstrate what Emma thought about plural marriage, or Joseph's claim to be a prophet. Allen J. Stout, who served as a bodyguard for Joseph, recounted a conversation he overheard in the Mansion House between Joseph and his tormented wife. A summary of his account states that "from moments of passionate denunciation [Emma] would subside into tearful repentance and acknowledge that her violent opposition to that principle was instigated by the power of darkness; that Satan was doing his utmost to destroy her, etc. And solemnly came the Prophet's inspired warning: 'Yes, and he will accomplish your overthrow, if you do not heed my counsel.'" Emma's inner conflict was also dramatized in another report: Maria Jane Johnston, who lived with Emma as a servant girl, recalled the Prophet's wife looking very downcast one day and telling her that the principle of plural marriage was right and came from Heavenly Father. "What I said I have got [to] repent of," lamented Emma. "The principle is right but I am jealous hearted. Now never tell anybody that you heard me find fault with that [principle;] we have got to humble ourselves and repent of it." Emma asked Joseph for a blessing not long before he went to Carthage. Joseph told her to write the best blessing she could, and he would sign it upon his return. Wrote Emma: I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side.... I desire the spirit of God to know and understand myself, I desire a fruitful, active mind, that I may be able to comprehend the designs of God, when revealed through his servants without doubting. Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but this trouble arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet. When one woman asked Emma if she felt Joseph was still a prophet despite her opposition to plural marriage Emma replied, "Yes, but I wish to God I did not know it." The critics ought to let all of Emma speak for herself—she had a great trial, but also had great knowledge. That she continued to support Joseph's calling and remain with him, despite her feelings about plural marriage, speaks much of her convictions. As she told Parley P. Pratt years later: I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be. If the video's producers believe Emma is an important witness, why do they not include her witness of Joseph's prophetic calling to the very end of her life, despite her struggles with plural marriage? To read more: Emma Smith and polygamy (follow link for citations) Claim: "Within a few short years, even men who were closest to Joseph like David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, William Law and William McLellin were repulsed by Joseph Smith's multiple adulteries and publicly declared Joseph an adulterer." It is curious that the DVD producers seem to feel that making a public accusation against someone is sufficient to prove the case against them. Many charges were made against Jesus and the apostles, even by close friends and associates. Are these charges therefore proven? That Joseph practiced plural marriage is not a matter of debate. But, the video cannot simply presume that the practice is, by definition, immoral. To do so is circular reasoning and begging the question. Some members of the Church could not accept plural marriage. It is worthwhile, however, to consider what the historical record can tell us about each of these men and their witness. What do we know about Oliver Cowdery's witness? Oliver Cowdery left the Church in 1838. The DVD producers do not, however, want viewers to hear Oliver's testimony or learn of his actions. As a lawyer, Cowdery's integrity was once challenged in court because of his Book of Mormon testimony: The opposing counsel thought he would say something that would overwhelm Oliver Cowdery, and in reply to him in his argument he alluded to him as the man that had testified and had written that he had beheld an angel of God, and that angel had shown unto him the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. He supposed, of course, that it would cover him with confusion, because Oliver Cowdery then made no profession of being a "Mormon," or a Latter-day Saint; but instead of being affected by it in this manner, he arose in the court, and in his reply stated that, whatever his faults and weaknesses might be, the testimony which he had written, and which he had given to the world, was literally true. —George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses 22:251. off-site wiki Despite his harsh personal feelings toward Joseph Smith, Oliver continued to insist that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, and that he had seen an angel and the plates. The video also does not tell viewers that Oliver later returned to the Church and was rebaptized, remaining faithful to his death in a witness of Joseph's prophetic calling and the truth of the Book of Mormon. Why do they not allow the "historical record" to speak? To read more: Oliver Cowdery's faithfulness to his testimony What do we know about David Whitmer's witness? David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, remained out of the Church for the rest of his long life. Despite this, David repeatedly insisted that the Book of Mormon was scripture. Just following their excommunication from the Church, Thomas B. Marsh approached Cowdery and Whitmer about their witness. If there was any time for them to deny their witness, this was it: I enquired seriously at David if it was true that he had seen the angel, according to the testimony as one of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. He replied, as sure as there is a God in heaven, he saw the angel, according to his testimony in that book.... I interrogated Oliver Cowdery in the same manner, who answered me similarly. —"History of Thomas Baldwin Marsh," Deseret News (24 March 1858). If Whitmer was convinced that Joseph was an adulterer, why did he continue to bear witness that the record Joseph translated was true, for decades after his disaffection from the Church? Whitmer's witness of the Book of Mormon is more impressive because of his falling out with Joseph. But, viewers will await that information in vain. To read more: David Whitmer's faithfulness to his testimony What do we know about William McLellin's witness? McLellin was an original member of the Twelve apostles. He was eventually excommunicated. McLellin's character is well illustrated by his desire to whip the imprisoned Joseph Smith: While Joseph was in prison at Richmond, Mo., Mr. McLellin, who was a large and active man, went to the sheriff and asked for the privilege of flogging the Prophet; permission was granted, on condition that Joseph would fight. The sheriff made McLellin's earnest request known to Joseph, who consented to fight, if his irons were taken off. McLellin then refused to fight, unless he could have a club, to which Joseph was perfectly willing; but the sheriff would not allow them to fight on such unequal terms. — Andrew Jenson, Latter-Day Saint Biographical Encyclopedia: A Compilation of Biographical Sketches of Prominent Men and Women in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 4 vols., (Salt Lake City, A. Jenson History Co., 1901; reprinted Salt Lake City, Utah : Greg Kofford Books, 2003), 1:82–83. McLellin also took part in mob violence and theft against the Saints: He took an active part with the mob in Missouri, in robbing and driving the Saints. At the time Joseph Smith was in prison, he and others robbed Joseph's house and stable of considerable property. —Andrew Jenson, Historical Record (Salt Lake City: Andrew Jenson, 1888), 5:38–39. McLellin also tried to form his own Church with himself at the head, and admitted at his excommunication hearing that he quit praying and keeping the commandments of God, and indulged himself in his lustful desires. —History of the Church, 3:91. Volume 3 link The reader should be cautious in accepting the testimony of a self-confessed lustful man who would beat a bound prisoner, rob, and drive citizens from their homes by mob violence because of their religion. They will not learn these facts about McLellin's behavior from the Search for the Truth video, because they do not support the its agenda. What do we know about William Law's witness? William Law continued to insist that Joseph was a prophet, but a fallen one: It was not until perhaps April or May 1844 that he organized his thinking in such a way as to systematically attack his enemy. Even then he was not assailing the validity of the Restoration. The vehemence with which William Law denounced the Prophet in 1844 was not due to disbelief in Mormon polity, but to his conviction that the Mormon leader had plunged into apostate practices. — Lyndon W. Cook, "William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter," Brigham Young University Studies 22 no. 1 (Fall 1982), 56.off-site Are the video's authors willing for us to accept his witness that Joseph was a prophet, and the Book of Mormon the word of God? William Law is also not in a position to cast stones at Joseph's moral character. Alexander Neibaur's diary recorded: Mr William Law wished to be married to his wife for eternity. Mr. [Joseph] Smith said he would inquire of the Lord, [who] answered, "No," because Law was an Adulterous person. Mrs. Law wanted to know why she could not be married to Mr. Law, who said he would wound her feeling by telling her.... —Journal of Alexander Neibaur, 24 May 1844, Church archives This contemporaneous record suggests that William may have had his own moral failings, which kept him from desired blessings. Rather than repent, he sought for a reason to rebel against the teachings of Joseph Smith. William helped publish the Nauvoo Expositor, which stirred up hatred and the potential for mob violence by describing Joseph Smith as a "blood thirsty and murderous...demon...in human shape" and "a syncophant, whose attempt for power find no parallel in history...one of the blackest and basest scoundrels that has appeared upon the stage of human existence since the days of Nero, and Caligula." —Nauvoo Expositor (7 June 1844) To read more: Nauvoo Expositor Claim: "In 1843, Joseph Smith had a revelation and penned D&C 132, outlining the necessity of entering into a new and everlasting covenant of plural marriage." As the introduction to section 132 states, the evidence is clear that Joseph mentioned the doctrines of plural marriage as early as 1831—the ideas were well-developed in his mind long before 1843. (DC 132, History of the Church 5:xxix-xxx, 501–507.) Doctrine and Covenants 132 teaches of "the new and everlasting covenant" which includes marriage, since celestial marriage is a gospel ordinance: The gospel is the everlasting covenant because it is ordained by Him who is Everlasting and also because it is everlastingly the same. In all past ages salvation was gained by adherence to its terms and conditions, and that same compliance will bring the same reward in all future ages. Each time this everlasting covenant is revealed it is new to those of that dispensation. Hence the gospel is the new and everlasting covenant. All covenants between God and man are part of the new and everlasting covenant. (DC 22, DC 132꞉6-7.) Thus celestial marriage is "a new and an everlasting covenant" (DC 132꞉4) or the new and everlasting covenant of marriage.... —Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd edition, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 529–530. GL direct link The key doctrine described in D&C 132 is not plural marriage, but eternal or celestial marriage, which may (if so commanded) include plural marriage. While plural marriage was practiced, some members of the Church interpreted D&C 132 as applying exclusively to polygamy, which is understandable given that they were under a duty to obey the commands given to them. However, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained: Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation.... In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. (DC 132:1-28.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church. ({s||DC|132|7,29-66}}.) —Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd edition, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 578. GL direct link The video misunderstands LDS doctrine, garbles the history of Joseph's revelations on plural marriage, and distorts LDS teaching on the matter. To read more: Is plural marriage required for exaltation? Claim: "Brigham Young, revealed that your godhood rests on the act of polygamy saying, "The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses Vol. 11 pg. 269)" Unsurprisingly, the video omits material which clarifies Brigham Young's meaning (material not included in the video is indicated by italics): We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us.... It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them. —Brigham Young, "Remarks by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery, in G.S.L. City," Journal of Discourses, reported by G.D. Watt, E.L. Sloan, and D.W. Evans, (19 August 1866), Vol. 11 (London: Latter-day Saint's Book Depot, 1867), 268–269.off-site Brigham Young made several points: the command to practice plural marriage is from God, and it is wrong to seek to abolish a command from God to obtain the blessings of Abraham, the Saints were required to be "polygamists at least in your faith": i.e., it was not necessary that each enter into plural marriage in practice, but that they accept that God spoke to His prophets it was wrong to avoid plural marriage for worldly, selfish reasons, such as believing the Church would fail, and hoping to have political or monetary rewards afterward if one were commanded to enter into plural marriage ("had blessings offered to them"), and if one refused, God would withhold blessings later because of disobedience now. Thus, in the context of the speech, "enter into polygamy" does not mean that all members at all times are required to be actual polygamists, but that they accept the doctrine ["polygamists at least in your faith"] and be ready to practice it if so commanded without regard for worldly pressures. If plural marriage were a command from God, do the video's producers really expect us to believe that one can reject the commandments of God in our hearts and enter into exaltation? Why does the video not provide the context for Brigham's remark, which makes it clear that he sees some faithful members who are polygamists only in their faith? To read more: Is plural marriage required for exaltation? Brigham Young in JD 11:269 Claim "I do believe that there are some that look to the example of Solomon and or David as an example for a biblical proof for the authorization of marrying multiple wives when we look at their lives, they were in clear disobedience to the commandment of God. Hundreds of years before Solomon or David ever came on the scene, God had warned the nation of Israel, in Deuteronomy 17, he told them when you establish a King, make sure that your King does not gather to himself multiple wives. So we look at Solomon and we look at David we find out they were in direct disobedience." - Scott Gallatin (Pastor, Calvary Chapel) Pastor Gallatin is entitled to his opinion, but his reading of the scripture is incomplete. He forgets to mention that only 4 chapters later, the Lord then gives instructions on how to treat plural wives and children! (See Deuteronomy 21꞉15.) Why does the Lord not simply forbid plural marriage, if that is (as he mistakenly claims) the intent of chapter 17? Why does He then give instructions on how a good Israelite is to conduct themselves in plural households, if all such households are forbidden? What does the scripture addressed to kings in Deuteronomy say? 15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.... 17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away.... (Deuteronomy 17꞉15,17 So, rather than opposing plural marriage, the command to kings is that they: not multiply wives to themselves (i.e., only those who hold proper priesthood keys may approve plural marriage—see Jacob 2꞉30, DC 132꞉38-39.) that these wives not be those who turn his heart away from God. David and Solomon are excellent examples of both of these Biblical principles, as described below. To read more: Polygamy not Biblical? Orson Pratt and John Philip Newman, "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" Deseret News (12–14 August 1874) [debate]. How does Deuteronomy apply to King David's behavior? David is well-known for his sin with Bathsheba and Urriah (see 2 Samuel 11꞉1-27. Nathan the prophet arrived to condemn David's behavior, and told the king: 7 And Nathan said to David...Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; 8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. 9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. 10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. (2 Samuel 12꞉7-10) Nathan here tells David that the Lord "gave thee...thy master's wives." And, the Lord says, through His prophet, that He would have given even more than He has already given of political power, wives, and wealth. But, David then sinned and did evil in the matter of Uriah. If plural marriage is always a sin to God, then why did Nathan not take the opportunity to condemn David for all his plural marriages? Or, why did the prophet not come earlier, when David was righteous and hearkening to the Lord? To read more: Polygamy not Biblical? How does Deuteronomy apply to King Solomon's behavior? Solomon's problem is described: 1 But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites; 2 Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love.... 7 Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon. 8 And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. (1 Kings 11꞉1-8) Solomon's wives turned his heart away from, as Deuteronomy cautioned. Nothing is said against the plurality of wives, but merely of wives taken without authority that turn his heart away from the Lord. To read more: Polygamy not Biblical? Are there any other Biblical examples of legitimate plural marriage? Certainly! Other examples include: Abraham [married Hagar(Genesis 16꞉3) and other unnamed concubines (Genesis 25꞉6).] Jacob (Genesis 29꞉21-30, Genesis 30꞉3-4, Genesis 30꞉9) Abijah had fourteen wives (2 Chronicles 13꞉21) and yet he is described as a righteous king of Judah who honored the Lord (2 Chronicles 13꞉8-12) and prosper in battle because of the Lord's blessing (2 Chronicles 13꞉16-18) Jehoiada, priest under king Joash "took for him two wives" (2 Chronicles 24꞉3). Jehoiada is clearly approved of, for he is described at his death as one who "had done good in Israel, both toward God and toward his house. [i.e. family]" 2 Chronicles 24꞉16). If a righteous king, a righteous priest, Jacob the father of the twelve tribes, and Abraham—the pre-eminent figure of the entire Old Testament—are not sanctioned for legimate plural marraiges, it is untenable to claim that a Biblical prohibition exists in Deuteronomy. Why do the clergy featured in the video not mention these counter-examples? Why do the video's producers not mention them in the interest of telling the whole story? To read more: Polygamy not Biblical? Claim: "Jesus made it clear that God designed marriage for one man and one woman for life, "...a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." (Mark 10:7-9) Latter-day Saints have no quarrel with this scripture. However, it says nothing at all about plural marriage—it merely indicates that a husband and wife must become one. It says absolutely nothing one way or the other about having more than one wife with which one is joined by God and commanded to "be one." To read more: Polygamy not Biblical? Claim: "Furthermore the Bible repeatedly commands that a Christian leader is to be the husband of only one wife. (On screen: 1 Tim 3:2; 1 Tim 3:12; Titus 1:6)." The listed scriptures do indeed include Paul's instructions to some leaders to be both married and monogamous. Latter-day Saints agree that the 'standard' instruction to all believers is monogamy—exceptions can only be commanded by God through His prophet (see Jacob 2꞉30). The video neglects to inform its viewers that multiple early Christian writers understood there to be no absolute prohibition against plural marriage in some circumstances. Once again, the video over-simplifies and distorts an issue by reducing it to a kind of "sound bite" theology, without presenting all of the data. To read more: Early Christians on plural marriage Claim: "In 1842 he [Joseph Smith] married, in an eight month period, eleven women. Took a five month break, and then in 1843 he married fourteen women, five of which he married in the month of May alone. So when we understand the timeline in which Joseph Smith married these women, how quickly he was marrying women we see that Joseph Smith had a voracious appetite for a new sexual partner." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon) Once again, the video treats a complex issue with sound bite superficiality. What insight or expertise does a "Former Fundamentalist Mormon" bring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? So-called "Fundamentalist Mormons" have nothing to do with the Church, and have generally never even been members of the Church. Joseph Smith had been a prophetic leader since before 1830. If Joseph had such "a voracious appetite" for carnal things, why did he wait so long to indulge it? Neutral observers have long understood that this attack on plural marriage is probably the weakest of them all. George Bernard Shaw, certainly no Mormon, declared: Now nothing can be more idle, nothing more frivolous, than to imagine that this polygamy had anything to do with personal licentiousness. If Joseph Smith had proposed to the Latter-day Saints that they should live licentious lives, they would have rushed on him and probably anticipated their pious neighbors who presently shot him. —Bernard Shaw, The Future of Political Science in America (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1933). Joseph knew the Twelve and other members. He would have known their moral sensibilities. If it was all about sex, why push his luck with them? Why up the ante and ask them to marry polygamously? It would have been easier for him to claim the "duty" singularly, as prophet, and not insist that they join him. Furthermore, Joseph Smith would not permit other members' sexual misconduct. For example, he refused to countenance John C. Bennett's serial infidelities. If Joseph was looking for easy access to sex, Bennett—mayor of Nauvoo, First Councilor in the First Presidency, and military leader—would have been the perfect confederate. Yet, Joseph publicly denounced Bennett's actions, and severed him from the First Presidency and the Church. Bennett became a vocal opponent and critic, and all this could have been avoided if Joseph was willing to have him as a "partner in crime." The critic cannot argue that Joseph felt that only he was entitled to polygamous relationships, since he went to great efforts to teach the doctrine to Hyrum and the Twelve, who embraced it with much less zeal than Bennett would have. If this is all about lust, why did Joseph humiliate and alienate Bennett, who Joseph should have known he could trust to support him and help hide polygamy from critics, while risking the support of the Twelve by insisting they participate? Historian B. Carmon Hardy observed: Joseph displayed an astonishingly principled commitment to the doctrine [of plural marriage]. He had to overcome opposition from his brother Hyrum and the reluctance of some of his disciples. Reflecting years later on the conflicts and dangers brought by plural marriage, some church leaders were struck with the courage Joseph displayed in persisting with it. One can read volumes of the early leaders' public writings, extemporaneous sermons, and private journals. One can reflect on the hundreds or thousands of miles of travel on missionary journeys and Church business. If the writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon and many others cannot persuade someone that they were honest men (even if mistaken) then one should sincerely question whether such a person is capable of looking charitably upon any Mormon. But, the producers of Search for the Truth have already demonstrated that they will not treat Latter-day Saints or their beliefs with honesty and respect, much less charity. As a result, their conclusion is unsurprising, even though the historical record tells a different story. To read more: Lustful motives? Claim: "Warren Jeffs has been wanted by the FBI, he's been profiled on "American's Most Wanted," he's been in the headlines a lot lately and the Mormon Church tries real hard to distance themselves from him." (Images of Warren Jeffs and Joseph Smith side by side on screen.) - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon) It is not surprising that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not wish to be mistaken for Jeffs, since Jeffs is not a member of the Church and never has been.off-site Not surprisingly, the video wishes to slander Joseph Smith through a tactic of "guilt by association," simply because Jeffs appeals to some of Joseph Smith's teachings for his behavior. Christians ought to realize the dangers of such poor tactics. The name and teachings of Jesus Christ Himself have been invoked for such purposes as: the Crusades the persecution and murder of Jews the persecution, torture, and murder of 'heretics' or 'witches' by Catholics and such Protestant Reformers as Calvin and Zwingli justifying and protecting slavery by southern Baptists prior to the American Civil War acts of political terrorism Because these evils were done by those claiming justification in the name of Jesus, is He therefore to be condemned? To read more: 'Fundamentalist' splinter groups The amazing thing to me is that Warren Jeffs simply is following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith married underage girls...." - Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon) This is a classic example of judging a historical figure by modern cultural standards. The DVD wants its modern viewers judge the age of Joseph's marriage partners by modern standards, rather than the standards of the nineteenth century. The 21st century reader is likely to see marriages of young women to much older men as inappropriate, since under twenty-first century law, Warren Jeffs could be found guilty of "statutory rape." The video will not point out to its viewers that this is a modern cultural and legal framework. The age of consent under English common law was ten. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to seven!off-site It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards. To read more: Marriages to young women: includes charts showing age differences in monogamous marriages in and out of the Church. Joseph Smith went to other women and said that their salvation was dependent upon them entering into plural marriage.- Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon) The video's producers do not want viewers to know that Joseph generally approached a close male relative before approaching a woman about plural marriage—a strange choice for a seducer, since men zealously guarded the virtue and reputation of the female relatives. Joseph also promised those involved that God would tell them what He wanted them to do. The video does not want its viewers to read the many first-person testimonies available from those who entered plural marriage. To read more: Plural marriage spiritual manifestations Joseph Smith went to other men's wives and said that God had revealed to him that they were supposed to be his spiritual wives.- Brian Mackert (Former Fundamentalist Mormon) As noted above, the critics neglect to mention that those who were taught plural marriage bore witness that they had been told by God to obey. And, the video does not want viewers to know that faithful husbands of these women were also aware of the sealings, and often stood as witnesses. The video also does not wish its viewers to understand that many of Joseph's plural marriages were motivated by the doctrine of sealing, rather than the carnal motives which they presume must have been at work. Members of the Church believed then, as now, that the entire human family must be sealed together in order to return to God's presence. Rather than deferring such sealing until family history work is completed during the Millenium, they would seal families to each other, and then seal a family member to Joseph Smith—given that those so sealed to Joseph were usually close friends, this might be called a kind of "adoptive friendship." Members do not seem to have understood this process as one of abandoning an earthly spouse for Joseph, but rather a desire to assure the salvation Joseph and his close friends, by having them all sealed together by the Melchezidek priesthood, the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God (DC 76꞉57, DC 107꞉3-4, Alma 13꞉1-9). All would thereby be bound to Jesus through His Priesthood. The point was that by sealing together through Joseph (holder of the dispensational keys) into the family of Christ, the entire family was assured of salvation, together, with each other and with their dear friend and prophet Joseph. Members have, since the administration of Wilford Woodruff, refrained from sealing their family lines to Church leaders, and simply await more family history information—during the Millenium, if need be—to complete the sealing of the human family back to Adam, who will then present his posterity to the Lord Jesus Christ. To read more: Sealing to married women? (PDF file) Further resources Concluding observations Understanding plural marriage requires the presentation and mastery of a great deal of historical information. Unless the proper time and attention is paid, one will not understand it. The DVD producers seem to have been banking on this—by throwing out numerous charges designed to shock the viewer, they hope to hide the fact that they are providing only accusations, but no substance or basis for the reader to judge the truth. The FAIR website has extensive resources on the issue of polygamy, and it causes no problems for those who are given all the facts. The Search for the Truth video fails spectacularly to inform or educate, but that is clearly not its goal. To read more: Plural marriage wiki resources FairMormon Topical Guide: Plural marriage resources FairMormon link Lengthy paper on polygamy's history: 1830–1904 PDF format

Jump to... Template:DVD25March2007-ToC