LDS transparency: J Smith marriage to 14 yr old

[JaminB123]

There may not be an answer to this question, but what I’d like to know is this: did the 14 year-old girl actually want to marry Joseph Smith? Did she have a choice in the matter?

Did she want to marry JS? As I understand the account, it appears that she was appalled by the idea. Then, after some degree of persuation, she consented.

Did she have a choice in the matter? It’s hard to know to what degree it was a free choice. There did seem to be a degree of coercion in JS’s many polygamous/polyandrous marriages. The records show he used carrots (blessings in the afterlife), sticks (such as threatening Emma with destruction in D&C 132), and appeals to authority (I am a prophet of God and God commands this) to secure some of his various marriages. To what degree JS used the carrots, sticks, and appeals to authority in this particular situation probably can’t be fully known, but I suspect a 14-year-old in her environment probably had limited true freedom choice of choice in the matter.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Breaking this question down to this was illuminating for me. The historical record is clear enough to show Joseph Smith did not have a great deal of sex as a product of his teachings on polygamy. If polygamy was instituted by the man Joseph Smith it seems obvious to me that it would be initiated for sex AND obvious that the historical record evidence much more sex than we can discern. If, as I suggest, the historical record witnesses against sex as motive, the alternative explanation (from God) becomes much more likely. And “from God” aligns very well with the historical records we have.
Charity, TOm

The sexual activity of historical figures is so well documented, we know of a majority of the sexual encounters of most of the movers and shakers in history. And everyone knows if a woman isn’t pregnant it’s because she isn’t having sex, because a woman has an egg 24/7/365 just waiting to be fertilized. That’s why natural family planning is just silliness, and totally unnecessary for becoming pregnant, since every woman can be impregnated at any moment in her life.

 

[Stephen168]

Mormons not only claim to be Christian they claim to have restored the Church of Jesus Christ; therefore we can hold them to the teachings of Christ. Polygamy and adultry were never taught by Christ.

Stephen, How does the Catholic Church reconcile Abraham’s polygamy as given in the Bible?

Note: Serious question

It seems like you are asking a question that was answered in the quote you referenced. Christ started a church. Members of his church were Christians. Abraham was never a Christian. Christians never taught or allowed adultery or polygamy.

Therefore a church claiming to restore the church of Christ would never teach or practice, polygamy or adultry. Christians also never taught eternal marriage.

 

[Janderich]

It seems like you are asking a question that was answered in the quote you referenced. Christ started a church. Members of his church were Christians. Abraham was never a Christian. Christians never taught or allowed adultery or polygamy.

Therefore a church claiming to restore the church of Christ would never teach or practice, polygamy or adultry. Christians also never taught eternal marriage.

So you close your eyes to the practice documented and sanctioned multiple times in the Old Testament and then try and distance yourself from Abraham by saying it was never taught by Jesus (even though you have very limited writings). I guess for all of these complaints against Joseph Smith I thought you would of had a better foundation.

 

[iepuras]

So you close your eyes to the practice documented and sanctioned multiple times in the Old Testament and then try and distance yourself from Abraham by saying it was never taught by Jesus (even though you have very limited writings). I guess for all of these complaints against Joseph Smith I thought you would of had a better foundation.

There was an extended discussion regarding Abraham’s polygamy in another thread.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=914014

Abraham is discussed starting in post #279 on page 19 but the discussion really gets going on page 20.

Here is a key difference between Mormonism and Christianity. Mormons believe that God revealed the complete Mormon gospel to Adam, Noah, Abraham, etc. Christians do not believe that Abraham and other OT patriarchs and prophets were Christian and had the higher law that Jesus taught. Adam and Eve did have the fullness of God’s grace but lost it due to their sin that brought about the Fall. Over time, God revealed more and more about Himself until the final revelation in the person of Jesus Christ.

Because of sin, the higher law of marriage (one man and one woman) was lost. Jesus taught that higher law (see Matthew 19:3-9), and Christians have been teaching this law ever since.

Consider the historical context of Abraham. Abraham was unique in his belief in one God. He was surrounded by polytheistic cultures where fornication, polygamy, divorce and adultery were common. Women were also considered to be property and infertility was considered to be the fault of the woman. Because of those two factors, it was culturally acceptable, even expected, for Sarah to suggest Abraham take another wife to produce an heir. But God made the promise of a child to Abraham when he only had one wife, Sarah. God recognized Sarah’s dignity as a person even though she didn’t recognize it herself.

God gave the higher law to the Israelites, but because of the hardness of their hearts, they were given a lesser law. So God permitted things such as divorce and polygamy and had a variety of laws and rules to regulate them. That didn’t mean that God commanded polygamy or was pleased with it.

Can you name one instance of polygamy in the OT that did not cause problems? I cannot. Every time polygamy is mentioned, it causes jealousy, heartache, rivalries and even war. While the writers of the OT do not explicitly state that polygamy is a problem and not a good idea, they do so implicitly.

One of the posters on the other thread linked to a very good blog post regarding polygamy in the OT.

blog.adw.org/2011/06/dont-do-polygamy-on-the-polygamy-of-the-patriarchs-and-the-problems-it-produces/

 

[TOmNossor]

You leave out power. There are more instances than one where I think Joseph was going for how far people would follow him. What an amazing thing it must have been to have men turning over their daughters and wives to him, no?

Your comment does give us an insight into the “power motive.” Instituting polygamy could be a test to see how much power Joseph possessed already, but in and of itself, it did little to enhance his power. In fact, net-net, before he was killed, I think the best read of the experience of Joseph’s polygamy is that it detracted from his power. Since it was linked to his martyrdom in the minds of some, counting his death it was definitely a negative.
Beside this however, I have often found Joseph to be much different than power seeking men.
After the death of Christ there were twelve apostles. The historical record does not convincingly say Peter was in charge, BUT after the death of the apostles the historical record points to numerous leaders. The number of bishops/presbyters in the local churches was great. Father Francis Sullivan traces the elevation of bishops/presbyters to “monarchical bishops,” a single man at the head of a local church. Robert Eno (Catholic scholar) in The Rise of the Papacy traces the elevation of city bishops to sub-regional authorities (Metropolitans), regional authorities (Patriarchs), and ultimately world authorities (Popes / Bishop of Rome). This CAN be explained as humans seeking power as humans have over history.
The CoJCoLDS started with a single human person claiming to receive visits from God and angels. Many (most?) historical figures that make such claims continue to point followers to themselves as the “window to heaven.” Joseph celebrated a number of instances where he was able to move the singular power he possessed to others. He cheered the 3 and 8 witnesses as now sharing his burden. He selected a quorum of 12 apostles and declared they had this and that power. He had assistant church presidents and councilors. He had church patriarch who gave him blessings and …
In addition to the formal shifting of authority from himself to others, he taught that EVERYONE could receive revelation not just him (and even that they should seek confirming revelations concerning what he taught, the BOM even examples this in its first few chapters).
And if that was not enough, some of the revelations he delivered criticized him, and some of the revelations he delivered cautioned against the seeking of power and how HUMANS do this. This is worth quoting I think, D&C 121 39-46

We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

Hence many are called, but few are chosen.
No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—
Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;
That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.
Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.
The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion …

So, my personal conclusion is that while power is frequently a motive for sexual conquest, I do not see this as compelling read of history either.

Also, the historical records show that a doctor living in Nauvoo was performing abortions.

There is not a lot of evidence of abortion. The bulk of it comes from the doctor John C. Bennett. When the church excommunicated him for adultery his response was not, “I am innocent,” but was rather Joseph is worse.

It is not merely the lack of ANY biological children that I think evidences Joseph was not out having volumes of sex, but two other things.

First, the “dirty stinking affair” accusation was rare. I do not think regular sexual liaisons would have produced so little in this regard.
Second, those who followed Joseph Smith were not libertines. If your 21st century sensibilities are tempted to point to the polygamist as pursuing sex in a deviant manner, those of Joseph’s day would be much worse. The bulk of these conservative Christian followers of Joseph do not gawk at his indiscretions. I think this is unlikely if sex were frequent and more unlikely if sex and abortion were frequent.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

LDS scriptures, both the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine & Covenants, state that the purpose of polygamy is to raise righteous seed (children). How did this happen in the 19th century without sex? Today, children can come into existence without sex but it is not the norm and prohibitively expensive for most people.

While I do agree that some of Smith’s marriages could have been primarily for power, sex was still a part of it.

Sorry, but the default assumption of marriage is sex between husband and wife.

So it was revealed to Smith that polygamy is commanded by God for the express purpose of having children. And than the LDS church argues that Joseph Smith’s polygamous marriages weren’t all about sex and that many of them were sexless. Don’t you see how ridiculous that sounds?
Hello!
I am not saying there was “no sex” in polygamous marriages of Joseph Smith. I think it more likely that some of the polygamous marriages were consummated (though not all) than that NONE of Joseph’s polygamous marriages were consummated. I however believe the historical record leave more room for “NO SEX” than for “volumes of sex.”
I think Joseph Smith delivered the revelation as best he could, and it is likely that without other pressing interests on his time, he would have had biological children from more than just Emma. Certainly the post Nauvoo polygamy suggests this was part of the revelation.
The “assumption” of sex in marriage is clearly wrong in some instances.
There are sealings that took place between Joseph and woman after Joseph’s martyrdom. Nobody (serious) suggest there was necrophilia here. There are sealings that took place between Joseph and men. To my knowledge there is only one historian that suggests there was homosexuality present and this suggestion (not his homosexuality) was largely why he has otherwise respected work has not lead to regular employment.

So, your assumption is clearly wrong in some instances and I am not suggesting that there was no polygamous sex. I am just suggesting it was not so frequent that it well explains the teachings on polygamy.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

There may not be an answer to this question, but what I’d like to know is this: did the 14 year-old girl actually want to marry Joseph Smith? Did she have a choice in the matter?

There is a great deal of evidence that entering into polygamy for men and woman was difficult. There are diaries of folks who expressed the horror they felt at the prospect. Some of them moved forward and entered into polygamy and some did not.

Individual coercive conditions surely varied, but we know of no physical force.
Today’s society tells us (and there is truth in this) that when a powerful man requests sex, it is coercive and wrong.
We also have records of woman struggling with the decision to say “yes or no,” and some choosing “no” so there was nothing the precluded a negative response.

I do not see much to suggest that entering into a polygamous marriage with Joseph was anything but a difficult choice, meaning that “I want to marry Joseph” was not a common phrase spoken in Nauvoo.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

So you close your eyes to the practice documented and sanctioned multiple times in the Old Testament and then try and distance yourself from Abraham by saying it was never taught by Jesus (even though you have very limited writings). I guess for all of these complaints against Joseph Smith I thought you would of had a better foundation.

As Catholic Christians we follow the teachings of Christ, so we would close our eyes to the practices of Islam, Zoroastrianism, Judaism or Hinduism. Anyone claiming to ‘restore’ Christianity, would be expected to also follow Christ.
Your comment on so little writings reminds me that the first Mormons, Joseph Smith, taught the apostasy took place in 570 AD but had to change it to 67 AD to ensure ‘very limited writings’ to free Mormons to make up stuff. The example of Christ and the Apostles was celibacy the opposite of polygamy. There is no Christian foundation on which you can place polygamy. It was a display of power typical of many cult leaders.

 

[iepuras]

Hello!

I am not saying there was “no sex” in polygamous marriages of Joseph Smith. I think it more likely that some of the polygamous marriages were consummated (though not all) than that NONE of Joseph’s polygamous marriages were consummated. I however believe the historical record leave more room for “NO SEX” than for “volumes of sex.”

I highly doubt that Smith had “volumes of sex” with each individual wife. In total, though, he very well could have been having “volumes of sex” (although I’m not quite sure how “volumes” is defined as a unit of measurement).

I think Joseph Smith delivered the revelation as best he could, and it is likely that without other pressing interests on his time, he would have had biological children from more than just Emma. Certainly the post Nauvoo polygamy suggests this was part of the revelation.

The “assumption” of sex in marriage is clearly wrong in some instances.

Can you please provide an example in your life where you made the assumption that a healthy man and woman of child bearing age were married but not having sex in their marriage?

I will also add that Mormons assume that Joseph and Mary had children of their own after the birth of Jesus. So Mormons can assume that Joseph and Mary had sex, but it is unreasonable to assume that Smith didn’t have sex at least once in all of his polygamous relationships?

There are sealings that took place between Joseph and woman after Joseph’s martyrdom. Nobody (serious) suggest there was necrophilia here. There are sealings that took place between Joseph and men. To my knowledge there is only one historian that suggests there was homosexuality present and this suggestion (not his homosexuality) was largely why he has otherwise respected work has not lead to regular employment.

And no one is making these assumptions here.

So, your assumption is clearly wrong in some instances and I am not suggesting that there was no polygamous sex. I am just suggesting it was not so frequent that it well explains the teachings on polygamy.

Charity, TOm

Are you familiar with a woman’s menstrual cycle? Do you know that a woman is fertile for only a short period of time during her monthly cycle?

There are a many ways Smith could have had “volumes of sex” with his “wives” and not produced children. This list is not exhaustive as I don’t want to get too graphic.

1. Have sex with an already pregnant woman
2. Have sex with a teenager who has not yet started menstruating
3. Use a condom
4. Withdrawal
5. Have sex with each plural wife 1 or 2 times per month and time it during the infertile parts of her cycle

If a man has many partners, it is really not that difficult for him to have “volumes of sex” in total but only consistently get one woman pregnant on a fairly frequent basis.

 

[tabycat]

The sexual activity of historical figures is so well documented, we know of a majority of the sexual encounters of most of the movers and shakers in history. And everyone knows if a woman isn’t pregnant it’s because she isn’t having sex, because a woman has an egg 24/7/365 just waiting to be fertilized. That’s why natural family planning is just silliness, and totally unnecessary for becoming pregnant, since every woman can be impregnated at any moment in her life.

I got a suprise for you: Women do not have an egg “just waiting to be fertilized” 24/7/365. Most of us just have an egg a few days a month to be fertizied and then only between 12 and 55 years old (give or take a few years).

 

[TOmNossor]

The example of Christ and the Apostles was celibacy the opposite of polygamy.

I lean towards the view that Christ was celibate, but there are a small minority of scholars who would disagree.
Where we have data, I think all of it points to married apostles (though like some early LDS apostles they may have left wives and families at home during missionary travels).
If you cut the apostles out, perhaps Catholic ministers can follow the example of Christ, but the apostolic church had married ministers.
I have not studied the origins of a celibate priesthood extensively, but it is not apostolic.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I highly doubt that Smith had “volumes of sex” with each individual wife. In total, though, he very well could have been having “volumes of sex” (although I’m not quite sure how “volumes” is defined as a unit of measurement).

My point is that sexual appetite is the obvious reason offered by critics when pointing to the human instituted practice of polygamy by Joseph Smith.
The absence of “volumes” of sex brings this most obvious reason into question.
The historical record cannot prove Joseph consummated even one polygamous union (there are friendly and hostile sources that say he did of course). What I think the historical record does tell us is that Joseph was having very little sex with anyone other than Emma.

Can you please provide an example in your life where you made the assumption that a healthy man and woman of child bearing age were married but not having sex in their marriage?

It took me about 30 sec to think of three.
More applicable to Joseph’s situation, there are a number of husbands and wives who are not in the same house for various reasons. Most commonly today it is due to travel and this was a factor for Joseph.
The second is one that I hope you have been thinking about as it is your faith that is debating this. While I doubt most divorced and remarried Catholics are living as brother and sister, I think some of them are. So here is a group of folks who abstain from sex despite being married for religious reasons.
Finally, in my faith there are some husbands and wives who have a love/hate relationship, but are very committed to marriage for many reasons, one of them being a hope for eternity. These folks abstain from sex because they do not get along well, but are married because of hope for the future and commitment to each other and their families.

I offered two reasons two examples previous where almost nobody believes Joseph consummated marriages.

The “assumption” of sex in marriage is clearly wrong in some instances.
There are sealings that took place between Joseph and woman after Joseph’s martyrdom. Nobody (serious) suggest there was necrophilia here. There are sealings that took place between Joseph and men. To my knowledge there is only one historian that suggests there was homosexuality present and this suggestion (not his homosexuality) was largely why he has otherwise respected work has not lead to regular employment.

The theology that led to the above two types of sealings is the same as the theology that lead to the polygamous sealings you THINK involved Joseph’s sexual appetites. But these sealings didn’t. I would suggest this is another example of sealings (though it violates your added criteria “of child bearing age,” but this is a rather arbitrary addition on your part that does not align with the practice of polygamy in the CoJCoLDS) that didn’t involve sex and it is rather directly related to the sealings that you think are product of Joseph sexual appetites.

History cannot tell us what happened in all the bedrooms where Joseph happened to be on any giving night. But history can provide us with examples were sealings didn’t involve sex, it can show us the reaction of Polygamy insiders to Joseph’s teachings, it can show us how Joseph’s sexual appetites did or did not affect those who knew him much better than we can. I understand why you bring your assumptions of sex and sexual appetite to Joseph’s polygamy, but I do not think that is a good read of the historical record we have.
Cont… (I hope).
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I will also add that Mormons assume that Joseph and Mary had children of their own after the birth of Jesus. So Mormons can assume that Joseph and Mary had sex, but it is unreasonable to assume that Smith didn’t have sex at least once in all of his polygamous relationships?
There are biblical and linguistic reasons for these assumptions.
And I find it prohibitively unlikely that Joseph Smith had sex in ALL of his polygamous relationship.
And IMPOSSIBLE that Joseph had sex with all those to whom he was sealed.
So, when the Bible implies that Jesus had brothers and sisters, when it claims that Mary was a virgin until after Jesus was born, when Joseph and Mary leave one of their children in the Temple and don’t notice for a day; there is reason to believe that Joseph and Mary had other children. I find there many more difficult Catholic issues than this, and I could be a Catholic and believe the apologetic responses concerning this.
I will say, I find it MUCH more likely Joseph and Mary had sex than that Joseph Smith had sex with ALL of his polygamous wives. And almost infinitively more likely that Joseph and Mary had sex than that Joseph Smith had sex with all those to which he was sealed.

To any Catholic that is offended when I say the above, I did bring this up. I do not believe I have ever argued for Joseph and Mary’s children on Catholic Answers until now.

iepuras:
There are sealings that took place between Joseph and woman after Joseph’s martyrdom. Nobody (serious) suggest there was necrophilia here. There are sealings that took place between Joseph and men. To my knowledge there is only one historian that suggests there was homosexuality present and this suggestion (not his homosexuality) was largely why he has otherwise respected work has not lead to regular employment.
And no one is making these assumptions here.
It is good that you are not making wild accusations like Joseph Smith the homosexual or early Mormon necrophilia, but you are ignoring history.
By neglecting this bit of historical data you are creating a picture that does not align with history as well as mine does. This is biased history and it is why I think your picture is not well supported by the historical record.

iepuras:

1. Have sex with an already pregnant woman
2. Have sex with a teenager who has not yet started menstruating
3. Use a condom
4. Withdrawal
5. Have sex with each plural wife 1 or 2 times per month and time it during the infertile parts of her cycle.

First, as I said about the reason for believing volumes of sex didn’t occur is not JUST that no biological children have been found. That is just ONE of the reasons.

Second, we have woman who claimed to have sex with Joseph to consummate the marriage. This claims align well with a wedding night consummation, but do not line up with regular liaisons. They also have nothing to say about birth control (this would have offended Christian sensibilities almost as bad as adultery until the mid to late 20th century), nothing about withdrawal (which would raised issues), nothing about the rhythm method or Joseph querying woman about time to get a feel for their menstruation cycles, and none of Joseph purported wives was likely to be pre-menarche. I believe I have read some from Bennett’s book on sex with pregnant woman, but this is a questionable source and would have also lead to much social problems we do not see anywhere except from Bennett.

So, again, I think 1-5 is something you might think is necessary to preserve your theory that polygamy was about sexual appetite, but I do not think there is compelling historical evidence for any of it.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

I lean towards the view that Christ was celibate, but there are a small minority of scholars who would disagree.
Where we have data, I think all of it points to married apostles (though like some early LDS apostles they may have left wives and families at home during missionary travels).
If you cut the apostles out, perhaps Catholic ministers can follow the example of Christ, but the apostolic church had married ministers.
I have not studied the origins of a celibate priesthood extensively, but it is not apostolic.

This seems to be another of your more frequent inventions made as a knee jerk response to your inability to defend the many invented practices and beliefs of Mormonism.

Christ was celibate whether is it your view or not…
The data we have points to the Twelve being celibate during their time as Apostles of Christ. The data also points to zero Apostles practicing polygamy.
Therefore a celibate ministry is Christian while a polygamist ministry is not.

Polygamy is an invention not a restoration.

 

[Stephen168]

Your comment does give us an insight into the “power motive.” Instituting polygamy could be a test to see how much power Joseph possessed already, but in and of itself, it did little to enhance his power. In fact, net-net, before he was killed, I think the best read of the experience of Joseph’s polygamy is that it detracted from his power. Since it was linked to his martyrdom in the minds of some, counting his death it was definitely a negative.Yes, His lust for power was his downfall. It is an often repeated story of man, starting with Adam. Because Joseph Smith’s lust for power was his downfall doesn’t mean it was not a lust for power.

Your conclusion is irrational.

 

[kimg901]

Just writings from witnesses who were there. Of course this is the same proof you have of the miracles that Christ performed.

Touche! But smith is not God/Jesus!

 

[Stephen168]

There are a many ways Smith could have had “volumes of sex” with his “wives” and not produced children. This list is not exhaustive as I don’t want to get too graphic.

1. Have sex with an already pregnant woman
2. Have sex with a teenager who has not yet started menstruating
3. Use a condom
4. Withdrawal
5. Have sex with each plural wife 1 or 2 times per month and time it during the infertile parts of her cycle

If a man has many partners, it is really not that difficult for him to have “volumes of sex” in total but only consistently get one woman pregnant on a fairly frequent basis.

Yes, studies done on the birthrate of polygamist Mormons found the birthrate (births per wife) to be lower than the none polygamist population. This also rejects the story I’ve been told by Mormons that polygamy was done just as a temporary frontier practice to increase the population.

 

[hosemonkey]

If the predator and prey can’t be seen in this account, then I have nothing more to add.

Rebecca J.
You are entirely correct. Another (mormon) poster said he was was offended by a previous post recounting J. Smith’s plucking of a 15 year-old. His sexual predation ultimately resulted in Smith’s execution by an angry crowd for a culmination of offenses against his neighbors that they could no longer abide.
Yes, reprobates can found “religions” witness mormonism and Islam. Islam is the greatest enemy of human life and freedom on this earth. Greater than Naziism or Communism or Ebola. Ebola does not know, but Islam does. If that poster believes that an accusation of falsity is offensive, than he has no idea of the true history and beliefs of his sect.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I got a suprise for you: Women do not have an egg “just waiting to be fertilized” 24/7/365. Most of us just have an egg a few days a month to be fertizied and then only between 12 and 55 years old (give or take a few years).

Yes I was being a smart aleck. Spent some time not getting pregnant, then getting pregnant, then not getting pregnant, then getting pregnant on so on.