27 Comments

1. 

   LDSDPer on September 24, 2013 at 8:43 am

   Mr. Waterman?

   Can’t it at least be Bro. Waterman?

   Reams and reams and reams to read through–

   you’re right; he’s wrong. He’s right; you’re wrong. I’ve read Brother Waterman’s blog entry, and there is one big difference between his writing attitude and yours.

   His tone is humble, teachable.

   I don’t need to have it proven to me whether Joseph Smith did or did not ‘live’ polygamy. It was a terrible mistake. And, yes, prophets are mortals, and they can make mistakes. Whether Joseph “did” it or not, it was a heartbreaking error.

   After those tables and tables, where is the dna evidence for the children? Brother Waterman very kindly (without arrogance) mentioned that Brother Hales might have found and produced that evidence.

   Reply
2. 

   LDSDPer on September 24, 2013 at 8:47 am

   P.S. I admit that the entire polygamy issue is a quagmire.

   President Hinckley told the world it was not ‘doctrine’.

   We’re back to that ‘either/or’–

   If President Hinckley was correct or speaking according to the Spirit, then those before him who taught it were wrong–

   If President Hinckley was incorrect to say that, then where is continuing revelation.

   It becomes, at some point, a matter for personal revelation. I don’t intend to persecute those who practice polygamy now; I believe it should be decriminalized, but I don’t believe it is or ever was a “spiritual truth”–

   Reply
3. 

   LDSDPer on September 24, 2013 at 9:01 am

   oh–

   and where was the review? Brother Waterman’s chief ‘contention’ was to surmise that there really is no reason for *him* to continue to believe in polygamy.

   I read his blog essay twice, several months apart–

   and I had some of the same concerns. Why are *we* LDS continuing to hold polygamy up as a ‘sacred cow’?

   We don’t live it. It’s illegal. But, beyond that, it has been declared not to be doctrine by a recent prophet.

   You didn’t address that.

   Are you seeking to see it restored as a spiritual requirement for faithful LDS?

   Brother Waterman did, cautiously, quote the Prices. But what I gathered as I read it is that LDS men secretly believe they will be polygamists someday, and LDS women secretly fear that they will need to live it someday–

   and that spiritual assumption causes a lot of heartache. It’s not necessary.

   Your reams and reams of evidence (but I still didn’t see the DNA evidence for the children of Joseph’s “other wives”) doesn’t address the ubiquitous belief that polygamy is still an eternal principle or doctrine.

   I realize that President Hinckley is no longer living, but you’re welcome to take him on.

   Just don’t call him Mr. Hinckley.

   Gordon B. Hinckley: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.

   Reply
4. 

   Thoughtful on September 24, 2013 at 1:44 pm

   According to the three reasons given (for plural marriage), why would it be necessary (for Joseph Smith) to ‘marry’ other men’s wives? (According to scholars, at least 13 of his wives were already married to other faithful mormon men)

   Reply
   • 

     Brian Hales on September 24, 2013 at 3:22 pm

     Good comment on the “Mr.” vs. “Bro.” I don’t know Brother Waterman and didn’t want to be presumptuous. I will need to ask his pardon.

     The question arises as to why women would be sealed to Joseph Smith instead of their legal spouses? In several cases, the husbands were ineligible because they were not active Mormons. However, some of the women were married to devout Latter-day Saints. Evidence indicates that in each case, the woman made the decision. Lucy Walker remembered the Prophet’s counsel: “A woman would have her choice, this was a privilege that could not be denied her.” In other words, the women chose Joseph to be their eternal husband. The lack of clarifying documents creates an incomplete picture that seems strange in several respects. However, nothing currently available supports that Joseph behaved hypocritically or committed transgression. None of the participants, the men or women who knew the details of what was going on, ever complained about Joseph Smith allowing these sealings. In Joseph Smith’s teachings, no woman could have two husbands at the same time, which would be adultery. However, some apparently chose someone else to be sealed to for the next life.

     Reply
     • 

       Ivan Cev on August 2, 2014 at 1:45 am

       This is a complete absurd, the words of Jesus are: luke 20 “34 Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection”
       Please note the answer of Jesus does not refer to the woman or the 7 husbands, (they were hypothetical any way) it refer to all of whom will reach the kingdom of heaven.
       I have also been a Mormon all my life and though carefully this issues, polygamy is just an extension of eternal marriage, both not valid in words of Jesus.
       Who you will believe? Jesus or Joseph.?

       Reply
5. 

   ADAM on September 24, 2013 at 4:46 pm

   I like Rock Waterman’s writing but I definitely put him into the Prophet Joseph Worshipper crowd, and this informs his decision to choose to believe that Joseph didn’t practise polygamy and to be subject to confirmation bias in the research he looks at.

   More power to him, I must say that I’m slightly partial to his point of view (i.e. the church as Joseph restored it was Gods church but it’s now in somewhat of a state of apostasy) because it makes a lot of sense.

   At the end of the day however I probably fit better into another camp, the one that says the church is and has always been rife with imperfections and philosophies of men but still remains a wonderful vehicle in which to approach the divine.

   Reply
6. 

   Rock Waterman on September 24, 2013 at 5:02 pm

   Brian,
   Thank you for that thoughtful and even-handed response to my blog post. There have been times when I’ve been drawn into Facebook arguments by those whose very worldview seems threatened simply by questioning the conventional wisdom. I appreciate your acknowledging that this topic is problematic, even if you and I do come down on separate sides of the issue.

   I am not a scholar, just a guy who reads a lot, and it seems to me that given Joseph Smith’s frequent and adamant denials regarding the practice, combined with the obvious doctoring of Joseph Smith’s words in the DHC by Willard Richards under the direction of Brigham Young, sufficient cause exists to question, and investigate.

   I don’t wish to take you on point by point here. For one thing, I’m under deadline to get something else in print, and for another, I’ve been considering re-addressing this whole Joseph Smith and Polygamy thing in a future post. Your kind offer to sen me your books is gratefully accepted, and in a few months I’ll post something about this. From what I have already heard of your books, they are very thorough, and they come highly recommended.

   I can’t resist addressing a few quick points you bring up in your piece above. The letter to Nancy Rigdon, purportedly from Joseph Smith, was rejected by Nancy, who did not believe it was from Joseph. Sidney Rigdon also believed it was a fraud. Joseph Smith himself made affidavit denying authorship. And yet it still found its way into the official history of the church, with a byline by Joseph Smith. We should be wary of accepting these things at face value. Too much of our history has been falsified.

   You bring up the Temple Lot Case. The ins and outs of that controversy are complicated, but in a nutshell it came down to a question of which of the Mormon denominations could lay claim to having descended from its founder, Joseph Smith. A reading of that case could forever effect the reader’s view of our claim to authority. The “wives” brought out to testify were a disaster. So was the testimony of the leaders. In the words of the presiding judge, it was clear to him that “Brigham Young was a bold and bald usurper.” It was not our finest hour. Brigham Young’s widely accepted declaration (by the Utah Saints) that “Joseph Smith told me this” did not fly in an open court of law.

   The William Clayton Diaries would certainly move me to reconsider my view, if I could ever see the originals. Likewise the minutes of the Nauvoo High Council. If there is anything we learn from Daymon Smith’s remarkable new book “A Cultural History of the Book of Mormon,” it is that the early Saints did not normally write in their diaries daily, but that they often recorded their recollections years and sometimes decades after the event. As Daymon shows, our histories were often fudged in order to fit with the traditions that grew up around them.

   I agree with Robert Fields that we must be allowed to see and examine the original Clayton diaries. I don’t know where they are; I’m guessing in the church archives. Presumably there are three diaries. Where are the parts on polygamy contained within? are they added at the end, or are they somewhere in the middle where they should be to line up with the dates? Fields also feels the paper and ink should be tested by experts to line up with the era they were purportedly written, and handwriting analysis included. In spite of what some folks believe about me, I’m not married to any historical view. I am capable of changing my mind. It would certainly help to see SOMETHING spoken or written by Joseph Smith in his lifetime to confirm the history that was later built up around this topic. But all we get from Joseph is deny, deny, deny.

   When Joseph Smith’s sons came to Utah, they spoke to packed chapels of Saints ready to accept them as their rightful leaders, as they had been expecting one of Joseph’s sons to assume the leadership. But Joseph and David castigated the Saints for apostatizing from their father’s teachings. This threw the current hierarchy into a panic. The wives of the apostles were recruited to announced they had formerly been sealed to Joseph, documents were forged, and false testimonies circulated, all in an effort to halt any doubts that Brigham and his successors were the rightful leaders and that poor young Joseph and David Smith had been deceived by their mother. The now debunked story of Brigham Young’s visage transformed into Joseph Smith took off during that time. Since no dove had descended from heaven and alighted upon Brigham’s shoulder, that story was the next best thing.

   I don’t know the truth about our history. But I think it’s a good idea to question everything, given the large number of faith promoting myths that have grown up in this church over time. What I would really like to see from you, Brian, is a point by point refutation of the research provided in the Price’s books. Usually I just hear of them dismissed. If their research is faulty, show me where.

   Thank you again for your kind response, Brian. I look forward to learning more from you.

   Reply
   • 

     Brother Jake Garn on May 11, 2020 at 1:37 pm

     Just want to be notified of the response to this!

     Reply
7. 

   Garrett on September 24, 2013 at 8:20 pm

   Ultimately the issue is really easy for me….there is a prophet, seer, and revelator at the top of the church. They do not argue with the position that Joseph practiced polygamy or polyandry. So if god hasn’t come out and told the prophets that Joseph wasn’t polygamous then I have to assume that he in fact was.

   Reply
8. 

   LDSDPer on September 25, 2013 at 10:10 am

   and the beat goes on–

   LOL!

   Garrett–

   (should have put this under your comment)–

   Did God tell Gordon B. Hinckley polygamy wasn’t doctrine–

   or plural marriage or whatever it is supposed to be called–

   a lot of names for one bizarre practice–!

   Yes, I know you are talking about Joseph Smith, not whether or not it is doctrinal–

   but my question remains.

   Why doesn’t anyone comment on what President Hinckley said?

   Is there some sort of taboo?

   LOL!

   “Not doctrine” is pretty profound, and he was a president of the church (prophet) when he said it.

   Maybe my mind just bends in a different direction from the others who are involved in this discussion–

   could be; perhaps.

   Reply
9. 

   LDSDPer on September 25, 2013 at 10:43 am

   Garrett, I just realized you were probably being tongue in cheek–

   I get SO serious about this topic that I forget that others might be making humorous comments, which *I* welcome, whether or not the OPer does–

   True; why not just ask–

   well, in my opinion, and this is just my opinion and might not have much value–

   not all ‘prophets’ are created equally–

   generally, the mainstream LDS perspective, which I shared for decades–

   is that all prophets ARE created equally, and if one of them slipped then none of the others can be good–

   OR–

   if mistakes were made in the past, they can’t be rectified–

   every human being who has ever been LDS or ever will be LDS must be the same and perfect–

   or the entire thing is a hoax and a scam–

   well, I don’t accept that–

   I think Brigham Young might have been a scoundrel (*gasp*)–

   it’s just MY opinion, and I think that others beyond him who were more reasonable, and, by *my* standards at any rate, possibly more humble and Godly–

   may have kept things balanced enough that God didn’t completely give up on the church–

   I know many LDS who believe that if one prophet ‘slipped’ (even Joseph Smith) the rest could not do anything right at all–

   that’s not how humanity works, or God, I think–

   God gives people second chances–and even churches–

   and I think prophets today might not want to have the controversy involved in saying what they may think about each individual president of the church (I say president, not ‘prophet’ for a reason)–

   too sticky–

   too many people might not understand–

   or maybe they have other more pressing things to do–

   or–

   maybe they are afraid that others might say bad things about them once they are no longer here–

   !!!

   Can you imagine Thomas S. Monson saying, “Brigham Young was a rotter”–

   no–

   for one thing it is well-known that he is a peacemaker–

   not all presidents of the church have been–

   thanks for indulging me in this flight of fancy–

   Reply
10. 

    Rock Waterman on September 25, 2013 at 12:57 pm

    Garrett:
    Ultimately the issue is really easy for me….there is a prophet, seer, and revelator at the top of the church.They do not argue with the position that Joseph practiced polygamy or polyandry. So if god hasn’t come out and told the prophets that Joseph wasn’t polygamous then I have to assume that he in fact was.

    The Brethren are in a tight place on this matter, Garrett. They can’t possibly exonerate Joseph from plural marriage, because to do so would be to expose Brigham as a usurper. Without the ability to trace their lines of authority THROUGH Brigham and back to Joseph Smith, their own authority comes into question.

    So, as much as the leaders today would like polygamy to just go away, they HAVE to “admit” it was of divine origin, and approved by Joseph Smith. Why do you think you were NEVER taught about the many vigorous denials Joseph preached on the topic?

    Of course, you also have to assume none of the current leadership have spent that any time investigating the claims that Joseph opposed polygamy. They know little more about the topic than the average member, so of course they believe section 132 was came from Joseph.

    Reply
    • 

      Kyle Kenley Kopitke on February 10, 2015 at 11:34 am

      I think Brother Brigham was just trying to survive. Just because he did some tough maneuvers, does not mean he was not a Prophet of God. He was.

      Having read The Holy Bible a number of times (6), I have seen many Bible leaders do what they had to do.

      If Brother Joseph was only married to Emma, then the Clayton and Noble journals have to have been altered; it is one way or the other. Given that….they are under lock and key……dah….the answer is right there.

      Sad; today I spoke with a fine educated man who thinks Brother Joseph had more than one wife because of the Clayton Journals.

      It was all about the money, and keeping power. And also keeping the Church together. It is so obvious that the affidavits are bogus; how does an old man in 1902 remember “word for word” a conversation more than 50 years earlier?

      Oh…can you tell me what your Mother said to you word for word 20 years ago on September 15th? Of course not; bogus claims. They were just making it up to protect their way of life, and money/property/social standing.

      Section 132 was not developed by Brother Joseph; it was “found” in 1852; in a drawer. Then the kicker is, when they finally place in the D&C in 1876, they remove the original Section 101, which was endorsed by Brother Joseph which said…..which said….which said…he was against polygamy.

      What is sad is that by claiming Brother Joseph chased little 13 and 14 year old girls and was married to married women, it drives people out of the Church, and causes others not to look into it and read The Book of Mormon.

      I have had two strong Spiritual Witnesses that Brother Joseph did not practice polygamy. So I have to be true to the Witness I have received.

      Praise The Lord
      Numbers 6:22-27
      Kyle Kopitke
      kylekopitke@gmail.com

      Reply
11. 

    Greg Scott on October 3, 2013 at 1:27 pm

    I just finished the book, “Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy”, and found it very logical and thought provoking. It leaves me with this conclusion; one either has to believe Joseph Smith lied about the whole issue most of his life, which brings into doubt all his other revelations, or Brigham was a false prophet.
    I lean towards the latter, but then what does that say about the church today and the purported infallibility of its leaders?
    Looking back, two of the biggest issues the modern LDS church has faced have been over two policies or doctrines; polygamy and the supposed inferiority of blacks. And where did the church get those two doctrines? In terms of polygamy it hasn’t been established conclusively whether it was Joseph Smith or just Brigham Young. If it was revelation received by Joseph Smith and practiced by him, then the man was a bald-faced liar. And I don’t accept the word play between plural celestial marriage and spiritual wifery as justification for his repeated denials. He never ran from a fight or failed to say what he believed and then stand behind it. I believe based on what I have come across in my studies Brigham Young came up with it, instituted it and practiced it all on his own and the church has been paying for it and trying to justify it ever since.
    We are supposed to follow Christ and his gospel and teachings and not put our whole faith and trust in men who are ALL fallible. Brigham Young did a lot of good things for the church but that doesn’t mean everything he did was right. The BOM, which was written for us and is the foundation of the revealed gospel CLEARLY teaches polygamy is a sin and not a righteous practice.
    And I have always thought polygamy was a stupid and unfair practice to all parties involved and only benefiting the men who get to sleep around and have sex with multiple partners “legally”. Men always start it and I see no benefit to the women or the children produced from it. I think the idea of polygamy in the next life is even more ludicrous and ridiculous. What woman upon becoming a god would agree to such an arrangement? What is in it for her? Put the situation in reverse and see how many men would be for that. My guess is pretty much none.
    I trust Joseph Smith far more than any prophet or “president” since and to me that only makes sense as he did far more than any of the rest combined and died for his beliefs. The church could have done without any one of the ‘prophets’ since and be relatively unchanged. Not so without Joseph. And how many of them claimed to have seen God or Jesus and publicly proclaimed it? Only a couple. How can you be a witness to all the world of Christ if you never even saw or spoke to Him? The Nephite prophets saw him.
    I never knew about the many times Joseph preached publicly against polygamy and defended himself legally from those same accusations made against him until I read this book and that the church under Brigham Young changed the D&C regarding marriage, either(that really bothers me). From my reading of the Bible it seems all the Old Testament kings who had multiple wives and or concubines(and don’t forget king noah and his priests) met a bad end so it doesn’t seem like it was a blessing. David obviously was a satyr and couldn’t be satisfied no matter how many different women he had sex with. Brigham probably was the same.
    I think the two worst doctrines in church history seem to have come from Brigham Young. Polygamy and the supposed inferiority of blacks.
    Brigham Young was a wrong about blacks and was just a racist and I can prove it using logic and church doctrine which nobody in the church disputes. Here is my proof:
    It is completely irrational to say blacks are inferior and not worthy of holding the priesthood on one hand and then to TEACH that ALL black children(meaning tens of milllions, more than all current church members), who died before the age of 8, will go straight to the top of the celestial kingdom. That makes no sense at all. And more black children under the age of eight have died than white children.
    It seems most of the “prophets” since Brigham have been trying to explain HIS teachings and deal with the fallout ever since. And in order to do that they decided they had to throw Joseph Smith under the bus on the polygamy issue. But Joseph Smith NEVER taught blacks were inferior like Brigham did and in fact he conferred the priesthood on at least two black men I have read about. So again we have a real problem between the two. More evidence to me Joseph Smith wasn’t a polygamist and Brigham Young WAS a racist and a libertine. Joseph Smith was a true prophet and Brigham Young was just the president of the church who took over in his place. I bet if Hiram hadn’t of also been murdered Brigham would have got excommunicated for practicing polygamy. And the history of the church would be far different than it is today.

    Reply
12. 

    Brian Hales on October 4, 2013 at 12:37 pm

    I think it is great that Greg Scott is investigating this topic and as I’ve said, Richard and Pamela Price are generally very good researchers.

    However, if their conclusions are reliable, they should endure scrutiny and should be consistent with other credible evidences dealing with the topic.

    I would encourage Mr. Scott to withhold judgement on Joseph and Brigham (regarding plural marriage) until he has reviewed all the evidence. Perhaps he could check out my three volumes from the library or borrow them from a friend. There are so many documents that Richard and Pamela ignore or dismiss, but that are just as reliable as the documents they quote.

    If Joseph was a true prophet, which is my conviction, it is worth the effort.

    Take Care,

    Brian Hales

    The truth is going to be more obvious after inspecting all known documentation. Limiting the manuscripts that we review exposes us to being deceived.

    Reply
13. 

    jpv on October 4, 2013 at 2:39 pm

    Brian, I’ve (started to) read your books, and was wondering why these two were are not considered contemporaneous evidence of JS polygamy?

    The 1842 Whitney letter revealing JS’ polygamous sealing ceremony:
    http://eadview.lds.org/findingaid/viewer?pid=IE425462
    and
    http://eadview.lds.org/findingaid/viewer?pid=IE537711

    Also the Laws’ 1844 affidavit which appears to be talking about the 132 Revelation:
    http://en.fairmormon.org/Primary_sources/Nauvoo_Expositor_Full_Text#Affidavits

    Rock,

    I’m aware of the FRLDS criticism of 132 and the Nauvoo Clayton journals possibly being forged later, but what is the non-polygamous interpretation of these two contemporary records?

    Reply
14. 

    jpv on October 4, 2013 at 2:42 pm

    Was quoting this:

    The overall problem documenting Joseph Smith’s plural marriages stems from the fact that there are only two known contemporaneous documents dealing with the subject, the Revelation on Celestial and Plural Marriage (now LDS D&C 132) and a few entries in the journal of William Clayton.

    Reply
15. 

    Robin Hood on March 18, 2014 at 4:39 am

    I am very familiar with the work of the late Richard Price (passed away 1 Jan 2014) and his wife Pamela. I am also very familiar with the work of Rock Waterman.
    I have to say that I believe they are much nearer to the truth than many “orthodox” commentators such as yourself on this issue. The weakness in your argument is your admission (and this is very significant) that there is very little, if any, credible contemporary evidence of Joseph’s involvement in (physical) plural marriage. That, coupled with Joseph’s strenuous public denials, is a major blow to the official party line.
    Later non-contemporaneous sources are problematic for many and varied reasons which I do not have time to detail here, but which I plan to in the future. I am currently gathering evidence to write a book; the first (I believe) to question the party line and present the Saints with another scenario more consistent with the evidence.

    Reply
16. 

    Brian Hales on March 18, 2014 at 8:23 pm

    Hi Robin Hood,

    You are correct that “Later non-contemporaneous sources are problematic,” but when we have hundreds of recollections telling the same story including both believers and unbelievers, apologists and antagonists, then it becomes more difficult to say that something did not happen. Besides the Utah Church members recollections, we have those from men like William Law who is very credible on the topic.

    We should also not discount the entries in William Clayton’s journal, which were recorded contemporaneously and are consistent with later accounts. The NAUVOO EXPOSITOR published June 7th, 1844 is also good evidence.

    But there are several documents that indicate that Joseph Smith III also knew and believed. Take for example his letter to RLDS member E. C. Brand, who lived in Provo, Utah asking him to make some inquiries in order to create a list of his father’s plural wives. Brand wrote back providing twenty names (see chapter thirty-two). In reply to that letter and list, the Reorganized Church President wrote on January 26, 1894 asking for additional “proof,” but the tenor of his response seems to reflect a belief that his father was indeed a polygamist:

    Yours from Provo, of Jan 6 was received; and I have been getting used to contemplating my respective step-mothers, and possible half brothers & sisters by the same, before attempting a reply – as if it needed one… I asked you to look after the “limbs of the” family tree, I wanted to see if they were akin to the “root.”… Now you will discover that while you have furnished me names; I would like particulars and proofs. And if you find any more mothers, or aunts, and can do so just get proofs, proofs, anything that is offered. I will be mighty easy to [indecipherable] only I want the proofs they offer.

    Here Joseph Smith III asks Brand to help find “limbs of the family tree” by inquiring about his father’s plural wives.

    In 1882, William B. Smith, former Church Patriarch who was excommunicated in 1845, contemplated writing a biography of his brother, the Prophet. His nephew, RLDS President Joseph Smith III wrote to him concerning it:

    In regard to the matter of your Biography &c… Father’s history is not yet written for the world, and ought to be written by a friend, of course…
    I have long been engaged in removing from Father’s memory and from the Early church, the stigma and blame thrown upon them because of Polygamy; and have at last lived to see the cloud rapidly lifting. And I would not consent to see further blame attached, by a blunder now. Therefore uncle, bear in mind our standing today before the world as defenders of Mormonism free from Polygamy and go ahead with your personal recollections of Joseph & Hyrum.
    … if you are the wise man I take you to be, You will fail to remember anything [contrasting] to the lofty standard of character by which we esteem those good men. You can do the Cause great good; you can injure it by injudicious sayings.

    Joseph Smith III encourages his uncle to “fail to remember” anything that might have reinforced “the stigma and blame thrown upon them because of Polygamy.” William was also a Nauvoo polygamist.

    During the earliest years following the 1860 establishment of the Reorganized Church, several RLDS leaders, such as William Marks, acknowledged that Joseph Smith was initially involved with polygamy. The first volume of their official publication, The True Latter Day Saint Herald, claimed that Joseph Smith gave several members a false revelation at their request—a revelation that authorized the practice of plural marriage. This act resulted in the Prophet being punished by death. According to these authors, Joseph Smith “abhorred and repented of this iniquity before his death.”

    When all sides agree something happened and we see above the Utah Church, the anti-Mormons, and even Joseph Smith III, all seem to affirm that Joseph Smith Jr. introduced plural marriage in Nauvoo, then it is difficult to dismiss.

    Take Care,

    Brian Hales

    Reply
    • 

      Brother Jake Garn on May 11, 2020 at 7:57 am

      Hi Brother Hales!

      I want to respectfully and strongly counter three points you make in your statement,

      “We should also not discount the entries in William Clayton’s journal, which were recorded contemporaneously and are consistent with later accounts.”

      Do you have a response to Brother Waterman’s salient point that we do not have access to William Clayton’s original three journals, nor has their been an analysis done as to whether his commentary on polygamy is in fact contemporary to Joseph? Have we received access in the intervening seven years to this post?

      “The NAUVOO EXPOSITOR published June 7th, 1844 is also good evidence.”
      You contend that the NAVUOO EXPOSITER is “is also good evidence?” How do you explain Joseph Smith’s willingness to stake the city charter, his honor, and ultimately his life contending the opposite? His martyrdom cements his testimony that he was about to make in court that it was outright slander, far from good evidence. You want dissenters from your narrative to take every journal entry, every second hand account at face value about Joseph’s polygamy… yet Joseph Smith’s own martyrdom defending what he publicly preached stands out to me as a much firmer testimony.

      The other point about “During the earliest years following the 1860 establishment of the Reorganized Church, several RLDS leaders, such as William Marks, acknowledged that Joseph Smith was initially involved with polygamy” and “the tenor of his response seems to reflect a belief that his father was indeed a polygamist:” I just flatly disagree with your assessment, what it SOUNDS like he was willing to believe it once the preponderance of proof ultimately came out. Now we have a bit of proof to talk about, unlike him, we have the proof that NONE of the alleged “Branches” of Joseph are actually ancestors of Joseph has the DNA evidence has shown… so now that the “proof” that William Mark’s pondered about has been born out, exonerating Joseph Smith so far, why are we making a point about his ‘tenor’ at all?

      You, Brother Hales, are making A LOT of stretches. A LOT of them. The question is… do you see your own slant towards confirmation bias or are you only seeing it reflected in other people?

      Joseph Smith testified his own history, with his martyrdom. I love the thoroughness of the “he said she said” but realistically Brother Waterman, Anonymous Bishop, and many many others are making some very hard to counter points that I DO NOT see being addressed without bias!

      Reply
17. 

    Grandma on June 16, 2014 at 4:29 pm

    I have one question? I understand a lot of LDS at that time wanted to be sealed to Joseph Smith.
    So some did that by proxy?
    On how many of the dates for the Sealings, was he really there?

    Reply
    • 

      Paul Barker on June 16, 2014 at 5:50 pm

      Online there is a list on Wikipedia which will have dates… I know it’s Wikipedia but that’s the quickest answer to get – you can check the sources there.

      Reply
18. 

    Cherie Mitchell Felos Byrne on November 20, 2014 at 3:01 pm

    Hi Brian. You and I have spoken via e-mail several months ago. I would bring up another point that I never see addressed, the fact that nowhere in scriptures was a man ever told by the Lord to live polygamy. I have been a student of ancient history. I have my degree in history with a focus on Ancient History. As far as I can tell it was a social tradition, but certainly not one that was entered into with God's command. If you recall, the Lord didn't command Abraham to live polygamy. He commanded Abraham to listen to his wife, who wanted to have children through the only means she knew how, an ancient attempt at surrogate parenthood. Then we have Jacob, who never intended to live polygamy. He only wanted one wife, Rachel. Nor was he ever commanded to live polygamy. He was handed a difficult situation created by his wicked father-in-law. Where was the commandment? Joseph Smith called it the "Blessing of Jacob"… and yet to Jacob, it wasn't a blessing, at least initially. It was a curse as there was such jealousy and in-fighting among his family. It is disingenuous to talk about the "restoration" of all things when we only bring back the multiple sex-partner/children bearers, but we don't bring back such things as women prophets. All that being true, I would also point out Genesis, "A man shall leave his father and mother and cleave unto his WIFE, and the TWO shall become one flesh." Emphasis is mine. There is no reference to a plurality of wives in the original context of "marriage".

    Reply
19. 

    Carleen Stiles Mandwe on March 22, 2016 at 6:59 pm

    I have a lot of questions about the so called "proof" that proves JS was polygamist.
    Where is the documentation that existed before Joseph's death and that came directly from JS himself? Letters can be forged. I want to see public documentation from JS. Is Heresay proof especially if it comes from people who loved and practiced polygamy via chochrainism?
    Why would J.S practice polygamy secretly while Brigaham Young practiced it openly?. How can Peoples journals count as proof when they are interpretations of what they believe Or think they observe?
    Can't mass amounts of people lie?
    Can't people lie in affidavits?
    Can't a church make false records to prove their claim?
    Can't satan himself influence a church that has truth restored, to deny it and look beyond the mark?
    Wouldn't that be the best way to infiltrate? I know that's what I would do if I were Satan and I would get masses of people to believe a lie and spread a lie from generation to generation and disguise it as truth and cause massive cognitive disonence! I would create a means for sexual abuse. I would cause people to embrace God and mingle false traditions, and make them feel like they are a special people! Then I would cause people to leave that special people and God altogether and become atheist ! What a cunning Plan. Seems to be working well! Oh you little devil.

    Reply
20. 

    adam on April 5, 2016 at 2:07 pm

    Comment
    LDSDPer,

    disagree. i thought brother waterman’s blog was cynical and tinged with smugness. “i know you messed up, even if you won’t admit it, but don’t worry, i’m still a member.” there is nothing noble about cynicism, even if its paraded in a lighthearted manner. i agree with you, whether joseph smith did or did not have many wives is irrelevant, the first principle of the gospel is FAITH, not how many wives joseph may or may not of had. brother waterman’s blog seems to have replace faith with judgement and a little arrogance. “i’ve read some ‘history’ and so i know what really happened.” well, as cited here and many other places history is disputed and, as hugh nibley warns, “falls apart in your hands when you try to beat the church with it.” Faith, i believe, is giving our leaders and our church the benefit of the doubt. obviously the church is imperfect, obviously prophets have weaknesses, some glaring, but why not give them the benefit of the doubt?

    Reply
21. 

    Jonathan Horton on August 14, 2019 at 7:04 pm

    I think there is one thing you failed to mention is,”Emma Smith is a liar.” Oh you can’t say that anymore, so it indicates to me that your voice has been tempered by the “mormon man.” I don’t believe she is a liar. When it comes right down to it you either have to believe Brigham or Emma have their pants on fire. Brigham ruled with an iron fist, and I believe if he needed an army of liars he could get them. If all of the possible statements about his polygamy that could be proven by DNA were shown to be from liars, why would it be hard to believe that all of them were liars. You would have included the liars testimonies in the list before DNA. Which makes me think you are a shill. The fact that I had never heard about the envolvement of Brigham and the Chocrinites before I read Rocks article indicates to me there has some history editing been done by the church. I feel it is too close to say either way, but I have a warning to you. When you meet Joseph on the other side are you 100% sure he won’t be pissed off at you for you speaking ill of him. I don’t know if you remember that there was a prophecy about good and ill spoken of Joseph. It seems to me that the worst things said about Joseph are in agreement by both mormons and anti-mormons. Men are week and I do believe polygamy is 100% a natural man thing associated mostly with religionist trap of being holier than thou. I believe that there is way to many people with holier than thou attitudes in the church, and those who fly the banner of polygamy are usually the worst. I urge everyone to distance themselves from this doctrine. It is poison that is still killing the church and is preventing the church from reaching it’s potential. There are big lies in the world are you taking part of one of the biggest lies.

    Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.