CWK #31: Just about the sex? Mormon polygamy.

[Kishkumen]

Again go back and read my first few posts here...you were the one that got butt hurt and took offense to my position and escalated the conversation. This is a discussion board, not the Coffee with Kish Board, correct me if I am wrong.

Yeah, that’s evidently how you interpreted it. I have no idea what has gotten into your britches that made you come in here behaving like a total a-hole. Not once have I been butt-hurt, or whatever. Mostly I am puzzled about why you are unremittingly rude. I don’t believe I have done anything to escalate the conversation at all. I am fine here. If you feel upset, I am sorry to have upset you. Moreover, nothing I am saying suggests in the slightest that I believe this is a Coffee With Kish board.

Look, my fundamental disagreement with you hasn’t changed. If you start out with implausible assumptions, piling on data that you believe backs up your faulty assumptions does not improve your case. I don’t think polygamy or deification are or were a mustache for sex. Smith was able to get sex from other sources and methods. So, that doesn’t pass the smell test. Which Mormon historians out there join you in arguing that polygamy is a mustache for sex?

[Kishkumen]

I stand by that and I feel I can prove it fairly easily.

If that were true, you would have accomplished it.

In regard to Hales, he conceded Smith had sex with his wives a decade and longer ago, it is not like he just changed his mind. That is not a complaint, it is an observation to your claim that you were a historian and deal with facts.

Fair enough. And I will correct that when I do my "Kish critiques Brian Hales" episode. Thank you for the correction.

It cracks me up that you want to give your views and put yourself out on a discussion board on LDS theology and history, which is very controversial....and now on a podcast, and then whine and call people names when they disagree with your positions.

No, I expect to be trolled, Markk. And, given your history, it is no surprise that you are among those who seek to provoke. What is funny is that you raise such a stink about being called a smart aleck in a lighthearted way. Geez, man. Thanks for the entertainment.

I have no idea what you do/did for a living, and I doubt you ever played sports or entered into a competitive discipline, because your skin is certainly not very thick Kish. LOL...Maybe you should change your podcast name to "Agree with Kish, or I'll call you names."

Shows what you know, dude! Not much about me, that's for sure. If my skin were as thin as you imagine, I wouldn't still be here. My record on that account speaks for itself. I am here, and I have taken barbs from opponents much worthier than you. You are a piker by comparison. Anyone who whines about being called a smart aleck has no room criticizing others about thinness of skin.

[Dr. Shades]

"ELC" = ?

"Everlasting Covenant." In section 132 plural marriage it is called a new and everlasting covenant.

Ahh, that makes sense now.

. . . But I don’t suppose “N&EC” is more intuitive and thus more user-friendly, is it?

But regarding the more important stuff, I agree with you about Smith’s motivations for polygamy—never take a con artist’s verbal rationalizations and/or excuses for sex any more seriously than you’d take any of his other cons. The foundation is always the leader’s libido; all else is just window-dressing. I believe history has amply demonstrated this regarding every other cult leader; I can’t find a reason why Joseph Smith, Jr. should be the one and only sole exception throughout all of recorded human history.

But in his specific case, I might flesh it all out by giving you my opinion that D&C 132 was never a revelation to/for the church. It was a revelation to/for Emma Smith, alone, period. The N&EC therein was nothing more than the carrot to get her to consent to him receiving extramarital sex so he would no longer be so inconvenienced by all the sneaking around. The threats about her being destroyed were thrown in for good measure in case the carrot wasn’t enough.

[Markk]

"Everlasting Covenant." In section 132 plural marriage it is called a new and everlasting covenant.

Ahh, that makes sense now.

. . . But I don’t suppose “N&EC” is more intuitive and thus more user-friendly, is it?

But regarding the more important stuff, I agree with you about Smith’s motivations for polygamy—never take a con artist’s verbal rationalizations and/or excuses for sex any more seriously than you’d take any of his other cons. The foundation is always the leader’s libido; all else is just window-dressing. I believe history has amply demonstrated this regarding every other cult leader; I can’t find a reason why Joseph Smith, Jr. should be the one and only sole exception throughout all of recorded human history.

But in his specific case, I might flesh it all out by giving you my opinion that D&C 132 was never a revelation to/for the church. It was a revelation to/for Emma Smith, alone, period. The N&EC therein was nothing more than the carrot to get her to consent to him receiving extramarital sex so he would no longer be so inconvenienced by all the sneaking around. The threats about her being destroyed were thrown in for good measure in case the carrot wasn’t enough.

It was a revelation to/for Emma Smith, alone, period.

1000% agree. Joseph spent 3 hours with Clayton drafting it making sure it was perfect....then he and I believe Hyrum presented it to Emma, and she burned it. I believe it had a lot to do with the Law's also.

But there is evidence that he did preach the N&ELC before that to certain folks, but I agree 132 in a whole was for Emma.

[Dr. Shades]

It was a revelation to/for Emma Smith, alone, period.

1000% agree. . . I believe it had a lot to do with the Law's also.

Indeed it did: The part in it wherein God supposedly says that the offer made to Emma was hereby rescinded because it was merely a way to test her as he had tested Abraham of old. Anyway, the original “offer” was for her to pick out a plural husband so Joseph could take additional wives. . . Because fair is fair, right?

She ended up selecting William Law, which was probably just a bluff, but it scared Joseph enough that he put that part into Section 132 to prevent her from actually going through with it.

[Kishkumen]

How close is the 132 that we have to the original revelation Hyrum took out to show to others (not just Emma)?

[sock puppet]

I am probably more troubled with the possibility that Joseph Smith, Jr. might have believed section 132 to be from God, than if not and it was instead just a knowing ruse to 'bag the babes.' Since Ronald Reagan was the U.S. president, I've been troubled by 'believers.' He was so anti-communist, Reagan felt justified in selling arms to an avowed enemy of the U.S. (and its ally Israel) in order to funnel $$ to the "freedom fighters" against the communist Sandinistas in Nicaragua. The ends (get rid of a Central American communist regime) was worth breaking the law, a specific prohibition by Congress, in to achieve the end (put $$ in the hands of the 'freedom fighters' against the communist Sandinistas), and violating the restriction set down pby democratically-elected policy makers. I realize that there are examples in history that pre-date that, but it was shocking to me then in the 1980s as a relatively young adult to think that such an illegal, clandestine move would be made by the guy touting it was "morning in America." And there have been instances since the Iran-Contra scandal too. Since, then, I have been very wary of any ideological-driven politician and favored those with moderation and sound management skills.

And so I come at the question of Joseph Smith, Jr. and polygamy. There are examples of Joseph Smith, Jr. abandoning what he apparently at first thought were perhaps projects presented him by divine providence. His 7 year delay in finishing the translation of the sensen papyrus into the Book of Abraham, his ditching out of his office re the Greek Psalter and his quick abandonment of translation of the Kinderhook plates.

Biologically speaking, there are nearly equal number of men and women. Why the need for a man to have more than one wife? When writing the Book of Mormon in 1829, Joseph Smith, Jr. proclaimed God would only command such when needed to raise up a righteous seed. At that time, Joseph Smith, Jr. was only a couple of years into his marriage and the marital bed was perhaps still satisfying and keeping in check his libido.

Later, however, he started having relations. The earliest that I am aware that is known to history is Fanny Alger in the barn in 1836. So if commanded by God, per the Book of Mormon standard, where are the children (the righteous seed) resulting from Alger and then the later "wives"? If Joseph Smith, Jr. genuinely believed God was commanding him to take extra wives, shouldn't there be quite wide swath of righteous seed as a result? Wouldn't this have troubled a genuine believer that there was no resulting seed--righteous or otherwise--resulting from this?

Even as late as section 132, the Principal was only to be practiced if first wife (Emma) consented. (Of course, if she didn't, section 132 says she'd be damned.) But a believer would have no trouble deceiving his first wife if he believed he was so commanded by God to do so, if she would not consent.

In my view, if he were simply a horny scoundrel he'd have been much less of a menace to his fellow mankind.

[Kishkumen]

I am probably more troubled with the possibility that Joseph Smith, Jr. might have believed section 132 to be from God, than if not and it was instead just a knowing ruse to 'bag the babes.'

I think that is a reasonable concern.

[Moksha]

Yeah, what if (as Dan Vogel would suggest) Joseph had a pious libido? Everything from the dance with the Angel and the drawn sword to the celestial frolicking in the hayloft would be foreordained. Right?

[Markk]

How close is the 132 that we have to the original revelation Hyrum took out to show to others (not just Emma)?

According to William Clayton, .

“On the morning of the 12th of July, 1843, Joseph and Hyrum Smith came into the off me in the upper story of the ‘brick store,’ on the bank of the Mississipppi River. They were talking on the subject of plural marriage. Hyrum said to Joseph, ‘If you will write the revelation on celestial marriage, I will take and read it to Emma, and I believe I can convince her of its truth, and you will hereafter have peace.’ Joseph smiled and remarked, ‘You do not know Emma as well as I do.’ Hyrum repeated his opinion and further remarked, ‘The doctrine is so plain, I can convince any reasonable man or woman of its truth, purity or heavenly origin,’ or words to their effect. Joseph then said, ‘Well, I will write the revelation and we will see.’ He then requested me to get paper and prepare to write. Hyrum very urgently requested Joseph to write the revelation by means of the Urim and Thummim3 but Joseph, in reply, said he did not need to, for the knew the revelation perfectly from beginning to end.

“Joseph and Hyrum then sat down and Joseph commenced to dictate the revelation on celestial marriage, and I wrote it, sentence by sentence, as he dictated. After the whole was written, Joseph asked me to read it through, slowly and carefully, which I did, and he pronounced it correct. He then remarked that there was much more that he could write, on the same subject, but what was written was sufficient for the present.

“Hyrum then took the revelation to read to Emma. Joseph remained with me in the office until Hyrum returned. When he came back, Joseph asked him how he had succeeded. Hyrum replied that he had never received a more severe talking to in his life, and anger.

“Joseph quietly remarked, ‘I told you you did not know Emma as well as I did.’ Joseph then put the revelation in his pocket, and they both left the office.

“The revelation was read to several of the authorities during the day. Towards evening Bishop Newel K. Whitney asked Joseph if he had any objections to his taking a copy of the revelation; Joseph replied that he had not, and handed it to him. It was carefully copied the following day by Joseph C. Kingsbury. Two or three days after the revelation was written Joseph related to me and several others that Emma had so teased, and urgently entreated him for the privilege of destroying it, that he became so weary of her teasing, and to get rid of her annoyance, he told her she might destroy it and she had done so, but he had consented to her wish in this matter to pacify her, realizing that he knew the revelation perfectly, and could rewrite it at any time if necessary.

“The copy made by Joseph C. Kingsbury is a true and correct copy of the original in every respect. The copy was carefully preserved by Bishop Whitney, and but few knew of its existence until the temporary location of the Camps of Israel at Winter quarters, on the Missouri River, in 1846.

“After the revelation on celestial marriage was written Joseph continued his instructions, privately, on the doctrine to myself and others and during the last year of his life we were scarcely ever together, alone, but he was talking on the subject, and explaining that doctrine and principles connected connected with it. He appeared to enjoy great liberty and freedom in his teachings, and also to find great relief in having a few to whom he could unbosom his feelings on that great and glorious subject.

“From him I learned that the doctrine of plural and celestial marriage is the most holy and important doctrine ever revealed to man on the earth, and that without obedience to that principle no man can ever attain to the ruiness of exaltation in celestial glory.

(Signed) WILLIAM CLAYTON. “Salt Lake City, February 16th, 1874.”

Smith, George D.. An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton (pp. 683-685). Signature Books. Kindle Edition.

Bold mine.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... ource-note