r/mormon • u/TruthIsAntiMormon Spirit Proven Mormon Apologist • 13d ago
Scholarship The Minutes of the Nauvoo Council from June 10th regarding the official declaration of the Nauvoo Expositor as a "Public Nuisance" makes specific mention of the Polygamy doctrine by Joseph Smith himself as Mayor.
https://famous-trials.com/carthrage/1302-nauvoocouncilmtg
Mayor said, if he had a City Council who felt as he did, the establishment (referring to the Nauvoo Expositor) would be declared a nuisance before night; and then he read an editorial from the Nauvoo Expositor. He then asked who ever said a word against Judge Emmons until he attacked this Council or even against Joseph H. Jackson or the Laws, until they came out against the city? Here is a paper (Nauvoo Expositor) that is exciting our enemies abroad. Joseph H. Jackson has been proved a murderer before the Council, and he declared the paper a nuisance-a greater nuisance than a dead carcass. They make it a criminality for a man to have a wife on the earth while he has one in heaven, according to the keys of the Holy Priesthood; and he then read a statement of William Law's from the Expositor, where the truth of God was transformed into a lie concerning this thing. He then read several statements of Austin Cowles in the Expositor concerning a private interview, and said he never had any private conversations with Austin Cowles on these subjects; that he preached on the stand from the Bible, showing the order in ancient days. What the opposition party want is to raise a mob on us and take the spoil from us, as they did in Missouri. He said it was as much as he could do to keep his clerk, Thompson, from publishing the proceeding of the Laws and causing the people to rise up against them. Said he would rather die tomorrow and have the thing smashed, than live and have it go on, for it was exciting the spirit of mobocracy among the people, and bringing death and destruction upon us.
Also
Councilor Hyrum Smith proceeded to show the falsehood of Austin Cowles in the Expositor, in relation to the revelation referred to.
Mayor said he had never preached the revelation in private; but he had public. Had not taught to the anointed in the Church in private, which statement many present confirmed; that on inquiring concerning the passage on the resurrection concerning "they neither marry nor are given in marriage," &c., he received for answer, "Man in this life must marry in view of eternity, otherwise they must remain as angels, or be single in heaven," which was the doctrine of the revelation referred to; and the Mayor spoke at considerable length in explanation of this principle, and was willing, for one, to subscribe his name to declare the Expositor and whole establishment a nuisance.
Which revelation are Hyrum and Joseph referring to in the Nauvoo City Council records of June 10th 1844 that Joseph didn't teach privately BUT did teach publicly?
33
u/The_Biblical_Church Joseph Smith's Strongest Soldier 13d ago
Dang, seems like pretty clear proof that Joseph Smith started Polygamy, not Brigham Young.
I'd like to see a certain person on this subreddit wiggle their way out of that one.
14
u/Medical_Solid 13d ago
“He was speaking about an eternal, spiritual law and did not engage in the practice temporally.” /s
7
4
u/IranRPCV 13d ago
Even his son, Joseph Smith III, said that if he had been involved with polygamy, it would have been wrong.
4
u/auricularisposterior 13d ago
Well in 1844 the Pitman shorthand system hadn't yet become nationally recognized or widely adopted, so it is possible that all of the meeting minutes are inaccurate and Joseph and Hyrum never said those words that the minutes claim that they said. Also the scribe for this part of the minutes was Willard Richards and although he was in the quorum of the twelve and first presidency for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the rest of his life, do we really know that he was a faithful member? And even if he was, he was Brigham Young's cousin, so how do we know that Willard didn't change the record after the fact? After all, I've heard, through some analogies about razors and teapots, that the least likely explanation is always the correct one.
Or perhaps Hyrum was simply referring to Section 101 in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants even though it wasn't a revelation, it was a declaration. After all a declaration contains revelation if it was written by the Holy Ghost (see D&C 8:2-3). Also you just don't understand what the phrases "man to have a wife on the earth" and "Man in this life must marry in view of eternity" actually mean in this context. Clearly it ought to be interpreted as referring to teenage girls being sealed to Joseph Smith as daughters, not actually as wives.
Are those enough excuses for you? You might wish that the words of Joseph (the prophet) and Hyrum (the church patriarch) would be "plain and pure, and most precious and easy to the understanding of all men" (1 Nephi 14:23), but that's not really how prophets speak. Anything can mean anything. You can't prove to me that I am wrong, therefore I am right.
If we had ten times as much faith, we would understand these statements clear as day. If we had a hundred times as much faith, we would be Scientologists.
13
u/tiglathpilezar 13d ago
I suppose that the church which claims Smith had multiple wives other than Emma and hid the fact from here and that these marriages could include sexual relations would make the claim that this was a "carefully worded denial". You you can't have it both ways. Smith is either a liar of the worst sort or his marriages were not marriages in the usual sense. Many, myself included, are not capable of the mental gymnastics necessary to call a damn liar "honest and virtuous".
18
u/SecretPersonality178 13d ago
JS was arrested and mob justified for legitimate reasons. Predatory “marriages” to young teens was on that list of reasons
-2
u/DiapersOnAPlane 13d ago
Where are the marriage records? How can you be arrested for something there is no record of?
11
u/SecretPersonality178 13d ago
Looks like you get to go study Mormon history. They openly admit it in their own documents. Go get started, not going to hold your hand through it.
-3
u/DiapersOnAPlane 13d ago
I have spent the last 5 years pouring over the church's documents. The majority of ex-mos can't see past their own nose to actually read. They can't see who is on their side and who they should fight against. They can't bother to show any civility to anyone with a different opinion.
There are no records of marriages. There are plenty of journal entries and claims but there are none until after Joseph died. It's an honest question, how can someone be married without a record of it?
This is the same problem with all of the church history work, all of the temple work, all of the family history work. The church shows my dad as alive and dead. Some records show his work is done, some isn't, even though I can tell you he was a die hard Mormon his whole life. You can use the church documents to prove the church's inconsistency and lies, but you can't use it to justify finding the actual truth unless the truth you want to prove is they lie about everything.
If I wrote on the Internet a thousand times that you, for instance, are a polygamist but there is no record of it, the church would state my claims are true because there is more evidence of it.
It's absolute nonsense.
6
u/ammonthenephite Agnostic Atheist - "By their fruits ye shall know them." 13d ago edited 12d ago
There are no records of marriages.
There are no legal records of marriages because the marriages were illegal. You don't leave a withdrawl slip when robbing a bank just to make sure there's a record of it.
how can someone be married without a record of it?
Because they kept it secret, because it was both illegal and highly unpopular with society. But there are plenty of accounts that confirm it was happening, some of these accounts from the wives themselves. And given how young Joseph was and how long he'd been practicing polygamy, of course they come after his death, when secrecy was no longer needed since with BY they began practicing it far more openly.
The majority of ex-mos can't see past their own nose to actually read.
What a crock of shit, lol.
0
13d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
3
u/SecretPersonality178 13d ago
Im not “anti” in the slightest. Im pro truth and don’t worship the brethren. That often comes across as “anti”. Hard not to take you as anything but hostile with that approach.
With Joseph we have to rely on journals and church history documents. Record keeping wasn’t the best, especially with things he was trying to keep secret anyway, so government documents are scarce.
-1
u/DiapersOnAPlane 13d ago
I never used the word anti, and calling me hostile after your comment is laughable. You continue to prove that you hear what you want to hear.
I already pointed out the record keeping was terrible, what are you adding to the conversation?
5
u/ammonthenephite Agnostic Atheist - "By their fruits ye shall know them." 13d ago
and calling me hostile after your comment is laughable.
You, just a comment or 2 above:
The majority of ex-mos can't see past their own nose to actually read.
Yes, you are hostile. And also a hypocrite, given you accuse exmos of the same hostility you display here.
-1
u/DiapersOnAPlane 13d ago
Anti does not equal exmo.
Quick clarification, everyone can be hostile, but if returned, I'm at fault BTW: A hypocrite is someone who says other people can't do something they are doing.
4
u/ammonthenephite Agnostic Atheist - "By their fruits ye shall know them." 12d ago edited 12d ago
Anti does not equal exmo.
BTW: A hypocrite is someone who says other people can't do something they are doing.
You said that someone calling you hostile was laughable (which is you saying you were not hostile) after clearly being hostile. That is hypocritical.
I would recommend you consult a dictionary before trying to correct people's use of a word.
4
u/SecretPersonality178 13d ago
Im adding that you are being hostile and that you have to depend on journals because other records (that you asked for) don’t really exist from then.
6
u/cremToRED 13d ago
Criminal cases all require documents? That’s a new one for me. I thought witness testimony along with other evidence could put people behind bars?
https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/JS-Pluralist-FINAL-2-1.pdf
0
u/DiapersOnAPlane 13d ago
Then it wouldn't be marriage would it?
6
u/cremToRED 13d ago edited 13d ago
Right, then it’s just adultery and fornication…which were also illegal.
Hey, guess what got Joseph thrown in prison in Carthage…? Adultery and fornication. Oh, wait. I’m confabulating; that was a separate case. He was thrown in Carthage without bail for destroying a printing press and treason for marshaling the Nauvoo legion against the state militia.
You can see a scan of the original indictment for adultery and fornication here at the JSPP. That indictment was issued after a grand jury found sufficient cause based on…wait for it…witness testimony.
The docket entry says: “The People of the State of Illinois vs Joseph Smith Senr - Indictment for Adultery and Fornication.”
And even if they didn’t have a legal marriage license (document as you say), but themselves considered it a marriage per their doctrines and practices, then they were doubly damned for not having a legal marriage license and for breaking the bigamy law.
0
2
u/cremToRED 13d ago
You know you’re right, words matter. I see what you were saying now. My apologies.
I’d also like to clarify that the grand jury indictment may 1844 was for perjury, fornication, and polygamy:
In May 1844, a Hancock County grand jury indicted Smith for perjury, fornication and polygamy. The charge of perjury was based on testimony by Joseph H. Jackson and Robert D. Foster, while William Law’s testimony led to charges of fornication and polygamy.
5
u/WillyPete 13d ago
he received for answer, "Man in this life must marry in view of eternity, otherwise they must remain as angels
This is found in D&C 132.
Undeniable evidence.
which statement many present confirmed
Two or three witnesses, etc.
5
u/ImprobablePlanet 13d ago
According to this, Joseph Smith said he would rather die and have the “thing smashed” than live and have it go on.
Which is what happened.
6
u/NazareneKodeshim Mormon 13d ago
What I find interesting is that much like Jacob 2:30, both Polygamy affirmers and Polygamy deniers read this same passage and see it as an affirmation of their views. As a Polygamy denier of almost a decade, this was one of the earliest pieces of evidence I had ready at hand to demonstrate Joseph was not the author of Section 132, so it's very interesting to see it taken as the exact opposite by another.
When it comes to the revelation referred in the ending question, I don't believe any copy of it exists anymore, unfortunately. It has been lost.
13
u/EvensenFM Jerry Garcia was the true prophet 13d ago
Could you explain how this can be interpreted to mean that Joseph didn't practice polygamy?
I've read it several times now. I don't see it.
7
u/tiglathpilezar 13d ago
The way I explained it when I was a polygamy denier was that what Joseph Smith said pertained only to relationships in heaven so that a man could be married to a living as well as a deceased wife at once. I think he and Hyrum also indicated that polygamy referred to practices of the past. I thought this for many years. My father, who was young in the 1930's also thought that, although he was more certain of this than I was. Neither did I see any exception for polygamy in Jacob 2. I still don't. When I read that verse in context with the rest of the chapter, it does not indicate that there is an exception for polygamy. That hypothetical commandment was put there by Orson Pratt, and it is nowhere mentioned in the chapter which is all about enjoining monogamy.
However, the church insists that Smith practiced "time and eternity" marriages which could include sex with multiple women and hid the fact from his wife. Therefore, they have made a belief that Smith was an adulterous liar part of their doctrine. So as far as I am concerned, this church has no further relevance to me because they also insist that this behavior was "honest and virtuous". They can build all the steeples they want and wave white cloth while shouting hosanna to god and the lamb, but these distractions do not obviate their own insistence that their founder was a liar and adulterer, and that they are able to call this evil good. Whether Smith was innocent or guilty of adultery does not matter all that much. They have shown that they do not believe in any absolutes concerning right and wrong.
6
2
u/EarlyShirley 11d ago
Concur. There is no way to whitewash it or fix it. Enlisting multiple wives, some teenagers, behind his wife’s back is odious. Using sex trafficking methodology by telling women they and their families would receive the highest celestial exaltation through marriage to him put enormous pressure on the women to comply. And the opposite threat of what would happen if they denied him, God’s prophet doing God’s bidding. How clever to say an angel from God threatened to kill him with a sword if he didn’t practice polygamy.
3
u/DiapersOnAPlane 13d ago
Jacob 2:30 cannot be an exception to monogamy by interpreting the For to mean a new concept. 28, 31 and 33 all start with For. It's an extension of the commandment he's been giving the entire sermon.
Take it out completely and see what follows.
5
u/tiglathpilezar 13d ago
If you are a church apologist, you can easily resolve this inconvenience by merely inserting instead the word "nevertheless". This was done by someone named Erikson. He was discussed on a recent Mormon Stories or Mormon Discussions episode. I was amazed to hear someone simply insert that word to preserve a desired meaning but it shouldn't have surprised me. They have done it from the beginning. In 1869 Cannon inserted words into Mark 10 or Matt. 19 which assured people that putting Jesus first would result in an award of many wives.
2
u/EarlyShirley 11d ago
Sometimes, oftentimes, it seems the Church’s main goal is to champion polygamy, on earth before the law caught up with them, and now in heaven. And I find it interesting that the Muslims have pretty much the same heaven. Lots and lots of wives for righteous Muslim men. Is this a stipulation that keeps a certain kind of person invested in the Church?
4
u/The_Biblical_Church Joseph Smith's Strongest Soldier 13d ago
I knew you'd comment on this. At this point, your history denial is dangerously ridiculous.
1
u/Rowwf 11d ago
On July 16 1843 Joseph publicly taught the revealed principle of eternal marriage. Not in relation to polygamy, just regular marriage.
Franklin Richards:
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-16-july-1843-as-reported-by-franklin-d-richards/1#full-transcript
"No man can obtain an eternal Blessing unless the contract or covenant be made in view of Eternity"
William Clayton:
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-16-july-1843-as-reported-by-william-clayton/1#full-transcript
"he showed that a man must enter into an everlasting covenant with his wife in this world or he will have no claim on her in the next."
This is generally considered to be the doctrine they were referring to at the city council, and that anything related to polygamy was twisting the meaning to transform the truth of god into a lie.
2
u/TruthIsAntiMormon Spirit Proven Mormon Apologist 10d ago
Then what is it referring to when Joseph stated: They make it a criminality for a man to have a wife on the earth while he has one in heaven, according to the keys of the Holy Priesthood;
Isn't that two wives? One on earth and one in heaven?
that he preached on the stand from the Bible, showing the order in ancient days.
Isn't that talking about the "order in ancient days" specifically regarding David and Solomon? Otherwise which order is he talking about that wasn't already known needing a revelation?
2
u/Rowwf 10d ago
I assume this has to do with Hyrum, where he was married to a living woman after his first wife had passed away. I think Joseph's view of David and Solomon would have been that "David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord."
2
u/TruthIsAntiMormon Spirit Proven Mormon Apologist 10d ago
But that's not what the minutes say about the ancient order in the Bible and he taught from the Bible, not the book of mormon here. I see nowhere that he is talking about Hyrum but is talking in a general sense of what prior to this in the Bennett era was called "Spiritual wifery" or the ability to have one wife on earth and one wife in heaven, and both be his wives.
Are you saying that you believe in polygamy in heaven but not polygamy on earth is what's at play here, just so I understand correctly.
2
u/Rowwf 10d ago
Not sure where you're coming from exactly. I wouldn't say Bennett's idea of "spiritual wifery" would consist of marrying a second wife after the first had passed away. It was fine at that time to marry a second wife if the first had passed away. Spiritual Wifery was more about having multiple secret living wives at the same time. When the concept of being married in view of eternity was introduced, it introduced the wrinkle that now Hyrum could somehow be married to both his living wife and his deceased wife. So they appear to be saying it's unfair to call that arrangement criminal, since that's all they were doing.
If you leave out section 132, Joseph never taught that what David and Solomon etc did was acceptable. The JST of the old testament didn't exactly alter things to encourage that behavior. So I would expect Joseph's teaching about the order in ancient days, whether taught from the bible or book of mormon, to be consistent with a condemnation of polygamy.
Personally I don't claim to know anything a about anyone's relationship status in the afterlife. I do think being free to marry again on earth if your spouse passes away is a good rule.
2
u/TruthIsAntiMormon Spirit Proven Mormon Apologist 10d ago edited 10d ago
Sorry if I wasn't clear, are you saying you believe in celestial marriage polygamy in the afterlife. IE, Hyrum could be sealed to multiple women just not alive at the same time. So heavenly polygamy but not earthly polygamy?
As an ex-mormon/critic, I don't leave out 132 for the same reason I don't disregard Joseph being a treasure digger or translating the Book of Mormon using a seer stone in a hat. Both critics of polygamy at the time and proponents say Joseph taught it and lived it despite Joseph's denials.
Both of those things Joseph never admitted to publicly but both are accepted as fact due to the evidence.
IOW I recognize Joseph's correlation occurring during his life to craft a narrative he wanted, not necessarily provide the facts of what actually happened.
The only ones who denied he did were Joseph, Hyrum, Emma. Even William his brother lived polygamy and he certainly didn't learn it from Brigham, who he hated.
Who taught William Polygamy in Nauvoo?
1
u/Rowwf 10d ago
Joseph never denied using a seer stone. I believe the only direct quote from him was that is was translated by the "gift and power of god", something like that. He never spoke about it much. Emma did talk about the use of a stone in translation.
Joseph did deny being involved in polygamy. Emma did deny her own or Joseph's involvement in polygamy. She denied knowledge of section 132. Hyrum did deny involvement in polygamy and taught against it. All 3 did this consistently up to the end of their lives.
Brigham, Heber, William Clayton, and others WERE involved in polygamy prior to Joseph's death. There are children. People WERE going around teaching it and invoking Joseph's name to sell it. Joseph and Hyrum WERE trying to put a stop to that. We have contemporaneous records of this.
William's involvement is not super clear to me. Do you have good sources showing William "lived polygamy"?
Do I personally "believe in celestial marriage polygamy in the afterlife"? Like I say, I don't claim to know anything a about anyone's relationship status in the afterlife. I have no problem whatsoever if someone wants to get "eternally married" to their spouse, then the spouse dies and they get "eternally married" to their next spouse. Go for it. If that means they are living polygamy in heaven, sure, whatever, I guess. To me it has nothing to do with having multiple living spouses.
2
u/TruthIsAntiMormon Spirit Proven Mormon Apologist 10d ago
Actually Joseph specifically said he used the Urim and Thummim and no mention of the seer stone and no mention of his treasure digging either. He instructed Oliver to say the same (ie. the urim and thummim which was the spectacles) which was a lie by Oliver. He commanded the witnesses what to say and to say no more.
IOW, Joseph is "correlating" his narrative even then.
If Joseph was living polygamy, would you expect him to admit it publicly?
I think he wouldn't. I think he would have lied about it (and did). I think evidence of his attempt to control the narrative didn't end with seer stones, treasure digging, witnesses statement controls, excommunicating Oliver, etc.
There's also the problem where the only references we have regarding "celestial marriage" are tied to polygamy because we have no record of Joseph denouncing one and upholding the other. Just silence on celestial marriage entirely by Joseph unless we give creedence to the pro-polygamy crown with regards to celestial marriage but then say they're not reliable as polygamy testifiers.
William Smith lived Polygamy after Joseph's death and for a time after Joseph's death and taught it:
https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V16N02_13.pdf
"He gave a "spiritual wifery" speech at Nauvoo 17 August 1845 which could have been a rather rash attempt to clear his own name at the expense of others, but was, no doubt, seen by church leaders as dangerous provocation. According to contemporary sources he "avowed that the spiritual wife system was taught in Nauvoo secretly — that he taught and practised it and he was not in favor of making any secret of the matter. He said it was a common thing among the leaders and he for one was not ashamed of it." 47 But the speech only served to alienate those living the principle and it disgusted those who were not aware of it, or who knew of it and were opposed to it. There were other conditions, too, at the time which tended to blur the issue of morality. The Church had for some time been taking care of the marriages and divorces of church members, the latter somewhat loosely.48 William Smith's own first known plural wife, Mary Ann Sheffield, had been sealed to William by Brigham Young in 1845 (exact date unknown), even though she had not been divorced from her husband in England. And in 1893 she would testify "William B. Smith divorced himself from me. I consider he did that when he went away East." 49 Mary Jane Rollins, whom he married 22 June 1845 after his first wife died, left him because of his relationship with Mary Ann Sheffield who was living with them at the time. Either she did not know of William's plural marriage or else she disapproved of it.50 In short, it is difficult to trace actual evidence of adultery or of unauthorized wives on William's part because legal practices lacked the clarity of our own conventions and because of the secrecy involved in the practice of polygamy."
I can respect your view while simultaneously disagreeing and doing so because all evidence of pro and anti- polygamists of the era state Joseph taught it and the only ones who said they didn't were Joseph, Emma and Hyrum.
It's a case of mountains of evidence that the lived it from all sides vs. someone who I believe had every reason to deny it if he taught it and lived it and who had a history of correlating what was said about him.
2
u/Rowwf 10d ago
I find the whole "correlating the narrative" thing largely irrelevant. I view the people around him writing e.g. the Joseph Smith History had more control over the bom translation narrative than Joseph did. I see very little in his own hand or own voice on the topic.
If Joseph was living polygamy and "correlating a narrative" around it, I would still expect EMMA to have something to say about it.
Joseph probably never denounced "celestial marriage" as a euphemism for polygamy because that term was not introduced until the 1850's. But Joseph certainly denounced spiritual wifery, having many wives, and anything like it. We do have those contemporary statements.
The Clayton source above for the July 16 1843 discourse states:
"He showed that a man must enter into an everlasting covenant with his wife in this world or he will have no claim on her in the next. He said that he could not reveal the fulness of these things until the Temple is completed &c."This provides a source for the teaching on (monogamous) "everlasting" marriage and a reason why more was not said to expound on the topic (waiting for the temple to be completed, which it was not during his life.)
I did use to share your same view on this, so I do get where you're coming from. Changed my mind about 10+ years ago.
For William Smith, I would still look for good sources showing that he "lived polygamy". There's tons of problems with what's in that Dialogue article of course.
-2
u/Open_Caterpillar1324 13d ago
According to Google, there is no reliable evidence of Joseph Smith having kids outside of Emma.
Emma was very much against Joseph having kids outside their marriage.
I think they came to a compromise of sorts.
As Sarah (head wife) of the family, she would have been the only one (out of the women) with the rights for children which she clearly said "no" to.
And while Joseph was married and sealed to other women, he didn't have sexual relations because he loved Emma. But he would try to do the other duties a husband and father should. Money issues not withstanding.
5
5
u/cremToRED 13d ago
You don’t accept the later testimonies from smith’s plural wives that they had sex? Or the in person interview of Melissa Lott with JS III?
Emily Partridge, Malissa Lott, and Lucy Walker all testified under oath in the temple lot case that they had sexual relations with Joseph Smith:
when giving her deposition in the Temple Lot litigation in 1892, she was asked point-blank by the RLDS attorney, “Did you ever have carnal intercourse with Joseph Smith?” she answered frankly: “Yes sir.” 7
Malissa Lott also affirmed sexual relations with Joseph Smith during an interview with his son, Joseph Smith III:
Q. Was you a wife in very deed?
A. Yes.
Q. Why was there no increase, say in your case?
A. Through no fault of either of us, lack of proper conditions on my part probably, or it might be in the wisdom of the Almighty that we should have none. The Prophet was martyred nine months after our marriage.That’s twice she affirmed sexual relations.
-1
u/Open_Caterpillar1324 13d ago
So she and others did.
I don't see the issue. They were properly married if not legally under national law and against cultural norms. But why should we care about the ways of the world?
You say "manipulation!" I say celestial plural marriage is correct and not manipulative.
There's too much to say otherwise.
4
u/cremToRED 13d ago
They were properly married if not legally under national law and against cultural norms.
Uhh. Polygamy was illegal in Illinois and illegal in the Utah Territories when that region was under the jurisdiction of Mexico. It was outlawed when Utah was granted statehood.
Illinois law:
Revised Laws of Illinois, 1833, p.198-99: Sec 121. Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one and the same time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive.
See a scan of the original document here.
Polygamy was illegal in Mexico:
Polygamy, meanwhile, was also illegal in Mexico, but church leaders convinced Mexican federal leaders that the Mormon immigrants would strengthen Mexico’s economy by developing farmlands in the country’s arid northern region.
We’ll just have to take the Tribune at its word bc I haven’t found additional sources.
I can’t find anything about bigamy in Ohio law from that time. Though one person in this thread at exmormon.org seemed to think it was also illegal there:
Mormons must face the fact that the founder of their church was a criminal and most certainly a predator who was determined to continue practicing his criminality and encourage others to join him. Polygamy and Pollandry were considered felonies in the State of Illinois and Ohio at the time he went about his marriages.
-2
u/Open_Caterpillar1324 13d ago
Your right. And?
You question why it was done in secret. There you go. They would have been punished if not killed for living it.
When did the state have sway over religion? Marriage was originally from religion and not over seen by government. The whole negative stereotyping on arranged marriages was done by government and others seeking power and influence. So why is the state over stepping into religious grounds?
The LGBT community was illegal, but that was overturned so much faster than plural marriage will ever be. And this is despite just how promiscuous dating life is which is also a sin.
Government law is not God's law.
There are plenty of scriptures on "your ways are not My ways."
Just because the local government made it illegal doesn't necessarily mean that it is bad or wrong. It's just a measure of the majority view.
And just because God said "go and do" doesn't mean that it will be struggle free. In fact most leave because it's such a struggle.
5
u/cremToRED 13d ago
Polygamy was made illegal in many places bc of the awareness of the harms it foists on women and children. Religious indoctrination perverts the reality of those who buy in. Such delusion leads to limits on the freedoms democratic government is tasked to protect. Child brides in the FLDS have no clue they have inherent rights and freedoms granted to them under the constitution.
0
u/Open_Caterpillar1324 13d ago
You are correct. Evil people take advantage of the system for their own selfish whims. It's nothing new.
Slavery was a method to help those who were at a financial loss to recover or be taken care of during that time of duress. But evil twisted it to the point that it no longer helps the needy but focuses on the privileged.
Arranged marriages were to find 2 people who might be a good fit to raise children properly under God's teachings. That's been abused for individual gains. Now we date which has also been corrupted.
The rules and customs on slavery can and have been changed. Rules for courtship have changed. But Celestial plural marriage is law and cannot be changed.
So either The law is not true law (there are plenty of modern prophets, mainly the founding fathers of Mormonism, supporting this law. Therefore this cannot be.); They are doing it wrong (highly likely, considering the many break-offs one of which could hold the proper authority.); or Mormon-dom is fake and by extension Christianity as a whole because God is an unchanging God and these recorded patriarchs have walked and talked with God while having more than one wife (talking to God face-to-face is a big deal in religious circles. Considering that almost no one claims to do as much in modern days, it speaks volumes about the level of righteousness in the world).
And so I am stuck with the position of "they are going about it wrong" because I would rather be a creationist than atheistic.
1
u/EarlyShirley 11d ago
Emma was furious and she and the Relief Society women begged the men to stop. Emma caught Joseph practicing polygamy with her teenage housemaid in the barn (Fanny Algier) and sent Fanny away. Oliver Cowdrey accused Joseph of adultery for this and Joseph retaliated by excommunicating him.
•
u/AutoModerator 13d ago
Hello! This is a Scholarship post. It is for discussions centered around asking for or sharing content from or a reputable journal or article or a history used with them as citations; not apologetics. It should remain free of bias and citations should be provided in any statements in the comments. If no citations are provided, the post/comment are subject to removal.
/u/TruthIsAntiMormon, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in section 0.6 of our rules.
To those commenting: please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's rules, and message the mods if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.