The Framework of My Historical Argument about Polygamy

Stephen Fleming

•

So before I delve more into these issues related to our polygamy problems, I thought first I’d lay out the context of claims I’m making relative to my argument that Smith was thinking of the idea of “shared marriage,” or men and women being able to have multiple spouses prior to a shift in 1843 highlighted by DC 132.

So for that, let me summarize and refer to arguments I’ve made on the blog over the last few years

1) I argue that JS (and that Joseph Sr. played a big role also) was seeking a much bigger restoration than biblical practice. The Bible was important, but the “Josephs” (Sr and Jr.) felt that it was missing a lot. The Book of Mormon says plain and precious truth had been removed from the Bible (1 Nephi 11:26), and Smith declared in the introduction to DC 76 in his 1838 history that “From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of man had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled.” Not only had truth been removed, but a lot of important truth never made it in the Bible: “lost before it was compiled.”

A jail mate of Joseph Sr. when Sr. in jail for debt in 1830, wrote in his journal Sr. saying that “our Bible is much abridged and deficient.” Early Mormon Documents, vol. 3, p. 4.

While the Bible was important, the overarching purpose of the restoration was to bring back what was missing, more than implementing what wasn’t.

I think the Josephs were onto something with modern scholarship calling a lot of the Bible’s historicity, especially the Old Testament, into question.

The Book of Mormon also stated a much larger truth when it rejected sola scriptura in 2 Nephi 29 and declares, “I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it.” (12)

2) I argue that the Josephs became convinced that there was much truth in a contemporary concept most often referred to as “the ancient theology” (also called names like “the universal religion,” “the ancient religion,” or just “ancient philosophy.”) The idea was that Greek philosophy drew on ancient wisdom going back to sages like Zoroaster and Hermes Trimegistus, and Christians often argued that the ancient theology drew on biblical patriarchs as well. And many Christian Platonists claimed those patriarchs had a fuller truth also, not all of which was in Bible.

Again, the Book of Mormon said there was a fuller truth beyond the Bible.

Protestant scholar of the time argued that the ancient theology had corrupted early Christianity, a very popular idea in Smith’s day taught in books that he owned. JS strongly rejected the claim of Platonic corruption, but instead asserted that it was the removal of the ancient theology that had corrupted early Christianity and that he was called to restore that fuller truth.

3) I argue that the central group of doctrines that Smith sought to restore to Christianity are best framed around our concept of the plan of salvation. Here I note the major themes of that plan along with the Platonic dialogues that discuss those themes.

A) We lived before we were born and the high God presented a plan to us that we needed to be sent to earth to be tested, and if we past that text we could become like the gods (Timaeus)

B) The test was to see if we would act “justly,” by controlling out passions (Timaeus) but Plato’s Phaedrus gave more details of things we needed to do. We needed to live according the right ethics and morals like a philosopher, receive the proper ordinances, and engage in holy love. If we did so, not only would we be able to become like the Gods, but will would be able to be with our love in the next life.

C) The next life would have different states depending on what kind of life we lived here (Phaedo).

So pretty Mormon-looking to me, and the Republic added the claim that living in the most holy city would allow its citizens to live the most pious lives and have the best afterlife. In the Republic, there was no private property in order to have oneness and equality among the citizens, and among the most enlightened, all families were in common as well. The enlighten guardians of the city, male and female, were all married to each other.

Naturally such claims bring up the question of how Smith encountered them and I go over that in my book. But I also talk A LITTLE about that in this presentation.

4) Such shared marriage ideas got mentioned among the most radical utopians, but were viewed as a major scandal. Such a practice is difficult to accomplish with Oneida (coming a little after Mormonism) as the most successful.

As I’ve said a lot, I argue that’s what JS originally had in mind. He attempted to proceed cautiously, with a few individual marriages, which allowed for women have multiple spouses also (DC 132:41). Smith changed the policy to polygyny in c. 1843 and DC 132 was about that policy change.

Comments

4 responses to “The Framework of My Historical Argument about Polygamy”

  1. Not a Cougar

    “As I’ve said a lot, I argue that’s what JS originally had in mind. He attempted to proceed cautiously, with a few individual marriages, which allowed for women have multiple spouses also (DC 132:41). Smith changed the policy to polygyny in c. 1843 and DC 132 was about that policy change.”

    Stephen, when you say “originally,” I hope you’ll clarify in a future post what months or years you believe fit into that “original” timeframe. Louisa Beaman, generally recognized as the first woman sealed to Joseph, was single when she they were sealed in April 1841 (the first of “a few individual marriages), and she did not marry anyone else during Joseph’s lifetime. Maybe that was simply a first step toward shared marriage (i.e., perhaps it was intended that Louisa also marry someone else and it just never happened for unknown reasons), but, if so, it would seem to be an errant first step if shared marriage was the plan all along.

    Also, while you haven’t had time to flesh out your theory yet, your argument would seem to ignore Joseph’s earlier relationship with Fanny Alger circa 1835-1836 as well as his 1831 statement later recalled by W.W. Phelps in an 1861 letter about eventually marrying “Lamanite” women (presumably as plural wives given that the men present on the mission were already married).

    Maybe shared marriage really was Joseph’s intended plan at some point, but, if so, the lifespan of that plan only seemed to last about a year from 1842 to 1843. Moreover, Joseph was sealed to single women during that time too which would seem to undercut the shared marriage argument

    Regardless, I’m looking forward to your future posts!

  2. Stephen Fleming

    My argument is that shared marriage was the plan from the beginning, or c. 1829. Yes, Smith married some single women, but he was reported telling Nancy Rigdon that his proposed marriage “would not prevent her from marrying any other person.”

    That is, the wives didn’t HAVE to be married when Smith married them, and the report to Nancy is interesting.

    One such case is Hannah Dubois who Smith was reported marrying early in Nauvoo, who then LATER married Philo Dibble and Smith performed the wedding. Lots of Mormon scholars simply leave Hannah out of Smith’s list of wives under the belief that such an action didn’t fit Mormon theology. I argue it did. (See Compton’s In Sacred Loneliness, 631).

    So I argue the time frame of shared marriage being the plan was 1829 to 1843. That is, shared marriage was the concept even if Smith didn’t marry his first married wife until later. Women could be single and allowed to marry another husband under shared marriage, like the instruction to Nancy.

  3. Not a Cougar

    Stephen, thank you. If the span of time is 1829-1843, then I hope you’ll take plenty of time to address Fanny Alger as that relationship appears to complicate the argument. I will point out that John C. Bennett’s defense of his serial adultery (what he called spiritual wifery) as being learned from Joseph (albeit a very corrupted version of it and practiced for rather different reasons) would seem to support your theory.

  4. Stephen Fleming

    Again, I do not see JS marrying single women as deviation from shared marriage, and note the claim to Nancy Rigdon.

    What I do see as deviating from shared marriage is women NOT being able to have additional spouses like DC 132 insists on with all its “she shall be destroyed” talk.

    I argue that was not the policy before 1843 as suggested by the many married wives and the Nancy Rigdon statement.

    The details we have on Alger are pretty foggy, but Benjamin Johnson presents Alger marrying another guy soon after JS as not a rejection of JS. “She did not turn from the Church nor from her friendship for the Prophet while she lived.” But who knows? That was a short lived relationship that we don’t know a lot about, and Johnson’s statement comes much later.

    So I look for clues about what I see as JS’s larger purposes in sources both before and after Alger.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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