- Stephen Fleming on The Framework of My Historical Argument about Polygamy: “I’ll take a look at the pamphlet, but I disagree with your interpretation of Smith’s afterlife theology. I’ll admit that such ideas do fit Brigham Young’s view, but I see Smith as having somewhat different ideals. I see Smith and seeking to bind loved ones together in life to form utopian connections. Sharing wives was a way for men to bind themselves to each other (as the ideal. This didn’t work, of course). I see Benjamin Johnson’s later quote as illustrative of Smith’s purpose. “The Prophet taught us that Dominion & powr in the great future, would be Comensurate with the no [number] of ‘Wives Childin & Friends’ that we inheret here and that our great mission to earth was to Organize a Neculi [nucleus] of Heaven to take with us.”” Oct 23, 12:01
- on The Framework of My Historical Argument about Polygamy: “The Sidney Hay Jacob pamphlet, The Peace Maker, published in Nauvoo in 1842, would seem to argue against your thesis. If it was a trial balloon to test how church members would react to polygamy and was published with Joseph Smiths’s blessing, the argument found in the pamphlet probably reflect JS’s views to some degree. Among other things, the pamphlet argued that polygamy would counteract women’s control (through sex) of men, and that would be a good thing! Beyond this, even though JS marries already-married women and encouraged them to still live with their husbands, his thought processes about building kingdoms in the hereafter through having many wives and children don’t really lend themselves to this interpretation.” Oct 23, 11:47
- on A Recap of the Book of Mormon Studies Association Conference: “It was really good! I’m sad you weren’t able to make it.” Oct 23, 11:20
- on A Recap of the Book of Mormon Studies Association Conference: “I wanted to go, and had plans to go, but then couldn’t make it. So I really appreciate this informative recap. Thank you, Chad!” Oct 23, 10:07
- on The Framework of My Historical Argument about Polygamy: “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. ” Oct 22, 09:25
- on The Framework of My Historical Argument about Polygamy: “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.” Oct 22, 09:06
- on The Framework of My Historical Argument about Polygamy: “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. ” Oct 22, 08:40
- on The Framework of My Historical Argument about Polygamy: ““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!” Oct 22, 07:44
- on Jonathan Stapley on the Law of Adoption: “Not a Cougar, I’ve heard that too. I think the idea behind that speculation was that the Law of Adoption has been portrayed as male-to-male sealings, which is the way that it sets the precedent. It’s not really a good precedent, though, since it was parent-to-child sealings, even if it was father-to-son sealings, and we still see incest as morally abhorrent (which is unlikely to change). In the hypothetical situation that the Church, as an institution, starts accepting same-sex marriages as legitimate and acceptable to be sealed in the temple, the marriage sealing is going to be a better precedent, even if the language would need to be adapted. I actually think the idea you brought up was what Stapley was getting at when he talked about it being a sealing to both a man and a woman as parents in the FtD interview: “Two persistent errors still appear today, even in scholarly literature. The first is the claim that only men were adopted. This is just plain false. Men and women together functioned as adoptive parents, and both men and women were adopted as children. Everyone needed to be sealed to parents.”” Oct 21, 14:52
- on Jonathan Stapley on the Law of Adoption: “Chad, I forgot to add that I’ve seen speculation on LDS-themed blogs in the past that, if same-sex marriages were ever to be accepted by the Church, Law of Adoption sealings would serve as the precedent justifying same-sex sealings. To be clear, I don’t think Law of Adoption sealings had anything to do with same sex attraction, and I certainly don’t foresee that happening in my lifetime surely, but, it’s interesting to ponder how past practices can be made to serve as unwitting springboards for future practices.” Oct 21, 12:53
