- Stephen Fleming on The Framework of My Historical Argument about Polygamy: “Opposed, the point of my research is to try to understand what Smith was practicing. Seems like a responsible thing for a historian to do. And yes, the policy changed to polygyny in 1843. The Republic was one of the first documents to declare female equality. In the history of feminism, early modern feminists tended to be Platonists. I’m not here to advocate for implementing the Republic, but there’s clearly a big difference between shared marriage and polygyny.” Oct 25, 12:22
- on The Framework of My Historical Argument about Polygamy: “I think both Plato’s Republic view of women and polygamy are terribly misogynistic and wrong. Both are treating women one step away from goods. And the implementation of polygamy after Joseph’s death wasn’t shared marriage or polyamory but much more like fundamentalist polygamy that is still practiced by Mormon offshoots. Why try to justify and piece together some pseudo doctrines to explain something that is morally wrong? It isn’t good in the republic and it wasn’t good in Mormon history. I am happy that the church finally walked away from this practice.” Oct 25, 11:51
- on Reading the New Testament on Its Own Terms: A Review of Alex Douglas’s The New Testament for Latter-day Saints: “Jonathan, is your thought that removing himself from the Church undermines his claim in the eyes of his audience that New Testament scholarship is compatible with LDS worship? Or does his dissociation cloud his ability to actually understand LDS teachings?” Oct 25, 10:26
- on Reading the New Testament on Its Own Terms: A Review of Alex Douglas’s The New Testament for Latter-day Saints: “Thanks for the review. Unfortunately, the author’s disassociation from the Church so badly undermines the authorial position that I do not think this book can accomplish its objective. The number of authors who want to write for the LDS market while unencumbered by membership in the Church or obligations to the community of church members is actually getting to be somewhat of a problem.” Oct 25, 08:24
- on The Framework of My Historical Argument about Polygamy: “Roger, the bottom line is that many women had more than one husband in Nauvoo. No, there were no wife-swapping parties. Many women had more than one spouse, just like many men had more than one spouse. RLD, again, those arranged marriages were not part of the system that Smith was seeking to implement. The Republic is a very large book and no doubt it’s not hard find things that Smith DID NOT implement, just like it’s quite easy to go through the Old Testament to find things we do not practice. Again, the principle was much simpler: the phrase repeated over and over that marriages were in common among the guardians. In terms of children, yes, they were to be raised in common in the Republic. Smith’s shared marriage system never got that elaborate. Nor are we aware of Smith producing children with any of his wives. We don’t have evidence for JS having NO sex with his previously married wives, but it likely wasn’t frequent and there were ways to try to avoid pregnancy. Then there’s the claim from Josephine Lyons that her mother Sylvia Sessions told Josephine that Josephine was JS’s daughter. My understanding is that DNA testing has shown this to be incorrect, but that fact that Sylvia THOUGHT JS was the father of Josephine but was not strongly suggests that Sylvia thought so because she had a consummated relationship with JS as well as her other husband. Yes this could be problematic and, no, JS didn’t set up a system of raising children in common. This was all very secretive and preliminary. There were all different kinds of relationships between JS and the wives he shared with many (but not all) husbands being aware of the shared relationship. I’d assume that for the husbands that were aware, they would have been aware of the possibility of their wives having JS’s children as part of the shared relationship. Again, sharing was the goal of the utopian community with the ideal not being to “destroy the family,” but to unite as a larger family, similar to the Benjamin Johnson quote I cited. I think of Mormon’s statement in Moroni 8:17: “I am filled with charity, which is everlasting love; wherefore, all children are alike unto me; wherefore, I love little children with a perfect love; and they are all alike and partakers of salvation.” My guess is that the goal was to love “all the children” with that kind of love. Not a “mine” v. “not mine,” but a communal love. One way or another, these shared marriages did happen and I do not see an OT explanation for them, but more of an adaptation of things Plato talked about. And as I note in the OP, Mormonism has a whole lot of Platonic stuff. And, yes, there’s the question of JS’s shared marriages being reciprocated, or the question of Emma having other husbands. We do have claims of such arrangements being discussed (probably not consummated) and I argue that DC 132:51 revokes such arrangements. My argument is that’s why Emma found DC 132 so upsetting. Not because she was super eager for more husbands, but that shared marriage was a least much more fair than polygyny. William Clayton records JS telling him that Emma may seek revenge in a marital kind of way and to watch himself. Anyway, I do think that was Emma’s attitude, and if so, she was clearly right that polygyny was unfair.” Oct 24, 06:17
- on The Framework of My Historical Argument about Polygamy: “For the record: “It follows from our former admissions [about breeding the best animals],” I said, “that the best men must cohabit with the best women in as many cases as possible and the worst with the worst in the fewest, and that the offspring of the one must be reared and that of the other not, if the flock is to be as perfect as possible. And the way in which all this is brought to pass must be unknown to any but the rulers, if, again, the herd of guardians is to be as free as possible from dissension.” “Most true,” he said. “We shall, then, have to ordain certain festivals and sacrifices, in which we shall bring together the brides and the bridegrooms, and our poets must compose hymns suitable to the marriages that then take place. But the number of the marriages we will leave to the discretion of the rulers, that they may keep the number of the citizens as nearly as may be the same, taking into account wars and diseases and all such considerations, and that, so far as possible, our city may not grow too great or too small.” “Right,” he said. “Certain ingenious lots, then, I suppose, must be devised so that the inferior man at each conjugation may blame chance and not the rulers.” …. “And the children thus born will be taken over by the officials appointed for this, men or women or both, since, I take it, the official posts too are common to women and men. The offspring of the good, I suppose, they will take to the pen or créche, to certain nurses who live apart in a quarter of the city, but the offspring of the inferior, and any of those of the other sort who are born defective, they will properly dispose of in secret, so that no one will know what has become of them.” “That is the condition,” he said, “of preserving the purity of the guardians’ breed.” “They will also supervise the nursing of the children, conducting the mothers to the pen when their breasts are full, but employing every device to prevent anyone from recognizing her own infant.” …. “All that sounds reasonable,” he said; “but how are they to distinguish one another’s fathers and daughters, and the other degrees of kin that you have just mentioned?” “They won’t,” said I, “except that a man will call all male offspring born in the tenth and in the seventh month after he became a bridegroom his sons, and all female, daughters, and they will call him father.” …. “But what of your guardians. Could any of them think or speak of his co-guardian as an outsider?” “By no means,” he said; “for no matter whom he meets, he will feel that he is meeting a brother, a sister, a father, a mother, a son, a daughter, or the offspring or forebears of these.”” Oct 23, 23:20
- on A Recap of the Book of Mormon Studies Association Conference: “I didn’t hear any speculation about that at this BOMSA conference, but I could easily see those types of discussions happening there in some form. The folks who are there run the full gamut on relationships with the Church.” Oct 23, 20:00
- on The Framework of My Historical Argument about Polygamy: “I don’t know about Plato, but all this seems way over the top. I’m thinking that this would legitimatize wife (husband) swapping parties. With the WoW ill defined, a little alcohol would certainly liven the party. All this is sort of a spiritual rationalization for free love. All you need is a temple marriage and the world is your oyster. And as already mentioned, what about the kids?” Oct 23, 19:21
- on A Recap of the Book of Mormon Studies Association Conference: “At these conferences, does anyone speculate on how Church leaders might react if it is finally conceded that the BoM is not an historical record? Would leaders suggest that it’s inspired fiction or deemphasize it, keeping the spiritual portions. Questions about possible Church reactions to an ahistorical BoM are becoming more and more relevant. An increasing number of members are questioning the historicity of the book. Particularly, given the paucity of archeological and DNA evidence concerning its veracity. And the lack of evidence related to Christ visiting the Americas.” Oct 23, 19:04
- on The Framework of My Historical Argument about Polygamy: “Yes, I do disagree. The principle is much simpler, as Plato states not only in the Republic but the Laws and Timaeus that highest goal is to have goods and wives in common. Smith never sought to create that full system of selective breading in the Republic, but instead the system of shared marriage among the enlightened guardians. The ones who had been (figuratively) out of the cave and have beheld the Good. Having reached such enlightenment, they could engage in that highest order of marriage and complete unity. There’s a long heritage of such ideas among radical Christian groups (some of which Joseph Sr. had contact with). Furthermore, Smith’s utopianism shows lots of similarities to Plato’s Laws which Plato says people can try if the highest form (the Republic) isn’t possible. The Laws is about assigning stewardship which became central to a lot of Smith’s utopian planning. The Republic’s goal was to create oneness and and uses wording quite similar to the city of Enoch and some DC sections on that theme. So, yes, I think that you and the Josephs read Plato differently.” Oct 23, 16:27
