Why no children from JS plural marriages?

[Emower]

I don't like the question, because it is a red herring, it is an attempt to distract us from the fact that we know he had sex with his plural wives. Many of them testified they did. There is no doubt his successor Brigham Young had sex with his wives. While there are rumors of abortions, we will never know for absolute sure how how avoided having children - but we know beyond all reasonable doubt he was having sex with at least some of them.

Agreed. The children or lack thereof dont matter at all. But it is interesting as an academic question. I think its a combination of things, no time, more sex with married women, generally less sex then we may think, birth control. All of it probably contributes. I didn't put much stock in the abortion stories, but I hadn't read some of those quotes from Hyrum. Those are intriguing. I am not someome to generally jump to the worst conclusions about people. I think if abortions were going on it would have come out in a big way.

But all I need to do to detect something rotten is to read D&C 132. It speaks for itself.

[SaidNobody]

I think for me, it's the entire dishonesty, deceit and betrayal that was involved.

This is what I hear. It is about the dishonesty. And the Betrayal. And it is about how you feel in your relationship with the church. It is almost as if you are living Emma's life.

I don't know how much I can trust any of the information that comes from that time. I do know what information appeals to me more and what I want to believe.

However, I wouldn't be so brave as to State as true the things I want to believe about that time.

[wtfluff]

It's that much harder to hide polygamy when polygamy is producing children. Other leaders were practicing polygamy before the move out west, right? How many children did they have? I think the children only came after they started practicing polygamy in public.

This got skipped over in all of the other mess of this thread...

Quickly, off the top of my head, the first person that comes to mind is Heber C. Kimball. He practiced "Polygmy" as Joseph instructed him, and had a child with his first polygamous wife BEFORE Joseph died.

Other folks on this thread probably know more about this than I do, but it is a fact that Heber C. Kimball was Joseph's contemporary, was practicing polygamy, and in fact had at least one polygamous child while Joseph was alive.

Not sure how that can be blamed on Brigham, as he wasn't in power when it took place.

Emma's pain should be entered into the captain's log, along with the emotional pain of every other women of that day. But to put a special circle of abusive behavior around JS isn't justified. JS might be guilty of stuff, but it was actually legal to beat your wife in those days. It was written in the laws of states and cities.

Actually, it is completely justified to put a "special circle of abusive behavior" around Joseph Smith. All of the abuses that have happened in the "Mormon" movement have come about because of Joseph Smith. If he hadn't made up his "church" none of those abuses would have happened. His legacy of abuse lives on to this day. Warren Jeffs would not exist had it not been for Joseph Smith.

[SaidNobody]

Warren Jeffs would not exist had it not been for Joseph Smith.

Wow, that is giving him a lot of power and absolving a lot of people of responsibility. Sort of like blaming Christopher Columbus for all of the evils of America.

[AllieOop]

It's that much harder to hide polygamy when polygamy is producing children. Other leaders were practicing polygamy before the move out west, right? How many children did they have? I think the children only came after they started practicing polygamy in public.

As far I can remember, Heber C. Kimball and William Clayton were the only ones we know of who had children with their plural wives before Joseph died. There were most likely others before the saints headed out west and really began to openly live polygamy.

[wtfluff]

Warren Jeffs would not exist had it not been for Joseph Smith.

Wow, that is giving him a lot of power and absolving a lot of people of responsibility. Sort of like blaming Christopher Columbus for all of the evils of America.

Quick, move the goalposts!

[SaidNobody]

Warren Jeffs would not exist had it not been for Joseph Smith.

Wow, that is giving him a lot of power and absolving a lot of people of responsibility. Sort of like blaming Christopher Columbus for all of the evils of America.

Quick, move the goalposts!

blame is easy to lay about. Responsibility is where it's at. I could blame a billion things for my actions. But I am the only one that can take responsibility for them. Blame is a shifting a power. And in part that is what makes me sad here. People shifting their power to someone who died over 100 years ago. Only we can take responsibility for Who We Are.

[alas]

If JS had progeny from those other than Emma, the debate over whether he was having sex with his wives would be over--or so we think. I think the debate will continue because apologetics isn't concerned with the truth; they are concerned with image and spinning it in favor of the narrative.

This is the sort of thing that really confuses the issue.

Truth is much more complex than what Emma saw and went through. Truth isn't just her pain, or the pain millions of women in her day, or the hundreds that died moving west.

Joseph went through truth too, and was beaten for it, jailed for it, betrayed for it, and died for it. Taking a few events off the timeline doesn't explain the truth either.

Emma's pain should be entered into the captain's log, along with the emotional pain of every other women of that day. But to put a special circle of abusive behavior around JS isn't justified. JS might be guilty of stuff, but it was actually legal to beat your wife in those days. It was written in the laws of states and cities.

Anyway, about the kids.

Whether it was *legal* or not is totally beside the point. It was WRONG, it was CRUEL, and people at the time knew it was an improper way to treat a wife.

The question should be, "is this the behavior of someone God would choose as prophet?" Mormons claim that God's rules do not change. The law can change, but God's laws don't. So, how would the public react now if it came out that President Monson slugged his wife...better yet, if Elder Nelsen slugged Wendy. (Wendy isn't dead) if the public would be horrified to find out that the Mormon prophet hit his wife today, why shouldn't we be outraged to find out that Joseph hit Emma.

The church portrays the Joseph and Emma story as this beautiful love story. But if they were alive today, Emma would be staying at the battered women's shelter. It is just another lie that the church tries to push on us.

If you don't think hitting your wife was seen as scumbag behavior at the time, then read some of the romance stories of the time. Hitting your wife was seen as about the lowest, scummiest, cowardly, unmanly, ....a man could rob a bank and yeah, he was a thief, but there were two sins that were unforgivable. Stealing a man's horse, and hitting a woman.

Abortion was not illegal back then either. Does that make it a good and moral thing to do? Of course you would not agree with that. So, why excuse Joseph hitting Emma?

[SaidNobody]

Excuse him?

Maybe it's more like I don't judge him. Einstein was a cheater, abandoned his family to sleep with his cousin. George Washington had sex with his slave. Jefferson too.

I don't know anyone I cannot find fault with.

But JS was cruel? Life is cruel. Evolution is cruel. Natural selection is cruel. A mother's betrayal is cruel. It's happens. We get over it and move on.

I personally don't let a person's worst completely define them. I get tried of trying win by trashing someone else's character.

[EternityIsNow]

I think the answer is obvious. Joseph had all the power. He could ensure there were no children from his plural marriages. One way or another.

I read somewhere that Joseph was able to persuade some of his spiritual wives to deed over their assets to him, because the Lord (via Joseph) commanded. Also since he was their (plural) husband and that was common at the time in regular marriages, they may have assumed it was proper. Would be interesting to know how much he profited financially from his plural marriages, might have been an added incentive for Joseph, a clever gimmick.

[LostGirl]

This will teach me to post something on a whim and then go offline for a few days.

For the record, I've read extensively on the subject because it feels like so much hangs on why JS practiced plural marriage, how he went about it, and what the doctrinal implications are.

Here are my conclusions based on what I have read so far. I accept that there is likely plenty more that I have not yet read.

I believe:
* that there is no question that Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage
* that he did so behind Emma's back
* it is possible that there were children but I doubt we will ever know for sure and it doesn't matter to me
* I am not convinced about the abortions but again for me they are not a significant factor, as disturbing as the stories may be

The things that disturb me are:
* lying to and deceiving his wife, and making her friends complicit in these lies.
* the turmoil brought into the lives of the women involved
* the generations of families that have been affected
* and finally the implications that the idea that the practice comes from god has for the "eternal" role and purpose of women and for what we have to conclude about heavenly mother/s. It perpetuates the idea that women exist solely to create eternal increase for men. If I arrived to a place like that I would have to conclude that a psychopath had delivered me to "the bad place" and was trying to convince me that it's "the good place".

[SaidNobody]

I think the answer is obvious. Joseph had all the power. He could ensure there were no children from his plural marriages. One way or another.

I read somewhere that Joseph was able to persuade some of his spiritual wives to deed over their assets to him, because the Lord (via Joseph) commanded. Also since he was their (plural) husband and that was common at the time in regular marriages, they may have assumed it was proper. Would be interesting to know how much he profited financially from his plural marriages, might have been an added incentive for Joseph, a clever gimmick.

Joseph spent a decent portion of his time in prison. He lost several homes I believe. Eventually was murdered in prison. He was known for giving everything he had to the group of people that followed him. I have never heard that he tried to Swindle property out of wives. He was always considered to be pretty poor.

One thing that I have learned about people who have power. That is, that they don't have all the power. They have power because the people around them want them to have the power. In the moment that that person no longer serves them they are quickly removed. And Joseph was removed at some point.

One of the reasons I doubt the polygamy thing, is because Joseph was removed. He tried to give black people the priesthood and he tried to give women the priesthood. And several other things that were revolutionary for that time. Joseph Smith was an idealist and the prophet. He was not a governor or King. And that is why he was removed.

[Not Buying It]

I think the answer is obvious. Joseph had all the power. He could ensure there were no children from his plural marriages. One way or another.

I read somewhere that Joseph was able to persuade some of his spiritual wives to deed over their assets to him, because the Lord (via Joseph) commanded. Also since he was their (plural) husband and that was common at the time in regular marriages, they may have assumed it was proper. Would be interesting to know how much he profited financially from his plural marriages, might have been an added incentive for Joseph, a clever gimmick.

Joseph spent a decent portion of his time in prison. He lost several homes I believe. Eventually was murdered in prison. He was known for giving everything he had to the group of people that followed him. I have never heard that he tried to Swindle property out of wives. He was always considered to be pretty poor.

One thing that I have learned about people who have power. That is, that they don't have all the power. They have power because the people around them want them to have the power. In the moment that that person no longer serves them they are quickly removed. And Joseph was removed at some point.

One of the reasons I doubt the polygamy thing, is because Joseph was removed. He tried to give black people the priesthood and he tried to give women the priesthood. And several other things that were revolutionary for that time. Joseph Smith was an idealist and the prophet. He was not a governor or King. And that is why he was removed.

Actually he was King. Or had himself ordained one anyway.

Joseph was a scoundrel. There is abundant evidence he used his religious position to pressure women for sex. It is unquestionable that he took ordinary Egyptian funeral scrolls and tried to pass them off as the writings of Abraham. He pulled all kinds of crap. Like most charismatic leaders, there are all kinds of stories you can hear about his generosity and kindness - but it is fallacious thinking if you believe that any acts of generosity or kindness you've heard about mean he isn't also guilty of the nefarious things he has been charged with. The most successful con men are good at making people think they are great guys. Joseph was one of them.

[Jeffret]

Joseph Smith was an idealist and the prophet. He was not a governor or King. And that is why he was removed.

This one's clearly contradicted by the historical record.

Or meaningless hair-splitting.

As Not Buying It notes, he did consider himself king, having had himself ordained as such. Whether he was actually kind or only thought he was is interesting but not very useful at this point.

And he was mayor. And head of the Nauvoo Legion, which he wielded to his own ends.

He tried to be president, but that had no chance of actually happening.

He certainly wouldn't have turned down a position as governor but he never got to that point. If he'd managed to get his people to where Brigham did, he certainly would've claimed a governorship.

[SaidNobody]

Yeah, I concede the point. He even had his army.

[nibbler]

One of the reasons I doubt the polygamy thing, is because Joseph was removed.

I know several people that would take the opposite position, that Joseph was removed because he practiced polygamy.

There's the fallen prophet camp and there's also the camp that believes Joseph's behaviors finally caught up to him, he messed with the wrong person's wife.

[SaidNobody]

One of the reasons I doubt the polygamy thing, is because Joseph was removed.

I know several people that would take the opposite position, that Joseph was removed because he practiced polygamy.

There's the fallen prophet camp and there's also the camp that believes Joseph's behaviors finally caught up to him, he messed with the wrong person's wife.

Yeah, but look at who took over.

I cannot under value BY influence on Mormonism, but I am more inclined to believe shady things about him.

[Red Ryder]

I cannot under value BY influence on Mormonism, but I am more inclined to believe shady things about him.

Why the distinction though? Both have done some pretty shady stuff. Is it an inherent respect for the founder and restorationist while BY is merely a successionist? Or is it because the church spends much more time and energy worshipping JS than BY?

[nibbler]

BY benefited in that he was king in more ways than Joseph ever was. He was a ruler over a people in isolation, if you got on his bad side... to quote Pee-Wee's Big Adventure, "Go ahead and scream your head off! We're miles from where anyone can hear you! "

If someone didn't like BY stealing their wife what were they going to do? BY was the mob ready to tar, feather, and castrate.

Joseph still had frontier justice (as a force he didn't completely control) to deal with.

[Rob4Hope]

Emma's pain should be entered into the captain's log, along with the emotional pain of every other women of that day. But to put a special circle of abusive behavior around JS isn't justified. JS might be guilty of stuff, but it was actually legal to beat your wife in those days. It was written in the laws of states and cities.

But it was also illegal to engage in polygamy. So this moral man could beat his wife "in those days [because] it was written in the laws of states and cities", but disobey the law on multiple marriages?

Seems like a double standard to me.

And, what about this man being considered the closest person there is to God that there ever was (this is the TBM interpretation still--JS is all but next to God in stature as it were). And this man hit his wife? If he did, God have mercy on him...

Oh wait,....God must have told him to do it. After all, "in those days it was written in the laws of the states and cities".

I can't believe this perspective. Its a justification of abuse in the name of being "The Prophet".

Please help me to understand your perspective more. You just said "JS might be guilty of stuff..." and then deferred responsibility of his choices because it was legal. I don't understand this. A clear example is in Germany there were laws passed about killing Jews. It was legal there as well. Didn't make it right.

Didn't Dallin Oaks say something about universal standards and truths?

Why are you giving JS a pass on this? It seems your perspective is God commanded JS to practice polygamy, which was against the law, and to practice it, he had to hit Emma, which the law allowed.

Since the law means nothing, why did you use that as a type of justification for JS to hit his wife? Is it wrong to hit your wife, regardless of what the law says?