1831 Revelation on Marrying Indians

[Cliodud1000]

Does this revelation exist in LDS archives? I was just looking over the Joseph Smith Papers an it is not in the revelations for 1831. I was given to understand that every thing he ever wrote down was to be published in these papers. The main editor told me that at the last Organization of American Historians conference. Does anyone know?

[wtfluff]

Anything here that helps?

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/ind ... lation.htm

[Rob4Hope]

Don't apologists use this 1831 crap to justify what Smith was doing with Fanny Alger?

On a political incorrect note: what a purely imperialistic and arrogant thing to teach-----"hey brethren, go marry (whatever that means) and have sex with these Indian women, so you can get them pregnant with half white skin babies, [and then dump them so they can be rejected by their own people, while you put another feather in your hat how your sexual prowess was "blessed by God"].

This makes me want to puke!

[jfro18]

Don't apologists use this 1831 crap to justify what Smith was doing with Fanny Alger?

On a political incorrect note: what a purely imperialistic and arrogant thing to teach-----"hey brethren, go marry (whatever that means) and have sex with these Indian women, so you can get them pregnant with half white skin babies, [and then dump them so they can be rejected by their own people, while you put another feather in your hat how your sexual prowess was "blessed by God"].

This makes me want to puke!

Yes, apologists will often say "History shows that Joseph Smith was thinking of this as early as 1831"

What they don't tell you is that the 1831 revelation is about banging Indians to turn them white and not about banging the person that is living with you and your wife.

And then when you really pin them down on the 1831 stuff, I've seen at least one page on FAIR claim the letter is too far after and not reliable.

Yet another instance where they need the date to make the claim, but if you ever push on the claim they try to disavow it altogether.

[Palerider]

I think Jacob 2:30 shows Joseph was thinking about plural marriage as early as 1824.

That was approximately when Joseph Smith Sr. told Martin Harris about Joseph Jr. and the gold plates.

Presumably, the Smiths would have had the BofM story line fairly well developed by then. So one would surmise that the plural marriage issue had already been a subject of discussion in the Smith home.

This also makes one question Sidney Rigdon's involvement in the BofM story since he was opposed to polygamy.

It could show that the BofM story line could have been more of a collaboration than having a single author driving the story.

[Hagoth]

Here are the sources given in the footnotes of the Nauvoo polygamy essay:

See Andrew Jenson, “Plural Marriage,” Historical Record 6 (May 1887): 232–33; “Report of Elders Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith,” Millennial Star 40 (Dec. 16, 1878): 788; Danel W. Bachman, “New Light on an Old Hypothesis: The Ohio Origins of the Revelation on Eternal Marriage,” Journal of Mormon History 5 (1978): 19–32.

This quote comes from a letter from W.W. Phelps to Brigham Young, dated August 12, 1861. FAIRMormon (soon to change their name?!) says it is not to be trusted because it was written 30 years after the fact. That opens another fascinating door in the realm of critic vs. apologists. Both sides are seen to use decades old quotes when they suit their purposes and disparage them when they do not. In this case, the essay takes advantage of the quote as evidence that Joseph had received revelation about polygamy before he got busy with Fanny (no pun intended), while FAIR uses it to dispel the specter of "white and delightsome."