Is this why polygamy gets pinned on BY more often than JS?

[scottie]

Yesterday I read quite a bit from Joseph F. Smith's testimony in the Reed Smoot Senate Hearings (his testimony starts at about page 80), I find it interesting to read/hear third-parties asking the church's prophet questions. The PDF is huge, fair warning that it will take awhile to load.

http://nboman.people.wm.edu/Smoot_1.pdf

Maybe this helps explain why BY gets the rap for polygamy -- it wasn't revealed to the body of the church until after their arrival and settlement in SLC. I wonder how it was presented at the public conference in SLC.

From pages 198-199 (PDF file pages 200-201):

Senator Foraker: I do not know whether it has been brought out or not. Perhaps it has been, but I have not observed it if it has been put in to the record. When and where and how this injunction to take plural wives was given to the church as a doctrine of the Mormon Church.
The Chairman: When and where and how?
Mr. Smith: In the first place, this revelation was written in 1843 by Joseph Smith. It was taught by him to the members of the church during his lifetime, to Brigham Young, to Heber C. Kimball, and to his associates, but owing to the conditions that existed at that time, fierce opposition and mobocracy--
The Chairman: What opposition?
Mr. Smith: Fierce opposition and mobocracy, which ended finally in the martyrdom of Joseph Smith, it was not published and proclaimed at that time. But this doctrine was preserved by Brigham Young, carried with him to Salt Lake Valley in 1847, and in 1851, I believe it was, there proclaimed at a public conference of the church as a revelation from God through Joseph Smith, and at that public conference it was accepted as a revelation.
The Chairman: That was in 1851.
Mr. Worthington: 1852.
Mr. Smith: Sir?
Mr. Worthington: 1852.
Mr. Smith: It was in 1852.
Senator Hopkins: As I understand you, it was proclaimed at Nauvoo?
Mr. Smith: No, sir; it was not published and proclaimed at Nauvoo, but it was taught by Joseph Smith to his confidential friends and associates.
Mr. Worthington: It was received at Nauvoo.
Senator Hoar: Where was this publication of it, if that is the proper term, by Brigham Young?
Mr. Smith: It was in Salt Lake Valley in 1852.

Continued...

From pages 199-201 (PDF file pages 201-203):

Senator Foraker: Not yet. That answers as to when and how, but what is it? Let us have the revelation itself in so far as it relates to plural marriages.
Mr. Smith: It is very lengthy.
Senator McComas: What section is it?
Senator Foraker: What I wish to ascertain is, and all I care to have you read is enough to show, whether it is a positive command to take plural wives, or a mere recommendation or mere authority to privilege?
The Chairman: Can you not read the portion of it which relates to plural marriages?
Mr. Smith: I can read it if you desire me to.
Senator Foraker: Cite the page and all, and then read.
Mr. Smith: Page 463. The beginning of the revelation is thus: (he goes on to read some verses from D&C section 132)
...
Mr. Richards: Commence with verse 61.
Mr. Tayler: That is right.
Mr. Smith: I will do so.
"61. And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else."
Mr. Richards: The word "justified" is the word used.
The Chairman: There is something a little futher on.
Mr. Smith: Yes.
"62. And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified."
Senator Foraker: Now, that is the pith of that revelation, as I understand it, according to your judgement, with respect to the taking of plural wives?
Mr. Smith: Yes, sir.
Senator Foraker: And I understand you to say, further, that that has been construed by the church to be not an arbitrary direction to take plural wives, but a permissive authority to do so?
Mr. Smith: Yes, sir.
...
Mr. Smith: "64. And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law."
Senator Pettus: Now, what is the meaning of the word "destroyed," there, as interpreted by the church?
Mr. Smith: I have no conception of the meaning of it more than the language itself conveys, that the woman who disobeys is in the hands of the Lord for Him to deal with as He may deem proper. I suppose that is what it means.
Senator Foraker: Has the church ever construed that language to give authority to it as a church to destroy the woman?
Mr. Smith: Never in the world. It is not so stated. It is that the Lord--
Senator Foraker: The church construes it, as I understand, to mean that she is in the hands of the Lord, to be destroyed by the Lord.
Mr. Smith: By the Lord, if there is any destruction at all.
Senator Pettus: Have there ever been in the past plural marriages without the consent of the first wife?
Mr. Smith: I do not know of any, unless it may have been Joseph Smith himself.
Senator Pettus: Is the language that you have read construed to mean that she is bound to consent?
Mr. Smith: The condition is that if she does not consent the Lord will destroy her, but I do not know how He will do it.
Senator Bailey: Is it not true that in the very next verse, if she refuses her consent her husband is exempt from the law which requires her consent?
Mr. Smith: Yes; he is exempt from the law which requires her consent.
Senator Bailey: She is commanded to consent, but if she does not, then he is exempt from the requirement?
Mr. Smith: Then he is at liberty to proceed without her consent, under the law.
Senator Beveridge: In other words, her consent amounts to nothing?
Mr. Smith: It amounts to nothing but her consent.
Senator Beveridge: So that so far as there is anything in there concerning her consent, it might as well not be there?

[scottie]

Some of the stuff I've read from the hearings has been pretty jaw-dropping, even for me.

From pages 129-131 (file pages 131-133); keep in mind Joseph F. Smith was prophet of the church at the time of this testimony:

Mr. Smith: That was the case, and is the case, even to-day.
Mr. Tayler: What was the case; what you are about to say?
Mr. Smith: That it is contrary to the rule of the church and contrary as well to the law of the land for a man to cohabit with his wives.

But I was placed in this position. I had a plural family, if you please; that is, my first wife was married to me over thirty-eight years ago, my last wife was married to me over twenty years ago, and with these wives I had childre, and I simply took my chances, preferring to meet the consequences of the law rather than to abandon my children and their mothers; and I have cohabited with my wives--not openly, that is, not in a manner that I thought would be offensive to my neighbors--but I have acknowledged them; I have visited them. They have borne me children since 1890, and I have done it, knowing the responsibility and knowing that I was amenable to the law.

Since the admission of the State there has been a sentiment existing and prevalent in Utah that these old marriages would be in a measure condoned. They were not looked upon as offensive, as really violative of law; they were, in other words, regarded as an existing fact, and if they saw any wrong in it they simply winked at it. In other words, Mr. Chairman, the people of Utah, as a rule, as well as the people of this nation, are broad-minded and libral-minded people, and they have rather condoned than otherwise, I presume, my offense against the law. I have never been disturbed. Nobody has ever called me in question, that I know of, and if i had, I was there to answer to the charges or any charge that might have been made against me, and I would have been willing to submit to the penalty of the law, whatever it might have been.

Mr. Tayler: So that obedience to the law is perfectly satisfied, according to your view of it, if one is ready to pay the penalty for its violation?
Mr. Smith: Not at all. I should like to draw a distinction between unlawful cohabitation and polygamy. There is a law prohibiting polygamy, plural marriages.
Senator Hoar: You mean now a law of the State of Utah?
Mr. Smith: I mean the law of the State, and I mean that this is in the constitution of our State. It is required by the enabling act. That law, gentlemen, has been complied with by the church; that law has been kept by the church; and there never has been a plural marriage by the consent or sanction or knowledge or approval of the church since the manifesto.

The law of unlawful cohabitation is another law entirely, and relates to the cohabitation of a man with more than one wife. That is the law which I have presumed to face in preference to disgracing myself and degrading my family by turning them off and ceasing to acknowledge them and to administer to their wants--not the law in relation to plural marriage. That I have not broken. Neither has any man broken it by the sanction or approval of the church.

Mr. Tayler: You say that there is a State law forbidding unlawful cohabitation?
Mr. Smith: That is my understanding.
Mr. Tayler: And ever since that law was passed you have been violating it?
Mr. Smith: I think likely I have been practicing the same thing even before the law was passed.
Mr. Tayler: Yes.
Mr. Smith: Long years before it was passed.
Mr. Tayler: You have not in any respect changed your relations to these wives since the manifesto or since the passage of this law of the State of Utah. I am not meaning to be unfair in the question, but only to understand you. What I mean is, you have been holding your several wives out as wives, not offensively, as you say. You have furnished them homes. You have given them your society. You have taken care of the children that they bore you, and you have caused them to bear you new children--all of them.
Mr. Smith: That is correct, sir.
Mr. Tayler: That is correct?
Mr. Smith: Yes, sir.
Mr. Tayler: Now, since that was a violation of the law, why have you done it?
Mr. Smith: For the reason I have state. I preferred to face the penalties of the law to abandoning my family.
Mr. Tayler: Do you consider it an abandonment of your family to maintain relations with your wives except that of occupying their beds?
Mr. Smith: I do not wish to be impertinent, but I should like the gentleman to ask any woman, who is a wife, that question.
Mr. Tayler: Unfortunately, or fortunately, that is not the status of this examination at this point.
Mr. Smith: All the same; it is my sentiment.

[Indy Coug]

OK, so he continued to care for his wives and children and continued to have relations with his wives after the Manifesto, while not entering into any new unions with additional wives.

I'm not sure why this is surprising or shocking.

[scottie]

OK, so he continued to care for his wives and children and continued to have relations with his wives after the Manifesto, while not entering into any new unions with additional wives.

I'm not sure why this is surprising or shocking.

Because of what he said here:

Mr. Smith: That it is contrary to the rule of the church and contrary as well to the law of the land for a man to cohabit with his wives.

The prophet was breaking rules of the church and the law of the land.

[creekster]

What is it that you find surprsing in that transcript excerpt? I assume the bolded parts? I gues I don't see the problem. He had plural wiuves and after the manifest rather than leave them he continued to care for and live wiht them. If that is shocking then I assume that you would also be disappointed if any of the gay california couples married before prop 8 passed continued to live as spouses?

[creekster]

Because of what he said here:


The prophet was breaking rules of the church and the law of the land.

Hmmm. what is the 'that' referred to in that quotation?

[jay santos]

Some of the stuff I've read from the hearings has been pretty jaw-dropping, even for me.

From pages 129-131 (file pages 131-133); keep in mind Joseph F. Smith was prophet of the church at the time of this testimony:

Jaw dropping that a husband wouldn't divorce and abandon a family because the church repealed polygamy. No. Not jaw dropping. If a polygamist added new wives after the manifesto, bad but not jaw dropping. If high ranking church officials took new wives, lied about it, condemned others for doing it, and covered it up, somewhat surprising but really not even jaw dropping. An apostle today taking a second wife and covering it up, now that might be jaw dropping.

[Indy Coug]

Scottie, what would be the appropriate behavior for a prophet of the church who already had several wives and kids prior to the Manifesto? Here's a list to choose from, but feel free to add your own.

1. Divorce wives and financially support them until they remarry

2. Keep wives, but don't have sex with them

3. Arrange for others to marry his excess wives, then divorce them so they have someone lined up to take care of them and their children

4. Maintain the status quo because of the love and care you have for all of your wives and kids.

5. Immediately divorce wife and kids and let the state and local ward take care of them.

[scottie]

Jaw dropping that a husband wouldn't divorce and abandon a family because the church repealed polygamy. No. Not jaw dropping. If a polygamist added new wives after the manifesto, bad but not jaw dropping. If high ranking church officials took new wives, lied about it, condemned others for doing it, and covered it up, somewhat surprising but really not even jaw dropping. An apostle today taking a second wife and covering it up, now that might be jaw dropping.

What would be a parrallel today to the reaction from the membership to Joseph F. Smith admitting to breaking a church rule and law of the land (I assume the church rule in question can be found in the 1890 Official Declaration which states, "We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage")? Probabaly not the level of Thomas S. Monson admitting to viewing porn and tax evasion, maybe more like him drinking de-caff coffee and driving over the speed limit. But from those senators' POV, it was probably very surprising.

I'm changing my "jaw-dropping" comment to "very surprising". I'm sure there are plenty of members out there who think that polygamy full-on ended with the 1890 Manifesto.

[scottie]

Scottie, what would be the appropriate behavior for a prophet of the church who already had several wives and kids prior to the Manifesto? Here's a list to choose from, but feel free to add your own.

1. Divorce wives and financially support them until they remarry

2. Keep wives, but don't have sex with them

3. Arrange for others to marry his excess wives, then divorce them so they have someone lined up to take care of them and their children

4. Maintain the status quo because of the love and care you have for all of your wives and kids.

5. Immediately divorce wife and kids and let the state and local ward take care of them.

I don't know all the details of what Smith meant by "That it is contrary to the rule of the church and contrary as well to the law of the land for a man to cohabit with his wives," but taking the comment at face value, my expected behavior would have been to stop cohabiting in 1890, the implementation of that would be left to their judgment.

I don't have time to look it up right now, but somewhere in that transcript JFS admitted to fathering three more children post-1890 with different wives.

[The_Tick]

Scottie...your obsession isn't healthy and wont do you any good.

These folks have been dead for 100+ years. You should probably let it go.

[scottie]

Scottie...your obsession isn't healthy and wont do you any good.

These folks have been dead for 100+ years. You should probably let it go.

I appreciate the words. The peek into Mormon history that the Reed Smoot hearings offers is very interesting to me, and up until a few weeks ago I hadn't read much from the transcripts.

[Katy Lied]

I found the hearings interesting as well, mostly because I was surprised at how polite the senators were in grilling church representatives. I’ve grown up with stories of the hatred that gentiles had for the early saints, and I’ve seen protracted and harsh modern day senate hearings, so I just assumed that the Smoot hearings would be ugly.

I assume that women who agreed to be plural wives bought into the institution of polygamy. If I married polygamously prior to the repudiation of plural marriage, I would still expect my husband to provide me with children, particularly in the absence of social security and other social safety nets. I think it would be much more cruel to be maintained as a wife without the chance of having children and a family. No Hebrew Queen Michal to King David for me.

[clackamascoug]

As a five year old you have a perspective on the world.
As a ten year old your perspective is different than a 5 year old.
As a 15 year old your perspective is different than a ten year old.
As a 20 year old your perspective is different than a 15 year old.
.... As a 50 year old your perspective is different than a 30 year old.

As a person on the other side of the veil, your perspective is way different from anything this earth has to offer.

The point.... don't make any snap decisions based upon your perspective. Hold to the Rod and receive positive affirmations from The Spirit that you're moving in the right direction, which will lead to God's perspective.

[I.J. Reilly]

What would be a parrallel today to the reaction from the membership to Joseph F. Smith admitting to breaking a church rule and law of the land (I assume the church rule in question can be found in the 1890 Official Declaration which states, "We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage")? Probabaly not the level of Thomas S. Monson admitting to viewing porn and tax evasion, maybe more like him drinking de-caff coffee and driving over the speed limit. But from those senators' POV, it was probably very surprising.

I'm changing my "jaw-dropping" comment to "very surprising". I'm sure there are plenty of members out there who think that polygamy full-on ended with the 1890 Manifesto.

I think this is a clear case of trying to compare apples to oranges. The view of Mormons - both by outsiders and by insiders evaluating themselves - is starkly different today than it would have been in the first decade of the 1900's.

At that time there were several factors relevant to Mormon culture/image that, imo, that would make trying to make any modern-day parallel impossible. For one, at that time there would have still been many old-guard members who saw themselves as building a revolutionary society for whom breaking the laws of the land, or even the "laws" (I'll get to that in a sec) of the church would not have caused them to bat an eyelash if it were for the furtherance of building up the kingdom. There were most likely those that were still alive that could remember coming over the plains in the first wagon companies, and the vast majority of people were either pioneers (in the sense of having left their lands of origin to come to Zion, even if it was by train/boat) or at the most two generations removed from pioneers. These people had left the United States in order to form their Zion, in large measure because the laws of the land did not agree with the radical aims of their dream society. It was the US that had followed them to Utah and laws of the oppressors were really not going to trump the laws/dictates of God.

Secondly, members of the church inhabited what might be described as the "post-manifesto" time period. It was a time when many of the leaders of the church were hiding in plain sight, as shown by the testimony of JFS you've produced here, and the "church" itself was engaged in a lot of doublespeak. Any "law" given by the church at this time, especially in regards to polygamy, would have been understood with a wink and a nod as a more "do what I do, not what I say" type instruction. This "law" of the church would have been understood by the members to be a political expediency. It gave leaders cover to say to government officials, "look, we've told our people not to do this, you will now have to place the onus for their actions squarely on them." It was a way for them to limit their exposure legally, while letting their actions in the community send a slightly different message. Truthfully, this was a time where there were still members of the 12 sanctioning polygamous marriages, if not performing them themselves. The Church still had a relatively active polygamous colony in Mexico. This "law" from the church about unlawful cohabitation would have been understood for exactly what it was, a way to limit the higher-ups liability to legal trouble.

Finally, this wouldn't have shocked anyone from the outside community, in the way that it would now if the Prophet were to admit to criminal illegal behavior. Mormons at the time weren't seen as the flag-waving, clean-cut and clean-living people that they are now publicly portrayed and understood to be. Contemporary political cartoons and editorials depicted Mormons as a sex-crazed, nutty band of immigrants living in the desert. JFS' admission would have only served to confirm in their mind the stereotype. Something that outsiders would undoubtedly shake their head at, but would not have been shocked by.

Any shock and awe that you now experience from reading those words is wholly informed by a modern image of the prophet and would have little to no parallel to how contemporary readers would have reacted to JFS' testimony. Apples to oranges, maybe even apples to elephants.