Talk:Origin of Latter Day Saint polygamy/Archive 2

Looking at the sources
Everything in the article's sources that I've read so far is from the Utah church's version of events, put forward by people who practiced polygamy themselves, and proves nothing. This is all very shaky evidence and testimony and I feel as if a slight breeze blows against it, the whole edifice of "contemporary scholars" views will topple like a stack of baby blocks. Since I am arguing that Smith was not, in fact, married to more than one wife (at least from his point of view, meaning marriages performed "to Joseph Smith" without his actual presence or consent do not count) and since there are a great many people other than Smith himself who claim otherwise, someone is lying. There are only three possibilities: What constitutes proof in this case? Therefore, I am unsure how to proceed to prove my point after I disprove yours (yours meaning all of you siding with "contemporary scholars").This is what I have found thus far:
 * 1) Joseph Smith Jr. was lying.
 * 2) His "wives" were lying.
 * 3) They were all lying (a definite possibility, which is probably the most logical position to most non-Latter Day Saints).
 * Personal testimonies can be lies.
 * Marriage certificates and licenses can be forged.
 * People who later had connections to the LDS church in Utah had an obvious motive to make it look as if the prophet approved of their actions.
 * 1) Although undocumented, the marriage of Fanny and Joseph most likely took place in Kirtland, Ohio sometime in 1833'' (unproven)
 * 2) The date of the marriage between Joseph and Lucinda is uncertain'' (unproven)
 * 3) After Joseph Smith’s death, Louisa married Brigham Young (unproven testimony by someone with an obvious motive for making it appear that Joseph Smith, Jr. approved)
 * 4) Zina’s first husband, Henry, was aware of this wedding and they continued to live in the same home. He believed that “whatever the Prophet did was right, without making the wisdom of God’s authorities bend to the reasoning of any man.”''  This statement contradicts Joseph Smith, Jr.'s actual teachings - which included that he himself was mortal and prone to sin and error just like everyone else - suggesting to me that these people may be making up things that Smith never said or did.
 * 5) Presendia Huntingto Buell'' (Moved to Utah - obvious motive to lie that Smith supported polygamy)
 * 6) Five months later Agnes would marry Joseph Smith. The marriage was guarded with secrecy.  On January 6, 1842 Brigham Young wrote a cryptic entry in his journal using Masonic symbols.  Decoded, it reads: “I was taken in to the lodge J Smith was Agness”.  The abbreviation “was” means “wedded and sealed”.  On the same day in Joseph’s diary we find: “Truly this is a day long to be remembered by the saints of the Last Days; a day in which the God of heaven has began to restore the ancient order of his Kingdom...all things are concurring together to bring about the completion of the fullness of the gospel”.''  (If the rest of this paragraph is the only proof given for the first two sentences, this is based on nothing but innuendo.)
 * 7) 10 months later, on December 24th, Joseph’s journal mentions a visit to his wife, Sylvia, who was giving birth to her third child: “Walked with Sec[retary Willard Richards] to see Sister Lyons who was sick. Her baby died 30 minutes before [we] arrived”.''  (Does his journal say Sylvia was his wife? How do we know this was actually his journal?)
 * 8) After Joseph Smith was killed in 1844, Mary and her first husband Adam continued to live in Nauvoo and the Midwest. In 1863 they moved to Utah.  (Again, moved to Utah - an obvious motive)
 * 9) Patty’s duties as Joseph’s plural wife included approaching and educating prospective wives, serving as a messenger and go between, and acting as a witness at the wedding ceremonies of Joseph and the other plural wives he took. Patty continued in this role until Joseph’s death in 1844.  Patty and David later left Nauvoo for Utah with the other migrating Saints.''  (this one is actually laughable - how could there be enough time in between everything else that was going on to do all of this with all of these different people? Furthermore, Utah again.)
 * 10) In Joseph’s diary is a list of his marriages. It includes the entry: “Apr 42 Marinda Johnson to Joseph Smith.”  '' (Interesting. If he were trying to keep this a secret, why would he write it down? I expect the whole thing may be a forgery)

I could keep on with this but I'm out of time for right now. I will write more on this subject later. --Nerd42 16:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * According to the Bible, Saint Peter publicly denied Christ 3 times, while Christ still lived. Abraham told the Pharaoh that Sarah was his sister, when she was actually his wife.  Joseph Smith publicly denied polygamy several times, but he still practiced it.  I fail to see how this in and of itself creates a huge paradox. Joseph Smith never claimed to be perfect, and imperfect humans sometimes lie to cover their backsides.  It doesn't make it right, but it happens, and the above examples show that it has happened to other folks revered in the Judeo-Christian tradition.  Your above argument picks on the easy cases to dismiss, if you make the a priori assumption that JS was never involved in polygamy.  If you accept, based on additional evidence, that Smith was involved, then the above cases are not as weak as you make them sound.  Emma clearly did not like polygamy, even though she occasionally tolerated it.  It is not hard to imagine her raising her children to believe that their father had not been involved.  Despite this, Joseph Smith III, after visiting some of his father's other wives, stated that he was no longer sure that his father was innocent of it.  Private letters written between a number of people, while JS was still alive, some written by himself, implicate his involvement.  Several journal entries, made by citizens of Nauvoo, while JS was still alive, implicate his involvement.  Couple this with the sworn affidavits of many of the wives after his death, and a fairly clear picture emerges. Dr U 06:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you're looking at this the wrong way. Let me put it another way:
 * 1) The LDS church and others (including alot of anti-mormons) have pieced together an elaborate theory that Joseph Smith Jr. was a polygamist, and told bold-faced lies to cover it up. Many people believe this.
 * 2) Other people don't. There are people who believe Smith's public statements. There is no absolute proof that this view is correct or incorrect.
 * 3) Wikipedia strives to maintain a neutral point of view. (NPOV) Therefore, articles like this one discussing the accusations of polygamy should include some type of disclaimer stating that the information is disputed. --Nerd42 14:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh ... and by the way, I did not pick the cases that were easiest to dismiss. I started at the top of the list on the site that the article references and worked my way down. When I get around to it I will pick up where I left off and discuss the rest of them if you like. --Nerd42 15:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The usual way on wikipedia to indicate that something is disputed, is to show who disputes it and on what basis. References are generally very helpful. So far, it looks like you're just clinging to a conspiracy theory that all the evidence of Smith's other marriages are forged. I'm removing the 'factual accuracy' tag until more substantial support for the dispute is presented. Wesley 15:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Who disputes it: anyone who clings to traditional RLDS beliefs, particularly the Restoration Branches movement. On what basis: Public testimony by Smith himself and his immediate family in his own defense, as well as the research of Mr. Richard Price. Understand of course that I am not saying that Wikipedia should not list the alleged plural wives of Joseph Smith Jr. I am only saying that it should not be presented as an undisputed fact as there are a significant number of people who dispute it - which should be noted. How could I demonstrate this? Would a petition of a certain number of signatures be enough? --Nerd42 15:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Normally to prove or disprove the validity of a living person's claim of innocence of an accusation, the assumption is "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law". There is no proof and (to the best of my knowledge) there has been no court other than the court of public opinion and the opinion of "contemporary scholars". Why is a dead person treated so differently? --Nerd42 18:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Would the term "generally accepted" be of help here? I think that about 23 of the wives are "generally accepted," (sheer numbers game) but others are disputed, and all wives but Emma are disputed by some groups. We could use the term (or something similar) to describe it and then add in a section specific to the work done by Joseph Smith III and others such as Price (there needs to be more than these two referenced, or it looks like an anomaly). Also, perhaps in the introduction section we can discuss the methodology used by researchers to find "wives" such as journal entries, marriage licenses granted and witnesses, and say that it doesn't match up with Smith's own public teaching on the matter. As it stands, the intro needs a complete re-working as it is. Also, I wonder if the terms sealing should be used rather than married? Would that change things? Thoughts? -Visorstuff 19:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, Nerd42, you outline quite a big conspiracy - especially by folks who ended up with the Strangites, who would have not had the same "motive" as those who went with Young. Not saying it couldn't happen, but historically, it would be hard to pass off (especially with how many of the folks involved hated Young) without one mistake or slip of the tongue by any party involved. I've looked over some of these documents myself, and am fairly certain there were no forgeries involved. We'll have to discuss public versus private teachings of smith in another setting (such as the Anointed Quorum or Council of Fifty that never existed according to many restorationist branches). It is fairly standard that Smith usually shared or "tested" out a doctrine on a small focus group (usually insiders) before announcing it publicly. Thus he did not have to condone the doctrine until announced, and once the views of the focus group were pushed to others, the bed was seeded with enough to have the doctrine accepted. This was standard on doctrines and teachings after the exile from Kirtland (hence less revelations were written after that time, but were taught privately). This has been an area of research for many over the past several years. -Visorstuff 19:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Is Darwinian evolution "generally accepted"? If Creationism were "generally accepted" would that change what Wikipedia should say? I think Wikipedia should remain neutral not only on the question of "how many" wives Joseph Smith, Jr. had but also on which doctrines that prevailed after his death he would support were he alive today. I must agree that the entire argument that Joseph Smith's marriage to Emma Hale was in fact monogamous (hopefully "monogamous" is the correct term, meaning one husband one wife) requires or at least implies that one or more "conspiracies" have attempted through the years to make it appear otherwise. My personal opinion is that one of these conspiracies has a name: it's called the LDS church, based in Salt Lake City, Utah. I believe that the LDS church and/or persons in positions of authority within the LDS church at various times have deliberately rewritten history to use Joseph Smith, Jr.'s name to justify their own actions. Regardless, I would submit the following facts for your consideration:
 * 1) There is no absolute proof that Joseph Smith, Jr. was or was not personally involved in the practice of plural marriage. (though reasonable proof may exist for "spiritual" "marriages" performed "to Joseph Smith Jr" without proof of his presence, knowledge or consent)
 * 2) There are large numbers of people, particularly in Independence, Missouri who believe both ideas. (I may be able to demonstrate proof of this in time)
 * 3) Thus, there is a controversy.
 * 4) Wikipedia must remain neutral in controversies (NPOV)

Based on that logical thread, I propose:
 * 1) That Wikipedia should list the "alleged" plural wives of Joseph Smith Jr.
 * 2) That Wikipedia should not present Joseph Smith, Jr.'s approval or disapproval of the doctrine or practice of plural marriage as an established historical fact.
 * 3) That Wikipedia should fairly present the evidence of both positions without making a judgment. --Nerd42 18:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with your "logical thread." However, I think a similar term to generally accepted would be appropriate. I don't think Darwinian evolution is generally accepted (as it involved deity), but certainly, the theory of evolution and survival of the fittest is generally accepted slight difference in theory and connotation. Having examined the primary sources, I am fairly confident (as is the Community of Christ) that smith's marriage licenses, such as to Zina Huntington was not faked, nor done without his presence and knowledge. Now, whether or not it was a "test" is another story, but the primary documents are more bulletproof than the JSIII letter and the James Strange letter.  Following similar examples in these alleged forgeries or real documents, we should pattern after the succession crisis page. I agree with your NPOV ideas, but we should also say it is a small minority of less than hundreds of thousands that adhere to this belief. -Visorstuff 22:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree - not with your claim about the license(s) but with the "small minority of less than hundreds of thousands" terminology. I am, however, still unsure how best this "disclaimer" might be phrased. --Nerd42 14:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)