|
|
| (27 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{FME-Source
| | #REDIRECT[[Joseph_Smith_hid_polygamy_from_the_general_Church_membership#Why_did_Joseph_Smith_say_.22I_had_not_been_married_scarcely_five_minutes...before_it_was_reported_that_I_had_seven_wives.22.3F]] |
| |title=Question: Why did Joseph Smith say "I had not been married scarcely five minutes...before it was reported that I had seven wives"?
| | <!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE --> |
| |category=Polygamy
| | [[Category:Becoming Gods]] |
| }}
| | [[Category:Letter to a CES Director]] |
| <onlyinclude>
| | [[Category:MormonThink]] |
| ==Question: Why did Joseph Smith say "I had not been married scarcely five minutes...before it was reported that I had seven wives"?==
| | [[Category:No Man Knows My History]] |
| ===Secrecy and plural marriage===
| | [[Category:One Nation Under Gods]] |
|
| |
|
| Many have criticized or been concerned by the secrecy with which Joseph instituted plural marriage without appreciating the realities of the dangers involved. As long as Joseph and his plural wives did not live in an "open," or "public," manner, they were not guilty of breaking any civil law then in force in Illinois. Furthermore, this reality explains some of Joseph's public denials, since he could be truthfully said to not be guilty of the charges leveled against him.
| | [[es:Pregunta: ¿Por qué José Smith dice "Yo no había estado casado apenas cinco horas ... antes de que se informó que tenía siete esposas"?]] |
| | | [[pt:Pergunta: Por que Joseph Smith disse "Eu mal me casei or 5 minutos... e já estava registrado que eu possuía 7 esposas"?]] |
| ===Joseph Smith: "I had not been married scarcely five minutes...before it was reported that I had seven wives"===
| | [[Category:Questions]] |
| | |
| For example, there is Joseph's well-known declaration on 26 May 1844. Significantly, this address was given the day after the Laws sought to have Joseph indicted for adultery in the case of Maria Lawrence. (They also sought to indict him on a charge of perjury.) Said Joseph:
| |
| | |
| <blockquote>
| |
| I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives. I mean to live and proclaim the truth as long as I can.
| |
| | |
| This new holy prophet [William Law] has gone to Carthage and swore that I had told him that I was guilty of adultery. This spiritual wifeism! Why, a man dares not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this.<ref>Note that "spiritual wifeism" likely refers to [[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett's]] pattern of seduction and sexual license, which the Saints were always at pains to deny.</ref>....
| |
| | |
| A man asked me whether the commandment was given that a man may have seven wives; and now the new prophet has charged me with adultery. I never had any fuss with these men until that Female Relief Society brought out the paper against adulterers and adulteresses.
| |
| | |
| Dr. Goforth was invited into the Laws' clique, and Dr. Foster and the clique were dissatisfied with that document,<ref>That is, the Relief Society document condemning adultery, which Foster had engaged in under the tutelage of [[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett|John C. Bennett]].</ref> and they rush away and leave the Church, and conspire to take away my life; and because I will not countenance such wickedness,<ref>Again, Joseph is denying the spiritual wifism of Bennett, which he calls "wickedness" and was quick to oppose via Church discipline.</ref> they proclaim that I have been a true prophet, but that I am now a fallen prophet.
| |
| | |
| [Joseph H.] Jackson<ref>Jackson was another witness against Joseph Smith, and would go on to write an anti-Mormon tract: {{CriticalWork:Jackson:Narrative}}</ref> has committed murder, robbery, and perjury; and I can prove it by half-a-dozen witnesses. Jackson got up and said—"By God, he is innocent," and now swears that I am guilty. He threatened my life.
| |
| | |
| There is another Law, not the prophet [i.e., Wilson], who was cashiered for dishonesty and robbing the government. Wilson Law also swears that I told him I was guilty of adultery. Brother Jonathan Dunham can swear to the contrary. I have been chained. I have rattled chains before in a dungeon for the truth's sake. I am innocent of all these charges, and you can bear witness of my innocence, for you know me yourselves.<ref>{{HoC|vol=6|pages=410-411}}</ref>
| |
| </blockquote>
| |
| | |
| ===In light of the circumstances under which they were spoken, Joseph's words were carefully chosen===
| |
| | |
| Joseph was not merely bluffing, nor was he lying—he literally ''could'' prove that the Laws were perjuring themselves on this point in the charges brought only the day before.
| |
| | |
| Bradshaw cites a portion of Joseph's above statement, and then concludes:
| |
| | |
| <blockquote>A review of Joseph's remarks in light of the circumstances under which they were spoken shows that Joseph's words were carefully chosen. In this speech, Joseph was specifically reacting to the indictments for perjury and adultery that were presented by the grand jury the day earlier. Thus, when Joseph affirmed during the same speech: "I am innocent of all these charges," he was in particular refuting a claim that he and Maria [Lawrence] had openly and notoriously cohabitated, thus committing the statutory offense of adultery. He was also refuting the perjury charge. While the overall tone of Joseph's remarks may seem misleading, it is understandable that Joseph would have taken pains to dodge the plural marriage issue. By keeping his plural marriages in Nauvoo secret, Joseph effectively kept them legal, at least under the Illinois adultery statute.<ref name="defining">{{Article:Bradshaw:Defining Adultery/Full title|pages=}}</ref>{{Rp|413}}</blockquote>
| |
| | |
| {{Question: Were there any similar cases under Illinois adultery statute which demonstrate that Joseph was not breaking the law?}}
| |
| | |
| ===Joseph's near-contemporaries later realized that Illinois law would probably support the practice of Latter-day Saint plural marriage, so they changed the wording of the law===
| |
| | |
| Even Joseph's near-contemporaries would later realize that Illinois law would probably support the practice of Latter-day Saint plural marriage, perhaps even if done so openly.
| |
| | |
| <blockquote>
| |
| Recognizing the breadth of [the] state constitutional provision [for religious freedom] as it stood in 1844, Illinois adopted a new constitution in 1869 that introduced a number of changes in the clause governing religious liberty, including wording specifically intended to give the state authority to prohibit Mormon polygamy or other religiously-based practices that might be deemed offensive. Comments by certain delegates to the 1869 Illinois Constitutional Convention show taht there was a concern that the Mormon practice of plural marriage could be protected under the state constitution....
| |
| | |
| Severeal delegates expressed support for changes in the wording of the Illinois constitution in order to protect the state from what they viewed as extreme forms of worship, including Mormon polygamy. These delegates feared that the more liberal wording of the earlier constitution (in force in Joseph's day) might actually protected practices such as polygamy. One such delegate was Thomas J. Turner...[who] stated:"...Mormonism is a form of religion 'grant it, a false religion' nevertheless, it claims to be the true Christian religion...[d]o we desire that the Mormons shall return to our State, and bring with them polygamy?"<ref name="defining">{{Article:Bradshaw:Defining Adultery/Full title|pages=}}</ref>{{Rp|416, 416n45}}
| |
| </blockquote>
| |
| </onlyinclude>
| |
| {{endnotes sources}}
| |
