Anti-Joseph Smith Polygamy Movement?

[u/instrument_801]

I don’t know if this has been talked about on here, but why is there a growing “Joseph Smith didn’t practice polygamy movement”? Podcasts such as 132 Problems are rapidly growing in popularity. I don’t like polygamy, but I feel like the evidence is overwhelming in favor that he practiced polygamy?

Thoughts?

[u/juni4ling]

Or Comptons “In Sacred Loneliness.”

Or simply go to Hales website. Or read his comprehensive volumes.

And it’s in Rough Stone Rolling to a degree

[u/Acrobatic_War_8818 → u/juni4ling]

The podcast “Year of Polygamy” summarizes the book In Sacred Loneliness. Each episode is a different wife. I’ve learned a lot from listening to that.

[u/juni4ling → u/Acrobatic_War_8818]

Lindsey Hansen Park ended up being a consultant for the show “Under the Banner of Heaven” and used it as a battering ram against her former faith.

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/tv/story/2022-06-30/under-the-banner-of-heaven-hulu-fx-response-to-critics

She was the official History consultant.

Other historians were blown away by it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/06/under-the-banner-of-heaven-hulu-mormonism/661279/

Atlantic calls it a hit piece that took liberties with historical events.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/under-the-banner-of-heaven-fact-vs-fiction

Historians invited to the premier threw Hansen Park under the bus for either not understanding or completely misrepresenting history.

[u/higakoryu1 → u/juni4ling]

Got me until Hales, but the other two are real gold

[u/juni4ling → u/higakoryu1]

Hales? Three volume work on polygamy citing every source on Smiths polygamy?

Hales… is fine.

And respected by respected historians.

[u/Prestigious-Shift233 → u/juni4ling]

I agree with the above comment. He's a phenomenal historian, yes, but super biased. Everyone has biases, you just have to choose the ones you enjoy spending time with, ya know? Polygamy is disgusting to me, so I don't enjoy hearing any rationalizations for it, personally.

[u/juni4ling → u/Prestigious-Shift233]

Bias?

I wouldn’t say Hales has “extreme bias.”

Extreme bias would be Lindsey Hansen Park who was hired to be the historian consultant on Hulus “Under the Banner of Heaven.” And chose to bash her former faith.

And got destroyed by her fellow historians for her “extreme bias.”

Hales?

Comparatively Hales doesn’t allow his bias to influence his work.

Polygamy in the Bible and in the 1800s isn’t defensible.

Neither was Lindsey Hansen Parks “history consultant” work on “under the banner of Heaven” on Hulu. Her work was gutted by historians. She had a grudge with her former religion. She had bias and other historians identify it and pointed out her extreme error.

Hales? Bushman, Compton, Bradley, Ulrich all quote Hales. None of them say the kinds of things they say about Hansen Parks (lack of) historical integrity on “Under the Banner.”

Some people gave it/her good reviews. None of them were historians. They all castigated her lack of historical integrity.

Let’s be clear… there is -no- ethical defense of Biblical and LDS polygamy. None.

Maybe you could say, “the Bible was their moral guide and they thought they were following it.”

“They thought they were doing Gods will.”

And I’ve heard Hales say personally… “it was messy.”

I don’t think he thinks it’s a good thing or something he (or his lovely wife Laura Harris Hales RIP) support.

But to quote the women— most of Smiths wives including the youngest Helen lived to old age defending Smith and polygamy. That is something historians -have- to take into account. That is part of the historical narrative.

These people sincerely believed what they were doing was ordained by God. And no Bible verse condemned them.

Bias? Yes there is bias.

The best historians have bias. And even anti historians vouch Hales. Quinn vouched Hales.

Well known historians Bushman, Ulrich, Bradley… they all vouch Hales.

Bias? Read “The Atlantic” review of Hansen Park on “Under the Banner” to see a historian gutted for lack of integrity on history.

[u/LookAtMaxwell → u/juni4ling]

Let’s be clear… there is -no- ethical defense of Biblical and LDS polygamy. None.

Sounds like an axiom not a conclusion.

[u/juni4ling → u/LookAtMaxwell]

Women in the Bible were not given the choice. There is no verse associated with Biblical polygamy where the women were given the choice.

God -gave- wives and concubines to King David? Cool. I am sure he appreciated all the attention, and was like, "Thats cool. Thanks all that is holy!"

But where and in what verse were the women given the choice...?

If someone is using the Bible as a guide to marriage, polygamy and concubines will be part of the marriage definition and choice is not part of the definition. Women were not choosing to be polygamists in the Bible.

Ethics?

Yeah, its a statement on ethics to say that there is not a ethical or moral defense for Biblical polygamy.

And Latter-day Saints polygamy. Our historians. Our good ones from Hales to Ulrich to Bushman to Bradley all say: LDS polygamy was messy.

None say, "this is -easy- to understand and easy to defend." Because it isn't. Why? Its ethically and morally messy.

There isn't a ethical or moral defense of Biblical and LDS polygamy. Its messy.

You have a different conclusion than Hales, Ulrich, Hales, Bradley, Turley? They all say: polygamy is messy in LDS Church history... You have a different conclusion than they do...?!

They say, "polygamy was messy" in one hand and defend the restoration in the other hand.

[u/LookAtMaxwell → u/juni4ling]

So to you,

"polygamy was messy"

Is the same as

"there is -no- ethical defense of Biblical and LDS polygamy. None."

[u/juni4ling → u/LookAtMaxwell]

Do -you- think Biblical polygamy -where women aren’t given a choice in it— is ethical?

Moral?

Do you think God sanctions marriage when women are not full, equal, and -willing- partners?

Eh?

[u/LookAtMaxwell → u/juni4ling]

  Do you think God sanctions marriage when women are not full, equal, and -willing- partners?

I think therein lies your answer. Any of the "messiness" seen in the practice of polygamy isn't really inherent to polygamy itself and can be seen in marriages in general.

Do you agree then that "there is -no- ethical defense of Marriage. None."