How do you reconcile the dates from Hyrum’s acceptance to the Johnson letter?

I am kidding of course when I say that the only reason I bring it up is to obfuscate the truth and to give critics a hard time by making them justify their use of problematic use of proof-texts.

One approach to resolving inconsistencies in the two B. Johnson accounts and the A. Johnson affidavit is to see what elements are in conflict and which ones are in agreement or can be corroborated by independent sources. I figure the less attestable elements are fair game to offer up a plausible correction to make it still work.

In this case the elements that remain in conflict after cross checking with more reliable sources is who performed the ceremony. IIRC one account tabs William Clayton and the other two point to Hyrum Smith. Hyrum did a 180 on plural marriage in a very short time frame and the timeline for it is very well attested to in Clayton’s journal (and well reconstructed in the Ehat thesis). Benjamin Johnson synchs up his narrative with independently dateable events while Almira was less precise.

The first solution might be that Benjamin got the sequence backwards as to which marriage came first. It seems strange that Benjamin would have a hang-up about being married via the Holy Spirit of Promise if he had paid attention to his sister’s ceremony first. But not strange enough for me to propose. . .

A second solution is that both Clayton and Hyrum married Almira and Joseph on separate dates and the Johnsons’ accounts conflate the two. Under this construction, Joseph would conjecturely want to give his newly converted brother (who held superior sealing keys to Clayton) some supervised practice performing eternal marriages. Ordinance repetition was common and maybe even the norm in the early Church, as they kept trying until they got it right. In this scenario, Hyrum really would be preaching to choir, since unknown to him both Johnsons were not only already converted but already commited.

On an unrelated note, even though I expressed reservations about making arguments from silence earlier, I think they can sometimes be persuasive if there is there is reasonable expectation of observable evidence. For example, Almira’s affidavit fails to mention Hyrum’s statement. There is a reasonable expectation that if she had heard such a statement she would have brought it up in the affidavit. The entire purpose of the affidavit was to establish to the skeptical RLDS that Joseph had taught, recieved a revelation about, and practiced plural marriage.

Thanks for keeping your eye out for addition sources.

I don’t think it is a show stopper that none of the accounts describe the sword as flaming. There are at least 3 other Biblical accounts that could be analyzed. I might have to leave that exercise to others as I lack knowledge of literary criticism and methods. So what follows could be refered to as paralellomania.

The Bible accounts are 1) Balaam and his Ass, 2) Joshua 5:13 meeting the Captain of the Lord’s Host, and 3)A destroying angel cutting loose in retaliation for David taking a census.

In story 1 Joseph is mostly identifiable with the ass, Balaam is a composite of various members of the Church Joseph tried to introduce plural marriage to. On three occasions Joseph (the Ass) is roughed up by those (unrepentant Baalam) that do not open their eyes to receive their own vision/revelation that plural marriage is divine (see the angel). In between beatings, the Ass conforms to Balaam’s wishes and continues on a path of destruction (Joseph’s balking at establishing plural marriage in the Church was something that would lead to destruction/damnation for both him and the Church.) The third time Balaam threatens to kill the Ass if the Ass doesn’t travel into the path of menacing angel. (Illustrating the dilemma Joseph was faced with: If he taught polygamy, unenlightened dissidents would kill him, if he didn’t teach polygamy the angel threatened both him and the Church.) Finally Balaam sees the angel and turns away from the wicked path he was pursuing (representing those who became converted through personal revelation and who repented and ceased to be a threat to Joseph.)

In story 2 the angel is less hostile, but it is initially ambiguous as to whether he was of the enemy (the devil), or part of Joshua’s (Joseph’s) own forces (representing a latent desire for conquest and control independent of divine impulses), or of God. The issue in Joshua 5 is resolved by further interaction with the angel. The issue in Joseph’s life (and those presented with the claim of the angelic revelation) was how to discern whether the angel/revelation was of God, man, or the devil. What is closer to the truth? Brodie’s sex-only hypothesis, the revelation-from-devil hypothesis championed by the countercult and fallen prophet dissenters, or revelation from God hypothesis that some of the faithful came to accept?

In story 3, Joseph is identifiable with David and the angel is both the destroying angel and the mediating prophet. The Church is represented by Israel, but Joseph’s family can be separated out like the house of David. Like the first story there are elements of disobedience to divine commands by succombing to worldly pressures. David tries to prevent further damage from the sword-bearing angel through negotiation. He has to choose whether God or man will inflict the punishment and chooses the more dignified option. (The more dignified option for Joseph was accepting suffering at the hands of men, which is opposite of David’s choice.) David offers his household to accept the brunt of the inevitable suffering (although it wasn’t accepted), likewise Joseph’s family (Emma, himself, Hyrum, other intimate associates) bore the brunt of strife involved introducing polygamy. David obediently performs a sacrifice to placate the angel from completely destroying Israel. Similarly Joseph’s (D&C 132:60)and other’s sacrifice spared the Church from undergoing a progression stoppage. See for instance some of the restoration branches that are dwindling in . . .

I don’t think that is necessary for there to be a new angelic bestowal of keys for every ordinance or practice that was restored. For example we have no record of an angel coming to authorize the payment of tithes or anointing with oil for healing.

That is to say that I think that for some restorations, less demonstrative forms of revelation will suffice to indicate divine authorization. I also think that after-the-fact revelatory confirmation that the leaders have taken the right steps is sometimes sufficient. The Saints did not wait around for Moses to begin missionary work.

I looked through my sources and failed to find that the sword was “flaming”. I suppose I didn’t get that part right. All of the accounts I am familiar with were already listed under your second observation so I do not know where else to look. It is too bad as that would have been a great link to the cherubim and a flaming sword from the garden. I’ll keep looking at keep you posted if I find something.

It is clear from the Johnson letter that he and his sister had already accepted the principle. I’ll need to review Mormon Enigma when I get home from work. How do you reconcile the dates from Hyrum’s acceptance the Johnson letter?

It is interesting that there is no debate that Joseph claimed to these individuals that he had such a revelation. Modern critics love it because it furthers their agenda that Joseph pressured potential wives.

Mormon Enigma butchers the Benjamin Johnson letter to Gibbs. They misidentify Hyrum’s statement as Benjamin’s and treat it as his motive for granting Joseph’s request to help propose to Almera. When Hyrum approached Benjamin, Benjamin had already complied with all Joseph’s wishes and was already converted to polygamy. Hyrum’s concern was un-necessary.

Images of the Restoration art blog also mishandles the Johnson sources. They treat Hyrum’s angel narrative as directed at an unwilling Almera. However Benjamin indicates that Almera was already converted to the principle of polygamy at that point, but was not sure about practicing it with Joseph Smith and wanted to meet with him first. While Almira may have overheard the Hyrum’s remarks, they weren’t directed at her. Hyrum was trying to exercise sympathy by explaining his and his brother’s conversion process after initial misgivings.

There is a chronological problem with the Johnson account. Hyrum was not converted to polygamy until May 22 but the encounter reportedly happened a few weeks prior to May 15.

I am glad you brought up the angel with the flaming sword because I have been researching that topic for an upcoming blog post, but I might as share some initial observations here.

I haven’t been found any historical sources where Joseph’s visitor’s sword was described as “flaming,” but the sword is described as “drawn.” If you are aware any sources that sat “flaming” I would love to find out. Such a description might elevate the relevancy of understanding the symbolism associated with the Eden gaurdian as a possible interpretive key to Joseph’s experience. David Littlefield has a post that has some ideas ripe with possibilities if they were applied to polygamy origins.

A second observation is that the sources that associate Joseph with the sword bearing angel are all late. We have Eliza Snow (1884 apparently from brother Lorenzo), Lorenzo Snow (1869 describing conversation with JS in April 1843), Mary Lightner (1905 describing ~1842 conversation with JS), Benjamin Johnson(1885-1893 and 1903 describing May? 1843 conversation with Hyrum), and Zina Huntington (1894 describing ~Oct. 1841 conversation with brother Dimick), Joseph F. Smith (1878 no provenance mentioned), Joseph Lee Robinson (1892?? no provenance mentioned), Joseph Noble (1869 I assume from Joseph), and Helen Mar Kimball (1882-I don’t know provenance).

Thus, it is entirely conceivable that Joseph had a conception of plural marriage very early. This need not have required an understanding of sealing, or eternal marriage, or temples at all.

Thus, arguably, the 1836 Elijah restoration of keys was not really relevant to the 1830s practice of plural marriage, since they were not sealed marriages in the modern (or 1840s Nauvoo temple) sense. (Or, if one can have such a thing, they were ‘civil’ plural marriages.)

Greg

I think the correct approach to dating D&C 132 is to do what Bachman did in his 1978 JMH article. D&C 132 can be parsed into subsections which can individually be conjecturally dated. Where Bachman’s model might be improved is to separate out concepts even further and look for evidence that they were taught earlier. For example, 132 talks about human deification and apostolic keys so some comparison to Ohio teachings on those subjects deserve further study.

The subsections, Bachman identifies are response to 2 explicit questions (and a 3rd he identifies from an outside source.) 1) V. 1 dealing with OT polygamy, most plausibly asked during JST in Feb. or Mar 1831 (before SR took over as scribe for OC?). 2) v. 41 dealing with adultery, most probably arising from conflict between Joseph and Emma in 1843, 3) asking about the “neither given in marriage” passage in JST Matthew circa Sept 1831.