How do Mormon's justify Smith's wives stories??

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eliza10
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
why_me said:
Why did god set many of the orginal twelve apostles up? I heard that many died a miserable death. Wasn’t Peter crucified upside down? And why did god have faustina die from a miserable illness? But since a human being has free will, he or she is allowed to commit crimes and illness is a part of our lives.
Click to expand...
But, this is not the same thing at all. Smith is being killed by your admission over the plural wife thing.

No apostle ever had been martyred for that. Wonder why?
 
StrawberryJam said:
I guess Mary is off the hook because Joseph was a widow possibly. What the heck is all this but merely pointing out how biblical positions were based on the culture of the time, and almost anything went then.

Lot and his daughters. Uggg.

Need I go on? The bible is filled with repugnant situations in it.
Click to expand...
Please show me where polygamy was accepted by the culture of Smith’s time. THEN, you might have a point. It was nothing more than a cult leader doing what cult leaders do, setting himself up as the God-given, divine privilege, to have sex with. NO different than the more modern example of David Koresh.

And what of Mary? Virginity has nothing to do with Joseph Smith!
 
why_me said:
Not at all. It didn’t sound like that at all. She married and led a very normal life with a loving husbandand had nine children. If she had a bad experience, she would have told it.
And it wasn’t a question of putting her past behind her. Her exact words to her brother was: ‘That is all a matter of my—own. And I have nothing to communicate’. And this was said after Joseph’s death. She wanted to keep what happened private.

But of course we all can put are own spin on it. You put a shame spin on it without room for wiggle. But if she were married to Joseph how could she marry again without a divorce? I don’t think that one could have two husbands at that time in the USA.
Click to expand...
And? Many people live happily in their sin. IMO, this only underlines the responsibility that JS is going to answer for at judgment day. Leading an innocent child to accept an adulterous lifestyle as “normal”. Followed by people like you defending it.
 
why_me said:
One liners do not cut it. You will need to challenge Lucy’s account of receiving a witness. She describes as being very powerful. After that powerful witness, she agrees to be sealed to JS:

Lucy Walker
Of the proposal of marriage:

When [Joseph] Smith sensed resistance, as has been seen, he generally continued teaching—asking the prospective wife to pray about the principle, promising that she would receive a witness. So it happened here. ‘He said, “if you will pray sincerely for light and understanding in relation thereto, you Shall receive a testimony of the correctness of this principle.”’ Lucy was horrified by polygamy and by his proposal and did not quickly gain the promised testimony. She prayed, she wrote, but not with faith. She was nearly suicidal: “tempted and tortured beyond endureance until life was not desirable. Oh that the grave would kindly receive me that I might find rest of the bosom of my dear mother.[11]
Joseph waited at least four months, and then told Mary that she had to decide before the next day. What was her response?

‘This aroused every drop of scotch in my veins,’ [wrote Mary,]…I felt at this moment that I was called to place myself upon the altar a living Sacrafice, perhaps to brook the world in disgrace and incur the displeasure and contempt of my youthful companions; all my dreams of happiness blown to the four winds, this was too much, the thought was unbearable.’…She then told Joseph that she could not marry him unless God revealed it to her, and God had not done so yet. She wrote, ‘* emphatically forbid him speaking again to me on this Subject.’[12]
What was Joseph’s response? Did he threaten? Cajole? Use his prophetic office to apply pressure?

He walked across the room, returned, and stood before me. With the most beautiful expression of countenance, he said, “God almighty bless you. You shall have a manifestation of the will of God concerning you; a testimony that you can never deny. I will tell you what it shall be. It shall be that peace and joy that you never knew.”[13]
Lucy describes the answer she later received while alone:

My room became filled with a heavenly influence. To me it was in comparison like the brilliant sun bursting through the darkest cloud…My Soul was filled with a calm, sweet peace that I never knew. Supreme happiness took possession of my whole being. And I received a powerful and irristable testimony of the truth of the marriage covenant called ‘Celestial or plural mariage.’ Which has been like an anchor to the soul through all the trials of life. I felt that I must go out into the morning air and give vent to the Joy and grattitude that filled my Soul. As I descended the stairs, Prest. Smith opened the door below; took me by the hand and said: ‘Thank God, you have the testimony. I too, have prayed.’ He led me to a chair, placed his hands upon my head, and blessed me with Every blessing my heart could possibly desire.[14]*

Of course it’s powerful, that’s what grooming is about. Making the victim buy into the whole thing.
Click to expand...
 
RebeccaJ said:
Please show me where polygamy was accepted by the culture of Smith’s time. THEN, you might have a point. It was nothing more than a cult leader doing what cult leaders do, setting himself up as the God-given, divine privilege, to have sex with. NO different than the more modern example of David Koresh.

And what of Mary? Virginity has nothing to do with Joseph Smith!
Click to expand...
The bible gives a lot of leeway here. Who says it must be in Smith’s time?

Admission of guilt that God allowed gross stuff before Smith’s time?

To “hardened hearts”

You really should not tell me what you think of Solomon or Lot. Let alone Abraham.

All in the same category by today’s standards.
 
StrawberryJam said:
The bible gives a lot of leeway here. Who says it must be in Smith’s time?

Admission of guilt that God allowed gross stuff before Smith’s time?

To “hardened hearts”

You really should not tell me what you think of Solomon or Lot. Let alone Abraham.

All in the same category by today’s standards.
Click to expand...
Abraham was cultural, and contrary to what mormons like to believe and teach, God never commanded that he practice polygamy.

What of Lot and Solomon? Did either of them teach their sins as divine revelation that should be practiced by those who love God?

This is the problem that many people have with the Bible, they think every Bible story is an example of “what to do”. Many of the stories are examples of what should not be done, and even though people do them, God is merciful. This is clearly the case with Abraham and the son by his wife’s handmaiden.

As you can see on this thread, polygamy is not seen by mormons as something that should not have been done, Smith did it anyway, and God is merciful. They believe what Smith taught, that the sin of adultery is okee dokee, and they defend it to this day.

If you can find a Catholic or Jew that defends the sins of any Bible character, I’ll buy you a beer.
 
RebeccaJ said:
Abraham was cultural, and contrary to what mormons like to believe and teach, God never commanded that he practice polygamy.

What of Lot and Solomon? Did either of them teach their sins as divine revelation that should be practiced by those who love God?

This is the problem that many people have with the Bible, they think every Bible story is an example of “what to do”. Many of the stories are examples of what should not be done, and even though people do them, God is merciful. This is clearly the case with Abraham and the son by his wife’s handmaiden.

As you can see on this thread, polygamy is not seen by mormons as something that should not have been done, Smith did it anyway, and God is merciful. They believe what Smith taught, that the sin of adultery is okee dokee, and they defend it to this day.

If you can find a Catholic or Jew that defends the sins of any Bible character, I’ll buy you a beer.
Click to expand...
I’ll buy you a beer anytime!

I don’t see this as a bet.

Remember the fate of Jepatha!😦

Take your oaths seriously.😊

Again, I state clearly JS may not have known it was, but considering he is in good company with a ton of males who did, why not?
 
StrawberryJam said:
But, this is not the same thing at all. Smith is being killed by your admission over the plural wife thing.

No apostle ever had been martyred for that. Wonder why?
Click to expand...
Actually polygamy indirectly killed him. In Nauvoo a former mormon began a newspaper called the Nauvoo Expositor. Their first and only edition had very negative articles about mormons. To my understanding these articles were rabblerousing. One article had something about polygamy. The nauvoo city council closed down the newspaper by force. In fact the printing press was destroyed.

This incident indirectly led to his death. But the mobs were pretty angry before this event. The nonmormons had too much hatred in their blood toward the mormons and their leaders.
 
RebeccaJ said:
Abraham was cultural, and contrary to what mormons like to believe and teach, God never commanded that he practice polygamy.

If you can find a Catholic or Jew that defends the sins of any Bible character, I’ll buy you a beer.
Click to expand...
The Law of Moses
Deut. 21:15 provides rules governing Israelites who have plural wives. Further instructions are also given in Exodus 21:10. Why did God not ban plural marriage through Moses if it is always an immoral act?

en.fairmormon.org/Polygamy_not_Biblical

I don’t drink beer. But you can buy me a diet pepsi.
 
why_me said:
Actually polygamy indirectly killed him. In Nauvoo a former mormon began a newspaper called the Nauvoo Expositor. Their first and only edition had very negative articles about mormons. To my understanding these articles were rabblerousing. One article had something about polygamy. The nauvoo city council closed down the newspaper by force. In fact the printing press was destroyed.

This incident indirectly led to his death. But the mobs were pretty angry before this event. The nonmormons had too much hatred in their blood toward the mormons and their leaders.
Click to expand...
Why did they do that?
 
StrawberryJam said:
Why did they do that?
Click to expand...
Do what?

Here is the story of the nauvoo expositor:

Publication of the Expositor
Prior to the publication of the Expositor, Hyrum Smith, Almon W. Babbitt, and Sidney Rigdon attempted to reconcile William Law to the Church. He announced he would reconcile only under conditions:

I told him [Sidney] that if they wanted peace they could have it on the following conditions, That Joseph Smith would acknowledge publicly that he had taught and practised the doctrine of plurality of wives, that he brought a revelation supporting the doctrine, and that he should own the whole system (revelation and all) to be from Hell.[13]
7 June 1844
the first (and only) edition of the Nauvoo Expositor was published. It detailed Joseph’s practice of plural marriage, and charged him with various crimes, labeling him a “blood thirsty and murderous…demon…in human shape” and “a syncophant, whose attempt for power find no parallel in history… one of the blackest and basest scoundrels that has appeared upon the stage of human existence since the days of Nero, and Caligula.”[14]
Destruction of Expositor
8 June 1844
Nauvoo city council meets regarding the Expositor.
10 June 1844
The city council declares the Expositor a public nuisance and threat to the peace. This was not mere exaggeration; there were sixteen episodes of mob violence against controversial newspapers in Illinois from 1832 to 1867, and so the leaders’ fears of civil unrest were likely well-founded. The city council therefore ordered the press and the paper destroyed.[15] This was done. The decision to suppress the Expositor, while legal for the day, worsened a tense situation (in the years following the Expositor suppression, similar tactics would be used in 1862, 1893, 1918, and 1927).[16]
Historically, presses which violated community ideas of what was proper were a genuine risk to the public peace. Elijah Lovejoy, an anti-slavery editor of The Saint Louis Observer was killed by a pro-slavery mob in 1837.[17] Joseph and the city council might well have had memories of what happened in Missouri when some members of the Church became frustrated with the lack of legal redress for their mistreatment by Missouri citizens.
Missouri probably also set the stage for the legal decision to suppress the press. In 1833, the Evening and Morning Star, the LDS paper in Independence, was subject to being “razed to the ground” at the unaninimous decision of the mob committee established to drive out the Mormons.[18] The mob’s ultimatum later stipulated that the Mormons were not to publish anything before leaving.[19]
The law of the day probably gave Joseph and the council the right to destroy the offending issue; however, since they had also ordered the press and type destroyed, they violated property laws. Joseph later said he would be happy to pay for the damages.[20] Critics are inconsistent when they complain about the Nauvoo city council’s decision to suppress the Expositor (an action that was legal) and yet do not also acknowledge that Mormon presses had been destroyed by mobs acting with no legal authority whatever.
Despite the fact that the Expositor’s suppression was legal, the destruction of the press appeared high-handed to Church critics, and other newspapers began to call for the Mormons’ expulsion or destruction. Joseph and others were arrested on charges of “riot.”
Safety for the Saints?
One member recorded that Joseph told him that the destruction of the press was necessary for the Saints’ safety:

Brother Joseph called a meeting at his own house and told us that God showed to him in an open vision in daylight [meaning that this was not something he had just conjured up in dreams of the night] that if he did not destroy that printing press that it would cause the blood of the Saints to flow in the streets and by this was that evil destroyed.[21]
Given Joseph’s numerous presentiments of his own death, it may well be that he knowingly chose this course of action to spare the members’ lives at the cost of his own. Said Joseph to Elizabeth Rollins:

I must seal my testimony with my blood. [22[/COLOR]]

en.fairmormon.org/Nauvoo_Expositor
 
StrawberryJam said:
From your post:
“The nauvoo city council closed down the newspaper by force. In fact the printing press was destroyed.”

I asked, why did they do that?
Click to expand...
To destroy the printing press was not illegal but to destroy the type was. But it was a civil matter and not a criminal one. Above I enclosed the story in my previous post. You can click on the link to get the full story.
 
why_me said:
To destroy the printing press was not illegal but to destroy the type was. But it was a civil matter and not a criminal one. Above I enclosed the story in my previous post. You can click on the link to get the full story.
Click to expand...
You never did answer my question. I dont click on links from just anyone.
 
StrawberryJam said:
You never did answer my question. I dont click on links from just anyone.
Click to expand...
I told you already. The press printed very hateful things about the mormons and the press was instigating problems between the mormons and nonmormons. Thus it was closed down. This was not unusual on the frontier which is why it was not actually against the law but destroying the press type was because it was considered private property. But it was a civil matter and not a criminal matter.

My links are safe but I can understand your fear. 🙂 I also posted the story a couple of posts back in blue.
 
why_me said:
A one liner doesn’t cut it. We still need to deal with the divine witness that these women experienced to say yes to the sealing. Ding Dong…that needs to be addressed. 🙂
Click to expand...
Non-existent? Ideas put into the head of a child?

Catholic teaching why me: God is not going to give a divine witness of something He taught against.
 
StrawberryJam said:
I guess Mary is off the hook because Joseph was a widow possibly. What the heck is all this but merely pointing out how biblical positions were based on the culture of the time, and almost anything went then.

Lot and his daughters. Uggg.

Need I go on? The bible is filled with repugnant situations in it.
Click to expand...
True, the Bible is full of repugnant situations - real evidence of Original Sin and of God’s patience and of the free will granted to man to choose good or evil. Yes, the Lot situation is one too.

But lets leave Mary and Joseph out of it who are known for their chaste perfection in doing God’s will. I know of the tradition that Joseph was possibly a widow, but another tradition is that he, like Mary, was consecreted to the Lord - a vow to live only for the Lord, and live out their days in chasity. Then they continued in chasity in their marriage. And they lived to love and to serve one another, and to love and to serve God.

Joseph Smith on the other hand was not about chasity. He was “with” all of his wives, in the intimate way, and since he was so busy accumulating wives, running the Church and building a town, and burning presses that he clearly didnt have time to live to love and serve these wives in any other way than just go collect his sex. But he could get away with degrading the women like this by telling them they were doing it for God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top