Joseph Smith and adultery

  • Thread starter Thread starter Answersplease
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
why me;6672867:
We also have the ones where Mormons threatended people to sign documents, how Mormons burned people’s homes, and how the Danites were to kill those opposed to the LDS Church.

Or did you gloss over those like LDS History tends to do?

I do not wish to fight, but let’s be honest about history, shall we?
Did you know that Sidney Rigdon issued an extermination order 3 months before Gov. Boggs issued the one the mormons always talk about?

He did it in his 4th of July speech.

"The man or the set of men, who attempts it, does it at the expense of their lives. And that mob that comes on us to disturb us; it shall be between us and them a war of extermination, for we will follow them, till the last drop of their blood is spilled, or else they will have to exterminate us: for we will carry the seat of war to their own houses, and their own families, and one party or the other shall be utterly destroyed. – Remember it then all MEN. "
 
This is typically deflection and twisting of reality. You want to judge Joseph Smith as somehow unfit to be a prophet. Being a prophet is a calling not a reflection of perfection. You want to condemn him for being sealed to more than one wife, but it has not been proved by any historian that any of sealed wives had marital relationships with Joseph. NOT A SINGLE HISTORIAN. There is rumors and repeated rumors that have run amok, but no evidence by any historian has been brought forward.

Hi barnes - I guess you don’t have me on ignore, you are just ignoring all of my other posts. Anyway, I am not condemning Joseph Smith or anyone else. You, as a Mormon, have condemned the Catholic Church, by spreading the word of apostasy and that She is the great and abominable church. I do not have to condemn JS to believe he is not a prophet.
You see, if you go back through the numerous posts about JS on different threads, you will see that he is often compared to the prophets of the OT by Mormons, not Catholics.


When I quickly provide equally base actions by Catholic leaders you, out of the blue, begin saying, “Oh, that is different. We don’t call them prophets, so it is not nearly as bad as Joseph.” My response is pull that beam out before you start seeking the mote in another. Use the same standard you judge others to judge yourself.

**No, the Catholic position is that we don’t call them prophets. Read about the saints and you will see that they never professed to be anything great. They never claimed to be the keeper of the church. Who am I judging barnes?****I know that the subject of JS gets Mormon posters very angry. **

Explain Father Maciel’s multiple issues of immorality of both males and females. Explain it and answer why did the Catholic Church allow it to exist for so long. How did John Paul II, one of the most powerful men of the 20th century; a great prophet and pope, elevate Father Maciel so high in the Church when so much, according to your standards, was so black?

**The Catholic Church was unaware of Marcel Maciel’s double life. He is not considered a priest anymore if I am understanding correctly. Remember, Mormons use this as proof that the Catholic Church is not true. We don’t feel that the sins of man make Christ’s Church invalid, YOU do. Therefore, look at your own leaders. How about McConkie’s book getting taken out of print? He was a real anti-Catholic guy. Wasn’t he a Mormon leader, spreading words of hate? You see how it works? You claim the CC is apostate then by the same measuring stick the LDS church is apostate. **

Don’t deflect, don’t change the topic, don’t ask other questions, answer it.

Answer what? I always answer questions and posts directed to me barnes.

You continue this incomprehensible statement about LDS missionaries and apostasy, but it escapes every time. You either have not understood the definition of apostasy or you have created a new one.

**LDS missionaries and apostasy? Please tell me where I said that so I can respond.
I know the definition well. Missionaries, literature, friends, living in Utah…
I look forward to your response
**
 
Polygamy was never that big of an issue in the past. I remember high school, many years ago, where mormons were mentioned and that they practiced polygamy in their history. No one really cared. If mormons were polygamous, so what. It was their business. However, the question is not polygamy but whether or not the United States had religious freedom at the time of the early mormons.

**Actually, I think the question is polygamy. You use the Christian Bible and say God was okay with it. And I’d like to know how that jives with God creating Adam and EVE. The other reason it’s the issue is because from MORMON posts in these forums, I have been given the impression that, if polygamy hadn’t ended to “keep the peace” as you say, it would be practiced still! **

And the answer would be no. Mormons were persecuted because their religion was considered to be different. And we need to remember that we are dealing with frontier people, a people who were not exactly opened minded, a people who killed indians for sport. This was the environment the mormons found themselves in.

Then, we need to remember bigotry. Mormons tended to migrate in blocks and this threatened stability for many non-mormons. It would be no different today in the US if a religion that was considered different moved into a community by the hundreds or thousands. People would react.

And then finally with polygamy…it was stopped to protect the peace. The mormons were out there in utah and the federal army was on its way to mormonland not to say hello, but to cause trouble. Then the issue of statehood for utah. No polygamous territory would get statehood. And so, polygamy was recinded. It actually lasted almost 50 years.

Why polygamy? because god commanded it and mormons wanted to do what god commanded. It was not out of lust etc. If people think that that was the reason–lust, then both men and women would be considered no more than a monkey and that would be insulting to the mormons involved in the practice.
If you would like to discuss how far the government should allow religious freedom to go, that would be a great thread, and that would answer to the point you make about the government not tolerating your polygamy.

However, here again you say the mormon god commanded polygamy and yet did not answer my other questions about how that is the same god as the Old and New Testament God. THAT is the issue, as far as I am concerned.
 
SirThomasMore;6673127:
Did you know that Sidney Rigdon issued an extermination order 3 months before Gov. Boggs issued the one the mormons always talk about?

He did it in his 4th of July speech.

"The man or the set of men, who attempts it, does it at the expense of their lives. And that mob that comes on us to disturb us; it shall be between us and them a war of extermination, for we will follow them, till the last drop of their blood is spilled, or else they will have to exterminate us: for we will carry the seat of war to their own houses, and their own families, and one party or the other shall be utterly destroyed. – Remember it then all MEN. "
You mean the speech he gave after he was attacked by a mob and left for dead?

…yet as Rigdon’s son told the story, Sidney was the first target who received much harsher treatment:

…the mob came and got Rigdon first. He was a man weighing about 225. As they draged him some distance over the frozen ground by his heels bumping the back of his head so that when they got him to the place where they were to put the tar and feathers on him he was insensible. They covered him with tar and feathers and pounded him till they thought he was dead and then went to get J. Smith… The mob covered him with tar and feathers and pounded him till they got tired and left them both on the ground. J. Smith soon after the mob left got up and went home not very badly hurt.

The law did nothing about this incident.

Context is important. Was it okay for sidney to be tarred and feathered, beaten, dragged through the street and left for dead? This was still in his mind when he gave his speech. It is also claimed that he was never the same again after this experience. And the people who did this to him, probably went to their churches the next sunday.
 
twopekinguys;6675324:
You mean the speech he gave after he was attacked by a mob and left for dead?

…yet as Rigdon’s son told the story, Sidney was the first target who received much harsher treatment:

…the mob came and got Rigdon first. He was a man weighing about 225. As they draged him some distance over the frozen ground by his heels bumping the back of his head so that when they got him to the place where they were to put the tar and feathers on him he was insensible. They covered him with tar and feathers and pounded him till they thought he was dead and then went to get J. Smith… The mob covered him with tar and feathers and pounded him till they got tired and left them both on the ground. J. Smith soon after the mob left got up and went home not very badly hurt.
The law did nothing about this incident.

Context is important. Was it okay for sidney to be tarred and feathered, beaten, dragged through the street and left for dead? This was still in his mind when he gave his speech. It is also claimed that he was never the same again after this experience. And the people who did this to him, probably went to their churches the next sunday.

Yes, context is important. Like I said, both sides were wrong. And If you could so kindly point me to the verse in the NT where Jesus said that when we are struck, we need to issue death threats.

I ask that, because I could have sworn Jesus said something different
 
twopekinguys;6675324:
You mean the speech he gave after he was attacked by a mob and left for dead?

…yet as Rigdon’s son told the story, Sidney was the first target who received much harsher treatment:

…the mob came and got Rigdon first. He was a man weighing about 225. As they draged him some distance over the frozen ground by his heels bumping the back of his head so that when they got him to the place where they were to put the tar and feathers on him he was insensible. They covered him with tar and feathers and pounded him till they thought he was dead and then went to get J. Smith… The mob covered him with tar and feathers and pounded him till they got tired and left them both on the ground. J. Smith soon after the mob left got up and went home not very badly hurt.
The law did nothing about this incident.

Context is important. Was it okay for sidney to be tarred and feathered, beaten, dragged through the street and left for dead? This was still in his mind when he gave his speech. It is also claimed that he was never the same again after this experience. And the people who did this to him, probably went to their churches the next sunday.

No, it was not okay. It is terrible when these things are done to anyone. I am sorry this happened to him.

Nor was it okay when it was done to Saint Oliver Plunkett who was dragged through the streets and disembowled.
He died as a martyr and many witnesses were converted because of the forgiveness he showed to those who persecuted him. He went to his death like Jesus did. A true martyr.
Fascinating story, actually. I recommend all read about him.
The law did nothing about this incident. St. Oliver Plunkett was falsely accused. His speech was incredible. I will post part of it later.
 
why me;6677371:
No, it was not okay. It is terrible when these things are done to anyone. I am sorry this happened to him.

Nor was it okay when it was done to Saint Oliver Plunkett who was dragged through the streets and disembowled.
He died as a martyr and many witnesses were converted because of the forgiveness he showed to those who persecuted him. He went to his death like Jesus did. A true martyr.
Fascinating story, actually. I recommend all read about him.
The law did nothing about this incident. St. Oliver Plunkett was falsely accused. His speech was incredible. I will post part of it later.
Just read a little bit about him. Very inspiring indeed. Thanks for the recommendation.

A TRUE Martyr Indeed.
 
lax16;6678585:
Just read a little bit about him. Very inspiring indeed. Thanks for the recommendation.

A TRUE Martyr Indeed.
So, correct me if I am wrong…

Catholic Martyrs go quietly and praising God (like Saint Thomas More) while LDS Martyrs go shooting back, or making hate speeches, or calling for the deaths of all who oppose?
 
Kdesiel;6678646:
So, correct me if I am wrong…

Catholic Martyrs go quietly and praising God (like Saint Thomas More) while LDS Martyrs go shooting back, or making hate speeches, or calling for the deaths of all who oppose?
Its interesting St. Oliver Plunkett didn’t whip out a sword or a dirk and start stabbing and chopping people up, he didn’t call out some secret Masonic Distress Call in hopes to stop the attack and preserve his life. He didn’t shed any blood as he died for his beliefs.

It is very interesting indeed.
 
SirThomasMore;6678733:
Its interesting St. Oliver Plunkett didn’t whip out a sword or a dirk and start stabbing and chopping people up, he didn’t call out some secret Masonic Distress Call in hopes to stop the attack and preserve his life. He didn’t shed any blood as he died for his beliefs.

It is very interesting indeed.
**St. Oliver Plunkett **(edited for length)

THE idea of dying for the Faith could never have been very far from the minds of Catholics in the British Isles during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. But martyrdom is a good bit more than just being done in because one is Catholic— though that might fit some minimal definition of the term. **Rather, it is a stupendous event in the supernatural ****order, an imitation of and an extension of and a participation in the **redemptive passion of Christ. In some cases —like that of the innocents slaughtered by Herod— the victims seem unaware of their role as martyrs; nor even in retrospect can we fully understand why Our Lord’s advent required their bloody sacrifice. In other cases, the victim is required over and over again to face agonies of decision to follow Our Lord. In either case, anguished or not, **what seems to be essential is a total **abandonment of oneself to God. But this emptying of oneself, this passivity, **this passion like Our Lord’s **is not finally obliteration, but it is, paradoxically, a highly personal act of heroic courage. Christ promised to his martyrs, “In patience you shall possess your souls” (Gospel, Second Mass of Several Martyrs, Roman Missal)— that is, to give the soul up to suffering is somehow to be preeminently self-possessed.

After his transportation hither he was, as you know, close confined and secluded from all human conversation save that of his keepers until his arraignment, so that here also I am much in the dark and can only inform you of what I learnt as it were by chance from the mouths of the said keepers, viz., that he spent his time in almost continual prayers, **that he fasted usually three or four days a week with nothing but bread, that he **appeared to them always modestly cheerful, without any anguish or concern at his danger or strict confinement, that by his sweet and pious demeanor he attracted an esteem and reverence from those few that came near him.

**There appeared in his words, in his actions, in his very countenance, something so ****divinely elevated, **such a composed measure of cheerfulness, constancy, courage, **love, sweetness and candor, as manifestly denoted the divine goodness had **made him fit for a victim and destined him for heaven.

ON the day of his death,
**Saint Oliver was allowed to say Mass **with McKenna as his server, and then he awaited his execution with equanimity. **Tied to a hurdle behind **a horse, the Primate of All Ireland was **dragged the two miles from **Newgate Prison to Tyburn’s ‘triple tree.’ **He was permitted to address the crowds, **which he did with a prepared speech asserting his innocence of treason. Afterwards, as he said some prayers in Latin, the cart was driven out from under him and he was left hanging. Though he may have been dead when they cut him down, the executioners proceeded with the full rigours of the traitor’s death.

**Archbishop Plunkett’s words and his demeanor and his blood seem to have had an **impact. The crowd treated him sympathetically, and throughout the country the frenzy of the Popish Plot soon abated. St. Oliver Plunkett was the last Catholic executed in England for his Faith. He died July 11, 1681, and was canonized on October 20,1975.
 
(Color added to highlight the original text.)
Please click on the link below and read the entire article, it is a short article.
Amorous Advances by the Mormon Prophet
By Bill McKeever

Mormon historian Richard Van Wagoner paints anything but a flattering picture of Joseph Smith in his book Sidney Rigdon, Portrait of Religious Excess. In his chapter titled “Between Friends and Family,” he notes that “perhaps the most scandalous manifestation of Smith’s lust for manly achievement was his inclination toward extra-martial romantic liaisons, which he believed were licensed by the Old Testament and countenanced by God’s modern revelation” (pp.290-291).

Van Wagoner recounts the story of how the 37-year-old Smith attempted to persuade 15-year-old Helen Mar Kimball (the daughter of Heber C. Kimball) to be sealed to him as his wife. The young Kimball stated that Smith told her, “If you will take this step, it will insure your eternal salvation and exaltation and that of your father’s household and all of your kindred” (p.293). Helen would later regret that she acquiesced to Smith’s proposal. “I would never have been sealed to Joseph had I known it was anything more than ceremony. I was young and they deceived me by saying the salvation of our whole family depended on it” (p.294).
 
(Color and use of bold type added to highlight the original text.)
Please click on the link below and read the entire article, it is a short article.
Amorous Advances by the Mormon Prophet
By Bill McKeever

Mormon historian Richard Van Wagoner paints anything but a flattering picture of Joseph Smith in his book Sidney Rigdon, Portrait of Religious Excess. In his chapter titled “Between Friends and Family,” he notes that “perhaps the most scandalous manifestation of Smith’s lust for manly achievement was his inclination toward extra-martial romantic liaisons, which he believed were licensed by the Old Testament and countenanced by God’s modern revelation” (pp.290-291).

Van Wagoner recounts the story of how the 37-year-old Smith attempted to persuade 15-year-old Helen Mar Kimball (the daughter of Heber C. Kimball) to be sealed to him as his wife. The young Kimball stated that Smith told her, “If you will take this step, it will insure your eternal salvation and exaltation and that of your father’s household and all of your kindred” (p.293). Helen would later regret that she acquiesced to Smith’s proposal. "I would never have been sealed to Joseph had I known it was anything more than ceremony. I was young and they deceived me by saying the salvation of our whole family depended on it" (p.294).
If you want to see the Wikipedia page, then click the link below as it might soon be edited by persons who don’t want such information made public, if the Wikipedia page has not already been edited to remove these quotes.

(Color and use of bold type added to highlight the original text.)
 
(Color and use of bold type added to highlight the original text.)
Please click on the link below and read the entire article, it is a short article.
Amorous Advances by the Mormon Prophet
By Bill McKeever

Mormon historian Richard Van Wagoner paints anything but a flattering picture of Joseph Smith in his book Sidney Rigdon, Portrait of Religious Excess. In his chapter titled “Between Friends and Family,” he notes that “perhaps the most scandalous manifestation of Smith’s lust for manly achievement was his inclination toward extra-martial romantic liaisons, which he believed were licensed by the Old Testament and countenanced by God’s modern revelation” (pp.290-291).

Van Wagoner recounts the story of how the 37-year-old Smith attempted to persuade 15-year-old Helen Mar Kimball (the daughter of Heber C. Kimball) to be sealed to him as his wife. The young Kimball stated that Smith told her, “If you will take this step, it will insure your eternal salvation and exaltation and that of your father’s household and all of your kindred” (p.293). Helen would later regret that she acquiesced to Smith’s proposal. "I would never have been sealed to Joseph had I known it was anything more than ceremony. I was young and they deceived me by saying the salvation of our whole family depended on it" (p.294).
(Color and use of bold type added to highlight the original text.)
During Smith’s life he publicly preached and wrote against the doctrine of plural marriage;[60] however, historians have cited that dozens of plural marriages were performed by Smith before his death in 1844,[61][62] and author Jon Krakauer points out in Under the Banner of Heaven that, "several were still pubescent girls, such as fourteen-year-old Helen Mar Kimball
 
40.png
Answersplease:
wow
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top