LDS transparency: J Smith marriage to 14 yr old

[BrotherofJared]

While there is no evidence that smith had relations with these women what other purpose was there then? Either sex for personal pleasure or to procreate? Either way it was about sex.

Perhaps that is A reason to get married, but that doesn’t mean he had sex with all of them. And there are other reasons to get married, especially in light of the eternal bond in Mormon marriages.

 

[BrotherofJared]

Joseph Smith didn’t have to publicly explain why he was defaming anyone. His MO was to deny the allegations and accuse the woman of being a whore or prostitute and accused men who had issues with it of adultery.

Where do you get that MO? William Law confessed that he committed adultery. Last time I checked, if a man commits adultery then he did regardless of his support of polygamy.

 

[lax16]

Perhaps that is A reason to get married, but that doesn’t mean he had sex with all of them. And there are other reasons to get married, especially in light of the eternal bond in Mormon marriages.

What would be some reasons, in light of the eternal bond in Mormon marriages?

 

[JaminB123]

1. It was illegal. He had enough problems. Why tell anyone about it? If it was just for sex, then find a few loose women and be done with it.

Simple–because he needed to maintain the illusion of being a prophet. If he simply found loose women and slept with them, his sin of adultry would be evident to his close followers and they would likely lose faith in him. BUT if he covered up his adultry under the guise of polygamy/polyandry that God commanded… then viola, he’s just a holy prophet doing the will of God. He could even pretend that he didn’t want to do it but was simply reluctantly being obedient to the Lord. Brilliant.

So you seem to be admitting that it was illegal? I posed this dilema in another thread but didn’t get a much of an answer, so let me ask here: How does JS’s admittedly illegal behavior reconciled with the 12th LDS Article of Faith: “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” Mormons believe in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law and yet their early founders disobeyed, dishonored, and failed to sustain the law by their illegal practice of polygamy/polyandry. What is the explaination?

 

[JaminB123]

A similar question was asked of fathers on a LDS forum, along the lines of would you turn your 14 year old daughter over to Joseph Smith to marry. Some responders said without question, they would. There’s something really wrong with some men of the LDS faith.

In reading the recent LDS article about JS marrying other men’s wives and, in this case, a man’s fourteen-year-old daughter, the most striking thought to me (as a husband and father) was, “What sort of man would allow this? What husband would allow his wife to marry another man? What sort of man would encourage his 14-year-old daughter to marry a middle-aged polygamist?” The answer–no real man would. It is symptomatic of a severe character defect, some sort of twisted insecurity, a warped view of morality, and pathological desire to please. A real man would have the character to stand up with moral courage against such a twisted proposition. Of course, were JS a man of character, he would never put another man in the position to make such a choice.

It’s a cliche, but “What would Jesus do?” Can you seriously imagine Jesus going around marrying 30+ wives, pressuring fathers to turn their 14-year-old daughters to him in marriage, and marrying a wife whose living husband was off on a mission in a foreign land? Is that would Jesus would do? Of course not! True saints (e.g., St. Francis, St. Patrick, St. Paul) aim to imitate Christ and would never engage in such sordid, illegal shenanigans. The early Mormons weren’t real men by comparison, just twisted little boys playing around with the sacrament of marriage. At the risk of sounding self-righteous (too late?), that modern LDS men still defend and acquiesce to this immorality is shocking to me. Sure, Catholic leaders sin… but at least we call it sin and move on instead of wasting time pretending their sin was holy somehow.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Where do you get that MO? William Law confessed that he committed adultery. Last time I checked, if a man commits adultery then he did regardless of his support of polygamy.

Read post 95.

 

[RebeccaJ]

In reading the recent LDS article about JS marrying other men’s wives and, in this case, a man’s fourteen-year-old daughter, the most striking thought to me (as a husband and father) was, “What sort of man would allow this? What husband would allow his wife to marry another man? What sort of man would encourage his 14-year-old daughter to marry a middle-aged polygamist?” The answer–no real man would. It is symptomatic of a severe character defect, some sort of twisted insecurity, a warped view of morality, and pathological desire to please. A real man would have the character to stand up with moral courage against such a twisted proposition. Of course, were JS a man of character, he would never put another man in the position to make such a choice.

It’s a cliche, but “What would Jesus do?” Can you seriously imagine Jesus going around marrying 30+ wives, pressuring fathers to turn their 14-year-old daughters to him in marriage, and marrying a wife whose living husband was off on a mission in a foreign land? Is that would Jesus would do? Of course not! True saints (e.g., St. Francis, St. Patrick, St. Paul) aim to imitate Christ and would never engage in such sordid, illegal shenanigans. The early Mormons weren’t real men by comparison, just twisted little boys playing around with the sacrament of marriage. At the risk of sounding self-righteous (too late?), that modern LDS men still defend and acquiesce to this immorality is shocking to me. Sure, Catholic leaders sin… but at least we call it sin and move on instead of wasting time pretending their sin was holy somehow.

Thanks for your perspective. I agree the continued defense immorality is shocking.

 

[BrotherofJared]

When Martha Brotherton went public with Smith proposing marriage, her allegations were denied in the Nauvoo Wasp and she was called a “mean harlot”.

When Nancy Rigdon went public with Smith’s advances, Smith’s friend Stephen Markham swore out an affidavit stating that Mrs. Rigdon was “guilty of unlawful and illicit intercourse”. Orson Hyde made a speech in Nauvoo and stated that Mrs. Rigdon was “notorious in this city” and the equivalent of “a public prostitute”.

Sarah Pratt was given the same treatment when her rejection of Smith’s proposal went public. Sarah said that, “If any woman, like me, opposed his wishes, he used to say: ‘Be silent, or I shall ruin your character. My character must be sustained in the interests of the church’… In his endeavors to ruin my character, Joseph went so far as to publish [an] extra-sheet containing affidavits against my reputation.”

When Melissa Schindle published her affidavit of Smith’s advances towards her, the Wasp called her “a harlot”.

When Jane Law turned down Joseph Smith, she and William were excommunicated, but adultery was not mentioned as being the reason. The reason was apostasy. The accusations of adultery came later. It was a month later when William filed a law suit against Joseph Smith for for living “in an open state of adultery” with Maria Lawrence that Smith accused William of adultery.

Here we see a pattern of Smith and his friends accusing the men and women who rejected and went public with Smith’s polygamy of adultery or being “loose”. Everyone around Smith was sexually immoral, but he was clean and pure as the driven snow. I’m sure Smith wanted his polygamy to be kept a secret. That is why he threatened women who rejected him with slander. He wanted to keep them quiet. Not all of them did.

Most of this information is the result of “the pimp and file leader” (The Wasp) John C Bennett’s work. As an apostate, his objective to discredit the Prophet is quite clear. Again, a man offended because he was ousted for chasing after his own lustful appetites, sought revenge on the Prophet.

You have no proof other than their own testimony that the accusations were a result of turning down his proposal. In fact, you have no proof that he made the proposal in the first place. It is possible that those labels were applied because they were true. For example, Sarah Pratt, wife of the Apostle (as if that makes any difference) Orson Pratt was sleeping with Dr. Bennett. The Wasp’s observation were keenly correct in the case of Dr. Bennett and perhaps not so far off in the case of the women.

If there was a predator here, it was Dr Bennett, not Joseph Smith.

 

[BrotherofJared]

Simple–because he needed to maintain the illusion of being a prophet. If he simply found loose women and slept with them, his sin of adultry would be evident to his close followers and they would likely lose faith in him. BUT if he covered up his adultry under the guise of polygamy/polyandry that God commanded… then viola, he’s just a holy prophet doing the will of God. He could even pretend that he didn’t want to do it but was simply reluctantly being obedient to the Lord. Brilliant.

Pray tell, how is teaching the practice of polygamy maintaining the illusion of being a prophet?

 

[zaffiroborant]

Thanks for your perspective. I agree the continued defense immorality is shocking.

The shock from reading the defense of JS’s sordid relationships, picking out the underlying theme that women are things to be given to men by fathers and husbands (the very people who are to love and care for them) in exchange for position has been useful. Reading this kind Mormon apologetic has gone from disbelief to shock to revulsion in the minds and hearts of my children. They now regard those clean cut Mormon missionaries as shills for a misogynist church or sexist jerks at best, or as possibly harmful men who will allow any and all behavior from church leaders, defending it no matter how immoral. The Mormons who post on message boards have given my daughters an extremely negative opinion of the teachings of the Mormon church, and I never had to say a word, just leave their words up on the screen for them and their girlfriends to read and ponder. For all that that they’ve said, I can’t thank them enough.

 

[BrotherofJared]

So you seem to be admitting that it was illegal? I posed this dilema in another thread but didn’t get a much of an answer, so let me ask here: How does JS’s admittedly illegal behavior reconciled with the 12th LDS Article of Faith: “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” Mormons believe in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law and yet their early founders disobeyed, dishonored, and failed to sustain the law by their illegal practice of polygamy/polyandry. What is the explaination?

When the laws of God conflict with the laws of kings, presidents, rulers and magistrates, then one must make a decision. Follow God or follow the laws of the land. For example, if it was a law that you could only have one child (as was the case in China), would you obey that law? What would you do to cover breaking that law? I’m sure you wouldn’t publish your activities in the local newspaper. Of course, you don’t live in China, so you don’t have to worry about it.

That Article of Faith wasn’t written turn our ability to think for ourselves over to government. There are certain inalienable rights that governments cannot remove. If that Article of Faith were absolute there would be nothing to challenge government and no way that oppressed people could free themselves from tyranny.

 

[BrotherofJared]

Of course you don’t think it adds up because you believe that Joseph Smith could do no wrong. In order to continue to accept him as a “prophet of God”, you have to justify his unsavory behavior.

There is a difference between “could do no wrong” and “did nothing wrong.” I see no difference in Joseph’s actions that those of other prophets of God. If God accepted those prophets, then I don’t see why he wouldn’t accept Joseph Smith. He did no wrong in establishing polygamy. I have stated elsewhere on this forum that polygamy is the basis for connecting the entire family of God from Adam and Eve to the last married couple. Without it, many of God’s children would be excluded from His plan of exaltation and happiness and it would be through no fault of their own.

 

[BrotherofJared]

Do you really think a 14 year old girl has the maturity to make the decision to marry a man in his 30’s? Given the fact that Helen Mar Kimball’s father was pressuring her to agree to marry Smith (eternal salvation for the whole family was on the line), I question her capacity to make a sound decision.

Would you let your 14 year old daughter marry a man in his 30’s if that is what she wanted? If not, why not?

I think many girls at 14 did make those decisions. Do you think that Mary, the mother of God, had the maturity accept that role at 13 or 14? It doesn’t really matter if what we think that maturity level of the girl is, sometimes they don’t have a choice. In this case, she did. The “eternal salvation for the whole family on the line” was not taught by Joseph or Helen’s father, though she stated that’s the she saw it many years later. About a year after that statement, she continued the thought saying that she may have understood it wrong at time, which she did, since the prophet never taught that any single act would guarantee salvation and that no one could guarantee it for others by their actions.

To answer your last question, I don’t know. I would have to consider the man and get the council of my spouse and my daughter. I could see their might be the possibility that I’d consent. I have seen the relationship between father and daughter become sour for a life time because the father refused the daughters desires. The daughter was 15 then and today the father is 80 and the daughter still won’t talk to him. He is dead to her. Would I make the right decision? Who knows…

 

[hosemonkey]

There is a difference between “could do no wrong” and “did nothing wrong.” I see no difference in Joseph’s actions that those of other prophets of God. If God accepted those prophets, then I don’t see why he wouldn’t accept Joseph Smith. He did no wrong in establishing polygamy. I have stated elsewhere on this forum that polygamy is the basis for connecting the entire family of God from Adam and Eve to the last married couple. Without it, many of God’s children would be excluded from His plan of exaltation and happiness and it would be through no fault of their own.

As I have stated many times on these fora, with regard to mormon “theology” and the legitimacy of Joe Smith, he was a liar and the truth was not in him, he was more than likely megalomaniac, he was sexually twisted and laid careful plans to fulfill his sick desires, he was a master manipulator, he had a prodigious imagination, by virtue of ginning up a whole “religion” out of whole cloth and a great deal of plagiarism, he promoted the oppression of his non-mormon neighbors, he died a pistol-firing criminal and certainly no martyr, he and his successors have gathered a group of some of the most gullible marks since P.T. Barnum and have discovered the priceless secret of extracting huge sums of cash fro an unresisting flock of fat, unquestioning sheep. What am I saying here? Joe Smith was no prophet, but he and his successors have the grift absolutely down pat. If this is a “restored religion”, it must have been “restored” from something other than the True faith founded by Our Lord, Jesus Christ. And do you seriously believe that Joe Smith did not marry all those women except for sex? C’mon, we’re grown men and women here. Do you think that he had just gotten bored with Monopoly on cold winter nights? Don’t get out much, do you? In all charity, of course.

Grift: noun 1. (sometimes used with a plural verb) a group of methods for obtaining money falsely through the use of swindles, frauds, dishonest gambling, etc.
2. money obtained from such practices.
verb (used without object) 3. to profit by the use of grift: a man known to have grifted for many years.

                                                                                                            verb (used with object)                                                                         4.      to obtain (money or other profit) by grift. 

                                                      Grift

 

[hosemonkey]

No one knows for sure exacktly how old that Our Blessed Mother was, only that she and Joseph were bethrothed.

 

[BrotherofJared]

Joseph Smith wasn’t a prophet of God. Why would anyone claim to be something they aren’t?

Nicely skirting the question. Were the prophets of old in it for the power? The fact that you don’t think he was a prophet, doesn’t make it so. The problem here is, you take a man and say he made this all up and then run out and take any source that agrees with you as proof and poof, you have a case. It’s easy to do when you know Joseph isn’t a prophet. While on the other hand, we believe he is a prophet and have to scramble to refute the evidence that your poor sources contrive and poof we can still see him as a prophet.

Whether he was a prophet or not is the hinge the burden of proof rests upon. If he wasn’t, then you’re right. And if he was, then we’re right. But it makes no difference to Mormons because if he wasn’t then we’ll still go to heaven by your standards, because if we had known then God will judge us on what we would have done if we had known. And if we’re right, then we’re busy doing the right thing. Either way, Mormons will make out okay. Only God can judge that.

What I don’t understand is where is the Charity in beating up a man you don’t know over hearsay that is at least partially made up or the conjecture of critics, when he did nothing that wasn’t done by men of God in the past. It’s okay for them, but not okay for Joseph. You treat him as though you had him dead to rights on some kind of “sordid” activity when you don’t. Where is the Christian in that? It’s almost as if you replaced God and now you can stand in judgement.

 

[BrotherofJared]

As I have stated many times on these fora, with regard to mormon “theology” and the legitimacy of Joe Smith, he was a liar and the truth was not in him, he was more than likely megalomaniac, he was sexually twisted and laid careful plans to fulfill his sick desires, he was a master manipulator, he had a prodigious imagination, by virtue of ginning up a whole “religion” out of whole cloth and a great deal of plagiarism, he promoted the oppression of his non-mormon neighbors, he died a pistol-firing criminal and certainly no martyr, he and his successors have gathered a group of some of the most gullible marks since P.T. Barnum and have discovered the priceless secret of extracting huge sums of cash fro an unresisting flock of fat, unquestioning sheep. What am I saying here? Joe Smith was no prophet, but he and his successors have the grift absolutely down pat. If this is a “restored religion”, it must have been “restored” from something other than the True faith founded by Our Lord, Jesus Christ. And do you seriously believe that Joe Smith did not marry all those women except for sex? C’mon, we’re grown men and women here. Do you think that he had just gotten bored with Monopoly on cold winter nights? Don’t get out much, do you? In all charity, of course.

Grift: noun 1. (sometimes used with a plural verb) a group of methods for obtaining money falsely through the use of swindles, frauds, dishonest gambling, etc.
2. money obtained from such practices.
verb (used without object) 3. to profit by the use of grift: a man known to have grifted for many years.

                                                                                                            verb (used with object)                                                                         4.      to obtain (money or other profit) by grift. 

                                                      Grift

Almost you persuadest me to be a Christian.

 

[JaminB123]

Almost you persuadest me to be a Christian.

Oh, Brother, we wish that this was true. But from my observation, you seem more interested in defending polygamy, polyandry, JS’s mother/daughter marriages, JS’s sister/sister marriages, JS’s violating bigamy laws, JS’s lying about violating bigamy laws, and a host of other evils than you are in defending what Christ taught about marriage. Remember Christ, the celibate savior who preached lifelong monogamy between a man and a woman (references available upon request)?

Pardon the snark, but I am just completely shocked at what the LDS continue to defend in JS, BY, and their ilk. There is no holiness in their scandalous, illegal, immoral behavior. Look elsewhere. I know you mean well, but wrong is wrong and this defensive moral relativism of yours leads nowhere.

Mere Christianity is just fine. You know you want to join us. That’s why you are here, isn’t it? This Joseph Smith apologist act is just a big trolling expedition, right? It must be. There’s no other logical explaination.

 

[JaminB123]

Pray tell, how is teaching the practice of polygamy maintaining the illusion of being a prophet?

I think the post was clear and you are deliberately being obtuse, but here’s the gist. If JS simply slept around with loose women as you suggested, his inner circle would notice the obvious sin and doubt his claim to be a prophet. However, if he could convince his gullible followers that he had a commandment from God to reinstitute the OT practice of polygamy, he could claim that he was a prophet on par with Abraham and that his adultery was actually just a neo-OT polygamy thing. The polygamy thing, you see, was an easier sell to gullible followers than the whole adultery thing. That was what I meant and I apologize if it was unclear in my post.

 

[zaffiroborant]

There is a difference between “could do no wrong” and “did nothing wrong.” I see no difference in Joseph’s actions that those of other prophets of God. If God accepted those prophets, then I don’t see why he wouldn’t accept Joseph Smith. He did no wrong in establishing polygamy. I have stated elsewhere on this forum that polygamy is the basis for connecting the entire family of God from Adam and Eve to the last married couple. Without it, many of God’s children would be excluded from His plan of exaltation and happiness and it would be through no fault of their own.

Christ is the basis for connecting God’s family, the actions of men running around connecting dots with their pencils is of no consequence. Mormons believe they are the ones who insert themselves in God’s family through their actions.