You are the one who claimed the Smith kept his polygamy from Emma to spare her feelings. If he really cared about Emma that much than he could have still obeyed the “commandment” to engage in polygamy by marrying 1-2 additional women rather than 30+. So how many wives does it take before it crosses the line from reluctant to enthusiastic?What difference would 1 or 2 additional wives make? Isn’t the argument about polygamy? We can accept one or two, but we can’t accept 30? No one knows the reason Joseph married over 30, but we can speculate until the cows come home and we still wouldn’t know.
The point I want to make is that Joseph was reluctant, but he followed what God told him to do. If the choice is between your wife or God, which one do you take. Abraham chose God, Joseph chose God. One can only suppose that keeping it secret was the only compassionate solution to a bad situation that either could come up with… that is unless you think that Abraham told Sarah that he was taking her only child up on the mountain to kill him because God told him too.
A deadbed confession is far more substantive than your faith in the character of Joseph Smith, especially give the historical evidence of Smith’s actual character.Of course I’m not sure. Are you sure that Josephine is actually Joseph’s daughter? Is all the proof you have a death bed testimony of her dying mother?
I venture my case on faith and on the character of Joseph Smith. Critics slander him and followers laud him. From his work, the results of his work, I can see no harm in the man. For whatever reason, if Josephine is the daughter of Joseph Smith, then Sylvia wasn’t married Mr. Lyon and it wasn’t polyandrous.
You have nothing more than a death bed confession and I have nothing more that my faith in the character of Joseph Smith. It is unfortunate that Sylvia could not elaborate more at the time. Why did she keep it a secret? Or any other information. I don’t doubt that Sylvia’s statement is true, but that statement by itself does not make it an affair, adultery or polyandry.
Please provide a citation from LDS scripture that eternal polygamous marriages are not about having children (and having sex to conceive those children) because LDS scripture is clear that polygamy is commanded by God for the express purpose of having children.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.
I don’t have a daughter, but if we did and some man tried to do what Smith did to Helen or any of the other teenagers he “married”, I would have to worry about getting my husband to a country that does not have an extradition treaty with the US or visiting him in the state penitentiary.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.
And you have no proof other than the testimony of Smith and his friends that everyone was immoral except him. And it is entirely possible that those labels were applied because they were true.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.
It is a good thing that I listened to Tim Staples on Catholic Answers Live last night (listen to the archive for the second hour). Someone asked Tim about how old Mary was at the time of the Annunciation. He answered that based on the manuscripts of the Protoevangelium of James, Mary was between the ages of 14 - 17 at the time of the Annunciation and that she was a 15 - 18 at the time of the Nativity. Where do you get the idea that she was 13?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…
The burden of proof for Smith being a prophet is on you, as it is your claim. All you have is, “I believe.”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.
I was under the mistaken assumption that you mormons wanted to give people the idea that your “church” WAS Christian. Silly me. I realize that you DID add the name of Jesus Christ to your “church” to try to convince the world that you were legitimate. Just as an aside, you can put on a Marine uniform and call yourself a Marine, but it doesn’t necessarily make you one. I know that mormons used to get deeply offended when some one called them Christians by mistake, but now they claim Christianity so as not to appear so weird. Times change, but facts don’t. Mormonism has much more in common with hinduism in many respects, multiplicity of “gods” in particular, also with Islam’s multiplicity of wives. Let me sum up, in all charity, of course…Almost you persuadest me to be a Christian.
Devastating!!The burden of proof for Smith being a prophet is on you, as it is your claim. All you have is, “I believe.”
The evidence against him being a prophet is there for all to see. These are facts. That you choose to ignore doesn’t make them not-facts.
etc.
- Preaching another gospel (not that there is another gospel).
- Failed prophecies.
- Lied about translating the Kinderhook plates.
- Lied about translating Egyptian papyri.
- Instituted his own sinful activities as divine commands of God for others to follow and practice.
- Lied about his first visions.
- Lied about being able to find treasure with a seer stone.
- Lied about the bank he founded being legal and financially secured/backed.
- Twists Biblical accounts to his own purposes, including reinterpreting to meaning opposite of what they actually are.
The question is, why would a man do this, and of course the answer is he gets something out of it. What does he get out of it? The usual things people go after are power, money and sex. Was he seeking these things? I see the evidence shows that he was seeking all three.
You respond with a non sequitur, asking if OT prophets were seeking power, which is also a red herring. The subject is Joseph Smith. When I turn the subject back to Smith, you say I’m dodging. I’m keeping to the subject, that you are attempting to change.
A chain of events can be followed, from making up a vision, to a failed bank which included fraud, to claimed translations that are shown to be fraudulent, to adulteress activities. Each time moving from where his suspicious activities are exposed to a new town, with his followers in tow.
How many facts do you need to accept the obvious?
If you have a chain of events for an OT prophet, which you think is a false prophet, or makes them suspicious as being a false prophet, please present them in another thread. This thread is about Joseph Smith.
But will you be sealed to all the women you married on earth in heaven if you practice polygamy? Also, why would God want to cause a division among its followers (polygamist families) because we know that people get jealous, angry, hurt and so on when it comes to love from a spouse(s)? I don’t think God would want you to sin.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.
I will not comment on the twist you give my words regarding those who wrote 1800 years before J. Smith. The antiquity of their words speaks for itself. You are correct in stating they weren’t writing Scripture because at the time they wrote those words the only inspired Scriptures they knew were the words of the Old Testament and they weren’t trying to add to it. Their words were added to the Canon of actual Scriptures after they died. J. Smith on the other hand was trying to pass off his translations from the golden tablets shown him by an angel as actual Scriptures while he remained alive. When Peter, James, John and Paul wrote if they referred to actual Scriptures, which they did, they meant the Hebrew Scriptures, what we call the Old Testament. They were not writing so as to convince anyone of* their personal holiness* but to communicate to others in the Church in letter form and to encourage and admonish and support, etc. those persons to whom they wrote. J. Smith it seems on the other hand, was obsessed with convincing others of his “prophetic” nature and his “mission” of restoration. Which leads into my next comment about that “something” you believe happened that stopped the Holy Spirit from guiding the next generation of believers in the nascent Church that ended all of God’s works until a man named J. Smith came along and God, who is omnipotent BTW, could start His Church all over again correctly this time some 1800 years alter. That means that either God was mistaken or powerless. He is neither.…To be consistent Glenda must believe that Peter, James, John, Paul, … who think they were "writing actual Scripture" are “all about power.”…There are not a great deal if any Catholic leaders who ever claimed to believe they could receive revelation/inspiration I agree if they claimed to receive it and didn’t that would be a problem, but history is clear they didn’t receive it… I have long found it reasonable even more likely that the successor of Peter and the Apostles could, like the apostles could, receive inspiration/revelation. The Catholic “successors” never could (no writing of scripture, no supernatural public revelation from God, …)… but something ended and the church was no longer lead by Apostles/Prophets (those who speak for God through inspiration/revelation)…In any case, Glenda’s comment above evidences to me that she does not even recognize that her comment condemns Peter, James, John, Paul, … just as surely as it condemns Joseph Smith… My intellectual conclusion was and remains that Joseph Smith’s involvement in the institution of polygamy is poorly explained … This firm conviction does not need to support the above info on the polygamy issue, but it is required to support another problematic issue discussed on this board,
That is the thing about the bogus “religion” that Joseph Smith cooked up. To have the presumption to assert that Almighty God, in the person of Jesus Christ Himself, failed in His mission to found an everlasting Church, and that he, an uneducated upstate New York thimblerigger was needed to set things right. His audacity boggles the mind entirely. That otherwise rational people would swallow this stupendous fantasy is a tribute to Smith’s ability to deceive. The maxim that "If you make the lie big enough, people will believe it,"is sadly, true. Those of you sad people who have traded the True Religion for the miasma of false religion such as mormonism, you have traded a sumptuous banquet for very poor quality fast food, which will surely clog your spiritual arteries and bring you to spirirual death.Hello Tom.
I will not comment on the twist you give my words regarding those who wrote 1800 years before J. Smith. The antiquity of their words speaks for itself. You are correct in stating they weren’t writing Scripture because at the time they wrote those words the only inspired Scriptures they knew were the words of the Old Testament and they weren’t trying to add to it. Their words were added to the Canon of actual Scriptures after they died. J. Smith on the other hand was trying to pass off his translations from the golden tablets shown him by an angel as actual Scriptures while he remained alive. When Peter, James, John and Paul wrote if they referred to actual Scriptures, which they did, they meant the Hebrew Scriptures, what we call the Old Testament. They were not writing so as to convince anyone of* their personal holiness* but to communicate to others in the Church in letter form and to encourage and admonish and support, etc. those persons to whom they wrote. J. Smith it seems on the other hand, was obsessed with convincing others of his “prophetic” nature and his “mission” of restoration. Which leads into my next comment about that “something” you believe happened that stopped the Holy Spirit from guiding the next generation of believers in the nascent Church that ended all of God’s works until a man named J. Smith came along and God, who is omnipotent BTW, could start His Church all over again correctly this time some 1800 years alter. That means that either God was mistaken or powerless. He is neither.
God spoke and said that His words would not pass away and that He would remain with His Church unto the end of time. He has kept His word. His promise is eternal for those who receive it for what it is.
Now the topic of this thread is all about the polygamy perpetrated by J. Smith. Nearly all of the Presidents in the LDS followed his example and were hidden polygamists for quite a long time and many have kept that tradition alive in their hidden lives of lies and occasionally the law catches up with them. This is a known fact. While not all Mormons are polygamists, why on earth would anyone want to join any group whose founder is?
Thank you for letting us know that you are a fallen away Catholic, BTW. I hope you change your mind about what you’ve gotten yourself into and come home to Rome soon. Really. All you need do is go to Confession and let Father help you.
Glenda
question for BrotherofJaredWhat would be some reasons, in light of the eternal bond in Mormon marriages?
Llife expectancy during Mary’s time was half of what it was during the time of Joseph Smith.Wasn’t Mary, who married Joseph and gave birth to Jesus, something like 14-years-old?
.
I would love to hear how that “family” would look? Does yours have a father and a mother with children? Christ’s does.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.
Where are you getting your history? I need to see your source that says Law committed adultery, because that’s not what the historians are saying. From LDS historian Grant Palmer in his paper Why William and Jane Law Left the LDS Church in 1844:William Law committed adultery. Then he was excommunicated…Though he apparently didn’t agree with polygamy… he did want to be sealed to his wife which Joseph wouldn’t do on account that he committed adultery. We have an eye witness account that it was Mrs Law that beckoned Joseph to come talk to her, not Joseph seeking to talk to Mrs. Law…After that, it was her word against Joseph’s word and William had already had enough of Joseph. He took matters into his own hands. William Law’s journals say Joseph made advances at his wife, but the evidence suggests otherwise.
We are all one family. Can you explain how your theoretical eternal family looks, how it can be together? After all your spouse is part of her/his parents eternal family as you are part of your own parents eternal family. Does it work like divorced families with shared custody? And how about all the children you’ll be having in the next life with your spouse, how do you balance your time with the billions of spirit children you and your spouse will be having with the children you have now? And what about your children’s spirit children (the billions of spirit children they will be having) do you spend time with the spirit grand-children?I would love to hear how that “family” would look? Does yours have a father and a mother with children? Christ’s does.
There are two things which lead me to believe there is some basis, and certainly enough for it to be sufficient reason to excommunicate William Law. 1) Joseph refused to seal William to his wife and the reason was, according to Joseph: Law “was an adulterous man” and 2) Hyrum testified that Law confessed to him that he had committed adultery. All of this happened on the heels of Dr. Bennett’s trollop through Nauvoo teaching spiritual-wifery, running a brothel and performing abortions all while being in the same circle of association with Joseph Smith and William Law. I am speculating here, that is entirely possible that Law bought Bennett’s brand of spiritual-wifery before Joseph could put an end to it.Where are you getting your history? I need to see your source that says Law committed adultery, because that’s not what the historians are saying. From LDS historian Grant Palmer in his paper Why William and Jane Law Left the LDS Church in 1844:
Nauvoo, Illinois. Joseph Smith interviewed William Law in the street and dropped him from the First Presidency. Later, on June 8, Hyrum Smith testified that Law had confessed to Hyrum that he had committed adultery.
Nice spin, but you didn’t answer the question. Since you told me how mine looks, let me tell you how yours looks… All brothers and sisters, spiritually begotten sons and daughters. No mother and no father, no wife and no husband, all broken off and neutered, never to know the bonds of marriage or family that we now have. Sounds kind of sterile.We are all one family. Can you explain how your theoretical eternal family looks, how it can be together? After all your spouse is part of her/his parents eternal family as you are part of your own parents eternal family. Does it work like divorced families with shared custody? And how about all the children you’ll be having in the next life with your spouse, how do you balance your time with the billions of spirit children you and your spouse will be having with the children you have now? And what about your children’s spirit children (the billions of spirit children they will be having) do you spend time with the spirit grand-children?
So it CAN be okay. hmmm… Ok. As long as you can accept that, then I would think that you wouldn’t find it difficult that we [Mormons] can accept that Joseph married a 14 year-old in the 1800s. Nice how that works out, 1800s, 1800 year difference.**
Llife expectancy during Mary’s time was half of what it was during the time of Joseph Smith.
I don’t think it is a fair comparison since there is an 1800 year difference.