Why Accept Joseph Smith?

[twopekinguys]

Does any of this sound like oppression by js and his bunch?

Among other acts of usurpation, this “imperium in imperio” – this sovereign Legislature of Nauvoo, had promulgated and enforced the following –

*They established a Recorder’s office for the Record of deeds, independent of that provided for by the State laws in every county –

They issued Marriage Licenses, contrary to the State Laws, requiring them to be issued from the County Court.

They assumed jurisdiction of suits for Slander, and other causes, cognizable by law only in the Circuit Courts.

They passed an ordinance to punish, with fine and imprisonment, all persons guilty of disrespectful words concerning Joseph Smith! One man was actually fined $100 under this ordinance, and reversed it on appeal to the State Circuit Court!

They arrested peaceable visitors to the city, confined them in jail, and subjected them to inquisitorial examinations, on pretence of regulating the police of the city!

The writ of habeas corpus, already mentioned, was frequently resorted to, by the City Council, to discharge persons arrested under the civil and criminal process of the State! And officers, who came to execute such writs, as well as persons reclaiming stolen property, were taken into custody for alleged breaches of the peace, till the culprits could escape and the property be secreted!

And, to cover all sorts of cases, they passed another ordinance, prohibiting, under penalty of fine and imprisonment, the service of any process whatever, unless countersigned by the Mayor of Nauvoo! And these penalties they forbade the Governor of the State to remit by his pardon! *
Quoted from “Memoirs of the Mormons” page 647

olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1840s/1840mag1.htm

 

[Michael_Vernon]

Being born a LDS in Utah, from Mormon Pioneer stock, I wore the “We were persecuted” badge as something that made me “holier than thou” for decades; until I realized that being persecuted for one’s religious beliefs does not necessarily mean those religious beliefs are true.

 

[twopekinguys]

I guess I must have forgotten to tell you, evidently, that I don’t feel persecuted nor do I feel the need to explain why I don’t. Got it? I have never in my life felt “persecuted”–not once.

What boggles my mind is why someone has any interest at all in someone who died 165 years ago when it has no bearing whatsoever on their life. His life has a bearing on my life–a very important one, so I have an interest, but I see no reason for yours.

Have a good day.

I am glad you don’t feel persecusted. However it does come across that you do.

For being such a scholar, your mind appears to be boggled quite easily. It really isn’t that hard to understand why anyone on this forum wouldn’t be interested in all of this. Including myself. Think about it.

1. JS was a fraud and a conman.
2. mormonism was created by a man.
3. mormon doctrine and teachings change on a whim.
4. JS teachings are heretical at best.

One thing I have read over and over on this forum, as well as other places, and with my personal dealings with ex-lds is that when they truly started to study and learn, they left. In other words, they studied their way out. JS is part of all of that, so you can see the interest.

I was listening to a progam by Shawn McCraney the other night. He claims to have been a mormon for 40 years, and studied his way out of mormonism. Several of the callers to his show have said the same thing.

You should really watch his broadcast from last night (I think). It was really interesting how he debunked the whole curse of Cain thing. How there are very few passages in the Bible about it, but yet the JS translation has pages and pages.

As far as my interest. 1. I have family that are both active and former lds. Some have had their names removed from the church roles, some are working on it, and some remain active. 2. In my dealings with RCIA, I deal with mormons leaving all the time. It is important to understand where they are coming from, what they are taught, etc. in order to answer their questions.

So you see, js is relavant.

 

[twopekinguys]

Being born a LDS in Utah, from Mormon Pioneer stock, I wore the “We were persecuted” badge as something that made me “holier than thou” for decades; until I realized that being persecuted for one’s religious beliefs does not necessarily mean those religious beliefs are true.

Well said.

 

[dianaiad]

ParkerD- it might interest you to know that many years later Law was interviewed by the SL Tribune. He said in this interview that had he known the chain of events that occurred…the destruction of the press, the resulting death of Smith…he would never have printed the Expositor. The reporter says he was very sincere in this statement.

To mention your own objection, Rebecca…his own diaries and letters prove this interview to be a lie. Immediately after the Carthage killing, Law wrote that he was shocked and disgusted by what happened…and even then he justified the killings because Joseph had it coming to him.

But that’s the only time he ever wrote, in a journal or a letter, that he was disturbed by those events, and his own diaries and letters state that he WAS involved in them. He wrote several letters…that he had published…in which he justified the killings, saying that he was glad it happened, that JS and HS deserved it, and that all actions against the Mormons was not only justified, but praiseworthy.

Law’s intent was to bring to light the criminal and immoral activities of Smith and the higher leaders in mormonism.

By KILLING him? Remember, he and some friends of his actually conspired to assasinate JS before the events at Carthage jail.

He believed that Smith should have been tried in a court of law. He did not foresee the wrath that Smith would visit on him. The freezing of his property in Nauvoo so he could not sell it, an attempt on his life, the destruction of his property (the press). He and his wife fled for their lives, leaving everything they owned behind, to Ohio.

He did not foresee that reactions to his paper, by mormons and non-mormons alike, would bring death to Smith.

Rebecca. The man conspired to kill JS and HS (and this incident was NOT related to the Carthage killings, but happened a month or so preceeding that) and JS PAID FOR THE PRINTING PRESS.

In other words, Law’s claims are a little on the shady side, here. I can well believe that he and his wife had to 'flee for their lives…" but not because anybody was actually out to kill them. A person’s fears do not always reflect reality…even though, in Joseph’s case, they did.

As for 'leaving everything they owned behind…" well, since the man was part of the reason almost every Mormon in Nauvoo had to do the same thing…I guess he may have felt that he should share the pain. Of course, unlike the Mormons who were chased away from their homes, Law did not lose his health, family members or, in the long run, did he have to leave his very nation for fear of his neighbors.

 

[lax16]

I guess I must have forgotten to tell you, evidently, that I don’t feel persecuted nor do I feel the need to explain why I don’t. Got it? I have never in my life felt “persecuted”–not once.

What boggles my mind is why someone has any interest at all in someone who died 165 years ago when it has no bearing whatsoever on their life. His life has a bearing on my life–a very important one, so I have an interest, but I see no reason for yours.

Have a good day.

ParkerD- I respect your belief in Joseph Smith because it your right to believe as you wish, this is the good ol’ USofA. You are obviously a very nice, devout and respectable person.

Joseph Smith has a huge bearing on the lives of all of us. There are thousands of LDS missionaries out as we speak, spreading the word that the Mormon religion is true. He has told his followers for 165 years that the Catholic Church is not true (among a few other things!)

I think Catholics have been known, when it comes to understanding/practicing their own faith, for being asleep at the wheel. I think that is changing. Catholics want to know why our Church teaches what it does and why other religions teach what they do. We like to ask/debate various topics in religion. And we want to keep the faith of our children/friends/relatives alive in the Catholic Church. Because the Mormons rely very heavily on converts we have to know what you really believe so we can discuss it accurately with people.

I have tried, unsuccessfully, to ask “deep” questions re: Mormon beliefs to friends and Missionaries. Now I come to you (and the other Mormons on CAF). I am glad you don’t feel persecuted because I know sometimes you are facing some strong opposition.

I think many of us really need to understand the Mormon belief in a prophet that was, obviously, an extremely controversial person to all that are/were not Mormon. If he wasn’t, the conversations would be totally different! It is so hard to grasp, that I feel most of us can’t move on to other topics of the LDS faith.

It really shouldn’t have to be this difficult discussing the founder of one’s religion, but, for you it is.

 

[dianaiad]

ParkerD- I respect your belief in Joseph Smith because it your right to believe as you wish, this is the good ol’ USofA. You are obviously a very nice, devout and respectable person.

Joseph Smith has a huge bearing on the lives of all of us. There are thousands of LDS missionaries out as we speak, spreading the word that the Mormon religion is true. He has told his followers for 165 years that the Catholic Church is not true (among a few other things!)

I think Catholics have been known, when it comes to understanding/practicing their own faith, for being asleep at the wheel. I think that is changing. Catholics want to know why our Church teaches what it does and why other religions teach what they do. We like to ask/debate various topics in religion. And we want to keep the faith of our children/friends/relatives alive in the Catholic Church. Because the Mormons rely very heavily on converts we have to know what you really believe so we can discuss it accurately with people.

I have tried, unsuccessfully, to ask “deep” questions re: Mormon beliefs to friends and Missionaries. Now I come to you (and the other Mormons on CAF). I am glad you don’t feel persecuted because I know sometimes you are facing some strong opposition.

I think many of us really need to understand the Mormon belief in a prophet that was, obviously, an extremely controversial person to all that are/were not Mormon. If he wasn’t, the conversations would be totally different! It is so hard to grasp, that I feel most of us can’t move on to other topics of the LDS faith.

It really shouldn’t have to be this difficult discussing the founder of one’s religion, but, for you it is.

The problem is this:

Do you know how many of the very early Christians, including apostles and other leaders, were arrested, tried, convicted (or not…) and imprisoned for ‘crimes,’ and for breaking one or another law? Most, if not all, of them ended up being executed for those crimes.

Now if we were to discuss those men and leaders from the POV most take in regard to Joseph Smith, we would consider these men only from the angle of those who hated and feared them. We would point out all the charges that were leveled against them. We would quote all the harsh and critical things that were said about them. We would, in other words, assume that they actually committed all the crimes they were accused of, and were indeed guilty of being atheists, or inciting riots, or doing all the other things of which they were accused.

And we would conclude that they were charlatans, frauds and evil people.

But…we believe that they were apostles and prophets, and that their arrests, trials and ultimate fates were undeserved; that they were persecuted unjustly.

We believe that Joseph Smith was also the target of unfair and unjust persecution, because of his religion and beliefs. His neighbors liked him fine–until he claimed to be a prophet and then suddenly all sorts of nasty things began being said about him. He was arrested and charged for MANY things—specious charges. He was falsely imprisoned several times. He was never convicted of ANYthing. Ever. Not once…

But because you don’t like the man or believe in his claims, you instantly accept every negative thing that those who hate him say about him. It is natural. It is human nature…but we consider Joseph Smith to be on the same level as Peter and Paul…who also, by the way, were arrested, tried…and ultimately killed.

So if you think that we ‘don’t want to talk’ about the man and discuss his life in terms of what his enemies said about him, perhaps you might want to discuss the lives of Peter, Paul and the other apostles ONLY in terms of the charges laid against them, assuming (as you are assuming about those accusations against Joseph) that they are, of course, TRUE.

 

[lax16]

The problem is this:

Do you know how many of the very early Christians, including apostles and other leaders, were arrested, tried, convicted (or not…) and imprisoned for ‘crimes,’ and for breaking one or another law? Most, if not all, of them ended up being executed for those crimes.

Now if we were to discuss those men and leaders from the POV most take in regard to Joseph Smith, we would consider these men only from the angle of those who hated and feared them. We would point out all the charges that were leveled against them. We would quote all the harsh and critical things that were said about them. We would, in other words, assume that they actually committed all the crimes they were accused of, and were indeed guilty of being atheists, or inciting riots, or doing all the other things of which they were accused.

And we would conclude that they were charlatans, frauds and evil people.

But…we believe that they were apostles and prophets, and that their arrests, trials and ultimate fates were undeserved; that they were persecuted unjustly.

We believe that Joseph Smith was also the target of unfair and unjust persecution, because of his religion and beliefs. His neighbors liked him fine–until he claimed to be a prophet and then suddenly all sorts of nasty things began being said about him. He was arrested and charged for MANY things—specious charges. He was falsely imprisoned several times. He was never convicted of ANYthing. Ever. Not once…

But because you don’t like the man or believe in his claims, you instantly accept every negative thing that those who hate him say about him. It is natural. It is human nature…but we consider Joseph Smith to be on the same level as Peter and Paul…who also, by the way, were arrested, tried…and ultimately killed.

So if you think that we ‘don’t want to talk’ about the man and discuss his life in terms of what his enemies said about him, perhaps you might want to discuss the lives of Peter, Paul and the other apostles ONLY in terms of the charges laid against them, assuming (as you are assuming about those accusations against Joseph) that they are, of course, TRUE.

Dianaiad - I never said that you (or anyone else) can only talk about what Joseph Smith’s enemies said about him. Please, tell all you can about him as a prophet, as I would like to hear it.

As you know, I was answering to the comment that JS shouldn’t have a bearing on anyone else’s life.

I think it very interesting that Mormons consider him to be on the same level as Peter and Paul. What crimes did they commit, by the way? Yes, we should discuss the similarities/differences between JS and Peter, Paul and the other apostles.

 

[AtticusFinch]

To mention your own objection, Rebecca…his own diaries and letters prove this interview to be a lie. Immediately after the Carthage killing, Law wrote that he was shocked and disgusted by what happened…and even then he justified the killings because Joseph had it coming to him.

But that’s the only time he ever wrote, in a journal or a letter, that he was disturbed by those events, and his own diaries and letters state that he WAS involved in them. He wrote several letters…that he had published…in which he justified the killings, saying that he was glad it happened, that JS and HS deserved it, and that all actions against the Mormons was not only justified, but praiseworthy.

By KILLING him? Remember, he and some friends of his actually conspired to assasinate JS before the events at Carthage jail.

Rebecca. The man conspired to kill JS and HS (and this incident was NOT related to the Carthage killings, but happened a month or so preceeding that) and JS PAID FOR THE PRINTING PRESS.

In other words, Law’s claims are a little on the shady side, here. I can well believe that he and his wife had to 'flee for their lives…" but not because anybody was actually out to kill them. A person’s fears do not always reflect reality…even though, in Joseph’s case, they did.

As for 'leaving everything they owned behind…" well, since the man was part of the reason almost every Mormon in Nauvoo had to do the same thing…I guess he may have felt that he should share the pain. Of course, unlike the Mormons who were chased away from their homes, Law did not lose his health, family members or, in the long run, did he have to leave his very nation for fear of his neighbors.

Rebecca, apparently it is ok for Joseph to try to kill Law and take HIS stuff and freeze HIS stuff, but HORRIBLE if Law tries to do the same and Mormons lose mormon possessions. Diana has always justified what Mormons do and when the same things happen TO mormons, Diana always finds ways to justify it

 

[AtticusFinch]

The problem is this:

Do you know how many of the very early Christians, including apostles and other leaders, were arrested, tried, convicted (or not…) and imprisoned for ‘crimes,’ and for breaking one or another law? Most, if not all, of them ended up being executed for those crimes.

Not one law or another. It always had to do with preaching the Gospel.

Now if we were to discuss those men and leaders from the POV most take in regard to Joseph Smith, we would consider these men only from the angle of those who hated and feared them. We would point out all the charges that were leveled against them. We would quote all the harsh and critical things that were said about them. We would, in other words, assume that they actually committed all the crimes they were accused of, and were indeed guilty of being atheists, or inciting riots, or doing all the other things of which they were accused.

And we would conclude that they were charlatans, frauds and evil people.

Wow. How can you possibly be this dishonest? You cannot compare Joseph to the real Apostles. The real ones were jailed for preaching the gospel. They were never accused of treasure hunting, bank fraud, stealing wives, adultry, destruction of personal property, etc etc etc. Stop the silly and insulting comparisons

We believe that Joseph Smith was also the target of unfair and unjust persecution, because of his religion and beliefs.

And because of treasure digging, and because of bank fraud, and because of stealing wives and because of adultry, etc etc etc.

His neighbors liked him fine–until he claimed to be a prophet and then suddenly all sorts of nasty things began being said about him. He was arrested and charged for MANY things—specious charges. He was falsely imprisoned several times. He was never convicted of ANYthing. Ever. Not once…

He was convicted in New York for treasure digging. Other cases were dropped when he fled various states, so no trial could be conducted. Other charges were dropped when Mormon judges granted Habeus Corpus to charges from other places. So, it is a bit disingenuous to say he was never convicted. We could say the same thing about Hitler. he was accused of lots of stuff and never convicted. Does that mean he was not guilty?

But because you don’t like the man or believe in his claims, you instantly accept every negative thing that those who hate him say about him. It is natural. It is human nature…but we consider Joseph Smith to be on the same level as Peter and Paul…who also, by the way, were arrested, tried…and ultimately killed.

But who never defrauded people out of their money, had sex with teenagers, committed adultry, etc etc etc

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca, apparently it is ok for Joseph to try to kill Law and take HIS stuff and freeze HIS stuff, but HORRIBLE if Law tries to do the same and Mormons lose mormon possessions. Diana has always justified what Mormons do and when the same things happen TO mormons, Diana always finds ways to justify it

AtticusFinch- Yes, LDS leaders can do no wrong, and it is the road to apostasy to speak against them. It is why they won’t, or can’t do it. They fear an objective look, as they are taught to fear seeing the truth. ALL IS WELL!

 

[lax16]

Lax16,
1–The “offensiveness” came when people merely read about Joseph Smith in his day. Many people who had read about him in newspapers, when they actually met him or heard him speak, changed their opinion quite dramatically. Today people who read his history may react in many different ways, depending on what parts of his history they read and whether a source gives a balanced picture or an already judged-and-condemned picture.

But yes, a “prophet” may be considered offensive to some people right off the bat, especially if they have been told all their life that there will be no more prophets on the earth and thus any so-called “prophet” must be a false prophet. Then all they are going to be looking for is proof that what they were taught is right, and when they do they will go on their way and say to themselves–“See, I knew I was right.” Especially is this true when their beliefs may be challenged by what a “prophet” teaches. It has to do with expectations. I doubt that I need to review with you that Christ was not accepted by many important people (such as the Sanhedrin) who thought they had every reason to reject His teachings based on their knowledge of the Old Testament writings and what they had been taught.

2–By that criteria, Abraham would have had to be considered a “failure” also with regard to “thou shalt not kill.” Joshua also. (They both responded by doing what God had commanded them to do, and it was contrary to what they knew to be true from the Ten commandments teachings. Yet, they did it anyway, or in Abraham’s case he was about to when he was stopped having “passed” the test of faith.)

God would do that because this life is indeed a test of faith, and that faith needs to be tried by some kinds of verification processes that bring people “to their knees” (in prayer) and “to their heart” (in real inner pondering to find out what their true motives are and whether the Holy Spirit can really be involved in their life to help them do things that their status quo desires would not lead them to do, like really repent of “hidden sins”.)

3–Abraham and Joshua. (But don’t anybody say that leads to a worry about an LDS prophet today saying such a thing needs to occur, because our faith is going to be tested by different things than their faith was tested.)

4–If you’re talking about plural marriage, then Jacob (Israel) had that in his life and it involved covenant marriages, and led to having the twelve tribes of Israel that are talked about throughout the Old Testament from then on, and are part of prophecies for the last days.

If you’re talking about “adultery”, then I disagree that Joseph Smith committed “adultery” and I think it is demonstrated by DNA studies that have been done since, that Joseph Smith did not commit “adultery” with the wives of other men, but that he had “sealings” that were based on an understanding he had been allowed to have that was not fully developed regarding what “sealings” would be needed to help “exalt” people. “Revelation” does not necessarily come to a prophet all at once in perfect and final form. “Revelation” comes as a prophet asks questions, acts, asks more questions, acts some more, and so forth. Joseph Smith asked why Jacob (Israel) had plural marriage, and God answered with a revelation but it was not what Joseph Smith had been looking for–it was a “test” that he received rather than an explanation with no test attached. Yet it was a revelation that came “by degrees” and involved the sealing power that would be fully restored in 1836 but not be fully understood until the temple was operating in 1846, after Joseph Smith had been killed.

ParkerD- Please elaborate on your explanation about DNA studies demonstrating that JS did not commit adultry but rather had “sealings.” Provide your sources as well.

Would you say that most people would find killing a loved one difficult?
Would you say that most people would find an intimate encounter with a loved one not difficult?
Do you believe God created JS as a man, possessing human feelings and emotions, or was he something other than human? To engage in intimate encounters was somehow different for JS. Why?

Again you bring up God wanting this of JS. Did God ask the other men to do this or did the command come from God to JS to the men? Was it so very difficult for the other men to engage in these relationships as well? If so, why?
Why would God require these other men to engage in this? Were they also being tested by God?

 

[twopekinguys]

ParkerD- Please elaborate on your explanation about DNA studies demonstrating that JS did not commit adultry but rather had “sealings.” Provide your sources as well.

Would you say that most people would find killing a loved one difficult?
Would you say that most people would find an intimate encounter with a loved one not difficult?9
Do you believe God created JS as a man, possessing human feelings and emotions, or was he something other than human? To engage in intimate encounters was somehow different for JS. Why?

Again you bring up God wanting this of JS. Did God ask the other men to do this or did the command come from God to JS to the men? Was it so very difficult for the other men to engage in these relationships as well? If so, why?
Why would God require these other men to engage in this? Were they also being tested by God?

I find it interesting in the D & C 132, there is this quote;
“Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives. HC 5: 501–507. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.”

So there was a 10 year gap between when JS received the “revelation”, and when he disclosed it?

Do you think he forgot, or do you think he didn’t need to reveal it until he got caught?

Most mormons won’t look at him as having committed adultery since he was “sealed”(mormon marriage) to these women. Notice how parker has put the word adultery in quotes. It is a matter of semantics. (well no, it wasn’t adultery, they were sealed/married, and it was voluntary). Never mind the law of the land stated it was.

Dictionary. com shows Adultery as:
–noun,plural-ter·ies.
voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse.

Since mormons believe he was “married” to his 33 wives, he wasn’t commiting adultery. Even though some of the women were already married to other men.

 

[lax16]

dianaiad;6439405:

The problem is this:

Do you know how many of the very early Christians, including apostles and other leaders, were arrested, tried, convicted (or not…) and imprisoned for ‘crimes,’ and for breaking one or another law? Most, if not all, of them ended up being executed for those crimes.

Not one law or another. It always had to do with preaching the Gospel.

Now if we were to discuss those men and leaders from the POV most take in regard to Joseph Smith, we would consider these men only from the angle of those who hated and feared them. We would point out all the charges that were leveled against them. We would quote all the harsh and critical things that were said about them. We would, in other words, assume that they actually committed all the crimes they were accused of, and were indeed guilty of being atheists, or inciting riots, or doing all the other things of which they were accused.

And we would conclude that they were charlatans, frauds and evil people.

Wow. How can you possibly be this dishonest? You cannot compare Joseph to the real Apostles. The real ones were jailed for preaching the gospel. They were never accused of treasure hunting, bank fraud, stealing wives, adultry, destruction of personal property, etc etc etc. Stop the silly and insulting comparisons

We believe that Joseph Smith was also the target of unfair and unjust persecution, because of his religion and beliefs.

And because of treasure digging, and because of bank fraud, and because of stealing wives and because of adultry, etc etc etc.

His neighbors liked him fine–until he claimed to be a prophet and then suddenly all sorts of nasty things began being said about him. He was arrested and charged for MANY things—specious charges. He was falsely imprisoned several times. He was never convicted of ANYthing. Ever. Not once…

He was convicted in New York for treasure digging. Other cases were dropped when he fled various states, so no trial could be conducted. Other charges were dropped when Mormon judges granted Habeus Corpus to charges from other places. So, it is a bit disingenuous to say he was never convicted. We could say the same thing about Hitler. he was accused of lots of stuff and never convicted. Does that mean he was not guilty?

But because you don’t like the man or believe in his claims, you instantly accept every negative thing that those who hate him say about him. It is natural. It is human nature…but we consider Joseph Smith to be on the same level as Peter and Paul…who also, by the way, were arrested, tried…and ultimately killed.

But who never defrauded people out of their money, had sex with teenagers, committed adultry, etc etc etc

Yes, Atticus, that’s what I was thinking. You said it perfectly.
To even insinuate the apostles engaged in unlawful activities other than spreading the Gospel…
Dianaiad, you can’t mean this. What DO you mean?

 

[lax16]

I find it interesting in the D & C 132, there is this quote;
“Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives. HC 5: 501–507. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.”

So there was a 10 year gap between when JS received the “revelation”, and when he disclosed it?

Do you think he forgot, or do you think he didn’t need to reveal it until he got caught?

Most mormons won’t look at him as having committed adultery since he was “sealed”(mormon marriage) to these women. Notice how parker has put the word adultery in quotes. It is a matter of semantics. (well no, it wasn’t adultery, they were sealed/married, and it was voluntary). Never mind the law of the land stated it was.

Dictionary. com shows Adultery as:
–noun,plural-ter·ies.
voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse.

Since mormons believe he was “married” to his 33 wives, he wasn’t commiting adultery. Even though some of the women were already married to other men.

I thought I read (anti-Mormon source?) that he had a “relationship” with a woman that was discovered by his wife Emma. He couldn’t have been sealed to the other woman without his first wife’s permission, could he? Did he engage in relationships with women prior to being sealed to them or were the relationships made public first?

I don’t know how sealings are/were handled.

 

[twopekinguys]

I thought I read (anti-Mormon source?) that he had a “relationship” with a woman that was discovered by his wife Emma. He couldn’t have been sealed to the other woman without his first wife’s permission, could he? Did he engage in relationships with women prior to being sealed to them or were the relationships made public first?

I don’t know how sealings are/were handled.

It has been said that Emma caught Joseph with Fanny Alger (the first of the multiple wives), while doing the deed so to speak.

Former apostle William McLellin: “Again I told her (Emma) I heard that one night she missed Joseph and Fannie Alger. She went to the barn and saw him and Fanny in the barn together alone. She looked through the crack and saw the transaction!! She told me this story too was verily true.”

Now granted, this is going to come from what some people will call an anti mormon site (only because it doesn’t portray js in a good light), but there are several other quotes there, including a quote from one of BY’s future plural wives.

mormoncurtain.com/topic_emmasmith.html

Take notice at the top of the page where there was an interview of Emma, and she denied knowledge of polygamy.

Notice to, that many mormons will say they weren’t “wives”, but they were sealed. It’s a matter of using the same definition of a word when you have a discussion.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I find it interesting in the D & C 132, there is this quote;
“Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives. HC 5: 501–507. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.”

So there was a 10 year gap between when JS received the “revelation”, and when he disclosed it?

Do you think he forgot, or do you think he didn’t need to reveal it until he got caught?

Most mormons won’t look at him as having committed adultery since he was “sealed”(mormon marriage) to these women. Notice how parker has put the word adultery in quotes. It is a matter of semantics. (well no, it wasn’t adultery, they were sealed/married, and it was voluntary). Never mind the law of the land stated it was.

Dictionary. com shows Adultery as:
–noun,plural-ter·ies.
voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse.

Since mormons believe he was “married” to his 33 wives, he wasn’t commiting adultery. Even though some of the women were already married to other men.

Good question twopekinguys.

What caught my eye was the ‘new and everlasting’ covenant. Exactly what is meant by ‘new and everlasting’ covenant. If there was a ‘new and everlasting’ covenant, what does this make Jesus’ words about the new and everlasting covenant?

 

[dianaiad]

Dianaiad - I never said that you (or anyone else) can only talk about what Joseph Smith’s enemies said about him. Please, tell all you can about him as a prophet, as I would like to hear it.

As you know, I was answering to the comment that JS shouldn’t have a bearing on anyone else’s life.

I think it very interesting that Mormons consider him to be on the same level as Peter and Paul. What crimes did they commit, by the way? Yes, we should discuss the similarities/differences between JS and Peter, Paul and the other apostles.

What crimes did Peter and Paul commit?

Well, from the Christian POV, of course, they didn’t commit any. However, from the POV of the Romans and according to the laws of the land they lived in, well…

Oddly enough, Paul was also charged with treason, and was imprisoned for two years as a result. All told, he spent at least 51/2 years either in prison or under house arrest at various times of his life before his execution, probably by beheading.

Acts describes several incidents of arrests and the legally sanctioned deaths of the apostles (and one miraculous prison escape…).

Therefore the authorities of the time figured that they had committed crimes, no matter what WE think of the matter now.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Take notice at the top of the page where there was an interview of Emma, and she denied knowledge of polygamy.

She denied to her death that Smith was married to anyone but her. I suspect it was out of an interest of not sharing any inheritance. He owned, and she had under her name, ownership of many properties in Nauvoo.

 

[ParkerD]

I thought I read (anti-Mormon source?) that he had a “relationship” with a woman that was discovered by his wife Emma. He couldn’t have been sealed to the other woman without his first wife’s permission, could he? Did he engage in relationships with women prior to being sealed to them or were the relationships made public first?

I don’t know how sealings are/were handled.

Lax16,
It sounds to me like you’re getting the answers you want from the people you trust, so this is fine with me–I need not participate. I will assure you, however, that any man who accuses Joseph Smith of a sexual need reason for plural marriage either may have an issue themselves or has not studied the depth of Joseph Smith’s love for the Bible and for the commandments and therefore is merely spouting off what they have read from sources who again, have no first-hand knowledge or had a reason to spread a rumor.

Chastity is the easiest commandment in the world to keep, including anything like unto it such as getting an issue with pornography or personal issues related. So all my thoughts are when I read people accusing Joseph Smith of such, is that they have a problem themselves or that they need to tear down another because they cannot prop up their own faith, which would be because they do not feel the Holy Spirit in their own life or their own teachings.

You can google any subject you like and find any sort of answer you want to find–the accusatory kind or the DNA study kind. Good old internet–friend or foe–you choose. Peace and best wishes.