Polygamy Denials In Times & Seasons

[Deborah]

Matt. 23:

29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,

  30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

  31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.

  32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

  33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

  34

[KevinG]

Do you think that Proverbs 3:5 means that we should not USE our understanding?

No, that would be silly.

When you protest that a prophet isn't acting according to how you think he should be acting you may consider the possibility that you and the Lord don't think alike.

[Dale]

Yes he did take wives before Emma knew. Emma even signed the statement denying plural marriage when it was going on and she did not know. In fact, her RS secretary Eliza Snow was married to Joseph at that time, and Emma did not know. Her second counselor's daughter was also married to Joseph at that time and she did not know. The two women knew and deceived her as well and let her lend her name to a lie. But they justified it by using what they believed were different words. They did not practice spiritual wifery or polygamy so they could deny it. They practiced celestial marriage.

Later when Emma knew she was at a marriage ceremony for two women who married Joseph, the Partridge girls if I recall. But they had married Joseph previously. SO even that had some element of subterfuge towards Emma.

RSR and Mormon Enigma document this information.

Teancum

Yes a first marriage was claimed by the Partridge sisters. But their date for the second marriage on May 11th 1843 is bonified perjury, Joseph's diary had him to busy. And James Adam's was not in Nauvoo at the time to perform the ceremony. Eliza Snow legally invalidated her claim when she signed the Voice of Innocence in Nauvoo which exonerated Joseph Smith of polygamy. Judge Phillips in the Temple Lot case found out about this and said under U.S. law because she signed such statements she was not Joseph's wife. Joseph Smith 3rd had met Lucy Walker & mElissa Lott Willis, and he felt they were lying about being earthly wives of his father.

[Thinking]

When you protest that a prophet isn't acting according to how you think he should be acting you may consider the possibility that you and the Lord don't think alike.

I must also consider the possibility that the alleged prophet is the one who doesn't think like the Lord. Christ warned us to beware of false prophets. I'm just following HIS advice.

[Scott Lloyd]

When you protest that a prophet isn't acting according to how you think he should be acting you may consider the possibility that you and the Lord don't think alike.

I must also consider the possibility that the alleged prophet is the one who doesn't think like the Lord. Christ warned us to beware of false prophets. I'm just following HIS advice.

How about this bit from "alleged prophet" Isaiah?

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isa. 55:8-9)

[Deborah]

Christ warned us to beware of false prophets. I'm just following HIS advice.

If he warned of false prophets then there must also be true prophets. We must learn to discern between the two. Joseph Smith was a true prophet and I find remarks calling him names very offensive especially when a person has no true knowledge of all the facts.

[Scott Lloyd]

Illegality and deception are the two key words here.

Good. Then you'll be happy to know that Smith practice of plural marriage in Illinois was not a violation of the illinois law at the time.

C.I.

I believe you are incorrect.

Teancum

Since CI is a practicing attorney, you may want to be ready with some legal documentation.

On the other hand, it's possible CI might not get back to the thread -- in which case, you may be off the hook.

[Scott Lloyd]

This has already been intimated in some of the posts here, so pardon if I'm being repetitive.

But the opening post of this thread seems to function on the assumption that deceptiveness is always wrong. Is that necessarily the case?

If during World War II, I'm hiding Jewish refugees in my attic, and brownshirts storm my home and demand to know if there are any Jews on the premises, I tell them no. And I feel just fine about doing so.

There has already been an accusation of situational ethics made on this thread. Call it what you will: I maintain there is a higher form of morality and ethics that requires one to weigh the consequences of one's words and to act accordingly.

[juliann]

How can "plural marriage" ever be against the law? They weren't married by the state, thus committing bigamy where you enter into more than one legally sanctioned marriage. From a civil perspective, it is adultery at best. There are going to be a lot of people in trouble if the state comes down on people who have affairs or live together without a legal marriage to accompany it.

[Thinking]

This has already been intimated in some of the posts here, so pardon if I'm being repetitive.

But the opening post of this thread seems to function on the assumption that deceptiveness is always wrong. Is that necessarily the case?

If during World War II, I'm hiding Jewish refugees in my attic, and brownshirts storm my home and demand to know if there are any Jews on the premises, I tell them no. And I feel just fine about doing so.

There has already been an accusation of situational ethics made on this thread. Call it what you will: I maintain there is a higher form of morality and ethics that requires one to weigh the consequences of one's words and to act accordingly.

Which begs the question, "Was the practice of plural marriage a higher morality than telling the truth?"

[Thinking]

Christ warned us to beware of false prophets. I'm just following HIS advice.

If he warned of false prophets then there must also be true prophets. We must learn to discern between the two. Joseph Smith was a true prophet and I find remarks calling him names very offensive especially when a person has no true knowledge of all the facts.

Do you have a true knowledge of all the facts?

[Thinking]

When you protest that a prophet isn't acting according to how you think he should be acting you may consider the possibility that you and the Lord don't think alike.

I must also consider the possibility that the alleged prophet is the one who doesn't think like the Lord. Christ warned us to beware of false prophets. I'm just following HIS advice.

How about this bit from "alleged prophet" Isaiah?

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isa. 55:8-9)

This scripture says the "Lord's" thoughts are higher than mine. It doesn't say "Joseph Smith's" thoughts are higher than mine. It only compares a person to the Lord, not to a "prophet."

I could use that same scripture also. For example, "For my thoughts are not Joseph Smith's thoughts, neither are his ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than his ways and my thoughts than his thoughts."

My example is just as "out of context" as yours. Using your logic any proclaimed prophet could quote Isaiah to discourage people from questioning him.

[Deborah]

Do you have a true knowledge of all the facts?

No one knows all the facts of that time. That is the point. My testimony of Joseph Smith comes from statements of those who knew him best and stood by him even willing to die with him, and of his teachings and of the fruits of those teachings. The spirit has borne witness of these things and the falsehoods others teach are attempts to smear a man who was all too human but nevertheless did what God asked of him to the giving of his life. I do not trust anyone in or out of the church whose goal is to smear another person's reputation, especially when that person is not able to defend himself.

[Fisher-King]

Illinois was part of the United States at that time and the Mormons were surrounded by people who would not have taken kindly to polygamy, let alone some of the members who were not aware of it and had not yet been sold on the idea. Keeping such a practice under wraps was simply in response to what would have been an avalanche of condemnation and intervention. In the safety of Utah were the Church was the law, it could be practiced openly, at least for several decades before it was curtailed within the main group.

But can we not see the persecution that the early Christians went through? Still they stood on the foundation God left. I know that God's truth, and only God's truth can make a person like David take on a giant like Goliath.

I don't think "persecution" of polygamyst beliefs is an excuse if they truly believe that God was on their side over it. I mean truly and honestly BELIEVED it; knew it in their hearts as Paul or Peter knew the gospel of Christ during the time that christians were being killed.

[smac97]

How can "plural marriage" ever be against the law?  They weren't married  by the state, thus committing bigamy where you enter into more than one legally sanctioned marriage.  From a civil perspective,  it is adultery at best.  There are going to be a lot of people in trouble if the state comes down on people who have affairs or live together without a legal marriage to accompany it.

Plural marriage can be against the law. Take Utah's bigamy statute, for example:

A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.

Utah Code Ann.

[Thinking]

No one knows all the facts of that time. That is the point. My testimony of Joseph Smith comes from statements of those who knew him best and stood by him even willing to die with him, and of his teachings and of the fruits of those teachings.

Let me see if I understand you.

Because I don't know all the facts, I have no business making a judgement about whether JS was a prophet.

Even though you don't know all the facts, you are 100%, without a doubt, there's nothing you could discover about JS that would change your mind, positive that he was a prophet.

The spirit has borne witness of these things and the falsehoods others teach are attempts to smear a man who was all too human but nevertheless did what God asked of him to the giving of his life.

What falsehoods? Is it false that he married other men's wives? Is it false that he married a 14 (almost 15) year-old girl? Is it false that he denied publicly that he had more than one wife?

Also, JS did not "give" his life. The mob was wrong for killing him, but his life was taken, it was not given.

I do not trust anyone in or out of the church whose goal is to smear another person's reputation, especially when that person is not able to defend himself.

If I claimed to be a prophet (and I make no such claim), I should and would be thoroughly investigated. If negative (but true) things are discoverd and communicated, am I being smeared? No!

If JS makes a public claim, but it is discovered that he was not truthful, are those that communicate the truth "smearing" his reputation?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "not able to defend himself."

[Deborah]

Because I don't know all the facts, I have no business making a judgement about whether JS was a prophet....

What falsehoods?

Also, JS did not "give" his life. The mob was wrong for killing him, but his life was taken, it was not given.

If JS makes a public claim, but it is discovered that he was not truthful, are those that communicate the truth "smearing" his reputation?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "not able to defend himself."

Making a judgement about whether he was a prophet or not has nothing to do with making derogatory comments about his character. Even were I to decide he wasn't a prophet I wouldn't tear him down as a person.

The falsehoods are in the judgement of a man's character outside the context of time and place and are based on "evidence" that can be refuted and has been on this site numerous times.

What an idiotic statement. So Jesus didn't give his life either because the Romans killed him. Joseph indeed gave his life. He turned himself in knowing and so stating that he was going like a lamb to the slaughter. He did it to prevent further wrath coming down on his people. He could at any time have avoided such a thing by renouncing his faith.

Again the problem is what is truth? To say you know the facts is not truthful because no one does. You have obtained your facts from questionable and biased sources. It is one thing to get what you think are facts and quite another to then interpret those in such a way that you use such perjorative terms about his character such as "liar" and "deceiver." Again you would have to make the same claims about Abraham and Isaac using that standard. If someone isn't totally forthright about something which others (like you) would use to persecute and villify, that doesn't make his character lying and deceitful. Those are terms that define a personality that seeks to get gain and hurt others, not someone who may at a time seek to protect himself and others.

[why me]

My gosh, here we are back ot polygamy again. It seems that certain people have a fixation about it. I wonder why is keeps coming on up on the threads...and yet, nothing is really solved.

Okay, lets get to the deceit. Yes they did. Now what? FIrst, after getting my butt kicked around the country for being a mormon, I would also be a little deceitful about my current practices. I would do so to protect my myself, family and the church. God gave me the ability to reason and I would use my reasoning powers accordingly. So yes, I would be deceitful to protect that which I cherish, the true church of god. Now does that sound hypocritical? Yes, but then again I am only human and as such I can seem to do hypocritical things. Now someone can try and make hay out of it. Fine, be my guest.

Now to emma because the dude has a fixation on this too. I do believe that JS wished for a more simple life. I mean, there he was a farmer, not rich living in peace with his crazy friends and attempting to be a good son and brother. Not a bad life if one thinks about it.

Now suddenly he has visions and presto, his life changes. Or good ol' sidney shows up and offers JS a deal he can't refuse. Either way, I would be very pissed at my new situation especially if it was due to sidney. In fact after losing two children, a brother and having my butt moved from place to place by inhospitable people, I would be downright wishing for my old life back...and me being who I am would have high tailed it back to palmyra long ago, if it was all due to sidney.

But on the other hand, if it was due to god, having chosen me to be his prophet in the last dispensation, well...I am afraid that I would feel little choice in the matter and go with the polygamy thing. What to do?

JS made his decision. Get over it. Stop crying for emma...your tears are false tears...she stayed with her husband, cried at his funeral and loved him dearly and yes, she believed in his devine calling as prophet and never denied her husband's calling during her latter years.

Cry for JS's two children, his brothers and cry for JS himself since all died in the cause of truth. They are the victims....Emma did just fine except she lost her husband to an unruly mob and she lost her children also to a different mob action. Cry about that.

[Dale]

I have not yet seen any evidence that Joseph Smith lied accept to rely on historians favorite quotations, and commentary. Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy by Richard & Pamela Price tells the truth about Joseph Smith and polygamy. http://www.restorationbookstore.org online in the JSFP section. Most scholars want to keep the real Joseph Smith who was innocent of earthly polygamy hidden from their readers.

[Thinking]

The falsehoods are in the judgement of a man's character outside the context of time and place and are based on "evidence" that can be refuted and has been on this site numerous times.

Please be more specific. What evidence can you refute?

Making a judgement about whether he was a prophet or not has nothing to do with making derogatory comments about his character. Even were I to decide he wasn't a prophet I wouldn't tear him down as a person...What an idiotic statement.

You have used derogatory remarks about me.

So Jesus didn't give his life either because the Romans killed him. Joseph indeed gave his life. He turned himself in knowing and so stating that he was going like a lamb to the slaughter. He did it to prevent further wrath coming down on his people. He could at any time have avoided such a thing by renouncing his faith.

Jesus had the power to stop His crucifixion without renouncing His faith.

You have obtained your facts from questionable and biased sources.

Which of my sources are you talking about? You have been very non-specific in you rebuttal.

[Orpheus]

Let me see if I understand you.

Because I don't know all the facts, I have no business making a judgement about whether JS was a prophet.

What you and other posters have no business doing is calling LDS Church leaders liars, no matter how you couch it.

The facts concerning this subject are not complete enough for either side to make an ultimate declaration of the truth, only discuss likelyhoods and evidences.

When a discussion devlolves into this level of argument it is finished.