Could Joseph Smith be a "Fallen Prophet"

[Guest Lori]

It seems bizzare to me that someone could get all worked up today about a principle which the Church has not practiced in more than a century. All these "would you let your husband or wife do this or that" questions are pointless, because the Lord does not command or even allow polygamy at this time in his Church.

It is important to confront polygamy in the plan of salvation. It is required for exaltation if you believe in the old prophets. Also when the Saviour comes again it will be on the earth again. (again-according to our prophets)

[Confidential Informant]

Trolling, trolling, trolling on the message board (sung to the tune of CCR's "Rolling on the River"

C.I.

[GravyBoat]

I can't believe you are honest here.

[Tarski]

It seems bizzare to me that someone could get all worked up today about a principle which the Church has not practiced in more than a century.

Most people feel that if the church wasn't true before then it can't be true now. So history matters. Also, is HF going to give up his many wives now and what about JS and BY up there in the CK?

[Tchild2]

A prophet can't fall, if they never were a prophet in the first place. There are lots of self proclaimed prophets. Go deeper and ask yourself if Joseph Smith ever was a prophet to begin with; a prophet in the sense that he was called of God.

What kind of God hinges eternal salvation on the vagaries of human frailities...a God made in man's image.

[Zakuska]

regardless she did concede and received her endowment and second anointing. After that she granted permission for Joseph to marry a number of women, 5 or 6 if I recall. But then she started having second thoughts. She booted Eliza out as well as the Partridge sisters.

I wouldn't want any of the partidge family under my roof either.

[Zakuska]

T,

Did you miss this?

I wouldnt be suprised if there are some.

[Jarrod]

It seems bizzare to me that someone could get all worked up today about a principle which the Church has not practiced in more than a century. All these "would you let your husband or wife do this or that" questions are pointless, because the Lord does not command or even allow polygamy at this time in his Church.

It is important to confront polygamy in the plan of salvation. It is required for exaltation if you believe in the old prophets. Also when the Saviour comes again it will be on the earth again. (again-according to our prophets) So why are you pushing it under the rug?

Lori, I wish I could buy you lunch or something. I totally agree with what you're saying. When I was a devout Mormon, I'd arrive at the same conclusions about these doctrines and the need to understand them. There are all kinds of folks out there, and I happen to be the kind that needs to understand something and really believe it before I can agree or submit to it. Even if it supposedly isn't going to happen until I reach the kingdom of heaven.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that understanding the principle of plural marriage must be essential to the plan of salvation, at least if we take our religious obligations as seriously as we've been commanded. We can't have it both ways, requiring that we believe Joseph Smith restored the gospel while not really caring if plural marriage was a part of that restoration. Plural marriage wasn't given as a simple means of populating the church (thought that might have had something to do with it); it was given as a principle of righteousness. Yes, there was righteousness in following the commandment, but plural marriage was itself given as a requirement of the highest exaltation, as much as baptism was. The original meaning of the New and Everlasting Covenant was plural marriage, not just the sealing ordinance.

Even if we admit that the commandment of plural marriage is not currently in force, the implications still exist and are as relevant now as they ever were. The Mormon prophets have been clear about the need for plural marriage, its requirement for exaltation, and its accessibility in the next life for those who were not able to practice it while on the earth.

Like I said in another thread on this topic, the defenses asserted here by those who believe plural marriage is divine but not necessary, betray a distaste for the very thing they are claiming to defend. If we are to believe all that Joseph and Brigham (and John and Wilford) preached on this, we have no choice but to anticipate that all devout Mormons will someday practice plural marriage, along with every inhabitant of the highest degree in the Celestial Kingdom.

[Zakuska]

So you would honestly live with your wife and endure her having sex and loving another husband while you share her with whoever she desires to espouse?

Wow, you are amazing!

I told you. I would have to pray about it.

My sister put up with a man who for 13 years continually stepped out on her. he was also abusive. She finally put her foot down last year.

Theres a big diference between sneaking around about it (Yes Joseph may have initially) and living it in the open as an enternal principle. I mean... who hasnt heard of Bringams 34!?

[Zakuska]

My wife and I have talked about this at great lengths.

[Zakuska]

Lori,

Have you looked at the structure of family and how it contradicts everything to have 30 or 50 wives. What makes righteous seed? I thought it was a father and mother raising children together teaching by example. Not just royal blood. IF it's all about blood then why do people make such a big deal about single moms not having a father in the home? Polygamous wives were on their own.

If you read all about Brigham and others it was all about building up their kingdom and reigning like God.

Western family structure != Eastern Family Structure

What makes Western culture superior to the east?

And whats more... you are fousting 21st century western cultural forcasts onto the past.

[Teancum]

And if it's reasonable for JSIII to know what Julia knew, is it not reasonable that Emma knew and, at least at some point, gave approval?

How do you explain Emma having no clue in Relief Society and Joseph being sealed twice to the Partridge sisters? Yes at some point she did know but it's unclear if she knew there was sex involved. Joseph was secretive and Emma was lied to until she consented. (if you believe history)

Did you not read my great-great aunt's holograph? The Partridge girls and Eliza (at very least) were living in the Mansion House, helping with the housework.

Emma knew. Everybody knows she knew. But she couldn't live with her affection for her sister-wives and her idealized (falsely) conception of JSJr. after his death. I don't blame her for her later lies or her flipflopping. It must've been horrible for her to know what JSJr. told her was true, even though it necessarily required her to make a sacrifice of everything she previously thought she knew.

How must Sarah have felt when Abraham took off with Isaac? Nobody much speaks of her sacrifice, yet sacrifice she did, just as profoundly as Abraham.

"Where much is given, much is expected." Emma, the elect lady, knew what was expected and tried to do it. That she ultimately failed is only evidence of her humanity. Who (other than BY) faults her for that?

Yes, yes Emma knew.

And yes some of JS's wives lived inthe Mansion House.

BUT,

she did not know at first and quite a few marriages had taken place before she knew.

And two of her best friends were married to HER husband and SHE did not know for some time.

Teancum

[Magyar]

What I tried to say, in which I was badly misunderstood, is that plural marriage was a principle ordained of God, for the 19th century Church as well as in the days of Abraham. I have no doubt about that. I have no doubt about the inspiration of our prophets then and now.

That being said, it's over today. I feel no need to get worked up about how it worked out back then, or to ask present day Saints how it might apply in their lives. Because we aren't asked to live it now.

It would make as much sense as to ask my LDS buddy whether or not he had been circumcised and would he leave the Church if GBH commanded him to undergo the procedure or to perform it on his son. Or to anguish over the challenges of living the United Order.

And nice try, whoever that was, digging up that old barb about Heavenly Father and his marital status. We have a Heavenly Mother. That is all we have been taught. That is the limit of Church doctrine.

If you believe, Lori, that the Church is true, then you believe that the Lord's prophets do not give false revelations. Not now, not ever. That is why antis try so hard to prove that JS and BY did give false revelations. Prophets can offer opinions, just as Paul did, which we are free to consider or discard. But plural marriage was a revelation, not an opinion.

[USU78]

Unfortunately, nobody knows the answer to the following pickle:

Yes, yes Emma knew.  And yes some of JS's wives lived inthe Mansion House.  BUT, she did not know at first and quite a few marriages had taken place before she knew.  And two of her best friends were married to HER husband and SHE did not know for some time.

I'm not smart enough and don't know enough to judge JSJr. on this, nor am I smart enough or know enough to judge Emma's later failures.

BUT,

I'm unaware of anybody else who is smart enough or knows enough, because it's just not knowable.

So, whaddawe do about it? Lori teeters on the brink of apostacy because she can't reconcile her own feelings with what her great-great-great grandparents went through. It isn't asked of her or us, yet she obsesses about it. Why? Who knows. All we can do is provide her with gentle and reasonable corrections where her reasoning fails her (her claimed testimony of JSJr. as prophet vs. her inability to process polygyny as coming from the same prophetic source as the BoM). The imponderables like whether JSJr. misled Emma at some point are not central to her question, though they may be to yours. Let's stay on point, if we can, and help her through this difficult time, shall we?

[leeuniverse]

Is there any men here who have HONESTLY considered this if it were reversed? 

As to the fruits of it, that is yet to be proven, but you are lieing to yourself and me to pretend there wasn't sex!

Jealousy is not an issue here.  Honesty is.

Sorry, but your lying to yourself.... Prove there WAS any "sex" especially with any of the already married women?

Joseph taught the "spiritual" practice of plural marriage. Whether he got some physically who knows, that's his problem. But all of his marriages BEFORE AND AFTER HIS DEATH was an Ordainance, not a literal physical relationship marriage.

There was only one person he had that with.

Not all men are sex obsessed perverts you know, and Joseph wouldn't have been with Emma still had there actually been anything else going on, especially to any degree as you anti's claim. Joseph may have sinned once who knows, but it certainly wasn't with any significant number of those Sealings.

[Platypus Man]

You know what, I have a great idea. Let's take a vote as to whether or not polygamy should be supported now or then. We'll mail the results to God and insist that he change his doctrine accordingly. We'll explain to him that based off of our mortal understanding of the issue, we deem the revealed doctrine appropriate/inappropriate (whatever the results show) We'll also explain to him that if his eternal doctrine fell in line with modern human thinking, the church population census would increase immensly by next year. Heck, while were at it, lets take polls on all of the contriversal issues, because I'm sure that God needs our counsel and support. You know, just so he knows what is true, and what is not.

[Jarrod]

I'm not smart enough and don't know enough to judge JSJr. on this, nor am I smart enough or know enough to judge Emma's later failures.

This is not a matter of being smart enough, but it is about knowing enough. My opinion is that we should be allowed to judge the veracity of Joseph's claims on the behavior of those who practiced and lived those claims.

So, whaddawe do about it?  Lori teeters on the brink of apostacy because she can't reconcile her own feelings with what her great-great-great grandparents went through.  It isn't asked of her or us, yet she obsesses about it.  Why?  Who knows.  All we can do is provide her with gentle and reasonable corrections where her reasoning fails her (her claimed testimony of JSJr. as prophet vs. her inability to process polygyny as coming from the same prophetic source as the BoM).  The imponderables like whether JSJr. misled Emma at some point are not central to her question, though they may be to yours.  Let's stay on point, if we can, and help her through this difficult time, shall we?

You greatly misjudge "reason" in this case. If anything, Lori's reasoning is spot on. Is it reasonable to attract converts by committing them to a "reasonable" mere fraction of the Mormon ideology & collection of doctrines, and then holding those converts to "the truth" when other facets of Mormonism prove wholly unreasonable? How can you call the things you have all said until now "reasonable corrections" when those corrections require you to ignore or deny what Joseph and subsequent prophets have said on the topic of plural marriage? That isn't reason, it is blind fealty.

Lori has excellent reason to question plural marriage as a commandment of God. You can justify it all you want by speculating that "God no longer requires it" or that "it was only necessary for a short season" but these arguments defy what the prophets have clearly said. You are asking to have your theology work in contradictory ways, and you somehow call it "correct reasoning" because it allows Joseph to be a true prophet and the church to be true. That isn't reason, it is a tautology.

If you want to save Lori's testimony, wish her well and tell her to prayerfully follow her heart.

[leeuniverse]

If you read all about Brigham and others it was all about building up their kingdom and reigning like God.

Sure, kinda like Moses and others right?

[bryan jones]

No, I don't control my husband and what he chooses or his friends.  We treat each other with respect.  I wasn't asking about if you die.  I was asking you if you were alive and your wife is having sex with another man that you were commanded to give her. And she loved him.

Most LDS men are so happy and excited to possibly practice polygamy in the next life, but when the question is turned around and they are asked about sharing THIER wife..... they aren't so happy.

What is the prophet asked for your wife? Would you be so quick to embrace polygamy as god's will. This is what the early saints had to endure. You know you wouldn't be ok with another men sleeping with YOUR wife. So why is it so hard to see why women would hate the practice. Put yourself in thier postion.

[USU78]

Jarrod, the post wasn't directed at you, unless memory fails me. Let's, however, look at the following:

You are asking to have your theology work in contradictory ways, and you somehow call it "correct reasoning" because it allows Joseph to be a true prophet and the church to be true. That isn't reason, it is a tautology.

I'm unaware of any line of reasoning on any subject that doesn't have at its core a certain amount of a priori givens and self-reference. At the end of the day, we do what we do and we believe what we believe based upon what our heart, not our head, tells us. Reasoning, such as it is, comes far later.

And please don't go the "contradictory theology" route. You know darned well that theology has never been a strong suit for Mormons. In fact, we're quite gleeful that we aren't all college-trained theologians, but rather working schmoes doing our best to figure it out with G-d's help. The contradictions you would have Lori eschew here are no more egregious than the contradictions of Saul/Paul's day or Hulda's. When you claim they're here only and not elsewhere, you misrepresent. When, and if, you claim "reason" as your god, setting it up all Voltaire-like as if it were of a different species than religious tautology, you likewise misrepresent. Kant knew and debunked such thought years and years ago.

Yet nobody seems to have gotten his message any more than anybody seems to get JSJr.'s.

[Scott Gordon]

It is important to confront polygamy in the plan of salvation. It is required for exaltation if you believe in the old prophets. Also when the Saviour comes again it will be on the earth again. (again-according to our prophets) So why are you pushing it under the rug?

Oh my goodness.

I'm starting to lose faith in you Lori. You are starting to sound like an anti-plant.

However, giving you the benefit of the doubt (as I see you already have one person on the board supporting your point of view), how do you reconcile your claim with the fact that many, many, many LDS did not practice this principle. They still went west to Utah. They still went to the temple. Did they do this knowing they weren't exhalted? Was there something in the Temple where it said you can do this ritual, but you can never be exhalted? It wasn't even physically possible for everyone to practice it as there wasn't a 2 to 1 ratio of women to men. In fact, not all members of the twelve even practiced it.

So......were they apostles with the understanding they couldn't be exhalted?

Or could it be that you may be taking the comments out of their cultural context, or maybe there is something else going on here that you don't quite understand?

Scott

[Teancum]

Unfortunately, nobody knows the answer to the following pickle:

Yes, yes Emma knew.

[Jarrod]

Jarrod, the post wasn't directed at you, unless memory fails me. Let's, however, look at the following:

You are asking to have your theology work in contradictory ways, and you somehow call it "correct reasoning" because it allows Joseph to be a true prophet and the church to be true. That isn't reason, it is a tautology.

I'm unaware of any line of reasoning on any subject that doesn't have at its core a certain amount of a priori givens and self-reference. At the end of the day, we do what we do and we believe what we believe based upon what our heart, not our head, tells us. Reasoning, such as it is, comes far later.

And please don't go the "contradictory theology" route. You know darned well that theology has never been a strong suit for Mormons. In fact, we're quite gleeful that we aren't all college-trained theologians, but rather working schmoes doing our best to figure it out with G-d's help. The contradictions you would have Lori eschew here are no more egregious than the contradictions of Saul/Paul's day or Hulda's. When you claim they're here only and not elsewhere, you misrepresent. When, and if, you claim "reason" as your god, setting it up all Voltaire-like as if it were of a different species than religious tautology, you likewise misrepresent. Kant knew and debunked such thought years and years ago.

Yet nobody seems to have gotten his message any more than anybody seems to get JSJr.'s.

USU78,

Thanks for your thoughts. I want to convey that I have not made reason my god, but I do believe that it is a different species than religious tautology. I side a little more with Dawkins than Kant in this regard, and see reason & logic less prone to self-reference. Still, I personally allow that truth can be found in the heart, as a regular schmoe (as you put it). In other words, let Lori be Lori. I believe that is a better path than trying to get Lori to find reason where others (or at least I) can see no such reason. If Lori comes back to full fellowship, that's great. If her heart takes her elsewhere, that's great.

I appreciate your taking an even-handed approach to my assertions. You defend your position effectively.

[Moxy]

It is important to confront polygamy in the plan of salvation.  It is required for exaltation if you believe in the old prophets.  Also when the Saviour comes again it will be on the earth again. (again-according to our prophets)  So why are you pushing it under the rug?

Oh my goodness.

I'm starting to lose faith in you Lori. You are starting to sound like an anti-plant.

However, giving you the benefit of the doubt (as I see you already have one person on the board supporting your point of view), how do you reconcile your claim with the fact that many, many, many LDS did not practice this principle. They still went west to Utah. They still went to the temple. Did they do this knowing they weren't exhalted? Was there something in the Temple where it said you can do this ritual, but you can never be exhalted? It wasn't even physically possible for everyone to practice it as there wasn't a 2 to 1 ratio of women to men. In fact, not all members of the twelve even practiced it.

So......were they apostles with the understanding they couldn't be exhalted?

Or could it be that you may be taking the comments out of their cultural context, or maybe there is something else going on here that you don't quite understand?

Scott

We had a community here in Oregon of people who dressed in all RED, and were called the Rajnesh Puram. We were all amazed at how soooo many Doctors, Lawyers, and professional people from all walks of life would just join this group and give all the monies they had to their leader.

You see....People NEED to belive in something...no matter how wacked or aboniable it may be.

We can now look back at Polyamy and Polandry and say..with our 20/20 eyes and say...YES...that was wrong then...and it is wrong today...

[Platypus Man]

I dont believe that the women were tied down and forced to marry the "evil" polygamous men of the church. Nor were they locked in a marriage they could not escape. As mentioned earlier, LDS women could very easily divorce their husbands. There was no hand tying involved. Women had the freedom to choose what they wanted in a marriage. If you can't stand the thought of sharing your husband with another woman, then think of yourself as one of the *95% of women who CHOSE not to be in a polygamous marriage.

I would also like to add another one of my little thoughts on this issue. If Joseph was a false prophet, and he did lie about Plural marriage, then the question is WHY? He knew it wouldn't help his cause (tricking so many people into joining his church) The idea was frowned upon by sooo many people. Hmmm, maybe he was just a horny man. If thats the case then why marriage. THere is so much stress and sacrifice involved with marriage. Believe me, I'm married to one wonderful girl. I can't imagine having to make more than 1 girl happy. Why didn't he just "make up" a doctine of concubines, or "the doctrine of female partners" if the whole purpose behind it was sex. And if it was all about sex, where are all of the children. I guess the church tithing money went into buying his wives birth control pills, or stocking up on condoms. Even today with all of these preventive items accessible, some men, i mean idiots, get numerous women pregnant numerous times, and they're not even together. Just watch daytime talkshows.

The point behind my sarcastic rambling is that people think they know so much about other peoples lives. Who was happy, who was not. Who was forced into marriage, who wasn't. Who lied, who didnt. All i know is that if Joseph Smith made the whole thing up for personal gain, like so many critics make people believe, his logic was all screw up.

*note: I'm not sure if 95% is the accurate percentage, but I believe it is somewhere up there.