How Many People Are Currently Leaving The Church Over Historical Issues?

[cartoon bluejay]

Bingo... because he was "Sealed" to her. Along with most of the others. As everyone knows... sealings can be totally platonic. Do you think JS had sex with all the Men who were "married" to him as well?

On a side note... Do you have problems with Mary the Mother of Jesus being 14 when she was given to Joseph the Carpentar and was impregnated by God instead? Inquiring minds want to know.

But that doesn't answer my question - what is the point of a marriage with the intent of no sex. And why seal yourself to a 14 yr. old girl - why was it necessary? It wasn't something Helen Mar Kimball asked for - the prophet asked for her. I thought "sealing" a wife to a husband was a marriage - why if they're married are they asking a woman to enter a platonic marriage?

I'm not sure what Mary the mother of Jesus has to do with Helen Mar Kimball - the prophet didn't marry her to protect her because she was already pregnant - did he?

[Zakuska]

But that doesn't answer my question - what is the point of a marriage with the intent of no sex. And why seal yourself to a 14 yr. old girl - why was it necessary? It wasn't something Helen Mar Kimball asked for - the prophet asked for her. I thought "sealing" a wife to a husband was a marriage - why if they're married are they asking a woman to enter a platonic marriage?

Better question for the mother daughter pare who were sealed to Joseph... who said the only time they ever seen Joseph and Emma was when they brought his shirts by each week to be laundered and pressed. Totally Platonic.

I'm not sure what Mary the mother of Jesus has to do with Helen Mar Kimball -

Because she was approximately the same age when she was married off. To an old fart.

[cartoon bluejay]

Better question for the mother daughter pare who were sealed to Joseph... who said the only time they ever seen Joseph and Emma was when they brought his shirts by each week to be laundered and pressed. Totally Platonic.

Are you suggesting that young girls needed to give up their opportunity for marriage with someone they could have sexual relationships with so that they could do Joseph's laundry? Now I'm even more offended... ouch!

I don't think we can compare Mary to Helen just because they were the same age - and happened to both marry old farts.

[Spartan_Warrior]

I could never figure out people that left because they found out that Joseph Smith had more than one wife. It doesn't really surprise me that people consider it such a big blow when they find out, though, because some (and I stress SOME, not ALL) LDS try to paint Joseph in pastel colors and paint him as a close-to-perfect historical figure. The fact is, Joseph wasn't perfect. I don't think he ever gave a discourse where he claimed to be. Sure, he may have gotten a little cocky at times, but I hardly think that's a big deal. While I was in the church, criticisms of Joseph's "private life" didn't really phase me. I knew that even if he was a wild lady's man, everyone has their own personal vices. I doubt he was such, but I'm speaking in "if's" here.

People shouldn't leave a church just because they find out that its founder wasn't the godly figure they originally thought him to be. They should leave because they have genuine disagreements with doctrines and teachings based on personal study. If members of every religion jumped ship just because their founders aren't perfect. If that were the case, the world would be full of spiritual drifters and agnostics like me.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Are you suggesting that young girls needed to give up their opportunity for marriage with someone they could have sexual relationships with so that they could do Joseph's laundry? Now I'm even more offended... ouch!

I don't think we can compare Mary to Helen just because they were the same age - and happened to both marry old farts.

I believe the childish way you approach the conversation is a turn off. I'd almost rather talk to a wall than with someone who mocks rather than adds substantive dialog.

[cartoon bluejay]

I believe the childish way you approach the conversation is a turn off. I'd almost rather talk to a wall than with someone who mocks rather than adds substantive dialog.

Hey I didn't come up with the laundry thing - that was new to me. I'm surprised that laundry was a justification for marriage - I'm trying to understand the concept. I'm not here to make fun of anyone and I didn't. Read the posts over again.

Honestly - I'm trying to clear something up in my mind and for you to come out of no where and tell me I'm no better to talk to than the wall - blows my mind. Where did that come from?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Hey I didn't come up with the laundry thing - that was new to me. I'm surprised that laundry was a justification for marriage - I'm trying to understand the concept. I'm not here to make fun of anyone and I didn't. Read the posts over again.

Honestly - I'm trying to clear something up in my mind and for you to come out of no where and tell me I'm no better to talk to than the wall - blows my mind. Where did that come from?

"Tell me what I did!"

I'm going to bed.

[cartoon bluejay]

"Tell me what I did!"

I'm going to bed.

I don't understand why you're brushing me off - I was explaining to Selek just yesterday that I felt there was no where to go inside the church if you had questions. He said I could go ahead and ask - I am - so why are you treating me this way? This was my biggest frustration being a member - if I had doubts - I couldn't find someone to really help me through the doubts. So that's why I started posting at postmormon.org because I can ask and it's answered - it may not be what you agree with but they answer. I'm looking for what the members are saying - I'm trying to get a balanced perspective and I'm told that plural marriage was for the purpose of getting JS laundry done - give me a break. Please educate me.

[cartoon bluejay]

Do you think JS had sex with all the Men who were "married" to him as well?

I just caught this - JS was married to men? I did not know that. I have been a member of the church for 40 yrs and I never knew that.

Also - the idea of entering a platonic marriage or sealing seems ridiculous. When I was married in the temple I remember being told that marriage was for procreation. I've also been taught that procreation is Heavenly Fathers plan. It just doesn't make any sense to me why JS would marry anyone except for the purpose of procreation. He's the prophet - he restored the one and only true church to the earth - I think restoring polygamy also means setting a good example by actually putting the women he marries to the task of bearing his children. Otherwise - why enter a platonic marriage?

I'm not so offended that JS had more than one wife and I'm not surprized it. I've been a member for 40 years. I think most good members reconcile their feelings about polygamy. What bothers me is that I was never told in church that JS had more than one wife. I was taught that these women had themselves sealed to him after he died. I believed that. Why would anyone lie to me? It hasn't been common knowledge that JS had more than one wife until recently.

If someone is asking about the marriage between JS and Helen Mar Kimball - I don't think using the explanation that it was platonic is very satisfying. For me, it has raised more questions and made me more uncomfortable with the idea. Because there seems to be no reason to marry someone unless you intend to consummate the marriage. If you don't, you are taking away the opportunity for these women to fulfill their callings as women, which is to have children. I honestly don't understand this.

I'll admit I'm getting most of my information from sites that are presented or designed by people who have left the church. I understand there are two sides to the story and I want to hear but no one seems to be able to help me with coming to an understanding. Instead, I was insulted. I'm a big girl - I can take it.

It just feels like the church is covering something up and what I would like to see is open dialog where questions can be answered with the intent of understanding. The church claims to be the only true church. I'm okay with that. I have believed that with all my heart but now I'm hearing something that bothers me and I want some answers. I'm getting them from people who have left the church and I can't seem to get any answers here. What I want is the information, I want to be educated, I want to know the truth. The truth can stand on it's own. I believe I know how to recognize the truth - And really that's what bothers me - educate the people - let them learn everything they want to learn because the truth has nothing to hide. Let people know what critics are saying because the truth can stand on it's own. But when the church acts like they are hiding something - it raises suspicions.

Lifeonaplate, where was your substantive comment to add to the conversation? You accuse me of having nothing and then run and hide. Give me something to think about, instead of your defense mechanisms. I'm asking questions and if you can't answer them - tell me where I can go without insulting me.

[Zakuska]

Hey I didn't come up with the laundry thing - that was new to me. I'm surprised that laundry was a justification for marriage - I'm trying to understand the concept. I'm not here to make fun of anyone and I didn't. Read the posts over again.

Honestly - I'm trying to clear something up in my mind and for you to come out of no where and tell me I'm no better to talk to than the wall - blows my mind. Where did that come from?

Again you keep equivicating "Sealing" with "marriage". Why?

PS. the Mother daughter pair where previously married, and at least the mother in the case was a widow.

Joseph was also "Sealed/married" to men why arn't you intrested in that?

OK I see you answer this. Wait for my next post.

[Zakuska]

I just caught this - JS was married to men? I did not know that. I have been a member of the church for 40 yrs and I never knew that.

Yes Joseph Smith was "sealed" to men as well as to women. It was known as the Law of Adoption.

You keep equivicating sealing with marriage. Why?

You must not understand the sealing concept as originally understood by the prophet. Neither did the people who got angry at Joseph and mobbed him to death because he was sealed to so many women.

People still don't get it...

http://slmetro.com/2004/9/feature.shtml

[Thinking]

Yes Joseph Smith was "sealed" to men as well as to women. It was known as the Law of Adoption.

Here is an excerpt from a talk given by George Q. Cannon at General Conference on April 8, 1894. According to Cannon, the Law of Adoption refers to the sealing of children (who were not BIC) to parents. He even warns against sealings to those who are not part of the immediate family.

â??There has to be some ordinance performed in order to make them legitimate; and that ordinance, the Prophet Joseph revealed, was the ordinance of adoption; that is, that which covers the ordinance or law, although we do not use the word adoption when we seal children to parents; we call that sealing...Some men thought to build up kingdoms unto themselves; they appeared to think that by inducing men and women to be adopted into their families they were adding to their own glory...let me suppose that the First Presidency of this Church were to seek to build up families for themselves from among this people, each one seeking to have men and women sealed to him in order that he might have a large following; and suppose each of the Twelve Apostles was to do the same; and suppose the High Priests and the brethren officiating in the temples were to do the same, what would be the result? You can see at once that in little time we would be divided into tribes and clans, each man having his own following, and each following looking to the man to whom they had been adopted for counsel and for guidance, and in this way the governing authority of the Holy Priesthood in our midst would be divided and lessened. Who can not understand the danger there would be under such a condition of affairs...suppose that each of us should seek some great man in the Church to be sealed to...because it would be a great honor to be adopted to him, and we think, â??...I would rather be adopted to him than be sealed to my father...' Now, I think, when we feel that way, that we are, to a certain extent, despising the arrangement which the Lord has made.â?

You keep equivicating sealing with marriage. Why?

Which of the sealings to women were not marriages?

You must not understand the sealing concept as originally understood by the prophet. Neither did the people who got angry at Joseph and mobbed him to death because he was sealed to so many women.

Did he consummate any of these sealings? If so, then that would definitely classify them as marriages.

[cartoon bluejay]

Yes Joseph Smith was "sealed" to men as well as to women. It was known as the Law of Adoption.

I have never heard of the Law of Adoption -that I can remember. I left the church about a year ago. Thinking already stated the Law of Adoption - do you agree with what Thinking said? Is there another side of it that I need to understand?

You keep equivicating sealing with marriage. Why?

Bear with me, I didn't know there was a difference. From your question, I'm assuming that in the early days of the church women were sealed to men but didn't marry them. Do you know why that was necessary?

You must not understand the sealing concept as originally understood by the prophet. Neither did the people who got angry at Joseph and mobbed him to death because he was sealed to so many women.

I don't understand the sealing concept as originally understood by JS - can you tell me? I am hoping that this thread is already so far into it that it's okay that we deviate from the original topic. Also, I want to make it clear that I am hear to learn and to understand and I have a lot of questions. I left the church for an entirely different reason than the historical part of it -but I'm not allowed to discuss why I left the church so I respect that - I won't. I'm not here to argue or disrespect anyone - I have seen the side of JS presented by critics of the church - it upsets me. I have had a testimony of JS and one of GBH and worked diligently to follow the prophet. I was instructed to study the lives of the prophets beginning with JS and now I'm doing that and I found some evidence that maybe JS was a fraud.

People still don't get it...

http://slmetro.com/2004/9/feature.shtml

You caught me - I don't get. But that doesn't mean I don't want to. I'm not here to threaten anyone's beliefs - I want to understand my own.

Can you explain the concept of sealing originally understood by JS? And if it wasn't a marriage with sexual relations - why was Emma so mad? Is it true that women did nothing more than laundry for JS after they were sealed? - I have to admit I laughed at that. If it was a sealing for spiritual reasons and it took nothing away from JS feelings for Emma - I would think Emma would embrace the extra help with laundry and not be so mad.

[cartoon bluejay]

http://slmetro.com/2004/9/feature.shtml

WOW!! That was a fascinating read - I don't even know how to respond. I appreciate you giving me that link. I'm going to need some time to grasp that one. It kindof makes it seem like there was a sense of urgency sealing everyone to everyone. No women to women sealings though - that's disappointing. I don't think it really answers the platonic sealings that JS entered into -Let me explain my thinking - there may have been an urgency to seal young girls to JS because of the importance of the temple sealings but then why not have it be a sexual relationship. Doesn't being sealed to JS take away there ability to be sealed to someone else or could they be sealed to more than one husband? And if they were able to marry someone else and have children with someone else - what about that man and his rights for building his kingdom? Or were only certain higher ranking men in the church allowed to use the Law of Adoption?

That was really interesting - thank you.

[cartoon bluejay]

I could never figure out people that left because they found out that Joseph Smith had more than one wife. It doesn't really surprise me that people consider it such a big blow when they find out, though, because some (and I stress SOME, not ALL) LDS try to paint Joseph in pastel colors and paint him as a close-to-perfect historical figure. The fact is, Joseph wasn't perfect. I don't think he ever gave a discourse where he claimed to be. Sure, he may have gotten a little cocky at times, but I hardly think that's a big deal. While I was in the church, criticisms of Joseph's "private life" didn't really phase me. I knew that even if he was a wild lady's man, everyone has their own personal vices. I doubt he was such, but I'm speaking in "if's" here.

People shouldn't leave a church just because they find out that its founder wasn't the godly figure they originally thought him to be. They should leave because they have genuine disagreements with doctrines and teachings based on personal study. If members of every religion jumped ship just because their founders aren't perfect. If that were the case, the world would be full of spiritual drifters and agnostics like me.

I don't have a problem with JS being imperfect. My concern is the serious nature that church places on sexual sin. If JS was a sexual deviant and there is some suggestion that may be the case -then I'm uncomfortable with JS proclaiming to be a prophet and restoring the gospel. If someone in this day and age breaks the law of chastity - they can't go to the temple - they are thought to not have the spirit of the Holy Ghost with them. I'm just wondering how JS could restore the gospel if he was committing serious sexual sins - I'm not saying he did (commit the sins) but it's in question and people are leaving the church and I'd like to know the truth. I want to know what the church is saying about all this.

[LifeOnaPlate]

WOW!! That was a fascinating read - I don't even know how to respond. I appreciate you giving me that link. I'm going to need some time to grasp that one. It kindof makes it seem like there was a sense of urgency sealing everyone to everyone. No women to women sealings though - that's disappointing. I don't think it really answers the platonic sealings that JS entered into -Let me explain my thinking - there may have been an urgency to seal young girls to JS because of the importance of the temple sealings but then why not have it be a sexual relationship. Doesn't being sealed to JS take away there ability to be sealed to someone else or could they be sealed to more than one husband? And if they were able to marry someone else and have children with someone else - what about that man and his rights for building his kingdom? Or were only certain higher ranking men in the church allowed to use the Law of Adoption?

That was really interesting - thank you.

Richard Bushman talks about the law of adoption a little, as well as polyandry in Rough Stone Rolling. I urge you to check that book out. It's pretty evenhanded.

[California]

Nice. I wonder if the strange fishermen from Galilee ever entertained weird or off-base opinions. Your implication? They mustn't have. Else that would prove them, as well as their leader Jesus of Nazareth, who selected them, a fraud.

I agree. Am I too presumptuous in saying that if Joseph Smith is a fraud, so is Christ?

I say this because one of the main arguments against the case of the BOM and JS is that God either will not tell you it's true, or He does not speak. It seems to be the more often used is the latter. And yet Christ preaches that you CAN know.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I agree. Am I too presumptuous in saying that if Joseph Smith is a fraud, so is Christ?

I say this because one of the main arguments against the case of the BOM and JS is that God either will not tell you it's true, or He does not speak. It seems to be the more often used is the latter. And yet Christ preaches that you CAN know.

This, to me, is one of the most baffling things about critics- from jason e. up to people who know what they are actually talking about: the double standard. Virtually all arguments that are used against the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith can be used against Jesus and the Bible. I've seen critics here strongly agree with the athistic posters, not knowing they are actually condemning religion as a whole, including the Bible in which they profess to believe.

[Jaybear]

Am I too presumptuous in saying that if Joseph Smith is a fraud, so is Christ?

Would it be too presumptuous for a follower of Warren Jeffs to say that if Warren Jeffs is a fraud, so is Joseph Smith?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Would it be too presumptuous for a follower of Warren Jeffs to say that if Warren Jeffs is a fraud, so is Joseph Smith?

Without some specific examples? Sure.

I do see your point, however. But if you read my response just above yours you'll see the gist of what we are trying to say; re: what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

[California]

Your's is a common stereotype. Sadly, in most cases it simply is not true. Those who are "looking for an excuse" could easily find much easier rationales for leaving the church than going and researching the issues surrounding the foundational claims of the church. Being "offended" is infinitely more common and a far easier cop-out for those persons looking for a quick out.

"Christlike principals" can be lived perfectly fine without religion telling you what to wear, eat or think.

You have to admit, however, that it's easier when you hear what you should be doing every Sunday, read about it every day, and surround yourself with people who are doing the same thing.

[California]

As I was reading your response and you wrote:

>>>"this sounded very much like someone in the pre-mortal world saying "I want to do it my way, not yours"<<<

I thought you were talking about Satan who wanted to force people into submission and force them to come back to heaven, instead of letting people find their own way back to heaven. Which I would have agreed with. Give people free agency, don't put a list of rules that they must follow to get back to heaven. We will show you how you must be christ like instead of letting people be christlike in their own way.

"more than one ear ring is not christ like"

"coffee is not christlike, but hot chocolate is"

"go on a mission is christlike, peace corps instead is not"

"climbing mt si on Sunday with your kids is not christlike, forcing religion on them is"

"spank your kids, ok to go to the temple, drink a glass of wine with dinner no temple for you."

"marry 14 year olds to 38 year olds christlike, allowing consenting adults to marry that are gay, not"

"Giving more money to the LDS church than you will need for any other expense in your life regardless of the needs of your family christlike , the LDS church using the money it has for business purposes Also christlike?"

you are right. the forced submission plan satan proposed didnt' go over very well. It seems like the mormon church has brought it back for another try.

You can't be Christlike in "your own way". You can THINK about Christ in your own way, and interpret Him and what His church should be like, or that lack thereof in your own way, but ultimately, we're here on HIS terms, not ours.

Matt. 7: 14

Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Eph. 4: 5

One Lord, one faith, one baptism

James 1:5

If any of ye lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally

So, either James or Christ or both were lying when they said things like the above, and the below, which looks to me like there is one absolute truth.

26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

[cinepro]

Yes Joseph Smith was "sealed" to men as well as to women. It was known as the Law of Adoption.

You keep equivicating sealing with marriage. Why?

You must not understand the sealing concept as originally understood by the prophet. Neither did the people who got angry at Joseph and mobbed him to death because he was sealed to so many women.

People still don't get it...

http://slmetro.com/2004/9/feature.shtml

I think it is disingenuous to try and resolve concerns over Joseph Smith's polygamy by reclassifying it as some sort of platonic "sealing", or "adoption", and there's the possibility to compound someone's concerns if they continue to learn about Joseph's polygamy and find you weren't accurately representing what was happening.

While there may have been situations where Joseph had a "sealing" or "adoption" relationship with another woman, these typically aren't the situations people express concern about. It especially raises these questions:

Why did Emma have such a problem polygamy if they were platonic sealings or adoptions? Why didn't Joseph clarify her misunderstanding? Why would any woman (like Nancy Rigdon) refuse to be sealed platonically or adopted by the prophet? Why would someone like Brigham Young "desire death" when hearing about these arrangements? Why would Joseph ask for one of his platonic, adopted female friends to visit him while in hiding at Nauvoo (and not to let Emma know)? Indeed, what is there to deny or be bothered by in these arrangements? The only way anything makes sense with Emma, Nancy Rigdon, Section 132, secret meetings etc. is if these relationships were more than "adoption", and more than platonic. Maybe not all of them, but certainly not none of them.

[California]

While reading many of the posts from the this thread, I noticed some basic defenses which apologists use when confronted with negative historical information.

The "I Will Understand It Later" Defense:I don't believe that anybody should leave anything on the "back burner" when making important decisions.

Do you understand the scientific workings regarding transfiguration? How about the exact explanation of mode of travel of Angels?

I don't, I choose to do what I can about finding these things out, and leave them on the backburner until I have the resources to do so. I don't think this is wrong.

Of course there are many things that we don't understand, I'm merely pointing out the principle of trust in things that we don't understand, and yet have a testimony of.

[California]

Hey! I'm sorry for piping in the conversation late but I was part of a thread yesterday and had some questions on this topic. I was directed to start another thread but I'm new and not comfortable with that. I brought up the same concern about JS and his 14 yr old wife. The same answer was given that there was not evidence of sexual contact. I'm just confused by this... why marry someone if there is no intent to have sex? Why would there be a need to marry someone and not consumate the marriage. I just don't understand. Can you help me with that?

from what I understand it was a prestige thing, building huge families all linked to JS. I mean, partially. In some cases Joseph just felt that some women were his for eternity, while they belonged to someone else for mortality.

http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Proph...evarication.pdf

http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/insacred.htm