Questing Beast Posted October 25, 2011 Posted October 25, 2011 (edited) An exchange a few days ago has had me thinking about the evidence that scripture says is sufficient to establish truth: "two or more witnesses". The trouble is that you have to believe them in the first place. Obviously, the problematic part for anyone is being willing to believe in the first place, no matter where the truth leads.Specifically, I am addressing the assertion by one on this forum, that the women who said that Joseph Smith lived with them as their husband wanted to claim closer association to Joseph Smith and therefore their witness can be discounted; that marriage for "time" therefore did not mean, "as a husband"; that Emma was his only wife, and that all the women he was married to in Nauvoo were sealings only; and finally, that only under B. Young was polygamy entered into.There are more than "a few women" as witnesses that Joseph Smith both practiced and taught full polygamy, including the birth of children to the plural wives at Nauvoo. So I have no good reason to discount the polyandrous aspects; since the witnesses well exceed two, and are held to be reliable in other things, i.e. truthful.It is really unacceptable to ignore over one hundred affidavits still held by the Church history department, sworn to by the deponents under oath, officially recorded according to law, all declaring that Nauvoo polygamy existed, involved Joseph Smith and numerous others, and resulted in plural wives bearing children.I would like to know what the justification could possibly be for holding such a double standard: to believe in one set of witnesses but to utterly denigrate a much larger collection of evidently truthful people declaring an opposite truth that one is unwilling to believe, but without good evidence or cause for doing so....(apologies for the multiple edits; my typing skills are in the toilet this morning) Edited October 25, 2011 by Questing Beast
Storm Rider Posted October 25, 2011 Posted October 25, 2011 I am not aware of any historian that denies the practice of polygamy by Joseph Smith. To whom are you referring to that denies it?
Questing Beast Posted October 25, 2011 Author Posted October 25, 2011 (edited) Found it:http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/56060-justification-for-the-mountain-meadows-massacre/page__st__40ldsfaqs said:"Joseph only had one wife, and that was Emma. There is a reason she to her dying breath claimed Joseph never practiced Polygamy. There is no good evidence at all that there was a "sexual dimension" to ANY of the sealings. What little evidence there might be is easily countered by just as good evidence that there wasn't anything going on. The "rumor mill" and some women trying to claim notoriety after his death is not good evidence of him having sexual relations, especially when just as many claimed he never did such a thing."I find such a position incredible. Even if the believer were an RLDS/Community of Christ.... Edited October 25, 2011 by Questing Beast
Calm Posted October 26, 2011 Posted October 26, 2011 (edited) Legal proceedings are a bit different these days then in biblical times. They didn't have as many options for finding physical evidence. However, my reading in the area explained, iirc, that the requirement of two or more witnesses was not that you had to believe those witnesses as speaking truth, but rather it was the minimum that you could believe....for legal proceedings. A person could not be proclaimed guilty solely on the word of one person.....too easy to abuse the system for personal gain otherwise.When evidence is solely witness statements then one has to choose how to weight the character of those involved, the cost or benefit of the claims for the witnesses, etc.In this case we have a bit more than just witness statements though.http://www.josephsmithdna.com/dna--lds-church-history.html Edited October 26, 2011 by calmoriah
Recommended Posts