Killing Joseph Smith To Save Mormonism

[bcuzbcuz]

Joseph kept "private" (not hidden because many people knew about it) the Sealing Ordinance, not "polygamy".

Polygamy is having spousal relationship with a wife.  He had only one actual "wife".  And Emma swore to her death that this was true.

 

What Emma swore is usually called denial. As for Joseph Smith having "spousal relationship(s)" with only one wife, well, that would be denial also, which is what Joseph Smith did. And apparently you have the same disease.

Merely pointing to Joseph Smith's not creating any offspring does not prove that supposition.

[JLHPROF]

Joseph kept "private" (not hidden because many people knew about it) the Sealing Ordinance, not "polygamy".

Polygamy is having spousal relationship with a wife.  He had only one actual "wife".  And Emma swore to her death that this was true.

 

He wasn't fallen..... anti-mormons are who distort the history.

 

And many of his other WIVES swore under oath that they had relations with him and several lived in his home - being sealed for time and all eternity, living together and having relations - sounds like marriage to me.

 

Which is more likely, that Emma KNEW he didn't have relations with his other wives or that Emma didn't KNOW when he did?

Edited July 20, 2014 by JLHPROF

[mormonnewb]

Joseph kept "private" (not hidden because many people knew about it) the Sealing Ordinance, not "polygamy".

Polygamy is having spousal relationship with a wife.  He had only one actual "wife".  And Emma swore to her death that this was true.

 

He wasn't fallen..... anti-mormons are who distort the history.

 

I hate to burst your bubble, but most faithful LDS scholars acknowledge that JS had sex with at least a few of his plural wives.  Here's one such report:

 

My current research identifies only four plural marriages (Emily D. Partridge, Almera Johnson, Lucy Walker, and Malissa Lott) that provide first-hand accounts of a sexual component.109 Credible second-hand evidence exists for an additional seven (Fanny Alger, Louisa Beaman, Eliza D. Partridge, Sylvia Sessions, Olive Frost, and Maria and Sarah Lawrence), for a total of eleven. Ambiguous documentation is available for another three, but credible evidence is lacking or unpersuasive for the remaining twenty, who can be grouped as follows: (1) women sealed for the next life only; (2) sealings to two fourteen-year-olds; and (3) sealings to women who were civilly married and experiencing connubial relations with their legal husbands. Evidence for sexual relations with women to whom he was not married is also lacking.

 

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/theology-2/josephs-personal-polygamy/

[Tacenda]

This is a site by an LDS woman that gives biographical info on Smith's wives:

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/

That's the site that started my faith crisis. I'm sure it won't be accepted by the majority on here. Especially if some the this lady's footnotes include Fawn Brodie.

[djones]

God is a polygamist too! Get over it.

[bcuzbcuz]

God is a polygamist too! Get over it.

CFR

[Calm]

That's the site that started my faith crisis. I'm sure it won't be accepted by the majority on here. Especially if some the this lady's footnotes include Fawn Brodie.

It shouldn't be. Quotes are cropped and rearranged to mean something they are not...possibly even the exact opposite at least in one case, Helen Mar Kimball.

Much better to go to the original sources and read the full accounts.

[why me]

That's the site that started my faith crisis. I'm sure it won't be accepted by the majority on here. Especially if some the this lady's footnotes include Fawn Brodie.

This can be a problem when a person reads a site uncritically or unquestioningly. It is much better to go to the original sources and not rely on a site that cherrypicks quotations.

 

The point is rather simple. Not one of joseph's wives ever said a negative word about him and they were truly sad when he was murdered. Even after his murder these women did not say a negative word about him. And that does say much about joseph or he happened to have very good luck in picking people. Imagine the church today if just 15 of these women would have called him a horndog etc. I do believe that there would be no church. But no, they never said such a critical remark about him.

 

However, we still put our earthly imperfections into it by thinking or believing that he was in it for the sex. Maybe people choose to see it this way because it gives a great reason to leave the church. However, in my recollection, many of his plural wives were in the funeral line as they marched through the streets with joseph's body. Here is a good read about joseph's polygamy:

 

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/10/2/S00006-The_Prophet_Joseph_Smith_and_His_Plural_Wives.html

Edited July 20, 2014 by why me

[readstoomuch]

wivesofjosephsmith is a website anonymously run. Josephsmithspolygamy is a site by Brian Hales who takes great pains to try to be honest but faithful about the issues.

[JLHPROF]

God is a polygamist too! Get over it.

 

CFR

 

"Knowest thou not that eternities ago thy spirit, pure and holy, dwelt in thy Heavenly Father’s bosom, and in His presence, and with thy mother, one of the queens of heaven, surrounded by thy brother and sister spirits in the spirit world, among the Gods?" - President John Taylor

 

"If none but gods will be permitted to multiply immortal children, it follows that each God must have one or more wives. God, the Father of our spirits, became the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh....The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term lawful Wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Savior unlawfully.  - Apostle Orson Pratt

 

"It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and on a careful reading of that transaction, it will be discovered that no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that occasion. If he was never married, his intimacy with Mary and Martha and the other Mary also whom Jesus loved, must have been highly unbecoming and improper to say the best of it." Apostle Orson Hyde

 

which leads to: ^"Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." - John 5:19

[thesometimesaint]

Do I get to share my thoughts about what they say?  If not, please let me know and I'll stop posting.

 

I'm fine with you posting. What I'm not fine with what you believe we must believe.

[thesometimesaint]

This is a site by an LDS woman that gives biographical info on Smith's wives:

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/

 

Where are the children?

[Tacenda]

Where are the children?

I was surprised to see several possible children on wiki just the other day, can't link at the moment. Type in "JS's Wives" and it should come up.

[Kind Debater]

It shouldn't be. Quotes are cropped and rearranged to mean something they are not...possibly even the exact opposite at least in one case, Helen Mar Kimball.

Much better to go to the original sources and read the full accounts.

 

This can be a problem when a person reads a site uncritically or unquestioningly. It is much better to go to the original sources and not rely on a site that cherrypicks quotations.

When you say "original sources," what sources are you referring to exactly? I assume the diaries of the women under discussion are not publicly available.

What quotations exactly were cherry-picked or taken out of context? Which specific statements or implications are you disagreeing with?

 

The point is rather simple. Not one of joseph's wives ever said a negative word about him and they were truly sad when he was murdered. Even after his murder these women did not say a negative word about him.

What does that prove? It doesn't prove that the polygamous or polyandrous marriages were not consummated, for one.

The women who were sealed/married to Smith did so voluntarily, as far as I know. They agreed to do so once they were convinced that it was right; and if they were truly convinced, they may have stayed convinced. Certainly from what I've read, it sounds like several of the wives loved/revered Smith and thought they would have greater blessings in eternity for having been married to him. To have spoken out against Smith would have meant saying that what they did was wrong, and they would have been cast out of not only the LDS community but the general community as well. Not to mention that doing so would mean the loss of the eternal blessings that had been promised (either because they would no longer believe in them or because they would no longer be in good standing with the church). There were a lot of incentives for them to not complain and to keep believing that it was a true commandment from God.

 

Here is a good read about joseph's polygamy:

 

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/10/2/S00006-The_Prophet_Joseph_Smith_and_His_Plural_Wives.html

This review agrees with the claim that Smith's marriage to Sylvia Lyon was actively polyandrous: "There is a logical chasm between single and married sealings, and, for the latter, there is no responsible report of sexual intercourse except for Sylvia Sessions Lyon."

[thesometimesaint]

I was surprised to see several possible children on wiki just the other day, can't link at the moment. Type in "JS's Wives" and it should come up.

 

So far every proposed child of JS, other than with Emma, has failed to meet the DNA tests.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700150651/DNA-solves-a-Joseph-Smith-mystery.html?pg=all

[Kind Debater]

So far every proposed child of JS, other than with Emma, has failed to meet the DNA tests.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700150651/DNA-solves-a-Joseph-Smith-mystery.html?pg=all

According to Wikipedia, there are 9 possible offspring of Smith's polygamous marriages. 5 have been proven to not be descendents of Smith, 2 died in infancy and testing for the other 2 is incomplete.

[thesometimesaint]

According to Wikipedia, there are 9 possible offspring of Smith's polygamous marriages. 5 have been proven to not be descendents of Smith, 2 died in infancy and testing for the other 2 is incomplete.

 

True, but incomplete doesn't mean a whole lot here. A better term would be inconclusive.

[CV75]

better solution, we stop thinking about true prophets as good/righteous men, and more of spokesmen for God.

We already do: https://www.lds.org/topics/prophets?lang=eng

 

“As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we are blessed to be led by living prophets—inspired men called to speak for the Lord…”

 

Nowhere do the articles assert that the prophets are good or righteous men. But when you do a word search of the scriptures, the “righteous” and the “prophets” are always in alignment.

 

Faith crises over accusations of the prophets' behavior are not fruits of the Spirit.

[Kind Debater]

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/10/2/S00006-The_Prophet_Joseph_Smith_and_His_Plural_Wives.html

wivesofjosephsmith is a website anonymously run. Josephsmithspolygamy is a site by Brian Hales who takes great pains to try to be honest but faithful about the issues.

I looked at the following articles: http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/faq/sexual-polyandry/ and http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history-2/plural-wives-overview/zina-diantha-huntington/

Hales' argument places a lot of weight on Joseph Smith's condemnation of polyandry, but Smith also condemned polygamy (e.g. http://www.centerplace.org/history/ts/v5n03.htm p. 423).

Concerning Sylvia Sessions Lyon, Hales argues that she wasn't sealed to Smith until after he was excommunicated and they were separated. In other words, Sylvia's marriage was effectively over by the time she married Smith and conceived Josephine. However, if that was the case, why did Sylvia keep Josephine's parentage secret, and how could it have been secret if Sylvia was no longer living with Windsor when Josephine was conceived?

Hales argues that Smith's sealings to both single and married women were primarily about the women's eternal state and ensuring they would have the chance to be exalted, etc. If this were the case, and Smith didn't engage in relations with the women who were already married, then

1) Why does the LDS church no longer practice these sealings, especially for older single women?

2) Why did Zina Huntington write, "I mad[e] a greater sacrifise than to give my life for I never anticipated a gain to be look uppon as an honerable woman by those I dearly loved" (http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history-2/plural-wives-overview/zina-diantha-huntington/). If the sealing was for "eternity only" and did not mean she would be Smith's earthly wife in any way, and was to be kept secret*, why was she so worried that people in this life would regard her as dishonorable?

* In trying to show that Ann Eliza Webb's statements were false, Hales argues that Zina's marriage to Smith was kept secret and that she and Smith "hardly dared speak of it. The very walls had ears. We spoke of it only in whispers..."

3) If the sealings were eternally effective and of eternal importance, why weren't clearer records kept (e.g. whether the sealings were for time, eternity or both) and why were some women resealed? E.g. why were there two different records of Smith's sealing with Sylvia Lyon (which Hales uses to dispute the claim that Sylvia was sealed to Joseph prior to the end of her first marriage)? Why was Zina Huntington Jacobs resealed to Smith?

[why me]

2) Why did Zina Huntington write, "I mad[e] a greater sacrifise than to give my life for I never anticipated a gain to be look uppon as an honerable woman by those I dearly loved" (http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history-2/plural-wives-overview/zina-diantha-huntington/). If the sealing was for "eternity only" and did not mean she would be Smith's earthly wife in any way, and was to be kept secret*, why was she so worried that people in this life would regard her as dishonorable?

 

I believe that zina may have written what you excerpted to show the sacrifice that she made. However, since zina effentually became relief society president, a rather good calling, I think that she was thought of as an honorable woman. And I am sure that her relatives understood her decision to become a polygamous wife. However, of course, like any woman at that time, one did risk something by becoming a polygamous wife. But she received a witness of the principle, a witness that she could not deny:

 

 

When interrogated by a member of the RLDS Church, Zina refused to be drawn into specifics. She made her motivations clear, and explained that God had prepared her mind for Joseph's teachings even before she had heard them:

Q. "Can you give us the date of that marriage with Joseph Smith?" A. "No, sir, I could not." Q. "Not even the year?" A. "No, I do not remember. It was something too sacred to be talked about; it was more to me than life or death. I never breathed it for years. I will tell you the facts. I had dreams—I am no dreamer but I had dreams that I could not account for. I know this is the work of the Lord; it was revealed to me, even when young. Things were presented to my mind that I could not account for. When Joseph Smith revealed this order [Celestial marriage] I knew what it meant; the Lord was preparing my mind to receive it."^[51]

Zina herself clearly explains the basis for her choice:

…when I heard that God had revealed the law of Celestial marriage that we would have the privilege of associating in family relationships in the worlds to come, I searched the scriptures and by humble prayer to my Heavenly Father I obtained a testimony for myself that God had required that order to be established in his Church.^[52]

Faced with questions from her RLDS interviewer that she felt exceeded propriety, Zina became evasive. She finally terminated the interview by saying, "Mr. Wight, you are speaking on the most sacred experiences of my life…."^[53]

 

^{http://en.fairmormon.org/Polygamy_book/Polyandry#Zina_Diantha_Huntington_Jacobs}

 

^{How can I challenge her testimony? And why is it so difficult for many to understand the spiritual experiences of the plural wives of JS. Notice what I underlined.}

Edited July 21, 2014 by why me

[ERayR]

We already do: https://www.lds.org/topics/prophets?lang=eng

 

“As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we are blessed to be led by living prophets—inspired men called to speak for the Lord…”

 

Nowhere do the articles assert that the prophets are good or righteous men. But when you do a word search of the scriptures, the “righteous” and the “prophets” are always in alignment.

 

Faith crises over accusations of the prophets' behavior are not fruits of the Spirit.

 

Quite right.  There are too many who willing to take accusations and innuendo and toss the spirit out the window.

[aaron0005]

I was just reading another article about someone leaving the Church with the feeling that they had been "lied to."  In this case, it was over the issue of polygamy -- that they had attended countless hours of primary, young men's, seminar and even served a mission and had never known about JS' polygamy.  Over the last few years, the Church has made great strides to become more transparent about so-called "difficult issues" as evidenced by the most recent article on the BoA translation process.  However, we have yet to address JS' polygamy and I'm not sure that we really can given that we've pretty much deified JS.  For some members, the slide to apostasy starts on the slippery slope of JS' polygamy (yes, I thought that was poetic as well).

 

Fortunately, Mormonnewb to the rescue.  My solution: We acknowledge JS as a fallen prophet starting in the Nauvoo period.  Stop flailing about and clawing your eyes out and hear me out:

 

For one, trying to justify JS' polygamy is simply too difficult (which might explain why the Church doesn't even talk about it).  After all, even JS tried to keep it hidden.  Also, why would HF require the saints to engage in a practice that would later almost destroy the Church?  Doesn't it just seem more likely that JS, like almost every other man who has ever had such power over a community, got carried away with that power?

 

Second, if JS was a fallen prophet, he would be in very good company.  In fact, he would be perfectly in line with the Biblical mold of a prophet -- faithful servant plucked from obscurity but eventually, he proved HUMAN.  In fact, when I was investigating the Church, this was the greatest evidence to me of JS' prophetic mantel -- that he messed it up at some point.  That puts him in company with the likes of Noah and Moses and in no way diminishes his earlier works, just as Noah's drunkenness and Moses' temper didn't negate them as prophets.  The ancient Jews didn't throw out the Ten Commandments just because Moses was prohibited from reaching the promised land, so why should the BoM and restoration be affected by JS' fall?

 

Third, and this might be most important, acknowledging JS' fall would bolster the current prophets' claims that they are in line with the Lord's will.  I often hear that the Lord will remove a prophet should he ever lead the Church astray.  However, since this has never happened in our current paradigm, it seems like a hollow statement.  It's the Mormon equivalent of "If I'm lying, may the Lord strike me dead.  (Pause)  I'm still alive so I must be telling the truth."  On the other hand, if the narrative was that Lord will remove a prophet if he ever leads the Church astray like He removed Joseph, well that puts some teeth in the concept of a "heavenly veto" for Church leadership.

 

Who's with me on this one? (Ducking for cover)

I have a statement on this I wrote somewhere in my email I may post later. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that your by and large playing devils advocate and if your not I'll say its a real silly theory. That God Himself would be so incapable in calling the great prophet of the last dispensation after the greatest and longest apostasy ever, restore Gods work and a movement so marvelous that the words "A marvelous Work and A wonder" do not even come close to doing it justice. Surely the Lord would have got what He wanted, not a prophet who literally goes crazy and off the deep end, notwithstanding hundreds of visitations and revelations.

 

I think the real question is why did God instituted polygamy? Knowing it would hurt the churches image in some ways why did He do it? If its not necessary, or it is, why couldn't they wait as we would have to wait?

 

Was it solely an Abrahamic test? I think that was a result of it for sure, but God could have found many ways to test them without bringing so much image problems.

 

I have my beliefs on why He did, but one thing is for sure He wanted it to happen knowing the effects (therefor those effects must be the main reason), some of them not seen by most. Maybe I'll share my own thoughts sometime.

Edited July 22, 2014 by aaron0005

[JLHPROF]

 

I think the real question is why did God instituted polygamy? Knowing it would hurt the churches image in some ways why did He do it? If its not necessary, or it is, why couldn't they wait as we would have to wait?

 

Was it solely an Abrahamic test? I think that was a result of it for sure, but God could have found many ways to test them without bringing so much image problems.

 

I can think of a few reasons it was restored (not instituted):

 

D&C 132:61-63

And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

1. It is part of the law of the Priesthood.
2. It fulfills the commandment of God from the beginning.
3. It allows God to fulfill his promises from the premortal existence.
4. It is for exaltation in the eternities.
5. It furthers the work of God, which Moses tells us is "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man"

And that's just one little scripture.  It should not really be a concern if an eternal law hurts the Church's image in the world.

[Stone holm]

I was just reading another article about someone leaving the Church with the feeling that they had been "lied to."  In this case, it was over the issue of polygamy -- that they had attended countless hours of primary, young men's, seminar and even served a mission and had never known about JS' polygamy.  Over the last few years, the Church has made great strides to become more transparent about so-called "difficult issues" as evidenced by the most recent article on the BoA translation process.  However, we have yet to address JS' polygamy and I'm not sure that we really can given that we've pretty much deified JS.  For some members, the slide to apostasy starts on the slippery slope of JS' polygamy (yes, I thought that was poetic as well).

 

Fortunately, Mormonnewb to the rescue.  My solution: We acknowledge JS as a fallen prophet starting in the Nauvoo period.  Stop flailing about and clawing your eyes out and hear me out:

 

For one, trying to justify JS' polygamy is simply too difficult (which might explain why the Church doesn't even talk about it).  After all, even JS tried to keep it hidden.  Also, why would HF require the saints to engage in a practice that would later almost destroy the Church?  Doesn't it just seem more likely that JS, like almost every other man who has ever had such power over a community, got carried away with that power?

 

Second, if JS was a fallen prophet, he would be in very good company.  In fact, he would be perfectly in line with the Biblical mold of a prophet -- faithful servant plucked from obscurity but eventually, he proved HUMAN.  In fact, when I was investigating the Church, this was the greatest evidence to me of JS' prophetic mantel -- that he messed it up at some point.  That puts him in company with the likes of Noah and Moses and in no way diminishes his earlier works, just as Noah's drunkenness and Moses' temper didn't negate them as prophets.  The ancient Jews didn't throw out the Ten Commandments just because Moses was prohibited from reaching the promised land, so why should the BoM and restoration be affected by JS' fall?

 

Third, and this might be most important, acknowledging JS' fall would bolster the current prophets' claims that they are in line with the Lord's will.  I often hear that the Lord will remove a prophet should he ever lead the Church astray.  However, since this has never happened in our current paradigm, it seems like a hollow statement.  It's the Mormon equivalent of "If I'm lying, may the Lord strike me dead.  (Pause)  I'm still alive so I must be telling the truth."  On the other hand, if the narrative was that Lord will remove a prophet if he ever leads the Church astray like He removed Joseph, well that puts some teeth in the concept of a "heavenly veto" for Church leadership.

 

Who's with me on this one? (Ducking for cover)

What's with plural marriage being repudiated? To my knowledge it was suspended, never repudiated, where is this coming from?

[JLHPROF]

What's with plural marriage being repudiated? To my knowledge it was suspended, never repudiated, where is this coming from?

 

Agreed.  You cannot "repudiate" an eternal law or ordinance.  But just as with Moses coming down off Mt. Sinai and losing the higher laws, you can have them revoked.