Killing Joseph Smith To Save Mormonism

[mormonnewb]

You will notice that the Church does not condemn individuals as modern revelation changes what they received or practiced, no matter how we view such teachings and practices today. The leaders have far more integrity than to do that. It is inconsistent with the principle of righteous judgment to label Joseph Smith a fallen prophet and reframe his martyrdom as an action taken by the Lord to remove him. Even in judgments on apostasy and error, the worth of the soul is great.

The same principle of righteous judgment is required of those who would condition their membership (it’s not faith!) on the punishment of a dead prophet.

Wow! I absolutely LOVE this sentiment -- that we don't trash dead prophets, even if we later disagree with their doctrines and actions. It puts PEOPLE first -- the very fundamental of the Gospel.

If only we could apply this same sentiment to LIVING members. If only we didn't have to bolster our faith in the Church by demeaning and condemning those brave souls whose sense of justice and fairness conflicts CURRENT Church teachings.

To paraphrase the great Sam Cooke, "Oh what a wonderful church this would be ..."

[mormonnewb]

American women did not get the vote until 1920, and oddly women did not get the right to equal funds for sports programs in US Colleges until 1973. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women%27s_rights_%28other_than_voting%29

Or the priesthood until sometime after 2014 ...

[Analytics]

You'd better duck.  I hardly know where to begin.

 

1. Polygamy was not a mistake as it was given directly from God by recorded revelation that is still canon.  (That young man needed to read his D&C 132 before claiming he was lied to - it's right in the scriptures)....

 

That doesn't seem to help.  If D&C 132 is a true revelation, then the rules governing polygamy that it spells out condemn most of Joseph's polygamy.  According to D&C 132, plural wives must be virgins, and you can only marry them if you have your first wife's consent.  Most of Joseph Smith's polygamy doesn't meet these rules. 

 

That's the problem with Joseph Smith.  Not only did he not tell the public or general membership of the Church the truth about polygamy, he also took pretty extreme measures to make sure that there were no records that documented the details of what he was doing.  And to the extent that we can reconstruct what he was doing, it was usually inconsistent with the revelation he used to justify the behavior to begin with. 

[CV75]

Wow! I absolutely LOVE this sentiment -- that we don't trash dead prophets, even if we later disagree with their doctrines and actions. It puts PEOPLE first -- the very fundamental of the Gospel.

If only we could apply this same sentiment to LIVING members. If only we didn't have to bolster our faith in the Church by demeaning and condemning those brave souls whose sense of justice and fairness conflicts CURRENT Church teachings.

To paraphrase the great Sam Cooke, "Oh what a wonderful church this would be ..."

The Church does apply this to the living, which is why I said, “Even in judgments on apostasy and error, the worth of the soul is great.”

 

Of course you are going to find individuals that struggle with this principle, just as you will find those who struggle with other Gospel principles; you recently had a thread about people who condemn people (to paraphrase Streisand singing Merill). I think the upshot of that was that condemning/criticizing people (including those who condemn and criticize others, apostate or faithful) is antithetical to the Church’s teachings.

[JLHPROF]

That doesn't seem to help.  If D&C 132 is a true revelation, then the rules governing polygamy that it spells out condemn most of Joseph's polygamy.  According to D&C 132, plural wives must be virgins, and you can only marry them if you have your first wife's consent.  Most of Joseph Smith's polygamy doesn't meet these rules. 

 

That's the problem with Joseph Smith.  Not only did he not tell the public or general membership of the Church the truth about polygamy, he also took pretty extreme measures to make sure that there were no records that documented the details of what he was doing.  And to the extent that we can reconstruct what he was doing, it was usually inconsistent with the revelation he used to justify the behavior to begin with. 

 

Uh, no and no.

 

1. Virginity not required - D&C 132:41 - God allows for her to previously have been with another man if by his authority.

And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.

2. Spousal consent not required - D&C 132:65 - Wife's approval not required if she refuses to obey the law after being taught.

Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.

 

Joseph was not required to get Emma's approval because he taught her about plural marriage and she refused to accept it.  And the term virgin here means pure and virtuous, not sexually untouched which is evident in other verses.

Joseph lived polygamy according to the commands of God and he lived it as well as his circumstances would allow.

[EllenMaksoud]

Or the priesthood until sometime after 2014 ...

History has a strange way of playing its self out. The most unforeseen things happen.

 

Interestingly, Muhammad PBUH was the first man in recorded history to put rights for women in writing in "The Constitution of Medina". Now days thanks to the Media, the religion he founded is seen by many as the worst abuser of women. I spent many years in Christian denominations that promoted guilt in women for ruining it for mankind with the Apple incident. And in the penalty phase of the trial to follow, women were further stripped of their rights in Genesis 3:16. Of course modern Mormonism preaches against the idea that the whole debacle was sin. I can't debate that scripture because I know what is in my heart.

 

So, to me, JS probably just did what he felt God was instructing him to do. I can't speak against polygamy because I come from a culture that openly uses it, and curiously the US government does not prosecute it, but they don't allow Mormons to do it. Abuse is the issue with polygamy for me. If it is all voluntary and there is no abuse or anything forced, what can anyone say? Of course, the issue of inbreeding would likely raise it's head rather soon, and today it could be identified fairly quickly. I think inbreeding is likely a minor issue in the church due to people marrying within the population.

[Analytics]

Uh, no and no.

 

1. Virginity not required - D&C 132:41 - God allows for her to previously have been with another man if by his authority.

And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.

2. Spousal consent not required - D&C 132:65 - Wife's approval not required if she refuses to obey the law after being taught.

Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.

 

Joseph was not required to get Emma's approval because he taught her about plural marriage and she refused to accept it.  And the term virgin here means pure and virtuous, not sexually untouched which is evident in other verses.

Joseph lived polygamy according to the commands of God and he lived it as well as his circumstances would allow.

 

Regarding your first point, verse 61 says, "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."

 

So, you are saying that the dozen or so women who were already married when they were "married" to Joseph Smith were virgins, and that Joseph Smith couldn't commit adultery with them because they belonged to Joseph Smith and to no one else?  And this is because being a "virgin and have vowed to no other man" means pure and virtuous and has nothing to do with being married?

 

Regarding the second point, what you are claiming is that you only need your first wife's permission if she says yes.  If she says no, then you don't need her permission and are free to go get married in secret ceremonies behind her back.  If that is a satisfying rationalization for you, then....

 

There are A LOT of devils in details of D&C 132.

[JLHPROF]

Regarding your first point, verse 61 says, "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."

 

This is true, but not called a requirement.  Virginity here clearly refers to the requirement  that they are given  to him by God and no one else by God.

 

So, you are saying that the dozen or so women who were already married when they were "married" to Joseph Smith were virgins, and that Joseph Smith couldn't commit adultery with them because they belonged to Joseph Smith and to no one else?  And this is because being a "virgin and have vowed to no other man" means pure and virtuous and has nothing to do with being married?

 

It means they are pure and virtuous and are married by God to no other man.  In other words, they need and are worthy of an eternal companion.  But regardless of that, as I showed in vs 41,  sexual virginity isn't actually a requirement anyway.   In that vs God allows a man to receive a wife who had been previously married - no virginity required.

 

Regarding the second point, what you are claiming is that you only need your first wife's permission if she says yes.  If she says no, then you don't need her permission and are free to go get married in secret ceremonies behind her back.  If that is a satisfying rationalization for you, then....

 

Yep.  God commands a law.  The man is expected to consult his wife.  The wife refuses to follow God's command.  The man is allowed to move forward and obey God.  You could just as easily change marriage to tithing.  God requires tithing.  A man's wife has the right to know where the family funds are being spent.  She refuses to pay tithing (doesn't believe in it).  Man is still expected to obey the law of tithing.

 

There are A LOT of devils in details of D&C 132.

Only the devils that mortal perspectives always find...

Edited July 16, 2014 by JLHPROF

[UtahTexan]

Does any of this matter?

 

Let us say that Joseph started polygamy because he had issues involving sex.  Fine.  Does it matter?  Does it make him less of a prophet? 

 

I don't know.  

 

I know that it helped a lot of women and children.  

 

So, who knows....

 

but more importantly, who really cares?

[Calm]

Part of my understanding is that certain aspects were a property rights issue. Apparently, at the time, JS married certain women so their dead husband's property would not fall into the hands of outsiders.

The majority of women of women Joseph was sealed were known not to be widowed, in fact as far as I can tell only in one case is it known.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Joseph_Smith's_wives

Plus there would be no legal help in keeping property for a marriage that was secret and for which there was no documentation. There is absolutely no evidence that a claim of plural marriage with Joseph was ever used in a property dispute to protect a woman's rights.

[Calm]

Weird glitch interfering with editing so additional comment here.

What we have of court records, etc shows plural marriage actually complicating inheritance and property issues. The speculation just has no foundation.

[mormonnewb]

Does any of this matter?

 

Let us say that Joseph started polygamy because he had issues involving sex.  Fine.  Does it matter?  Does it make him less of a prophet? 

 

I don't know.  

 

I know that it helped a lot of women and children.  

 

So, who knows....

 

but more importantly, who really cares?

 

I'm mostly with you on this front, but it does matter to MANY Mormons who seem to have grown up with an "almost Jesus" perception of the Prophet.  For me, He seems to be very much in the mold of God's prophets -- people with great zeal, courage and sometimes, folly.  Like I mentioned earlier, his foibles (if that is what they were) make him MORE of a prophet in my view.

 

However, as always, this is a MINORITY view.  Many people seem to find it incomprehensible that JS could have been both flawed AND a prophet.  This is why I propose my "fall of Nauvoo" theory to allow for such persons to be able to still hold onto the restoration but let go of some of JS' more "human" activities (e.g., preaching against polygamy while practicing it privately, his yearnings for political power, etc.).

[JLHPROF]

I'm mostly with you on this front, but it does matter to MANY Mormons who seem to have grown up with an "almost Jesus" perception of the Prophet.

 

Actually, I believe the Savior was more like Joseph Smith, even participating in polygamy.

Edited July 17, 2014 by JLHPROF

[guerreiro9]

Rational response to being exposed to a new piece of historical information about someone who died 170 years ago:

Huh? That was interesting. Do I want to learn more about it? Yes I do. I'll read more about it.

Irrational response to being exposed to a new piece of historical information about someone who died 170 years ago:

How dare there be a piece of historical information I did not know? Since I know everything about the subject and I did not know this I must have been lied to and the information purposefully hidden from me.

Why do so many people choose the irrational option?

-guerreiro9

Edited July 17, 2014 by guerreiro9

[USU78]

D&C 132

 

vs 32-34 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.

But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham.

God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.

 

Joseph Smith commanded to enter the same law as Abraham did with Hagar, ie plural marriage

 

vs 51-52 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.

And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.

 

All those who are given to Joseph, ie wives, just as she is described as given to him

 

So, while it's true the D&C doesn't list his wives and marriages, there can be no doubt from reading 132 that he lived polygamy/plural marriage.

 

Thank you!  You saved me having to pull this up.

 

Anybody besides me wondering about the ingenuousness of the OP?

[mormonnewb]

Actually, I believe the Savior was more like Joseph Smith, even participating in polygamy.

 

You can't just leave it at that.  What's your theory?

[teddyaware]

Thank you!  You saved me having to pull this up.

 

Anybody besides me wondering about the ingenuousness of the OP?

Most anytime he posts, I just can't help but wonder if he really is what he says he is. But one thing's for sure, nearly every time he does post on this board the participants take the bait hook, line and sinker. And I must say the title of this thread is extremely disrespectful to the Prophet Joseph Smith and to the LDS Church. "Killing Joseph Smith," really? That's bad enough. But the full title "Killing Joseph Smith to save Mormonism" is downright perverse and even diabolical -- a sort of stamp of imprimatur on the assassinators of the Prophet. Anyway it's something I wouldn't even dream of posting myself, and something I wouldn't expect to come from the mind and heart of someone who genuinely believes in and loves the Restored Gospel. The only other viable explanation is that he believes fate has called him to serve as an iconoclast on steroids in order to keep the saints on their toes. 

Edited July 17, 2014 by teddyaware

[JLHPROF]

You can't just leave it at that.  What's your theory?

 

No theory.  I just agree with Apostle Orson Hyde in JD 2:79-83 and Apostle Orson Pratt in The Seer pg 159 and Pres. Joseph F. Smith in Wilford Woodruffs Journal 8:187, and with the scriptural justification that Christ received baptism to keep the commandments so he would also have married to keep the commandments (and probably multiplied and replenished the earth).

 

And Joseph Fielding Smith in his handwritten note on this letter:

[mormonnewb]

No theory.  I just agree with Apostle Orson Hyde in JD 2:79-83 and Apostle Orson Pratt in The Seer pg 159 and Pres. Joseph F. Smith in Wilford Woodruffs Journal 8:187, and with the scriptural justification that Christ received baptism to keep the commandments so he would also have married to keep the commandments (and probably multiplied and replenished the earth).

 

And Joseph Fielding Smith in his handwritten note on this letter:

 

 

OK, Christ being married isn't the most outrageous theory, but does polygamy necessarily follow?

[JLHPROF]

OK, Christ being married isn't the most outrageous theory, but does polygamy necessarily follow?

 

The quotes usually assume polygamy.  There's also this quote naming Christ, John and Paul as polygamists:

 

What does old Celsus say, who was a physician in the first century, whose medical works are esteemed very highly at the present time. His works on theology were burned with fire by the Catholics, they were so shocked at what they called their impiety Celsus was a heathen philosopher; and what does he say upon the subject of Christ and his Apostles, and their belief? He says, "The grand reason why the Gentiles and philosophers of his school persecuted Jesus Christ, was, because he had so many wives; there were Elizabeth, and Mary, and a host of others that followed him." After Jesus went from the stage of action, the Apostles followed the example of their master. For instance, John the beloved disciple, writes in his second Epistle, "Unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth," Again, he says, "Having many things to write unto you (or communicate), I would not, write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you; and speak face to face, that our joy may be full." Again—"The children of thy elect sister greet thee." This ancient philosopher says they were both John's wives. Paul says, "Mine answer to them that do examine me is this:—.

Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas." He, according to Celsus, had a numerous train of wives.

The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, causing his crucifixion, was evidently based upon polygamy, according to the testimony of the philosophers who rose in that age. A belief in the doctrine of a plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers. We might almost think they were "Mormons."  Jedediah M. Grant JD 1:345-6

[Stargazer]

The D&C talks about JOSEPH'S multiple marriages?

 

Criminy.  Find me a place in the D&C where it talks about ANYONE'S multiple marriages.  Except for Biblical personages, that is.

[Storm Rider]

Criminy.  Find me a place in the D&C where it talks about ANYONE'S multiple marriages.  Except for Biblical personages, that is.

 

Okay, read the first five verses of 132 and what do you understand?

 

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—

 2 Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.

 3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.

 4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

What do you think the prophet Joseph would do having received this direction from God?  Would he ignore it?  Do you think there is a high probability that he would obey?  Why would anyone deduce Joseph would ignore it or would not practice plural marriage?

[why me]

Okay, read the first five verses of 132 and what do you understand?

 

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—

 2 Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.

 3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.

 4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

What do you think the prophet Joseph would do having received this direction from God?  Would he ignore it?  Do you think there is a high probability that he would obey?  Why would anyone deduce Joseph would ignore it or would not practice plural marriage?

Of course, after fanny he did ignore it for several years. It was until he received pressure from above did he reinstate it. I am sure that he was no eagar beaver when it came to polygamy. He did have the fanny and emma experience with it and that did not turn out so well.  I do believe that he was receiving pressure to reinstate the principle and it came with the angel with the sword. Now if go by the assumption that joseph was a horndog I can safely say that he could have gotten a lot of action on his travels to other counties and especially when he would journey away from the saints. So, I think that we can safely say that he believed that he needed to restart the principle of polygamy regardless of the consequences. I cannot see him sticking his head in the fire, a fire that he knew would come, unless it felt it came from above.

[why me]

Wow! I absolutely LOVE this sentiment -- that we don't trash dead prophets, even if we later disagree with their doctrines and actions. It puts PEOPLE first -- the very fundamental of the Gospel.

If only we could apply this same sentiment to LIVING members. If only we didn't have to bolster our faith in the Church by demeaning and condemning those brave souls whose sense of justice and fairness conflicts CURRENT Church teachings.

To paraphrase the great Sam Cooke, "Oh what a wonderful church this would be ..."

I think that in the battle of ideas people can be disagreed with each other. I have seen very little demeaning and condemning on this board, especially among the active members here. However, if one fights against the lds church, and begins to lead people away or is misguided in their ideas of what the church should be, I think that it is fair game to criticize them, debate them, have a dialogue with them, and yes, passionately differ with their ideas when communicating wth such people. I do not think that the church is against debate and disagreement.

 

But what I do find interesting is when people take the moral high ground and in doing so, condemn and demean others who they believe fall short of their moral aptitude--a sense of transmitting guilt by proxy to those people who disagree with them. Usually such people want to enjoy the pulpit of internet boards without anyone calling them out passionately or critically. I have seen countless of times, especially among exmembers.

 

I would also do it if I were in their shoes. I would give a wonderful lecture to lds about how the lds church is the church of christ and how members should emulate such a philosophy on internet boards, and how disagreeable it is to see lds behaving the way they are on the boards...I would even go further about how such behavior influenced my decision to leave the lds church etc, etc,....such statements seem to work most of the time in cowtowing the lds posters into submission. I would be a great critic of the lds church. If I came back as a critic sock puppet I would have posters running around in circles with my nice posts, sweet logic in hope of getting a stir and then wham, condemn them for over reacting to my posts. But I am not that kind of person so I soldier on in the role that I now play on the board.

Edited July 17, 2014 by why me

[Analytics]

 

Regarding your first point, verse 61 says, "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."

 

This is true, but not called a requirement.  Virginity here clearly refers to the requirement  that they are given  to him by God and no one else by God.

 

So, you are saying that the dozen or so women who were already married when they were "married" to Joseph Smith were virgins, and that Joseph Smith couldn't commit adultery with them because they belonged to Joseph Smith and to no one else?  And this is because being a "virgin and have vowed to no other man" means pure and virtuous and has nothing to do with being married?

 

It means they are pure and virtuous and are married by God to no other man.  In other words, they need and are worthy of an eternal companion.  But regardless of that, as I showed in vs 41,  sexual virginity isn't actually a requirement anyway.   In that vs God allows a man to receive a wife who had been previously married - no virginity required.

 

Regarding the second point, what you are claiming is that you only need your first wife's permission if she says yes.  If she says no, then you don't need her permission and are free to go get married in secret ceremonies behind her back.  If that is a satisfying rationalization for you, then....

 

Yep.  God commands a law.  The man is expected to consult his wife.  The wife refuses to follow God's command.  The man is allowed to move forward and obey God.  You could just as easily change marriage to tithing.  God requires tithing.  A man's wife has the right to know where the family funds are being spent.  She refuses to pay tithing (doesn't believe in it).  Man is still expected to obey the law of tithing.

 

There are A LOT of devils in details of D&C 132.

Only the devils that mortal perspectives always find...

 

 

It is a cliché that people who can only be described as cult leaders pull women into their secret lives and saying, “God has given you to me.”  She may reply, “But I’m already married!” To which the leader counters, “God didn’t give you to your husband, and thus you don’t belong to him or anyone else.  Since you don’t belong to anyone and God is giving you to me, it isn’t adultery.  Just don't tell my wife or your husband--they wouldn't understand.”

 

Perhaps the only argument one can make about whether or not God really works that way is Occam’s  Razor.  What’s more likely? That the God of the Church that champions traditional family values really issues commands to his prophets like this?  Or that Joseph Smith was abusing his power for his own personal reasons, in the same the way countless other religious leaders have done since the beginning of time?

Edited July 17, 2014 by Analytics