What if Joseph didn't practice plural marriage?

[ttribe]

35 minutes ago, SJR3t2 said:

So you believe JS was a liar? I don't I believe him when he said he only had one wife.

2 Nephi 9:34 Wo unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell.

2 Nephi 26
32 And again, the Lord God hath commanded that men should not murder; that they should not lie; that they should not steal; that they should not take the name of the Lord their God in vain; that they should not envy; that they should not have malice; that they should not contend one with another; that they should not commit whoredoms; and that they should do none of these things; for whoso doeth them shall perish.
33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord;

Really? https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng  Open the "Basic Beliefs" section and read about Joseph Smith's plurar marriages directly from the Church.

Edited April 27, 2018 by ttribe

[JLHPROF]

26 minutes ago, SJR3t2 said:

There is much more than that, in fact I shared one.
https://theexonerationofemmajosephandhyrum.com/

Yes, I saw that.  The historical facts are clearly available.  Mormon, Non-Mormon, and Anti-Mormon scholars are all in agreement about Joseph's polygamy.

The author of that text, like the Price's, is not a scholar of history but a writer with a bias. (And a quick google shows he is an anti-LDS Church crackpot with a personal life to match)

Joseph was a polygamist.  There is no valid historical evidence otherwise.  There is some room for debate as to the nature and form of his polygamy. But he still had multiple wives.

25 minutes ago, SJR3t2 said:

So you believe JS was a liar? I don't I believe him when he said he only had one wife.

D&C 132 alone serves as sufficient historical evidence.  As to his denial, yeah, he probably lied publicly.

Edited April 27, 2018 by JLHPROF

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, SJR3t2 said:

So you believe JS was a liar? I don't I believe him when he said he only had one wife.

I believe he did lie for a purpose, yes.  

How can you discount all of the evidence, witnesses, journal entries and records supporting him living plural marriage.  You believe all of them are lies and fabrications?

If so, that's a pretty big conspiracy theory you have there!  

Edited April 27, 2018 by ALarson

[ttribe]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I believe he did lie for a purpose, yes.  

How can you discount all of the evidence, witnesses, journal entries and records supporting him living plural marriage.  You believe all of them are lies and fabrications?

If so, that's a pretty big conspiracy theory you have there!  

Only mental gymnasts need apply.

[Alan]

I have adopted the position that if Joseph lied about his marital arrangements he would have no problem lying about the first vision, the angels, the priesthood, the plates etc.

For me he was either a truthful man, or he wasn't.

As I have said before, Joseph was indeed sealed to a number of people, but these were dynastical in nature and were not what we would understand to be marriages. The two later became conflated.

[ttribe]

8 minutes ago, Alan said:

I have adopted the position that if Joseph lied about his marital arrangements he would have no problem lying about the first vision, the angels, the priesthood, the plates etc.

For me he was either a truthful man, or he wasn't.

As I have said before, Joseph was indeed sealed to a number of people, but these were dynastical in nature and were not what we would understand to be marriages. The two later became conflated.

Ms. Alger may have something to say about your theory...as would a number of women who signed affidavits attesting to the nature of their marital relationships with Joseph Smith as part of the Temple Lot case.  IMO, you turn a blind eye to facts and evidence if you adopt this position; not to mention require perfection from Joseph Smith.  By his own admission, he was a deeply flawed man.  Choosing to believe otherwise is a recipe for disaster.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Alan said:

I have adopted the position that if Joseph lied about his marital arrangements he would have no problem lying about the first vision, the angels, the priesthood, the plates etc.

That's pretty extreme, IMO.  There were reasons for why he hid his plural marriages to the general membership of the church.  

2 minutes ago, Alan said:

For me he was either a truthful man, or he wasn't.

Do you believe he was perfect?  

10 minutes ago, Alan said:

As I have said before, Joseph was indeed sealed to a number of people, but these were dynastical in nature and were not what we would understand to be marriages. The two later became conflated.

So his sealings were not marriages, but those he performed for others were actual marriages (to be consummated)?  That makes no sense at all.  

What's your opinion on all the statements by his wives and others, as well as journal entries and so on that don't support your beliefs?

[SJR3t2]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I believe he did lie for a purpose, yes.  

How can you discount all of the evidence, witnesses, journal entries and records supporting him living plural marriage.  You believe all of them are lies and fabrications?

If so, that's a pretty big conspiracy theory you have there!  

We have a different idea what is evidance vs hearsay and lies.

Where is the DNA?

 

[SJR3t2]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Really? https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng  Open the "Basic Beliefs" section and read about Joseph Smith's plurar marriages directly from the Church.

https://seekingyhwh.com/2017/05/02/2-nephi-288-vs-lds-dc-13226/

[SJR3t2]

22 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Ms. Alger may have something to say about your theory...as would a number of women who signed affidavits attesting to the nature of their marital relationships with Joseph Smith as part of the Temple Lot case.  IMO, you turn a blind eye to facts and evidence if you adopt this position; not to mention require perfection from Joseph Smith.  By his own admission, he was a deeply flawed man.  Choosing to believe otherwise is a recipe for disaster.

One would think with all the false accusations of rape going around today to support an agenda today, one would wonder if it was possible back then also.

[SJR3t2]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I believe he did lie for a purpose, yes.  

How can you discount all of the evidence, witnesses, journal entries and records supporting him living plural marriage.  You believe all of them are lies and fabrications?

If so, that's a pretty big conspiracy theory you have there!  

If you want to call it a conspiracy theory to discredit it, that is your prerogative, but fyi conspiracy theories is actually recognizing that leaders in the past that covered things up for an agenda still do. And FYI the LDS church has lied about and covered up much in the past as they are still doing.

[SJR3t2]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, I saw that.  The historical facts are clearly available.  Mormon, Non-Mormon, and Anti-Mormon scholars are all in agreement about Joseph's polygamy.

The author of that text, like the Price's, is not a scholar of history but a writer with a bias. (And a quick google shows he is an anti-LDS Church crackpot with a personal life to match)

Joseph was a polygamist.  There is no valid historical evidence otherwise.  There is some room for debate as to the nature and form of his polygamy. But he still had multiple wives.

D&C 132 alone serves as sufficient historical evidence.  As to his denial, yeah, he probably lied publicly.

There are lots of issues of D&C 132, not to mention how the LDS church practiced polygamy is in defiance with this supposed revelation.

https://seekingyhwh.com/2017/05/02/2-nephi-288-vs-lds-dc-13226/

https://www.dropbox.com/s/sdqf2jfwp26wqck/LDS%20D%26C%20132%20Writing%20Style%20Analysis%20by%20Enid%20DeBarthe.pdf?dl=0

[JLHPROF]

31 minutes ago, Alan said:

I have adopted the position that if Joseph lied about his marital arrangements he would have no problem lying about the first vision, the angels, the priesthood, the plates etc.

For me he was either a truthful man, or he wasn't.

As I have said before, Joseph was indeed sealed to a number of people, but these were dynastical in nature and were not what we would understand to be marriages. The two later became conflated.

But you at least recognize the sealing ceremonies Joseph had with these women.

The guy that wrote the book linked above thinjs Joseph never participated in any temple ordinances, wasn't a mason, and that D&C 132 is fake.

He thinks Joseph stopped with the Kirtland doctrines and Brigham altered Smiths journals.

I still disagree with your conclusions but the historical record is subject to differing conclusions.  Not to dismissal or conspiracy theories as the author linked suggests.

[ALarson]

Just now, SJR3t2 said:

We have a different idea what is evidance vs hearsay and lies.

Where is the DNA?

Sorry, but the no children equals no consummation is a very weak argument, IMO.  There are all kinds of reasons why a married couple may not have any children.  Yes, Joseph fathered children with Emma, but he lived with her and was married to her for many years.  

It's also just one small piece of this.  And hearsay?  Maybe some...but not all.  Many of the statements come from Joseph's wives themselves.  We also have contemporary sources.  Do you believe they were all lying?

Do you believe that Joseph sealed other men and women in plural marriages, but didn't live the principle himself that he was commanded to restore and live?

[SJR3t2]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Sorry, but the no children equals no consummation is a very weak argument, IMO.  There are all kinds of reasons why a married couple may not have any children.  Yes, Joseph fathered children with Emma, but he lived with her and was married to her for many years.  

It's also just one small piece of this.  And hearsay?  Maybe some...but not all.  Many of the statements come from Joseph's wives themselves.  We also have contemporary sources.  Do you believe they were all lying?

Do you believe that Joseph sealed other men and women in plural marriages, but didn't live the principle himself that he was commanded to restore and live?

oh sorry no consummation is contrary to D&C 132, which I don't believe in, but it states for the purpose of having children.

[SJR3t2]

Not to mention polyandry which is also forbidden in that pretended revelation.

[SJR3t2]

As I have studied more and more about sealings, my ideas of what it is has changed multiple times. I'm almost finished with a post that explains what I believe it is with an example from the BoM.

[ttribe]

51 minutes ago, SJR3t2 said:

One would think with all the false accusations of rape going around today to support an agenda today, one would wonder if it was possible back then also.

So, you dispute the official narrative from the Church.  Got it.

48 minutes ago, SJR3t2 said:

If you want to call it a conspiracy theory to discredit it, that is your prerogative, but fyi conspiracy theories is actually recognizing that leaders in the past that covered things up for an agenda still do. And FYI the LDS church has lied about and covered up much in the past as they are still doing.

Except NOT ONE of those woman called anything rape and had no reason to lie.

[Oliblish]

44 minutes ago, SJR3t2 said:

Not to mention polyandry which is also forbidden in that pretended revelation.

Depending on how you read it polyandry may be covered by D&C 132:

Quote

41 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.

42 If she be not in the new and everlasting covenant, and she be with another man, she has committed adultery.

So she has committed adultery if she is "with" a man other than her first husband if the Lord has not appointed unto here by the holy anointing, or is she is not in the new and everlasting covenant.  But does that mean it is NOT adultery if the Lord HAS appointed unto her by the holy anointing and she IS in the new and everlasting covenant?  That is not explicitly stated here but seems to be implied.

[SJR3t2]

6 minutes ago, Oliblish said:

Depending on how you read it polyandry may be covered by D&C 132:

So she has committed adultery if she is "with" a man other than her first husband if the Lord has not appointed unto here by the holy anointing, or is she is not in the new and everlasting covenant.  But does that mean it is NOT adultery if the Lord HAS appointed unto her by the holy anointing and she IS in the new and everlasting covenant?  That is not explicitly stated here but seems to be implied.

D&C 132: 61 ... and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified ...

[SJR3t2]

26 minutes ago, ttribe said:

So, you dispute the official narrative from the Church.  Got it.

Except NOT ONE of those woman called anything rape and had no reason to lie.

calling rape after he died is very convienant, with at least some of them they were married to top leaders who were practicing sounds like motive to me

[Oliblish]

22 minutes ago, SJR3t2 said:

D&C 132: 61 ... and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified ...

I guess I have to agree that trying to justify polyandry with the scriptures is difficult.

[JulieM]

21 minutes ago, SJR3t2 said:

calling rape after he died is very convienant, with at least some of them they were married to top leaders who were practicing sounds like motive to me

Who has accused Joseph of rape?

[SJR3t2]

Just now, JulieM said:

Who has accused Joseph of rape?

sorry rape was not the best word, I over dramatized it sorry, and I got a little mixed up with another thought that was floating in my head with current day politics, I should have said saying I have sex with JS after he is dead and cant challenge it. During JS lifetime did go to court for polygamy and the judge did not feel he did it.

[Alan]

This issue has been something I have considered for a long time. I strongly believe I was led to my position on this by the Spirit. Joseph was not a polygamist and was married only to Emma. Marriage and sealing were clearly considered to be different things in Nauvoo. The D&C even had a section on marriage regarding the fact that it should be to one woman, should be public etc.

Temple sealings however, do not meet this requirement and were therefore not marriages according to the law of the church. This isn't rocket science!

When Joseph and Hyrum were gone BY did a good job holding the church together and moving the saints outside of the US and into isolation. The downside to this was that civil and eccleciastical government were essentially the same thing. Many things became conflated, including marriage and sealings.

Given the "newspeak" it isn't difficult to understand how a memory of a Nauvoo sealing was viewed in Utah retrospect as a marriage.