Kingston Group Mbrs Plead Guilty to Massive Fraud Case

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

I get that you firmly believe God commanded polygamy.  

Yes, I believe that.  I see it as the best and most well-reasoned explanation.

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

And I really don't like to get wrapped up in someone's personal beliefs.  

Except that "God commanded polygamy" is not just my "personal beliefs."  It is the formal and official position of the Church.

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

But this narrative could simply be explained away as Joseph Smith using the angel/sword story to convince people that it wasn't his idea.  

The counter-narrative - that Joseph Smith was an inveterate lech who used polygamy as a pretext to obtain sexual access to women other than Emma - can also "be explained away."

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

He also convinced the Kimball family that if they allowed him to marry their daughter, their salvation would be assured.  There is no way of proving that he didn't make the angle/sword story up or the promise of exaltation to the Kimball family.  

There is no way of proving that the angel/sword story was fabricated, either.  

But since when can historical events like this be "proven?"  Can anyone prove that Moses didn't carve out the tablets while on the mount and use them to fool the Israelites into accepting his authority?  Can anyone prove that Lazarus wasn't just in a coma, and that his "resurrection" was just an interesting coincidence?  Can anyone prove that the followers of Jesus removed His body from the tomb, and thereafter fabricated claims of Him being resurrected?

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

If polygamy was SO IMPORTANT to God that He was willing to take Joseph Smith's life if he didn't practice it,

I sense a pending "I dislike X, so I am going to project my expectations onto X, and then suggest that X's failure to meet my expectations is a falsification of X"-type bit of reasoning coming up.

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

then where was the angel with the sword when John Taylor abandoned the practice?  

This is an imponderable.  It has no answer, and hence no real utility in this discussion.

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

Where was the power of God when Johnston's army invaded Utah?  

This is you "not get{ting} wrapped up in someone's personal beliefs?"

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

If polygamy was so important to God then why isn't the church fighting to legalize polygamy today, when the possibility of making polygamy legal  is probably a real possibility if challenged in the courts?

This is an unserious question.

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

Your "proof" will only affirm the belief of someone who already believes polygamy is of God, because it is no proof at all.  

I freely acknowledge that I am acting on faith.  An informed and reasoned faith, but faith nonetheless.

My assessment of polygamy is not an a priori one.  Is yours?

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is a narrative that Joseph Smith gave to justify marrying multiple wives. 

Sorta yes, sorta no.  If the angel-with-a-sword narrative was intended as a justification, why didn't Joseph write it down?  

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

Given the history of polygamy, it is more likely that God could care less how many wives men have.  

I think God cares very much about sexual ethics, and about family units.  Both of these are heavily implicated in polygamy.  Moreover, within a Latter-day Saint paradigm, this notion couldn't be more wrong.

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

If a person's salvation depends on having multiple wives, as Brigham Young taught, then there aren't gonna be many returning to the presence of God.

FAIR does a fairly good job of addressing/debunking this idea.  See here.

Thanks

-Smac

[pogi]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

That is not what he is saying either.  He is saying that there is no religious organization that can claim there will never be corruption,  money laundering, MLM, incest, and child abuse, because no one can guarantee that no bad apples will join their otherwise law abiding members.  Can you name any religious organization that has NEVER had any scandals?  If you can't, then you have proven Sunstone's point.

Doesn’t that just sound like an argument that a member of the Kingston sect would use to dismiss accusations.  I don’t understand the purpose of the post except to lessen the offense as being normal organizational behavior.

He basically accused ALL organizations (religious or not) of being guilty of these crimes (or at least that you see it in the leadership)  which seems outlandish to me.   He was not talking about the potential to do these things, as you frame it, he said “you can find...in any organization.”

Maybe that is not what he meant, but that is what he said.  Maybe Sunstoned can clarify, because to me it just sounds dismissive.

Edited July 31, 2019 by pogi

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I believe Joseph was a good man. 

Same here.

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I also believe that polygamy was not forced upon him by an angel with a drawn sword threatening his life if he didn't practice it (especially since he already was apparently living polygamy and had taken a second wife prior to that time). 

I am curious how you account for the "some twenty different reminiscences that recount Joseph Smith’s encounters with a sword-bearing angel who commanded him to establish the practice of plural marriage in Nauvoo, Illinois, in the early 1840s" compiled by Brian Hales.

To be sure, I am not super-duper invested in this narrative.  It's not canonized.  Most of the accounts are quite late, all are at least hearsy, and some are hearsay-within-hearsay.  But it's kinda hard to dispose of all of these accounts 100%

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I know you can argue that it wasn't "force", but that's how he presented it to the women he was trying to convince (and others)....like he feared for his life if they wouldn't agree to marry him.

Quoth Brian Hales:

Quote

Some writers affirm that Joseph Smith put pressure on women to marry him. They portray him almost as a predator gallivanting about Nauvoo seeking new wives, even marrying other men’s spouses. While it makes for an entertaining storyline, it does not square with the historical record. One of Joseph’s plural wives, Lucy Walker, remembered the Prophet's counsel: “A woman would have her choice, this was a privilege that could not be denied her.” The Prophet taught that eternal marriage was necessary for exaltation and encouraged all those he taught to comply, but he always respected their agency and choices in the matter.

Moreover, if Joseph Smith was really using this story to coerce women into marrying him, why did so many turn him down?

Moreover, if Joseph Smith fabricated the story (and, indeed, lied about God commanding polygamy), how do you account for the numerous men and women who, of and for themselves, claimed to have received revelation about polygamy?

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I've seen no convincing evidence that Joseph was reluctant to marry most of the women he married (possibly all of them). 

If you are suggesting that Joseph Smith had an easy time with the idea and practice of polygamy, I invite you to give the matter further study.  For example:

Quote

Eliza R. Snow, who was sealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith, recorded the details of the Prophet Joseph teaching the principle of plural marriage to her brother Lorenzo Snow. She noted the anguish and pain that the principle caused Joseph Smith and that he only moved forward in establishing the principle because of divine revelation:

Quote

“The Prophet Joseph unbosomed his heart [to Lorenzo Snow], and described the trying mental ordeal he experienced in overcoming the repugnance of his feelings, the natural result of the force of education and social custom, relative to the introduction of plural marriage. He knew the voice of God —he knew the commandment of the Almighty to him was to go forward —to set the example, and establish Celestial plural marriage. He knew that he had not only his own prejudices and prepossessions to combat and to overcome, but those of the whole Christian world stared him in the face; but God, who is above all, had given the commandment, and He must be obeyed. Yet the Prophet hesitated and deferred from time to time, until an angel of God stood by him with a drawn sword, and told him that, unless he moved forward and established plural marriage, his Priesthood would be taken from him and he should be destroyed! This testimony he not only bore to my brother, but also to others —a testimony that cannot be gainsayed [contradicted]” (Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow [1884], 69–70).

 

Moreover, whether Joseph was "reluctant" or "eager" is not really a key consideration for me.  Whether Joseph was commanded by God to implement polygamy is the noteworthy thing.

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I do see quite a few lies and a lot of deceit involved in what took place though.....so it is difficult for me to honestly determine what was the truth and what were lies during that Nauvoo period. 

Yes, this and the Priesthood Ban are probably the two biggest stumblingblocks in the history of the Church.

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

So much was done in absolute secrecy as well.  For me, it's a pretty ugly period of church history and also evidence to me that our leaders are also men and are definitely not infallible.

Agreed.  But it's also evidence that they were living in very difficult times.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

56 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I just don't know, he may have been conflicted about possibly committing adultery, I can see that much.

I can't.  Joseph was strongly reprimanded by God for far less serious failings than adultery.  To characterize polygamy as a pretext for adultery assumes the worst of Joseph.  And it means that he fabricated D&C 132 and falsely presented it as a revelation from God.

Quote

But honestly, if we are told we have free agency then what's up with the drawn sword from an angel? 

Paul repeatedly declared himself to be "a prisoner of Jesus Christ."  See Philemon 1:1, 9, Ephesians 3:1, Ephesians 4:1 ("prisoner of the Lord"), 2 Timothy 1:8 ("Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner...").

Here is Elder Condie's exegesis of this concept:

Quote

As Saul of Tarsus began his mission, he changed his name to Paul and turned his life to Christ. On several different occasions the apostle Paul referred to himself as a “prisoner” of Christ (see Ephesians 3:1, 4:1; 2 Timothy 1:8; Philemon 1, 9, 23). Once he had made the decision to serve the Lord, that decision was irrevocable.

Paul’s frequent use of the term prisoner of Christ is very significant, for he was very familiar with prisons and prisoners. Before his conversion he had personally sent numerous Saints to prison (see Acts 26:10), and after his conversion he himself had been forcibly committed to prison (see Acts 23:10–11, 28:17–18). He had observed firsthand the restricted latitude of free will in the lives of other prisoners and had experienced this confinement in his own life when imprisoned.

Thus, when Paul confessed that he had become a willing prisoner of Christ, he disclosed that he had willingly chosen to use his moral agency to do only the will of the Lord. In doing so, he unraveled the mystery of the Savior’s paradoxical promise that “he that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it” (Matthew 10:39). Those who willingly become prisoners of Christ “shall know the truth, and the truth shall make [them] free” (John 8:32). ...

As Paul became Christ’s prisoner, his life began to more closely approximate the Savior’s life. His relationship with Christ became more like the Savior’s relationship with his Father. 

Thoughts?

Quote

I don't believe it happened. Hope it's okay to express my honest feelings without offending. 

No worries.  So you think Joseph lied about it?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 31, 2019 by smac97

[ALarson]

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am curious how you account for the "some twenty different reminiscences that recount Joseph Smith’s encounters with a sword-bearing angel who commanded him to establish the practice of plural marriage in Nauvoo, Illinois, in the early 1840s" compiled by Brian Hales.

Yes, I've read those accounts.  I believe that a story may have been told and then repeated many times by others (and possibly embellished at times).  But I do not believe that God works that way (sending an angel to threaten someone's life to live a principle they were already living....).  

Quote

"Twenty-one accounts by nine polygamy insiders left recollections that the Prophet told of one specific reason: an angel with a sword who threatened him if he did not proceed. All nine witnesses could have heard the statement from the Prophet himself; however, the narratives themselves suggest that Benjamin F. Johnson and Eliza R. Snow may have been repeating information gathered from other people. Joseph Lee Robinson's narrative is difficult to date and his actual source is not clear. Lorenzo Snow, Erastus Snow, and Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner quote the Prophet directly and Mary Elizabeth provides details not available elsewhere. Unfortunately, with the possible exception of the Robinson account, all of the reminiscences date to at least twenty to thirty years after the event."

 

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Moreover, if Joseph Smith was really using this story to coerce women into marrying him, why did so many turn him down?

Really?  The number that turned someone down has nothing to do with whether or not that person may have been using a story as a method or attempt to coerce.

It is interesting to note that the 4 women he convinced with this method were all currently married to other men.  Do you believe he was commanded to live polyandry as part of the principle of polygamy?

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If you are suggesting that Joseph Smith had an easy time with the idea and practice of polygamy, I invite you to give the matter further study.

Oh, I've studied and read and researched this topic quite extensively.  That does not mean that I'm not open to learn more, of course.  And I agree that Joseph didn't have an easy time practicing polygamy.....but much of that has to do with how he went about attempting to practice it, IMO, (the lies and deceit involved).  I see no evidence that he had to be convinced or talked into courting and being with Fanny, have you?  

Oliver Cowdery discovered what was going on and left the church.  I can see why Joseph may have been hesitant to try again.  I believe his fear of being discovered again was pretty great.

I know many disagree with what I believe here and it's once again a topic that we each have to study and come to our own conclusions regarding what we believe.  

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Whether Joseph was commanded by God to implement polygamy is the noteworthy thing.

I understand that.  We don't need to go back and forth on that (again  ) on here.  I firmly do not believe God would attempt to force or command anyone to live polygamy (he already was practicing it) and most especially would not want to see the pain, hurt, deceit, lies, and betrayal that took place with Joseph's practice of polygamy.

 

Edited July 31, 2019 by ALarson

[Tacenda]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I can't.  Joseph was strongly reprimanded by God for far less serious failings than adultery.  To characterize polygamy as a pretext for adultery assumes the worst of Joseph.  And it means that he fabricated D&C 132 and falsely presented it as a revelation from God.

Paul repeatedly declared himself to be "a prisoner of Jesus Christ."  See Philemon 1:1, 9, Ephesians 3:1, Ephesians 4:1 ("prisoner of the Lord"), 2 Timothy 1:8 ("Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner...").

Here is Elder Condie's exegesis of this concept:

Thoughts?

No worries.  So you think Joseph lied about it?

Thanks,

-Smac

I will have to be honest and say yes. I read somewhere where Joseph said he regretted it and that it would bring down the church one day. I'd have to find a reference. But even when I do, someone will say it's just hearsay. ETA: Here it is: 

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history/polygamy-causes-martyrdom/

But Brian Hales discounts it of course.

Did Joseph Smith Intend to Abandon Plural Marriage?

In the years after the Prophet’s martyrdom, William Marks, who had served as the President of the Nauvoo Stake in 1843, reported that in the weeks prior to his death, Joseph Smith had issued instructions for the Mormons to abandon polygamy, Marks wrote in 1853:

When the doctrine of polygamy was introduced into the church as a principle of exaltation, I took a decided stand against it; which stand rendered me quite unpopular with many of the leading ones of the church. … Joseph, however, became convinced before his death that he had done wrong; for about three weeks before his death, I met him one morning in the street, and he said to me, “Brother Marks, … we are a ruined people.” I asked, how so? He said: “This doctrine of polygamy, or Spiritual-wife system, that has been taught and practiced among us, will prove our destruction and overthrow. I have been deceived,” said he, “in reference to its practice; it is wrong; it is a curse to mankind, and we shall have to leave the United States soon, unless it can be put down and its practice stopped in the church. Now,’ said he,’ Brother Marks, you have not received this doctrine, and how glad I am. I want you to go into the high council and I will have charges preferred against all who practice this doctrine, and I want you to try them by the laws of the church, and cut them off, if they will not repent and cease the practice of this doctrine.”²⁰

Edited July 31, 2019 by Tacenda

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Actually, that is not what I said (or ment) at all.  I said corruption can be found in all organizations. That is all I said.  Now, do you really want to argue that?  

Actually, I understood very well what you said.  It was what you did not say that interested me:  I attempted to draw you out simply because your basic statement is meaningless without further distinctions being made.  What you essentially said was that "We always have weather."  Yep, we sure do, but what does that mean?  Nothing.

[Robert F. Smith]

57 minutes ago, pogi said:

..................................

Maybe that is not what he meant, but that is what he said.  Maybe Sunstoned can clarify, because to me it just sounds dismissive.

That's what I thought as well, and tried to draw him out, but he refused.

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I will have to be honest and say yes. I read somewhere where Joseph said he regretted it and that it would bring down the church one day. I'd have to find a reference. But even when I do, someone will say it's just hearsay. ETA: Here it is: 

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history/polygamy-causes-martyrdom/

But Brian Hales discounts it of course.

What do you mean "of course?"  That sounds like an ad hominem. 

What parts of his assessment of Marks's claim do you find problematic?

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Did Joseph Smith Intend to Abandon Plural Marriage?

In the years after the Prophet’s martyrdom, William Marks, who had served as the President of the Nauvoo Stake in 1843, reported that in the weeks prior to his death, Joseph Smith had issued instructions for the Mormons to abandon polygamy, Marks wrote in 1853:

When the doctrine of polygamy was introduced into the church as a principle of exaltation, I took a decided stand against it; which stand rendered me quite unpopular with many of the leading ones of the church. … Joseph, however, became convinced before his death that he had done wrong; for about three weeks before his death, I met him one morning in the street, and he said to me, “Brother Marks, … we are a ruined people.” I asked, how so? He said: “This doctrine of polygamy, or Spiritual-wife system, that has been taught and practiced among us, will prove our destruction and overthrow. I have been deceived,” said he, “in reference to its practice; it is wrong; it is a curse to mankind, and we shall have to leave the United States soon, unless it can be put down and its practice stopped in the church. Now,’ said he,’ Brother Marks, you have not received this doctrine, and how glad I am. I want you to go into the high council and I will have charges preferred against all who practice this doctrine, and I want you to try them by the laws of the church, and cut them off, if they will not repent and cease the practice of this doctrine.”²⁰

Here is Hales's assessment:

Quote

There are several problems with this recollection. Since the Prophet had secretly authorized all plural marriages, he knew who was involved, eliminating the need to dispatch stake leaders on a witch hunt. He could have identified every practicing polygamist and directly approached them, which would have minimized additional gossip and rumors. In addition, many of the polygamists held higher authority than Marks.²¹ For Joseph to commission him was inconsistent with the leadership structure of the Church. ²²

The Prophet continued to authorize new plural marriages through April and into May of 1843. Ezra T. Benson, Theodore Turley, and Erastus Snow were sealed to polygamous brides in April.²³ The last recorded plural union occurred on May 8 between Brigham Young and Clarissa Caroline Decker.²⁴

Also, Joseph Smith continued to privately teach plural marriage through at least May. Amasa Lyman remembered being taught about plural marriage a few days prior to the April 1844 General Conference.²⁵

Apostle George A. Smith recalled in 1869: “My last conversation with him [Joseph Smith] on this subject [plural marriage] occurred just previous to my departure from Nauvoo (May 9, 1844). … In his last conversation, he administered a little chastisement to me for not stepping forward as he had indicated in patriarchal marriage.”²⁶ George had yet to marry a plural wife. Charles C. Rich signed an affidavit that in May of 1844 “as he was about starting on a mission to the State of Michigan, Hyrum Smith, patriarch, taught him the principle of polygamy or celestial marriage.”²⁷

Joseph’s continued eternal sealing proposals (possibly as late as May 13), his authorization for others to enter polygamous unions (as late as May 8), and his persistent promotion of plural marriage among his followers (May 9 or later) indicate that his feelings regarding the practice of polygamy did not change.

Brigham Young remembered that with respect to plural marriage: “Joseph was worn out with it,” but added, “I never knew that he denied the doctrine of polygamy. Some have said that he did, but I do not believe he ever did.”²⁸

Hales makes some good points here.  Also, Marks was a consistent opponent of plural marriage.  Does that affect your assessment of his claim?  Why or why not?

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

12 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Actually, that is not what I said (or ment) at all.  I said corruption can be found in all organizations. That is all I said.  Now, do you really want to argue that?  

Actually you said “corruption, money laundering, MLM, incest, and child abuse...”

Yes, I would like to argue that.

Edited July 31, 2019 by pogi

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

The narrative or Joseph being a serial adulter with a insatiable drive fails a little when you start to look at evidence like this. He was very obviously reluctant or an extremely genius liar.

The other serious problem is that you have this scenario about that insatiable lust in a man who has proven fertility during his entire adult life, but who never fathers a child by any of his plural wives.  Is that likely?

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes, I've read those accounts.  I believe that a story may have been told and then repeated many times by others (and possibly embellished at times).  But I do not believe that God works that way (sending an angel to threaten someone's life to live a principle they were already living....).  

I'm okay with that.  Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

21 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

Moreover, if Joseph Smith was really using this story to coerce women into marrying him, why did so many turn him down?

Really?  The number that turned someone down has nothing to do with whether or not that person may have been using a story as a method or attempt to coerce.

It may indicate that these women did not feel coerced, or that the narrative was not intended to be coercive.

21 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Oh, I've studied and read and researched this topic quite extensively.  That does not mean that I'm not open to learn more, of course.  And I agree that Joseph didn't have an easy time practicing polygamy.....but much of that has to do with how he went about attempting to practice it, IMO, (the lies and deceit involved).  I see no evidence that he had to be convinced or talked into courting and being with Fanny, have you?  

So the absence of evidence that "he had to be convinced or talked into courting" Ms. Alger is evidence of absence of such measures?

We are mostly operating in a vacuum of data here.  Joseph Smith may have received clear and marvelous instruction to implement polygamy, such as was sufficient to overcome the aversion that so many of his contemporaries felt when they were first introduced to the concept.  He then married Fanny Alger, and did so using deception.  It was a spectacular failure on his part, by virtually every metric (except, perhaps, that he actually did obey the commandent).  He thereafter became very reluctant to continue the implementation of the practice, perhaps to such an extent that it imperiled his continued calling as a prophet.  Hence we get . . . an angel and a sword, since Joseph was apparently too reluctant to submit to other divine efforts to extract his obedience.

21 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Oliver Cowdery discovered what was going on and left the church.  I can see why Joseph may have been hesitant to try again.  I believe his fear of being discovered again was pretty great.

Yes.  

21 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I know many disagree with what I believe here and it's once again a topic that we each have to study and come to our own conclusions regarding what we believe.  

I quite agree.  Rejecting polygamy was a stumblingblock both then and now.  John 6 comes to mind.

21 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

Whether Joseph was commanded by God to implement polygamy is the noteworthy thing.

I understand that.  We don't need to go back and forth on that (again  ) on here.  I firmly do not believe God would attempt to force or command anyone to live polygamy (he already was practicing it) and most especially would not want to see the pain, hurt, deceit, lies, and betrayal that took place with Joseph's practice of polygamy.

I believe God has often commanded His people to do things that they did not want to do.  "Whom I love I also chasten" (D&C 95:1).

Thanks,

-Smac

[JulieM]

11 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The other serious problem is that you have this scenario about that insatiable lust in a man who has proven fertility during his entire adult life, but who never fathers a child by any of his plural wives.  Is that likely?

So do you believe there was no sex involved with Joseph’s marriages (other than with Emma)?

What do you believe took place between Joseph and Fanny?  No sex?

Edited July 31, 2019 by JulieM

[JulieM]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 I believe God has often commanded His people to do things that they did not want to do.  "Whom I love I also chasten" (D&C 95:1).

God was chastening Joseph to live polygamy?  Is that what you believe?

But he was living it.  Right?

[JulieM]

40 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Really?  The number that turned someone down has nothing to do with whether or not that person may have been using a story as a method or attempt to coerce.

It is interesting to note that the 4 women he convinced with this method were all currently married to other men.  

Wow.  I don’t know that!

I honestly almost get to the point of trying to accept how he lived polygamy, but marrying already married members?  Why?

[smac97]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

God was chastening Joseph to live polygamy?  Is that what you believe?

"Chasten" = "to inflict suffering upon for purposes of moral improvement."

Do I believe that polygamy caused difficulty/suffering to Joseph Smith and others?  Yes.  And while some of that difficulty/suffering arose from mistakes and errors committed by Joseph Smith, much of it was independent of such things, and would have arisen even if Joseph Smith had been utterly flawless in his carrying out of the principle of polygamy.

Was Joseph Smith perfect in how he implemented polygamy?  No.  Far from it.  And then he compounded the problems by refusing for some years to continue to implement it (hence the sword/angel thing).

Do I believe that God knew beforehand that polygamy would be a severe trial to His Church?  Yes.  Omniscience makes that a sure thing.

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

But he was living it.  Right?

Not really.  See here (emphases added):

Quote

The historical record indicates that Joseph Smith contracted his first plural marriage in 1835 or 1836 in Kirtland, Ohio, with Fanny Alger. Upon learning of the relationship, his legal wife, Emma, and close friend Oliver Cowdery rejected it, considering it adulterous. Evidence supports that afterward the Prophet taught no one about plural marriage or even mentioned the subject during the next five to six years.   Richard Van Wagoner observed: “The difficulties [of] the Fanny Alger situation . . . seriously hampered Joseph Smith’s apparent enthusiasm for plural marriage.”  This may be why at one time he lamented to Levi Hancock, “Brother Levi, if I should make known to my brethren what God has made known to me they would seek my life.”  In 1843 Joseph observed, “Men will say I will never forsake you but will stand by you
at all times but the moment you teach them some of the mysteries of God that are retained in the heavens and are to be revealed to the children of men when they are prepared, they will be the first to stone you & put you to death.”

...

Several accounts relate how Joseph appeared to have felt genuine fear at the time. Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner recalled that the sword-threat was not symbolic: “Joseph told me that he was afraid when the angel appeared to him and told him to take other wives. He hesitated, and the angel appeared to him the third time with a drawn sword in his hand and threatened his life if he did not fulfi ll the commandment.”

Thanks,

-Smac

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not really. 

Why not (really)?

How many wives does a man need to be married to (at the same time) before he’s practicing polygamy?

Did he need to marry already married women to restore polygamy? 

Edited July 31, 2019 by JulieM

[USU78]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Chasten" = "to inflict suffering upon for purposes of moral improvement."

Do I believe that polygamy caused difficulty/suffering to Joseph Smith and others?  Yes.  And while some of that difficulty/suffering arose from mistakes and errors committed by Joseph Smith, much of it was independent of such things, and would have arisen even if Joseph Smith had been utterly flawless in his carrying out of the principle of polygamy.

Was Joseph Smith perfect in how he implemented polygamy?  No.  Far from it.  And then he compounded the problems by refusing for some years to continue to implement it (hence the sword/angel thing).

Do I believe that God knew beforehand that polygamy would be a severe trial to His Church?  Yes.  Omniscience makes that a sure thing.

Not really.  See here (emphases added):

Thanks,

-Smac

Wasn't Abraham chastened in the leadup to and on Mt Moriah?  Isn't that the signal event upon which all Abrahamic religions base their belief systems?

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Why not (really)?

He had apparently been commanded to continue the practice of polygamy, and instead he stopped it for 5-6 years.

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

How many wives does a man need to be married to (at the same time) before he’s practicing polygamy?

But the issue is not whether he was already in a polygamous relationship, but whether he was being obedient into entering into more such relationships (hence the "not really" comment above).

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Did he need to marry already married women to restore polygamy? 

I don't follow.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Wasn't Abraham chastened in the leadup to and on Mt Moriah?  Isn't that the signal event upon which all Abrahamic religions base their belief systems?

Angels with swords have biblical precedent.  Hales references Num. 22:23, 31 (Balaam's story).  And then there's the "cherubim and a flaming sword" in Genesis 3:24 (also referenced in Moses 4:31, Alma 12:21, and Alma 42:2) "to guard the tree of life and to prevent Adam and Eve from partaking of it."

So the sword-wielding angel thing appears to have a decent scriptural provenance.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Robert F. Smith]

34 minutes ago, JulieM said:

So do you believe there was no sex involved with Joseph’s marriages (other than with Emma)?

What do you believe took place between Joseph and Fanny?  No sex?

I don't know, but there just may be more to "spiritual" wifery than lust.  I always get a kick out of Mark Twain's take on it:

Quote

“Our stay in Salt Lake City amounted to only two days, and therefore we had no time to make the customary inquisition into the workings of polygamy and get up the usual statistics and deductions preparatory to calling the attention of the nation at large once more to the matter.
 
“I had the will to do it. With the gushing self-sufficiency of youth I was feverish to plunge in headlong and achieve a great reform here—until I saw the Mormon women. Then I was touched. My heart was wiser than my head. It warmed toward these poor, ungainly and pathetically “homely” creatures, and as I turned to hide the generous moisture in my eyes, I said, ‘No—the man that marries one of them has done an act of Christian charity which entitles him to the kindly applause of mankind, not their harsh censure—and the man that marries sixty of them has done a deed of open-handed generosity so sublime that the nations should stand uncovered in his presence and worship in silence.’”

 

[JulieM]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

He had apparently been commanded to continue the practice of polygamy, and instead he stopped it for 5-6 years.

 

I don't follow.

Apparently?  Do you see how shakey or questionable that history and story really is?  I get that you believe, but it is pretty much based on fuzzy and incomplete evidence, imo.  

 

Those who he convinced to marry him with the story of the angel with the sword, were already married to other men.  How can that be from God?  

 

Edited July 31, 2019 by JulieM

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Wasn't Abraham chastened in the leadup to and on Mt Moriah?  Isn't that the signal event upon which all Abrahamic religions base their belief systems?

The Topical Guide entry on "chastening" is fairly extensive:

Quote

• I, will chastise you seven times for your sins, Lev. 26:28.
• as a man chasteneth his son, so the Lord, Deut. 8:5.
• I will chasten him with the rod of men, 2 Sam. 7:14.
• despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty, Job 5:17 (Prov. 3:11).
• I have borne chastisement, I will not offend any more, Job 34:31.
• Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, Ps. 94:12.
• Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee, Prov. 9:8.
• he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes, Prov. 13:24.
• Chasten thy son while there is hope, Prov. 19:18.
• Withhold not correction from the child, Prov. 23:13.
• rod and reproof give wisdom, Prov. 29:15.
• poured out a prayer when thy chastening was upon them, Isa. 26:16.
• therefore chastise him, and release him, Luke 23:16.
• we are chastened of the Lord, 1 Cor. 11:32.
• All scripture is given … for reproof, for correction, 2 Tim. 3:16.
• reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering, 2 Tim. 4:2.
• whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, Heb. 12:6 (D&C 95:1).
• As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten, Rev. 3:19.
• spoken hard things against the wicked, 1 Ne. 16:2.
• chastened because of his murmuring, 1 Ne. 16:25.
• Lord seeth fit to chasten his people, Mosiah 23:21.
• except the Lord doth chasten … they will not remember him, Hel. 12:3.
• the people of Nephi hath he loved, and … chastened, Hel. 15:3.
• the Lord … chastened him because he remembered not to call, Ether 2:14.
• as they sinned they might be chastened, D&C 1:27.
• offend many … be chastened before many, D&C 42:90.
• until he is sufficiently chastened for all his sins, D&C 58:60.
• you were chastened for all your sins, D&C 61:8.
• for this evil they were afflicted and sorely chastened, D&C 64:8.
• chasten him for the murmurings of his heart, D&C 75:7.
• feel the … chastening hand of an Almighty God, D&C 87:6.
• chasten her until she overcomes, D&C 90:36.
• hath need to be chastened, D&C 93:50.
• those that must needs be chastened, D&C 97:6.
• the Lord, will chasten them, D&C 98:21.
• redeemed, although she is chastened, D&C 100:13.
• who will not endure chastening, D&C 101:5.
• be chastened for a little season, D&C 103:4.
• people must needs be chastened until they learn, D&C 105:6.
• Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost, D&C 121:43.
• he that will not bear chastisement is not worthy, D&C 136:31.

Polygamy is a toughie.  However, its practice in the 19th-century Church is not the first time that the disciples of Jesus have been asked to live out-of-step with their neighbors, including those who are members of the faith.  I recognize that many things the Church of Jesus Christ teaches are difficult for its members and others to accept.  I hope each of us finds the happiness we are seeking.  That said, as much as we tend to emphasize the "love-one-another" aspect of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it's not as though everyone who has ever heard Christ's teachings did not ever have any problems with them.  Sometimes the Lord asks us to do difficult things, to accept difficult things.  Consider the Savior's "Bread of Life" sermon in John 6.  What was the result of it?

Quote

42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
 43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
...
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
...
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heardthis, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
...
66 ¶ From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Christ said and did things that were not well-received by the society around Him.  I'm quite okay with that.  I'm also quite okay with His servants doing the same thing.  I am of course interested in the reputation of the Church.  Our reputation affects our ability to fulfill various mandates from God, not the least of which is the Great Commission.  But preserving and ehnancing the Church's "reputation" cannot come at the expense of other mandates, such as upholding and proclaiming and teaching principles pertaining to marriage and the Law of Chastity.

Christ did not upend the moneychangers' tables in the temple because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.

Christ did not preach the "Bread of Life" sermon in John 6 because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.

Christ preached a gospel that was not going to be popular in the minds of an increasingly wicked world.  He knew that.  But He preached it anyway.  I think He knew beforehand that His message would alienate many people, including some otherwise good and decent people.  But He preached anyway.  I think He did so because those who were ready for His message needed to hear it, and needed to be gathered out of the World.  

Perhaps this is why He said: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."  

Perhaps this is why He also said (several times, actually) : "Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words."

Christ also said: "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."  

Christ also said "For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me."  

My dad and I were talking about these things a while back, some of which have been described as the "dark sayings of Jesus."  My dad noted that some people focus on the "sweetness and light" sayings of the Savior, which is probably fine - unless that focus is exclusionary.  Christ had warnings for us, after all.  Such as this: "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you."  And this: "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil."   And this: "Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail."   And this: "For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory."

Today, the Church and its members are heavily criticized for its adherence to the Law of Chastity (the biggest grievance being the prohibition against homosexual behavior).  However, we are also criticized for our ancestors' practice of polygamy (despite all Christians everywhere likewise having polygamy in their pedigrees) and the Priesthood Ban.

Polygamy is a difficult one to address because it was divinely mandated, but sociologically disliked (both then and now).  That there were some elements of deceit in its practice makes the matter much more challenging and complex.

The Priesthood Ban is also difficult, but for different reasons.  We lack a known revelatory basis for it.  And even 40+ years after it was rescinded, its ill effects are still echoing in the halls of our chapels.

Oh, well.  Our job is to move the work forward, to voluntarily contribute and consecrate even where substantial mistakes have been made.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 31, 2019 by smac97

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Apparently?  Do you see how shakey or questionable that history and story really is?  

A single sentence doth not a "history and story" make.

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I get that you believe, but it is pretty much based on fuzzy and incomplete evidence, imo.  

Unless, of course, there are huge amounts of additional information that pertain to my assessment of this matter, which information was not included in the single sentence I wrote a few minutes ago.  So I don't think you are really in a position to meaningfully evaluate what my position is "based on."

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Those who he convinced to marry him with the story of the angel with the sword, were already married to other men.  How can that be from God?  

Whom are you referencing here?

Thanks,

-Smac

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Oh, I've studied and read and researched this topic quite extensively.  That does not mean that I'm not open to learn more, of course.  And I agree that Joseph didn't have an easy time practicing polygamy.....but much of that has to do with how he went about attempting to practice it, IMO, (the lies and deceit involved).  I see no evidence that he had to be convinced or talked into courting and being with Fanny, have you?  

I think that's more open. Have you read Hale's "Fanny Alger and Joseph Smith’s Pre-Nauvoo Reputation"? It doesn't present Joseph as being coerced, but it does appear to present him as being told to do it. Benjamin Johnson, in a late account, refers to Alger's mother as indicating he was commanded to practice polygamy but not necessarily pick Fanny. "In talking with my mother . . . [Joseph Smith] told her that when the Lord required him to move in plural marriage, that his first thought was to come and ask her for some of her daughters..." He also argues that the accounts of the angel with the sword in some versions likely date to the Algers marriage. Again it's a late account, but Mary Elizabeth Rollins said that the first visit of the angel was 1834. She attributes the angel to a command to marry her, but the dating is also just before Fanny Alger's parents date that marriage. According to Mosiah Hancock, Joseph didn't approach Fanny but had Levi Hancock approach the parents. 

Because these are late memories it's quite possible they're corrupted by later theorizing about plural marriage in the Utah period. The people involved also obviously are Mormon and thus have an incentive to valorize Joseph. However given Rollins place as a plural wife, I think her memories are rather significant even if we should be skeptical about details.

Edited July 31, 2019 by clarkgoble