Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Could Joseph Smith be a "Fallen Prophet"


Guest Lori

Recommended Posts

John Corrill: Read the Illinois law. It considered co-habitation in the state of Illinois the same as marriage and it qualified as bigamy. A legal document was not necessary.

You really need to do YOUR homework, John. Co-habitation is NOT sufficient to establish a marriage. In Illinois it required other steps such as cohabitation combined with a holding out to the public as being married. See AMJUR BIGAMY

Link to comment
Scott Gordon: We have to remember that Helen Kimball became a defender of polygamy.

John Corrill: Of course. This is a common and understood phenomon of people who are trapped in abusive relationships. Here's an interesting article regarding this (emphasis John Corrill):

Well...here is a nice "No-win" proposal.

"Here is a quote from Helen that says she disliked it as a 14 year old."

"But here is a quote which said she changed her mind."

"Oh...that is because she was brainwashed/mentally disturbed/abused/manipulated/ etc."

Give it a rest.

The fact is that you have nothing but highly emotionally charged speculation. You are taking YOUR values and putting them on her.

I see nothing but wild speculation on this entire discussion.

You know that the whole "abuse" idea was popular back then too. So people tried to "rescue" the Mormon Women. Guess What??? They didn't WANT to be rescued!

There were many public comments made to just that effect.

Please don't claim brainwashing or Stockholm syndrome. Nobody was kidnapped. Nobody was trapped.

Don't foget--Divorce was so easy among the Mormons that people came from all over the country to get a divorce there. Nobody was trapped.

Scott

Link to comment
I do not see how it's possible to love more than one wife at the same time.

Yes...just like it is not possible to love more than one child at a time.....oh wait. That is possible!

The good news about plural marriage is that those that didn't want to live the principle....didn't.

Give it a rest.

Scott

Link to comment

Scott Gordon: Please don't claim brainwashing or Stockholm syndrome. Nobody was kidnapped. Nobody was trapped.

John Corrill: And all an abused woman has to do is walk out her front door and leave. Yet...in many cases, it doesn't happen. Women aren't physcially restrained by abuses. They are mentally restrained - through fear and threats. Fear and threats were Joseph Smith's tools.

Please read something about abuse before you wave it off with a "Give it a Rest".

Link to comment
Scott Gordon  writes,

Yes...just like it is not possible to love more than one child at a time.....oh wait. That is possible!

Do you think that a parent's love for a child is different than conjugal love ?

The Catholic Church teaches the following:

Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter - appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility (CCC1643). The married couple forms "the intimate partnership of life and love established by the Creator and governed by his laws; it is rooted in the conjugal covenant, that is, in their irrevocable personal consent." Both give themselves definitively and totally to one another. They are no longer two; from now on they form one flesh. The covenant they freely contracted imposes on the spouses the obligation to preserve it as unique and indissoluble "What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." [Mk 109; Mt 19:1-12; 1 Cor 7: 10-11] (CCC2364).

Polygamy is not in accord with the moral law. [Conjugal] communion is radically contradicted by polygamy; this, in fact, directly negates the plan of God which was revealed from the beginning, because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive (CCC2387). Adultery, divorce, polygamy, and free union are grave offenses against the dignity of marriage (CCC2400). The unity of marriage, distinctly recognized by our Lord, is made clear in the equal personal dignity which must be accorded to man and wife in mutual and unreserved affection. Polygamy is contrary to conjugal love which is undivided and exclusive (CCC1645).

The New Testament does not reveal "wives" but reveals "wife" as it was in the beginning (see the thread below):

Plural Marriage and the New Testament, Does it teach against it?

Link to comment
Zakuska  writes,

Glad to know ho the Catholic church feels about Fathers Abrahm, Jacob, Moses as well as most of Christs family tree.

You would agree that they were in the Old Testament ... Today marriage is "in the Lord" ... for more discussin between the Old and New see the thread above.

Link to comment
The husband of one wife (1Tim 3:2)

Timothy, a bishop, a minister of Jesus Christ, is an example of the believers (1Tim 4:6,12)

To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband (1Cor 7:2)

The husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.(1Cor 7:3)

The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth (1Cor 7:39)

The husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church (Ephesians 5:23)

A man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh (Eph 5:23,31,33)

Jesus says, whosoever put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery (Matt 5:32)

Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, raise up seed unto his brother (Matt 22:24)

Whose wife shall she be of the seven? Jesus said, Ye do err, not knowing scriptures, nor power of God. (Matt 22:27-29)

Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her (Mark 10:11)

Yes and the ECFs interpret these same verse in 1 Timithy to be talking about divorce a (ie bishop could not have been divorced) something that most Catholic Bishops could never of had because they never had one wife to begin with contrary to 1 tim 4. It has nothing to do with how many wives a bishop has but that he could not have been divorced.

The woman is bound by law to one husband. But I see no binding in the NT to just one wife for a husband.

Secondly... In polygamy the first wife is "not put away". They both remain married to the man and the bed is undefialed.

Link to comment
Scott Gordon: Please don't claim brainwashing or Stockholm syndrome. Nobody was kidnapped. Nobody was trapped.

John Corrill: And all an abused woman has to do is walk out her front door and leave. Yet...in many cases, it doesn't happen. Women aren't physcially restrained by abuses. They are mentally restrained - through fear and threats. Fear and threats were Joseph Smith's tools.

Please read something about abuse before you wave it off with a "Give it a Rest".

John,

One of the difficulties with the Internet is that you aren't really familiar with whom you are speaking. I am familiar with abuse. My first job at the college was working with women in such circumstances. I still work with many students who are trying to deal with the effects of abuse. How else can I say it but, you don't know what you are talking about.

Essentially what you are doing is name calling. You are claiming that Mormon women who lived during this period MUST HAVE BEEN abused. Why else would they have done it? Never mind the facts or evidences to the contrary.

Do you still consider Mormon women to be abused? After all, they still believe in Joseph Smith.

Frankly, I find this line of reasoning very offensive.

Scott

Link to comment
Zakuska  writes,

The woman is bound by law to one husband. But I see no binding in the NT to just one wife for a husband.

Secondly... In polygamy the first wife is "not put away". They both remain married to the man and the bed is undefialed.

In polygamy it is "wives" ... in the New Testament it is "wife", just like in the beginning.

Link to comment

And theres the problem with you mark scripture.

Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her (Mark 10:11)

It inferes that a man could take a second wife without putting the first away and not commit adultury. Just like the Law of Moses says...

Ex 21

7

Link to comment

Hi,

Lucy Walker & Melissa Lott Willes, affidavits from the Partridge sisters before U.S. Judge John F. Phillips in the Temple Lot Case. His descision went against the testimony & legally invalidated the claim they were his wives. He felt if there was any truth to what they said they were but "sports in nest hiding." It's doubtful Joseph Smith Jr. would have been convicted on a co-habitation charge. always when those high & mighty academics cite from that case they leave out the significant decision of the judge. Questions remaining not withstanding William Law was guilty of perjury in the Expositor because he had no case. Joseph Smith Jr. when he declared himself innocent only did what all U.S. citizens have the right to do plead not guilty to a legally weak case.

Sincerely,

Dale

Link to comment

Scott: One of the difficulties with the Internet is that you aren't really familiar with whom you are speaking. I am familiar with abuse. My first job at the college was working with women in such circumstances. I still work with many students who are trying to deal with the effects of abuse. How else can I say it but, you don't know what you are talking about.

John Corrill: You're certainly welcome to your opinion. I'm clueless about your background in dealing with abuse, but I'm skeptical of your ability to recognize abuse, mainly because you are at odds with the multiple multiple practicing mental health professsionals (some of whom happen to be LDS) whom I have discussed Joseph Smith's abuse with. None of them think it is appropriate.

Scott: You are claiming that Mormon women who lived during this period MUST HAVE BEEN abused. Why else would they have done it?

John Corrill: Not at all true. I don't think all the women whom Joseph Smith married were abused by him. Some of the women were seeming very willing and eager to hitch up with him. It's the words and thoughts of those young girls and women who struggle with it that I am concerned about. I've read their accounts of what Joseph Smith said to them; the pressure he applied; the threats he offered; the rewards he promised. I've read about their struggles; their pain; their sorrow; their difficulty in accepting what he was asking them to do. Coercing any person into a marriage they would not choose on their own is abusive, IMO.

Scott: Do you still consider Mormon women to be abused? After all, they still believe in Joseph Smith.

John Corrill: I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you are asking. I don't think I have ever suggested that contemporary Mormon women are abused because they believe in Joseph Smith.

Link to comment

Hi CI.... <_<

I'm sure you know that the reason for this is that the survivors of abuse will usually not prosecute. They typically defend the abuser and deny that abuse even occurred. 

Typically?

I have never seen the woman "deny" the abuse because usually she can't. She's got a bruise, a scar, a welt, a black eye or something else that clearly indicates that something happened. ACtually, I may be drawing too fine a line there.

I have seen it over and over and over and over again. (I'm not sure if you caught that this is my life's work... :unsure: ) It is HIGHLY common for a woman to call the abuse crisis line in fear having been beaten only to deny it the next day. It is more common then not. The last figures from the crisis line of my employment was something like IIRC seven calls asking for help with only one actually coming in... When counselors call to set up or confirm the appointment the women frequently deny anything occurred at all.

I don't think you are familiar with abuse as it plays out.... the vast majority of women do not come forth... the majority of crimes of abuse do not even remotely see the courts.

What they will often do is blame themselves ("It was my fault.").

They might try to give an alterante explanation ("I ran into a door"; "I fell," etc).

Yes, this does happen ... usually when there is a witness or obvious marks (many batterers know how not to leave visible marks).

When they actually "defend" the abuse they usually acknowlege that it happened but try to defend his motives, ("He didn't mean it, it was an accident." ect.)

This happens at times as well... again, typically if there is a witness.

Nevertheless, TD, the fact remains that in a lot of cases, the woman actually tells the truth too! I have seen cases (many) where the injuries actually came from another source (accidents, etc). I have also seen cases where the husband did it but it was genuinely an accident.

It is not about lying or telling the truth.

I can not think of even one case in the hundreds of men who have come through the batterers program in my agency that didn't eventually admit to the abuse. NOT ONE! I'm sure that there has been a case where some man accidently, inadvertently hurt his wife and someone called the police and there was a mistake but I have NEVER seen it EVER.

But from what I see, in those cases you and John appear to suggest that we just ignore what the wife's said because "typically" some abuse victims act a certain way.

What I'm saying is that for those who understand abuse, it is understood that many women cope with a horrific situation by creating a reality that isn't necessarily reflective of what is going on.

Your statements that discuss the idea that women were free to leave speaks to the fact that you truly don't understand abuse at all.

Have you ever talked to a women who has lived with abuse for 20 or 30 or 40 years? Have you asked her why she didn't leave? It is not about being tied up or chained... it is about the mental and emotional issues that are going on.

I have to be honest and say your response makes me a little crazy... :P Those who make these kinds of judgments have NO idea what it is like for a woman in the situation... I would invite you to read some views of abused women.

I think I stated this earlier but... My experience is that in some cases Judges will court order a victim of abuse to counseling because she is in such denial she doesn't realize her life is in danger. It typically takes two or three weeks for a woman to even get to a place she can talk about it or realize she is being abused. I frequently hear, after a couple of weeks, the woman describe it as something like, a light turned on in her brain. Also judges in these types of situations typically do not allow any contact between the partners.

Were there women who found ways to manage? OF COURSE! Where there women who were happy? OF COURSE. Are there women who cope with abuse today? YES! Are there women who can find happiness even in a horrible relationship? Yes. Are there women who choose to stay in an abusive relationship? Yes.. the majority of women do! Why do you think that is CI?

So, let me ask you this... IF JS did indeed do those things which John, I, and others believe he did, would you have difficulty with it? Or is it that even if he did do these things it wouldn't be a problem because God was directing the whole thing?

~dancer~

Link to comment
Zakuska  writes,

No my point is consitent with the Bible as a whole. Marriage law didn't suddenly change in the NT. No where dId Christ put down the law of the leveriat nor did he say a man should have just one wife.

Your point is not consitent with the New Testament. Marriage and Divorce changed in the NT because Marriage is "in the Lord"(1Cori 11:11) ... Jesus taught "wife" not "wives". Marriage is renewed 'in the Lord' in the New Covenant of Christ and the Church.

Link to comment
Zakuska  writes,

Yet even God in Johns revelation had two brides.

Even the New Testment says "two shall be one flesh" (Eph 5:31-32) ... the New Testment does not say "many wives"

PS. You do have a point that divorce changed in the NT, it was strictly forbiden by the lord except in the case of adultury.

The New Testament says "The wife ... her husband ... in the Lord" (1Cor 7:39) ... it says "wife" ... it does not say "wives"

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...