Counter-Evidence Regarding Joseph Smith and Plural Marriage

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Re: Counter-Evidence Regarding Joseph Smith and Plural Marriage

Post by _Runtu »

Jason Bourne wrote:Runtu

Don't expect it. BC and Droopy know they lose miserably on this one. They always do. They just put you or others down ( well Droopy does, BC just runs away or says what about the children which is a ludicrous defense) who bring this issue up with well documented support. I think deep down they know this is problamatic.


I'm not expecting it, but then I'd love to be pleasantly surprised. Most people realize that "You're an evil, yellow journalist, lying sack of anti-Mormon crap" is not a reasoned defense.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Counter-Evidence Regarding Joseph Smith and Plural Marriage

Post by _harmony »

Jason Bourne wrote: I think deep down they know this is problamatic.


For many people, it's a deal breaker.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Re: Counter-Evidence Regarding Joseph Smith and Plural Marriage

Post by _Runtu »

harmony wrote:For many people, it's a deal breaker.


For me, it wasn't so much a deal-breaker as it was the straw that broke the camel's back. You can only rationalize so much for so long, and this provided the clearest realization that I had been rationalizing an awful lot of stuff. After I stopped rationalizing Joseph's behavior, I ceased having any reason to rationalize the rest of the problematic.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Counter-Evidence Regarding Joseph Smith and Plural Marriage

Post by _Themis »

stemelbow wrote:
Themis wrote:Why not just send an angel with a flaming sword to others like Emma? Why is it that Joseph is the only one?


Beats me. Why do you suppose I'd know the answer to that?


I never thought you did. I like the question becuase it makes me think. It makes little sense for God to so forceful, while everyone else he has to take it on faith. It does make perfect sense if Joseph is just making it up, and we can see countless example of other like Tarski talked about doing the same thing. Joseph's pattern fits so well.

Because we're straight up dummies, I suppose.


Not at all. I think it is where one goes when there are no good reasons and who cannot let go of cherished beliefs.

So on what scale are you considering him not better than average? your subjective one? Or mine?


Well back then and even today sleeping around behind your wife's back and the manipulation involved would make anyone outside of the church consider that person well below average. This is based on if you consider Joseph polygamy not God sanctioned.

What's wrong with letting believers believe what ever the hell htey want to? I mean we are given our agency to choose our beliefs afterall.


I don't recall saying anything about forcing beliefs. Could you point to where I did?

You seem to advocate something kinda strangely "get in line or I'll kick you out" to me.


Could you point to where I did this. I don't recall anywhere. What I did say was I don't think much of the we don't know defense which you and anyone can use whenever they want to reject evidence that does not support what they believe. I am not saying it can't be valid at times, but from my perspective you do seem to over use it with things we do have a lot of evidence for.

You're welcome, Temis. I may consider doing that for you every time you feel you have a point to raise, if that's what you're interested in.


No need. You do it sometimes without knowing it. :) Don't worry I do Kidd a bit. I much prefer discussing things with you then people like Simon, bcspace, droppy, why me, Joseph, derrick, etc.
42
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Counter-Evidence Regarding Joseph Smith and Plural Marriage

Post by _Themis »

Runtu wrote:
harmony wrote:For many people, it's a deal breaker.


For me, it wasn't so much a deal-breaker as it was the straw that broke the camel's back. You can only rationalize so much for so long, and this provided the clearest realization that I had been rationalizing an awful lot of stuff. After I stopped rationalizing Joseph's behavior, I ceased having any reason to rationalize the rest of the problematic.


It was never a deal breaker for me, although it did provide good evidence that Joseph was doing his own thing. The real deal breakers were the Book of Abraham, Book of Mormon, etc. They were just to devastating once you understood the issues with at least some willingness to change ones beliefs.
42
_Nevo
_Emeritus
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:05 pm

Re: Counter-Evidence Regarding Joseph Smith and Plural Marriage

Post by _Nevo »

Earlier in the thread, bcspace questioned the accuracy of Runtu's quote of my quote of George D. Smith's quote of Emily Partridge :) He was more accepting of Compton's partial transcription of Emily's testimony in the Temple Lot case.

I thought it might be helpful to set down Emily's testimony in full regarding the physical dimension of her relationship with the Prophet:

Q. Who roomed with Joseph Smith that night,--the night of that day the 11th of May 1843 when you say you and your sister were married to Joseph Smith?

A. Well I don't want to answer that question.

[By Mr. Hall] Q. Well answer it if you can, if you know?

A. Well it was myself.

Q. Now you have answered it, and that will do?

[By Mr. Kelley] Q. You roomed with Joseph Smith that night?

A. Yes sir.


— Deposition of Emily D. Partridge Young in Salt Lake City on 19 March 1892, 363-64; original in LDS Archives.


Q. Well do you make the declaration now that you ever roomed with him at any time?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Do you make the declaration that you ever slept with him in the same bed?

A. Yes sir.

Q. How many nights?

A. One.

Q. Only one night?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Then you only slept with him in the same bed one night?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Did you ever have carnal intercourse with Joseph Smith?

A. Yes sir.

Q. How many nights?

A. I could not tell you.

Q. Do you make the declaration that you never slept with him but one night?

A. Yes sir.

Q. And that was the only time and place that you were ever in bed with him?

A. No sir.

Q. Were you in bed with him at any place before that time?

A. Before what time?

Q. Before you were married?

A. No sir, not before I was married to him I never was.

Q. Do you mean that you were in bed with him after the 4th of March 1843?

A. Yes sir, but that was after I was first married to him.


— Deposition of Emily D. Partridge Young in Salt Lake City on 19 March 1892, 384; original in LDS Archives.
_Nevo
_Emeritus
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:05 pm

Re: Counter-Evidence Regarding Joseph Smith and Plural Marriage

Post by _Nevo »

MsJack wrote:I have to disagree with you that involving Emma would have been crueler than not involving her. In all of the cases I've known where a husband concealed something from his wife, if his wife found out in spite of his efforts, the situation became far, far worse than it would have been had he simply been honest with the difficult news from the beginning. Sure, the wife had some peace for however long he kept the truth from her, but when she finally found out, she had to deal with the horrible news on top of the lack of trust in her husband. Some hear the truth from other sources instead of hearing it from their husbands directly, which is usually even worse.

Hi MsJack,

You may be right about this. Normally, couples shouldn't hide things from each other. And there is indeed something a bit unseemly about Joseph Smith sneaking around, sending furtive notes, holding doors closed, and so on. But I'm not sure it could have been otherwise. It seems to me that the choice before Joseph was to practice polygamy semi-secretly or not at all.

We don't have to guess at what would have happened had Emma been "in the loop" all along. We need look no further than the summer of 1843, when Joseph and Emma's conflict over plural marriage came to a head. The following excerpts from William Clayton's journal tell the story:

[May 23, 1843] "... President stated to me that he had had a little trouble with Sister E[mma]."

[June 23, 1843] "This A.M. President Joseph took me and conversed considerable concerning some delicate matters. Said [Emma] wanted to lay a snare for me.... he knew she was disposed to be revenged on him for some things. She thought that if he would indulge himself she would too."

[July 12, 1843] "This A.M. I wrote a Revelation consisting of 10 pages on the order of the priesthood, showing the designs in Moses, Abraham, David and Solomon having many wives and concubines &c. After it was wrote Presidents Joseph and Hyrum presented it and read it to E[mma] who said she did not believe a word of it and appeared very rebellious. Joseph told me to Deed all the unencumbered lots to E[mma] and the children. He appears much troubled about E[mma]."

[July 13, 1843] "This A.M. Joseph sent for me and when I arrived he called me up into his private room with E[mma] and there stated an agreement they had mutually entered into. They both stated their feelings on many subjects and wept considerable."

[August 16, 1843] "This A.M. Joseph told me that since E[mma] came back from St. Louis she had resisted the P[riesthood] in toto and he had to tell her he would relinquish all for her sake. She said she would have given him E[liza] and E[mily] Partridge, but he knew if he took them she would pitch on him and obtain a divorce and leave him. He however told me he should not relinquish anything."

[August 21, 1843] "E[mma] asked if I handed 2 letters to Joseph which she showed me. I had not done it. I satisfied her I had not. They appeared to be from E[liza] R Snow and President Joseph found them in his pocket. E[mma] seemed vexed and angry."

[August 23, 1843] "President Joseph told me that he had difficulty with E[mma] yesterday. She rode up to the Woodworths with him and called while he came to the Temple. When he returned she was demanding the gold watch of F[lora]. He reproved her for her evil treatment. On their return home she abused him much and also when he got home. He had to use harsh measures to put a stop to her abuse but finally succeeded."

In October 1843 Clayton reported Joseph telling him that "E[mma] was turned quite friendly and kind." Not coincidentally, Joseph's plural marriages abruptly ceased.
_sunstoned
_Emeritus
Posts: 1670
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:12 am

Re: Counter-Evidence Regarding Joseph Smith and Plural Marriage

Post by _sunstoned »

If plural marriage was believed to be a direct commandment of God then why the sneaking around? Was this revealed gospel or not? If so, then what about all the be not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, put on the whole armor and let the consequences follow teachings? T
_Fence Sitter
_Emeritus
Posts: 8862
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: Counter-Evidence Regarding Joseph Smith and Plural Marriage

Post by _Fence Sitter »

Nevo wrote:
You may be right about this. Normally, couples shouldn't hide things from each other. And there is indeed something a bit unseemly about Joseph Smith sneaking around, sending furtive notes, holding doors closed, and so on. But I'm not sure it could have been otherwise. It seems to me that the choice before Joseph was to practice polygamy semi-secretly or not at all.



I think the fact that Joseph had to lie to Emma and sneak around her back is a great indication of Emma's true beliefs in Joseph's calling as a prophet. Even Joseph knew she would not accept a 'revelation' from God on this. Either Joseph was lying about being commanded of God to practice polygamy or Emma did not believe he was a true prophet or most likely both.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
_Nevo
_Emeritus
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:05 pm

Re: Counter-Evidence Regarding Joseph Smith and Plural Marriage

Post by _Nevo »

sunstoned wrote:If plural marriage was believed to be a direct commandment of God then why the sneaking around? Was this revealed gospel or not? If so, then what about all the be not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, put on the whole armor and let the consequences follow teachings? T

Perhaps Alma 12:9 provides a clue.

Sometimes secrecy is required even when true doctrine is involved (see, e.g., Mark 8:30).
Post Reply