Joseph Smith's Marital Bed

[_Jason Bourne]

Hi Jason,

Polyandry that has sex just has to be revolting to and believing LDS.

The thing is Jason, polyandry bothers you (and I think most men), more because it means you are potentially sharing your wife with whomever is higher up than you.

But from a woman's perspective, polygamy means she is sharing her husband.

See my point?

The only reason men are more bothered by polyandry is because it means THEY have to share.

The fact is, for most women in a healthy, mature, loving marriage, sharing their husbands feels as bad as you would feel sharing your wife. Nothing Godly about it.

I know you are not a supporter of the harem lifestyle, just making a little point! :-)

~dancer~

Yes I agree. And I think most believing LDS women are repulsed by polygamy too.

[_sunstoned]

Hi Jason,

Polyandry that has sex just has to be revolting to and believing LDS.

The thing is Jason, polyandry bothers you (and I think most men), more because it means you are potentially sharing your wife with whomever is higher up than you.

But from a woman's perspective, polygamy means she is sharing her husband.

See my point?

The only reason men are more bothered by polyandry is because it means THEY have to share.

The fact is, for most women in a healthy, mature, loving marriage, sharing their husbands feels as bad as you would feel sharing your wife. Nothing Godly about it.

I know you are not a supporter of the harem lifestyle, just making a little point! :-)

~dancer~

In my simplistic way of looking at things I have completely missed this view point. Thank you T dancer for explaining it this way. It makes what Joseph Smith did all the more revolting in my eyes. The sex and betrayal are only part of it. The emotional damage had to have been very painful.

I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone, after they have an understanding of what really went on, could justify any praise to this man.

[_charity]

Hi Charity,

And all these libidinous people who want to peek into people's bedrooms should just butt out.

Should we also butt out of the bedroom's of men who sleep with girls, and other men's wives? Should we ignore the harm and cruelty that results from men who manipulate girls into their bedrooms? Should we look the other way when men sexually use girls, bedroom or barn?

Are people who hold men accountable for the rape of girls wrong to criticize the behaviors of these men?

Sorry, but some people are concerned about the harm caused by sexual predators, men who sleep with girls, and men who manipulate girls and women, and lie to and cheat on their wives.

Odd that you don't seem to care, or equate caring with peeking into bedrooms.

~dancer~

We don't know the particulars of hardly any of the early applicaton of the sealing power. We know the revelation on the sealing power was like an explosion. Up to this time,the prevailing religious thought was, just as it is today in most of the Christian world, that family relationships ended at death. Not only were spouses parted by the "til death do you part" of their vows, but chldren from parents. People went a little giddy. Men were sealed to men. Women were proxies for males. We know Joseph was a very loyal friend, and felt friendships very strongly. Many of the sealings appar to be attempts to connect families in what is called dynastic relationships.

We don't know what the level of intimacy was with Joseph and any of his sealed wives. I think probably there were marital relations with some. And since the prophet Nathan can give wives to David, I don't see why the Lord couldn't give wives to Joseph. If the Lord commands, there is no sin.

I do not believe, because there is absolutely no evidence at all, that Helen Mar Kimball was anything but a sealed wife. No marital relations.

And if you are still stuck on that "threaten" aspect. The Lord generally is pretty explicit about what the results will be of disobedience. You have agency. You can chose to sin. You just can't chose the consequences. You jump off a bridge in exercising your agency. You fall on the rocks below because that is the consequence of ignoring the law of gravity. Same deal.

[_Inconceivable]

Charity,

Just for the record, we're talking about the wretched creature Joseph Smith. The guy who created a weak justification for adultery.

It worked. Perverted men have patterned their lives after his paradigm even to 2007.

My nutjob Mormon relative gave his 16 year old daughter to a dirtbag polygamist in early 1970. She only broke free after her mockery of a marriage was consumated. My heart breaks for her. I've seen how it has affected her and the real legal family she has had since.

Every doctrine Smith and his reprobate associates taught and lived were the same ones that twisted and inspired this event.

Charity, you are a female. Don't be a groupie.

There really are good and honorable men around. wake up.

[_Zoidberg]

I do not believe, because there is absolutely no evidence at all, that Helen Mar Kimball was anything but a sealed wife. No marital relations.

And why would that make a difference? We all know that condemning someone from the XIXth century for having sex with a 14-year-old is presentism. If it's natural to assume there was sex involved with other wives, why not with this one?

[_truth dancer]

Hi Charity,

We don't know the particulars of hardly any of the early applicaton of the sealing power.

You are kidding right? Have you read the D&C lately?

We know the revelation on the sealing power was like an explosion. Up to this time,the prevailing religious thought was, just as it is today in most of the Christian world, that family relationships ended at death. Not only were spouses parted by the "til death do you part" of their vows, but chldren from parents.

I have yet to hear of even one Christian who thinks they will not be with their "righteous" loved ones in heaven. This argument is nonsense Charity.

We don't know what the level of intimacy was with Joseph and any of his sealed wives. I think probably there were marital relations with some.

I suppose if you want to discount journals, affidavits, records you can pretend whatever you want. :-)

And since the prophet Nathan can give wives to David, I don't see why the Lord couldn't give wives to Joseph. If the Lord commands, there is no sin.

You mean, since other men in the past have used women, taken wives, had concubines and sex slaves then the excuse is good for Joseph Smith as well.

Please Charity, the "God said" excuse is really a bad one. There are men all over the place who use this excuse to justify cruel, horrific behavior. Seems, so long as a guy says God told him to kill, rape, destroy, slaughter, stone, or whatever he gets a free pass.

I do not believe, because there is absolutely no evidence at all, that Helen Mar Kimball was anything but a sealed wife. No marital relations.

Who knows... what we do know is that Joseph Smith manipulated a young girl, promised her exaltation for herself and her entire family if she agreed to become his. She felt like a "lamb going to slaughter". What sort of sick man does this to a young girl Charity?

And if you are still stuck on that "threaten" aspect. The Lord generally is pretty explicit about what the results will be of disobedience.

Ohhhh goodness... what nonsense.

What God tells a thirty-six year old married man (already involved with plenty of girls and women on the side), to make such demands on a child? Think about this Charity... what sort of God would do such a thing? A fourteen year old girl has to make the choice between agreeing to be in Joseph Smith's harem so her family will be assured of eternal exaltation, OR she can refuse and put her entire family at risk?

I'm sorry but there is nothing Godly about this... NOTHING! It speaks of a man who is out of control with his power and lust, who doesn't remotely care for the well being of this young girl, who uses his authority and power to coerce and manipulate a young girl. And who thinks HE has the power to decide who gets to the CKHL and who doesn't.

It is revolting.

~dancer~

[_MishMagnet]

Considering unethical acts done in the name of God - where does one draw the line? Sadly many people cross the line and don't look back. 9/11 hijackers, suicide bombers, Heavens Gate, People's Temple, the Holy Inquisition. If one is able to believe in a God who demands the cruel and unethical one is capable of just about anything. For instance the Lafferty Brothers. I find this to be the great danger of religion. I do feel that polygamy is a great harm and very unethical. Yes, I have the same problem with it mentioned in the Bible. And yes, this one point has been my gradual undoing with religion in general. It's easier to doubt the existance of God than to believe in a God who commands the unethical. If one unethical act can be justified by God, why not the suicide bomber? How can we be sure the suicide bomber is not part of God's plan?

[_Runtu]

We don't know the particulars of hardly any of the early applicaton of the sealing power.

This statement demonstrates a profound ignorance of church history.

We know the revelation on the sealing power was like an explosion. Up to this time,the prevailing religious thought was, just as it is today in most of the Christian world, that family relationships ended at death. Not only were spouses parted by the "til death do you part" of their vows, but chldren from parents. People went a little giddy. Men were sealed to men. Women were proxies for males. We know Joseph was a very loyal friend, and felt friendships very strongly. Many of the sealings appar to be attempts to connect families in what is called dynastic relationships.

Good heavens. Are you suggesting that the angel who commanded Joseph to take other men's wives was just being a little giddy?

We don't know what the level of intimacy was with Joseph and any of his sealed wives. I think probably there were marital relations with some.

Another remarkably ignorant statement.

And since the prophet Nathan can give wives to David, I don't see why the Lord couldn't give wives to Joseph. If the Lord commands, there is no sin.

My point precisely. Why are you folks so squeamish about Joseph's having sex with his wives? If God commanded it, then it was OK, even with the polyandrous wives, right? At least Will Schryver is up front about this. Why aren't you?

I do not believe, because there is absolutely no evidence at all, that Helen Mar Kimball was anything but a sealed wife. No marital relations.

What is it you're always saying: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"? What reason is there to believe that Helen was the exception to the norm?

And if you are still stuck on that "threaten" aspect. The Lord generally is pretty explicit about what the results will be of disobedience. You have agency. You can chose to sin. You just can't chose the consequences. You jump off a bridge in exercising your agency. You fall on the rocks below because that is the consequence of ignoring the law of gravity. Same deal.

I wonder what the consequences are for rationalizing lecherous behavior.

[_charity]

All the "I know what God thinks, and He wouldn't command this" and "I know which marriages were sealings and which were plural marriages" and "all women would think this way and no woman would think that way" are false assumptions on the part of all those posters who use them. And when you take those erroneous ideas out of the topic, you would have nothing to talk about.

Your arugments would evaporate.

[_Runtu]

All the "I know what God thinks, and He wouldn't command this" and "I know which marriages were sealings and which were plural marriages" and "all women would think this way and no woman would think that way" are false assumptions on the part of all those posters who use them. And when you take those erroneous ideas out of the topic, you would have nothing to talk about.

Your arugmetns would evaporate.

Charity, I was commenting on the idea that we didn't know much about the sealings or which ones involved sexuality. Both of those are erroneous statements. I haven't attempted to suggest what the women or God were thinking.

I can only conclude that since you cannot back up your statements, your arguments have indeed evaporated.