MsJack wrote:It's common decency for a man to tell his wife if there are other women in their relationship, is it not? But one doesn't even have to appeal to common decency in this case. D&C 132 gives instructions for the consent of the first wife to be sought when a man wishes to take a new wife. It doesn't say that she has to approve, but it does say her consent should be sought. In this case, Emma's consent was most certainly not.
Should we also refrain from judging Tiger Woods because we don't have all the facts and God may have commanded him to do what he did? How about Warren Jeffs? Brian David Mitchell? John Edwards? By this standard, no morally questionable act can ever be judged, because we have to leave open the possibility that God told them to and that makes it okay.
I know that the world isn't black and white, that many situations can be sticky and difficult to make a call on. But I just don't think "men starting relationships with other women without telling their wives" is one of them.
That's exactly my position. What's wrong with taking a stand and saying something is not right, especially when it clearly isn't right? If we were talking about anyone else other than Joseph Smith, no one would expend an ounce of effort to justify his behavior. Why does Joseph get a pass for things we would not accept in anyone else?
Does his concealing his sexual relationships from Emma invalidate his prophetic calling? Not necessarily. But when I stopped making excuses for this, I realized all the other excuses I was making for Joseph and his church.
CSA wrote: We don't know if Joseph Smith was asked by God through revelation or through inspiration to keep these marriages secret from Emma. We know that Emma had some trouble in accepting this doctrine and was Joseph supposed to wait for her approval? In your eyes his character is flawed because he did what he did, despite the fact he very well may have been commanded to do. It is easy to blame a person for seemingly making what appears to be wrong decisions, but not knowing ALL the facts should allow for some leniency of his character.
I like to look at these types of things and ask if it is more likely that God commanded it or Joseph did it on his own. His behavior does fit other leaders hiding bad behavior. Would God really command him to lie to his wife, especially when God says he had to have her permission. Would God really command Joseph to ask women to marry him behind their spouses backs, even after some have been sent on missions? Would God want Joseph to get some of these women to marry him in very manipulative ways that mimic what other people have done to gain sexual access to followers? I like to think of Mary's husband who was sent an angel just so he would know she wasn't really sleeping around. Got to wonder why God wouldn't do the same for Emma and others. Unfortunately he only sent an angel with a flaming sword to threaten Joseph. Reminds me of another guy who claimed God was going to kill him unless he raised a certain amount of money.
Runtu wrote:Does his concealing his sexual relationships from Emma invalidate his prophetic calling?
My answer to that is "of course not." Either Joseph saw what he said he saw in that grove or he did not. Either God really spoke to him and told him the Christian church had apostatized and needed to be restored or he did not. It doesn't matter how poorly Joseph Smith behaved at other times; that doesn't have any bearing on the truth claims of Mormonism. Those need to stand or fall on their own merits.
Ignoring Joseph Smith's morally questionable behavior just makes Latter-day Saints look rather hypocritical. To preach a religion of monogamy and fidelity to one's spouse when your founding leader practiced neither and you can't even acknowledge that fact rubs people wrong.
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13
3sheets2thewind wrote: The fact that 2 people said something does not mean what they said is fact.
How many people have to say something before you accept it as fact? 1? 3? 8? How many?
An infinite number of people could all say the same thing, that does make what they say the truth or fact.
And from the first persons response to my statement, it is clear that I have no knowledge of the wives of Joseph Smith. I read some one the "The Temple Lot Case" on google books last night, and Eliza seems a very head strong person and does not give the impression of lying.
However, with my previous limited or no knowledge, the OP sounded gave the impression that two people swore and affidavit about Joseph Smith. Concerning matters of LDS history, I tend to dismiss all affidavits on both sides, the over use of an affidavit by people during that time just make the affidavit a trite and cliché peice of paper.
3sheets2thewind wrote:Concerning matters of LDS history, I tend to dismiss all affidavits on both sides, the over use of an affidavit by people during that time just make the affidavit a trite and cliché peice of paper.
For all intents and purposes, the Testimony of the Three Witnesses and the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses were both affidavits.
Do you dismiss these as well? Just curious.
eschew obfuscation
"I'll let you believers in on a little secret: not only is the LDS church not really true, it's obviously not true." -Sethbag
MsJack wrote:It's common decency for a man to tell his wife if there are other women in their relationship, is it not? But one doesn't even have to appeal to common decency in this case. D&C 132 gives instructions for the consent of the first wife to be sought when a man wishes to take a new wife. It doesn't say that she has to approve, but it does say her consent should be sought. In this case, Emma's consent was most certainly not.
Emma made her feelings felt about plural marriage very early on. And Joseph did not engage in being sealed long after fanny alger. Why? Because he knew the reaction of emma. But then in 1841 he begins the practice again as a man in a tremendous hurry. Why the rush? And why at that moment? Did he become a horny toad or did he feel that the practice needed to be started? And if so, how to tell his wife? Not easy. Of course, if you take the position that god played no role in all this it is quite easy to see evil. But if god was playing a role and emma was not on board, what was Joseph to do? Is he responsible for emma not being strong in faith to see the hand of god in all this? And at the end of the day, she never denied his prophethood. But being not perfect she couldn't accept this principle but the principal had to be acted upon.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
MsJack wrote:Ignoring Joseph Smith's morally questionable behavior just makes Latter-day Saints look rather hypocritical. To preach a religion of monogamy and fidelity to one's spouse when your founding leader practiced neither and you can't even acknowledge that fact rubs people wrong.
I don't ignore the testimonies of the plural wives who refused Joseph and then through prayer and asking god of the truthfulness of the principle, received a powerful confirmation of its truthfulness. Most of the women would have said no to him as many did on the first occasion without that spiritual confirmation.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
Runtu wrote:That's exactly my position. What's wrong with taking a stand and saying something is not right, especially when it clearly isn't right? If we were talking about anyone else other than Joseph Smith, no one would expend an ounce of effort to justify his behavior. Why does Joseph get a pass for things we would not accept in anyone else?
Does his concealing his sexual relationships from Emma invalidate his prophetic calling? Not necessarily. But when I stopped making excuses for this, I realized all the other excuses I was making for Joseph and his church.
Well, if this revelation came from god and if he was being threatened for not implementing it, what was he to do? Maybe tell god to wait a moment until his wife comes onboard? Emma was weak about plural marriage. If she believed her husband to be a prophet, she should have been strong and accepted the principle. She put Joseph between a rock and a hard place. And she believed her husband to be a prophet. Now if Joseph Smith had all the experiences he said he had when organizing the church and with the Book of Mormon, it would be obvious that he felt the need to start plural marriage because it came from god.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
3sheets2thewind wrote: And from the first persons response to my statement, it is clear that I have no knowledge of the wives of Joseph Smith. I read some one the "The Temple Lot Case" on google books last night, and Eliza seems a very head strong person and does not give the impression of lying.
However, with my previous limited or no knowledge, the OP sounded gave the impression that two people swore and affidavit about Joseph Smith. Concerning matters of LDS history, I tend to dismiss all affidavits on both sides, the over use of an affidavit by people during that time just make the affidavit a trite and cliché peice of paper.
The wives swore affidavits because they were asked to do so by the church in the Temple Lot Case. The stories they tell are consistent and corroborated, and no one I know disputes that they were telling the truth.
3sheets2thewind wrote:Concerning matters of LDS history, I tend to dismiss all affidavits on both sides, the over use of an affidavit by people during that time just make the affidavit a trite and cliché peice of paper.
For all intents and purposes, the Testimony of the Three Witnesses and the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses were both affidavits.
Do you dismiss these as well? Just curious.
The testimony of the 3 and 8 Witness has not been a factor in my beliefs concerning the LDS Church.