Even if it was for eternity only it still seems troubling.
This appears to involve vast assumptions as to just what it means to be a God and Goddess and to have the perceptions and conscousness of a God or Goddess. Go where angels dare to tread if you will.
Think of Henry Jacobs and his wife Zina. Joseph Smith proposes to her when she was rather young and says that she was chosen for him before the world was. But she was marriad to Henry. She says no. Joseph Smith persists and she is then sealed to Joseph Smith but she does live wioth Henry. So poor Henry loves his wife. He is a devote Mormon. He lives knowing the Zina will be someone else's in Heaven. Then Joseph Smith is killed. And for some strand reason BY is considered the heir of some of JSs wives including Zina. So Zina and Henry go to the Nauvoo temple and Zina is re-sealed to Joseph Smith for eternity with BY as proxy then married to BY for time. And Henry is still her husband too!! Talk about confusing.
Later BY sends Henry on a mission and he learns that Zina had moved in with BY. Henry also around this same time decided to take a plural wife but is not authorized to do so. So he is ex'd or disfellowshipped, I do no recall which. Zina stays with BY and she has a child by him. She may have
Read Alan Wyatt's essay at FAIR. Its not nearly so simply and straightforward as you make it out to be.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
beastie wrote:The only evidence that would satisfy defenders of the faith would be a videotape of Joseph Smith in bed with these women. And even then they'd probably claim it was doctored.
During the period the LDS church actually WANTED to prove that Joseph Smith married - in very deed - other women (in the dispute with the RLDS), the wives of Joseph Smith said, as plainly as they could while still retaining Victorian sensibilities, that they had sex with their "husband", Joseph Smith. Now, their word isn't good enough.
But what you will never admit is that you have nothing, nothing whatever as a matter of reliable documentary evidence. You have assumption, suggestion, and anecdote. Does this make for reliable history?
Inquiring minds would like to know Beastie.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
Coggins7 wrote:Something that has always fascinated me as a problem in Church history is Polyandry, and the doctrine of "spiritual marriage" and the claims by critics that this and related practices were nothing but a cover for Joseph's licentious libido, and hence, the moral delegitimization's of the Prophet of the Restoration.
Bob proposed the following as a topic for a thorough airing of the relevant facts or evidence, among a larger list, to the degree such can be ascertained:
Did Joseph Smith marry other men's wives, and if so, why?
Let's have someone come to the table who believes they have conclusive logical argument or documentary evidence supporting the critic's views of this matter and flesh it out thoroughly with Bob here, as Scratch, apparently, will not.
I'm inviting anyone who would like to go toe to toe with Bob on this issue, as he seems to be confident in his ability to hold his own here on these historical issues, and appears to be well read and educated on the subjects at hand.
My one caveat would be that this be a substantive, civil, critical debate focusing on evidence and detailed argument, and that anyone who feels that responses of the form "such and such is the case, end of story" or dismisses Pro-Church arguments by a poo pooing of the issue without an an intellectually substantive body of argument or facts, recuse themselves from this thread at the outset.
So, who dares enter the arena of ideas here?
Those of us about to rock, we salute you (BANG!!!)
Oh no! We wouldn't dare... We know for sure 1# Joseph Smith didn't bang underaged famales, behind Emma Smith's back 2# He didn't concoct the production of Book of Mormon 3# He didn't copy Masonic Temple ritual word for word 4# Book of Abraham was not a Fake translation 5# In 1976 In my temple endowment (while my hands was up) I never uttered words Pay Lay Ale 6# I never wore that green leaved fig Apron 7# My bishop never told me I was going to Hell If I jacked off or failed paying tithing. PS: I am a compulsive liar like Tal, I make things up
Even if it was for eternity only it still seems troubling.
This appears to involve vast assumptions as to just what it means to be a God and Goddess and to have the perceptions and conscousness of a God or Goddess. Go where angels dare to tread if you will.
It would defy the laws of the universe to take a law of God and turn it upside down in order to become God.
You're still not explaining--how does taking another man's wife fit into becoming "a God?" Is that not an abonimation in the sight of God? Or was an exemption made just for Joseph Smith?
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
Coggins7 wrote:But what you will never admit is that you have nothing, nothing whatever as a matter of reliable documentary evidence. You have assumption, suggestion, and anecdote. Does this make for reliable history?
Inquiring minds would like to know Beastie.
What in your view would constitute "evidence?" Eye witnesses?
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
I would think that telling one's daughter that her father was Joseph Smith is the equivalent of saying: I had sex with Joseph Smith.
And this is an anecdote, without any body of corroborating documentation for which we have no conceivable means of verifying. Its this kind of thing, Beastie, that casts serious doubt upon the credibility your vaunted excursions into Archeology and the Book of Abraham.
As rc already pointed out, there are a number of other plausible reasons this statement could have been made. What is clear is that she did not actually know Joseph was her father. That she thought he was is not in question.
But that doesn't make for reliable history Beastie.
Last edited by Dr. Sunstoned on Mon May 12, 2008 1:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.