Joseph Smith--the best 'wing man' Brigham Young ever had

[malkie]

A woman tries to leave a cult. She says one of the cult leaders attempted to corner her into having sex with him. Her sister and brother-in-law, who are members of the cult, push back, saying don't believe her, she's a liar.

Over the years, the cult's leaders deny that they a polygamous sect, deny that they pressing young girls into 'marriage,' deny that they are coercing women, who are already married, into adulterous unions with promises of celestial glory. History proves the cult to have done everything they denied.

I think that you might see that you are using loaded words/language in order to steer us away from the fact that before Elizabeth came out against her sister it would appear that for all intents and purposes, they were close. There isn't any evidence to the contrary. That Elizabeth would risk the loss of that relationship by coming forward and disclosing what she saw as the truth in regard to her sister and the influence John C. Bennett may have had over her is heartrending in one way and can be seen as courageous in another.

What you see as "adulterous unions" or "cultish behavior" were/was seen differently by those that saw the hand of God in the restoration of the sealing blessings from heaven. We need to always remember that perspective and knowledge of things may vary from person to person on a number of factors. As an unbeliever you will see things differently than those that may have lived at the time and/or those that now see that these folks were possibly doing the best they could with what they had.

Regards,
MG

Did we not already establish that, as a matter of fact, Joseph Smith was an adulterer? Even "those that saw the hand of God in the restoration of the sealing blessings" cannot change the fact, not does "possibly doing the best they could with what they had". That they might disregard or excuse it is well known, of course. But in this case at least, the "unbelievers" have fact/truth on their side

[Morley]

A woman tries to leave a cult. She says one of the cult leaders attempted to corner her into having sex with him. Her sister and brother-in-law, who are members of the cult, push back, saying don't believe her, she's a liar.
Over the years, the cult's leaders deny that they a polygamous sect, deny that they pressing young girls into 'marriage,' deny that they are coercing women, who are already married, into adulterous unions with promises of celestial glory. History proves the cult to have done everything they denied.

I think that you might see that you are using loaded words/language in order to steer us away from the fact that before Elizabeth came out against her sister it would appear that for all intents and purposes, they were close. There isn't any evidence to the contrary.

Meh, my language is not any more loaded than 'hand of God,' 'restoration of all things,' or 'blessings from heaven.' If you're being fair, you'll have to acknowledge that my language reflects the majority opinion of society both past and present. Yours doesn't.

To your second point: Yes, I'll grant that the sisters may indeed have been close.

That Elizabeth would risk the loss of that relationship by coming forward and disclosing what she saw as the truth in regard to her sister and the influence John C. Bennett may have had over her is heartrending in one way and can be seen as courageous in another.

And conversely, that Martha "would risk the loss of that relationship by coming forward and disclosing what she saw as the truth in regard to her sister and the influence" of Joseph Smith, Jr. "may have had over her is heartrending in one way and can be seen as courageous in another."

What you see as "adulterous unions" or "cultish behavior" were/was seen differently by those that saw the hand of God in the restoration of the sealing blessings from heaven.

The law and cultural mores of both the 19th Century and today line up with my my terminology. These behaviors were, and are, seen as cultic and and adulterous. Heck, even the modern CoJCoLDS interprets these behaviors as cultish and adulterous when they're looking at fundamentalist Mormon polygamy when it's practiced today.

We need to always remember that perspective and knowledge of things may vary from person to person on a number of factors. As an unbeliever you will see things differently than those that may have lived at the time and/or those that now see that these folks were possibly doing the best they could with what they had.

Sure. Goes without saying. However, I don't care if "folks were possibly doing the best they could with what they had." If what they were doing was wrong, we shouldn't remain silent.

Regards,
MG

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, MG. I appreciate it. Regards to you, too.

[MG 2.0]

I think that you might see that you are using loaded words/language in order to steer us away from the fact that before Elizabeth came out against her sister it would appear that for all intents and purposes, they were close. There isn't any evidence to the contrary. That Elizabeth would risk the loss of that relationship by coming forward and disclosing what she saw as the truth in regard to her sister and the influence John C. Bennett may have had over her is heartrending in one way and can be seen as courageous in another.

What you see as "adulterous unions" or "cultish behavior" were/was seen differently by those that saw the hand of God in the restoration of the sealing blessings from heaven. We need to always remember that perspective and knowledge of things may vary from person to person on a number of factors. As an unbeliever you will see things differently than those that may have lived at the time and/or those that now see that these folks were possibly doing the best they could with what they had.

Regards,
MG

Did we not already establish that, as a matter of fact, Joseph Smith was an adulterer? Even "those that saw the hand of God in the restoration of the sealing blessings" cannot change the fact, not does "possibly doing the best they could with what they had". That they might disregard or excuse it is well known, of course. But in this case at least, the "unbelievers" have fact/truth on their side

Believers are looking at polygamy through the lens of divine commandment, spiritual restoration, and eternal family structures. Non believers, the opposite.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Believers are looking at polygamy through the lens of divine commandment, spiritual restoration, and eternal family structures. Non believers, the opposite....

Warren Jeffs looks at 'polygamy' through that lens as well. As a true believer, he continued that 'divine commandment' and openly exercised that 'spiritual restoration', and put in place the 'eternal family structures' mg refers to.

Warren Steed Jeffs ...is an American cult leader who is serving a life sentence in Texas for child sexual assault following two convictions in 2011. He is the president of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, a polygamous cult based in Arizona.[8]

The FLDS Church was founded in the early-20th century when its founders deemed the renunciation of polygamy by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) to be apostate...

...Jeffs was extradited to Texas,[13] where he was found guilty of sexual assault of a minor, for raping a 15-year-old child bride; and aggravated sexual assault against a child, for raping a 12-year-old child bride; for which he was sentenced to life in prison, plus twenty years...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Jeffs

[I Have Questions]

Believers are looking at polygamy through the lens of divine commandment, spiritual restoration, and eternal family structures. Non believers, the opposite.

Regards,
MG

No. You are looking at polygamy through the lens of divine commandment, spiritual restoration, and eternal family structures. You do not speak for “believers” in general. Nor are you qualified to talk on behalf of Non Believers as if you are an authority on them as a group. Others look at Joseph Smith's polygamy as adultery because, wait for it, it was adultery per the laws of the land within which he lived - that’s an inescapable fact regardless of what anyone wishes to believe.

Why did Joseph Smith state that one of the principals of Mormonism was “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” when he wasn’t obeying, honouring, and sustaining the law?

[malkie]

Did we not already establish that, as a matter of fact, Joseph Smith was an adulterer? Even "those that saw the hand of God in the restoration of the sealing blessings" cannot change the fact, not does "possibly doing the best they could with what they had". That they might disregard or excuse it is well known, of course. But in this case at least, the "unbelievers" have fact/truth on their side

Believers are looking at polygamy through the lens of divine commandment, spiritual restoration, and eternal family structures. Non believers, the opposite.

Regards,
MG

Regardless of the "lens", polygamy under the law was illegal. Since he was not legally married to his polygamous "wives", by definition he committed adultery with those that he has sex with. Plain & simple.

[MG 2.0]

Believers are looking at polygamy through the lens of divine commandment, spiritual restoration, and eternal family structures. Non believers, the opposite.

Regards,
MG

Regardless of the "lens", polygamy under the law was illegal. Since he was not legally married to his polygamous "wives", by definition he committed adultery with those that he has sex with. Plain & simple.

By civil standards, that is true.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

Regardless of the "lens", polygamy under the law was illegal. Since he was not legally married to his polygamous "wives", by definition he committed adultery with those that he has sex with. Plain & simple.

By civil standards, that is true.

Regards,
MG

Thank you.

As long as you believe in the individual, and in the god that supposedly gave the individual licence, you can make it whatever you want by non-civil standards. It's still hard to square that with supposed respect for civil law - other than a cafeteria type of respect.

However, that forces you to pick and choose which of the claimants to believe, when none of them can prove that they are telling the "truth". This is why, as others have pointed out, you could, for example choose to believe that Warren Jeffs was justified by god in taking multiple "wives", but Joseph Smith was not. Viewed from outside it's a purely arbitrary choice.

ETA: I think it's worth highlighting the fact that Warren Jeffs and Joseph Smith were praying to exactly the same god. Or, if you disagree about this statement, please explain how you came to the conclusion that they are not the same.

[I Have Questions]

Regardless of the "lens", polygamy under the law was illegal. Since he was not legally married to his polygamous "wives", by definition he committed adultery with those that he has sex with. Plain & simple.

By civil standards, that is true.

Joseph Smith was an adulterer. Everyone agrees.
(I note that MG can’t bring himself to say it was against the law, so has to substitute in a new ambiguous term “civil standards”)

[MG 2.0]

By civil standards, that is true.

Regards,
MG

Thank you.

As long as you believe in the individual, and in the god that supposedly gave the individual licence, you can make it whatever you want by non-civil standards. It's still hard to square that with supposed respect for civil law - other than a cafeteria type of respect.

However, that forces you to pick and choose which of the claimants to believe, when none of them can prove that they are telling the "truth". This is why, as others have pointed out, you could, for example choose to believe that Warren Jeffs was justified by god in taking multiple "wives", but Joseph Smith was not. Viewed from outside it's a purely arbitrary choice.

ETA: I think it's worth highlighting the fact that Warren Jeffs and Joseph Smith were praying to exactly the same god. Or, if you disagree about this statement, please explain how you came to the conclusion that they are not the same.

That's always been an interesting conundrum for me. How can people get answers that they claim came from God but are often a direct contradiction to each other. In looking at Warren Jeffs vs. Joseph Smith my main focus would be 'what came of it'. I've mentioned this before, but I'll say it again...the fruits matter. What has come forth from the purported revelations/prayers of Joseph Smith are something way different than whatever fruits (there were none) that came from the revelations of Warren Jeffs. William Strang, William Smith and others. The fruits, in my opinion, don't lie. For the LDS Church to be in the position that it is in today with ALL the criticism that has been thrown its way is a miracle in its own way.

Joseph Smith was not a perfect man. I don't know many people that would argue otherwise. What matters is if the church that he organized has God's stamp of approval on it. I believe it does. Messiness is just part and parcel of the human experience in and out of the church. This thing we call revelation...and I know you won't like me saying this again...has many moving parts. It's not a 'silver platter' thing as some would like to think. The example of the lost car keys doesn't do justice to the complexity of what revelation MAY entail from one situation to the next.

Warren Jeff's taking multiple wives and Joseph Smith doing the same is just that, a fact. It happened. But it didn't stop there in the case of Joseph Smith and the succeeding prophets and the rise of the CofJCofLDS. Much more came from that small nucleus of believers in 1830. To the point that there are temples throughout the world administering ordinances of salvation/exaltation.

That's a big deal.

Regards,
MG