DiscussMormonism.com

It is said that the cover up can be worse than the crime. If you believe polygamy was an excuse for Joseph Smith to commit adultery, it becomes just a big elaborate sex scandal cover that lasted decades. What would have happened if Joseph confessed to adultery, explained he is just a man with mortal weaknesses, and begged his wife and followers for forgiveness. No polygamy, just a plea for forgiveness. It would have completely changed the course of the church. No polygamy in Utah. No Nauvoo Expositor, as its main grievance was polygamy. No destruction of the press, so no Carthage Jail and no mob murder. Of course he had enemies for other reasons, and perhaps he would have been taken out later, but I think he would have been surprised at how forgiving people can be if he was sincere. Claiming god forced him to do it offends people's intelligence, and just pisses them off more.

However, moving to Utah, with Brigham Young enforcing his own style of leadership shaped the church more and it may be unrecognizable today if Joseph Smith led it for several more decades.

If he had been ethical enough to own up to his mistake, everything would have been different. There never would have been the bank fraud or Council of 50 either. We might be more like the 7th Day Adventists - a little cooky, but not creepy.

With no polygamy, the historical church becomes unrecognizable. They may have moved to Utah anyway, due to their way of doing business, but without polygamy, Joseph leads them, not Brigham. He could have lived another 40 years... another 40 years of 'revelation'!

We likely wouldn't have had the priesthood ban, Adam-God, or any of Brigham's more famous thoughts. And we certainly wouldn't have had to untangle the church's finances from Brigham's finances, when he died.

harmony wrote:With no polygamy, the historical church becomes unrecognizable. They may have moved to Utah anyway, due to their way of doing business, but without polygamy, Joseph leads them, not Brigham. He could have lived another 40 years... another 40 years of 'revelation'!

We likely wouldn't have had the priesthood ban, Adam-God, or any of Brigham's more famous thoughts. And we certainly wouldn't have had to untangle the church's finances from Brigham's finances, when he died.

+1000

Yeah, if only JSJr could have manned up to his weaknesses. What might have been.

"Cheer up, Sleepy Jean
Oh what can it mean
To a day dream believer
And a homecoming queen."

But the fact of the matter is that he didn't and anyone claiming to be a christian must accept the fact that God has authorized plural marriage from time to time. So no matter what you think of Joseph Smith, a positive doctrine on and probably practice of plural marriage is one of the things that identifies the true Church.

bcspace wrote:But the fact of the matter is that he didn't and anyone claiming to be a christian must accept the fact that God has authorized plural marriage from time to time.

No, he didn't. Ever.

bcspace wrote:But the fact of the matter is that he didn't and anyone claiming to be a christian must accept the fact that God has authorized plural marriage from time to time. So no matter what you think of Joseph Smith, a positive doctrine on and probably practice of plural marriage is one of the things that identifies the true Church.

The Fanny episode (pre-sealing power too) looks exactly like an adulterer caught in the act. Polygamy looks exactly like an ex-post-facto justification. Forgive us for believing our lying eyes.

bcspace wrote:But the fact of the matter is that he didn't and anyone claiming to be a christian must accept the fact that God has authorized plural marriage from time to time. So no matter what you think of Joseph Smith, a positive doctrine on and probably practice of plural marriage is one of the things that identifies the true Church.

That's a rather long leap from acknowledging that the Mosaic Law provided for plural marriage to saying that it's a marker identifying the true church. We read in Samuel, for example, that God gave Solomon his plural wives.

Most Christian churches accept that polygamy was accepted during Old Testament times. I guess they must be true, too.

bcspace wrote:But the fact of the matter is that he didn't and anyone claiming to be a christian must accept the fact that God has authorized plural marriage from time to time. So no matter what you think of Joseph Smith, a positive doctrine on and probably practice of plural marriage is one of the things that identifies the true Church.

If plural marriage is one of the things that identifies the true church, then why aren't the apostles mentioned practicing it in the New Testament, and why is it condemned in the Book of Mormon?