For Miranda given the conflicting dates I think a similar scenario is likely. Joseph Marries her while Orson is away, and then does another ceremony later with his knowledge. The second ceremony essentially being a cover up.
I doubt it. At worst, the Alger case is Joseph Smith struggling to obey a command he did not want to obey while in this case the doctrine and practice of eternal sealing is more settled. And as Hales notes: "Generally a signed affidavit is considered more reliable than an entry in a journal by a scribe from an unknown source."
Seems more like the anti Mormon in you is reaching hard.
bcspace wrote:I doubt it. As Hales notes: "Generally a signed affidavit is considered more reliable than an entry in a journal by a scribe from an unknown source."
Seems more like the anti Mormon in you is reaching hard.
I don't know what's "reaching" about a theory that reconciles two written conflicting dates using a well documented example of the way Joseph Smith behaved in a similar situation.
bcspace wrote:Interesting you would say that since Orson Hyde returned from his mission on Dec. 7, 1842 and for Marinda we have a May 1843 sealing date to Joseph Smith:
Marinda personally testified concerning a second sealing through a signed affidavit “that on the [blank] day of May A.D. 1843, at the City of Nauvoo, County of Hancock, State of Illinois, She was married or Sealed to Joseph Smith
I just don't think this spin is going to help someone struggling with this episode. Basically after Orson returned home, not only did he discover what had been going on between his wife and Smith, but Smith then required a second sealing of himself to Orson's wife, with Orson's approval, to legitimize what he had already done in secret. You see, this so easily comes off as manipulation, domination, and emasculation of a "friend" and acolyte by a charismatic leader to justify his own behavior. It doesn't fix the fact that he married the guy's wife, when he already had so many of his own. It just doesn't help.
Even if there were no first sealing; even if the '43 sealing were the only one -- it's still problematic. The fact that you are claiming it happened at all is problematic.Orson being in Nauvoo rather than Jerusalem doesn't really make a troubling fact hunky dory. The bottom line is that Joseph Smith, a man with absolute authority and many wives, married Orson's wife too. It was gratuitous and unnecessary. Once you admit the '43 date at least, there's no way to spin this scenario to make it look like the clean version Mormon history that we're accustomed to being fed in Sunday School.
I just don't think this spin is going to help someone struggling with this episode.
What spin? These are just the dry facts.
You see, this so easily comes off as manipulation, domination, and emasculation of a "friend" and acolyte by a charismatic leader to justify his own behavior. It doesn't fix the fact that he married the guy's wife, when he already had so many of his own. It just doesn't help.
That is spin. This episode only becomes a problem when one does not accept the facts presented or hears it from someone with an agenda against the Church. Most if not all the negative aspects of Joseph Smith's plural marriages and sealings are unsupported while the more positive conclusions often have basis in fact.
Even if there were no first sealing; even if the '43 sealing were the only one -- it's still problematic.
Not at all. Eternal sealings are already occurring at this point and such a notion has no bearing on marriages for time only.
The bottom line is that Joseph Smith, a man with absolute authority
Bogus argument. Quite a few people believed him on the basis of character and there is enough movement in and out of the Church even then with no one preventing it.
Last edited by Guest on Fri May 02, 2014 5:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
bcspace wrote:This episode only becomes a problem when one does not accept the facts presented or hears it from someone with an agenda against the Church.
What I'm saying is that this episode is a problem the way you present it. I'm saying that I don't think your version is all that helpful. Of course, you can ask Greenmormon. Greenmormon, does bcspace's version of the story that Joseph was sealed to Orson's wife a second time in 1843 after he came back make the whole thing all right? Are his apologetics working?
This episode only becomes a problem when one does not accept the facts presented or hears it from someone with an agenda against the Church.
What I'm saying is that this episode is a problem the way you present it.
The OP and the counter argument to mine were totally unconvincing.
Greenmormon, does bcspace's version of the story that Joseph was sealed to Orson's wife a second time in 1843 after he came back make the whole thing all right? Are his apologetics working?
And again, the typical reaction to the facts among critics of the Church is to flee and not address them. What this tells me is that I can use this information in real life to inoculate and even turn doubters as has been done before on numerous occasions.
