Marinda Nancy Hyde

[_bcspace]

Fawn Brodie tells the story like this:

Fawn Brodie is quoting a Church of Christ minister, Clark Braden, who was involved in a debate with an RLDS missionary E. L. Kelley in 1884.

It appears that Braden was the very first person to assert a motive for the mob attack that involved inappropriate sexual conduct. Current research supports that the allegation was not included in any publication printed during the fifty-two years prior to the 1884 debate.5 In fact, a review of books written between 1832 and 1844 about Mormonism shows that no author mentioned the mobbing until after the Times and Seasons published an account in August 1844, two months after the Prophet’s death.6 These pre-1884 accounts strongly suggest that the mob members were primarily concerned with attempts to live the law of consecration, which they interpreted as attempts by Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith to confiscate their property.7 The brutal assault was equally directed at Rigdon, whom they left for dead.
http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history-2/plural-wives-overview/marinda-nancy-johnson/

Looks like Compton's report goes out the window with this same information. So moksha, how does it feel to be promulgating spurious information as if it were fact?

The Joseph Smith Papers list:

That's the same information given in the Hales link. Again, speculative.

This is like explaining something to a child with ADHD.

When you have a defense of this criticism other than "Something MUST have happened", let me know.

[_sunstoned]

bcspace,

After reading this thread and your ridiculous postings which showcase your screwed up and abstruse logic, I have come to the conclusion that you are not a friend of the church (and this might be by design for all I know). You have probably done more to drive people way from the church with your half baked apologics than anyone else I know.

[_bcspace]

bcspace,

After reading this thread and your ridiculous postings which showcase your screwed up and abstruse logic, I have come to the conclusion that you are not a friend of the church (and this might be by design for all I know). You have probably done more to drive people way from the church with your half baked apologics than anyone else I know.

Ah yes. The denials and invective keep coming in order to cover the fact that the only critical accusation against Joseph Smith on this issue is that "Something MUST have happened."

Hey, at least moksha gave it a whirl. Why can't you?



Considering the excellent results I get in real life with my "half-baked apologetics", I think I'll be sticking to it for now.

[_Bazooka]

There is a marriage date while Orson is away.

A speculative marriage or sealing date.

I'd like to see you provide some official support for your apologetic that plural marriage (sealing) meant something other than how Brigham Young understood it.

[_bcspace]

I'd like to see you provide some official support for your apologetic that plural marriage (sealing) meant something other than how Brigham Young understood it.

We are talking about one of the women Joseph Smith was sealed to so the actual question in this case is how Joseph Smith understood it, not BY. Get your head in the game Bazooka!

[_Bazooka]

I'd like to see you provide some official support for your apologetic that plural marriage (sealing) meant something other than how Brigham Young understood it.

We are talking about one of the women Joseph Smith was sealed to so the actual question in this case is how Joseph Smith understood it, not BY. Get your head in the game Bazooka!

Excellent, so you can provide some official support for your apologetic that plural marriage (sealing) meant something other than how Joseph understood it? Because all I can find is this:

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse aanother, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testa ... 2?lang=eng

In a section explaining "58–66, Laws governing plural marriage are set forth." (and was therefore Joseph's understanding) "the principles involved in this revelation were known by the Prophet as early as 1831."

Unless, of course, your point is that Joseph flagrantly disobeyed this direct commandment from God in that he took plural wives but did not attempt, although under divine instruction to do so, to multiply and replenish the earth.

[_Sammy Jankins]

When you have a defense of this criticism other than "Something MUST have happened", let me know.

Let me put this another way.
We have a marriage date that occurs when Orson is away.
1. We can't throw it out or discount it because it would have happened without spousal consent because Joseph Smith on multiple occasions married without spousal consent.
2. We can't throw it out because there is a later date that is better documented, because we know from historical example that Joseph Smith performed a second ceremony when the first was done without consent of the spouse.

Could the first sealing date have been recorded in error? Sure. But it is rather damning, I think, that we have well documented precedent for him pulling something like this.

And has been pointed out. Even if we operate under this methodology where we ignore precedent and just give Joseph Smith every conceivable benefit of the doubt, we still have a polyandrous marriage that doesn't match the instructions from D&C 132.

[_cognitiveharmony]

we still have a polyandrous marriage that doesn't match the instructions from D&C 132.

This point is key. BC wants to argue the minutia while ignoring the larger problem(s). A man that would marry another man's wife while he is away on his mission is only slightly worse than a man that would marry another man's wife once he returned from his mission. And both of these scenarios run contrary to the specific revelation and instruction given to govern the relationship of marriage in it's various forms. So while I care little about BC's argument of which date is correct, I would really love to hear an attempt to reconcile this marriage(s) to D&C 132.

[_Nevo]

What I just found out was the while Orson was away on a mission doing this great work that first Willard Richards and the[n] Joseph Smith established some sort of illicit relationship with Marinda Hyde.

for what it's worth, I don't think there was an intimate relationship between Willard Richards and Marinda Hyde. I give my reasons here.

But I do accept that Joseph Smith was sealed to Marinda while Orson Hyde was away on his mission. Hyde family tradition has it that Joseph had warned Orson not to marry Marinda, telling him "God has given that woman to me. Do not marry her," but that Hyde thought he joking (see Myrtle Stevens Hyde, Orson Hyde: The Olive Branch of Israel [Salt Lake City: Agreka Books, 2000], 160). I suspect, however, that Orson had no warning. In any event, he soon reconciled himself to the situation and took his own plural wives.

[_Brackite]

Hi moksha! From bcspace's link again:

Brodie’s willingness to believe Braden’s claims without significant scrutiny is unfortunate. Todd Compton observed: “There is no good evidence supporting the position (found in Brodie, No Man Knows My History, 119, 462) that Joseph Smith was married to Marinda Johnson . . . or had an affair with her, in 1831, and was mobbed by ‘her brother Eli’ and others as a result.”10 Nor is there any documentation to suggest that Braden’s version of the mob’s motives was known to anyone during Joseph Smith’s lifetime. Marinda recalled in 1877: “I feel like bearing my testimony that during the whole year that Joseph was an inmate of my father’s house I never saw aught in his daily life or conversation to make me doubt his divine mission.”11

10. Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, 642. (back)

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history ... y-johnson/


I no longer have a copy of Todd Compton's book, In Sacred Loneliness.
However, here is a link to Compton's web site:

http://toddmcompton.com/