What is your best evidence for Joseph Smith sleeping with his wives?

[_Runtu]

What other side are you referring to?

The apologist take on things--preferably more than just one take.

You've seen the apologist take, thanks to Will. It's a big yawn. Will doesn't care and thinks God would approve of Joseph's behavior. The sources beastie cited were LDS sources, not "antis." There is no doubt, no evidence to the contrary, that Joseph did what has been said: he lied to the public, to his wife, and to the husbands of those whose wives he took; he promised eternal salvation to entire families in exchange for sex with him and slandered those who refused; he told women that an angel with a flaming sword would kill him if they didn't accept his advances. And you find nothing coercive or deceptive here?

[_Jason Bourne]

It helps to remember that Joseph's only gift, the only thing he ever did as a prophet, was write the Book of Mormon. Nothing else he did was sanctioned by God. Everything else he did, he did as a man.

Why do you take this position and how do you know this?

[_Runtu]

It helps to remember that Joseph's only gift, the only thing he ever did as a prophet, was write the Book of Mormon. Nothing else he did was sanctioned by God. Everything else he did, he did as a man.

Why do you take this position and how do you know this?

"He has a gift to translate the book and I have commanded him that he shall pretend to no other gift, for I will grant him no other gift." — Book of Commandments, 4:2

[_Scottie]

Seth, Joseph was "supposed" to have received many things after 1831, none of which are valid on their face. He couldn't even document when he "supposedly" received the higher priesthood, the most necessary revelation he would ever "supposedly" receive. I think Joseph winged it a lot, once he realized that his relationship with Fanny had destroyed his window to God. Very very few of his later revelations show any more of God's inspiration than the average mule driver has. I think he had it, and he lost it, and he hid the losing of it and eventually the losing of it got him killed.

Interesting that God would select a person of such low intergrity for such a monumental task. Someone that, once he got a little power, would use it for evil.

And then, after Joseph Smith fell, God chose that pillar of righteousness, Brigham Young, to take his place?

[_Runtu]

Interesting that God would select a person of such low intergrity for such a monumental task. Someone that, once he got a little power, would use it for evil.

And then, after Joseph Smith fell, God chose that pillar of righteousness, Brigham Young, to take his place?

Remember, if God tells them to lie, it's not a mark of low integrity. If God tells them to sleep with girls behind their wives' backs, it's not adultery. If God tells them to publicly call women "whores" because they refused to sleep with the prophets, it's not slander.

"That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. ... Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is." -- Joseph Smith

[_Yoda]

If God tells them to publicly call women "whores" because they refused to sleep with the prophets, it's not slander.

What circumstance are you referring to here? This is a new one for me.

Reference?

Is this on Decon's site?

If you have a link, that would be great!

Thanks!

;)

[_harmony]

It helps to remember that Joseph's only gift, the only thing he ever did as a prophet, was write the Book of Mormon. Nothing else he did was sanctioned by God. Everything else he did, he did as a man.

Why do you take this position and how do you know this?

1. Because the quality of his revelations took a nosedive after 1831.

2. Book of Commandments 4:2. The change to that verse is both damning to and insightful into Joseph's character.

[_Runtu]

If God tells them to publicly call women "whores" because they refused to sleep with the prophets, it's not slander.

What circumstance are you referring to here? This is a new one for me.

Reference?

Is this on Decon's site?

If you have a link, that would be great!

Thanks!

;)

beastie quoted this:

History shows that Smith's amorous advances were rebuffed by at least three other women besides Kimball and Rigdon. These included Sarah M. Kimball (no relation to Helen Mar Kimball), Sarah Pratt (the wife of Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt), and Martha Brotherton. "Inevitably," writes Van Wagoner, "Nancy Rigdon, Sarah Pratt, and Martha Brotherton saw their reputations impugned by an avalanche of slander. The prophet labeled Sarah a '[whore] from her mother's breast.' Martha Brotherton was branded a 'mean harlot.' while Nancy was tagged a 'poor miserable girl out of the very slough of prostitution'" (p.299).

Obviously, it doesn't say that God commanded them to slander these women, but if you're an apologist, you're going to say that what they did was right. At least some of the apologists around here will. And those of us who find this stuff rather appalling are just sexual prudes, right?

[_karl61]

One of the most disurbing things that I have read about the early saints was how they wrote about people that disagreed with them. The people that disagreed with them and didn't do what they wanted were anti's, scum of the earth, liars, whores, evil and so dirty you didn't even want to think about them. This was written by people who are also quoted in "faith promoting" books. It's very sad and not a good example of how to live.

[_Runtu]

One of the most disurbing things that I have read about the early saints was how they wrote about people that disagreed with them. The people that disagreed with them and didn't do what they wanted were anti's, scum of the earth, liars, whores, evil and so dirty you didn't even want to think about them. This was written by people who are also quoted in "faith promoting" books. It's very sad and not a good example of how to live.

A good case in point is William Law, who up until the time of his disaffection was considered a pillar of the church. What caused his disaffection? Joseph had made sexual advances on his wife, which neither William nor his wife appreciated. So, distraught over this obvious breach of trust, William tried to "reform" the church, as despite his experience with the prophet, he still believed in Mormonism. He published one issue of the Nauvoo Expositor. If I recall correctly, the only "lie" that even the most dedicated of apologists, Pahoran, could find in it, was a rather melodramatic account of a fictionalized convert girl's introduction to polygamy. If you read the Expositor, it's remarkable just how factual it is and how hard Law tried to salvage his faith at the same time he was exposing the prophet's behavior.

Yet Law is to this day considered the basest of scoundrels, a liar to the core, and the architect of Joseph Smith's murder. Why? Because the church made him out to be a villain of the worst sort.