Here's my simple answer: No, Runu, I don't think Joseph Smith married for love.
KA
PS: For CKSalmon:
Love your replies on this thread! Sending you a kiss - MMMMMWWAAA!
Did Joseph Smith marry for love?
-
_KimberlyAnn
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3171
- Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:03 pm
-
_Gadianton
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 9947
- Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am
it was not about Joseph's desires.
The way I see it, the church is damned either way.
Women which would you rather have:
A: a total horndog husband who sleeps around with your friends and wants all of you, cuz he's a perv, but feels legitimate real desire for you even though it's not for you alone.
or
B: a total stoic husband who doesn't desire you in any way, who had to be threatened by an angel with a drawn sword to marry you, and then given your obligations of marriage, you will forever be barred from any kind of love or desire the rest of your life since your husband feels no passion for you and you aren't allowed to feel passion with anyone else.
It's a lose - lose situation.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
-
_Inconceivable
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3405
- Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:44 am
Lust, Love or Duty?
It was either out of lust or duty. Just as much as it was either out of either lust or love. Duty could only be defined by Mormons as a love for God in this case - not for women. The argument of Duty and love defy civilized reason. It has made me physically ill considering his conduct over the past few years. Joseph Smith was an Evil, Wicked man. A Predator.
I would have shot him if he came for my 16 year old daughter.. being the frontier and all.
Obviously, times have changed. Now days I'd constrain myself and press charges against him for attempted sexual misconduct with a minor (which carries a sentence in Arizona from 1-12 years). If I actually caught him he would be convicted and put away for a mandatory 12-25.
With all of the acts of violence he committed against women, it would not have been difficult to qualify him and Warren Jeffs as roommates for the rest of their pathetic lives.
I'm surprised no-one put a cap in him long before the well provoked gunfight.
I would have shot him if he came for my 16 year old daughter.. being the frontier and all.
Obviously, times have changed. Now days I'd constrain myself and press charges against him for attempted sexual misconduct with a minor (which carries a sentence in Arizona from 1-12 years). If I actually caught him he would be convicted and put away for a mandatory 12-25.
With all of the acts of violence he committed against women, it would not have been difficult to qualify him and Warren Jeffs as roommates for the rest of their pathetic lives.
I'm surprised no-one put a cap in him long before the well provoked gunfight.
-
_ludwigm
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 10158
- Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:07 am
Love?
When this polygamy stuff did begin? Look into the scriptures!
In 1831? In 1843?
The preface of the D&C 132 says:
"Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831."
Or in 1852, when it was sustained by the conference?
Anyway, it has ended (has it?) in 1890, when in the OFFICIAL DECLARATION-1 Wilford Woodruff, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said:
"We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice" (this was then a lie, but at this point it doesn't count)
Or it has ended in 1891, when (in the OFFDEC1's second part), Wilford Woodruff said:
"The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice." (Cache Stake Conference, Logan, Utah, Sunday, November 1, 1891. Reported in Deseret Weekly, November 14, 1891.)
This is about 40 - 50 - 60 years. For us. For the Lord, it is one hour to one and a half.
Read Abraham 3:4
"And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord's time, according to the reckoning of Kolob."
One day is 86400 second, so one of our years is 86,4 second for the Lord, according to the reckoning of Kolob.
Imagine this omniscient, omnipotent, omnianything God, who says:
Get as many wife as you can, and no resistance, because comes the flaming sword ...
Then, after an hour:
Stop this practice, if you don't want to come off badly.
Giving a commandment, then saying not to live up?
Here is some problem. With God or with His mouthpieces.
Or with the Scriptures cited above. Or with all of them.
No syllogism, predicate calculus or modal logic.
Only the Scriptures (copypasted from LDS.org) and some fundamental operation of arithmetic.
___ Ludwig from Hungary
We are told that he really didn't want to do it, but was commanded of God.
When this polygamy stuff did begin? Look into the scriptures!
In 1831? In 1843?
The preface of the D&C 132 says:
"Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831."
Or in 1852, when it was sustained by the conference?
Anyway, it has ended (has it?) in 1890, when in the OFFICIAL DECLARATION-1 Wilford Woodruff, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said:
"We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice" (this was then a lie, but at this point it doesn't count)
Or it has ended in 1891, when (in the OFFDEC1's second part), Wilford Woodruff said:
"The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice." (Cache Stake Conference, Logan, Utah, Sunday, November 1, 1891. Reported in Deseret Weekly, November 14, 1891.)
This is about 40 - 50 - 60 years. For us. For the Lord, it is one hour to one and a half.
Read Abraham 3:4
"And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord's time, according to the reckoning of Kolob."
One day is 86400 second, so one of our years is 86,4 second for the Lord, according to the reckoning of Kolob.
Imagine this omniscient, omnipotent, omnianything God, who says:
Get as many wife as you can, and no resistance, because comes the flaming sword ...
Then, after an hour:
Stop this practice, if you don't want to come off badly.
Giving a commandment, then saying not to live up?
Here is some problem. With God or with His mouthpieces.
Or with the Scriptures cited above. Or with all of them.
No syllogism, predicate calculus or modal logic.
Only the Scriptures (copypasted from LDS.org) and some fundamental operation of arithmetic.
___ Ludwig from Hungary
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco
- To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
- To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
-
_truth dancer
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4792
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm
Hi Gaz...
Of course you know!
How intimate and close would your relationship be with your wife if you saw her twice a year... along with your children? You don't have to be a brain surgeon to answer this question!
It would be virtually non-existent. No true bonding, emotional connection, or physical care.
Let's be real for a minute. It is difficult enough for a man to be a good husband to one wife and parent the children from one wife. The more wives and families the LESS he is a parent or husband. He becomes a sperm donor and nothing more. He has virtually no connection with his children, no sense of closeness with the women, no bonding, intimacy, or true sense of love and devotion. He becomes an animal.
Which is one of the reasons I find polygamy so perverted and sick.
Not only are women reduced to a body to use, men are reduced to animals.
My question for you... do you excuse other sexual predators, men who have multiple affairs, Hugh Heffner types with the same wave of a hand? Or is Joseph Smith the only one who gets a free pass?
~dancer~
You pose a great question with your post here. How intimate can a plural marriage be? I would have to say I don't know.
Of course you know!
How intimate and close would your relationship be with your wife if you saw her twice a year... along with your children? You don't have to be a brain surgeon to answer this question!
It would be virtually non-existent. No true bonding, emotional connection, or physical care.
I have heard it said that a plural marriage has more to do with the doctrine of consecration than any other principle of the gospel. Devoting ones life to the proper rearign and training of a righteous posterity, ensuring they are brought up to be morally strong.
Let's be real for a minute. It is difficult enough for a man to be a good husband to one wife and parent the children from one wife. The more wives and families the LESS he is a parent or husband. He becomes a sperm donor and nothing more. He has virtually no connection with his children, no sense of closeness with the women, no bonding, intimacy, or true sense of love and devotion. He becomes an animal.
Which is one of the reasons I find polygamy so perverted and sick.
Not only are women reduced to a body to use, men are reduced to animals.
My question for you... do you excuse other sexual predators, men who have multiple affairs, Hugh Heffner types with the same wave of a hand? Or is Joseph Smith the only one who gets a free pass?
~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
-
_Inconceivable
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3405
- Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:44 am
truth dancer wrote:How intimate and close would your relationship be with your wife if you saw her twice a year... along with your children?
It would be virtually non-existent. No true bonding, emotional connection, or physical care.
.. It is difficult enough for a man to be a good husband to one wife and parent the children from one wife. The more wives and families the LESS he is a parent or husband. He becomes a sperm donor and nothing more. He has virtually no connection with his children, no sense of closeness with the women, no bonding, intimacy, or true sense of love and devotion. He becomes an animal.
~dancer~
Hi TD,
Abandonment was also very real. These predators left their harems for 2-4 years at a time. What were they doing away from their families?
While the Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, Parley P. Pratt was "prostlyting" in California, he took a mate and married her. She remained married to her legal non-mormon husband.
Her husband finally caught up to him in Arkansas while he was attempting to steal their children - and the husband killed Pratt dead. (Kindof started that whole Mountain Meadows Mess).
How would my wife feel if I came home from a business trip with a concubine? Betrayed, humiliated, cheap, devastated, violated, diseased? Knowing my bride, she would justifiably put her foot down (on a certain apendage) and throw us both out permanently.
What a wicked man that apostle was.
-
_Trinity
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 426
- Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 12:36 pm
ludwigm wrote:Imagine this omniscient, omnipotent, omnianything God, who says:
Get as many wife as you can, and no resistance, because comes the flaming sword ...
Then, after an hour:
Stop this practice, if you don't want to come off badly.
Giving a commandment, then saying not to live up?
Here is some problem. With God or with His mouthpieces.
Or with the Scriptures cited above. Or with all of them.
No syllogism, predicate calculus or modal logic.
Only the Scriptures (copypasted from LDS.org) and some fundamental operation of arithmetic.
___ Ludwig from Hungary
No kiddin, Ludwig. Strip away the niceties and you see it for what it is. Joseph, not even waiting until the 7 year itch before he started scratching away, all the while writing God's approval and permission into scripture so fewer would question him.
-
_why me
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 9589
- Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:19 pm
http://ldsfaq.BYU.edu/emmain.asp?number=145
Evidence for the practice of plural marriage during the 1830s is scant. Only a few knew about the still unwritten revelation, and perhaps the only known plural marriage was that between Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger. Nonetheless there were rumors, harbingers of challenges to come.
In April 1839, Joseph Smith emerged from six months´ imprisonment in Liberty Jail with a sense of urgency about completing his mission (see History of the Church: c. 1831–1844). Since receiving the sealing key from Elijah in the Kirtland Temple (D&C 110:13–16) in April 1836, the Prophet had labored to prepare the Saints for additional teachings and ordinances, including plural marriage.
Joseph Smith realized that the introduction of plural marriage would inevitably invite severe criticism. After the Kirtland experience, he knew the tension it would create in his own family; even though Emma, with faith in his prophetic calling, accepted the revelation as being from God and not of his own doing, she could not reconcile herself to the practice. Beyond that, it had the potential to divide the Church and increase hostilities from outside. Still, he felt obligated to move ahead. "The object with me is to obey & teach others to obey God in just what he tells us to do," he taught several months before his death. "It mattereth not whether the principle is popular or unpopular. I will always maintain a true principle even if I Stand alone in it" (TPJS, p. 332).
I cannot see Joseph Smith doing it for love or lust. He did it because he believed it to be a commandment. And Bushman agrees with me. Love did not come into the picture and neither did romance. Plural marriage was a principle that needed to be obeyed.
Evidence for the practice of plural marriage during the 1830s is scant. Only a few knew about the still unwritten revelation, and perhaps the only known plural marriage was that between Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger. Nonetheless there were rumors, harbingers of challenges to come.
In April 1839, Joseph Smith emerged from six months´ imprisonment in Liberty Jail with a sense of urgency about completing his mission (see History of the Church: c. 1831–1844). Since receiving the sealing key from Elijah in the Kirtland Temple (D&C 110:13–16) in April 1836, the Prophet had labored to prepare the Saints for additional teachings and ordinances, including plural marriage.
Joseph Smith realized that the introduction of plural marriage would inevitably invite severe criticism. After the Kirtland experience, he knew the tension it would create in his own family; even though Emma, with faith in his prophetic calling, accepted the revelation as being from God and not of his own doing, she could not reconcile herself to the practice. Beyond that, it had the potential to divide the Church and increase hostilities from outside. Still, he felt obligated to move ahead. "The object with me is to obey & teach others to obey God in just what he tells us to do," he taught several months before his death. "It mattereth not whether the principle is popular or unpopular. I will always maintain a true principle even if I Stand alone in it" (TPJS, p. 332).
I cannot see Joseph Smith doing it for love or lust. He did it because he believed it to be a commandment. And Bushman agrees with me. Love did not come into the picture and neither did romance. Plural marriage was a principle that needed to be obeyed.
-
_why me
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 9589
- Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:19 pm
Trinity wrote:ludwigm wrote:Imagine this omniscient, omnipotent, omnianything God, who says:
Get as many wife as you can, and no resistance, because comes the flaming sword ...
Then, after an hour:
Stop this practice, if you don't want to come off badly.
Giving a commandment, then saying not to live up?
Here is some problem. With God or with His mouthpieces.
Or with the Scriptures cited above. Or with all of them.
No syllogism, predicate calculus or modal logic.
Only the Scriptures (copypasted from LDS.org) and some fundamental operation of arithmetic.
___ Ludwig from Hungary
No kiddin, Ludwig. Strip away the niceties and you see it for what it is. Joseph, not even waiting until the 7 year itch before he started scratching away, all the while writing God's approval and permission into scripture so fewer would question him.
Hardly Trinity. If Joseph wanted sex, it could have been had. He would only need to get on his horse and go two counties over to Miss Kitty's place. All could be had for a dollar a shot. No problem. Do you really think that Joseph Smith would risk his life for some ice cream? Come on, lets get serious. There were safer ways available for a young buck like Joe Smith.
He risked much to obey this commandment.
Last edited by Guest on Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
_truth dancer
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4792
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm
Hey Inconceivable,
Exactly! The whole "polygamy" thing was nothing more than a ruse for some men to get a harem. To heck with their wives, families, children... so what if these wives are hurt, humiliated, devastated, depressed, demeaned, degraded, or end up with a disease or even die. Many wives were used then disgarded like yesterday's trash... sleeping in caves without so much as a glance or care.
As Thomas Paine said, "Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man."
~dancer~
Abandonment was also very real. These predators left their harems for 2-4 years at a time. What were they doing away from their families?
While the Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, Parley P. Pratt was "prostlyting" in California, he took a mate and married her. She remained married to her legal non-mormon husband.
Her husband finally caught up to him in Arkansas while he was attempting to steal their children - and the husband killed Pratt dead. (Kindof started that whole Mountain Meadows Mess).
How would my wife feel if I came home from a business trip with a concubine? Betrayed, humiliated, cheap, devastated, violated, diseased? Knowing my bride, she would justifiably put her foot down (on a certain apendage) and throw us both out permanently.
What a wicked man that apostle was.
Exactly! The whole "polygamy" thing was nothing more than a ruse for some men to get a harem. To heck with their wives, families, children... so what if these wives are hurt, humiliated, devastated, depressed, demeaned, degraded, or end up with a disease or even die. Many wives were used then disgarded like yesterday's trash... sleeping in caves without so much as a glance or care.
As Thomas Paine said, "Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man."
~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj