Did Joseph Smith marry for love?

[_ludwigm]

"why me" wrote:
Evidence for the practice of plural marriage during the 1830s is scant. Only a few knew about the still unwritten revelation

Now, in 2007 every member should know it, because this text:

"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."
(The preface of the D&C 132)

is readable on LDS.org, (http://scriptures.LDS.org/en/dc/132) and in the printed versions, in >100 language.
Question: How can one determine ONLY from the LDS.org,, which prophets was polygamous?
Answer: In the curriculum of that prophet, no word about wife, wives and children on the "significant events" page.
They were the first seven, from Joseph Smith to HJG.
About " http://ldsfaq.BYU.edu/emmain.asp?number=145 "
If You read the next paragraph You cited, there is
"Though the revelation was first committed to writing on July 12, 1843, considerable evidence suggests that the principle of plural marriage was revealed to Joseph Smith more than a decade before in connection with his study of the Bible (see Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible), probably in early 1831."
So much about context.
One more from this page:

Generally plural marriage involved only two wives and seldom more than three; larger families like those of Brigham Young or Heber C. Kimball were exceptions.

And Joseph Smith and the other early prophets and hi-rank leaders.
There is a hungarian saying: "The fish stinks from its head on." Is there same in english?
One more question (pugnacious):
If Joseph Smith and BY would not have been "resistent" and "reluctant", how many wives were hidden on the "LDS.org" and "ldsfaq.BYU.edu"? 300? 700? 1000? There are biblical precedents.
As dirty as the 30-40-50 in the 19. century.
Did Joseph Smith marry for love? LOVE? Tut tut!
___ Ludwig from Hungary
[/i]

[_truth dancer]

Hi Inconceivable...

The justification of Joseph Smiths adultery is the foundation of my disaffection towards the church.

Shame on those that call evil good and good evil.

I seek no sign. But if the Mormon God himself appeared to me and told me Joseph Smith was justified in betraying the sacred trust of his wife and the inocent of his flock, I would reject both of them.

I have stated before that If an angel claiming to have decended from the God of love with a flaming sword appeared to force my will toward adultery, I would fight and die with my honor and the sacred covenants I had made to my only bride.

The Mormon God would make a mockery of civilization, my moral compass, let alone human decency. The sacred bond of marriage is what it is.

I would prefer to make a nice place in hell than to spend eternity with the Mormon God of whoredoms.

YOU ROCK! You TOTALLY ROCK!

You are an honorable, noble, truly great man! :-)

I so tire of hearing excuses for cruel, degrading, disgusting, sickening behavior. The idea that, what is truly horrific is really great, and what is truly lovely is of no consequence truly, physically sickened me as I tried to embrace as good what my heart and mind told me was horribly, horribly wrong.

And excusing, justifying, rationalizing, and minimizing cruel unhealthy behavior with the, "God said," excuse still today sickens me.

Like you, I cannot worship a God that would be any part of such hurtful, dispicable, loathsome, cruel behavior.

~dancer~

[_Pokatator]

..According the the Bible GOd forgave him of these sins. He could forgive Jospeh too. I hope he does if Joseph really repented of plural marriage like William Marks claims he did just before Joseph was murdered.

Jason, where can you go with this? Look at the horrific damage path. This was not a white lie. If plural marriage was evil and necessitated his repentance, look at what you are implying:

As a predator, he raped the virginity from our ancestor's daughters. He stole the virtue of married women and destroyed their homes. He betrayed the sacred trust of his only legal wife. He destroyed the honor and peace of entire families and even communities.

And yet today, the weak or naïve see him as having done more for mankind than Jesus only.

Many hearts died and continue to die, pierced with deep wounds - including my own.

Excellent point Inconceivable:

How many others did he cause to sin. The complete practice of polygamy is a hoax and many, many people followed a farce. They were lead to believe it by being weak and naïve, did they see the errors of their ways and repent? Like Joseph supposedly did? Joseph Smith did a lot for his fellow mankind, he lead them down a path of sin.

If Joseph was to truly repent it should have been in public, he would have denounced the complete practice and gave the blind followers a chance to repent also. In my opinion, there's not a slim chance in hell that in any way, shape or form did Joe repent in any way that would be considered a true repentance?

[_Blixa]

Did Joseph Smith marry for love? LOVE? Tut tut!
___ Ludwig from Hungary

I think this just about sums it up.

[_Runtu]

Did Joseph Smith marry for love? LOVE? Tut tut!
___ Ludwig from Hungary

I think this just about sums it up.

I deliberately used the word "love" because it was the least-loaded way I could say what I wanted to say. And his own use of the word made it a natural choice.

[_wenglund]

I stand by my comments.


The justification of Joseph Smiths adultery is the foundation of my disaffection towards the church.


Shame on those that call evil good and good evil.

I seek no sign. But if the Mormon God himself appeared to me and told me Joseph Smith was justified in betraying the sacred trust of his wife and the inocent of his flock, I would reject both of them.

I have stated before that If an angel claiming to have decended from the God of love with a flaming sword appeared to force my will toward adultery, I would fight and die with my honor and the sacred covenants I had made to my only bride.

The Mormon God would make a mockery of civilization, my moral compass, let alone human decency. The sacred bond of marriage is what it is.

I would prefer to make a nice place in hell than to spend eternity with the Mormon God of whoredoms.


But, truth be told, this is not the God or Jesus I ever thought I knew. But sometimes things aren't as they seem.

Please, for your own sake, do not read the Old Testament. If you think Joseph's being sealed to multiple wives is horrific to you, then I can't imagine what you might think of the biblical God who ordered the genocide of complete cities.

For that matter, you better stay away from the New Testament as well, what with God inpregnating a near 14-year old who was espoused to another man, and all that talk about eating flesh and drinking blood--which caused not a few of the disciples to reject Christ in disgust.

To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Please, for your own sake, do not read the Old Testament. If you think Joseph's being sealed to multiple wives is horrific to you, then I can't imagine what you might think of the biblical God who ordered the genocide of complete cities.

For that matter, you better stay away from the New Testament as well, what with God inpregnating a near 14-year old who was espoused to another man, and all that talk about eating flesh and drinking blood--which caused not a few of the disciples to reject Christ in disgust.

To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Such not-so-subtle mockery, Wade.

Either way, the "God did worse stuff in the Old Testament" excuse is not a particularly effective argument.

I thought I made clear in the OP that there's the possibility that Joseph wasn't "forced" into it. With Fanny Alger, there's no mention of a restoration of anything, no commandment, no angel with a drawn sword. Just Joseph falling in love.

[_Inconceivable]

I stand by my comments...
.

Please, for your own sake, do not read the Old Testament. If you think Joseph's being sealed to multiple wives is horrific to you, then I can't imagine what you might think of the biblical God who ordered the genocide of complete cities.

For that matter, you better stay away from the New Testament as well, what with God inpregnating a near 14-year old who was espoused to another man, and all that talk about eating flesh and drinking blood--which caused not a few of the disciples to reject Christ in disgust.

To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade Englund,

Your tactics are predictable and contemptuous.

Demonstrating that biblical sheep were somehow capable of jamming round pegs in square holes does not make the hole round or the peg square. I have little faith in the fairy tales of the Old Testament that blame the barbarisms of men upon deity (read "Wild Kingdom" in the Celestial Forum). This is a dead issue

Being sealed to multiple wives may not be horrific in itself. That may be an appendage, but not the core of the argument, Wade. Your diversion is cheap and transparent.

Joseph Smith screwed wedges into places that the law of the land prohibited him.

He stole virtue. He destroyed families. He robbed what was not legally his and abandoned without recompense. This is the damage path that I speak of. And you know that.

You bring up the relationship between Jesus' Father and His mother as if you were privy to this sacred event. You have no knowledge.

To compare the symbolism of the sacrament lacks understanding on your part. Your connecting symbolism with an act of sexual predatory violence demonstrates how, if there is a forgiving and just God, he may have given you up to a reprobate mind.

Shame on you Wade, you do not have my respect.


I'll keep my eye on the ball.

[_wenglund]

Please, for your own sake, do not read the Old Testament. If you think Joseph's being sealed to multiple wives is horrific to you, then I can't imagine what you might think of the biblical God who ordered the genocide of complete cities.

For that matter, you better stay away from the New Testament as well, what with God inpregnating a near 14-year old who was espoused to another man, and all that talk about eating flesh and drinking blood--which caused not a few of the disciples to reject Christ in disgust.

To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Such not-so-subtle mockery, Wade.

You are reading mockery into what I am saying. That is your choice. Just realize that the mockery you hear is a product of your mind, not mine. ;-)

Either way, the "God did worse stuff in the Old Testament" excuse is not a particularly effective argument.

Whether you are correct or not about this, I am not sure how it relates to me, since I wasn't making excuses or an argument. I was simply expressing a kindly word of caution.

I thought I made clear in the OP that there's the possibility that Joseph wasn't "forced" into it. With Fanny Alger, there's no mention of a restoration of anything, no commandment, no angel with a drawn sword. Just Joseph falling in love.

I thought you made that clear as well. I just thought it might help to put the choice of marriage into greater context. I didn't put all of my thoughts to pen when considering marrying my girlfriend back then, but I think people may have gathered my motives and considerations by respectfully examining the whole of my life, particularly the life I lived at the time. I have no reason to think the same wouldn't prove useful when examining Joseph's decision to be sealed to Fanny.

But, that may just be me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Wade Englund,

Your tactics are predictable and contemptuous.

Demonstrating that biblical sheep were somehow capable of jamming round pegs in square holes does not make the hole round or the peg square. I have little faith in the fairy tales of the Old Testament that blame the barbarisms of men upon deity (read "Wild Kingdom" in the Celestial Forum). This is a dead issue

Being sealed to multiple wives may not be horrific in itself. That may be an appendage, but not the core of the argument, Wade. Your diversion is cheap and transparent.

Joseph Smith screwed wedges into places that the law of the land prohibited him.

He stole virtue. He destroyed families. He robbed what was not legally his and abandoned without recompense. This is the damage path that I speak of. And you know that.

You bring up the relationship between Jesus' Father and His mother as if you were privy to this sacred event. You have no knowledge.

To compare the symbolism of the sacrament lacks understanding on your part. Your connecting symbolism with an act of sexual predatory violence demonstrates how, if there is a forgiving and just God, he may have given you up to a reprobate mind.

Shame on you Wade, you do not have my respect.


I'll keep my eye on the ball.

For whatever reason, you clearly missed the point, so I hope you don't mind if I clarify. Whether it be the actions of the saints in Old Testament times, or the virgin birth, or the sacrament, or polygamy, or a wide variety of religious principles and practices, they each are open to interpretation. And, even the most sacred and benign can be contrued in such a way as to be thought evil and dastardly and faith-destroying. That is a matter of personal choice.

Whether such judgements are fair and accurate, I suppose is also in the eye of the beholder.

Just be aware that the kind of self-righteousness and harsh judgementalism you extend towards me and my faith and leaders, can be extended back to you and your faith by others--though not by me (I happen to think such actions are counterproductive, particularly in interfaith discussions). But, to each their own, as I say.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-