barrelomonkeys wrote:It is absolutely disgusting! Wade mentions a 'relationship'? What type of relationship could there possibly be with a fourteen year old CHILD and a late 30's man?
I'm stunned that others don't see how very, very troubling this is. It speaks to his character. He chose to take young brides. Surely he could have found plenty of widows ;) in need of a husband?
It's poppycock that Joseph Smith had a 'relationship' with a child!
Are you suggesting that there isn't any kind of relationship that could be had between a man in his 30's and a 14-year-old girl that you wouldn't consider very, very, troubling and absolutly disgusting?
What would be troubling to you were the relationship nothing more than a sealing for the afterlife and his providing, for a time, room and board and kindness for her, as he did with many other people of all ages? (Which is really as much as we factually know about the situation.)
barrelomonkeys wrote:It is absolutely disgusting! Wade mentions a 'relationship'? What type of relationship could there possibly be with a fourteen year old CHILD and a late 30's man?
I'm stunned that others don't see how very, very troubling this is. It speaks to his character. He chose to take young brides. Surely he could have found plenty of widows ;) in need of a husband?
It's poppycock that Joseph Smith had a 'relationship' with a child!
Are you suggesting that there isn't any kind of relationship that could be had between a man in his 30's and a 14-year-old girl that you wouldn't consider very, very, troubling and absolutly disgusting?
What would be troubling to you were the relationship nothing more than a sealing for the afterlife and his providing, for a time, room and board and kindness for her, as he did with many other people of all ages? (Which is really as much as we factually know about the situation.)
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
I think girls desperately need older males in their lives to help them appreciate their worth and value outside of sexuality. It is imperative for all girls to have this, in my belief. That being said I assumed there was a sexual component to these 'relationships' as they were referred to as his wives. Did these girls later go on to marry other men? I just find the 'wife' aspect of it troubling Wade.
I think anyone can recognize that a mentor to a young woman is very beneficial - is that what you're saying Joseph Smith was to these young ladies?
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-
I think your comparison and contrast is more of an attempt to take the spotlight off an evil and unjustified man.
Now your next card is to accuse me of being a self-righteous unmerciful judge that will get his come-up'ns if he doesn't watch what he says. So there is someone out there that might persecute me for Standing for Something..
Wade, I have no fear of applying the same judgement to myself as I have to Joseph Smith. I'll live by the same sacred principles he held in contempt and I'll rat him out of civilized society if I can. Is it too much to ask of the average man to covenant before God, Angels and Witnesses that he will have no sexual relations with anyone but his lawful and wedded wife?
You be the judge. You made the same covenant.
Last edited by Guest on Tue Oct 30, 2007 5:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
Runtu wrote: What kills me is that some people don't see the coercion, or the general creepiness of the whole thing.
Could their "not seeing" be because they may not be as quick as you to jump to certain conclusions about the nature of the relationship?
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Wade
Honestly if it were anyone but Joseph Smith you know you would have issues with this. Just take Joseph out of it. Put any other mans name in. Peter is a religous leader of We Believe in Jesus A lot. Peter Piper told young Helen if she married him God told him her family would be promised a trip to heaven. Peter is 38 and Helen is 15.
If you were not a follower of Peter would you grant him the huge lee way you give Joseph Smith?
Runtu wrote: What kills me is that some people don't see the coercion, or the general creepiness of the whole thing.
Could their "not seeing" be because they may not be as quick as you to jump to certain conclusions about the nature of the relationship?
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Wade
Honestly if it were anyone but Joseph Smith you know you would have issues with this. Just take Joseph out of it. Put any other mans name in. Peter is a religous leader of We Believe in Jesus A lot. Peter Piper told young Helen if she married him God told him her family would be promised a trip to heaven. Peter is 38 and Helen is 15.
If you were not a follower of Peter would you grant him the huge lee way you give Joseph Smith?
I'd report him to Social Services, the police and await his impending arrest. Oh, you asked Wade.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
wenglund wrote: No. It is not character assassination to acknowledge that Joseph was sealed to certain women after they moved into his home (I will have to take your word that the women listed did so)? But, then, I don't see it as "coersion" or "general creepiness" either. So, evidently, that is not what I was referring to in terms of character assassination.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Wade, by coercion and general creepiness, I was talking about Helen Kimball. You apparently merged two separate posts I made. Granted, taking girls into your home and then telling them that they need to marry you or an angel with a drawn sword will kill you is considered by many to be both coercive and creepy.
Again, giving my opinion based on 15 years of study and pondering (you can dismiss it as scant information, but I disagree) does not constitute character assassination.
I'll tell you what I find wrong in that situation. Helen Mar Kimball got but one husband for eternity. That husband was not of her choosing. It was an arrangement between her father and the prophet. Her words were - paraphrasing - my father had but one ewe lamb to give. Had I known it was anything but a ceremony I would have never agreed.
In my opinion many of the women who were sealed to Joseph Smith probably had their true loves elsewhere. They are not with their true loves in the eternities but with Joseph Smith.
I say all the above hypothetically because I don't believe they are with Joseph Smith. If there is indeed an afterlife I'd like to believe they are with their true loves.
Insert ironic quote from fellow board member here.
MishMagnet wrote:I'll tell you what I find wrong in that situation. Helen Mar Kimball got but one husband for eternity. That husband was not of her choosing. It was an arrangement between her father and the prophet. Her words were - paraphrasing - my father had but one ewe lamb to give. Had I known it was anything but a ceremony I would have never agreed.
In my opinion many of the women who were sealed to Joseph Smith probably had their true loves elsewhere. They are not with their true loves in the eternities but with Joseph Smith.
I say all the above hypothetically because I don't believe they are with Joseph Smith. If there is indeed an afterlife I'd like to believe they are with their true loves.
I was reading about Zina Huntington Jacobs last night. She was being courted by Henry Jacobs when Joseph Smith approached her. She turned him down and married Henry. But Joseph refused to take no for an answer and told both of them it was God's will that Zina belong to him. Her marriage was of no consequence to him. She married Joseph out of religious duty, but she married Henry out of love and affection. But Henry won't be with her in the eternities.
Runtu wrote:I was reading about Zina Huntington Jacobs last night. She was being courted by Henry Jacobs when Joseph Smith approached her. She turned him down and married Henry. But Joseph refused to take no for an answer and told both of them it was God's will that Zina belong to him. Her marriage was of no consequence to him. She married Joseph out of religious duty, but she married Henry out of love and affection. But Henry won't be with her in the eternities.
Perhaps this is what inspired J. Golden Kimball to remark:
"Some are married for time and all eternity, others are just married for a hell of a long time"
How humorous do you really think this statement was back at the time he said it? I find it tenuous to laugh about it anymore.