Dynasitc Marriages-Doctrinal Question

[_truth dancer]

The problem is we simply don't have the details.

Yes we do. Well not the very specific details of every little act but we do have quite a bit of information.

And speculating about it isn't going to give us the details.

We do not need more details, there is plenty enough information to get a picture of what went on.

There is NO first hand account written by anyone.

Are you seriously unaware of any? Perhaps you could read up on the topic.

Why would anyone want to engage in endless, meaningless speculation?

No one is engaging in endless, meaningless speculation. Some folks want to understand, others may want to be clear on doctrine, and others may want to discover truth.

I guess I know the answer to that question. People who want to demonize Joseph Smith.

No, people want to discover truth and understand. This isn't a war Charity.

If you don't have facts to prove a case, you can always speculate and spread rumors.

And, if there are facts some people can discuss them. Everyone isn't going to deny what is reality or dismiss evidence to fit their beliefs.

Did you read what people gossiping and spreading rumors did in Liz's family? I said shame on them. It applies to everyone who does the same thing.

You seem to want history to be something that it is not.

In spite of what you believe Charity, my observation is that few apologists agree with you. In fact, off hand I can't think of one.

Most apologists I know believe there is ample evidence and reason to believe that Joseph Smith had sex with many of his wives. In fact I know a believer who has publicly stated that the "evidence looks promising" that his wife is a descendant of Joseph Smith.

~dancer~

[_Runtu]

My other question is, if these polyandrous sealings were adoptive sealings, why did he hide them from Emma? Emma certainly wouldn't have cared if they weren't marriages.

See my post above. Mary Lightner certainly understood it as a marriage. The only person, it seems, who believes they weren't marriages is charity. :)

Was Mary's husband, Adam, a Church member?

No, he was not. He never joined the church but they did move to Utah in 1863.

As far as children, here's Mary Lightner again:

"I know he had six wives and I have known some of them from childhood up. I know he had three children. They told me. I think two are living today but they are not known as his children as they go by other names."

And notice that charity is scrupulously avoiding responding to what Mary Lightner said. charity says there's no evidence these were wives, but Mary says that she was a "wife." Whom to believe? Hmmmm.

[_charity]

I will try to reply to all the previous posts addressed to me.

1. There have been assumptions about what I believe. To set you all straight, I believe that plural marriage was commanded by God. Joseph Smith was living the law as understood it. I believe he had a number of plural wives, with consummated relationships. It was moral behavior. Approved by God.

2. This is a fact. There are a lot of people who are making unwarranted assumptions and judgements about the practice of plural marriage, but Joseph and by others. These people are willing to make judgements based on third hand accounts, out of time accounts, and biased accounts.

3. I also believe that no one has the right to condemn what God approves. And anyone who questions whether or not something is approved of God has to be dang sure they are correct before they make the statement that God didn't approve it.

4. I also believe that the so-called "I just want the truth" is a cop out. The truth about whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet? Even if you "prove" he had sexual realtionship with all 33, including already married women and Helen Mar Kimball, you haven't proven that he was doing anything that God hadn't told him to do. So where are you?

5. The purpose of this life is not to learn facts, and use logic to make faillible judgements. It is to learn the things of God. These kinds of titllating exercises appealing to base natures accomplish nothing.

One of the posters said, "This isn't a war."

Oh, yes it is. It is a war for the souls of men. Anyone who believes a lie about Joseph Smith's prophetic calling and who lets that lie keep them from accepting the Gospel is a casualty of that war. It is very serious business.

[cacheman]

I will try to reply to all the previous posts addressed to me.

1. There have been assumptions about what I believe. To set you all straight, I believe that plural marriage was commanded by God. Joseph Smith was living the law as understood it. I believe he had a number of plural wives, with consummated relationships. It was moral behavior. Approved by God.

2. This is a fact. There are a lot of people who are making unwarranted assumptions and judgements about the practice of plural marriage, but Joseph and by others. These people are willing to make judgements based on third hand accounts, out of time accounts, and biased accounts.

3. I also believe that no one has the right to condemn what God approves. And anyone who questions whether or not something is approved of God has to be dang sure they are correct before they make the statement that God didn't approve it.

4. I also believe that the so-called "I just want the truth" is a cop out. The truth about whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet? Even if you "prove" he had sexual realtionship with all 33, including already married women and Helen Mar Kimball, you haven't proven that he was doing anything that God hadn't told him to do. So where are you?

5. The purpose of this life is not to learn facts, and use logic to make faillible judgements. It is to learn the things of God. These kinds of titllating exercises appealing to base natures accomplish nothing.

One of the posters said, "This isn't a war."

Oh, yes it is. It is a war for the souls of men. Anyone who believes a lie about Joseph Smith's prophetic calling and who lets that lie keep them from accepting the Gospel is a casualty of that war. It is very serious business.

So, we have a firsthand account of a marriage, and you discount it. You say it wouldn't matter if Joseph had a sexual relationship with his wives, but you go to great lengths to deny it. In the end, you resort to the ultimate cop-out: "God said so."

The truth is important, indeed. You have made completely indefensible statements about Joseph's wives and marriages, and yet you accuse us of believing lies. The truth will prevail, charity, no matter how much you deny it.

This is no war, but if it were, the first casualty has been the truth. And we aren't the ones who killed it.

Edit: charity, I know that what I said sounds harsh, and I'm sorry for that. But that's how I feel about it.

[_charity]

So, we have a firsthand account of a marriage, and you discount it. You say it wouldn't matter if Joseph had a sexual relationship with his wives, but you go to great lengths to deny it. In the end, you resort to the ultimate cop-out: "God said so."

The truth is important, indeed. You have made completely indefensible statements about Joseph's wives and marriages, and yet you accuse us of believing lies. The truth will prevail, charity, no matter how much you deny it.

This is no war, but if it were, the first casualty has been the truth. And we aren't the ones who killed it.

I am not denying anything. I am saying we don't know. Let me spell it out for you.

1. We don't know every revelation given to Joseph Smith by the Lord regarding plural marriage.
2. We don't know the timing of all the revelations.
3. We don't know the intimate details of all the sealings.
4. We don't know who to trust in writing about the sealings well after Joseph Smith's death.
5. We don't know the motives for all those involved who made statements.

Is that enough to let you know just how much we don't know about this topic?

I am quite confident the truth will prevail. And that all will be known, not in this mortal life, but in the next.

And what does it matter? Any one who bases his/her faith on a mortal man is going to fall anyway. Digging out all the facts, which can't be done anyway, and trusting in the arm of flesh will lead to destruction.

Truth a casuality? I'm not the one flinging out agenda driven speculations. That isn't the way to find truth.

[_Runtu]

I am not denying anything. I am saying we don't know. Let me spell it out for you.

1. We don't know every revelation given to Joseph Smith by the Lord regarding plural marriage.

That I can agree with.

2. We don't know the timing of all the revelations.

That's assuming there were revelations.

3. We don't know the intimate details of all the sealings.

Nope, just some of them.

4. We don't know who to trust in writing about the sealings well after Joseph Smith's death.

So, you don't trust Mary Lightner? Why not?

5. We don't know the motives for all those involved who made statements.

What possible reason would Mary Lightner have for lying about her relationship with Joseph?

Is that enough to let you know just how much we don't know about this topic?

I am quite confident the truth will prevail. And that all will be known, not in this mortal life, but in the next.

And what does it matter? Any one who bases his/her faith on a mortal man is going to fall anyway. Digging out all the facts, which can't be done anyway, and trusting in the arm of flesh will lead to destruction.

Truth a casuality? I'm not the one flinging out agenda driven speculations. That isn't the way to find truth.

Agenda-driven speculations? Are you kidding? I quoted a participant who said they were marriages with offspring, and you said they were sealings of adoption--with zero evidence. I would say that counts as an agenda-driven speculation. And, no that sure as heck isn't the way to find truth.

[_charity]

Agenda-driven speculations? Are you kidding? I quoted a participant who said they were marriages with offspring, and you said they were sealings of adoption--with zero evidence. I would say that counts as an agenda-driven speculation. And, no that sure as heck isn't the way to find truth.

Did you read where I said I thought there were marriages, consummated relationships? If you didn't, please go back and read. I get so tired of people saying things I didn't say, or ignoring those things I did say!

Can't you see that not all the sealings were the same?

Why is the truth of private matters between people who are long since dead any of your business?

[_Runtu]

Did you read where I said I thought there were marriages, consummated relationships? If you didn't, please go back and read. I get so tired of people saying things I didn't say, or ignoring those things I did say!

Can't you see that not all the sealings were the same?

Of course, but when you make ridiculous blanket statements like the following, what am I supposed to make of it:

Maybe because the sealings were not marriages? Sealings not meant as husband and wife? Sealings of unrelated people to each other occurred until almost 1890, when the practice was halted.

For instance, one man, David Candland, with no blood or legal relationship of any kind, adoption, etc. was sealed to Heber C. Kimball and used the Kimball name during a mission.

Since there is absolutely no evidence at all that any of the so-called polyandrous sealings were in any degree "marriages" I think that is the more sensible interpretation.

You specifically denied that the sealings were marriages "in any degree" and said they were adoptions. So, if you can substantiate that, please do so. Otherwise, you're the one engaging in baseless speculation, not me.

Why is the truth of private matters between people who are long since dead any of your business?

It's my business because I'm supposed to accept that this behavior was commanded of God. By your logic, Lehi's leaving Jerusalem for the New World was a private family matter of people who are long since dead.

[_Dr. Shades]

[MODERATOR INPUT: Folks, this is the Celestial Forum, not the Terrestrial. Please only address the actual point of a person's words. Please do not comment upon A) the person him/herself, or B) the quality of the person's words.

If you agree with a premise, state your reasons for such. If you disagree with a premise, likewise state your reasons for such.

Therefore, phrases such as "once you turn away from the church, there's no coming back" should be avoided altogether (since they have nothing to do with dynastic sealings). Similarly, phrases such as "you're engaging in baseless speculation" could be replaced with "I disagree with that paragraph because I don't believe there's enough evidence in the historical record to bear it out."

When discussing things in the Celestial Forum, always picture yourself having the conversation with your favorite grandmother.]

[_truth dancer]

1. There have been assumptions about what I believe. To set you all straight, I believe that plural marriage was commanded by God. Joseph Smith was living the law as understood it. I believe he had a number of plural wives, with consummated relationships. It was moral behavior. Approved by God.

The question is, if another man behaved in the exact same manner as Joseph Smith and claimed God commanded him to do so, would he get a free pass as well? Or would you hold him accountable for his actions?

2. This is a fact. There are a lot of people who are making unwarranted assumptions and judgements about the practice of plural marriage, but Joseph and by others. These people are willing to make judgements based on third hand accounts, out of time accounts, and biased accounts.

What unwarranted assumptions and judgements are you talking about? Please document what "third hand accounts" have been discussed. My impressions is that most apologists and others have a pretty clear picture based on many, many reliable documents of what occurred. Not every little detail but enough of a picture to know what happened to a great extent.

3. I also believe that no one has the right to condemn what God approves. And anyone who questions whether or not something is approved of God has to be dang sure they are correct before they make the statement that God didn't approve it.

And, of course everyone has a different idea of what God does and does not approve. Some folks believed God wanted them to fly a plane into the Twin Towers, other folks believed God wanted them to slaughter children babies and whole communities. The "God said" excuse is overused in my opinion. Seem folks the world over believe they are hearing from God, the HG. or spirit who seems pretty unreliable to me.

4. I also believe that the so-called "I just want the truth" is a cop out. The truth about whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet? Even if you "prove" he had sexual realtionship with all 33, including already married women and Helen Mar Kimball, you haven't proven that he was doing anything that God hadn't told him to do. So where are you?

This is the crux of your problem in my opinion. It seems you are unable or unwilling to understand that most critics of Joseph Smith DO just want the truth. Why this is a problem for some to grasp I do not know.

You get to the heart of the matter here. Rather than deny Joseph Smith behaved in the manner he did, the REAL issues is, did God tell Joseph Smith to behave in such a manner or not.

Joseph Smith's behavior toward women is similar to many other cult and religious leaders with power. He is not the first man to claim God told him to have many girls and women. He is not the first man to tell women and girls God wanted them to be his. You seem to believe Joseph Smith but not the other men. Critics OTOH, do not make an exception for Joseph Smith.

5. The purpose of this life is not to learn facts, and use logic to make faillible judgements. It is to learn the things of God. These kinds of titllating exercises appealing to base natures accomplish nothing.

While this discussion may appeal to YOUR base nature as a titillating exercise, I do not think this is true for anyone else.

For most non-believers, the decency, integrity, honest, and behaviors of a man (or woman), play a part in deciding if said person can be trusted and believed. It is quite appropriate to discuss the behavior, beliefs, actions, and interactions of anyone who claims to be the mouthpiece of God, who claims to be the one to restore the true church on earth, who claims to be in direct communication with Jesus Christ. Can you not understand this?

If you were going to participate with an investment company would the honesty and integrity of its CEO and managers be important? If so, then can you not see that the integrity and honesty of one who claims to have the one and only way to God be important? I'm seriously interested to know if you understand this point?

One of the posters said, "This isn't a war."

Oh, yes it is. It is a war for the souls of men. Anyone who believes a lie about Joseph Smith's prophetic calling and who lets that lie keep them from accepting the Gospel is a casualty of that war. It is very serious business.

I think it is sad to go through life as if you are in a war. I seriously do. I wonder about a God who would set up a world where people live feeling like they are in a war... always fighting, always in battle, always on alert for the enemy, always in fear.

I do not think it is a healthy or holy way to live.

~dancer~