Brother Crockett vs...?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Josephine's evidence, a solemn declaration of a fact upon oath, is strong evidence that her mother said that she (Josephine) was the daughter of Joseph Smith. Josephine had first-hand knowledge of what her mother said.

The existence of the affidavit clearly leads to a significant increase in the weight that can reasonably be given to the hypothesis that

(a) Joseph Smith was Josephine's father

and rather more to the hypothesis that

(b) Joseph Smith had sex with Josephine's mother (but she may have had sex with other people too, so Joseph Smith may not have been Josephine's father)

and more still to the hypothesis that

(c) Joseph Smith was generally assumed to have sexual relations with his plural wives, so that Josephine being his child was a reasonable possibility.


I am positive that if an affidavit existed attested to the opposite, ie, that Joseph Smith did NOT have sex with his polyandrous wives, that defenders of the faith would be declaring "victory".

Considering how reticent these women were to discuss this issue, the fact that we have any evidence of these polyandrous relationships is significant. It was difficult enough for these women to accept polygyny; accepting polyandry would have been that much more difficult, particularly knowing how society would react. Even when being questioned by friendly witnesses, they were reticent:

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/09-Ma ... ghtner.htm

Mary Rollins first met Joseph Smith in early 1831. She and her family were new converts and Joseph Smith had just arrived in Kirtland from New York state. Twelve-year-old Mary remembers, “when he saw me, he looked at me so earnestly, I felt almost afraid [and I thought, ‘He can read my every thought,’ and I thought how blue his eyes were.] after a moment, or too he came and put his hands on my head and gave me a great Blessing, (the first I ever received)”. Joseph also prepared Mary for their eventually marriage: “[He] told me about his great vision concerning me. He said I was the first woman God commanded him to take as a plural wife.” In the fall of that year, Mary and her family left Kirtland for “Zion”, which was being established in Missouri.

Three years later, Mary and Joseph would be reunited when Joseph led the Zion’s Camp expedition from Ohio to Missouri. Mary remembers, “In 1834 he was commanded to take me for a Wife, I was a thousand miles from him, he got afraid”. At the close of Zion’s Camp, Joseph returned to Kirtland. Mary stayed in Missouri, living in Liberty and Far West. Perhaps thinking her marriage to Joseph was off, she married Adam Lightner in 1835. By 1840 they had settled in Nauvoo, and were raising two children.

Early in 1842, Joseph approached Mary about becoming his wife. According to Mary, Joseph said, “The angel came to me three times between the year of ’34 and ’42 and said I was to obey that principle or he would slay me.” Furthermore, Joseph told her, “I was his before I came here and he said all the Devils in hell should never get me from him...” and “I know that I shall be saved in the Kingdom of God. I have the oath of God upon it and God cannot lie. All that he gives me I shall take with me for I have that authority and that power conferred upon me.”

Initially, Mary did not accept Joseph’s proposal. She wanted a witness from God. Mary recalls, “If ever a poor mortal prayed I did”. By February 1842 Joseph had convinced her it was a correct principle and she, “went forward and was sealed to him. Brigham Young performed the sealing...for time, and all Eternity.” Mary said her husband Adam was “far away” out of town at the time of her marriage to Joseph.

Mary continued to live with her first husband, Adam. Of this arrangement, she later wrote, “I could tell you why I stayed with Mr. Lightner. Things the [current] leaders of the Church does not know anything about. I did just as Joseph told me to do...”

After Joseph Smith was killed in 1844, Mary and her first husband Adam continued to live in Nauvoo and the Midwest. In 1863 they moved to Utah. In her elderly years, Mary wrote to an acquaintance, “...I Love to talk about the Prophet and the Early days of the Church [I] will always remember how Joseph looked...at that first sealing...he was tall and of a commanding figure, full of Life...Yes; I could tell you many things that I cannot write – I remember every word he...ever said to me of importance...”


And, heartbreakingly:

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/05-Zi ... Jacobs.htm

In 1839, the Huntington family arrived in Nauvoo, along with daughter, Zina. Within months, Zina’s Mother died from the malaria epidemic which claimed the lives of many of the early Nauvoo settlers. About this same time, Zina met and was courted by Henry B. Jacobs, a handsome and talented musician. Sometime during Henry’s courtship of Zina, Joseph Smith explained to Zina the “principle of plural marriage” and asked her to become one of his wives. Zina remembers the conflict she felt about Joseph’s proposal, and her budding relationship with Henry: “O dear Heaven, grant me wisdom! Help me to know the way. O Lord, my god, let thy will be done and with thine arm around about to guide, shield and direct...” Zina declined Joseph’s proposal and chose to marry Henry. They were married on March 7, 1841.

Zina later wrote, that within months of her marriage to Henry, “[Joseph] sent word to me by my brother, saying, ‘Tell Zina, I put it off and put it off till an angel with a drawn sword stood by me and told me if I did not establish that principle upon the earth I would lose my position and my life’”. Joseph further explained that, “the Lord had made it known to him she was to be his celestial wife.”

Zina chose to obey this commandment and married Joseph on October 27. She later recalled, “When I heard that God had revealed the law of celestial marriag...I obtained a testimony for myself that God had required that order to be established in this church...I made a greater sacrifise than to give my life for I never anticipated again to be looked upon as an honerable woman by those I dearly loved...”. Zina continued, “It was something too sacred to be talked about; it was more to me than life or death. I never breathed it for years”.

Zina’s first husband, Henry, was aware of this wedding and they continued to live in the same home. He believed that “whatever the Prophet did was right, without making the wisdom of God’s authorities bend to the reasoning of any man.” Over the next few years, Henry was sent on several missions to Chicago, Western New York and Tennessee. Henry missed his family and wrote home often. One of Henry’s missionary companions, John D. Lee, said, “Jacobs was bragging about his wife and two children, what a true, virtuous, lovely woman she was. He almost worshiped her...”.

Shortly after Joseph Smith’s death in 1844, Zina married Brigham Young. In May of 1846, Henry was sent on a mission to England. In Henry’s absence, Zina began to live openly as Brigham’s wife and remained so throughout her life in Utah. Henry seemed to struggle with this arrangement and later wrote to Zina, “...the same affection is there...But I feel alone...I do not Blame Eny person...may the Lord our Father bless Brother Brigham...all is right according to the Law of the Celestial Kingdom of our God Joseph.”
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_truth dancer
_Emeritus
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm

Post by _truth dancer »

When I read these accounts from women describing how Joseph Smith manipulated, lied, and coerced them into betraying their husbands, their integrity, their morality, their marriage vows, their principles, and even their very souls I find myself literally nauseous. It is sickening beyond words.

As I often say, those who celebrate Joseph Smith's behavior would condemn ANY other man who behaved in ways so horrific.

Most men (yeah there are exceptions), would not hand over their daughters and wives to grown married men who claim an angel commanded him to "marry" them.

Most normal, civilized men can see through the lusts and ego of cult and religious leaders who attempt to destroy the lives of girls and women so they can boost their ego and satisfy their desires. Why Joseph Smith gets a free pass baffles me.

And, for all those guys who are hoping to get a harem if not in this life when Jesus returns, in the next life, just take a moment and think about the reality of polygamy and polyandry (think Henry Jacobs).

If your wife is attractive or desireable, she will be taken from you by a more powerful man.

If your daughters are attractive or desirable they will be taken by the most powerful men, older men with dozens of wives.

If you are not extremely high up in the church, rich, and powerful, (one of the LDS elite) you will most likely have no wife at all, or if you are lucky, you will be sharing a wife with whomever is higher up in the church.

Back to the topic... the only way to pretend Joseph Smith didn't have sex with his "wives" is to call the women and girls (who state otherwise), liars, come up with a totally different definition of the word, "marriage", dismiss the fact that one of his wives told her daughter Joseph Smith was her father, and ignore virtually all evidence that Joseph Smith sneaked around, arranged secret meetings with his wives, was in fear of Emma finding out about his trysts, and lied about the fact that he was engaging in any form of polygamy.

But I guess if someone wants to believe Joseph Smith would not have done such a thing, one will dismiss everything to keep him looking good.

Personally, I think the excuse, "prophets are not always great men" is a much better one... claiming Joseph Smith was a great, loving, honorable man is just a bit too hard to defend.


~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
_the road to hana
_Emeritus
Posts: 1485
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:35 pm

Post by _the road to hana »

truth dancer wrote:When I read these accounts from women describing how Joseph Smith manipulated, lied, and coerced them into betraying their husbands, their integrity, their morality, their marriage vows, their principles, and even their very souls I find myself literally nauseous. It is sickening beyond words.

As I often say, those who celebrate Joseph Smith's behavior would condemn ANY other man who behaved in ways so horrific.

Most men (yeah there are exceptions), would not hand over their daughters and wives to grown married men who claim an angel commanded him to "marry" them.

Most normal, civilized men can see through the lusts and ego of cult and religious leaders who attempt to destroy the lives of girls and women so they can boost their ego and satisfy their desires. Why Joseph Smith gets a free pass baffles me.

And, for all those guys who are hoping to get a harem if not in this life when Jesus returns, in the next life, just take a moment and think about the reality of polygamy and polyandry (think Henry Jacobs).

If your wife is attractive or desireable, she will be taken from you by a more powerful man.

If your daughters are attractive or desirable they will be taken by the most powerful men, older men with dozens of wives.

If you are not extremely high up in the church, rich, and powerful, (one of the LDS elite) you will most likely have no wife at all, or if you are lucky, you will be sharing a wife with whomever is higher up in the church.

Back to the topic... the only way to pretend Joseph Smith didn't have sex with his "wives" is to call the women and girls (who state otherwise), liars, come up with a totally different definition of the word, "marriage", dismiss the fact that one of his wives told her daughter Joseph Smith was her father, and ignore virtually all evidence that Joseph Smith sneaked around, arranged secret meetings with his wives, was in fear of Emma finding out about his trysts, and lied about the fact that he was engaging in any form of polygamy.

But I guess if someone wants to believe Joseph Smith would not have done such a thing, one will dismiss everything to keep him looking good.

Personally, I think the excuse, "prophets are not always great men" is a much better one... claiming Joseph Smith was a great, loving, honorable man is just a bit too hard to defend.


~dancer~


The question ultimately to be asked is whether Joseph Smith was aware he was a fraud or not, whether he deceived people intentionally, or whether he was suffering under a delusion of self-deception, whether accessories like angels were convenient accoutrements of his imagination or whether he truly believed he had seen them.

People do all sorts of things under the guise of religion, and proclaiming to do it in God's or Allah's name. That doesn't mean any sort of supreme being was behind it at all, just cunning, deceiving, deceived or deluded humans.

The danger of faithful and well intentioned people being taken advantage of by a charismatic but false leader is always very real.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

rcrocket wrote:Josephine's evidence is evidence indeed, but it is far too weak to accept without considering deeply the possibility that it is wrong.

This probably doesn't qualify as "legal" evidence, but Josephine's photograph shows a striking resemblance to the Smith family, in my opinion.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
_the road to hana
_Emeritus
Posts: 1485
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:35 pm

Post by _the road to hana »

beastie wrote: I cannot write them on
16 paper, burn this letter as soon as you
17 read it; keep all locked up in
18 your breasts, my life depends up-
19 -on it.


Considering the instruction to "burn this letter" written here, one has to wonder how many letters no longer exist that were also instructed to be burned, which might yield further evidence or at least shed light on the circumstances of Joseph's life.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
_Black Moclips
_Emeritus
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:46 am

Post by _Black Moclips »

This is rather commical to watch. Non-historians, pretending to be historians, telling other non-historians how historians should operate and what historians view as good evidence. Is it a surprise to anyone that no source will be good enough? Its obvious to the normal, rational mind than its more likely than not that Joseph Smith married and had sex with some or all of his wives.

(As a side note, my TBM wife had never even heard of Helen Mar Kimball, until a few weeks ago. Yes, I know, its all her fault that she didn't know. She is just a lazy researcher, but I just can't get her to do it. For example, its 10:00pm on a Friday night, the week is over. Kids are finally in bed. The laundry is done, the guinea pig cage is cleaned, soccer practice is over, piano lessons over, done practicing the organ for church, visiting teaching all done, the house is clean, and she finally has a little time before bed. So I tell her, "Now is a really good time to research Nauvoo era polygamy and what it means for Joseph Smith's prophetic calling. There are lots of things you don't know you need to know about, and it really takes some time to find them." She just gave me the evil eye and picked up her Harry Potter book and ignored me. I can't seem to get her to care about it. But I suspect that is what the church would prefer anyway, so its all good.)
“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.”
_the road to hana
_Emeritus
Posts: 1485
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:35 pm

Post by _the road to hana »

Black Moclips wrote: For example, its 10:00pm on a Friday night, the week is over. Kids are finally in bed. The laundry is done, the guinea pig cage is cleaned, soccer practice is over, piano lessons over, done practicing the organ for church, visiting teaching all done, the house is clean, and she finally has a little time before bed. So I tell her, "Now is a really good time to research Nauvoo era polygamy and what it means for Joseph Smith's prophetic calling.



This is brilliant.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
_Tarski
_Emeritus
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:57 pm

Post by _Tarski »

Coggins7 wrote:
Is this even debated? Even the LDS church admits Joseph Smith "married" other men's wives. (See LDS.org).


Joseph was apparantly sealed to other men's wives in this life, but this does not imply "marriage' in any normative sense.

"Normative" huh?

Look; What principle was Brigham Young continuing by marrying and having sex with all his wives?
Was true polygamy first invented and practiced by BY? Is that what you think?
Do you think that you or Crocket can win on a legalistic approach centering on marriage licenses or something? That would be a pyrrhic victory since you will either end up with a rogue BY or an adulterous Joseph Smith (or both).

This isn't going to end up where you think it is.

Joseph Smith fits the all too common pattern of the cult founder instituting "special" relationships with his female followers--an unseemly and disgusting socio-sexual power play whether they had full sexual intercourse or not (and only a fool would think they didn't).
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie

yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
_rcrocket

Post by _rcrocket »

Rollo Tomasi wrote:
rcrocket wrote:Josephine's evidence is evidence indeed, but it is far too weak to accept without considering deeply the possibility that it is wrong.

This probably doesn't qualify as "legal" evidence, but Josephine's photograph shows a striking resemblance to the Smith family, in my opinion.


That's rather subjective.

Further checking reveals the following:

A child's testimony about paternity is not admissible unless it recounts the statement of a father admitting to paternity who later denies it. So, I don't get where Beastie says it is "conclusive" when, indeed, the exact opposite is the case.

So, at present, you have to ask yourself whether you are going to base your opinions of history upon evidence, soft or hard, or upon speculation. Here, there is no evidence.
_rcrocket

Post by _rcrocket »

Black Moclips wrote:This is rather commical to watch. Non-historians, pretending to be historians, telling other non-historians how historians should operate and what historians view as good evidence. Is it a surprise to anyone that no source will be good enough? Its obvious to the normal, rational mind than its more likely than not that Joseph Smith married and had sex with some or all of his wives.


So, you find it acceptable to base your opinion upon no evidence at all, at least with respect to women who were married to other men?
Post Reply