Mormonism's Greatest Downfall.

[_karl61]

An Angel of God should have brought Joseph a can of worms to eat when he was tempted to court another man's wife.

[_Ray A]

Ray, is this a joke? I am sure that I can rely on the RLDS to tell the truth in this matter. Plus, I have no idea who this Marks fellow is but if he were a good friend of Emma, I can understand why he would write what he wrote if he wanted to remain a good friend of Emma.

If you read more hardcopy you'd know who William Marks is, but for convenience: Wiki-William Marks.

In the latter part of the entry;

In the weeks before Joseph Smith's death, Marks claimed that Joseph came to him and told him that plural marriage had proved a curse rather than a blessing to the church. Smith wanted to take decisive steps to end the practice, but time ran out, related Marks. Other pieces of evidence, such as Joseph's burning of the polygamy revelation and destroying his temple garments, seem to support Marks's story (Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, p. 146). Not all members of the church hierarchy believed Marks's testimony, though Quinn believes that Brigham Young gave credence to it by declaring that Joseph "did not have one particle of spiritual light in him" in the days before his death (as quoted in Quinn, p. 145). In addition, Young would also state that Smith had wearied of polygamous marriage by the time of his death (Quinn, p. 146-147). Ironically, Joseph Smith III later would not believe Marks, either, since Marks implicated Joseph Smith III's father in polygamy. (Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, pp. 145-148; Launius, Joseph Smith III: Pragmatic Prophet, p. 199)

No, it's not a joke.

[_beastie]

I would never claim that Joseph Smith was a perfect guy. I view it as being between a rock and a hard place. It was a no win for Joseph Smith. First, he had to do what he believed god was commanding him to do. Second, if it failed, he had to go into damage control. But I do know that Joseph Smith was not in it for the sex or for lust. And Bushman also makes this clear. He had no time to bed 33 wives and do church business as he was doing. To assume lust and a huge libido as the position that is taken here, I would disagree with. If he did wrong I would be the first one to say so. For as Joseph Smith claimed: he was not righteous. And so, Joseph Smith saw his imperfections perfectly well.

Joseph Smith would not have had time to regularly bed 33 wives, which likely has something to do with the fact that he may not have had offspring with these wives (although some wives claimed otherwise). But he certainly had time to occasionally bed those wives.

And no, you would not be the first one to say that Joseph Smith did something wrong. You are incapable of admitting Joseph Smith did wrong. Joseph Smith treated his wife Emma quite poorly, and he must have approved of the malicious and false attacks on both Nancy Rigdon and Martha Brotherton. He also told a fourteen year old girl that if she accepted his proposal, she would ensure the salvation of her family. On top of that, he pressured these women by telling them they had to make the decision within 24 hours. And, of course, this doesn’t even address marrying other men’s wives. Even if this was for the next life alone, he took those men’s wives and children for all eternity, often behind their backs.

It takes a determined, even willful, amount of bias to not be able to recognize these acts as wrong.

In regards to the attitude of the women towards these events, of course some of these women were probably quite eager to bed Joseph Smith. He was the most powerful male in their society. There are plenty of women who are always willing to share a powerful man “on the side”, usually behind the wife (or first wife’s) back. Many of these women have children by these men. Many of these women do not feel harmed by the relationship, and even feel benefited by it. Does that make it morally right?

So tell me, whyme, why was it SO important to God that Joseph Smith take all these wives? So important that he sent an angel with a sword to ensure obedience? What did this accomplish that nothing else could have accomplished?

If I were a fraudster and establishing a successful following I would not have touched it. But Joseph Smith was a different guy. Since he believed it to be an obligation he went through with it reluctantly. But yes, if he was a fraudster, he would be an idiot. But I don't see him as such an idiot. And if sidney wrote the book, I WOULD have been pissed if I were sidney and I would have killed him myself for risking my book and fraud. But...we see something different, don't we? We see Joseph Smith has a guy who found himself between a rock and hard place. Not easy at all. He knew that if this became public, more violence would follow. But he had to do what he thought god called him to do. And he did it at the cost of his life. He could have enjoyed his success at Nauvoo...resting on his laurels if he were a fraud.

Your fantasies about fraudsters aside, they actually quite commonly engage in behavior that alters the mating of their community, usually in the fraudster’s benefit. Think David Koresh among many others. Joseph Smith fits in the pattern quite well. Somehow, God’s inspiration always seems to end up giving his Special Chosen Male more sexual access to more females in the group. God’s funny that way.

[_Brackite]

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

I've never seen this as a contradiction, but certainly as an example of the incompleteness of individual scriptural selections. As a fan of the Old Testament as literature, having read it many times (and not quite believing that all parts of it are true or literal), the lives of David and Solomon are fascinating. God plainly reveals the reason for Solomon's downfall -- he married foreign wives who turned his heart away from God. The "abomination" is spelled out in the Old Testament -- it was not the act of multiple marriage but the act of marrying the wrong wives.

David's story is different. At present, the scriptures reveal that his status is in doubt. The sin of taking the one additional wife -- Bathsheba -- and the way he took her even after seeing God, was a terrible sin. It was probably akin to denying the Holy Ghost. David and Bathsheba lost their first child as a result of this sin. So. literally, he falls within the generalized anathema scripture you cite.

Hello There Bishop Bob,

You are Not correct. Jacob Chapter Two does indeed Contradicts Doc. and Cov. Section 132.
Please Check Out and See:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6040

Plural marriage is an eternal principle. It is founded on the notion that there will be far fewer men who will accept the atoning sacrifice than women. It has to do, somehow, with the struggle in the Garden of Eden, the choice Eve made, and the promise that she would be saved in childbearing. I don't get it all, but the fact that women are more spiritual and willing to accept the spirit is a fact.

I am very likey going to start a new Discussion Thread about this Paragraph. So get ready.

[_rcrocket]

You are Not correct. Jacob Chapter Two does indeed Contradicts Doc. and Cov. Section 132.

Yawn. Jacob actually contains a backhanded endorsement of polygamy. All old ground. Not worth covering again here.

[_EAllusion]

If I were a fraudster and establishing a successful following I would not have touched it. But Joseph Smith was a different guy. Since he believed it to be an obligation he went through with it reluctantly. But yes, if he was a fraudster, he would be an idiot. But I don't see him as such an idiot. And if sidney wrote the book, I WOULD have been pissed if I were sidney and I would have killed him myself for risking my book and fraud. But...we see something different, don't we? We see Joseph Smith has a guy who found himself between a rock and hard place. Not easy at all. He knew that if this became public, more violence would follow. But he had to do what he thought god called him to do. And he did it at the cost of his life. He could have enjoyed his success at Nauvoo...resting on his laurels if he were a fraud.

Uh, it's actually quite common for leaders of new, fringe religious movements to receive important spiritual information that centers around getting them sexual access to multiple women even if that is risky to their position. Changing how sexual relationships happen is even more common. I don't know about you, but when I think of your stereotypical confidence man cult leader part of the picture is having relationships with multiple female followers. Think David Koresh. Regardless of whether you think it legit or not, this behavior from Smith makes him at least look very much like them.

[_beastie]

Think David Koresh.

I would call you a copy-cat, but I'm far too mature.

[_Brackite]

You are Not correct. Jacob Chapter Two does indeed Contradicts Doc. and Cov. Section 132.

Yawn. Jacob actually contains a backhanded endorsement of polygamy. All old ground. Not worth covering again here.

Bishop Bob, Did You Miss Reading This Post?

Jacob does Not contain a backhanded endorsement of Polygamy.

[_Brackite]

I have found the concepts contained in Joseph Smith’s letter to Nancy Rigdon to be a very reliable sifter of the Saints. Those who take offense at it will, if they have not already, eventually fall away. Those who view it as an expression of the mind of God will always remain faithful.

In my judgment, it is no mistake that these concepts find their expression in a letter written for the express purpose of encouraging Miss Rigdon to enter into the higher order of “the principle.” To me, that fact is not ironic, but rather quite apropos.

Nancy Rigdon Chose The Right for refusing to be a Plural (Polygamous) Wife of Joseph Smith. Nancy Rigdon is a Big Hero of Mine in early Mormon History.

[_Mary]

Hi again Why me,

I believe that Rigdon's grandson's testimony is plausible and wonder if Will S will supply some insight as to why he so readily dismisses it.


On the polygamy question (Beastie I guess I'm a copy cat too, because all through Why me's posts I'm thinking....David Koresh....David Koresh) nothing made me so uncomfortable about Joseph Smith than studying the life and practice of Vernon Wayne Howell.

When you start to look at his life and claims, you can kind of see why, in context, so many were influenced and taken in by him, and he knew it. The man had charisma and great religious influence within his own community, as Joseph did.

We often think the guy was a crank for calling himself Messiah and anyone was a fool to follow a false Jesus. Yet Messiah (as he explains) means 'annointed one', and remember that Joseph himself claims that he has done more for his people than Jesus and Joseph under the name 'prophet' claims to be the middleman between the 'church' and the 'people' as the prophets of old.(I taught this as a missionary Why me).

Branch Davidians were not 'started' by Koresh, but had existed away from the 7th Day Adventists, since the 50's. (think Sydney Rigdon's group joining Mormonism in mass) Koresh may not have had the missionary program that the LDS church has had through its history, which kept numbers small, but he did have access to a group who were 'already' religious devouts.

Koresh was remarkably good at taking scripture and using to his own ends. The man was no idiot and was a good exhorter. (same for Joseph - see ED Howe's affidavits for even a non-mormon's opinion)

Koresh very quickly used his sexuality to gain power and influence over women (Lois Roden) and then to justify sexual access to any women he took his eye to. This is interesting because many parents came to see it as a privilege to have their daughters in a relationship with Koresh. (sound familiar)

Now, I don't think Joseph was a 'bad' or evil man, though I do think that on occassion he did some 'bad' and 'evil' things. I do think he was a 'man', and a man with a keen sex drive, who attempted to hone that drive with religious justification. (just as David Koresh did as he saw his power and religious influence increase within the community of which he was a part)

And on the subject of Jesus, who afterall the LDS church is named after. Let's look at his life. Did he (from current knowledge) use his religious influence, and he definitely had a female following, to bed women. I would suggest no, and if he didn't, then why would Joseph Smith (if he is to follow Jesus' life and example) think that he could? Was he following David, or Solomon or Saul, or was he trying to follow Jesus?



Mary