Counter-Evidence Regarding Joseph Smith and Plural Marriage

[_truth dancer]

So, the God of Joseph Smith was not concerned with all the challenges humans face; all the illnesses, wars, slavery, cruelty, and horror that occurs throughout our world.

Nope, God was more concerned about the sex life of a particular man, Joseph Smith.

God wasn't helping the starving and suffering; the hurting people who fill our planet, he was so concerned with making sure Joseph got into bed with a few dozen girls and women that all the rest of what should be Godly concerns just fell by the wayside.

Why is it that all sorts of self-proclaimed prophets think God cares about their sex life and wants them to have sex with all sorts of girls and women? What is it about cult/religious leaders that makes them think their sex life is important to God?

Really... what is it about religiously powerful men who believe God is speaking to them, that takes them to this weird place?

~td~

[_Themis]

Why is it that all sorts of self-proclaimed prophets think God cares about their sex life and wants them to have sex with all sorts of girls and women? What is it about cult/religious leaders that makes them think their sex life is important to God?

Really... what is it about religiously powerful men who believe God is speaking to them, that takes them to this weird place?

~td~

Why is it that some many in LDS and other religions can know about this stuff and still defend it for their guy. :)

[_Wisdom Seeker]

The natural man is an enemy to God, not only in his desires, but in his understanding of what God may demand. How may someone withhold unrighteous judgment of Jospeh Smith? By deciding and understanding that God's ways are not always the ways of man.

Joseph Smith did not re-translate the lost 116 pages because God did not want Joseph Smith or the church character to be discredited in the eyes of the natural man. So the all knowing God clearly went out of his/her way to make sure Joseph Smith's character is not damaged.

If you are to believe that God is going to do all he/she can do to protect the character of Joseph Smith and the church then you are also free to judge any known misdeeds based on what is considered moral judgement. Wouldn't you think that if God endorsed polygamy that he would have withheld some of the things written about it in the Book of Mormon?

If God endorsed Joseph's practice of polygamy wouldn't you think he would have done more to protect his character in such things? If God wanted to make polygamy not look so bad, he should've advised Joseph not to choose young girls to be his wife.

[_Inconceivable]

There is no question that Joseph Smith behaved in an immoral manner. The evidence is overwhelming.

What we are really discussing here is whether or not Joseph Smith had credible argument and justification for breaking his sacred marital vows.

I would refer all of you to D&C Section 121, starting with about verse 34 to the end of the chapter. Specifically:

36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

As a former Mormon, I "held" the priesthood. My ability to "channel" (convey inspiration, prophesy, healing etc.) was based on my "worthyness" to channel. Mormon channelling is very real. I've experienced it both as the giver and the receiver.

Ironically, the most powerful argument against Joseph Smith's authority is contained in this chapter. In my own personal experience, I could not break this rule and be capable of channelling.

Now, is it really God or his spirit that conveys the messages from beyond the veil. I honestly don't believe so anymore. To permit such things as Smith did to taint the process flies in the face of all that we would hope is good and righteous about a kind and loving God. This is why my sense of betrayal runs so deep.

Like it or not, this is what we are really talking about whether we want to admit it or not. It is deeply troubling. It means our assumptions about a great many things need to be re-evaluated.

For those that are Mormon that don't read their Standard Works, I've quoted the entire passage:

34 Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?
35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—
36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.
39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.
41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—
43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;
44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.
45 Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.
46 The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 121:34 - 46)

[_Socrates]

Here's my position, which I have stated numerous times and have provided ample evidence to support:

Joseph Smith married (in the fullest sense of the word) women and girls without the knowledge and consent of his wife, Emma.

Does the fullest sense of the word married imply a legally recognized relationship as husband and wife?

Does the fullest sense of the word married imply a relationship that is hidden from public view?

Does the fullest sense of the word married imply not sharing the same abode on a regular basis?

Does the fullest sense of the word imply financially providing for the spouse?

What about these 'marriages' fills the word married to its fullest sense?

[_Runtu]

Does the fullest sense of the word married imply a legally recognized relationship as husband and wife?

Does the fullest sense of the word married imply a relationship that is hidden from public view?

Does the fullest sense of the word married imply not sharing the same abode on a regular basis?

Does the fullest sense of the word imply financially providing for the spouse?

What about these 'marriages' fills the word married to its fullest sense?

I simply meant that these were sexual relationships, as opposed to the common apologetic suggestion that they were merely "loose, dynastic sealings."

From what I know about these marriages, they were not really marriages, as Joseph did not acknowledge them as wives, did not live with them as wives. The women seemed more like concubines to me, but then I'm sure that's just because of my bad faith and animosity toward Joseph Smith.

[_Runtu]

When I first heard of this book, I took a look at it on Amazon.com using the "look inside" feature. The first few pages struck me as bland pablum about "values" and "standards" devoid of any real philosophical insight and weight. I might not have looked further had I not glanced at the Index and found a listing for "Strachey, Lytton."

What on earth could Hinckley be quoting from Strachey?

Behold:

I want to invite us all to walk a higher road of excellence. Recently I picked up an old book and read Lytton Strachey’s Life of Florence Nightingale. I think books of that kind are not read very much these days. I had read it once before, long ago. But my rereading brought a new sense of admiration and respect for this great young woman of England who made a tremendous difference in her time.

She was born to the upper class, to party and to dance, to go to the races and look pretty in society. But she would have none of it. Even her parents could not understand her. Her great overwhelming desire was to alleviate pain and suffering, to hasten healing, to make less dreadful the hospitals of the day. She never married. She devoted herself to nursing and became expert according to the training then available.

Britain became embroiled in the Crimean War. She had friends at the head of the government and relentlessly pursued and persuaded them until she was appointed head of the hospital in Scutari, where thousands of the victims of the war were brought.

The picture that greeted her here was one of absolute despair. An old warehouse served as a hospital. The sanitary conditions were terrible. The cooking facilities were terrible. Wounded men were crowded in great rooms that reeked of foul odors and were filled with the cries of the suffering.

This frail young woman, with those she had recruited to go with her, set to work. They beat down the walls of bureaucracy. They beat on the heads of the bureaucrats. I quote from Mr. Strachey: “For those who watched her at work among the sick, moving day and night from bed to bed, with that unflinching courage, with the indefatigable vigilance, it seems as if the concentrated force of an undivided and unparalleled devotion could hardly suffice for that first portion of her task alone. Wherever, in those vast wards suffering was at its worst and the need for help was greatest, there, as if by magic, was Miss Nightingale.”

The beds that held the suffering men stretched over six kilometers, with barely space between each bed to walk. But somehow, within a period of six months, “the confusion and the pressure in the wards had come to an end; order reigned in them, and cleanliness; the supplies were bountiful and prompt; important sanitary works had been carried out. One simple comparison of figures was enough to reveal the extraordinary change: the rate of mortality among the cases treated had fallen from 42 percent to 22 per thousand” (Life of Florence Nightingale [1934], 1186).

She had brought to pass an absolute miracle. Lives by the thousands were saved. Suffering was mitigated. Cheer and warmth and light came into the lives of men who otherwise would have died in that dark and dreadful place.

The war ended. She might have gone back to London a heroine. The public press had sung her praise. Her name was familiar to everyone. But she returned incognito to escape the adulation she might have received.

She continued her work for another 50 years, changing the hospitals both military and civilian. She died at an advanced age, bedridden for a good while, but still improving the circumstances of those who suffer.

Perhaps no other woman in the history of the world has done so much to reduce human misery as this lady with the lamp, who walked through the vast wards of Scutari in the middle of the 19th century, spreading cheer and comfort, faith and hope to those who writhed in pain. Her life was a life of excellence. (Gordon B. Hinckley, "The Quest for Excellence," Ensign, Sept. 1999).

Not only does he say he read it, but he read it "once before, long ago." Either he had no reading comprehension, or he simply was making this up. I remember reading this and being dumbfounded. Still makes me chuckle.

[_Fionn]

An alternate view on this is that polygamy was a test for Joseph. A test he failed. God withdrew his protection and allowed Joseph to be destroyed.

[_Runtu]

An alternate view on this is that polygamy was a test for Joseph. A test he failed. God withdrew his protection and allowed Joseph to be destroyed.

I've heard that, but only from apostates. I'm not sure why some apologists are so loath to admit that Joseph ever did anything wrong. My suspicion is that they probably think that such behavior would call into question his prophetic calling, so they can't even consider the matter. But that's just a guess.

[_Fionn]

An alternate view on this is that polygamy was a test for Joseph. A test he failed. God withdrew his protection and allowed Joseph to be destroyed.

I've heard that, but only from apostates. I'm not sure why some apologists are so loath to admit that Joseph ever did anything wrong. My suspicion is that they probably think that such behavior would call into question his prophetic calling, so they can't even consider the matter. But that's just a guess.

I don't believe I've ever heard this from a non-apostate, either.

If calling Joseph's behavior immoral is so very difficult for believers, the idea of Joseph having been a fallen prophet is a non-starter, I'm sure.

Still, it's difficult to argue with outcomes. Joseph was destroyed.