Why does it matter if Joseph had relations with his wives

[_mikuu]

Could someone explain to me why it matters whether or not Joseph had sex with his plural wives? I don't undestand considering those who followed him into it did have sex. It was Mormon polygamous practice to create babies with their wives. Thanks.

[_sock puppet]

Could someone explain to me why it matters whether or not Joseph had sex with his plural wives? I don't undestand considering those who followed him into it did have sex. It was Mormon polygamous practice to create babies with their wives. Thanks.

Can someone explain to me why it matters whether or not an adulterer has sex with other women? I don't understand considering that other men that follow him into it did have sex. It is the adulterers practice to have sex with other women. Thanks.

[_Drifting]

It matters because some of them married Joseph when they were 15, 16, 17 when and he was 37, 38.

The image of having sex on this basis conjurs up similarities with Warren Jeffs and so some apologists desperately try and position Josephs marriages as 'platonic' ones. Unfortunately the commandment in D&C 132 states Joseph needs to get jiggy with it.

If he didn't have sex with them he is breaking his agreement with God.
If he did have sex with them it creates the impression he was a pervert (and probably firing blanks).

[_Some Schmo]

It only matters to the extent that you think god's representative on Earth should be moral.

[_sock puppet]

The reason is that any married man that wants to break his vows made when he got married to forgo all other women and only have sex with the one he is marrying would simply get a bye by claiming, as JSJr did, that the extra women that he is having sex with are his wives.

I know a guy that has been cheating on his wife with another woman for the last 6 years. He's more committed to the girlfriend than many men I know are to their wives. He spends more time with the girlfriend than was practically feasible for JSJr, given his schedule and the number of his girlfriends.

So is this guy an adulterer or not?

Is JSJr not an adulterer because he played the semantic game of calling his conquests 'wives' and preceded the sex (in some instances) with phony 'ceremonies'?

If you cannot see through this fraudulent charade of JSJr's adultery which he called 'plural marriage', then would you be interested in buying the Brooklyn Bridge? I can make you a hell of a deal on it today? Let me know by 5 PM MDT.

[_mikuu]

Thanks everyone, I was was wondering why apologists seem to like the idea that he did not have sex with his wives. My original post wasn't clear.

[_sock puppet]

Thanks everyone, I was was wondering why apologists seem to like the idea that he did not have sex with his wives. My original post wasn't clear.

Apologists don't like the idea for the reason that Some Schmoe identified.

[_mikuu]

It doesn't make sense. If he didn't have sex with them he was doing it wrong per the D&C and common practic after him. I don't undestand how that helps the pro "Joseph was inspired by god" viewpoint.

[_sock puppet]

It doesn't make sense. If he didn't have sex with them he was doing it wrong per the D&C and common practic after him. I don't undestand how that helps the pro "Joseph was inspired by god" viewpoint.

The LDS Church tells you to keep the fidelity of your promise to your wife. So how does that church explain that god wanted JSJr to violate his marriage oath to Emma, behind her back and have sex with other women, whatever you want to label these other women semantically?

[_Some Schmo]

It doesn't make sense. If he didn't have sex with them he was doing it wrong per the D&C and common practic after him. I don't undestand how that helps the pro "Joseph was inspired by god" viewpoint.

The problem is that you're working from the assumption that apologists are rational, logical and consistent. If you let that go, it will all be easier to understand.