Why does it matter if Joseph had relations with his wives

[Guest]

Could someone explain to me why it matters whether or not Joseph had sex with his plural wives?

It doesn't. Some will point to the argument between straight plural marriage and dynastic sealings but so what? I personally think a combination of the two is possible. Some will point to the notion of being married within the laws of the land and the commandment to be obedient to such but so what? If plural marriage is God authorized, there are instances in the scriptures where God has authorized or justified the breaking of the law often by setting up a tension between conflicting laws or principles (starting with the partaking of the forbidden fruit and the command to multiply and replenish the earth).

So it all comes down to testimony of this Church as God's work and therefore it does not matter if Joseph Smith had sex with his wives or not. Critics start with things like plural marriage as if it were the foundation and ignore the actual foundation this is all built on.

[_Buffalo]

I just saw that bcspace responded. I'm going to use my prophetical powers to predict his response - "Have you checked the children?" I'm going to post this without looking and see if I'm right.

[_Buffalo]

Could someone explain to me why it matters whether or not Joseph had sex with his plural wives?

It doesn't. Some will point to the argument between straight plural marriage and dynastic sealings but so what? I personally think a combination of the two is possible. Some will point to the notion of being married within the laws of the land and the commandment to be obedient to such but so what? If plural marriage is God authorized, there are instances in the scriptures where God has authorized or justified the breaking of the law often by setting up a tension between conflicting laws or principles (starting with the partaking of the forbidden fruit and the command to multiply and replenish the earth).

So it all comes down to testimony of this Church as God's work and therefore it does not matter if Joseph Smith had sex with his wives or not. Critics start with things like plural marriage as if it were the foundation and ignore the actual foundation this is all built on.

You have thwarted my prophetical organ.

[Guest]

You have thwarted my prophetical organ.

You need to stop consulting your phrenologist.

I just saw that bcspace responded. I'm going to use my prophetical powers to predict his response - "Have you checked the children?" I'm going to post this without looking and see if I'm right.

The common claim is that Joseph Smith was just an 18th century horndog. When you combine "18th century" and "horndog" it begs the question.

[_ldsfaqs]

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).

You assume too much.....

First, Joseph only married THREE people if I'm remembering right under 18, out of some 30 marriages. I don't call that much of a pedophile, similar to Warren Jeffs. Further, it is clear that most of his marriages were absolutely SEALING ONLY, especially when that what everyone knew and said, and he married other mens wives also, by sealing only.

Further, maybe he did have sex with some, but like has been said, it was lawful and likely authorized. Personally I don't believe he did given the more full evidence. But, it's possible. Me, I'm more concerned with the charge he was practicing Polygamy, and he said he wasn't, which he was telling the truth and not lying as claimed.

[_ldsfaqs]

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

What makes you think he wasn't moral? I see only evidence that he was moral. And I've been the anti-mormon thinking he wasn't, but I know more now about him. You judge him falsely.

[_ldsfaqs]

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.

It's NOT that we can't "see" what you see..... It's that most of us know more about both Polygamy and Joseph, and know very well in the LDS Church it wasn't about sex, and there was not the "abuse" that occurs in the FLDS, which is the unauthorized practice of it.

You're not the first person to question this. Polygamy was one of my BIG THREE issues with the Church why I left it. But unlike you, I put away my judgment and kept learning when I was ready to actually know what was true. Polygamy is about pure love of Christ, not sex.

[_Runtu]

The common claim is that Joseph Smith was just an 18th century horndog. When you combine "18th century" and "horndog" it begs the question.

I don't believe that at all. The reasons for plural marriage are complicated. Joseph's sexual desire may have played a part in it, but I have never believed that was his primary motivation.

If Joseph Smith was truly commanded of God to take plural wives, then he was justified in having sex with them. The corroborated testimony of some of the wives conclusively confirms that he did, indeed, engage in sexual activity with them. I don't understand the heated denials and those who run away when presented with the evidence.

[_harmony]

Further, maybe he did have sex with some, but like has been said, it was lawful and likely authorized.

No, it wasn't. The laws of the state and the laws of God forbade it. It was called bigamy/adultery then, and it's called bigamy/adultery now.

[_Buffalo]

The common claim is that Joseph Smith was just an 18th century horndog. When you combine "18th century" and "horndog" it begs the question.

Combine that with "best buddies with a known abortionist."