Is the portrayal of Joseph Smith fair?

[_Mary]

http://www.josephsmithspolygamy.com/Fan ... ltery.html

As I stated, it is not so damning and that was my point with Don's piece.

Okay, so that was an interesting link Why me. Thanks.

I try not to be dogmatic in my belief around the character of Joseph Smith. I once held him in high esteem. I try very hard to keep an open mind.

I just can't get round it though. Even if Fanny Alger was a first wife, with the term used very liberally, - what kind of man engages in a marriage behind his wife's back? What kind of man would do that? What does that say about his character?

Does that suggest a man of principle and honour? I've tried for 20 years to get my head around it, and I just can't.

So then, I have to say, well can a man be devoid of honour and principle when it comes to one of the most important aspects of his life (his family) and yet still be a prophet of God.

With David Koresh, I find it incredibly easy to say No. Koresh was obviously delusional, manipulative, hungry for power over women and the followers. It's easy to say it about Koresh.

Just some thoughts.



I

[_Themis]

Okay, so that was an interesting link Why me. Thanks.

I try not to be dogmatic in my belief around the character of Joseph Smith. I once held him in high esteem. I try very hard to keep an open mind.

I just can't get round it though. Even if Fanny Alger was a first wife, with the term used very liberally, - what kind of man engages in a marriage behind his wife's back? What kind of man would do that? What does that say about his character?

Does that suggest a man of principle and honour? I've tried for 20 years to get my head around it, and I just can't.

So then, I have to say, well can a man be devoid of honour and principle when it comes to one of the most important aspects of his life (his family) and yet still be a prophet of God.

With David Koresh, I find it incredibly easy to say No. Koresh was obviously delusional, manipulative, hungry for power over women and the followers. It's easy to say it about Koresh.

Just some thoughts.



I

If Joseph didn't really want to marry other women why marry over 30. Did God really require this many, and over 10 already married to other men.

[_why me]

I just can't get round it though. Even if Fanny Alger was a first wife, with the term used very liberally, - what kind of man engages in a marriage behind his wife's back? What kind of man would do that? What does that say about his character?

As in any marriage we have no idea what was going on behind the scenes. Nor do we know what was said between emma and joseph. Much is secret. But here is what we do know: Fanny had no problem with the sealing. Neither did her parents. Emma had a problem with accepting polygamy and yet, continued to be with joseph with a firm belief in his calling as prophet and in the Book of Mormon. Fanny did not see the relationship as lustful or sex driven. And later in life she did not come out against Joseph. Nor did any other of his wives.

So, when we think of it we see a guy with extremely good luck. No wife came out against him. None of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon denied their experience with the Book of Mormon. If only I had such luck if I were a fraudster.

[_why me]

If Joseph didn't really want to marry other women why marry over 30. Did God really require this many, and over 10 already married to other men.

If we consider the character of Joseph Smith and his idea of kinship with those he liked, we can see him using the sealing as a way of establishing kinship in the next life. I think that he made the best of something that he didn't want to do. But I don't see their sealing as an opportunity to have an orgy or to have sex with 33 different women. He could have gotten some oats in NYC or anywhere else he went.

[_Themis]

As in any marriage we have no idea what was going on behind the scenes.

Then why make all these assertions you can't possibly know?

Nor do we know what was said between emma and joseph. Much is secret. But here is what we do know: Fanny had no problem with the sealing. Neither did her parents. Emma had a problem with accepting polygamy and yet, continued to be with joseph with a firm belief in his calling as prophet and in the Book of Mormon. Fanny did not see the relationship as lustful or sex driven. And later in life she did not come out against Joseph. Nor did any other of his wives.

See, a whole bunch of assertions you can't possibly know, but I guess it makes you happy.

So, when we think of it we see a guy with extremely good luck. No wife came out against him. None of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon denied their experience with the Book of Mormon. If only I had such luck if I were a fraudster.

Maybe we should look at the whole story. Maybe we should look at the women who rejected Joseph's advances. Joseph got lucky alright. Not that I think it was all about that. I think you know almost nothing about frauds or pious frauds based on your posts.

If we consider the character of Joseph Smith and his idea of kinship with those he liked, we can see him using the sealing as a way of establishing kinship in the next life. I think that he made the best of something that he didn't want to do. But I don't see their sealing as an opportunity to have an orgy or to have sex with 33 different women. He could have gotten some oats in NYC or anywhere else he went.

You don't marry over 30 women if you don't really want to marry other women. You especially don't marry other men's wives, most of whom did not know about it.

[_Mary]

Tobin, if I understand him correctly, is arguing that polyandry (Joseph marrying other women while they were legally and lawfully married to other men), is incorrect since they were dynastic sealings only. I think the argument certainly has some merit, but then in my mind pops up the awkward question of Sylvia Sessions.

Why on earth, would this lady, on her deathbed, confess to her daughter Josephine, that she was the daughter of Joseph Smith?

Why do that? Why wait your whole life and keep it a secret, and then confess just before you die?

Here's my thoughts why me.

Sylvia could have 'boasted' that she had mothered a daughter by Joseph. She didn't. She kept it quiet. Why? Was she unsure herself of the 'correctness' of what she had done? Was she unsure of the 'correctness' of what Joseph had asked her to do?

The biblical admonitions against adultery are profound and unswerving. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Solomon committed no sin and the women would have 'all' known the deal. No secrecy, no furtiveness, no lies or deceit.

David, the same except in the case of Uriah's wife, and for that, he lost everything.

I don't think there is any way that Joseph could have got around this even by using a literal interpretation of the Bible in assessing and formulating his ethics and practice. Adultery is what it is, however it is wrapped up to look like something else.

It's another one that I just can't get my head around.

Josephine later wrote, “Just prior to my mothers death in 1882 she called me to her bedside and told me that her days were numbered and before she passed away from mortality she desired to tell me something which she had kept as an entire secret from me and from all others but which she now desired to communicate to me. She then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith”.

From: http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/08-Sy ... nsLyon.htm

[_Mary]

Brigham is quoted as saying this:

Brigham Young taught that “if the woman preferred a man higher in authority, and he is willing to take her and her husband gives her up-there is no Bill of divorce required...it is right in the sight of God”. Brigham also explained that the woman, “...would be in a higher glory”

Where on earth is the morality in that? Where did Brigham Young get any inkling that this is something that God in Heaven would approve of in light of the strict admonition that states 'Thou shalt not commit adultery'.

I just don't get it. Honestly I don't.

[_why me]

Here's my thoughts why me.

Sylvia could have 'boasted' that she had mothered a daughter by Joseph. She didn't. She kept it quiet. Why? Was she unsure herself of the 'correctness' of what she had done? Was she unsure of the 'correctness' of what Joseph had asked her to do?

From: http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/08-Sy ... nsLyon.htm

http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences ... aid-to-ask

I think that this puts an interesting point of view on plural marriage and Sessions, in particular with polyandry.

[_Mary]

Another good link which brings up some good issues as regards the Van Wagoner and Brodie books. Thanks Why me.

(Although, on doing a quick bit of searching around, I am disappointed in Greg Smith for what he doesn't say....it's not balanced in my opinion, and in that sense he is as guilty as Fawn Brodie and Van Wagoner, who he obviously views as apostates attempting to weaken faith)



I still can't get my head around it though (the adultery aspect, particularly as it relates to Sylvia Sessions). It seems to me that the evidence that Sylvia was already married to Joseph Lyons is pretty clear.

Is anyone really disputing this:

Sylvia Sessions left Maine for Zion (Missouri) with her parents, Patty and David, in June of 1837. While in Missouri, Sylvia met and married Windsor Lyon. Sylvia’s Mother, Patty, wrote about the wedding in her journal, “Sylvia was married to Windsor P. Lyon, Joseph Smith performed the ceremony...The next day the Prophet was there and a good time it was.”

Sylvia, and husband Windsor, left Missouri for Nauvoo in February of 1839. There, Windsor established a mercantile business, selling “Dry Goods, Groceries, Crockery, Glass, and Hardware, Drugs, and Medicines, Paints and Dry Stuffs.” By this time, they were the parents of two children.

From the above website:http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/08-SylviaSessionsLyon.htm

Is Greg Smith trying to argue that Sylvia 'wasn't' married to Joseph Lyons. Again, why on earth would her mother lie.

Which again brings us back to the issue of 'adultery'.

Even Greg Smith appears to support the idea that the strongest evidence for polyandry which actually produces a child, is through Sylvia Sessions.

[_Drifting]

Another good link which brings up some good issues as regards the Van Wagoner and Brodie books. Thanks Why me.

(Although, on doing a quick bit of searching around, I am disappointed in Greg Smith for what he doesn't say....it's not balanced in my opinion, and in that sense he is as guilty as Fawn Brodie and Van Wagoner, who he obviously views as apostates attempting to weaken faith)



I still can't get my head around it though (the adultery aspect, particularly as it relates to Sylvia Sessions). It seems to me that the evidence that Sylvia was already married to Joseph Lyons is pretty clear.

Is anyone really disputing this:

Sylvia Sessions left Maine for Zion (Missouri) with her parents, Patty and David, in June of 1837. While in Missouri, Sylvia met and married Windsor Lyon. Sylvia’s Mother, Patty, wrote about the wedding in her journal, “Sylvia was married to Windsor P. Lyon, Joseph Smith performed the ceremony...The next day the Prophet was there and a good time it was.”

Sylvia, and husband Windsor, left Missouri for Nauvoo in February of 1839. There, Windsor established a mercantile business, selling “Dry Goods, Groceries, Crockery, Glass, and Hardware, Drugs, and Medicines, Paints and Dry Stuffs.” By this time, they were the parents of two children.

From the above website:http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/08-SylviaSessionsLyon.htm

Is Greg Smith trying to argue that Sylvia 'wasn't' married to Joseph Lyons. Again, why on earth would her mother lie.

Which again brings us back to the issue of 'adultery'.

Even Greg Smith appears to support the idea that the strongest evidence for polyandry which actually produces a child, is through Sylvia Sessions.

Which is where some of the Temple Ceremony language originated from. Joseph, when leaving the house one day, was heard to say to Emma "I'm off to do a Session" and she mistakenly thought he was going to complete an endowment...