Is the portrayal of Joseph Smith fair?

[_malkie]

I think that maybe linked to the increase in availability of facts...

There is nothing wrong with the facts. It is how the facts are presented that is the problem.

Exactly. People are going to be totally cool with Joseph Smith boinking teenagers and other men's wives when they find out an angel with a flaming sword made him do it.

Perhaps there are fewer members who are lazy and intransigent?

[_Mary]

If you say so. I think that it is much more difficult to be an active Mormon today than it was 10 years ago. And certainly more difficult than 40 years ago when Mormon values were still mainstream. Pepple can be leaving so that they experience more 'freedom' in moral choices. But are they actually 'free'?

I don't think that Joseph was above it all. Just the opposite. He was constantly under the spotlight and often came up for criticism from members. Some left because they expected something different than what he was. And he often mentioned that he was not perfect nor righteous.

My values are very similar to the values I had as a an active member Why me, they really havn't changed, and I can name many, many people who have left and still retain similar values, even if they become affiliated with another religion or become atheists.

Demonizing those who leave just doesn't cut the mustard anymore. It really doesn't. I know plenty of active people who want to and 'do' experience more 'freedom' in moral choices. It's a ridiculous argument.

How do you think Joseph justified what to all intents and purposes is 'adultery' then Why me?
How do you justify it?

I appreciate that there were other groups and peoples experimenting with different family units, like the Cochranites. But expecting me to support the idea that Joseph marrying other men's wives was God's instruction is a lot for me to be expected to honestly take on board.

These issues are very big stumbling block for me.

[_why me]

My values are very similar to the values I had as a an active member Why me, they really havn't changed, and I can name many, many people who have left and still retain similar values, even if they become affiliated with another religion or become atheists.

Demonizing those who leave just doesn't cut the mustard anymore. It really doesn't. I know plenty of active people who want to and 'do' experience more 'freedom' in moral choices. It's a ridiculous argument.

.

Let me put it this way: do your single friends practice the law of chasity by not having sex before marriage? Do your exmember friends pay ten percent to some charity every month? Do they occasionally take a cup of coffee or a drink? Do they spend a large part of their time doing volunteer work as members spend doing church related things? I doubt it.

[_Buffalo]

My values are very similar to the values I had as a an active member Why me, they really havn't changed, and I can name many, many people who have left and still retain similar values, even if they become affiliated with another religion or become atheists.

Demonizing those who leave just doesn't cut the mustard anymore. It really doesn't. I know plenty of active people who want to and 'do' experience more 'freedom' in moral choices. It's a ridiculous argument.

.

Let me put it this way: do your single friends practice the law of chasity by not having sex before marriage? Do your exmember friends pay ten percent to some charity every month? Do they occasionally take a cup of coffee or a drink? Do they spend a large part of their time doing volunteer work as members spend doing church related things? I doubt it.

Why Me, the chronic law of chastity violating inactive apologist, can't seem to differentiate values from rules.

[_Tobin]

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.

You are correct in your understanding of what I'm saying about the dynastic sealings/marriages.

Now, as far as Sylvia Sessions Lyon, all we have is the one statement. I wouldn't read into it what you claim since she didn't say anything along those lines. You have to bear in mind that these "dynastic sealings" were not something she discussed either and her comment is simply in line with what I stated. If Sylvia Sessions Lyon had said "I had an affair with the Prophet and you are his daughter", then I would agree that there is a problem. And I am aware there are some genetic tests going on to determine the paternity. Until we have those results though, I see no reason to assert anything other than what I stated in response to the OP.

[_Mary]

Now, as far as Sylvia Sessions Lyon, all we have is the one statement. I wouldn't read into it what you claim since she didn't say anything along those lines.

My bold.. I believe you are incorrect Tobin.

"- Stake President Angus Cannon also testified: "I will now refer you to one case where it was said by the girl's grandmother that your father [Joseph Smith] has a daughter born of a plural wife. The girl's grandmother was Mother Sessions . . . She was the grand-daughter of Mother Sessions. That girl, I believe, is living today, in Bountiful, north of this city. I heard prest. Young, a short time before his death, refer to the report . . . The woman is now said to have a family of children, and I think she is still living." (Stake President Angus M. Cannon, statement of interview with Joseph III, 25-26, LDS archives.)

- Faithful Mormon and wife of Joseph Smith, Sylvia Sessions (Lyon), on her deathbed told her daughter, Josephine, that she (Josephine) was the daughter of Joseph Smith. Josephine testified: "She (Sylvia) then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church." (Affidavit to Church Historian Andrew Jenson, 24 Feb. 1915)

Again, my bold.

Of interest is the suggestion that the Prophet married Sylvia when her own husband was out of fellowship with the church. But she then went on to marry Heber C Kimball, and yet still stayed with Joseph Lyon until his death, when she married a non-member surname Clark, whom she left after having 3 children with him to travel to Bountiful in 1854.

Now ain't that a stable upbringing for the children!! (sarcasm)...

Thanks to the Mormon Curtain for this information gathered in one place.

http://mormoncurtain.com/topic_josephsm ... tion2.html

[_Buffalo]

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.

You are correct in your understanding of what I'm saying about the dynastic sealings/marriages.

Now, as far as Sylvia Sessions Lyon, all we have is the one statement. I wouldn't read into it what you claim since she didn't say anything along those lines. You have to bear in mind that these "dynastic sealings" were not something she discussed either and her comment is simply in line with what I stated. If Sylvia Sessions Lyon had said "I had an affair with the Prophet and you are his daughter", then I would agree that there is a problem. And I am aware there are some genetic tests going on to determine the paternity. Until we have those results though, I see no reason to assert anything other than what I stated in response to the OP.

What evidence is there that ANY of Joseph's marriages were sexless, dynastic affairs? So far no one has been able to provide me with any.

[_Themis]

What evidence is there that ANY of Joseph's marriages were sexless, dynastic affairs? So far no one has been able to provide me with any.

Well, because none exists. The evidence we do have says otherwise. Sessions is only one. BY married Zina even though she was still married and lived with her first husband Henry Jacobs. BY sent him away to California and then she moved in with him, and they had children together. It's just a pitiful apologetic that many apologists reject.

[_Tobin]

...

Let me say it more clearly then, we have the one CREDIBLE statement by her mother (she would know after all) but does not make any specifics clear. Don't quote Stake President Angust Cannon to me. That is ridiculous hearsay and has no credibility what-so-ever. You might as well quote Buffalo to me and hold that up as proof.

[Guest]

Why do we need evidence of sex? Were they not his wives? Don't husbands and wives have sex? It's a safe assumption, right? Brigham Young and the other polygamists did. When you marry a person, you expect sex and a family to be one side effect of the marriage relationship. Unless it is explicitly agreed upon by both parties before the marriage that there will be no sex, the woman should expect to take her clothes off and climb in bed with her new husband shortly after saying "I do". What would you say to your daughter if she got married and then was shocked to discover that her husband wanted to have sex with her?

Was there anything in the polygamist contract that said no sex? If so, that would be almost worse for these women. A sexless, childless life.