YouTuber Alyssa Grenfell Has Cost The Church 2.4 Million Dollars

[MG 2.0]

It sort of comes down to whether or not Joseph and others truly believed that divine revelation could override civil law. Also, whether Joseph’s behavior aligned with the moral standards he preached and were consistent with ancient prophetic practices. It becomes a matter of faith in regard to whether all things were restored that existed anciently as part of the Judeo-Christian covenant structure with God. Does God's law override civil law? Yeah, anyone could use that as an excuse to be a philanderer.

It's a matter of looking at a picture of Joseph Smith in its entirety and deciding whether or not he was a good man at heart and if God worked through "weak things" to bring about that which is great.

Regards,
MG

As you might expect, I disagree completely. It has nothing to do with Joseph's beliefs, and everything to do with his actions.

Suppose that Joseph, instead of entering into polygamous unions, truly believed that divine revelation to kill people could and should override civil law - as apparently Brigham Young did. There's lots of cases in the scriptures of killing at the command of god. Since Joseph preached marriage as one man, one woman, but didn't practice that, he could equally have preached do not kill without feeling obliged to refrain from murder. Both murder and polygamy were illegal in the location and at the time that Joseph "married" his so-called wives. So, no, what Joseph and others believed does not affect the legality or society-based morality of what Joseph did.

If one were to believe that Joseph Smith was a good man at heart and that God worked through him, it still would not negate the applicable law nor applicable morality. The plain answer is that, according to the law and prevailing morality, and according to what Joseph preached, he was a fornicator and an adulterer.

Joseph followed a well-worn path - past and future - of the religious leader who claims rights to "marry" and/or bed whichever of his followers he chooses, because god told him to do so, all the while denying that was what he was doing. So we can throw in liar as well.

I also disagree that "looking at a picture of Joseph Smith in its entirety", even if he was, on balance, a good person, would excuse his lying and fornication/polygamy.

As far as I can tell, most murderers do not spend all of their time killing, just as most thieves are probably doing ordinary, normal things for the majority of their time. Are you suggesting that we should not think badly of them because the balance of the picture is positive? How about the clergy who are wonderful preachers, or hold high positions, doing much good in their organizations? Should we let them off for the occasional rape, because they are great people most of the time?

You and gadianton like to deal in hypotheticals and "suppose this". I think it is important to deal with the facts as they are on the ground and the specific circumstances that revolve around 'whatever happened'. What Brigham Young may or may not have done in early Utah history with those that he saw as threats and/or sinners doesn't have any bearing over what Joseph Smith did or didn't do in regard to polygamy. Also, it should be mentioned, Joseph and those closest to him saw the law of plurality of wives as being eternal sealings and separate, in a sense, from the laws of the land. There was no actual cohabitation.

I hear what you're saying in regard to good people that do bad things. That is something to keep in mind and be aware of. In Joseph's case we have witnesses on both sides of the question/equation on this. I think that each person needs to fully explore BOTH sides and the witnesses involved and come to their own conclusions. It's interesting how folks in Joseph's early years saw him and his family through such different eyes. I think that continued and escalated when he said that he had seen and angel and received plates. That was a bridge too far for many people, including neighbors and associates, at the time. That also holds true today.

Regards,
MG

[Moksha]

Eventually, Utah outlawed the twin relics of barbarism that it had first embraced, but it had to make those changes unwillingly.

[malkie]

As you might expect, I disagree completely. It has nothing to do with Joseph's beliefs, and everything to do with his actions.

Suppose that Joseph, instead of entering into polygamous unions, truly believed that divine revelation to kill people could and should override civil law - as apparently Brigham Young did. There's lots of cases in the scriptures of killing at the command of god. Since Joseph preached marriage as one man, one woman, but didn't practice that, he could equally have preached do not kill without feeling obliged to refrain from murder. Both murder and polygamy were illegal in the location and at the time that Joseph "married" his so-called wives. So, no, what Joseph and others believed does not affect the legality or society-based morality of what Joseph did.

If one were to believe that Joseph Smith was a good man at heart and that God worked through him, it still would not negate the applicable law nor applicable morality. The plain answer is that, according to the law and prevailing morality, and according to what Joseph preached, he was a fornicator and an adulterer.

Joseph followed a well-worn path - past and future - of the religious leader who claims rights to "marry" and/or bed whichever of his followers he chooses, because god told him to do so, all the while denying that was what he was doing. So we can throw in liar as well.

I also disagree that "looking at a picture of Joseph Smith in its entirety", even if he was, on balance, a good person, would excuse his lying and fornication/polygamy.

As far as I can tell, most murderers do not spend all of their time killing, just as most thieves are probably doing ordinary, normal things for the majority of their time. Are you suggesting that we should not think badly of them because the balance of the picture is positive? How about the clergy who are wonderful preachers, or hold high positions, doing much good in their organizations? Should we let them off for the occasional rape, because they are great people most of the time?

You and gadianton like to deal in hypotheticals and "suppose this". I think it is important to deal with the facts as they are on the ground and the specific circumstances that revolve around 'whatever happened'. What Brigham Young may or may not have done in early Utah history with those that he saw as threats and/or sinners doesn't have any bearing over what Joseph Smith did or didn't do in regard to polygamy. Also, it should be mentioned, Joseph and those closest to him saw the law of plurality of wives as being eternal sealings and separate, in a sense, from the laws of the land. There was no actual cohabitation.

I hear what you're saying in regard to good people that do bad things. That is something to keep in mind and be aware of. In Joseph's case we have witnesses on both sides of the question/equation on this. I think that each person needs to fully explore BOTH sides and the witnesses involved and come to their own conclusions. It's interesting how folks in Joseph's early years saw him and his family through such different eyes. I think that continued and escalated when he said that he had seen and angel and received plates. That was a bridge too far for many people, including neighbors and associates, at the time. That also holds true today.

Regards,
MG

Aren't you the guy that often starts statements with "If"? e.g., "If there is a creator-god ...". I have no problem with that, as it helps to clarify the assumptions we are tacitly making during a discussion. I believe it would make discussions like this almost impossible if (!) we were to exclude hypotheticals, suppositions, etc.

Anyway, based on the facts, Joseph's so-called polygamous marriages were illegal.

When you say: "There was no actual cohabitation.", it sounds as if you have definitive proof. Does this mean that you are ignoring the evidence of cohabitation/rooming with/sleeping with as man and wife with Emily Partridge, Lucy Walker, and Melissa Lott, according to their own testimony; and with Louisa Beaman and Agnes Coolbirth, according to second-hand testimony? I don't have time right now to produce all of the references, but can do so later if you dispute these testimonies.

[MG 2.0]

You and gadianton like to deal in hypotheticals and "suppose this". I think it is important to deal with the facts as they are on the ground and the specific circumstances that revolve around 'whatever happened'. What Brigham Young may or may not have done in early Utah history with those that he saw as threats and/or sinners doesn't have any bearing over what Joseph Smith did or didn't do in regard to polygamy. Also, it should be mentioned, Joseph and those closest to him saw the law of plurality of wives as being eternal sealings and separate, in a sense, from the laws of the land. There was no actual cohabitation.

I hear what you're saying in regard to good people that do bad things. That is something to keep in mind and be aware of. In Joseph's case we have witnesses on both sides of the question/equation on this. I think that each person needs to fully explore BOTH sides and the witnesses involved and come to their own conclusions. It's interesting how folks in Joseph's early years saw him and his family through such different eyes. I think that continued and escalated when he said that he had seen and angel and received plates. That was a bridge too far for many people, including neighbors and associates, at the time. That also holds true today.

Regards,
MG

Aren't you the guy that often starts statements with "If"? e.g., "If there is a creator-god ...". I have no problem with that, as it helps to clarify the assumptions we are tacitly making during a discussion. I believe it would make discussions like this almost impossible if (!) we were to exclude hypotheticals, suppositions, etc.

Anyway, based on the facts, Joseph's so-called polygamous marriages were illegal.

When you say: "There was no actual cohabitation.", it sounds as if you have definitive proof. Does this mean that you are ignoring the evidence of cohabitation/rooming with/sleeping with as man and wife with Emily Partridge, Lucy Walker, and Melissa Lott, according to their own testimony; and with Louisa Beaman and Agnes Coolbirth, according to second-hand testimony? I don't have time right now to produce all of the references, but can do so later if you dispute these testimonies.

Is there any evidence that Joseph ever gathered his wives into a household?

Regards,
MG

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Is there any evidence that Joseph ever gathered his wives into a household?

Fibber,

Is this a serious question? There is plenty of undisputed evidence that Joseph lived with several of his wives in his household, usually at different times. Joseph loved the ladies, especially ones that were living in the Smith household for various reasons.

[MG 2.0]

Is there any evidence that Joseph ever gathered his wives into a household?

Fibber,

Is this a serious question? There is plenty of undisputed evidence that Joseph lived with several of his wives in his household, usually at different times. Joseph loved the ladies, especially ones that were living in the Smith household for various reasons.

As I've said on another thread, it has become almost impossible to take you seriously.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

Aren't you the guy that often starts statements with "If"? e.g., "If there is a creator-god ...". I have no problem with that, as it helps to clarify the assumptions we are tacitly making during a discussion. I believe it would make discussions like this almost impossible if (!) we were to exclude hypotheticals, suppositions, etc.

Anyway, based on the facts, Joseph's so-called polygamous marriages were illegal.

When you say: "There was no actual cohabitation.", it sounds as if you have definitive proof. Does this mean that you are ignoring the evidence of cohabitation/rooming with/sleeping with as man and wife with Emily Partridge, Lucy Walker, and Melissa Lott, according to their own testimony; and with Louisa Beaman and Agnes Coolbirth, according to second-hand testimony? I don't have time right now to produce all of the references, but can do so later if you dispute these testimonies.

Is there any evidence that Joseph ever gathered his wives into a household?

Regards,
MG

Is "gather[ing] his wives into a household" really an issue? Can you explain why, because I don't understand the significance.

[MG 2.0]

Is there any evidence that Joseph ever gathered his wives into a household?

Regards,
MG

Is "gather[ing] his wives into a household" really an issue? Can you explain why, because I don't understand the significance.

The reasons for polygamy in the early church had more than one purpose. Some were for eternity only in order to seal families in the hereafter. Some were for time and eternity. The fact that the women that lived in either in an eternal sealing covenant or a time and eternity covenant, and essentially lived their own lives, gives credence to the reality that on a day-to-day basis Joseph was engaged in many other things other than running a domicile. It seems as though he took the commandment seriously but also found a 'work a round' so that he could still put Emma first. To do that he tried to keep things as secretive as possible.

So, the fact is, Joseph never co-habitated with the women who were called into the covenant of plural marriage. Non-cohabitative or spiritual marriages suggest a religious motivation, such as connecting families spiritually or following a commandment, rather than purely personal desire for women or power.

Regards,
MG

[Everybody Wang Chung]

So, the fact is, Joseph never co-habitated with the women who were called into the covenant of plural marriage.

Fibber,

You can’t be serious. Joseph cohabitated with at least 7 women who “were called into the covenant.” Let’s talk about Eliza Snow first, then let’s discuss the others.

Why the need to constantly lie and pull stuff out of your butt cheeks?

[malkie]

Is "gather[ing] his wives into a household" really an issue? Can you explain why, because I don't understand the significance.

The reasons for polygamy in the early church had more than one purpose. Some were for eternity only in order to seal families in the hereafter. Some were for time and eternity. The fact that the women that lived in either in an eternal sealing covenant or a time and eternity covenant, and essentially lived their own lives, gives credence to the reality that on a day-to-day basis Joseph was engaged in many other things other than running a domicile. It seems as though he took the commandment seriously but also found a 'work a round' so that he could still put Emma first. To do that he tried to keep things as secretive as possible.

So, the fact is, Joseph never co-habitated with the women who were called into the covenant of plural marriage. Non-cohabitative or spiritual marriages suggest a religious motivation, such as connecting families spiritually or following a commandment, rather than purely personal desire for women or power.

Regards,
MG

Can you come right out and say,, plainly, what it is that you are dancing around?

Are you implying that Joseph's failure to gather his wives into a household means that he did not have sexual intercourse with them? If so, please just say that, though it is a complete non-sequitor. If not, them please say whatever it is.

If the sealing was the important thing, then why go through the sham "marriages". If the purpose was purely spiritual, what need was there for secrecy? If the sealing was so important for the eternities, and Emma was the true love of his life, and to be put first, why was Joseph's first sealing not to Emma? Why did she have to wait till he had been sealed to 20+ other women?

On hypotheticals:

• "... gives credence to the reality ..."
• "It seems as though ..."
• "... spiritual marriages suggest ..."

are all non-factual. In fact, giving credence to something does not make that something real, only that, for some, it is believable. If I and others are not to be allowed to construct hypotheticals because they are not based in reality, might I suggest that you also stick to statements of fact, and omit reasoning based on conditions that you cannot prove.

ETA: since you didn't challenge the testimonies of the plural wives I mentioned before, I assume that you accept that their relationship with Joseph was sexual.

Also, at least some of the plural wives could not "essentially live[] their own lives" - witness Helen Kimbal's discovery, after the sealing to Joseph, that her youth had come to an end, and she could no longer be with her friends, go to parties, or go dancing - something that she loved.