Counter-Evidence Regarding Joseph Smith and Plural Marriage

[_Runtu]

I haven't bothered to read the entire thread. Just scanned it. I find it hard to believe anyone is disputing the historical fact that Joseph Smith engaged in plural marriage and that at least some of those marriages were "consummated" and that he, on and off, kept Emma in the dark about what he was doing in order to avoid the conflict it produced in their relationship.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't think any of the facts surrounding the implementation of plural marraige reflect poorly on Joseph Smith. Not to say that it was all neat and tidy. It wasn't. How could it have been? But I think he did his best, under difficult circumstances, to comply with the commandments that had been given to him. I think Emma smith was quite a difficult person at times. I empathize with her trials and tribulations in life, but I also think she struggled with a lot of things like pride and desires for status and riches, etc. She alludes to some of those things in the letter Nevo (I think it was Nevo) cited earlier in this thread. so even she apparently recognized some of her problems.

Anyway, I don't see what the big deal is about polygamy. It has never bothered me. I think it served its purpose. I don't think it's coming back in our lifetimes. But I have no doubt it's a way of life for some (those who choose it) in the eternal world.

I have no problem with that. As I said, I've been told that what you acknowledge above is a "historical fact" is really just me inventing and misusing evidence, when I know there is clear "counter-evidence" to show that Joseph never married women without Emma's knowledge and consent.

I don't care if you or anyone else believes Joseph was doing the best he could under difficult circumstances. Once upon a time, I would have agreed with you. But it's ridiculous to dispute the facts, as bcspace and Droopy have done. But I'm quite sure the next time this subject comes up, they'll accuse me or whoever states the obvious of lying and distorting the truth.

Welcome back, by the way. I was beginning to wonder what happened to my adoring fan. ;-)

[_Runtu]

Two weeks, and still no counter-evidence. I'm beginning to wonder if there is any.

[_Buffalo]

Two weeks, and still no counter-evidence. I'm beginning to wonder if there is any.

There isn't.

[_consiglieri]

The most obvious example of this is the Partridge Sisters,

Laurie and Tracy?

[_Runtu]

Laurie and Tracy?

The sad thing is that I immediately got your reference. We must be really old.

[_consiglieri]

Negatory, good buddy.

We are far out and groovy.

[_moksha]

I'd start by asking for evidence of 1 and 2; what are the sources and how reliable are they. And I'm not talking about compilation sources, I want the actual source.

Hi-Def video would be preferred. Certified saliva DNA samples would also help and don't try any of that lying for the Lord funny business because Bc and myself will be watching for any signs of deception.

[_Sethbag]

Does his concealing his sexual relationships from Emma invalidate his prophetic calling?

My answer to that is "of course not." Either Joseph saw what he said he saw in that grove or he did not. Either God really spoke to him and told him the Christian church had apostatized and needed to be restored or he did not. It doesn't matter how poorly Joseph Smith behaved at other times; that doesn't have any bearing on the truth claims of Mormonism. Those need to stand or fall on their own merits.

I have to respectfully disagree. Mormons are taught from day 1 that one must be "worthy" to have the priesthood power, the influence of the holy ghost, etc. If one isn't worthy, that priesthood ordination means nothing, that gift of the holy ghost is forfeit, the Holy Spirit is offended and cannot and will not attend one, etc. Young priesthood holders are taught that they are not worthy to pass or bless the sacrament if they've been whacking off. You tell me, if a 13 year old boy who jacks off isn't worthy even to pass the sacrament, is a 38 year old man manipulating young women into sleeping with him behind his wife's back worthy to receive revelations?

To an LDS believer, the revelations of Joseph's misdeeds are so disturbing precisely (at least in part) because they are so at odds with the idea of any exercise of priesthood power. That Joseph supposedly exercised such power anyhow seems like an oxymoron, rendering either the history hard to believe, or else the teachings we grew up with. They are really incompatible, and that is what creates the dissonance.

[_Sethbag]

And you are simply looking to argue your point by suggesting that I think it is okay to do what is considered morally wrong. If God commanded you to bind your child and kill, like Abraham, you first better be sure that it is God that is commanding you to do this. And if it is God who is commanding you to do it, you probably should not hesitate, regardless if your moral compass tells you that it is wrong.

Thank you for providing such a powerful example of the kind of thinking that religion drives, which frankly scares the living crap out of me. That is precisely the kind of answer that is so wrong about religion.

By the way, on the one hand believers like you will assert that one "must be sure" that it is God commanding them, in the next moment they will make excuses as to why God's prophets on Earth make so many mistakes and teach so many false mythologies to their flock. Which is it? Can a person know for a surety that the impulse driving him to slaughter his own child (or someone else's) is realy the Creator of the Entire Universe? How does that square with the idea that Prophets, Seers, and Revelators have taught as revealed truth that there was no death on Earth until around 6000 years ago, when that is not so? That they have taught that all humans died in a giant flood around 4000 or so years ago except for one family who survived it in a boat, when that is also not so?