Why is Joseph Smith's polygamy controversial?

[_Runtu]

To recap:

God gives Joseph permission to have sex with married women (and that's exactly what the "escape clause" verse says).
Joseph keeps the unions secret from the public, from the women's husbands, and from his own wife.
The women report feeling shame, shock, and horror upon being approached by Joseph.
One of the married women says that she believes that her daughter is the child of Joseph Smith.

So, what reason is there to believe that these were nonsexual unions?

Oh, that's right. Admitting what these marriages really were is embarrassing to believers.

[_Scottie]

Whenever this is brought up on MAD, Juliann is quick to respond that the women all had a strong testimony of the truthfulness of the principle. That these were strong women with minds of their own and they wouldn't fall for something like this if it were a scam.

What do you all think of this defense?

The standard rejoinder is that the women down in Short Creek and Colorado City also are strong women with minds of their own and have testimonies of the truthfulness of the principle and how they practice it. Does that make the Warren Jeffs of the world true prophets?

Great point, Runtu!

Of course, I've seen Juliann and charity and others wax indignant and say, "How DARE you compare the prophet Joseph Smith to those lecherous frauds?"

ROFLMAO!!!

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Whenever this is brought up on MAD, Juliann is quick to respond that the women all had a strong testimony of the truthfulness of the principle. That these were strong women with minds of their own and they wouldn't fall for something like this if it were a scam.

What do you all think of this defense?

The standard rejoinder is that the women down in Short Creek and Colorado City also are strong women with minds of their own and have testimonies of the truthfulness of the principle and how they practice it. Does that make the Warren Jeffs of the world true prophets? Of course, I've seen Juliann and charity and others wax indignant and say, "How DARE you compare the prophet Joseph Smith to those lecherous frauds?"

Yep. An old friend of my wife's was really shook up when she saw some program on the FLDS and the women bore their testimonies on the truthfulness of polygamy and how they knew Warren Jeffs was a prophet (in the name of Jesus Chrsit amen). It blew her away how much they sounded just like LDS testimonies. She was having issues with the church anyway, and seeing that helped push her closer to the edge.

I don't find the testimonies of the polygamous women convincing. That's like saying Saddam must have been a great leader because he always got 100% of the vote.

[_truth dancer]

Whenever this is brought up on MAD, Juliann is quick to respond that the women all had a strong testimony of the truthfulness of the principle. That these were strong women with minds of their own and they wouldn't fall for something like this if it were a scam.

A couple of thoughts....

There are those who do all sorts of horrible things, even commit suicide by blowing themselves up, or kill their children because they feel it is God's will.

More to the point...

These women* had two choices....

Either follow the prophet and do what most consider disgusting, cruel and immoral, and sacrifice a true marriage, but gain the greatest reward in heaven, be with their families for eternity, and be one of the chosen loved by God,

or...

They could do what most consider moral, loving, and decent, and NOT receive the great rewards, be considered "less than" by their community and religious leaders and Jesus Christ himself.

Either sacrifice a normal healthy and happy marriage or sarifice your eternal rewards.

Talk about a double bind!

With either option, the women would have to find a way to manage, or they would go crazy.

Some women refused to engage in such a degrading lifestyle, and took the consequences. These were STRONG women!

Others agreed to the harem lifestyle and found a way to manage... These were strong women as well.

It is about survival... mental, emotional, and spiritual survival.

My guess is most of the women of the day chose what they consider the lesser of the two horrible choices they were given.

Take Helen Mar... fourteen years old and told by the man she believes is speaking to God, that if she marries Joseph Smith, she and all her family will be in the CKHL for eternity. She doesn't eat for what, a week? then decides to engage in what she previously considered a horrific lifestyle. You have a young girl, near starving, whose family is counting on her for their eternal salvation.... OF COURSE she is going to go along with the prophet and have a confirmation that it is God's will. Mentally speaking, she has no other real option.

~dancer~

*With the exception of those women who prefer the harem lifestyle over marriage.

[_beastie]

If I recall correctly, not only do believing MADdites object to Joseph Smith being (logically) compared to Jeffs, but it's actually against the rules to do so, and considered a violation of Godwin's law.

I also saw the special on FLDS where women bore their testimony. I have kicked myself ever since that I didn't immediately order a transcript. Now I can't even remember what channel I saw it on, or when. Did anyone else see it?

[_mentalgymnast]

You see there is a special amplifier of problems that Joseph Smith has created for himself. He claimed for himself an authority role exceeding anybody else in Christian history.

With this wildly exaggurated authority claim his shortcoming figure much larger than the shortcoming of other leaders like say Mortin Luther King. Mr King lead by proposing ideas that people could understand as valuable. The ideas are valuable with or without Kings personal shortcomings. Becuse his contribution is in ideas and not his person all the rest of us are given the responsiblity of using our own understanding invention and authority to find better fulfillment of his ideas.

Why is it any different with Joseph Smith? That's the point I'm arguing. Yes, he claimed to have received authority unique to the mission/purpose of the CofJCofLDS and authority to at times receive special revelations from God...but beyond that...how is he any different from any other evangelist, Martin Luther King for example, who may also feel the call to serve God and then ends up doing much more good than harm?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Back to Joseph Smith, I don't think that he was 100% bad. He was a complex person, and I'm sure he was kind to children, loved furry animals, and probably brought Emma flowers from time to time. However good he may have been in some aspects of his life, he was an adulterous, philandering (redundant, I know), domineering, manipulative, mysogynistic brute of a man, at least in his sex life.

Not only did he bring Emma flowers but he loved her very much. Here are some extracts from letters to her as he was suffering far away from her.

My Dear Emma I think of you and the children continualy, if I could tell you my tale, I think you would say it was altogether enough for once, to grattify the malice of hell that I have suffered. I want <to> see little Frederick, Joseph, Julia, and Alexander, Joana, and old major. And as to yourself if you want to know how much I want to see you, examine your feelings, how much you want to see me, and Judge for <you[r]self>, I would gladly go <walk> from here to you barefoot, and bareheaded, and half naked, to see you and think it great pleasure, and never count it toil...

...never give up an old tried friend, who has waded through all manner of toil, for your sake, and throw him away becau[se] fools may tell <you> he <has> some faults...

My Dear Emma,

We are prisoners in chains, and under strong guards, for Christ’s sake and for no other cause. . . . I received your letter, which I read over and over again; it was a sweet morsel to me. Oh, God grant that I may have the privilege of seeing once more my lovely family in the enjoyment of the sweets of liberty and social life. To press them to my bosom and kiss their lovely cheeks would fill my heart with unspeakable gratitude.

Affectionate Wife,

My dear Emma, I very well know your toils and sympathize with you. If God will spare my life once more to have the privilege of taking care of you, I will ease your care and endeavor to comfort your heart.

To say that he was an "adulterous, philandering (redundant, I know), domineering, manipulative, mysogynistic brute of a man..." doesn't seem to fully explain the man. There is more to him than that. For him to truly love Emma and his family it is difficult for me to see him in the context that you place him.

Like I said earlier, the truth of the matter is probably somewhere in the middle. But we don't know where exactly. Some of us are willing to give him the benefit of a doubt, and others aren't.

You are one of the latter.

Regards,
MG

[_beastie]

Why is it any different with Joseph Smith? That's the point I'm arguing. Yes, he claimed to have received authority unique to the mission/purpose of the CofJCofLDS and authority to at times receive special revelations from God...but beyond that...how is he any different from any other evangelist, Martin Luther King for example, who may also feel the call to serve God and then ends up doing much more good than harm?

I'm an atheist but can still answer this. Joseph Smith' personal traits are important because of the particular claims he made. He's not claiming simply to be preaching the resurrected Christ, and whatever teachings he attaches to that, but is claiming to have had very specific events occur to him that resulted in a special dispensation of specific and exclusive authority. So his trustworthiness is an issue.

It would be like a witness being called in court who gave conflicting testimony AND there was evidence that, in the past, he was very willing to lie and engaged in unethical behavior in general. The conflicting testimony AND the character problems are all pertinent to the reliability of his testimony.

Of course believers think that the witness of the HG Trump's all that, but you should still be able to understand why that doesn't satisfy those who do not accept that model of obtaining truth in the first place.

by the way, mg, would any behavior that Joseph Smith engaged in undermine his claims, in your opinion?

[_mentalgymnast]

Hi MG..

Why is Joseph Smith and his interpretive (albeit, possibly flawed at times) "acting out" on what he saw as a divine mandate/command not cut the same slack as others throughout history?

EXACTLY the point... all sorts of folks who believe they are the true messenger, or a true messenger from God get the idea that they are above the laws/rules/decency regarding sex.

We are all strongly guided by sexual desires and thoughts. Those thoughts and desires can be misguided and later either explained away or repented of. Whether or not Joseph Smith visualized himself as "above the law" however, is debatable. Others have succumbed to that viewpoint, but I'm not sure that Joseph Smith did, only in the sense that he believed that the laws of God were higher than man's and that this gave him the authority to participate/officiate in plural marriages.

You seem to suggest this is a common phenomenon and no big deal and maybe even some sort of evidence that these folks are called by God?

Not evidence, but a susceptibility that may tag along with a person that is charasmatic and somewhat ego driven.

I'm with Seth on this... I just don't think God is a man/being/person choosing a handful of not-so-great folks to bring a divine message to the world.

In the case of Joseph Smith, however, we have a great man with some human weaknesses/frailties. He definately wasn't a run of the mill Joe. Pun intended.

I would think this God would choose the best of the best. I know it sounds crazy to think God would care that his messengers are decent folks but it just makes sense to me. ;-)

Who would be on your short list to replace Joseph Smith (name three or more replacements who lived within the same time period)...and do you think they could/would have been successful through the same sorts of hardships, etc. that Joseph Smith passed through? Would they have shown or succumbed to any human frailties/imperfections? How do you know? Would it matter to you if they did?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Why is it any different with Joseph Smith? That's the point I'm arguing. Yes, he claimed to have received authority unique to the mission/purpose of the CofJCofLDS and authority to at times receive special revelations from God...but beyond that...how is he any different from any other evangelist, Martin Luther King for example, who may also feel the call to serve God and then ends up doing much more good than harm?

I'm an atheist but can still answer this. Joseph Smith' personal traits are important because of the particular claims he made. He's not claiming simply to be preaching the resurrected Christ, and whatever teachings he attaches to that, but is claiming to have had very specific events occur to him that resulted in a special dispensation of specific and exclusive authority. So his trustworthiness is an issue.

Yes.

It would be like a witness being called in court who gave conflicting testimony AND there was evidence that, in the past, he was very willing to lie and engaged in unethical behavior in general. The conflicting testimony AND the character problems are all pertinent to the reliability of his testimony.

Yes. It does become necessary to separate the wheat from the chaff.

by the way, mg, would any behavior that Joseph Smith engaged in undermine his claims, in your opinion?

Yes. If towards the end of his life when he knew that he was going to very possibly lose his life, he reneged on everything and put it all up for sale to the highest bidder.

I suppose the real question should be along the lines of how much "bad behavior" is God is able to accept in a prophet...or anyone else... before he can't put up with any more and dumps him/her.

Do you know the answer to that one? Oh, yeah...no God. :)

Regards,
MG