What is your best evidence for Joseph Smith sleeping with his wives?

Post by **_asbestosman** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 2:20 am

The only deception involved I'm certain of is when Joseph claimed he had trouble finding one wife despite that people claimed he had several (it may not have been a lie, but it was deceptive). The other is when Joseph didn't tell Emma of them. I think both could be excused if Joseph was doing his best to obey even God didn't command it and even if things could have been handled better.

There is something else about polygamy that I have wondered about though. Why do people think it was necessary? Was it supposed to be a restoration of Old Testament polygamy? If so, isn't it true that Joseph was sealed to a mother/daughter pair and isn't that expressly forbidden in the Old Testament? I'm sure I'm not the first to have asked about it.

Post by **_karl61** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 2:36 am

asbestosman wrote:The only deception involved I'm certain of is when Joseph claimed he had trouble finding one wife despite that people claimed he had several (it may not have been a lie, but it was deceptive). The other is when Joseph didn't tell Emma of them. I think both could be excused if Joseph was doing his best to obey even God didn't command it and even if things could have been handled better.

There is something else about polygamy that I have wondered about though. Why do people think it was necessary? Was it supposed to be a restoration of Old Testament polygamy? If so, isn't it true that Joseph was sealed to a mother/daughter pair and isn't that expressly forbidden in the Old Testament? I'm sure I'm not the first to have asked about it.

The Church claims it was restoring the first century standard as there was a falling away a.k.a., there was an apostasy; I think you would get a laugh from most major University scholars if you say that first century Christians practiced polygamy. If it was a restoration of all things including polygamy as in the old testament then why not bring back stoning for adultery.

Post by **_Inconceivable** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 5:27 am

What also amazes me is that not one father, grandfather, boyfriend, husband or mother took this creep out and slaughtered him (Like the husband of Parley P. Pratt's illegal wife did to Parley).

What would a civil person like myself do if a 38 year old pervert that had been doormatting girls all over my town came to call on my teenage daughter, sister, girlfriend, wife?

Probably at least what the Law Brothers did.

Where would my loyalties lie? To my church? My prophet? My so-called loyal friend? Or to my family or even to the sacred and justified law of the land?

It must have been so outrageous a claim from Smith that his groupies thought it must have validity.

How I wish he would have lived a little longer to be seen prosecuted and convicted of his wickedness.

Post by **_Sethbag** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 5:37 am

Inconceivable, if I'm not mistaken, the men who found out that this was going on at all were the ones Joseph "revealed" the principle to and invited them to live it themselves. "This is what I'm doing, and the Lord wishes you to do it too. By the way, wasn't that your daughter I just saw out feeding the chickens?"

Post by **_Inconceivable** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 5:51 am

Sethbag wrote:Inconceivable, if I'm not mistaken, the men who found that this was going on at all were the ones Joseph "revealed" the principle too and invited them to live it themselves. "This is what I'm doing, and the Lord wishes you to do it too. By the way, wasn't that your daughter I just saw out feeding the chickens?"

Yes, sick, horrible and wretched fathers.

Post by **_beastie** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 1:14 pm

The only deception involved I'm certain of is when Joseph claimed he had trouble finding one wife despite that people claimed he had several (it may not have been a lie, but it was deceptive). The other is when Joseph didn't tell Emma of them. I think both could be excused if Joseph was doing his best to obey even God didn't command it and even if things could have been handled better.

There is something else about polygamy that I have wondered about though. Why do people think it was necessary? Was it supposed to be a restoration of Old Testament polygamy? If so, isn't it true that Joseph was sealed to a mother/daughter pair and isn't that expressly forbidden in the Old Testament? I'm sure I'm not the first to have asked about it.

The only deception? You must be kidding. Here's another important deception - the church allowed this to stand in the Book of Commandments:

Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.

Apologists attempt to defuse the obvious deception by saying Joseph Smith was out of town when it was approved. However, Joseph Smith had plenty of time to make corrections, and, instead, signed the preface noting his approval of the contents.

The book's preface (pp. [iii]-iv), signed by Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and F. G. Williams, February 17, 1835, alludes to the "aversion in the minds of some against receiving anything purporting to be articles of religious faith," and defends the book as a needed statement of the beliefs of the Latter-day Saints, who have been so widely misrepresented.

http://www.ldshistory.net/pc/sec134.htm

And how about the vicious lies that were told about the women who were propositioned and then defied the leaders by talking about it? Do you really believe Martha Brotherton was a whore? How about Nancy Rigdon and Sarah Pratt? Whores all?

History shows that Smith's amorous advances were rebuffed by at least three other women besides Kimball and Rigdon. These included Sarah M. Kimball (no relation to Helen Mar Kimball), Sarah Pratt (the wife of Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt), and Martha Brotherton. "Inevitably," writes Van Wagoner, "Nancy Rigdon, Sarah Pratt, and Martha Brotherton saw their reputations impugned by an avalanche of slander. The prophet labeled Sarah a '[whore] from her mother's breast.' Martha Brotherton was branded a 'mean harlot.' while Nancy was tagged a 'poor miserable girl out of the very slough of prostitution'" (p.299).

http://www.mrm.org/topics/joseph-smith/ ... on-prophet[/quote]

Post by **_beastie** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 1:18 pm

And are you aware that Joseph Smith told the Relief Society sisters to reject the advances of any man who proposed polygamy, even if it were a prophet or apostle? (I have that quote at home and am having a hard time finding it on the net)

How can these things, so obviously designed to mislead, not be counted as lies?

Post by **_Runtu** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 2:12 pm

beastie wrote:And are you aware that Joseph Smith told the Relief Society sisters to reject the advances of any man who proposed polygamy, even if it were a prophet or apostle? (I have that quote at home and am having a hard time finding it on the net)

How can these things, so obviously designed to mislead, not be counted as lies?

Sometimes I wonder if the apologists hear themselves talking. Most of us who believed in the church were taught that polygamy was fine, and we were taught that it was practiced a certain way. What we weren't taught was the deception, the coercion, and the lies. We weren't taught the "anything goes" morality of Joseph Smith. We weren't taught that those women who refused Joseph's advances were publicly vilified.

Rather than acknowledge that any of this could possibly be troubling to anyone, the apologists tell us we're just sexually puritanical and over-emotional. God approved of polygamy, so why shouldn't we? That leaves me to conclude that Will et al. are in favor of lying, coercing, and libel. After all, God approved of these things, so why shouldn't we?

What if God had nothing to do with it? I gave Joseph Smith a pass for these things because he was a prophet. But why does a prophet get a pass for despicable behavior?

Post by **_asbestosman** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 4:40 pm

Runtu wrote:What if God had nothing to do with it? I gave Joseph Smith a pass for these things because he was a prophet. But why does a prophet get a pass for despicable behavior?

Because I am not convinced that Joseph was coercive nor libelous. Why? Because I am not so convinced about the other sources yet. Perhaps they ar e legit. What would I say if so? I don't know yet, but I imagine that I should at least read the other side of the story before jumping to the conclusion that it must have been libel, coercion, and the like.

Post by **_Scottie** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 4:47 pm

asbestosman wrote:
Runtu wrote:What if God had nothing to do with it? I gave Joseph Smith a pass for these things because he was a prophet. But why does a prophet get a pass for despicable behavior?

Because I am not convinced that Joseph was coercive nor libelous. Why? Because I am not so convinced about the other sources yet. Perhaps they ar e legit. What would I say if so? I don't know yet, but I imagine that I should at least read the other side of the story before jumping to the conclusion that it must have been libel, coercion, and the like.

What other side are you referring to?