Counter-Evidence Regarding Joseph Smith and Plural Marriage

[cacheman]

Two weeks, and still no counter-evidence. Hmmm. One might begin to wonder if there is any.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Droopy has clarified that I disingenuously and uncritically repeat lies about Joseph Smith's practice of plural marriage, even though I know there is evidence against my jaded and malicious interpretation.

Here's my position, which I have stated numerous times and have provided ample evidence to support:

Joseph Smith married (in the fullest sense of the word) women and girls without the knowledge and consent of his wife, Emma. He made an effort to conceal these marriages from her. The most obvious example of this is the Partridge Sisters, who both testified that they had been married to Joseph without Emma's knowledge or consent and that they consummated the marriages. These facts are beyond dispute, and I think they speak rather poorly of Joseph Smith's character.

Runtu, I would have to agree with Droopy on this. You are clearly lying again. I was never taught this in seminary, Church or at BYU so it's clearly a lie. You need to stop trying to destroy testimonies.

[_bcspace]

Can someone please tell me how I'm misinterpreting or misstating the facts here?

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.

[_beefcalf]

Can someone please tell me how I'm misinterpreting or misstating the facts here?

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.

bc,

Why don't you skip a step, saving Runtu the trouble of digging up sources you won't read anyway, and get directly to the point where the apostates are simply lying and the proof isn't really proof?

[_3sheets2thewind]

The most obvious example of this is the Partridge Sisters, who both testified that they had been married to Joseph without Emma's knowledge or consent and that they consummated the marriages. These facts are beyond dispute,

what facts?

That 2 people said something, makes it fact that they said what they said. The fact that 2 people said something does not mean what they said is fact.

[_beefcalf]

The most obvious example of this is the Partridge Sisters, who both testified that they had been married to Joseph without Emma's knowledge or consent and that they consummated the marriages. These facts are beyond dispute,

what facts?

That 2 people said something, makes it fact that they said what they said. The fact that 2 people said something does not mean what they said is fact.

From your response, I will assume you are not terribly familiar with the facts of this case.

That Smith married the Partridge sisters (among many other women) and kept these marriages hidden from his wife, in direct contradiction to D&C 132, is not even in question. The fact that he was their husband 'in very deed' is also not seriously disputed by those who have looked into it.

The only remaining question is, in light of these indisputable facts, whether or not you can still consider Smith a prophet of God.

[_MsJack]

Hey, look, it's this thread again.

I'm sure bcspace and Droopy are, like, totally going to engage this issue substantively this time around. Holding my breath . . .

[_MrStakhanovite]

Jack...

How did you recall a thread from over a year ago on this subject?

[_MsJack]

Jack...

How did you recall a thread from over a year ago on this subject?

How does EAllusion recall threads that happened on a now-defunct, hard-to-navigate message board over 7-8 years ago?

But seriously, I knew Runtu had documented this stuff before, so I just searched Runtu's posts for "Partridge" and scanned until I found something that looked relevant. We've been over this many times before, and it's always the same thing: Runtu thoughtfully lays out his concerns complete with documentation, bcspace and Droopy evade and punt, then later they'll act like none of it ever happened. All the while Runtu will be treated like the anti-Christ for daring to think it's wrong for a man to sleep with other women without his wife's knowledge or consent. If we get lucky, Nevo or consiglieri or one of the other believing posters who can actually turn a substantive, engaging argument will comment on the subject.

"All this has happened before, and all of it will happen again."

[_MrStakhanovite]

How does EAllusion recall threads that happened on a now-defunct, hard-to-navigate message board over 7-8 years ago?

That's because he is a Turing Machine. I was just amazed it was almost the same month, one year ago, Runtu started a thread on this very topic.