Dale

I recall reading a critic who sought to prove the external location was unrelated to the text. I just caution with a critics research no matter how well presented does not mean they are right.

Ocean I am Community of Christ and we do not accept D.&C. 132 as scripture. But we accept earlier revelations of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith Jr. once suggested his revelations be tested in the leading quorums before going to the people. He knew he could be wrong and get a revelation from man, or the Devil. The D.&C. say's a prophet can be guilty of transgression and that can mean as one possibility adultury. The idea he was a fallen prophet in Nauvoo has been adopted by some in my church. To me if the Book of Mormon is true then his individual revelations could be wrong without effecting the truth of the book. That is why my testimony is in Jesus and not what Joseph Smith did in Nauvoo. To me if he had lapses from virture it does not prove he had no truth from God. Old Testament polygamists wrote inspired books of scripture. I do not see i think David, Solomon's scriptural contributions as needing to be rejected for having wives. Moses was a polygamist and he wrote scripture.

If the old rumors Joseph Smith had children via plural wives was true i would accept it. But i just have not been very impressed with any of the claims at this point. If i ever get impressed with any of the claims it will be because modern DNA studies have verified the claims. Joseph Smith and Emma had eight children together. If Joseph Smith had all the wives they said he did why can't any child of them be verified as his? We know Joseph Smiths kids with Emma, but only proposed kids from his plural wives. And i think five via DNA research have been proven not his. And i think they only have maybe six or seven more possibilities before they have to give up. If his kids were hidden in others households why hide the childrens heritage in Utah? I cannot see unless the mother was ashamed of the father being Joseph Smith any need to keep it a secret. The family for keeping safe a child of Joseph Smith if active LDS would have been honored for doing such. Yet i recall a quote where Mary Lightner was told about three kids, but i can't verify the mythical kids ever existed. I just say i doubt Joseph Smith had 33 affairs with plural wives. More likely any number of them were marriages in name only. Some may have been involved with Joseph Smith if their testimony was reliable. And if the woman made no such claim for herself why slander her with something that may or may not have happened. I see a tendency for people to make Joseph Smith more guilty in their mind than he was. ------------ I do not see Joseph Smith as having 33 wives. I do not count as real wives women who were never involved with Joseph Smith in mortality. I do not count being sealed to someone in name only as practicing Old Testament type polygamy. I discount the polyandry cases as that kind of polygamy. But keep in mind i consider the polyandry testimony untrue if read as them claiming to have Emma's marital rights in mortality. So i actually am then working if i discount the 11 polyandry cases with a list of 22 possible earthly wives. And i think i can whittle the list down much further. The current list is 33, but i think it lumps women and Joseph Smith together in a misleading sense. I would much prefer to see the list of 33 broken down into different categories.

If the site has no relation to the Book of Mormon site it is an interesting coincidence. That was not the only coincidence with the geography features, but one of a list. It makes the book look more plausable than it would be without such external things to match up the text with. But i am not sure we can yet say for certain NHM is that place mentioned in the text. When i first encountered Anti-Restoration material i found LDS scholarship and apologetic crummy. I found some answers really not answering the critics objections. FAIR and FARMS has got into more sophisticated answers, but i see room for improvement. But the lack of a great current answer does not mean the Anti-LDS type arguments are right in that area. It usually just means scholars and apologists might be dumb in not creating a better answer.

There are some suggestions of children of Joseph Smith via plural wives. One of these suggested children is Josephine Fisher the daughter of Sylvia Sessions. Sylvia was one of the eleven on the polyandry side of the list of Joseph Smiths plural ives. Sylvia can't be cross-examined about what she said to her daughter about Joseph being her father on her death bed. But i am one who thinks that Sylvia may have told her daughter she was Joseph's child not biologically, but meant in a spiritual. But that the daughter not understanding the two ways Joseph Smith could have children by plural wives misunderstood the mother. DNA studies have been slow on the case. I am hoping eventually DNA studies will be able to settle this old claim one way or another. It is true none of the sealings wording said just for eternity. But if the women were taught it was improper to live with him, or have his children the time part doesn't mean much. If he was teaching the women on the polyandry list that cheating with their husbands with him was adultury then this polyandry wa a moral form of it. Then the understanding had to be to let death end the existing vows to the current husband before they could live with their husband Joseph in the eternity. I have almost ever major book on Joseph Smith and polygamy i could buy. The one is use frequently is In Sacred Lonliness by Todd Compton. And i have formed an impression we don't know much if anything about the private details about what happened after the ceremonies. He tries to make up for it by speculation at times. He had no proof Zina Huntington the wife of Henry Jacobs and Joseph had an affair. His only argument was if sexuality was present in other of the marriages it was present in that one also. I take my Joseph Smith 3rd explanation myself to explain that marriage and reject his speculation.

With me i wish i had a few better resources than i do on the topic. I see a specific need to more properly deal with arguments against restored priesthood. Some of the LDS material, and the RLDS stuff was written by persons that only read the pro-restored priesthood side. And i see a need to answer the critics Bible verse by Bible verse, and argument by argument. I have studied a bit the basic arguments against restored priesthood and do not feel them unanswerable. But i don't aim to prove the concept from the Bible only enough for self-defense purposes.

I am deeply concerned about gas prices. Truckers are really hurting and that is how food gets delivered to the store. That effects the cost of everything. I heard by 2010 today that gas might be seven dollars. A possible upcoming attack by Israel on Iran might be in the works. And i heard they stopped a plot to blow up refineries in the middle east. The terrorists know the price of fuel is hurting the economy and might like to hurt us more if they can. I am not LDS. But i have a bad feeling about the world situation. I support the idea of home storage. I am buying many extras of various personal care items right now. I try and check the expiration date first. I bought twelve tubes of toothpaste. It has expiration dates of September 2009. I have a lot of razers, so i do know i don't have to buy them unless i want to. Anyway i like knowing i only have to buy food for some time. That is why i focused on putting up personal care items. With food items i have hesitated to put canned food up. I just have not had room for storing them. But it looks like i am moving in a couple of weeks to a place that has a good size walk in closet. So i plan to start putting up such stuff then.

With some critics i read you can tell when they did not spend any time researching on FARMS or FAIR. An uninformed critic will raise issues that have been answered on those websites. They will raise issues they got from researching LDS critics only. And i know of only a few instances where critics have tried to take FAIR, or FARMS on. Most arn't read in anything but critics.

With the polyandry FAIR Wiki in the recent changes section has a chapter from a book on it. The book i hope will be released soon, but i have not heard news that it will go to print yet. But it is nice the authors are allowing it to be put online to read. In the LDS Discussion section i give opinion on the polyandry. I see Joseph Smith as only marrying the 11 for eternity, but was not to live with them, or have children. With eternal marriage children of other men were his as a step-dad. And childbearing does not end at death so Joseph Smith could beget such children in the afterlife. D.&C.132 requires the woman's vow to her husband as ending before any co-habitation with Joseph Smith took place. The women went back after the ceremonies to live with the husbands. A close reading of that section reveals once the woman was appointed to be Joseph's in mortality she could not be with the first husband. Cheating on Joseph Smith with another man was taught by Joseph Smith to be adultury. More likely to me they threw time and for eternity language into the ceremonies with the understanding no co-habitation with Joseph Smith could take place as that would be adultury. The list of 33 wives comes from Todd Comptons in Sacred Lonliness. With Helen Mar Kimball he concluded she was never involved with Joseph smith. That likely following later practice in Utah any involvement would have happened later. FAIR Wiki on its main page has an article on Joseph smiths marriages to young women. LDS FAIR Apologetics Homepage The link to the Wiki is found on the FAIR main page. Remember in the 19th century age of consent was 10-13 depending on the state. And the FAIR article showed an 1850 census where it showed i think 41.7% of he female population marrying as teenagers. The husbands tended if my memory is right tended to be ten years older than the teenage brides. Marrying young was not statutory rape as no such laws existed but for those younger than the age of consent. --------------- I am not LDS, but a member of the Community of Christ (formerly the longer named Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Joseph Smith 3rd prophet/president of my church suggested a possible way of viewing Joseph Smiths plural marriages. I use it to explain marriages i think Todd Compton is deluded into thinking he proved via guesses Joseph Smith was involved with certain women. His suggestion would not work in all the 33 listed wives as some clear claims of sexuality by the women themselves exist. In those examples i am understanding of him accepting their testimony. He suggested "The statement made in the afidavit of this Melissa Lott willis, published by Joseph F. Smith, to the effect that she had been married to Joseph Smith, was not true, provided the word married be construed as conveying the right of living together as man and wife, a relation she had unequivocally denied in my presence. I was convinced that wherever the word married or sealed occured in such testimonies regarding my father it meant nothing more than possibly those women had gone through some ceremony or covenant which they intended as an arrangement for association in the world to come. and could by no means have any reference whatever to marital rights in the flesh." (The Memoirs of President Joseph Smith (1832-1914) Edited by his daughter Mary Audentia Smith Anderson, pg.246)

I understand where you are coming from. I wish i could go back in time and question the individuals involved in the events. It is hard to tell what is or is not exaggeration reading history. My guess was if he understood Joseph's Anti-polyandry teachings he would know taking his wife in mortality was wrong. The only way a test would work is if he go so little instruction he fell for it. I am not familiar with the other tests on other men. I may have read something in my books on it but missed it. To me an affair with a married woman not released from her vow would be adultury. ------------ I frequently check the recent changes at the FAIR Wiki. And i noticed a chapter on polyandry and Joseph Smith. It had a section in the chapter on Zina. They are planning a book that i hope will go to press soon.

I know of one resource though its an Reorganized LDS article on the subject. You might find Priesthood: Past and Present by Bob Moore helpful. It is in PDF format. I am RLDS myself. Though he is Restoration RLDS which split from my church and i am Community of Christ which is the official denomination. Apologetic Research and Education Papers FAIR in its response to the Jesus Christ/Josph Smith fim has a presentation on it also. Search for the Truth DVD:The Priesthood - FAIRMormon Basically with Restored priesthood i had quite a bit of Anti-Restored priesthood arguments of Evangelicals to look through. I do not see the priesthood of believers idea as much more proveable from the Bible than restored priesthood. The critics of the priesthood who hold we can only hold that priesthood seemingly only have one verse to support that idea. (1 Peter 2;5,9) Their arguments against priesthood tries to demonstates all my proof texts do not support priesthood. Caholic Answers has articles answering Evangelical arguments, and popular scriptures used against that priesthood. Though Catholics do have a priesthood it is not an Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthood. Most theologians due to common readers of the Book of Hebrews feel that priesthood ended. Christ alone is to them a High priest, and he alone to them has that priesthood.

It is necessary in my opinion for me to do some study by visiting these websites. I have read more than my fair share of anti-Restoration books, tracts. You should see my collection of Anti-Mormon films. I attended when i could Anti-Restoration lectures. I found myself being informed improved my ability to counter-witness to such people. Prior to such study experience i was telling such people i don't have an answer way to much. Such ignorance of basic anti-Restoration issues only leaves the person feeling justified they rejected an intellectual unsound religion. I do not see it as sound advice one should totally avoid anti-Restoration websites. I understand via someone at FAIR that it has effected the LDS missionary program. People listen to the LDS missionaries and Google Mormonism and up pops link Anti-Restoration websites. To me it is better to tell the person you think it like pornography, but that they will run into opposition websites. And that there are websites from an LDS perspective answering the same issues. I am not LDS but Community of Christ/RLDS. We get anti-Community of Christ stuff, but with minor adjustments to take into account our different doctrinal and historical tracks from LDS. I use as an basic answer resource the FAIR and FAIR Wiki websites. LDS FAIR Apologetics Homepage My own advice would be to encourage preparation not avoiding all Anti-Restoration material. My favorite Evangelical resources are. Some use for me and not with nob Book of Mormon Believers. 1.Reasoning From the Scriptures With The Mormons by Ron Rhodes and Marion Bodine. I like to double check any proof text i use for my beliefs with the Evangelical counter-interpretation. 2.Understanding The Trinity by Allister E. McGrath. 3.Witnessing To Mormons brochure by Jerry and Dianna Benson. 4.Mormonism Unmasked by R. Philip Roberts of the SBC. 5.How Wide the Divide by Craig L. Blomburg and Stephen E. Robinson. The dialogue between this LDS and Evangelical scholar is rejected by Sandra's ilk. But it is not Anti-Mormon. 6.The Mormon Puzzle film by the Southern Baptist Convention. My favorite LDS apologetics stuff is by FAIR. FAIR i think is selling it now, but Deseret soon a new book. It is called Shaken Faith Syndrome by Mike ask. It deals if i understand it right with key Anti-LDS issues and is helpful on sorting through doubt and question issues. Mormon apologetics and Discussion Board has a more precise discussion of the book. Basically as a habit when studying Anti-Restoration stuff i have given up on becoming an apologetics expert. But i do practice answering the basic stuff in my head while reading. I have survived several attempts persons made to witness to be as i had the same witnessing study they had. On deeper topics i will either have to share resources, or review my Anti-Mormon stuff. It is impossible to remember everything. I do keep three binders with sheet protecters filled with answer articles. If it is an issue i run into in my material i try and have an answer at my disposal. With feelings they can be trusted if we apply the Barean test to them. (Acts 17:11) Sandra would not agree with the results of my test as i still tust my feelings. Someone like that will try to bully you into agreeing with them. That is why they throw a mountain of trivia and arguments at you. They want to overwhelm your brain. I do not see Sandra Tanner as saved from outer darkness. To me she has a false assurance of salvation she has bought into. (Matthew 7:22,23) ------------- To me if you don't want the internet pornography to effect investigators you have to inform them of the internet threats. I think the new FAIR book is one way to inform someone of the stuff they will run into. It is much better that they read something from a friendly than unfriendly source. If they have the internet they need to know about resources at the start. To me people are harmed when you do not educate them enough. My encounter with the stuff hurt me because i ran into stuff i had never heard.

I think Heber was exaggerating a bit. I doubt he meant to say Joseph Smith wanted his wife for time. It is more likely he wanted to be sealed to her just for eternity. D.&C. 132 treats as adultury taking a wife vowed to another man. Though it would permit him being sealed to Heber's wife in a marriage that was to start when Heber's marriage to her ended at death. Todd Compton who wrote in Sacred Lonliness feels that Helen and Josephsmith never shared marital relations. So i doubt Joseph Smith was proposing anything improper with Heber's wife. But in the zeal to give testimony they may have said stuff that gave unintentionally misleading impressions about Joseph Smiths doings in Nauvoo. We do know D.&C. 132 purportedly represents the teaching that Henry would have known well by the time Brigham Young took over as husband to Zina. And Zina knew that as long as she was under a vow to Henry she could not be with Brigham Young. At about the time she co-habitated with Brigham Young she wrote in a letter something about he marriage to Henry ending. She never felt it proper to be with any other man than Henry until she felt released from her vows to Henry. We may not know what he knew at the beginning. But we do know he had time for several years of instruction about the rules governing the practice of plural marriage. It is very unlikely Zina would have accepted co-habiting with Brigham Young is she knew in 1844 that any co-habitation with Brigham Young would be adultury. More likely to me Zina and Henry both knew that Brigham Young taught that if a husband gave his consent to release a wife from her vow she could co-habit with her without the new husband and wife being guilty of adultury. -------------- The possible only evidence of improper relations between Joseph Smith and married women is children. FAIRMormon has this article going over the status of these claims at the moment. The article is entitled Joseph Smith and polygamy/Children of polygamous marriages. Joseph Smith and polygamy/Children of polygamous marriages - FAIRMormon None of Henry Jacobs kids were Joseph Smiths. DNA studies have ruled our Joseph Smith as the father of Zebulon. With Sylvia Sessions i have proposed i feel she felt Josephine Lyon was a step-daughter of Joseph Smith. Lucy Walker had married Heber Kimball after Joseph Smiths death. She had the suggested understanding her and Heber's eight kids would be Josephs in the resurrection. So i think Sylvia may have similarly thought a biological daughter of her husband was Josephs kid by virtue of the sealing. That she did not differentiate between that type of fatherhood and biological paternity. If the author of the article is right DNA research on the claim is ongoing, but slowed down because "the Y chromosome evidence of paternal lineage is not present in females."

I understand the legend appears right now to not have anything to do with Jesus. I think the legend appears not to be traceable back to Book of Mormon times. With long lists of similarities i cam cautious with claiming they prove anything. It does not mean one source has any kind of relationship to another possible source. The legend right now of i recall right has associations with human sacrifice. And it had other very non-Christian things associated with it.

I am RLDS now known as the Community of Christ church. We tend not to like being called Mormons because we are not members of the LDS Church. The name Mormon has come to be associated with the unique doctrine and history of the LDS Church after we split from them in 1844. I myself don't mind my church being considered the Reorganized Mormon Church. We are a reorganization of the scattered remnants of the church that did not go to Utah with Brigham Young. As long as the person knows all the meanings associated with the word Mormon, and that some meanings belong exclusively to the LDS Church i don't mind sharing the term with LDS. I never felt the word Christian belonged excusively to Evangelical Christians as they claim. I also don't accept the LDS Church claim to exclusive use of the title. Though under most circumstances i let them use it more than we do. To me LDS and Community of Christ members share involvement in the same history associations, so i is untrue we are not any type Mormon at all. That is to me if we are a branch of early Mormonism, but only related to the larger LDS Church.

Within the Trinity idea God three distinct centers of consciousness exist. they arn't separate beings, but the parts of God can communicate back and forth. So it is not just Jesus the man that relates to the Father.

I do not feel uncomfortable with a prophet not being a conservative. If God has no objection to his leadership why should i? I mostly agree with him, but in a few areas. I do not see anything in our current belief statement, and my copy of Exploring the Faith which explains that statement that i disagree with. Our prophet holds those ideas i accept even if not as conservative as i am. That some of my church presidents take a liberal approach to Book of Mormon historicity, or other issues of today does not make me want to throw out President Stephen Veazey as Prophet. It is my hope that common consent via conferences keeps the prophets eccentric impulses in check, but prophets are human. Conferences we hold are ran by human beings and can make decisions as badly or as good as i can as a human being. People who run the church have opinions that may be wrong, or true and that effects the decisions they make. Brigham Young taught some ideas in his sermons that are not LDS doctrine. Some of his ideas like Adam God have provoked several approaches to interpreting it among LDS. If he was wrong i do not see LDS members rejecting him as a prophet. Being uncomfortable with a prophets ideas that are purported to be different from the last prophet need not cause us to reject that prophet. We hope if our last prophet held some false ideas that the next prophet will not continue those ideas, but that is up to God who he selects as next prophet. Joseph Smith 3rd did not continue the idea, or practice of eternal marriage which his father accepted. That is to me an example of a prophet disagreeing with a previous prophet. He did not continue a list of other ideas attributed to his father which we found speculative. LDS accepted Brigham Young's leadership so that idea and others was continued among LDS. I do not accept our prophets based on my comfort level. I accept their leadership because they got their calling from a previous prophet.

I see a way out for LDS. The law is not the final authority in regards to matters of faith and practice. Since Jesus based his answer on an abolished law and rules he could have learned more in the afterlife. Only if Moses was the final authority could Jesus mortal answer have to be the final answer. If his answer was not as clearly final as it looks like at first glance would he be prevented from abandoning his mortal answer. He could have learned of a higher law that revealed eternal marriage. It is also possible for Jesus to play dumb. He could have if we speculate known about the future practice of eternal marriage. But being asked about Moses words he had no room to tell them about possible mysteries. Jesus the mortal man also may not have known everything. So not knowing about eternal marriage yet so he denied there would be any. Eternal marriage is not a belief on mine, but i have entertained the above answers as some i feel comfortable with.

I see some of Todd Compton's commentary in his book fiction. He mentions what he terms a "cryptic entry" in Zina's diary. It has her Husband Henry in trouble over something. My guess is on May 5th 1845 Henry knew Brigham Young was planning at some point to replace him as husband to Zina. Zina was expressing willingness to do what Brigham Young told her to do. (ISL, pg. 85) With the Levirate idea Henry not Brigham Young should be sealed to Joseph Smith presents a misunderstanding of the system. In Ruth 4 a kinsman who had primary legal right to marry Ruth gave up that right to Boaz. So instead of Ruth marrying that kinsman she maried Boaz instead. With Henry voluntarily giving that right up to Brigham Young via the sealings he agreed to he gave up his right like the kinsman did. It is not correct for Todd Compton to assume Brigham Young was wrong in sidestepping Henry since he was a member in good standing. (ISL, pg.84) Another point where i feel he is wrong is his assumption that Zina being merely sealed to Joseph Smith would get her a greater glory.(ISL, pg.84) It was really her continued obedience to prophetic guidance and that would be in the LDS view Brigham Young. LDS have to think Brigham Young was commanded by God to be sealed to Zina. And with that he felt he had to get Zina and Henry's consent to proceed with the sealing for time. I see no basis for his idea Henry and "Zina probably expected to continue living with each other throughout the rest of their lives."(ISL, pg.85) We do not know what they expected as we are not in the know on such matters. My guess is that they were not as ignorant as some think they were. With Zina i hate to almost confess her as a plural wife of Joseph Smith. To me if she was never involved with Joseph Smith in mortality she was not his wife as Emma was. I have formed an opinion only if she felt it right to live with Joseph Smith, or have his children should she be dignified with plural wife recognition. If she exaggerated her platonic marriage with Joseph Smith into something more i consider her statements in that regard untrue. I just do not consider her being sealed to Joseph Smith the same as her being his mortal wife. I have proposed a legal idea i am pondering. I have proposed if she had the understanding the time wording in the ceremony was meaningless for time it was legally meaningless. I use the illustration of a person who signs a contract agreeing to pay someone a large sum of mone. It might look like a legal contract but if you throw in the print payment not due until the afterlife the contract is legally worthless. If Zina had a similar understanding which i see likely her marriage to Joseph Smith was legally a pretend marriage. Contrary to what she thought she never illegally married Joseph Smith if i am right. Anyway i am proposing a loophole to the Illinois and U.S. anti-polygamy laws not previously considered. The U.S. Supreme court only had outlawed marriages where the couple knew they would be involved at that time. They never decided a constitutional issue of whether a couple could marry as long as they thought the marriage would not go into effect until the afterlife. Such an arrangement would not violate civil law because it does not have the couple make an arrangement that goes into effect at the time of the ceremony. It might well be a protected part of religious practice to do such if they added what to the law would be non-sensical understandings. In my study certain criteria must take place in order for a marriage to be considered a marriage under the law. In one instance this man was accused of polygamy for a 2nd marriage he had participated in. I can't remember the particulars, but the court found the guy had never really married the woman. A certain legal criteria for her being his wife was not properly done so the court withdrew the polygamy charge. It was true he had married her, but the court decided it could not recognize her marriage to the guy. In the Temple Lot case Judge Phillips was legally unimpressed with the claims in the affidavits, LDS witnesses. So he did not recognize Joseph Smith guilty of polygamy. He did not say some of the women could not have been involved with Joseph Smith. He just felt whatever polygamy ceremonies Joseph Smith participated in they were not proveable as real marriages. Even if i am wrong about my constitutional issue Joseph Smith's plural marriages do not meet the criteria of real marriages under the law. The judge pointed to lack of children, and some the same LDS witnesses denying Joseph Smith a polygamist as invalidating their statements. Because of the contradictory statements those witnesses had perjured themselves which was why these claims did not survive the legal situation. They had signed published cards in Nauvoo denying Joseph smith was a polygamist. I do not claim expertise on this subject. My trick is to buy the books mark them up and make notes. I have written many notes in my copy of In Sacred Lonliness for example. I also keep a notebook where i make notes where i did not have room in my book. Sometimes new thoughts present themselves. I read the same books many times.

I tried to edit my post to try and deal with your concerns better. It is my understanding he was said to have felt God had commanded her to take her as a plural prior to her accepting Henry's proposal. (ISL, pg.80) If that were the case the idea God Henry's position as husband should be partially dis-regarded. A decision was made that it was improper for Joseph Smith to live with Zina as his wife, or have children in life with her. With D.&C. 132 clearly teaching until the vows between someone like Zina and Henry was over as adultury i see that as evidence Joseph Smith was innocent of that type of polyandry. (132:41-44) And it requires Henry to be guilty of adultuy before she could be released from her vows with him. (132:43-44) I see no bases for the idea Joseph Smith taught as revelation Henry could be released from her vows with Zina unless it be for adultury. (D&C 132;Matthew 19) Brigham Young may have had his own idea if Henry consented to the eventual ending of his vows with Zina it was properly done. But this would have to be based on private revelation he got on whether he should be sealed to Zina or not. I happen to hold Joseph Smith would have only taught Henry and Zina what was in verses 41-44. I have speculated the strong anti-polyandry message of the document was for the benifit of people like Henry. It requires before Joseph Smith would have power to take her away from Henry that he be guilty of adultury. Why include a teaching that would expose his behavior with Zina and Henry? They would have known Joseph Smith already did it and that contrary to the revelation. If i were Joseph Smith he would if guilty of that behavior left anti-polyandry stuff out of the revelation. (132:41-44,61-63) ---------------- With the Joseph Smith was innocent of polygamy position it requires much explanation. Joseph Smith 3rd in the Saint's Herald, and Smma Smith privately admitted women were sealed to her husband for the eternity. But they held the earthly parts of the claims were untrue. William Law said the polygamy revelation copy he saw in Nauvoo were two or three pages foolscap. (Kingsbury copy) James Whitead said the copy he saw was a page of foolscap.(Bishop Whitney copy)Scholars cite them on that, but leave out a significant detail. And that detail is both men said the revelation published in 1852 was an altered forgery. James Whithead denied William Laws claim it allowed for polygamy in the here and now. He said the LDS published version was similar to the one Bishop Whitney showed him at winter Quarters, but changed to sanction the Apostles polygamy. Some RLDS have suggested William Laws reputed Nauvoo journal might be an edited forgery. I know this because i am one of the few who have suggested it. In his journal he claims the polygamy revelation he wrote was 10 pages. It would have had to have been smaller size paper as foolscap in the copies were large size paper. If the copy was that small would the original need to be 10 pages? I did find a 10 page revelation in W. Wyl's Mormon Portraits. I have entertained the idea he edited his journal and looked at the same document and counted out 10 pages. But that would if my speculation is right date the July 12th 1843 referance to being made post Nauvoo. The document is used to back up some of the testimony of a few of the key wives who made statements in Utah. I do not have access to the 1852 published polygamy revelation, or the 1876 D.&C. My guess was W. Wyl exactly re-produced the document from the 1876 D.&C. But if the journal was edited he could have added as many apocryphal stories as he wished about Joseph Smith and polygamy. I am well aware of the letters, affidavits, journal entries,ect implicating Joseph Smith in polygamy. And i am still open to enjoying the historic RLDS position Joseph Smith was innocent of polygamy. I hate to confess he was a polygamist based on his being platonically sealed to women other than Emma. In regards to the affidavits it is felt we can prove the testimony of the earthly wives false. And some Community of Christ members do not feel he had children with plural wives which goes to his legal innocence. a lot of scholars cite from the Temple Lot case to prove Joseph Smiths guilt. What is alway's left out is Judge Philips decision went against the key plural wives in question. Two of the women Lucy Walker and Melissa Willes had appeared before him in person and his decision went against their claims. Scholars who cite the case no doubt leave out what embarasses their witnesses testimonies. But whether documents were, or were not forgeries i leave more up to historians. My testimony is in Jesus Christ not whether Joseph Smith was free of living with the wives. And i prefer to discuss the merits of the claims than accuse anyone who is dead of lying unless i know it.

Todd Compton who wrote In Sacred Lonliness admitted himself some of Joseph Smiths plural marriages were platonic in nature. With Helen Mar Kimball and Patty Sessions he admits that. So why does sexuality have to be included in Zina's marriage to Joseph Smith? Yet Todd Compton based on his unfounded speculation wrote , "judging from Smith's other marriages, sexuality was probably included." (ISL, pg.82) And i would say his use of the word "other" is a strecth as we can only judge from some examples in his marriages. These some examples tell us nothing about what happened in this marriage as truth be told he knows nothing about that. We do know from 1844 until Winter Quarters there was no sexuality between Joseph Zina Huntington and Brigham Young. (ISL, pages 91,92) That was true even though he had been sealed to Zina with Henry, and Zina's happy consent in 1844, and 1846 when they had a Temple completed enough to do that. (ISL, pages 84,86) The platonic sealing explanation only works easily for a certain amount of Joseph Smiths plural marriages. In cases of a claim being made by the woman itself i would prefer instead to discuss the merits of that claim. But yes indeed plural marriages were happening in Nauvoo where women were not involved with the men. There is no evidence she was co-erced into breaking her vows with Henry. At most she was talked into participating into a meaningless for time ceremony. And she went back after the ceremony and re-mained faithful to Henry as as his wife. With the Levirate idea of a worthy brother asking in his behalf do we know Joseph smith restored that? Could a worthy brother consents to give up his rights? If the wording was really could it was not would. The polygamy revelation as far as i can tell does not say anything about it being improper for Brigham Young to marry Zina after Joseph Smith's death. D.&C.132 prevents a woman from having two husbands where marital relations were shared at the same time as adultury.(132:41) Zina understood that so stated in a June 20th 1847 letter. (ISL, pages 91,92) At that time only did she feel her marriage to Henry was over. Prior to that time she felt as long as the marriage to Henry was in effect she had to be totally faithful to him. Unless one wishes to argue she held plural beliefs contrary to D.&C. 132 she felt her marriage to Henry had to be over. What is your documentation for Joseph Smith asking the twelve to marry his wives?

With Zina and Joseph Smith i do not see any relationship. To me her sealing to him was in name only. D.&C. 132 requires that a marital vow to Henry would be ended at death, or in the future for some other reason. I see this type of polyandry with Joseph Smith to be platonic in nature. I see no valid reason to think she thought it proper to live with him, or have his children in Nauvoo. Because her sealing to Joseph Smith gave her celebrity status some of her statements exaggerate her relationship with Joseph Smith. Unless i am satisfied Joseph Smith had Henry, or Zina violate their marital vows why should the sealing other me? With Brigham Young if Henry and Zina in this life at some point agreed to end their vows Henry should not have been surprised.

Remember Henry in 1846 had witnessed Brigham Youngs sealing to Zina for time. He also accepted the previous 1844 sealing to his wife without objection. Neither him, nor his wife objected to it. Unless one wishes to propose they thought they were play acting they knew full well Brigham Young was claiming rights to eventually co-habit with Zina in time. When he agreed to that sealing Henry had given Brigham Young power to be with Zina at Winter Quarters. It had nothing to do with Henry being sent on the mission. I doubt he was sent on the mission so he would not be a problem for Zina or Brigham Young. With the children when Zina and Henry agreed to the sealing they both thought his marriage to her gave her no eternal reward. So her and her kids by her own belief had to be sealed to someone other than Henry. Henry once accepted this belief himself, or would not have agreed to the marriage to Brigham Young. I am not LDS but Community of Christ (formerly the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of latter Day saints.)

I am Reorganized LDS, but i handle it via preparation. I watch films like the Mormon Puzzle film by the SBC. I even decided to invite the person if they agree not to be contentious to watch the film with me. But really any material you use with people you have to be prepared on. I have survived uncomfortable witnessing situations because i studied up on the basic issues. One has to also even if the other person is upset not to get upset yourself. As soon as you lose your cool it won't help the other person to feel spiritual. And if you let contention flow from you it will temporarily take away your ability to feel spiritual. The more the other person see's you not getting upset at them the more likely they will calm down.

I am Ex-LDS turned Community of Christ/RLDS. I came down with Multiple Sclerosis. I was to ill to try the LDS Church out again. Its hard for me to be active in my church that i love because i had to stop driving. I never felt like i fit into the LDS picture. I failed at ever single church calling they ever tried to get me to do. I started avoiding church activities that would enable them to offer me more callings. Did i have sins? Yes. I am a human being who has sins. I had no closeness to any LDS people especially Bishops i trusted enough to let them know my sins. My involvement in the church was superficial ever since i read Kimball's Miracle of Forgiveness as a teenager. I do not see what i think about religious matters to be a sin. What was i going to do in a repentance process admit Godly sorrow for my beliefs, and cease beliefs LDS see as apostate. I started RLDS associations back in 1989. I converted to the church, but remained closet RLDS for many years. In 2005 i had my LDS Bishop via my request get my name off the records. At the same time i got baptized Community of Christ. I had went to the Bishop once and told him i had come close to joining the church before. But i decided i did not want repeat visits discussing matters that would require me to pretend to be someone whom i am not to be in good standing. I am no longer LDS and moved on.