Testimony of Joseph Smith

[california_ave]

Isn't that one of the main purposes of polygamy, to have more children?

No. Joseph had plenty of wives, but no more kids from these wives. BY had ~25 wives and only ~55 kids--a ratio that is consistent with present day America--not 19th century rural America. Just because a man has multiple wives does not mean he can support proportional multiple families.

[Elphaba]

Hello Dove, It is nice to see you. I hope you are doing well.

I'm with Bytor, what is the big deal if Joseph Smith consummated his marriages with his other wives, or not?

The problem is people with an agenda take sides on the issue, instead of accepting the evidence.

I agree it is a non-issue as to whether Joseph consummated any of his polygamous marriages.

Yet, many people infer Joseph was an adulterer because of this. I have never really understood this, as it was just the beginning of the Church's practice of polygamy that was continued by the pioneers in the Utah territory. Latter-day Saints do not attribute adultery, or other sexual sins, to the pioneers. Thus, I do not understand why members do so with Joseph, and thus their discomfort with it.

I believe it is probably the issue of marrying women who were already married. I can see why this is difficult, and I admit it is for me. However, I think Richard Bushman's treatment of this issue is a very good one, and it made me look at it differently. I recommend it to anyone with concerns about Joseph's polygamy.

The only issue that bothers me, and it bothers me a lot, is that Joseph lied to Emma about it. Yet, I realize she was so viscerally opposed to polygamy, it would have been a huge problem for Joseph to practice it.

Also, what's wrong with him having children with them? Isn't that one of the main purposes of polygamy, to have more children?

Actually, polygamy does not ensure more children; in fact, it may ensure fewer children are born.

A polygamist is less likely to have relations with all of his wives, while a monogamist is likely to have relations with his wife more often. Thus, the monogamists made more babies than the polygamists.

As to the reason for Joseph to practice polygamy, I have no idea if it had to do with him siring children. Personally, I do not believe he did, based on the DNA evidence.

Elphaba

[bytor2112]

Hey Elphaba,

Just curious, your profile says that your atheist???? Why would anything about Joseph bother you one way or another? Am I missing something? Were you a member at one time? Just being nosey.....

[Elphaba]

Hey Elphaba,

Just curious, your profile says that your atheist???? Why would anything about Joseph bother you one way or another? Am I missing something? Were you a member at one time? Just being nosey.....

Hi Bytor,

Yes, I was a member, but I had my name removed in 1985.

My passion is Church history, and that is what I would discuss when I came to this site a year ago.

Since then I have made great friends, some who I love dearly. I am very happy at this site, and, while some people will never really accept me here, I understand that is his/her choice.

Usually, once people get to know me, they understand I have no agenda other than the Church's truthful history. Unlike others, I believe it demonstrates the courage and love these early members and pioneers had for the Church and their God. I believe it is very unfortunate many members are not in a position to learn about the Church's history in a way that does not feel threatening to them.

For example, since the site changed from TALK to lds.net, I am always being asked why I am here, which I've explained above. But because I am not a member, and an atheist, I am often judged as an anti. I am not.

I am, however, devoted to the Church's historical truths, and believe that if more members knew about these truths, not only would they feel enriched by the earliest members' experiences (I especially love the pioneers), they would also be more prepared for the sting so many people experience upon learning some of the more difficult truths. And many times, these truths can be explained with perspective.

As far as Joseph bothering me, it is because Emma is a heroine of mine. In fact, I wish more members understood that without Emma, there probably would not have been a Church.

After all she had done for the Church, plus her personal heartbreaks, and then her complete and utter devotion to Joseph, I am sad that Joseph was not honest with her re: polygamy. It really was the straw that was her final heartbreak.

You should also know I ramble. A lot.

Elphaba

Edited July 24, 2008 by Elphaba
Clarification

[mike_uk]

People say it was not a big deal if he consumated his marriages to his other wives, not a big deal in itself but evidence shows he married other men's wives. If he then has sex with these married women isnt that classed as adultery?

Edited July 24, 2008 by mike_uk

[bytor2112]

Elph....

I too love the history of the Church, but I have really only scratched the surface. At one time, I was pretty dismayed by what I had stumbled across on some "anti" sites. It really bothered me. I then discovered FAIR, FARMS and SHIELDS and I realized there was more to the story than I or anyone else knew. I can honestly say that if it were not for the Holy Spirit, I probably wouldn't be a member. I mentioned my friend asking me if I ever tire of trying to defend all of the oddities surrounding LDS history, which I confess at times do seem a bit overly coincidental, I always end up back at the same conclusion.....I wasn't there, people aren't perfect, Prophets or otherwise and I can't deny the Spirit that I have felt and feel. I have never experienced this anywhere else.

[Dove]

Hello, Elphie, good to see your writings again. I am doing well, and hope the same for you. :)

I appreciate your comments on this topic. Perhaps you can shed some more light for me on these issues.

I thought the whole purpose of polygamy was to build a member base by raising more children in the church. I thought that was the whole point. Are you saying it wasn't?

As far as Joseph Smith goes, a friend explained to me that the reason why he married other men's wives was because he thought that only through him could they (the other wives) have the new and everlasting covenant of eternal marriage. For some reason, he thought that only he held the keys/could be the only one they could marry to receive eternal life.

Also, I've really struggled with Emma Smith. My impression was that she was deadset against polygamy from the beginning, and that Joseph Smith lied to her because she would not accept it, regardless of the "flaming sword" revelation. I also thought that she started the RLDS church in direct opposition to the original church and their stance on polygamy.

You mentioned an author that treated the issue of Joseph Smith marrying other men's wives~is there any of his writings about this that I could find on the internet?

Thank you for saying hello, dear friend. If you'd like e-mail me (I thing the term is PM me). It would be nice to be in contact again~

Dove

[omega0401]

People say it was not a big deal if he consumated his marriages to his other wives, not a big deal in itself but evidence shows he married other men's wives. If he then has sex with these married women isnt that classed as adultery?

Evidence shows? Would you mind giving me the reputable source of information of Joseph Smith marring women that were, at the same time, married to other men? Only LDS sources for obvious reasons.

If you are going to discredit Joseph Smith for teaching polygamy, are you also going to discredit the bible for teaching the same thing?

Edited July 25, 2008 by omega0401

[Elphaba]

Evidence shows? Would you mind giving me the reputable source of information of Joseph Smith marring women that were, at the same time, married to other men? Only LDS sources for obvious reasons.

In Sacred Loneliness: The Wives of Joseph Smith

Todd Compton

Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith

Linda King Newell, Valeen Avery Tippetts

Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling

Richard Bushman

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

Hello Dove!

I am so glad to hear you are doing well. I’ve thought of you off and on during your absence.

I thought the whole purpose of polygamy was to build a member base by raising more children in the church. I thought that was the whole point. Are you saying it wasn't?

In the many pioneer journals I have read, to a one if they commented about the reason for their practicing polygamy, it was because God had commanded it.

I know people have justified it by the “raising of seed,” comments. And perhaps there were Church leaders, such as bishops, who said the same at the time. Frankly, my impression is it‘s been used as an excuse since it was ended. But I haven‘t paid attention to that, per se, so am not sure.

I do know for a surety, however, the polygamists believed they were obeying God's commandment, and that many of them had no other reason than that.

As far as Joseph Smith goes, a friend explained to me that the reason why he married other men's wives was because he thought that only through him could they (the other wives) have the new and everlasting covenant of eternal marriage. For some reason, he thought that only he held the keys/could be the only one they could marry to receive eternal life.

I think your friend is right. I think it also, for him, was a way to bind these women, and their husbands as well, to him in a familial way, for the eternities.

Family was extremely important to Joseph, and I think the more he had the more secure he felt. I believe these particular marriages were a way to add to his family.

I do believe, without a doubt, that Joseph consummated some of his marriages. I am not so convinced he consummated the marriages of women who already had husbands; yet, he did send some of their husband’s off on missions. I can’t say for sure, since it is difficult for me to infer where Joseph laid the line.

If you can afford it, the book that explains this the best is “Rough Stone Rolling.” I know it changed how I looked at Joseph’s polygamy, especially the part about family. If you can’t afford it, send me a PM. I can lend you mine.

Also, I've really struggled with Emma Smith. My impression was that she was deadset against polygamy from the beginning, and that Joseph Smith lied to her because she would not accept it, regardless of the "flaming sword" revelation.

This is true. In fact, there is another verse in the D&C admonishing Emma, and though she tried very hard to obey, she just was not able to do so.

She did not know Joseph was practicing polygamy for a long time, although I think she purposely did not know for a while, since it was only practiced among the "elite," and she was certainly one of those.

In my opinion, some of his wives were complicit in the deception as well. Many of them held Emma in the greatest esteem. Others were actually jealous of Emma, such as Eliza R. Snow, who was very rude to Emma about it, at least in one instance I know of.

This is a tough one for me. I know Joseph loved Emma dearly. At the same time, his deceptions are unexplainable to me. But the truth is, after all she had done for Joseph, their children, and their Church, this was the one doctrine she could not abide.

She even “gave” Joseph two sisters to marry, though unbeknownst to her, he had already married them. But, according to Avery and Tippits, she heard him in the bedroom with one of them, and she just could not accept it. And I don't blame her.

As I’ve said before, I don’t know what would have happened had Joseph not been murdered. She even says he had told her he was going to rescind the practice. But we’ll never know the truth about that.

I also thought that she started the RLDS church in direct opposition to the original church and their stance on polygamy.

No, Emma did not start the RLDS Church.

There was a faction of members who still believed in the Church, but not in polygamy. It also believed, and there may be evidence of this, that Joseph had meant for his son, Joseph Smith, III, to lead the Church after his death. So when he was old enough, the members of the RLDS urged him many times over to lead the Church.

At the same time Brigham Young was also urging him to come lead the Salt Lake City-based Church.

As you can imagine, with his mother telling him his father had never practiced polygamy, and Brigham Young telling him "of course he did," the young man was terribly conflicted. It caused a great deal of grief in his life, and it is the one thing Emma did that I am critical of. She should have told the truth.

Eventually, though, Joseph III was persuaded to head the RLDS Church. It was fairly successful for a while, and some members would go back and forth between the two, sometimes for comical reasons.

Emma supported her son as the head of the RLDS Church; however, I’m not sure she actually participated much in any Church after her husband’s murder. She remarried and was fairly content, given what she had suffered.

(And, of course, things in the marriage were not always perfect, including her husband's illegitimate child. But Emma, being the incredible woman she was, took the child in and raised it as her own. I just love that woman!)

You mentioned an author that treated the issue of Joseph Smith marrying other men's wives~is there any of his writings about this that I could find on the internet?

I don’t know of anything on the internet, though there probably is something. PM me about the book, okay?

Thank you for saying hello, dear friend. If you'd like e-mail me (I thing the term is PM me). It would be nice to be in contact again~

You’re welcome, sweetie. We’ll talk.

Elphie

[omega0401]

In Sacred Loneliness: The Wives of Joseph Smith

Todd Compton

Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith

Linda King Newell, Valeen Avery Tippetts

Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling

Richard Bushman

Elphaba

Thank you Elphaba for this list. I have read none of them but I hope to read Bushman’s Rough Stone Rolling. I will admit that I cannot accept the story that Joseph Smith was married to other woman who were already married, at least, not with his consent.

About Todd Compton’s book, I would like to quote this, “Methodologically, Compton is inadequate in several areas, including relying extensively on speculation and generalization, both of which are often based on opinion or on a naturalistic view of the growth and development of Mormonism. At critical points conclusions and generalizations rest on dubious historical or theological premises and reasoning. In addition, I have examined numerous examples from the prologue, showing that Compton's analysis of historical texts relating to the theology of plural marriage is in error. Suspicion from this carries over into his analysis of the lives of the women about whom he writes. Has he made similar mistakes in analysis there?”

Here is a link to more information: Maxwell Institute it is long article about Compton’s book but very interesting and worth reading.

Joseph Smith has always been a person of integrity despite many efforts to slander him in his days as well as our own. After all, it is said that his name will be had for good and evil upon this earth. But let’s not believe everything that history writes. After all, mistakes in history are made many times over especially by enemies of our church. And historians can take the truth and add their own interpretation to things which could be wrong either by accident or on purpose.

But let’s pretend for a minute that it is true and Joseph and others were practicing polyandry. Why wasn’t this as common knowledge then and now as polygamy is? It would be pretty hard to keep something like polyandry a secret. And I have never heard of Joseph being taken to trial over polyandry.

Secondly, where in LDS doctrine does it even teach about polyandry? If that was indeed what Joseph was living, which I do not believe, he would have taught it. I ask anyone, where is that doctrine taught in our church? You will find polygamy being taught but not polyandry.

A person’s testimony of the church should be based on doctrine, scriptures and prayer, not on questionable church history.

Edited July 25, 2008 by omega0401

[Snow]

Evidence shows? Would you mind giving me the reputable source of information of Joseph Smith marring women that were, at the same time, married to other men? Only LDS sources for obvious reasons.

If you are going to discredit Joseph Smith for teaching polygamy, are you also going to discredit the bible for teaching the same thing?

Certainly you can't be serious. It's not a secret anymore.

Last year I even went to a Joseph Smith symposium with LDS scholars in a So Cal stake center chapel where we discussed it at length.

It's not even a disputed issue. Everyone who is educated on the matter understands that it happened.

[omega0401]

Certainly you can't be serious. It's not a secret anymore.

Last year I even went to a Joseph Smith symposium with LDS scholars in a So Cal stake center chapel where we discussed it at length.

It's not even a disputed issue. Everyone who is educated on the matter understands that it happened.

Hello Snow, we meet again.

Polygamy is not a secret but polyandry is stretching it a lot! Historians aren’t always accurate and there can be a lot of interpretation errors on what little documents one might have in their possession even after 150 years later. For instance, isn’t Joseph Smith a common name? How do we know a certain document is even talking about the same Joseph Smith or if it's even the same woman who's already married? Or how do we even know the documents are not a fraud? It would not be the first time that’s happened. There is yet a lot of questions to be answered. Even experts have been known to make mistakes.

I just thought of another example. Currently there is a photo circulating around the internet about a certain photo that is supposedly the photo of Joseph Smith. There is even an entire book being published about this photo. I very much doubt that it is him but just because there exists this photo doesn’t mean that it is true.

You say it isn’t in dispute. I find that very hard to believe. I believe there is much more to it probably more than we currently know. To me, the jury is still out.

What is your answer to my other question about polygamy being taught in the bible? Would you then discredit the bible as you do Joseph Smith?

[Elphaba]

Polygamy is not a secret but polyandry is stretching it a lot!

There simply is no question that Joseph practiced polyandry. To suggest all of these reputable historians are inept and could be so wrong is absurd. I think you are going to have a very hard time accepting this, based on your refusal to accept all of the facts.

However, I wonder if one of the reasons you are not persuaded is that you have the idea polygamy of Joseph’s day looked like the polygamy of the pioneers under Brigham Young. It was not. Not even close.

When Joseph married a woman, this was never done in public like a normal marriage. It was secretive so as few people as possible knew about it.

Except for his wives, the Partridge sisters, who lived with the Smiths to help Emma with the mansion, (and I think Eliza R. Snow), none of his wives ever lived with him, nor did he do anything to support them.

(In fact, when Emma learned of his polygamy, she tried very very hard to accept it, as even the Lord had chastised her for not doing so. In her attempt, she gave the sisters to Joseph to marry, not realizing he had already married them.)

And when he wanted to see one of them, he had to do so in secret, often conspiring with a proven friend to transport him to her.

And, of course, he kept most of his marriages from Emma, until she was forced to acknowledge it.

Here is a FAIR article that explains some of this. I don’t agree with everything in it, but I think you will feel better after you read it.

Elphaba

Edited July 27, 2008 by Elphaba
I just realized I wrote "Elizabeth" instead of "Eliza." Bad Elphaba.

[Palerider]

It would not hurt to listen to the lectures that Truman Madsen offers on Joseph Smith....they are available thru DB....

[Elphaba]

I have read none of them . . . Here is a link to more information: Maxwell Institute it is long article about Compton’s book but very interesting and worth reading.

Yes, I’ve read the reviews the MI (formerly known by the acronym FARMS) printed, and found some parts interesting; some informative, including information I did not previously know; and much of them polemical, resorting to ad hominems.

What I'd like to know, however, is why you would think posting a couple of paragraphs from a review would persuade me that ISL is worthless? A book, by the way, that you have never read!

For example, while Bachman claims Compton used Bennet, Howe, Hall and Jackson as sources, Compton strongly disagrees, as follows:

Writers such as Bennett, Howe, Hall and Jackson were a very small part of my research, and did not influence me at all, to the best of my knowledge. In fact, I have no fondness for them, though felt that I had to read them. The writings of the women I wrote about, however, had a profound influence on me.

This seems like a little thing I know, except that if Bachman got this wrong in his review you quoted, what else did he get wrong? Thus, it is not a little thing!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In spite of Bachman's negative review, Compton received two prestigious awards for ISL:

"Best Book," from The John Whitmer Historical Association, and

"Best Book" from The Mormon History Association.

He also won the "T. Edgar Lyon Award of Excellence for an Article in Mormon History" published during 1996, from the Mormon History Association, for "A Trajectory of Plurality: An Overview of Joseph Smith's Thirty-three Plural Wives," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 29 (Summer 1996), 1-38. This became the Prologue of In Sacred Loneliness

Finally, here is Compton's response to all of the reviews FARMs printed. Interestingly, FARMs refused to print this. It is also extremely long, and well worth the read. Keep in mind, however, that it is responding to more than one review.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Given your concerns about Compton as a historian, I am posting another excerpt from Compton's response to the Bachman review. I'm sorry that I've chosen such a long excerpt, but you really need to read the whole thing to appreciate the point.

Hopefully you’ll get a better sense of how historians work, though this is surely a tiny fraction of such. But your comments keep implying historians are inept fools who accept every bit of evidence that supports their agenda. This is not true.

As Richard Lloyd Anderson has written extensively on evaluating sources in early Mormon (New York) history, I should talk briefly about my view of anti-Mormon data. As mentioned above, I think Brodie's use of anti-Mormon exposés as her main basis was a serious flaw in her methodology.

But unsympathetic sources still can be useful, when used with caution. I believe I occupy a middle ground on the issue of source analysis. Extremely negative sources are always suspect, on certain contested issues. Nevertheless, they cannot be simply ignored. If authors are firsthand witness to events, they should still be considered, though allowances should be made for their biases.

In exactly the same way, extremely positive sources are suspect, on certain contested issues, and one must allow for biases there also. So in both cases, one should try to balance data from a very biased source with other sources. Heightened rhetoric can be a suspect sign.

For instance, while some historians take the Oliver Cowdery reference to the Joseph Smith/Fanny Alger relationship as a "dirty, filthy affair" (see In Sacred Loneliness, 38) as evidence that this was an affair, not a marriage, I think the heightened rhetoric is suspect. So I take it as evidence that Cowdery knew something about the relationship, but not as evidence that the relationship was actually an affair. (I believe the relation with Alger was a marriage.)

I should also note that I did not seek out "controversial" documents. My sweep for evidence sometimes included them, but they were not my main interest. Bachman's rhetoric portraying me as "taking the bait of" or "joining hands with" anti-Mormons like John C. Bennett, Eber D. Howe, William Hall, and Joseph Jackson, as if they were my main sources or inspirations, is completely incorrect.

When I had established a fairly stable list of Joseph's wives, I read everything they had written, everything their families had written about them, everything their close friends had written about them, everything journalists wrote about them. Aside from my main researches at Church Archives, BYU, University of Utah, and the Huntington, I spent hundreds of hours in the Church Genealogical libraries, both in Los Angeles and Salt Lake City.

In addition, I read anything I could find written by women in the early eras of Church history. I read many printed primary and secondary sources. I Xeroxed and plowed through the many fat volumes of the Wilford Woodruff diaries. When I discovered a primary document reflecting one of the thirty-three women's children's birth dates, I felt it was a major accomplishment. I would have liked to read twice as much as I did, but I did the best I could under the circumstances.

After I had amassed a substantial amount of evidence, a number of patterns struck me. But one of the major patterns was the harsh reality of "practical polygamy" for women. This presents a striking contrast to the high religious emphasis placed on polygamy in nineteenth century Mormonism. I believe I can even document when the phrase "sacred loneliness" (which reflects this theme) first struck me -- when I gave the paper on Presendia Huntington Smith Kimball at Sunstone Symposium in Summer, 1994. This was long after I began researching and writing the book.

The "sacred loneliness" contrast is definitely there in the life histories and writings of many of the women I wrote about, though the phrase is my own. I did not create the contrast and inject it into their writings. I would agree that thirty-three women is a small control group for the whole of Mormon polygamy. In addition, it would be difficult to "prove" that polygamy was a positive or negative experience for the totality of Mormon women. (And, as I state below, there were some polygamous families that were more harmonious than others.) However, readers and historians may judge whether the same patterns are found in the lives of other polygamous wives.

In the complex story of Zina Huntington's marriages to Henry Jacobs, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, it would have been easy for me to portray Jacobs entirely as a victim. Along with many of his descendants, I still believe that he was not treated fairly; but I also included historical evidence that showed he was not a perfect human being. (See, e.g., his sudden proposal to "Sister Elsy"; his tendency to take Oliver Huntington's speaking time in the mission field; his combativeness on the trip west, which left one leader angry at him; his occasional apparent self- pity after Zina left him; the tendency women had to leave him, even after Zina.) If I'd wanted to portray Henry as a purely innocent victim, I would have edited all that out. Instead, as a moderate historian, I tried to leave in Henry's limitations along with his strengths. And though the story of Henry, Zina and Brigham Young shows Young as marrying another man's wife, it also clearly shows sympathetic sides to Brigham's character: e.g., see the quote beginning "No man could be more careful" on page 95 of In Sacred Loneliness.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I had responded to the rest of your comments, but I've decided not to, as this post is already so long.

I would be interested in your comments about the FAIR page I linked you to.

Elphaba

[Snow]

About Todd Compton’s book, I would like to quote this, “Methodologically, Compton is inadequate in several areas, including relying extensively on speculation and generalization, both of which are often based on opinion or on a naturalistic view of the growth and development of Mormonism. At critical points conclusions and generalizations rest on dubious historical or theological premises and reasoning. In addition, I have examined numerous examples from the prologue, showing that Compton's analysis of historical texts relating to the theology of plural marriage is in error. Suspicion from this carries over into his analysis of the lives of the women about whom he writes. Has he made similar mistakes in analysis there?”

So what. Tell me, exactly what parts of Compton's book do you disagree with? What is the basis of your disagreement?

[jimuk]

I am fed up with people trying yes trying with all their might to discredit Brother Joseph, a prophet of god, may i add without whom there would be no church of jesus christ of latter day saints for us today (unless of course another prophet were to have been chosen for us at that time) We love him he loves us, he was a MAN who guided the church the way our father wanted him to, isen't this what having a prophet of God on the earth is all about, so if Joseph was told that the church was to become polygamous who were the members to argue, you either believed Joseph was a prophet or you dident, if you did believe then you followed his word which we believe was the word of god our heavenly father at that time.

If these dis creditors, can convince us that Joseph was a cheat, fraud, Liar and an adulterer, we may as well say the church is not the church of Jesus Christ. because it would have been built on those things that brother Joseph is in fact being accused of.

I am sorry but somebody needs to stand up for Joseph seeing he cannot do it himself, Yep beginning to "see red" lol.

[jimuk]

I am fed up with people trying yes trying with all their might to discredit Brother Joseph, a prophet of god, may i add without whom there would be no church of jesus christ of latter day saints for us today (unless of course another prophet were to have been chosen for us at that time) We love him he loves us, he was a MAN who guided the church the way our father wanted him to, isen't this what having a prophet of God on the earth is all about, so if Joseph was told that the church was to become polygamous who were the members to argue, you either believed Joseph was a prophet or you dident, if you did believe then you followed his word which we believe was the word of god our heavenly father at that time.

If these dis creditors, can convince us that Joseph was a cheat, fraud, Liar and an adulterer, we may as well say the church is not the church of Jesus Christ. because it would have been built/restored on those things that brother Joseph is in fact being accused of.

I am sorry but somebody needs to stand up for Joseph seeing he cannot do it himself, Yep beginning to "see red" lol.

Edited July 27, 2008 by jimuk

[goofball]

I totally agree with you that there are those who would discredit the Prophet and applaud you for saying something. However I don't worry about Brother Joseph being able to stand up for himself. His works do more for that than I can ever say or do for him.

Those that attempt to discredit him will stand accountable.

It reminds me of someone I met on my mission in Sydney Australia. Right after the Reorganized church split a missionary from their church went up and down the coast of Australia and was very successful and helped form many congregations of reorganized LDS members. A particular member of that church told me that Brigham Young was in hell and when I saw him there that I would be sorry and rezlize then that he was not a Prophet of God. After somewhat chuckling (because it had been a few months since someone told me I was going to hell) and bore my testimony that he was indeed a prophet and that she would one day be accountable for her words.

[Elphaba]

I am sorry but somebody needs to stand up for Joseph seeing he cannot do it himself, Yep beginning to "see red" lol.

I'm curious, why, or how, do you think Joseph is being discredited?

Elphaba

[Palerider]

I don't need to stand up for Joseph Smith....he is what he is...you either believe he restored the Church and that he translated the Book of Mormon or you don't....and if you don't believe it...then its not important to you....if you believe he did those things...then it is important to you and a big part of your life.

[rameumptom]

I've spent a lot of years studying and restudying many of the issues discussed on the forums (forae?), and I've come to the conclusion that Joseph is as enigmatic as Jesus Christ is. You can find both evidence for and against both of them.

For the open minded person, evidences for may be impressive. You will find scholars, like Harold Bloom, who call Joseph a genius. Yet that does not mean he received any revelations of God.

And you will find evidences of weakness and controversy that will convince some that Joseph was a fraud. But that does not mean he didn't receive any revelations of God.

That is what makes both God and Joseph enigmatic. We have their writings (most indirectly, as both did not seem to personally write much); and both had enemies that insisted that both blasphemed. But none of it can answer whether Jesus was the Son of God, or if Joseph was God's Prophet of the Restoration.

[omega0401]

Here is a FAIR article that explains some of this. I don’t agree with everything in it, but I think you will feel better after you read it.

Elphaba

Thank you for the link. I will certainly read it but it will take a while to get back to you on this. Not that I am a slow reader but I have many demands on my time. But I will respond.

I haven't yet read any further than this one post of yours that I am replying to so I haven't been keeping up.

But I leave you with this question that I have asked already and no one has given me an answer to. There are accusations being made the Joseph Smith practices polyandry. I don't believe it. But, if it is true, where in our doctrine is it taught that polyandry should be practiced? If he practiced it, he would have taught it. What is your answer to that?

[omega0401]

So what. Tell me, exactly what parts of Compton's book do you disagree with? What is the basis of your disagreement?

Snow, please re-read the entire post that you just quoted me. I said I haven't read any of those books. I can not give you an answer about a book I admit I have not read.

I simply do not accept you and Elphaba's belief that Joseph Smith practiced polyandry. You state it as though it is a fact and is it not a fact. But that won't stop anti-mormons from trying to use it against us. They would do better to teach what their own church believes instead of attacking other churches.