Difficult Questions to me from an Ex-Mormon--PLEASE help me answer them!


InstilledPhear
 Share

Recommended Posts

I just got asked some very curious questions about the church by an Ex-Mormon. Any help in researching and/or shedding some light on these would be much appreciated--I don't even know where to start.

This is what she asks:

"My question revolves around the fact that you keep saying that the only reliable source of information is within the Church, regardless of historical and scientific evidence that is out there. I'm going to go out on a limb here and ask a few questions that I have about doctrine and history and I'd really love to have anyone answer since I haven't found anything on the topics on lds.org, in any talks, or other Church approved materials out there.

1. The Book of Abraham: a few years back the University of Chicago found some of the transcripts that Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Abraham with a letter from Emma verifying this. Egyptologists, both LDS and not, studied it and found that the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham and the actual papyrus had literally nothing in common. Is modern Egyptology completely wrong?

2. Polyandry: out of Joseph's approximately 33 wives, at least 9 of which were married to living, healthy, worthy members. This contradicts celestial marriage. Which leads me to:

3. Evolving celestial laws: if this life is but a single grain of sand in eternity, why has God changed his mind about celestial marriage (doesn't he say that there is no commandment that he gives that won't prepare a way for us to accomplish it?), the blood atonement (Brigham Young), African Americans and the priesthood (was God a racist or does he bend his will to what's popular at the time?), or the numerous changes and editions in every Church material out there (history of the church, the Book of Mormon, editing sermons, and removal of the journal of discourses).

4. And last but not least in the History of the Church volume 6 Joseph Smith boasted he did more than Jesus Christ to keep the church together. In my eyes, a man that has not only seen, but talked with both God and Jesus could never EVER boast like that under ANY circumstances. Why would he say this?"

These questions are very difficult and I'm absolutely at a loss of how to answer them. If anyone can spend even a few minutes helping me research and find material that can help, I would appreciate it endlessly. Links to talks by general authorities or church-approved published material would be most helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

#1) See the new 2013 edition of the LDS Scriptures.

Skipping to #3) See this thread: http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/45876-scriptures-church-history-racism-blacks-scriptures.html

#4) Why are you assuming that he is boasting?

The more important question: Why are you so concerned with a former member's testimony that YOU are doing the searching and asking FOR this person?

If you are sharing in these doubts, that's okay. Please say so. If not, why are you so willing to do all the leg work? It is my experience that answers without prayer & fasting are like giving your pearls before swine.

I'd let THEM do the searching and asking. You can refer them to this forum for a discussion (not a bashing session).

No matter how much "proof" you offer... a person convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.

Edited by skippy740
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like a bunch of baited questions, some built on false premises or ignoring new information and relying on old tired arguments. I believe that this is not an honest attempt to find truth by an ex-member, but a disguised attempt to shake your faith.

If you intend to look into these items, FAIR has some good information on the subject.

FAIRMormon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like a bunch of baited questions, some built on false premises or ignoring new information and relying on old tired arguments. I believe that this is not an honest attempt to find truth by an ex-member, but a disguised attempt to shake your faith.

If you intend to look into these items, FAIR has some good information on the subject.

FAIRMormon

I agree jerome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Starting with #1, the book of Abraham has been shown, many times over, to contain correct translations from ancient Egyptian. This wouldn't be that big of a deal except that Egyptian could not be translated by *anyone* in Joseph Smiths day because they had not figured it out yet. The book of Abraham contains many stories that are not contained in any text available in Joseph Smiths day that many used to mock. But since it's publication we have found these exact same stories in ancient manuscripts. How would Joseph Smith know about *many* stories that were not even discovered yet?

LDS FAQ: Ancient Evidences for the Book of Abraham: Other Records Confirm its Story

Book of Abraham/Evidence for antiquity - FAIRMormon

Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant by John Gee, and Brian M. Hauglid

Mormon Challenges

I began to reflect: Book of Abraham--Names

Abraham in Egypt by Hugh W. Nibley

A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri by John Gee

Search results for "abraham"

The Backyard Professor: Powerful Egyptological Evidence for Book of Abraham facsimile 1, figure 9 Crocodile as "Idolatrous god of Pharaoh"

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/one-day-to-a-cubit/

Joseph Smith was well aware that there were some funerary texts in the papyri. In the History of the Church it mentions the some papyrus as being “Two or three other small pieces of papyrus, with astronomical calculations, epitaphs, &c., were found with others of the mummies.”

(Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., introduction and notes by B. H. Roberts [salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1932-1951], 2: 348 - 351.)

The definition of an epitaph is literary a funerary document. How could Joseph Smith know that epitaphs (funerary texts), or writings in relation to astronomy were on papyrus, if he could not read Egyptian?

Here are only a few things Joseph Smith got right in his translation

-In Facsimile No.1, Fig.12, and Facsimile No.2, Fig. 4, Joseph Smith defines Raukeeyang as "expanse, or the firmament." Non-Mormon scholars, such as James Strong, who published their research long after the publication of the Book of Abraham, say that rah-kee'ag means "firmament" or "expanse."

-Joseph Smith said the same figure signifies Shaumau, meaning "high or the heavens, answering to the Hebrew word, Shaumahyeem. " Later scholars said the word is authentic and means "lofty sphere of celestial bodies."

-Joseph Smith defined Fig.6 in Facsimile No.2, as the "earth in its four quarters." Critics tried to cover up his correct translation by arguing that Fig.6 instead represents the four canopic jars, which symbolize the four sons of Horus. Research beyond such a superficial explanation reveals that those four sons of Horus represented the four quarters of the earth.

- Critics have asked why Joseph Smith did not give the same definition for the same four figures in Facsimile No.1, Figures 5,6,7, and 8. The answer is that he was giving the names of the idolatrous gods in each of the four quarters of the earth. For example, Elkenah means God of Canaan and was worshipped in the North; Libnah, or Libya, was to the West; Korash, or Cush was in the South; and Mahmackrah means "the upholder of Rah," Amun Rah being the Egyptian god worshipped by the Chaldeans in the East.

-Joseph Smith identified Fig.4 in Facsimile No.2 as "a numerical figure, in Egyptian signifying one thousand." Critics have tried to cover up this correct explanation by simply saying that it is Horus-Soped or Sokar. Research beyond such a simplistic explanation reveals that the boat figure is often called "the Ship of a Thousand" or the ship with its "soul of a thousand-fold. "

-Joseph Smith said that Fig.5 in Facsimile No. 2, represents one of the governing planets, also the sun, receiving its power from the stars. Critics have tried to cover up his correct explanation by simply claiming it is the Egyptian goddess Hathor. Again, research beyond such a simplistic answer reveals that Hathor's name meant "the house above, i.e. the region of the sky or heaven...a personification of the house in which Horus the sun-god dwelt." Egyptologists say that Hathor often appeared in the form of a star near the sun.

-Joseph Smith said that Fig.7 in Facsimile No.2 "Represents God sitting on his throne, revealing through the heavens the grand key words of the Priesthood." Critics have tried to cover up this correct explanation by simply saying it is Min or Osiris combined with Thoth, pointing out his characteristic head of an ibis bird. Research beyond such a simplistic diversion reveals that Thoth was an Egyptian god who had the knowledge of divine speech or the gift of holy language. Others say Thoth was the tongue of Ptah. These descriptions sound very much like the "grand key words." Behind his head is a flail or scourge which was a symbol of power and authority much like the power of the priesthood.

-Joseph Smith said that Fig.1 in Facsimile 3 represents "Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh's throne." Critics have emphatically denied that the supreme ruler of such a mighty nation would so honor a lowly, nomadic shepherd. However, historical records verify that during the Egyptian Sed Festival,Abraham did indeed take the place of Pharaoh as the "substitute king."

- Joseph Smith said that Shinehah is the sun (Abr.3:13). The Egyptian word sheni means "encircle," and nehah means the "sun."

- Joseph Smith said that Kokob means "star," and that Kokaubeam means "stars" (Abr.3:13). Non-Mormon scholars have defined Kokawb or Kokab as "star," and Kokabim as "stars."

This brand new website also has a few short, well done videos on the book of Abraham

Mormon Challenges

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding polyandry, this is a subject that critics love to use as a weapon to beat their former faith with. However, they don't explain the issue much beyond a few sentences, and that is only to give a shock factor in hopes to cause you to falter in your faith. But when it is looked at more closely it is not what critics try to make it out to be. Polygamy was a principle at that time and just with all new principles, there were bugs that needed to be worked out. Whether it was baptisms for the dead where men would do the work for women and vise versa, or the word of wisdom, there were bugs. It was thought that by marrying the Prophet you would be more blessed in the afterlife. These were sealings *only* and not what we would consider marriages. There were no sexual relations but these were only spiritual marriages. Many of these were performed vicariously long after Joseph Smith had died.

You can read more on this subject here:

Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Polyandry - FAIRMormon

2009 Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Plural Marriage (but were afraid to ask) « FAIR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding Joseph Smith "boasting" visit this article: Joseph Smith/Narcissism/Did Joseph Smith 'boast' of keeping the Church intact - FAIRMormon

In reality, there is absolutely NOTHING you can say that will change this persons mind. I've been discussing and debating anti-Mormons and ex-Mormons for a VERY long time and no matter how much they tell you they are sincere, as soon as you answer one question they move onto another like you never said anything. There is nothing better to do than to bear your testimony and cut off contact. I can guarantee you that this exchange will go absolutely nowhere and when it is over it will be nothing more than a big waste of your time and leaving you feeling icky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some interesting points in the OP, concern over the reason these asking were questions, referrals to other sources. The questions were ask and it seems like InstilledPhear wants to know how you all would answer those challenges. Just an observation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some interesting points in the OP, concern over the reason these asking were questions, referrals to other sources.

I disagree. Each one of the points raised by Phear's interlocutor is simply a rehashed, pre-digested talking point designed by anti-Mormon and counter-cult ministries to put members on the spot.

They are tired, trite, and wholly unoriginal- as evidenced by the fact that numerous sources already exist specifically to answer the charges and allegations made. (Links were provided above).

When it comes to that sort of anti-Mormon nonsense, there really is nothing new under the sun.

The questions were ask and it seems like InstilledPhear wants to know how you all would answer those challenges. Just an observation.

Since we're in the "just an observation" mode, I observe that you conveniently overlooked posts #2, #3,#5, and #6 which provided specific answers.

THAT is how we "would answer those challenges."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because someone asks a question does NOT mean it needs to be answered.

This is why I consider the source and the motivation behind the question before just 'reacting' to someone's question.

What would the answer mean to that person?

What would change in that person's life if they had the answer?

Did they pray about it themselves?

Did they study the scriptures themselves?

Did they search for answers themselves?

Or are they expecting me to Let me google that for you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Selek. Yes I did read them all which was the reason for my post. References are fine but I guess I was looking for a conversation about those issues and would figure the OP poster wanted the same. I guess it is seen as a challenge and attacking your faith and perhaps you are tired of hearing those things. OK, thank you for your thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding polyandry... These were sealings *only* and not what we would consider marriages. There were no sexual relations but these were only spiritual marriages. Many of these were performed vicariously long after Joseph Smith had died.

You can read more on this subject here:

Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Polyandry - FAIRMormon

2009 Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Plural Marriage (but were afraid to ask) « FAIR

I confess to having never delved into this aspect of LDS controversies. I knew that polygamy was practiced in your early church. That never bothered me deeply, because there is Old Testament precedent. So, yes, it has shock value, but the matter was never a deal breaker for me. On the other hand, the idea that Joseph Smith had over 30 wives, some who were in marriages already, some who were very young--that was troubling to me. So, if it is true that these controversial marriages never involved cohabitation (the ones involved the married or very young) the fact would do a lot to relieve my concerns. The FAIRMormon link seems to indicate that the history and documentation are murky. Believers would reasonably conclude there's no evidence to the contrary, but those more skeptical might be left to wonder. Am I reading this right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Skippy :)

Just because someone asks a question does NOT mean it needs to be answered. agreed

This is why I consider the source and the motivation behind the question before just 'reacting' to someone's question. yes. always consider the source agreed again

What would the answer mean to that person? what if a logical and coherent answer would draw that person closer to the Lord and they get answers that say "don't worry about it" or "it's old, rehashed." as an answer?

What would change in that person's life if they had the answer? perhaps lay the doubts to rest or if they find it does not measure up to claims then they would look elsewhere

Did they pray about it themselves? I cannot speak for Phear but is sounded to me as though they have thought on these questions a lot, is distressed, and asking what others think and how they would answer. I guessing prayer has been included

Did they study the scriptures themselves? you referenced the new 2013 edition scriptures. I'm not sure if you were saying read scripture or if there is new info in that Skippy?

Did they search for answers themselves? again, i cannot speak for the person that asked Phear the questions but that seems to side step the issue to me. If those questions were raised there must be a reason. It may be contradictory information, things that are not consistent with church beliefs or other reasons I guess.

Or are they expecting me to Let me google that for you?

Thanks Skippy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4. And last but not least in the History of the Church volume 6 Joseph Smith boasted he did more than Jesus Christ to keep the church together. In my eyes, a man that has not only seen, but talked with both God and Jesus could never EVER boast like that under ANY circumstances. Why would he say this?"

My understanding of this quote was that Joseph Smith was tarred and feathered the night before and several members of the audience were in the mob that did it to him. Thus, it appears that Joseph was being flippant towards them. Look at another part of that speech and you'll see that he was talking directly at them:

My object is to let you know that I am right here on the spot where I intend to stay. I, like Paul, have been in perils, and oftener than anyone in this generation. As Paul boasted, I have suffered more than Paul did, I should be like a fish out of water, if I were out of persecutions. Perhaps my brethren think it requires all this to keep me humble. The Lord has constituted me curiously that I glory in persecution. I am not nearly so humble as if I were not persecuted. If oppression will make a wise man mad, much more a fool. If they want a beardless boy to whip all the world, I will get on the top of a mountain and crow like a rooster: I shall always beat them. When facts are proved, truth and innocence will prevail at last. My enemies are no philosophers: they think that when they have my spoke under, they will keep me down; but for the fools, I will hold on and fly over them

After that rant, Joseph wanted to state unequivocally his vital role in God's plan probably to send the members of the mob that attacked him on a guilt trip. Was his boast blasphemous? It doesn't appear so unless you take it out of context. In fact, Joseph's boast was indeed accurate that his mission is to restore the church for the final time. When comparing and contrasting his mission to Christ's mission Joseph pointed out a stark contrast between the two. I'm sure that if Joseph was pressed, he would have conceded that Christ could have accomplished his mission if it had been part of God's plan.

Here's Joseph's full quote that appears to be in line with the tone of his entire speech:

“I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam... Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.” (History of The Church, 6:408–409

Put in context with all the statements Joseph ever made about Jesus, it's pretty clear that Joseph understood that Jesus's mission was infitinitely more important than his own. However, that doesn't mean he didn't understand that his own mission was both vital and different in the Latter Days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These questions are very difficult and I'm absolutely at a loss of how to answer them.

With respect to your interlocutor: You are under no obligation to "answer them"; other than to say (after a thorough, careful, and thoughtful analysis on your part) that you have investigated the available historical sources and resolved the issues to your own satisfaction; and that moreover God has personally confirmed the truth of your beliefs to you on an individual and, so far as you are concerned, irrefutable basis.

As Mormons, one of our major tenets is that God has appointed new prophets, added to the canon of scripture, and ordained the creation of a new Church in order to see how mankind will react to these new messengers from Him, the better to prepare the world for the Second Coming of Christ and the final judgment (see D&C 1). We can, and should, provide good historical sources to those who have been genuinely confused and/or troubled by specific events in LDS history; confident in all cases that the primary actors' sincerity and devotion to God (if not, in every instance, their worldly wisdom) will be borne out.

But here's the thing: It's neither us, nor our history, nor our religion's mortal founders who are on trial here. The trial comes to the individual who, having heard the fulness of the restored Gospel (faith in Christ, repentance, baptism by immersion and by the Holy Ghost, and endurance to the end), must decide whether they really believe that they can talk to God about it--and that He'll talk back--or not. If someone steadfastly refuses to engage the faith process spoken of in Alma 32, then no amount of historical evidence will convince them either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4. And last but not least in the History of the Church volume 6 Joseph Smith boasted he did more than Jesus Christ to keep the church together. In my eyes, a man that has not only seen, but talked with both God and Jesus could never EVER boast like that under ANY circumstances. Why would he say this?"

These entries were made after Joseph's death. Many years later in fact. I posted once before on another thread. It was not unusual at the time for scribes to write as if someone else were speaking. These weren't Joseph's words..they were words put into his mouth by scribes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Selek. Yes I did read them all which was the reason for my post. References are fine but I guess I was looking for a conversation about those issues and would figure the OP poster wanted the same. I guess it is seen as a challenge and attacking your faith and perhaps you are tired of hearing those things. OK, thank you for your thoughts.

what if a logical and coherent answer would draw that person closer to the Lord and they get answers that say "don't worry about it" or "it's old, rehashed." as an answer?

Ironically, Phear was given logical, coherent, and substantive answers to the questions- and you're still not happy.

So what, in your mind, should "a conversation about those issues" look like?

Are we supposed to ignore the fact that these questions are agenda driven and demagogic in nature?

Are we supposed to ignore the fact that this particular list of greivances and talking points was compiled specificaaly to attack and undermine the testimony of the faithful?

Are we supposed to ignore the fact that these questions have already been answered multiple times or that even a cursory examination of the available materials will reveal the bias, tendentiousness, double standards, and false premises which underlie the litany of complaints?

Are we supposed to reinvent the wheel for every poster who demands that we as Saints and apologists line up and bark on command?

Clear, consise, and factual answers- with citations- were offered to Phear in good faith and with the intent to answer his/her concerns.

So what more would you have us do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if this life is but a single grain of sand in eternity, why has God changed his mind about celestial marriage (doesn't he say that there is no commandment that he gives that won't prepare a way for us to accomplish it?

Based on the scriptures, it's clear that God reveals laws as the people are ready for them. Adam and Eve had much of the higher law, but then the Law of Moses was later instituted. Moses was planning to introduce additional commandments (other than the ten), but when he saw the wickedness of the people he knew they weren't ready for the second tablet and ended up breaking it. God introduces His laws in certain time frames and reverts to lower laws in other time frames. Check out this quote by Wilford Woodruff:

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for … any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have.

… I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. …

I leave this with you, for you to contemplate and consider. The Lord is at work with us. (Cache Stake Conference, Logan, Utah, Sunday, November 1, 1891. Reported in Deseret Weekly, November 14, 1891.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FAIRMormon link seems to indicate that the history and documentation are murky. Believers would reasonably conclude there's no evidence to the contrary, but those more skeptical might be left to wonder. Am I reading this right?

In my non-expert opinion yes, you are reading correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

African Americans and the priesthood (was God a racist or does he bend his will to what's popular at the time?)

There isn't an official stance on the reason for the policy, but one thing you should note is that the pressure was off the church by 1978. If it was merely repealed for public opinion purposes, the church could have avoided a whole lot of scrutiny by repealing it 20 years earlier. By 1978, everybody had just accepted that the church would never change and the protests had stopped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I confess to having never delved into this aspect of LDS controversies. I knew that polygamy was practiced in your early church. That never bothered me deeply, because there is Old Testament precedent. So, yes, it has shock value, but the matter was never a deal breaker for me. On the other hand, the idea that Joseph Smith had over 30 wives, some who were in marriages already, some who were very young--that was troubling to me. So, if it is true that these controversial marriages never involved cohabitation (the ones involved the married or very young) the fact would do a lot to relieve my concerns. The FAIRMormon link seems to indicate that the history and documentation are murky. Believers would reasonably conclude there's no evidence to the contrary, but those more skeptical might be left to wonder. Am I reading this right?

There are some second and third hand accounts which point toward the idea that Joseph Smith had children with some of his plural wives which the critics love to quote. However, through modern DNA studies we have found that in every single case these claims were false. Ugo Perego has tested every possible connection to these theories and discussed his discoveries at a FAIR conference lecture a few years ago. He is still searching for any genetic evidence to this very day and has yet to find any. You can read his lecture here: 2008 Joseph Smith DNA Revealed: New Clues from the Prophet’s Genes « FAIR

Personally, I don't care if he did or not. If they were married and took that marriage to mean exactly what we think of it as today, then why not? But the evidence just is not there yet. You can read a lot of the pros and cons to this topic here: Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Children of polygamous marriages - FAIRMormon

To the fact that some of these were young women also personally doesn't cause me any anxiety. My Grandmother-in-law who was not LDS was married when she was 14 years old to a 25 year old and nobody blinked twice. In Joseph Smith's day the average age of a woman when she was married was 16-17 years old.

Edgar Allen Poe married a 13 year old.

Thomas Edison married a 16 year old

William Clark (of Lewis and Clark) married a 16 year old.

According to scholars, Mary the mother of Jesus, was only around 12 years old when she was betrothed to Joseph and bore Jesus when she was 13 years old. I cannot find where I put the evidence for that in my notes, so here is some info that google helped me find :)

"Mary was still alive at the time of Jesus' crucifixion as she was present at the execution. In those days life expectancy was only 40-50 years of age. We are told that Jesus was around 33 when he was crucified, so it is likely that Mary could not have been much older than 45 - 50. Therefore, she must have been no older than 13 - 16 when she had Jesus. This seems very young by today's culture, but in those days teenage marriages were common. As soon as girls started menstruation (say, at around 12 - 13) they were deemed biologically able to bear children and therefore of marriageable age. Joseph had to be at least 30 years because back then you were an apprentice carpenter until you were thirty and he was a full carpenter. This means that there was about a 20 year difference between Joseph and Mary.

Science has recently placed that the conception of Jesus to a more accurate date. And this date would have made Mary about 12 years old when she conceived. Meaning she was 12-13 when she gave birth. Almost all girls were already married off by the age of 16. And most were starting to get married as soon as the first menstruation appeared and even before that. Especially in a culture of pre-arranged marriages. To keep with Judaic Law Mary didn't conceive until it was already known that she had her first menstruation."

Point being, in our modern view of how old we think the age of the bride should be is just that, a modern view. This view would not have been a big problem as late as 50 years ago, and would not have been viewed of as unusual 200 years ago let alone 2,000 years ago. We are placing our standards we have accepted that is both modern and in a lot of respects isolated to only our and a few other cultures. If this was brought up in many countries to this very day no one would think twice about it. But if were to look at this issue in the lens of early colonial America, or ancient cultures, there is absolutely nothing abnormal of a young teenager getting married off.

My parents are converts to the Church and I have no LDS heritage beyond them. I've spent a lot of time doing genealogy and have also found numerous examples of this in my own non-LDS family tree and am fairly certain that most of us could also point something similar in theirs.

Here is a wiki article that FAIR has on the age of women:

Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Marriages to young women - FAIRMormon

Hope that answers your question

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clear, consise, and factual answers- with citations- were offered to Phear in good faith and with the intent to answer his/her concerns.

So what more would you have us do?

First of all, Selek, I'd have you relax and not get so offended by the questions. I have not brought them and am not your challenger. I interpreted your posts to me as some sort of backlash. I just thought, these are good points and worth discussion. I was not attacking you. :huh:

Edited by Dr T
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These entries were made after Joseph's death. Many years later in fact. I posted once before on another thread. It was not unusual at the time for scribes to write as if someone else were speaking. These weren't Joseph's words..they were words put into his mouth by scribes.

Out of curiosity pam, do you have a supporting link?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the fact that some of these were young women also personally doesn't cause me any anxiety. My Grandmother-in-law who was not LDS was married when she was 14 years old to a 25 year old and nobody blinked twice. In Joseph Smith's day the average age of a woman when she was married was 16-17 years old.

Edgar Allen Poe married a 13 year old.

Thomas Edison married a 16 year old

William Clark (of Lewis and Clark) married a 16 year old.

Simpler than that...my parents were 18/17 when they married, and I was 31. So, this is a good insight. For skeptics though, if Joseph Smith was already married to a woman close to his age (I'm assuming 30s or 40s), and he then married a very young adolescent and kept her as his actual wife, that would raise some eyebrows. He would not be the first religious leader to do such, but it still might give potential converts considerable pause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share