Please explain this to me... I honestly don't understand

[Shell72]

I mentioned to some of you that I recently had a family member baptized into the mormon/LDS faith. After speaking with him, I realized I knew very little about the religion and started doing some research - including joining this board, reading passages that you all have graciously provided me, and just basically trying to understand as a whole.

I am full agreement with the religion as a whole - and we are in very strong agreement that Jesus died for our sins so that we may be all be spared, and that God is loving, forgiving and full of Grace.

What I do have a problem with is Joseph Smith and the practices he inducted into the church. I hope that someone can explain this to me because I truly do not understand.

It is stated time and time again in the bible that adultery is wrong even in the ten commandments as well as mentioned throughout the bible .:

"'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death." Leviticus 20:10

"For they have done outrageous things in Israel; they have committed adultery with their neighbors' wives and in my name have spoken lies, which I did not tell them to do. I know it and am a witness to it," declares the LORD." Jeremiah 29: 22-24

It has been documented and sworn affadavidts have been filed that Joseph Smith did indeed commit adultery with other men's wives. I absolutely understand that polygamy is not a part of the LDS faith in todays Church - that is not what I take issue with. What I take issue with is the very founder of the Church, was using God's name to justify breaking His laws. Why was he believed? And why is he still revered today? Sitting outside your Church please understand how incomprehensible this appears. Please put yourself in my shoes for just a moment, and tell me how you believe this would appear to you. A young man, riddled with hormones as all young men are, comes out of the woods and says "God told me to have a bunch of wives - even those that have already vowed before Him that they will remain faithful to their husbands, and it goes directly against God's Law".

Now, along comes Mr. Woodruff who says in 1889 that God has told him that He will protect his peoples practice of Polygamy, and then two years later in 1890 issues his manifesto telling the Mormon people to stop this. The Bible tells us over and over again that God does not change:

God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? Numbers 23: 18-20

I believe that verse speaks against the actions of the LDS two fold. First of all - If God wanted man to be polygamous, he would not change his mind. Secondly - Woodruff said God gave him a revelation that the practice would by protected - but yet he chose two years later to denounce the whole thing? Where was his faith that God would speak and then not act? If God revealed something to someone - that is a pretty big deal, and I don't think you would denounce it publicly.

This is the very foundation that the LDS church was built on...and I dont' understand it. And I don't understand why people would believe what Joseph Smith was saying - if it was in direct contradiction to what God has told us so why would anyone believe ANYTHING he said?

[PentiumInside]

It wasn't adultry to be polygamist, remember. Ask all the Old Testament prophets who practised it. But thats niether here nor there, Joseph was COMMANDED to introduce the practice by God.

God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? Numbers 23: 18-20

And this does not mean God doesn't change "things". His plans and purposes are his business. If you want to bind the Lord to things he has done then Israel would still be in bondage. Did the Lord "change his mind" when he freed them? Obviously we can point out many many examples of how the Lord "changed things" but that doesn't mean He "changes" his mind like a man does.

[Dale]

If it's permitted we will need to discuss the matter of the issue of sexuality in those polyandrous marriage. I do not see the affidavit's saying what you think they do. In some cases Todd Compton wrote other thing's after he wrote In Sacred Lonliness that should be read when reading his book. I have the book, and spent time marking it up.

Todd Compton in the Patty Session's example decided against the presence of sexuality in that marriage. He felt the only man she was faithful with was to her existing husband.

Let's talk about her daughter Sylvia Session's. Todd Compton reportedly told her daughter on her death bed that she was a daughter of the prophet Joseph Smith. Heber J. Grant mother had been sealed to Joseph Smith after his death, but had been called the son of the prophet Joseph Smith anyway. Unlike Todd Compton i propose her daughter misunderstood her mother.

Angus Cannon reported hearing Brigham Young say before his death in 1877 that Brigham Young said Patty Session's said the same thing. But he reported it many year's after the event. I think he made up something Brigham Young never said to impress other's.

Ugo Perego has done DNA testing trying to confirm of deny Josephine was a biological daughter of Joseph Smith, but can't do it. Other than the death bed statement of the mother this was the only proof for sexuality in that marriage. I think Todd Compton was to hasty to think she was Joseph Smith's daughter.

I recall in the other post you asked me about Presindia Buell. Ettie Smith claimed she had told her that she was uncertain whether Joseph Smith was the father of her child or her husband. I recall Ugo Perego as having proven that Joseph Smith was not the father. But Todd Compton was open to that possibility in his book. Todd Compton in an article on No Man Know's My History by Fawn Brodie i guess challenged Ettie Smith's credibility. So it's not certain Ettie reported a true conversation with her. I think she lied. I wish he had done that clearly in his book.

I will have to get you the link when i have time. But Kerry Shirt's has Mormonism Researched website. On it Kerry has a review of Mormonism Shadow or Reality? By Jerald and Sandra Tanner section. Todd Compton did a three page article chastizing Jerald and Sandra Tanner for abusing the content of his book in their writing's.

[Mountaingirl]

I mentioned to some of you that I recently had a family member baptized into the mormon/LDS faith. After speaking with him, I realized I knew very little about the religion and started doing some research - including joining this board, reading passages that you all have graciously provided me, and just basically trying to understand as a whole.

I am full agreement with the religion as a whole - and we are in very strong agreement that Jesus died for our sins so that we may be all be spared, and that God is loving, forgiving and full of Grace.

What I do have a problem with is Joseph Smith and the practices he inducted into the church. I hope that someone can explain this to me because I truly do not understand.

It is stated time and time again in the bible that adultery is wrong even in the ten commandments as well as mentioned throughout the bible .:

"'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death." Leviticus 20:10

"For they have done outrageous things in Israel; they have committed adultery with their neighbors' wives and in my name have spoken lies, which I did not tell them to do. I know it and am a witness to it," declares the LORD." Jeremiah 29: 22-24

It has been documented and sworn affadavidts have been filed that Joseph Smith did indeed commit adultery with other men's wives. I absolutely understand that polygamy is not a part of the LDS faith in todays Church - that is not what I take issue with. What I take issue with is the very founder of the Church, was using God's name to justify breaking His laws. Why was he believed? And why is he still revered today? Sitting outside your Church please understand how incomprehensible this appears. Please put yourself in my shoes for just a moment, and tell me how you believe this would appear to you. A young man, riddled with hormones as all young men are, comes out of the woods and says "God told me to have a bunch of wives - even those that have already vowed before Him that they will remain faithful to their husbands, and it goes directly against God's Law".

Now, along comes Mr. Woodruff who says in 1889 that God has told him that He will protect his peoples practice of Polygamy, and then two years later in 1890 issues his manifesto telling the Mormon people to stop this. The Bible tells us over and over again that God does not change:

God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? Numbers 23: 18-20

I believe that verse speaks against the actions of the LDS two fold. First of all - If God wanted man to be polygamous, he would not change his mind. Secondly - Woodruff said God gave him a revelation that the practice would by protected - but yet he chose two years later to denounce the whole thing? Where was his faith that God would speak and then not act? If God revealed something to someone - that is a pretty big deal, and I don't think you would denounce it publicly.

This is the very foundation that the LDS church was built on...and I dont' understand it. And I don't understand why people would believe what Joseph Smith was saying - if it was in direct contradiction to what God has told us so why would anyone believe ANYTHING he said?

I take issue with the same thing, you are not alone. I have been doing major research lately, and my opinion of the church history I was taught while growing up has changed. I wasn't told the truth by many of my leaders/teachers. If you go to the LDS' family website you will see that Joseph was married and sealed to women who were already married to living men.

"If it was in direct contradiction to what God has told us so why would anyone believe ANYTHING he said?"

I wish I had the answer for that, because my testimony has certainly vanished since doing research... I feel lied to.

[Gillebre]

mountaingirl, I have a question for you, if I may.

If back when you were younger (back when you were growing up), if you'd of asked how many wives Joseph Smith had, would your parents/teachers/leaders lie to you, do you think?

You mention not being told the truth while growing up...what did they say that was untruthful, if I may so ask? Did they say he only had one wife? Or perhaps meant he was only intimate with one wife? Or what? I'm just curious. :)

[Dr T]

I know it was practiced in the OT but I don't think God condoned it. Woman were treated very differently than men. Look way back in Genesis, that woman who was pregnant as a result of prostitution and the man that impregnated her (who gave her his ring and cord and staff) said "have her burned to death" and he was the man who slept with her (his daughter in-law I think). She had twins. I know that example is not about polygamy but again I shared it to show that woman were not treated the same as a man. They used woman back then for their own pleasure. I don't remember a prophet having more than one wife like you claim. Many people had more than one wife but again I think they were sinful when doing that.

[HiJolly]

It is stated time and time again in the bible that adultery is wrong even in the ten commandments as well as mentioned throughout the bible .:

"'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death." Leviticus 20:10

"For they have done outrageous things in Israel; they have committed adultery with their neighbors' wives and in my name have spoken lies, which I did not tell them to do. I know it and am a witness to it," declares the LORD." Jeremiah 29: 22-24

It has been documented and sworn affadavidts have been filed that Joseph Smith did indeed commit adultery with other men's wives.

I have read Todd Compton's "In Sacred Lonliness", which is pretty much accepted as the definitive work on the subject (though books by Van Wagoner and Hardy are widely accepted as well). Nowhere in these books is the statement made that such 'adultery' occured. Abraham had more than one wife. Are you saying he was an adulterer? Please don't avoid this point.

I absolutely understand that polygamy is not a part of the LDS faith in todays Church - that is not what I take issue with. What I take issue with is the very founder of the Church, was using God's name to justify breaking His laws.

Please demonstrate where he broke God's law. If you assume God did not tell him to marry more than one wife, then still, there is no compelling evidence that Joseph ever had sex outside of marriage. The one supposed 'smoking gun' of the Sylvia Lyon statement turned out, after DNA testing, to be incorrect. So, where's the evidence? Anyone can make accusations about anything.

Why was he believed?

I guess you had to know him, eh?

And why is he still revered today?

Maybe because a lot of people knew him? I am descended from many of these. Some stories are still told. We have some journals, though not all kept such.

Sitting outside your Church please understand how incomprehensible this appears.

Its a question of what evidence you accept, and what evidence you don't. Its a question of whether you are interested enough in the truth to actually go back to the source documents and read for yourself, from the actual participants, the events they describe. I seriously doubt you have done this. Why? Because I have done this, at least until my questions and concerns were satisfied. Now, if you have done your research, looked up the footnoted journals and newspaper entries and court documents, then, OK. We're all entitled to differences of opinion.

But to take some biased nay-sayers' opinion over your OWN, is not good methodology, IMO.

This is the very foundation that the LDS church was built on...and I dont' understand it. And I don't understand why people would believe what Joseph Smith was saying - if it was in direct contradiction to what God has told us so why would anyone believe ANYTHING he said?

I agree - you don't understand it. Have you read any books by Mormons or non-member scholars of Mormonism (such as Jan Shipps) that DON'T have an axe to grind? Hmmm....

Try "Remembering Joseph" by Joseph Fielding McConkie. I read it last year, and these are (at a guess) about 90% first person accounts of people who actually knew Joseph, who actually interacted with him. Both from within and without the Church. A fascinating book.

HiJolly

[PentiumInside]

I know it was practiced in the OT but I don't think God condoned it. Woman were treated very differently than men. Look way back in Genesis, that woman who was pregnant as a result of prostitution and the man that impregnated her (who gave her his ring and cord and staff) said "have her burned to death" and he was the man who slept with her (his daughter in-law I think). She had twins. I know that example is not about polygamy but again I shared it to show that woman were not treated the same as a man. They used woman back then for their own pleasure. I don't remember a prophet having more than one wife like you claim. Many people had more than one wife but again I think they were sinful when doing that.

And I also forgot to mention concubines, women givin for the purposes of having children only , no marraige involved. If I recall correctly there are references to that in the OT as well. Not to mention the whole Abraham story.

Since you bring it up, your right: people thought very differently and society wasn't the same then as it is now. Which can also be applied to the 1800s and 2008.

Polygamy in the early days of the restored church solidified it (population wise) in ways that are invaluable and cemented its beginnings for a firm foundation to grow. Is it something I agree with? absolutely not, not for any sentimental reasons, I would hate to mow 3 lawns, take out 3 trashes and have to listen to 3 women instead of 1. That sounds like a nightmare to me lol. If you are looking at it in a carnal sense then sure it would be cool for about 3 weeks , then it would be horrble! lol see above sentence for reasons why

[HiJolly]

I know it was practiced in the OT but I don't think God condoned it. Woman were treated very differently than men. Look way back in Genesis, that woman who was pregnant as a result of prostitution and the man that impregnated her (who gave her his ring and cord and staff) said "have her burned to death" and he was the man who slept with her (his daughter in-law I think). She had twins. I know that example is not about polygamy but again I shared it to show that woman were not treated the same as a man. They used woman back then for their own pleasure. I don't remember a prophet having more than one wife like you claim. Many people had more than one wife but again I think they were sinful when doing that.

For heaven's sake, READ your OT.

HiJolly

[Shell72]

It wasn't adultry to be polygamist, remember. Ask all the Old Testament prophets who practised it. But thats niether here nor there, Joseph was COMMANDED to introduce the practice by God.

And this does not mean God doesn't change "things". His plans and purposes are his business. If you want to bind the Lord to things he has done then Israel would still be in bondage. Did the Lord "change his mind" when he freed them? Obviously we can point out many many examples of how the Lord "changed things" but that doesn't mean He "changes" his mind like a man does.

I agree - polygamy in itself is not adultery by some standards. That is not what I take issue with. Being bound to another man's wife is adultery though. God clearly commands us ( as illustrated in the verses I provided) that this is not to be done. He doesn't say "unless I tell you otherwise" or "unless someone tells you that I said it was ok" He makes no room for judgement calls in his words.

[Dr T]

Please do not imply that I haven't HiJolly. Just because there were people in the OT that practiced it, it does not mean that God condoned it or that they were "prophets."

[PentiumInside]

I agree - polygamy in itself is not adultery by some standards. That is not what I take issue with. Being bound to another man's wife is adultery though. God clearly commands us ( as illustrated in the verses I provided) that this is not to be done. He doesn't say "unless I tell you otherwise" or "unless someone tells you that I said it was ok" He makes no room for judgement calls in his words.

Ture. To take your arguement at face value and all the facts and theories involved, there is always forgiveness and repentance !

POOF! Saved by grace in action!

[HiJolly]

I agree - polygamy in itself is not adultery by some standards. That is not what I take issue with. Being bound to another man's wife is adultery though. God clearly commands us ( as illustrated in the verses I provided) that this is not to be done. He doesn't say "unless I tell you otherwise" or "unless someone tells you that I said it was ok" He makes no room for judgement calls in his words.

Not true (see highlighted statement). Having sex with another man's wife, yes, that's considered adultery.

However, Joseph said he was being told by God that marriage and marriage covenants entered into by civil authority were meaningless. In that light, sex after a new covenant, can in my mind be considered NOT adultery. Not that I think Joseph DID have sex with these 11 (or so) women. That has not been proved, and the evidence is either second or third-hand, or is decades after the fact, with ulterior motives present. Not historically reliable, to say the least.

The question is, as you have hitherto stated, whether or not Joseph can be believed. If you judge him from a 21-century viewpoint, you're almost guaranteed to judge incorrectly. Ditto for a worldly or sensual viewpoint. IMO.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

Please do not imply that I haven't HiJolly. Just because there were people in the OT that practiced it, it does not mean that God condoned it or that they were "prophets."

Your saying that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses weren't prophets? WOW.

HiJolly

[Shell72]

If it's permitted we will need to discuss the matter of the issue of sexuality in those polyandrous marriage. I do not see the affidavit's saying what you think they do. In some cases Todd Compton wrote other thing's after he wrote In Sacred Lonliness that should be read when reading his book. I have the book, and spent time marking it up.

Todd Compton in the Patty Session's example decided against the presence of sexuality in that marriage. He felt the only man she was faithful with was to her existing husband.

Let's talk about her daughter Sylvia Session's. Todd Compton reportedly told her daughter on her death bed that she was a daughter of the prophet Joseph Smith. Heber J. Grant mother had been sealed to Joseph Smith after his death, but had been called the son of the prophet Joseph Smith anyway. Unlike Todd Compton i propose her daughter misunderstood her mother.

Angus Cannon reported hearing Brigham Young say before his death in 1877 that Brigham Young said Patty Session's said the same thing. But he reported it many year's after the event. I think he made up something Brigham Young never said to impress other's.

Ugo Perego has done DNA testing trying to confirm of deny Josephine was a biological daughter of Joseph Smith, but can't do it. Other than the death bed statement of the mother this was the only proof for sexuality in that marriage. I think Todd Compton was to hasty to think she was Joseph Smith's daughter.

I recall in the other post you asked me about Presindia Buell. Ettie Smith claimed she had told her that she was uncertain whether Joseph Smith was the father of her child or her husband. I recall Ugo Perego as having proven that Joseph Smith was not the father. But Todd Compton was open to that possibility in his book. Todd Compton in an article on No Man Know's My History by Fawn Brodie i guess challenged Ettie Smith's credibility. So it's not certain Ettie reported a true conversation with her. I think she lied. I wish he had done that clearly in his book.

I will have to get you the link when i have time. But Kerry Shirt's has Mormonism Researched website. On it Kerry has a review of Mormonism Shadow or Reality? By Jerald and Sandra Tanner section. Todd Compton did a three page article chastizing Jerald and Sandra Tanner for abusing the content of his book in their writing's.

This is what gets me as well. It has been well documented, within our courts, within many documents etc that Joseph Smith was having sexual relations with these women. It is not hard to find - a simple google search brings up many ill-refutable results. The church seems to explain this away with a myriad of reasonings - but why would these women lie? How could a daughter ( in your example) misunderstand the words "Joseph Smith is your biological father". The women who were TBM, who told of their experiences are explained away as liars, or second-hand information or anything instead of just telling the truth. Joseph Smith had sexual relations with other men's wives. What would these women have to gain by lying? They were admitting their own adulterous affairs? Would it not have been safer to hide behind secrecy rather than tarnish their own reputations?

[Aphrodite]

I take issue with the same thing, you are not alone. I have been doing major research lately, and my opinion of the church history I was taught while growing up has changed. I wasn't told the truth by many of my leaders/teachers. If you go to the LDS' family website you will see that Joseph was married and sealed to women who were already married to living men.

"If it was in direct contradiction to what God has told us so why would anyone believe ANYTHING he said?"

I wish I had the answer for that, because my testimony has certainly vanished since doing research... I feel lied to.

Me too mountain Girl. I feel very cheated knowing that what we are taught at church is a very glossed-over version of the entire church belief system. Where do you stand with the church now if you dont mind my asking? I too feel my testimony has been destroyed and I am having some real problems with church as a whole, as I dont know what to believe anymore.

You mention not being told the truth while growing up...what did they say that was untruthful, if I may so ask? Did they say he only had one wife? Or perhaps meant he was only intimate with one wife? Or what? I'm just curious. :)

So, ommitting information and picking and choosing what is taught is not a deception of sorts? I was always taught that NOT saying anything that is relevant was lying as well as telling an outright lie. A teacher may not have said, 'Joseph had only one wife', but what they do say is, 'Joseph's wife (singular) Emma.' which leads you to believe it is his only wife.

Imagine if you had a few wives, yet to your work colleagues you refer to 'my wife' this and 'me and my wife that'. When your work colleagues find out you have several, they would probably say-'But I thought you only had one wife?' They would be confused and feel deceived. Hence how Moutain girl and I feel.

[Dr T]

And you're saying that Joseph Smith did not sleep with his wives?

Abraham took his concubine to have a child and Sarah told him to. Sarah is not God. Show me where God said it was right to do so I can reconsider my thoughts.

[PentiumInside]

I dont know about you guys but the truthfulness of the Gospel I have seen, felt, heard, and experienced outweighs anything that might discredit Abraham, Joseph, or any reason not to believe that God has lead me exactly where he wants me to be :)

Men aren't perfect, but God is :)

[JonboySquarepants]

quick question about j. smith's polygamy. when did j. smith start being polygamous? because in a sermon giving in 1844, he said he only had one wife. was he lying?

[HiJolly]

This is what gets me as well. It has been well documented, within our courts, within many documents etc that Joseph Smith was having sexual relations with these women. It is not hard to find - a simple google search brings up many ill-refutable results.

I really don't agree. It's like taking the Wiki as synonymous with peer-reviewed, scholarly research. No dice. 'Taint so. Sure you can find a lot of hits, but where are they? Who's putting them up on the Web? What research did THEY do? How reliable are they? Accusing is not the same as proving. Stating something is not the same as proving it is so. As I said, the standard of evidence here seems to be compatible with something like Middle School scholarship. Certainly nothing to hinge something as important as religious faith on, don't you think? Again, IMO.

If you don't like what you've been reading about Joseph, I don't blame you. I read a lot of stuff about him that I don't like, also. If you believe it, well, that's your call, I suppose....

The church seems to explain this away with a myriad of reasonings - but why would these women lie?

Well, I can think of a number of reasons that what they recorded in their affadavits might be questionable. I wouldn't accuse them of lying, of course, 'cause that would be rather unreliable itself, since I wasn't there and don't know their circumstances.

How could a daughter ( in your example) misunderstand the words "Joseph Smith is your biological father".

I'd like to see the source for that quote. It is false. The word 'biological' was not spoken. I'd love to see that source. The mother told the daughter that she was Joseph's daughter, and that is justifiable on the basis that Josephina Lyon was sealed to Joseph as his daughter. You know, temple ordinances. As I already said, the DNA test has been done.

The women who were TBM, who told of their experiences are explained away as liars, or second-hand information or anything instead of just telling the truth. Joseph Smith had sexual relations with other men's wives.

Why do you believe that is the truth? Where is your evidence? Who are you believing, and why? Who is misrepresenting what? Your standard of truth is at least as warped as mine, no matter which side of bias you are on.

What would these women have to gain by lying?

Proving to the reorganized church that Joseph did indeed practice polygamy, for one. Back when those affadavits were taken, that was the whole point. I hope you knew that.

They were admitting their own adulterous affairs?

They were not adulterous. You're not listening. You don't appear to be interested in both sides of the story, it seems to me.

Would it not have been safer to hide behind secrecy rather than tarnish their own reputations?

Yes. It would. Yet at last they did not. Think about it.

HiJolly

[Shell72]

I have read Todd Compton's "In Sacred Lonliness", which is pretty much accepted as the definitive work on the subject (though books by Van Wagoner and Hardy are widely accepted as well). Nowhere in these books is the statement made that such 'adultery' occured. Abraham had more than one wife. Are you saying he was an adulterer? Please don't avoid this point. HiJolly

Absolutely not avoiding this point. But can you point me in the direction of anywhere where it is written that Abrahams wives were also wed to other men?

Please demonstrate where he broke God's law. If you assume God did not tell him to marry more than one wife, then still, there is no compelling evidence that Joseph ever had sex outside of marriage. The one supposed 'smoking gun' of the Sylvia Lyon statement turned out, after DNA testing, to be incorrect. So, where's the evidence? Anyone can make accusations about anything. HiJolly

Joseph hid these marriages from his first wife Emma. He asked of his wives that they not reveal the marriages to her. This is well documented in the book that Mr. Compton wrote that you state is accepted. Why, if he was doing what God commanded him, would he feel the need to hide it? There are many many women who have stated that they had sexual relations with Joseph Smith - and yes it is very easy for people in this day and age to discredit them because they are not here to defend themselves. But I ask you this - why would they lie? Do you think having sex with one man while married to another boosted their reputation? Do you think it caused harmony within thier original marriages? I personally think these women put alot on the line to tell their stories and to discredit them so easily and dismiss their testimony does not do anyone any justice.

Its a question of what evidence you accept, and what evidence you don't. Its a question of whether you are interested enough in the truth to actually go back to the source documents and read for yourself, from the actual participants, the events they describe. I seriously doubt you have done this. Why? Because I have done this, at least until my questions and concerns were satisfied. Now, if you have done your research, looked up the footnoted journals and newspaper entries and court documents, then, OK. We're all entitled to differences of opinion. HiJolly

I have been reading and researching and praying over this issue HiJolly - I am not taking this lightly. I have read both sides of the story with an open mind and I can not make peace with his actions.

But to take some biased nay-sayers' opinion over your OWN, is not good methodology, IMO. HiJolly

If I can be so bold, the same could be said about the reverse mentality. To just take man's word, when there are piles and piles of documents to suggest the contrary does infact require that we are to question this, and use the minds that God gave us.

I have been reading and researching and praying over this issue HiJolly - I am not taking this lightly. I have read both sides of the story with an open mind and I can not make peace with his actions.

I agree - you don't understand it. Have you read any books by Mormons or non-member scholars of Mormonism (such as Jan Shipps) that DON'T have an axe to grind? Hmmm....

Try "Remembering Joseph" by Joseph Fielding McConkie. I read it last year, and these are (at a guess) about 90% first person accounts of people who actually knew Joseph, who actually interacted with him. Both from within and without the Church. A fascinating book.

HiJolly

I have only read what is available to me, and recently spoke with a former member who had no axe to grind other than his own personal perspective on it - which I will not go into because it is not my perspective to tell, and I am not here to offend. I took this with an open mind, and did more research, more reading, and as I said earlier - I can not make peace with Joseph Smith and the more I read into it I am just ending up with more questions than answers.

[HiJolly]

quick question about j. smith's polygamy. when did j. smith start being polygamous? because in a sermon giving in 1844, he said he only had one wife. was he lying?

He was civily married to only one wife in 1844.

HiJolly

[the_jason]

My question is, why does any of this matter? If trivial things such as this shake your testimony then you never had a testimony to begin with. Any immoral actions Joseph may have commited, and I'm not saying he commited any, do not discount the truthfulness of the gospel. The gospel is eternal and beyond the limitations of man. He was still a prophet of God. Prophets are still men and make mistakes just as anyone else. They're still prophets, and the gospel is still the gospel.

[HiJolly]

And you're saying that Joseph Smith did not sleep with his wives?

Abraham took his concubine to have a child and Sarah told him to. Sarah is not God. Show me where God said it was right to do so I can reconsider my thoughts.

I'm saying that there is no clear evidence that he did. D&C 132 is what you're looking for. (you didn't say it had to be in the Bible ).

HiJolly

[Shell72]

I really don't agree. It's like taking the Wiki as synonymous with peer-reviewed, scholarly research. No dice. 'Taint so. Sure you can find a lot of hits, but where are they? Who's putting them up on the Web? What research did THEY do? How reliable are they? Accusing is not the same as proving. Stating something is not the same as proving it is so. As I said, the standard of evidence here seems to be compatible with something like Middle School scholarship. Certainly nothing to hinge something as important as religious faith on, don't you think? Again, IMO. HiJolly

I agree absolutely. But when site after site is saying the same thing, and there is documents, testimony etc to back it up on one side and the reasoning of "well we didn't understand what it was like then" and "they were lying" on the other - I tend to lean a certain way.

If you don't like what you've been reading about Joseph, I don't blame you. I read a lot of stuff about him that I don't like, also. If you believe it, well, that's your call, I suppose.... HiJolly

Did you not question his motives when you read what you did? Did you not find them to be more beneficial to himself than to God?

Well, I can think of a number of reasons that what they recorded in their affadavits might be questionable. I wouldn't accuse them of lying, of course, 'cause that would be rather unreliable itself, since I wasn't there and don't know their circumstances.HiJolly

I can't think of one reason why a married woman would lie about such a thing. Maybe one - but not a group of them.

I'd like to see the source for that quote. It is false. The word 'biological' was not spoken. I'd love to see that source. The mother told the daughter that she was Joseph's daughter, and that is justifiable on the basis that Josephina Lyon was sealed to Joseph as his daughter. You know, temple ordinances. As I already said, the DNA test has been done. .HiJolly

I apologize - I was paraphrasing to make a point and I should have clarified that. My point was, that is not something that would be misunderstood. A mother would not take it lightly when she was indicating to her daughter her true paternity I would think.

Why do you believe that is the truth? Where is your evidence? Who are you believing, and why? Who is misrepresenting what? Your standard of truth is at least as warped as mine, no matter which side of bias you are on

Proving to the reorganized church that Joseph did indeed practice polygamy, for one. Back when those affadavits were taken, that was the whole point. I hope you knew that.

They were not adulterous. You're not listening. You don't appear to be interested in both sides of the story, it seems to me.. HiJolly

Absolutely we are all open to our own interpretation of the truth. What I have found in my search of the truth about the very foundation that the church was built on, is that there are inconsisties to God's word, so I question that. I believe you and I are both on the same side Hijolly. Honestly I do - I believe we both are seeking God's will and we both have been saved by the blood of Jesus. The only difference in "sides" is that I question Man's involvement.