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

[the_jason]

You're totally missing my point. I guess I was foolish to expect you to understand.

[Shell72]

You're totally missing my point. I guess I was foolish to expect you to understand.

There is no need to be unkind.

Why is it just because I do not agree with you, you chose to take this route? I believe God tells us to investigate, and I choose to follow that, and yet you say I am the one who doesn't understand? Why can you not understand that this is something God expects of us instead of being so quick to assume I am wrong?

[the_jason]

There is no need to be unkind.

Why is it just because I do not agree with you, you chose to take this route? I believe God tells us to investigate, and I choose to follow that, and yet you say I am the one who doesn't understand? Why can you not understand that this is something God expects of us instead of being so quick to assume I am wrong?

You don't understand, because you think I'm disputing your desire to ask questions. I'm not. I'm disputing the apparent manner and attitude in which you are asking the questions.

[JonboySquarepants]

jason, they're just testing what j. smith taught up against the standard that they believe came from God; the bible. i don't think they're being closed-minded in believing in the bible. i also think that their intent is maybe in or around the realm of defending their beliefs. the mormon church then and still today holds strong to the teaching that IT is the ONLY true church on the face of the earth. that kinda makes all other churchs not true, doesn't it?

[JonboySquarepants]

lol, it sure does take me a long time to type my responses, doesn't it. it seems like you two are having full conversations inbetween my posts. :)

[PentiumInside]

LOL that happens to me too cause I am at work and have to do "work" sometimes and miss a whole thread!

the mormon church then and still today holds strong to the teaching that IT is the ONLY true church on the face of the earth. that kinda makes all other churchs not true, doesn't it?

That does not mean the PEOPLE in those churches aren't doing the right thing though. I see sooo many people getting insulted right off the bat because they think that statement means, "You are wrong and going to HELL!!"

You have to remember that the Lord was referring to organizations not the followers. Dang..have to work..be back to finish lol

[Shell72]

You don't understand, because you think I'm disputing your desire to ask questions. I'm not. I'm disputing the apparent manner and attitude in which you are asking the questions.

The manner and attitude?

I'm questioning the things that I do not understand based on the Bible. There is no manner or attitude involved. Straight up saying things how I see them and asking for straight up answers.

I have been nothing but respectful and honest.

I am sure you don't mean that you wish I should change that?

[HiJolly]

hijolly, do you know if it was known to the members of the church back then that he did have more than one wife? because if they did know, and other people already knew, why bother lying about it?

Some knew, more did not. From what we can gather.

HiJolly

[JonboySquarepants]

pentium, i understand what you mean, but at the same time, do you see where i'm coming from? when j. smith claimed that God told him all other churchs were wrong and all their creeds were an abomination in His eyes, people see that as the mormon church telling them that their faith is wrong. i think that's why they get a little hot and bothered.

-----

and i don't think anyone is smart or wise enough to tell anyone else on this earth who is and isn't going to hell. i hate seeing christians on corners and on campuses telling everybody that they're going to hell.

[JonboySquarepants]

hijolly, ok. i had to recheck the date of section 132. that revelation was giving to j. smith in 1843. why would j. smith need to say that other stuff about only having one with in 1844, if God already told the members that he could have more than one wife?

[PentiumInside]

pentium, i understand what you mean, but at the same time, do you see where i'm coming from? when j. smith claimed that God told him all other churchs were wrong and all their creeds were an abomination in His eyes, people see that as the mormon church telling them that their faith is wrong. i think that's why they get a little hot and bothered.

-----

and i don't think anyone is smart or wise enough to tell anyone else on this earth who is and isn't going to hell. i hate seeing christians on corners and on campuses telling everybody that they're going to hell.

I completely understand that and IMO its all part of the plan. Have you seen ANYTHING in life that was simple?? I sure haven't lol.

[Dale]

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?

Actually two women in the Temple Lot case claimed to have had sexual relation's with Joseph Smith. And the decision went against their legal claim's to be Joseph Smith's wive's. The judge felt if the sex happened it would make Joseph Smith guilty of bad behavior, but not breaking Illinois polygamy statutes. He did not feel Joseph Smith would have gotten convicted. I recall none of the polyandry list providing a legal document in that or court case.

I recall a few of the single women providing affidavit's in the case. A few of them claimed to be "wive's in very deed" if i recall the language used right. But in no case was legal document's from any of the polyandry list provided in court. Most of the affidavit's i have in my personal library were never examined in a legal situation in court.

Sylvia Session's daughter said her mother told her "that i was the daughter of the prophet Joseph Smith." (In Sacred Lonliness pg. 183) Her daughter took it as a biological claim, but her mother must have meant something regarding adoption that the daughter misunderstood. I give both of them the benifit of the doubt, but her daughter's claim to being a biological daughter is unproven. She was not Joseph Smith's daughter. DNA testing has so far been unable to confirm her claim.

I have not accused Sylvia or her daughter Josephine as lying. I do not trust her daughter's claim substantiated to being a daughter though. If DNA testing ever confirm's her claim i will accept her as Joseph Smith's daughter, but not before. Just because Todd Compton think's so in his book based on several old statement's i don't have to agree with him.

We only hear what Sylvia Session's said on her death bed second-hand through her daughter. We have no two witnesses to what her mother said.

Todd Compton is not the LDS church. He feel's sexuality was not probably present in two cases. And he feel's sexuality was present in many cases i do not. I do not see the LDS Church as having denied sexuality in any Joseph Smith's plural marriages. They havn't been involved in the debate at all. They have never repudiated the content of any affidavit relating to Joseph Smith and plural marriage. My comment's are based solely on my reading book's like In Sacred Lonliness by Todd Compton.

Remember Todd Compton has cast doubt on sexuality being involved in two of Joseph Smith's plural marriage's. So if the polyandrous sealing's and some of the marriage's to single women were platonic i do not see myself intellectually dishonest with myself to think that. I might be wrong, but i think my thinking sound. I do not accuse most of the women that claimed sexuality for themselve's clearly as lying. I only know of a few that ever made specific claim's though.

Do you have a statement from a polyandrous plural wife for herself that bother's you? Do you have just a review of In Sacred Lonliness, or the actual book? I have the book.

[JonboySquarepants]

pentium, there is a lot of simple stuff in life. for example, when i had a girlfiend, she was always right. simple as that. when i get another one and hopefully someday a wife, she too will always be right. :)

[PentiumInside]

pentium, there is a lot of simple stuff in life. for example, when i had a girlfiend, she was always right. simple as that. when i get another one and hopefully someday a wife, she too will always be right. :)

LOL ! No, you just SAID she was right lol :)

[WANDERER]

Well...it's probably a matter of definition and understanding:

if I accept that the only way is through Jesus Christ then

the only way to truth is through the Mormon church ends up a bit confusing for me.

It's not so much 'defensive' as being out of depth on understanding something and not even sure if I understand it enough to ask the right questions.

[JonboySquarepants]

i don't think she ever thought there was a difference between me saying it and me meaning it.

[JonboySquarepants]

wanderer, i like your quote "Wisdom comes from experience. Experience is often a result of lack of wisdom.", however, i see experience as being a result from trying. you don't learn until you try and all that good stuff.

[WANDERER]

Squarepants...the quote is a Terry Pratchett one and therefore not meant to be taken in any essence of seriousness. It's an illogical statement.

[JonboySquarepants]

lol. now armed with that knowledge, i understand it completely! :)

[Mountaingirl]

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. :)

When I was growing up it was never talked about. It was never mentioned, and the fact that they didn't tell the complete story makes me feel lied to. I knew about polygamy, but I didn't know about the ages of some of his brides, or that he was marrying women who were already married to other (living) men.

I was always taught that not telling the complete truth is the same as lying.

[Mountaingirl]

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?

Again, I agree with you 100%

These women were definitely telling the truth, no question.

[Mountaingirl]

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.

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.

I can identify with everything you said!

By saying 'Joseph's wife (singular) Emma.' I feel they were lying to me and glossing over the real story.

I have stopped going to church, and I am now what I consider a "pet project" for my fellow relief society friends. I know they mean well, and I love them... they just don't understand where I am coming from. When I tried to explain myself to one of my friends, he told me I was reading "anti" material and that I was being led away by the devil himself. I had to laugh when I told him that my sources were good, and many of the facts can be checked out on the church's own websites.

Confused and Deceived... indeed.

[ztodd]

Squarepants...the quote is a Terry Pratchett one and therefore not meant to be taken in any essence of seriousness. It's an illogical statement.

It sounds logical to me. :)

"A" comes from "B".

"B" often comes from lack of "A".

Conclusion.. "A" ultimately often comes because of lack of "A", through the means of "B".

"A" being wisdom, "B" being experience.

[WANDERER]

So you can be wise...but chances are from not being wise.

[Shell72]

Actually two women in the Temple Lot case claimed to have had sexual relation's with Joseph Smith. And the decision went against their legal claim's to be Joseph Smith's wive's. The judge felt if the sex happened it would make Joseph Smith guilty of bad behavior, but not breaking Illinois polygamy statutes. He did not feel Joseph Smith would have gotten convicted. I recall none of the polyandry list providing a legal document in that or court case.

I recall a few of the single women providing affidavit's in the case. A few of them claimed to be "wive's in very deed" if i recall the language used right. But in no case was legal document's from any of the polyandry list provided in court. Most of the affidavit's i have in my personal library were never examined in a legal situation in court.

Sylvia Session's daughter said her mother told her "that i was the daughter of the prophet Joseph Smith." (In Sacred Lonliness pg. 183) Her daughter took it as a biological claim, but her mother must have meant something regarding adoption that the daughter misunderstood. I give both of them the benifit of the doubt, but her daughter's claim to being a biological daughter is unproven. She was not Joseph Smith's daughter. DNA testing has so far been unable to confirm her claim.

I have not accused Sylvia or her daughter Josephine as lying. I do not trust her daughter's claim substantiated to being a daughter though. If DNA testing ever confirm's her claim i will accept her as Joseph Smith's daughter, but not before. Just because Todd Compton think's so in his book based on several old statement's i don't have to agree with him.

We only hear what Sylvia Session's said on her death bed second-hand through her daughter. We have no two witnesses to what her mother said.

Todd Compton is not the LDS church. He feel's sexuality was not probably present in two cases. And he feel's sexuality was present in many cases i do not. I do not see the LDS Church as having denied sexuality in any Joseph Smith's plural marriages. They havn't been involved in the debate at all. They have never repudiated the content of any affidavit relating to Joseph Smith and plural marriage. My comment's are based solely on my reading book's like In Sacred Lonliness by Todd Compton.

Remember Todd Compton has cast doubt on sexuality being involved in two of Joseph Smith's plural marriage's. So if the polyandrous sealing's and some of the marriage's to single women were platonic i do not see myself intellectually dishonest with myself to think that. I might be wrong, but i think my thinking sound. I do not accuse most of the women that claimed sexuality for themselve's clearly as lying. I only know of a few that ever made specific claim's though.

Do you have a statement from a polyandrous plural wife for herself that bother's you? Do you have just a review of In Sacred Lonliness, or the actual book? I have the book.

What makes you believe that the daughter had misunderstood? What makes you think that? I am not being argumentative - I just don't think you would think that without research, so I'm asking for a hand up here.. lol.

I will find the site that I located the other day with the affadavits written of the women testifying that they had sexual relations with Joseph Smith.

Now here is yet another couple of questions since you definately ( as well as some others here ) seem very well studied on this issue.. What was the purpose of Joseph Smith being celestially married to women already married on earth to TBM's? Were their husbands not entitled to be sealed forever with the women they married on earth? Why would Joseph feel the right to do this? Did he say in his revelation that God told him to be sealed to these women in eternity? Because I could only guess that that would hurt the husbands deeply. Look at what happened to Henry Jacobs when Brigham Young took Zina ( by proxy) and told him to go find another wife. When I think of the horrors that man must have suffered emotionally this breaks my heart. Secondly, if Joseph engaged in sexual relations with the women only married to him, I have problems being assured that his relations with other mens wives were strictly platonic and can find nothing to suggest that this was the case.