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

[Shell72]

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.

You know what the_jason, you are 100% correct - it should not shake one's testimony.

I do not question the Bible or any of the scriptures that were written in it. I question anything by Joseph Smith - and this is what I struggle with as his words founded the entire LDS Church. If his words were for his own benefit, and not to glorify God and help God's children - then I take issue with omitting some and using the rest as a guideline for one's path. I'm having problems putting this into words - do you understand what I am trying to say?

[JonboySquarepants]

hijolly, did he have more than one wife at all? you said civilly married. is there a difference between that and married in the church?

[Shell72]

He was civily married to only one wife in 1844.

HiJolly

But he was giving a Sermon HiJolly. So why would he be acknowledging a civil union and disregarding his holy unions? If he were giving a speech at Town Hall regarding marriage - i can see him attesting to one marriage, as that is what Town hall is all about. But to deny marriages that he stated were "of God" in a sermon - I don't understand that.

[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?

Nope, I can't do that. I don't think that's here nor there, but I do admit I'd like to be able to...

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.

This is only partially true. He did get Emma's approval in some cases. We do have evidence that he did not until after the fact, in other cases (I'm thinking of the Partridge sisters - whom I'm related to, BTW...).

Why, if he was doing what God commanded him, would he feel the need to hide it? 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?

That is a really good question. I can't wait to ask Joseph that very question - and I intend to!

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.

I don't think I discredited them at all. I just don't think this is a cut-and-dried case of simple information, that's all. There is too much we don't know, all the way around. YET, some are willing to cast stones. I just don't think that's called for, here.

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.

OK. I can't fault you for that - but I can fault people who jump to conclusions, and accept flimsy evidence and outright libelous accusations, without really researching it to the original sources. We have to ask "What's real? What's hyperbole?" But then, that's just *my* standard, and I know not everyone goes that far.

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.

Indeed. Total agreement, there.

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.

Yes, that is the beauty of living by faith. And the pain. You are left to your own conclusions, your own interpretation of the holy spirit. As Jesus said, it is not what goes into the mouth that pollutes, but what comes OUT of the mouth. In the end, we cannot hide behind other's opinions or even other's dogmatic statements. It's all on us, individually.

HiJolly

[Dr T]

OT vs NT it is clear. I guess my main contention is that God is pro monogomy. Look at Jesus' words on divorce:

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." (NIV Matt 19.8-9, pp. Mark 10.1-12)

If polygamy was acceptable, then this argument fails. Jesus is saying that an improper divorce does not nullify a marriage, and if the first marriage still stands, then it follows that a second marriage is adultery.

I'm willing to admit that God can allow some things on a temporary basis for His own reasons but I do not think the OT people, unless directly told to do so by God, we without sin in that. The principle is God wants one man and one wife (with exception in extreme cases). This is a simple issue of not confusing exception with the morally right act. It is the principle of keeping it one to one. I disagree that it was apporved for many in the OT and for Joseph Smith reintroducing it and saying "it is from God."

[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?

There was a time I did question his motives. After many years of research, I feel I understand Joseph well enough to be able to support some general view of where his personal morals were. I hope I'm not wrong, and by the evidence of what he taught as applied in my own life, I'm convinced I'm not wrong. John 7:17. As to that last question. You've just blown my mind, and not in a good way. How much Mormon history do you know?

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 can.

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.

Were you thinking in terms of eternity?

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.

I ALWAYS question Man's involvement. We screw up far too often. Thank God for God. Proverbs 3:5-6.

HiJolly

[Dale]

I am not aware of Mary Lightner Adam Lightner's wife claiming to have had an affair with Joseph Smith. All she claimed was to have been sealed to Joseph Smith. She said based on Joseph Smith's instruction's she remained with Adam. I see no basis for seeing Adam as keeping her as a platonic companion in-between Joseph's visit's or that there were any such visits. It's not about accusing her of lying, but merely stating she never said she violated her marital vow's with her husband.

Under the idea of eternal marriage children can be begotten in the afterlife. So technically the existing marriages would have ended at death, and they were free to live with Joseph Smith. So the raise up rightious seed idea behing eternal marriage would not be defeated if the polyandrous sealing's did not involve sexuality. Plus the Heber J. Grant example also allow's Joseph Smith to spiritually adopt the kid's of the men, and his wive's involved in his polyandrous marriages.

Todd Compton decided sexuality was unlikely in the Helen Mar Kimball, and Patty Session's marriages to Joseph Smith. In my estimation this open's up that same possibility with other marriages. So if i felt his case for sexuality was his faulty opinion, or otherwise flawed i feel i can disagree with him.

[Shell72]

However, Joseph said he was being told by God that marriage and marriage covenants entered into by civil authority were meaningless.

HiJolly

He was civily married to only one wife in 1844.

HiJolly

Can you see how that would contradict itself?

Marriage in civil ceremonies were meaningless, and the ones that mattered were the ones entered into within the church. But yet, when speaking of this TO the church - he stated he only had one wife - the one he married in a civil ceremony.

Can you see why I struggle with this?

[HiJolly]

OT vs NT it is clear. I guess my main contention is that God is pro monogomy. Look at Jesus' words on divorce:

If polygamy was acceptable, then this argument fails. Jesus is saying that an improper divorce does not nullify a marriage, and if the first marriage still stands, then it follows that a second marriage is adultery.

I'm willing to admit that God can allow some things on a temporary basis for His own reasons but I do not think the OT people, unless directly told to do so by God, we without sin in that. The principle is God wants one man and one wife (with exception in extreme cases). This is a simple issue of not confusing exception with the morally right act. It is the principle of keeping it one to one. I disagree that it was apporved for many in the OT and for Joseph Smith reintroducing it and saying "it is from God."

It's almost like you have no idea of the polygamous mores in Semitic culture. From ancient Ur clear down to present day Middle-east cultures like the Arabs. What's up with that? You do realize that they STILL have this standard today, right? I mean, over 4,000 years of history.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

hijolly, did he have more than one wife at all? you said civilly married. is there a difference between that and married in the church?

Yes, there is. A temple sealing is not necessarily the same as a civil marriage.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

But he was giving a Sermon HiJolly. So why would he be acknowledging a civil union and disregarding his holy unions? If he were giving a speech at Town Hall regarding marriage - i can see him attesting to one marriage, as that is what Town hall is all about. But to deny marriages that he stated were "of God" in a sermon - I don't understand that.

Me either, unless it was sheer self-preservation. Which, considering some of his other statements to that effect, could be.

HiJolly

[Shell72]

There was a time I did question his motives. After many years of research, I feel I understand Joseph well enough to be able to support some general view of where his personal morals were. I hope I'm not wrong, and by the evidence of what he taught as applied in my own life, I'm convinced I'm not wrong. John 7:17. As to that last question. You've just blown my mind, and not in a good way. How much Mormon history do you know?

HiJolly

I did not mean to blow your mind. I am trying to understand and stating my feelings honestly on the issue. I am learning about the history and as I said - the more I learn, the more questions I have.

[the_jason]

Yes, there is. A temple sealing is not necessarily the same as a civil marriage.

A temple sealing is a marriage performed by the sealing power of the priesthood. Today this power is recognized as legal authority. Back then it wasn't.

[HiJolly]

Can you see how that would contradict itself?

Marriage in civil ceremonies were meaningless, and the ones that mattered were the ones entered into within the church. But yet, when speaking of this TO the church - he stated he only had one wife - the one he married in a civil ceremony.

Can you see why I struggle with this?

Yes, I see what you mean. Why did Abraham lie to Pharaoh and another King about being married to Sarah? Questions beneficial to deep thought.

HiJolly

[Shell72]

Again, I really appreciate the input I am getting here. I know for some it must be frusterating to have these conversations, and I am very grateful that we are able to :)

[HiJolly]

I did not mean to blow your mind. I am trying to understand and stating my feelings honestly on the issue. I am learning about the history and as I said - the more I learn, the more questions I have.

I highly recommend the Richard Bushman book Rough Stone Rolling - Amazon.com: Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling: Books: Richard Lyman Bushman

HiJolly

[JonboySquarepants]

i wonder what j. smiths other wives were thinking when they heard him say he was only married to emma... i mean, you say maybe it was a matter of preservation. do you think someone would have killed him just because he said he had more than one wife?

[the_jason]

I did not mean to blow your mind. I am trying to understand and stating my feelings honestly on the issue. I am learning about the history and as I said - the more I learn, the more questions I have.

That's where, in my opinion, you fall short. You don't need to know all of the history and all of the doctrine to believe the truth. If so, the Church would have no members. All that's necessary to have a testimony is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and an open willingness to learn and accept the truth. Everyone has questions, but not everyone uses those questions as an excuse not to believe. The Lord requires faith more than he requires knowledge.

"For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward." - D&C 58:26

[Shell72]

Yes, I see what you mean. Why did Abraham lie to Pharaoh and another King about being married to Sarah? Questions beneficial to deep thought.

HiJolly

I'm glad you brought that up...

"But God came to Abimelech in a dream one night and said to him, "You are as good as dead because of the woman you have taken; she is a married woman."

4 Now Abimelech had not gone near her, so he said, "Lord, will you destroy an innocent nation? 5 Did he not say to me, 'She is my sister,' and didn't she also say, 'He is my brother'? I have done this with a clear conscience and clean hands."

6 Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I know you did this with a clear conscience, and so I have kept you from sinning against me. That is why I did not let you touch her. 7 Now return the man's wife, for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you will live. But if you do not return her, you may be sure that you and all yours will die."

GEnesis 20:3-6

When questioned by Abimech as to why he said he was Sarah's brother, Abraham stated that he would have been put to death, as Abimech was not from a God fearing area and Abraham did not want to die. He also pointed out that Sarah was in fact his sister through his father but not his mother.

Joseph Smith did not face death, and he was stading amongst believers when he stated that he only had one wife.

[HiJolly]

i wonder what j. smiths other wives were thinking when they heard him say he was only married to emma... i mean, you say maybe it was a matter of preservation. do you think someone would have killed him just because he said he had more than one wife?

Do you know why Joseph was killed in 1844?

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

I'm glad you brought that up...

<snip>

Joseph Smith did not face death, and he was stading amongst believers when he stated that he only had one wife.

Do you know why Joseph was killed in 1844?

HiJolly

[Shell72]

That's where, in my opinion, you fall short. You don't need to know all of the history and all of the doctrine to believe the truth. If so, the Church would have no members. All that's necessary to have a testimony is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and an open willingness to learn and accept the truth. Everyone has questions, but not everyone uses those questions as an excuse not to believe. The Lord requires faith more than he requires knowledge.

"For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward." - D&C 58:26

With all due respect, I am not falling short by believing without a doubt the Bible, and questioning the words of Joseph Smith which in some cases directly contradict the Bible in my opinon. I have a willingness to learn the "truth" - but I want to learn God's truth - not mans.

"A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thought to his steps" Proverbs 14:14-16

[Dr T]

Polygamy was NOT practiced in Greek and Roman societies of the time:

"Even though we may find numerous traces of polygamy and polyandry in the Gk. myths, monogamy predominated in the Gk. world in the historical period. Morality within marriage was strict. The Homeric hero had one wife, who was faithful and inviolable, a good manager of the home and mother. Gk. marriage was monogamous. [New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, (NIDNTT) Colin Brown, eds. Zond. s.v. "Marriage, adultery, bride, bridegroom"]

"Polygamy was not practiced in the Roman world outside Palestine, though illegal bigamy and certainly adultery were. [The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Gaebelein, Frank E., ed., Vol I. Zondervan, 1979 in.loc. 1 Tim 3]

Polygamy was practiced somewhat in 1st century Palestinian Judaism (by the government/aristocratic leaders):

"In the Second Temple period, Jewish society was, at least theoretically, polygamous, like other oriental societies of the time but in contrast to the neighboring Greek and Roman societies...."[HI:JWGRP:85]

"There is evidence of the practice of polygamy in Palestinian Judaism in NT times (cf. J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament Period, 1969, 90, 93, 369f.). Herod the Great (37-4 B.C.) had ten wives (Josephus, Ant. 17, 19f.; War 1,562) and a considerable harem (War 1,511). Polygamy and concubinage among the aristocracy is attested by Josephus, Ant. 12, 186ff.; 13, 380; War 1, 97. The continued practice of levirate marriage (Yeb. 15b) evidently led to polygamy, which was countenanced by the school of Shammai but not by that of Hillel. [NIDNTT:s.v. "Marriage, adultery, bride, bridegroom]

Among the Jews, it was not accepted by the prestigious school of Hillel (above), nor by the strict Dead Sea Sect (Qumran), and was not widely practiced, esp. among the rabbi's:

"But even if polygamy was permitted by tannaitic halakhah, other halakhic systems counseled otherwise. During the Second Temple period, monogamy was preferred even on the conceptual plane by, above all, the Dead Sea Sect whose halakhah explicitly prohibited polygamy. In the reworked version of the statutes of the king in the Temple Scroll, it is stated: "he shall not take another wife in addition to her, for she alone shall be with him all the days of her life" (LVII 17-8). In the Damascus Covenant, criticism is leveled against the 'builders of the wall' (Pharisees?) in the following terms: 'they shall be caught in fornication twice; once by taking a second wife while the first is still alive...' [HI:JWGRP:85]

"it was known in Jewish society as represented in rabbinic literature, polygamy was not widespread in practice, especially not among the sages themselves." [HI:JWGRP:86]

So, polygamy was present only in a particular subset of Palestinian Judaism (not in Roman society, Greek society, Diaspora Jewish communities, the Hillel-school, or Dead Sea Sect), and generally confined to the aristocracy.

[the_jason]

I have a willingness to learn the "truth" - but I want to learn God's truth - not mans.

Oh really? Then why are you so consumed with pointing out the faults of a man? God's truth has to do with doctrine and saving ordinances. It's only man who needs answers to all questions and points to a person's shortcomings as proof that they aren't a prophet.

[Shell72]

Do you know why Joseph was killed in 1844?

HiJolly

Honestly, I am undecided on that issue. I read that when Joseph's ways were exposed in a newspaper he declared martial law and was indicted for treason, was put in jail, and sent someone out to bring back men to break him out of jail. The person declined, and an angry mob broke in and murdered him.