Why is Joseph Smith's polygamy controversial?

[_beastie]

Even section 132 of the D&C requires the plural wives to be virgins.

Not really. It has an escape clause:

132:41

And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and is she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hat committed adultery.

So if the woman was "appointed by the holy anointing", she could be with another man and it wouldn't be adultery.


Kaching!!!


Joseph Smith' polygamy is controversial because he practiced it in the most disgusting manner imaginable.

[_mentalgymnast]

Joseph Smith was an adulterous, philandering, domineering, manipulative, mysoginistic brute of a man, at least in his sex life. He ought to have been ashamed of himself, and he is not worthy of the defense of him, and the adoration of him, that TBMs pour on him.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Tell me, do you think that the Pentecostal evangelist Aimee Semple McPherson was a woman of God? If so, how do you explain her troubled and at times somewhat scandalous behavior and resulting cover ups? What were some of the conditions which may have led her to err or stray? Was her spiritual evangelizing still acceptable before God even though she may not have been a stellar example of pristine purity?

go to: http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/ ... ndex.shtml

Listen to the whole interview. Listen for some of the interesting parallels between her life and other religious leaders/evangelists, including Joseph Smith.

Religious leaders that have been in the service of their God have in many cases been flawed individuals. They have been less than candid in admitting to their sins/wrongdoings. Why is Joseph Smith and his interpretive (albeit, possibly flawed at times) "acting out" on what he saw as a divine mandate/command not cut the same slack as others throughout history?

Could God still have loved Joseph and supported/justified the work that he was called to do in a similar fashion to the love one would assume he continued to have towards Aimee Semple McPherson and the work that she attempted, and was possibly called to do, in bringing souls to Jesus?

Regards,
MG

[_huckelberry]

Mentalgymnist, I can agree all kinds a leaders have shortcomings. That would not just be limited to religious leaders. It would apply to all kinds of leaders. I love Miles Davis music enough to see him as a leader but he was out of control beding the ladies and couldn't really free himself from addictions. These are serious problems and just because I like his music I do not think I should follow him in in his mistakes.

You see there is a special amplifier of problems that Joseph Smith has created for himself. He claimed for himself an authority role exceeding anybody else in Christian history.

With this wildly exaggurated authority claim his shortcoming figure much larger than the shortcoming of other leaders like say Mortin Luther King. Mr King lead by proposing ideas that people could understand as valuable. The ideas are valuable with or without Kings personal shortcomings. Becuse his contribution is in ideas and not his person all the rest of us are given the responsiblity of using our own understanding invention and authority to find better fulfillment of his ideas.

Sometimes what genuinely irritates me about LDS teaching is the teaching that we must have a special authoritarian prophet. I think Joseph claimed authority which exceeds even Moses and Moses authority far exceeeds the other prophets. They like King broght their message and fed people with the messages worth. Joseph instead taught that value lies in being attatched to himself. Nobody could make an alternative to Josephs views. Nobody could tell him his behavior was out of hand. It should not be that way. That is the big mistake. It is the mistake which creates the distorted behaviour in Josephs polygamy.

Repeating, not only does the LDS church create this new and distorted authority concept it teaches people that that is the way it is supposed to be. People read the Old Testament through the lense of Joseph Smith authority when there was no such authority in Old Testament times. People think other churchs are defective because they do not have this thing that shouldn't be had. It choaks inspiration. It shortcircuits normal correctives of collegues and friends. It puts corrupting authority in the hands of one person.

Because you are right, all sorts of leaders have moral blindspots and are subject to temptation ignorance and mistakes, there should be greater limits on authority. That is why God did not continue an LDS authority system in the early church. Well it never was there and never was supposed to be continued or restored. It is not the way thing work best.

[_Sethbag]

Joseph Smith was an adulterous, philandering, domineering, manipulative, mysoginistic brute of a man, at least in his sex life. He ought to have been ashamed of himself, and he is not worthy of the defense of him, and the adoration of him, that TBMs pour on him.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Tell me, do you think that the Pentecostal evangelist Aimee Semple McPherson was a woman of God?

I'll just reply to this line here, since that pretty much takes care of the rest of your post. No, I don't, because I don't think God actually exists. I think she was a woman of her own purposes. Even if she had a philanthropic bent, that's still just a human empathetic trait, and not somehow a calling of God. I'm listening to the mp3 of that story right now, so I haven't heard the whole thing, but no, I don't think that God exists, and Sister Aimee and any other self-proclaimed mouthpiece for God is just that, self-proclaimed, and their "calling" means jack squat.

Back to Joseph Smith, I don't think that he was 100% bad. He was a complex person, and I'm sure he was kind to children, loved furry animals, and probably brought Emma flowers from time to time. However good he may have been in some aspects of his life, he was an adulterous, philandering (redundant, I know), domineering, manipulative, mysogynistic brute of a man, at least in his sex life.

And back to what Beastie quoted from Section 132 of the D&C. Here is the quote again.

41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.

This is a very interesting verse. It basically provides a doctrinal basis for married women being "called" by the prophet, I guess, to have sex with a man other than husband. It provides for God appointing a woman, who is already married in Celestial Marriage to another man, to have sex with another man without that being considered adultery.

That's just absolutely crazy by modern LDS doctrinal standards. How do TBMs read this verse and not do a double-take? How do they read this without a WTF?!? moment?

I should talk to my TBM relatives and ask them if they know that the Doctrine and Covenants provides a doctrinal basis for a church leader appointing a married woman, and anointing her, to the "calling" (for lack of a better term) of having sex with another man.

[_truth dancer]

Hi MG..

Why is Joseph Smith and his interpretive (albeit, possibly flawed at times) "acting out" on what he saw as a divine mandate/command not cut the same slack as others throughout history?

This makes me laugh.... :-)

EXACTLY the point... all sorts of folks who believe they are the true messenger, or a true messenger from God get the idea that they are above the laws/rules/decency regarding sex.

You seem to suggest this is a common phenomenon and no big deal and maybe even some sort of evidence that these folks are called by God?

I'm with Seth on this... I just don't think God is a man/being/person choosing a handful of not-so-great folks to bring a divine message to the world.

What I do think is we are all human and some feel more kindness and care toward life, than others.

And maybe it is just me but IF God was going to pick specific people to talk to, don't ask me why but I would think this God would choose the best of the best. I know it sounds crazy to think God would care that his messengers are decent folks but it just makes sense to me. ;-)



~dancer~


Huck.... EXCELLENT point! :-)

[_beastie]

Isn't it amazing that God doesn't have the foresight to choose, as his representatives, people with enough moral fortitude to NOT take sexual advantage of their position?

Certainly those people exist, even if they're not the majority. Jimmy Carter, for example, never took sexual advantage of his position as president.

Why, it's almost as if God's representatives look exactly like they would look if there were no god at all!

[_Sethbag]

I'd just like to point out that the verse that Beastie first quoted, and which I discussed in my previous post, actually discusses the question of whether a woman taken by a man in the New and Everlasting Covenant of marriage, who has sex with another man, is committing adultery.

I think there's a key point here which needs to be pointed out.

This verse is about a woman married for Time and All Eternity to one man, being appointed (and annointed) to have sex with another man. This is not about a woman who is merely married for Time Only to one man being sealed to another man (whether the first man is still alive or not). This is not about platonic sealings creating loose dynastic ties with no sex involved. If there was no sex involved, the verse wouldn't have said "if she be with another man" and then state that this is only adultery (adultery implies sexual relations) if she wasn't appointed and annointed for that purpose. This is about Joseph Smith saying, through this "revelation", that a woman could already be married for time and all eternity, ie: Celestial Marriage, to one man, and then "legally" sleep with another man, as long as God (ie: through his mouthpiece, Joseph Smith) says so. I think this is absolutely critical, because it completely decimates all the common arguments you here from the Defenders of the Faith on this. It completely undercuts the notion that Joseph was "sealed" to these women who were already married for time only to other men, or that these were platonic sealings only, or that he was sealed to them "in the eternities" but it wasn't to be put into practice (ie: a consummated marriage) on earth, etc. All of these arguments are completely and utterly shattered by this verse, where Joseph Smith is telling Emma, basically, that he can sleep with other women who are already sealed to other men, if the Lord wants him to.

Isn't it so demonstrably self-serving for the Prophet to give this revelation, when we know now so clearly that pretty much the only "another man" any of these already-married women were having sex with was none other than Joseph Smith himself?

How does it feel, all you TBMs, to know that according to LDS doctrine, in the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord might appoint your wives, and have them annointed to it, to go have sex with another man, while you're still alive? Pretty cool, eh? No? I wonder how all the men felt with whose wives Joseph Smith had sex. I wonder how many of them even knew about it?

[_Scottie]

Whenever this is brought up on MAD, Juliann is quick to respond that the women all had a strong testimony of the truthfulness of the principle. That these were strong women with minds of their own and they wouldn't fall for something like this if it were a scam.

What do you all think of this defense?

[_Runtu]

Whenever this is brought up on MAD, Juliann is quick to respond that the women all had a strong testimony of the truthfulness of the principle. That these were strong women with minds of their own and they wouldn't fall for something like this if it were a scam.

What do you all think of this defense?

The standard rejoinder is that the women down in Short Creek and Colorado City also are strong women with minds of their own and have testimonies of the truthfulness of the principle and how they practice it. Does that make the Warren Jeffs of the world true prophets? Of course, I've seen Juliann and charity and others wax indignant and say, "How DARE you compare the prophet Joseph Smith to those lecherous frauds?"

[_Sethbag]

I take my cue from the story of Helen Mar Kimball, who initially didn't want to "marry" Joseph Smith, but was willing to sacrifice herself to Joseph Smith in order to gain exaltation for her family, which Joseph Smith had promised her. She was really torn up about this, but after starving herself and suffering for a while she eventually realized that she was better off if she just obeyed the menfolk in her life and did what they said, and accepted that it must have been right for her to marry Joseph Smith. The way I read this is that she was essentially manipulated into marrying Joseph Smith against her better judgment, and then her better judgment was ground down by Joseph and her father, eventually, until she "came around" to their way of thinking. Perhaps it was a kind of Stockholm syndrome.

Anyhow, it really doesn't matter how the women felt, since their feeling that way was in fact a product of Joseph Smith's manipulations. If Joseph Smith approaches your wife, behind your back, propositions her, and she and him have some secret ceremony behind your back and then go have sex, and she eventually decides that since she believes Joseph was a Prophet of God, it must have been OK, does that really make it OK? Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God to these women, for heaven's sake! It was accepted by them as a matter of fact that Joseph Smith was receiving revelations from God all the freaking time! If Joseph told them that God had given them to him for whatever reason, the more bedazzled of them were in a mental state to find a way to rationalize that. And some weren't, and refused his propositions, and some of these women who refused paid the price for that refusal, in having their names dragged through the mud.