What is your best evidence for Joseph Smith sleeping with his wives?

[_asbestosman]

That we have to close our minds off to anything that might cause us to doubt says a lot about our faith, doesn't it?

In my case I would say that it speaks only to my personal weakness rather than the strength or weakness of a strong testimony of the church.

[_asbestosman]

That really doesn't make much sense to me. God commanded something so that Satan would have a tool to use against the restoration?

More like God commanded something to exercise our faith and so Satan uses that as an opportunity to destroy said faith. Polygamy wouldn't seem to be the first nor the last, but it does seem to be a significant one. The Problem of Evil is probably the biggest.

[_Runtu]

That we have to close our minds off to anything that might cause us to doubt says a lot about our faith, doesn't it?

In my case I would say that it speaks only to my personal weakness rather than the strength or weakness of a strong testimony of the church.

I don't think you're alone. I think it speaks more to the horrific nature of what happened. It's so bad that most people can't reconcile it with their testimony.

There seem to be 4 apologist responses to Joseph's behavior:

1. Joseph didn't have sex with these women, but these were loose dynastic relationships (this is Jan's position).
2. The girls were willing participants, so it was all good (this is Juliann's position).
3. How dare you besmirch the good name of the prophet (this is charity's position)?
4. God was cool with it, so you're just a bunch of neo-Victorian prudes (this is Will's position).

I suppose we could add your response, which seems to be that if you ignore the details, it won't be that bad.

Edited to add Will's position.

[_Jason Bourne]

It helps to remember that Joseph's only gift, the only thing he ever did as a prophet, was write the Book of Mormon. Nothing else he did was sanctioned by God. Everything else he did, he did as a man.

Why do you take this position and how do you know this?

"He has a gift to translate the book and I have commanded him that he shall pretend to no other gift, for I will grant him no other gift." — Book of Commandments, 4:2

I knew that Runtu but you spoiled my fun. I wanted to see if harm knew it. Probably she did.

[_asbestosman]

I suppose we could add your response, which seems to be that if you ignore the details, it won't be that bad.

Except that my position is that if you know the true details, it won't be that bad. That is to say, I think it likely that many of the so-called details are not entirely accurate.

[_Runtu]

I suppose we could add your response, which seems to be that if you ignore the details, it won't be that bad.

Except that my position is that if you know the true details, it won't be that bad. That is to say, I think it likely that many of the so-called details are not entirely accurate.

Which would explain why you don't want to learn the details. If your position is what you say it is, you're going to be sorely disappointed. The details aren't that bad; they're worse.

I know you probably think I have some axe to grind, or someone offended me, or whatever, but really, anyone who knows what happened (and the "so-called details" are consistent and damning) and isn't troubled has serious problems, in my judgment. I'm not saying that one necessarily has to believe Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet or was a fallen prophet, but to suggest that things weren't that bad is either born of ignorance or denial.

[_Scottie]

I suppose we could add your response, which seems to be that if you ignore the details, it won't be that bad.

Except that my position is that if you know the true details, it won't be that bad. That is to say, I think it likely that many of the so-called details are not entirely accurate.

Which would explain why you don't want to learn the details. If your position is what you say it is, you're going to be sorely disappointed. The details aren't that bad; they're worse.

I know you probably think I have some axe to grind, or someone offended me, or whatever, but really, anyone who knows what happened (and the "so-called details" are consistent and damning) and isn't troubled has serious problems, in my judgment. I'm not saying that one necessarily has to believe Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet or was a fallen prophet, but to suggest that things weren't that bad is either born of ignorance or denial.

You and your puritanical view of things, Runtu. Makes me sick!!

They are only bad if you're projecting your own lustful heart on them. Joseph Smith had nothing but righteousness in his heart when he did these things.

:)

[_asbestosman]

I know you probably think I have some axe to grind, or someone offended me, or whatever,

No, I don't go for the usual excuses about axes or offenses. I think it more likely that you are simply mistaken. However, since I cannot see how you are mistaken nor how you could be right, I can merely hope you continue following life as best you can see.

but to suggest that things weren't that bad is either born of ignorance or denial.

I concede ignorance. While I imagine that knowledge may bring up a few uncomfortable questions, I do not think it will show the prophet to be reprehensible on the level of modern day womenizers. I don't think he'd even reach the level of Bill Clinton with Monica.

[_evolving]

They are only bad if you're projecting your own lustful heart on them Joseph Smith had nothing but righteousness in his heart when he did these things.

have you ever read the letter from Joseph Smith to Sarah Ann Whitney?? Aug 1842 ?? the link is here http://deseretbook.com/personalwritings/77

most informative paragraph here --
'I am now at Carlos Graingers [Granger], Just back of Brother Hyrams farm, it is only one mile from town, the nights are very pleasant indeed, all three of y you come <can> come and See me in the fore part of the night, let Brother Whitney come a little a head, and nock at the south East corner of the house at <the> window; it is next to the cornfield, I have a room intirely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect safty, I <know> it is the will of God that you should comfort <me> now in this time of affliction, or not at[ta]1 now is the [p. 1] time or never, but I hav[e] no kneed of saying any such thing, to you, for I know the goodness of your hearts, and that you will do the will of the Lord, when it is made known to you; the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty: only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroick undertakeing; but so much the greater frendship, and the more Joy, when I see you I <will> tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper, burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it. one thing I want to see you for is <to> git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c. you wi will pardon me for my earnestness on <this subject> when you consider how lonesome I must be, your good feelings know how to <make> every allowance for me, I close my letter, I think Emma wont come tonight if she don't don't fail to come to night. I subscribe myself your most obedient, <and> affectionate, companion, and friend."

If you posses the capacity to read and this letter in context and still have the delusion that "everything" Joseph did was in the "righteousness in his heart " you have a sever seperation from reality..

[_Runtu]

No, I don't go for the usual excuses about axes or offenses. I think it more likely that you are simply mistaken. However, since I cannot see how you are mistaken nor how you could be right, I can merely hope you continue following life as best you can see.

I'm glad to hear that. I am doing the best I can.

I concede ignorance. While I imagine that knowledge may bring up a few uncomfortable questions, I do not think it will show the prophet to be reprehensible on the level of modern day womenizers. I don't think he'd even reach the level of Bill Clinton with Monica.

For the record, I think what Clinton did was reprehensible and constituted workplace sexual harassment. On some levels, he did the same that Joseph Smith did: used his position of power to get sexual favors and later attacked the messenger when he was called on it. But I can think of a few things Clinton didn't do that Joseph did:

1. "Adopt" teenage girls, take their inheritance, and then bed the girls (he did this twice, with the Partridge sisters and the Lawrence sisters).
2. Tell families that their eternal exaltation depended on their giving their teenaged daughters to him as brides (without Emma's knowledge, of course). He did this at least twice (Helen Kimball and Sarah Whitney).
3. Send men away on missions and then, when they were safely gone, approach their wives (he did this at least twice, to Orson and Sarah Pratt and Orson and Marinda Hyde).

I don't think Bill Clinton ever "reached that level."