YouTuber Alyssa Grenfell Has Cost The Church 2.4 Million Dollars

[Marcus]

...It seems as though he took the commandment seriously but also found a 'work a round' so that he could still put Emma first. To do that he tried to keep things as secretive as possible...

So let's get this straight. Smith "put Emma first" by making sure he was "as secretive as possible" while illegally marrying other women and quite a few minor girls, including his foster daughters, the household help, already married women, sisters, mothers and daughters, and having sexual relationships with many, many women and minor girls other than his legal wife?

What utter and complete BS.

[I Have Questions]

...It seems as though he took the commandment seriously but also found a 'work a round' so that he could still put Emma first. To do that he tried to keep things as secretive as possible...

So let's get this straight. Smith "put Emma first" by making sure he was "as secretive as possible" while illegally marrying other women and quite a few minor girls, including his foster daughters, the household help, already married women, sisters, mothers and daughters, and having sexual relationships with many, many women and minor girls other than his legal wife?

What utter and complete BS.

The Church was putting the SEC first by trying to keep information about the size of its portfolio as secretive as possible. I’ve heard lots of people excusing Smith’s philandering with some ridiculous arguments. But “Smith put Emma first by keeping his extramarital affairs a secret” is about the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard suggested. It can only have been dreamt up by an idiot male.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Is "gather[ing] his wives into a household" really an issue? Can you explain why, because I don't understand the significance.

The reasons for polygamy in the early church had more than one purpose. Some were for eternity only in order to seal families in the hereafter. Some were for time and eternity. The fact that the women that lived in either in an eternal sealing covenant or a time and eternity covenant, and essentially lived their own lives, gives credence to the reality that on a day-to-day basis Joseph was engaged in many other things other than running a domicile. It seems as though he took the commandment seriously but also found a 'work a round' so that he could still put Emma first. To do that he tried to keep things as secretive as possible.

So, the fact is, Joseph never co-habitated with the women who were called into the covenant of plural marriage. Non-cohabitative or spiritual marriages suggest a religious motivation, such as connecting families spiritually or following a commandment, rather than purely personal desire for women or power.

Regards,
MG

Sometimes MPOSG really lets the mask slip. Between this and his utter disregard for children being raped by Mormons we’ve been able to see the face of Mormonism emerge in all its ugliness.

“These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.”

That is Mormonism in a nutshell, along with many other Christian cults across the globe.

- Doc

[Morley]

Can you come right out and say,, plainly, what it is that you are dancing around?

Are you implying that Joseph's failure to gather his wives into a household means that he did not have sexual intercourse with them? If so, please just say that, though it is a complete non-sequitor. If not, them please say whatever it is.

If the sealing was the important thing, then why go through the sham "marriages". If the purpose was purely spiritual, what need was there for secrecy? If the sealing was so important for the eternities, and Emma was the true love of his life, and to be put first, why was Joseph's first sealing not to Emma? Why did she have to wait till he had been sealed to 20+ other women?

On hypotheticals:

• "... gives credence to the reality ..."
• "It seems as though ..."
• "... spiritual marriages suggest ..."

are all non-factual. In fact, giving credence to something does not make that something real, only that, for some, it is believable. If I and others are not to be allowed to construct hypotheticals because they are not based in reality, might I suggest that you also stick to statements of fact, and omit reasoning based on conditions that you cannot prove.

ETA: since you didn't challenge the testimonies of the plural wives I mentioned before, I assume that you accept that their relationship with Joseph was sexual.

Also, at least some of the plural wives could not "essentially live[] their own lives" - witness Helen Kimbal's discovery, after the sealing to Joseph, that her youth had come to an end, and she could no longer be with her friends, go to parties, or go dancing - something that she loved.

This.

[Physics Guy]

Picking over arguments about scroll lengths and chiasmus and so on is entertaining enough to sustain the live-action role-playing game of taking Mormon apologetics seriously. But that's just the absurd premise with which we all play along. Nobody actually does take Mormon apologetics seriously, because of polygamy.

Smith's sex life is the obvious proof that his Restoration was all just a scam. God told him to cheat on his wife. Yeah, Joe, sure, that was God. You're a prophet. Uh-huh.

There's nothing actually up for debate. Even listening to any Mormon arguments is just a game that we play. If anyone seriously wonders whether there might be something to the Restoration, polygamy is the clear No.

But we should say that more often, more clearly. Otherwise every long thread we devote to debates about whether Nephite bones would all have rusted away in the Nicaraguan jungle is sending a message, perhaps to wavering Mormons, that the polygamy thing must somehow not really be bad enough to have closed the whole case.

No, it is that bad. The case is closed. We're just playing. Maybe we should make that a sticky.

[Gadianton]

Picking over arguments about scroll lengths and chiasmus and so on is entertaining enough to sustain the live-action role-playing game of taking Mormon apologetics seriously. But that's just the absurd premise with which we all play along. Nobody actually does take Mormon apologetics seriously, because of polygamy.

Smith's sex life is the obvious proof that his Restoration was all just a scam. God told him to cheat on his wife. Yeah, Joe, sure, that was God. You're a prophet. Uh-huh.

There's nothing actually up for debate. Even listening to any Mormon arguments is just a game that we play. If anyone seriously wonders whether there might be something to the Restoration, polygamy is the clear No.

But we should say that more often, more clearly. Otherwise every long thread we devote to debates about whether Nephite bones would all have rusted away in the Nicaraguan jungle is sending a message, perhaps to wavering Mormons, that the polygamy thing must somehow not really be bad enough to have closed the whole case.

No, it is that bad. The case is closed. We're just playing. Maybe we should make that a sticky.

While there is truth to that among modern, educated people, is it justified? As fascism takes root here in the States, the bearded self-proclaimed religious authorities are cropping up like weeds on Rumble and YouTube. To me it's a dice roll whether Mormonism will be kicked to the curb or embraced if this trend deepens. Who better to properly dominate over a "trad wife" than a bearded Mormon polygamist from the frontier? In terms of an authoritarian man marrying younger women while growing his own crops, which is the image these guys are going for, is there anyone who can outdo a Mormon from Brigham's time? My pro-Trump friends from a while back loved the Brigham Young character in Hell on Wheels. A total bad ass whose word was the law and knew how to put a woman in her place. We may be entering an era where what you're so disturbed by in Mormonism is it's largest selling point to society at large.

Going a little deeper than that, I also think if one believes God's ways aren't man's ways, it's hasty to demand an authoritarian religious order isn't what God is going for. Perhaps following God's law requires real faith?

[MG 2.0]

The reasons for polygamy in the early church had more than one purpose. Some were for eternity only in order to seal families in the hereafter. Some were for time and eternity. The fact that the women that lived in either in an eternal sealing covenant or a time and eternity covenant, and essentially lived their own lives, gives credence to the reality that on a day-to-day basis Joseph was engaged in many other things other than running a domicile. It seems as though he took the commandment seriously but also found a 'work a round' so that he could still put Emma first. To do that he tried to keep things as secretive as possible.

So, the fact is, Joseph never co-habitated with the women who were called into the covenant of plural marriage. Non-cohabitative or spiritual marriages suggest a religious motivation, such as connecting families spiritually or following a commandment, rather than purely personal desire for women or power.

Regards,
MG

Can you come right out and say,, plainly, what it is that you are dancing around?

Are you implying that Joseph's failure to gather his wives into a household means that he did not have sexual intercourse with them? If so, please just say that, though it is a complete non-sequitor. If not, them please say whatever it is.

If the sealing was the important thing, then why go through the sham "marriages". If the purpose was purely spiritual, what need was there for secrecy? If the sealing was so important for the eternities, and Emma was the true love of his life, and to be put first, why was Joseph's first sealing not to Emma? Why did she have to wait till he had been sealed to 20+ other women?

The early sealings where associated with the introduction of plural marriage. After the Fanny Alger incident I would thing Emma was not too keen on Joseph taking other wives. Emma threw Fanny out not long after she and Oliver made the observation of Joseph and Fanny in the barn. One might safely make the conjecture that Joseph not would be obliged or feel it safe to propose to Emma and ask her that she be one of the first sealings. There was a bit of 'stuff' going on there. She would likely have refused. Without a doubt. Late, she was amenable.

ETA: since you didn't challenge the testimonies of the plural wives I mentioned before, I assume that you accept that their relationship with Joseph was sexual.

In some of the marriages the evidence shows that there were sexual relations.

Also, at least some of the plural wives could not "essentially live[] their own lives" - witness Helen Kimbal's discovery, after the sealing to Joseph, that her youth had come to an end, and she could no longer be with her friends, go to parties, or go dancing - something that she loved.

Helen went on and lived a full life.

Helen went on to marry Horace Whitney "for time" in 1846. She lived a full life with Whitney, bore children, and was active as a journalist and writer defending plural marriage practice. Helen had a long marriage of 38 years with Whitney and died in 1896, indicating that she moved forward with her own life rather than being permanently bound by her sealing to Joseph Smith.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

Can you come right out and say,, plainly, what it is that you are dancing around?

Are you implying that Joseph's failure to gather his wives into a household means that he did not have sexual intercourse with them? If so, please just say that, though it is a complete non-sequitor. If not, them please say whatever it is.

If the sealing was the important thing, then why go through the sham "marriages". If the purpose was purely spiritual, what need was there for secrecy? If the sealing was so important for the eternities, and Emma was the true love of his life, and to be put first, why was Joseph's first sealing not to Emma? Why did she have to wait till he had been sealed to 20+ other women?

The early sealings where associated with the introduction of plural marriage. After the Fanny Alger incident I would thing Emma was not too keen on Joseph taking other wives. Emma threw Fanny out not long after she and Oliver made the observation of Joseph and Fanny in the barn. One might safely make the conjecture that Joseph would be obliged or feel it safe to propose to Emma and ask her that she be one of the first sealings. There was a bit of 'stuff' going on there. She would likely have refused. Without a doubt. Late, she was amenable.

ETA: since you didn't challenge the testimonies of the plural wives I mentioned before, I assume that you accept that their relationship with Joseph was sexual.

In some of the marriages the evidence shows that there were sexual relations.

Also, at least some of the plural wives could not "essentially live[] their own lives" - witness Helen Kimbal's discovery, after the sealing to Joseph, that her youth had come to an end, and she could no longer be with her friends, go to parties, or go dancing - something that she loved.

Helen went on and lived a full life.

Helen went on to marry Horace Whitney "for time" in 1846. She lived a full life with Whitney, bore children, and was active as a journalist and writer defending plural marriage practice. Helen had a long marriage of 38 years with Whitney and died in 1896, indicating that she moved forward with her own life rather than being permanently bound by her sealing to Joseph Smith.

Regards,
MG

So, you're still making lots of use of still lots of conjecture, euphemisms, and suppositions? Dare I call them "hypotheticals"?

"The early sealings [were] associated with the introduction of plural marriage."
Are you asserting that there could have been no sealing before Joseph took plural "wives" - that Joseph could not have chosen to be sealed to Emma first, before any of the others? Any actual evidence to support this idea?

"Emma threw Fanny out not long after she and Oliver made the observation of Joseph and Fanny in the barn."
I suppose "in the barn" is one way to put it, if you don't want to say clearly what they were doing in the barn. Why so reluctant to say why Oliver described the incident as "a dirty, nasty, filthy affair"?

"One might safely make the conjecture that Joseph would be obliged or feel it safe to propose to Emma and ask her that she be one of the first sealings."
You do not know, do you, whether the late sealing to Emma was Joseph's idea, or that of Emma, so you "safely make the conjecture" that suits the narrative that you favour, although you have provided no evidence.

"She would likely have refused. Without a doubt."
"likely" and "without a doubt" - sorry, but the rules of logic say you have to choose one or the other - and you should provide evidence to support your choice if there is not to be any doubt.

"In some of the marriages the evidence shows that there were sexual relations. "
Should I assume that, given the illegality of the "marriages", you now concede that Joseph was guilty, under the civil law, of fornication/adultery with these "wives"?

"Helen went on and lived a full life"
Is this statement supposed to negate Helen Kimball's discovery, after the sealing to Joseph, that she was no longer free to be like the other girls her age - that the rest of her youth was effectively stolen from her, without her having known that that would be the effect of the sealing?

I knew that [my father] loved me too well to teach me anything that was not strictly pure, virtuous and exalting in its tendencies; and no one else could have influenced me at that time or brought me to accept of a doctrine so utterly repugnant and so contrary to all of our former ideas and traditions.

[My mother] had witnessed the sufferings of others, who were older & who better understood the step they were taking, & to see her child, who had scarcely seen her fifteenth summer, following in the same thorny path, in her mind she saw the misery which was as sure to come...; but it was all hidden from me.

"During the winter of 1843-44, there were weekly parties at Joseph Smith’s Mansion House. Many of Helen’s friends attended, as well as her sixteen-year-old brother William. Disappointed,"

my father had been warned by the Prophet to keep his daughter away...I felt quite sore over it, and thought it a very unkind act in father to allow [William] to go and enjoy the dance unrestrained with others of my companions, and fettered me down, for no girl loved dancing better than I did...and like a wild bird I longed for the freedom that was denied me; and thought myself an abused child, and that it was pardonable if I did murmur.

The source of the above quotes is: Remembering the Wives of Joseph Smith: Helen Mar Kimball

[MG 2.0]

*snip

In my post I failed to add a word that makes a big difference in what I wrote:

The early sealings where associated with the introduction of plural marriage. After the Fanny Alger incident I would thing Emma was not too keen on Joseph taking other wives. Emma threw Fanny out not long after she and Oliver made the observation of Joseph and Fanny in the barn. One might safely make the conjecture that Joseph would NOT be obliged or feel it safe to propose to Emma and ask her that she be one of the first sealings. There was a bit of 'stuff' going on there. She would likely have refused. Without a doubt. Late, she was amenable.

malkie, I did read your response but I am not seeing anything that puts a hole in anything I said.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

*snip

In my post I failed to add a word that makes a big difference in what I wrote:

The early sealings where associated with the introduction of plural marriage. After the Fanny Alger incident I would thing Emma was not too keen on Joseph taking other wives. Emma threw Fanny out not long after she and Oliver made the observation of Joseph and Fanny in the barn. One might safely make the conjecture that Joseph would NOT be obliged or feel it safe to propose to Emma and ask her that she be one of the first sealings. There was a bit of 'stuff' going on there. She would likely have refused. Without a doubt. Late, she was amenable.

malkie, I did read your response but I am not seeing anything that puts a hole in anything I said.

Regards,
MG

Of course you're not! You're just not producing evidence, as signaled by your use of suppositions.

You're also failing to respond to both hints and direct questions. Let me try again:

• Given your extensive use of conjecture and suppositions - in other words, non-factuals, or "hypotheticals" - is it OK for other people, including me, to also use them? Or do you still hold that as a valid criticism?
• Could Joseph not have been sealed to Emma before he took and was sealed to plural "wives"?
• Can you say clearly what Joseph and Fanny were doing in the barn that caused Oliver to talk about the incident as "a dirty, nasty, filthy affair"?
• Do you know whether the late sealing to Emma (after 20+ plural "wives") was Joseph's idea, or that of Emma?
• Do "She would likely have refused." and "Without a doubt." have the same meaning, so that you do not have to choose one or the other?
• Was Joseph guilty, under the civil law, of fornication/adultery with his plural "wives"?
• Do you think that how her sealing to Joseph affected Helen's youth is justified by your description of her later life as "full"?