Why is Joseph Smith's polygamy controversial?

[_mentalgymnast]

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!

Of course we'd have to assume here that you have a complete understanding of how God would operate in the universe if he did exist. Otherwise, how could you say what you're saying?

Regards,
MG

[_Sethbag]

To say that he was an "adulterous, philandering (redundant, I know), domineering, manipulative, mysogynistic brute of a man..." doesn't seem to fully explain the man. There is more to him than that. For him to truly love Emma and his family it is difficult for me to see him in the context that you place him.

Joseph Smith could love Emma all he wanted, but he apparently didn't love her enough to keep his dick in his pants when she wasn't around. And he didn't love her enough not to lie to her about it. And he didn't love her enough not to try to coerce her spiritually by coming up with "revelations" threatening her with destruction if she didn't go along with his philandering.

How much love did it take for Joseph Smith to actually hold a fake "wedding" ceremony for for him and Emily and Eliza Partridge, in front of Emma Smith, whom he loved soooo much, to keep concealed from Emma the fact that he had already, in fact, "married" these two sisters months before, behind Emma's back? How much love did that take?

Joseph Smith told Emily Partridge that God had given her to him. That's emotional and spiritual coercion. Emily wrote that she had accepted Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, and so she felt bound to take his words at face value. If God had given her to Joseph, then that was that. What a crock of shyte. Her innocence was stolen from her by a manipulative, scheming man over twice her age, who fraudulently convinced her to do things she otherwise abhorred, under color of these things being required by God.

But hey, at least he wrote Emma some good love letters.

[_Sethbag]

Who would be on your short list to replace Joseph Smith (name three or more replacements who lived within the same time period)...and do you think they could/would have been successful through the same sorts of hardships, etc. that Joseph Smith passed through? Would they have shown or succumbed to any human frailties/imperfections? How do you know? Would it matter to you if they did?

Regards,
MG

Well I'll name one, and I'm curious how you respond. How about William Law?

Of course, I don't believe that God even exists, much less appoint human beings to be his deputies and right-hand men on Earth, so for me the issue of who would "replace" Joseph Smith is moot. Nobody would replace him, except for another human being who was willing to stand up and tell the world that hey, God's speaking through me now, you all need to listen up and do as I say.

[_beastie]

Of course we'd have to assume here that you have a complete understanding of how God would operate in the universe if he did exist. Otherwise, how could you say what you're saying?

It isn't necessary to have a complete understanding of how God would operate. It's only necessary to observe that the world, as it is, looks just like a world without god would look like. The only way you can refute that statement is to provide real evidence of things that occur in the world that could not possibly occur in a world without god.

[_beastie]

Who would be on your short list to replace Joseph Smith (name three or more replacements who lived within the same time period)...and do you think they could/would have been successful through the same sorts of hardships, etc. that Joseph Smith passed through? Would they have shown or succumbed to any human frailties/imperfections? How do you know? Would it matter to you if they did?

What do you mean by "successful"? Believers often seem to judge Joseph Smith by a totally different measure than they would judge other people, or even themselves. Let's say that you're a married man with children, and you have a very high stress career and a lot of responsibility at church. Perhaps you're a CEO of a corporation, and the stake president to boot. This stress lasts a decade, during which time you engage in morally objectionable behavior, such as having repeated affairs behind your wife's back, and engaging in lots of lies about your behavior. Would you say that you passed through your hardships "successfully"?

Yes. If towards the end of his life when he knew that he was going to very possibly lose his life, he reneged on everything and put it all up for sale to the highest bidder.

I suppose the real question should be along the lines of how much "bad behavior" is God is able to accept in a prophet...or anyone else... before he can't put up with any more and dumps him/her.

So that's the ONLY misbehavior that would, in your opinion, undermine his claims? So he could be a child molester, a mass murderer, a serial liar in all of his dealings, known to have produced fraudulent "ancient" texts before, and NONE of those things would undermine his claims?

I am at a loss at how to respond to that, other than to say that your God is incredibly stupid. He supposedly wants as many of his children to have faith in the LDS gospel as possible, and doesn't realize that he needs to choose, as his representatives, people of high moral quality so followers can trust their integrity?

Geez, even the basest business understands that and will fire celebrity representatives who get lots of bad press.

[_truth dancer]

Hi MG... :-)

We are all strongly guided by sexual desires and thoughts. Those thoughts and desires can be misguided and later either explained away or repented of.

Yes, and there are those, believe it or not, who would not screw girls and woman other than their wives. I'm unaware of Joseph Smith repenting.. in fact, in my opinion, it seems like he digs himself deeper and deeper into the abyss as he goes along.

Whether or not Joseph Smith visualized himself as "above the law" however, is debatable. Others have succumbed to that viewpoint, but I'm not sure that Joseph Smith did, only in the sense that he believed that the laws of God were higher than man's and that this gave him the authority to participate/officiate in plural marriages.

"Above the law," means, "above the law." It means Joseph Smith (and others of similar character), did not feel the law of the land applied to him. (Or at least they claim this... believing this is another thing)! ;-) The reasons for their feelings are really insignificant. The point is, they do not believe they have to abide by the laws. What society has deemed decent, moral, considerate, appropriate, caring, right, honorable, LEGAL, etc. etc. etc., do not apply to them.

Not evidence, but a susceptibility that may tag along with a person that is charasmatic and somewhat ego driven.

Yep... seems lots of men, when given power think they have the right to all the women they wish.

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. ;-)

Who would be on your short list to replace Joseph Smith (name three or more replacements who lived within the same time period)...and do you think they could/would have been successful through the same sorts of hardships, etc. that Joseph Smith passed through? Would they have shown or succumbed to any human frailties/imperfections? How do you know? Would it matter to you if they did?

Well... lets see. God looks out at the 100 BILLION spirits he just created, looks around for the one human being that is going to be the most important person on earth, and he can't find ONE single person who would be decent and honorable? He can't find even one out of all the billions of spirits, who would be able to keep his sexual urges within a level of decency? He can't find even one that would be able to handle his sexual power for a few years?

I know quite a few fabulous men who would never, ever, even with all the power in the world, behave as did Joseph Smith. I believe there were men and women alive during the time of Joseph Smith who were decent human beings. (Not that it matters because God could send people to earth whenver he wishes... smile).

And if there was NO one who could live a moral and decent life, what pray tell, is holding God back from blessings a few folks with some gifts... the gift of moral fortitude, decency, integrity, sexual boundaries, or something? :-)

But seriously, maybe God did choose a not-so-great guy, who has some sexual issues, power issues, and all around moral and decency issues to restore the one and only true church on the earth.

If one believes God told Moses to slaughter whole villages, I'm sure a guy manipulating and coercing girls and women doesn't seem like a big deal. (smile)!

I realized a long time ago, that the God of Mormonism/Christianity has values, morals, principles, behaviors, standards, ethics, etc., that are not in line with what I consider holy, decent, or honorable.

I'm not saying my ideas of goodness are correct... just very different.

Just curious, MG, but do you feel the same way about Joseph Smith and his sexual behavior as you do other men who behave similarly? I mean do other men who sleep around, manipulate girls and women, lie to their wives get a free pass as well?

:-)


~dancer~

[_Runtu]

To say that he was an "adulterous, philandering (redundant, I know), domineering, manipulative, mysogynistic brute of a man..." doesn't seem to fully explain the man. There is more to him than that. For him to truly love Emma and his family it is difficult for me to see him in the context that you place him.

Like I said earlier, the truth of the matter is probably somewhere in the middle. But we don't know where exactly. Some of us are willing to give him the benefit of a doubt, and others aren't.

You are one of the latter.

Regards,
MG

I agree with you to a degree. He was indeed a complicated man. I think where you're wrong is assuming that people like Sethbag didn't give Joseph Smith the benefit of the doubt. I know I did for many years. I knew what he did with the Partridge sisters, the Lawrence girls, Helen Kimball, and the wives of some of his closest friends. I knew these things, and yet I refused to believe that there was anything wrong with his behavior. I gave him the benefit of the doubt when he said he had been commanded of God. But the benefit of the doubt only holds when there is some doubt. From my discussions with Seth, it sounds like he, like me, realized that there was no longer enough doubt to grant Joseph.

As difficult as it may seem to believe, we didn't start out doubting Joseph Smith. We didn't have it in for him or have some axe to grind. We gave him the benefit of the doubt until it became impossible for us to do so.

Punk Rock ist nicht tot.

[_mentalgymnast]

So that's the ONLY misbehavior that would, in your opinion, undermine his claims? So he could be a child molester, a mass murderer, a serial liar in all of his dealings, known to have produced fraudulent "ancient" texts before, and NONE of those things would undermine his claims?

I am at a loss at how to respond to that, other than to say that your God is incredibly stupid. He supposedly wants as many of his children to have faith in the LDS gospel as possible, and doesn't realize that he needs to choose, as his representatives, people of high moral quality so followers can trust their integrity?

I'm thinking that God would have considered child molestation, mass murdering, and lying in all his dealings to cross the line, if Joseph Smith would have engaged in these practices. God didn't give a command to engage in these practices. OTOH, it is purported/said that God did command Joseph to practice the law of plurality of wives, being a part of the restoration of all things in a final dispensation of time.

I don't know that it is unreasonable to think that God would then let Joseph decide, at least to a certain extent, how this law was to be lived/practiced. And that's where I would think that the truth of what really happened and the reasons for those things that happened may lie somewhere in the middle, rather than at either extreme.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Hi MG... :-)

We are all strongly guided by sexual desires and thoughts. Those thoughts and desires can be misguided and later either explained away or repented of.

Yes, and there are those, believe it or not, who would not screw girls and woman other than their wives. I'm unaware of Joseph Smith repenting.. in fact, in my opinion, it seems like he digs himself deeper and deeper into the abyss as he goes along.

Whether or not Joseph Smith visualized himself as "above the law" however, is debatable. Others have succumbed to that viewpoint, but I'm not sure that Joseph Smith did, only in the sense that he believed that the laws of God were higher than man's and that this gave him the authority to participate/officiate in plural marriages.

"Above the law," means, "above the law." It means Joseph Smith (and others of similar character), did not feel the law of the land applied to him. (Or at least they claim this... believing this is another thing)! ;-) The reasons for their feelings are really insignificant.

I think the reasons are critically important.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

I realized a long time ago, that the God of Mormonism/Christianity has values, morals, principles, behaviors, standards, ethics, etc., that are not in line with what I consider holy, decent, or honorable.

If there is a God, it becomes apparent that moral agency is a gift that has been given to mankind and protected at all costs. We're not talking about God's morality here. We're considering that amount of latitude that God gives to his children to be who they are. Gosh, remember the baseball baptisms? This takes moral agency and God's wink, winking, to an extreme. His authorized servants manipulating people to enter the waters of baptism, the gateway to salvation, through deceit. This would have taken a fair amount of latitude.

Just how much wiggle room can we consider God to have? And in what areas? And why?

Just curious, MG, but do you feel the same way about Joseph Smith and his sexual behavior as you do other men who behave similarly? I mean do other men who sleep around, manipulate girls and women, lie to their wives get a free pass as well?

I believe that all men have moral agency and will do what they will. That doesn't make it right. If Joseph Smith made some mistakes, he is the one that will have to account for the use/misuse of his own moral agency.

Regards,
MG