Why is Joseph Smith's polygamy controversial?

[_truth dancer]

Hi Runtu...

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.

This is what I find so very odd. :-)

ANYONE else behaving like Joseph Smith would be in prison. My guess is, virtually every LDS member, if their next door neighbor, Mr. Smith told their middle school daughters and wives that he had a vision and God told him to "marry" them, and he secretly coerced their daughters into sleeping with them, and started to meet with their wives behind their back, writing notes to keep it quiet so no one would find out of their meetings, and then slept with their wives, well, lets just say the neighbor would not get a free pass!

Why is it OK for Joseph? Why does he get the benefit of the doubt? Of COURSE he gets the benefit of doubt if we didn't know for a fact that such things occurred but there is no question about his behavior.

Why is Joseph Smith's behavior fine and dandy, but it is horrible, cruel, perverted, sick, and completely wrong when another engages in the exact same behavior?

Why is a prophet of God, who supposedly is speaking with God, who is the one GOD chose to fulfill the most important job on Earth, next to Jesus, held to such low standards?

If God is giving all these revelations, telling all sorts of folks where to go, what calling to have, where to live, where to go on missions, what to invest in, etc. etc. etc., is it unrealistic that God would say something like... "hey Joseph Smith, by the way, don't mess with those young girls?" Or, "you need to treat Emma better... stop lying to her." Or, "stop with the coercion and manipulation." Or, you only get a harem in heaven." Or, SOMETHING?

I really do not get this at all. Ya know?

(Just to be clear, I'm not writing this to you, but discussing the phenomenon that I observe so often). :-)

~dancer~

[_Inconceivable]

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?

I guess we can conclude that he was "the best blood of the 19th century". What a harsh remark to those that chose fidelity and other virtues.

nope.

[Guest]

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.

So the obvious follow-up question is what if god tells someone to engage in those practices? What if Joseph Smith did molest children because, according to him, god told him to? Would you believe him? What if god tells you to? What if god or an angel tells you to start molesting the kid next door? I assume you wouldn't do it and would instead check yourself into a mental hospital (at least I hope this is what you would do). So where do you draw the line between what god supposedly wants and your own, or your society's, understanding of right and wrong.

[_marg]

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.

Well then we don't need laws or a police force, because as members of society we don't need to judge others, in fact we have no moral responsibility to judge others, that will be done by God later on. People can do whatever they wish to others, because they will have to account for their use/misuse of their own moral agency.

[_Sethbag]

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.

Exactly. I gave Joseph the benefit of the doubt as long as it was possible for me to do so. But as it became clearer and clearer to me that Joseph wasn't what he claimed to be, eventually I had to recognize that there really wasn't much doubt left to grant him. In the end, there was just too much evidence that Joseph Smith was not a man chosen by any God who really exists to be his deputy on earth, and that in fact Joseph Smith had acted on his own authority, and on his own volition, and had invented, by himself or with others, and had developed and built up the church with the help of others, and that it was the church of Joseph Smith, not the church of any God or Jesus Christ who exist as dieties in our universe.

I got to the point where I could no longer grant Joseph Smith the benefit of the doubt and keep my own sense of intellectual honesty intact. Every thinking person would have to make that judgment for themselves, and obviously, some are so bitten by the mind virus that it is this church that they are now simply incapable, however intelligent they might otherwise be, of seeing this church with even the slightest shred of objectivity and rationality.

But there are a lot of others who aren't quite there yet, and it is to those people I speak when I engage in discussions like this. If you're reading this as a lurker, and you recognize in your heart of hearts that the evidence points to Joseph Smith having been quite the manipulating, scheming, philandering, conman, don't be afraid to take that thought seriously, and subject the history and truth claims of the LDS church to the same level of intellectual scrutiny that you'd subject the claims and history of any other person or church, or anything else in this world. If the church really isn't true, then it's OK to realize and accept that, and move on. I know it hurts to accept this, but eventually you realize that it's a good thing, and you're glad you did. I bear this testimony in the name of rational, critical thinking, and mountains of physical evidence that contradicts LDS teachings, AMEN.

[_Runtu]

So the obvious follow-up question is what if god tells someone to engage in those practices? What if Joseph Smith did molest children because, according to him, god told him to? Would you believe him? What if god tells you to? What if god or an angel tells you to start molesting the kid next door? I assume you wouldn't do it and would instead check yourself into a mental hospital (at least I hope this is what you would do). So where do you draw the line between what god supposedly wants and your own, or your society's, understanding of right and wrong.

And thus we get to the heart of the matter: Joseph's behavior is right because he was a prophet. If we don't assume a priori that he was a prophet, it's much easier to see his behavior for what it was. But whatever a prophet does is right, if he claims a divine command. The morality is thus, as Joseph Smith put it, "Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is."

[_Scottie]

One other defense that I've heard used is that Joseph Smith didn't fully understand what was being asked of him. That the details still hadn't been revealed.

Sooo...what you're saying is that God can speak directly to Joseph Smith and chastise individuals on a personal level for specific sins (ala D&C), yet He can't fully reveal one of the most important saving ordinances known to God and man???

[_truth dancer]

Hi Scottie... :-)

Sooo...what you're saying is that God can speak directly to Joseph Smith and chastise individuals on a personal level for specific sins (ala D&C), yet He can't fully reveal one of the most important saving ordinances known to God and man???

This was exactly my point when I wrote, in an earlier post...

If God is giving all these revelations, telling all sorts of folks where to go, what calling to have, where to live, where to go on missions, what to invest in, etc. etc. etc., is it unrealistic that God would say something like... "hey Joseph Smith, by the way, don't mess with those young girls?" Or, "you need to treat Emma better... stop lying to her." Or, "stop with the coercion and manipulation." Or, you only get a harem in heaven." Or, SOMETHING?

It is total nonsense to suggest God told Joseph Smith to get a harem then left him on his own to do it, watching him screw up, hurt people, lie, cheat, and sleep around as he manipulated and coerced girls and women, and his wife's friends to be "his."

I mean seriously... what nonsense!

:-)

~dancer~

[_beastie]

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.

I'm asking YOU, mentalgymnast, if there is any behavior (other than the one you already specified) which would, in YOUR mind, undermine Joseph Smith' claims. I'm not asking you where you think God would draw the line - I'm asking where YOU would draw the line.

I want to be clear that the "how" the law was lived by Joseph Smith included lying, manipulation, and spiritual abuse. You really think God would be ok with "how" when the "how" entailed morally offensive behavior?

[Guest]

I gotta tell you. If a man approached me and told me that he was going to marry my wife not for time, but for eternity, I would have considered him lower than a horse thief.

What is the friggen point of remaining married to my wife for time when the relationship we have developed our entire lives is as good as DEAD at DEATH.

What is the matter with a man that would give his wife away, particularly when he believes in eternal marriage!!?
Because he really can't stand her??

I'll tell you what my bride would say, "Inc. if that's how much you care and love me, I'll go with him now".

noooooooo.