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

[_Scottie]

This is one excuse I never understood. Why in the hell is it required to marry someone in order to provide for them?? What happened to giving alms?? What? They couldn't just take care of the widows because they were widows? They had to be married first?

Apparently, it's easier to say this than to come to grips with what actually happened. You're right that when you think about this excuse, it falls apart rather quickly because it doesn't make sense.

And of course the follow up question for the seminary teacher is why did the nature of polygamous marriage change with Brigham Young?

Not to mention the marrying of women that were already married.

[_William Schryver]

This is one excuse I never understood. Why in the hell is it required to marry someone in order to provide for them?? What happened to giving alms?? What? They couldn't just take care of the widows because they were widows? They had to be married first?

Apparently, it's easier to say this than to come to grips with what actually happened. You're right that when you think about this excuse, it falls apart rather quickly because it doesn't make sense.

And of course the follow up question for the seminary teacher is why did the nature of polygamous marriage change with Brigham Young?

Not to mention the marrying of women that were already married.

And won't all of you be surprised when you find out that God did indeed sanction the whole thing! That Joseph was telling the absolute truth when he wrote:

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another.

But until then, you can all keep up your Puritanesque moralizing over the whole thing.

I find it quite humorous.

[_Scottie]

This is one excuse I never understood. Why in the hell is it required to marry someone in order to provide for them?? What happened to giving alms?? What? They couldn't just take care of the widows because they were widows? They had to be married first?

Apparently, it's easier to say this than to come to grips with what actually happened. You're right that when you think about this excuse, it falls apart rather quickly because it doesn't make sense.

And of course the follow up question for the seminary teacher is why did the nature of polygamous marriage change with Brigham Young?

Not to mention the marrying of women that were already married.

And won't all of you be surprised when you find out that God did indeed sanction the whole thing! That Joseph was telling the absolute truth when he wrote:

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another.

But until then, you can all keep up your Puritanesque moralizing over the whole thing.

I find it quite humorous.

This thread wasn't about the morals of plural marriage, but rather why do apologists feel the need to make such defensive, well, lies about it?

And, aren't you going to be surprised when you get to Heaven and are denied entry because you weren't a member of the FLDS church, and you only have 1 wife. Don't you know that THEY have it right? They don't let government pressures change God's eternal laws.

[_Sethbag]

Will, I don't believe that God exists, for a whole different set of reasons unrelated to Joseph Smith. But assuming God did in fact exist, I think the likelihood of this God being simultaneously the God I grew up learning about in the LDS church, and also commanding Joseph Smith to proposition married mens' wives and actually f***ing the ones who gave in to his persuasions, all behind their real husbands', and Joseph's real wife's, back, to approach zero.

We know that the probability of two things happening is the product of the probabilities of either thing happening, ie: a 50% chance for each of two things happening yields a 25% chance of both things happening.

So what do you think the probabilities are that God really does exist, and also commanded Joseph Smith to get in the sack with married women, behind his own wife's (and their husbands') back?

What is .0000...00001 * .0000...00001?

[_SatanWasSetUp]

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another.

But until then, you can all keep up your Puritanesque moralizing over the whole thing.

I wonder if this excuse would work for someone accused of adultery in a court of love? How would the High Council react to being lecured about their Puritanesque moralizing?

[_William Schryver]

SWSU:

This thread wasn't about the morals of plural marriage, but rather why do apologists feel the need to make such defensive, well, lies about it?

And, aren't you going to be surprised when you get to Heaven and are denied entry because you weren't a member of the FLDS church, and you only have 1 wife. Don't you know that THEY have it right? They don't let government pressures change God's eternal laws.

Nah, I have no fears about the FLDS being right or anyone else for that matter.

My opinion is that, if the truth claims of the mainstream LDS church are false, then nothing else is better. In fact, if Joseph Smith was a big freaking forked-tongue pants-on-fire liar, then when I die, I’ll just lose consciousness and molder into dust. That’ll be it. There is no great beyond. Sethbag will be right, but none of us will know any better anyway.

Sethbag:

Will, I don't believe that God exists, for a whole different set of reasons unrelated to Joseph Smith. But assuming God did in fact exist, I think the likelihood of this God being simultaneously the God I grew up learning about in the LDS church, and also commanding Joseph Smith to proposition married mens' wives and actually f**king the ones who gave in to his persuasions, all behind their real husbands', and Joseph's real wife's, back, to approach zero.

I suppose you could be right. Or maybe the problem is with your understanding as expressed in the phrase “the God I grew up learning about in the LDS church.”

You see, the God I’ve learned about is quite inclined to do precisely something like what Joseph Smith was asked to do. And I think Brigham Young understood the reasons why. Brigham Young didn’t see anything unholy in marrying a 20-something girl when he was in his early sixties. And he and Amelia made a great couple for many years after that. And when I look back at that, I don’t see anything wrong with it at all. I do believe it was divinely sanctioned.

If God wants to take certain of his sons and have them mate with certain of his daughters, it’s up to him to command them. Otherwise they are obligated to stay with their lawfully-wedded spouse. But I’m not about to tell God that his system is flawed for occasionally sanctioning exceptions to his standard rules of chastity. My sense of rectitude is not so constricted as to be rigid in all circumstances.

Apparently you don’t feel the same way. And that’s fine, too.

[_Runtu]

And won't all of you be surprised when you find out that God did indeed sanction the whole thing! That Joseph was telling the absolute truth when he wrote:

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another.

But until then, you can all keep up your Puritanesque moralizing over the whole thing.

I find it quite humorous.

I am far less concerned about the sex than I am about the lying and coercion. One need not be a Puritan to find dishonesty and "unrighteous dominion" troubling. I have met people in my life who are involved in polyamorous relationships, and it bothers me not. The difference is that they were open and honest about it. Joseph Smith was not.

[_Who Knows]

And won't all of you be surprised when you find out that God did indeed sanction the whole thing!

Yes, that would be one big 'WTF?' moment.

But I suppose a god that enjoys seeing people in their 'wtf? the Mormons were right?' moments, is the same type of god who would sanction the whole polygamy thing.

[_Runtu]

And won't all of you be surprised when you find out that God did indeed sanction the whole thing!

Yes, that would be one big 'WTF?' moment.

But I suppose a god that enjoys seeing people in their 'wtf? the Mormons were right?' moments, is the same type of god who would sanction the whole polygamy thing.

For me, that would be the "you mean God is really a jerk, after all?" moment. What kind of God sends an angel with a flaming sword to threaten a prophet with death unless he has sex with teenagers behind his wife's back?

WTF, indeed.

[_Sethbag]

Will, I don't believe that God exists, for a whole different set of reasons unrelated to Joseph Smith. But assuming God did in fact exist, I think the likelihood of this God being simultaneously the God I grew up learning about in the LDS church, and also commanding Joseph Smith to proposition married mens' wives and actually f**king the ones who gave in to his persuasions, all behind their real husbands', and Joseph's real wife's, back, to approach zero.

I suppose you could be right. Or maybe the problem is with your understanding as expressed in the phrase “the God I grew up learning about in the LDS church.”

You see, the God I’ve learned about is quite inclined to do precisely something like what Joseph Smith was asked to do. And I think Brigham Young understood the reasons why. Brigham Young didn’t see anything unholy in marrying a 20-something girl when he was in his early sixties. And he and Amelia made a great couple for many years after that. And when I look back at that, I don’t see anything wrong with it at all. I do believe it was divinely sanctioned.

If God wants to take certain of his sons and have them mate with certain of his daughters, it’s up to him to command them. Otherwise they are obligated to stay with their lawfully-wedded spouse. But I’m not about to tell God that his system is flawed for occasionally sanctioning exceptions to his standard rules of chastity. My sense of rectitude is not so constricted as to be rigid in all circumstances.

This type of argument is precisely why I think that a lot of arguments about God existing, because if not, where would we get morality from, are completely laughable. The LDS, if they believe like you, don't believe in an absolutely Right and Wrong at all. What LDS believe is Right and Wrong boils down to, essentially, whatever the current Prophet says is right, or wrong. You guys on the one hand will claim that there is an absolute source of ethics and morality, God, and on the other hand, that source is really, when it comes down to it, a man. You belong to one of those religions where the top dog, the President, the head honcho, has become your arbiter of right and wrong.

I tell you what, Will. If your God actually exists, and actually commanded Joseph Smith to proposition married women behind his own wife's back, and behind the backs of these other men, and to hold secret, illegitimate (in the eyes of the law of the land), farcical marriage ceremonies with them, and to have sex with them, and to lie about having done so publicly, and privately, even to Emma and/or these other men who were the legal husbands, then your God is an asshole, and I don't want to be associated with him anyhow.

Really now, the best your God can do is to publicly teach righteousness and chastity and fidelity within marriage, while privately commanding his Prophet on earth to violate these very principles and to have sex with the wives of other men, behind his own wife's back? Really? You honestly believe that? You honestly believe that God was OK with Joseph Smith lying about having "married" and slept with other women, not only to Emma, but to the public, and the rest of the church, when in fact he really had done it?

If you really, honestly believe that, then all I can say you've really swallowed the lie and the deceit hook, line, and sinker, and so long as you willfully hold to this kind of belief system, there's really no hope for you. You've surrendered your mind to a fraud, an infamous fraud at that, and I can only shake my head and feel sorry for you.