evolving wrote: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..
evolving wrote: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..
It was a joke. That's what ":)" means.
by the way, the letter quoted makes it fairly obvious that Joseph wasn't taking these brides as mere "loose dynastic relationships." You don't need a private room and Emma's absence to have a mere sealing.
evolving wrote:" . . . burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it. . . . "
This is highly suspect to me. I think it sounds too much like someone making something up to discredit the prophet. Why wasn't the letter burned? Dis Sarah Ann Whitney not accept the alleged advances?
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
evolving wrote:" . . . burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it. . . . "
This is highly suspect to me. I think it sounds too much like someone making something up to discredit the prophet. Why wasn't the letter burned? Dis Sarah Ann Whitney not accept the alleged advances?
She did accept the advances and was sealed/married to him at age 15 or 16. I don't know why she kept the letter, but she did, and it's in Joseph's handwriting. No one disputes the authenticity of the letter.
Runtu wrote:by the way, the letter quoted makes it fairly obvious that Joseph wasn't taking these brides as mere "loose dynastic relationships." You don't need a private room and Emma's absence to have a mere sealing.
You might if Emma is jealous about the hereafter too. I wouldn't be too keen on having my wife sealed to me and some other guy.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Runtu wrote:She did accept the advances and was sealed/married to him at age 15 or 16. I don't know why she kept the letter, but she did, and it's in Joseph's handwriting. No one disputes the authenticity of the letter.
Then maybe Emma was jealous about the hereafter. See previous post.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Runtu wrote:by the way, the letter quoted makes it fairly obvious that Joseph wasn't taking these brides as mere "loose dynastic relationships." You don't need a private room and Emma's absence to have a mere sealing.
You might if Emma is jealous about the hereafter too. I wouldn't be too keen on having my wife sealed to me and some other guy.
Except this letter postdates the sealing of Joseph to Sarah. If it were a loose dynastic tie, as FAIR alleges, why the cloak-and-dagger secrecy? It's clear what Joseph meant when he said he wanted his teen bride to "comfort" him in a private room in Emma's absence.
Here's what Helen Kimball wrote about what was promised to her and her family in exchange for becoming a child bride at 14:
"[Joseph explained] the principle of Celestial marrage...After which he said to me, ‘If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father’s household & all of your kindred.[‘] This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward. None but God & his angels could see my mother’s bleeding heart-when Joseph asked her if she was willing...She 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.”
I can't imagine how her mother must have felt, believing in Joseph as a prophet but knowing what he was asking.
Runtu wrote:Except this letter postdates the sealing of Joseph to Sarah. If it were a loose dynastic tie, as FAIR alleges, why the cloak-and-dagger secrecy? It's clear what Joseph meant when he said he wanted his teen bride to "comfort" him in a private room in Emma's absence.
I don't think it is necessarily sexual at all. I was just reading Bram Stoker's Dracula last night and came across a passage from Mina Harker's journal 9/30 (later) where she comforts Lord Arthur Goldaming in his time of trial.
Of course I haven't finished the book yet so perhaps it will turn out that this was inappropriate even though on the surface it seems as though she was only trying to comfort a friend--indeed the fincee of her closest friend Lucy.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Runtu wrote:Except this letter postdates the sealing of Joseph to Sarah. If it were a loose dynastic tie, as FAIR alleges, why the cloak-and-dagger secrecy? It's clear what Joseph meant when he said he wanted his teen bride to "comfort" him in a private room in Emma's absence.
I don't think it is necessarily sexual at all. I was just reading Bram Stoker's Dracula last night and came across a passage from Mina Harker's journal 9/30 (later) where sho comforts Lord Arthur Goldaming in his time of trial.
Of course I haven't finished the book yet so perhaps it will turn out that this was inappropriate even though on the surface it seems as though she was only trying to comfort a friend--indeed the fincee of her closest friend Lucy.
I'm guessing Lord Goldaming didn't tell her to come only when his wife was safely away. I guess I don't see the big deal about admitting that Joseph was sexually intimate with his wives. Why does that bother people so much? If he was a prophet and he was indeed commanded to take other wives, why would it have been wrong for him to do so? No one cares that Brigham Young had sex with his wives, but to suggest that Joseph did the same is somehow scandalous. Why is that?