An angel with a drawn sword...

[_Inconceivable]

Can you supply a source for this supposed experience of Joseph Smith? I have to see statements in their context- otherwise I won't make a judgement call.

I get the impression that you are yet aware of the miracle of Googling.

I typed "polygamy flaming sword Smith" and after perusing for about 5 minutes got you small load of statements in their context so you can be on your way to making an informed judgement call. Note that 3 of these testimonies are made by prophets, seers and revelators of the Lord Jesus Christ:

"When that principle was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith ... he did not falter, although it was not until an angel of God, with a drawn sword, stood before him; and commanded that he should enter into the practice of that principle, or he should be utterly destroyed, or rejected, that he moved forward to reveal and establish that doctrine."
- Prophet Joseph F. Smith, "Plural Marriage for the Righteous Only-Obedience Imperative-Blessings Resulting", Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.28 - p.29

"I know whereon I stand, I know what I believe, I know what I know and I know what I testify to you is the living truth. As I expect to meet it at the bar of the eternal Jehovah, it is true. And when you stand before the bar you will know. He preached polygamy and he not only preached it, but he practiced it. I am a living witness to it. It was given to him before he gave it to the Church. An angel came to him and the last time he came with a drawn sword in his hand and told Joseph if he did not go into that principle, he would slay him."
- Sister Mary Lightner, Address to Brigham Young University, April 14th, 1905, BYU Archives and Manuscripts
See: http://www.ldshistory.net/pc/merlbyu.htm

"His brother, Hyrum, said to me, "Now, Brother Benjamin, you know that Brother Joseph would not sanction this if it was not from the Lord. The Lord revealed this to Brother Joseph long ago, and he put it off until the Angel of the Lord came to him with a drawn sword and told him that he would be slain if he did not go forth and fulfill the law." He told my sister to have no fears, and he there and then sealed my sister, Almira, to the Prophet."

"Soon after this he was at my house again, where he occupied my Sister Almira's room and bed, and also asked me for my youngest sister, Esther M. I told him she was promised in marriage to my wife's brother. He said, "Well, let them marry, for it will all come right.""
- Elder Benjamin F. Johnson, My Life's Review See: http://mormonlore.freeservers.com/johnson1.htm

"He there and then explained to me the doctrine of plurality of wives; he said that the Lord had revealed it unto him, and commanded him to have women sealed to him as wives; that he foresaw the trouble that would follow, and sought to turn away from the commandment; that an angel from heaven then appeared before him with a drawn sword, threatening him with destruction unless he went forward and obey the commandment."

"He further said that my sister, Eliza R. Snow, had been sealed to him as his wife for time and eternity. He told me that the Lord would open the way, and I should have women sealed to me as wives. This conversation was prolonged, I think, one hour or more, in which he told me many important things."

"I solemnly declare before God and holy angels, and as I hope to come forth in the morning of the resurrection, that the above statement is true."
- Prophet Lorenzo R. Snow, sworn affadavidt. See: http://www.Mormons.org.uk/celest.htm

"19 year-old Zina remained conflicted until a day in October, apparently, when Joseph sent [her older brother] Dimick to her with a message: an angel with a drawn sword had stood over Smith and told him that if he did not establish polygamy, he would lose "his position and his life." Zina, faced with the responsibility for his position as prophet, and even perhaps his life, finally acquiesced." (In Sacred Loneliness, page 80-81)

"An Angel of God Stood by him (Joseph Smith) with a drawn Sword and told him he should be slain & Cut off from the Earth and the kingdom of God if he did not obey that Law (of polygamy). George Q Cannon was of the same opinion, that a man must have more then one wife at a time in order to obey that Law."
- Prophet Wilford Woodruff, Wilford Woordruff's Journal, Vol. 8, p.235

[_Inconceivable]

..And yet you seem to fully believe The Book of Mormon, which was translated through Joseph Smith. Excuse me if I find that inconsistent.

I do not fully believe the Book of Mormon (although I have studied it's pages more than most members I have known and am very aware of it's teachings).

Whether Smith translated it or even robbed it from the great translator Sasquach, I don't believe he read it. If he did read it, he did not understand it. If we were to suppose that he did understand it's wisdom, he did not live it even if he believed it. The book reveals Smith for who he truly was.

Since when is claiming to translate a foreign language into English a valuable litmus test for quantifying fidelity (or any other character trait - good or bad)?

If you find this inconsistent, I'll tell you what I tell my kids all the time - there's a reason why the robbers never find the cops.

(hint: they're not looking for them)

[_Dakilang Pinoy]

"I get the impression that you are yet aware of the miracle of Googling."

Oh yeah... Occasionally I'm like Laman and Lemuel and I forget past miracles. Thanks for the sources. I have a book by Orson F. Whitney, The Life of Heber C. Kimball, and upon flipping through it randomly the other day I found a similar statement by him when polygamy is first talked about in that book. The book has no index, and there are no chapter titles, so I don't want to look for the exact spot right now.

[_Inconceivable]

"I get the impression that you are yet aware of the miracle of Googling."

Oh yeah... Occasionally I'm like Laman and Lemuel and I forget past miracles. Thanks for the sources. I have a book by Orson F. Whitney, The Life of Heber C. Kimball, and upon flipping through it randomly the other day I found a similar statement by him when polygamy is first talked about in that book. The book has no index, and there are no chapter titles, so I don't want to look for the exact spot right now.

google it.

[_badseed]

Nope. Laying out consequences doesn't violate Agency at all. Otherwise Old Testament prophets in particular spent a lot of time cancelling agency.

[quote="The Nehor"
Nope. Laying out consequences doesn't violate Agency at all. Otherwise Old Testament prophets in particular spent a lot of time cancelling agency.[/quote]

Perhaps. But it is quite unusual for God to threaten such specific and, according to Joseph, almost immediate death by angel w/ sword. I realize the Old Testament outlines such events but truthfully I wonder if these accounts don't tell us more about how people back then saw things rather than what God did or wanted to do.

Is the choice of death vs. marrying a bunch of additional wives really much of a choice? Sure Joseph Smith was free to choose but certainly an armed angel would tilt the scales towards obedience, even for the most rebellious of men.

I wonder why is it so important to God that certain people marry certain other people that he must threaten death if they do not? As others have noted, this couldn't have been any run-of-the-mill commandment where obedience is encouraged but not a choice of immediate life or death.

Interesting that God used force to encourage a behavior rather than stopping one (as opposed to the priest of Baal). Also interesting that in this dispensation God used the armed angel for this purpose but not for a number of other purposes which seem equally if not more worthy.

[_Paracelsus]

From http://ldsfaq.BYU.edu/viewEM.aspx?number=145 :
...
Joseph Smith realized that the introduction of plural marriage would inevitably invite severe criticism. After the Kirtland experience, he knew the tension it would create in his own family; even though Emma, with faith in his prophetic calling, accepted the revelation as being from God and not of his own doing, she could not reconcile herself to the practice. Beyond that, it had the potential to divide the Church and increase hostilities from outside. Still, he felt obligated to move ahead. "The object with me is to obey & teach others to obey God in just what he tells us to do," he taught several months before his death. "It mattereth not whether the principle is popular or unpopular. I will always maintain a true principle even if I Stand alone in it" (TPJS, p. 332).
Although certain that God would require it of him and of the Church, Joseph Smith would not have introduced it when he did except for the conviction that God required it then. Several close confidants later said that he proceeded with plural marriage in Nauvoo only after both internal struggle and divine warning. Lorenzo Snow later remembered vividly a conversation in 1843 in which the Prophet described the battle he waged "in overcoming the repugnance of his feelings" regarding plural marriage.
...
Joseph Smith proceeded in Nauvoo only after an angel declared that he must or his calling would be given to another
...
Generally plural marriage involved only two wives and seldom more than three; larger families like those of Brigham Young or Heber C. Kimball were exceptions. Did you see the family photo of Joseph F. Smith in Dialogue or Sunstone? Or did you count the wives of the presidents fom 2nd to 7th?
...
Evidence for the practice of plural marriage during the 1830s is scant. Only a few knew about the still unwritten revelation, and perhaps the only known plural marriage was that between Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger. Nonetheless there were rumors, harbingers of challenges to come. Did you get it, harmony?

by the way The whole page is worth to read. As the whole ldsfaq.BYU.edu material is worth to read. You can smell the sweat of the apologists.


+ one pearl of ldsfaq.BYU.edu
From http://ldsfaq.BYU.edu/viewQuestion.aspx ... 88c6428247 :
Q: Who was Brigham Young?
A:
...
He was also taught the principle of plural marriage, which he accepted after much reluctance and considerable thought and prayer.
...
Without that much reluctance, he may have had 300 or 1000 wives.

[_badseed]

From http://ldsfaq.BYU.edu/viewEM.aspx?number=145 :

Although certain that God would require it of him and of the Church, Joseph Smith would not have introduced it when he did except for the conviction that God required it then. Several close confidants later said that he proceeded with plural marriage in Nauvoo only after both internal struggle and divine warning. Lorenzo Snow later remembered vividly a conversation in 1843 in which the Prophet described the battle he waged "in overcoming the repugnance of his feelings" regarding plural marriage.

Joseph Smith proceeded in Nauvoo only after an angel declared that he must or his calling would be given to another

Evidence for the practice of plural marriage during the 1830s is scant. Only a few knew about the still unwritten revelation, and perhaps the only known plural marriage was that between Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger. Nonetheless there were rumors, harbingers of challenges to come. Did you get it, harmony?

Without that much reluctance, he may have had 300 or 1000 wives.

The Fanny Alger affair creates some questions. Some claim Joseph had received the revelation for plural marriage before his 1833 association with the young woman— Section 132 however makes it clear that plural marriage and doing the works of Abraham have to do with the New and Everlasting Covenant and specifically sealings. Problem is the sealing power was not restored until 1836? w/ Elijah's coming. How exactly then would a pre-1836 plural marriage work then?

Also, accounts suggest that Fanny was turned out of the Smith home by a jealous Emma and not because of any repugnance on Joseph's part.

I think the evidence is far more in line with Oliver Cowdery's assessment of the Fanny Alger affair as just that— an extramarital affair.

Anyway, if Joseph really had some aversion to plural marriage he managed to overcome it with flying colors. The number of marriages between 1841 and 1843 were staggering— Joseph sometimes marrying multiple partners in a single day. In 1843 there were in the neighborhood of 17. That's one year!

in my opinion rather than a repugnance keeping Joseph from taking more wives it was the difficulty of keeping the practice secret. It was a lot of work and became even harder as Joseph admitted others into his inner circle of Nauvoo polygamists. By 1844 it was 900 people and kinda hard to keep it a secret. As rumors of polygamy surfaced it appears Joseph would marry less and spend more time doing other things— including fighting rumors about polygamy. John D. Lee wrote about how he stood guard outside homes while Brigham Young made visits to his wives in Nauvoo. That type of secrecy takes time.

[_Roger]

Paracelsus posted:

..........
Lorenzo Snow later remembered vividly a conversation in 1843 in which the Prophet described the battle he waged "in overcoming the repugnance of his feelings" regarding plural marriage.
..........

This is where a critic (like me) goes ballistic. Like badseed said, if there was ever any repugnance on Joseph Smith's part over polygamy, he sure recovered quickly.

Read the Nancy Rigdon letter. No repugnance there. No hesitation.

But the larger question here is why any repugnance at all? Aren't we talking about mere celestial sealings? This is the argument I hear again and again from Smith's modern defenders when it comes to either his polyandrous wives or the teens like 14 year-old Helen Mar Kimball--well that was purely a dynastic linkage of the families. Oh really??? Then why the repugnance on the part of Helen and her mother?

Snow betrays the truth--without realizing it would ever become a tenet of LDS apologetics that Joseph "never had s-- with that woman." (don't know how explicit I can be in the Celestial Forum)

If Smith's polygamy was really all about celestial dynastic linkings why would anyone oppose it? Why would Emma mind? All we're doing is ceremoniously linking our family with Fanny's, Emma, chill.

[_Paracelsus]

if there was ever any repugnance on Joseph Smith's part over polygamy, he sure recovered quickly.

Read the Nancy Rigdon letter. No repugnance there. No hesitation.

But the larger question here is why any repugnance at all?

Ask ldsfaq.BYU.edu !
They are THE experts.

[_badseed]

Ask ldsfaq.BYU.edu !
They are THE experts.

Hmmmmmm? With all due respect to Ron Esplin (and Co.) and while I would say he is well versed on LDS history (expert) I would say that the Encyclopedia of Mormonism response on polygamy (http://ldsfaq.BYU.edu/viewQuestion.aspx ... 7e72cfb683) is not on expert level. It is for the beginner in my opinion. Definitely milk and not meat and does not do justice to the complicated events and relationships that were LDS polygamy and polyandry.

For a more complete view of plural marriage I prefer Compton, Van Wagoner and George Smith's books. I have yet to read Carmon Hardy's book but hope to soon.