Stay Strong Saints

[_Themis]

Brigham Young was married to Zina in this life, and Joseph Smith was not. You guys keep accusing Joseph Smith of infidelity as if you lived in his days and were constantly with him. You are the ones lacking proof. If he was so very unfaithful, as you claim, then why isn't there any evidence from any reputable source of a child by him?!?

You have been given evidence and provide none. That is your problem, not mine. Joseph lied to his own wife Emma. BY had children with Zina even though she was married to another man. This shows your assertions that they were only for the next life wrong. You can come up with any belief you want here, but you will be asked to back them up if you want others to believe you are correct. Until then I see no reason to think you are right and evidence that suggest you are wrong.

[_gdemetz]

As far as Joseph was concerned, I repeat, there is no proof of his infidelity! Yes, there are many claims and theories on anti sites, but no proof! I already stated that Brigham Young married Zina for time, with her husbands approval as relinquishing his rights to her, and consequently they had children.

[_Drifting]

From what I have read, all the possible DNA evidence is not in yet. I'm still trusting that, if and when it does, it will be favorable to Joseph.

Favourable in what way?

That it shows he had children with women other than Emma? Or
That it shows that he disobeyed a direct order from God about the specific purpose of polygamy?

Bump.

Come on gd, you're dodging.

If Joseph did not attempt to have children with his polygamous wives then how is that not breaking the specific purpose given within the commandment to practice polygamy?

[_Themis]

As far as Joseph was concerned, I repeat, there is no proof of his infidelity! Yes, there are many claims and theories on anti sites, but no proof! I already stated that Brigham Young married Zina for time, with her husbands approval as relinquishing his rights to her, and consequently they had children.

He never relinquished any rights to her. He did allow the marriages to Joseph and BY. One of only a handful that actually knew their wives were married to Joseph. I see you are using the word proof now. You have been given evidence in Sylvia, even though you don't want to accept the reasonable interpretation, and go with the unlikely one that has no evidence. You sure like to justify Joseph and BY behavior. Some of us like to go with the evidence. We have been more then willing for you to show us your evidence, but you have so far not brought up any. You don't even deal with all the other problems, but you need to believe.

by the way did you even read the link I provided?

[_gdemetz]

The theories that Joseph Smith may have possibly been unfaithful would not hold up in any fair court of law, and it doesn't in my court either. Themis, you state that he allowed the marriage right after you state that he never relinquished rights? Those statements seem somewhat contradictory to me. You may find the statements by Brigham on August 8, 1861 regarding this type of situation interesting.

[_Drifting]

The theories that Joseph Smith may have possibly been unfaithful would not hold up in any fair court of law, and it doesn't in my court either. Themis, you state that he allowed the marriage right after you state that he never relinquished rights? Those statements seem somewhat contradictory to me. You may find the statements by Brigham on August 8, 1861 regarding this type of situation interesting.

I am beginning to think you are a troll...

[_ludwigm]

.

I am beginning to think you are a troll...

[_Themis]

The theories that Joseph Smith may have possibly been unfaithful would not hold up in any fair court of law, and it doesn't in my court either.

That depends on how you define unfaithful. If we go by society definitions then yes Joseph would be convicted. But that is not the issue. The issue is your assertion that Joseph regarded the married wives differently then the singles ones. You have yet to show any evidence for this, and we have shown some against in the case of Sylvia and BY.

Themis, you state that he allowed the marriage right after you state that he never relinquished rights? Those statements seem somewhat contradictory to me.

He allowed both marriages, and yes I am not aware that he ever relinquished his rights to Zina, only that he is sharing her. She never left him until BY sent him away on a mission. I suspect(not surprising) that you never read the link I posted. Interesting though that your position has changed now that you can't get out of BY having sex with Zina. This would mean that it had to be ok for Joseph to have sex with his polyandrous wives, or at least they would have considered it ok.

This still does not really address all the problems with Joseph and polygamy, and why it shows it more likely a human endeavor then a divine commandment.

You may find the statements by Brigham on August 8, 1861 regarding this type of situation interesting.

I am fine with you quoting any sources on this site.

[_gdemetz]

I have not changed my position concerning this. I gave a reference from Katheryn Daynes writings which detailed the six types of marriages during that time, which included the marriages for the afterlife only. You guys are determined that Joseph had sex in these marriages, but you don't show any real proof! Don't you think it strange that he never had any children from all this?!? As far as Brigham Young's marriage to Zina is concerned, I previously stated that it was for time only, meaning for this life, so, of course, he would have children with her. I will provide you with the Brigham Young quote in a following message since I don't remember it all now.

[_gdemetz]

Here is that statement as recorded by George D. Watt:

"How can a woman be made free from a man she has been sealed to for time and all eternity? There are two ways. All the elders will not magnify their priesthood... " {He goes own to state a lot of things after this which are not really clear, but I assume that he means if the elder is unworthy.}

"The second way in which a wife can be separated from her husband while he continues to be faithful to his God and his priesthood, I have not revealed except to a few persons in this church, and a few have received it from Joseph the prophet as well as myself. If a woman can find a man holding the keys of the priesthood with higher power and authority than her husband, and he is disposed to take her, he can do so, otherwise she has got to remain where she is. In either of these ways of separation, you can discover there is no need for a bill of divorcement. To recapitulate: First, a man forfeits his covenant with a wife or his wives, becoming unfaithful to his God and his priesthood-that wife or wives are free from him without a bill of divorcement. Second, if a woman claims protection at the hands of a man possessing more power in the priesthood and higher keys, if he is disposed to rescue her AND HAS OBTAINED THE CONSENT OF HER HUSBAND to make her his wife, he can do so without a bill of divorcement. If after she has left her husband and is sealed to another, she shall again cohabit with him, it is illicit intercourse and extremely sinful..."

However, don't expect the general authorities to be speaking on this topic at the next general conference!