tom,

What a shame that you (and others) impugn the character of the dead without proof. Speculation, exaggeration, and innuendo flavored by a filthy mind make for ultra thin soup.

Gunlock Bill on May 24, 2012 at 2:24 PM

I said nothing without evidence of it. I showed evidence that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy for years while lying to the public about it, before finally admitting it.

All during those years, accusations of polygamy or philandering by Joseph Smith were treated as speculation, exaggeration, and innuendo. Then it turned out to be true. And now you accuse me of speculation, exaggeration, and innuendo.

Don’t blame me because I point to the evidence. Justifying Joseph Smith’s behavior is your problem, not mine.

What a shame that you (and others) impugn the character of the dead without proof. Speculation, exaggeration, and innuendo flavored by a filthy mind make for ultra thin soup.

Here’s my conclusion. Yes. Joseph Smith practriced polygamy. Yes, he practice ployandry. I do not doubt this. I do not deny this. I agree with both. The only context which I took issue is the nature of his plural marriages. They were not sexual and nor can you provide edivence to support your claim that they were. You have relied upon cirumstantial evidence, conjecture, and a false presenatation of LDS doctrine. You also presented forth testimony of Joseph Smith being caught in compromising situations but such testimonies are easily shown as bias and unreliable.

Yes, Joseph Smith denied it and then admitted it. That is true. I explaied theresons I think he hid the practice. I think he feared the backlash and you even purport that the backlash killed him. If so, wy is Joseph Smith held in contempt from you for hidingthe truth when the revelation ofthat truth is what killed him (according to your argument). You seemto take conflicting sides o this issue.

Those of us who are not sold on Joseph Smith’s claims will probably accept the far simpler and more likely explanation that his multiple marriages included sex, especially since he was already known to have lied about his plural marriages while practicing them.

You may take that positon if youthink it is correct but you still cannot provide any evidence that they were sexual in nature. NONE.

But don’t run around accusing me of libel because you’re not capable of admitting the evidence.

I adressed the evidence well I think and continue to claim libel from you. You accuse without evidence.

They show clearly the struggle that Emma Smith had with Joseph Smith’s doctrine of plural marriages. She spent years denying that he did any such thing, and then he had a revelation that she was to accept it as an ordinance.

OK.

I’ve spent considerable time addressing these questions, only to be accused of bad faith, ignorance, shallowness, sensationalism, lying, and libel.

Your accusations without support, especially cedible support, is what brings you to these accusations from me.

I think weve run our course and this page will soon move off of Hot Air’s front page. At that point I rarely if ever return to post.

Take care and God bless. We’ll meet again, I’m sure.

Nothing libelous about it. Both attempted to convince other women to have sexual relations with them.

tom on May 24, 2012 at 3:12 AM

Now, you’re lying, sir. Were you to accuse me of any sch thing wit no evidence I’d sue your butt. Is this libel allowed on Hot Air? You present no evidence to back your claim against Joseph Smith. I, however, presented you with knowledge of first-hand confessions regarding adultery/fornication and you equate Smith with those who admitted their sexual immorality

? As they say at Hot Air, “Dude!”
…..
Darren on May 24, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Seriously, give up on the whole attempt to accuse me of libel. The record is clear that Joseph Smith was not just a polygamist, but polyandrous as well, at first in secret while lying about it publicly, and then finally admitting it.

Now, you can continue to believe that these were not real marriages if you want, and that there was no actual sex involved. Those of us who are not sold on Joseph Smith’s claims will probably accept the far simpler and more likely explanation that his multiple marriages included sex, especially since he was already known to have lied about his plural marriages while practicing them.

But don’t run around accusing me of libel because you’re not capable of admitting the evidence.

Try reading, “The Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith,” a biography of Emma Smith written by two Mormon scholars. They show clearly the struggle that Emma Smith had with Joseph Smith’s doctrine of plural marriages. She spent years denying that he did any such thing, and then he had a revelation that she was to accept it as an ordinance.

I’ve spent considerable time addressing these questions, only to be accused of bad faith, ignorance, shallowness, sensationalism, lying, and libel.

Enough. The evidence that Joseph Smith was, in fact, a polygamist, is extensive, and is admitted by the LDS organization. You can try to justify that if you want, but don’t accuse me of lying because I reject your justifications.

Not with Jewish law, either. At the crucifixion, the Jews had no prior record of lawbreaking by Jesus, no “brushes with the law.” They had to manufacture evidence on the spot.

There are numerous times when Jesus was accused of violating Jewish law. Ultimately the Jewish leaders used Roman authority to get what they wanted, which was to kill the Jesus. Despite being accused Jesus never violated any law. That wasthe main point.

There is simply no comparison to Joseph Smith, who dabbled in the occult and was brought in for trial for the practice of “peep” stones to find buried treasure.

LOL. Is the Urim and Thummim an occult object as well? I’ll grant you that Joseph misused the seer stone to find treasure and he learned that when he did it was of no use.

Where Jesus was ordered to be crucified by a man who said, “I find no fault in him,” and willingly went to his death, offering forgiveness to his killers, we see Joseph Smith dragged out of a jail after burning the printing press of his enemies, shooting his attackers with smuggled revolvers.

I guess St. Peter was no servant of Christ neither. Sad. :>(

Nothing libelous about it. Both attempted to convince other women to have sexual relations with them.

tom on May 24, 2012 at 3:12 AM

Now, you’re lying, sir. Were you to accuse me of any sch thing wit no evidence I’d sue your butt. Is this libel allowed on Hot Air? You present no evidence to back your claim against Joseph Smith. I, however, presented you with knowledge of first-hand confessions regarding adultery/fornication and you equate Smith with those who admitted their sexual immorality? As they say at Hot Air, “Dude!”

So did he excommunicate Bennett for immorality, or to protect himself from accusations of sharing Bennett’s immorality?

I answered that. Bennet was immoral, Joseph was not. Nor could you cite me anything to make that cnclsion. There’s nothing out there to conclude tha Joseph Smith had any sexual relations with anyone except for Emma Smith. I’ve looked long and hard for evidence and have come up with nothing.

You’re making my point for me. The two major political parties went to the Mormons hat in hand to lock up their vote. Obviously, there was a reasonable suspicion that political influence would be used to bail Joseph Smith out of his troubles.

I made no point for you. You said Joseph Smith had “political cronies”. Having political allies is not the same as “political cronies”. Having a “crony” implies building a friendship or trust over time. Mormons were not even in Illinois long enough to have made “political cronies” let alone rely upon them to free Joseph Smith from prison. And if the governor of Illinois was the one imprisoned Smith, what good would having political cronies be? The mere fact that Joseph was not released shows as direct evidence that Smith had no “political cronies” on his side. I’m glad to have “proven your point”.

As I recall, they had tried that approach in Missouri, and been driven out in response.

You recall incorrectly. The Mormons were driven out for their opposition to slavery, declaration that blacks had a soul, and for their strange doctrines. People also feared the power the Mormons would wield in Missouri. Not that the Mormons did wield any such power, but it was still feared.

Your denial of the evidence doesn’t make it vanish.

Sir, your failure to provide evidence shows there is no evidence to produce.

In the case of Zina Jacobs, he claimed that an angel of God with flaming sword required him to take her to wife, while she was married to Henry Jacobs and several months pregnant with his child!

You’re correct. And Zina lived with whom after they were sealed? Also, did you note that at least twice Zina refused be sealed Joseph Smith until she herself received divine confirmation from God, in other words, that the word of God revealed to her directly the truthfulness of Joseph Smith? Furthermore, you previous expressed doubt about believing that Joseph Smith received revelation to practice polygamy and refused to do it. The account you just shared regarding the angel with a sword drawn, was the result of Smith’s original refusal to practice plural marriage. It was then that the angle said (paraphrasing) “practice plural marriage or be destroyed”. So, which version is it now? Joseph refused initially or that he made up stories to “get what he wanted” with women?

God says something different about polygamy. Jesus himself said that God made us male and female. The early church required that preachers and deacons be the husband of one wife. Polygamy, like divorce, was tolerated because of the hardness of people’s hearts. Yet Joseph Smith elevated plural marriages to a command enforced by angels with flaming swords.

Joseph Smith restored the gospel of old from the Old Testament Times to the New Testament times. Plural marriage was part of this restoration. Polygamy was indeed practiced in Old Testament times and we know not why or why it stopped. No doubt God revealed something somewhere to have it put to an end but what, where, and when that was I do not think anyone knows. Jesus taught that in Him the woman is not without the man nor is the man without the woman. He also taught that what is bound on earth is bound in heaven. The truths behind this were lost but now restored. Believe what you will, I know what I believe and I have had many spiritual confirmations, directly from God, to verify these truths.

Yet you cannot find a single person in the Old Testament who shared a wife with another husband. ,

.

That much is true which is one reason I emphatically point out the non sexual relations between Smith and other women. These marriages were not conventional marriages you cite, even from the Bible. These were eternal sealings, nothing more.

Joseph Smith made a mockery of marriage, and it was this single thing rather than religious prejudice or bigotry which disgusted his neighbors and ultimately cost him his life.

Joseph Smith solidified marriage way beyond anything man could do. He restored knowledge of eternal marriage and by and large Mormons do better tan the general public in their marriages. His faithfulness to God is what cost his life by the ungodly. And you have not, nor can you, name those who went after Joseph Smith for the honor of their wives. What husband was in the crowd which killed Joseph Smith? Whose wife did Joseph steal? Name names sir lest you continue in your futile libelous rendition of Joseph Smith.

Rather than admit that 33 should be enough to establish that Joseph Smith was a polygamist, you imply not being able to name the other 15 proves he’s not guilty.

LOL. I never denied any such thing. Yes, Joseph Smith was a polygamist. I only took issue as to the nature of the polygamy and to point out that you speak of things which you do not know about. You chose “48” because that’s the highest number against Smith and thus could do the most damage to his character. I asked you to name names only to point out that this accusation is unfounded and yet you cited it. You then pointed to “60”.

Even LDS historians admit that Joseph Smith communicated his doctrine of plural marriage for a while secretly, person to person, rather than declaring it publicly.</blockquote.

As I agreed with.

Which is why you earlier posted to a link that Joseph Smith fought against polygamy. Of course he did, before he went public with the doctrine of plural marriages. But even while “fighting against it,” he practiced it.

I pointed to it because it showed the immorality of two of the Expositor writers/owners. It was in their own selfish interest to “expose’ Joseph Smith. That’s all.

Hall recounted the story from his own personal experience. It’s also consistent with the historical record, which shows that Zina was married to Henry Jacobs, and that Joseph Smith required her to marry him, but that she continued to be married to her husband. On Joseph Smith’s death, she was claimed by Brigham Young, and he was sent away on mission work.

Young did not “claim” Zina. She lived with Henry after she was sealed to Young in Henry’s presence. She clearly conclude that she and Henry were no longer together long before she went to live with Young and by the time she made it there, Henry himself had remarried.

Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Nobody put Zina’s marriage asunder except Zina and Henry.

But those who claimed to be holy men of God in the Mormon church tore apart husband and wife and claimed the wife for themselves.

Fallacious

The big difference between Joseph Smith and Brigham Young in this instance is that Joseph Smith was willing to share Zina with her actual husband.

There was no difference between Smith and young regarding Zina until Zina decided she was no longer married to Henry. “sharing” requires “having” and nobody but Henry “had” Zina until Zina and Henry regarded their marriage no longer valid. You’re tryingto create a love triangle where none existed.

Yes, of course Zina was convinced she was obeying God. But who was telling her that doing this was obeying God? Joseph Smith, then Brigham Young.

Zina refused Joseph Smith at least TWICE. She conceded only after God told her directly what she should do.

As for the continued assertion that there’s no evidence those marriages were consummated, the stated purpose of plural marriage was to raise more children.

Really? I thought it was for exaltation as the Doctrine and Covenants says. And didn’t you refer to that book regarding polygamy? Why yes, yes you did. Again you speak about things you do not know about.

Don’t make a fool of yourself by claiming that these were marriages without sex. That was not part of the doctrine of plural marriages, and I think you know that very well.

Wow. Now you assert doctrines which do not exist and that I know they exist even though they do not.

Quaint.

In the Book of Mormon in Jacob 2 we read of *one* reason the Lord may command plural marriage. That reason is to raise children but that is not the “doctrine of plural marriage”. In Doctrine and Covenants Section 132 we read of the purpose of plural wives wit respect to “multiplying and replenishing the earth” in the context of a wife belonging ot one man and “none else”. When a woman, therefore, belonged to someone else, this commandment seems to have no affect. However, there is the reasons given for exaltation for establishing “celestial marriage”, which does not inherently mea “plural marriage”. That’s the doctrine, sir. Why would you want to dictated to me what LDS doctrines say other than to be…”quaint”?

Joseph Smith was caught in the barn with Fanny Alger in 1833 by his own wife, Emma Smith. This was well before he announced a revelation of plural marriage. Is there any evidence at all that you won’t stonewall and call “ZERO EVIDENCE?”

tom on May 24, 2012 at 3:12 AM

You say so with absoluteness. Here you go (bold mine):

The bulk of the evidence seems to show that Fanny and Joseph were regarded as married, even by hostile witnesses. It seems likely that their involvement became more widely known when someone (perhaps Parrish?) spied on Joseph and Fanny, and other church leaders then became involved. We can say little with confidence of the circumstances surrounding their discovery and nothing of Emma’s knowledge (or lack thereof) beforehand, though she almost certainly became hostile if she did not start out that way. I suspect that the bare bones tale to which Johnson alludes—perhaps no better than gossip itself—is the kernel around which McLellin and the Webbs embroidered exaggeration, drama, and even outright fabrication. The evidence for a pregnancy is weak.

There are two letters by McLellin to Joseph Smith III. The first letter tells Smith III that his father (the Prophet Joseph Smith Jr.) may have engaged in plural marriage. At this point there is no known record from Emma Smith acknowledging this practice. The letter also asked for Smith III to ask his mother f this was true. In the second letter McLellin urged Smith II to confirm the plural marriages of his father simply by asking his mother if it was true. The cited article’s author cites the following:

McLellin recounted a story that he attributed to Frederick G. Williams, an excommunicated member of the First Presidency. McLellin claimed that Joseph had been caught in immoral behavior with a “Miss Hill” in late 1832. According to McLellin, Emma called Williams, Oliver Cowdery, and Sidney Rigdon to help settle the matter. McLellin insists that “she told me this story was true!!”

McLellin also reported a tale he had heard about Joseph and Fanny Alger. He claimed that Fanny and Joseph were in the barn and Emma “looked through a crack and saw the transaction!!! She told me this story too was verily true.” In this letter, McLellin upped the ante, adding disturbing details that he claims Emma verified in 1847. He wanted Joseph III to confront his mother about at least two women with whom he claims the Prophet was involved.

This “being caught in the barn” is what you were referring to, yes? Now, here remember that after Joseph’s death, there is no known record of Emma Smith speaking of polygamy. If she knew so much with absoluteness, then she never spoke of it thus McLellin’s admonishment to Smith III to confront her on the polygamy issue.

From a newspaper article McLellin wrote, te article’s author points out Mclellin’s contradiction. He spoke about Emma Smith confirming to him that she saw two polygamous marriage performed in the barn but that McLellin spoke of the second time as the “first authenticated time”. That’s a contradiction. That’s a sign of a story told not based upon facts.

And here’s something the author points out which you yourself have pretty much pointed out previously:

McLellin insisted that Emma Smith confirmed these tales in 1847. Yet this is a strange occurrence—there is virtually no other record of Emma admitting, following Joseph’s death, that he even taught plural marriage.

If McLellin is telling the truth then we should conclude that she told him of the polygamous instances but nobody else? Even after Joseph Smith’s death?

Here’s what happened with McLellin:

To begin to answer this, we must briefly revisit McLellin’s history in and out of the church. McLellin was baptized 20 August 1831 and was ordained an elder four days later. On 25 October he received a revelation via Joseph Smith in which he was warned: “Commit not adultery—a temptation with which thou hast been troubled.” McLellin did not take this advice and was excommunicated in December 1832 for spending time with “a certain harlot” while on a mission.

Rebaptized in 1833, he was ordained an apostle on 15 February 1835. His problems continued. He was disfellowshipped in 1835 for writing a letter that “cast . . . censure upon the [first] presidency.” Reinstated on 25 September 1835, he attended the Kirtland Temple dedication but had lost confidence in the church leadership by August 1836. At his 11 May 1838 excommunication hearing, “he said he had no confidence in the presidency of the Church; consequently, he had quit praying and keeping the commandments of the Lord, and indulged himself in his sinful lusts. It was from what he had heard that he believed the presidency had got out of the way, and not from anything that he had seen himself.”

He seems to have been in and out of the LDS Church a lot and each time augmenting ire against the leadership of the Church. In his ire:

It seems that McLellin had difficulty with adulterous behavior. He also frequently disagreed with church leaders and did not hesitate to criticize them publicly. His penchant for believing and acting on secondhand information—as in the report about “Miss Hill” from Frederick G. Williams—was already apparent, since he attacked the First Presidency for what he had heard, not for what he personally had witnessed.

There’s your witness for the polygamous act “caught in the barn”. Believe what you may but McLellin isn’t very credible in my estimation.

But here’s more to his credibility:

McLellin’s later life found him bouncing from one Mormon splinter group to another. He gave early support to James J. Strang but later distanced himself when it became clear that he would not get a leadership position. In a public debate with Strang, McLellin denied ever having been friendly with Strang or well-disposed toward his claims. In response, Strang produced three letters written by McLellin, which he proceeded to read. The letters “ended the debate quickly, and McLellin never mentioned these matters again, even in his own publications. . . . In their debate Strang exploited the content of those letters to demonstrate that McLellin’s verbal and other published statements were at total variance with the reality suggested in the letters.” Clearly, then, McLellin was perfectly willing to fib to others in furtherance of his religious goals. He lied about conversations he had had with Strang only to have his own letters prove his duplicity.

Remember, McLellin is the man, perhaps the sole man, in whom Emma Smith confided her deepest troubles? I for one really don’t think so.

And here’s even more:

. Following his excommunication, McLellin played an active role in mobbing and robbing the Saints. Joseph was taken to Liberty Jail, and Emma returned home to find that she had been robbed of everything. A contemporary journal records that McLellin “went into brother Joseph’s house and commenced searching over his things . . . [and] took all his [jewelry] out of Joseph’s box and took a lot of his cloths [sic] and in fact, plundered the house and took the things off.” When Emma asked McLellin why he did this, McLellin replied, “Because I can.”

A thief is not a good witness against the character of the person he thieved from I’d say.

It gets better though:

McLellin’s offenses against Joseph extended beyond robbing his family:

While Joseph was in prison at Richmond, Missouri, McLellin, who was a large and active man, went to the sheriff and asked for the privilege of flogging the Prophet. Permission was granted on condition that Joseph would fight. The sheriff made known to Joseph McLellin’s earnest request, to which Joseph consented, if his irons were taken off. McLellin then refused to fight unless he could have a club, to which Joseph was perfectly willing; but the sheriff would not allow them to fight on such unequal terms.

LOL. Joseph would have whooped McLellin.

After all this Emma Smith entrusted her deepest fear of betrayal to…McLellin? Please. You trust McLellin’s account? Go right ahead and pronounce here and now tha McLellin told the truth. Please do. I’ll listen.

While her husband froze in Liberty Jail, Emma had to worry about her children going cold because McLellin had stolen their bedding.

Quaint.

Chauncey G. Webb wasa nother witnes to Joseph being “caught in the barn”. Yetthe author of the article notes of the assumption that Agler was pregnant by Joseph smith:

Webb was in a position to know about Fanny’s pregnancy, so why does he tell us nothing else? Why do we hear no tragic tale about the despoiled maiden’s child being stillborn or the heartrending scene of the mother required to give up the Prophet’s bastard offspring for someone else to raise in secret? Either scenario would have suited the tone and tastes of the late-nineteenth-century exposé in which Webb’s words appeared. The opportunities for him to use his “knowledge” are legion, and yet Webb simply teases his audience with a sly hint and drops the matter.

I ask, if pregnancy occurred, why didn’t Webb simply disclose that “fact” unless, of course, he was making things up about Smith?

Joseph Smith was caught in the barn with Fanny Alger in 1833 by his own wife, Emma Smith.

tom on May 24, 2012 at 3:12 AM

Interesting approach. Present a bald assertion, no evidence or proof of foul deeds, and let innuendo do your work.

If you had any thing stronger, you would use it. But alas, you don’t.

So, go ahead, and keep up with your innuendos, it is all you’ve got.

What brushes did Jesus have with the law?

None.

Not with Roman law but he did with Jewish law. I think Gunlock’s main point that despite the legal accusations, he was innocent.

Darren on May 24, 2012 at 1:03 AM

Not with Jewish law, either. At the crucifixion, the Jews had no prior record of lawbreaking by Jesus, no “brushes with the law.” They had to manufacture evidence on the spot.

There is simply no comparison to Joseph Smith, who dabbled in the occult and was brought in for trial for the practice of “peep” stones to find buried treasure. Where Jesus was ordered to be crucified by a man who said, “I find no fault in him,” and willingly went to his death, offering forgiveness to his killers, we see Joseph Smith dragged out of a jail after burning the printing press of his enemies, shooting his attackers with smuggled revolvers.

Not only does the article show strong doubt as to your expression of what happened between Smith, young, and the Jacobs, but it also shows through letters that before Zina moved to Winter Quarters, where Brigham young lived, she, through a letter, had already considered herself divorced from Henry and that Henry even remarried before Zina even made it to Winter Quarters. This all points to a mutual understanding between Henry and Zina that their marriage was no longer in force or valid. That neither party considered married to the other. There is no record of divorce and some good reasons are pointed out. A) The Nauvoo charter was revoked effectively revoking its local government; and B) The government in Iowa was small and not able to accommodate the large numbers of Saints moving through there and C) There is no set rules for divorce in the wild frontier which would be the state the Saints were in after leaving Illinois. But one thing is clear is that neither Henry, nor Zina, had any animosity towards each other despite no longer considering themselves to be married and that Henry always retained a great love and respect for Brigham Young.

Darren on May 24, 2012 at 12:56 AM

Hall recounted the story from his own personal experience. It’s also consistent with the historical record, which shows that Zina was married to Henry Jacobs, and that Joseph Smith required her to marry him, but that she continued to be married to her husband. On Joseph Smith’s death, she was claimed by Brigham Young, and he was sent away on mission work.

There is no dispute historically that Zina was married to Henry Jacobs, or that it was recorded that she was then married to Joseph Smith, or that she was ultimately claimed by Brigham Young, even though she was already married to Henry Jacobs, and that she ultimately lived with Brigham Young and had a child by him.

That’s a lot of corroboration.

Here is Jesus on the subject of marriage: (Math 19:-6)

Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh?
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

But those who claimed to be holy men of God in the Mormon church tore apart husband and wife and claimed the wife for themselves. The big difference between Joseph Smith and Brigham Young in this instance is that Joseph Smith was willing to share Zina with her actual husband.

Yes, of course Zina was convinced she was obeying God. But who was telling her that doing this was obeying God? Joseph Smith, then Brigham Young.

As for the continued assertion that there’s no evidence those marriages were consummated, the stated purpose of plural marriage was to raise more children. This could only be done through sexual activity, which was just happens to be part of marriage.

Don’t make a fool of yourself by claiming that these were marriages without sex. That was not part of the doctrine of plural marriages, and I think you know that very well. As Eliza Snow, once of Joseph Smith’s wives, reportedly said, “I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that.”

[Joseph Smith III] said, ˜I am informed that Eliza Snow was a virgin at the time of her death. I in turn said, ˜Brother Heber C. Kimball, I am informed, asked her the question if she was not a virgin although married to Joseph Smith and afterwards to Brigham Young, when she replied in a private gathering, I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that”

As for there being “ZERO evidence” of Joseph Smith doing anything similar, look back at the list of wives I previously posted, and which the LDS organization admits to. Several of those were from years before Joseph Smith claimed a revelation allowing polygamy.

tom on May 23, 2012 at 7:34 PM

NO EVIDENCE OF SEXUAL ACTIVITY. NONE. Bennett and Higsbee both admitted to immorality. Period.

Joseph Smith was caught in the barn with Fanny Alger in 1833 by his own wife, Emma Smith. This was well before he announced a revelation of plural marriage. Is there any evidence at all that you won’t stonewall and call “ZERO EVIDENCE?”

In short, Joseph Smith excommunicated Dr. Bennett for doing the exact same things he was doing

That, sir, is libelous. What *act* of immorality did Joseph Smith partake in? You cannot cite me a single one. Not a one, sir. You’re bearing false witness against him now. polygamy does not equate adultery. polyandry does not equate adultery unless there is sexual relations. Which sexual relation have you shown me? None. I’ve shown you two. That’s a significant difference.

Nothing libelous about it. Both attempted to convince other women to have sexual relations with them. The real difference between the two was that you accept Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, and believe his revelation of plural marriage was from God, and therefore what he did was not actually wrong.

So did he excommunicate Bennett for immorality, or to protect himself from accusations of sharing Bennett’s immorality?

Then a mob of people — probably expecting Smith to be bailed out by his political cronies trying to lock up the Mormon vote — stormed the jail to lynch him.

What are you talking about? What political cronies? The two major political parties went to the Mormons hand in foot to give them goodies to lock up their vote. neither Smith nor that Mormons sought and such favorable treatment. Smith did not have “political cronies”.

You’re making my point for me. The two major political parties went to the Mormons hat in hand to lock up their vote. Obviously, there was a reasonable suspicion that political influence would be used to bail Joseph Smith out of his troubles.

He had the state’s largest militia but what did they do? Nothing. That’s telling.

As I recall, they had tried that approach in Missouri, and been driven out in response.

Stop implying Smith’s corruption without evidence. It’s shallow. All i can tell from you is that you’re a shallow person regarding your view of Mormonism.

Your denial of the evidence doesn’t make it vanish. Joseph Smith didn’t just try to reinstate polygamy. He invented a whole new version of polygamy that involved marrying women who were still married to other men — and not to “Gentile” men or unbelievers, but to faithful Mormon men — and declaring that God did not just permit polygamy but required it. In the case of Zina Jacobs, he claimed that an angel of God with flaming sword required him to take her to wife, while she was married to Henry Jacobs and several months pregnant with his child!

I don’t mean to imply Joseph Smith was corrupt. I think it’s well past time to say it plainly. The only way to conclude anything else is to believe that God redefined morality through Joseph Smith’s revelation. No non-Mormon will accept such a claim.

God says something different about polygamy. Jesus himself said that God made us male and female. The early church required that preachers and deacons be the husband of one wife. Polygamy, like divorce, was tolerated because of the hardness of people’s hearts. Yet Joseph Smith elevated plural marriages to a command enforced by angels with flaming swords.

David had hundreds of wives, even though God had warned against kings multiplying to themselves wives. Solomon famously had a thousand wives. Yet you cannot find a single person in the Old Testament who shared a wife with another husband. It took Joseph Smith to have this innovation.

Joseph Smith made a mockery of marriage, and it was this single thing rather than religious prejudice or bigotry which disgusted his neighbors and ultimately cost him his life.

You have no shame, if you think the difference between 33 and 48 wives is some sort of defense.

LOL. I think you speak about things without knowing them as I cited you doing twice before in this very post. That as my point.

And I think you should quit worrying about me and open your eyes to what is staring you in the face. I said that Joseph Smith had up to 48 wives. That in itself implies “as many as” 48 wives. You demanded names of all. I pointed to names of 33 well-documented wives. Rather than admit that 33 should be enough to establish that Joseph Smith was a polygamist, you imply not being able to name the other 15 proves he’s not guilty.

Even LDS historians admit that Joseph Smith communicated his doctrine of plural marriage for a while secretly, person to person, rather than declaring it publicly. Clearly during this time he would have been keeping it quiet. Emma Smith was one of the last to accept plural marriages, and he spent years hiding those relationships from her. During this time, he lied repeatedly and claimed accusations of polygamy were false, while secretly engaging in it.

Which is why you earlier posted to a link that Joseph Smith fought against polygamy. Of course he did, before he went public with the doctrine of plural marriages. But even while “fighting against it,” he practiced it.

Did these marriages involve a man and a woman who consummated their marriage? There’s your answer.

tom on May 23, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Exactly my point. As far as *anyone knows*, they were not marriages which ended up being consumated. Thank you for getting to the point.

But for the others, if the marriage was consummated between a man and a woman, then it doesn’t make much difference what religious ritual you wrap around it, it’s still a marriage.

You can maintain as long as you want that these were marriages without sex, but don’t expect anyone else to believe it.

My main point to you is that there is NO EVIDENCE of sexual relations. You my believe it or not, but there is no evidnece or said evidence most assuredly been produced long before now and you’d be citing them here. Like your citation between Zina, henry, and Brigham in your apparent attempt to stir up drama.
___________________________________________________________

What brushes did Jesus have with the law?

None.

Not with Roman law but he did with Jewish law. I think Gunlock’s main point that despite the legal accusations, he was innocent.

As for there being “ZERO evidence” of Joseph Smith doing anything similar, look back at the list of wives I previously posted, and which the LDS organization admits to. Several of those were from years before Joseph Smith claimed a revelation allowing polygamy.

tom on May 23, 2012 at 7:34 PM

NO EVIDENCE OF SEXUAL ACTIVITY. NONE. Bennett and Higsbee both admitted to immorality. Period.

In short, Joseph Smith excommunicated Dr. Bennett for doing the exact same things he was doing

That, sir, is libelous. What *act* of immorality did Joseph Smith partake in? You cannot cite me a single one. Not a one, sir. You’re bearing false witness against him now. polygamy does not equate adultery. polyandry does not equate adultery unless there is sexual relations. Which sexual relation have you shown me? None. I’ve shown you two. That’s a significant difference.

Then a mob of people — probably expecting Smith to be bailed out by his political cronies trying to lock up the Mormon vote — stormed the jail to lynch him.

What are you talking about? What political cronies? The two major political parties went to the Mormons hand in foot to give them goodies to lock up their vote. neither Smith nor that Mormons sought and such favorable treatment. Smith did not have “political cronies”. He had the state’s largest militia but what did they do? Nothing. That’s telling. Stop implying Smith’s corruption without evidence. It’s shallow. All i can tell from you is that you’re a shallow person regarding your view of Mormonism.

You have no shame, if you think the difference between 33 and 48 wives is some sort of defense.

LOL. I think you speak about things without knowing them as I cited you doing twice before in this very post. That as my point.

Some researchers have put the number as high as 60.

And I’m sure if you dedicate yourself to research you yourself could double that number. Go for it. But you’ll still come up empty as to sexual relations with polygamous wives.

On that page alone are listed eleven wives of Joseph Smith who were married to another man at the same time, and the names of the husbands. Many of them faithful Mormon followers who convinced themselves it was all right because Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and had a revelation from the Almighty.

No sexual relations yet I see.

Many of them faithful Mormon followers who convinced themselves it was all right because Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and had a revelation from the Almighty.
The saddest case was of Henry Jacobs, a faithful Mormon who fell in love with a woman who married him, who then wound up married to Joseph Smith anyway. But at least Joseph Smith was willing to share her with Henry Jacobs.

HERE’S a good take on why Zina married Joseph Smith:

I don’t have time today to analyze each of these possible reasons, but suffice it to say that there is strong evidence that each is incorrect. I believe that a much stronger case can be made for the concept that Zina was not being obedient or subservient to mortal leaders, but to her God.
This may seem a subtle difference, but it is a critical one. One can be convinced that a man is a prophet of God, and then choose to follow that prophet–whatever he says–based on that conviction. Events in Zina’s life do not show her to be that type of person, however. She did not apply a single, blanket spiritual confirmation to all her decisions; instead she sought individual confirmation for large decisions, of which the sealing to Joseph was undoubtedly one.

For instance, Zina reports that when she and Henry were courting, Joseph proposed to her on three separate occasions. On each occasion she turned him down. Zina did this even though she had received a testimony of Joseph’s prophetic call well before this time. Todd Compton points this testimony out:

Zina accepted Joseph as a prophet whose words were infallible revelations direct from God. Her older brother, Dimick, Smith’s close associate, probably also encouraged her to marry the Mormon leader, so it is remarkable that while she was an impressionable nineteen-year-old, she would refuse his suit.

In what could be an unwitting choice of words, Compton points out the basic quandary–and a distinction apparently lost on many authors, including him. If Zina truly did see Joseph’s words as “infallible revelations direct from God,” why would she have refused his propositions when she was convinced he was a prophet? If Zina practiced plural marriage simply out of obedience to the prophet, then it makes no sense that she would have thrice turned down Joseph and instead married Henry. Indeed, Zina recounted in one of her autobiographies that

when I heard that God had revealed the law of Celestial marriage that we would have the privilege of associating in family relationships in the worlds to come, I searched the scriptures and by humble prayer to my Heavenly Father I obtained a testimony for myself that God had required that order to be established in his Church.

In her late-life interview with John W. Wight of the RLDS Church, Zina was asked if she could provide the date of her marriage to Joseph. Her answer, while not germane to Wight’s question, gave a glimpse into why, in retrospect, Zina had been sealed to Joseph:

Q. “Can you give us the date of that marriage with Joseph Smith?”
A. “No, sir, I could not.”
Q. “Not even the year?”
A. “No, I do not remember. It was something too sacred to be talked about; it was more to me than life or death. I never breathed it for years. I will tell you the facts. I had dreams–I am no dreamer but I had dreams that I could not account for. I know this is the work of the Lord; it was revealed to me, even when young. Things were presented to my mind that I could not account for. When Joseph Smith revealed this order [Celestial marriage] I knew what it meant; the Lord was preparing my mind to receive it.”

Zina’s answer on this occasion is consistent with the view that she received revelation from God–in the form of dreams, separate and distinct from her testimony of the prophet–that convinced her of the truthfulness of polygamy. Once received, Zina fearlessly acted on this revelation, consistent with her commitment to be obedient to her God.

Zina acted for herself only upon confirmation by the Lord. In no way was she, nor Henry, coerced into this marriage and in no way did it split them in their conventional marriage status.

Then there is the take on marrying Brigham Young:

As to why her marrying Young would not be a Leverite marriage:

There is one problem with the concept of levirate marriage, particularly in the case of Zina. Henry was apparently “a worthy church brother,” and already married to Zina. Could not his marriage to her have been viewed as fulfilling any levirate law? Apparently not, if the fact that Zina married Brigham is accepted as prima facie evidence to the contrary. Joseph had asked the Twelve to look after his plural wives, and Henry was not one of the Twelve. Further, when Zina was given the choice of which of the Twelve she would marry in Joseph’s stead, she chose Brigham. While such a choice may be anathema to modern observers, it is apparently a choice made by Zina, accepted by Brigham, and approved by Henry.

That makes sense to me and it is important to note that Henry witnessed and almost definitely approved of Zina’s sealing to Brigham Young. So, what of their conventional marriage together (Zina and Brigham Young)?

Here’s probably the origin of the source you recited to me regarding how sad that situation was:

There is no doubt that the marriage of Henry and Zina dissolved at Mt. Pisgah; it was here for a very short time–just a matter of days–that they last lived together. Some authors and most critics see the dissolution of Henry and Zina’s marriage as a matter of imposing priesthood authority in the marital relationship, basing their conclusion–incorrectly, I believe–on a singular report that Brigham Young either commanded Henry to leave or made the leaving easier by calling him on a mission.

Today’s commonly accepted story traces its roots to one first told by William Hall and later by T.B.H. Stenhouse. Fawn Brodie recounted as history a story in Hall’s anti-Mormon book that Brigham forced Henry and Zina apart. This story was picked up and uncritically repeated a generation later by several other authors.

Here’s what you said happened and a good rebuttal to it. I’ll place in bold the pertinent parts for this post:

At a place called, by the Mormons, Pisgah, in Iowa, as they were passing through to Council Bluffs, Brigham Young spoke in this wise, in the hearing of hundreds: He said it was time for men who were walking in other men’s shoes to step out of them. “Brother Jacobs,” he says, “the woman you claim for a wife does not belong to you. She is the spiritual wife of brother Joseph, sealed up to him. I am his proxy, and she, in this behalf, with her children, are my property. You can go where you please, and get another, but be sure to get one of your own kindred spirit.”

The immediate problem with such a statement is that there is no contemporary corroboration for it. Hall states that Brigham’s statement was made in the hearing of hundreds of people, yet there are no other diaries that indicate such a statement or, indeed, any statement from Brigham to Henry. The statement itself would need to have been made sometime between Henry’s arrival at Mt. Pisgah (May 18) and his departure on his mission (approximately June 1).

For instance, Patty Bartlett Sessions, who was a detailed journal writer, arrived at Mt. Pisgah in the same company as the Jacobs’ and left Mt. Pisgah on June 2, 1846. None of her diary entries for the period refer to any such statement by Brigham Young, and it is safe to assume that she would have been among the “hundreds” referenced by William Hall. In fact, Sessions continues to refer to Zina as either “Zina Jacobs” or “sister Jacobs” as late as June 3, 1847, which reference would seem unlikely if she had heard Brigham claim Zina (and her children) as his property and exile Henry.

The diary of William Huntington records only one semi-public and one fully public meeting between May 18 and the first of June. There was a prayer meeting for selected individuals held on May 31, and a meeting in the grove near Huntington’s house on June 1 that turned into a “special conference” at which “considerable business” was done. There is, however, no record in his diary of any denouncing of his son-in-law by Brigham.

Can you cite anything to back up Hall’s claim? Certainly not T.B.H. Stenhouse as the article points out.

Not only does the article show strong doubt as to your expression of what happened between Smith, young, and the Jacobs, but it also shows through letters that before Zina moved to Winter Quarters, where Brigham young lived, she, through a letter, had already considered herself divorced from Henry and that Henry even remarried before Zina even made it to Winter Quarters. This all points to a mutual understanding between Henry and Zina that their marriage was no longer in force or valid. That neither party considered married to the other. There is no record of divorce and some good reasons are pointed out. A) The Nauvoo charter was revoked effectively revoking its local government; and B) The government in Iowa was small and not able to accommodate the large numbers of Saints moving through there and C) There is no set rules for divorce in the wild frontier which would be the state the Saints were in after leaving Illinois. But one thing is clear is that neither Henry, nor Zina, had any animosity towards each other despite no longer considering themselves to be married and that Henry always retained a great love and respect for Brigham Young.

For what it is worth, so did Jesus.

So?

What brushes did Jesus have with the law?

None.

The only time he was ever put on trial, Pilate specifically said he found no fault with him.

The easy answer has always been, “Well, it was just religious persecution.” And if anyone questions that, “Well, you’re just a religious bigot.” And if you document your case with links, “Well, those are from anti-Mormon web sites.” Well, you sure couldn’t document anything like that from Mormon web sites!

tom on May 22, 2012 at 7:43 PM

Those sites are set up to make money from the unsuspecting/gullible sheep. Honesty and reason are too often discarded in achieving their goal of making money.

Gunlock Bill on May 23, 2012 at 11:16 AM

More of the same. Sites critical of Joseph Smith are always either bigoted or cynically making money off the bigoted.

Here was my question (as you cited):

And which was a marriage in the conventional sense we think of it today?

Darren on May 22, 2012 at 10:37 PM

And here was your answer:

So they weren’t actually marriages, even though Mormonism teaches that marriages are eternal?

tom on May 23, 2012 at 2:07 AM

So, are these “conventional marriages as we think of today” even though the traditional last words of a wedding ceremony are “until death do you part”? Celestial marriages are conventional today in that when two are sealed together for time and eternity, these are mainstream marriages here on earth but the question is if these were conventional marriages for Joseph Smith; not anyone else. If you say “yes” than what is your evidence? If you say “no”, then we have no argument.

Did these marriages involve a man and a woman who consummated their marriage? There’s your answer.

Now, some women did seal themselves to Joseph Smith by proxy in a ceremony after he was dead. I’m perfectly willing to concede that those were not actual marriages, since the bridegroom was, you know, DEAD. But for the others, if the marriage was consummated between a man and a woman, then it doesn’t make much difference what religious ritual you wrap around it, it’s still a marriage.

You can maintain as long as you want that these were marriages without sex, but don’t expect anyone else to believe it.

But I can point you to a list of 34 of them — that is, Emma Smith, his first wife, and 33 others.
http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/

Not exactly 48, eh? week argument of him being ‘accused” of 48 wives.

You have no shame, if you think the difference between 33 and 48 wives is some sort of defense.

There are 33 well-documented ones. There’s evidence of more, though harder to document. Some researchers have put the number as high as 60.

Ummm, no, sir. That’s not what I “acknowledge” as libel. Here’s what I acknowledge as libel (bold mine):

So a printing press printed stories from former Mormons criticizing Joseph Smith for his polygamy and claiming that he had in fact attempted to convince their wives to have sex with him in a polyandrous marriage by convincing them it was in fact a celestial marriage.

tom on May 22, 2012 at 8:17 PM

First off, who made this accusation and who were their wives? Second of all, you cannot go to print and label someone as an adulterer without support. If this was said about you or I, both you and I would stand on solid ground to sue for liability. Especially if damages resulted in such a libelous report. And, to repeat myself, this type of press lead directly to Mormons being murdered by mobs and by state militia and otherwise damaged their personal lives and property. This was purely libel and nothing less.

Well, I’m sure there was zero evidence of it.

Oh, wait
http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/

On that page alone are listed eleven wives of Joseph Smith who were married to another man at the same time, and the names of the husbands. Many of them faithful Mormon followers who convinced themselves it was all right because Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and had a revelation from the Almighty.

The saddest case was of Henry Jacobs, a faithful Mormon who fell in love with a woman who married him, who then wound up married to Joseph Smith anyway. But at least Joseph Smith was willing to share her with Henry Jacobs. When Joseph Smith died, Brigham Young claimed all his wives, told Henry Jacobs in a public speech that he needed to “step out of another man’s shoes” because Zina was now Brigham Young’s wife, and then promptly sent him away from his wife on a mission trip to England. There are records of the heart-rending letters that Henry Jacobs wrote to his wife afterwards, but he was not allowed to have her again.

Tom;

They were in good fellowship with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints until it was learned of their own immorality. After being ecommunicated, they banned together to oppose Joseph Smith who lead the charge towards their excommunication. From the get go there was a major conflict of interest in the Bennett/Higsbee efforts to”expose” Joseph Smith after Joseph Smith folowed up on what would be their excommunication from the LDS Church.

By the way there is ZERO evidence of Joseph Smith doing any such thing like Benett or Higsbee.

Darren on May 23, 2012 at 9:10 AM

“Members in good standing” is a huge understatement. Dr. Bennett in particular was one of Joseph Smith’s closest confidants, and held the rank of Major General of the Nauvoo militia, second only to Joseph Smith’s own rank of Lieutenant General.

As for there being “ZERO evidence” of Joseph Smith doing anything similar, look back at the list of wives I previously posted, and which the LDS organization admits to. Several of those were from years before Joseph Smith claimed a revelation allowing polygamy.

In short, Joseph Smith excommunicated Dr. Bennett for doing the exact same things he was doing: trying to convince faithful Mormon women that having sex with him was not a sin, but a “celestial marriage” blessed by God.

Then Dr. Bennett turned on him and attacked him in the Nauvoo Expositor.

Then Joseph Smith had the Nauvoo Expositor printing press burned.

Then Joseph Smith declared martial law.

Then Joseph Smith was arrested and put in jail in nearby Carthage.

Then a mob of people — probably expecting Smith to be bailed out by his political cronies trying to lock up the Mormon vote — stormed the jail to lynch him.

Then Joseph Smith fought back with revolvers smuggled in to him.

And then he died.

There, Sartana.

Don’t waste your breath. Satan-a is just like innertube tough guy hondav65. they don’t want to vote for romney because he is a mormon but they try to blame it on his conservatism or patriotism

Mitch Rapp on May 23, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Oops, I credited Sartana’s post to you. You merely responded to it by teling him to vote for Obama. Sorry. And, yes, you’re correct. just vote for Obama.

Sartana;

As per my post to Mitch:

Here, Mitch. Watch Mitt Romney’s commencement spech at liberty University.

Where did Romney hate on Christians and conservatives?

Would you like a Reverend Wright video to accompany?

Have fun viewing.

Mark Twain was a young reporter at the time and he went to Utah to investigate the Mountain Meadow murders – and he completely agreed as to Brigham Young’s involvement in it and to the coverup!

So, in the absence of evidence, let alone proof, opinion trumps all.

Got it.

And the only guy the Mormon’s would ever convict of the massacre even admitted that Young was involved.

Again, in the absence of evidence, let alone proof, mere claims of the guilty trump all.

And – not to forget – Mountain Meadows was the worst massacre of civilians on American soil until it was eclipsed by …

9-11

HondaV65 on May 22, 2012 at 5:50 PM

So?

Where did Romney hate on Christians and conservatives?

Would you like a Reverend Wright video to accompany?

Darren on May 23, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Don’t waste your breath. Satan-a is just like innertube tough guy hondav65. they don’t want to vote for romney because he is a mormon but they try to blame it on his conservatism or patriotism

It sure does matter that Romney was taught to hold a grudge against the US and its Christian people.

It’s why he hates Conservatives so much.

sartana on May 23, 2012 at 12:28 AM

Here, Mitch. Watch Mitt Romney’s commencement spech at liberty University.

Where did Romney hate on Christians and conservatives?

Would you like a Reverend Wright video to accompany?

Why, that would make as much sense as going to a Mormon web site to research whether the founder of the religion had any warts.

- – - – -

Latter-day Saints do not believe that prophets and apostles are incapable of error, despite being called of God and receiving revelation. Joseph Smith himself taught that ‘a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such’.[2] The Church has always taught that its leaders are human and subject to failings as are all mortals. Only Jesus was perfect, as explained in this statement from the First Presidency:

The position is not assumed that the men of the New Dispensation —its prophets, apostles, presidencies, and other leaders—are without faults or infallible, rather they are treated as men of like passions with their fellow men.”[3]

Lu Dalton, writing in the Church’s periodical for women, explained:

We consider God, and him alone, infallible; therefore his revealed word to us cannot be doubted, though we may be in doubt some times about the knowledge which we obtain from human sources, and occasionally be obliged to admit that something which we had considered to be a fact, was really only a theory.[4]

Other authors have long taught the same thing:

1887 B. H. Roberts, Letter written November 4, 1887, London, Millennial Star 49. 48 (November 28, 1887): 760-763; a portion of which reads: “Relative to these sermons [Journal of Discourses] I must tell you they represent the individual views of the speakers, and the Church is not responsible for their teachings. Our authorized Church works are the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. In the Church very wide latitude is given to individual belief and opinion, each man being responsible for his views and not the Church; the Church is only responsible for that which she sanctions and approves through the formal actions of her councils. So it may be that errors will be found in the sermons of men, and that in their over zeal unwise expressions will escape them, for all of which the Church is not responsible” (762)

1889 Charles W. Penrose, Editorial: Judge Anderson and ‘Blood Atonement,’ Deseret Weekly 39. 25 (December 14, 1889): 772a-773c. [Editor is Charles W. Penrose; in his response to the lengthy statement by Judge Anderson, he quotes from the same pamphlet which the Judge had quoted from: Blood Atonement, by Elder Charles W. Penrose, published in 1884; Penrose quotes a statement which the Judge had not] “’The law of God is paramount. When men give their views upon any doctrine, the value of those views is as the value of the man. If he is a wise man, a man of understanding, of experience and authority, such views are of great weight with the community; but they are not paramount, nor equal to the revealed law of God’” (773ab)

- – - –

Joseph Smith had a number of brushes with the law, which continued until the day he died.

For what it is worth, so did Jesus.

So?

The easy answer has always been, “Well, it was just religious persecution.” And if anyone questions that, “Well, you’re just a religious bigot.” And if you document your case with links, “Well, those are from anti-Mormon web sites.” Well, you sure couldn’t document anything like that from Mormon web sites!

tom on May 22, 2012 at 7:43 PM

Those sites are set up to make money from the unsuspecting/gullible sheep. Honesty and reason are too often discarded in achieving their goal of making money.