https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/1u4cajr/comment/orcldgh/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Previous list.
Department of Defense.
Dod
The accounts do contradict in the case of the Alger brouhaha. The church is
desperate to make it a marriage.
The Church did not go back in time and create historical
records, or force critics to state that Alger was a plural wife in the Biblical
sense.
You can’t point to a woman who had relations with Smith
where the historical record is clear-cut that she had marital relations with
Smith—and she was not a wife of Smith in a polygamy sense.
Those who are not trying to achieve a predetermined
conclusion are not so sure.
You cannot point to a woman Smith had relations of a marital
nature with—where the historical record is solid that there was formal intimate
relations between the two—and it was not a wife of Smith.
You can be not so sure.
But you cannot be sure.
I really don't know myself. However, whether or not some
ceremony took place, it was still wrong and a betrayal of his wife to whom he
had not been married all that long. We are not sure how long, because the
accounts of when it took place conflict.
No one is absolutely certain about history.
That is why good historians say that history is a strange
place and we are visitors to it.
In the sense of Biblical polygamy –where the woman has no
choice on who her husband marries, and in the Bible women are property of their
husbands—what Smith did is not a betrayal
Polygamy and women not having a choice is the Biblical
standard.
So I guess you believe that Smith did not ever sleep with
women married to other men because that would be adultery. Would you agree with
this? I
You are ardent and extremely certain it happened. But your
sources contradict your claim that it happened.
There is no historical source that categorically shows Smith
had intimate relations with any woman that was not his wife in the Biblical
sense of plural wife.
Polygamy is not a sin in the Bible.
If so, then Brigham Young was a known adulterer.
It is interesting that you are bothered by an adult woman
making the choice to leave her husband and be with Young. On the frontier where
there were no divorce judges. That bothers you.
But the age of the women Young and Smith were married to—that’s
not a problem
Future readers—an adult woman left her husband and married
and lived with Young. That happened. And there was no formal divorce from her
husband—she just left him on the frontier—to be with Young.
Her choice—is unbiblical. Because women should not choose.
But Young and the woman married (in the Biblical sense)—and she
did not go back to her husband, she left her husband for Young.
That bothers this poster. Because women are property.
Not the age of the single women. Because the Bible does not
condemn marriage to young women.
Either Smith did or he didn't and the evidence seems to
indicate that he did have relations with Lyon's wife at least. Vogel gives
other examples as well.
You have presented everything Vogel has—and it’s a pretty
tenuous connection.
And even Vogel and other
critics are clear—some number of Smiths marriages were not consummated in
the Biblical sense.
Now I think you can't prove this because there are no
known descendants of Smith from Plural wives. But why would a dying woman lie
to her daughter about who she thought her father was? I don't believe they
would do this. Sylvia thought that Smith was her daughter's father.
We are not sure exactly what the woman told her daughter. It
was years before others knew what was said.
Did she mean that since she was her daughter in the eternities
after death-- they are a family with Smith. Because that could be a thing that was meant.
My definition of adultery is stricter than what they did
in the Bible where women were just property to be acquired so as far as I am
concerned Smith was an adulterer.
Using the Bible as the definition—Smith does not meet the
definition.
From all intents and purposes, the women who went under oath
to say, “Smith and I had intimate marital relations.” All of those women were
Smiths wives.
I would be
excommunicated if I did what he did.
Polygamy has been an excommunicable offense in LDS
Christianity since like the early 1900s. That is no slam dunk argument from
you.
The church would have no hesitation in calling me an
adulterer if I slept with women other than my wife.
You are comparing apples to oranges.
The church avoids calling Smith an adulterer.
Sure. And you are a fierce critic and you have tried to make
the claim and your historical sources contradict themselves.
However, they say
that there were two kinds of polygamous marriages, those for time and eternity
and those only for eternity. Sexual relations were found in the first kind, and
JOseph Smith participated in both kinds of plural marriages.
That is correct. Historians agree that not all of Smiths
sealings were consummated in the Biblical sense.
If he never had
sex with women married to other men, contrary to what the evidence indicates,
then I would agree that he was in harmony with the Bible, as long as he didn't
have sex with both of the mother daughter pairs he married.
Christians do not follow the Leviticus mandates. The New
Testament teaches that Christ’s death and resurrection fulfilled the law, which
is why its many rules and regulations have never applied to Christians. Romans
10:4 says, “Christ is the end of the law.” Colossians 2:13–14 says that God “forgave
us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which
stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the
cross.”
You keep saying the Bible is not against polygamy. I keep
saying that it is against having sex with a married woman. I think that doing
this is adultery.
Polygamy is not a sin.
The women who went on public record and were crystal clear
in their testimony—they were all polygamist wives of Smith.
You have yet to name a woman who Smith had relations with
who was not a wife of Smith.
If she thought the child was Smith's it means she must
have had sex with him or she wouldn't have thought so. This seems fairly
obvious.
What was meant from the –second hand source—is not obvious.
What the Mom thought and what the Mom said—we don’t have
-her- words. We have the daughters words. Years later.
Hales is convinced that there was no marital contact with Lyons.
You have been provided with multiple sources.
As to Alger, Cowdery thought it was a dirty affair.
McClellan told Joseph Smith 3 that Emma had caught them in the barn, a
"transaction". Chauncy Webb had quite a bit to say about it which is
reported on by Ann Eliza in her book Wife number 19.
Ann Eliza was a critic of the Church-- and lists Alger as a
wife of Smith.
Smith and Alger were married in the Biblical polygamy sense?
That is not a sin in the Bible.
She was not even born at the time.
She knew what contemporaries spoke of.
Two of the main sources for a marriage are Levi Hancock
who was a toddler at the time and Benjamin Johnson who was Alger's age. Their
accounts contradict and were made very long time after the events transpired.
Polygamy wasn’t talked about a lot until the Nauvoo period
and later.
The accounts say: Smith and Alger were husband and wife in
the Biblical polygamy sense.
I do not think
there is proof either way but it seems most are of the opinion that it was an
extra marital affair.
Bushman is clear it was a marriage in the Biblical sense.
That is what the Nauvoo narrative states.
If Oliver Cowdery regarded Biblical polygamy as wrong,
this has nothing to do with his issue with Smith which was one of the evil of
having an affair with a servant girl which he seems to have thought took place
which is why he called it a dirty nasty filthy affair.
Cowdery used the same language in the Nauvoo period to say
that polygamy was bad and made a statement about how its not the first time polygamy
had come up with Smith. That points to his problem in Kirtland was—polygamy.
You are not answering my questions. Instead you respond
with platitudes we both agree on. Marital relations in Biblical polygamy was
not a sin. No argument there. I am speaking of violating the marriage covenant
to have sexual relations with someone else.
Biblical polygamy is not violating marriage covenants.
So what is your definition of adultery? I will tell you
mine.
For a man, adultery consists of sexual relations with
women other than your wife.
For a woman, adultery consists of sexual relations with
men other than your husband.
You cannot provide solid historical evidence that your
claims are factual regarding Smith and relations with women he was not married
to in a polygamist marriage.
Every woman I see where the historical evidence points to a
physical marital relationship with Smith—from Alger to the end of the list—there
is historical evidence they were husband-wife in the Biblical sense.
This is the standard definition and using it, one can
classify a person as to whether they were involved in adultery. The Bible is
against it. The Bible is not against polygamy. One can commit adultery with or
without polygamy.
The Bible is not against polygamy.
All the women Smith had Biblical relations with of a marital
nature—were his polygamist wives he was married to.
A few corrections then I'm done.
On McClellan — when you work for a company you don't
criticize the product. A Chevy salesman doesn't push Ford. McClellan spent a
decade as the LDS Church's own scripture translation supervisor producing
church-approved content. His entire framework for understanding LDS
Christianity was developed inside that employment relationship. Leaving in 2023
doesn't erase a decade of institutional formation. His apologetic conclusions
didn't change when he left because they were never independent of the institution
to begin with. That's not an ad hominem. That's how bias actually works.
Everyone has bias.
You are not engaging in good faith. But at least you finally
admit McClellan does not work for LDS Christianity anymore. McClellan criticizes
LDS Christianity—your position makes no sense.
You've said "the Bible contradicts the Bible"
approximately eight times now without engaging a single specific verse
comparison directly. That's not a rebuttal. That's a deflection on repeat.
I cited verses where you were wrong, ignored other LDS scripture
that made other points—and where the Bible contradicts the Bible.
There are lists and lists of Bible contradictions if you
want a comprehensive list…
Biblical
Contradictions | American Atheists
The Book of Abraham isn't pseudepigrapha. Pseudepigrapha
means a text falsely attributed to an ancient author. Joseph Smith didn't claim
someone else wrote it — he claimed to personally translate it from Egyptian
papyri using divine gift. We have those papyri. Egyptologists read them. The
translation is documented as false. That's not a genre question. That's a
falsification.
Your argument is, “The Book of Abraham is exactly like the Bible.”
If the Book of Abraham came from Smith. And Smith says, “This
is from Abraham.” That is Pseudepigrapha. You know that, right…?...?
The Critical Text Project tracks editorial changes to the
Book of Mormon. That's not manuscript evidence of ancient origin. Those are
Joseph Smith's own edits to his own 19th century document. Not the same thing.
You and I wish we could have the same thing for the Bible. See
what has been taken out. What should be in it. The Bible is fiction,
pseudepigrapha, stories from other cultures—and we honestly do not know what
has been taken out. Bible verses refer
to other books—where are they?-?-!-!
You said you follow and worship Jesus. I believe you. The
question was never about sincerity.
If the question is whether or not LDS Christianity aligns
with pre-creed Christianity on baptism for the dead, not accepting creedal Christianity,
and believing in deification/theosis—if that is the question then LDS
Christianity aligns with pre-creed Christianity.
It was always about whether the Jesus described in the
New Testament and the Jesus described in LDS theology are the same being. You
never answered that.
The Jesus in the New Testament that forcefully taught, “ye
are gods.” LDS Christians accept Jesus of the New Testament.
Neither did the Pharisees.
Pull your punches.
They had the scriptures. They had the temple. They had
the priesthood authority. They had the correct lineage. They had the
institution. And they missed him completely.
They missed -Him- capital H. Sure. But we pull our punches.
LDS Christianity brings like thousands of people to Christ
in baptism in His name every year.
They sustain other religions charitable arms through food
and funding. And the institution testifies of Christ.
The Book of Mormon testifies of Christ more than the Bible.
The Doctrine and Covenants—same thing. Testifies of the purpose,
life, and death and resurrection of Christ.
A General Conference of LDS Christianity testifies of Christ
more per paragraph. More than the Bible—per verse.
First—pull your punches.
Second—LDS Christianity testifies of Christ.
It was common knowledge that she was Smith's child.
We know more now than we did decades ago.
That is how history works.
It is not settled history that Smith had marital relations
with Lyons.
And we know Smith did not father any children with her—because
DNA testing.
It wasn't just her mother. Others expressed this opinion
also. It is not spin to say that he had sex with Josephine's mother. It is the
obvious conclusion. Children are not born without sexual relations, at least
not in the nineteenth century. If she thought Josephine was Smith's child, it
can only be because she had sex with Smith.
Your source is a second-hand source. And we know that the
child was not Smiths.
The historical narrative is not settled, your source is
questioned, and there is push-back from historians that Smith had marital
relations with Lyons… Hales - Quinn -
Joseph Smith's Polygamy
Since the real
father was her legal husband, this shows she was having sex with two men in
about a month, probably being married to both in some sense. This is not
justified by the Bible at all.
Since the real father was the legal husband, it shows who
the real father is. Nothing more. Nothing less.
You are making assumptions.
The slander of women is mentioned at length in the new
biography of Smith by Turner who is a competent historian. You will also find
it in the Book by Quinn, "The Mormon Hierarchy Origins of Power". It
is discussed in "Mormon Polygamy" by Van Waggoner. These are three
sources by those who have done careful research.
Lets take a look, so we can all look at the data together.
I tried to discount it for some time, but these
scurrilous defamations were even appearing in the Newspaper.
God lies in the Bible. And the Bible contradicts the Bible.
Jesus makes false prophecies in the Bible.
But… your sources are off here. And I have shown you.
The newspaper making the claim was critical of Smith quoting
critics of Smith. I have already shown that to you.
The best that can be said is that most of them came from
those associated with Smith. He lied about women and some men, bearing false
witness against them. If you look at the city council minutes when they were
determined to destroy the expositor, Smith is on record slandering all sorts of
people.
The Warsaw signal was calling for the murder of Smith.
Young is not a red herring.
It is for these accusations.
What is the username you used to use…?
Young did marry a woman and have marital relations with her
in polygamy marriage. Because divorce on the frontier was difficult or
impossible. Do you think a Judge would hear the case? But she had left her
husband for all intents and purposes.
Here is the thing. You mix things up to try to compare
apples to oranges.
Young is a red herring for the accusations here you are
trying to make against Smith.
He followed
Joseph's teachings mostly. The Mormon church believes this and says so. Young
is known to have added married women to his wives and had sex with them. There
can be no question because children were born.
Was there divorce judges handy on the frontier? And the
woman left her husband for Young. That was her choice. And no divorce in the
frontier? Not uncommon. Pratt had a wife who did the same. That is not
uncommon. It was her choice.
We don't have proof that Fanny Alger was an extra marital
affair, but the evidence points in that direction.
There is significant historical evidence it was a polygamist
relationship in the Biblical sense.
Turner thinks this
is the case based on his research. It appears that Oliver Cowdery also thought
this, accusing Smith of a dirty nasty filthy affair, for which he was
excommunicated.
Oliver Cowdery considered Biblical polygamy to be wrong.
And returned to the Church under Young.
However, the typical case was that these were plural wives
with whom he had sex, hiding it from his wife and followers.
Biblical polygamy—the wife has no say.
He did not hide it from his followers as the historical
narrative is that it was a formal marriage in the Biblical sense, and Latter
Day Saint parishioners participated in the ceremony.
Multiple Nauvoo-era sources are clear that Smith was sealed
to Alger.
Pg 325 of “Rough Stone Rolling” has Levi Hancock marrying
Alger and Smith.
My question to you is whether having sex with another
woman than your wife is adultery. If a woman has sex with Smith although
married to someone else, would this be adultery?
Marital relations in a Biblical polygamy marriage is not a
sin.
There are these people who claim that Joseph Smith did
not start polygamy and was innocent of practicing it. When they announce this
too publicly, they are excommunicated. However, I think there is some way of
making this claim given Smith's constant denials. He was a liar and this is
according to the church. They also claim he had secret marriages which could
include sex. This is all in their essay.
The LDS Church History Essays do not claim that Smith had
marital relations with the already-married men and women.
You are creating a gish gallop logical fallacy here.
The Church does claim that Smtih had relations of a marital
nature with some of his wives.
But the Church does not claim that Smith had relations of a
marital nature with the already-married men and women.
You are engaging in cognitive gymnastics here.
I am certainly not claiming that Young is the origin of
Section 132 although some who wish to exonerate Joseph Smith do say this. He
added it to the canon. It had been in his desk for 8 years and in 1852 he
announced it. Then later in 1876 it was added by him to the Doctrine and
Covenants.
The Bible does not justify what Smith did. It really
doesn't. I do think it comes closer to doing so than the Book of Mormon
however.
Would you be willing to share your previous username? The
Book of Mormon condemns polygamy.
The Bible supports it.
You just proved my point. You dismissed BYU studies for
Mormon bias then cited Dan McClellan as your source. Not exactly impartial...
He's an active LDS member who worked as the church's own scripture translation
supervisor. That's literally a church employee. Try again.
BYU is as much an academic source as IU and Baylor. Baylor
is a Church school (Baptist), just like BYU.
BYUs academic papers are peer-reviewed and academic. As much
as any other College.
And I did not dismiss them. You are engaging in hyperbole
with that false aspersion. BYUs academic papers follow high standards, and are
peer-reviewed.
I simply quoted the academic consensus.
Dan McClellan is a trusted source on the academic consensus.
https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/s/DIyoR6Ce29
The actual academic consensus — Jan Shipps, Indiana
University-Purdue, University of Illinois Press — said LDS departed from
Christianity the same way Christianity departed from Judaism. Rodney Stark at
Baylor called it a new world religion. Not reformation Christianity. Your own
argument doesn't hold up against the mainstream Christiananity definition.
You did not cite the “academic consensus.” And Baylor is a
Church school affiliated with the Baptist Convention of Texas.
Harvard Univesity repeating the academic consensus that LDS
Christianity is restorationist Christianity…
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the
largest denomination in the broader Latter Day Saint (sometimes called Mormon
or LDS) movement, a restorationist Christian movement that sprang from the
prophetic claims of Joseph Smith (1805-44) and coincided with the Second Great
Awakening in the United States. “
Latter Day Saints
Movement | The Pluralism Project
https://pluralism.org/latter-day-saints-movement
None of your sources actually answer: D&C 130:22 —
God has a physical body. John 4:24 — God is spirit.
The Bible contradicts the Bible
Isiah, Jacob, and Job claimed in the Bible to have seen God.
Moses spoke “face to face” with God.
King Follett — God was once a man. Psalm 90:2 — from
everlasting to everlasting you are God.
The hard polythestic Bible contradicts itself often. And..
King Follett claims, “God himself, the Father of us all,
dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it
from the Bible.”
Follett also claims, “everlasting.” You could have also
quoted Doctrine and Covenants 61:1:
"Behold, and hearken unto the voice of him who has all power, who is from
everlasting to everlasting, even Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end
2 Nephi 25:23 — grace after all you can do. Ephesians
2:8-9 — not of works.
A reader in the 1800s would have understood, “after all
you can do” to mean, “in spite of what you can do.”
Latter-day Saint Christians accept, “grace for grace.”
D&C 132 — eternal marriage required for exaltation.
Matthew 22:30 — no marriage in the resurrection.
Yet, my believing Christian coworker has a “families are
forever” mug they bought at a Christian bookstore.
You don’t believe in marriage in Heaven. Try convincing
Christians.
LDS are not unique in believing in families in the afterlife
in Gods presence.
The Bible also claims
Different God. Different Jesus. Different gospel. This is
why so many site Galatians 1:8.
The Bible contradicts the Bible.
The creation, fall, and redemption through Christ narrative—and
being saved only through Christ is taught more per verse in the Book of Mormon
and Doctrine and Covenants than the Bible.
Latter-day Saints teach a “different Jesus.” Fundamentalist
Christians teach a “different Jesus” than what is found in the Bible. Honestly.
This goes to show when you stick to church approved
sources you'll miss actual information.
Casting false aspersions. Painting with a broad (false)
brush.
You come on here and argue with people I'm sure you label
as "lazy learners" but many of us were once like you. Hard defenders
of the church.
Casting false aspersions.
Did you go from believing Latter-day Saint Christian to a
Christian who cites Galations 1:8 against Latter-day Saints? Do you think the
Bible is perfect and without error?
