This law of Sarah was just made up by Smith based on the story of Abraham in which it was Sarah's idea, not Abraham's and certainly not God's. This of course is in direct contradiction to the claims in Section 132, but Smith also didn't seem to realize that Isaac was not polygamist.

Made up? You mean like much of the Bible…?

There is a reason you do not actually quotes scripture when you make claims about what it contains.

Smith left a carve-out in 132 for when a wife does not let her husband take polygamist wives allowing the husband to do it anyway.

Which is both funny and repulsive. And in-line with the Bible.

 

 

Now I didn't know any of this. I thought the wife would be consulted and that polygamous marriages were between consenting adults. I thought this because I wished to think it, not because I read Section 132 carefully.

If you read 132 carefully, you would see that if the wife says no, the husband can go ahead anyway.

If you read the Bible carefully, you would see that consulting the wife is not found in the Bible.

Does Smith meet the Biblical standard of Prophet by not consulting his wife? Yes.

What is our discussion? Smith meets the Biblical standard of “prophet.”

Smith is unethical by todays standards? That is not the discussion.

Smith made poor decisions by todays standards? That is not the discussion.

The Bible gives women no choice in marriage, and Smith meets that standard.

 

 

You say God approved of the evil treatment of women.

God approved of the Bible?

That is where that sentiment comes from. Women having no choice in marriage in the Bible?

That is where that sentiment comes from.

Jesus condemning women (and men) to the wrath of God for -simply- not believing in Jesus?

That is where that sentiment comes from.

 

 It doesn't say that anywhere in the Bible.

Women are property in the Bible. The Bible is the “word of God.” Jesus does not change that in the New Testament.

He does not utter a peep about Slavery, either.

 

 

It is an inference you choose to draw.

The truth is the truth.

Women are condemned by the Biblical text in the Old Testament to be property of their fathers then their husbands after marriage.

That is the Biblical truth.

Jesus does not change their condition in the New Testament. And condemns women (and men) who lack faith in Him to “Gods judgement.”

Inference? The Bible text is wholesale abusive to women. In plain black and white.

If you give women a choice on who to marry? You are violating the Biblical text.

 

 

What is clear is that polygamy was a social custom. Some aspects of polygamy like levirate marriage were for the good of all.

Polygamy and concubines were a normal aspect of “Biblical marriage.”

Polygamy is not only -not- a sin in the Bible it is clearly practiced by Gods anointed and sanctioned by God.

 

There are also many conditions in the law of Moses intended to ensure that women were not treated as badly as they might be.

There were conditions on treating property? Sure. Similar conditions for slaves. A beaten and broken slave/wife won’t service you like a better treated one.

They are still property.

 

 

Also, there are prohibitions on certain marriages like those with close relations and between mothers and daughters. This was all ignored by the Mormons.

Technically, Smith having to convice young and old women to be sealed to him violated the Biblical text.

Technically. 132 saying to ask the wife at all violated the Biblical text.

The purest of pure evil is not that Smith was sealed to already-married women. The smoking gun of Biblical relations is with the other women not already-married. But that is not the worst evil of Latter Day Saint polygamy.

You will see people who understand the Bible say –with a straight face—that Smith violated a technicality in the Bible by marrying mothers and daughters.

They will say that with a straight face.

There is a Biblical problem with that because Jacob married sisters. But they will ignore that.

“Smith technically violated a technical rule on Polygamy in the Bible.” Chrisitans also ignore eating bacon. Because the old law was nailed to the cross and ended. But they have to ignore that. They have to ignore Jacob in the Bible doing it. To try to make their point.

What they do not condemn.

The purest of pure evil found in the Bible. And they will make no mention of this –case in point with this poster—

The Bible makes no mention of under age young women getting married.

Smith getting sealed to 14 year old young women and 16 year old young women? Not condemned in the Bible.

“Smith married sisters!” And also Christians eat bacon. And so did Jacob.

They can’t say (case in point with this poster) “Smith married young women!” Because no verse of scripture in the Bible condemns that.

The Bible has a technical rule for marrying sisters and mothers? The Bible contradicts itself. Jacob did it. And also Christians eat bacon. The “old law” ended at the crucifixion. Christians eat bacon and do not kill Brides on their wedding night who are not virgins.

 

Evil does not come from God.

Slavery and women having no choice on who they marry are both Biblical.

The Jesus that condemns those who do not follow Him in the New Testament. In the Old Testament –same Jesus, per the creedal trinity—killed innocent women and children in the name of God.

The verse you cited from Matt. 7 says to know them by their fruits.

You quote that verse.

Smiths fruits are: follow Jesus, worship Jesus. We are only saved through Christ.

 

Therefore, if what you say is true about what is in the Bible, that God approved of evil, then this just shows that that part of the Bible did not come from God and that whoever wrote it was not a legitimate prophet.

Interesting.

Smith meets the Biblical standard of “prophet.” And the Bible is a horrific standcard.

 

 

 

The question is not whether it is in the Bible. It is whether it is good or evil.

If the standard is, “is it in the Bible” then the Bible is important.

But I agree ethics and morality should come before, “is it in the Bible?”

But this thread is—“is it in the Bible.” Does Smith meet the Biblical standard of “prophet?” Yes. He does.

But the Bible is a horrific standard.

 

 

 One does not need the Bible to tell the difference.

There are plenty of people who think the Bible is a history book that also teaches truth.

 

 

There are plenty of atheists who know good from evil and totally reject the Bible.

And there are believers who understand that the Bible can have dangerous teachings in its pages.

 

The criterion you cited is very good and gives the way to rule out someone based on evil fruits. One can do this with no reference to the Bible at all. See, for example Moroni 7 about the light of Christ.

You keep trying to bring up other references. This thread is about the Biblical standard.

But yes—the Book of Mormon teaches about Christ. Technically more than the Bible.

This is basically correct even if the BOM is not historical. Most people have some notion of good and evil, even those with no religion at all or a pagan religion. I know that most will protect children, for example. Neither will totally irreligious men kill women and children under usual circumstances.

The standard in this thread is the Bible.

Yes, there are many people are born with an ethical compass. Some people see Biblical polygamy as evil.

But its in there.

What standard does Smith meet? Highly moral and ethical by todays standards? Absolutely not.

Smith meets the standard of Biblical “prophet.”

That is the standard Smith meets.

 

Smith violated his marriage vows when he had secret sex with women other than his wife.

The Bible does not give women a say in who their husband has relations with in polygamy.

Smith meets the Biblical definition of “prophet.”

And Smith gave himself a carve-out in 132. If the wife says “no.” The husband can do it anyway. The Bible gives women no choice, so technically Smith was not violating Biblical principles.

 

 

That is why I think he was an adulterer.

You are entitled to think what you want. Polygamy is not a sin in the Bible and women had no choice in the Bible.

Per the Bible, Smith meets the Biblical standard of “prophet.”

Jacob in the Bible married sisters. The Bible contradicts the Bible. And the “old law” of technicalities ended at the crucifixion. Christians eat bacon now. That and historians cite the evidence of relations between Smith and single women as strong and evidence of relations with already-married women as non-existent and weak.

 

She did not even know about these marriages till 1843.

If she had  never known about them, Smith would have still met the Biblical standard.

Women have no say or choice in the Bible.

 

 

 As I said, one can practice polygamy without it being adulterous.

Polygamy in the Bible was no sin.

And the women Smith had relations with—were his polygamist wives.

 

 

In my family the wife of a great great grandfather got old and the husband was wealthy. In order to have more children, he took another wife with the full approval of his first wife. Thus the marriage vows were not violated because the first wife approved.

There are examples especially in the Utah period where the women agreed on other wives.

There are also examples in the same time period where a Missionary showed up from a foreign mission with a new wife.

 

 

I think of marriage vows as a covenant so if both parties agree to a modification of the covenant, it is their business and not mine.

That is not Biblical.

Women –per the Bible—have zero input and zero choice. They are property.

 

 

 

This is why I was able to stay fully active in the church and even defend polygamy to my children and friends. I would not call such a thing adulterous. It wouldn't be something I would want, but neither will I criticize based on such an arrangement which involves consenting adults and full disclosure and approval of all.

Polygamy in the Bible is evil.

Polygamy in the Latter Day Saints was evil.

There is just no way around it. Defend it? Cant do it.

 

My Stake president helped me write a letter to the historical department of the church and they confirmed what I had discovered in Van Waggoner's book "Mormon Polygamy". I didn't want to believe this so did not read it carefully. The church added to my knowledge of this by saying they had a child together. There was no divorce. I think they said this also, but I can't remember for sure. It really was I think about 25 years ago. Nevertheless, Brigham Young taught this.

Young is a red herring in a discussion on Smith. And I have no idea what you are referring to here?

You are saying Smith fathered a child in a polygamist relationship? That would meet the definition of Biblical polygamy. I don’t see what your problem is here.

You claim to quote verses that when read have different meanings than what you claim. You talk in circles, and add red herrings. Its hard to follow you. What did the Church specifically say about who specifically? No riddles or talking in circles.

Who did what to who?

 

 

So you see, when you constantly say polygamy was Biblical, I am in complete agreement. Neither do I believe it was necessarily adultery. So what is your definition of adultery?

Smiths polygamist relations with (some of) his polygamist wives would not meet any definition of sin in the Bible.

“Smith married moms and sisters!” So did Jacob in the Bible. Jacob married sisters. The Bible contradicts the Bible, the “old law” of technicalities ended with the crucifixtion. This is the same technicality as, “Smith ate bacon! Smith went to Church on Sunday, not Saturday!” The old law ended, and Jacob married sisters showing the Bible contradicts itself.

“Smith technically sinned when he had relations with some of the women he was sealed to!” No. No he did not. Relations with polygamist wives is not a sin.

“But critics can categorically prove he had relations with some of the women! That means he had relations with all of them!” That’s a point some critics make. The problem—even Vogel and Quinn admit that is not true. The historical narrative for Smiths relations with already-married women is non-existant and weak.

 

This may depend partly on how you regard marriage. If it is a civil contact, then there is no question that Smith was an adulterer.

Civil contract?

The standard is the Bible, man. Quit trying to move the goalposts.

 

 I am not sure if you have read this. It is the old Section 101 from the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants which was in the D&C till 1876.

If its not in the Bible, why quote it…?

The standard we are discussing here is the Bible. Why move the goalposts…? “Civil contract” “Doctrine and Covenants” That’s not what we are discussing here. We are discussing the Bible.

It was the official position of the church in Nauvoo while Smith was calling women whores

I already looked up your source on this. In Smiths speaches, there are journal entries, newspaper articles. Multiple people would write down his speeches—even his private speeches. There are multiple sources for solid claims about Smith.

The -one- source on the claim you make here is in a critical article in a critical source on Smith. One source. And it does not match what anyone else said.

That is not a good source. A source from a critic who was not present is not a good historical source.

You have problems accepting this, clearly.

You make claims that something is true without evidence for them being true. Why is that…?

 

and having secret sex behind his wife's back.

Nothing wrong about that—in the Bible.

It was also when he married wives of other men. Even if he did not have sex with them, he did not honor these covenants of marriage.

He was also sealed to already-married men in the Nauvoo time period. They believed everyone would be sealed in the whole human family. There is no sin in that.

 

According to the Church, Smith ignored this which was voted on in General conference and accepted as scripture by the body of the church, unlike Section 132.

The scriptures you list never make the claims you are trying to make.

I think 132 and the Bible can be navigated to evil.

But you cite scripture here and there that Smith violated. Which is moving the goalposts. The standard is the Bible. Does Smith meet the Biblical standard for “prophet.” The answer—yes.

 

 

It is called the law of Sarah. The wife needed to be given the opportunity to approve of a plural marriage.

You read the Bible, and thought that women had a say in who they marry?

Eh? Come on now.

132 gives permission to the man to be a polygamist if the wife refuses.

 

 

I had assumed that this was done. Under these circumstances, I was able to live with the idea of polygamy although I did not like it much.

Polygamy in the Bible –sanctioned by God—was abusive to women.

Polygamy in LDS Christianity—same. Abusive.

 

 

 I did indeed doubt that it all began with Smith. I did not grow up hearing this and when I heard it for the first time on my mission, I was not sure it was right. I went through several years of doubting that Smith even was involved after reading an interesting article on line called Joseph Smith's monogamy. I also read the book by the Prices "Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy".

I suggest, “Rough Stone Rolling.” Or “Kingdom of Nauvoo” or “Joseph Smith for President” by McBride.

I think that the church is indeed telling the truth in their essay which makes Smith a liar and an adulterer.

Neither of those claims are in the Essay. You are engaging in hyperbole.

Adultery can happen with or without polygamy. I am not sure you have a well defined meaning for adultery. I do. It consists in violation of marriage vows. Smith was an adulterer because he did this. However, if Vogel is right, as I think he is, Smith was having sex with women married to other men and this is a capital offense in the Bible.

The evidence you have presented is pretty weak. Smith only had marital contact with women in polygamist marriage sealings.

 

I did not believe the statements in the church essay "plural marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo" and told people at church that I did not believe Smith was a liar and an adulterer as clearly implied in that essay which admits that he had secret sexual relationships with multiple women in "time and eternity" marriages which could include sex.

Historians are clear that “eternity only” sealings occurred and they likely did not include physical relations. The Church does not imply the claims you are making. You have a vivid imagination and no issues with hyperbole.

Smith participated in both kinds they say.

That is correct. Smith likely did have formal relations with some of the women. But not all of the women.

There is detailed evidence from first-hand sources that Smith had physical relations with some of the women.

Sylvia? No. The evidence is non existant and weak.

 

They also admit that he kept it secret from his wife.

Women have no choice in the Bible who their husband marries. And 132 gives the husband permission if the wife says no.

 

They admit that he married wives of other men also.

Sealings to friends was not uncommon in Nauvoo.

This is strictly against what is in the Bible.

Giving women permission at all on who to marry is strictly against what is in the Bible.

Eating bacon is strictly against what is in the Bible.

There is weak to no evidence Smith had marital contact with the married women he was sealed to. He was also sealed to men.

 

 

They do not explicitly admit that he had sex with them.

You just claimed they did.

You must have a headache from all the cognitive gymnastics you do.

 

However, even if he didn't, surely you can see that this is not in conformance to the command in Section 42 which says to love your wife and cleave unto her and unto none else.

Polygamy is normative in the Bible. The Bible was Smiths moral and ethical guide.

 

It was also directly contrary to the commandments of that time in the church which was in then Section 101. I understand that in the Old Testament law of Moses women were property, but the OP was about whether Smith could be considered a prophet.

 

The OP was about meeting the ---Biblical—standard of Prophet.

Polygamy was normative in the Bible.

 

 You pointed out the very good verse in Matt. 7 about knowing them by their fruits. Adultery is an evil fruit. Therefore, if we are to believe Jesus, then Smith was arguably not a true prophet.

Jesus could have given women rights and ended slavery. He chose not to.

Both my parents and the church taught me that adultery consists of violation of marriage vows. I think McConkie would agree. So what is your definition of adultery which will not imply Smith was an adulterer?

Polygamy was sanctioned by God in the Bible.

Your smoking gun is that Smith likely had relations with women in a polygamist relationship? That’s Biblical.

Incidentally, I actually believe in the part of the proclamation on the family which says that children have a right to be raised by parents who honor marriage vows with complete fidelity. I also believe in what Elder Packer said in 1981 when I was still young that it is a great sin to destroy a family.

The women were among Smiths fiercest defenders.

By not giving women on choice on who they marry, God destroyed families in the Bible.

 

I found out about the Jacobs family and I asked my Stake President nearly 30 years ago. He couldn’t seem to understand that my question was not about polygamy but about destruction of families.

I worry you are taking information that is not widely accepted as factual. And claiming it to be 100% factual. That is an error and a mistake.

Polygamy was bad for families. Sure.

But… polygamy is Biblical.

 

One can probably find good fruits in the lives of anyone.

Smiths friuits are his testimony that Christ lives and mankind is saved through Christ.

 

Jesus said to reject prophetic claimants because of evil fruits.

Jesus said simply not following Him will bring Gods wrath.

Jesus could have given women rights and said that slavery is bad. But He did not.

Polygamy is not evil—in the Bible.

 

Now, no one is perfect, but we should be able to expect a prophet to at least avoid bearing false witness and adultery.

Smith bore witness of Chris and polygamy is not a sin in the Bible.

 

It is certain that the Moses described in the Bible did not exist.

The Bible is myth, conjecture, hyperbole and pseudepigrapha. It is a horrible moral and ethical guide.

It was Smiths moral and ethical guide.

 

 However, there is no reason to suppose that these were anything other than good men who did not do the things Smith did which included marriage and adultery with women married to other men. Jesus was also a good man who did not do the things the church claims about Smith.

This is difficult to read. You are trying to spin too much into your paragraphs.

Smith was sealed in polygamy with the women he had Biblical relations with. That is not a sin.

Jesus condemned those to the wrath of God who do not have faith in Him.

Smith was a polygamist, and likely had relations with some number of his plural wives. Relations within polygamy is not a sin.

 

As to Smith not having relations with women he had not been sealed to, I thought that for years. Also, that there would have been a divorce from the legal husband first. I thought this until the brouhaha about Sylvia Lyon came out. Hales thought the same. Vogel debunks this narrative very well in that which I sent you.

No  how many times you repeat it, it won’t become true. The historical proof for your claim is very weak. No how many times you repeat it, it won’t be true. You are quoting a second hand source. Not a first hand source. And Vogels evidence is that since Smith claimed that polygamy could be used to create children, then that is the smoking gun. The problem there is that Vogel also admits that not all of Smiths wives were in the Biblical sense.

 

 

Neither was I sure that Smith even practiced polygamy.

Smith taught and practiced polygamy.

 

 I tried to show that it started with Brigham Young.

LDS Christian polygamy started with Smith.

 

But I thought that if he did, then it would have been as you suggest. He would have gotten permission from Emma etc.

I never made that suggestion. You are engaging in hyperbole here.

 

NO. None of it which I thought, was true. Hales still tries to make the Sylvia incident into a case of successive polygamy, the new husband coming after the old one but the DNA evidence indicates that within about a month she was having sex with two different men.

Smith? You are engaging in hyperbole again.

There is no DNA connection to Smith. You are engaging in hyperbole.

 

He was indeed sealed to her, unlike Fanny Alger,

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.

 

 but does such a ceremony sanitize the fact that she remained married to her husband or at least continued to have sex with him?

You are trying to establish as fact something historians do not conclude is factual.

All of the ancients had the same notion as I do about what it is. So where is your definition? Can you give a reasonable one which will not condemn Smith as an adulterer according to what the LDS church is willing to admit about him? I say frequently that those defending Smith are these polygamy deniers, not the LDS church.

Do you want me to admit your bad history is factual history? I can’t do that. The historical narrative you are referring to .

The historical narrative of Smith and Sylvia having Biblical relations are weak. This is not the slam-dunk you think it is.

And if it did (it likely didn’t) it would have been in a God-sanctioned polygamist relationship.

 

So, was the murder of those women and children good?

I have seen Bible believers say that they would side with God and help with the murders of innocents, if it were the will of God.

Good. Bad. Its Biblical. Smith meets the standard of Biblical “prophet.”

 

 Jesus said to reject prophetic claimants based on their fruits being evil. The question is not these other things but if this murder was good.

The fruits of Smith are his testimony that Jesus is real, and mankind is saved through Christ.

 

 

None of the prophets in the Bible ever had sex with a woman married to another man except for the false prophets I mentioned.

Plenty of prophets in the Bible did worser.

Murder of innocents—and maintained the status as Gods anointed.

You can do evil—and still be a prophet of God in the Bible.

Smith, per honest historians, likely did not have Biblical relations with any woman he was not in a polygamist relationship with.

 

 This is the correct answer, not unsupported claims about Smith's polygamy being ordained by God.

Polygamy is ordained by God in the Bible. Smith practiced it. And pointed to the Bible as ordaining it.

The Bible was Smiths moral and ethical guide.

 

No. Smith does not meet the Biblical standard set by Jesus.

Smith testified of Jesus.

Jesus condemned those who did not follow Him. Jesus swore the wrath of God on those who do not follow Him. Smith told people: follow Jesus.

 

His fruits were evil.

Smiths fruits testify of Jesus.

 As I keep saying, if Smith had multiple wives this would not contradict the Bible even though it might have been wrong, but his sexual relations with women married to other men would. Also his marriage of mothers and daughters would violate Biblical laws.

Polygamy is Biblical.

Biblical leaders did worser than marry mothers and daughters. Murder. Murder of innocents.

Lack of consent of women in the Bible.

Jacob married sisters in the Bible. Gods chosen married family in the Bible.

Smith did also, just as righteous highly favored by God Jacob did? Interesting. Very interesting.

Seems like you are nitpicking on Smith, but not on Jacob in the Bible.

Smith meets the standard of “prophet” from the Bible.

 

This is hardly comparable to destroying a woman who refuses to violate God's commandments to not commit adultery.

That is not the claim in 132. You are being disingenuous. You are creating a false strawman.

Jesus condemns those who choose not to follow Him in the New Testament.

Polygamy is Biblical.

Nothing in 132 goes against Biblical teachings.

Its repulsive. But so is the Bible in not giving women a choice, and people being condemned by God for simply not having faith.

So where is the Biblical "Definition" of prophet

Go look at the top of the thread.

 

I think knowing them by their fruits is the only criterion available.

 

The fruits of Smith are his testimony that Jesus is real and we are saved through the redemption of Christ. The Book of Mormon makes this claim. The Doctrine and Covenants make this claim.

 

Where is your definition of adultery which will not include as adultery the things Smith did? All the standard definitions I gave you don't work.

Smith had relations with women he was sealed to in a polygamist relationship ordained by God. God ordains polygamy in the Bible.

How is it that calling women whores in public is not bearing false witness? So far, it looks a lot like Smith's fruits were evil.

Your source was weak that this even occurred historically. I provided the primary source. Not you. Me. I looked it up.

Turns out it is from a critical source. No one else said it occurred.

 

How is coercing young women to have sex in secret adultery based on a promise of eternal rewards contrary to God's commands not taking his name in vain if you use your position as prophet to achieve these nefarious ends?

Women have no choice in the Bible. So “coercion” is not wrong or bad—based on the Bible.

The Bible (repulsive) sets no age limit on marital age for young women. And condones polygamy as ok.

You are reaching here from a Biblical standard trying to condemn Smith—when in reality Smith meets the standard of a Biblical “prophet.”

 

Of course this depends on your definition of adultery. Where is it?

The Bible? Polygamy and marital contact in polygamy is fine in the Bible. And wives and women have no say in who they marry. Consent in marriage is not a thing in the Bible.

 

Here is another question. How can we follow Christ and practice adultery?

Clearly you can follow God in good standing and be highly favored of God. Jacob married Sisters in the Bible and is one of Gods chosen.

In the creedal trinitarian sense, the God of the Old Testament is Jesus. Jesus condoned polygamy.

Jesus condoned women having no consent in marriage. Jesus condoned no marital age for young women.

Can Smith be a polygamist, and engage in relations of a Biblical nature in a polygamist relationship with plural wives and be a follower of Christ? That is a good question. I would say—just like the Bible prophets who were polygamists who married sisters (Jacob—Leah, Rachel) Smith can be in good standing with God and His Son Jesus Christ.

Smith testified of Christ and told others—follow Christ. Clearly Smith followed Christ and practiced plural marriage.

 

I don't understand what you are driving at. I keep agreeing with you that polygamy was normative in the Bible. This includes having sex with one's plural wives.

Women had zero input and zero choice in the Bible. The relations described in the Bible by todays standards would be assault.

“Smith broke the law of the land in Illinois by practicing polygamy.”

The Biblical leaders not giving a choice to women would also be breaking the law of the land today.

The argument is: Does Smith meet the standard of a Biblical “prophet.”

The Biblical prophets did not give consent to women. Women had no consent in the Bible.

And the only women historians claim (even critical historians will point to evidence of sealings) that Smith only had formal Biblical relations with women he was sealed to.

 

I keep pointing out that sex with a woman married to another man is not normative in the Bible and was even a capital offense in the law of Moses.

I keep pointing out that Smith giving consent to the women and giving the women a choice is far beyond what was offered to women in the Bible.

And it is not settled by historians –no matter how many times you want to repeat it—that Smith had formal intimate relations with married women.

Even Vogel admits that not all  of the sealings were Biblical in nature. And Vogels evidence is (essentially), “Smith said polygamy was for having children, so therefore the relationships were Biblical.” Vogel has evidence. His conclusions are where we part company.

And there are academically published historians who say: Smith likely did not have Biblical relations with the married women.

 

This is not saying anything against polygamy. It is saying that sex with another man's wife is forbidden.

A mans wife can’t choose to leave him in the Bible. Sure. I am with you on this. Women have no choice in the Bible. Relations described in the Bible would be considered assault by todays standards.

Smith meets the Biblical standard of “prophet.”

I have sent you a solid argument that Smith engaged in sex with women married to other men.

I am not sure its all that solid of an argument.

Your smoking gun is that an already-married woman made the (gasp) choice to also be sealed to Smith?

A woman making a choice? That’s not Biblical.

A sealing to Smith? Polygamy? That is Biblical. Relations within polygamy? That is Biblical.

I don’t think you have the smoking gun you think you have. Its not settled by historians that Smith had formal Biblical relations with the already-married women.

 

If you refuse to believe this, then you must explain how it was that the woman in question told her daughter that she was the daughter of Joseph Smith and not have had sex with him.

This is not settled history. The historical evidence for the claim is pretty weak.

The daughter (second hand, now) made the claim and her mother was in old age. This is not settled.

“The only evidence for [Biblical] relations between Joseph Smith and Sylvia Sessions is a statement by Sylvia's daughter Josephine, who in 1915 recalled her mother's deathbed confession in 1882 that she was Joseph Smith's daughter.

However, modern DNA testing has ruled out Joseph Smith's parentage of Josephine, complicating this claim (her biological father was Windsor Lyon, Sylvia's legal husband). This could mean Sylvia had sex with both men and was confused about who the father was, it could mean she meant Josephine was Joseph's non-literal spiritual daughter, or it could mean Sylvia was mistaken in her old age. The evidence for sexuality is not especially strong.” https://mormonr.org/qnas/VvSJBb/joseph_smith_and_polygamy

 

Perhaps you think she was lying.

Maybe. Either way the second-hand source is weak. And trusted and known to be impartial historians list the historical evidence for its veracity as, “weak.”

 

If so, then you are still faced with the problem that Brigham Young without any question had sexual relations with a woman married to another man with no divorce.

Young and the Saints did not have much by way of need for formal divorce. As they were fleeing a corrupt government they feared with their lives.

You will have to give Young grace here for not getting divorced on the frontier.

The wife was clear she left her husband and was clear she was with Young. Give the frontier Saints some grace here. And this is not a smoking gun. You bring up Young as a red herring in a discussion on Smith.

 

This implies just as well that the church you seem determined to defend is corrupt.

Pull your punches.

The standard is the Bible. Smith (and likely Young) meet the standard of Biblical prophet. Biblical prophets did some pretty corrupt things.

Marriage as described in the Bible -with women having no input or choice- would be seriously criminal today, for instance.

 

You keep saying that Smith satisfied the definition of a prophet in the Bible. Can you give me this definition?

I keep giving it over and over again. You bring up standards outside the Bible because Smith meets the Biblical standard. I started the thread with the standards from the Bible and how Smith actually meets them. Come on now. Go to the top of the page, man.

 

I have not seen one in the Bible that I can remember. I want to see it from the Bible, not just your own construction.

Go to the top of the page. Then read my responses.

 

 

Here is a question I would like you to answer.

Smith meets the Biblical standard of “prophet.” The prophets in the Bible made errors and mistakes—still prophets.

So here are my questions for you.

Thou shalt not commit adultery. Smith's fruits included adultery. Therefore his fruits were evil and he should be rejected. If not, give me a definition of adultery which will not include Smith's actions which include sexual relations and deception when he was under a vow to Emma Smith. Can you give me such a definition?

You are making a supposition here. A judgement that Smith had relations with women outside of polygamy.

All the women Smith had relations with of a Biblical nature—he was sealed to.

You cite an woman who was married who was also sealed to Smith, and I cite the historical narrative, the historical evidence is weak for there to have been marital contact between Smith and the woman in the bounds of polygamist marriage.

 

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Smiths fruits included bearing false witness when he defamed women who told the truth about his polygamous advances. He called them whores in the newspaper and in public meetings. Smith's fruits were evil and he should be rejected. Can you explain how calling innocent women whores is not bearing false witness?

I am not sure this is an accurate and honest claim. I think you are engaging in hyperbole here. Critics make the claim. But Smith did not publish it in a newspaper or public meeting for members. It was a claim by critics-- published in critical literature, not in literature for the consumption of the Saints, and not by Smith… “In a public speech, Joseph Smith calls Orson Pratt’s wife, Sarah, “A whore from her mother’s breast” (The Sangamo Journal. July 29, 1842[11]). This entry is from an anti-mormon newspaper, and is the only source of this statement”

A critic makes the claim. And you repeat the claim as factual. Do you not see a problem.

You want me to answer something that may or may not –likely not, given the historical source—to have happened.

Come on now.

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in Vain.

Smith told people to follow God and Smith testified of Christ.

Smith did this by claiming that adultery was approved by God and that women should have sex with him from which great blessings to them would follow even though he well knew that God had said not to commit adultery.

Smith likely –per the historical sources—only had relations of a Biblical nature with women to which he was “sealed” in a polygamist relationship.

Polygamy is not a sin in the Bible.

James says that with God there is no variableness neither shadow of changing.

The Bible contradicts the Bible. Parts of the Bible contradict James. God lies in the Bible.

 

 Thus he does not change his mind about adultery.

Polygamy is Biblical, Gods anointed practice it in the Bible. Women have no choice in the Bible.

Churches today—women have a choice on who they marry. So clearly God changes. At least on giving women a choice on who they marry.

 

See also 2 Nephi 26 near the end where there is a list of things which don't come from God even though Smith said otherwise. Smith's fruits were evil and he should be rejected.

You don’t actually quote specific verses, so when someone looks them up they can see why you just make sweeping generalizations instead of quote directly from them. Smiths “fruits” testify of Christ. The Book of Mormon testifies of Christ. The Doctrine and Covenants testifies of Christ.

 

Can you explain why claiming to speak for God while promoting that which God has forbidden in the ten commandments is not taking God's name in vain?

Polygamy is not condemned in the ten commandments. Polygamy is normative in the Bible. All the women historians say Smith had relations with—were in polygamist relationships. Even critical historians will point to evidence of polygamy they may disagree with. But its there.

 

If something is condoned in the Bible, does it follow that it is good? Would you say that the murder of the Midianite women and male children in Numbers 31 was good? Who or what is your God, proof texts of the Bible or the righteous Father in Heaven described by Jesus?

Jesus condemens those who do not have faith in Him. Promising the wrath of God on those who do not follow Him. Murder. Wrath of God. There is not anything in Smith and Young that is not also in the Bible. Polygamy? Biblical

You are upset that some number of women -chose- (not Biblical) to be sealed to Smith and Young.

 

Which of the prophets ever committed adultery with a woman married to another man?

Smiths polygamy was ordained by God. According to Smith.

Smiths sealings to women and any subsequent Biblical relations with women in polygamy was ordained by God.

 

Give me a name. I will give you two. Zedekiah and Ahab from Jeremiah 29. These were false prophets. As to priesthood holders we could include the sons of Eli, Hophni and Phineas. God rejected these men. Shouldn't we also reject them as well as those who follow their bad examples, by Jesus' criterion "know them by their fruits".

There are plenty of “righteous” leaders in the Bible who killed innocents, took the lives of children and women, married women without consent. Did much much worse than Smith and Young. You are trying to do two things. Acknowledge that polygamy was normative in the Bible and that relations in polygamy were ok by God. But create a false standard that Smith fails against.

The truth… Smith meets the Biblical standard of “prophet.”

 

If we don't, then wouldn't Jesus say something like this: "why call ye me Lord Lord and do not the things I say?"

Jesus condemned those who did not follow Him. He promised the wrath of God on those who simply chose not to follow Him.

Smith? Followed Christ and told people—follow Christ. And the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants testify of Christ.

 

I think Smith was very similar to the prophets that Jeremiah spoke of. He even slept with other men's wives like a couple of them did. However, the literary prophets, as far as we know, were good men, unlike Smith who was an adulterer. His fruits also included, in addition to adultery, the defamation of women. Therefore, by Jesus' criterion for determining false prophets, he should be rejected.

Smith meets the Biblical definition of “prophet.” Even the fiercest of critics admit that Smith was sealed to the women he had relations with, or admit there is evidence of such. And that not all of Smiths sealings resulted in Biblical relations.

Some of Smiths fiercest defenders were women.

Smith testified of Christ and told others to follow Christ.

 

If there are ways to question whether Smith had sex with already married women, there is no way to argue with the fact that Brigham Young did so. That is why Hale’s strenuous arguments which are debunked by Vogel seem a little like straightening the deck chairs on the titanic as the ship went down.

Hales and other historians have claimed to have debunked Vogel.

I think you brought in Young as a red herring.

I have actually read the entire Bible multiple times and continue to read it, especially various prophets like Isaiah. I have even read the Pentateuch and have an idea what is in it. I believe many things in the Pentateuch are harmonious with the material in Section 132. It is an ugly slander of God just as Section 132. Jesus said something different when he describes God as our Father in Heaven. Whoever wrote 1 John also. You should decide. Do you worship a loving righteous Father in Heaven in 1 John or in the Sermon on the Mount or that repellant monster who commands massacres and genocides. These are not the same at all.

The Bible contradicts the Bible and elements of Latter Day scripture contradicts other elements of Latter Day scripture.

 

I keep saying Smith was an adulterer and I can give several reasons for saying so, including what is in Section 132 and 42. I asked you for a definition of adultery with the property that Smith would not be an adulterer. I am still waiting. I don't know how to do it and I don't think you can do it.

I quoted the specific verses from 132 and 42 that contradicted your claims. Arguing about arguing.

Smith had relations with women he was sealed-to in polygamy. Polygamy is not a sin in the Bible.

The reason I mention Brigham Young should be clear. He was Joseph Smith's successor and according to the church followed Smith. If he did things, they will have been based on something done by Smith. I am not a Snufferite who says that this is not the case. Also, since Brigham Young was clearly an adulterer, what does this mean about the church which venerates him? However, he was also a murderer and there is documented evidence to show this.

Start a separate thread on Young. My premise is, “Smith meets the Biblical standard of ‘Prophet’”

Young? Biblical prophets had innocent women and children killed. You can do that and still be a “prophet.” In the Bibl.

I keep telling you that the Jesus of the N.T. is not the same as the one described in Section 132.

 

Section 132 says to follow and worship the Jesus of the New Testament.

Jesus promises the wrath of God for those who do not follow and believe Him in the New Testament.

132 aligns with previous scripture.

 

 

The latter threatens to destroy women.

And men. Why do you leave this out…? That is an odd curiosity. Why do you single out men? I already quoted the verses. Men and women are condemned. Just as they are in the New Testament.

Jesus promises destruction on those who do not follow Him and believe in Him in the New Testament.

 

This was never the case with the Jesus of the New Testament who was kind to them.

Jesus in the New Testament swears judgement down on women for simply not believing in Him.

(Judgement for the men too, but I was just using your logic).

 

 

Section 132 is not about the sacrifice of Jesus.

132 testifies of Jesus. And Jesus swears judgement on women (and men) in the New Testament for simply not beliving in Him.

 

It is about polygamy,

 

That’s Biblical.

destruction of women,

That is Biblical. Women are property in the Bible. And non-believers are condemned (like 132 does) in the New Testament.

marrying ten virgins,

That is Biblical.

 

exaltation of Smith and others who get harems,

Harems like Biblical prophets? Come on now. Concubines and polygamy is Biblical.

 

and damnation of those who don't.

That is Biblical. Directly from Jesus’ mouth in the New Testament. Those women (and men) who follow Him are saved. Those women (and men) who do not face the wrath of God.

 

It is ugly.

The Bible is a horrific moral and ethical guide. It is schizophrenic.

 

 It has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon or with the New Testament.

Polygamy is condemned in the Book of Mormon. It is normative in the Bible.

 

I don't know why Hales and Bradley should make a big deal of this Sylvia Lyon thing.

Every historian interested in researching Latter Day Saint history is interested.

You honestly do not know why LDS Christian polygamy historians want to research and understand LDS Christian polygamy?

Come on now.

 

There is no question at all about Brigham Young's adultery with Henry Jacobs' wife.

Why are you switching between Young and Smith?

If she was sealed to Smith in a polygamist relationship—using the Bible as a standard, Smith would not be violating a Biblical standard.

If she was sealed to Young, that would not be violating the Biblical standard.

 

There wasn't even a divorce from Henry.

For Young? Why are you switching between accusations to Smith to accusations to Young?

The gymnastics must hurt your neck.

 

 She was having sex with two men at once and likely had two marriages at once, one legal and the other with Smith.

You understand that a 50 minute video is not that easy to watch and answer.

You are going to have to lay out the argument, and I will have to respond.

But just so you know, there are historians who disagree with Vogels conclusions. You understand that, right. Like Hales and Bradley are easy to find. You understand that, right.

Vogel is not the sole only historian of LDS Christian polygamy.

From how I see it, no one is having relations with anyone they are not married to or sealed to. Vogel even admits that some number of Smiths sealings were for eternity only. And his “smoking gun” is not all that smoking when it comes to categorically proving Biblical relations between Nauvoo polygamists.

 

For years I blamed Brigham Young for this kind of thing and tried to show that Joseph Smith did not start polygamy. This was not correct.

No published historian. No academically accepted historian teaches or taught that Smith did not teach and practice Biblical polygamy.

 

Hales and Bradley both will admit that Smith had sex with women other than Emma without her knowledge or consent.

This is not damning. Using the Bible as a moral and ethical guide. Women have no choice in marriage. They have no choice in who their husband marries.

 

However, Smith's translations of the facsimiles were debunked in 1862 by French scholars who could read Egyptian.

I don’t think anyone including official LDS Christian Church Historians claim that Smith could read or write Egyptian. And the miracles in the Bible can only be accepted through faith.

 

 

Those who said Smith told them about the angel include people like Lorenzo Snow and his sister as well as many others. However, this is actually something which can be investigated more. Hales has an interesting article on this. You find that the accounts of this angel come from well after Smith's death. However, the church is determined to believe this nonsense.

There are angels and angelic visitations throughout the Bible.

 

I gave you an example of a prophecy which was clearly false. Barnes died and nothing happened.

And I established the Bible as the Biblical standard of a Biblical “Prophet” and the Bible is full of contrradictions. It contradicts itself. And contains false prophecies. Clearly a “prophet” can give false prophecies.

 

When I mention adultery I am using the definition in Section 132 which says that if a man is under a vow and has sex with a woman other than his wife he commits adultery.

You have a couple problems here.

The first is the standard of a Biblical prophet is the Bible. And the Bible is a horrific moral and ethical guide. So I can see why you are trying to switch to other standards.

That’s your first problem.

Your second problem is Section 132 does not make your point. I can see why you did not want to –actually—quote 132. You wanted to paraphrase it. Here is the quote you wanted to avoid…

41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.

Now. You have the problem of showing who Smith had Biblical relations with he did not have “the holy anointing” with. Smith was sealed to all the women who claim to have had Biblical relations with him. Smith was sealed to all the women who others claim he had Biblical realations with.

Smith meets the Biblical standard.

And the verse you use from the Doctrine and Covenants does not make the point you need it to make.

 

This is the standard definition. It says something similar about women.

Physcical Biblical intimacy between marital partners  is not adultery in polygamy in the Bible.

The verse you paraphrased and did not quote clearly says that relations between “anointed” partners is ok.

Smith meets the Biblical definition of “prophet.”

I can see why you want to use the Doctrine and Covenants. I can see why you want to avoid the Bible. The Bible is not a good book when it comes to being a moral and ethical guide. Your problem—The Doctrine and Covenants does not call Smiths intimate relations with plural wives to be a sin.

I call it a sin.

I call it a horrific sin. But the verse you paraphrased and did not quote—you did not quote it on purpose.

 

In addition, my parents gave me such definitions and so did the church of my youth. I am NOT necessarily referring to polygamy, the practice of having more than one wife. I have never regarded that as necessarily adultery. I think Section 42 also gives a good definition of adultery and it is the usual one.

Polygamy is not a sin in the Bible. Physical relations with marital partners in polygamy in the Bible is not a sin. And the Bible was Smiths moral and ethical guide.

And the standard I am defending is –Smith meets the ***Biblical*** standard of “Prophet.” So I can see why you are trying to quote other books other than the Bible.

Here are the verses from Doctrine and Covenants Section 42, and they (like the Bible) do not condemn polygamist relations…

24 Thou shalt not commit adultery; and he that committeth adultery, and repenteth not, shall be cast out.

25 But he that has committed adultery and repents with all his heart, and forsaketh it, and doeth it no more, thou shalt forgive;

I think you are hoping to find scriptures that contradict the Bible, “adultery is sin, and polygamy is adultery” something like that. You keep paraphrasing scriptures, not quoting them, and they don’t actually say what you imply they say.

 

Listen to Vogel's presentation and you will see that there is a desperate attempt to sanitize this event.

Link to an open source academically published article or something. Posting a hour-long video of -an- historian that is contradicted by other historians is not fair.

Vogel is a fine historian. But so are the historians who show that he is wrong on some number of conclusions.

 I don't think there is any point in doing this, however, given Brigham Young and his practice of destroying marriages by adding the wife to his set of "many wives and concubines". What Brigham Young did was a capital offense in the Law of Moses because the women were married to other men.

I am struggling to understand why you are trying to bring Brigham Young into the argument. You are trying to mix up Young and Smith. I don’t know any academically published historian who accuses either of formal Biblical relations with a woman he was already not sealed-to. Or acknowledges historic argument and evidence for a sealing at the very least.

 

Smith's Jesus who threatens women with destruction in Section 132 is simply not Jesus. Jesus was always kind to women.

The destruction in the Bible is for both men and women. And the destruction in 132:26 does not single out women. ”…and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies…”

Why would you say that Jesus is threatening women with destruction when it is both women and men…? I keep running into a pattern with you where you make broad claims, don’t cite a specific verse, then the verse does not match what point you are trying to make.

Smith taught: follow Jesus. The Jesus of the New Testament. The Jesus of the Book of Mormon. The Jesus of the Doctrine and Covenants. The Jesus that rose from the dead.

You are trying to make points that are not actually found in the verses you are paraphrasing.

 

He even had friends who were women.

It would have been nice if Jesus had said, “stop treating women as property.”

Or, “hey, human chattel slavery is a bad idea.”

Some of Smiths fiercest defenders werer women. Smith meets the Biblical definition of “Prophet.”

He was the kindest and most gracious of men, not a bureaucratic monster described in Section 132.

I am not sure you have actually read the entire Bible.

Doctrine and Covenants is clear. Mankind is saved through Jesus and only Jesus.

 However, Section 132 is a blasphemous obscenity which has nothing to do with Jesus.

Doctrine and Covenants and 132 are clear—mankind is saved through Jesus’ sacrifice.

I can see why you are trying to switch focus to the Doctrine and Covenants. Because Smith meets the Biblical standard of “prophet.”

 

Levirate marriage was not at all a mandate like "thou shalt not commit adultery".

It was the mandate when certain circumstances were met.

And polygamy was not adultery.

It was an optional commandment.

 

It was the mandate when certain circumstances were met. There just is no gymnastics around that fact.

 

I do think that those who chose not to follow this had some social stigma attached to them. It was a very good custom and not in the least wicked. It is certainly the nearest thing to a commandment to practice polygamy.

Polygamy and concubines were a standard element of “Biblical marriage” and Biblical marriage included no choice or options for women.