I am still waiting for you definition of adultery.

All the  women in the Temple Lot case were Smiths wives in the Biblical polygamy sense.

Polygamy is not adultery.

 

Here is a link to first hand testimony in the Temple lot case.

You have no first hand testimony or first hand statements that Smith had Biblical relations with already-married men or women.

You are moving the goalposts.

Smith had relations with some number of his wives in polygamy. Single women testified that they were Smiths polygamist wives in the Biblical sense.

The married women? Non existent testimony. Weak evidence. Non existant evidence. No first hand evidence. You are moving the goalposts.

You are moving the goalposts here.

 

 

Emily partridge testified that she had sex with Smith.

Emily Partridge was not married to anyone else when she and Smith had marital relations. Smith was her only husband.

Other women said the same.

Yes. Single women with Smith as their only husband in the Biblical polygamy sense testified –and there is overwhelming evidence—that Smith and some of his single wives who were not married to anyone else had marital relations of a Biblical sense.

 

B. Johnson also claimed that Smith slept with his sister Alvira.

You can use references and full names.

And someone claiming something else is not a first hand historical source. Someone claiming something from someone else is a second hand historical source.

Almera. Almera was single when she was sealed to Smith.

 

 

 Someone else, I think Nobel claimed he had sex with Louisa Beaman. Probably this is why the church admits that he had sex with multiple women before his wife even knew about it. It is in their essay, Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo. This in my opinion is adultery.

Beaman was single when she was sealed to Smith.

You cited single women.

You cited single women.

Relations of a Biblical nature in polygamy is not a sin in the Bible.

Smith had physical intimate relations in polygamy with his wives? That does not meet the Biblical standard for sin.

 

It is also adultery according to Section 42 and 49 and then Section 101.

The Bible is our standard here in this thread.

The Book of Mormon condemns polygamy. The Bible does not.

The Doctrine and Covenants contradicts itself? So does the Bible. Smith meets the Biblical standard for Prophet.

Stop moving the goalposts. Your gymnastics will get you a headache.

 

It is even adultery according to Section 132 because Smith was "under a vow", around verse 60.

132 matches the Bible in removing the choice for women and giving the man the go-ahead to engage in Biblical polygamy—even if the wife does not approve.

Any choice for the wife is unbiblical as women are property in the Bible.

 

Also, although it is not first hand, it is pretty close. We have the testimony of Josephine the daughter of Sylvia Lyons that her mother told her that she was the daughter of Joseph Smith.

Its not first hand.

Its not close to first hand.

Its not a first hand account, and a trusted historical source calls it weak as a historical source.

 

Hales believed this showed that she had sex with Smith. However, he wants to try and place the sex after a divorce.

Hales does not make that conclusion.

https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/plural-wives-overview/sylvia-sessions/

We know for sure that Brigham Young had sex with Zina Jacobs with no divorce, but the apologists do try to avoid admitting this in the case of Smith.

Young is a red herring.

Zina—in sworn testimony said that she was sealed to Smith not in the Biblical marital sense but in “eternity only.”

There is no evidence she was a wife of Smith in the Biblical wife sense.

 

 As to the no divorce thing with Brigham Young, he taught that there did not need to be a divorce because he had more priesthood. Don't pretend there was no divorce because they were on the frontier.

They were on the frontier.

That is a stated fact.

There are other facts? Interesting. That’s interesting. They were also on the frontier.

 

The link I sent you by Vogel debunks the apologetic efforts in the case of Joseph Smith. All you have to do is listen to it.

You posted Vogels points.

Debunk? Not hardly. He does not present any more historical facts than what you have posted. He has no first-hand smoking gun. Neither do you.

 

I am well aware that the Bible is filled with contradictions. I know about Jacob marrying sisters and how you don't do this in the law of Moses.

You cannot hold Smith accountable to Levitical Law when Jacob is not held accountable to Levitical law.

You cannot hold Smith accountable to Levitical law when no other Christian is held accountable to Levitical law.

 

You don't have sex with women betrothed or married to other men.

All the women you listed as 100% having marital relations to Smith—were his wives in the Biblical polygamy sense. And not married to anyone else.

You are trying to say (Vogel does this, too, even if he admits that not all of the sealings were Biblical) “Since Smith had relations with this single lady in polygamy, he also had relations with the married people too.” That is just not found in the historical record.

No true prophet I know of, even those who might not even have existed, did this in the Bible.

You have no first hand historical source that Smith did this, either.

Your smoking gun first-hand statements are from single women.

 

Neither is there a single example of a Biblical prophet marrying mothers and their daughters. Smith married more than one mother daughter pair.

Smith violated Levitical Law? So did Jacob.

Smith only had relations with single women. That is what the first-hand historical record says.

 

I am aware that the Bible says nothing about marriage of children except maybe for Jesus' saying that those who offend one of these little ones would be better off with a millstone around their neck etc.

There is no age limit for marriage and an internet search reveals that young women were married at 12-13 in the Bible. Internet search “Bible women marriage age.”

 

 

 It is a pretty harsh statement. This sort of depends on your interpretation, but the prohibition on sex with already married women is not at all fuzzy.

There is no contact between Smith and any woman that he is not sealed to in polygamy.

There is no first hand historical source that has Smith engaging in marital relations with his already-married sealing partners.

 

I can say that the fruits of any number of people, some clearly not prophets involve an injunction to follow Jesus.

Jesus said: follow Me or face the wrath of God. Jesus (in the creedal trinitarian sense) killed women and children in the Bible.

Smith said: follow Christ. Worship Christ.

 

Jesus' clear statement to know them by their fruits is in the Bible but does not require any consideration of the Bible because it didn't even exist then as a single book.

It existed in Smiths day, and the Bible was Smiths moral and ethical guide.

The critical post this is in response to—used the Bible to try to discount Smith.

Whether Smith was an adulterer depends on your definition of adultery. Please give such a definition.

For Smith to have sinned, in the Biblical sense, he would have had to have relations with a person outside of a polygamist sealing.

None of the first-hand historical sources have that happening.

 

 

What is adultery to you? Is it just a meaningless word?

All of the first-hand sources of Smith engaging in physical relations with someone else is within the bounds of Biblical polygamy.

The women saying, “I was Smiths polygamist wife and we engaged in formal marital relations of a physical nature.” All those women were single women married to Smith in a polygamist relationship.

The married men and women Smith was sealed to? No such first hand statements exist.

 

What does one do to be guilty of it?

The Biblical prophets were not guilty of sin –at least in the Bible as a standard--.

 

Then please give your definition of "bearing false witness".

You claim that Smith said negative things about a woman.

While there were people writing down everything Smith said. In journals. In records.

But the claim you make of Smith saying a negative thing about a woman comes from a third-party critical source, and no other source backs up the claim.

And—God lies in the Bible. So even if Smith lied. He would still meet the Biblical standard of “prophet.”

 

If Smith was breaking the ten commandments, then how can be be considered to have met the "standard"?

That’s the thing. Smiths relations with his polygamist wives would not be a sin in the Biblical sense.

Go through each of the ten commandments. Smith followed them in the Biblical sense.

 

 

According to my understanding, he broke several of the most important commandments including one Jesus mentioned to the young man "defraud not". Therefore, he does not meet any reasonable Biblical standard.

Smith meets the Biblical standard for “prophet.” Many of the Biblical prophets were like Smith—flawed.

 

 

If I am wrong, then I must not understand what bearing false witness, defrauding, and adultery mean, which thing I never had supposed, having been instructed by my parents and church in my youth.

The historical evidence you provide to make your points is extremely lacking.

Smith is not perfect. But he meets the very low standard of the Biblical standard for “prophet.”

 

What is bearing false witness?

God lies in the Bible. Smith does too? Interesting.

The source you have provided for Smith lying is lacking. Its not a first hand source, and not met by any other source.

Smith lie?” Probably. Smith also talked about his need to repent in the name of Jesus.

And Christianity is built on the concept of repentance through Christ. Smith lied and needed to repent? Probably. He was flawed. Like other Biblical prophets.

 

What is adultery?

Polygamy is not sin.

The first-hand sources of women claiming to have had been Smiths wife in the Biblical sense were in polygamy.

 

What does it mean to defraud?

Not sure what your claim here is.

Smith was not perfect. Like Biblical prophets.

 

I agree that the Bible has a lot of problems, but it is not as bad as you seem to think

The Bible is a horrific moral and ethical guide.

And it was Smiths moral and ethical  guide.