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.