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.