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.