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.