That was what I was taught too. Now I know that Joseph used his authority to get women to go to bed with him. It bothers me a lot. I'm not leaving the church or anything, because I guess as Sooner says, I like Mormon-flavored ice cream.

How do you explain Joseph marrying women who were already married? Did they need his sacred seed to be redeemed?

What about him marrying Orson Hyde's wife after he sent him on a mission? I don't how to explain it, Tex. Maybe someday it will all make sense to me. If that day comes then I will say, "Prophet Smith, I am sorry that with all the information I had on earth I just thought you were using your authority to take advantage of women. But now I know that 'marrying' other men's wives, your household helper and teenage girls was all a part God's beautiful plan to restore the gospel in the Latter-days."

Based on Marsupial's post (and my earlier one), I am interested in responses re: the JS polyandry issue. As I stated, it is not a testimony breaker; I would just like to know the context, justification, etc. This is a classic case where candid information is preferable to hearsay - particularly in view of the specific information contained in the link below that indicates JS married at least 11 women who were already married:

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/home.htm

Bushman only verifies sexual relationships with three or four.

I really don't know what to think about it other than he was a horny dude who some how was able to repent for this sin.

We could do threads for each of the 11...

Newell & Avery's book and Compton's book go into the context.

Don't judge him by our contemporary standards. He was about 3,000 years behind his time. The story of Abraham and Hagar and Ishmael is not very flattering of Abraham either.

http://www.windsorfineart.com/artist...9_REM_b30.html

This seems so simple but if true I'm not sure what % of the church could live with this.

I also don't know what to think about that MP in France ripping those missionaries for spanking the monkey, in light of what JS apparently did. I would think some horny 19 year old kid, going without women for two years should be cut some slack.

testimony breaker
 

While it may not be a testimony breaker for you, it is most definitely a testimony breaker for some. Joseph was willing to lie to his followers about his practice of polyandry. It is not that big of a leap to come to the conclusion that he possibly lied about other revelatory experiences. While we all know our leaders are not perfect and they make mistakes, this "mistake" seems more insidious than even adultry. It is difficult to reconcile the prophetic call of Joseph with these actions.

I have prayed asking for peace of mind concerning these things and am still left wanting. I have not left the church but it troubles me greatly.

What if he wasn't lying but he believed he received the law of plural marriage from revelation. What if the "horndog" aspect of it only played into it because it had him thinking about sex and the possibilities of such maybe a little too much? The thinking and dwelling on the subject might have led him to think he received a revelation that really wasn't there.

Not saying I believe that, but it seems to me to be an acceptable answer if I were to completely condemn polygamy.

The onlyn resolution I have, is maybe the grace issue and forgiveness is much larger than I had previously believed.

It is a difficult situation:

JS: Hey babe, I will be destroyed unless you marry and have sex with me.

Young Hottie: Geeze, I dunno.

JS: An angel will destroy you and me.

Young Hottie: Crying and miserable, okay.

Sooner has well stated why it is not and should not be a testimony breaker of itself:

He nailed it.

I was recently with a close relative who said about his Mormon faith, "I like believing what we believe. It makes me and my family happy and productive, even if it isn't true." I say God bless all such people. For such people it is in a very real sense "true."

How did my post become its own thread?

I have the same question - how did my name get into the thread title?

Cougarguard's patriarchy is asserting authority.

This is getting really tired. Yes, you're above the rest of the world who believes there is a God and there are truths about him that can be revealed to man. We get it.

Magic by Administrator in the Sky.

CG Patriarchy = Sir Goat?

As I research the thread, I note that you wished or inquired,

Apparently, your wish is the administrator's command. You two are afterall the ladies of the house.

Okay, so let's examine this from the common sense point of view of Flystripper or nonsequitor. Why isn't it a testimony breaker? What are the revealed truths? Do they include that adultery and lying are bad? How about a married man having sex with an underage girl over whom he has stewardship? Is calling that a bad thing part of the restored gospel's message? Logically, why is this not a testimony breaker for Jay Santos? Logically it should be. Why isn't it?

I think that inherent in Mormonism's Gnosic perspective is the notion that the theology has to make sense. It has to pass the rule of reason, regardless of how good it makes you feel. I admire a person who says I don't find it passes the rule of reason, but today it's right for me. It's a good way of life. What's wrong with that?

You know what you're doing. You're forcing a premise on us nobody believes here (or at least few do) that the dogma makes no sense (as no religion does according to you). Inherent in the "I stay a Mormon because I choose to and it makes me feel good" is the subtle or not so subtle slam that the beliefs are childish and idiotic. If the beliefs were proved childish and idiotic, we would all be forced to make that choice. Very few are in that boat. As for the specifics, you don't care enough to debate them, but it does not prove the doctrines are false if JS a) missed on a few revelations, b) was a fallen prophet, or c) was a sinner God worked through, d) got the doctrine from God straight but failed in putting it into action, or e) any other number of possibilities on the multiple wives issue.

Those are all parts of the equation which show how complex the calculus of the eternities may be.

Of course, the penalty for sins of a prophet, may be, and I'm not prognosticating, that one must seal it with his own death. That's rank speculation on my part, not belief or knowledge or good feelings.

It is a troubling aspect.

But the apostle during BY's tenure who had a ten year affair but still was able to speak with the "Spirit" and other aspects make faith all the more remarkable, nuanced and complex. It's not simple Euclidian Geometry, but very advanced stuff.

Who was this?

All of this is indeed "advanced stuff".

I'm not forcing a premise on you. President Clinton destroyed his presidency because he had sex with an intern in the White House and then lied about it. Such conduct is relevant to judgments about a man's character, specifically, the believability of his testimony. Jimmy Swaggart was ruined as a preacher for a sexual scandal.

That a man should engage in similar but more extreme conduct is logically relevant to the truth of his claim that he received a visitation from God, who selected him as the last and foremost of all God's prophets through the ages. Perhaps that is not a conclusive, outcome determative fact standing alone, and would have to be viewed alongside other evidence such as what Egyptologists say the B of A scrolls say vs. what JS represented them as saying. But these facts are relevant, and a person who chooses to rest his testimony or activity in the LDS Church on this type of analysis must give them weight. Indeed, a fundamental premise of empiricism is that the search for truth requires aggregating evidence and weighing and drawing logical concusions, remaining continuously open to receiving new evidence.

I believe the source is D. Michael Quinn, but he is usually pretty good about finding original source material.

http://personal.lig.bellsouth.net/w/o/wol3/carria1.htm

I just can't reconcile this with the Joseph we read of in scripture and church history, or with the God who called him. Either the books and analysis are wrong in some way, or Joseph must have been a false prophet, ala Flystripper:

I don't know how anyone can escape this dichotomy.

I believe you form a false dichotomy and that God's calculus is more complex than any of us can understand. Yes Seattle formulates a difficult empirical analysis, but in investigating American's sexuality throughout the centuries, [Ihave procured quite a few books on the subject], we are gravely naive in what our leaders have done both political and religious.

I have come to the conclusion that God works with what he has, gravely flawed human beings and I do not know if those gravely flawed human beings will be forgiven in the world to come, but that we must not judge else we will be condemned with the same condemnation. However, what specifics applied to Joseph are difficult to pin down, but many of these types of statements come from faithful members and their journals, not the type of artifacts used to promulgate a lie.

God will use whatever he has, and apparently many of us ugly schmucks is all there is.

I don't think it's requiring perfection of a man to require he not engage in adultery, especially for a prophet. I'm not in the business of ranking sins, but there are not many more serious.

The ranking of sins is a business of man, not God. For him, all sin cuts us off, so what does it matter, be it a little sin of omission. Our linear view of sin is probably a grotesque distortion of how God views it.

I imagine sexual aberrations are much, much more common than we suspect.

Perhaps I am a simple mullah, but I really believe I have had convincing spiritual experiences about Joseph being a prophet of God. I can still remember teaching the first discussion as a missionary 15 years ago, each time I quoted the first vision something tangibly changed in that room. It is not something I can explain through reason, but it does not change what I know I felt. As Joseph said he would not believe what happened to him. Obviously there is historical evidence of his polygamy, polyandry and sex life. I don't know what to think about all of it. I do not dismiss others' opinions that he used his power for sex, but certainly that is at odds with my interpretation of God and the priesthood responsibilities of representing God but I feel no need to convince myself all things about Joseph or Brigham fall within those parameters. However, because of my spiritual experiences I choose to exercise my faith and if Joseph was a philandering lecherous whore, that will be between God and him. I am not dismissing the potentiality and neither am I judging him. My individual responsibilities are to be true to what I know I have experienced. In other words, I don't feel a need to justify or rationalize what I am told and or have read were his strange and bizarre, as I would define them as an admitted victim of today's cultural biases, actions. I believe that God is just and no respector of persons.

As for his or other prophets' various revelations, I think I am similar to UtahDan. I believe that the Church has gotten the far majority of things right. However, I am not confident enough in my specific concerns to declare which teachings are totally correct and which ones are not. Once again I don't dismiss those who do. I have my concerns about polygamy, blacks and the priesthood and various other skeletons. But I really am not all too bothered about the issues. I am bothered that the LDS Church is not forthright about its history and places a higher premium upon perception than truth, but not as bothered as many that post here.

I, like many, like being mormon. It makes me happy and its prescribed lifestyle is one, that I believe if followed, optimizes happiness and betters society. Despite that, I still believe I have a personal testimony based upon spiritual experiences. I really think the whole story, as wacky and bizarre as it is, is true. The various tangential appendages don't bother me because I am convinced of the root and have faith that whatever is not true will be sorted out.

I love the quote that "doctrine exists to influence behavior." IMO, if one believes in Noah or Job is irrelevent. What is important is that one takes from those stories lessons that motivate them to become more like Christ.

Some think Joseph's punishment for his deeds was sealing his testimony with his own blood, I tend to think his punishment was not being born in a day and age when he could appreciate man made knockers. Trully, Brethren, we were commanding Generals in the war in Heaven! I led the Al Bundy Brigade!

SHUGGA SHUGGA SHUGGA, OI! OI! OI!

Nobody can craft a post as well as goatnapper. Nobody.

Well said, brother.

I think I could say I generally agree with this. I come out with hellfire and brimstone during these discussions, but generally I am at peace with the cognitive dissonance that sometimes results from a study of history and doctrine. Largely so, because I have a testimony of the truth.

With all of Josephs skeletons
 

I am continually amazed at the mental gymnastics and extreme deference given to Jospeh over some of the most extreme sins (the sin next to murder).

More often than not these are the same people who don't skip in beat in throwing under the bus and discounting as worthless those who break the word of wisdom.

Wise is the man who witholds judgment of his neighbor. Archea said it right when he said that none of us have a clue what God really thinks about us.

Completely agree. There's nothing you say here that is wrong. But even with the difficulties of B o A, and weirdness of JS' actions re: plural marriage, you have two possibilities.

1. LDS church is completely false (as is every other religion) because all of science and fact and reason points against it. You are then forced to choose whether to be part of that religion because you like it, i.e. ice cream flavor.

2. You take all the facts, including difficult ones like JS's plural marriage and B o A facts (or the other difficult items from other world religions), analyze it critically along with personal spiritual experiences and you believe it is true, i.e. factual, or at least the important parts of it are true.

Sooner Coug may be in group one with you, but you've used that trick several times lately where you imply everyone is in group one and go straight to the ice cream comparison. It's a false premise. You think you're very clever for it, but I'm telling you it's becoming tired.

SeattleUte has never had a spiritual witness. That's why he doesn't believe.

I don't believe it's fair to be critical of persons who struggle with "spiritual witnesses".

I've struggled a lifetime, and have received some, but I am far from being natural at spirituality, and could easily dismiss those experiences if I am not careful. It is very difficult for those empirically inclined and mine are few and far between. Perhaps some of us are just not attuned to experience; I know not, but if some of you are like to JS, others of us are like unto BY and Heber J. Grant, who must struggle to receive what small portion of confirmations we are to receive. I liken myself not unto those persons but use the impractical comparison to one who was visionary with those who we not visionary and more pragmatic.

I'm not being critical. I'm stating what I perceive to be a fact. That SU has never had a convincing spiritual witness that allows him to move on past doubts about such things at the PoGP.

I do believe that some humble and earnest seekers are never given a witness. For reasons I do not know.

But just think how difficult in some respects, apostasy must have been for SU. I don't know, he may have lost his first family over it, and it has probably strained relations with parents and siblings. I don't think it was likely easy.

Well, I sympathize with persons who never receive witnesses, because compared to what those who express deep conviction, mine appear small and insignificant, but they are all I have.

I marvel over BH Roberts, Heber J. Grant, Talmage, and Hugh B. Brown, or Reed Smoot. J. Reuben Clark also struggled with his witness. These persons are heroes for me, and those who never receive I consider as brothers. So a person who leaves the fold for never having received a spiritual witness is in many ways closer to me than somebody who claims manifold witnesses and loads of visions. That person will never be me, so I can't identify with him or her. But I'm at peace with that and never expect it any more, finding what I have sufficient for the most part, making do and moving on. It is a good group to be a part of, even if I or people like me, don't really fit the traditional mold, or are even undesired. Being on the sidelines and helping when you can is better than no involvement at all.

Yipee! I like Adam's message. Have sex, lots of varied sex, and be merry, for tomorrow you die, and you will be forgiven. For the sins of infidelity and fornication are irresistible to the normal male.

Fawn Brodie in No Man has some hilarious rationalizatoins for polygamy quoted in her book from extant writings generated at the time. They go something like this: A man needs sexual release and variety, as well as the happiness that a younger woman will bring, as relief from his shrew of a hen pecking wife with looks gone to seed spewing hell-fire and damnation at him. This is a paraphrase, but I promise the actual stuff is fully of a piece with such a sentiment. (My view is probably the wife was doing 90% of the work in that hard scrabble frontier of a town, including on her own caring after a litter of kids, which didn't do much for her libido.)