NOM

I don't like the question, because it is a red herring, it is an attempt to distract us from the fact that we know he had sex with his plural wives. Many of them testified they did. There is no doubt his successor Brigham Young had sex with his wives. While there are rumors of abortions, we will never know for absolute sure how how avoided having children - but we know beyond all reasonable doubt he was having sex with at least some of them.

Perhaps I've watched too much CSI over the last few years. I used to believe that Joseph Smith had pleural wives. I wanted to believe that. But once simply observed there isn't any evidence. The testimonies would probably be thrown out of court. Simply too much bias. There is evidence the Brigham Young was a liar. As governor of Utah he did a number of things that exposed his hypocrisy and his willingness to bend the truth. Simply put, if you tried to convince Joseph Smith of plural marriage in a court of law today you wouldn't have enough evidence. Achmed's Razor.

We base the no children assumption on DNA reports from a genetics lab that has a strong history of Church apologetics.

moksha wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:58 am We base the no children assumption on DNA reports from a genetics lab that has a strong history of Church apologetics.

The church wants him to be guilty, because if he isn't, the whole thing is a fraud.

SaidNobody wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:56 am Perhaps I've watched too much CSI over the last few years. I used to believe that Joseph Smith had pleural wives. I wanted to believe that. But once simply observed there isn't any evidence.

You seem to believe that just stating that makes it the truth. First you state that all the evidence came from BY and now you state there "isn't any evidence". You could not be more wrong. There are many, many reliable sources and records regarding Joseph living polygamy. I'd recommend looking up, studying and reading the many sources available. Here are just some of them:

- Look up and purchase William Clayton's Diaries from that time period (he was Joseph's private secretary).
(You can purchase a copy for $6.00 here and it's fascinating to read: https://www.amazon.com/Claytons-Secret- ... B0006Y0GDG )

- Read the writings of Helen Mar Kimball regarding her marriage to Joseph.

- Read the writings of Emily Dow Partridge

- Read the transcripts of the statements made under oath by Joseph's wives in the Temple Lot Case (Emily Partridge, Lucy Walker, Agnes Coolbirth, and Louisa Beaman)

- Read the sworn affidavits from many of Joseph's wives regarding their marriages to him

- Read the letters between Heber and Vilate Kimball regarding the polygamy lived in Nauvoo (including Joseph's...letters written while Joseph was still alive)

- Here are more resources for you to study:
http://mormonpolygamydocuments.org/free ... nts-index/

The evidence is conclusive that Joseph lived polygamy. This would have to be a huge conspiracy and there would have to have been records altered, journals altered and a lot of contemporary members and witnesses telling a whole lot of lies for it to be true (that Joseph never lived polygamy).

I hope that he did. But, in spite of your reliable articles, if you go deep enough into the rabbit hole, there is reasonable doubt.

But, why no children?

SaidNobody wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 8:19 am I hope that he did. But, in spite of your reliable articles, if you go deep enough into the rabbit hole, there is reasonable doubt.

Oh you can still doubt if you want to believe Joseph never lived polygamy. But, IMO, it's not "reasonable doubt".

I am getting the impression you have not really spent much time reading and researching on this topic, SaidNobody. If it's a topic of interest for you, I'd recommend reading some of the sources provided earlier as it can be pretty fascinating to study.

There is a tremendous amount of evidence from the Nauvoo period or before that indicates that Joseph Smith taught and personally practiced polygamy. Here's are a few other contemporary sources regarding Joseph's and other's polygamy in Nauvoo while Joseph was alive.

Oliver Olney's various 1842 private writings and 1843 publication.
Oliver Cowdery letter to Warren Cowdery, 21 January 1838
John C. Bennett, History of the Saints (1842)
William Clayton Nauvoo diaries
William Law Nauvoo diary
D&C 132
[Francis Higbee], "Buckeye's Lamentation for Want of More Wives," Warsaw Message (7 February 1844): 1
Nauvoo Expositor (7 June 1844)

Also, the fact that two of Joseph's brothers, nearly all of the Quorum of the Twelve, and 43 percent of the men initiated into Joseph Smith's Anointed Quorum (and 58 percent of those who received their second anointing) practiced polygamy while Joseph was alive is strong evidence that Joseph approved of it.

I realize it's extremely important to you that Joseph didn't engage in polygamy. That certainly colors the way you view any evidence and claims.

I really couldn't care one way or the other. It doesn't matter to me. It has no bearing on much of anything.

It's true that the evidence wouldn't necessarily be admissible in court. But totally irrelevant. No one is attempting to hold any court case so the point is meaningless. The statutes of limitations for whatever might possibly be charges or civil damages long ago expired. The difficulties with old evidence is part of the reason why we have those statutes. There's no way to subpoena Joseph, to compel him to appear in court to face charges. There's no way to hold him liable for civil damages. There is no way to bring Joseph's accusers into the courtroom so that he can face them.

Nevertheless, some of the evidence could still be admissible in court for the right kind of case. If you've watched a lot of CSI you probably have a warped view of how court cases actually work. Reality is generally quite different. On TV, there is the idea that clear, direct evidence can always be found. That the accused's guilt can be determined clearly. The reality is that many cases are decided solely on circumstantial evidence.

A lot of people also have misconceptions about the standard of evidence used in court. In criminal cases, the typical standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt". This doesn't mean beyond all doubt. Nor does it mean that each individual piece of evidence must meet that standard. It means that the sum weight of all the evidences results in a decision that is beyond a reasonable doubt. For civil cases, the standard is usually merely a "preponderance of evidence".


For historical evaluations, like we are doing here, the standards can be quite different. That can depend upon our purpose in making the evaluation. For personal purposes, the standard doesn't need to be very high.


With the evidences for Joseph's polygamy or sexual dalliances, it is possible that no one piece is beyond a reasonable doubt. Trying to pin something down exactly from this far removed is difficult. But, there are an awful lot of evidences. Most people easily determine that the sum weight of the evidences is quite high, usually well beyond reasonable doubt and certainly beyond preponderance of the evidence. I realize that you won't accept that judgement until you have ascertained each particular piece of evidence well beyond reasonable doubt.

For my purposes, I'm quite well satisfied of the general outlines of Joseph's activities. The particulars are a little less reliable, but some of them are sufficiently clear. As I said, though, it really doesn't matter. It doesn't change my life one way or another. For purposes of discussion it is interesting but it has no relevance.

I think the original intent of the thread was looking for a smoking gun...(no pun intended here...really). If JS had progeny from those other than Emma, the debate over whether he was having sex with his wives would be over--or so we think. I think the debate will continue because apologetics isn't concerned with the truth; they are concerned with image and spinning it in favor of the narrative.

No desire to introduce a tangent,...but GOSH my heart goes out to Emma! She was trapped...I mean literally trapped! From the writing and talks of Grant Palmer, it appears Emma was afraid for her life! She literally interpreted the 132 statement about her being destroyed as her loosing her life!

GAWD!.....JS actually used a revelation to threaten the life of his wife?

Can anyone say "wife battery" here?....ABUSIVE, ABUSIVE, ABUSIVE!!!!

Rob4Hope wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:13 am I think the original intent of the thread was looking for a smoking gun...(no pun intended here...really). If JS had progeny from those other than Emma, the debate over whether he was having sex with his wives would be over--or so we think. I think the debate will continue because apologetics isn't concerned with the truth; they are concerned with image and spinning it in favor of the narrative.

I find it interesting that some will strongly fight against believing that Joseph lived polygamy and most especially that there were any sexual relations with any of his plural wives if he did practice it.

But, these same members will be just fine with BY and other early Prophets and church leaders living polygamy and having relations with their plural wives.

The double standard is a bit odd. It's like they want to believe Joseph lived another form of polygamy than what he taught other men to live.

AllieOop wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:18 am

Rob4Hope wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:13 am I think the original intent of the thread was looking for a smoking gun...(no pun intended here...really). If JS had progeny from those other than Emma, the debate over whether he was having sex with his wives would be over--or so we think. I think the debate will continue because apologetics isn't concerned with the truth; they are concerned with image and spinning it in favor of the narrative.

I find it interesting that some will strongly fight against believing that Joseph lived polygamy and most especially that there were any sexual relations with any of his plural wives if he did practice it.

But, these same members will be just fine with BY and other early Prophets and church leaders living polygamy and having relations with their plural wives.

The double standard is a bit odd. It's like they want to believe Joseph lived another form of polygamy than what he taught other men to live.

AllieOop, this baffles me to. I remember hearing people like BKP talk about "principles". The whole purpose of the gospel is about learning "principles" to live by; and then guys like DHO talk about universal standards, that those standards are not relative, and should apply to all. AND THEN, in the midst of this, you have TBMs who have no idea they break the very schizophrenic words of "The Prophets" as taught by these men.

The thing that REALLY baffles me is when the Q15 do the same thing: they apply one set of standards to JS or BY, and another to the lay member, as well as the historical narrative.

The foundation shifts. The fall is coming...it is coming....

Jeffret wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:03 am For my purposes,

Yeah, I get this.

We all look at things the way that suits us.

My comment wasn't to be argumentative, just that I have my doubts. I'd defend polygamy for JS, as I can see certain reasons for it, but not for BY. It's quite the dilemma, really.

Rob4Hope wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:49 am The foundation shifts. The fall is coming...it is coming....

If the church "falls" you will see that there are plenty to pick it up, actually wait to pick it up. Many think the church is illegitimate because of this issue, and has been a 130 years.

Rob4Hope wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:13 am I think the original intent of the thread was looking for a smoking gun...(no pun intended here...really). If JS had progeny from those other than Emma, the debate over whether he was having sex with his wives would be over--or so we think. I think the debate will continue because apologetics isn't concerned with the truth; they are concerned with image and spinning it in favor of the narrative.

No desire to introduce a tangent,...but GOSH my heart goes out to Emma! She was trapped...I mean literally trapped! From the writing and talks of Grant Palmer, it appears Emma was afraid for her life! She literally interpreted the 132 statement about her being destroyed as her loosing her life!

GAWD!.....JS actually used a revelation to threaten the life of his wife?

Can anyone say "wife battery" here?....ABUSIVE, ABUSIVE, ABUSIVE!!!!

Silver girl gave a link to an old book that had witness testimony about abortion. I can't do links on my ipak, so people will have to go back up thread. But if you read further, there is a story given by a custodian to the motel the Smiths ran. He says that he saw Joseph and the Partrige sister go into a building, later Emma came looking for Joseph and P sisters and the guy says he reluctantly told Emma where they were. Emma went there, then a couple of minutes later, she came back sobbing, that Joseph had hit her, and he said he could see the mark on her face.

So, yes, Joseph was physically abusive.

alas wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:48 am

Rob4Hope wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:13 am I think the original intent of the thread was looking for a smoking gun...(no pun intended here...really). If JS had progeny from those other than Emma, the debate over whether he was having sex with his wives would be over--or so we think. I think the debate will continue because apologetics isn't concerned with the truth; they are concerned with image and spinning it in favor of the narrative.

No desire to introduce a tangent,...but GOSH my heart goes out to Emma! She was trapped...I mean literally trapped! From the writing and talks of Grant Palmer, it appears Emma was afraid for her life! She literally interpreted the 132 statement about her being destroyed as her loosing her life!

GAWD!.....JS actually used a revelation to threaten the life of his wife?

Can anyone say "wife battery" here?....ABUSIVE, ABUSIVE, ABUSIVE!!!!

Silver girl gave a link to an old book that had witness testimony about abortion. I can't do links on my ipak, so people will have to go back up thread. But if you read further, there is a story given by a custodian to the motel the Smiths ran. He says that he saw Joseph and the Partrige sister go into a building, later Emma came looking for Joseph and P sisters and the guy says he reluctantly told Emma where they were. Emma went there, then a couple of minutes later, she came back sobbing, that Joseph had hit her, and he said he could see the mark on her face.

So, yes, Joseph was physically abusive.

Church apologists acknowledge that JS was "harsh" with Emma. Then they say harsh doesn't mean harsh like we think of today.

Benjamin Franklin Johnson was proud of his sister being married to, and spending nights with JS.

Rob4Hope wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:13 am If JS had progeny from those other than Emma, the debate over whether he was having sex with his wives would be over--or so we think. I think the debate will continue because apologetics isn't concerned with the truth; they are concerned with image and spinning it in favor of the narrative.

This is the sort of thing that really confuses the issue.

Truth is much more complex than what Emma saw and went through. Truth isn't just her pain, or the pain millions of women in her day, or the hundreds that died moving west.

Joseph went through truth too, and was beaten for it, jailed for it, betrayed for it, and died for it. Taking a few events off the timeline doesn't explain the truth either.

Emma's pain should be entered into the captain's log, along with the emotional pain of every other women of that day. But to put a special circle of abusive behavior around JS isn't justified. JS might be guilty of stuff, but it was actually legal to beat your wife in those days. It was written in the laws of states and cities.

Anyway, about the kids.

AllieOop wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:18 am I find it interesting that some will strongly fight against believing that Joseph lived polygamy and most especially that there were any sexual relations with any of his plural wives if he did practice it.

But, these same members will be just fine with BY and other early Prophets and church leaders living polygamy and having relations with their plural wives.

The double standard is a bit odd. It's like they want to believe Joseph lived another form of polygamy than what he taught other men to live.

As I recall SaidNobody is quite aware of this double standard and quite intentional. His strong belief is that Joseph was a prophet and fulfilled his prophetic mantle. But Brigham Young strayed from the true path and did not receive the prophetic mantle or else strayed from it. Brigham erred in ascribing bad things to Joseph, particularly polygamy, his treatment of Emma, and other similar things.

There are a lot of potentially erroneous recollections in that description. I'm definitely open to correction on my understanding or memory. I think that's how this dance goes, though.

Personally, I think that approach is pretty untenable. Brigham may not have done everything Joseph might have wanted, but there is substantial evidence that it wasn't for lack of trying. I perceive that above all Brigham wanted to preserve Joseph's church for his imminent return. He tried to follow through on the things Joseph taught him, fulfilling them and elaborating on them. But, he wasn't the eclectic aggregator originator that Joseph was. Joseph was erratic and impetuous, but highly creative, skilled at bringing things together from different areas, borrowing wherever it struck him. Joseph's personality was the type that would institute polygamy, building wildly, always on whatever whim, or urge struck him. Brigham was the steady organizer, trying to create stability out of the chaos Joseph left behind. He wasn't likely to create new doctrines and practices but to codify existing ones. Joseph taught him polygamy so he followed through with it as best he could.

Jeffret wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 11:48 am Joseph taught him polygamy so he followed through with it as best he could.

I am going to be honest here.

I honestly don't know if JS if promoted polygamy. And at some point, I stopped caring.

Comparing JS with JC makes as much sense. JC ran with women of questionable character, but in the end, it was Peter and Paul that created the Christian church. And regardless of what they were or did, billions of people follow Jesus. The "image of Christ" suits them. So whether or not JS was a polygamist doesn't really matter.

He brought something else that I find interesting. However, BY seems to be the one that brought polygamy to JS, not the other way around. And others, that point to JS as the source, may have been connected to BY and polygamy before they joined the Mormons.

About them kids.

SaidNobody wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 12:11 pm About them kids.

For me, no kids found yet is really inconsequential. Many, many people are sexually active without having children or pregnancies.

I'm honestly not even that interested in whether or not Joseph has sex with any of his 30+ plural wives. I think he did with some and did not with others.

I think for me, it's the entire dishonesty, deceit and betrayal that was involved. If he was going around behind Emma's back and sneaking around asking some of his friend's wives to marry him, does it matter that much if he actually had sex with them? He married them. He married Emma's young house girls who she loved as daughters. He married one of his best friend's little girls (14 year old Helen Mar) after he asked for his wife only to say, "just kidding...that was just a test...who I really want to marry is your young daughter".

These are the details that are most upsetting for me. Whether or not he had sex is maybe of interest, but the deceit and betrayal took place before he even got to that.

SaidNobody wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 12:11 pm Comparing JS with JC makes as much sense. JC ran with women of questionable character, but in the end, it was Peter and Paul that created the Christian church. And regardless of what they were or did, billions of people follow Jesus. The "image of Christ" suits them. So whether or not JS was a polygamist doesn't really matter.

This part makes some sense.

In many ways, Christianity, as in followers of Christ, doesn't really exist these days. It's more Paulinity, the teachings of Paul (Saul of Tarsus). Though, these days, it's getting harder and harder to find even that. Much of Christianity has been taken over these days by the Prosperity Gospel, which bears very little resemblance to anything Paul or Jesus taught. And holding on to well-entrenched prejudice. Those seem to be the defining characteristics of much of "Christianity" today.

In a number of ways, the LDS Church owes much of its existence and flavor to Brigham. People with the strength of personality and charisma to attract followers and create a vibrant religious community tend to be chaotic and unstable. Living with the turmoil that always surrounded Joseph would have been exciting but difficult. Often the new religion collapses with the death of the charismatic founder. They tend to be most successful when the founder is followed by another leader who provides stability and who organizes the religion into expected practices and beliefs. That describes Brigham, and his long tenure. Similar to Christianity, though, Mormonism today shares little similarity to either Joseph or Brigham. Modern Mormonism is a modern, corporatist structure. It strives to hold onto slightly outdated mores and prejudices and also has its share of the Prosperity Gospel.

(Yeah, I realize I'm still not talking about the children.)