- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I don’t believe his actions and his character as described by so many people support he was two-faced and really a sex-mongerer in hiding, as some try to characterize him to be and break down his image of a prophet of God. However, Richard Bushman presented some of the events, and when I read that it makes Joseph more human, but still a very good human trying to do what he thought was commanded by God. Polygamy still doesn’t make sense to me, and I don’t see Joseph found a way to have it make sense openly in the public eye. In a way, Joseph was taught from the beginning that some things are of God (i.e. Golden Plates) but need to be kept secret from those who can’t handle the truth or just because it is not good to have all things out in the open to achieve the purposes designed.
I’m not saying I like that, or I am comfortable with it … only realizing there was a lot of stuff Joseph dealt with on a daily basis … so it would be easy for me to say what I would hope for from a Prophet of God with no secrets…but I wasn’t living the life Joseph was living.
I agree with Ray, I believe it was complicated, and Joseph was human, and we just don’t know any more than that.
If Jefferson’s extramarital children can be found why not JS? I guess I just don’t get why it would matter. Say we track down a long lost great-great-granddaughter of JS. Then what? It’s pretty much already a given that JS had multiple wives and I am pretty sure most people have sex with their spouse. So if we already know that, what’s the significance of filling out the family tree?
That’s pretty much how I see it, brown – but it would put an end to the arguments of those who say Joseph really wasn’t involved in polygamy or that there was no sexual component at all in the relationships in which he was involved. In the big scheme of things, I agree with Brown and Ray. To me, personally, on the average day, the matter of offspring doesn’t really matter because of what Brown said. When, however, my Dad asked about it, it got me to thinking. I still may post a bunch of pertinent source quotes. I do know for a fact though that some of JS’ marriages were NOT consummated. Yeah – especially the posthumous ones. 😆 😮 👿 I don’t understand why it is so important to prove DNA evidence for only Joseph Smith’s possible children. Isn’t there evidence that other Prophets had polygamous children in their polygamous marriages since the restoration? Isn’t that fact enough evidence that it occurred by a Prophet (s), in accordance with previous revelation and/or current revelation during their time of authority? Ever since the Nauvoo period, there’s been a debate as to whether Joseph Smith taught polygamy as a revelation from God, or whether it was later woven into our history by Brigham Young. The RLDS Church (Community of Christ) insisted for many decades that JS did no practice polygamy. People that find the idea very problematic get curious to know if JS really practiced polygamy or not.
What troubles people, I think are the number and ages of plural wives and ways JS involved himself in polygamy. When I was growing up it seemed to be the conventional wisdom that polygamy began with BY but that somehow in spite of the 132nd section, JS didn’t really participate. Learning something different is a bit jarring to people who hold him up as an icon of truth. If there’s doubt about offspring then there’s a level of doubt that he really slept with all those girls and women and that it really was a revelation and a higher and more noble thing he did. I seem to recall a book recently disputing JSs participation in polygamy at all but can’t remember the title. Brian is right that the RLDS church used to claim that Joseph did not participate in polygamy. However, they don’t hold that position any more. Many members of the RLDS church were concerned that the church was becoming too liberal, and embracing liberal ideas. There were many problems within the RLDS, but the straw that broke the camel’s back was the ordination of women. Many RLDS just couldn’t accept that fact and broke away–at least 25% of the membership. As a result, many “Restoration” churches began. The RLDS changed their name to the Community of Christ. Many of these “fundamentalist” RLDS formed a new RLDS church, called the Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They still hold strong beliefs that Joseph fought polygamy. There is even a book by that name: “Joseph Fought Polygamy.” I even met a person online that is a member of this Remnant church, and he was vehement that Joseph fought polygamy. this person posts all sorts of court affidavits in support of his position. So there are still quite a few people that try to make the case that Joseph did not participate in polygamy, but the Community of Christ officially accepts Joseph and polygamy. They have some interesting videos from their president at this link (especially Chapters 3 and 4):
http://www.cofchrist.org/presidency/AprilAddress/april0509/resources.asp President Steve Veazey spells out the church’s position about church history in these videos, and admits that not only did Joseph practice polygamy, but sometimes church members participated in offensive mobbings and weren’t only victims. It’s fascinating, especially for a church that denied polygamy for 100 years.
mormonheretic wrote:President Steve Veazey spells out the church’s position about church history in these videos, and admits that not only did Joseph practice polygamy, but sometimes church members participated in offensive mobbings and weren’t only victims. It’s fascinating, especially for a church that denied polygamy for 100 years.
It’s understandable since ES denied he ever participated and raised her son with that understanding and belief about his father. It’s just taken time for the truth to rise to the surface.
GBSmith wrote:It’s just taken time for the truth to rise to the surface.
That, is a pretty good statement on why the topic is brought up on the bloggernacle. There are still so many members in our church completely unaware of the truth.I also think that it is difficult to navigate through for many people. I grew up mormon, my ancestors go back to the Martin Handcart company. Yet I find out some of these things from the Internet and a friend at work, things that I never knew about my own religious past when I’m 40 years old after a lifetime of service in the church.
annieka wrote:Isn’t that fact enough evidence that it occurred by a Prophet (s), in accordance with previous revelation and/or current revelation during their time of authority?
But it is not in accordance with scriptures (Book of Mormon) and current revelation, and so it is interesting to see that revelation can change so much at different times of prophets’ authority. Yet other times, we find scriptures of different prophets receiving revelation in their time of authority, and choose to apply that to us and all people throughout time. So there is a bit of a cafeteria style approach from church leaders on accepting prophets’ revelations, past and present.
That is why it is not so clear cut. I realize that for some it is of no consequence, and that the Lord can tell one prophet something, and that is good enough, even if the Lord tells another prophet something else. That’s great if some people can accept that on faith.
For others, that is problematic, not because of lack of faith, but because as GBSmith said it, the truth was hidden for so long.
I think it is a valid issue to research and debate. It impacts testimonies and claims of our prophets, just as much as stories about how young Joseph refused whiskey when having his leg operated on. They are part of the story of his character, which impacts our faith in the prophet.
Interesting. Why then was it hidden for so long? Isn’t the concept of “hiding” something usually rooted in the “fear” of someone finding out the facts or what is actually so/true? Why would anyone fear, including those with authority, if it truly is/was the restored church and if Heavenly Father/God promised the keys of authority would no longer go into a state of apostasy? I had also recently heard that during the so-called time of practiced polygamy, while Joseph Smith was Prophet, there was a greater number of active men than there were active women in the church. Is that accurate?
Being illegal, especially amid all the other difficulties of that time, certainly was an issue. 
In the end, unless there is some evidence found somehow (which probably is unlikely at this time), it’s pretty much an academic debate only. As I’ve said elsewhere, I’m not trying to downplay the significance of the overall question, since ALL issues are emotional to someone, but without proof either way . . .
The evidence seems to say that some marriages were consummated (most of those “some” probably only once), most marriages were not consummated and probably no children were born from them. That, however, is conjecture.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.