To me it's "Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo"

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng

"Following his marriage to Louisa Beaman and before he married other single women, Joseph Smith was sealed to a number of women who were already married.29"

Footnote 29, Estimates of the number of these sealings range from 12 to 14. (See Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997], 4, 6; Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, 1:253–76, 303–48.) For an early summary of this practice, see John A. Widtsoe, “Evidences and Reconciliations: Did Joseph Smith Introduce Plural Marriage?” Improvement Era 49, no. 11 (Nov. 1946): 766–67."

When you compare that admission to

D&C 132:61 "And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins (#1) and have vowed to no other man (#2) then is he justified (#3); he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him (#4); for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else(#5)."

#1. Married women were obviously not virgins when he 'married' them.
#2. Married women were obviously 'vowed to other men'.
#3. Therefor, not justified, by any law or scripture ever written, including this one.
#4. They were not 'given unto him' according to any scripture or law ever written, that'd be adultery, including this one. and
#5. since they didn't 'belongeth unto him' and they did 'belongeth' to someone else, it is therefore, adultery.

Best question for Mormons, why do you sing the praises of an adulterer, now that the church has finally admitted he claimed the wives of at least 11 of his followers wives as his own?

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Best question for Mormons, why do you sing the
> praises of an adulterer, now that the church has
> finally admitted he claimed the wives of at least
> 11 of his followers wives as his own?

Putting my Mormon excuse making hat back on - He never had sex with these women, it was purely a dynastic sealing for he afterlife. So there is no problem to see, move along......

It's that easy to dismiss the issue.

Darren Steers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> koriwhore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Best question for Mormons, why do you sing the
> > praises of an adulterer, now that the church
> has
> > finally admitted he claimed the wives of at
> least
> > 11 of his followers wives as his own?
>
> Putting my Mormon excuse making hat back on - He
> never had sex with these women, it was purely a
> dynastic sealing for he afterlife. So there is no
> problem to see, move along......
>
> It's that easy to dismiss the issue.

Sex wasn't required to violate the law he claimed he got from God himself, just claiming another man's wife as his own violated it and 2 of the 10 Commandments, not to mention the law of the land and common human decency.
If common human decency isn't enough and you need a law to tell you not to claim your follower's wives as your own, you're probably a horrible human being.

that has always bothered me is this. As leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ (lol), the primary job of guys like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young was to help members of the flock achieve exaltation and glory...and, according to the crap that they preached, eternal marriage and eternal plural marriage was a requirement. So their job was not to build up their personal dynasties at the expense of members of the flock. It was to help the members of the flock. Prophets as "humble servants of the Lord" and all that rot, right?

But they actually used their fake authority to steal wives and destroy marriages of the members of the flock that they were supposedly called to serve and protect.

It's so obviously disgusting that it boggles the mind that adult TBMs can't see it. As you point out, the practice is not even supported by any so-called revelation or scripture. They just did it and made up bullsh*t stories on an ad hoc basis to justify it.

It's like the founders of a sleazy MLM scheme poaching downline recruits from the people who recruited them. It's no small wonder that things caught up to Joseph Smith at Carthage. Most of the history has been written by Mormons. But the level of general disgust felt for Joe by many of the people living in the area must have been very intense.

As a victim of sexual predation I saw Smith's "dynasty" as nothing more than sexual predation and getting people to do his bidding tied to him in a subservient way.

The problem with this is that to believe in Mormonism as a whole one must believe that polygamy was of god. It wasn't just Joseph that was a polygamist but every one of the early Mormon presidents. Bringing this up as proof that Joseph was a bad man doesn't fly with TBMs because they have already accepted the behavior.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem with this is that to believe in
> Mormonism as a whole one must believe that
> polygamy was of god. It wasn't just Joseph that
> was a polygamist but every one of the early Mormon
> presidents. Bringing this up as proof that Joseph
> was a bad man doesn't fly with TBMs because they
> have already accepted the behavior.

Polygamy is the first thing MORmONs bring up when I ask them about Joseph and Brigham's polyandry, it was commanded by God. But I remind them, I'm not asking about polygamy, I'm asking about polyandry, marrying other men's wives, which was NEVER commanded by God, it was condemned by God as adultery, both in the 10 Commandments and even in the very scripture Joseph said he got straight from God himself, which is what makes it so damning.
Here's an example,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXW-CHtD07g&list=PL1E4BBE5E4A501489&index=4&t=2s



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/2019 04:23PM by koriwhore.

doesn't make it okay.

The refusal of TBMs to consider the logic of the situation when comparing Joseph Smith's actual behavior against the clear instructions set out in the "revelation" used to justify the practice does not negate the rules of logic. It just means that the TBMs are unwilling to face the truth. Ostriches resolutely keeping their heads in a dark hole in order to avoid seeing the ugly truth looming over them.

Oh, I'm not speaking to the issue of whether their actions were right or wrong. Clearly those men were terrible people. I'm just speaking to the banality of arguing polygamy, polyandry, sex, no sex, children, no children, angel with a flaming sword, etc with someone who is convinced that those men's flaws are irrelevant.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, I'm not speaking to the issue of whether their
> actions were right or wrong. Clearly those men
> were terrible people. I'm just speaking to the
> banality of arguing polygamy, polyandry, sex, no
> sex, children, no children, angel with a flaming
> sword, etc with someone who is convinced that
> those men's flaws are irrelevant.


#1. Brigham Young fathered at least one child with the wife (Zina) of one of his followers, Henry Jacobs, who was also the 'wife' of Joseph Smith while she was married to poor Henry Jacobs, who was sent away overseas on 8 different missions before he finally gave up on having a relationship with the love of his life, his real wife, Zina, after she had a kid with Brigham in his absence. To say that sex was not a part of the Mormons practice of polyandrous relationships is a bald faced lie that completely contradicts the well documented historical record.
#2. There is no law that was ever written that permitted a man to claim another man's wife as his own.
#3. There are plenty of laws, including the 10 Commandments, the law of the land and the Law of the Priesthood, condemning that practice as adultery.
#4. If MORmONs are convinced that the adulterous behavior of their founders is irrelevant, they could use an assload of Cognitive Dissonance to go with their hypocrisy.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> #1. Brigham Young fathered at least one child with
> the wife (Zina) of one of his followers, Henry
> Jacobs, who was also the 'wife' of Joseph Smith
> while she was married to poor Henry Jacobs, who
> was sent away overseas on 8 different missions
> before he finally gave up on having a relationship
> with the love of his life, his real wife, Zina,
> after she had a kid with Brigham in his absence.
> To say that sex was not a part of the Mormons
> practice of polyandrous relationships is a bald
> faced lie that completely contradicts the well
> documented historical record.

See the problem here isn't that Brigham was marred to Zina and that they had a child. The problem is that Mormons get to play dumb and say that Joseph didn't have a child and that Brigham had tons of kids with his wives. By arguing this point with Mormons you are giving them an out.


> #2. There is no law that was ever written that
> permitted a man to claim another man's wife as his
> own.

I'm not sure why a Mormon should care that about the laws in this case. If god commanded who are his prophets to refuse god?

> #3. There are plenty of laws, including the 10
> Commandments, the law of the land and the Law of
> the Priesthood, condemning that practice as
> adultery.

Again you are playing a game of words with Mormons and they don't see what their heroes did as adultery.

> #4. If MORmONs are convinced that the adulterous
> behavior of their founders is irrelevant, they
> could use an assload of Cognitive Dissonance to go
> with their hypocrisy.

Welcome to Mormonism.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It wasn't just Joseph that > was a polygamist but every one of the early Mormon > presidents.

Those "presidents" were also mostly Freemasons who held their consultations and hatched their bloody schemes behind doors guarded by a man with a hammer.

That's why we can know few details of the concoctions of those early Mormon conspiring brains in their Lodge.

The most damning thing is this: Joseph claimed that God sent an angel with a drawn sword to command him to practice polygamy. The angel supposedly told Joseph that if he didn't comply, he would be destroyed.

So why do you think God would be willing to sacrifice 1/3 of his spirit children over the doctrine of "agency" and then decide that it was ok to take away Joseph's agency?

And have them read vs 63 of D&C 132 that states the reason Joseph is supposed to marry the women is to get them pregnant.
Unless they have some other explanation of the words used: "That they may bare the souls of men" and that they may multiply and increase the earth.

are absolutely condemned by BOTH the Doctrine and Covenants Sec. 132 AND the Book of Mormon in Jacob 2:27~30.

The Book of Mormon provides ONLY ONE possible exception, namely when God commands plural marriage for the purpose of raising up seed (i.e. having tons of children).

There is no record of Joseph Smith fathering any children with any of his many wives. There are indications that he may have arranged for abortions through the services of John C. Bennett.

TBMs used to attempt to absolve Joseph Smith of any wrongdoing by claiming that he never practiced polygamy and that any claim that he did was just an anti-Mormon lie. Now, the church has officially fessed up and TBMs can no longer deny that he married MANY women. It is also undeniable that most of his "marriages" were made in a manner directly forbidden by the so-called revelation in D&C 132 that supposedly provided the authorization for polygamy. Most TBMs simply refuse to think about it.


Jacob 2:

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

Also, it's been posted that Emma wasn't the first woman that Joey was sealed to (churchco source, I guess).

In my mind, the current decisions, policies-procedures & actions of ChurchCo are as much LDS sourced as those in the scriptures, GA talks, or anything else;


IF they were in harmony with Christ's teachings about Honesty, Kindness, etc. I (maybe ONLY I) could overlook a few/lot of previous errors, mistakes, even lies.


but they Don't.

But as far as single events go, one of the most damning is the fact that Joseph Smith tried to sell the copyright to the Book of Mormon.

It was still early days in the history of the church and there are several indications (acts and words) that support the view that the initial intention of Joseph Smith and his business partners/investors was to make money off of book sales.

When they realized that sales just weren't happening and profits were not rolling in, they hoped to find a sucker in Canada who would be willing to pay for the entire copyright for the jurisdiction of Canada. This depended on being able to persuade the mark/sucker/victim/dupe that the copyright would be valuable. The only way that the copyright would be valuable would be if people wanted to buy the book.

For obvious reasons, they failed to sell the copyright in Canada.

That's all interesting. But the damning thing about it is that the attempt to sell the copyright was absolutely inconsistent with any claim that the the book was divine scripture revealed to Joseph Smith by God.

For starters, if one were to believe that God revealed the book through divine power and inspiration through a prophet, there would be no copyright to sell. Joseph Smith was neither the author nor the translator. He simply read words that were supplied to him by magic/divine power. If someone reads words to you by telephone and you write them down or repeat them to someone else in the room so that they can write them down, YOU ARE NOT THE AUTHOR OR TRANSLATOR. You're simply receiving and repeating verbatim what someone else has provided to you.

Next, if the book was really a record of God's dealings with ancient inhabitants of the Americas and was revealed to provide light and inspiration to the modern world, you would not try to sell the copyright to some person who could refuse to allow sales or distribution of the book, or who could charge such a high price that most people would not be willing to buy the book, or who could, as owner of the copyright, alter that book in any way desired. (For example it could be turned into a pornographic fantasy.)

A real prophet, not motivated by money, would immediately put the book into the public domain or exercise the copyright only to prevent unauthorized alterations.

It's ridiculous to think that God and Moroni would go to all that trouble to put this record into the hands of Joseph Smith, but would not provide any means for Joseph Smith to pay for the printing of the book, leaving Joseph Smith and his partners/investors in such desperate financial straits that they felt it was necessary to sell the copyright in order to recoup their losses.

Hey, Moroni, as long as you're sticking $100,000 worth of golden plates in that stone box, why not throw in about $10,000 worth of Nephite gold coins too, so that the future boy prophet won't have to sell the copyright to make ends meet. Just throwing some of that Nephite gold into the box would have made it possible for Joe to advertise the book, print it up real nice and maybe even build a really great church building as a place where he could preach about the book. There must have been tons of unclaimed golden Nephite coins laying around, what with the entire Nephite civilization having been killed off in a short period of time and everything.

Why is it that God's "planning" always fell short in exactly the same way that you would expect things to go wrong in a situation where Joe had just been making it all up? In other words, God seemed to always screw up in exactly the same way the Joseph Smith could have been expected to screw up if God had not been involved at all.

Just cant get this tune out of my head now.......
Praise to the ma-an who commit-ed adultry.....

A history of Joseph Smith by his Mother

Yup. No one tells embarrassing stories better than mom!

Mother Smith originally wrote a family history but in later years it became Joseph Smith's history.

The history was reviewed and later published under the direction of Joseph F Smith.

Mother Smith details Joseph and Emma stealing a horse and wagon the night Joseph retrieved the plates.

She details Joseph Smith Senior visions that just happen to mirror Lehi's visions.

There are many other fun facts buried in it.
.

The Book of Abraham

^^THIS^^. No need to determine who JS did or did not sleep with, or whether God actually spoke to him, or any of the other folderol. The BoA is phony, period. That is sufficient evidence against "Joseph's Myth"

To me the most damning evidence against Joseph's myth from an LDS source is found in the church, mostly hidden-on-purpose-essays.

Of course, what percentage of the members are even aware of the essays is a problem, along with the fact that "evidence" to members means feelings plus some facts, or just feelings alone, which is not the same meaning as the rest of society holds.

So, therein lies the conundrum.....I have found, by attempting to have a discussion, that the two ways of understanding "evidence" are not connected or even on the same planet Earth which makes the chance of having a "civil", normal conversation almost zero.

You either talk the "cult" talk or walk away holding your evidence intact while letting them cling to their meaning of the word.

but can we have consensual polyamory and/or swinging?