yet another absurd claim by TheSkepticChristian:
"For the purpose of the church, it does not need FARMS, FAIR, or SHIELDS, but they help us progress temporally and intellectually."

my response:
new issues are usually "settled" by a quote from a member of an apologetic organization. the GAs love them because they are the GAs buffer. if the apologist was later proved to be "wrong", then a GA simply needs to cop-out with a "it was not official doctrine". but when a GA (apostle, prophet) says something and is proved wrong, then the others simply say "he was just speaking as a man" or "he was just giving his opinion" or "it was never put to a vote before the church" or "he made a mistake, after all he is only human" or .. help me out, what are some more excuses they use? dont you see the deception, the cognitive dissonance, the cult mentality, the speaking out of both sides of the mouth, the transfer of responsibility? GAs (and yourself) simply cherry pick "official doctrine" to suit whatever argument they (and you) find yourself in.

Why would we need a bunch of so-called academics to progress intellectually if we have modern revelation from the mouthpieces of God himself?

In fact, why would we need to progress intellectually if we have been told what to do by the breathren, who have done the thinking already?

Isn't that duplication of effort in the hive?

Anagrammy

You don't have to rely on mere academic types to tell you where the Hill Cumorah is. You don't have to rely on intellectyoooals to tell you how Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy can be reconciled with the words found in the Book of Jacob. You don't have to look to a Mormon think tank to tell you whether polgyamy is still a doctrinal requirement for exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom. That's what the awesome and amazing living prophet is supposed to do. He's supposed to be out there teaching the truth and correcting errors of understanding. He's supposed to be out there declaring, clarifying and pronouncing true doctrine.

But when's the last time anyone, anywhere, anytime has seen the genyooine Mormon living prophet do anything even remotely connected with his official job description?

Sure, he can look at blueprints for a new mall development project and consult with architects and accountants and business planners to determine whether it's a sound project (and then make the wrong decision anyway).

Sure, he can arrange a pay off to a document forger to get some inconvenient documents out of circulation because the documents look so good that he thinks they may be real.

Sure, the Mormon prophet can tell us how much he doesn't know about what the future holds and can tell us that he doesn't know whether a doctrine is doctrinal or not.

These are things that the Mormon prophets can do and indeed do do when faced with Mormon doo doo. But anybody and everybody else does and can do the same doo doo at anytime.

What I want to know is what makes a Mormon prophet special and valuable? I've been asking that all my life and HAVE NEVER YET RECEIVED A SATISFACTORY ANSWER FROM ANY MORMON -- not even a rough facsimile of a good attempt at giving a satisfactory answer.

"new issues are usually "settled" by a quote from a member of an apologetic organization"

No, the purpose of the church, is to give us what we need for our salvation, and spiritual progression. So for issues that don't have to do with the gospel, the church is not obligated to answer.
We don't need to know the details of creation, in order to be saved.

" if the apologist was later proved to be "wrong""
Well the apologist are like scientist, they look for the best evidence, and the best explanations of things, but that does not mean that we claim all the answers.

"he was just giving his opinion"
Even if what he says is correct, and then later proven scientifically, if it is not official doctrine, then its only his opinion. Official doctrine, will never stop being official doctrine. The church already defined what is official doctrine.

"what are some more excuses they use? "
No excuses, for now, I seen no strong evidence against the Book of Mormon.

"simply cherry pick "official doctrine" "
I already told you, the church defined what was official doctrine, and that will never change, whether we like it or not.

TheSC said
'No, the purpose of the church, is to give us what we need for our salvation, and spiritual progression. So for issues that don't have to do with the gospel, the church is not obligated to answer.
We don't need to know the details of creation, in order to be saved.'

Maybe not, but you do need to know the secret handshakes, right?

"evolution--mutations, genetic drift and natural selection--is an *atheistic* model"
Biased, just ask Kenneth R. Miller

They constantly move the goal posts. It's a waste of time. If one is so inclined, and hopes to wake up members, go where your efforts will do the most good. It's not with apologists. It's with regular members.

Having said that, I'm not one to try to take people away from Mormonism. If people want to leave, they'll leave. But don't try to wake up a person who is not ready to leave. They can turn on you. I had that happen with a kid in grad school. He was coming to school drunk, showing off his new tattoo, chain-smoking, and had just moved in with a female classmate after his divorce. I thought I was safe mentioning to him that I had officially resigned, but he got really upset with me.

My personal opinion is that making the information available (this site, sites that show people how to resign) is enough. Let people make their own decisions. They will feel better about their decision in the long run.

"It's with regular members"
Most apologists are regular members, and most of them have served missions, and have church callings

"But don't try to wake up a person who is not ready to leave"
But don't try to wake up a person who is not ready to return
Na! just try to wake him/her up always.

" that making the information available is enough"
I agree, but I seen to much Biased interpretations, and Biased on many other ways.
In fact, most anti-mormonism I seen does not tell you the whole story, for example

It was okay, for a women to marry as a teenager in the 19th century, it was acceptable in mainstream society 200 years ago, they had a different mentality. So making the information available without telling the whole story, is not a good idea.

to marry a married man. Where did you get the idea that it was acceptable in the 19th century. It was precisely because such things were NOT acceptable that the Mormon leaders got into such trouble in Nauvoo and then in Utah finally had to abandon the practice. The whole story is that critics of Mormonism rightly point out that it was pretty sick for an old married guy like Joe Smith to go around telling young girls that God wanted them to be his extra wives.

"No, the purpose of the church, is to give us what we need for our salvation, and spiritual progression. So for issues that don't have to do with the gospel, the church is not obligated to answer.
We don't need to know the details of creation, in order to be saved."

Response: Well, they don't really do a good job of any of that. Supposedly the practice of polygamy was a requirement for exaltation. That's pretty fundamental Gospel stuff and doctrinal. But now the practice has been abandoned and the prophet guy has provided no clarity on where that leaves the faithful members in terms of the things stated in scriptures such as D&C 132.

"No excuses, for now, I seen no strong evidence against the Book of Mormon"

Response: Okay, that's a funny one.

"I already told you, the church defined what was official doctrine, and that will never change, whether we like it or not."

Response: Where has the church defined what is "official doctrine"? Is the definition you are thinking of itself official doctrine? Cherry picking goes on ALL THE TIME.

Please be careful with your arguments, or its going to make the apologists look better. I just proved your arguments wrong, sorry.

this is not an ad hominem, it is based on hours of experience of messaging back and forth: this guy has multiple accounts everywhere (dishonest+spammer), will not accept any logic you try to use and is a self-contradicting+"move the goal posts" "debater"...---a complete waste of time talking to... his usernames TheSkepticChristian, TheRationalChristian, etc are complete misnomers.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2011 05:19AM by Nick Humphrey.

But reading through his responses I realize that it's like trying to have a serious discussion with a glitchy computer that just throws out random responses without rhyme or reason. Kind of like trying to have an adult conversation with an early version of an Internet translation program adapted to spit out Mormon apologetic answers based on key word detection software.

"Where did you get the idea that it was acceptable in the 19th century"
Just look at history
Statistical information for marital ages is available from the 1850 census
( Steven Ruggles, Matthew Sobek, Trent Alexander, Catherine A. Fitch, Ronald Goeken, Patricia Kelly Hall, Miriam King, and Chad Ronnander, Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 3.0 [Machine-readable database]. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Population Center [producer and distributor] (2004), accessed 14 July 2007 )
( "...such an age difference was not uncommon at the time." Baden-Powell, en.wikipedia.org (accessed 21 January 2006))
( Biography of William Clark, virginia.edu (accessed 31 May 2006) )

"rightly point out that it was pretty sick for an old married guy"
Critics get it wrong there, (well most, but some are more fair with their arguments)
I already said that 200 years ago, that was not considered sick, it was okay in the 19th century, for a women to marry underage. Different mentality back then.

Besides, their is no evidence that Joseph Smith has sex with his youngest wife, according to Todd Compton.

"Supposedly the practice of polygamy was a requirement for exaltation"
Nooo, wrong interpretation buddy

"Okay, that's a funny one"
I have a challenge for you, give me a list of names of 10 kings Kings, during Pre-Classic Maya times :). Can you disproved that a small group of Hebrews arrived at the Americas, and then mixed with the Pre-Classic Maya??

" Where has the church defined what is "official doctrine"? "

http://newsroom.lds.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine


"Cherry picking goes on ALL THE TIME."
Not true

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

We are not talking about whether it was acceptable for a young bride to marry in a monogamous relationship. We're talking about whether it was acceptable for a married man to abuse his position of religious authority to pick up extra wives on the side, many of which were young teen-aged girls. It was not acceptable. Why do you think Mormons had to give up the practice? Why do you think Joe had the Nauvoo Expositor destroyed?

I hope you do fancy yourself to be a Mormon apologist. You're incoherent style of argumentation is a great warning to all who otherwise may be tempted to take Mormon apologetics seriously.

As for your comment about there being no evidence of sex with the "youngest wife," all I can say is yes there are no photographs of Joe in the act of boinking. But so what? How do you square this with the words of condemnation against multiple wives in the Book of Jacob. The only justification ever given doctrinally for polygamy is to raise up seed. You can't raise seed without planting seed.

You're comment about there being no linkage between exaltation and polygamy is so at odds with known facts that it doesn't deserve much of an answer, so I'll just adopt your style of bald assertion: Nope, wrong answer on your part, buddy.

Your comment about the Mayan kings and that I need to "disprove" that a small group of Hebrews mixed in with the natives is pure gibberish and...well, I'll just be charitable and leave it at that. Can you absolutely disprove that reptilian aliens from the Draco constellation have not infiltrated the LDS Church leadership and the even now these shape-shifting aliens are appearing in public as Thomas S. Monson, Boyd K. Packer, etc? Huh? Can you, can you? You're having a laugh aren't you?

I love your article on what doctrine is. It's an article from the LDS website. Is that doctrinal? Thanks for making my point for me. ;o)

"The only justification ever given doctrinally for polygamy is to raise up seed. You can't raise seed without planting seed."

lol, sweet =)

"I love your article on what doctrine is. It's an article from the LDS website. Is that doctrinal? Thanks for making my point for me. ;o)"

i made this exact same point with him a long time ago.

"i sent some of TheSkepticChristian's claims to various "official" apologists and they rejected his views saying they were not "mainstream" mormon apologetic claims =)"

Nick I am sorry, but to be honest with you, we were spending so much time with the conversation, that I wans't even paying attention well to what you where saying, I was partially reading your messages, so I guess I misunderstood you, and you misunderstood me.

"his claim that neanderthals did exist, but were spiritless animals"
The church has no position on evolution, that would mean that the church has no position on neanderthals. Animals do in fact have a spirit,(Non human, logically means a animal), but animals are not spirit children of God. You can ask the apologists this, and they will totally agree with me.

"The only justification ever given doctrinally for polygamy is to raise up seed"
Evidence indicates that its most likely that Joseph Smith did have sex with his plural wifes, (The available evidence does not support the claim that Joseph had sex with married women), but "there is no conclusive evidence to date of Joseph having had children by any of his plural wives. Joseph established the practice of plural marriage as part of the "restoration of all things," and introduced it to a number of others within the Church. This alone may have been the purpose of Joseph's initiation of the practice. The establishment of the practice ultimately did have the effect of "raising up seed"...just not through Joseph Smith""

and seem to expect us to accept them, even though there have never been any official pronouncements by the Mormon prophets or First Presidencies that support your explanations. ;o)

"I hope you do fancy yourself to be a Mormon apologist."
i sent some of TheSkepticChristian's claims to various "official" apologists and they rejected his views saying they were not "mainstream" mormon apologetic claims, e.g. his claim that neanderthals did exist, but were spiritless animals =)

"It was not acceptable"
Dude, I know polygamy was not acceptable, but why mention Young women, if age was not an issue back then? (teenagers)
Several women seem to have refused plural marriage. If they did nothing to threaten the life and safety of Joseph and the Saints, they suffered no discernible consequences. No woman was physically harmed for a refusal to practice plural marriage.
(For the rest of my responce read below)

TheSkepticChristian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "It was not acceptable"
> Dude, I know polygamy was not acceptable, but why
> mention Young women, if age was not an issue back
> then? (teenagers)
> Several women seem to have refused plural
> marriage. If they did nothing to threaten the life
> and safety of Joseph and the Saints, they suffered
> no discernible consequences. No woman was
> physically harmed for a refusal to practice plural
> marriage.
> (For the rest of my responce read below)

It's ludicrous to suggest that age was not an issue just because some teens occasionally were married in monogamous arrangements. Even today there are teens who are allowed to be married. It doesn't mean that age is not an issue when much older adults have sexual relations with them without the benefit of being lawfully married (and none of Joe Smith's "marriages" to his young brides were actually lawful). It's called statutory rape. Look into it.

People were ordinarily protective of children even back then and there is no doubt that the common reaction to learning that a married old lecher like Joe was preying upon young teen-aged girls would have been shock. The fact that he was likely having intercourse with them (which is abundantly supported by circumstantial evidence) would have been very unacceptable, since Joe was not legally married to any of them.

"married man to abuse his position of religious authority to pick up extra wives on the side"
Oh okay, so its not longer extra YOUNG wives, but anyways, its okay, because his motives were not lustful

"As for your comment about there being no evidence of sex with the "youngest wife,""
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evicence :) well not even extraordinary, it would have been okay anyways, 200 years ago, she was his wife. But, Todd Compton said,

"The Tanners made great mileage out of Joseph Smith's marriage to his youngest wife, Helen Mar Kimball. However, they failed to mention that I wrote that there is absolutely no evidence that there was any sexuality in the marriage, and I suggest that, following later practice in Utah, there may have been no sexuality. (p. 638) All the evidence points to this marriage as a primarily dynastic marriage"

" Can you absolutely disprove that reptilian aliens from the Draco constellation "

NO, I can't disprove it scientifically, but this has nothing to do, I said that I see not Strong evidence against the Book of Momon, then you laughed. In other words, its like you meant that you can disprove it. But guess what I don't think so,
Brant A. Gardner said:
"We do not find Book of Mormon names in Maya inscriptions for two reasons. First, few inscriptions are contemporary with the Book of Mormon. Second, they come from cities that are not considered by Latter-day Saint scholars to have been Nephite. If the vast majority of names refer to the kings and queens of a particular location and that location is not Nephite, we have little hope of finding a reference to a Nephite name there.
"
In most cases, the original names of the cities themselves are not known—they are instead known by the names assigned to them by explorers. Ironically, one of the ancient cities for which the original name is known is the city of Laman’ayin (Mayan for "submerged crocodile"). This city, usually called "Lamani"

Oh also, Joseph Smith's motive for polygamy were not lustful

George Bernard Shaw, certainly no Mormon, declared:

"Now nothing can be more idle, nothing more frivolous, than to imagine that this polygamy had anything to do with personal licentiousness. If Joseph Smith had proposed to the Latter-day Saints that they should live licentious lives, they would have rushed on him and probably anticipated their pious neighbors who presently shot him."

non-Mormon church historian Ernst Benz wrote:

"Mormon polygamy has nothing to do with sexual debauchery but is tied to a strict patriarchal system of family order and demonstrates in the relationship of the husband to his individual wives all the ethical traits of a Christian, monogamous marriage. It is completely focused on bearing children and rearing them in the bosom of the family and the Mormon community. Actually, it exhibits a very great measure of selflessness, a willingness to sacrifice, and a sense of duty"

Paul Peterson’s comment about the diaries of Joseph Smith resonates well in this regard:

"I had not fully grasped certain aspects of the Prophet’s psyche and personality. After just a few pages into Personal Writings it became clear that Joseph possessed religious dimensions that I had not understood. For one thing, it was apparent I had underestimated the depth of his dependence upon Deity. The Joseph that emerges in Personal Writings is an intensely devout and God-fearing young man who at times seems almost helpless without divine support. And his sincerity about his prophetic calling is also apparent. If others were not persuaded of his claims, it could not be said that Joseph was unconvinced that God had both called and directed him. Detractors who claim that Joseph came to like the game of playing prophet would be discomfited if they read Personal Writings. Scholars may quibble with how true his theology is, but for anyone who reads Personal Writings, his earnestness and honesty are no longer debatable points"

You do not see strong evidence against the Book of Mormon? Delusion does have a way of doing that.

Like Warren Jeffs, Joseph Smith engaged in sex with underage girls.

*Smith's Well-Earned Reputation for Being a Sex-Obsessed, Self-Possessed Philanderer

As a baseline (and as known in Mormon circles of his day), Smith was legendary for his sexual attraction to women.

In fact, the official LDS publication, “History of the Church” (vol. 5, p. 53), acknowledged the lore of Smith's attraction to females, as described in 'The Wasp,” a LDS newspaper published in Nauvoo, Illinois:

“[On 2 July 1843], the [Mormon] Church newspaper 'The Wasp' publishe[d] a phrenology chart of Smith's head and personality. The first trait [was] 'Amativeness-11, L[arge]. Extreme susceptibility; passionately fond of the company of the other sex.' The official 'History of the Church' still publishes this chart, along with the caution that such a high score indicates 'extreme liability to perversion' in the trait.”

Perversion is right.

Smith's moves to seduce other men's wives were so brazen and notorious that they led one distraught husband--Orson Pratt--to attempt suicide in Nauvoo on 15 July 1842:

“Thousands of Nauvoo Mormons search[ed] for Orson Pratt after discovering a suicide note. They find him distraught because Smith, according to Pratt's wife, had tried to seduce Pratt's wife Sarah.”

No only did Smith have a reputation as a ladies' man, he also had a record of defending friends of his who were sleeping around.

According to the “Minutes of the High Council of the Church of Jesus Christ of Nauvoo Illinois” (6 February 1841), Smith directed “the Nauvoo high council not to excommunicate Theodore Turley for 'sleeping with two females,' requiring him only to confess 'that he had acted unwisely, unjustly, imprudently, and unbecoming.'”

Eventually, Smith's sexual excess caught up with him in court. on 23 March 1844, William Law filed suit against Smith for committing adultery with Smith's foster daughter and plural wife:

“William Law file[d] a formal complaint with the Hancock County [Illinois] circuit court charging Smith was living 'in an open state of adultery' with Maria Lawrence, Smith's foster daughter and polygamous wife. Maria Lawrence, was a teenaged orphan who was living in the Smith household. In fact, Smith had secretly married both Maria, age 19 and her sister Sarah, age 17 on 11 May 1843 and was serving as executor of their $8,000 estate.

"William Law apparently hoped that disclosing Smith's relationship with the young girls might lead him to abandon polygamy, but Smith immediately excommunicated Law, had himself appointed the girls' legal guardian and rejected the charge in front of a church congregation on 26 May 1844, denying that he had more than one wife.”(Joseph Smith, “History of the Church,” vol. 6, p. 403; and Richard S. Van Wagoner, “Mormon Polygamy: A History,” p. 66)

(all preceding and subsequent citations and quotes are found in “Joseph Smith's Polygamy Chronology,” at: http://www.i4m.com/think/polygamy/JS_Polygamy_Timeline.htm)
_____


*Smith and 16-year-old Fanny Alger

Smith's first known sexual affair was with a teenager named Fannie Alger, who was living with Smith and his first wife Emma in their Kirtland, Ohio, home. Fanny was also Smith's first confimred plural wife. Smith “came to know[her] in Kirtland during early 1833 when she, at the age of 16, stayed at his home as a housemaid. Described as 'a very nice and comly young woman,' according to Benjamin Johnson, Fanny lived with the Smith family from 1833 to 1836.”

Fanny eventually became the target of Smith's sexual advances, with Smith's predatory behavior soon becoming the talk of the town:

“Martin Harris, one of the 'Three Witnesses' to the Book of Mormon, recalled that the prophet's 'servant girl' claimed he had made 'improper proposals to her, which created quite a talk amongst the people.' Mormon Fanny Brewer similarly reported 'much excitement against the Prophet . . . [involving] an unlawful intercourse between himself and a young orphan girl residing in his family and under his protection."

Emma discovered the sexual affair between Smith and Fanny and exploded in anger. Caught with his hand in Fanny's cookie jar, Smith confessed. A noticeably pregnant Fanny eventually was kicked out of the house by Emma, as reported thusly:

“Former Mormon apostle William McLellin later wrote that Emma Smith substantiated the Smith-Alger affair. According to McLellin, Emma was searching for her husband and Alger one evening when through a crack in the barn door she saw 'him and Fanny in the barn together alone' on the hay mow. McLellin, in a letter to one of Smith's sons, added that the ensuing confrontation between Emma and her husband grew so heated that Rigdon, Frederick G. Williams, and Oliver Cowdery had to mediate the situation.

"After Emma related what she had witnessed, Smith, according to McLellin, 'confessed humbly, and begged forgiveness. Emma and all forgave him.' While Oliver Cowdery may have forgiven his cousin Joseph Smith, he did not forget the incident. Three years later, when provoked by the prophet, Cowdery countered by calling the Fanny Alger episode 'a dirty, nasty, filthy affair.'

“Chauncey Webb recounts Emma’s later discovery of the relationship: 'Emma was furious, and drove the girl, who was unable to conceal the consequences of her celestial relation with the prophet, out of her house' . . .

“' . . . Webb, Smith's grammar teacher . . . reported that when the pregnancy became evident, Emma Smith drove Fanny from her home. . . . . Webb's daughter, Ann Eliza Webb Young, a divorced wife of Brigham Young, remembered that Fanny was taken into the Webb home on a temporary basis . . . . . Fanny stayed with relatives in nearby Mayfield until about the time Joseph fled Kirtland for Missouri.

“Fanny left Kirtland in September 1836 with her family. Though she married non-Mormon Solomon Custer on 16 November 183614 and was living in Dublin City, Indiana, far from Kirtland, her name still raised eyebrows. Fanny Brewer, a Mormon visitor to Kirtland in 1837, observed 'much excitement against the Prophet … [involving] an unlawful intercourse between himself and a young orphan girl residing in his family and under his protection.'”

(Van Wagoner, “Sidney Rigdon: A Portrait in Religious Excess,” p. 291; and Van Wagoner, “Mormon Polygamy: A History,” p. 8; cited in ibid)
_____


*Smith and 19-year-old Zina D. Hunington

Smith further cemented his reputation for fooling around by making moves on a then-married teenager, Zina D. Hunington, who he asked on 25 October 1841 to become another of his multiple wives. Smith informed her (using a line he also employed with Emma and others) that he was ordered to do so by a sword-wielding angel who was threatening to kill him if he disobeyed:

“Already married, 19 year-old Zina remained conflicted with Smith's polygamy proposal 'until a day in October, apparently, when Joseph sent [her older brother] Dimick to her with a message: an angel with a drawn sword had stood over Smith and told him that if he did not establish polygamy, he would lose “his position and his life.” Zina, faced with the responsibility for his position as prophet, and even perhaps his life, finally acquiesced.' They were secretly married within days “

(Todd Compton, “In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith,” pp. 80-81, cited in ibid).
_____


*Smith and 19-year-old Nancy Rigdon

Smith also secretly hit on another teenager, 19-year-old Nancy Rigdon, daughter of his close confidant Sidney Rigdon, in Nauvoo on 10 April 1842.

Nancy was not amused:

“ . . . Smith invited Nancy Rigdon, nineteen-year-old daughter of his close friend and counselor, Sidney Rigdon, to meet him at the home of Orson Hyde. Upon her arrival Smith greeted her, ushered her into a private room, then locked the door. After swearing her to secrecy, wrote George W. Robinson, Smith announced his 'affection for her for several years, and wished that she should be his . . . the Lord was well pleased with this matter . . .here was no sin in it whatever . . .but, if she had any scruples of conscience about the matter, he would marry her privately.'

“Incredulous, Nancy countered that 'if she ever got married she would marry a single man or none at all.' Grabbing her bonnet, she ordered the door opened or she would 'raise the neighbors.' She then stormed out of the Hyde-Richards residence.

“The next day, Smith wrote Nancy a letter, where he justified his advances, saying 'That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another . . . . Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. . . . even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation.' This is his first written statement of theocratic ethics.”

(“Official History of the Church,” vol. 5, p. 134-36; and Van Wagoner, “Sidney Rigdon: A Portrait in Religious Excess,” p. 295; cited in ibid)
_____


*Smith and 17-year-old Sarah Ann Whitney

Prior to wedding Sarah in Nauvoo on 27 July 1842, Smith conveniently received a “revelation” for the benefit of Sarah and her parents, essentially condoning his adultery in the name of polygamy:

“ . . .Smith recevied and recorded [this] revelation on polygamy, which remains in LDS church archives. Although recorded in the official 'Revelation Book' of the time, the revelation was not canonized as scripture. In this revelation, the Lord reveals a plural marriage ceremony, which would later be altered and become the sealing ceremony in the temple . . . :

“'Verily, Thus Saith the Lord, unto my servant Newell. K. Whitney, a revelation to Newell K. Whitney, 27 July 1842, and Joseph Smith., Elizabeth Ann Whitney and Sarah Ann Whitney

"Verily, thus saith the Lord unto my servant N[ewel]. K. Whitney, the thing that my servant Joseph Smith has made known unto you and your family [his plural marriage to Sarah Ann Whitney], and which you have agreed upon is right in mine eyes and shall be rewarded upon your heads with honor and immortality and eternal life to all your house both old and young because of the lineage of my priesthood, saith the Lord. It shall be upon you and upon your children after you from generation to generation, by virtue of the holy promise which I now make unto you, saith the Lord.

"'These are the words which you shall pronounce upon my servant Joseph and your daughter Sarah Ann. Whitney. They shall take each other by the hand and you shall say, “You both mutually agree," calling them by name, “to be each other's companion so long as you both shall live preserving yourselves for each other and from all others and also throughout all eternity, reserving only those rights which have been given to my servant Joseph by revelation and commandment and by legal Authority in times passed.”

“'If you both agree to covenant and do this, then I give you Sarah Ann Whitney, my daughter, to Joseph Smith to be his wife, to observe all the rights between you both that belong to that condition. I do it in my own name and in the name of my wife, your mother, and in the name of my holy progenitors, by the right of birth which is of priesthood, vested in my by revelation and commandment and promise of the living. God, obtained by the Holy Melchizedik Jethro and others of the Holy Fathers, commanding in the name of the Lord all those powers to concentrate in you and through to your posterity forever.

“'All these things I do in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ that through this order he may be glorified and that through the power of anointing David may reign King over Israel, which shall hereafter be revealed. Let immortality and eternal life henceforth be sealed upon your heads forever and ever. Amen."

(original manuscript of “Kirtland Revelation Book,” Church Historical Department, Ms f 490 # 2; “The Historical Record,” vol. 6, p. 222 (1887 edition); and Compton, “In Sacred Loneliness,” p. 348-49; all cited in ibid)


Smith then made secret arrangments to have a sexual rendevous with Sarah, without Emma finding out. On 19 August 1842, he wrote the following love letter to Sarah, laying out his plans to meet up with her:

“To arrange [a] night liason with [his] plural wife--Newel K. Whitney's daughter Sarah Ann--Smith writes: ' . . . [T]he only thing to be careful of is to find out when Emma comes, then you cannot be safe but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safety. . . .

“'Only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroic undertaking; but so much the greater friendship and the more joy; when I see you I will tell you all my plans. I cannot write them on paper. Burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep [it] all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it. . . . .

“I close my letter, I think Emma won't come tonight. If she don't, don't fail to come tonight. I subscribe myself your most obedient, and affectionate, companion, and friend. Joseph Smith."

(“Joseph Smith, Jr., to Newel K. Whitney, Elizabeth Ann Whitney, etc.,” 18 August 1842, George Albert Smith Family Papers, Special Collections, Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, text and signature of this document in the handwriting of Joseph Smith, Jr.; this document has been reproduced in Dean C. Jessee's masterful “The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith” [Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Co., 1984], pp. 539-40; and Compton, “In Sacred Lonliness,” p. 349-350; cited in ibid)
_____


*Smith and 19-year-old Emily Dow Partridge

Smith secretly took Emily as another of his wives in Nauvoo on 4 March 1843, with Elder Heber C. Kimball officiating the ceremony.

Emily later reported in sworn testimony that she then had honeymoon sex with Smith the next night:

“Emily D. Partridge Smith testified that she 'roomed' with Joseph the night following her marriage to him and said that she had 'carnal intercourse' with him.

(“Temple Lot” case, complete transcript, pp. 364, 367, 384; Foster, “Religion and Sexuality,” p. 15; Andrew Jenson, ”LDS Biographical Encyclopedia.” [1951] vol. 1, p. 697; S. Easton, “Marriages in Nauvoo Region 1839-45;” “Civil Marriages in Nauvoo 1839-45.” Lyndon Cook, “Nauvoo Temple Endowment Register 1845-46; Mormon Manuscripts to 1846;” cited in ibid).
_____


*Smith and 16-year-old Flora Ann Woodworth

Smith married Flora in April 1843 (exact date unknown).

(Elder William Clayton affidavit, in “Historical Record,” vol. 6:, p. 225; cited in ibid)
_____


*Smith and 17-year-old Lucy Walker

Smith married Lucy on 1 May 1843, in the Smith's store, Nauvoo, Illinois, officiated by William Clayton

(FamilySearch.com record for Joseph Smith, Jr.; cited in ibid)
_____


*Smith and 19-year-old Maria Lawrence

Smith married Maria on 11 May 1843.

(“Historical Record,” vol. 6, p. 223; Lucy Walker Smith Kimball, in “Temple Lot” case, full transcript, p. 461, LDS archives; Helen Kimball Whitney, “Woman's Exponent,” 15 February 1886, p. 138; cited in ibid)
_____


*Smith and 17-year-old Sarah Lawrence

Smith married Sarah the same day he married Sarah Lawrence's sister Maria, 11 May 1843.

(FamilySearch.com record for Joseph Smith Jr., “Historical Record,” col. 6, p. 223; Lucy Walker Smith Kimball, in “Temple Lot“ case, full transcript, p. 461, LDS archives; Helen Kimball Whitney, “Woman's Exponent," 15 February 1886, p. 138, cited in ibid)
_____


*Smith and 16-year-old Nancy Maria Winchester

Smith married Nancy in Nauvoo on 28 July 1843:

“According to Mormon Church Historian Andrew Jenson, Nancy married Joseph sometime before his death in June of 1844. In addition, Orson Whitney, son of Nancy Maria's friend, Helen, also identified her as Smith's wife. These two witnesses, taken together, make a good case for NAncy as a plural spouse of Joseph. Though there is no exacT date for her marriage to the prophet, the best hypothosis is that the cereMony took place in 1843.”

(Andrew Jenson, “LDS Biographical Encyclopedia” [1951], vol. 1, p. 697; “ Marriages in Nauvoo Region 1839-45;" and Compton, “In Sacred Lonliness,” p. 606; cited in ibid)
_____


*Smith and 19-year-old Melissa Lott

Smith married Melissa in Nauvoo on 20 September 1843, with Hyrum Smith officiating:

“Melissa testified that her marriage to Smith included sex.”

(FamilySearch.com record for Joseph Smith Jr.; and Affidavit of Melissa Willes, 3 Auust 1893; cited in ibid)
_____


*Smith and 14-year-old Helen Mar Kimball

As part of Smith's brimming quiver of teenager brides, in May 1843 in Smith's Nauvoo store, he married an underage 14-year-old female named Helen Mar Kimball. Helen's father, Heber C. Kimball, officiated the wedding of his underage daughter to Smith.

Helen was the youngest of Smith's brides--and according to Helen, he had sex with her.

Helen wrote about how her marriage to Smith was orchestrated by her father, Heber C. Kimball:

"Having a great desire to be connected with the Prophet, Joseph, he (my father) offered me to him; this I afterwards learned from the Prophet's own mouth. My father had but one Ewe Lamb, but willingly laid her upon the altar: how cruel this seemed to my mother whose heartstrings were already stretched unil they were ready to snap asunder, for she had already taken Sarah Noon to wife and she thought she had made sufficient sacrifice but the Lord required more."

Smith pressured Helen to marry him, giving her only 24 hours to give him answer.

Helen wrote:

"[My father] left me to reflect upon it for the next twenty four hours. . . . I was skeptical--one minute {i] believed, then doubted. I thought of the love and tenderness that he felt for his only daughter, and I knew that he would not cast me off, and this was the only convincing proof That I had of its being right.”

The next day, Smith came by to explain to Helen the “Law of Celestial Marriage,” and,having done that, to take her as his latest bride.

Helen described Smith's pitch:

“After which he said to me, 'If you take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation and that of your father's household and all of your kindred.' This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward."

Helen's mother was none too pleased with the marriage, as Helen explains:

"None but God and his angels could see my mother's bleeding heart. When Joseph asked her if she was willing, she replied 'If Helen is willing I have nothing more to say.' She had witnessed the sufferings of others, who were older and who better understood the step they were taking, and to see her child, who had yet seen her fifteenth summer, following the same thorny path, in her mind she saw the misery which was as sure to come as the sun was to rise and set; but it was hidden from me."

Helen was under the misimpression that her marriage to Smith was merely “dynastic.” She was to find out soon enough, however, that it was sexual. Helen later confessed to a close friend in Nauvoo:

"I would never have been sealed to Joseph had I known it was anything more than ceremony. I was young, and they deceived me, by saying the salvation of our whole family depended on it.”

(Helen Mar Whitney journal: Helen Mar autobiography: “Woman's Exponent,” 1880; reprinted in “A Woman's View;” FamilySearch.com record for Joseph Smith Jr.; and Van Wagoner, “Mormon Polygamy: A History,” p. 53; cited in ibid)
_____


RfM contributor "Deconstructor" on his own website asks---then answers--the question: "Was it normal to marry 14 year-old girls in Joseph Smith's time?"

To set the stage, he first quotes from Smith's Mormon scriptural justification for polygamous sex as a general principle required for Mormon exaltation (the same scriptures, by the way, faithfully cited and espoused by Jeffs, as well):

"And I will bless Joseph Smith and multiply him and give unto him an hundredfold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds."

"And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified."

"But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused [to Joseph Smith], shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto Joseph Smith to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified." ("Doctrine and Covenants Section" 132:55, 62-63)


Now, the evidence that Smith, like Jeffs, had sex with his own underage child victims:

"Many LDS Church leaders and historians suggest that sexual relations and the marriage of Joseph Smith and his youngest wife, Helen Mar Kimball, 14 at the time, was 'approaching eligibility.'

"There is no documentation to support the idea that marriage at fourteen was 'approaching eligibility.' Actually, marriages even two years later, at the age of sixteen, occurred occasionally but infrequently in Helen Mar's culture. Thus, girls marrying at fourteen, even fifteen, were very much out of the ordinary. Sixteen was comparatively rare, but not unheard of. American women began to marry in their late teens; around different parts of the United States the average age of marriage varied from nineteen to twenty-three.

"In the United States the average age of menarche (first menstruation) dropped from 16.5 in 1840 to 12.9 in 1950. More recent figures indicate that it now occurs on average at 12.8 years of age. The mean age of first marriages in colonial America was between 19.8 years to 23.7, most women were married during the age period of peak fecundity (fertility).

"Mean pubertal age has declined by some 3.7 years from the 1840’s.

"The psychological sexual maturity of Helen Mar Kimball in today’s average age of menarche (first menstruation) would put her psychological age of sexual maturity at the time of the marriage of Joseph Smith at 9.1 years old. (16.5 years-12.8 years = 3.7 years) (12.8 years-3.7 years=9.1 years)

"The fact is Helen Mar Kimball's sexual development was still far from complete. Her psychological sexual maturity was not competent for procreation. The coming of puberty is regarded as the termination of childhood; in fact the term child is usually defined as the human being from the time of birth to the on-coming of puberty. Puberty the point of time at which the sexual development is completed. In young women, from the date of the first menstruation to the time at which she has become fitted for marriage, the average lapse of time is assumed by researchers to be two years.

"Age of eligibility for women in Joseph Smith’s time-frame would start at a minimum of 19 ½ years old.

"This would suggest that Joseph Smith had sexual relations and married several women before the age of eligibility, and some very close to the age of eligibility including:

"Fanny Alger, 16

"Sarah Ann Whitney, 17

"Lucy Walker, 17

"Flora Ann Woodworth, 16

"Emily Dow Partridge, 19

"Sarah Lawrence, 17

"Maria Lawrence, 19

"Helen Mar Kimball, 14

"Melissa Lott, 19

"Nancy M. Winchester, [14?]

"And then we have these testimonies:

"'Joseph was very free in his talk about his women. He told me one day of a certain girl and remarked, that she had given him more pleasure than any girl he had ever enjoyed. I told him it was horrible to talk like this.' (Joseph Smith's close confidant and LDS Church First Councilor, William Law, interview in 'Salt Lake Tribune,' July 31, 1887)

"When Heber C. Kimball asked Sister Eliza R. Snow the question if she was not a virgin although married to Joseph Smith, she replied, 'I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that.'
(Stake President Angus M. Cannon, statement of interview with Joseph III, 23, LDS archives)"


"Short Bios of Smith's wives:
http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org

"Did Smith have sex with his wives?:
http://www.i4m.com/think/history/joseph_smith_sex.htm


"Whatever the average age of menarche might have been in the mid 19th-century, the average age of marriage was around 20 for women and 22 for men. And a gap of 15 to 20 years or more between partners was very unusual, not typical. Whatever biology might have to say, according to the morals of his time, several of Joseph Smith's wives were still inappropriately young for him.

"It is a pure myth that 19th-century American girls married at age 12-14.

"For example, Laura Ingalls Wilder, from 'Little House on the Prairie' fame, was born in 1867, which puts her later than Joseph Smith but still in the 1800s. She tells of hearing of the marriage of a 13-year-old girl, and being shocked. She also notes that the girl's mother 'takes in laundry,' and is sloppy and unkempt--implying that "nice" people don't marry off their teenaged daughters. Laura, herself, became engaged at 17--but her parents asked her to wait until she was 18 to marry.

"You merely need to go to your local courthouse and ask to see the old 19th century marriage books. Take a look at and pay attention to the age at marriage. Sure a very few did, but it was far from the norm. The vast majority of women married after the age of twenty.

"In fact, look up the marriage ages in the Smith family before polygamy. You'll find that one of the Smith girls was 19. The rest of them, and their sisters-in-law, were in their early 20s when they married. The Smith boys' first wives were in their 20s. The same pattern was true for the various branches of my family and the rest of American society at the time.

"On the extremely rare occasions women younger than 17 married, it was to men close to their same age, not 15 to 20 years older.

"The case is even true in pioneer Utah among first marriages. Mormon men in their twenties started out marrying someone their own age. Then later these older men married girls under twenty to be their plural wives. But the first wives were the age of the husband and married over the age of twenty. This is still the case is the rural Utah polygamist communities.

"References:

"Coale and Zelnik assume a mean age of marriage for white women of 20 (1963: 37). Sanderson's assumptions are consistent with a mean of 19.8 years (Sanderson 1979: 343). The Massachusetts family reconstitutions revealed somewhat higher mean ages. For Hingham, Smith reports an age at first marriage of 23.7 at the end of the eighteenth century (1972: Table 3, p. 177). For Sturbridge, the age for a comparable group was 22.46 years (Osterud and Fulton 1976: Table 2, p. 484), and in Franklin County it was 23.3 years (Temkin-Greener, H., and A.C. Swedlund. 1978. Fertility Transition in the Connecticut Valley:1740-1850. Population Studies 32 (March 1978):27-41.: Table 6, p. 34).

"Jack Larkin, 'The Reshaping of Everyday Life,' 1790-1840 (New York: Harper & Row, 1988), 63; Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, 'Good Wives: Image and Reality in the Lives of Women in Northern New England, 1650-1750' [NY: Oxford University Press, 1980], 6; Nancy F. Cott, 'Young Women in the Second Great Awakening in New England,' 'Feminist Studies' 3 [1975]: 16; Dr. Dorothy V. Whipple, 'Dynamics of Development: Euthenic Pediatrics' [New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966]"

("Was It Normal to Marry 14 year-old Girls in Joseph Smith's Time?," by "Deconstructor," at: http://www.i4m.com/think/polygamy/teen_polygamy.htm
_____


--More Data from Joseph Smith's Time Linking Him to Sexual Abuse of Young Girls

RfM poster "TLC," in observations entitled "Joseph Smith, Menses, Pedophilia, Etc.," writes:

". . . In our efforts to sort through the wasteland that is Mormon history (fact vs. fiction), it's worthwhile . . . to have some context within which to make our judgments.

". . . The statistics are very clear [on] the notion that the age of sexual maturity among women has changed or is still changing. . . . The age of menarche is dropping in virtually all areas of the world. More on that below.

"[A] claim being disputed is that Joseph Smith was a pedophile. While it's easy to throw that word around in light of today's problems with child abusing priests in the Catholic clergy, the fact remains that pedophilia is defined as '[t]he act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children.'

"Furthermore, the pathology of pedophilia is understood to be an attraction or activity that is limited to prepubescent children. It's been well-established that true pedophiles lose interest almost immediately when a boy or girl exhibits the first signs of sexual maturity.

" . . . [A] quick Googling of the word 'pedophilia' will take you to the professional community's definitions. They are very clear as to what does and what doesn't constitute pedophilia.

"By today's definitions, when it comes to the pathology of pedophilia, Joseph Smith would probably not be considered a true pedophile. That doesn't mean however, that he wasn't a lecherous scumbag who would stop at nothing to bed any young woman who captured his fancy.

"More on sexual maturity among women.

"As closely as I can tell from investigating the median age of menarche (first menses) in Joseph Smith's time, it is possible that one or two of the girls he married and/or had relations with might not have been sexually mature. All of the research I've been able to find . . . indicates that the average age of menarche in the mid 1800s was 17.

"What that might tell us about a girl who was 14 or 15 back then is hard to determine because of the nature of averages. In any event, it does make it clear that Joseph Smith was treading a very fine fine when it came to the sexual maturity of the girls he courted and/or married.

"There is a lot of research in this arena because of the alarming shift in menarchal age from the 1800s to present day where the median onset of menarche has now dropped to age 12.

"' . . . In 1840, the average young woman in Europe and the United States menstruated for the first time at the age of 17; her modern counterpart reaches the age of menstruation at about 12. Well known to biological anthropologists as the "secular trend," this crash in the age of sexual maturity has proceeded at the rate of four months per decade, and, in most populations, continues. . . .'

"'Boys and girls now experience puberty at younger ages than previous generations. In general, girls enter puberty between ages 8 and 13 and reach menarche (first menstruation) several years later, while boys enter puberty between ages 9 and 14 (436, 529). The reasons for earlier menarche in girls are not well understood. Most of the change is attributed to better health and nutrition. . . . In North America age at menarche decreased by three to four months each decade after 1850; in 1988 the median age at menarche was 12.5 years among US girls. . . . In some developing countries age at menarche appears to be decreasing even faster. For example, in Kenya average age at menarche fell from 14.4 in the late 1970s to 12.9 in the 1980s.. . .'

"So, . . . it helps to understand the context from within which we assess the lecherous scumbag known as Joseph Smith. We don't know if he had sex with prepubescent children, therefore we don't know if he was truly a pedophile. We don't know if the teenaged girls he married and/or had sex with were sexually mature or not.

"But regardless of whether they were sexually mature or not, something in us is sickened by the thoughts of them being coerced into any kind of relationship with this lecher who was pretending to use God as his motivator.

"Joseph Smith was not the first, nor will he be the last, to prey upon young girls for sexual gratification. And that in no way justifies his actions. But in aiming for accuracy in trying to describe Joseph Smith, there are a lot of words other than pedophile that do the job more saliently and succinctly. . . .

"What one of us as fathers here today, would hesitate for a second to deck [someone] like [Joseph Smith] if he so much as glanced in any of our daughter's directions? I know that my response would be visceral and swift.

"Makes you wonder what kind of men Smith had around him that they would so willingly hand over their young daughters to him. Therein lies the true pathology of Mormonism."

("Joseph Smith, Menses, Pedophilia, Etc.," by "TLC," on "Recovery from Mormonism" bulletin board, 9 August 2003, at: http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon253.htm)


Deconstructor concurs with the above assessment, declaring its findings to be "absolutely correct."

("TLC Is Absolutely Correct; Here's a Repost on This Subject," by "Deconstructor," on "Recovery from Mormonism" bulletin board, 9 August 2003, at: http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon253.htm)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2011 11:35AM by steve benson.

wow you copy and paste some much propaganda, that I don't even know where to start the refutation.

"Like Warren Jeffs, Joseph Smith engaged in sex with underage girls"
Again, underage (teenagers) was not an issue back then. Do you have any evidence that he had sex with his youngest wife?? I am still waiting for a rebbutal to what I said.

"according to Helen, he had sex with her..Helen later confessed to a close friend in Nauvoo"
Beyond douth, you are just copying and pasting Biased anti-mormon propaganda, That's not true according to Todd Compton. Compton properly characterizes this source, noting that it is an anti-Mormon work, and calls its extreme language "suspect." Why do you assume that you know more than Todd Compton??

"Emma discovered the sexual affair between Smith and Fanny"
It was a marriage (maybe not sealed not her), but it was a marriage, not an affair

Now I will just give you the links, its just so much stuff that you copy and paste, that I don't have all the time to refute everything. But my suggestion is that, its not a good way to make a good argument, by just copying and pasting so much stuff. Thats just Biased.

http://www.fairwiki.org/Joseph_Smith_and_polygamy/Children_of_polygamous_marriages/Book_chapter


http://www.fairwiki.org/Polygamy_book/Polyandry

http://fairmormon.org/Polygamy_book/Early_womanizer

I know Oaks has flip-flopped a lot on the subject (as demonstrated in my post on that subject in this very thread).

Perhaps that's why all you do is reflexively fall back on (without meaningful commentary) the propaganda wing of the Mormon Church--you know, like Maxwell did with his FARMS fax on the Book of Abraham. That's how you've been taught/brainwashed.

You have no defense, "SkepticChristian." Don't you get that the apostles are secretly struggling with their own Mormon faith?

Pull your head out and smell the coffee.
_____


P.S.--What did Helen Mar Kimball confide to her Nauvoo friend about the nature of her marriage to Joseph Smith? Young Helen naively believed it was just a dynastic thing but starkly learned otherwise. It's in the references I provided you (which you clearly haven't read).

And, by the way, Oliver Cowdery called Smith's liason with Fanny Alger what it was: an "affair" (check out the full quote later down in this thread or, for that matter, in my earlier post to you in this thread about that affair).



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2011 12:55PM by steve benson.

TheSkepticChristian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "i sent some of TheSkepticChristian's claims to
> various "official" apologists and they rejected
> his views saying they were not "mainstream" mormon
> apologetic claims =)"
>
> Nick I am sorry, but to be honest with you, we
> were spending so much time with the conversation,
> that I wans't even paying attention well to what
> you where saying, I was partially reading your
> messages, so I guess I misunderstood you, and you
> misunderstood me.
>
> "his claim that neanderthals did exist, but were
> spiritless animals"
> The church has no position on evolution, that
> would mean that the church has no position on
> neanderthals. Animals do in fact have a
> spirit,(Non human, logically means a animal), but
> animals are not spirit children of God. You can
> ask the apologists this, and they will totally
> agree with me.
>
> "The only justification ever given doctrinally for
> polygamy is to raise up seed"
> Evidence indicates that its most likely that
> Joseph Smith did have sex with his plural wifes,
> (The available evidence does not support the claim
> that Joseph had sex with married women), but
> "there is no conclusive evidence to date of Joseph
> having had children by any of his plural wives.
> Joseph established the practice of plural marriage
> as part of the "restoration of all things," and
> introduced it to a number of others within the
> Church. This alone may have been the purpose of
> Joseph's initiation of the practice. The
> establishment of the practice ultimately did have
> the effect of "raising up seed"...just not through
> Joseph Smith""

He shared that little gem with me in September 1993, in his personal office, located in the Church Administration Building, downtown Salt Lake City, Utah, with Dallin H. Oaks present, where we talked about matters of Mormon Church history, doctrine, policy and practice. (He also sent out for fax help directly from FARMS to assist him in not being "outflanked" when we discussed how the Book of Abraham was supposedly "translated").

So, this "SkepticChristian" dude doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. He needs to arrange his own private one-on-one turkey-talking sessions with Mormon apostles, where the apostles think that what they say behind closed doors will stay that way--but who then lose their convenient confidentiality cover when they decide to lie in public about what they talked about in secret (as was the situation with me and these guys).
____


For the benefit of this "SkepticChristian" dude, here's the actual lay of the land:

In another thread, RfM poster "angsty," asserted:

"I mean, the [Mormon] church has an official PR department and representatives who perform this role already. The MDL/FAIR guys aren't authorized by the [Mormon] church to speak on its behalf, and nothing they say should be considered authoritative.

"Maybe that's part of the strategy? Address the media through unofficial channels and then when the church makes changes that contradict what those unofficial channels proliferate, they have plausible deniability and can shift blame to the little people who have been operating without 'proper authority'?"

("Why doesn't this effort fall under the 'ark steadying' category?," posted by "angsty," on "Recovery from Mormonism" board, 5 August 2011, 4:41 p.m.)
_____


Ha! In reality, the FAIR, FARMS, MDL crowd does the Mormon Church's bidding with tacit approval from the highest levels of LDS, Inc.

Let me give you a specific and glaring example of that dependency.

In our September 1993 meeting, I directly asked Maxwell about Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham papyri "translation," Maxwell said he would get back to me with an answer.

When I met with him and fellow apostle/apologist Oaks in a follow-up meeting the same month, Maxwell produced his "evidence"--which led directly back to FARMS. (FARMS--the acronym for the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies--was the predecessor to the current Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, located at BYU).

Tellingly, as I mentioned earlier, Maxwell provided his FARMS back-up material to me after first informing me that one of the purposes of FARMS was to prevent the General Authorities from being "outflanked" by the Mormon Church's critics.

Using FARMS-provided "research," Maxwell preceded to acknowledge that even though Joseph Smith's former scribe, Warren Parrish, and Mormon hymn composer, W. W. Phelps (of "The Spirit of God Like a Fire is Burning" fame), were at one point about ready to leave the Church, he nonetheless said, "[D]on't pounce on Joseph Smith."

(Now, here's where Maxwell's direct and confirmable reliance on FARMS comes in).

Maxwell told me that the work of Parrish and Phelps on the Book of Abraham manuscript helped bolster the argument that the Egyptian funerary texts were not the actual parchments used by Joseph Smith in his translation of the Book of Abraham--or that Joseph Smith was even the author of the four extant manuscripts of the Book of Abraham.

In support of that position, Maxwell handed me a FARMS review, written by Michael D. Rhodes, of Charles M. Larson's book, ". . . By His Own Hand upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri" (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Institute for Religious Research, 1992, p. 240 pp., illustrated).

On closer examination of the paper on which Rhodes review was photocopied, I determined the review originated with FARMS. Why? Because it was printed on fax paper bearing the acronym "F.A.R.M.S," along with the "FAX" date of "09/09/93." It also bore a dispatch time of "1:55" and a B.Y.U.-area phone number of "378 3724." It appears that Maxwell had solicited the assistance of FARMS in preparing for his discussions. (That fax sheet, by the way, is still in my possession).

Maxwell had highlighted in yellow the following excerpt from Rhodes' article:

"First of all, none of these manuscripts of the [B]ook of Abraham is in Joseph Smith's handwriting. They are mostly in the handwriting of William W. Phelps, with a few short sections written by Warren Parrish. Nowhere in the documents is Joseph Smith designated as the author. Moreover, the Egyptian characters in the left-hand margin were clearly written in after the English text had been written. These cannot be the working papers of a translation process. Instead, Phelps and Parrish seemed to have copied down the text of the [B]ook of Abraham and were then attempting to correlate that translation with some of the scrolls in the Church's possession. These documents are most likely that preliminary stage of investigation and exploration the Lord prescribed in D&C 9:8 to 'study it out in your mind.' The Lord expects us to first do all we can to understand something (and in the process discover our own limitations) before we seek for direct revelation from him. This is what Phelps and Parrish were apparently doing, although their efforts were short-lived and unsuccessful. In fact these same men shortly after this began to turn away from the Prophet Joseph and fell into apostasy. If they had been parties to some fraudulent process of producing the [B]ook of Abraham, they would surely have denounced Joseph Smith for this, but they never did."

In the end, Maxwell--responding to criticism of the Book of Abraham's authenticity--declared, "We will not twist or oscillate every time we come across new evidence. The Church is not a jerkwater organization."
_____


But the Mormon Church will fall back on jerkwater organizations like FARMS to carry its water for them and to do its propaganda research for them.



Edited 17 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2011 11:27AM by steve benson.

"The MDL/FAIR guys aren't authorized by the [Mormon] church to speak on its behalf, and nothing they say should be considered authoritative"
Dude, of course it wasn't authorized. All the truths and rebuttals that FAIR makes are not consider authoritive. Truths are not consider authoritive, because authoritive means God said it. If we make mistakes, the church can't be blame for them.
"and to do its propaganda research for them"
The church dosen't need to responde to anti-mormon propaganda, its all about faith and testimony buddy.

Maxwell clearly felt the need to respond to criticisms of the Mormon Church's defense of the Book of Abraham--otherwise, he would not have voluntarily offered up (using his authority as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve) a FARMS "facts" fax sheet supposedly explaining its "translation."

I've got the extant evidence of that, buddy. All you've got are your apologetics.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2011 12:11PM by steve benson.

"I've got the extant evidence of that, buddy. All you've got are your apologetics"

I don't think so, I just proved wrong some of your arguments below, because I don't have the time to review so much stuff you copied and pasted.

. . . which he called forth from FARMS' Provo boys to give to me.

I also got from Maxwell his admission that FARMS was used by the Church to keep from getting "outflanked."

What have you got from Maxwell--besides Ensign copies of his General Conference talks?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2011 01:16PM by steve benson.

FARMS Boy Oaks: The Private vs. the Public "Devoted Dallin" on the Book of Mormon (and on FARMS Itself)

What has been the role of the pseudo-independent propaganda FARMS arm in peddling patently dishonest versions of Mormon doctrine and history to the great unwashed? (We also refer here to not only FARMS, of course, but to its successor FAIR, as well as oto the newly-concocted Mormon Defense League).
_____


RfM poster "dagny" astutely observes in another thread:

"My take:

"These organizations play an important role for the church. They test the waters.

"The [Mormon] church has lots of 'problems' that stem from its history and past teachings.

"Organizations like FAIR put out 'trial balloons' to see what flies. If something they come up with flies and starts to be well received and accepted, the church can slowly embrace the teaching. The church can pretend they thought that way all along since their own statements are so slippery.

"If the 'trial balloon' teaching is not received well, is easily debunked, or unfavorable the church watches. Thanks to the organization not being officially part of the church, the church can distance themselves from anything that turns out to be not in their best interest. The church has no accountability and maintains plausible deniability.

"So, when someone tries out the idea that tapirs were BoM horses or that there were two Hill Cumorahs, the church can safely keep its distance and see what flies. The church knows they don't have to provide concrete answers because the members are willing to manufacture them and pass them around.

"It is the ultimate tool for deciding what to emphasize, what to adapt, and what to drop down the memory hole."

("My take: These organizations play an important role for the church. They test the waters," posted by "dagny," on "Recovery from Mormonism" bulletin board, 5 August 2011, 9:48 p.m.)
_____


And how do Mormonism's apologetic apostles themselves regard not only the Book of Mormon, but also the water-carrying puppet organizations for the LDS Church whose mission it is to the Mormon minions to promote the Book of Mormon so stenuously?

Specifically, let's look at Dallin H. Oaks--and his telling flip-flops. It is telling to see what high Mormon Church leaders such as Oaks believe and speak about their faith in private--as compared to what they proclaim in public.

For instance, former RfM poster "Randy J." noted the following about Oaks' public speechifying regarding the Book of Mormon, as found in an address entitled "The Historicity of the Book of Mormon," which Oaks delivered at a banquet of the faithful hosted by FARMS:

". . . [A]lthough Oaks' address is titled 'The Historicity of the Book of Mormon,' he offers not one iota of evidence to support that title in his entire speech. . . .

"Church leaders are willing to let FARMS and FAIR apologists go out on fragile limbs and propose their silly theories and publish their silly papers; but the leaders are much more reserved in their pronouncements, because they don't want to make any statements about 'Book of Mormon evidences' which can be refuted later."

("Two LDS Apostles Discuss Scientific Evidence for the BOM," posted by "Randy J.," on "Recovery from Mormonism" bulletin board, 6 July [year not noted], at: http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon534.htm)


As an informative historical sidenote to the FARMS banquet speech which "Randy J." mentions, I learned from a private meeting with Oaks just a few weeks prior to him delivering that speech that what he said in private about the Book of Mormon was not in complete synchronization with his later public observations. To be sure, what Oaks expressed behind closed doors compared to what he later said in public at that FARMS banquet makes for interesting reading.

On 9 September 1993, in a closed-door meeting with Oaks and fellow Apostle Neal A. Maxwell in Maxwell’s Salt Lake City Church office, Oaks offered his personal observations and assessments about the Book of Mormon.

Approximately six weeks after having met with Oaks and Maxwell--on 29 October 1993--Oaks then spoke publicly on the Book of Mormon, in the aforementioned sermon entitled, “The Historicity of the Book of Mormon," which was delivered at the annual dinner for the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) in Provo, Utah.

(The text of Oaks' banquet remarks is available here: Elder Dallin H. Oaks, "THE HISTORICITY OF THE BOOK OF MORMON," Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, Annual Dinner, Provo, Utah, October 29, 1993, at: http://www.boap.org/LDS/Oaks-on-BoM-critics; and Elder Dallin H. Oaks, "The Historicity of the Book of Mormon," at: http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/bom/Oaks_Historicity.htm)
_____


What follows is a compare-and-contrast examination of what Oaks said in that earlier private meeting about the Book of Mormon in the Church Administration Building in Salt Lake City, as compared to what he publicly told the FARMS audience a few weeks later at their banquet in Provo.

This examination will also provide some inside information about what Oaks actually thinks of both the Book of Mormon and FARMS. Note the similarities and, more importantly, the differences between Oaks’ privately- and publicly-expressed views on these matters.
_____


HISTORICTY OF THE BOOK OF MORMON AND EVIDENCE OF PLAGIARISM

--Oaks Behind Closed Doors:

In the privacy of Maxwell's office, Oaks was shown striking parallels between a cross-referenced, color-coded copy of the Book of Mormon and the text for the "Spalding Manuscript:" B.H. Roberts' study of parallels between Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews;" the King James text of the Book of Isaiah; and the King James text of the New Testament--with particular emphasis being placed on the Book of Mormon timeline from 600 BC to 1 BC, when the words of the New Testament had not yet been written.

Further, Oaks was shown 17 parallels between the lives of the Book of Mormon prophet Alma and the New Testament apostle Paul. Note was made of the wording in Alma's letters that is found in exactly the same language in Paul's New Testament story.

Oaks' reply:

"Well, you know, as you've thumbed through your book, it only appears to me that 5% of your book has been marked, so I would say don't throw out the 95% because of the 5%. Don't take the 5% that you have serious questions about and cast out the 95% that is unexplained or divinely inspired."

Oaks continued:

"It's like being married to our wives. I'm sure there's more than 5% of me that my wife finds disagreement with, but she puts up with it anyway. It's kind of like being married to the Book of Mormon. Don't let your doubts keep you out of the mainstream."

Oaks' attention was also drawn to Moroni 10, which speaks of gifts of the spirit (to one is given one gift; to someone else is given another, etc). Verse by verse--comparing Moroni 10 to First Corinthians 12--the texts were shown to be almost exactly the same.

Oaks' reply:

"Well, it's not word-for-word and it's not the whole chapter."

Oaks was reminded that except for some minor variations--such as the oft-repeated phrase, "and again"--it was, for all intents and purposes, word-for-word.

When asked to explain how Moroni used the same language found in the King James version of the Bible, written hundreds of years after the Book of Mormon was recorded, Oaks replied that he himself had had the same question while preparing a talk on gifts of the spirit, as outlined in the Doctrine and Covenants, the Book of Mormon and the New Testament.

Oaks said he concluded that all three authors were "impressed by the Holy Ghost" to record their thoughts "in this particular manner and in these particular words."


--Oaks in his FARMS Banquet Speech:

"In these remarks I will seek to use rational argument, but I will not rely on any proofs. I will approach the question of the historicity of the Book of Mormon from the standpoint of faith and revelation. I maintain that the issue of the historicity of the Book of Mormon is basically a difference between those who rely exclusively on scholarship and those who rely on a combination of scholarship, faith, and revelation.

"Those who rely exclusively on scholarship reject revelation and fulfill Nephi's prophecy that in the last days men 'shall teach with their learning, and deny the Holy Ghost, which giveth utterance' (2 Ne. 28:4). The practitioners of that approach typically focus on a limited number of issues, like geography or 'horses' or angelic delivery or nineteenth century language patterns. They ignore or gloss over the incredible complexity of the Book of Mormon record. Those who rely on scholarship, faith, and revelation are willing to look at the entire spectrum of issues, content as well as vocabulary, revelation as well as excavation."
_____


BOOK OF MORMON DOCTRINES THAT ARE NOT SUPPOSEDLY THE PRODUCT OF PLAGIARISM, BUT OF DIVINE REVELATION

--Oaks Behind Closed Doors:

In private, Oaks offered the following counsel:

"You ought to go through the Book of Mormon and color in all the differences and emphasize the unique and special teachings of the Book of Mormon that don't have any similarities to other sources." (The point, however, was not highlight differences between the Book of Mormon and other texts but, rather, to get answers regarding their similarities and/or identicalness in areas of story lines, wording, etc).


--Oaks in his FARMS Banquet Speech:

"Scholarship and physical proofs are worldly values. I understand their value, and I have had some experience in using them. Such techniques speak to many after the manner of their understanding. But there are other methods and values, too, and we must not be so committed to scholarship that we close our eyes and ears and hearts to what cannot be demonstrated by scholarship or defended according to physical proofs and intellectual reasoning. . . .

"I admire those scholars for whom scholarship does not exclude faith and revelation. It is part of my faith and experience that the Creator expects us to use the powers of reasoning he has placed within us, and that he also expects us to exercise our divine gift of faith and to cultivate our capacity to be taught by divine revelation. But these things do not come without seeking. Those who utilize scholarship and disparage faith and revelation should ponder the Savior's question: 'How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?' (John 5:44)."
_____


GOD HAS NOT YET PROVIDED FINAL PROOFS AS TO THE TRUTHFULNESS OF THE BOOK OF MORMON

--Oaks Behind Closed Doors:

When asked how to deal with the above noted anomalies found in the Book of Mormon, Oaks replied that the jury was still out.


--Oaks in his FARMS Banquet Speech:

"Another way of explaining the strength of the positive position on the historicity of the Book of Mormon is to point out that we who are its proponents are content with a standoff on this question.

"Honest investigators will conclude that there are so many evidences that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text that they cannot confidently resolve the question against its authenticity, despite some unanswered questions that seem to support the negative determination.

"In that circumstance, the proponents of the Book of Mormon can settle for a draw or a hung jury on the question of historicity and take a continuance until the controversy can be retried in another forum."
_____


THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE FOR AND AGAINST THE BOOK OF MORMON

--Oaks Behind Closed Doors:

In his ultimate assessment of evidentiary proof concerning the Book of Mormon, Oaks admitted that the arguments for and against the book were "equal," with neither side being able to prove whether the Book of Mormon was true or untrue. In the ultimate analysis, he said, the Book of Mormon had to be accepted on faith.

Oaks reiterated that there was no evidence proving or disproving the Book of Mormon.

He placed his hand over his heart and said, "I get this knot, this warm feeling right here, and that is what I go on." Oaks said that he had a conviction that the Book of Mormon was "true."

He said that feeling of truthfulness came from a "personal witness."


--Oaks in his FARMS Banquet Speech:

". . . [I]t is our position that secular evidence can neither prove nor disprove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Its authenticity depends, as it says, on a witness of the Holy Spirit. Our side will settle for a draw, but those who deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon cannot settle for a draw. They must try to disprove its historicity--or they seem to feel a necessity to do this--and in this they are unsuccessful because even the secular evidence, viewed in its entirety, is too complex for that. . . .

"Speaking for a moment as one whose profession is advocacy, I suggest that if one is willing to acknowledge the importance of faith and the reality of a realm beyond human understanding, the case for the Book of Mormon is the stronger case to argue. The case against the historicity of the Book of Mormon has to prove a negative. You don't prove a negative by prevailing on one debater's point or by establishing some subsidiary arguments."
_____


FARMS' EFFORTS TO EMPIRICALLY PROVE THE BOOK OF MORMON

--Oaks Behind Closed Doors:

Oaks acknowledged that FARMS sometimes gets "hyperactive" in trying to prove that the Book of Mormon is true.

He said he becomes concerned when FARMS "stops making shields and starts turning out swords," because, he said, "you cannot prove the Book of Mormon out of the realm of faith." Accepting the Book of Mormon, Oaks said, was ultimately a matter of faith.


--Oaks in his FARMS Banquet Speech:

"Brothers and Sisters, how grateful we are--all of us who rely on scholarship, faith, and revelation--for what you are doing. God bless the founders and the supporters and the workers of the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies. The work that you do is important, it is well-known, and it is appreciated."

*****


--Oaks in Private and Oaks in Public on the Book of Mormon and FARMS:

Would the real Dallin Oaks please stand up?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2011 11:46AM by steve benson.

Calm down bro,
I don't have time to review so much coping and pasting LOL.

And I liked your Freudian slip: "coping," instead of "copying":

"Calm down bro, I don't have time to review so much coping and pasting LOL."

(Posted by: TheSkepticChristian, Date: August 10, 2011 12:26PM)
_____


Cope away, but you're losing ground. LOL



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2011 12:42PM by steve benson.

"Cope away, but you're losing ground"
I am not the one posting 19 century, anti-mormon fabrications. Oh wow, how accurate are the facts.

I will just copy and paste, one thing I refuted above, but seriosly I don't have time to review all this

("according to Helen, he had sex with her..Helen later confessed to a close friend in Nauvoo"
Beyond douth, you are just copying and pasting Biased anti-mormon propaganda, That's not true according to Todd Compton. Compton properly characterizes this source, noting that it is an anti-Mormon work, and calls its extreme language "suspect." Why do you assume that you know more than Todd Compton??)
See above

. . . "a dirty, nasty, filthy affair."

Moreover, we have affirmations from good sources that Smith had sex with underage females. Placed in context and given Smith's skirt-chasing track record, Helen Mar Kimball's assertion to her close Nauvoo friend as to the nature of her marriage to Smith is certainly believable.

And, of course, as you say, you don't have time to review all this. When it comes to Mormon history, reviewing history obviously isn't your thing. Anything that disagrees with your Mormon party line is automatically "anti-Mormon." Let me tell you something, kiddo: Some of the best "anti-Mormon" documentation is found in the offical early history-keeping of the Mormon Church and the writings of its highest leaders.

And what is "beyond douth"? ("Beyond douth, you are just copying and pasting Biased anti-mormon propaganda," Posted by: TheSkepticChristian, Date: August 10, 2011 12:35PM).

You're getting flustered.



Edited 11 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2011 12:52PM by steve benson.

Yes that's the way I like it, to keep focus on a single issue at a time, and not multiple claims, with just copy and paste

When have I said that he did not have sex with young women?? But its almost certain that he did not have sex with his youngest wife.


"Helen Mar Kimball's assertion to her close Nauvao friend as to the nature of her marriage to Smith is certainly believable."
Not true according to Todd Compton.
This was written in 1848. Yet, Helen was married in 1842, and was gone by 1845. So, at almost-15 she's "young," but by 1845 (by the latest) she's now "not young"? This sounds suspiciously like fabrication
http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives/Helen_Mar_Kimball


Helen Kimball:
"I did not try to conceal the fact of its having been a trial, but confessed that it had been one of the severest of my life; but that it had also proven one of the greatest of blessings. I could truly say it had done the most towards making me a Saint and a free woman, in every sense of the word; and I knew many others who could say the same, and to whom it had proven one of the greatest boons--a "blessing in disguise.""

Of course, Helen had her trials. To her disgust, her dad gave her away to a notorious philanderer with a track record of bedding underage girls (her mom wasn't exactly thrilled with the arrangement, either)--and then child bride Helen had sex with him when she didn't realize that was part of the deal.

Talk about trials.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2011 01:08PM by steve benson.

"then she had sex with him "
Please stop making claims without reliable evidence, Helen almost certainly did not have sex with Joesph Smith
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/7207/tanners.html

Helen Wrote:
"I have long since learned to leave all with [God], who knoweth better than ourselves what will make us happy. I am thankful that He has brought me through the furnace of affliction & that He has condesended to show me that the promises made to me the morning that I was sealed to the Prophet of God will not fail & I would not have the chain broken for I have had a view of the principle of eternal salvation & the perfect union which this sealing power will bring to the human family & with the help of our Heavenly Father I am determined to so live that I can claim those promises. (Holzapfel, 487) "

Again it was not an affair, it was a marriage (probably not sealed to her, but it was a marriage)

Fanny's marriage was mentioned by Ann Eliza Webb Young, Fanny's family, Levi Hancock, and even hostile witnesses saw their relationship as a marriage, albeit an unorthodox one.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Fanny_Alger_and_William_McLellin

". . . "a dirty, nasty, filthy affair.""
Why don't you believe in Oliver's testimony of the Book of Mormon instead ?? :)

And when Fanny got "celestially" pregnant by Joseph Smith, Emma wasn't wrong in throwing her out of the house?

I love it when blindly devout Mormons like you try to redefine Smith's adultery-as-polygamy approach to marriage as "unorthodox."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2011 01:12PM by steve benson.

The evidence for a pregnancy is weak dude, and again it was a marriage, read the link

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Plural_wives/Fanny_Alger/Discovered_in_a_barn

"Cowdery was wrong, that dirty anti-Mormon "
Was oliver Cowdery right about his testimony of the Book of Mormon?? :)

I g2g, but I will be back

:)

Why was Emma so angry that she threw her out of the house? (We already know how furious and betrayed she felt when she learned of Smith's hanky-panky with Fanny).

You are reflexively defending a sinking ship, Non-Skeptic.

A true parrot of the faith, if I have ever seen one.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2011 01:31PM by steve benson.