The LDS temples

[MormonFriend]

I'm sorry...sometimes things just really strike me funny. Ask my husband. On second thought, maybe you shouldn't ask him. He gets rather longwinded.

You say the early church fathers threw out documents and then suggest that someone kept a record of what they tossed out. Yeah, right. Do you know what they tossed out? Can you document where you got this information? Did they toss out heresies?

There was considerable discussion on this topic at and around:
http://www.christianforums.com/t83797&page=60

I don't know if you participated, but I was left with too many unaswered questions. And the questions that were answered stood weak due to the unaswered questions.

"Exactly, who were the "early church fathers" that were involved with separating the correct from the incorrect scripture.

"How were they (the early church fathers) called to the high authority or positions that they acted in behalf of?

"If the missing scriptures were deemed authentic, and worth quoting by the writers in the existing scriptures, why did the "early church fathers" deem them them not worthy of our present Bible?"

Thank you for your perspective on these. I hope you can see my concern. If I am being asked to place my faith in the calling of these men, and my salvation hangs on their actions and interpetations, I then have alot at stake, and a few simple questions are not unreasonable.


With equal respect, I see perfect evidence of alteration / tampering in the fact that missing books and passages of scripture are quoted within the scriptures by the Lord’s anointed. When were those writings of holy writ last seen? I still ask with high hopes of a response; "If the missing scriptures were (known and) deemed authentic, and worth quoting by the writers in the existing scriptures, why did the "early church fathers" deem them them not worthy of our present Bible?"

Of course I do not "know what they threw out." Nobody does! Everyone just accepts that it was heresies.

My point is solid as Baker asked:"If Jesus established a new system of temple worship, don't you think that there would be some evidence of theis found in the Bible?"

I do not know that it was documented as writings of the apostles and for the same reasons you cannot say you know that it was not documented, and tossed as heresies. Did the early church fathers toss those scriptures that we know existed, as they are quoted in scripture?

 

[Der Alte]

Exactly, who were the "early church fathers" that were involved with separating the correct from the incorrect scripture.

Assumptions and presumptions. Other than the 19th century unsupported, undocumented writings you are relying on, where is there any credible evidence that the early church fathers (ECF) or any early church leader threw out anything? Do you have any evidence that the early church believers, including the ECF, did not verify the truth of scripture by prayer and receiving their testimony in their bosoms?

"How were they (the early church fathers) called to the high authority or positions that they acted in behalf of?

Well let’s see, John very likely conferred his authority on Polycarp and Ignatius, two second generation ECF, by laying on hands, and Polycarp very likely conferred his authority on Irenaeus, a 3rd generation ECF, by laying on of hands. And OBTW, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If the missing scriptures were deemed authentic, and worth quoting by the writers in the existing scriptures, why did the "early church fathers" deem them them not worthy of our present Bible?

More presumption and assumption. You have not presented any evidence that there is even one word of missing scripture. And any attempt to do so would contradict the word of God. In Isaiah God said “My word that goeth forth out of my mouth will not return unto me void.” There cannot be a void of God’s word. And once again I ask the question do you have any proof that the scripture which comprise our current Bibles, and any spurious writings which may have been rejected, were not verified by prayer and receiving the testimony in their bosoms? Isn’t this the accepted test?

Thank you for your perspective on these. I hope you can see my concern. If I am being asked to place my faith in the calling of these men, and my salvation hangs on their actions and interpetations, I then have alot at stake, and a few simple questions are not unreasonable.

You have not been asked to place your faith and calling on anyone or anything but the word of God, which cannot return unto Him void. If that is true, and it is, then one jot or one tittle cannot pass from the law until all be fulfilled. Did the believers, between 33 AD and 1848 +/-, not have the complete word of God? Was there nobody saved during those 1800 +/- years because supposedly so much scripture had been thrown out?

This brings up another question. During the period from approximately 33 AD until about 312 AD, which just happens to be the time of the ECF, Christians were horrifically persecuted because they would not worship Caesar or the other Romans deities. Are we to believe that during this time there were no faithful Christians protecting God's word, such as the ancient Jews did at the Dead Sea and Qumran?

Would you have us believe that faithful Christians went to their deaths, devoured by animals, burned alive, etc., for their faith, but hundreds, thousands of these faithful believers did nothing, said nothing, while some vague, nebulous group of malevolent somebodies threw out untold numbers of books of God's word?

With equal respect, I see perfect evidence of alteration / tampering in the fact that missing books and passages of scripture are quoted within the scriptures by the Lord’s anointed. When were those writings of holy writ last seen? I still ask with high hopes of a response; "If the missing scriptures were (known and) deemed authentic, and worth quoting by the writers in the existing scriptures, why did the "early church fathers" deem them them not worthy of our present Bible?

I would be interested in seeing this “perfect evidence of alteration / tampering.” The fact that something may have been mentioned or quoted in the scriptures does not prove that the original was scripture. For example, Paul twice quotes Greek poets in the N.T., Acts 17:28 and Titus 1:12, Aratus and Epimenides. Are we to assume that all the writings of the Greek poets, Aratus and Epimenides, are scripture because Paul used their writings to illustrate a theological point? I hardly think so.

Since the largest majority of the so-called "missing books" are mentioned in the O.T., according to your calculations, how many and which O.T. books were "thrown out" by the ECF, between 33 AD and 312 AD? How many of our current O.T. books were found among the DSS and Qumran, dating to about 175 years before the ECF? And how many scrolls, that are clearly scriptures, found among the DSS and Qumaran scrolls, are missing from our Bibles?

Instead of simply closing your eyes and uncritically accepting everything your church teaches why don’t you do a little independent research? Do an online search for “missing books of the Bible” or something similar, and see if there aren’t reasonable, credible explanations other than “evil men threw out or destroyed God’s word.,” which in itself contradicts the word of God.

Edited to add: Here are a few such websites. Enjoy.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2003/r&r0312a.htm

http://institutecw.tripod.com/lostbooks.htm

http://www.bible.org/docs/qa/qa.asp?StudyID=147

http://www.carm.org/lost/intro_noncanonical.htm

http://www.kencollins.com/question-04.htm

http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/bible/nolostbk.htm

 

[MormonFriend]

Assumptions and presumptions. Other than the 19th century unsupported, undocumented writings you are relying on, where is there any credible evidence that the early church fathers (ECF) or any early church leader threw out anything? Do you have any evidence that the early church believers, including the ECF, did not verify the truth of scripture by prayer and receiving their testimony in their bosoms?

Actually, this subject started from a post (551 of Mormons a Christian?) from Ben Johnson.

For a productive discussion, there must be a "common ground of agreement". There was REASON that certain books were rejected by early church fathers --- descriptions of God endorsing lying and deceit for example. There were many writers of Jesus' day who were NOT God-inspired; some gnostics, some against Jesus, some striving to preserve the "Old Covenant" (iow, rejecting the Christ for various reasons, prominent being that He didn't fill what they EXPECTED).

For common ground, I submit that we can agree on what REMAINS. If the "other writings" are needed to make a point, then we must verify if THOSE POINTS contradict the CURRENT/REMAINING text.

You made some good points though, I'll try to get to them soon.

 

[rnmomof7]

There was considerable discussion on this topic at and around:
http://www.christianforums.com/t83797&page=60

I don't know if you participated, but I was left with too many unaswered questions. And the questions that were answered stood weak due to the unaswered questions.


Of course I do not "know what they threw out." Nobody does! Everyone just accepts that it was heresies.

My point is solid as Baker asked:"If Jesus established a new system of temple worship, don't you think that there would be some evidence of theis found in the Bible?"

Jesus fulfilled the law and eliminated the need for a temple


Hbr 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken [this is] the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
Hbr 8:2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
Hbr 8:3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore [it is] of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
Hbr 8:4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
Hbr 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, [that] thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
Hbr 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. [/b]
Hbr 8:7 For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Hbr 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Hbr 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Hbr 8:10 For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Hbr 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Hbr 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Hbr 8:13 In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away.

I do not know that it was documented as writings of the apostles and for the same reasons you cannot say you know that it was not documented, and tossed as heresies. Did the early church fathers toss those scriptures that we know existed, as they are quoted in scripture?

Because a sentence or phrase is quoted in scripture does not mean the entire book was inspired. It means that the author of the scripture was inspired to use that phrase , and that confirms that phrase as inspired.

 

[fatboys]

Jesus fulfilled the law and eliminated the need for a temple


Hbr 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken [this is] the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
Hbr 8:2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
Hbr 8:3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore [it is] of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
Hbr 8:4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
Hbr 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, [that] thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
Hbr 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. [/b]
Hbr 8:7 For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Hbr 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Hbr 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Hbr 8:10 For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Hbr 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Hbr 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Hbr 8:13 In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away.

Because a sentence or phrase is quoted in scripture does not mean the entire book was inspired. It means that the author of the scripture was inspired to use that phrase , and that confirms that phrase as inspired.

FB: The disciples, latter ordained apostles, of which Christ himself as of the same order (Heb. 3:1) was not the last High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. He ordained his apostles to the same order. He was however the Greatest apostle, and holder of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

In several verses it says that Christ would come like Moses or the great High Priest Melchizedek. I made a point a awhile back about Moses saying that a prophet would rise up to save us. One like unto himself. Why did Moses not go into the promised land? My point is that we know that these prophets were great and holy men, yet they sinned. It would have been a more accurate statement to say that these prophets were like unto the Messiah. Or closer to what the Messiah was, than the Messiah to be like unto them. For we know that the Messiah was without sin.

There were great prophets and High Priests before Christ, and there were Prophets and High Priests after. For to be an apostle one has to have the authority to heal, cast of devils through this higher Priesthood. Israel could not do these things in the name of Moses. All these things have to be done through the higher authority.

 

[SiSSYGAL]

Is there anyway to document what documents were tossed out by the early church fathers?

I believe with all the digs, we would have found some evidence of documents that were tossed out by the early church fathers. Instead, the validity of the Bible becomes ever more solid with each dig, and with each find of Scripture thousands of years old, the word is deemed ever more reliable. When I was young, I was taught that the Bible was never intended to be a historical document.
Now we are taught, because of archealogy, that the Bible is the best historical document: Believe every word. This is something I found on the net that expresses my sentiment:
The church of God, as described in the Bible, is not an organization, but an organism. It is the living Body of Jesus Christ - individual believers acting as he acted, teaching what he taught, believing as he believed, worshipping as he worshipped. Such a believer is a part of the one true church.
Individuals, of course, may for a season band together to accomplish a particular work. But however they associate, that organization does not constitute "the one true church"!
And I add my own thought to this: Any church with teaching or temples for teaching outside of believing and acting and worshipping as Jesus Christ did
is NOT a true church. Or at least--is not a true church of Jesus Christ. It is a church of another spirit.
P.S. At my son's LDS wedding the other night, he was married in the temple first, and then they had another service in the Ward building. There was some words of love and wisdom but no prayers or blessings. I asked my son about this and he said that the bishop said that there were people there who worshipped a different god and therefore it was best not to pray. Ah.
Sorry to put so much in one post. But, this thread has covered a lot. Wrapping this up: why the Mormon temples? It doesn't tie into anything with the exception of worship to a different god. My take.
Sissygal.

 

[fatboys]

I believe with all the digs, we would have found some evidence of documents that were tossed out by the early church fathers. Instead, the validity of the Bible becomes ever more solid with each dig, and with each find of Scripture thousands of years old, the word is deemed ever more reliable. When I was young, I was taught that the Bible was never intended to be a historical document.
Now we are taught, because of archealogy, that the Bible is the best historical document: Believe every word. This is something I found on the net that expresses my sentiment:
The church of God, as described in the Bible, is not an organization, but an organism. It is the living Body of Jesus Christ - individual believers acting as he acted, teaching what he taught, believing as he believed, worshipping as he worshipped. Such a believer is a part of the one true church.
Individuals, of course, may for a season band together to accomplish a particular work. But however they associate, that organization does not constitute "the one true church"!
And I add my own thought to this: Any church with teaching or temples for teaching outside of believing and acting and worshipping as Jesus Christ did
is NOT a true church. Or at least--is not a true church of Jesus Christ. It is a church of another spirit.
P.S. At my son's LDS wedding the other night, he was married in the temple first, and then they had another service in the Ward building. There was some words of love and wisdom but no prayers or blessings. I asked my son about this and he said that the bishop said that there were people there who worshipped a different god and therefore it was best not to pray. Ah.
Sorry to put so much in one post. But, this thread has covered a lot. Wrapping this up: why the Mormon temples? It doesn't tie into anything with the exception of worship to a different god. My take.
Sissygal.

FB: I disagree. Give your son my congradulations on him tying the knot.

 

[baker]

Its your assumtion that the article on marriage (1835 D&C) was an actual revelation. Joseph Smith did honor the vote of the commitee after his return from Michigan and leave this article as it stood, but this does NOT equate it as a revelation. It is very clear the 2 articles (marriage and government) were written in response (Oliver Cowdrey, WW Phelps) to outside critisism of the church. Each and every link that I get from checking the phrase "article on marriage" states exactly what I said above... that the article on marriage was NOT revelation, but rather written by Oliver Cowdrey.

Besides didn't we go through this before with the 1835 D&C and the article on marriage by W.W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdrey in other threads? Hence the deja vue...

Tom

Twhite,

It is not my assumption about anything I posted. These are facts substantiated by your own church documents. Please don't make statements that you can not support.

The story about Smith being out of town sounds like "my dog ate my homework". If you have any facts to support this fictional story, please post them. As editor and publisher of the church newspaper, Smith again ratified his actions by refering all members to the revelation on marriage contained in the 1835 D&C's during the summer of 1842. Smith denied ever practicing polygamy just 2 weeks before his death - a documented fact. Smith had adulterous affairs with women who already had husbands, again - documented on your own church website.

If you want to live in denial, thats your choice. If you want to read and learn, that could be your choice also.

 

[baker]

Do you suppose that it might have something to do with the Church being in its infancy? The members too were still "infants," wisely being fed with the milk.
The Lord has His time table as always, and His wisdom in this matter has proven to bring the Church out of its infancy, and into its maturity.

Mf,

How do you rationalize such a statement. Is it because the factual history is so incriminating that members of the lds church still live in denial?

Were there any other revelations that Smith recieved that were not shared with the members immediatley. This sounds like he wanted to take one of god's commandements out for a test drive before he let others know of it first. Look at the facts and chronology of this D&C 132 and you can begin to see it had nothing to do with god!

 

[twhite982]

Twhite,

It is not my assumption about anything I posted. These are facts substantiated by your own church documents. Please don't make statements that you can not support.

As I said in my prior post each and ever statement I read regarding my search for the "article on marriage" came up as it was not a revelation, including the article on government and the lectures on faith.

I'm not sure what "facts" you're referring to...

The story about Smith being out of town sounds like "my dog ate my homework". If you have any facts to support this fictional story, please post them.

As I said above each and every article state that this was not a revelation and was presented while Joseph was out of town in Michigan with Fredrick G. Williams.

I don't recall your "facts" and would love to hear them again.

As editor and publisher of the church newspaper, Smith again ratified his actions by refering all members to the revelation on marriage contained in the 1835 D&C's during the summer of 1842.

I don't remember this quote... would you be willing to post it?

Smith denied ever practicing polygamy just 2 weeks before his death - a documented fact.

The quote I think you're referring to I have read before and it is not exactly as you propose. Would you post it for me to be certain of what you're referring to?

Smith had adulterous affairs with women who already had husbands, again - documented on your own church website.

I know Joseph was sealed to other men's wives, but I am pretty sure there is no certain proof of him having a sexual relationship with these women.

The church website just shows those marriages / sealings.

and as far as showing Joseph's children they only show 10, which were of Emma.

Tom

 

[Serapha]

I know Joseph was sealed to other men's wives, but I am pretty sure there is no certain proof of him having a sexual relationship with these women.

The church website just shows those marriages / sealings.

Tom.

Someone posted one day about all the marriages that Joseph Smith had and it was astonishing...



~serapha~

 

[rnmomof7]

As I said in my prior post each and ever statement I read regarding my search for the "article on marriage" came up as it was not a revelation, including the article on government and the lectures on faith.

I'm not sure what "facts" you're referring to...


As I said above each and every article state that this was not a revelation and was presented while Joseph was out of town in Michigan with Fredrick G. Williams.

I don't recall your "facts" and would love to hear them again.

I don't remember this quote... would you be willing to post it?

The quote I think you're referring to I have read before and it is not exactly as you propose. Would you post it for me to be certain of what you're referring to?

I know Joseph was sealed to other men's wives, but I am pretty sure there is no certain proof of him having a sexual relationship with these women.

The church website just shows those marriages / sealings.

and as far as showing Joseph's children they only show 10, which were of Emma.

Tom

From your church records

Individual Record
FamilySearch™ Ancestral File v4.19









Joseph SMITH (AFN: 9KGL-W2)
Pedigree

Sex:*
M

Family






Event(s):

Birth:*
23 Dec 1805

Sharon, Windsor, Vermont

Death:*
27 Jun 1844

Carthage Jail, Hancock, Illinois

Burial:*
29 Jun 1844

Nauvoo, Hancock, Illinois








Parents:

Father:*
Joseph SMITH (AFN: 4C9X-LR)

Family

Mother:*
Lucy MACK (AFN: 4C9X-MX)









Marriage(s):

Spouse:*
Catherine WALKER (AFN: 1CB1-M7)

Family

Marriage:*



Spouse:*
Sarah SCOTT (AFN: 1Z2L-ST)

Family

Marriage:*



Spouse:*
Sarah STILES (AFN: 8R67-VW)

Family

Marriage:*



Spouse:*
Desdemona Wadsworth FULLMER (AFN: 2S9J-LX)

Family

Marriage:*
1842

Nauvoo, Hancock, Il


Spouse:*
Sarah LAWRENCE (AFN: 8R65-X0)

Family

Marriage:*
Abt 11 1843 May



Spouse:*
Mary Elizabeth ROLLINS (AFN: 17RW-FT)

Family

Marriage:*
17 Jan 1842

Nauvoo, Hancock, Il


Spouse:*
Emma HALE (AFN: 91T1-HN)

Family

Marriage:*
18 Jan 1827

South Bainbridge, Chenango, Ny


Spouse:*
Amanda Melissa BARNES (AFN: 1S4B-X9)

Family

Marriage:*
Sealed 19 1852 Jan

Salt Lake City, Ut


Spouse:*
Sylvia Porter SESSIONS (AFN: 1H4D-3M)

Family

Marriage:*
26 Jan 1846



Spouse:*
Zina Diantha HUNTINGTON (AFN: 8R65-S9)

Family

Marriage:*
27 Oct 1841

Nauvoo, Hancock, Il


Spouse:*
Mary HOUSTON (AFN: 2HDJ-8W)

Family

Marriage:*
3 Feb 1846



Spouse:*
Nancy Mariah WINCHESTER (AFN: 34HH-3H)

Family

Marriage:*
3 Feb 1846



Spouse:*
Helen Mar KIMBALL (AFN: 1FZD-48)

Family

Marriage:*
May 1843

Smith's Store, Nauvoo, Hancock, Il


Spouse:*
Lucy WALKER (AFN: 3FNF-72)

Family

Marriage:*
1 May 1843

Smith's Store, Nauvoo, Hancock, Il


Spouse:*
Rhoda RICHARDS (AFN: 1F72-5R)

Family

Marriage:*
12 Jun 1843

Nauvoo, Illinois


Spouse:*
Eliza Roxey SNOW (AFN: 272Q-KP)

Family

Marriage:*
29 Jun 1842

Smith's Store, Nauvoo, Hancock, Il


Spouse:*
Sarah Ann WHITNEY (AFN: 3LTZ-0W)

Family

Marriage:*
27 Jul 1842

Nauvoo, Hnck, Il


Spouse:*
Martha MCBRIDE (AFN: 1JJW-V0)

Family

Marriage:*
Aug 1842

Smith's Store, Nauvoo, Hancock, Il


Spouse:*
Malissa LOTT (AFN: 1CZR-T8)

Family

Marriage:*
20 Sep 1843

Nauvoo, Illinois


Spouse:*
Fanny YOUNG (AFN: 1BK5-VM)

Family

Marriage:*
2 Nov 1843



Spouse:*
Prescendia Lathrop HUNTINGTON (AFN: 1RBQ-97)

Family

Marriage:*
11 Dec 1841

Smith's Store, Nauvoo, Hancock, Il


Spouse:*
Sophronia Gray FROST (AFN: 2HZ7-PN)

Family

Marriage:*



Spouse:*
Melissa SNOW (AFN: 272Q-N7)

Family

Marriage:*



Spouse:*
Cordelia Calista MORLEY (AFN: 1CP9-HR)

Family

Marriage:*

Submitter(s):
Details

About Ancestral File:

Ancestral File is a collection of genealogical information taken from Pedigree Charts and Family Group Records submitted to the Family History Department since 1978.* The information has not been verified against any official records.* Since the information in Ancestral File is contributed, it is the responsibility of those who use the file to verify its accuracy.







*
**Joseph Smith Polygamy



Did Joseph Smith have sex with his wives?

1. Did Joseph Smith have more than one wife while he was alive?

Absolutely. Just check Joseph Smith's official church marriage record at www.familysearch.org .

Faithful LDS historian Todd Compton has found solid documentation for Smith marriages to 33 women while he was alive. True, many more were sealed to him after his death, but Smith had at least 33 wives while he was alive.

Compton Writes:
"In the group of Smith's well-documented wives, eleven (33 percent) were 14 to 20 years old when they married him. Nine wives (27 percent) were twenty-one to thirty years old. Eight wives (24 percent) were in Smith's own peer group, ages thirty-one to forty. In the group aged forty-one to fifty, there is a substantial drop off: two wives, or 6 percent, and three (9 percent) in the group aged fifty-one to sixty."

"The teenage representation is the largest, though the twenty-year and thirty-year groups are comparable, which contradicts the Mormon folk-wisdom that sees the beginnings of polygamy was an attempt to care for older, unattached women. These data suggest that sexual attraction was an important part of the motivation for Smith's polygamy. In fact, the command to multiply and replenish the earth was part of the polygamy theology, so non-sexual marriage was generally not in the polygamous program, as Smith taught it."

2. Why did Joseph Smith have 33 wives?

Jacob 2: 24-30
24 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... 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.

(The Lord is saying here that the only reason for more than one wife is to "raise up seed" unto Him.)

D&C 132:
Verse 37: Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness...

Verse 41: And as ye have asked concerning adultery...

(Why is adultery an issue? Simply being married or "sealed" to more than one woman in an otherwise chaste arrangement might be bigamy or polygamy, but it's not adultery. Adultery is a sexual act.)

Verses 62-63: And if he [Joseph Smith] 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.... for they are given unto him 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.

Brigham Young taught that "This is the reason why the doctrine of plurality of wives was revealed, that the noble spirits which are waiting for tabernacles might be brought forth." (Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 197.)

3. But did Joseph Smith obey the commandment and have sex with his wives?

Compton writes:
"Because of claims by Reorganized Latter-day Saints that Joseph was not really married polygamously in the full (i.e., sexual) sense of the term, Utah Mormons (including Joseph's wives) affirmed repeatedly that Joseph had physical sexual relations with his plural wives-despite the Victorian conventions in nineteenth-century American religion which otherwise would have prevented mention of sexual relations in marriage."

- Faithful Mormon Melissa Lott (Smith Willes) testified that she had been Joseph's wife "in very deed." (Affidavit of Melissa Willes, 3 Aug. 1893, Temple Lot case, 98, 105; Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 156.)

- In a court affidvit, faithful Mormon Joseph Noble wrote that Joseph told him he had spent the night with Louisa Beaman. (Temple Lot Case, 427)

- Emily D. Partridge (Smith Young) said 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), 364, 367, 384; see Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 15.)

In total, 13 faithful latter-day saint women who were married to Joseph Smith swore court affidavits that they had sexual relations with him.

- Faithful Mormon Benjamin Johnson wrote, "On the 15th of May . . . the Prophet [Joseph Smith] again Came and at my hosue [house] ocupied the Same Room & Bed with my Sister that the month previous he had ocupied with the Daughter of the Later Bishop Partridge as his wife." (Zimmerman, I Knew the Prophets, 44.)

- Faithful Mormon and Stake President Angus Cannon told Joseph Smith's son: "Brother Heber C. Kimball, I am informed, asked [Eliza R. Snow] the question if she was not a virgin although married to Joseph Smith and afterwards to Brigham Young, when she replied in a private gathering, "I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that."" (Stake President Angus M. Cannon, statement of interview with Joseph III, 23, LDS archives.)

- Stake President Angus Cannon also testified: "I will now refer you to one case where it was said by the girl's grandmother that your father [Joseph Smith] has a daughter born of a plural wife. The girl's grandmother was Mother Sessions . . . She was the grand-daughter of Mother Sessions. That girl, I believe, is living today, in Bountiful, north of this city. I heard prest. Young, a short time before his death, refer to the report . . . The woman is now said to have a family of children, and I think she is still living." (Stake President Angus M. Cannon, statement of interview with Joseph III, 25-26, LDS archives.)

- Faithful Mormon and wife of Joseph Smith, Sylvia Sessions (Lyon), on her deathbed told her daughter, Josephine, that she (Josephine) was the daughter of Joseph Smith. Josephine tetified: "She (Sylvia) then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church." (Affidavit to Church Historian Andrew Jenson, 24 Feb. 1915)

- In her testimony given at a Brigham Young University devotional, Faithful Mormon Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner stated that she knew of children born to Smith's plural wives: "I know he [Joseph Smith] had six wives and I have known some of them from childhood up. I know he had three children. They told me. I think two are living today but they are not known as his children as they go by other names." (Read her full BYU testimony here: http://www.ldshistory.net/pc/merlbyu.htm )

- Faithful Mormon Prescindia D. Huntington, who was Normal Buell's wife and simultaneously a "plural wife" of the Prophet Joseph Smith, said that she did not know whether her husband Norman "or the Prophet was the father of her son, Oliver." And a glance at a photo of Oliver shows a strong resemblance to Emma Smith's boys.
(Mary Ettie V. Smith, "Fifteen Years Among the Mormons", page 34; also Fawn Brodie "No Man Knows My History" pages 301-302, 437-39)

- Researchers have tentatively identified eight children that Joseph Smith may have had by his plural wives. Besides Josephine Fisher (b. Feb. 8, 1844) and Oliver Buell, named as possible children of Joseph Smith by his plural wives are John R. Hancock (b. Apr. 19, 1841), George A. Lightner (b. Mar. 12, 1842), Orson W. Hyde (b. Nov. 9, 1843), Frank H. Hyde (b. Jan 23, 1845), Moroni Pratt (b. Dec. 7, 1844), and Zebulon Jacobs (b. Jan 2, 1842). ("Mormon Polygamy: A History" by LDS Historian Richard S. Van Wagoner, pages 44, 48- 49n3.)

- Joseph Smith's personal secretary records that on May 22nd, 1843, Smith's first wife Emma found Joseph and Eliza Partridge secluded in an upstairs bedroom at the Smith home. Emma was devastated.
William Clayton's journal entry for 23 May (see Smith, 105-106)

Read the detailed history of each of Joseph Smith's 33 plural wives in Todd Compton's excellent book In Sacred Loneliness.

For some details on the other married women Joseph married and impregnated, see:
http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org
http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/polyg.htm
http://www.lds-mormon.com/isl.shtml
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer...on/menwives.h

 

[baker]

As I said in my prior post each and ever statement I read regarding my search for the "article on marriage" came up as it was not a revelation, including the article on government and the lectures on faith.

I'm not sure what "facts" you're referring to...


As I said above each and every article state that this was not a revelation and was presented while Joseph was out of town in Michigan with Fredrick G. Williams.

I don't recall your "facts" and would love to hear them again.

Twhite,

You shold get a copy of the 1835 D&C and read it. It's preface, signed by Smith (and Cowdery by the way) says exactly what it is and contains "the principles for regulation of the church, as taken from the revelations".

Why is it that the lds posters are so critical of others to show factual support, but then deny the facts when they are brought forward?

Would you please provide source documents showing that Smith did not approve of this revelation's inclusion in the 1835 D&C's?

I don't remember this quote... would you be willing to post it?

Absolutely. Here is the complete copy of the Oct. 1st 1842 Times and Season Church newspaper. You will see that beginning at the end of page 939, Smith, as editor and publisher of the paper, ratifies his position with regards to the church's rule on marriage by citing the Doctrine and Covenants again:

http://www.centerplace.org/history/ts/v3n23.htm

Of particular interest is that he had the leading men and relief society women in the church sign this statement. The first of womens signatures is his wife's Emma as RS President. This is important since, as your church website documents, that Smith was already commiting adultery prior to the printing of this article. Emma is on record of NOT knowing of any other rule on marriage at that time. IE. Smith is violating his own revelation 132 by not asking of his first wife prior to taking on another! This fact is further corroberated when she rejects the 132 revelation presented to her by Hiram Smith in 1843 (found in your HOC)

Futhermore, and what is really intersting, Smith is publically emphatic about denying this whole "plural marriage" issue that is raised to specifically show that what John Bennet was promoting, had nothing to do with the lds church. Ironic isn't it?

The quote I think you're referring to I have read before and it is not exactly as you propose. Would you post it for me to be certain of what you're referring to?

See above now.

I know Joseph was sealed to other men's wives, but I am pretty sure there is no certain proof of him having a sexual relationship with these women.

To apply some mormon logic here, can you prove that he didn't have sexual relations? But either way it is beyond the point. There is no scriptural logic nor reason for him to marry women who were already married other than his personal satisfaction and ego. If I am wrong here, please demonstrate how I am.

The church website just shows those marriages / sealings.

WRONG! Your church website shows them only as marriages. There is no mention or explanation of the concept of "sealing". Avoid the spin and stay with the facts!

and as far as showing Joseph's children they only show 10, which were of Emma.

That is true and precisely why this D&C 132 is so obviously of Smith and not of GOD. If the exception to god's disdain of polygamy (Jacob 2;24) is to raise SEED up to him (god), why are there no children from anyone other than Emma in all of Smith's marriages? If 'raising seed" does not mean having additional children, why is it used as the lds excuse for allowing polygamy? IE. what did polygamy do for god that could not have been accomplished through monogamy?

 

[Helaman]

Someone posted one day about all the marriages that Joseph Smith had and it was astonishing....

Why? He was married to 33 women. Why is that astonishing? David, of the Old Testament, had seven wives and several concubines. And who knows how many wives Solomon had! The pattern was established by God before, and He reinstated it through the Prophet Joseph Smith.

And yes, one of Joseph Smith's wives was as young as 14. So what? From the 13th through the mid 19 centuries, men would OFTEN marry women very young. The average age of death in those times was in the range of 40-50 years old. Starting early was essential when one's lifespan was 30-40 years shorter than it is today. Keep things in context.

 

[baker]

Why? He was married to 33 women. Why is that astonishing?

Perhaps that it was against the law during Smith's day might have something to do with it. Then again, maybe it was the fact that it was against the supposed revelation from god that Smith had convinced others to follow (D&C 58). Finally the fact that his wife was not approving of his "extra curicular" affairs may have been another reason.

David, of the Old Testament, had seven wives and several concubines. And who knows how many wives Solomon had!

For which god condemned as an abomination in your own bom!

The pattern was established by God before, and He reinstated it through the Prophet Joseph Smith.

No, the pattern was established by man. Smith just started it during a time society found it rather disgusting.

And yes, one of Joseph Smith's wives was as young as 14. So what?

Ladies and gentlemen, I think we've found the perfect defense attorney for David Bryant Mitchell in the Elizabeth Smart trial!!! Who else is better suited to defend "this prophet"?

 

[Helaman]

Baker, your purposeful and insidious twisting of my words, and intentional leaving out of the explanation regarding the age 14 issue amazes me. Such deception is worth of a personal injury attorney.

 

[baker]

Baker, your purposeful and insidious twisting of my words, and intentional leaving out of the explanation regarding the age 14 issue amazes me. Such deception is worth of a personal injury attorney.

Ok, I confess I found it to good to leave alone. You tee'd it up for me! While I don't think it has anything to do or support Smith's practice of polygamy, I do agree that life expectancy was shorter back then. Why he would marry kids who were 20 yrs. +/_ younger than him in the name of god simply makes no sense, particularly since it was not known to his first wife. Perhaps you would like to explain the "whys"?

But what about my other points in response to your claims? Anything untrue or not factual about them?

 

[fatboys]

Perhaps that it was against the law during Smith's day might have something to do with it. Then again, maybe it was the fact that it was against the supposed revelation from god that Smith had convinced others to follow (D&C 58). Finally the fact that his wife was not approving of his "extra curicular" affairs may have been another reason.

FB: First off it was not against the law in Smiths day. The law that prohibited polygamy was not ratified until 1848. The United States did not have a law until 1866 or so. So they were not disobeying any laws. The revelation given to the prophet was given to him in 1833. He did not live this law until several years after. And it was really not polygamy since he never had sex with them or lived with them. He was sealed to them. Of course there were rumors of all sorts about his life with them but none of them hold any water. Not one. And anti's have been looking for over 170 years. As for Emma, one minute she accepted it, and next she turned it away, just like riding a roller coaster.

For which god condemned as an abomination in your own bom!

FB: What was condemned was the wives that David and Solomon took without the blessing of the Lord.

No, the pattern was established by man. Smith just started it during a time society found it rather disgusting.

FB: There were many laws that were restored and taken back because we could not live by them. Polygamy was just one of them. Although the Saints of the early church lived as righteous of lives as they could, they still could not live righteous enough. So laws were taken back because we are not worthy enough to live by them. The only thing that is disgusting about polygamy is the perverted ways the world looks at it and think that it is mans way of getting what he wants by legal means. My great great grandfather was a polygamist and believe me it was not a something that was very easy for the man to live. For all it was a test of their faith. Some failed at it. But remember it was a calling that came from the prophet to live. You did not just go out and say you wanted to live it. And only 3-4% ever lived it.

Baker I don't mind your discussion, but you always seem to be so rude. You certainly do not have to take my word for any of this. But I truely believe what I post. I do so, not to attack your belief, but to perhaps inform you. I have years of discussion on the very topic. What is really offensive is that you think that Joseph Smith was a pervert. He was not. You can point out the things others have written about him without your biased opinion. Really I know how you feel about him.

 

[AMMON]

Joseph Smith was a prophet of the Lord Jesus Christ; he was certainly NOT a pervert.

 

[baker]

FB: First off it was not against the law in Smiths day. The law that prohibited polygamy was not ratified until 1848. The United States did not have a law until 1866 or so. So they were not disobeying any laws.

Wrong!

Fatboys, at a minimum you should come with the facts instead of what you have been old as a member. The truth may be enlightening. Here is the photocopy of the 1833 state statute in the state of Illinois outlawing bigamy.

http://www.utlm.org/images/newsletters/no97illinoisbigamylaw.gif

The revelation given to the prophet was given to him in 1833. He did not live this law until several years after.

So what is your point? He broke the law of the land and the church law on marriage. You really should read your history before making such statements.

Please see the following for the only rule on mormon church marriage as revealed and stated by Smith (end of page 39):


http://www.centerplace.org/history/ts/v3n23.htm

And it was really not polygamy since he never had sex with them or lived with them.

So it's not really monogamy unless you have sex? Are you saying that marriage is not really marriage without sex? What is the point of your statement?

If he had no sex with these women, how did he think he would "raise seed" as the only excuse for practicing polygamy?

He was sealed to them.

Wrong! Go to your church website and you will see it records all of Smith's transactions as "marriages". Then apply some critical thinking and explain how Smith could be sealed to these women prior to 1843 when that is the year he received the revealtion from god (see your own HOC for this fact). Add to that the fact that D&C 132 wasn't even announced by your church until 1852. Fatboys, someone was most definitely not playing by the rules!

Of course there were rumors of all sorts about his life with them but none of them hold any water. Not one. And anti's have been looking for over 170 years.

If that works for you, then keep telling yourself that. Just like there was no law against polygamy during Smiths day. I suppose living in denial can mitigate some of life's tough truths.

As for Emma, one minute she accepted it, and next she turned it away, just like riding a roller coaster.

Well ladies, any thoughts on that statement. Fatboys, could you provide a reference to her acceptance of it? Please, just one, just this one time.

FB: What was condemned was the wives that David and Solomon took without the blessing of the Lord.

Could you provide the scriptural support for this claim? Please?

FB: There were many laws that were restored and taken back because we could not live by them. Polygamy was just one of them.

If there were so many, could you name, say, 3 or 4 others that were restored and taken back. I got that feeling that this is another one of those excuses you have ben told without any real support.

The only thing that is disgusting about polygamy is the perverted ways the world looks at it and think that it is mans way of getting what he wants by legal means.

Again, there was nothing legal about it.

My great great grandfather was a polygamist and believe me it was not a something that was very easy for the man to live. For all it was a test of their faith.

No doubt it was a test of many things!

And only 3-4% ever lived it.

If this is true, tell me why you think it was needed? What did it accomplish, other than persecution, that could not have been accomplished through monogamy?

Baker I don't mind your discussion, but you always seem to be so rude.

Fatboys, please go back and see what I have posted that is not true. Perhaps sometimes the real truth can be a "rude" awakening. I mean no personal disrespect but I find it rude when people make statements that are utterly false.

You certainly do not have to take my word for any of this. But I truely believe what I post. I do so, not to attack your belief, but to perhaps inform you. I have years of discussion on the very topic. What is really offensive is that you think that Joseph Smith was a pervert. He was not. You can point out the things others have written about him without your biased opinion. Really I know how you feel about him.

Perhaps you can now see why it may be important to check out the things you have been told as a member instead of just believing everything.

By the way, I never said Smith was a pervert. That is your adjective, not mine. I made the statement that he was an adulterer.