Warren Jeffs vs Joseph Smith

baker said:

Why don't you and Deraj fantasize together over the hope that Smith never practiced polygamy. You may be the only two in the lds church holding on to such fantasy!!!

Click to expand...

Maybe not.
Show me some real evidence and I will believe you. What is the problem? Can you only refer to familysearch.org for your sources?

buddy mack said:

Book of Mormon because there is no original golden plates to be found? Or maybe for others who don't believe in the New or Old Testaments because there are no originals?

Click to expand...

Let me think....
....................hmm, no.

since there is no alternate version of the Book of Mormon that proclaims to be the original. There is no reason to think that the Book of Mormon breached any copy rights or is a false version of the original. I said, that I want Primary source evidence, either the original or a duplicate, which is the same as the original, and there is no reason not to believe it to be an original because there is no other version of it to be found which could possibly be as authentic.

Deraj said:

Maybe not.
Show me some real evidence and I will believe you. What is the problem? Can you only refer to familysearch.org for your sources?

Click to expand...

We have a saying here in the states that starts out like this:

"You can lead a horse to water but, ....................................................."

I'm afraid it's most applicable in your case, based upon your prior posts!

logichopper said:

We have a saying here in the states that starts out like this:

"You can lead a horse to water but, ....................................................."

I'm afraid it's most applicable in your case, based upon your prior posts!

Click to expand...

Well, I tend to disagree. I have no problem with changing my point of view on this topic, if you show me enough evidence. So far, noone here has given any good evidence, as far as I have seen. The only evidence that I have seen in this thread is that of "familysearch.org", which is very unreliable and it is very easy to submit false information to that site.

Deraj said:

The only evidence that I have seen in this thread is that of "familysearch.org", which is very unreliable and it is very easy to submit false information to that site.

Click to expand...

Please demonstrate this and see if you can get another "wife" added to the list of those the church has listed as his wives to date!!!

Deraj, if you only believe what those in the lds church tell you, however misinformed they are, you will never need to investigate factual information on your own. But, frankly, I think you are fast losing your credibility with posters on this board in their willingness to take anything you post with any seriousness. It appears that most of your posts are based on what your "emotions want to believe"!

Much like the lds church has promoted "when the prophet has spoken, the thnking is done"!

"horse, water, drink, can't"

logichopper said:

Please demonstrate this and see if you can get another "wife" added to the list of those the church has listed as his wives to date!!!

Click to expand...

The Church has added 0 wives to the list. The Church has made no submissions to the site. I am not going to try to add another wife to the list, in case I succeed. It is common knowledge that the site is unreliable. It relies on you contacting the submittees listed in the submissions details section.

logichopper said:

Deraj, if you only believe what those in the lds church tell you, however misinformed they are, you will never need to investigate factual information on your own. But, frankly, I think you are fast losing your credibility with posters on this board in their willingness to take anything you post with any seriousness. It appears that most of your posts are based on what your "emotions want to believe"!

Click to expand...

I do not care what you may think of me. I do not only believe what the Church tells me. I believe what I can show or I do not believe what has not yet been shown to me, such as Joseph Smith being polygamous. I have no problem changing my view on this, as it has no bearing on the truthfulness of the Church and on Joseph Smith having been a prophet of God. I could show you his, if and when you show me that he was polygamous.

logichopper said:

Much like the lds church has promoted "when the prophet has spoken, the thnking is done"!

Click to expand...

Hahaha. I know of this quote. I will get back to you, when I find the source again, later tonight probably, as I have to go for now. Basically, this statement didn't go through any proof reading by those with authority. I can't think of the right word that would replace "proofreading", but I can assure you that the Church apoligised for it and said that it should never have been released.

logichopper said:

"horse, water, drink, can't"

Click to expand...

Who? Show me evidence.

logichopper said:

Much like the lds church has promoted "when the prophet has spoken, the thnking is done"!

Click to expand...

"Uncensored" was the word I was looking for..

In December of 1945, President George Albert Smith had this to say about this oft-quoted claim…

logichopper said:

Please demonstrate this and see if you can get another "wife" added to the list of those the church has listed as his wives to date!!!

Deraj, if you only believe what those in the lds church tell you, however misinformed they are, you will never need to investigate factual information on your own. But, frankly, I think you are fast losing your credibility with posters on this board in their willingness to take anything you post with any seriousness. It appears that most of your posts are based on what your "emotions want to believe"!

Much like the lds church has promoted "when the prophet has spoken, the thnking is done"!

"horse, water, drink, can't"

Click to expand...

Hi logic,
Glad to be back after my long hiatus. Anyway, I want to disagree with you and state that most LDS know more about their own religion, than critics and those who have gone off to other pastures. We know the Bible as well as other canon. We also think for ourselves. So you can believe what you want. You can say we are all sheep following a blind leader down a dangerous path to hell. But that is as you may see it. I don't need someone defining my faith for me, telling me that I am not Christian, stating that I or any of my fellow church members are errant deceivers and liars. I already have a waiting list of people who want to tell me that I have no witness of Christ and I am not a Christian. So please don't say that you have walked in my shoes when you have not even known my road in life, my testimony of the Gospel, or anything else about me or any other Mormon. Regards,
The Pinhead

logichopper said:

Please demonstrate this and see if you can get another "wife" added to the list of those the church has listed as his wives to date!!!

Deraj, if you only believe what those in the lds church tell you, however misinformed they are, you will never need to investigate factual information on your own. But, frankly, I think you are fast losing your credibility with posters on this board in their willingness to take anything you post with any seriousness. It appears that most of your posts are based on what your "emotions want to believe"!

Much like the lds church has promoted "when the prophet has spoken, the thnking is done"!

"horse, water, drink, can't"

Click to expand...

There is no checking of any AF information. Anyone can submit whatever they like.

As someone that is increasingly annoyed at the amount of dis-information in the AF (including information about my immediate family), I can honestly say that you need to take anything in the AF with a grain of salt. I have submitted pedigree charts to the AF over the Internet. It's a simple matter of converting to a GEDCOM file and uploading it and BANG! it's there.

I have no desire to put misinformation on the AF as once it's there it is very difficult to remove, but for you LC - I'll make an exception.

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.

Please Note:

Names and address of submitters to Ancestral File and those who have a research interest are provided to help in the coordination of research. The use of this information for any other purpose, including commercial use, is strictly prohibited.

Click to expand...

Remember that these pertain to sealings - not necessarily marriages (although the marriage date is what is listed). In the early days of the church it appears that in some cases, people were sealed without being married. This has at various times been referred to as 'Spiritual Wifery'. In essence, we don't know if it actually occurred or not, however there is some evidence to indicate it exists.

How the IGI works

The IGI lists both live and posthumous/proxy ordinances.

Individuals conducting Family History research have always been required to obtain certain minimum levels of evidence before submitting names to the Temple for ordinance work and evidence was required. In 1991, the standards of evidence were relaxed somewhat plus the onus for checking was placed upon the individual. Things have tightening up a little in recent times, but the idea is still for ordinances to be submitted and performed and anyone noticing a problem needs to contact their nearest Temple to modify or retract the ordinance. From my own experience (and much to my annoyance), this is only done if there is a serious error. Thus my GGF has been sealed on three occasions, each with different dates. Actually, all the errors in my FH seem to stem from one person that frequents the new Nauvoo Temple.

With that background. The following is what is listed in the IGI wrt Joseph Smith's sealings:

Marriages: Spouse: AGNES TAYLOR Family Marriage: 06 OCT 1902 Salt Lake City, Salt Lake, Utah

Click to expand...

This was quite some time after JS's death. This is curious as for a sealing, the marriage date is listed. Obviously, JS was never married to this person in life.

The only notation on file is "Direct descendants can contact: Temple Department, Special Services, 50 E. North Temple St., Salt Lake City, UT 84150-6400, USA. "

The interesting thing is why this ordinance would be performed in 1902?

Marriages: Spouse: EMILY DOW PARTRIDGE Family Marriage: 11 MAY 1843 Nauvoo, Hancock, Illinois

Click to expand...

This is one of only three that fit within the time frame required for JS to have actually been married to that person. Naturally, better research would have to be done.

Marriages:
Spouse: SYLVIA PORTER SESSIONS Family Marriage: 26 JAN 1846 Nauvoo, Hancock, Illinois
Marriages: Spouse: NANCY MARIAH WINCHESTER Family Marriage: 03 FEB 1846 Nauvoo, Hancock, Illinois

Click to expand...

2 Years after JS's death.

Marriages:
Spouse: OLIVE GRAY FROST Family Marriage: 1843 Nauvoo, Hancock, Illinois

Messages:
Form submitted by a member of the LDS Church. The form lists the submitter's name and address and may include source information. The address may be outdated. Details vary. To find the form, you must know the batch and sheet number.



Marriages:
Spouse: Lucy Walker Family Marriage: 01 MAY 1843 Of, Peacham, Caledonia, Vermont

Record submitted after 1991 by a member of the LDS Church. No additional information is available. Ancestral File may list the same family and the submitter.

Marriages: Spouse: Sarah Lawrence Family Marriage: About 11 MAY 1843 Of, Pickering, Ontario, Ontario

Record submitted after 1991 by a member of the LDS Church. No additional information is available. Ancestral File may list the same family and the submitter.

Click to expand...

These records were submitted sometime after the fact (in fact relatively recently). Since JS would have had access to sealings and these ordinances were recorded at the time, I take these with a grain of salt without some documentation to back them up.

As mentioned before, ordinances submitted after 1991 were not subject to checking.

Marriages: Spouse: SARAH SCOTT Family Marriage:

LDS Church membership record of a deceased person. The original records cannot be sent to family history centers. The records of members who died before 1988 can be viewed at the Family History Library. These records cannot be photocopied. Information for members who died after 1988 is available only on the Internet version of the IGI. Married women may be indexed under their maiden or married surnames.

Click to expand...

This last one I find particularly curious. The indications are that the person died sometime after 1988! This would indicate the person sealed to JS wasn't even born when JS died! There are also no details listed for Sarah Scott - no parents, no birthdate etc.

To me it looks like this is a bogus record. The only other place I can find Sarah Scott listed is where Orson F Whitney lists her as a 'possible' plural wife. It looks like someone decided to submit her information anyhow.

Wrigley said:

What proof will it take? The same proof it took to convince you that the bom was true?

Swart, the factual truth is there. That you refuse to accept is your issue, not those who see smith for what he was.

Click to expand...

I'd be interested to see your standard of prrof. As for me it would be:

1. The testimony of two witnesses
2. A marriage or sealing certificate
3. A descendant of Joseph Smith through any of these women
4. Anything from JS discussing his PM
5. Anything from Emma discussing his PM

A rational explanation for the following would have to be given:

1. Why Emma denied to her dying day that JS took plural wives.
2. Why JSIII after exhaustively interviewing all the women that claimed to have been married to JS, conlcuded that JS did not take a single plural wife.
3. Why there were no children of any of these unions.

Objectively looking at the evidence, there remians the potential that three of the claims cannot easily be discredited. That's not to say they are true, but there aren't any inconsistencies in them.

The burden of proof always remains upon the proponent. I suggest you answer these challenges.

Heck, I'll make it easy for you. If you can prove it to (the conspicuously silent) Dawn, then I'll accept that JS had plural wives.

Please do so on a case-by-case basis please.

christopher123 said:

What I find incredible is the absolute refusal of some to see or simply admit similarities between Smith and Jeffs.

Ones doesn't have to agree with Jeffs or like what he does, or have it affect in any way their "testimony" of the restored gospel or Smith, but to refuse to admit the similarites is, for lack of a better word, foolish.

Chris <><

Click to expand...

You can compare anyone to anyone if you want to stack the evidence just right. Two or three comparisons means zip. I can compare George Bush to Adolf Hitler if you like... (hmm, might have something there)

There were a bunch of jokes going around a few years back to show how Jesus was a Californian, a Puerto Rican, an Italian etc. There was also another one that listed three qualities of leaders and asked which one you would choose. They were:

1: Drinks himself to sleep. Rarely rises before 11AM. Was a womaniser as a youth.

2: A teetotaler. Vegetarian. Intended to be a Priest when young.

Which one would you choose? If you chose 1: you have chosen Winston Churchill. If you chose 2: you chose Adolf Hitler.

This all goes to show that limited comparisons are rarely an accurate portrayal of a person. We could easily say that Jesus rebelled against authourity, proclaimed himself a King and was executed for Treason. His followers became religious fanatics that were willing to die for their cause and taught that those who didn't follow their teachings would be destroyed. They practiced a form of symbolic ritual cannibalisation and taught that a human sacrifice was necessary and that without acceptance of that sacrifice, no one could go to heaven. Followers demonstrated acceptance of this sacrifice by being symbolically drowned and then reborn as a fanatical follower - their old life having just ended. What a ridiculous cult this must have seemed to the orthodoxy of the day. They taught dangerous things to young people. They were obviously brainwashed it believing things that no sane person could accept.

Conclusion
This large book of biographies of thirty-three women leaves a gap in meaning and interpretation, with about twenty-three pages of introductory explanation and six hundred pages of information and speculation about these individuals. Readers should be forewarned that In Sacred Loneliness avoids a detailed discussion of the deeply religious and moral principles undergirding the implementation of Mormon plural marriage. Compton's presentation offers little that could be considered faithful or sympathetic understanding of the doctrinal foundations of the practice. The book's negativism might be balanced by reading the scholarly article "Plural Marriage" in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. The major flaw in Todd Compton's work is the unjustified theorizing on what he calls "polyandry," in practice using it in the traditional definition of a woman with full relations with multiple husbands. As the table and discussion above show, Joseph was sealed to twenty-one women who were unmarried or widowed. Nearly all indications of sexual relations pertain to these marriages. The table and discussion also show that Joseph was sealed to eight women with an existing marriage. In one marriage, that of Sylvia Sessions Lyon, there was a pregnancy, which, according to family tradition, Sylvia related to the time when her husband "was out of fellowship with the Church" (p. 183). As stated in the above discussion on polyandry, even this is not shown to be a concurrent sexual relationship with two husbands. For the remaining seven sealings of Joseph to married women, there is no reliable evidence that these involved sexual relationships. With one known exception, we know only that the ceremony gave these married women the right to be joined to Joseph Smith in the next world. Sources simply do not show a "marital triangulation" in these cases.
In Sacred Loneliness is inconsistent in the standards of judgment applied to polyandry. For woman after woman in this book, the following statement or its equivalent is made: "Absolutely nothing is known of this marriage after the ceremony" (p. 465, regarding Lucy Walker). Good history is characterized by careful interpretation of reliable documents, together with disclosing what cannot be determined. But Compton reverses these responsible methods in discussing sexuality, particularly in regard to the eight sealings to women with living husbands. He begins by probing the relatively small number of statements on physical relations in all marriages. These add up to first-, second-, and thirdhand statements about some eight women, about a fourth of the Prophet's polygamous wives (see pp. 12–13). This uneven mixture is then characterized as "a great deal of evidence that Joseph Smith had sexual relations with his wives" (p. 13). That judgment is next intensified without further information: "In conclusion, though it is possible that Joseph had some marriages in which there were no sexual relations, there is no explicit or convincing evidence for this (except, perhaps, in the cases of the older wives, judging from later Mormon polygamy)" (p. 15). Stripped of verbiage, this deduction moves in three steps: (1) About 28 percent of Joseph's marriages had full physical dimensions; (2) Evidence for the part may be taken for the whole; (3) Therefore, sexual relations characterized most of his marriages. However, the middle span of this bridge badly sags. In Sacred Loneliness does not have a factual basis for its conclusions regarding polyandry.
An undercurrent swirls through Compton's study: dissatisfaction with Joseph Smith's plural marriage revelation. Church leaders and plural wives were "given an impossible task" that they could not avoid because both groups "accepted him as an infallible prophet" (p. 456; compare pp. 22–23, 296). Since this overstated theology permeates the book, it is useful to glance at both sides of the coin as explained by the Prophet in a near-final discourse: "I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught."34 Joseph bluntly told converts arriving at Nauvoo that he "was but a man," and they could not expect perfection from him.35 This lack of public intimidation suggests private coercion was not the Prophet's style, though Compton often sees this otherwise. Since Joseph told Emily Partridge the Lord had given her to him, "it was sacrilegious to doubt. It was the woman's duty to comply with the fact that she was already Joseph's possession" (p. 407). But this comment illustrates how sources can be overshadowed by the historical interpreter, who acknowledges that the Prophet was patient while Emily learned and adjusted. She is quoted: "[In] those few months I received a testimony of the words that Joseph would have said to me and their nature before they were told me, and being convinced I received them readily" (quoted on p. 407). Indeed, Compton observes that Emily was "like many of Joseph's wives" in receiving "a conversion to the principle" (p. 407). It was not the Prophet's supposed infallibility, but personal revelation through promptings and visions that induced the men and women around the Prophet to accept plural marriage. Many of their spiritual verifications are quoted by the author, whose industry and honesty are admirable in liberally presenting the words of these early Saints.
If we had the benefit of Joseph Smith's explanation for each of his plural marriages, we would be in a better position to judge the motives and depth of his relationships but, since we do not, wisdom and prudence dictate that we withhold many judgments until we do. Biographers in this area are tempted to create historical fiction, which purports to read minds and furnish all answers, but serious history cannot run ahead of responsible source materials. This collection of biographies is not a definitive study of Joseph Smith and plural marriage, or of the Prophet's relationship with his plural wives. Yet, much to his credit, Todd Compton has done an amazing amount of research, and for that effort he should be commended. But in certain aspects of the author's presentation—&#65533;especially the speculative interpretation of data—&#65533;we disagree with his rendition and find reason to caution unsuspecting readers.
In closing the chapter on Emily Partridge, the author writes an early epilogue, which rejects Joseph Smith's "polygamy revelations" (p. 456). Though this marriage system was a noble failure, he reasons, Joseph Smith's generation too blindly believed to be liberated: "If nineteenth-century Mormons had concluded that Smith had been wrong in what he taught was the crowning revelation of his life, they would have been left with a very different Mormonism than the faith they followed" (p. 456). Though Compton interprets Joseph Smith's wives with tender concern, it is ironic that this advocate really believes in the futility, even stupidity, of their dedication to the Prophet's calling. That generation could not face "polygamy's impracticality and tragic consequences" (p. 456). Of course, the nineteenth century regularly gave women an unfair measure of hardships. Moreover, Mormon women at midcentury faced displacement and harsh pioneering, endured with difficulty by monogamous or plural wives. Compton unfortunately overemphasizes the "tragic ambiguity" that he found in the lives of the women sealed to Joseph Smith (p. xiii). But we need to be mindful that almost all of them remained believers in the Prophet's mission, and most died as faithful Latter-day Saints. Several, as did Lucy Walker Kimball, explained their spiritual growth in response to polygamy's challenges: "You learn self-control, self-denial; it brings out the noble traits of our fallen natures . . . and the lessons learned in a few years, are worth the experience of a lifetime" (quoted on p. 468).
We approach the doctrine of plural marriage (and Compton's book) from our personal and professional perspectives as believers in the Prophet's divinely appointed mission and his inspired revelations. We have a comforting assurance in our minds and hearts that Joseph Smith told the truth about the first vision, Moroni's appearances, and the restoration of priesthood through the coming of the apostles of Jesus Christ. Accordingly we find no reason to doubt his revelation on the plurality of worlds and how they are populated. There is breathtaking beauty in the concepts of eternal growth and celestial relationships. The Prophet Joseph Smith said similar things about his vision of the degrees of glory, and we deeply agree.36 Yet, strangely, that vision (D&C 76), given in early 1832, tried the faith of many early Saints who saw God's justice as eroded by allowing eternal rewards in some measure for almost all. Brigham Young was one who struggled, and he put the doctrine on the shelf until he could understand it better, which he came to do: "I was not prepared to say that I believed it, and I had to wait. What did I do? I handed this over to the Lord in my feelings, and said I, &#65533;I will wait until the Spirit of God manifests to me, for or against.' I did not judge the matter, I did not argue against it, not in the least. I never argued the least against anything Joseph proposed, but if I could not see or understand it, I handed it over to the Lord."37
We have learned from Todd Compton's work but are disturbed by its dissonances. We advise readers of this book to consider all aspects of Joseph Smith's life to determine for themselves whether he was a living prophet or a religious opportunist. Together we count our serious studies of Joseph Smith by many decades. Having examined virtually all extant manuscript sources documenting the life and teachings of Joseph Smith, we believe he was an honest and moral servant of God. His calling as the Prophet of the restoration is bolstered by the scriptural works he produced&#65533;the Book of Mormon, the revelatory revision of the Bible, modern revelations, the book of Abraham, as well as his teachings, and his dedicated ministry punctuated by persecution. Like many religious and moral heroes of history, he was targeted and slandered by the forces of evil. Those who knew Joseph best stood by him most firmly. We discern a purity of soul in the power of his discourses, as recorded by the Nauvoo scribes and in Latter-day Saint journals. We see his constant sacrifices for his people, including knowingly giving his life at the end to preserve Nauvoo from attack and plundering. Our minds and hearts testify that Joseph Smith is certainly a prophet sent from God.