For years I have been beaten up for even bringing up the history of polygamy in the church. So I was shocked when the church came out with an essay that was more open than I would have expected. I posted this on my Facebook, along with a link to the essay:

"If even a week ago I had told people that I knew Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, polyandry, AND had sex with all of his wives, I would have been labeled anti-mormon by some. Yet, here is the LDS church itself confirming what I have been saying for years, and no one believed me, because they saw me as an "apostate" or a "sinner" or that I hated the church. I am none of those things, I only wanted the honest truth, so I searched & I found it. I was beaten up for sharing what I had discovered. And now it's ironic that the church comes out and says, " Oh by the way, JS had multiple wives, some of whom were already married, & he had sexual relationships with them!" Is this anti-mormon now? I guess not. I do not hate the church, but I do wish they could have been honest to begin with, so that now, maybe, I wouldn't have lost so many relationships with friends & family when all I spoke was the TRUTH. rant over."

I got a lot of comments...

One of the comments came from my boyfriend's cousin, who seems to LOVE to post condescending and opposing responses to many things I post. I don't mind people's opinions, but if you are going to demean someone and their feelings, I have a problem with that.

This is what the cousin wrote:

"I'm sorry, but did you even read the articles you posted? This blows my mind! You're saying that Joseph Smith had sex with ALL his wives? That is completely wrong! I suggest rereading the articles. He was sealed to some just for eternity, most likely meaning that it was a practice of connecting members eternally together, nothing to do with sexual relations. He was then sealed to a few other women for time and all eternity, which means he was married in heaven and earth. You're making conclusions even though this article specifically states that the records are limited. How in the world can you claim he had sexual relations with the women he was sealed to when this article and no other historical account makes such claims. People maybe make the assumption that you're anti-Mormon by the way you present the subject. I read your post and I wonder what your motives are by bringing this up in the way that you are. You're not being honest with your presentation of the subject.

I'm confused as to why it was so hard for you to "find the truth" when everyone knows about Joseph Smith and polygamy in the Mormon church. I can't tell you how many times I've been ask how many wives I have. Keep in mind that Matt and I both come from a polygamist background and many members do as well. The purpose was to "raise up seed unto [Him].” Isn't that what polygamy brought about? The church is what it is today thanks to the faithful members who made those hard choices to be obedient. This was the most controversial Mormon practice, but if you look at it from a different perspective and prayerful consideration, you might come to a different conclusion. I don't like to rant, but reading your post and reading the articles, I see a huge discrepancy in your understanding of the subject.

As to why the church doesn't feel it's necessary to publish this information on every street corner is because it isn't pertinent to our Salvation. Have you ever taken an Advertising of marketing class? If so, you would know that if the church were to print off pamphlets advertising our history of practicing polygamy, we wouldn't get very far. It's not that the church is hiding anything, it's that people aren't very accepting of things that are foreign or strange. It's best to start off with the basics. When I was on my mission, usually during a discussion, polygamy would usually come up at some point...from the investigator. It isn't some deep and dark secret but we don't feel it's necessary to publish it and preach it on every street corner when it is not a principle is required for your salvation.

Try to not make conclusions on a subject when there is not enough evidence to support your claims. I thought the article was great and explained the subject very well, things that most members already know."

Yeah, a real charmer.

This was my response:

"You're right, the article was not clear about JS having sexual relationships with all of his wives, as some of them were quoted to be "eternity only" sealings. However, they also quote D & C 132, which contains the instructions from God that Joseph should have followed when it came to polygamy. In that section, it makes it clear that polygamy is only to be practiced to "multiply and replenish the earth". In other words, it would have defeated the purpose of polygamy if Joseph did not have sex with his wives. Also, in Jacob 2, it condemns polygamy, unless God commands it to only "raise up seed".

This is where I feel uncomfortable about this practice. It also instructs in section 132 that these women were to be "virgins". Why then, did Joseph marry women who were already married to other men? Unless they had a celibate relationship with their first husband, they were not considered virgins. This, in my opinion, is adultery. And it's not going to help "multiply and replenish the earth" any faster when the woman is married to two men at the same time. She only has one uterus.

So, either Joseph Smith was not following God's instruction or Joseph was following the instructions and he was having sex with all of his wives. For all I know, maybe he didn't follow that instruction, because he obviously wasn't following the instruction to marry virgins only.

But why does this matter anymore any way? This was in the past, it's over. We don't have to worry about polygamy in the future, right?

You said, "As to why the church doesn't feel it's necessary to publish this information on every street corner is because it isn't pertinent to our Salvation." That's not true, it actually does pertain to our salvation. It is taught that in the next life we will practice polygamy again, in the "New and Everlasting Covenant". I know a lot of members of the church, including prophets, have said that we don't teach that, or that it's not doctrinal. But D & C 132 teaches otherwise. Moreover, Brigham Young taught, “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy" (Journal of Discourses, v. 11, p. 269). A latter church leader, Bruce R. McConkie said, "Obviously the holy practice [of Plural Marriage] will commence again after the Second Coming of the son of Man and the ushering in of the millennium" (Mormon Doctrine, page 578 of the 1986 edition). So, you could argue that this is not pertinent to our salvation, but it is pertinent to our exaltation.

So, according to Brigham Young and Bruce R. MConkie, it is doctrine, and it was doctrine up until 2004, (as far as I'm aware) when Gordon B. Hinckley was interviewed by Larry King. Gordon B. Hinckley says in the interview that polygamy is "not doctrinal" and that he "condemn[s] it". So, yesterday's doctrine is today's false doctrine? When did the doctrine change between 1986 - 2004? May I add that although polygamy is not practiced by members of the church at the present time on earth, it is practiced in the temples when men are sealed to multiple spouses. This implies that polygamy continues into eternity.

You are confused as to why it's been hard for me to find the truth. Well, examples like the contradicting doctrine between church leaders could easily confuse someone searching for clear answers. And it's also confusing when members like you say in one paragraph, "He was sealed to some just for eternity, most likely meaning that it was a practice of connecting members eternally together, nothing to do with sexual relations" and then in the next paragraph you say, "The purpose was to "raise up seed unto [Him].” Isn't that what polygamy brought about?" So, which one is it? Was it only spiritual or was he sexually involved with these women to "raise up seed"? It was also hard because the church didn't have official statements and essays like they do now when I was investigating the church. I had to go to what the church called "unapproved sources". I also couldn't ask people questions because they got defensive about it, even though my questions were sincere. So unfortunately, it was a battle.

I haven't taken an advertising or marketing class, but I do know that marketing tactics can be very deceptive. For example, women's perception of beauty has been warped by the way beauty is advertised. Pictures of women's bodies are heavily photo-shopped to where it does not even look like the original photo. This has caused a lot of problems in society. I believe honesty is the best policy - even when the truth hurts. I'm not okay with the "milk before meat" philosophy of saving controversial topics for later, so as to make Mormons looks more normal and less weird at first (i.e. "Meet the Mormons"), so that people will get baptized before they have any clue of the true history and doctrine of the church. If the spirit is as strong as people testify, and the church is as true as people claim, then what have you got to lose? President J. Reuben Clark said, "If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed." I have more of a problem with members being okay with the deception, than I do with the doctrine itself.

I want to apologize if my first post seemed "anti". I did not mean for it to sound that way at all. It's hard to convey emotions via Facebook, text messaging, etc. I've been hurt by all of the conflicting answers I've heard from scriptures, leaders, friends, & family throughout the years. I hope this reply is a more honest representation than my first post and the claims I was making. I believe my claims are valid and true, and my reply contains evidence that sexual relations are central to the LDS doctrine of plural marriage, and that it does pertain to the next life. If there are mistakes in any of the evidence I've used, I am more than open to being corrected."


The little creep didn't respond. But many others did, and their responses were stupid and uneducated, to say the least.

One said,"Really, who cares? It is the church of Jesus Chris of Latter Day Saints, Not the church of Joseph Smith. We only have one perfect example and that is Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith, along with all the prophets are just men and they all make mistakes. God uses prophets as a mouth piece but they are still regular people. We should study and live our lives as Christ lived his because he is our only perfect example."

Well, obviously she cares or she wouldn't be responding! And who was it that restored the church of Jesus? Oh yeah, Joe Smith.

And another lady said I was "disingenuous" at the end of her comment, "Let's remember that "unapproved sources" does not mean "disapproved sources". There is a vast and important difference. Perhaps the polygamy/polyandry thing wasn't commonly presented in church, I can't say, because I honestly do not remember a time when I didn't know about it. It may not be expressly discussed in those movies, but it wasn't hidden. I don't recall having to dig very hard to find the info.
I'm glad they are being more open about our history, why not? The information is available. To be sure, there isn't a lot of info about Joseph's polygamy/polyandry, so speculation about what we don't know about him seems...disingenuous, a bit."

And then she comments once again, (the end is my favorite) "There aren't a lot of details about how involved his relationships with each wife were. The information that Joseph practiced polygamy, that he was sealed to what we consider underage girls and that he was sealed to women that were married to other men has been available. I can clearly believe people didn't know about it, since people didn't know about it, I'm just not sure how that happened"

What did she just say? "I can clearly believe people didn't know about it, since people didn't know about it"

Oh boy...

These people are in such denial!!!

Love it.

Well... at least you were brave enough to post it. A few commentary:

1. "You're saying that Joseph Smith had sex with ALL his wives? That is completely wrong!"

Yeah, because if it was ALL, then I'm sure this person would be "out", right? WTF does the exact number matter? It was a lot... and yes, the sex did include the polyandry, regardless of how much that watered down essay insisted it wasn't.

2. "Joseph Smith, along with all the prophets are just men and they all make mistakes"

What mistakes? These are considered commandments by the church according to the history and the essay itself. They have to choose. Was it a mistake (against their church's belief) or was it commanded?

They are, but it will slowly cause more people's shelves to collapse, and perhaps more importantly, keep the high tithe-paying people from joining.

I love it when people talk about Joseph or Brigham making mistakes.



Excuse me I can't dress up like an Indian and kill women today, I have to fuck my 14 year old foster daughter tonight.


Hell, in my house making a mistake is forgetting to take out the trash.

Just goes to show...

If the church came out and officially stated it was all a fraud, some would still choose to believe.

"How in the world can you claim he had sexual relations with the women he was sealed to when this article and no other historical account makes such claims."

That's a typically ignorant statement from a TBM. There are a LOT of historical sources which tell of Joseph Smith's sexual activities with his plural wives. Your friend can study some documentation here:

http://signaturebooks.com/2010/11/excerpt-in-sacred-loneliness/

This response is slightly academic and uses softer language to avoid TBM defensiveness:

To start, I'd like to congratulate the church on taking the brave step in publishing this essay. The acknowledgement and public confirmation of this matter from an authoritative LDS source has been needed for a long time. Many LDS members, myself included, have been accused of lying about Joseph Smith practicing polygamy and polyandry by less well informed members.

The essay appears well intentioned albeit very optimistic in its selection, presentation, and interpretation of the evidence - to the point of ignoring very relevant data that resides within the breadth of the historical record. As a result, the essay leaves itself open to criticism that it is designed to misrepresent or whitewash the churches actual history. What can be fairly said is that it does not attempt to offer a balanced view of the history.

Finally, and very significantly, this essay creates new contradictions and challenges in church history, for example, In 1844 Joseph Smith had a local newspaper, the Nauvoo Expositor, published by former Apostle William Law, destroyed for publishing what Smith stated were 'lies', with the paper accusing Joseph Smith of practicing Polygamy. Since the church is now officially confirming Joseph did actually practice polygamy, in doing so it is also confirming that William Law was telling the truth, and that his newspaper business, the Nauvoo Expositor, was destroyed and the printing press smashed under the orders of Joseph for the crime of telling the truth and printing a factual piece of information.

As a result, in publishing the essay the church must now reconcile how the violent destruction of peoples private property (and act which was already illegal in the US since it went directly against the 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech) and forceful suppression of factual information (along with the persecution of William Law as a liar for speaking what is now publically confirmed as the truth) can be resolved since the order came directly from the Prophet - who we are taught cannot lead men astray - and raises the question, does breaking the law qualify as astray?

To the essay:

The essay consists of 3088 words spanning 43 paragraphs. The title appears to constrain its scope to the Kirtland and Nauvoo period (which explains why the polygamy and polyandrous practices and teachings of Brigham Young and other later LDS Prophets and leaders are not introduced into evidence). It would be helpful if the essays included stated objectives, as the purpose of the work could then be directly measured against such. It would also help if the essays were given a publication date (I found three LDS plural marriage essays on line so working with them in order of publication is difficult when publication dates are not included). Finally, there is no acknowledged authorship for the essays, so we do not know whether the essay represents the research and work of a single author, or is a collective piece. Nor do we know whether the essays were penned by the General Authorities of the church, by Church Employees, or by Academics (or any mix of the above). In failing to cite the author(s) there is a risk that such essays could be easily dismissed as lacking authority, as some anonymous opinion. However, they do appear on the church's official website, so it may be reasonable to assume that they have gone through a review process and would have received some form of senior ecclesiastical sign off or approval prior to being published.

The first 5 paragraphs make a number of 'high level' claims that could be disputed. I will not dispute them in this review as some of them are open to subjective interpretation (both for and against). The most significant point in my opinion is in Para 2 "After receiving a revelation commanding him to practice plural marriage, Joseph Smith married multiple wives". This opening line in the second paragraphs confirms what many apologists and critics have long since known, but was uncommon knowledge amongst the membership, that Joseph Smith himself practiced plural marriage. What the essay does not do is offer a definition of Plural marriage. To many, the term simply means 'Polygamy' the marriage of one man to multiple women. However, it should also be noted that the reality of plural marriage is broader and extends to the practice of 'Polyandry' (a woman having more than one husband at the same time) with both polygamy and polyandry resulting in the criminal charge of Bigamy in the USA.

The essay doesn't go into detail about the number of wives or how many were polygamous or polyandrous, but the records on the church's own familysearch.org website reveal that Joseph Smith was married to 33 women, of which 11 were polyandrous marriages (marriages to more than one living man, including men whom Joseph had sent away on missions and had no idea that their wives had been approached by Joseph to become his plural wives).

Josephs first wife was Emma Hale, his second was the 16 year old Frances (Fanny) Alger, who worked for a time as a maid at the Smith home(estimated to have married Joseph between 1833 and 1835 although there is some debate over whether they were ever actually married despite it being recorded on the church site. There is also a record written by Oliver Cowdery, one of the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon in a letter to his brother Warren, which discusses this matter with concern and implies it was not a marriage but a sexual liaison - there are other statements to support this view given by Warren Parrish [secretary to Joseph], Benjamin Johnson, and George Gibbs).

One sizable challenge with a marriage to Fanny Alger is the reality that the Sealing authority had not at his point been restored and wasn't received until 1836, which would mean this would have to have been a civil marriage, but such marriages were illegal in the US. If that is the case then according to the law, Joseph Smith was both an adulterer and a bigamist. With no written record to clarify whether any special dispensation was claimed granted by Joseph from God there is nothing on the historical record to refute this charge.

The next problem arising here is with the 'Polyandrous' wives was that there was no legal precedent for plural marriage in the US. Both polygamy and polyandry were viewed as adultery by society at large. Although formal prohibitive legislation only came into effect later, the overwhelming view was that plural marriage was as illegal in the US as it was in the UK (the nation from which it had derived many of its laws). But more importantly, polyandrous marriage was certainly problematic even when compared with later revelations such as D&C 132 which in verses 61-63 states:
"61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
62 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.
63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; "

I draw specific attention to the point that these polyandrous wives were already espoused (married) to other men and would therefore have violated this direct commandment.

Moving on; paragraph 19, (I recognise I'm jumping over a lot of debatable material here but I'm constrained by time and facebook space), draws attention to the fact that Joseph Smith was married to the 14 year old Helen Mar kimball. The essay describes her age as 'several months before her 15th birthday' which simply means 14, but is perhaps attempting to diffuse the concern such an explicitly young age might create in the mind of readers. The essay attempts to imply that this relationship might not have been sexual by attempting to distinguish between a marriage for 'time and eternity' and a marriage for 'eternity'. However having read on this matter I don't feel this conclusion is safely supported by the evidence.

Firstly, there is no modern distinction in the church or recorded in revelation between a marriage for 'time and eternity' and a marriage for 'eternity' further, eternity includes time. There is no logical definition where the here and now is excluded from eternity, the term 'time and eternity' is actually a tautology since both effectively mean exactly the same thing, that is unless 'time' is being used as a distinction between now and the infinite future after death but again, there is no revelation on this in the 200 years since the church was founded.

Secondly, the purpose of plural marriage is made clear in D&C 132 which defines it in verse 63 as: "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." This can hardly happen if they are not having sex or if the marriage has no effect until after this life.

Thirdly, Helen Mar Kimball herself wrote about this marriage and the words she used implied it was clearly more than ceremonial, she also stated that it prevented her from going to dances and engaging with friends, which means that her social life in a temporal sense was being constrained in the same way it would be expected of a woman married under all of the traditional obligations to be constrained.

Finally, although it sits outside of the scope of this essay (in terms of the period in question) Brigham Young 'inherited' many of the wives of Joseph Smith after Josephs death and did proceed to have children with some of them.

The essay also fails to address the matter of choice with regard to these plural marriages. It is commonly thought by LDS women that wives had some say in whether their husbands participated in plural marriage, some choice with regard to the wives etc. However, this simply is not supported in either the historical record or in revelation. Again D&C 132 makes it clear when speaking of plural marriage that "64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law."

The essay moves on to address how Joseph and other early leaders felt about having to participate in plural marriage, expressing examples of their reluctance. It must be noted that these examples were penned by the men themselves so on the one hand carry the weight of being self authored. On the other hand, publishing such a view raises two issues;

1. How do we evidence that these feeling were genuine? If we assume for a moment that Joseph Smith made it all up to gain access to a large group of women for sex, would it not be reasonable to assume he might make up a story about reluctance to serve as a cover for his motives?

2. What does this mean for free agency if Joseph is being told by an Angel with a flaming sword who he should marry and if he does not proposition that woman that he will be killed. What does it mean for free agency for the woman (who in some instance such as that of Orson Hyde's wife Marinda, was married to Orson whom Joseph had sent away on a mission to the Holy Land, to be proposition by Joseph with his account of an angel with a flaming sword threatening him with death if he did not marry Marinda? What pressure would be on Marinda to acquiesce and say yes, would she wish the death of Joseph to be upon her? Would she wish her own damnation for refusing to give Joseph a 'portion of her love', or would she console herself that if she acquiesced to Josephs claim she'd receive guaranteed eternal life? Is it not fair to say that such promises and threats could fairly be construed by external observers as a form of sexual manipulation?

The essay also fails to address the torment the women underwent. With many of these women married to men that had been sent away, some of them felt compelled to marry Joseph and yet felt guilt or loss for doing this without their first husbands knowledge. Further, Zina Jacobs, married to Daniel Jacobs ended up married to Joseph Smith whilst Daniel was still alive.

After Josephs death she was claimed as an 'inheritance' by Brigham Young when taking over from Joseph. Brigham later wrote to Daniel and said; "Brother Jacobs,' he says, 'the woman you claim for a wife does not belong to you. She is the spiritual wife of brother Joseph, sealed up to him. I am his proxy, and she, in this behalf, with her children, are my property. You can go where you please, and get another, but be sure to get one of your own kindred spirit.' (Todd Compton - In Sacred Loneliness).

My final point in this review (which is much shorter and less detailed than I would like to have undertaken) notes that the essay does not really deal with the issue of Joseph publically denying plural marriage was happening in the church, making clear explicit statements in speeches and writing denying that he was practicing it.

For example:

"I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives. I mean to live and proclaim the truth as long as I can. This new holy prophet [William Law] has gone to Carthage and swore that I had told him that I was guilty of adultery. This spiritual wifeism! Why, a man does not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this...I wish the grand jury would tell me who they are - whether it will be a curse or blessing to me. I am quite tired of the fools asking me...What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers." - (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 6, pp. 410-411)

An 1838 letter written by Joseph which stated:
"We have heard that it is reported by some, that some of us should have said, that we not only dedicated our property, but our families also to the Lord; and Satan, taking advantage of this, has perverted it into licentiousness, such as a community of wives, which is an abomination in the sight of God." - History of the Church Vol 3, p 230
And finally, the article in the church newspaper Times and Seasons:

"TIMES AND SEASONS. CITY OF NAUVOO, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1844.

"As we have lately been credibly informed, that an Elder of the Church of Jesus Christ, of Latter day Saints, by the name of Hiram Brown, has been preaching Polygamy, and other false and corrupt doctrines, in the county of Lapeer, state of Michigan.
"This is to notify him and the Church in general, that he has been cut off from the church, for his iniquity; and he is further notified to appear at the Special Conference, on the 6th of April next, to make answer to these charges.
JOSEPH SMITH,
HYRUM SMITH,
Presidents of said Church." - (Times and Seasons, vol. 5, page 423)

You'll note the fact that these statements written by Joseph and Hyrum describe plural marriage as 'false and corrupt doctrines' despite the fact that joseph is secretly practicing it.

In closing:

This church essay is a useful start in addressing what is probably one of the top 5 most significant challenges facing the church.
All members of the church should now be in no doubt that from this we can conclude that the leader of the claimed Lords official church;
Joseph Smith did engage in both Polygamous and Polyandrous marriages.
That some (and the historic evidence implies possibly all) of these marriages involved a sexual relationship.
That Joseph Smith publically lied about to members and non members for years about the practice of plural marriage referring to it as a corrupt doctrine.
That in an attempt to conceal the practice of plural marriage men such as William Law (a member of the First Presidency who would not participate in Plural marriage and left the church and was excommunicated in an acrimonious split with Joseph with accusations of wrong doing by both parties) was publically called a liar and had his newspaper destroy for publishing what this essay now confirms was actually the truth.

I'm happy to make any updates or corrections to this review as required.

For this, thank you so much.

You could add, lilburne, that Joseph Smith was killed as a result of the destruction of the very newspaper that told the truth about the New and Everlasting Covenant that Joseph was lying about.

Excellent article. Although IIRC, wasn't Zina's husband Henry Jacobs?

Wow. Love how Mormons are totally cool with their leader sleeping around with little girls behind his wife's back. Just a little mistake, that's all. I mean, wow.

And yes, 14 back then was still a child. The average age at the onset of menstruation in the mid 1800s was 16-17.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2014 10:02PM by twistedsister.

Lurker92 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I got a lot of comments...
>
Keep in mind that Matt and I both
> come from a polygamist background and many members
> do as well. The purpose was to "raise up seed unto
> .” Isn't that what polygamy brought about?

That only works if there is an overabundance of women, and shortage of men, so they women wouldn't have a partner to have children with.

All census show there were more men than women in Utah, so there wasn't a shortage of men. A woman can only have a certain number of children in a given time. Practicing polygamy doesn't extend the age in which she can bear children, or decrease the time of pregnancy below 9 months so she can have more children in the same time.

Logic (which most TBMs lack) says that a woman having sex once a week if she is one of 7 wives, will have less children than the same woman if she had sex every night with one man. Facts bear it out. Most non-mormon families in the mid-1800s usually had about 8-12 children. Most polygamous women only had about 2-4.

So, either (1)God didn't check the census to see there were more men, or (2) he is an idiot for thinking that polygamy means women can have more children, OR (3) the whole idea for polygamy was made up by men who wanted to have sex with multiple women. My money is on the third choice.

was is Signed, Dated?

In my book, 'brave' would have been shortly after Joe died, -or- along with their B.S. Manifesto(s); NOT m/l 170 Years Later!!!!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2014 10:28PM by GNPE.

The TBM argument I can't stand:

"I've always know about polygamy/polyandry/Mountain Meadows/multiple first visions or whatever sketchy, illegal thing the church has done."

If they knew about these things, why weren't they disturbed enough by the information to share it with the 99% of Mormons who never had a clue?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2014 10:57PM by want2bx.

"It is the church of Jesus Chris of Latter Day Saints, Not the church of Joseph Smith. We only have one perfect example and that is Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith, along with all the prophets are just men and they all make mistakes."

I love it. Effing hilarious... if someone walked into a Sacrament Meeting without reading the bulletin or the sign on the building, one would guess it is CERTAINLY the Church of Joseph Smith.

How do you put up with debating these brainwashed fanatics?

I'd like to ask this guy and any Mormon who says things like this, what do you mean by "mistakes" or "imperfections?" What specifically did Joseph Smith do that was a mistake?

Always watch for this question in debates and call them out on it. It's a BS answer they throw out there which doesn't work. JS's actions were justified by TSCC saying that they were commandments and doctrines, not mistakes.

but only a polygamist could raise up a RIGHTEOUS SEED unto the lawd. After all, didn't Brig teach that monogamists were degenerate? any old sod can raise up seed, but only the ttrue blood descendants of Christ, living the principle, could raise up a righteous seed (i'm guessing).

fooey...

I'm confused.

Does Mormonism believe in "Traditional Marriage" or ...

Does Mormonism believe in Joseph Smith's "Montage Marriage"?

Dose Mormonism really believe in what Joseph Smith created?

The material disclosed in the church's new essay totally disagrees with the church's Proclamation on the Family.

Is it one man, a single woman, or two women, or three women etc.? Or is it two women and one man?

Just what happens when you mix polygamy with polyandry?

Is it a man who is married to a woman, who is married to another man, who is married to six women, one of whom happens to be married to the first man, which would make her her own sister-in-law, three-times removed, or is it twice?

Same sex marriage is simple, it's Mormonism that has redefined marriage into oblivion.

your response was brilliant to the cousin .

When some of these folks wake up they will initially attempt to deny they were ever asleep. TMC puts people to sleep - it works better that way.

Surely he hasn't/ they haven't seen the video: "The Strange But True Story of Mormonism". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMyggnt6y6o&app=desktop

He doesn’t know the difference between J.C. and J.S. and it is more than an initial. He most definitely hasn't seen this video either: "Jesus Christ / Joseph Smith"
http://www.goodnewsforlds.org/video.html

One thing he sure doesn't/ they surely don't know is that J.S. compared himself to Jesus Christ, even saying he way better than him. He said he was the only one that could keep a church together. Not an exact quote. Can't look it up right now. No time. Perhaps someone else can or knows the exact wording and can post a link or quote, from the man's mouth himself.

They want to think they know and have the truth and that the same goes with their leaders, since J.S., and they would never be lied to - though they eternally lie to themselves, and others.

Hope all goes well. Rock on and keep moving forward. Share the light

History of the Church, Vol. 6, pp. 408-409


Address of the Prophet--His Testimony Against the Dissenters at Nauvoo

"God is in the still small voice. In all these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil--all corruption. Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet. You know my daily walk and conversation. I am in the bosom of a virtuous and good people. How I do love to hear the wolves howl! When they can get rid of me, the devil will also go. For the last three years I have a record of all my acts and proceedings, for I have kept several good, faithful, and efficient clerks in constant employ: they have accompanied me everywhere, and carefully kept my history, and they have written down what I have done, where I have been, and what I have said; therefore my enemies cannot charge me with any day, time, or place...."

...................


and from King Follett discourse:


You never knew my heart; no man knows my history; I cannot tell it. I shall never undertake it. If I had not experienced what I have, I should not have believed it myself. I never did harm any man since I have been born into the world. My voice is always for peace, I cannot lie down until all my work is finished. I never think any evil nor do anything to the harm of my fellowman. When I am called at the trump of the archangel and weighed in the balance, you will all know me then. I add no more. God bless you all. Amen.

Thanks Shummy-

"The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet." Uh! Hold on Joseph!! Wait!!! Update: MANY have RUN AWAY from you and many more are yet to... as wise ones do EVERY DAY.

"When they can get rid of me, the devil will also go." OK, so you took the devil with you? Tell the current Mormons that because they think the devil is still around.

"You never knew my heart; no man knows my history; I cannot tell it. I shall never undertake it. If I had not experienced what I have, I should not have believed it myself." FUNNY, he wouldn't believe it himself. Well, Joe, you don't have many believers now - and most do so only because they have been lied to all these years. 80,000 + missionaries lie about you everyday!

"I never think any evil nor do anything to the harm of my fellowman." Mormon leaders do it to this day, in your name, so how can anyone believe you didn't start it [evil thinking and doing harm to your fellow MEN (and WOMEN - and CHILDREN)]?