| Subject: | "We shouldn't judge Joseph Smith by present-day standards"..... |
| Date: | Jul 30, 2006 |
| Author: | Randy J. |
| Note: Many Mormons are not aware that
Joseph Smith married other men's wives. In several cases he
sent their husbands on missions and then married these women while the
husbands were gone. Mormons generally are not aware he
married girls as young as 14. These relationships were
conjugal, including the young girls. References: 351 Joseph
Smith and Helen Kimball Age 14 199 Joseph
Smith's Wives
276 Share Wife with Mormon Prophet
That's what many Mormon apologists, and even some
people who claim to be Ex-Mormons argue, when discussing Smith's
relationships with teenage girls. One Mopologist, Russell McGregor,
whose internet alias is "Pahoran", called that "presentism"---the
act of holding historical figures, particularly Mormon leaders, to
present-day standards. |
| Subject: | Are we judging Joseph Smith unfairly by using "today's standards"? You decide |
| Date: | Jul 31 02:36 |
| Author: | Tal Bachman |
| In Randy J.'s excellent thread, "We Shouldn't
Judge Joseph Smith by Present-Day Standards", he notes the tendency
of Joseph's defenders to claim that his modern critics are judging him
unfairly by holding him to today's standards of behaviour. In fact, the
opposite is true, and that any adult could make such an assertion, is
only testament to how deeply our capacity for rational thought can be
corrupted by emotional attachment to ideology. Mormon defenders cannot have it both ways. Either, as say Mormon GA's, society has fallen from a far superior moral state, and we now live in an era characterized by shockingly loose morals, where chastity is denigrated and mocked, where "traditional family units" are under threat "as never before", where sexual anarchy appears to be a possibility, etc. ad nauseam - OR, our era is in no way superior in sexual restraint and order to past eras. We will call the first proposition "F" (for "fallen"), and the second, "S", for "the same". If "S", then Mormon GA's cannot be believed when they claim "F". And if they cannot be believed, then they are in fact "leading the church astray", and if that is the case, a canonized item of official doctrine is not true (see the Manifesto page in the D&C), and if that is the case, then Joseph's church isn't the only true religion in the world. But if "F", then illegitimacy, immodesty, sexual "looseness" and "experimentation", promiscuity, etc., were ALL far RARER in Joseph Smith's era, than now - meaning that his era was far stricter sexually, than ours is. But if that is the case, and as church defenders ask, we judge Joseph Smith according to the "standards of his time", then modern critics are NOT JUDGING HIM HARSHLY ENOUGH. And in fact, history suggests exactly this. For, who do these genius church defenders think would best be in a position to judge Joseph according to the standards of his own time, other than THE PEOPLE WHO LIVED IN HIS OWN TIME? And how did THEY judge him? THEY FINALLY ASSASSINATED HIM. They drove Joseph's treasonous band of cult fanatics OUT OF THE UNITED STATES. And before that, they chased Joseph out of area after area. And why? "Because Joseph's church was the only true church, and Satan wanted to destroy it!"? My member friend, just consider one other possibility. Maybe...just maybe...Joseph wasn't exactly precise with his storytelling....and maybe, just maybe, he didn't actually meet up with back-from-the-dead Peter, James and John, etc....Maybe, like hundreds of other religious men of the time, Joseph didn't really have the experiences he claimed to have had...and keep in mind, that antebellum America was rife with innovative religious societies, most of which were patiently tolerated by their neighbours... So maybe, all that expulsion had something to do with this, which I think even Richard "They've Broken Me and I Love It" Bushman would admit: That everywhere Joseph Smith went, in the service of his cult of self-aggrandizement, he gave the finger to American law, American religion, American tradition, American mores, American culture, everything that those "in his own time" regarded as sacred and necessary. And as a consequence, everywhere he went, almost EVERYONE got totally sick of him and his band of deluded, obedient followers. The illegal banking, the vigilantes, the false prophecies, the mockery of a religion most Americans thought true (Christianity), the bloc voting, the occultism, the furtive sexcapades, the shameless public lying, the destruction of other's private property, the delusions of grandeur ("God is my right hand man", "I have no law", etc.), announcing other's people property belonged to "the Saints" by divine right, etc., etc... And let's keep in mind, since we're talking about judging according to the "standards of the day" - for those totally dependent on what their own farms could produce for sustenance, and the good will of their neighbours for safety and stability, dependent on the preservation of property laws, with disaster and death never seeming very far, Joseph and his cult - with their disregard for so many things their neighbours thought necessary for survival and happiness (including respect for contemporary sexual standards) - appeared to pose a danger. Like...DANGER. Like, their livestock start getting stolen because JS and his sidekick Sidney start telling members that everything around them properly belongs to Zion (it's not like locals could run down to Costco to get replacement food for the winter); like, their civil institutions start getting overtaken by religious voting blocs (how'd you like your school board taken over by devout Muslims who start reconstructing everything according to Muslim law? Now you know how local Missourians might have felt); like their sisters - AND WIVES - getting hit on by "the prophet"... The truth is that church defenders ought to be GRATEFUL that Joseph Smith's modern critics may be judging him by the standards of today. After all, how many RFM posters are big fans of vigilante castration and assassination? Most of us would be more than happy to just see Joseph's bad behaviour exposed and reproached, and then see his lies fade into the oblivion they - and all other lies - deserve. Joseph's contemporaries were a little more pro-active. When Joseph supposedly hit on (or actually had sex with) fifteen year old Nancy Marinda Johnson, Dr. Dennison, with the encouragement of a neighbourhood mob, nearly castrated him. THAT'S how people IN his his own time judged him "according to their standards". So, I guess by the "logic" of church defenders, who say we ought to judge Joseph by 1840 standards of right and wrong, the RIGHT thing for us - AND them - to all be saying now about Joseph Smith is, that he deserved to be dragged out of the Johnson farm house in the middle of night, nearly castrated, then tarred and feathered by a bunch of angry townspeople. No wonder Mormon defenders are confined to publishing their inanities in church-subsidized publications - it's only there that the accidental comedy can go unrecognized... Of course, it is too much to hope, that some church member, just as sincere as I was, could ever read this, and begin to think, "Maybe...maybe I've missed something....". But in the miraculous case that someone does, here is a final comment: It was not considered proper in 1840's America for a foster father to secretly have sex with his teenage foster daughters - and Joseph did that TWICE (with both the Lawrence and Partridge sisters). It was not considered proper for a self-proclaimed religious pastor to secretly have sex with his housemaids. It was not considered proper for ANYONE, let alone a "prophet" who had publicly BANNED polygamy in his church charter, to secretly proposition other men's wives, even telling them that unless he could "marry" (have intercourse with) them, that an angel would murder him. It was not considered proper for ANY MAN to slander women who rejected his sexual advances, as Joseph did with Nancy Rigdon and Sarah Pratt. It was not considered proper for ANY 38 year old to secretly have sex with a fourteen year old, and in so doing, consign her to a life of loneliness, devoid of love. The truth is, according to the standards of the time, Joseph's character must be - and was - regarded by most as nothing short of loathsome. And in case you don't believe me, my member friend, I suggest you read "Mormon Enigma", recommended by the official church historian, Leonard Arrington. It is on sale at your local Deseret Books. In it, you will find another judgment made of Joseph, one made in accordance with "the standards of his time" by one of Joseph's contemporaries. In fact, that contemporary was none other than his wife, Emma. And her judgment, after finding out later from a mutual friend that Joseph's tomcatting was greater than she had known, was that - "he was worthy of the death he died!" (see "Mormon Enigma", page 292). When's the last time you read THAT on the special Joseph website run by the church? Joseph Smith's OWN wife - that "elect lady" - the first president of the Relief Society, whose portrait can still be seen in church buildings all over the world, stated that Joseph's behaviour was such, *according to the standards of his day*, that HE WAS WORTHY OF BEING ASSASSINATED by a mob. My suggestion to Mormon church defenders: Stop asking modern critics to judge Joseph Smith by the "standards of his day"; according to your own modern prophets and apostles, Joseph Smith's day was far superior in morality, chastity, sexual standards, modesty, etc., than today, so all you're doing is highlighting just how obnoxious and loathsome was the behaviour of the Mormon founder according to the standards of HIS day (as if the censure and violent retaliation of his contemporaries wasn't enough to prove it...Even his own widow thought he deserved to be lynched!). If we really needed certain proof that Joseph's church wasn't the only true religion in the world, so true Jesus was a member of it, I think all we'd really need to do is examine the arguments made in defense of it. They are enough to make a nine year old blush. T. |
| Subject: | People during Smith's own time didn't like his chasing children... |
| Date: | Jul 30 19:36 |
| Author: | Deconstructor |
| I've heard this too Randy, as if somehow what Smith
did was okay for his time but not for our time. Yet the people closest to Smith while he lived also condemned his behavior. Oliver Cowdery recognized Smith's affair with a 16 year-old girl as not only inappropriate, but as "nasty" and "filthy." Smith's behavior was just as wrong - if not more so - than it is today. In fact, Smith's famous tar-and-feathering was likely the direct result of family members reacting to his advanced to their 12 year-old sister. Smith's own wife, Emma, wasn't happy about it either. It took a "revelation" threatening her destruction to coerce her into accepting polygamy. (See D&C 132) And even then, her acceptance didn't last long. There's simply nothing in the historical record to indicate that Smith's contemporary society was okay with what he was doing. It was illegal. It was against the rules of the church. It ultimately led to his death. There is simply no excuse for a married man in his mid-thirties to be propositioning any woman - let alone teenagers as young as twelve. Those who try and justify it are just as wrong as Smith. |
| Subject: | Re: "We shouldn't judge Joseph Smith by present-day standards"..... |
| Date: | Jul 30 19:15 |
| Author: | MishMagnet |
| Very good summary. Just as an added bonus let's not
forget that Joseph Smith kept his polygamous relationships from his
legal wife as long as he could. He married close friends of hers (such
as Eliza R. Snow) and instructed them to say nothing to Emma about it.
(Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith) |
| Subject: | "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts." |
| Date: | Jul 30 19:15 |
| Author: | Dr. Shades |
| Leave it to you, Randy, to boil everything down to
bare-bones undeniability. It's damn near impossible to argue with
this--I might have to use this post in my own debates with apologists,
do you mind? Also, your saying: "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts" . . . Did you come up with that? It's BRILLIANT. One for the archives. |
| Subject: | Re: "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts." |
| Date: | Jul 30 19:58 |
| Author: | Randy J. |
| >Leave it to you, Randy, to boil everything
down to bare-bones undeniability. It's damn near impossible to argue
with this--I might have to use this post in my own debates with
apologists, do you mind? Not at all. The more, the merrier. >Also, your saying: >"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts" >. . . Did you come up with that? It's BRILLIANT. LOL, I wish. No, that one's been around awhile. I heard somebody on TV use it in a political debate a few months ago. I thought it was relevant to use on this subject because a certain poster on this BB who purports to be a knowledgeable historian on Mormon issues seems to have a habit of expressing personal opinions favorable to the character of Joseph Smith Jr., but which are easily debunked by opposing facts. Ironically, that same historian, just a few weeks ago, stated something on this BB about how historians are supposed to be dispassionate, and only draw conclusions based on where the evidence leads---but his personal comment about how we're not supposed to "judge Joseph Smith by present-day standards" demonstrates the attitude not of a dispassionate historian (and a self-proclaimed Ex-Mormon), but rather that of an apologist for Joseph Smith, and one who is relatively ignorant of the details of Smith's life at that. Face the facts, people: Joseph Smith was a lying, cheating, sex-crazed slimeball criminal who deserves no praise or respect. He is responsible for creating one of the most gigantic frauds ever perpetrated upon the American people. His deviant sexual habits have stigmatized the Mormon religion for nearly 170 years, and made it the butt of jokes and derision. Pardon me if I have no respect for Joseph Smith's "standards." |
| Subject: | Daniel Moynihan coined the phrase |
| Date: | Jul 30 20:47 |
| Author: | Trixie |
| and the "presentism" dodge is one they use pretty consistently, even with excusing the problems in the BoM |
| Subject: | Re: "We shouldn't judge Joseph Smith by present-day standards"..... |
| Date: | Jul 30 19:31 |
| Author: | lightfingerlouie |
| So old Joseph is supposed to get a pass? How would he have been judged for taking the wives of other men, dipping his wick in 14 year old girls, lying to his wife about his sexual experiments, and, very possibly, being involved in attempted murder, and murder? The oversexed "Prophet" would not stand up well at any time. He was a dirt bag. Just think of the things we still don't know. |
| Subject: | Tal---one comment..... |
| Date: | Jul 31 16:54 |
| Author: | Randy J. |
| Mail Address: |
| >Joseph and his cult - with their disregard
for so many things their neighbours thought necessary for survival and
happiness (including respect for contemporary sexual standards) -
appeared to pose a danger. Like...DANGER. >Like, their livestock
start getting stolen because Sidney Rigdon and Orson Hyde start telling
members that everything around them properly belongs to Zion To be accurate, that verbiage originated from Smith in 1833, and Smith and Rigdon reiterated it during the period of the Missouri tensions and expulsion in 1838. Orson Hyde was one of the Mormons who actually opposed Smith and Rigdon's practice of "consecration" (theft) of property. Hyde was one of the dissenters whom Rigdon's "warning against dissenters" letter threatened with "fatal calamity" if they did not go along with Smith's orders or leave the area. Hyde, along with fellow apostle Thomas Marsh, signed affidavits detailing Smith's illegal and anti-social practices. Those affidavits served as a major catalyst for Governor Boggs to issue his "extermination order." See the documentation at http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/msg/9d864ad0a6177ac3 http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/msg/bfc7637b3e165e9e |
| Subject: | Joe and his cult literally threatened the foundations of 1840s American society. |
| Date: | Jul 31 17:17 |
| Author: | Bryan |
| Mail Address: |
| When a cult messiah builds the second largest city
in your state, orders all your property stolen and you and your family
murdered, has thousands of members who vote as a bloc thus wielding huge
political influence, throws the social underpinnings of man-woman
relationships out the window by having sex with underage girls and with
other men's pregnant wives and MARRIES them, and so on and so on, you
might get concerned. So concerned that you and your neighbors,
especially on the frontier, would organize to cut out the cancer of the
cult in any way possible to prevent social order from coming apart at
the seams. That's what happened in Missouri and Illinois in the 1830s
and 1840s. I think we underestimate how real the threat to social
stability was from Joe and the Mormons. |
| Subject: | Here's the thing |
| Date: | Jul 31 19:02 |
| Author: | Tal Bachman |
| Here's the thing, I think: You can go a long way in
this world once you annihilate your conscience. And I'm not even sure
Joseph ever had a finely tuned one - after all, the guy grew up duping
his neighbours. So, I don't wish to exaggerate what was going on with
Joseph's weird cult, but...at the same time, when you consider he had
himself anointed King of the Earth, that he organized a secret Council
of Fifty, had a band of men who swore to do whatever he told them to
"whether right or wrong", and that those men did physically
injure and murder people, that Joseph spoke openly of taking over North
and South America, that the Nauvoo Legion was nearing HALF the size of
the US standing army...and they're way far away from American centers of
power...you can see how people would get concerned. Mormon defenders sit around talking about how great C.S. Lewis was, trying in effect to paint him as a virtual Mormon, lauding his book "The Abolition of Man". Yet, JS spent his life declaring war against The Tao Lewis speaks of. That's WHY JS said stuff like "I HAVE NO LAW". He's explicit about it - and you can read about it in the official history of the church! In fact, that he had no law wasn't exactly true - his law was rather like Aleister Crowley's: "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". And frankly, that's the only sense in which JS is a "prophet"...a man who creates a cosmology around himself (and reifies it in the form of a cult which he controls), since the universe seems impassive anyway. And I think Bushman's clear on that - that's why he lumps his preferred nutcase "prophet" in with David Koresh. Why, it's just like preferring taupe to mauve, isn't it? "Everyone has to believe in something, doesn't he?". What a joke. Also, thanks Randy J. for the correction. I changed it. T. |
| Subject: | Do you remember when Richard Bushman was quoted a few months ago..... |
| Date: | Jul 31 20:06 |
| Author: | Randy J. |
| .....as comparing the Mormon
"persecutions" in Missouri to the eviction of the Baghwan
Rajneesh cult from Oregon a few years ago? That illustrates the naivete
and ignorance of even those Mormons who are considered
"scholars": As opposed to Bushman's apparent views, both the
Baghwan cult and the Missouri Mormons were responsible for their
evictions by their illegal and anti-social behavior, rather than merely
being "persecuted for their religious beliefs." Bushman might
as well have used the KKK or the Mafia as his examples with which to
defend the Mormons. I'm no psychologist, but in my layman's opinion, it could easily be argued that Joseph Smith was a sociopath. His behavior reminds me of some of these serial killers you see profiled on TV programs, who say that they have no conscience or human feelings for their victims. Smith manipulated everyone he could, and ran over anyone who stood in his path of self-attainment and self-gratification. His act of wantonly slandering the reputations of his female disciples, who were offended by, and sought to expose his illicit, immoral propositions, show him to be the worst kind of cad. What kind of man is he, who tries to manipulate women into having illicit sex with him, and when she turns him down, he threatens to call her a "common whore" in public? Was that behavior demonstrative of a man who truly believed that his "revelation on celestial marriage" was really a "commandment from God"? Or was it that of a sociopathic manipulator who concocted that bogus "revelation" as a means of inducing naive, trusting women to have illicit sex with him? Did the all-knowing Creator of the Universe really need his chosen "prophet of the restoration" to slander the reputations of innocent, trusting women in order to further the cause of the "true gospel"? What sort of "God" is that to worship, and what kind of "church" is that to be a faithful member of? |
| Subject: | A Higher Law |
| Date: | Jul 30 19:38 |
| Author: | nomorelies |
| The other day I was reading some quotes by Heber C.
Kimball about women and polygamy. How he instructed the missionaries to
bring back "all the women" and not take the best for
themselves thus leaving poor Heber, Brigham and the rest of the
"leaders" with the culls. I don't believe that the rest of
society at that time treated women as mere cattle or commodities. People
might not have been so "enlightened" as today about the
equality of the sexes but I believe most men of the time treated their
wives and women in general with a far greater amount of respect than
these so-called "men of God". Besides, if they were really inspired of God, they should have been living a far higher law, with far higher standards and principles than their contemporaries. Thus, either God is one chauvinistic misogynist and sexual predator or Joseph and the boys were some of the most depraved and unfeeling sons-of-bitches imaginable. In fact they could have taught the Taliban a thing or two on degrading and subjugating women. |
| Subject: | Krakauer directly says "Polygamous Mormonism = Taliban" in his book. |
| Date: | Jul 30 21:59 |
| Author: | Bryan |
| Mail Address: |
| Under the Banner of Heaven was written in the year
after 9-11 and the overthrow of the Taliban, so to call the Mormon
leadership, under Briggy and under polyg prophets like Jeffs, the
equivalent of the Taliban was a pretty bold move. It just goes to show
you how even a neutral observer who studies the issue will inevitably be
brought to the conclusion that Smith's, Young's, and Jeffs's behavior
represents the extremes of the extremes of human experience. Afghanistan has a centuries-old tradition of female oppression. America doesn't, at least not like Afghanistan and other places in the Muslim world like Saudi Arabia. Polygamy is a 1400 year old tradition in Islam. In America, Joe had to keep his polygamist tendencies secret for fear of being lynched-in a time when women couldn't vote or own land. Protecting female "integrity" has always been a sacred American tradition, even when women were denied other rights. The chivalric view of women has always been alive and well in America. Joe, Briggy and the others violated the sacred trust, and it got Joe killed (and almost castrated) and forced Brig to flee to the wilderness to practice his twisted view of women's "divine role". Mormonism=polygamy=violation of women, no matter what the cult's PR firm spins, which is why traditionalists like the Baptists and evangelicals hate Mormons so much. Mormons treat women like cattle, even today, something that even the most backward of Americans don't like. Mormonism will NEVER live this down. The facts are out there and the cult can't hide them in The Vault any longer. |
| Subject: | How should we judge him? |
| Date: | Jul 30 19:52 |
| Author: | heresy |
| Does everyone who died over 100 years ago just get a
free pass? I thought we were supposed to learn from history. |
| Subject: | Re: "We shouldn't judge Joseph Smith by present-day standards"..... |
| Date: | Jul 30 19:57 |
| Author: | Quail Feathers |
| Yes, but if its "Glass Looking" we are talking about then we shouldn't judge him by the standards of his time, because he was judged and found guilty. |
| Subject: | Re: "We shouldn't judge Joseph Smith by present-day standards"..... |
| Date: | Jul 30 19:57 |
| Author: | Lara C |
| Ya know what I think is so ridiculous about this
statement? It wasn't even that long ago. It's not like it happened even 500 years ago. It was, what, 150 to 170 years ago? Please. |
| Subject: | Of all the hilarious "arguments" made by Pahoran... |
| Date: | Jul 30 20:06 |
| Author: | et in Utah ego |
| "presentism" made me laugh the most. Its basically just an all purpose way to deny history, to short-circuit in advance any critique one might make of the past. And since it severs the past from the present, it also does away with various forms of distance and perspective that are also needed to judge the present. Thus everything all around is protected from criticism. Its one of the most reactionary rhetorical ploys I've run across. |
| Subject: | Smith, by 19th century standards was guilty of |
| Date: | Jul 30 20:23 |
| Author: | Matt |
| Rape (by deception) fraud, theft (he stole money
from people who entrusted it to his "bank") child sex abuse,
incitement to murder, etc. Great man to follow... |
| Subject: | Re: "We shouldn't judge Joseph Smith by present-day standards"..... |
| Date: | Jul 30 20:40 |
| Author: | bona dea |
| I agree that Joseph Smith should not be judged by the standards of our time. Neither should any other historical figure. It is only fair to judge them by the standards of their own time. Smith's problem is that his behavior wasn't acceptable in his time either. |
| Subject: | statements like this reflect the inadequacy of "revelation" |
| Date: | Jul 30 20:52 |
| Author: | Trixie |
| One of the ironies of mormon apologetics today is
many of their excuses actually undermine the supposed rock of the
foundation of the LDS church. Why? Because they are tacitly admitting
that culture is a stronger force than revelation from God. Otherwise,
the practices of the contemporary culture wouldn't matter at all. They do the same thing when they play the "a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such". So all the times when the prophet gets up in front of the congregation, speaks "in the name of Jesus Christ", and utters nothing but his own silly opinion is PROOF that revelation is so weak that it can't even be heard over the man/prophet's own ideas rattling around in his head. |
| Subject: | Re: "We shouldn't judge Joseph Smith by present-day standards"..... |
| Date: | Jul 30 22:55 |
| Author: | Belle |
| "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions,
but not to their own facts." May I use that for a daily quote? I love it! As always, I love your posts too. Great history lessons, even better well-developed arguments. Although I don't know how you stand "listening to" or taking on the apologists. If I had the depth of your knowledge and assuredness of fact as you do, it would drive me insane to deal with their "slop". In any event you have my esteem and you could probably sell me a little sign that says "RandyJ can kick your apolig-ass!" |
| Subject: | Of all the testimonies that have been given about Joseph Smith.. |
| Date: | Jul 30 23:15 |
| Author: | Shiner Bock |
| ...Randy J. gives one of the best: "...Joseph Smith was a lying, cheating, sex-crazed slimeball criminal who deserves no praise or respect. He is responsible for creating one of the most gigantic frauds ever perpetrated upon the American people. His deviant sexual habits have stigmatized the Mormon religion for nearly 170 years, and made it the butt of jokes and derision...." |
| Subject: | Fabulous |
| Date: | Jul 31 04:21 |
| Author: | darquestar |
| Tal, Am currently ploughing my way through Bushman's RSR and he makes the point, sometimes implicitly but sometimes not, that we have to see the things he was doing IN CONTEXT. Was there once a time when it was ok for 38 year old men to have sex with 14 year old girls? Presentism (as Juliann over at FAIR likes to remind people) is a red herring as far as i'm concerned and you have hit the nail right on the head - i think we are judging Joseph in a much more restrained and dispassionate way than would have ever happened in his own day. Great post. Darque |
| Subject: | Best Paragraph from Tal's Rant |
| Date: | Aug 01 01:06 |
| Author: | Swish |
| I love this paragraph. It highlights so many of the
reprehensible flaws in Joseph Smith's character. It should be handed out
on 3x5 cards at Temple Square during general conference. Nice work Tal.
Here it is again for an encore performance: It was not considered proper in 1840's America for a foster father to secretly have sex with his teenage foster daughters - and Joseph did that TWICE (with both the Lawrence and Partridge sisters). It was not considered proper for a self-proclaimed religious pastor to secretly have sex with his housemaids. It was not considered proper for ANYONE, let alone a "prophet" who had publicly BANNED polygamy in his church charter, to secretly proposition other men's wives, even telling them that unless he could "marry" (have intercourse with) them, that an angel would murder him. It was not considered proper for ANY MAN to slander women who rejected your sexual advances, as Joseph did with Nancy Rigdon and Sarah Pratt. It was not considered proper for ANY 38 year old to secretly have sex with a fourteen year old, and in so doing, consign her to a life of loneliness, devoid of love. The truth is, according to the standards of the time, Joseph's character must be - and was - regarded by most as nothing short of loathsome. |
| Subject: | Reference for Truth Seeker |
| Date: | Aug 01 04:56 |
| Author: | Tal Bachman |
| Hi Truth Seeker See "Mormon Enigma", page 292. Joseph F. Smith wrote that Joseph Coolidge (Joseph Smith's executor) told him that Emma once remarked to Coolidge that JS had "abandoned plurality of wives before his death", whereupon Coolidge told her she was wrong. She insisted she was right, but Coolidge responded that he "knew better". Coolidge reported that Emma then remarked, "(Then) he was worthy of the death he died!". Sorry I got the wording wrong, the last time I read the book was years ago and I was going by memory. Still, it means the same thing. I might as well fix that quote in my original post now... Hope that helps, T. |
|
Recovery from Mormonism - The Mormon Church www.exmormon.org |