Native American DNA
[Post-Mormon Mag.]
Knoxville Dinner Social
[East Tennessee Po...]
FACEBOOK INFO
[Sanpete County Po...]
Utah County CALM meetup for November
BlackSheep2
FACEBOOK INFO
Crissy
FACEBOOK INFO
Barn
October 5th PostMormon Lecture Series 2014
Starfleet
October 5th PostMormon Lecture Series 2014
alvie
Why I am a Better Mother
by aworkinprogress
SF Bay Area Monthly Gathering SUNDAY (5/4)
exmoinaz
SF Bay Area Monthly Gathering SUNDAY (5/4)
owned
The Mormon Mask
by Born Free
Las Vegas Meetup--Jazz in the Park Saturday May 10 6:30PM
onendagus
Resignation Letter to My Family
ShadowSage
Resignation Letter to My Family
ShadowSage
Guru Busters
by Flora4
Guru Busters
by Flora4
Resignation Letter to My Family
Hbush1987
General Non-Conference: Palmetto State Session
Swearing Elder
Sunday Morning Hangout at Container Park March 30th
onendagus
Second Wednesdays
Houston
General Non-Conference: Palmetto State Session
Swearing Elder
General Non-Conference: Palmetto State Session
dovahkiyn
February Meetup Sunday the 16th 2:00pm Grand Cafe at Sunset Station
onendagus
Visitors welcome !
priorvej12
Las Vegas meetup Sun Jan 12th 1pm at Milos in Boulder City
onendagus
January 5th- Southern Utah PostMormon Lecture Series
gypsyrose
Book of Mormon Tories
by Tom Donofrio
  It gets better! Resources to help with coping
  House Rules for posting on this website
  Why is there sometimes anger here?
  Glossary of Post-Mormon Terms
  Frequently Asked Questions
 
   
 
About to nuke a missionary’s faith from Mormon.org
 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2012-03-17

Following this exchange,

 missinarychat2.pngI got this in my email,

 

-

Hello Kori,

My name is Andre I am the missionary you chatted with a few days ago on Mormon.org asking about the law of the priesthood and Joseph Smith having many wives that were sealed to him while married to another man.

 

I'm sorry that it took me so long to answer, usually I'm quite quick, just got too much to do this past few days. :) So I was looking through all the evidences and genealogy records  of these people and especially as you mentioned Zina Huntington Jacobs, who was married to Henry Jacobs. We know that she was six months pregnant by Henry, and continued to live with him even after being sealed with Joseph.

 

First of all I want to clarify that there is no evidence that Joseph EVER cohabited or had intimate relations with ANY of these women. No children from these marriages have ever been identified.

At the time that celestial marriage was introduced, it was possible to be married for time to one person and sealed for eternity to another, so it would affect Joseph and this woman's lives only afterlife.

 

As other "wifes"  Zina "did not merely bow to Smith's pressure but obtained her own testimony of polygamy by scripture study and by personal revelation. Of course we haven't been there to know all the story as it was but we cannot judge people for something we cannot understand at this time. Just like Peter denied Christ 3 times we would think that he could become son of perdition but we all know how great he was.

I hope that's answer to your question, if not give me an email back so we can have a more deep discussion on this topic.

Sincerely,

Andre

 I don't have time to respond right now, but I can't wait to supply this Mormon with links to completely destroy his illusions. 

 Signature 

“It is time we realized that the endgame for civilization is not political correctness.  It is not respect for the abject religious certainties of the mob.  It is reason.” 
Sam Harris

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2008-08-12

I wonder how they explain away Brigham Young's and Heber C. Kimball's and other 'prophets' as well. They are straining to do it with Joseph supposedly not having sex with his "wives" but...Brigham and Heber sure did. As did hundreds of others (just check the 1850/1860/1870/1880 Census' of Utah. It's a riot.)
 Signature 

I’ve begun worshiping the sun for a number of reasons. First of all, unlike some other gods I could mention, I can see the sun. It’s there for me every day. And the things it brings me are quite apparent all the time: heat, light, food, a lovely day. There’s no mystery, no one asks for money, I don’t have to dress up, and there’s no boring pageantry. And interestingly enough, I have found that the prayers I offer to the sun and the prayers I formerly offered to God are all answered at about the same 50-percent rate.” George Carlin

 
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2013-01-08

Here's my conversation with a FAIR apologist on the subject from couple of years back... (I've removed all personal details such as addresses and greetings from the beginning and at the end of the letters.)  

 

____________________________

ME:

____________________________

On 11/2/10 5:37 AM

The following comments were sent through the FAIR Website comment form by R.
Dear Sir/Madam,

 

I was reading through the article:
http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2006_Zina_and_Her_Men.html

And I'd like to get an answer to the following question:
When and where was or has been defined in the mormon doctrine that a woman can
have multiple husbands?

____________________________

FAIR:

____________________________ 

Date: Tuesday, November 2, 2010, 3:36 PM

I am a FAIR volunteer. As such, I alone am responsible for my comments.

I presume your question arises from the fact that Zina was married already
when she was sealed to Joseph. In this case, or any other, there is no need
to suppose that there is a doctrine within the LDS Church for women being
sealed to multiple men in the eternities, and I am not aware of any such
teaching. I reconcile the actions of Joseph in the case of Zina to the
notion of a distinction between sealing and temporal marriage. A sealing is
for time and all eternity, whereas a temporal marriage is "until death do us
part". As such, it is fully conceivable that someone could be married to a
person for time (until death do us part) and yet another for "all eternity".

In an imperfect world of imperfect people, situations arise where
individuals are married in the temple (sealed) for time and all eternity,
and after the death of the husband, the wife again falls in love and is
married. In such situations, there is no attempt made to sort out and judge
which marriage (or if sealed, which sealing) would be efficacious in the
eternities. Rather, it is allowed that she can be sealed to both husbands,
with the thorny details of which marriage would remain being sorted out by
Him whose authority such sealings are enacted, namely Christ. As such, I
know of circumstances where, for purposes of our records, there are two
recorded sealings of a woman to two men without the first being annulled.
This need not suppose that there is a doctrine within the LDS Church that
such polyandrous unions will persist in eternity. The truth is, such issues
tread upon highly emotional subjects for family members, and I see it as
wisdom of our leaders to take a "sort it out later" approach.

I hope this is helpful to you.

 

____________________________

ME:

____________________________

Wed, 3 Nov 2010 01:43:50 -0700 (PDT)

 

Thank you for your prompt reply. However the your response didn't quite

address the particular issue that I had in mind. Reading the article carefully

it is very clear that Zina was married to Henry and Joseph prior to Joseph

death. Assuming that the marriage with Henry was for time and with Joseph

for eternity is not the issue I had in mind, although such would be somewhat

contradictory to the information also provided as the article mention Brigham

serving as proxy for Joseph in the sealing after his death. The issue behind my

question is that according to the article after the death of Joseph Zina became

married to Brigham for time. Please keep in mind that this all occured in Nauvoo.

Now the fact that the article states is that she departed from Nauvoo with Henry,

her first husband, as a married couple and hence leaving no room for doubt that

she would have ever divorced Henry, as it's hardly likely that a divorced couple

would be departing as a couple. Thus Zina has was very obviously married with

Henry and Brigham at the same time making it a polyandrous relationship, which

according to my understanding has never been allowed in the church. 

 

 

____________________________

FAIR:

____________________________ 

Date: Wednesday, November 3, 2010, 2:11 PM

 

As I understand your issue, the question is regarding Zina being married for "time

only" to two men at the same time, correct?


That is an interesting question on which other FAIR volunteers may be able to

provide a helpful perspective, so I have copied our volunteer list. 


To my understanding, a Levirate marriage where a brother takes the wife of a

deceased family member was for the purpose of raising posterity for the brother

and caring for his widow. Anciently, it was an obligatory practice

(see http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levirate_marriage?wasRedirected=true).

I know thatBrigham married several of Joseph's wives after Joseph was martyred

under this notion of Levirate marriage, but it is not a "doctrine" that is encouraged,

practiced, or otherwise taught in the Church today. 


Please note that the "sealing" practice has evolved a bit over time. Brigham, for

example, was sealed to Joseph as his brother (presumably creating justification for the Levirate practice mentioned above). Such sealings are no longer performed, as

around the turn of the last century the practice of sealing individuals into family

units became restricted to sealing only husbands to wives and parents to children.

It is entirely possible that, prior to this refinement, Brigham felt obligated to take

Joseph's role in these marriages even though there was not a need to do so for

reasons of financial security or raising of posterity (I do not believe there is credible

evidence either Joseph or Brigham had marital relations with Zina). 


Regardless, the problem of eternal versus temporal marriage remains the same.

In the case of Brigham, he was merely standing as proxy for Joseph in time.

Zina was sealed for eternity to Joseph. Her first husband to whom she was

married for time only would presumably not have claim on her for eternity any

more than Brigham. So, in an eternal sense, neither Brigham nor her first husband

were in any eternal sense her "husband". 


It is interesting to me as I study Church history to observe how true the notion is

that God gives us line upon line, precept upon precept. I believe that many of the

messy issues that arise from the sealing powers and the restoration of ancient

practices, such as this one with Zina married to two men (polyandry) and Brigham

sealed to Joseph as his brother, are the result of these men being taught principles

they put into practice, and later prophets clarified the Lord's intent and so the

process was refined to the practices we recognize today. In other words, as our

understanding improved, our practices became refined so that such messy issues

do not arise so much any more. At any rate, I do not believe that there has existed

or now exists any doctrinal justification for women being married to more than one

man at a time other than that created by the separation between temporal

marriage and eternal sealings, and the notion of Levirate marriage. This, of course,

does not negate the practice allowed today for multiple posthumous marriages of a

woman to men so as to allow the issue to be resolved at the time of judgment

without hurting the sensitivities of descendants. 


Other FAIR volunteers may be able to provide additional insights.

As always, while I speak only for myself, I hope that my comments are helpful.

On a personal note, I find such refinement of practice a powerful evidence for the

need for ongoing revelation and for the notion that our leaders are working out

their salvation just as I do - line upon line. Such quirks in Church history do not

bother me, as I see them as our leaders genuinely seeking to best live the

principles they receive. Rather than criticize them for what they may have got

wrong, I feel grateful for what they got right! As a convert, I was brought into the

Church largely on the unique teaching of the eternal nature of families. It is a sweet

and delicious teaching to me, and I see this issue with Zina as the initiation of a

concept that is central to the entire plan of salvation. While it is not without its

complications, I am confident that it will all be adequately sorted out in the end by

our Righteous Judge. For me, the restoration of sealing powers enables me to be

sealed to my wife and children for eternity and so I am very grateful that Heavenly

Father was patient with past leaders so as to enable us to enjoy this great

blessing for ourselves. 

 

Best wishes in your studies! 

 

 

____________________________

ME:

____________________________

Wednesday, November 3, 2010, 3:58 PM

 

You picked up my issue correctly.

I'm happy for you if you've found your peace of mind in mormonism. Unfortunately

the case is just the opposite for me. The more I study the church history and

doctrine the more I'm convinced that the church isn't true and the more it looks like

church related organizations are just trying to cover up the truth from the public.


Now your response mentioning levirate marriage practice between just messed

things up a bit more. I went back to the article too and it was also mentioned in it

and I just managed to skip it in the first pass. If Joseph was married to Zina only for

"eternity" and not for "time" then why Zina needed a levirate marriage

arrangement for "time" with Brigham? She was already married to Henry leading to

believe that she actually was married for "time" with Joseph too. And then

considering that Henry was sent to a mission when his second child was just barely

been born. What were the motives of God or church leadership for doing so? I find

this case most disturbing. 

 

____________________________ 

ME:

____________________________

Mon, 8 Nov 2010 06:06:42 -0800 (PST)

 

Have you picked anything from the other volunteers? I haven't received any

feedback so far. 

 

 

____________________________

FAIR:

____________________________

Monday, November 8, 2010, 3:22 PM

 

My apologies, as I have had email problems for the last several days and I fear my

request to others did not get received. I have resent as of this morning so

hopefully others will respond shortly. 


I will give some of my own, additional thoughts later today.

For my own understanding, can you give me some background on yourself? It

would be good to know a bit more about you personally. 

Sorry for the delay, and thank you for your patience.

____________________________

ME:

____________________________

 

Mon, 8 Nov 2010 11:02:21 -0800 (PST)

 

Sure I can open up some of my background. I was born into a mormon family in a

country where mormonism is tiny compared to other religions. This difference

between the surrounding culture and the one that I was brought up in caused a lot

of difficulties for me as a child. I was the no. 1 being picked at school etc. but I bore

my testimony bravely, after all it all came down to the prophecies and scriptures

telling me that is the fate of a believer. I probably would still be a true believing

mormon if there hadn't been a certain unfortunate accident that got me thinking

the problem of evil and why there is evil in the world. This happened when I was

about sixteen yrs. old. After giving it a throughout thought I came to conclusion

that God is not fair should such exists which heavily contradicts the teachings of the

church. Since then I've been studying quite extencively various religious movements

their view of God(s), how these movements come to the existence, but I didn't dare

to look too deeply into my own religion as it had such a megalomanic influence in

my life.

One of the decive turning points in my life was when I learned about documentary

hypothesis and how the Pentauch (the 5 books of Moses) was created. After that I

came across Zoroastrianism, the first book religion in the world, and how Judaism

inherited the dualism from it and it all became very clear how scripture and religions

are born. Now I view that Christianity is just a collection of tales combining old

Judaistic tradition with Egyptian Horus myth, Greek mythology and the teachings of

Pythagorean philosophy. Some of the acts of Apollonius of Tyana have are too

similar with the claimed deeds of Jesus Christ and since There're a lot more

historical evidence about Apollonius of Tyana there're actually very little basis to

believe that Jesus ever was an actual person. And then on top of all there's the Q-

source defining how early Cristianity is bearing quite much resemblance with such

modern day movements as the Branch Davidian that became to an end in Waco

Texas.

After all this massive evidence started piling up against theistic religions it became

the turn to turn my attention toward how mormonism came to be as it claims to be

the restored church having the true gospel. Unfortunately my investigations don't

look good for mormonism. It is changing more and more to be just one more dot in

the same gray mass of religions without abilities to stand out from the crowd.


On the side of all these investigations I also studied a bit on the biology and

psychology of religions. The findings there reveal such hormones as dopamine and

endorphine that are behind the most of the feelings of religious experiences. These

hormones are fairly easy to stimulate and neuropsychology nowadays is quite

familiar with such cells as mirror neurons in human brains that enable persons to

simulate many different sensations by themselves wihtout external influence. Given

this backgroud I came to conclusion that all feelings involved in religious concept

couldn't be trusted at all hence rendering praying and religious rituals useless

means of acquiring knowledge from omnipotent beings.

So there you have it, my religious biograph in a nutshell. Plain and honest. I guess

it's needless to say that I'm quite heavily leaning towards atheism nowadays. 

 

____________________________

FAIR:

____________________________

Monday, November 8, 2010, 7:38 PM

 

 

Thank you for sharing your background and thoughts. With your permission, I will

share it with our volunteers so they can also give you insights. Others are more

familiar than I am with the schools of thought you have mentioned, so I am sure

they can add perspectives that might prove helpful. Please let me know if this is

ok. 

 

 

____________________________

ME:

____________________________

Mon, 8 Nov 2010 23:10:49 -0800 (PST)

 

 

I don't mind sharing my story myself if such is requested, but I trust you

understand also that this is my personal life and story, hence I would very much

appreciate if you kept it to yourself. Should someone else from FAIR send me an e-

mail asking me to disclose this information I'm happy to do so with them, but since I

have no idea where this information might end up I must decline your request at

this point. 

 

 

____________________________

FAIR:

____________________________

Tuesday, November 9, 2010 9:19 PM

 

 

I fully understand your hesitation, and that is precisely why I asked permission

before sharing your message with others. 



So that you know, all questions and responses sent to FAIR automatically are sent

to a group of volunteers who help provide answers to specific questions, such as

yours. Any of the volunteers may respond, and it is not uncommon for more than

one person to reply. When they do reply, the same list of volunteers are copied so

that they can add their personal perspective or insight. 

While these communications are shared among our volunteers, they are not shared

outside of this specific list without first getting permission from the questioner (ie

you). In the past 12 years of doing this, we have never had an occasion where we

have made such a request (to my knowledge). 


My request to share your information was for this closed and private group of

volunteers. We have found that when someone struggles with matters of faith,

what resonates well with one person may not ring true to another. As such, having

a variety of volunteers respond increases the chances that we will help you find a

good reason for the hope that is in you. 

At any rate, I am aware of probably every anti-Mormon argument ever crafted.

None has had power to break my faith. I have had powerful spiritual witnesses that

transcend feelings or emotions. I have had experiences that leave zero doubt but

that God is not only real, but that he is involved in the affairs of men and responds

to our humble petitions. I have seen him make me more than I was despite my

weaknesses, and I believe he does the same with his very human prophets and

apostles and with us as His covenant people. 

There is a book I would like to recommend to you called "Shaken Faith Syndrome"

by Michael Ash. It specifically addresses how you can maintain or re-establish the

faith you once had that is now shaken by information you have received. You can

buy it from the FAIR bookstore at http://www.fairlds.org. If you cannot afford it or

otherwise cannot obtain one, I would be happy to send you a copy. 


If you do choose to let me share your background with our internal group of

volunteers, I can assure you they will keep your personal information confidential.

However, I am confident that one or more will have a perspective that can help

you. 

At any rate, please let me know if you would like me to send you a copy of the

book, as I would be happy to do so. 

 

 

____________________________

ME:

____________________________

Wednesday, November 10, 2010, 8:55 AM

 

 

I understand your request, but I still like to keep my own story under my own

control as much as possible. I prefer sharing it myself rather than having someone

completely unknown someday come out of the blue with "issues" about my story

especially if they haven't discussed it with me personally. I also realise that the

story contains such elements that might create a strong emotional response in

someone with testimony as it has with some local mormons that I've shared it. So I

really don't wish the story to be shared openly in order to avoid people from

getting upset with a burden that is not theirs.


As I mentioned in my first response to you I'm truly happy for you that faith has

worked with you and it's not on my agenda to question it. I've been walking down

the path and come to know the pain it causes to lose one's faith. I do not wish the

same to anyone, so if you're happy with what you've got, stand firm with it, it's not

worth seeking alternative truths when you're content with your current one. The

emotional turmoil is just too much to bear if the change should come over you. Your

logic and reason will have to fight aginst your emotions and even if the logic would

win in the end that fight is long and your emotions might drive you to the verge of

self destruction and insanity before it will be over. I've experienced it over the past

21 years (yes I'm 37 yrs old) that I've been on my quest for truth about religions,

thus I am aware how strong the the emotional grip can be that the church has over

a true believer and that's the reason I dug quite deep into psychology and biology

of religion in the first place. As long as the effects of religion on the individual

remain positive, as it seems with you, people should be just happy and content

with what they've have.

As for the book you recommended I took the liberty of searching some information

about it.

http://www.shakenfaithsyndrome.com/schmidt-response.pdf

Reading through the writers response to a review of the book I think I got a pretty

good idea what the book is about. The short quotes from the book itself in the

response, assuming that those quotes are of the highest quality the book has to

offer, didn't convince me. I got the feeling that it's just one more of the books that

aim to create "reasonable doubt" against dismissing the faith. Some quotations in

the response actually bring up the Mesoamerican cultures and draws some

parallels with them and the BoM based on weak sporadic examples completely

forgetting the fact that based on the archaeological evidences the cultures in

question bear only very little or no resemblance what so ever with the cultures in

the BoM. The author also falls in the pit of "Argumentum ad ignorantiam" with

notions where he suggest that while conclusive evidences have not been found yet

it doens't prove BoM inaccurate. Such argumentational errors are not giving

adequate reasons for academic people like me to be a believer. Hence I seriously

doubt the value the book could offer for me, but thank you for your effort in trying

to aid me.

For now I would be just content if I would receive an answer for the original

question regarding the polyanrous marriages in the early days of the church. 

 

 

____________________________

ME:

____________________________

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 8:41 PM

 

I thought you might be interested. I presented the same question to the church via

the official Q&A form on the mormon.org website. The reply I received was fairly

limited and culminates in this sentence:

 

"As far as the church and polyandry is concerned, we are unsure why these practices were allowed or what truly happened in them." 

In a sense honest to admit that it's not known, but alas yet another detail in the

church history left without a proper disclosure. 

 

__________________________________

So no responses from FAIR since Nov 10 2010 on the subject... 

EOD.

__________________________________

br /
 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2010-06-02

Wow poor David really had to drag himself across glass to make that OK in his mind.

as far as the no evidence he slept with these woman.

I remember A letter between JS and one of these woman that said somthing like can't wait to see you Emma out of town and burn this letter after reading. I think it was in Fawn brodies book. ( you can show he was messing around , Keeping it secret from his wife, and activitly trying to conceal the relationship.) Sorry I don't remember more.

I also know that the Fannie affair and the tar and feathering and near castration of JS was becuase Fannies family found out about his affairs, You don't get that pissed about a temple ordiance I'm thinking.

 

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2012-03-17

My response

 

-

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi Andre,

Thanks for getting back to me. I really didn't expect that. 
Once you bring up the many wives of Joseph Smith and the FACT that he really did claim other men's wives as his own, most Mormons head for the cover of darkness, because defending anybody who claims another man's wife as his own, is about as moral as defending Warren Jeffs, the FLDS Prophet, while he rots in jail for the rest of his life on multiple child rape convictions.

As to your points, 

#1. "First of all I want to clarify that there is no evidence that Joseph EVER cohabited or had intimate relations with ANY of these women. No children from these marriages have ever been identified."

That's absurd. 
#1. Sexual relations were not required to violate the Law of the Priesthood, simply claiming another man's wife as your own, is a clear violation of the Law. 
#2. Why would you assume those pretend marriages Joseph had with other men's wives were never consummated when the only stated purpose of plural marriage was reproduction.  
#3. Obviously you can't argue that there was no sex happening with other men's wives, since Brigham Young did father a child with Henry's wife Zina, after sending him away on a mission to England, halfway to SLC. That's clearly adultery and a violation of the Law of the Priesthood, the 10 Commandments, the Law of the Land and common human decency. 

"At the time that celestial marriage was introduced, it was possible to be married for time to one person and sealed for eternity to another," 

By what law? Not the Law of the Priesthood, which condemns polyandry, clearly. 

"so it would affect Joseph and this woman's lives only afterlife."

That's nonsense. You don't think pretending to marry the leader of your church, when you're legally and lawfully married to your husband had an effect upon the relationship between Zina and Henry? How about once you get married you and I share your wife, since God's cool with it? Would that affect you? 

"As other "wifes"  Zina "did not merely bow to Smith?s pressure but obtained her own testimony of polygamy by scripture study?and by personal revelation. Of course we haven't been there to know all the story as it was but we cannot judge people for something we cannot understand at this time. just like Peter denied Christ 3 times we would think that he could become son of perdition but we all know how great he was ."

I imagine that's what the Fundamentalist Mormon missionaries are saying about Warren Jeff's right now, as he rots in jail on multiple child rape convictions. 

In Sacred Loneliness, was written by Todd Compton, an LDS scholar and History Professor, who remains in good standing with the church. No Mormon apologist denies anything in it, because it's all well documented historical fact, which is consistent with the church's own genealogical records, for the most part. The church isn't completely forthcoming, which is understandable. Who would want to admit they belong to a church who's first two founders were adulterers? 

 

This chart matches the one in the front of ISL.

 

 

 

The #1 thing that would have prevented me from ever having anything to do with Mormonism, had the church fulfilled its obligation to disclose the important information, is the fact that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young 'married' (had sex with) women who were married to other men, which is irreconcilable with "The Law of the Priesthood" (still contained in D&C 132:61-63)**


References:

-
1st to the love of her life, Henry Jacobs
-
2nd to Joseph Smith, while 7mo pregnant w/Henry's child
-
3rd to Brigham Young, after Brigham Sent Henry on a mission to England, then got down to making babies with Henry's legally and lawfully wedded wife, Zina. 
Why in my 40 years as a Mormon, was THAT important factoid not disclosed? 
 


D&C 132:58–66, is according to the Mormon Church "The Laws governing the plurality of wives." (Also known as "The New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage")
Here's just one verse:

D&C 132:61 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(#1), and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins(#2), and have vowed to no other man (#3), then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him(#4); for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.(#5)

5 Violations of "The Law of the Priesthood" in one verse

#1. Obviously Emma never gave her consent to phony 'marriages' to other men's wives. How stupid do you think she was? Not that stupid. She objected to her philandering husband's pretend 'marriages' to other women ever since she and Oliver Cowdery caught him 10 years before this pretend 'revelation on the Law of the Priesthood, caught Joseph Smith screwing the 16y.o. house help, Fanny Alger in what Cowdery characterized as "That dirty, nasty, filthy affair" between Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger.

#2. Obviously married women are not virgins when she's 7months pregnant with her REAL husband's baby.

#3. Obviously women who are married to other men do not qualify as 'marriage material' in any culture, time period or by any law.

#4. Obviously the 13 women who Joseph 'married' (had sex with) who were married to other men were not given to him by any law known to man. If there is such a law, written in scripture that contradicts the 10 commandments.

#5. IOW, if the 'plural wives' do not 'belong to you' AND they actually 'belong to another man' then it's adultery to claim them as your wife, to say nothing of the abuse of power, the abuse of another infinitely less powerful woman and her cuckolded husband.

There are many, many more violations of the law by both Smith and Young, but why belabor the point?

Any more than 3 is really just overkill and that's just one of many verses that Mormons consider to be "THE WORD of GOD" violated by Joseph Smith and not a single verse to support marrying other men's wives exists in all of scripture, but it is roundly condemned throughout time in nearly all scriptures of any faith, starting with the 10 commandments. 
Now, IF D&C 132 Really is the word of God, 
then Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are clearly guilty of adultery, according to the word of God and we all know what the penalty for adultery is, right? Sin next to death, outer darkness, all that nonsense you were threatened with as a child?
 Yep, you're not guilty, those manipulative abusers were guilty of FAAAAAR worse than ANYthing you've ever done in your entire life. I don't care if you're Warren Jeffs sitting in prison on multiple child rape charges, that was just the tip of the iceberg for Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. They both fathered children with other men's wives. 
 
The Maxwell Institute's (LDS Church's) explanation for Smith's Polyandry....here
-
What is left to our imaginations, and Compton's speculations, is the nature of these "polyandrous" marriages. Were these unions simply dynastic sealings—the practice of sealing women to certain senior priesthood leaders for eternity only, with little or no temporal relationship—or were they relationships including intimacy and offspring? Compton points to about a half-dozen marriages to single women where physical intimacy is documented. But arguing parallels does not establish such relationships. There is a logical chasm between single and married sealings, and, for the latter, there is no responsible report of sexual intercourse except for Sylvia Sessions Lyon. In 1915, her daughter, Josephine Lyon Fisher, signed a statement that in 1882 Sylvia "told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church" (quoted on p. 183). The Fisher document is somewhat supported by Angus Cannon's recollection of hearing that Patty Sessions said the Prophet fathered Sylvia's child (see p. 637). Compton acknowledges Sylvia may have meant that her 1844 child was conceived during Windsor's four years out of the church, from 1842 to 1846 (see p. 183). Though he thinks it "unlikely" that Sylvia denied her husband cohabitation during this period (p. 183), that is a serious possibility. This is implied in the family tradition of her daughter some three decades later.
-
Reliable evidence indicates that Joseph Smith fathered some children through his plural marriages with single women, but that evidence does not necessarily support intimacy with polyandrous wives. Compton's own discussion of "Sexuality in Joseph Smith's Plural Marriages" (pp. 12—15) is muddled. He generalizes without specifying which category (single, widowed, divorced, separated, married) of plural wives supposedly took part in this most private aspect of plural marriage. For example, Compton concludes this discussion: "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. . . . And in a significant number of marriages, there is evidence for sexual relations" (p. 15). Which marriages? Compton does not specify or quantify or document his generalized conclusion that "in a significant number" of these plural marriages Joseph Smith had sexual contact with his partner. If by "significant" Compton implies that a majority of these marriages had what he terms the "sexual dimension," his statement is not supported by the data he presents. But Compton several times extrapolates with unwarranted confidence, as in the case of Zina Huntington Jacobs: "Nothing specific is known about sexuality in their marriage, though judging from Smith's other marriages, sexuality was probably included" (p. 82). This is an example of many questionable conclusions in this book that are overly broad, nonspecific, or undocumented. 
 Which completely ignores the fact that Brigham Young fathered at least one childwith Zina Huntington Jacobs, while she was still legally married to Henry, although he was serving mission in England at the time, sent there by BY, while BY was home making babies with the missionary's wife. 

Real legit religion you got there, founded by adulterers and pedophiles. 
No wonder so many Mormon children are sexually abused, when their parents sing "Praise to the Man" to a man who pretended to marry (had sex with) other men's wives.

I used to be a missionary and I NEVER would have defended Joseph Smith, had I known he really did claim the wives of 11 men, which completely violates the Law of the Priesthood, the 10 commandments, and the law of the land, not to mention common human decency. 
 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 
not really expecting a reply.  
 Signature 

“It is time we realized that the endgame for civilization is not political correctness.  It is not respect for the abject religious certainties of the mob.  It is reason.” 
Sam Harris

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2012-03-17

For anybody who's interested in how representatives of the crutch will lie through their teeth, to protect the good name of the crutch, here's the reply I got to my questions about polyandry.

 

-
Hi Kori,
I just wanted to share with you this web site http://www.josephsmithspolygamy.com/index.html I think it explains really well why these things were necessary and that Joseph was a true prophet. I hope that you will you the gift of the Holy Ghost to discern the truth of all things. Also  if you want you can add me on Facebook so we can discuss all this straight away.

 

 My response: 

-

Andre,

I looked at the website you referenced, which fails to address the discrepancy between Smith and Young's practice of polyandry with D&C 132:61, the LAW of the priesthood, which clearly condemns that practice as adultery. 

I did find this refreshing however,  How are such actions to be explained?  Of course, one easily could make the assumption that most non-Mormons and anti-Mormons have that Smith simply was letting his sexual impulses get away with him in these or other cases.  Or, as most Mormon writers have done, one could ignore the evidence entirely and hope that it would be forgotten.

It seems this applies to EVERY Mormon handling of this issue, including you. You all ignore the real question,

Where is the law that allows a couple to marry each other, when they're already both married? 

There are plenty of laws that condemn that as adultery, starting with 10 commandments and ending with the Law of the Priesthood, not to mention, the law of the land.
-
 Signature 

“It is time we realized that the endgame for civilization is not political correctness.  It is not respect for the abject religious certainties of the mob.  It is reason.” 
Sam Harris

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2012-03-17

This is another email I responded to below.

 

-

Andre,

Thank you for corresponding with me on this. I appreciate the discourse. 

I'm just very busy and only have time for limited correspondence, but this is the first time Iv'e ever had a missionary really try to answer my questions honestly. Usually they're not nearly as honest as you are. I can't tell you how many good Mormon men I know who have lied to me about these things because they refuse to admit that the prophet they sing praises to every week was really no better than the Fundamentalist (Real) Mormon Prophet, Warren Jeffs, who's rotting in at TX Prison for the rest of his life, on multiple child rape convictions, which is where Joseph Smith would have wound up, had he not gotten what he deserved, which he deserved a whole lot sooner.  I'm glad you're at least willing to look at the evidence, even if I don't agree with your conclusions. More on that later. 

So in response to your Jun 9, 2013

-
Hi Kori,

I'm glad that you answered to my e-mail and hat you have served your mission as a faithful LDS.
Just as many of us you and I started to study in deep these questions not because of our faith but our thirst for knowledge which is purely pride or curiosity.

 

I'll take that as a compliment, since there's nothing wrong with pride, if it's justified, or curiosity, which is how you obtain a good education. 
I got a good education about Mormonism over my 40 years, first as a child, then as a missionary. I learned how to do real research, at a University. Then I researched the claims of the church the same way I researched my master's thesis. I resolved the issues, not just for myself, but for my children and future generations. You clearly have not. 

I still find it fascinating to speak with missionaries. It's ironic, because I was in your shoes once and nobody asked me questions about The major discrpencies between THE LAW of the Priesthood and the well documented evidence of both Smith and Young's sexual behavior with other men's wives and teenage daughters, which violated EVERY law on the books. 

If I had met somebody like me on my mission, who was a former Missionary and found out that the church I belonged to was really a big, giant fraud, I'd listen, especially if what they had to say was backed up by evidence, like the church's own genealogical website and LDS scholars, who's work is well documented and cross referenced. 


I would have really researched what that man said and verified the information independently. 

-
I've heard a lot of strong faithful LDS turning back from the church because they wanted to in the first case know the truth and in the second prove to everyone once and for all that we have proves for everything.

I decided to be honest with my kids. I didn't want to perpetuate an apocalyptic myth just because I inherited it. I wanted to examine what I'd inherited, especially after 9-11. I was Muslim before I took my Mormon heritage seriously. After 9-11 I lost faith not just in Islam, not just in Allah, but also Christianity, God and Mormonism, all at once. On 9-11 I still believed Allah and God were one and the same. I still believed Muslims and Mormons were not much different, they just happened to be born in different places, believed in Prophets, God/Allah, health restrictions, the whole nine yards. Then 9-11 hit and the so called Prophet fell silent. The greatest terrorist attack in US history on US soil and the prophet is silent. On the eve of America's longest war, god was nowhere in evidence, as thousands of his children died senseless act of terror. Where was the Mormon God? Where did the Prophet say He was? Nowhere to be found. Nothing. 
The silence was deafening. 
Your silence in response to my main question, which I've asked numerous times, is deafening.

 

Again, 

 

show me the law that allows a man and a woman to "marry" each other, when they're both legally and lawfully married  to their REAL spouses or does it not exist? 

Until you produce it, it doesn't exist. 

For Joseph and Brigham to have had sexual relations with these women, like Zina Huntington Jacobs Smith Young, who was married to Henry Jacobs, when she was bred to Brigham. Yet you name Universities after this adulterer. There are monuments all over SLC and Utah to an adulterer. Which is like erecting a monument to Warren Jeffs, while he sits in jail on child rape charges, which is what the Fundamentalist (Real ) Mormons are doing right now on Yearning for Zion Ranch in TX. 

-
I want you to know that if you strive to prove the truth then you don't understand the very first principle of the gospel which is faith.

What is faith ?
I've got faith. Faith in humanity, reason and love, which is all I need, since your God failed to show up on 9-11, when we needed him most. And his mouthpiece fell silent. 
-
-
To have faith is to ? hope for things which are not seen, which are true.. 
Like Allah? 
-
-
Each day you act upon things you hope for, even before you see the end result. This is similar to faith.Faith in God (Allah) is more than a theoretical belief in Him. If we bring God (Allah) unto faith this will result... To have faith in God (Allah) is to trust Him, to have confidence in Him, and to be willing to act on your belief in Him. It is a principle of action and power
Replace the word "God" with "Allah" and this sounds exactly like something that the terrorists on 9-11 would have written right before committing the worst atrocity in the history of the US. 
"As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities." Voltaire
"Love, show me wisdom greater than this." Voltaire
-
-
I know that you know all this "stuff" but before you harden your heart let me tell you this.
Like I said, I find this whole conversation really ironic, since I was a missionary 30 years ago, selling the same lines of nonsense. They didn't work then. They don't work now. 
-
-
Every question of the gospel can be answered by a really simple thing called the articles of faith.
What do the articles of faith say about having sex with other men's wives? Was God ever cool with that?
-
-
You mention in your letter the law of the priesthood written by Joseph himself. If Joseph wanted to lie about his motives why would he write such a thing ?
10years before THE LAW of the Priesthood was published, Emma and Oliver Cowdery caught Joseph in what Oliver characterized as "that dirty, nasty, flithy affair of Joseph's with Fanny Alger" (the 16 yo house help) which got Oliver excommunicated.  It took him 10 years to come up with this lame excuse for screwing around behind Emma's back. She didn't buy it. Why should we? He broke THE LAW, not just one, every one. 
-
-
Do you believe that the book of Mormon is true and that Joseph is the prophet ? Maybe you think he apostatised 

I believe he was a talented and charismatic man with an active imagination. IOW, I think he was insane and probably doing drugs, and getting as much action as he could handle, which has motivated men since the beginning of time immorial. He was really good at convincing people they'd seen things they really never saw, except in their minds eyes and he made a heck of a living off of fooling fools. And Joseph's Myth is still fooling fools and separating them from their money.  

 

-

-How do you understand modern day revelation ?

It's the biggest pyramid scheme/business in the State of Utah. 
It would be a Fortune 500 Company if it were public. It should be taxed, heavily. 

-
-
I knew about this things before my mission but not in details because having the witness from the Spirit sufficed me, eventually just like you I started deep researches on different topics on my mission to give answers and "proves" to my investigators.
You knew Joseph Smith 'married" had sex with other men's wives, completely violating the 10 commandments, the law of the land, the marriage vow he'd taken, the marriage vows of 11 other couples, and violated THE LAW of the Priesthood he claimed to have received straight from the mouth of God, and had sex with teenagers, then lied about it, and you decided to go sell Joseph's Myth, without ever mentioning ANY of that, because to any non Mormon, that makes your system of belief sound really immoral. 
-
-
As you asked me for specific details I went through many hours of personal and extra study on the topic, reading all the letters, journals and DNA tests (good that I have access to that) and even thou I still have many things to study I would need only a little thing as art. of faith 9
"We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. "
Which still has not enabled you to answer any of my questions honestly, remarkable. Just answer this one question honestly, Was there ever a law that allowed two people to marry, even though both are already legally married to their REAL spouses? 
-
-
If you would continue put these marriages in a lustful way I have just to say that even neutral observers have long understood that this attack on plural marriage is probably the weakest of them all so I wouldn't even  put any effort to discuss it here.
You're the one who put them in a lustful way by claiming it didn't count if he didn't have sex with them, which completely contradicts THE LAW of the Priesthood, which condemns it regardless of whether or not they consumated the adulterous relationship. Just pretending to marry another man's wife was and is adultery. It's illegal. For good reason. 
-
-
You also mentioned that  "the only stated purpose of plural marriage was reproduction.". This statement is not correct read D&C 131:2 + D&C 132:15.
Keep reading. Seriously you're going to sit here and argue that the purpose of marrying other man's wife was something other than reproduction? Where do you get this information? 
-
-
On your #3 point you said  : "Obviously you can't argue that there was no sex happening with other men's wives, since Brigham Young did father a child with Henry's wife Zina, after sending him away on a mission"
-
I thought we were discussing Joseph's history, but even then you can find many things that many do not understand about Brigham's life and statements, does it mean the church is not true any-more ? That the priesthood that the 12 had suddenly disappeared ? No it didn't, and you know it.
We're discussiong THE LAW of the Priesthood and how it was actually practiced by the founders of your immoral system of beliefs. 
-
-
You also mentioned the 10 commandments and I want to ask you if you really understand them.
Yeah, don't covet your neighbor's wife and don't commit adultery, doesn't take a rocket scientist to know what that means. 
-
-
Even thou we can't find any cases of polyandry (discussed lately) in the Holy Scriptures there was polygamy and it was in the law of Moses. Take the case of Judas (son of Jacob) he married a Canaanite which is against the law of Moses that will come a little bit after. Same with Lot and his daughters (incest). Abraham making a sacrifice of his own son. Did you get the point ? God is continually speaks to his children making new covenants with them all the time.
Yeah, not talking about polygamy. I'm talking about polyandry, as it was practiced by both of your adulterous founders of your church. 
-
-
What about other husbands reaction to polyandry ?
All of them were actually friends with Joseph until his death and were totally OK with that. If you study "early Christian" life you will be surprised how different their sexual beliefs were from now.

So you admit that both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young abused their power and authority over their followers, by virtue of being religious leaders. Which is like taking a gun and putting it to the men's heads and saying, "You go away on a mission and your wife is now my wife #26. I'm going to stay here and make babies with your wife. Now run along." And they were into it? 
Wow, that's the kinkyiest theory I've ever heard. Would you be into that if Thomas S. Monson said, "Hey Brother Andre, I want to make babies with your wife while you're in Eingland on a mission." 
How very post sexual revolution of them, especially given the fact they were in the midst of the Victorian Era, which was characterized by prudish sexual attitudes. 
So you're basically saying that the guy you sing praises to every week is no better than Hugh Heffner pretending to be married to a different centerfold model every month, or two, or three, or 34, like Joseph or Brigham, 55. 

That's a whole lotta action! 

And they couldn't let poor Henry Jacobs have just one wife to himself? They had to send him away on a foriegn mission, twice, while they stayed home and made babies with his legally and lawfully wedded wife, the mother of his children, the love of his life?

They were rapists. Face it.  No wonder the church is a haven for pedophiles. You worship a couple of pedophiles and adulterers. 

-
-
What about hiding info. The church does not hide it but it does not show it on every corner just like the temple covenants.
Once again you have to read this info with the spirit of revelation and an open mind. It doesn't matter what theories people or scholars are coming with because they have not been there.
I was a member of the church for 40 years and nobody ever breathed a word about any of Joseph's Wives except Emma. That's pretty important information to disclose, don't you think? That's like selling somebody a house and neglecting to mention the massive crack in the foundation, which is considered fraud. 
You as a missionary have an obligation to disclose the truth, don't you? Otherwise it's fraud, you're a fraud, like the fraud you're trying to sell me. 
-
-
I could continue but do not see the point of it since everything is pretty clear for me. I cannot share with you my testimony but can invite you as you used to invite people to come unto Christ.

I came unto Christ. He just didn't come onto us when we needed him to, on 9-11. Where the hell was he?
Ask your prophet.
Oh yeah. Your so-called "prophet" is silent .
What use is a silent prophet and a god that fails massively to intervene on behalf of his children when they need him most, like on 9-11? 
Unless you believe God is Allah, which I do.

Both concepts are appocalyptic, which I no longer subscribe to, in the wake of 9-11.  

-
-
Hope you will read and pray about it to find peace, comfort and understanding.
God bless you Kori.
Sincerely,
Andrew

Every time anybody mounts a defense of Joseph Smith or Brigham Youngs perverted sexual behavior, I just think of the faithful followers of Warren Jeffs, who defend singing their prophets praises, while he sits in a TX prison on child rape convictions. 

It really is what Oliver Cowdery discribed it as, "A dirty, nasty, filthy affair of Joseph's" That started 10 years before the so-called "LAW of the Priesthood" was ever published, so he made it all up to try to convince Emma to silence her objections to his raping little girls and other men's wives, which she'd objected to 10 years earlier, but at the time, he was still raping teenager orphan Lawrence sisters in his own house, with Emma in the next room. She was furious, so he came up with this bogus "Law of the Priesthood" which no Mormons ever mention, because it's such a transparently abusive, misogynist, excuse for rape. He never wanted it to end up as C&C 132, it was just a lame attempt to coerce Emma into silence. But he did a half assed job of that, condemning himself, but Mormons are blind to the fact that the so-called "LAW" applies to Joseph Smith. They obviously believe Joseph Smith was above the law, all laws, since he didn't follow any laws in regards to marriage, not even the one he claimed to have recieved direct from God, 10 years after getting busted in a dirty, nasty, filthy affair of his with the 16 yo house help, Fanny Alger, by both Oliver and Emma.

Seriously Bro, where's your integrity?
Had I learned about this when I was a Mormon, I would have headed for the exit immediately. Yet you defend these absurdities. 
"As long as they believe absurdities, they'll commit atrocities." Voltaire
 Signature 

“It is time we realized that the endgame for civilization is not political correctness.  It is not respect for the abject religious certainties of the mob.  It is reason.” 
Sam Harris

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2012-03-17

His latest response;

 

-
Kori, my dear friend.

HAVE YOU ACTUALLY READ THE WHOLE THING ABOUT JOSEPH ?
At lest here http://www.josephsmithspolygamy.com/JSMotives/JStheWomanizer.html
-
 

Like I said, you Mormons have a perverted obsession with sex.

Again, it doesn't matter whether or not he had sex with the wives of other men, what matters is that he violated every LAW ever written pertaining to marriage, just by claiming another man's wife as his own. 

Again I've asked you what, 5 times to answer this one question,

 

WAS THERE EVER A LAW THAT ALLOWED TWO PEOPLE TO MARRY, WHEN BOTH WERE ALREADY LEGALLY AND LAWFULLY MARRIED TO  THEIR REAL SPOUSES? 

 

There's a REAL, honest answer here Andre, but you'll obviously say ANYthing to maintain the delusion in your mind that  Joseph Smith really is worthy of our praises, despite the evidence I've presented to the contrary. That's the very definition of delusion, maintaining a strong belief, despite superior evidence to the contrary. 

 

You're delusional if you know he married other men's wives and you know the LAW of the priesthood stronglycondemns polyandry as adultery, yet you ignore that and sing his praises all day, every day, that's immoral, unethical and fraudulent.  

-
Do you really think there is adultery between Joseph and these women ?
-
 
-
According to the LAW of the Priesthood, yes. He clearly committed adultery by claiming other men's wives as his own. 
-
Let's just talk about Joseph right now OK ?

Why? Too much evidence of Brigham Young's adultery for you to deny? If Brigham Young did it with other men's wives, under the Law of the Priesthood, what makes you think Joseph Smith didn't practice polyandry the same way as BY, who clearly had sex with other men's wives, like Zina Huntington Jacobs Smith Young

 

Read In Sacred Loneliness, which backs up everything on Wikipedia.  

 

-
Again, if he was making this stuff up why on Earth he would write such a thing in D&C 131-132 ?

 

Again, to try and silence Emma, who after 10 years of catching her serial rapist husband raping teenagers, was livid at the time Joseph conveniently received the 'revelation on plural marriage' 10 years after getting busted with his dick in Fanny Alger's teenage vagina by Oliver and Emma. She was livid because Joseph was raping teenage orphans (The Lawrence Sisters) in their own house, with her in the next room, when they were supposed to be raising them as their own children. Insted he raped them and robbed their trust fund, which is what got him killed, by William Law, who was the only guy in Nauvoo with the guts to stand up to Joseph's clear abuse of the Lawrence sisters, who were William's friends of the family. Joseph never intended for this lame excuse for adultery, to become scripture. 

 

-
D&C 131 and 132 describes really well the whole thing and I don't understand why you can't understand it. Read not only one passage but the whole thing. Remember how we study on our missions.
1. Knowledge
2. Comprehension
3. Application
4. Analysis
5. Synthesis
6. which is 1. Learning by FAITH

You my friend fail just like me at the very first principle of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Have faith.
-
 

Faith in what? What makes placing your faith in Joseph's Myth any more noble than placing my faith in the gospel of Bin Laden? 

 

-
If you want to prove the gospel than you're wrong and you know it. The knowledge is not in the 5 principles of the gospel.
-

 

since the bogus religious prescription for determining truth failed me so badly, I much prefer the scientific method for discerning the true nature of reality, observation and reason. 

 

1. formulate a question

2. develop a hypothesis

3. Predict the otucome of a test of the hypothesis

4. test the hypothesis

5. Analize whether the evidence proves or disproves the hypothesis

 

 

 

-
Here you don't talk about Polyandry but about Sexual polyandry.

 

Right. Mormons want to silence any suggestion of the sexual impropriety of their idol, Joseph's Myth, ever since he ordered the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor, which got him killed for violating the REAL law, the US Constitution. 

-
 
-
So prove me here now that Joseph Smith had sexual relationship with all these woman (some of them were sealed to him after martyrdom). To be able to "prove" you have to really be a scholar. Here I gave you the synthesis of one of the Mormon scholars, you can believe him or not but I think his quite good if you really truly STUDY
-
 

Just answer my question Andre, and quit trying to sidestep the main question!!!

 

WAS THERE EVER A LAW THAT ALLOWED TWO PEOPLE TO MARRY, WHEN BOTH WERE ALREADY LEGALLY AND LAWFULLY MARRIED TO  THEIR REAL SPOUSES? 

 

-

this topic. Believe me there's much more interesting questions about Joseph Smith and Mormon and are bashed by people all around the world only a few of us here so please remember the covenants you made with God. Do you still believe in God ?

 

Which one? There are 330million Gods in the Hindu pantheon alone.

I think at least one of them bears a slight resemblance to my conception of god, which is the sme as Stephen Hawkings.

 

who was asked the same question, Do you believe in God?

"Yes, I do, if by God you mean the embodiment of the laws that govern the universe."

— Stephen Hawking 

 

Do you believe in the Wizard of Oz?  

 

-
About D&C 132 : 61 that you always mention I want to say OH my ... have you really read it ? No I'm serious. Is that it ? Doest it makes Joseph a liar ? Doest this verse condemns Joseph of adultery ? His 1st plural marriage was polyandrous and it was even before he wrote this.

 his 1st 'plural wife' was his 16 yo house help, who wasn't married. That's what got Oliver Cowdery excommunicated and pissed off Emma her entire life, which is why she NEVER accepted the principal of plural marriage or the phoney baloney "Law of the Priesthood" which she saw right through.

 

-
So is the Book of Mormon a fiction ?

 

Pure 19th century fiction, yes. It's been proven by the genetic evidence, which proves that no Native Americans have semetic DNA. They all descended from Asians, not Jews. Every testable claim of Mormonism has been tested and failed. 

 

-
Were all the saints at this time adulterers and perverts ?
-
 
They were mostly just victims of an increadibly adulterous and perverted system of beliefs that rewarded those at the top of the pyramid with more action that Hugh Heffner gets at the Playboy mansion.  
-

Can you please really study this subject ? Like really study as a good missionary would do. Remember how we are upset about our investigators that ask internet in the name of Google and not Heavenly Father in the name of Christ about BOM ?
-
 
I have found Google far more forthcoming that any Mormon source.  
-

I really do care about you my friend and tell you and testify to you that this topic can be understood if you look unto it with the Spirit of discernment and revelation like all these man and women that also didn't understand it at first but prayed about it.
-
 
I looked for 20 years. Studied the scriptures. Nothing was mentioned about Joseph's victims. I asked my priesthood leaders. They lied. Prayed. God was silent. Looked to the prophet, who was silent. Finally had to figure it out on my own, through my own observations and reason, which I've found most reliable. My conscience actually led me out of Mormonism. 
-
Who are we to condemn these people ? No one have ANY proves about SEXUAL POLYANDRY, only suggestions. Just like suggestions that there's no God but WE do have proves and we know it's true.
God condemns Joseph in the Law of the Priesthood, the 10 commandments and throughout the scriptures. I don't have to. God already did. 
-
As I mentioned I had some issues with faith  but I always knew Joseph was a prophet and this church being the church of Christ. I'm a convert myself and it was hard for  me to understand basics until I started study like I need to, so I tell you, THIS IS THE TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST and we both know it, so why rebel against it ?
Don't speak for me. I don't know it. I know Joseph's Myth is bogus. Your so-called 'Profit' is nothing more than the CEO of the biggest corporation in the State of Utah that rakes in $9billion/year, tax free, while promoting anti woman, anti intellectual and anti homosexual political agendas.  
-
Go to the web site and open your eyes. Please do this and I know you will find the answer. If I could find documents on it then you can do it as well.

Hope I was helpful. Have a wonderful day Kori.

Forever faithful

  Just answer my question, if you think you can,

WAS THERE EVER A LAW THAT ALLOWED TWO PEOPLE TO MARRY, WHEN BOTH WERE ALREADY LEGALLY AND LAWFULLY MARRIED TO  THEIR REAL SPOUSES? 

 

Until you anser, the answer is no.

And it still will be if you ever have the courage to give me an honest answer! 

 Signature 

“It is time we realized that the endgame for civilization is not political correctness.  It is not respect for the abject religious certainties of the mob.  It is reason.” 
Sam Harris

 
Jr. Member
RankRank
Joined  2012-03-24

Kori, You are awesome! Seriously your my hero. This was an incredibly entertaining thread to read. They try to convert one at a time, maybe we can wedge in doubt and logic one at a time. I hope this Andre will think long and hard about this, and maybe it will be enough to plant the seed of questioning. Although it sounds like he is pretty well solid with his way of thinking. Thank you for this post. I loved every response. (yours and his)!
 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2012-10-23

Well done, Kori!  You haven't changed in the three weeks I've been gone.
 Signature 

Did I mention how glad I am that this forum exists?

 
       
 


Our next project
will be announced soon.

Tax exempt status.
4thNephite

Logged in: 1
Not logged in: 67
Logged in anonymous: 0
(Joined in last 24 hours)
 
BJohns
Party of One
sodone
Dr. Joe

Total members: 9784
The Big Unraveling
by former victim
My Selfie ...
by Heretic
Post Mormon and Alcohol/Drugs
by Curious NeverMo