Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

The salacious life of Joseph Smith

Has this post given you new information about the history of Mormonism

  • I knew that because I am a Mormon. So what if it is true?

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I am a Mormon, and that is new stuff

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Never heard that before!

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    1
  • Poll closed .

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00

By Grace

Member
For many people, gossip is fun. All one needs to do to prove this fact is to see the plethora of scandal-sheet tabloids which are always at the check out lines of grocery stores, and Wal-Mart. What makes them "fun" for some is that by looking down over their noses at the rich and famous, those tabloid readers can have a fleeting feeling of being morally superior to those Hollywood types.

What makes the "tabloid voyeurism" so bad is that many of the stories are as factual as alien abductions, and then the celebrity victims can not seek justice for the lies.

However when it comes to the history of famous, but dead people, there is no such thing as having a ruined reputation if there is ample historical fact to back things up. All that is needed is to research the primary documents to see if they substantiate the things stated.

With that in mind, let's look at the so-called "prophet of god" of the LDS church, Joseph Smith. There is no doubt that Smith took 34 women as his wives. Since there is no record of divorcing ANY of them, Smith essentially had a harem.

Of the 34 wives he took, There is no records of the state of the 16 of the women being single, married, divorced or widowed before Joseph "sealed" (aka had a marriage ceremony) That means there were records of 18 women, and 11 of those women were married to other men when Joseph "sealed" (stole) them from their husbands.

Of the single wives, 7 were under age of 18. Helen Mar Kimble was married at age 14, another woman at 15, and two were 16.

One of the first 16 years-old wife was Franny Alger, who was caught in bed by Joseph's first wife, Emma.

And you thought Dallas was raunchy? Here are more details: this means married at time of sealing

[mother of Sylvia below] Patty Bartlett (Sessions) (4 February 1795 in Bethel, Maine - 14 December 1893 in Bountiful, Utah). Her daughter Sylvia Porter Sessions Lyon, who had married Smith one month before, was present at Session's wedding to Smith.[35]

Sylvia Porter Sessions Lyon daughter of David Sessions and Patty Bartlett Sessions, who married Joseph Smith one month after her daughter's marriage to him. On her deathbed, Sylvia informed her daughter Josephine Lyons that she was Smith's daughter.

Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner April 1818 in Lima, New York–17 December 1913 in Minersville, Utah) Claimed that Smith had a private conversation with her in 1831 when she was twelve years old,[32][33]

[At age 12 in 1831], [Smith] told me about his great vision concerning me. He said I was the first woman God commanded him to take as a plural wife. …
In 1834 he was commanded to take me for a Wife … [In 1842 I] went forward and was sealed to him. Brigham Young performed the sealing … for time, and all Eternity. I did just as Joseph told me to do​
NOTE This is the action of a pedophile. He is "grooming" a 12 years-old girl when he was 26 years-old.

Louisa Beaman (February 7, 1815 - May 16, 1850). Though Mormon history and press indicate Beaman was not baptized until May 11, 1843,[23][24] she had migrated with Mormons to Nauvoo in 1839 or 1840.[25] She has been called the "first plural wife of the Prophet Joseph Smith." [26] After Smith's death, Beaman remarried, becoming the ninth wife of Brigham Young. They had five children together, all of whom predeceased Beaman, who died young at age 35.[27][28] Listed as a Smith plural wife by Joseph F. Smith,[29] who noted 1869 affidavit of Beaman's brother-in-law Joseph B. Noble, stating he officiated at the wedding,[30] This would have been prior to her baptism.


Zina Diantha Huntington (Jacobs) Husband was Henry Bailey Jacobs, who was aware of Zina's plural marriage to Smith. Jacobs wrote, "[W]hatever the Prophet did was right, without making the wisdom of God's authorities bend to the reasoning of any man." (Compton 1997, pp. 81–82) Sister of Presendia Huntington. After Smith's death, married Brigham Young while husband Jacobs was on mission to England

Marinda Nancy Johnson (Hyde) 28 June 1815 in Pomfret, Vermont - 24 March 1886 in Salt Lake City, Utah). Jon Krakauer wrote in Under the Banner of Heaven,[36]


"In the summer of 1831 the Johnson family took Joseph and Emma Smith into their home as boarders, and soon thereafter the prophet purportedly bedded young Marinda. Unfortunately, the liaison did not go unnoticed, and a gang of indignant Ohioans—including a number of Mormons—resolved to castrate Joseph so that he would be disinclined to commit such acts of depravity in the future."

Also there were several women who had polyandrous affairs with Smith and other men

All of these can be backed up by LDS scholarship, so no one can claim this is "anti-mormon" in any way; instead it is historical knowledge, albeit it is not shared by the guys and gals in white shirts and ties who come knocking on your door.

BTW Does any prophet of God, as found in the Bible have such a history?
 
I did not include some of the websites and other sources that helped me gather the data.

http://www.mormoninfographics.com/2012/09/the-many-wives-of-joseph-smith.html
wivesofjosephsmith.org

Footnotes from the wiki article:
Sorry for the poor formatting. Footnote 30 in the above article is # 2; footnote 31 is #3; footnote 32 is #4 etc.
  1. Jump up ^ Historical Record 6:233
  2. Jump up ^ Smith, J.F. (1905) Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage Salt Lake City, Utah: The Deseret News Press, 75)
  3. Jump up ^ Compton 1997, pp. 153
  4. Jump up ^ Newell & Avery 1994, pp. 65, link.
  5. ^ Jump up to: a b c Compton 1997
  6. Jump up ^ Carter, Kate (1962), Our Pioneer Heritage, Salt Lake City, UT: Daughters of Utah Pioneers, p. 308
  7. Jump up ^ Compton 1997, pp. 175–179
  8. ^ Jump up to: a b Krakauer 2003, pp. 120. Krakauer quotes Miranda's older brother Luke Johnson: "[The mob] had Dr. Dennison there to perform the operation [of castration]; but when he saw the Prophet stripped and stretched on the plank, his heart failed him and he refused to operate."
  9. Jump up ^ Times and Seasons 3 [August 1, 1842]: 869
  10. Jump up ^ Times and Seasons 3 [October 1, 1842]: 940
  11. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g Clayton (1874, p. 225).5
 
BTW Does any prophet of God, as found in the Bible have such a history?
I imagine a good Mormon missionary would point to the many Biblical characters who had multiple wives... Not saying Smith was good or right, just putting myself in the Mormon's shoes and thinking about how he would answer your question.
 
yes they could but we have a command from the lord towards the king not to do that. and also adam and eve were married as the example couple.polygamy was tolerated then but theres no good example of any good marriage. why would god say a king ought not to do it if was ok?
 
I imagine a good Mormon missionary would point to the many Biblical characters who had multiple wives... Not saying Smith was good or right, just putting myself in the Mormon's shoes and thinking about how he would answer your question.

To which I would reply, "Are you perhaps un aware that there were several polyandrous relationships going on? Several women had several concurrent husbands. In other words the early mormon leadership under Smith were SWINGERS.
 
To which I would reply, "Are you perhaps un aware that there were several polyandrous relationships going on? Several women had several concurrent husbands. In other words the early Mormon leadership under Smith were SWINGERS.

As disgusting as it is to us, if the Mormon sullying your doorstep has any debating skills at all he will probably say this still doesn't negate the fact that many of the Biblical icons were polygamists, scripture really doesn't condemn them for it (in most cases it's a matter of opinion, not a clear condemnation), and many mentions of it were positive or neutral not always negative. As for Mormon's being "swingers", not really. Those in the swinger lifestyle don't marry each other first and often don't even see each other again after the one time "event". (I used to work with a guy that was heavily into swinging along with his wife. The stories he would tell were quite the eye openers! But that's another topic.) In Biblical times, it's likely women would have done the same thing had it not been for the customs of the time (women were property, not free people) preventing this.

I'm not siding with Smith or saying I support what the missionary might say. I think Smith was disgusting and was a liar (or had a serious mental problem) and your OP shows this! I'm just saying that maybe this isn't an argument I would pick with a modern day Mormon missionary that had any knowledge of the Bible and had any amount of debating skills. Better to choose a more winnable battle.
 
As disgusting as it is to us, if the Mormon sullying your doorstep has any debating skills at all he will probably say this still doesn't negate the fact that many of the Biblical icons were polygamists, scripture really doesn't condemn them for it (in most cases it's a matter of opinion, not a clear condemnation), and many mentions of it were positive or neutral not always negative. As for Mormon's being "swingers", not really. Those in the swinger lifestyle don't marry each other first and often don't even see each other again after the one time "event". (I used to work with a guy that was heavily into swinging along with his wife. The stories he would tell were quite the eye openers! But that's another topic.) In Biblical times, it's likely women would have done the same thing had it not been for the customs of the time (women were property, not free people) preventing this.

I'm not siding with Smith or saying I support what the missionary might say. I think Smith was disgusting and was a liar (or had a serious mental problem) and your OP shows this! I'm just saying that maybe this isn't an argument I would pick with a modern day Mormon missionary that had any knowledge of the Bible and had any amount of debating skills. Better to choose a more winnable battle.
yes but by that argument one could argue that the church should support polgygamy. if theres no verse negating it a sin. why do not agree that it is ok? that is the hole you have dug.

one man, one wife. genesis says for this reason shall man leave his mother and father and cleave unto his wife(note singular) not plural.
 
I don't think I've dug a hole at all. I'm simply anticipating what a Mormon missionary's argument might be, especially if they're ready for it. If you don't anticipate all possible arguments then how can you prepare a response for them?

There's no need for the church to support polygamy. There are many things the church doesn't support because they simply aren't good ideas. As Paul said: "All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify." (1 Cor. 10:23, bold is mine for emphasis.) Too many of us rely on canned answers that we've heard in church, Bible study, or somewhere else from like minded people. We're usually very unprepared to defend our positions from scripture to someone who is not like minded, and then when we're losing the debate we're all too anxious to just give up with an "I'm not going to cast my pearls before swine" excuse.

I'm not so sure I could tell anyone something is a sin unless God has told us in his word that it is a sin, either directly or in principle, and I can point them to that specific scripture. I would anticipate an opposing person pointing out that it's not my place to speak for God on whether or not something is a sin. Being against something because it's not a good idea is far different from condemning it as sin. That I can do.
 
Last edited:
I don't think I've dug a hole at all. I'm simply anticipating what a Mormon missionary's argument might be, especially if they're ready for it. If you don't anticipate all possible arguments then how can you prepare a response for them?

There's no need for the church to support polygamy. There are many things the church doesn't support because they simply aren't good ideas. As Paul said: "All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify." (1 Cor. 10:23, bold is mine for emphasis.) Too many of us rely on canned answers that we've heard in church, Bible study, or somewhere else from like minded people. We're usually very unprepared to defend our positions from scripture to someone who is not like minded, and then when we're losing the debate we're all too anxious to just give up with an "I'm not going to cast my pearls before swine" excuse.

I'm not so sure I could tell anyone something is a sin unless God has told us in his word that it is a sin, either directly or in principle, and I can point them to that specific scripture. I would anticipate an opposing person pointing out that it's not my place to speak for God on whether or not something is a sin. Being against something because it's not a good idea is far different from condemning it as sin. That I can do.
slavery isn't a sin in morocco since its legal. does the bible condemn that? we don't have to look at that as a sin. would you want to be a slave? no, then why would you own one? the same problem with polyarmory is going to be justified. how does one not assume that polygamy isn't adultery?its a weak argument, theres a weak case in saying that it isn't. I could say that a man could have three wives and those wives have three husbands. the context of the bible says nothing good came from it. it drew Solomon from god. it drew Jacob and Abraham into troubles.
 
slavery isn't a sin in morocco since its legal. does the bible condemn that? we don't have to look at that as a sin. would you want to be a slave? no, then why would you own one? the same problem with polyarmory is going to be justified. how does one not assume that polygamy isn't adultery?its a weak argument, theres a weak case in saying that it isn't. I could say that a man could have three wives and those wives have three husbands. the context of the bible says nothing good came from it. it drew Solomon from god. it drew Jacob and Abraham into troubles.
All very good reason why Christians shouldn't support this kind of thing, and all backed up by Paul's statement that not all things are good for us or our relationship with God.

I'm wondering, have you ever discussed this with a mormon that actually had knowledge of their religion and beliefs? If you have, what was their response?
 
All very good reason why Christians shouldn't support this kind of thing, and all backed up by Paul's statement that not all things are good for us or our relationship with God.

I'm wondering, have you ever discussed this with a mormon that actually had knowledge of their religion and beliefs? If you have, what was their response?
that doesn't deal with your argument. you just gave a validation for polygamy in arab nations or even here as law and Christians doing it.
 
that doesn't deal with your argument. you just gave a validation for polygamy in arab nations or even here as law and Christians doing it.
I hope everyone understands this isn't my argument. I've heard it made by a Mormon in the past and, quite frankly, the Christian that was trying to talk to him did a terrible job. I'm just trying to challenge folks with traditional Christian views on these kind of things to think how we can speak to someone who holds a different viewpoint (such as the Mormon that bangs on your door next Saturday morning) in a way that might show them the way to Christ. Or perhaps it's a subject that we should try hard to avoid and focus on a more winnable line of reasoning?
 
I hope everyone understands this isn't my argument. I've heard it made by a Mormon in the past and, quite frankly, the Christian that was trying to talk to him did a terrible job. I'm just trying to challenge folks with traditional Christian views on these kind of things to think how we can speak to someone who holds a different viewpoint (such as the Mormon that bangs on your door next Saturday morning) in a way that might show them the way to Christ. Or perhaps it's a subject that we should try hard to avoid and focus on a more winnable line of reasoning?
one doesn't debate with the lost in the sense to win an argument.
 
one doesn't debate with the lost in the sense to win an argument.
Ok, then I guess you just let them continue on being lost without even trying to convince them of the true gospel. So be it.

"It was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." (Jude 1:3b)

con·tend
verb \kən-ˈtend\
: to argue or state (something) in a strong and definite way
: to compete with someone or for something : to compete with a good chance of winning

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contend
 
Ok, then I guess you just let them continue on being lost without even trying to convince them of the true gospel. So be it.

"It was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." (Jude 1:3b)
have you ever heard if they don't want to listen let them be? that is what I meant.please tell me why I shouldn't own a slave if its not a sin in the law? just because god tolerated it doesn't mean he actually calls it good to do.

its like this, if you are married to two women. one sleeps with you because she wants to, the other doesn't because she gets pleased by another. its not techinically adultery, but yet it is in your heart. we can't love two people like this. we must understand that god dealt with men at the time the bible was written. did god actually want men to divorce? no ,yet in the torah, moses NOT GOD gave men the power to divorce. therefore until jesus said what he said, which was in agreement with a rabbi called shimei. it wasn't a sin!
 
Well the truth is' it was allowed by God in the past' that's for sure.
that doesn't mean we should do it. abortion isn't named in the bible as a sin. if so show me where that is by name. it takes some verse hunting to get the idea that god wouldn't like that. namely jer 1 and david's I was formed by thy hands in the womb.
 
that doesn't mean we should do it. abortion isn't named in the bible as a sin. if so show me where that is by name. it takes some verse hunting to get the idea that god wouldn't like that. namely jer 1 and david's I was formed by thy hands in the womb.
I did not say we should do it' I said it was allowed.
 
Back
Top