LDS Freedom Forum

Trucker wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 9:01 am I think you have to define polygamy. Does that mean multiple wives, as in publicly acknowledged wives? Or does it mean a women who has a secret relationship with a man?

I don't think there is such thing as a secret wife. One of the major purposes of marriage is to public state who is with whom. You can't do that secretly. Make no sense.

If a man has relations with a women and they just say they are secretly married, are they married?

So I vote no, Joseph Smith was not a polygamist. There was no other woman besides Emma that was publicly acknowledged to be his wife. There is also no evidence that Emma accepted any other wife of Joseph (as is required in the DC), whether secret or not.

But...did Joseph have relations with any other woman besides Emma? That's real the question. And calling it polygamy belittle marriage in my opinion.

Trucker wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 9:01 am I think you have to define polygamy. Does that mean multiple wives, as in publicly acknowledged wives? Or does it mean a women who has a secret relationship with a man?

I don't think there is such thing as a secret wife. One of the major purposes of marriage is to public state who is with whom. You can't do that secretly. Make no sense.

If a man has relations with a women and they just say they are secretly married, are they married?

So I vote no, Joseph Smith was not a polygamist. There was no other woman besides Emma that was publicly acknowledged to be his wife. There is also no evidence that Emma accepted any other wife of Joseph (as is required in the DC), whether secret or not.

But...did Joseph have relations with any other woman besides Emma? That's real the question. And calling it polygamy belittle marriage in my opinion.

ori wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 1:11 pm

Trucker wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 9:01 am I think you have to define polygamy. Does that mean multiple wives, as in publicly acknowledged wives? Or does it mean a women who has a secret relationship with a man?

I don't think there is such thing as a secret wife. One of the major purposes of marriage is to public state who is with whom. You can't do that secretly. Make no sense.

If a man has relations with a women and they just say they are secretly married, are they married?

So I vote no, Joseph Smith was not a polygamist. There was no other woman besides Emma that was publicly acknowledged to be his wife. There is also no evidence that Emma accepted any other wife of Joseph (as is required in the DC), whether secret or not.

But...did Joseph have relations with any other woman besides Emma? That's real the question. And calling it polygamy belittle marriage in my opinion.

I think you have a good point about marriage. It *should* be about publicly making that information available.... under normal circumstances. But here’s the catch: that’s not the defining characteristic of a marriage. That’s not actually what makes a marriage, a marriage.

I would think for it to be a valid marriage, there would need to be at least one 3rd party witness. And an official pronouncement. And professed commitment.

Joseph Smith’s marriages should have had witnesses, I would hope. Did they? These witnesses, if they exist, would have been able to verify that the ceremony occurred. Even if the ceremony was a secret, if the sealing ordinance occurred properly, then wouldn’t it have witnesses? I’m not a scholar by any stretch of the imagination. So I don’t actually know if they purportedly had witnesses.

By today’s standards, we would need there to be witnesses. I don’t know if they needed them then.

Matthias wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 2:07 pm Why another polygamy thread?

Hasn't this topic been debated to death already?

Joseph practiced polygamy and even had sexual relations with his some of his plural wives. Dozens and dozens of witnesses attest to this.

If you believe all these people are bold faced liars fine, but let's please stop the debate. No one is being persuaded one way or the other at this point.

Let's just let it go.

Trucker wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 2:12 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 2:07 pm Why another polygamy thread?

Hasn't this topic been debated to death already?

Joseph practiced polygamy and even had sexual relations with his some of his plural wives. Dozens and dozens of witnesses attest to this.

If you believe all these people are bold faced liars fine, but let's please stop the debate. No one is being persuaded one way or the other at this point.

Let's just let it go.

But Joseph himself never said he did, and denied that he did. So what do we do?

Trucker wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 2:12 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 2:07 pm Why another polygamy thread?

Hasn't this topic been debated to death already?

Joseph practiced polygamy and even had sexual relations with his some of his plural wives. Dozens and dozens of witnesses attest to this.

If you believe all these people are bold faced liars fine, but let's please stop the debate. No one is being persuaded one way or the other at this point.

Let's just let it go.

But Joseph himself never said he did, and denied that he did. So what do we do?

Matthias wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 2:07 pm Why another polygamy thread?

Hasn't this topic been debated to death already?

Joseph practiced polygamy and even had sexual relations with his some of his plural wives. Dozens and dozens of witnesses attest to this.

If you believe all these people are bold faced liars fine, but let's please stop the debate. No one is being persuaded one way or the other at this point.

Let's just let it go.

TylerDurden wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 5:50 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 2:07 pm Why another polygamy thread?

Hasn't this topic been debated to death already?

Joseph practiced polygamy and even had sexual relations with his some of his plural wives. Dozens and dozens of witnesses attest to this.

If you believe all these people are bold faced liars fine, but let's please stop the debate. No one is being persuaded one way or the other at this point.

Let's just let it go.

I think this new thread is fine, as it allows us to see how many believe which side. I don’t think this thread’s main purpose was debate. But yes I agree, most will stick to their side and won’t be persuaded to the other.

cab wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 9:11 am If Joseph was telling the truth in all his public and contemporaneously available private statements on this matter, then it can never be talked about enough.

The keyword above is *if*...

Now is there enough evidence to cast some doubt on the mainstream narrative, and lend some plausibility to this premise?

I believe there is. And that's where debate is worthwhile...

Those who believe this matter is settled, and not open for debate... Probably shouldn't debate...

Matthias wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 7:28 pm

cab wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 9:11 am If Joseph was telling the truth in all his public and contemporaneously available private statements on this matter, then it can never be talked about enough.

The keyword above is *if*...

Now is there enough evidence to cast some doubt on the mainstream narrative, and lend some plausibility to this premise?

I believe there is. And that's where debate is worthwhile...

Those who believe this matter is settled, and not open for debate... Probably shouldn't debate...

I don't disagree. The problem is that I don't believe that the debate is for the purpose of obtaining the truth.

At least in my experience those who insist that Joseph never practiced plural marriage flat out reject any and all evidence that he did as being lies and misinterpretations of scripture.

It's hard to carry on a debate with people who simply reject lots of very credible evidence with the wave of the hand.

There just is no answer for all of the evidence that shows that Joseph Smith taught and practiced plural marriage other than to insist that a whole bunch of people with all sorts of different motivations were simply liars.

Insisting such is not engaging in honest debate.

On the other hand, the concerns of those who insist that Joseph was a strict monogamist and never practiced plural marriage can be pretty easily addressed with plausible answers that don't include a conspiracy theory of epic proportions or the wresting of scripture.

There are very plausible reasons for why Joseph said the things he said in his public denials while still secretly teaching and practicing plural marriage. These reasons are also fully supportable by scripture and common sense. I have broken this all down several times.

Yet those who insist Joseph didn't practice plural marriage don't acknowledge these answers nor do they provide any counter arguments. They just dismiss them. This is again not honest debate.

Those who insist Joseph never practiced plural marriage also do not acknowledge a very plausible interpretation of Jacob 2 that matches all of the rest of the scriptures on plural marriage perfectly including D&C 132 and 2 Samuel 12 as having any validity. They again reject it out of hand. This is once again not honest debate.

Those who insist Joseph never practiced plural marriage point to the fact that there is no concrete proof that Joseph fathered any children with any woman besides Emma. Again there are a number of plausible answers to address this concern which can be fully supported by scripture. Once again these answers are simple brushed off and not addressed.

So there really is no debate.

One side is completely entrenched in the idea that BY and dozens and dozens of other people were liars and or/adulterers with nothing but pretty weak circumstantial evidence and cherry picked scriptures to support their claim.

The other side who believes that Joseph and Brigham, as well as those who like Brigham testified that Joseph taught and practiced plural marriage, were truthful has a lot of very strong evidence, including the plain language of the scriptures, on their side.

The purpose of this debate, if it can even be called that, should be to weigh ALL the evidence and discover the truth of the matter.

It should not be to wave away all evidence that one doesn't like in order to put one's head in the sand to believe what one wants to believe.

cab wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 7:47 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 7:28 pm

cab wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 9:11 am If Joseph was telling the truth in all his public and contemporaneously available private statements on this matter, then it can never be talked about enough.

The keyword above is *if*...

Now is there enough evidence to cast some doubt on the mainstream narrative, and lend some plausibility to this premise?

I believe there is. And that's where debate is worthwhile...

Those who believe this matter is settled, and not open for debate... Probably shouldn't debate...

I don't disagree. The problem is that I don't believe that the debate is for the purpose of obtaining the truth.

At least in my experience those who insist that Joseph never practiced plural marriage flat out reject any and all evidence that he did as being lies and misinterpretations of scripture.

It's hard to carry on a debate with people who simply reject lots of very credible evidence with the wave of the hand.

There just is no answer for all of the evidence that shows that Joseph Smith taught and practiced plural marriage other than to insist that a whole bunch of people with all sorts of different motivations were simply liars.

Insisting such is not engaging in honest debate.

On the other hand, the concerns of those who insist that Joseph was a strict monogamist and never practiced plural marriage can be pretty easily addressed with plausible answers that don't include a conspiracy theory of epic proportions or the wresting of scripture.

There are very plausible reasons for why Joseph said the things he said in his public denials while still secretly teaching and practicing plural marriage. These reasons are also fully supportable by scripture and common sense. I have broken this all down several times.

Yet those who insist Joseph didn't practice plural marriage don't acknowledge these answers nor do they provide any counter arguments. They just dismiss them. This is again not honest debate.

Those who insist Joseph never practiced plural marriage also do not acknowledge a very plausible interpretation of Jacob 2 that matches all of the rest of the scriptures on plural marriage perfectly including D&C 132 and 2 Samuel 12 as having any validity. They again reject it out of hand. This is once again not honest debate.

Those who insist Joseph never practiced plural marriage point to the fact that there is no concrete proof that Joseph fathered any children with any woman besides Emma. Again there are a number of plausible answers to address this concern which can be fully supported by scripture. Once again these answers are simple brushed off and not addressed.

So there really is no debate.

One side is completely entrenched in the idea that BY and dozens and dozens of other people were liars and or/adulterers with nothing but pretty weak circumstantial evidence and cherry picked scriptures to support their claim.

The other side who believes that Joseph and Brigham, as well as those who like Brigham testified that Joseph taught and practiced plural marriage, were truthful has a lot of very strong evidence, including the plain language of the scriptures, on their side.

The purpose of this debate, if it can even be called that, should be to weigh ALL the evidence and discover the truth of the matter.

It should not be to wave away all evidence that one doesn't like in order to put one's head in the sand to believe what one wants to believe.

Sure, other people have been dismissive and not open minded... Your problem, Matthias, is that you seem to believe that you aren't guilty of the same thing. Your post right here proves it.. You've constantly shown that you believe your points are the only valid ones when it comes to this topic. You accuse others of dismissing any evidence you provide but you are guilty of the same exact thing. I can't think of one time that I've provided information on this topic that you didn't shrug off as totally inconsequential.

Stop acting like this is a settled matter and at least admit that there is plenty of room to question and even doubt the mainstream narrative. Then real dialogue can ensue.

My head's not in the sand, as you say... I know you have valid points, even believable ones, as I've believed as you do for my entire adult life, up until about three years ago... So you really shouldn't be so insulting...

Matthias wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 9:18 pm

cab wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 7:47 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 7:28 pm

cab wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 9:11 am If Joseph was telling the truth in all his public and contemporaneously available private statements on this matter, then it can never be talked about enough.

The keyword above is *if*...

Now is there enough evidence to cast some doubt on the mainstream narrative, and lend some plausibility to this premise?

I believe there is. And that's where debate is worthwhile...

Those who believe this matter is settled, and not open for debate... Probably shouldn't debate...

I don't disagree. The problem is that I don't believe that the debate is for the purpose of obtaining the truth.

At least in my experience those who insist that Joseph never practiced plural marriage flat out reject any and all evidence that he did as being lies and misinterpretations of scripture.

It's hard to carry on a debate with people who simply reject lots of very credible evidence with the wave of the hand.

There just is no answer for all of the evidence that shows that Joseph Smith taught and practiced plural marriage other than to insist that a whole bunch of people with all sorts of different motivations were simply liars.

Insisting such is not engaging in honest debate.

On the other hand, the concerns of those who insist that Joseph was a strict monogamist and never practiced plural marriage can be pretty easily addressed with plausible answers that don't include a conspiracy theory of epic proportions or the wresting of scripture.

There are very plausible reasons for why Joseph said the things he said in his public denials while still secretly teaching and practicing plural marriage. These reasons are also fully supportable by scripture and common sense. I have broken this all down several times.

Yet those who insist Joseph didn't practice plural marriage don't acknowledge these answers nor do they provide any counter arguments. They just dismiss them. This is again not honest debate.

Those who insist Joseph never practiced plural marriage also do not acknowledge a very plausible interpretation of Jacob 2 that matches all of the rest of the scriptures on plural marriage perfectly including D&C 132 and 2 Samuel 12 as having any validity. They again reject it out of hand. This is once again not honest debate.

Those who insist Joseph never practiced plural marriage point to the fact that there is no concrete proof that Joseph fathered any children with any woman besides Emma. Again there are a number of plausible answers to address this concern which can be fully supported by scripture. Once again these answers are simple brushed off and not addressed.

So there really is no debate.

One side is completely entrenched in the idea that BY and dozens and dozens of other people were liars and or/adulterers with nothing but pretty weak circumstantial evidence and cherry picked scriptures to support their claim.

The other side who believes that Joseph and Brigham, as well as those who like Brigham testified that Joseph taught and practiced plural marriage, were truthful has a lot of very strong evidence, including the plain language of the scriptures, on their side.

The purpose of this debate, if it can even be called that, should be to weigh ALL the evidence and discover the truth of the matter.

It should not be to wave away all evidence that one doesn't like in order to put one's head in the sand to believe what one wants to believe.

Sure, other people have been dismissive and not open minded... Your problem, Matthias, is that you seem to believe that you aren't guilty of the same thing. Your post right here proves it.. You've constantly shown that you believe your points are the only valid ones when it comes to this topic. You accuse others of dismissing any evidence you provide but you are guilty of the same exact thing. I can't think of one time that I've provided information on this topic that you didn't shrug off as totally inconsequential.

Stop acting like this is a settled matter and at least admit that there is plenty of room to question and even doubt the mainstream narrative. Then real dialogue can ensue.

My head's not in the sand, as you say... I know you have valid points, even believable ones, as I've believed as you do for my entire adult life, up until about three years ago... So you really shouldn't be so insulting...

Cab,

I don't think I've ever dismissed any evidence you have presented out of hand. I have gone to great lengths to carefully look at each and every point you and others have brought up and have then compared that to what the scriptures say, other known evidence, and logic.

For example I carefully looked at the spiritual wivery of the Cochranites and John C. Bennett to see what connection, if any, there was to the practice of Celestial plural marriage and could find virtually none.

I looked at the cherry picked quote you and others have shared where Joseph supposedly denied plural marriage. I put it back in context and showed that Joseph didn't say what you insist he said and that his public denials would not have made him a liar if he was in fact secretly teaching and practicing plural marriage.

That's not waving evidence away. That's weighing the evidence and proving a logical counterargument.

That's honest debate.

My position does not require a conspiracy theory, circumstantial evidence, cherry picking quotes, twisting certain scriptures, and accusing dozens and dozens of witnesses of being liars.

Those who insist Joseph never practiced plural marriage have no choice but to do this.

I don't say that to offend. I say that because it's the truth.

I've had this "debate" on quite a few occasions outside this forum. The arguments and outcome are always the same.

So the "debate" really is pointless.

However discussing the issues and reasoning them out together is absolutely worth while, because as you pointed out there are reasons someone might question the traditional narrative on plural marriage in the church.

That's what should be done. There should be open and honest dialogue about the evidence. Questions and concerns should be addressed. And above all else the scriptures ought to have the final word.

That means no waving away 2 Samuel 12, Jacob 2 (including vs 30), and any and all other scriptures (including D&C 132) that might shed light on plural marriage.

So I say let's discuss it.

There's really only a couple of possibilities.

1) D&C 132 is a completely legit revelation from God and Joseph Smith secretly taught and practiced plural marriage per God's command and those who he introduced to where justified in entering into and teaching plural marriage themselves.

2) D&C 132 is of the Devil and Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet who deceived people and wrongfully seduced a bunch of naive women.

3) D&C 132 is of the Devil and Joseph Smith was a false prophet through and through and deceived people and seduced a bunch of naive women.

4) D&C 132 is a made up revelation by Brigham Young and a host of other conspirators so they could justify their abominable practice of spiritual wivery.

5) Part of D&C 132 is legit, but Brigham Young and a host of conspirators tampered with it and added the plural marriage parts so they could justify their abominable practice of spiritual wivery.

If I'm missing another option let me know.

I say we go down each of these rabbit holes and see where the evidence leads us. Then the one that is the most logical based on all of the available evidence is the truth.

I've been down each of these rabbit holes and have carefully considered and studied out each one. I have determined that option 1 is correct, but I'm happy to go down them all again to settle this issue.

Trucker wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 2:12 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 2:07 pm Why another polygamy thread?

Hasn't this topic been debated to death already?

Joseph practiced polygamy and even had sexual relations with his some of his plural wives. Dozens and dozens of witnesses attest to this.

If you believe all these people are bold faced liars fine, but let's please stop the debate. No one is being persuaded one way or the other at this point.

Let's just let it go.

But Joseph himself never said he did, and denied that he did. So what do we do?

Trucker wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 2:12 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 2:07 pm Why another polygamy thread?

Hasn't this topic been debated to death already?

Joseph practiced polygamy and even had sexual relations with his some of his plural wives. Dozens and dozens of witnesses attest to this.

If you believe all these people are bold faced liars fine, but let's please stop the debate. No one is being persuaded one way or the other at this point.

Let's just let it go.

But Joseph himself never said he did, and denied that he did. So what do we do?

LukeAir2008 wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 9:57 pm

Trucker wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 2:12 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 2:07 pm Why another polygamy thread?

Hasn't this topic been debated to death already?

Joseph practiced polygamy and even had sexual relations with his some of his plural wives. Dozens and dozens of witnesses attest to this.

If you believe all these people are bold faced liars fine, but let's please stop the debate. No one is being persuaded one way or the other at this point.

Let's just let it go.

But Joseph himself never said he did, and denied that he did. So what do we do?

He said he only had one wife. He did only have one wife according to the laws of Babylon. And by the laws of God he had 33 wives.

The polygamists today only have one legal wife - but they are sealed to several others.

cab wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 9:30 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 9:18 pm

cab wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 7:47 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 7:28 pm

I don't disagree. The problem is that I don't believe that the debate is for the purpose of obtaining the truth.

At least in my experience those who insist that Joseph never practiced plural marriage flat out reject any and all evidence that he did as being lies and misinterpretations of scripture.

It's hard to carry on a debate with people who simply reject lots of very credible evidence with the wave of the hand.

There just is no answer for all of the evidence that shows that Joseph Smith taught and practiced plural marriage other than to insist that a whole bunch of people with all sorts of different motivations were simply liars.

Insisting such is not engaging in honest debate.

On the other hand, the concerns of those who insist that Joseph was a strict monogamist and never practiced plural marriage can be pretty easily addressed with plausible answers that don't include a conspiracy theory of epic proportions or the wresting of scripture.

There are very plausible reasons for why Joseph said the things he said in his public denials while still secretly teaching and practicing plural marriage. These reasons are also fully supportable by scripture and common sense. I have broken this all down several times.

Yet those who insist Joseph didn't practice plural marriage don't acknowledge these answers nor do they provide any counter arguments. They just dismiss them. This is again not honest debate.

Those who insist Joseph never practiced plural marriage also do not acknowledge a very plausible interpretation of Jacob 2 that matches all of the rest of the scriptures on plural marriage perfectly including D&C 132 and 2 Samuel 12 as having any validity. They again reject it out of hand. This is once again not honest debate.

Those who insist Joseph never practiced plural marriage point to the fact that there is no concrete proof that Joseph fathered any children with any woman besides Emma. Again there are a number of plausible answers to address this concern which can be fully supported by scripture. Once again these answers are simple brushed off and not addressed.

So there really is no debate.

One side is completely entrenched in the idea that BY and dozens and dozens of other people were liars and or/adulterers with nothing but pretty weak circumstantial evidence and cherry picked scriptures to support their claim.

The other side who believes that Joseph and Brigham, as well as those who like Brigham testified that Joseph taught and practiced plural marriage, were truthful has a lot of very strong evidence, including the plain language of the scriptures, on their side.

The purpose of this debate, if it can even be called that, should be to weigh ALL the evidence and discover the truth of the matter.

It should not be to wave away all evidence that one doesn't like in order to put one's head in the sand to believe what one wants to believe.

Sure, other people have been dismissive and not open minded... Your problem, Matthias, is that you seem to believe that you aren't guilty of the same thing. Your post right here proves it.. You've constantly shown that you believe your points are the only valid ones when it comes to this topic. You accuse others of dismissing any evidence you provide but you are guilty of the same exact thing. I can't think of one time that I've provided information on this topic that you didn't shrug off as totally inconsequential.

Stop acting like this is a settled matter and at least admit that there is plenty of room to question and even doubt the mainstream narrative. Then real dialogue can ensue.

My head's not in the sand, as you say... I know you have valid points, even believable ones, as I've believed as you do for my entire adult life, up until about three years ago... So you really shouldn't be so insulting...

Cab,

I don't think I've ever dismissed any evidence you have presented out of hand. I have gone to great lengths to carefully look at each and every point you and others have brought up and have then compared that to what the scriptures say, other known evidence, and logic.

For example I carefully looked at the spiritual wivery of the Cochranites and John C. Bennett to see what connection, if any, there was to the practice of Celestial plural marriage and could find virtually none.

I looked at the cherry picked quote you and others have shared where Joseph supposedly denied plural marriage. I put it back in context and showed that Joseph didn't say what you insist he said and that his public denials would not have made him a liar if he was in fact secretly teaching and practicing plural marriage.

That's not waving evidence away. That's weighing the evidence and proving a logical counterargument.

That's honest debate.

My position does not require a conspiracy theory, circumstantial evidence, cherry picking quotes, twisting certain scriptures, and accusing dozens and dozens of witnesses of being liars.

Those who insist Joseph never practiced plural marriage have no choice but to do this.

I don't say that to offend. I say that because it's the truth.

I've had this "debate" on quite a few occasions outside this forum. The arguments and outcome are always the same.

So the "debate" really is pointless.

However discussing the issues and reasoning them out together is absolutely worth while, because as you pointed out there are reasons someone might question the traditional narrative on plural marriage in the church.

That's what should be done. There should be open and honest dialogue about the evidence. Questions and concerns should be addressed. And above all else the scriptures ought to have the final word.

That means no waving away 2 Samuel 12, Jacob 2 (including vs 30), and any and all other scriptures (including D&C 132) that might shed light on plural marriage.

So I say let's discuss it.

There's really only a couple of possibilities.

1) D&C 132 is a completely legit revelation from God and Joseph Smith secretly taught and practiced plural marriage per God's command and those who he introduced to where justified in entering into and teaching plural marriage themselves.

2) D&C 132 is of the Devil and Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet who deceived people and wrongfully seduced a bunch of naive women.

3) D&C 132 is of the Devil and Joseph Smith was a false prophet through and through and deceived people and seduced a bunch of naive women.

4) D&C 132 is a made up revelation by Brigham Young and a host of other conspirators so they could justify their abominable practice of spiritual wivery.

5) Part of D&C 132 is legit, but Brigham Young and a host of conspirators tampered with it and added the plural marriage parts so they could justify their abominable practice of spiritual wivery.

If I'm missing another option let me know.

I say we go down each of these rabbit holes and see where the evidence leads us. Then the one that is the most logical based on all of the available evidence is the truth.

I've been down each of these rabbit holes and have carefully considered and studied out each one. I have determined that option 1 is correct, but I'm happy to go down them all again to settle this issue.

Oh please... You're not only dissmissmive, you are condescending... Once you even called 132 deniers to be blasphemous....

The fact that there are zero contemporary accounts of Joseph showing any support of plural marriage shows that you cherry pick and take things out of context.

The fact you use the conspiracy theory dismissal also shows a lazy dismissal of any dialogue... There is conspiracy. It's all theory... That doesn't mean there's no truth there...

What's your THEORY of William Marks statement in 1845 of what Joseph told him weeks prior to his death? Conspiracy? Lies?

What's your THEORY of Emma and William denying polygamy to their graves? Conspiracy? Mental illness?

What's your THEORY of others who didn't follow the twelve and their denials of Joseph's authorship and polygamy being a wicked practice? All conspirators? Unfaithful? Unable to withstand the fire?

You think it's ok that the majority of the Church didn't even know that polygamy was a practice until they had passed the point of no return and left their homes to follow the Twelve into the desert? Then when it was sprung on them,
now 1000 miles away, what choice did they have? Especially when Brigham taught a doctrine of blood atonement for dissenters?

You conveniently ignore a great deal. So much so that I find it very hard to believe you ever made an honest inquiry on the subject.... If you had, you wouldn't claim it's such a settled matter.

cab wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 10:19 pm

LukeAir2008 wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 9:57 pm

Trucker wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 2:12 pm

Matthias wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2020, 2:07 pm Why another polygamy thread?

Hasn't this topic been debated to death already?

Joseph practiced polygamy and even had sexual relations with his some of his plural wives. Dozens and dozens of witnesses attest to this.

If you believe all these people are bold faced liars fine, but let's please stop the debate. No one is being persuaded one way or the other at this point.

Let's just let it go.

But Joseph himself never said he did, and denied that he did. So what do we do?

He said he only had one wife. He did only have one wife according to the laws of Babylon. And by the laws of God he had 33 wives.

The polygamists today only have one legal wife - but they are sealed to several others.

Another example of gymnastics if I ever saw it... So in your view did he have sex with those 33 women (and teenagers) according to the laws of God or Babylon?

And how many children came from these unions?