A difficult dichotomy, looking for other views

[Original_Intent]

These are oversimplified as books have been written with the details. But this is the "horns of the dilemma" that I find myself considering. To me it really boils down to one of these two options, I welcome other thoughts.

The church's official position has migrated towards the latter. The denials were apparently "lying for the Lord", and the excommunications were for breaking vows of silence.

Again, this is a gross oversimplification. I tend to believe the first option or I lean that direction. I want to hear others thoughts, I would love to see alternatives because I am unhappy with either of the above cases.

I also realize of course that truth doesn't need to cater to my happiness. I'm sincerely trying to discern the truth of this matter, even if it distresses me.

[BeNotDeceived]

I don’t know, and think what JS did at that point doesn’t really matter.

I subscribe to the theory Taylor Drake describes in his book Joseph in the Gap.

But, don’t agree with him about things future.

[Alexander]

I would pick option one, but it isn't quite correct considering there was some contemporary libel conjured up accusing Joseph of polygamy.

"All evidence that he did [practice polygamy] was created after his death" is half true.

[Gadianton Slayer]

I would pick option one, but it isn't quite correct considering there was some contemporary libel conjured up accusing Joseph of polygamy.

"All evidence that he did [practice polygamy] was created after his death" is half true.

Yep.

This thread is worth a look:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=63789

[Bronco73idi]

To say he didn’t practice polygamy is to call all the women sealed to him liars.

Jospeh told the saints on two different accounts “Brethren, if I were to tell you all I know of the kingdom of God, I do know that you would rise up and kill me.”

What was he too weak to disclose?

[Original_Intent]

To say he didn’t practice polygamy is to call all the women sealed to him liars.

Jospeh told the saints on two different accounts “Brethren, if I were to tell you all I know of the kingdom of God, I do know that you would rise up and kill me.”

What was he too weak to disclose?

Weren't both men AND women sealed to Joseph? It seems this type of sealing was something different than what we consider polygamy, but I am willing to be educated.

[Gadianton Slayer]

To say he didn’t practice polygamy is to call all the women sealed to him liars.

Ah, but it’s ok to call Joseph a liar. Cool.

[markharr]

Agree that this is a gross oversimplification. My initial reaction was that this poll was worded in a way that the intent appears to be to push opinion, not to measure it.

[nightlight]

I would pick option one, but it isn't quite correct considering there was some contemporary libel conjured up accusing Joseph of polygamy.

"All evidence that he did [practice polygamy] was created after his death" is half true.

I want to believe he didn't lie, but half of me can't help but think he went the way of David.

He anointed himself King of the Promised Land.. And it seemed he was on the warpath, with a plan to use his followers and Indians to set up a theocracy.
I don't believe that he thought he was going to die when he did, contrary to current LDS opinion.

________
Heber C. Kimble:
"You are bound to be the President of the United States on 4th March 1845 and that you are already president pro tem of the world.”
__________
Parley P. Pratt :
All who will not hearken to the Book of Mormon, shall be cut off from among the people; and that too, in the day it comes forth to the Gentiles and is rejected by them. And not only does this page [527, in 1837 edition] set the time for the overthrow of our government and all other Gentile governments on the American continent, but the way and means of this utter destruction are clearly foretold, namely, the remnant of Jacob will go through among the Gentiles and tear them in pieces, like a lion among the flocks of sheep. Their hand shall be lifted up upon their adversaries, and all their enemies shall be cut off. This destruction includes an utter overthrow, and desolation of all our Cities, Forts, and Strong Holds––an entire annihilation of our race, except such as embrace the Covenant, and are numbered with Israel.
Now, Mr. Sunderland, you have something definite and tangible, the time, the manner, the means, the names, the dates; and I will state as a prophecy, that there will not be an unbelieving Gentile upon this continent 50 years hence; and if they are not greatly scourged, and in a great measure overthrown, within five or ten years from this date, then the Book of Mormon will have proved itself false.2
___________

It's the definition of Kingmen from the Book of Mormon. The irony is insane....
"And it came to pass that those who were desirous that Pahoran should be dethroned from the judgment-seat were called king-men, for they were desirous that the law should be altered in a manner to overthrow the free government and to establish a king over the land."

Someone can make a solid argument that he wanted to be president as a launching pad

These things make me think he might have been taking multiple wives.

But I don't know

[Robin Hood]

To say he didn’t practice polygamy is to call all the women sealed to him liars.

Jospeh told the saints on two different accounts “Brethren, if I were to tell you all I know of the kingdom of God, I do know that you would rise up and kill me.”

What was he too weak to disclose?

Sealing and marriage are not the same thing, and that is where the problem lies. We conflate the two because we look at it through a late 19th century Utah lens.
Once I realised that, the penny dropped.

[Alexander]

To say he didn’t practice polygamy is to call all the women sealed to him liars.

Ok

[Alexander]

To say he didn’t practice polygamy is to call all the women sealed to him liars.

Jospeh told the saints on two different accounts “Brethren, if I were to tell you all I know of the kingdom of God, I do know that you would rise up and kill me.”

What was he too weak to disclose?

Weren't both men AND women sealed to Joseph? It seems this type of sealing was something different than what we consider polygamy, but I am willing to be educated.

Bingo. Men and women were sealed in a symbolic sealing into the church of the Firstborn, Joseph acting as proxy for the Savior.

[nightlight]

To say he didn’t practice polygamy is to call all the women sealed to him liars.

Jospeh told the saints on two different accounts “Brethren, if I were to tell you all I know of the kingdom of God, I do know that you would rise up and kill me.”

What was he too weak to disclose?

Weren't both men AND women sealed to Joseph? It seems this type of sealing was something different than what we consider polygamy, but I am willing to be educated.

Bingo. Men and women were sealed in a symbolic sealing into the church of the Firstborn, Joseph acting as proxy for the Savior.

Why tho?

It's a redundant notion to someone who is baptized with Fire and the Holy Ghost. And if someone is not born again.... sealing them to Joseph Smith means what?

[Alexander]

To say he didn’t practice polygamy is to call all the women sealed to him liars.

Jospeh told the saints on two different accounts “Brethren, if I were to tell you all I know of the kingdom of God, I do know that you would rise up and kill me.”

What was he too weak to disclose?

Weren't both men AND women sealed to Joseph? It seems this type of sealing was something different than what we consider polygamy, but I am willing to be educated.

Bingo. Men and women were sealed in a symbolic sealing into the church of the Firstborn, Joseph acting as proxy for the Savior.

Why tho?

It's a redundant notion to someone who is baptized with Fire and the Holy Ghost. And if someone is not born again.... sealing them to Joseph Smith means what?

But the washing and anointing rites aren't redundant also?

[Baurak Ale]

To say he didn’t practice polygamy is to call all the women sealed to him liars.

Jospeh told the saints on two different accounts “Brethren, if I were to tell you all I know of the kingdom of God, I do know that you would rise up and kill me.”

What was he too weak to disclose?

Sealing and marriage are not the same thing, and that is where the problem lies. We conflate the two because we look at it through a late 19th century Utah lens.
Once I realised that, the penny dropped.

That’s correct. Sealings between men are scripturally described as father to son covenants, and any man who will be admitted to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom will need to have a father to whom he is sealed who can let him in. Ultimately, all connections in this chain lead back to Christ, “the only begotten son” of the father, he being the only person who is sealed directly to the father and hence can admit all the rest.
Sealings between men and women are scripturally described as husband to wife covenants, and any woman who will be admitted to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom will need to have a husband who can let her in. The above paragraph describes how a husband will be admitted: through a father to whom he is sealed.

As for the OP, I would add a third option: Joseph practiced polygamy and excommunicated those who did so without his explicit instruction and authorization.

[JohnnyL]

To say he didn’t practice polygamy is to call all the women sealed to him liars.

Jospeh told the saints on two different accounts “Brethren, if I were to tell you all I know of the kingdom of God, I do know that you would rise up and kill me.”

What was he too weak to disclose?

Weren't both men AND women sealed to Joseph? It seems this type of sealing was something different than what we consider polygamy, but I am willing to be educated.

Yes, and one could call them "spiritual sealings" and not polygamy.

Bronco73idi,
What were the Saints too weak to receive?
Were they revelations, or other?

[GeeR]

I’ve come to believe something I’ve heard from another source that teaches that the life and ministry of Joseph Smith with all its contradictions and negative aspects cannot be understood from just contemporary history and written accounts of people who were close to him. It can only be understood from viewing the bigger picture involving Biblical history and Biblical prophesy. Yes, Joseph Smith is spoken about in many arcane scriptures in the Old Testament, Joseph Smith seems to fit the profile of prophetic profiles described by Malachi, Samuel and Daniel, but less than one in a hundred people are aware of. So to see the true character and mission of Joseph Smith requires one to look through the lens of the Old Testament because he’s spoken of anonymously as the “messenger”, “servant” and the “one” who did and was to do such and such in the future, that Latter-day Saints gloss over.

For instance Malachi 2 points out, God’s covenant servant who was “the messenger of the of the Lord of Hosts” would first have the “law of truth.. in his mouth” and “iniquity was not found in his lips'' and he did “turn many away from iniquity“. The contextual sequence of the revelation goes on and points out that God’s messenger eventually “departed out of the way” and “caused many to stumble“. He corrupted the “covenant of Levi” that he had been instrumental in bringing forth. Because of this, “an abomination is committed in Israel” and “The Lord will cut off the man that doeth this.” Why? Because God’s servant “dealt treacherously against the wife of his youth” even “the wife of thy covenant“.

The prophetic narrative in Malachi continues to inform us that this fallen covenant servant of the Lord was made “contemptible and base before all people” because he became “partial in the law” that he himself had been instrumental in bringing forth. The commandment to cleave unto one wife and one wife only, as given in the law of the gospel given in the Doctrine and Covenants, sections 42 and 49 rings loud and clear. To deviate from that eternal law of marriage is to pick and choose which commandments one wants to obey. It is to be “partial in the law.” By doing this one can fall from grace, in D&C 3:9 the Lord warned Joseph of a future possibility of such a fall, said He: “Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression if thou are not aware thou wilt fall.”
II Sam. 7 picks up the story line and tells us despite his fall and iniquity and the Lord's punishment meted out on him, the Lord would have mercy on him and he (Joseph?) would still restore the Kingdom of David and redeem Zion.

What is the message of polygamy looking through an Old Testament lense? In D&C 124 the Lord calls it an “abomination”.

[nightlight]

To say he didn’t practice polygamy is to call all the women sealed to him liars.

Jospeh told the saints on two different accounts “Brethren, if I were to tell you all I know of the kingdom of God, I do know that you would rise up and kill me.”

What was he too weak to disclose?

Sealing and marriage are not the same thing, and that is where the problem lies. We conflate the two because we look at it through a late 19th century Utah lens.
Once I realised that, the penny dropped.

That’s correct. Sealings between men are scripturally described as father to son covenants, and any man who will be admitted to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom will need to have a father to whom he is sealed who can let him in. Ultimately, all connections in this chain lead back to Christ, “the only begotten son” of the father, he being the only person who is sealed directly to the father and hence can admit all the rest.
Sealings between men and women are scripturally described as husband to wife covenants, and any woman who will be admitted to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom will need to have a husband who can let her in. The above paragraph describes how a husband will be admitted: through a father to whom he is sealed.

As for the OP, I would add a third option: Joseph practiced polygamy and excommunicated those who did so without his explicit instruction and authorization.

False doctrine

41 O then, my beloved brethren, come unto the Lord, the Holy One. Remember that his paths are righteous. Behold, the way for man is narrow, but it lieth in a straight course before him, and the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel; AND HE EMPLOYETH NO SERVANT THERE; and there is none other way save it be by the gate; for he cannot be deceived, for the Lord God is his name.
(2 Nephi 9:41)

You can play mental gymnastics.... but I'm telling you, at the end of the day... you are just teaching false doctrine.

[JohnnyL]

I believe that JS and BY had separate revelations about polygamy (both "yes") but for different reasons in the times and environments.

[NewEliza]

The idea that he excommunicated people for doing the exact same thing he was doing is false.

Authority matters. Permission matters. Priesthood matters.

Righteous lying is all over the Bible. Some people just “can’t handle the truth!!!”

[Baurak Ale]

To say he didn’t practice polygamy is to call all the women sealed to him liars.

Jospeh told the saints on two different accounts “Brethren, if I were to tell you all I know of the kingdom of God, I do know that you would rise up and kill me.”

What was he too weak to disclose?

Sealing and marriage are not the same thing, and that is where the problem lies. We conflate the two because we look at it through a late 19th century Utah lens.
Once I realised that, the penny dropped.

That’s correct. Sealings between men are scripturally described as father to son covenants, and any man who will be admitted to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom will need to have a father to whom he is sealed who can let him in. Ultimately, all connections in this chain lead back to Christ, “the only begotten son” of the father, he being the only person who is sealed directly to the father and hence can admit all the rest.
Sealings between men and women are scripturally described as husband to wife covenants, and any woman who will be admitted to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom will need to have a husband who can let her in. The above paragraph describes how a husband will be admitted: through a father to whom he is sealed.

As for the OP, I would add a third option: Joseph practiced polygamy and excommunicated those who did so without his explicit instruction and authorization.

False doctrine

41 O then, my beloved brethren, come unto the Lord, the Holy One. Remember that his paths are righteous. Behold, the way for man is narrow, but it lieth in a straight course before him, and the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel; AND HE EMPLOYETH NO SERVANT THERE; and there is none other way save it be by the gate; for he cannot be deceived, for the Lord God is his name.
(2 Nephi 9:41)

You can play mental gymnastics.... but I'm telling you, at the end of the day... you are just teaching false doctrine.

Were you baptized by Christ in person? If you take Nephi’s context regarding the gate literally too, then you’re believing false doctrine by being baptized by anyone else.

The veil is not the gate.

[dewajack]

I believe Joseph was true to his calling as the Lord's servant, although he was human and made mistakes. This is what leads me to that conclusion-

-His teachings were filled with light in Nauvoo
-Hyrum, the Patriarch, was the first one killed in Carthage, and as such had that right fall back to Joseph, even for a slight moment before he was also killed. That means something.
-He seemed to be an honest guy. Even when Daniel Wells broke up the fight between Joseph and another man, Joseph choked the man. Joseph, on his own accord went to the town constable and paid the fine for assault. Was it cool he choked a guy, no of course not, but he owned up to it, and I can't imagine all the shiz he had to put up with from others anyway. '
-Personal experiences, but they really shouldn't matter to anyone else, but I have to weigh them accordingly.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Brigham and the saints had no clue what Joseph was doing with sealings. Joseph appeared to Brigham in answer to the whole thing, but never answered his questions, he told them to get the Spirit. How can people trust their narrative, where they really didn't know what was going on? One also has to look at the authenticity of the records (see below). The victors can and often do change the narrative to suit their side of things.

Also, when you read the Nauvoo Relief Society Minutes you can tell there is some really sketchy things going on in dark places. Both Emma and Joseph appear to be proactive in trying to stamp it out. People were using Joseph's name for very wicked practices.

When you look at the most correct book, The Book of Mormon, I believe it clearly denounces polygamy. People are free to their own beliefs, but I don't think there's any license there. It's so bad in fact that the wicked Lamanites are seen as better for being true and faithful to their families.

I believe Joseph, as Patriarch in the Holy Order, was sealing others to himself as part of the family of God. Others didn't know what was really going on, and Joseph may not have fully understood either. I don't believe this had anything to do with sex, and there's no evidence that he fathered any child with anyone other than Emma, and in the end, that's the only legitimate proof that can be used to show he was sexually active with anyone besides Emma.

D&C 132 is the big section that gets tossed around to discuss this topic, but there's this dialogue with Joseph and Hyrum,

Mayor— said certain women came to complain to his wife that they had caught Wilson Law with the girl on the floor— at Br. Mr Hawes— in the night
C. H. Smith.—— spoke to show the falsehoods of Austin Cowles in relation to the revelatin referred to.— that it referred to fo[r]mer days— not the presnt time as stated by Cowles.
Mayor said he had never preched the revelatin in private as he had in public— had not taught in <​it​> to the highet anointed in the church <​in p[r]ivate​> which may confirmd.—

I take it as Hyrum saying this revelation has no bearing on the present day, while Joseph is stating he didn't teach anything in private, so anything attributed to him by others simply doesn't jive with what he's saying here. And this throws the authenticity of D&C 132, as many view it today in question.

I believe Joseph to be an honest person, who The Lord still vouches for. I don't believe he had sex with others. I think we're still being proven nearly 200 hundred years later with this subject and it seems to be the most discussed topic on LDS forums, and in my opinion, there's so much more to discuss and get into. I think the devil and his minions laugh at all the time and care we give this topic. I'm not saying it's not worthy of thought, prayer, study, etc. I'm just saying there's plenty to discuss which is more relevant to us. I sure as hell hope that others don't take my journal and start saying so and so said this and that and he believed this and that, although there's no evidence for it in my journal. I would like to be judged on the basis of what my words were on topics, not what others say there were.

[Bronco73idi]

To say he didn’t practice polygamy is to call all the women sealed to him liars.

Jospeh told the saints on two different accounts “Brethren, if I were to tell you all I know of the kingdom of God, I do know that you would rise up and kill me.”

What was he too weak to disclose?

Weren't both men AND women sealed to Joseph? It seems this type of sealing was something different than what we consider polygamy, but I am willing to be educated.

Bingo. Men and women were sealed in a symbolic sealing into the church of the Firstborn, Joseph acting as proxy for the Savior.

They were actually sealed for adoption. You had to be sealed to a man who held the Melchizedek priesthood.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/ans ... _Church%3F

Helen Mar Kimball 14 when married to JS

"[My father] asked me if I would be sealed to Joseph … [Smith] said to me, 'If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father's household & all of your kindred.['] This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward."

I’m sure it’s all lies to you. So I’m just wasting my time.

[Bronco73idi]

I’ve come to believe something I’ve heard from another source that teaches that the life and ministry of Joseph Smith with all its contradictions and negative aspects cannot be understood from just contemporary history and written accounts of people who were close to him. It can only be understood from viewing the bigger picture involving Biblical history and Biblical prophesy. Yes, Joseph Smith is spoken about in many arcane scriptures in the Old Testament, Joseph Smith seems to fit the profile of prophetic profiles described by Malachi, Samuel and Daniel, but less than one in a hundred people are aware of. So to see the true character and mission of Joseph Smith requires one to look through the lens of the Old Testament because he’s spoken of anonymously as the “messenger”, “servant” and the “one” who did and was to do such and such in the future, that Latter-day Saints gloss over.

For instance Malachi 2 points out, God’s covenant servant who was “the messenger of the of the Lord of Hosts” would first have the “law of truth.. in his mouth” and “iniquity was not found in his lips'' and he did “turn many away from iniquity“. The contextual sequence of the revelation goes on and points out that God’s messenger eventually “departed out of the way” and “caused many to stumble“. He corrupted the “covenant of Levi” that he had been instrumental in bringing forth. Because of this, “an abomination is committed in Israel” and “The Lord will cut off the man that doeth this.” Why? Because God’s servant “dealt treacherously against the wife of his youth” even “the wife of thy covenant“.

The prophetic narrative in Malachi continues to inform us that this fallen covenant servant of the Lord was made “contemptible and base before all people” because he became “partial in the law” that he himself had been instrumental in bringing forth. The commandment to cleave unto one wife and one wife only, as given in the law of the gospel given in the Doctrine and Covenants, sections 42 and 49 rings loud and clear. To deviate from that eternal law of marriage is to pick and choose which commandments one wants to obey. It is to be “partial in the law.” By doing this one can fall from grace, in D&C 3:9 the Lord warned Joseph of a future possibility of such a fall, said He: “Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression if thou are not aware thou wilt fall.”
II Sam. 7 picks up the story line and tells us despite his fall and iniquity and the Lord's punishment meted out on him, the Lord would have mercy on him and he (Joseph?) would still restore the Kingdom of David and redeem Zion.

What is the message of polygamy looking through an Old Testament lense? In D&C 124 the Lord calls it an “abomination”.

Wasn’t polygamy practice in the lord’s day? He never condemned it. He said, if you put your wife away it’s adultery. We can say “put away” is divorcing. But he used the word divorce already, why would he not use the same word again? Unless he was talking about a man who was a polygamist and he didn’t show love to all his wives, ie he put the ugly one away. This happened in Utah when polygamy was practiced.

[Bronco73idi]

To say he didn’t practice polygamy is to call all the women sealed to him liars.

Ah, but it’s ok to call Joseph a liar. Cool.

I called him weak, too weak to say the truth. Why was he scared for his life? I have no problem standing up for what I believe, even if it means death.