In the Shadows of Doctrine: Joseph Smith's Polygamous Legacy
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 มิ.ย. 2024
- Join us on an insightful journey into the shadows of doctrine as we unravel Joseph Smith's polygamous legacy. In this episode, our esteemed guest, Pastor Tandi from Valley of Hope Ministries, sheds light on the intricate web of Joseph Smith's plural marriages.
Consider supporting us by buying us a coffee at ko-fi.com/behindtheveil.
Explore the complexities of divine unions and the sealing power that played a pivotal role in Joseph's polygamous relationships.
This episode serves as a fundamental overview of Joseph and polygamy. Stay tuned for more in-depth explorations on polygamy and other intriguing topics in the upcoming episodes.
Subscribe, like, and share to be part of our continuing discussions
Thumbnail generated by imagine.art
![[Full Episode] MasterChef Junior Thailand มาสเตอร์เชฟ จูเนียร์ ประเทศไทย Season 3 Episode 5](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/g5wpgeAIzMs/mqdefault.jpg)
Note that a letter from Oliver was read at the trial, although he was not present:
For persecuting the brethren by urging on vexatious lawsuits against them, and thus distressing the innocent. This sounds like he was just practicing his trade and being vilified for being a lawyer. Charge sustained.
For seeking to destroy the character of President Joseph Smith, Jun., by falsely insinuating that he was guilty of adultery. A matter of opinion. Oliver’s interpretation of polygamy as adultery is certainly an easily supported view, especially given the secrecy and the fact that Emma’s concurrence was frequently not a factor. Charge sustained.
For treating the Church with contempt by not attending meetings. Let he among us who has not sinned cast the first stone on this one; it’s certainly not an excommunicable offense today. Charge sustained.
For virtually (quite a qualifier) denying the faith by declaring that he would not be governed by any ecclesiastical authority or revelations whatever, in his temporal affairs. Given the fallibility of the economic advice being doled out at that time (Kirtland Bank Failure, anyone?) this seems perfectly reasonable. Again, this is not something that would be an excommunicable offense today. Charge rejected.
For selling his lands in Jackson county, contrary to the revelations. See #4. Of course, this is complicated by the manner in which consecration was practiced at that time. Charge rejected.
For writing and sending an insulting letter to President Thomas B. Marsh, while the latter was on the High Council, attending to the duties of his office as President of the Council, and by insulting the High Council with the contents of said letter. That must have been some letter! Of course, this is Thomas B. Marsh we’re talking about. It seems that people were highly prone to personal insults in that time (in a “culture of honor” where an insult could quickly turn into a challenge to a duel). This was not a very humble culture. Charge withdrawn.
For leaving his calling to which God had appointed him by revelation, for the sake of filthy lucre, and turning to the practice of law. This again seems like he’s being indicted for simply being a lawyer. I know this profession is often the butt of jokes and disgust, but excommunicating over it seems a bit strong. We don’t like tax collectors either, but one of the original 12 was a publican. Charge sustained.
For disgracing the Church by being connected in the bogus business, as common report says. That’s rich. If being connected to bogus business is enough to get one excommunicated, who would have been left of this lot? Charge sustained.
For dishonestly retaining notes after they had been paid; and finally, for leaving and forsaking the cause of God, and returning to the beggarly elements of the world, and neglecting his high and holy calling, according to his profession. Once again, being a lawyer. There’s a reason Shakespeare said “First, let’s kill all the lawyers.” Charge sustained.
Of the sustained charges, 4 of them (1, 7, 8, and 9) are all related to being a lawyer. Charge 3 was for not attending church meetings, and charge 2 was for accusing JS of adultery. The church later classed this adultery as “celestial marriage,” although it doesn’t meet the requirements stated in D&C 132 (which hadn’t yet been written) in that Emma’s prior concurrence was neither sought nor obtained. Oliver’s label of adultery seems to be a matter of opinion, especially since the polygamous definition of “celestial marriage” was not yet doctrine. So he was ostensibly excommunicated for 1) being a lawyer, 2) skipping church, and 3) refusal to condone what he considered adultery. Despite his belief that JS had committed adultery and needed to repent, Oliver did not oppose JS as the prophet nor had he reneged his testimony or at any time stated disbelief in the church or his own experiences.
Thanks for sharing the supportive documents to this subject. It helps to validate my feelings about how polygamy seems so wrong!
I am glad that we were able to help you with all of our sources! And I am glad you enjoyed❤️
I’m not quite sure what your point is about when the sealing power was restored. Can you provide a source detailing the requirement that the sealing power had to proceed plural marriage? Assuming JS believed he had been commanded to practice plural marriage I’m assuming you know of a source that says first the sealing power first had to be restored.
Go read D&C 132. look at what it says carefully, and your questions will be answered.
@@sertinduhm6378 I’m re-reading it now. Thanks.
How is it that JS can be proven to be “NOT A PROPHET” then we all quote him?! 🤷🏼♀️ what is it that we say….99% truth….1% lies!!! To get us to fall 🫤
@@beckywheeler9372I guess I don't understand your point. you can quote somebody at any time, especially to show why their way of thinking might be right or wrong depending.
Our previous video is all about the sealing power and its restoration. If you want to see our sources, you should watch that video! Feel free to let me know if you have any other questions!!
Are you aware that Oliver was given the opportunity to expound on his accusation, and he didn’t? And when he was asked point blank if he had first hand knowledge of any bad behavior between Joseph and Fanny, and he said no.
Yes, I am aware that he did not take the opportunity to expound on the affair. But we didn't have time to go into much detail about it since this episode was already quite long. And it didn't seem super relevant considering all of the other evidence we have about not only the affair between Joseph and Fanny but also all of the other women. We are planning on looping back around in the future and covering topics that we missed.
@@BehindTheVeilOfficial In this story, it’s very relevant. He didn’t just not expound in his excommunication trial but he was later asked directly about this affair and he admitted to having no first hand knowledge, that’s a major part of the story. The other primary sources to this story are William Mclellan many decades later with the story about the barn, many historians agree that this story is highly unlikely, there is no scenario where Emma would have been confiding in Mclellan in 1847, they were bitter enemies. The other primary source is Mosiah Hancock, who was a toddler at the time. He added to his father’s autobiography almost 60 years later and added the story about Joseph’s proposal to Fanny. You are putting a lot of stock in very problematic sources.
@@Commenter2121 If you are going to say sources are unviable due to bias and length between event and source, then the BOM should be one of the most problematic sources of history known to man. Especially since Joseph put his faith in a scripture that was most likely written written by a second hand or even third hand source multiple years after the events took place.
@@sertinduhm6378 We are not talking about the BOM, or the Bible which has the same issue. I’m talking about the evidence for this specific story. If you know anything about Mormon polygamy and what was happening when these statements were made decades later in Utah, you would see why they are so problematic. I’m not going to try and justify Mormon polygamy, it’s disgusting. I’m just trying to keep these presenters honest.
@@Commenter2121I think you are hyper fixating on something that was only part of the argument. How could Oliver have first hand knowledge unless he himself caught Fanny and Joseph in the act? Even if Joseph confides in Oliver, it is second hand knowledge. The fact that Oliver was upset at all concerning Fanny Alger and Joseph's relationship is merit toward this being an affair. No, not everything is perfect, but this is what we have to work with. We also have other accounts showing that Joseph was dabbling in polygamy, so is it really a stretch that he was having an affair here?
Fanny is my great great great aunt.
That's awesome
She sounds great! 😝
Do you have any of her belongings or letters?
Isn't this something all of this made up stuff and people believe it!
🤯
We have segments of the original Mormon church marinating in Utah as we speak. A breeding ground left over from the beginnings of the church being polygamist. Alive and well today. That’s all the proof i need. Documents are a bonus.
That is so true! It is everywhere if you know where to look!
So sad and so apostate. If you go over to 132 Problems With Polygamy podcast with Michelle Stone, you'll find that if you look look at and read the sources of trustworthy people you will find that Joseph Smith did not practice polygamy and that he constantly fought it tooth and nail until he died. His beloved Emma is one of those faithful witnesses who testified to her dying day that Joseph never practiced polygamy. In fact, the chances are much much greater than Brigham Young was in a plot to do away with Joseph Smith and was involved in inventing and doctoring the history to show that Joseph Smith was the originator of polygamy. They had to get rid of him because he was planning on excommunicating those involved, including Brigham Young. BTW, in the 1830s and 40's and beyond affair had no reference to romance or sex. Oliver is recorded as repentaning of his defamation.
If Joseph didn't practice polygamy, then why is he sealed to so many women on Family Search. What was the Happiness Letter about? And what is not credible about the journals of the women involved in polygamy? If you wouldn't mind showing me where Joseph Smith was fighting against polygamy, that would be great!
Hate to correct you again but you may want to do a bit more source research before posting a video. The Happiness Letter may be in the JSP but this document came from Jon Bennett, it’s not addressed, it’s not signed, and it’s not in Joseph’s handwriting. Many agree that this letter is not from Joseph Smith. You mention that there are many other letters to Joseph’s wives that he asked them to burn, so where are they? I hope you are aware too that Sidney and Nancy Rigdon denied that the happiness letter came from Joseph. I’m in agreeance with you guys that polygamy is horrific and D&C 132 is a disaster but you are misrepresenting some of these stories.
In the video we said that the Happiness Letter was penned by someone else but was delivered by Joseph Smith. Even if he didn't write it he did try to use it. Also you answered your own question about the other letters, they were burned. That's why we don't have them. They were mentioned in other accounts so we know they exist, but they were burned. And I am glad we agree that polygamy was terrible! And we are just exposing the sources we find on the official church’s websites and books/diaries written by people at the time
@@BehindTheVeilOfficial The happiness letter was not delivered by Joseph Smith, there is absolutely no evidence for that. It’s a Jon Bennett creation and the Rigdons denied that it came from Joseph, that’s all we need to know. You stated in the video that we have these other letters to multiple wives that were supposed to be burned but weren’t, but that’s just not true. So that you know where I’m coming from, I’m an extremely nuanced member who has deep disagreements with the church on polygamy. I know it’s not from God and what the early leaders were doing was horrible and blasphemous. I’ve also studied the history extensively and I know that you can’t trust a source to be accurate just because it came directly from the church. They do have a narrative to protect.
I agree that the church does have very biased views when it comes to their history. That is why we did not exclusively use them as our source, but whenever we used a non church source, you say it's not credible. In that case, what sources would you say we should use? And I think it's great that you as a member acknowledge the church has a messed up history, and you are welcome to believe whatever you want. If you think these sources are not credible, great! We found these sources, and they make sense to us, so we included them in our videos. If you have a different source other than the 1 youtube channel you mentioned earlier I would love to take a look!
@@Commenter2121 Just pure unfounded slander on this video. They don't want the truth about Joseph being a monogamist. The narrative needs him to be a lecherous polygamist. Brigham was the founder of polygamy and yet hardly a peep is heard about Brigham and all the evil he did. No they are trying to discredit the Book of Mormon. Others out there are doing the same towards the Bible. It is a spiritual war. Those that post these unfounded lies will have to give an answer one day. They are not careful. They use evidence totear down a reputation, that would never stand in court and did not stand up in the Temple Lot Case. The federal judge did not believe Joseph founded polygamy and he listened to the actual living witnesses.
Yóu believe that JS slept with 60 yr old woman you guys are crazy 😂
We never said he slept with a 60 year old woman, just that he was sealed to her. But there were accounts of him sleeping with the younger girls
13:44 I’m surprised that you glossed over Oliver Cowdery’s return to the church without mentioning his glowing testimony of his experience with JS while translating the plates. There’s obviously something that is being severely misunderstood for all that OC went through and yet years later retain his believe in the restoration.
The reason why we glossed over it was because the topic of this video was specifically about polygamy, and we didn't want to veer too far off topic. We may loop back around in the future and cover the full story of Oliver Cowdery leaving and returning!!
I think it’s noteworthy that many of us believe in the restoration but do not accept that plural marriage is part of it. This, because the angel who came with a drawn sword is never named, which is contrary to angels sent by God. All introduce themselves by name. Even Heavenly Father introduced his Beloved Son to the young Joseph in the first vision. For something so incredibly against the norms of society and was illegal as polygamy certainly was, it seems quite significant that the angel did not give his name or that Joseph never identified him by name in the revelation known as section 132 as he did all other revelations from messengers such as Moroni, Elijah, Peter, James and John, and John the Baptist. In addition, Joseph said they were commanded to go to the Lamanites to take plural wives. But none of the early brethren ever did take any indigenous women to wife. And then just six weeks or so before his martyrdom, Joseph told Whitney Clayton that he feared he (Joseph) had been deceived regarding plural marriage and that it would be the ruin of God’s church. When the angel appeared and threatened to slay him, did Joseph remember to do the revealed way to test the authenticity of a heavenly “messenger” as to whether it was from God or the adversary since Joseph had learned that evil spirits can appear as angels of light and deceive the very elect? Joseph neither spoke nor wrote of having done the test.
Why would the Lord allow plural marriage when he didn’t allow Adam and Eve to do this at the beginning of humanity, nor was Noah allowed to restart populating the earth following the flood? He also had Jacob chastise the Nephites for descending into this “abomination” for which the Lord removed Lehi’s family out of Jerusalem as taught in the first few chapters of the book of Jacob? Wouldn’t the Lord have wanted to “raise up seed unto him” in these beginnings of new civilizations?? But no, he ordained marriage from the beginning in the garden of Eden as being between one man and one woman.
It is also clearly documented the millennia-long woes of Abraham’s plural marriages, as well as Jacob’s, that reverberate in hatred and wars to this day. I do not condemn those who practiced it. I come from it. But seeing the sorrow it brings to “women and children whose cries ascend to God and he hears them,” and reading pioneer diaries of wives who lived in poverty, loneliness, and heartache, I can see why Jacob taught the Nephites gathered at the temple in the promised land that it was an abomination condemned by God. But polygamy got Joseph and Hyrum killed and it was the main cause of driving the Saints out of the United States-if they hadn’t been driven out, a great many brethren would have perished or been disabled in the coming Civil War and the church may not have survived. Perhaps the Lord allowed this abomination, as Jacob called it, in order to prevent such a catastrophic loss.
So I hope this explains how one can believe in the restoration without believing plural marriage was of God nor that it is a requirement to obtain the highest degree of exaltation. Joseph brought forth the Book of Mormon-the single most important record ever revealed since the Bible. The good he did and the suffering he endured is so great that any mistakes the young prophet may have made are understandable and worthy of compassion. I revere him. I am very grateful for him. But only the Lord Jesus Christ is infallible, and he is the only one we worship. He is everything. I send this only by way of explanation and not argumentatively nor contentiously after in-depth study of 45+ years. From, your sister in Christ.
@@ggrace1133 I can relate to your concerns and could be persuaded by them far more than the absurd idea that plural marriage didn’t originate with Joseph Smith. It’s at least intellectually honest and incorporates the actual historical evidence although I take issue with Joseph Smith regretting having implemented the practice since that information didn’t come from him but was second-hand from an anti-polygamist.
@@jerry_phillips actually, I got the information about Joseph fearing he had been deceived regarding polygamy and that it would destroy the church from FAIR Mormon quoting Whitney Clayton’s journal. Clayton was a polygamist. Hope that helps you feel more assured by the source, though Clayton’s journal is second hand, as are almost all sources, whether one is pro or anti plural marriage. I am just a student and descendant of it. But here are my biases:
1. Even the very best and most righteous people who have ever lived do not have an inkling of what true love is. I don’t think mortals are capable of more than a rudimentary level of it.
2. The early latter-day leaders taught in General Conference that romantic love between husbands and wives was of the devil and had no part in the Lord’s order of marriage. See Journal of Discourse. This is certainly true of polygamy which may begin in romance, but each wife is soon left to the harsh realities of sharing and loneliness.
3. Prophets make mistakes. Moses did. Noah did. Abraham, Lehi-indeed, all of them because they are mortal and flawed. That does not mean they aren’t the one holding the keys and are still called as long as they still breathe.
4. Most people will likely not be eternally married because they fail at progressing in married love. I’m old. I’ve served in every ward calling except librarian and in stake callings. Oh the misery of so many faithful couples I’ve learned known who are often merely living parallel lives as mostly roommates. Many silently wanted to divorce but didn’t want the stigma and consequences of church culture upon them, nor effects to their children while they lived at home. By the time the kids are grown, the couple is resigned and just endure. And far too many are actually in toxic marriages. The Holy Spirit of Promise obviously cannot seal any of these sealings. Also, many can’t afford divorce and many are afraid of being single and alone.
5. Having seen these realities in the temple marriages of the church all across the United States, I’ve learned that a husband falls short of making one wife feel happy and fulfilled as only a husband can (nor can a wife), let alone multiple wives. And most men I know often say they can barely handle or tolerate one wife…they don’t want any more. In recent years it even seems as though most men don’t really like women and most women don’t really like men. Our gender differences are divisive instead of complementary, to the sorrow and resentment of many silently enduring.
6.I believe the highest and holiest of all love is that between an exalted couple. I believe it is romantic beyond anything we can even microscopically comprehend. It is never boring, disappointing, never unfulfilling, never imbalanced, never about power or presiding. It is oneness to an infinite degree. It is joy unspeakable, unknowable, unimaginable.
7. After being told my whole life that there is no such thing as a soulmate, I absolutely believe there is. I believe those who keep progressing found each other pre-mortally, and if they don’t find each other in mortality (very few do), they have eternity to find each other again. For God is love. Love is life. Life is eternal. Love is eternal. It has no beginning and no end. It is light. God is light. We want to become like him.
Just my musings as a life long student of all things pertaining to love. I look forward to learning forever.
From what I've seen and studied quite a bit, this is old stuff that has been debunked
- It is a false assumption that the word "affair" means an illicit sexual relationship. That word according to 1828 Webster's dictionary has no such meaning, but refers to business/transaction or a private dispute. One could interpret those events around the Fanny story that maybe Fanny was acting inappropriately towards Joseph and Joseph through a dispute to her Uncle, a transaction to agree for the best of removing her from the Smith home and placing her into another home out of state.
- Regarding John the Baptist, being Elijah, Christ also said Elijah would come again and that John wasn't the fulfillment of that prophecy. There are many Evangelical preachers and scholars who recognize this that John the Baptist isn't the Elijah who comes before the great and dreadful day of the Lord.
As you are discovering the church is lying about its history and it has been shown by many that they changed Joseph's journals and teachings after he died. You can actually see edited different handwriting stating the opposite of what was originally written. It is a lot to dig into, but here are some resources to see evidences in the Joseph Smith Papers.
- Shows Brigham started polygamy and said Joseph practiced it in secret - th-cam.com/video/F5heXE5xS5w/w-d-xo.html
- Joseph didn't write D&C 132 - th-cam.com/video/r57oPlOgY6w/w-d-xo.html and th-cam.com/video/Poj3EPwQufs/w-d-xo.html and th-cam.com/video/cyfHJsz9egQ/w-d-xo.html
Most of the polygamy stuff the church teaches did not come up until around the temple lot court case. This was to prove which church was Joseph's true successor. Was it Joseph's son with the RLDS or the Brighamites or Hendrickites, etc. At that time the Brighamites, doubled down on the narrative that Joseph was the one who made it part of the church and then got a bunch of women, like the FLDS to sware testimonies that they were sealed or married to Joseph to prove to the judge they were the true successors, because none of the other branches of mormonism practiced Joseph's doctrine. The Judge saw through the manufactured documentation and the judge ruled against the Brighamite church.
There is a lot more content out there see YT channel '132 Problems' that is showing the hidden agenda of Brigham and rewriting Joseph's own documented words. Here is what Joseph Smith Papers shows Joseph taught which the church doesn't want known because then Brigham's church begins to fall like dominos.
- 'If a man commit adultery [polygamy] he cannot receive the Celestial Kingdom of God.” JS HC 6:81
- “What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one.” HC 6:408
- “For it will surely bring a curse upon any person who commits such deeds” HC 6:81
- “Why are you using my name to carry on your hellish wickedness? Have I ever taught you that fornication and adultery was right, or polygamy or any such practices? Times and Seasons 3 [August 1, 1842]
- “because they say they have authority from Joseph, or the First Presidency, or any other Presidency of the Church; and thus, with a lie in their mouth, deceive and debauch the innocent, under the assumption that they are authoriz’d from these sources? May God Forbid!…you may be inform’d that no such authority ever has, ever can, or ever will be given to any man, and if any man has been guilty of any such thing, let him be treated with utter contempt, and let the curse of God fall on his head…for we do not want any one to believe any thing as coming from us, contrary to the old established morals & virtues & scriptural laws, regulating the habits, customs & conduct of society; and all persons pretending to be authoriz’d by us, or having any permit, or sanction from us, are & will be liars & base impostors, & you are authoriz’d on the very first intimation of the kind, to denounce them as such, & shun them as the flying fiery serpent, whether they are prophets, Seers, or revelators; Patriarchs, twelve Apostles, Elders, Priests, Mayers, Generals, City Councillors, Aldermen, Marshalls, Police, Lord Mayors or the Devil, are alike culpable & shall be damned for such evil practices; and if you yourselves adhere to anything of the kind, you also shall be damned. Now beloved Sisters, do not believe for a moment, that we wish to impose upon you, we actually do know that such things have existed in the church, and are sorry to say that we are obliged to make mention of any such thing, and we want a stop put to them, and we desire you to do your part, and we will do ours, for we wish to keep the commandments of God in all things, as given directly from heav’n to us, living by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord. Mar 31, 1842 www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book/109
- “I preached in the grove and pronounced a curse upon all adulterers and fornicators, and unvirtuous persons and those who have made use of my name to carry on their iniquitous designs” Grove Sermon Apr 10, 1842
- “Satan taking advantage of this [false accusations] has transfigured it into lasciviousness, a community of wives, which things are an abomination in the sight of God…contrary to the law of God, which says, “Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife. He that lookeht upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery already in his heart.” T&S 1:82-85 [April 1840]
- “Joseph forbids it [polygamy] and the practice thereof. No man shall have but one wife” JSP Oct 5, 1843
- “As this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again. (Original D&C 101 removed by Brigham Young in 1876)
- Regarding John C Bennett “There has always been, in every age of the church those who have been opposed to the principles of virtue, who have loved the gain of this present world, followed the principles of unrighteousness, and have been the enemies of truth.” www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/times-and-seasons-1-august-1842/6 And a bit later calls the spiritual wife system heresy. "At the time [in Nauvoo] 'spiritual wife' was the title by which every woman who entered into this order was called, for it was taught and practiced as a spiritual order.” Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, daughter of LDS Apostle Heber C. Kimball.
If you are searching for the truth of what happened, there is more you need to examine.
lying for the Lord much?
Re: It is a false assumption that the word “affair” means an illicit sexual relationship (referencing Webster’s 1828 definition of the word “affair”).
This position is myopic at best and disingenuous at worst. The word “affair” (or “scrape,” take your pick) is to be combined with adjectives “dirty, nasty, filthy” in order to correctly determine the meaning of “affair” in this instance. What other “affair” might Fanny and Joseph be involved in that would cause Oliver Cowdery to describe it as “dirty, nasty, filthy?” Playing cards, perhaps?
The church has never debunked anything. Over time, only more and more lies are being exposed. The church is a lying criminal corporation. The facts are out there. When the church sends children out to lie to the world, the world can just look it up and know the church is lying about the history. It's far different from the old days when people just had to choose to believe or not based on no information. Now we know.
@@CJ-hw6br In the April 12, 1838 court's decision, Joseph testified before Cowdery, "“Joseph Smith jr testifies that Oliver Cowdery had been his bosom friend, therefore he entrusted him with many things. He [Joseph] then gave a history respecting the girl business.” and the court found his explanation innocent.
In response Joseph declared, "If a man commit adultery he cannot receive the celestial kingdom of God. Even if he is saved in any kingdom, it cannot be the celestial kingdom."
So was he condemning himself in committing a secret sin or telling the truth? Up to each person to judge and that same judgement is said to be upon us.
The only accounts that exist today of any type of “transaction,” that might have taken place between Joseph and Fanny, came decades later from disaffected ex-church leader William McLellin, or from a devout polygamist, Levi Hancock. McLellin is the source for two of the Smith-Alger “barn encounter” accounts in July 1872 written to JS III and later in 1875 to JH Beadle.
So there is very little evidence of first hand accounts of what, if anything happened between Joseph and Fanny and to say otherwise is just rumor and slander.
@@JoeCanaum, yes, Joseph was condemning himself. Joseph was praticing adultery. Any time he married someone who was married to someone else, he was committing adultery. No, Brigham did not start polygamy. Joseph did.
I don't think they had met yet when they were this young. Joseph Smith Jr. didn't marry his second wife until 1843, when she was 19. And even though he had 10 children with Emma, so he wasn't sterile, and many of the women he married were pregnant by men who had died or abandoned them when Joseph Smith Jr. married them, so they clearly weren't sterile either, Joseph Smith Jr. has no descendants from any woman except Emma. So he clearly wasn't consummating any of the other marriages. So obviously it had nothing to do with the lust of the flesh, nor was there any monetary gain, leaving obeying the commandments of God as the ONLY possible explanation.
I recommend that you read the temple lot case. Which can be found on the church's website. Lots of women testified that they had intimate relationships with Joseph Smith. Also D&C 132:63 gives us the purpose of Polygamy, it says it is to "multiply and replenish the earth", so if he wasn't having sex with them he is breaking his own rule. I don't want him to have sex with any of them, but that's what the scriptures say.
@@BehindTheVeilOfficial Correction, God gave the reason in Jacob 2: 30, to raise up seed unto himself, just like it is in the Old Testament. And with Joseph Smith Jr. raising the children of the women who were already pregnant, he certainly did that, while placating Emma by not having intimate relationships with them. It is beyond certain that Joseph Smith Jr. ONLY has descendants through Emma. And by the time you get to the Temple lot case, many of his wives had left the Church and would say anything to make Joseph Smith Jr. look bad. Plus you have to vet the sources of those alleged testimonies against Joseph Smith Jr. Face it, the more research is done, the better Joseph Smith Jr. looks.
But then what is D&C 132:63 referring to? And did he have to get sealed/married to all of these other women to help raise children? Why couldn't he have just adopted of babysit? Also why was he getting sealed to a bunch of children under the age of 18 who were too young to be having kids of their own for Joseph to help raise. Also he did help raise and take care of Fanny Alger but then he had an affair with her. Oliver Cowdrey called it a "Dirty, nasty, filthy affair" And its true that he only had children with Emma (that we know about) but you can still have inappropriate relationships without having children. What was the purpose of him marring so many women and children?
@@BehindTheVeilOfficial You are being very deceptive and disingenuous to your audience. You know perfectly well that the original word was Scrape, and that word was actually worse than Affair. The 1828 Webster's definition noun #4 says: Difficulty; Perplexity; Distress; That which harasses, and is considered a low word, in other words slang used by the basest of people. But even Affair has no connection to what you are implying. 1828 Webster's definition for Affair is
1) Business of any kind; That which is done, or is to be done; A word of very indefinite and undefinable signification. In the plural it denotes transactions in general; As human affairs; Political or eschatological affairs: also the business or concerns of an individual; As, his affairs are embarrassed.
2)Matters; State; Condition of business or concerns.
3)In the singular, it is used for a private dispute, or duel; As, an affair of honor; And sometimes a partial engagement of troops.
What is NOT part of the definition is anything to do with cheating on a spouse, that was added long after Oliver Cowdrey wrote that letter. As for Doctrine & Covenants 132: 63, first off, none of those women were sealed to the other men, the first sealing or Endowments were done in the upstairs of the Red Brick House in 1843 or early 1844. And many of those "wives" sealed themselves to Joseph Smith Jr. after his death, and there's little or no evidence he was married to them while alive, certainly no credible evidence. And there's absolutely NO credible evidence he had intimate relationships with any of them. Surely you must be lying when you made the comment about Joseph Smith Jr. adopting, for you have to be aware that Joseph Smith Jr. adopted twins, unless you have done absolutely NO real research about Joseph Smith Jr. so nothing you say about him has any weight to it. But if you are intentionally lying about Joseph Smith Jr. to everyone, your words have no weight to them anyways. Either way, nothing you say matters. Whether deception or ignorance, you are unqualified.
I don't care if you think I am unqualified. I am aware that he did adopt several kids. And you mentioned that my sources were not credible. Just look at FamilySearch for all of the women Joseph was sealed to. Several of those women had husbands before getting sealed to Joseph. Also why did these woman have to get sealed to Joseph after his death? What was the purpose of that? Also again FamilySearch shows that he was sealed to most if not all of the women before his death. Just look at the family group record for Joseph.