Was Joseph a Paedophile?

[_Seven]

Not really. Under certian circumstances even murder is justified. Think what the cops did at Trolley square. Was it ethical for them to shoot back and use deadly force?

As the preacher said...

Eccl 3
1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

Wisdom is knowing when the time of such behavior is acceptable.

So then we need to add:
A time for adultery, a time for fidelity;
A time for slavery, a time for equality;
A time to murder your child, a time to protect your child

What it's time for is putting scriptures IN CONTEXT.

I do not believe killing a person who is going to kill you equates with the murder of an innocent person. Yes, there is a time to kill, when it's self defense for you or the innocent in harms way.

The restoration of plural marriage is non related. Jospeph didn't reveal this with the intent that it was only temporary, or for just a short "time." Joseph despised the system of monogamy and had all intentions of changing the order of marriage when he could justify it with Old Testament abominations. Monogamy wasn't eternal marriage to LDS.

Had polygamy been practiced for the survival of mankind (only one man left on earth and a barren wife) , you would have a point. It was intended as God's law and the only form of marriage in heaven so your comparison doesn't work.

[_harmony]

The restoration of plural marriage is non related. Jospeph didn't reveal this with the intent that it was only temporary, or for just a short "time." Joseph despised the system of monogamy and had all intentions of changing the order of marriage when he could justify it with Old Testament abominations. Monogamy wasn't eternal marriage to LDS.

Had polygamy been practiced for the survival of mankind (only one man left on earth and a barren wife) , you would have a point. It was intended as God's law and the only form of marriage in heaven so your comparison doesn't work.

This is a very interesting idea, and I think it's pretty accurate. Joseph spent the last 15 years of his life secretly fighting against the monogamy he'd promised to Emma. He hated being constrained by his culture and the laws of his time. His way of working through his problem says alot about his character: sneaky, lying, breaking his covenants. Had he solved his problem through a real revelation, I think we'd have seen a completely different outcome. This hidden nature of Sec 132 shows the sneakiness of Joseph's character.

[_Mephitus]

since this is relavent to this thread as well, ill repost what i wrote up for the coffin nails thread.

The credibility issues have become one of my major points within what i see as issues of Mormon base structure. When we have a man that was regularly shown to be dishonest or to have a very strong lack of credibility. It should then likewise put everything he does under an understandable level of scrutiny to make sure he isnt leading someone with a lie. There are many people today who claim to do great and holy things in the name of one god or another. Only that when you look at their lives as a whole, they can be shown in nearly every aspect to be dishonest. To me, just because you claim to be doing holy work, does not excuse you from what should be considered very standard societal practices of judging that persons credibility.

As one such example, if you hired a person that had a long history of drug use and had been convicted several times of felony distribution of controlled substances. Would you be readily willing to hire that person for a job that would allow him to have little supervision for much of his shift? Im not saying that people don't deserve a chance, but if they had not shown credibilty in any area as of yet, what reasoning would you have to give them a good level of trust for something as simple as a job? If we where to liken this to Joe and the happenings of his life, we are taking the claims of someone that has a long history of being a professional con-man. All for the claims of something that could potentialy be even more important than our individual lives! wouldn't you want to make sure that such a person and their credibilty stand up to make sure you're not following someone who just wants power?

The more i learned about Joseph Smith's history, the events of his life, and the ties they had to the invention of Mormonism. The more i see a steady continuation of his old behavior. Possibly even amplified due to his new stature of power. As such, even after his claims of being a prophet, i see little to give him credit to be attributed to someone that could be considered for such an important posistion. Lies, desceit, misdirrection, manipulation, ect. that continued through his life.

Im going to use a phrase that will make me want to wash my mouth out with soap...but here goes...WWJD? Jesus though the entirety of the Bible would teach and practice personaly. But at no time was he credited with lying to anyone. Take the issue with the money changers in the temple. If someone would have come up to him afterwards, would be have lied or twisted the facts? He led an open and honest life on what he did and practiced. He kept his story straight even when pressed by dissenters. Even those that where within his inner circle. (im getting a bit o/t, ill try to get back)

Within this entire argument it stands a bit more on not whether or not we could call Joseph Smith a pedophile (which personaly i would say he was) but much more on his credibility and his use of controll that he had over people for use of his own purposes. I think it was Bob Mccue that said that within cult groups, such controll over sex is common place. But generaly it is understood openly within such groups that when the leader calls "so and so" to be with him. That its what is generaly expected. Sexual favors and controll over sexual acts could be considered as payment for following the group tenants. Even if Joseph Smith was trying to get someone else (such as the issue originaly with FA's mother), that he would take such a young girl in place of her mother shows just how far he was willing to go for sexual gratification. That he took several other equaly young girls supports this.

[_Dan Vogel]

Seven,

They were not only violating the law of the land, but the law of marriage they entered into with God. Is this upright, honest, ethical behavior to break covenants of chastity to each other?

Of course, I'm not defending the ethics of a man who used deception and manipulated people on a regular basis. But I object to some of the reasoning being given. Polygamy in and of itself is not unethical, but some of the ways Joseph Smith went about it was. When you say he broke his covenant (of monogamy), you make it impossible for polygamy to be ethical under any circumstance. But I think Joseph Smith admitted in an indirect way that his behavior was unethical when D&C 132 mentions having permission of the first wife.

It really doesn't matter how sincere Joseph was. He was hurting his wife in ways we can only imagine by his "sincere" behavior. That is why polygamy in and of itself is inhumane and unethical to women and the men who were victims of polyandry. It creates an inequality second to slavery and the government made the right decision in fighting polygamy.

You and I might think polygamy is "inhumane and unethical", but there are many cultures--both in the past and present--that accept polygamy as a legitimate form of marriage. Your stance here is wholly present minded. Of course, I share this bias against polygamy, but practicing it isn't automatically unethical.

The vows of chastity between husband and wife are unique to monogamy and are moral because adultery is a sin second to murder. If you leave God's moral law of adultery out of this, polygamy causes pyschological pain and harm to the first wife. The physical harm is also relevant, but this is for another topic.
Polygamy feels wicked because it is harmful behavior to another, and the law, or culture have nothing to do with that feeling.

Again, your cultural baggage is preventing you from being objective. Something "feels" wrong because you have been conditioned by society to feel that way. It probably feels wrong to you to eat a dog, but in other cultures it doesn't. You are thinking in a way that is foreign to some cultures. You mention God's moral law of adultery as if monogamy was God's moral law. So, you are trying rest your argument on a question-begging definition of adultery.

Ethical behavior should be determined by what Jesus taught: "Do unto others.." There is no point in promises and covenants of fidelity to a spouse if they can be broken so easily in the name of God with not a thought or concern for the harm it does to a woman physically & spiritually.

I sense you are personalizing the adultery aspects of this discussion.

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg.

If a murderer murders based on sincerity, let’’s say he/she believes God revealed to them they should kill someone..that doesn’’t make their behavior of killing an innocent individual ethical.

"Murder" in and of itself is unethical. Polygamy is not, unless you define polygamy as adultery, which is what some are here are doing.

Their own justification for harming, abusing or taking advantage of others for personal selfish interests is irrelevant to whether their actions against others is ethical or not. You basically argued Smith actions were unethical yourself when you said ““While I think Joseph Smith sexually, emotionally, and spiritually abused some of his followers”” Abuse of others is unethical, wouldn’’t you say?

I'm not inclined to defend Joseph Smith as ethical in all situations. But I would hesitate to assert that Joseph Smith saw his behavior as we see it. Nevertheless, I think he knew he had a problem with living monogamy, felt guilt about it, and changed his concept of marriage to relieve some of that guilt.

I don’’t think Smith’’s sexual interest was unethical. What I think is unethical is lying to his wife, breaking his contractual legal marriage agreement with her by sexual relations outside their marriage of which she wasn’’t in agreement. He had a history of sexual relations with women, starting with the Fanny affair in which I believe it was Cowdery who called it something along the lines of a ““dirty nasty affair.”” Given his history beginning with Fanny it appears his primary motivation was sex in many if not most of the known polygamous relationships. The part which is unethical is his use of authority to satisfy what evidence appears to indicate was his personal sexual appetite.

I agree with this statement, but would add that he also saw his behavior as unethical in this regard. I think this is evident when D&C 132 mentions getting the first wife's approval, which apparently he eventually did after the fact in a few cases.

Now while one can argue polygamy is acceptable in other cultures, typically there are conditions present. One being the male provides for and takes care of the women, two there are often circumstances such as few men available due to catastrophes such as war, or perhaps a male dies and leaves a wife and a brother will marry and take care of her. Even concubinage was a contractual arrangement in which the man provided for the concubine as set out in the contract. Joseph however wasn’’t providing for these women in any way emotionally or financially, there was no shortage of men, no need for him to have sexual relations with the women……behind his wife’’s back.

I don't think the shortage of men argument holds for early Mormons or other cultures. It was and is acceptable in some cultures for well-to-do men to have multiple wives, not because there is concern about women, but because marriage and women are viewed differently.

As far as your comment: ““Why do you think it's OK to force Joseph Smith into this model? Would you not think it strange if someone tried to apply a theological model onto the rock star's behavior?””

I find it strange that you don’’t see the similarities.
What we are discussing is behavior. J. Smith was idolized, people worshipped him. That same sort of phenomenon occurs with celebrities, occurs with charismatic individuals who have followers. Men in these sorts of positions typically have no difficulty if they are so inclined to bed women. And that is biologically programmed into men, to impregnate as many women as possible. I think it likely that in the majority of cases for Smith he had little difficulty bedding anyone he proposed to given his position and that he was idolized. [/quote]

My only objection is that your analogy attempts to remove the religious aspects of Joseph Smith practice and assumes it was solely for sexual reasons, which I think distorts the picture. You should want to make analogies to Shamans and cult leaders. There are deep psychological motivations to having these coercive bonds between leader and followers, not just between Joseph Smith and his wives but also with all those who were bound to him by this secret. In a rush to judgment, we are perhaps neglecting to consider the social function of Joseph Smith's polygamy. It wasn't all about sex.

[_Mary]

Dan, I'd love to know your own definition of 'ethics'?

Also, maybe the point in terms of Joseph's character is which came first, the chicken or the egg.

ie Did his sexual appetite influence his actions with Fanny Alger for instance, or did his calm and noble reading
of the Bible and it's polygamous practices, lead him to practice polygamy purely for altruistic and god-like reasons..

I'm a cynic and I'll plump for the first, at least at the moment anyway.

I wonder if we can have a godlike, noble and pious paedophile.(or adulterer for that matter)? (not saying he is one.... paedophile that is..., just a thought..)

[_marg]

Dan

"Murder" in and of itself is unethical. Polygamy is not, unless you define polygamy as adultery, which is what some are here are doing.

I didn’t say polygamy was unethical. I gave the murder example to illustrate, that in determining whether behavior is ethical it’s irrelevant whether the person in question can justify it in their mind. Regarding polygamy there can be good reasons for it. I suggested a few. In Joseph Smith’s case the reasons I gave for his behavior being unethical were that he didn’t provide or care for the women which was an indication it wasn’t really polygamy is the typical sense, he had a history of sexual affairs outside the marriage, he violated his marriage agreement with his wife. He lied to his wife. He used his authority to manipulate for his own apparent sexual interest.

It is irrelevant whether J. Smith was sincere and believed polygamy was revealed by God. I’m interested in what the evidence most likely indicates and in whether or not Smith violated the rights of others for selfish interest. It appears to me the evidence indicates that Smith used the notion of Biblical polygamy and revelations from God…to justify and persuade women to bed with him. Sexual interest in his case appears to be a significant motivator.


Dan

I'm not inclined to defend Joseph Smith as ethical in all situations. But I would hesitate to assert that Joseph Smith saw his behavior as we see it. Nevertheless, I think he knew he had a problem with living monogamy, felt guilt about it, and changed his concept of marriage to relieve some of that guilt.

“He knew he had a problem with living monogamy” ? What’s that supposed to mean? I don’t care if he felt guilt, I don’t care if he knew he had a problem living monogamy. Actions speak louder than words. The “Fanny affair” before his idea of polygamy is a tip off of his interests and willingness to violate his marriage contract..which by the way was with a maid someone he had authority over. He then essentially continues this practice but justifies it to others with polygamy. His wife didn’t buy it. And he takes on none of the responsibilities typically associated with polygamy. All he appears to be doing is using his power, influence, status in the closed community to continue on with what appears to be satisfying a strong sexual appetite. It would be better ethically if he hadn’t used God in this as justification. It makes it worse that a person in his position as a spiritual leader uses this authority to gain trust and manipulate others to satisfy his wants.

I agree with this statement, but would add that he also saw his behavior as unethical in this regard. I think this is evident when D&C 132 mentions getting the first wife's approval, which apparently he eventually did after the fact in a few cases.

Good if he saw his behavior as unethical, I agree with him. When you say Emma approved with a few..how long did it last, with how many and why did she change her mind?

I don't think the shortage of men argument holds for early Mormons or other cultures. It was and is acceptable in some cultures for well-to-do men to have multiple wives, not because there is concern about women, but because marriage and women are viewed differently.

Right and in some cases I would view polygamy by a man as unethical, in other cases ethical. In Smith’s case unethical.

My only objection is that your analogy attempts to remove the religious aspects of Joseph Smith practice and assumes it was solely for sexual reasons, which I think distorts the picture. You should want to make analogies to Shamans and cult leaders. There are deep psychological motivations to having these coercive bonds between leader and followers, not just between Joseph Smith and his wives but also with all those who were bound to him by this secret. In a rush to judgment, we are perhaps neglecting to consider the social function of Joseph Smith's polygamy. It wasn't all about sex.

I'm not aware of Joseph Smith having emotional bonds with his wives, nor aware of there being a social function for J.Smith's polygamy. If you can spin a positive angle on J Smith's polygamy go ahead.

I don’t think the religious aspect is important in this. I do think that Smith used polygamy as a means of making it easier to get extra-marital sex. He got caught with Fanny and following that came up with a scheme to legitimize extramaritial sex. His wife to my knowledge didn’t buy it. He may have thought polygamy would be good for the growth of the community though. That it would be easier for men to attract and convert women outside the community especially if offering marriage, …than it would be for women to attract/convert men outside the community to it. So even if men married many women from the Mormon community there would still be pressure for men to find women outside the Mormon community. The population growth would only increase by adding women from the outside to it.

by the way, I thought I would have time to respond in the spalding thread tomorrow but I have some reading to do first and tomorrow evening we’re having a large party so I wont have time. So probably Sunday or Monday, but I'm still following the thread.