This post from Nov 2023 generated a wide-ranging discussion that represents many alternative interpretations you can see at the link.
https://x.com/jonathanaplumb/status/1728410778045390940
It only takes a little bit of diligent searching to dispel all anti-LDS rhetoric.
I hope you take the time to read what I have to say, because I have fully investigated these things, and you can find sources corroborating what I say, if you but take a moment to know for yourself.
There's a reason the Church says to stay far away from anti-LDS rhetoric. It's not because the Church is trying to hide anything, but because enemies of the Church twist the facts to destroy the truth and destroy testimonies, and only a person who has a solid foundation and a clear understanding of the history of the Church can see through the deceptions. If you don't have that sure foundation, you will fall. Not "might" — will.
Anti-LDS rhetoric is especially good at filling in gaps in the record with what they want you to believe happened, and with no record to prove what they're saying false, many are led astray thereby. It's the perfect example of "conspiracy theories" — which are so dangerous because they latch onto the gaps to create their own story that cannot be proven false, whether true or not. And because of the scientific principle of falsifiability, the fact that they can't be proven false gives them credibility...
I have two daughters that fell because they both heard some of the easily-proven-false rhetoric spread by friends in public schools. And as both of them grew outside of the gospel, they both eventually discovered that the things that had led them astray earlier in their lives were lies. And all it took was for them to actually research it themselves.
Now, to your points.
1. Multiple accounts of the First Vision
Joseph Smith shared and documented the First Vision on multiple occasions, resulting in several different accounts. Some have argued that the differences in these accounts indicate changes or embellishments in the story over time, while others see these variations as reflecting different perspectives or emphases rather than contradictions.
Example: I often tell a story of when I was in Iraq and an invisible entity stopped be from getting shot in the face. Sometimes when I tell the story I emphasize that I was all alone in the intersection despite thinking my commander was the one who pulled me out of danger; sometimes I emphasize the fact that I had the shooter dead-to-rights in my crosshairs and watched the bullet curve in the air and miss, making me believe that it wasn't his nor my day to die. Sometimes I don't even mention my firing on the shooter and only tell the part of an invisible angel saving my life. It just depends on who I'm talking to and why I'm telling the story.
I have yet to find any conflicting aspects of the various accounts, but find each to enlighten me a little more of what actually happened. It's the same reason I read every sacred text of every religion, because I believe each one gives one more piece of the greater truth.
While this may be enough for some to dispute Joseph's divinity, as a historian I can't take the same stance but must consider each account as further evidence of the truth.
2. Joe hiding marriages from Emma
This is a perfect example of creating a narrative where there is no record and making you believe it. We don't have any primary evidence that confirms Joseph kept anything from Emma. Here's what we know:
- Plural marriage was well-known and spreading in Nauvoo by mid-1843.
- Joseph's first plural marriage was to Fanny Alger, which we don't have a definitive date for but was likely late 1835 or early 1836.
- It is alleged Emma didn't know initially and expelled Fanny from their home in either later 1835 or early 1836. Some claim she expelled Fanny over trivial disagreements, while others claim it's because she "discovered" the marriage. But there is no primary source that knows this for certain. It's all hearsay written years later.
Hearsay.
* The first known hearsay account was in January 1838, when Oliver Cowdery wrote a private letter where he said the situation with Fanny was a "dirty, nasty, filthy scrape ["affair" overwritten, possibly by someone later]" showing his well-documented opposition to the idea of plural marriages. He alleged Joseph was engaging in sexual relations with Fanny despite everyone denying it. Fanny herself never confirmed it but said it was none of anyone else's business (which is also true). Keep in mine, Oliver had been struggling with the Church for years, especially over Joseph's economic and political programs. His seething comments about Joseph and the Church led to his excommunication in April 1838. (It should be noted that even after excommunication, Oliver never retracted his Three-Witness testimony, and he was re-baptized in 1848).
* Decades later, in 1872, William McLellin (who was also excommunicated in 1838 and despised the Church) recounted an incident where Emma discovered Joseph and Fanny alone in a barn. He claimed Emma observed sexual relations through a crack in the barn door. However, Emma never made such a claim, and this is a perfect example of filling in gaps in the record where none exists and making you believe it.
* Wilhelm Wyl reported in the 1880s that Emma was furious upon discovering the relationship and drove Fanny out of her house due to the inability to conceal the consequences of her "celestial relation" with Joseph. Again, this is 100% hearsay, adding details to the record where none exists.
I hope I have sufficiently debunked the claims that Joseph did anything wrong. Now, I'm not asserting he was entirely innocent of all things. He was mortal and had his own weaknesses and challenges, but as Fanny made clear, that's none of our business. Even a prophet sins, as well-documented in scripture. And so, even if the allegations of sexual relations and the feud with Emma are 100% true, does that mean that Joseph wasn't a prophet or does it mean he made a mortal mistake? I lean toward the latter, but that's something you have to decide on your own.
3. Joe marrying a 14-year old
It's important to differentiate between "marriage" and "sealing." Polygamy, in the LDS context, wasn't about marriage but was about sealing. Also, most people don't understand this, but polygamy was only meant to be a temporary doctrine to strengthen the foundation of the Church. It was already on the chopping block when the government said we had to abandon it to join the US, which is why the Church had no problems abandoning it.
Joseph was sealed to Helen Mar Kimball when she was 14. While you mention only this account, it should be noted that Joseph was sealed to 7 women under the age of 18 over the years. However, here's where the anti-LDS rhetoric fills in gaps in the record, alleging Joseph must have had sexual relations because they were "married" (again, marriage isn't the same as sealing).
It should be noted that at this point in history, there was no legal age for marriage, and it wasn't uncommon for men to marry minors (outside of the Church), and there are plenty of well-documented cases of men marrying women as young as 10. But don't bring this up to the critics...they hate true history. (Don't interpret this as me saying it was common...my words are "it was not uncommon").
According to Helen's own journals, she was initially shocked by the proposal of plural sealings, which she described as having “a similar effect to a sudden shock of a small earthquake.” Her father, Heber C. Kimball, introduced the idea to her (not Smith), and after an initial negative reaction, she consented to the sealing, influenced by the promise of ensuring her eternal salvation and that of her family. In other words, this wasn't a sealing arranged by Joseph but arranged by her father, and both her and Joseph agreed to it (a fact most critics overlook).
In her 1882 narrative, Helen described how her father broached the subject with her. He first asked her if she would believe him if he said it was right for married men to take other wives. Her initial response was of anger and disbelief, but after her father explained the principle of plural sealings and its reestablishment on Earth, Helen started to consider it more seriously. The following day, Joseph Smith visited their house and further explained the principle, which led Helen to believe in it, relying on the testimonies of her father and Joseph Smith. It was only at this time that her father suggested the idea of being sealed to Smith.
Helen continued to live with her parents after the sealing and was not in a conventional marital relationship with Smith. After Joseph died, 13 months later, she married Horace Whitney, indicating that her sealing to Smith did not preclude her from entering into a temporal marriage with someone else.
If you have any other anti-LDS rhetoric you'd like to be destroyed, just let me know. I'm here all day.
