95 replies to this topic

[Who Knows]

liz3564, on Sep 28 2006, 09:18 AM, said:

This may be a question for another thread, but I'm curious if we really know for a fact that Joseph did lie to Emma.  I would be curious if any Church history buffs are aware of the actual timeline.  Did Joseph actually secretly take another wife without Emma knowing about it, or did he tell Emma about polygamy and Emma (justifiably) wasn't happy about it, but begrudgingly agreed to it, and the second marriage followed?

Liz - sounds like you need to read the anti-mormon bible - RSR .  Bushman makes it quite clear that he decieved Emma.  At the very least, he had entered into other marriages prior to Emma's knowledge.

[NoSmiles]

Polygamy is certainly one thing that Joseph Smith and /or Brigham Young tried and failed to hide from the world.  I certainly understand why.  What about other things? Is there a pattern? How about Joseph�?¢â?¬â?¢s involvement with money digging?

Here is the canonized statement from Joseph about money-digging.  It seems misleading to me.

Quote

�?¢â?¬�?? Joseph Smith History 1:56 In the year 1823 my father�?¢â?¬â?¢s family met with a great aaffliction by the death of my eldest brother, bAlvin. In the month of October, 1825, I hired with an old gentleman by the name of Josiah Stoal, who lived in Chenango county, State of New York. He had heard something of a silver mine having been opened by the Spaniards in Harmony, Susquehanna county, State of Pennsylvania; and had, previous to my hiring to him, been digging, in order, if possible, to discover the mine. After I went to live with him, he took me, with the rest of his hands, to dig for the silver mine, at which I continued to work for nearly a month, without success in our undertaking, and finally I prevailed with the old gentleman to cease digging after it. Hence arose the very prevalent story of my having been a money-digger�?¢â?¬�?

[Tarski]

Dadof7, on Sep 27 2006, 09:16 PM, said:

After lurking on several discussion about these statements, I've come to the conclusion that the Brethren were purposefully dismissive and deflected the questions on technicalities because:

1) The Principle was just being established by God and they were not instructed to reveal it publicly, and
2) It was no one elses d@#* business but those who entered into it.

If I were married to two women and someone was prying into my personal business I'd tell them I've been one hundred percent two hundred percent faithful to my wife!  

That line of thinking is stunning to me.

They are all deceptive and at least one of the statements was such that I cannot conceive of how one argues that it was not a flat out lie. I am pretty creative but I can't see how would someone would argue that point?
It seems simliar to me saying that we don't eat sugar in my family while in fact we do almost every day.

As for "its none of their business", I wonder if that principle would apply to a group that decides to incorporate illegal drugs into their practices or how about the collecting of illegal arms or, well.... other illegal stuff.
Illegality and deception are the two key words here.
Of course, I believe that there was also to be more decption later in church history on the topic of polygamy.

[pssst]

this kind of threads are really awesome....

and then the simple questioner or the one that doubts his faith is called an apostate and influenced by satan one...but the "chosen people" are allowed to lie..thats cool

[Who Knows]

Since we're on the topic of deceit/lying, etc.  How about JS excommunicating Oliver Cowdery for, among other things, accusing JS of marrying other women?

[liz3564]

Who Knows, on Sep 28 2006, 08:51 AM, said:

liz3564, on Sep 28 2006, 09:18 AM, said:

This may be a question for another thread, but I'm curious if we really know for a fact that Joseph did lie to Emma.  I would be curious if any Church history buffs are aware of the actual timeline.  Did Joseph actually secretly take another wife without Emma knowing about it, or did he tell Emma about polygamy and Emma (justifiably) wasn't happy about it, but begrudgingly agreed to it, and the second marriage followed?

Liz - sounds like you need to read the anti-mormon bible - RSR .  Bushman makes it quite clear that he decieved Emma.  At the very least, he had entered into other marriages prior to Emma's knowledge.

Sorry...I've only read the regular Bible.   

Seriously, I would like to read "Rough Stone Rolling".  I've heard it's fairly accurate as far as timelines.

Are there any other references?  This is something that has always intrigued me.

If some astute scholar who has some answers on this wants to start another thread, be my guest.  I suppose I shouldn't inadvertantly derail two polygamy threads in one week!

[The Dude]

Once you have decided for yourself the level of deception Joseph Smith used to keep Emma from knowing about his polygamous relationships, it needs to be put into perspective.  We should quickly cut through the rationalizations.  The question to ask yourself is: If you were in Emma's shoes, would you have wanted to be treated like that (lied to, information withheld, direct questions dodged, basically kept in the dark)?  This will tell you, assuredly, if Joseph Smith was "right" or "wrong" in what he did.

[Confidential Informant]

Quote

Illegality and deception are the two key words here.

Good.  Then you'll be happy to know that Smith practice of plural marriage in Illinois was not a violation of the illinois law at the time.

C.I.

[stn9]

Technically, all denials of a plural marriage system (under whatever name) being practiced in and espoused by the Church are correct. The Chruch, as an institution, never preached or practiced any plural marriage system in Joseph Smith's lifetime. Joseph Smith taught the principle privately and practiced it as privately as possible.

Again, just to be technical.

[mocnarf]

Maybe Emma knew all about Joseph's other wives, but lied about it to save face. Now, that would keep Joseph's integrety intact.  

Edited by mocnarf, 28 September 2006 - 01:24 PM.

[The Dude]

mocnarf, on Sep 28 2006, 01:23 PM, said:

Maybe Emma knew all about Joseph's other wives, but lied about it to save face. Now, that would keep Joseph's integrety intact.  

There's a long history of making her into a scapegoat over this.  It's quite sad.

[T-Shirt]

The Dude, on Sep 28 2006, 08:00 AM, said:

The only acceptable rationalization for lying is when telling the truth would endanger lives.�??�?  This is the "Anne Frank" case, and I believe it is justified.�??�?  It might apply to Joseph Smith and polygamy.�??�?  OTOH, it would seem most wise for the institution of polygamy to be held off until the Saints had reached a location where they could truly practice their religion without fear or a need to lie.�??�?  It's a sticky situation overall, and I'm reluctant to judge.

The only problem with this is that the practice was very secret and those who were told about it were to keep their mouths shut.  Unfortunately, there were some who were untrustworthy.  There would have been no need to publicly deflect the charges if certain men had not gone against their word and blabbed.

Why is it that William Law and John C Bennett and others seem to get a pass when it was their blatant dishonesty that caused the whole mess.  And these two men, in particular, as well as others, not only revealed to the world what they promised not to, but they distorted the facts so much they were beyond recognition, yet they are often praised by critics for their bravery in telling the truth.  It makes me want to wretch.

T-Shirt

Edited by T-Shirt, 28 September 2006 - 02:01 PM.

[Cowpie]

The lying and deceit and self-protection that went on by the church leaders in this instance would seem to indicate a lack of faith on the part of those leaders that God would take care of them. It also raises questions about the nature of a God who would put his people into a situtation like that, or the nature of a God who requires lying and deceit on his behalf.

[T-Shirt]

Cowpie, on Sep 28 2006, 02:09 PM, said:

The lying and deceit and self-protection that went on by the church leaders in this instance would seem to indicate a lack of faith on the part of those leaders that God would take care of them. It also raises questions about the nature of a God who would put his people into a situtation like that, or the nature of a God who requires lying and deceit on his behalf.

So, are you saying that since a few dishonourable men broke their promise and revealed secrets to the world, and in so doing, they distorted the real facts of the matter, this obligated the faithful saints to then reveal the real facts to the world, even though they had covenanted not to?

T-Shirt

[Deborah]

The Dude, on Sep 28 2006, 09:00 AM, said:

What I find really troubling is the deception of Emma right from the beginning of Joseph's polygamous relationships.  If he had to hide it from his own wife, then he knew he was doing something wrong, IMO.

Doing something wrong? No, I think he just knew Emma well enough to know how she would react and he didn't want to face her.

[Deborah]

NoSmiles, on Sep 28 2006, 09:55 AM, said:

What about other things? Is there a pattern? How about Joseph�?¢â?¬â?¢s involvement with money digging?

You use a perjorative term like "money digging" to describe what sounds more like a mining endeavor. What pray tell is wrong with looking for a mine, which many people did?

[Cowpie]

T-Shirt, on Sep 28 2006, 02:36 PM, said:

Cowpie, on Sep 28 2006, 02:09 PM, said:

The lying and deceit and self-protection that went on by the church leaders in this instance would seem to indicate a lack of faith on the part of those leaders that God would take care of them. It also raises questions about the nature of a God who would put his people into a situtation like that, or the nature of a God who requires lying and deceit on his behalf.

So, are you saying that since a few dishonourable men broke their promise and revealed secrets to the world, and in so doing, they distorted the real facts of the matter, this obligated the faithful saints to then reveal the real facts to the world, even though they had covenanted not to?

T-Shirt

Hardly. Back up a step.

[T-Shirt]

Cowpie, on Sep 28 2006, 02:57 PM, said:

T-Shirt, on Sep 28 2006, 02:36 PM, said:

Cowpie, on Sep 28 2006, 02:09 PM, said:

The lying and deceit and self-protection that went on by the church leaders in this instance would seem to indicate a lack of faith on the part of those leaders that God would take care of them. It also raises questions about the nature of a God who would put his people into a situtation like that, or the nature of a God who requires lying and deceit on his behalf.

So, are you saying that since a few dishonourable men broke their promise and revealed secrets to the world, and in so doing, they distorted the real facts of the matter, this obligated the faithful saints to then reveal the real facts to the world, even though they had covenanted not to?

T-Shirt

Hardly. Back up a step.

Care to explain what you mean by "back up a step"?

T-Shirt

[Cowpie]

T-Shirt, on Sep 28 2006, 03:04 PM, said:

Cowpie, on Sep 28 2006, 02:57 PM, said:

T-Shirt, on Sep 28 2006, 02:36 PM, said:

Cowpie, on Sep 28 2006, 02:09 PM, said:

The lying and deceit and self-protection that went on by the church leaders in this instance would seem to indicate a lack of faith on the part of those leaders that God would take care of them. It also raises questions about the nature of a God who would put his people into a situtation like that, or the nature of a God who requires lying and deceit on his behalf.

So, are you saying that since a few dishonourable men broke their promise and revealed secrets to the world, and in so doing, they distorted the real facts of the matter, this obligated the faithful saints to then reveal the real facts to the world, even though they had covenanted not to?

T-Shirt

Hardly. Back up a step.

Care to explain what you mean by "back up a step"?

T-Shirt

I mean you've taken it to a whole new level, and I really don't understand your logic in doing so, but it's okay, what you speak of is more of the sort of clandestine drama that demonstrates the lack of faith in God to lead and care for his people, if you accept that kind of God, or ultimately question the nature of a God who requires lying and deceipt on his behalf.

[Teancum]

Deborah, on Sep 28 2006, 06:52 AM, said:

Thinking, on Sep 27 2006, 10:50 PM, said:

Is this out of context?

I said context of time and place which the critics of either our American history or Church history seem to ignore.

In fact in thinking about these statements, for the majority of the church at the time they were absolutely true. Not everyone was authorized to practice polygamy in the beginning, and even later it had certain regulations that had to be met.

Quote

In fact in thinking about these statements, for the majority of the church at the time they were absolutely true. Not everyone was authorized to practice polygamy in the beginning, and even later it had certain regulations that had to be met.

Sure.  THe majority did not even know about it then.  So the truth was withheld from them as well.

But do you really think that justifies hiding it?  The main leaders were certianly doing it and lying about it.

Teancum.