95 replies to this topic

[Teancum]

liz3564, on Sep 28 2006, 08:18 AM, said:

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.

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.  Not a good way to plant the seeds of higher marriage.

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?

Yes he did take wives before Emma knew.  Emma even signed the statement denying plural marriage when it was going on and she did not know.  In fact, her RS secretary Eliza Snow was married to Joseph at that time, and Emma did not know.  Her second counselor's daughter was also married to Joseph at that time and she did not know.  The two women knew and deceived her as well and let her lend her name to a lie.  But they justified it by using what they believed were different words.  They did not practice spiritual wifery or polygamy so they could deny it.  They practiced celestial marriage.  

Later when Emma knew she was at a marriage ceremony for two women who married Joseph, the Partridge girls if I recall.  But they had married Joseph previously.  SO even that had some element of subterfuge towards Emma.

RSR and Mormon Enigma document this information.

Teancum

[Teancum]

Confidential Informant, on Sep 28 2006, 12:17 PM, said:

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.

I believe you are incorrect.

Teancum

[Teancum]

T-Shirt, on Sep 28 2006, 01:57 PM, said:

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

I do not recall that William Law got a pass.  He never did the things that Bennett did.  Yes Bennett was a scoundrel and perhaps Law became one.  It seems though that Law became disenchanted when JS allegedly proposed to Law's wife to become a polyandrous wife of Joseph. Or that Law and his wife would not enter into the practice.  Right or wrong it seems that plural marriage is what turned Law against Joseph.

As for keeping something secret that they promised not to?  Are you sure Law committed to keeping plural marriage a secret?  You know, the secrecy of this and other things in the late Nauvoo period just seem to smack of the secret combinations that Book of Mormon is so strong in condemning.

Teancum

[KevinG]

Teancum, on Sep 29 2006, 07:37 AM, said:

You know, the secrecy of this and other things in the late Nauvoo period just seem to smack of the secret combinations that Book of Mormon is so strong in condemning.

Poor Joseph must have missed the "...to get gain" part.

[Teancum]

Deborah, on Sep 28 2006, 02:49 PM, said:

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.

Suuuurrrreee!!! Most other wives would have been just fine with their hubbie taking on three or four new wives.  But not Emma.  How unreasonable of her.  And of course in these days when a man has an affair he immediately tells his wife and she just smiles and is quite happy about it.  But no, Emma was just so irrational that Joseph needed to hide it all from her.

Wow.  Amazing.

Teancum

[Teancum]

Deborah, on Sep 28 2006, 04:19 PM, said:

Teancum, on Sep 28 2006, 04:20 PM, said:

Wow.�??�?  An oath to whom?�??�?  Each other?�??�?  I highly doubt you would apply these situational ethics so easily to any other group doing such things.

I have made covenants not to reveal certain things in the temple. I've taken an oath not to do so. Is it situational ethics to decline to respond in the affirmative if someone blurts out what they shouldn't and I'm asked to confirm?

I don't even know if an oath was made but it sounds like some kind of covenant was made to God and to the prophet that certain things would not be revealed publically at that time.

So if next week the temple endowment includes a plot to assasinate the US president and over throw the government are you ok to lie about it and hide it?

Teancum

Knock of the hyperbole or you will be suspended.  Disagree without being insulting. -mods

[Teancum]

Dadof7, on Sep 28 2006, 10:03 PM, said:

The extreme camps of Joseph as liar vs. Joseph as perfect are both spouting idiocy.

No Dad.  In thise case it is pretty clear that Jospeh lied, was deceitful or practiecd subterfuge, with his wife at a minimum.  BTW, I do not condemn him for this per say.  We all lie and sin.  In regards to plural marriage I just think Joseph made some big mistakes.  He still did a lot of other really great things.

Teancum

[Teancum]

Dadof7, on Sep 29 2006, 07:48 AM, said:

Teancum, on Sep 29 2006, 07:37 AM, said:

You know, the secrecy of this and other things in the late Nauvoo period just seem to smack of the secret combinations that Book of Mormon is so strong in condemning.

Poor Joseph must have missed the "...to get gain" part.

Gain can mean more then money.  Power, control, influence.


Teancum

[Teancum]

Teancum, on Sep 29 2006, 07:53 AM, said:

Deborah, on Sep 28 2006, 04:19 PM, said:

Teancum, on Sep 28 2006, 04:20 PM, said:

Wow.�??�?  An oath to whom?�??�?  Each other?�??�?  I highly doubt you would apply these situational ethics so easily to any other group doing such things.

I have made covenants not to reveal certain things in the temple. I've taken an oath not to do so. Is it situational ethics to decline to respond in the affirmative if someone blurts out what they shouldn't and I'm asked to confirm?

I don't even know if an oath was made but it sounds like some kind of covenant was made to God and to the prophet that certain things would not be revealed publically at that time.

So if next week the temple endowment includes a plot to assasinate the US president and over throw the government are you ok to lie about it and hide it?

Teancum

Knock of the hyperbole or you will be suspended.  Disagree without being insulting. -mods

Dear Mod,

I am unclear as to how the example was hyperbole or aggresive or insulting.

Also, I am rather shocked at the threat os suspension for this offense especially when I only recall one other offese, ever, that I have been dinged about.  

Can you kindly explain this to me as well as what happens if I am suspended?

Many thanks

Teancum

[KevinG]

Teancum, on Sep 29 2006, 08:07 AM, said:

BTW, I do not condemn him for this per say.  We all lie and sin.  In regards to plural marriage I just think Joseph made some big mistakes.  He still did a lot of other really great things.

What you just said is much more acceptable than- "Joseph is a liar."  (emphasis on the period)  and its not the kind of extreme position that I have a problem with.

I think Joseph struggled to understand how to implement the revelations he received too.  They are inherantly frought with contradictions between obeying God and honoring one's spouse...  That's why I think some of the difficulties arose, and why I think the subsequent questions and revelations on polygamy were so explicit in involving the whole family in the decision.  That has not led me to conlcude that Joseph deserved being categorized as a liar and out of hand dismissed as being driven by his lusts to make up polygamy...

Thus my statement that the extreme camps on this issue too often spout idiocy.

[Orpheus]

Teancum, on Sep 29 2006, 03:13 PM, said:

Teancum, on Sep 29 2006, 07:53 AM, said:

Deborah, on Sep 28 2006, 04:19 PM, said:

Teancum, on Sep 28 2006, 04:20 PM, said:

Wow.�??�?  An oath to whom?�??�?  Each other?�??�?  I highly doubt you would apply these situational ethics so easily to any other group doing such things.

I have made covenants not to reveal certain things in the temple. I've taken an oath not to do so. Is it situational ethics to decline to respond in the affirmative if someone blurts out what they shouldn't and I'm asked to confirm?

I don't even know if an oath was made but it sounds like some kind of covenant was made to God and to the prophet that certain things would not be revealed publically at that time.

So if next week the temple endowment includes a plot to assasinate the US president and over throw the government are you ok to lie about it and hide it?

Teancum

Knock of the hyperbole or you will be suspended.  Disagree without being insulting. -mods

Dear Mod,

I am unclear as to how the example was hyperbole or aggresive or insulting.

Also, I am rather shocked at the threat os suspension for this offense especially when I only recall one other offese, ever, that I have been dinged about.  

Can you kindly explain this to me as well as what happens if I am suspended?

Many thanks

Teancum

Just six posts earlier I asked people to stop trash talking...

Your post:  "So if next week the temple endowment includes a plot to assasinate the US president and over throw the government are you ok to lie about it and hide it?"  ...violated that request.

[Teancum]

Orpheus, on Sep 29 2006, 08:23 AM, said:

Teancum, on Sep 29 2006, 03:13 PM, said:

Teancum, on Sep 29 2006, 07:53 AM, said:

Deborah, on Sep 28 2006, 04:19 PM, said:

Teancum, on Sep 28 2006, 04:20 PM, said:

Wow.�??�?  An oath to whom?�??�?  Each other?�??�?  I highly doubt you would apply these situational ethics so easily to any other group doing such things.

I have made covenants not to reveal certain things in the temple. I've taken an oath not to do so. Is it situational ethics to decline to respond in the affirmative if someone blurts out what they shouldn't and I'm asked to confirm?

I don't even know if an oath was made but it sounds like some kind of covenant was made to God and to the prophet that certain things would not be revealed publically at that time.

So if next week the temple endowment includes a plot to assasinate the US president and over throw the government are you ok to lie about it and hide it?

Teancum

Knock of the hyperbole or you will be suspended.  Disagree without being insulting. -mods

Dear Mod,

I am unclear as to how the example was hyperbole or aggresive or insulting.

Also, I am rather shocked at the threat os suspension for this offense especially when I only recall one other offese, ever, that I have been dinged about.  

Can you kindly explain this to me as well as what happens if I am suspended?

Many thanks

Teancum

Just six posts earlier I asked people to stop trash talking...

Your post:  "So if next week the temple endowment includes a plot to assasinate the US president and over throw the government are you ok to lie about it and hide it?"  ...violated that request.

Gotchya.

Sorry about that.  

Teancum

[Froggie]

Quote

We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul�?¢â?¬â?We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

Quote

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Quote

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Quote

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Quote

Love, Honesty, Morality (3 of the 10 virtues espoused in President Hinckley's Standing for Something

[truth dancer]

Hi Froggie,

How about...

Quote

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

~dancer~

[Thinking]

Dadof7, on Sep 29 2006, 06:37 AM, said:

Thinking, on Sep 29 2006, 04:58 AM, said:

This doesn�?¢â?¬â?¢t make SENSE with my UNDERSTANDING of what a prophet should be. Maybe he�?¢â?¬â?¢s not a prophet after all.

Proverbs. 3: 5 �??�?¶ Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Do you think that Proverbs 3:5 means that we should not USE our understanding?

Did you read verse13 in the same chapter?

"Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding."

[Deborah]

Matt. 23:

Quote

29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
  30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
  31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
  32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
  33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
  34 �??�?¶ Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

[KevinG]

Thinking, on Sep 30 2006, 02:01 AM, said:

Do you think that Proverbs 3:5 means that we should not USE our understanding?

No, that would be silly.

When you protest that a prophet isn't acting according to how you think he should be acting you may consider the possibility that you and the Lord don't think alike.

[Dale]

[quote name='Teancum' date='Sep 29 2006, 07:21 AM'] [quote name='liz3564' date='Sep 28 2006, 08:18 AM'] [quote name='The Dude' date='Sep 28 2006, 08:00 AM'] [/QUOTE]
Yes he did take wives before Emma knew.  Emma even signed the statement denying plural marriage when it was going on and she did not know.  In fact, her RS secretary Eliza Snow was married to Joseph at that time, and Emma did not know.  Her second counselor's daughter was also married to Joseph at that time and she did not know.  The two women knew and deceived her as well and let her lend her name to a lie.  But they justified it by using what they believed were different words.  They did not practice spiritual wifery or polygamy so they could deny it.  They practiced celestial marriage.  

Later when Emma knew she was at a marriage ceremony for two women who married Joseph, the Partridge girls if I recall.  But they had married Joseph previously.  SO even that had some element of subterfuge towards Emma.

RSR and Mormon Enigma document this information.

Teancum [/quote]
Yes a first marriage was claimed by the Partridge sisters. But their date for the second marriage on May 11th 1843 is bonified perjury, Joseph's diary had him to busy. And James Adam's was not in Nauvoo at the time to perform the ceremony. Eliza Snow legally invalidated her claim when she signed the Voice of Innocence in Nauvoo which exonerated Joseph Smith of polygamy. Judge Phillips in the Temple Lot case found out about this and said under U.S. law because she signed such statements she was not Joseph's wife. Joseph Smith 3rd had met Lucy Walker & mElissa Lott Willis, and he felt they were lying about being earthly wives of his father.

[Thinking]

Dadof7, on Sep 30 2006, 10:46 AM, said:

When you protest that a prophet isn't acting according to how you think he should be acting you may consider the possibility that you and the Lord don't think alike.

I must also consider the possibility that the alleged prophet is the one who doesn't think like the Lord. Christ warned us to beware of false prophets. I'm just following HIS advice.

[Scott Lloyd]

Thinking, on Sep 30 2006, 11:54 AM, said:

Dadof7, on Sep 30 2006, 10:46 AM, said:

When you protest that a prophet isn't acting according to how you think he should be acting you may consider the possibility that you and the Lord don't think alike.

I must also consider the possibility that the alleged prophet is the one who doesn't think like the Lord. Christ warned us to beware of false prophets. I'm just following HIS advice.

How about this bit from "alleged prophet" Isaiah?

Quote

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isa. 55:8-9)

Edited by Scott Lloyd, 30 September 2006 - 03:02 PM.