95 replies to this topic

[Deborah]

Thinking, on Sep 30 2006, 12:54 PM, said:

Christ warned us to beware of false prophets. I'm just following HIS advice.

If he warned of false prophets then there must also be true prophets. We must learn to discern between the two. Joseph Smith was a true prophet and I find remarks calling him names very offensive especially when a person has no true knowledge of all the facts.

[Scott Lloyd]

Teancum, on Sep 29 2006, 07:31 AM, said:

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

Since CI is a practicing attorney, you may want to be ready with some legal documentation.

On the other hand, it's possible CI might not get back to the thread -- in which case, you may be off the hook.

[Scott Lloyd]

This has already been intimated in some of the posts here, so pardon if I'm being repetitive.

But the opening post of this thread seems to function on the assumption that deceptiveness is always wrong. Is that necessarily the case?

If during World War II, I'm hiding Jewish refugees in my attic, and brownshirts storm my home and demand to know if there are any Jews on the premises, I tell them no. And I feel just fine about doing so.

There has already been an accusation of situational ethics made on this thread. Call it what you will: I maintain there is a higher form of morality and ethics that requires one to weigh the consequences of one's words and to act accordingly.

Edited by Scott Lloyd, 30 September 2006 - 03:26 PM.

[juliann]

How can "plural marriage" ever be against the law?   They weren't married   by the state, thus committing bigamy where you enter into more than one legally sanctioned marriage.  From a civil perspective,  it is adultery at best.  There are going to be a lot of people in trouble if the state comes down on people who have affairs or live together without a legal marriage to accompany it.

[Thinking]

Scott Lloyd, on Sep 30 2006, 03:22 PM, said:

This has already been intimated in some of the posts here, so pardon if I'm being repetitive.

But the opening post of this thread seems to function on the assumption that deceptiveness is always wrong. Is that necessarily the case?

If during World War II, I'm hiding Jewish refugees in my attic, and brownshirts storm my home and demand to know if there are any Jews on the premises, I tell them no. And I feel just fine about doing so.

There has already been an accusation of situational ethics made on this thread. Call it what you will: I maintain there is a higher form of morality and ethics that requires one to weigh the consequences of one's words and to act accordingly.

Which begs the question, "Was the practice of plural marriage a higher morality than telling the truth?"

[Thinking]

Deborah, on Sep 30 2006, 02:59 PM, said:

Thinking, on Sep 30 2006, 12:54 PM, said:

Christ warned us to beware of false prophets. I'm just following HIS advice.

If he warned of false prophets then there must also be true prophets. We must learn to discern between the two. Joseph Smith was a true prophet and I find remarks calling him names very offensive especially when a person has no true knowledge of all the facts.

Do you have a true knowledge of all the facts?

[Thinking]

Scott Lloyd, on Sep 30 2006, 02:55 PM, said:

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)

This scripture says the "Lord's" thoughts are higher than mine. It doesn't say "Joseph Smith's" thoughts are higher than mine. It only compares a person to the Lord, not to a "prophet."

I could use that same scripture also. For example, "For my thoughts are not Joseph Smith's thoughts, neither are his ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than his ways and my thoughts than his thoughts."

My example is just as "out of context" as yours. Using your logic any proclaimed prophet could quote Isaiah to discourage people from questioning him.

[Deborah]

Thinking, on Sep 30 2006, 09:51 PM, said:

Do you have a true knowledge of all the facts?

No one knows all the facts of that time. That is the point. My testimony of Joseph Smith comes from statements of those who knew him best and stood by him even willing to die with him, and of his teachings and of the fruits of those teachings. The spirit has borne witness of these things and the falsehoods others teach are attempts to smear a man who was all too human but nevertheless did what God asked of him to the giving of his life. I do not trust anyone in or out of the church whose goal is to smear another person's reputation, especially when that person is not able to defend himself.

[Fisher-King]

Moksha, on Sep 27 2006, 09:46 PM, said:

Illinois was part of the United States at that time and the Mormons were surrounded by people who would not have taken kindly to polygamy, let alone some of the members who were not aware of it and had not yet been sold on the idea.  Keeping such a practice under wraps was simply in response to what would have been an avalanche of condemnation and intervention.  In the safety of Utah were the Church was the law, it could be practiced openly, at least for several decades before it was curtailed within  the main group.

But can we not see the persecution that the early Christians went through? Still they stood on the foundation God left. I know that God's truth, and only God's truth can make a person like David take on a giant like Goliath.

I don't think "persecution" of polygamyst beliefs is an excuse if they truly believe that God was on their side over it. I mean truly and honestly BELIEVED it; knew it in their hearts as Paul or Peter knew the gospel of Christ during the time that christians were being killed.

[smac97]

juliann, on Sep 30 2006, 05:11 PM, said:

How can "plural marriage" ever be against the law?   They weren't married  by the state, thus committing bigamy where you enter into more than one legally sanctioned marriage.  From a civil perspective,  it is adultery at best.  There are going to be a lot of people in trouble if the state comes down on people who have affairs or live together without a legal marriage to accompany it.

Plural marriage can be against the law.  Take Utah's bigamy statute, for example:

Quote

A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.

Utah Code Ann. �?�§ 76-7-101(1) (emphasis added)

It's that "purports" or "cohabits" that gets you into trouble.

One fellow here in Utah, Rodney Holm, recently tried to argue that he couldn't be convicted of bigamy for his polygamous marriages because those marriages are not recognized by the state.  It didn't work.  The decision, State v. Holm, 137 P.3d 726 (Utah 2006), includes some interesting analysis:

Quote

In this case, we are asked to determine whether Rodney Hans Holm was appropriately convicted for bigamy and unlawful sexual conduct with a minor. Specifically, we are asked to determine whether Holm's behavior violated Utah's bigamy statute and whether that statute is constitutional.
...
Holm was legally married to Suzie Stubbs in 1986. Subsequent to this marriage, Holm, a member of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the "FLDS Church"), participated in a religious marriage ceremony with Wendy Holm. Then, when Rodney Holm was thirty-two, he participated in another religious marriage ceremony with then-sixteen-year-old Ruth Stubbs, Suzie Stubbs's sister. After the ceremony, Ruth moved into Holm's house, where her sister Suzie Stubbs, Wendy Holm, and their children also resided. By the time Ruth turned eighteen, she had conceived two children with Holm, the second of which was born approximately three months after her eighteenth birthday.

Holm was subsequently arrested in Utah and charged with three counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a sixteen- or seventeen-year-old, n2 in violation of Utah Code section 76-5-401.2 (2003), n3 and one count of bigamy, in violation of Utah Code section 76-7-101 (2003).
...
At trial, Ruth Stubbs testified that although she knew that the marriage was not a legal civil marriage under the law, she believed that she was married. Stubbs's testimony included a description of the ceremony she had participated in with Holm. Stubbs testified that, at the ceremony, she had answered "I do" to the following question:

Quote

[Smac: I've snipped the question, as it is too close to temple content]

Stubbs testified that she had worn a white dress, which she considered a wedding dress; that she and Holm exchanged vows; that Warren Jeffs, a religious leader in the FLDS religion, conducted the ceremony; that other church members and members of Holm's family attended the ceremony; and that photographs were taken of Holm, Stubbs, and their guests who attended the ceremony.

Stubbs also testified about her relationship with Holm after the ceremony. She testified that she had moved in with Holm; that Holm had provided, at least in part, for Stubbs and their children; and that she and Holm had "regularly" engaged in sexual intercourse at the house in Hildale, Utah. Evidence was also introduced at trial that Holm and Stubbs "regarded each other as husband and wife."

At the close of the State's case in chief, Holm moved for reconsideration of his motion to dismiss, arguing that the jury should not be allowed to consider whether he violated the bigamy statute by purporting to marry Stubbs. Specifically, he argued that the "purporting to marry" prong of the bigamy statute applied only to legally recognized marriages. The court again rejected his motion.
...
The jury returned a guilty verdict on each of the charges, indicating on a special verdict form that Holm was guilty of bigamy both because he "purported to marry Ruth Stubbs" and because he had "cohabited with Ruth Stubbs."
...
ANALYSIS

Holm was convicted pursuant to Utah's bigamy statute, which provides that "[a] person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person."
...
Holm raises essentially four arguments...First, Holm argues that his conviction under the "purports to marry" prong of the bigamy statute was improper as a matter of statutory interpretation. Specifically, Holm argues that he did not "purport to marry" Ruth Stubbs, as that phrase is used in the bigamy statute, because the word "marry" in subsection 76-7-101(1) refers only to legal marriage and neither Holm nor Stubbs contemplated that the religious ceremony solemnizing their relationship would entitle them to any of the legal benefits attendant to state-sanctioned matrimony...
...
We reject each of these arguments. The "purports to marry" language contained in the bigamy statute is not confined to legal marriage and is, in fact, broad enough to cover the type of religious solemnization engaged in by Holm and Stubbs.
...
To determine whether the "purports to marry" provision of Utah's bigamy statute is properly applicable to Holm, we must interpret that provision within its context in the Utah Code...The "purports to marry" provision of Utah's bigamy statute declares that "[a] person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person." Utah Code Ann. Ã??Ã?§ 76-7-101(1). Both parties to this appeal agree that "purport" means  "[t]o profess or claim falsely; to seem to be." Black's Law Dictionary 1250 (7th ed. 1999).

The definition of "marry," however, is disputed. The State argues that "marry" should not be construed as limited to legally recognized marriages. Holm argues that the word "marry" in subsection one refers only to a legally recognized marriage and that, therefore, there is no violation of the "purports to marry" provision unless an individual purports to enter into a legally valid marriage. We hold that the term "marry," as used in the bigamy statute, includes both legally recognized marriages and those that are not state-sanctioned because such a definition is supported by the plain meaning of the term, the language of the bigamy statute and the Utah Code, and the legislative history and purpose of the bigamy statute.

I think the court's reasoning is sound.  Holm's argument would make the bigamy statute pointless, because any marriage entered into while of the participants is already married would not be recognized by the state.  It's not the legality of the second marriage that counts, but rather the second marriage itself.

The problem I see with Utah's statute is the "cohabitation" portion.  Holm was convicted not only under the "purports to marry" but also the "cohabits" section of the statute.  But there are lots of people who "cohabit" with a person other than their spouse.  Why aren't they dinged for bigamy?  Because they aren't acting like polygamists.

I wonder if there's an Equal Protection argument to strike down the "cohabits" section of the statute.

-Smac

[Thinking]

Deborah, on Sep 30 2006, 09:11 PM, said:

No one knows all the facts of that time. That is the point. My testimony of Joseph Smith comes from statements of those who knew him best and stood by him even willing to die with him, and of his teachings and of the fruits of those teachings.

Let me see if I understand you.

Because I don't know all the facts, I have no business making a judgement about whether JS was a prophet.

Even though you don't know all the facts, you are 100%, without a doubt, there's nothing you could discover about JS that would change your mind, positive that he was a prophet.

Deborah, on Sep 30 2006, 09:11 PM, said:

The spirit has borne witness of these things and the falsehoods others teach are attempts to smear a man who was all too human but nevertheless did what God asked of him to the giving of his life.

What falsehoods? Is it false that he married other men's wives? Is it false that he married a 14 (almost 15) year-old girl? Is it false that he denied publicly that he had more than one wife?

Also, JS did not "give" his life. The mob was wrong for killing him, but his life was taken, it was not given.

Deborah, on Sep 30 2006, 09:11 PM, said:

I do not trust anyone in or out of the church whose goal is to smear another person's reputation, especially when that person is not able to defend himself.

If I claimed to be a prophet (and I make no such claim), I should and would be thoroughly investigated. If negative (but true) things are discoverd and communicated, am I being smeared? No!

If JS makes a public claim, but it is discovered that he was not truthful, are those that communicate the truth "smearing" his reputation?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "not able to defend himself."

Edited by Thinking, 01 October 2006 - 02:24 AM.

[Deborah]

Thinking, on Oct 1 2006, 03:18 AM, said:

Because I don't know all the facts, I have no business making a judgement about whether JS was a prophet....

What falsehoods?

Also, JS did not "give" his life. The mob was wrong for killing him, but his life was taken, it was not given.

If JS makes a public claim, but it is discovered that he was not truthful, are those that communicate the truth "smearing" his reputation?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "not able to defend himself."

Making a judgement about whether he was a prophet or not has nothing to do with making derogatory comments about his character. Even were I to decide he wasn't a prophet I wouldn't tear him down as a person.

The falsehoods are in the judgement of a man's character outside the context of time and place and are based on "evidence" that can be refuted and has been on this site numerous times.

What an idiotic statement. So Jesus didn't give his life either because the Romans killed him. Joseph indeed gave his life. He turned himself in knowing and so stating that he was going like a lamb to the slaughter. He did it to prevent further wrath coming down on his people. He could at any time have avoided such a thing by renouncing his faith.

Again the problem is what is truth? To say you know the facts is not truthful because no one does. You have obtained your facts from questionable and biased sources. It is one thing to get what you think are facts and quite another to then interpret those in such a way that you use such perjorative terms about his character such as "liar" and "deceiver." Again you would have to make the same claims about Abraham and Isaac using that standard. If someone isn't totally forthright about something which others (like you) would use to persecute and villify, that doesn't make his character lying and deceitful. Those are terms that define a personality that seeks to get gain and hurt others, not someone who may at a time seek to protect himself and others.

[why me]

My gosh, here we are back ot polygamy again. It seems that certain people have a fixation about it. I wonder why is keeps coming on up on the threads...and yet, nothing is really solved.

Okay, lets get to the deceit. Yes they did. Now what? FIrst, after getting my butt kicked around the country for being a mormon, I would also be a little deceitful about my current practices. I would do so to protect my myself, family and the church. God gave me the ability to reason and I would use my reasoning powers accordingly. So yes, I would be deceitful to protect that which I cherish, the true church of god. Now does that sound hypocritical? Yes, but then again I am only human and as such I can seem to do hypocritical things. Now someone can try and make hay out of it. Fine, be my guest.

Now to emma because the dude has a fixation on this too. I do believe that JS wished for a more simple life. I mean, there he was a farmer, not rich living in peace with his crazy friends and attempting to be a good son and brother. Not a bad life if one thinks about it.

Now suddenly he has visions and presto, his life changes. Or good ol' sidney shows up and offers JS a deal he can't refuse. Either way, I would be very pissed at my new situation especially if it was due to sidney. In fact after losing two children, a brother and having my butt moved from place to place by inhospitable people, I would be downright wishing for my old life back...and me being who I am would have high tailed it back to palmyra long ago, if it was all due to sidney.

But on the other hand, if it was due to god, having chosen me to be his prophet in the last dispensation, well...I  am afraid that I would feel little choice in the matter and go with the polygamy thing. What to do?

JS made his decision. Get over it. Stop crying for emma...your tears are false tears...she stayed with her husband, cried at his funeral and loved him dearly and yes, she believed in his devine calling as prophet and never denied her husband's calling during her latter years.

Cry for JS's two children, his brothers and cry for JS himself since all died in the cause of truth. They are the victims....Emma did just fine except she lost her husband to an unruly mob and she lost her children also to a different  mob action. Cry about that.

Edited by why me, 01 October 2006 - 06:14 AM.

[Dale]

I have not yet seen any evidence that Joseph Smith lied accept to rely on historians favorite quotations, and commentary. Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy by Richard & Pamela Price tells the truth about Joseph Smith and polygamy. http://www.restorationbookstore.org online in the JSFP section.  Most scholars want to keep the real Joseph Smith who was innocent of earthly polygamy hidden from their readers.

Edited by Dale, 01 October 2006 - 08:12 AM.

[Thinking]

Deborah, on Oct 1 2006, 05:26 AM, said:

The falsehoods are in the judgement of a man's character outside the context of time and place and are based on "evidence" that can be refuted and has been on this site numerous times.

Please be more specific. What evidence can you refute?

Deborah, on Oct 1 2006, 05:26 AM, said:

Making a judgement about whether he was a prophet or not has nothing to do with making derogatory comments about his character. Even were I to decide he wasn't a prophet I wouldn't tear him down as a person...What an idiotic statement.

You have used derogatory remarks about me.

Deborah, on Oct 1 2006, 05:26 AM, said:

So Jesus didn't give his life either because the Romans killed him. Joseph indeed gave his life. He turned himself in knowing and so stating that he was going like a lamb to the slaughter. He did it to prevent further wrath coming down on his people. He could at any time have avoided such a thing by renouncing his faith.

Jesus had the power to stop His crucifixion without renouncing His faith.

Deborah, on Oct 1 2006, 05:26 AM, said:

You have obtained your facts from questionable and biased sources.

Which of my sources are you talking about? You have been very non-specific in you rebuttal.

Edited by Thinking, 01 October 2006 - 10:03 AM.

[Orpheus]

Thinking, on Oct 1 2006, 09:18 AM, said:

Let me see if I understand you.

Because I don't know all the facts, I have no business making a judgement about whether JS was a prophet.

What you and other posters have no business doing is calling LDS Church leaders liars, no matter how you couch it.

The facts concerning this subject are not complete enough for either side to make an ultimate declaration of the truth, only discuss likelyhoods and evidences.

When a discussion devlolves into this level of argument it is finished.