Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

William Smith - A Tragedy of Betrayal


Recommended Posts

William Smith is, in my mind, a sad story.  He was the brother of the prophet Joseph Smith.  Joseph brought him into the Quorum of the Twelve greatly to help him.  In fact, there is the account that the two got into a messy brawl.  William was also made a member of the Council of Fifty.  After the deaths of his brothers (Joseph, Hyrum, and Samuel), William pushed to become Patriarch of the Church.  Brigham Young opposed doing so, but permitted it any way.  The result was that William inferred the privileges held by Hyrum, namely as the Associate President of the Church and questioned the authority of the Twelve.  Shortly after, he was, unsurprisingly, excommunicated on October 19, 1845.

What make's his story tragic is that he couldn't let go of his disassociation.  He purported to have written the President of the United States to prevent the trek West, "revealing the acts of the Council of Fifty &c. and representing the council guilty of treason &c." (William Clayton's Diary).  Of course, he knew the information because he was one of them.  Yet he betrayed their trust to grind his axe.  Yet, surely, he did so well-reasoned in his "higher" ethical and moral duties.

History has a funny way of repeating itself.  Whether the Church policy on gays or disciplinary action, it really is amazing how from these crucibles form enlightened enemies of the church.  I don't intend to minimize sincere doubts or hurt feelings.  Those can certainly be real.  But I do hope people that are tempted to follow the William Smith path take a moment and think things through.  I don't want to resurrect prior threads.  But I do want to post a couple warnings to potential betrayers so they understand that what they do is illegal.

* Employees have fiduciary duties to their employers.  Stealing or disclosing information is a breach of fiduciary duties.  And, such misconduct may constitute a breach of the employment contract.

* Under Utah law, criminal theft is accomplished by merely receiving the property of another knowing it is probably stolen: “A person commits theft if [he receives, retains, or disposes of the property of another knowing that it has been stolen, or believing that it probably has been stolen,] or [who conceals, sells, withholds or aids in concealing, selling, or withholding the property from the owner, knowing the property to be stolen, intending to deprive the owner of it.]”  Utah Code Ann. 76-6-408.  Thus, those receiving stolen documents are likely committing crimes.

* Helping in the commission of an illegal act can be liable for the intentional interference of economic relations.  Further, such assistance may constitute aiding and abetting or even conspiracy if intentionally done.

William Smith's day was different in many ways.  But in an era of robust laws, if you need to be secret and anonymous in betraying your confidences, there's a good chance that you are running afoul of the law.  If you're thinking of betraying your confidences, think twice.  You have little to gain and much to lose.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Subtle. 😂

No subtlety intended.  I just don't want to make this thread about Mormon Leaks or McKnight, however it applies to them.  In my mind, they are an unfortunate problem but not the primary problem.  If those betraying their confidences didn't exist, Mormon Leaks wouldn't exist.  That's the point of this thread.

I'd actually be very interested in one of the leakers to anonymously talk about why they did what they did.  It's one side of the story no one has heard.

Link to comment
Just now, PacMan said:

No subtlety intended.  I just don't want to make this thread about Mormon Leaks or McKnight, however it applies to them.  In my mind, they are an unfortunate problem but not the primary problem.  If those betraying their confidences didn't exist, Mormon Leaks wouldn't exist.  That's the point of this thread.

I'd actually be very interested in one of the leakers to anonymously talk about why they did what they did.  It's one side of the story no one has heard.

That would be interesting to hear their side. I certainly don't have any inside information about any of it. 

FWIW, I've always suspected William Smith was a man of low character all along. He seems to have wanted some of Joseph's reflected glory but resented not getting it. He also seems to have had a long history of womanizing.

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, PacMan said:

 

William Smith's day was different in many ways.  But in an era of robust laws, if you need to be secret and anonymous in betraying your confidences, there's a good chance that you are running afoul of the law.  If you're thinking of betraying your confidences, think twice.  You have little to gain and much to lose.

I have no confidences with Church employment to betray, but if I did, I would probably consider getting a dire warning and diatribe leveled against me by an anonymous worry-wart as a "gain."

Link to comment
1 hour ago, PacMan said:

If those betraying their confidences didn't exist, Mormon Leaks wouldn't exist.

Perhaps you should consider that those who are betraying their confidences are doing so because they believe that it's more important to leak the information than to continue to keep it confidential.

 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Thinking said:

Perhaps you should consider that those who are betraying their confidences are doing so because they believe that it's more important to leak the information than to continue to keep it confidential.

 

Unless it is to disclose illegality, I disagree that a reasonable belief exists to warrant such betrayal.

In any event, your comment has no bearing on what I said.  If the betrayers didn't exist, then Mormon Leaks would have nothing to publicize.  Their reasons (good or bad) do not influence that logic one way or the other.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

For some reason I'm picturing you dressed as Hitler. Not a good look on you. :)

Say what you will about National Socialism but at least they had snappy looking uniforms but that had its own problems.

 

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment
1 hour ago, PacMan said:

William Smith is, in my mind, a sad story.  He was the brother of the prophet Joseph Smith.  Joseph brought him into the Quorum of the Twelve greatly to help him.  In fact, there is the account that the two got into a messy brawl.  William was also made a member of the Council of Fifty.  After the deaths of his brothers (Joseph, Hyrum, and Samuel), William pushed to become Patriarch of the Church.  Brigham Young opposed doing so, but permitted it any way.  The result was that William inferred the privileges held by Hyrum, namely as the Associate President of the Church and questioned the authority of the Twelve.  Shortly after, he was, unsurprisingly, excommunicated on October 19, 1845.

What make's his story tragic is that he couldn't let go of his disassociation.  He purported to have written the President of the United States to prevent the trek West, "revealing the acts of the Council of Fifty &c. and representing the council guilty of treason &c." (William Clayton's Diary).  Of course, he knew the information because he was one of them.  Yet he betrayed their trust to grind his axe.  Yet, surely, he did so well-reasoned in his "higher" ethical and moral duties.

History has a funny way of repeating itself.  Whether the Church policy on gays or disciplinary action, it really is amazing how from these crucibles form enlightened enemies of the church.  I don't intend to minimize sincere doubts or hurt feelings.  Those can certainly be real.  But I do hope people that are tempted to follow the William Smith path take a moment and think things through.  I don't want to resurrect prior threads.  But I do want to post a couple warnings to potential betrayers so they understand that what they do is illegal.

* Employees have fiduciary duties to their employers.  Stealing or disclosing information is a breach of fiduciary duties.  And, such misconduct may constitute a breach of the employment contract.

* Under Utah law, criminal theft is accomplished by merely receiving the property of another knowing it is probably stolen: “A person commits theft if [he receives, retains, or disposes of the property of another knowing that it has been stolen, or believing that it probably has been stolen,] or [who conceals, sells, withholds or aids in concealing, selling, or withholding the property from the owner, knowing the property to be stolen, intending to deprive the owner of it.]”  Utah Code Ann. 76-6-408.  Thus, those receiving stolen documents are likely committing crimes.

* Helping in the commission of an illegal act can be liable for the intentional interference of economic relations.  Further, such assistance may constitute aiding and abetting or even conspiracy if intentionally done.

William Smith's day was different in many ways.  But in an era of robust laws, if you need to be secret and anonymous in betraying your confidences, there's a good chance that you are running afoul of the law.  If you're thinking of betraying your confidences, think twice.  You have little to gain and much to lose.

Can you tell me how the church has been harmed by these so-called betrayals? Mormonleaks hasn't really exposed anything people haven't already thought. Really, the disclosures just have confirmed what was conjecture prior to the leaks, at least so far.

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Can you tell me how the church has been harmed by these so-called betrayals? Mormonleaks hasn't really exposed anything people haven't already thought. Really, the disclosures just have confirmed what was conjecture prior to the leaks, at least so far.

A breach of fiduciary duty is a harm to the fiduciary relationship.  That's more prominent in other cases, such as, say, a caretaker.  But it's still there.  There's harm to privacy, which can never be recovered.  There is also harm to people.  The policy on baptizing kids of gay parents was a shocker.  It had to think about it and wait it out awhile before passing judgment.  But it eventually made sense to me.  But it took time  There are things that really need to be explained, and that leak prevented those explanations.  I truly think many people that left the church would not have done so if the leak had not happened because it could have been explained first in a way that made sense.

Edited by PacMan
Link to comment
52 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Perhaps you should consider that those who are betraying their confidences are doing so because they believe that it's more important to leak the information than to continue to keep it confidential.

 

You mean on principle or because the information is actually noteworthy?

Link to comment
1 minute ago, PacMan said:

A breach of fiduciary duty is a harm to the fiduciary relationship.  That's more prominent in other cases, such as, say, a caretaker.  But it's still there.  There's harm to privacy, which can never be recovered.  There is also harm to people.  The policy on gay kids was a shocker.  It had to think about it and wait it out before passing judgment.  But it eventually made sense.  There are things that really need to be explained, and that leak prevented that.  I truly think many people that left the church would not have done so if the leak had not happened because it could have been explained first.

It leaked because it was done without explanation. If you’re going to make a change that is going to be controversial, it makes sense to explain ahead of time or at least at the time of the change. Seems to me the church quietly made the change without anticipating the backlash. The church’s initial responses suggest to me they were caught off guard by the furor. 

I guess I’m glad it makes sense to you. Doesn’t to me. 

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, Exiled said:

 Mormonleaks hasn't really exposed anything people haven't already thought. Really, the disclosures just have confirmed what was conjecture prior to the leaks, at least so far.

Is there any necessity for the disclosures if this is so?

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is there any necessity for the disclosures if this is so?

It is confirming suspicions, so yes.  However, my point is that why the need for secrecy in the first place if we aren't too surprised by the disclosures?  Why not just be open?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, PacMan said:

In any event, your comment has no bearing on what I said.  If the betrayers didn't exist, then Mormon Leaks would have nothing to publicize.  Their reasons (good or bad) do not influence that logic one way or the other.

True.

However, as you stated in the same post that I referenced earlier, why is also interesting.

2 hours ago, PacMan said:

I'd actually be very interested in one of the leakers to anonymously talk about why they did what they did.  It's one side of the story no one has heard.

 

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It leaked because it was done without explanation. If you’re going to make a change that is going to be controversial, it makes sense to explain ahead of time or at least at the time of the change. Seems to me the church quietly made the change without anticipating the backlash. The church’s initial responses suggest to me they were caught off guard by the furor. 

I guess I’m glad it makes sense to you. Doesn’t to me. 

I'm not going to try to convince you, but I will explain my view.  The idea of raising a child in the church and going through baptism, ordinations, and church programs is more than cultural.  The whole purpose of being a member is to make and keep covenants that help bring you to Christ.  The problem is that these covenants (namely the temple) are non consistent with homosexuality.  I don't think that's a surprise.  So once you have a boy or girl turn twelve, the questions, if they understand them, really go to whether they are willing, explicitly or implicitly, to renounce their family structure.  In my mind, that is not fair to do.  I think it is better to let these kids grow up and not have the pressure to "choose" between their family and their church as minors.  Wait until they are adults and can better measure both the commitment and consequences of their covenants.

Link to comment
Just now, PacMan said:

I'm not going to try to convince you, but I will explain my view.  The idea of raising a child in the church and going through baptism, ordinations, and church programs is more than cultural.  The whole purpose of being a member is to make and keep covenants that help bring you to Christ.  The problem is that these covenants (namely the temple) are non consistent with homosexuality.  I don't think that's a surprise.  So once you have a boy or girl turn twelve, the questions, if they understand them, really go to whether they are willing, explicitly or implicitly, to renounce their family structure.  In my mind, that is not fair to do.  I think it is better to let these kids grow up and not have the pressure to "choose" between their family and their church as minors.  Wait until they are adults and can better measure both the commitment and consequences of their covenants.

I think it fails to account for the families where one parent is active LDS and the other is in a same-sex relationship (there are a lot more than you think). My son-in-law's brother is in a situation like that, and it has caused all kinds of problems. But no, I don't expect to change anyone's mind. I suspect the church will quietly change the policy sometime down the road. That is my son-in-law's hope, as he loves the church and his gay family member and his kids.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, PacMan said:

I think it is better to let these kids grow up and not have the pressure to "choose" between their family and their church as minors.  Wait until they are adults and can better measure both the commitment and consequences of their covenants.

Since God is not a respecter of persons, maybe this could apply to all.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...