Mormon church now regards The Nauvoo Expositor as a “credible resource”

[Notatbm]

In the newest release of information reference practice of plural marriage the church lists the Nauvoo Expositor as a “credible contemporary source.”

Iirc the church always taught the Nauvoo expositor was just a bunch of viscous lies… so now it isn’t all a bunch of viscious lies? What else was printed in the Nauvoo Expisitor that is true?

 

“Did Joseph Smith practice plural marriage, or was it introduced by Brigham Young and others?

Joseph Smith introduced the practice, not Brigham Young. Credible contemporary sources document Joseph’s practice of plural marriage. Later, many faithful men and women who knew of Joseph’s practice of plural marriage gave sworn testimony of it.”

footnote 15 is where you want to look. 

 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/plural-marriage?lang=eng

 

 

[CV75]

8 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

In the newest release of information reference practice of plural marriage the church lists the Nauvoo Expositor as a “credible contemporary source.”

Iirc the church always taught the Nauvoo expositor was just a bunch of viscous lies… so now it isn’t all a bunch of viscious lies? What else was printed in the Nauvoo Expisitor that is true?

 

 

“Did Joseph Smith practice plural marriage, or was it introduced by Brigham Young and others?

Joseph Smith introduced the practice, not Brigham Young. Credible contemporary sources document Joseph’s practice of plural marriage. Later, many faithful men and women who knew of Joseph’s practice of plural marriage gave sworn testimony of it.”

footnote 15 is where you want to look. 

 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/plural-marriage?lang=eng

 

 

CFR that "the church always taught the Nauvoo expositor was just a bunch of viscous lies…" You prefaced your statement with "iirc," but I'd like to see some examples of Church statements made over time that match your recollection. Thank you.

The source in this example (of several listed) would be the affidavits of a specific date, not the paper in general.

[webbles]

The same footnote says:

Quote

For an exhaustive list of sources relating to Joseph Smith’s practice of plural marriage, see the index to Brian Hales’s website mormonpolygamydocuments.org.

If you go there, you'll find it referencing John C. Bennet's expose (amongst a lot of other things).  And I don't know if you've ever read that, but that is definitely full of "vicious lies".  I really love the part about the 3 hierarchies of women.  And yet, it is used as a "credible contemporary source" because it does have some truths in it and John C. Bennet was definitely contemporary (plenty of debate on whether he was an insider of polygamy or just made some really good guesses along with the stuff that was made up).  Just because something has lies, doesn't mean it is all lies.

Also, besides a primary lesson (Primary 5, page 211), where else has the church "always taught that the Nauvoo expositor was just a bunch of vicious lies"?

[Pyreaux]

43 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

In the newest release of information reference practice of plural marriage the church lists the Nauvoo Expositor as a “credible contemporary source.”

Iirc the church always taught the Nauvoo expositor was just a bunch of viscous lies… so now it isn’t all a bunch of viscious lies? What else was printed in the Nauvoo Expisitor that is true?

“Did Joseph Smith practice plural marriage, or was it introduced by Brigham Young and others?

Joseph Smith introduced the practice, not Brigham Young. Credible contemporary sources document Joseph’s practice of plural marriage. Later, many faithful men and women who knew of Joseph’s practice of plural marriage gave sworn testimony of it.”

footnote 15 is where you want to look. 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/plural-marriage?lang=eng

The Nauvoo Expositor is a contemporary source documenting the accusations against Joseph Smith concerning polygamy prior to Brigham Young. The Nauvoo expositor is still deeply antagonistic and inflammatory, leading to major unrest in Nauvoo.

What “Credible” in a historical sense means:

It was written at the time, by people involved, and reflects the views and tensions of that moment. The Expositor was published by dissenters (some former insiders). Even if it contained lies or distortions, it’s still a useful historical artifact.

Brigham Young, John Taylor, and later Church leaders often acknowledged that Joseph started plural marriage, so the Expositor's claim about him being its origin isn't what was being denied by faithful sources.

Joseph Smith and the Nauvoo City Council saw it as a libelous, slanderous threat that would incite violence. The paper accused him of crimes and tyranny, not just polygamy.

You present this as a contradiction: But historical credibility ≠ truthfulness. It just means it’s an authentic, primary source worth considering in context.

Fallacy of Equivocation 

When you conflate the meaning of "credible" across different contexts:

In history, "credible" = worthy of study as a source.

In debate or law, "credible" = trustworthy or likely true.

By entangling these meanings, you're making the argument less logically precise to fit your preference.

Edited August 2, 2025 by Pyreaux

[Notatbm]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

CFR that "the church always taught the Nauvoo expositor was just a bunch of viscous lies…" You prefaced your statement with "iirc," but I'd like to see some examples of Church statements made over time that match your recollection. Thank you.

The source in this example (of several listed) would be the affidavits of a specific date, not the paper in general.

Institute manual lesson #23

 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/foundations-of-the-restoration-teacher-material-2019?lang=eng

 

“ The Nauvoo Expositor was an anti-Mormon newspaper that slandered the Prophet and other Saints and called for the repeal of the Nauvoo Charter. “
SLANDER

This exact statement is repeated in the Joseph Smith “Teachings of the Prophets” manual chapter 46

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith?lang=eng

 

https://archive.org/details/Primary5/page/n218/mode/1up

lesson 37

“Some enemies of the Church believed that if they got rid of Joseph Smith, the Church would fall apart. These men started a newspaper in which they told many vicious lies about Joseph Smith. The members of the Church were angry about these lies. Joseph Smith, who was mayor of Nauvoo at the time, called a meeting of the city council, which was composed of both Church members and nonmembers. The city council declared the newspaper a "public nuisance" and ordered the town marshal to destroy the printing press used to print the newspaper.”

All kids ages 8-11 were taught this lesson from 2014 till probably when CFM started.. so at least four years every 8-11 year old was taught this. 
 

as you said, i did state it was as I recalled. I have never once heard in any discussion about the expositor in church attributing any truth to anything in it. That combined with having read various things over the years in church manuals I was surprised to see the Church refer to it as a credible source. 
 

im sure if someone with lots of time peruses the archives there is likely more. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 2, 2025 by Notatbm

[Notatbm]

57 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

The Nauvoo Expositor is a contemporary source documenting the accusations against Joseph Smith concerning polygamy prior to Brigham Young. The Nauvoo expositor is still deeply antagonistic and inflammatory, leading to major unrest in Nauvoo.

What “Credible” in a historical sense means:

It was written at the time, by people involved, and reflects the views and tensions of that moment. The Expositor was published by dissenters (some former insiders). Even if it contained lies or distortions, it’s still a useful historical artifact.

Brigham Young, John Taylor, and later Church leaders often acknowledged that Joseph started plural marriage, so the Expositor's claim about him being its origin isn't what was being denied by faithful sources.

Joseph Smith and the Nauvoo City Council saw it as a libelous, slanderous threat that would incite violence. The paper accused him of crimes and tyranny, not just polygamy.

You present this as a contradiction: But historical credibility ≠ truthfulness. It just means it’s an authentic, primary source worth considering in context.

Fallacy of Equivocation 

When you conflate the meaning of "credible" across different contexts:

In history, "credible" = worthy of study as a source.

In debate or law, "credible" = trustworthy or likely true.

By entangling these meanings, you're making the argument less logically precise to fit your preference.

It is noteworthy that the church uses this as a credible source to establish Joseph smith practiced polygamy. That is the very thing he lied about doing back then and among the reasons the expositor was destroyed. Iirc he even ordered all copies of the paper to be destroyed as well.
 

Why would they cite a source that Joseph accused of being false? I guess the church had just found another way to call him a liar in a nice way. 

[Notatbm]

“Order to Destroy Nauvoo Expositor Press

10 June 1844

Nauvoo City Council met and continued discussing the Nauvoo Expositor. Council passed ordinance against libel, declared the Nauvoo Expositor and its press a public nuisance, and ordered JS to remove them. 1  JS ordered city marshal to abate nuisance by destroying press and copies of newspaper found in printing office, which was carried out. 2  That evening, JS delivered discourse to those who carried out destruction and approved of their actions, Nauvoo, Illinois.

3”

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/event/order-to-destroy-nauvoo-expositor-press

 

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, Notatbm said:

It is noteworthy that the church uses this as a credible source to establish Joseph smith practiced polygamy. That is the very thing he lied about doing back then and among the reasons the expositor was destroyed. Iirc he even ordered all copies of the paper to be destroyed as well.
 

Why would they cite a source that Joseph accused of being false? I guess the church had just found another way to call him a liar in a nice way. 

When the Church or its historians call the Nauvoo Expositor a credible source, they aren’t saying that everything in it is factual in every detail or that it represents an unbiased account. What it can tells us is something important - polygamy was not a new idea, it was the contention of the day.

Even if Joseph Smith labeled it as slander, it still can be used to establish that accusations of plural marriage was being made by contemporaries, then its historical value isn’t diminished by the fact that Joseph Smith dismissed it. It’s not being cited as proof of every claim made in it, but as evidence that such accusations were widespread. The Church isn’t saying its proven true, it’s an honest, if controversial, account of the era’s disputes.

LDS Church’s position has long been that Joseph Smith did introduce and practice plural marriage, but what is denied is specific accusations or distortions of how it was being practiced, not the very concept itself and so frequently denied certain aspects of it when accused in inflammatory or legal terms.

Joseph might have parsed words - denying “polygamy” as practiced by others or as described in specific accusations, while still engaging in a different form of it: sealed, eternal, non-cohabiting marriages in many cases.

Many of Joseph’s public denials were of John C. Bennett’s so-called “spiritual wifery” - which was a term used for sexual promiscuity under false religious pretenses, which Bennett was doing himself. Joseph condemned that while continuing to teach a different version of plural marriage as a commandment from God.

John C. Bennett was basically accusing Joseph Smith of doing the things that he himself was doing. In 1842, he was exposed for serial seduction of women, claiming it was “spiritual wifery”, that is without sealing or commitment. That was not plural marriage as Joseph or even Brigham taught it. So, what Bennett said was mixed with real details of Joseph's private teachings with slander and projection of his own misconduct.

Edited August 2, 2025 by Pyreaux

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Notatbm said:

Institute manual lesson #23

 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/foundations-of-the-restoration-teacher-material-2019?lang=eng

 

“ The Nauvoo Expositor was an anti-Mormon newspaper that slandered the Prophet and other Saints and called for the repeal of the Nauvoo Charter. “
SLANDER

This exact statement is repeated in the Joseph Smith “Teachings of the Prophets” manual chapter 46

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith?lang=eng

 

https://archive.org/details/Primary5/page/n218/mode/1up

lesson 37

“Some enemies of the Church believed that if they got rid of Joseph Smith, the Church would fall apart. These men started a newspaper in which they told many vicious lies about Joseph Smith. The members of the Church were angry about these lies. Joseph Smith, who was mayor of Nauvoo at the time, called a meeting of the city council, which was composed of both Church members and nonmembers. The city council declared the newspaper a "public nuisance" and ordered the town marshal to destroy the printing press used to print the newspaper.”

All kids ages 8-11 were taught this lesson from 2014 till probably when CFM started.. so at least four years every 8-11 year old was taught this. 
 

as you said, i did state it was as I recalled. I have never once heard in any discussion about the expositor in church attributing any truth to anything in it. That combined with having read various things over the years in church manuals I was surprised to see the Church refer to it as a credible source. 
 

im sure if someone with lots of time peruses the archives there is likely more. 

 

Slander is different from "vicious lies".  In the Expositor, there is a discussion about the case on Jeremiah Smith.  In that discussion it says:

Quote

After making inquiry, and becoming satisfied that he was secreted in Nauvoo, under the immediate protection of the Prophet, he said to him (the Prophet,) that he was authorised to arrest the said J. Smith, for an offence committed by him against the United States government, and wished to know where he was--to which the Prophet replied, that he knew nothing about him. The Marshal said he knew he was secreted in the city, and was determined to have him; and, unless he was given up, he would have the aid of the Dragoons to find and arrest him. Joseph Smith then replied, that was not necessary; but, if the Marshal would pledge his word and honor that he should have the benefit of a city writ of Habeas Corpus, and be tried before him, he would produce the fugitive in half an hour. After some hesitancy, the Marshal agreed to do so, when the prisoner was produced in the time specified.

In that, I would say there's several potential slanderous things.  It says Jeremiah Smith was "secreted in the city" and that the Marshal demanded him from Joseph or else would send dragoons and that Joseph Smith then promised to find him within 30 minutes.  The demand with dragoons didn't actually happen till much later.  And the producing the fugitive within 30 minutes vs him being hidden is potentially slanderous.  We can't prove it at this point, but that could have been invented by the marshal or who ever wrote this section in the Expositor.

 

The Expositor was way more than polygamy.  In fact, the polygamy parts of the paper is tiny compared to all the rest.  A much larger portion of the paper was a call to repeal the Nauvoo charter.  And that was considered dangerous to the town council (including the non-mormons on the council).  And in fact, we know from hindsight, that the repeal of the charter did cause a lot of blood shed and the expulsion of the church.  So, having a paper publicly demand the repeal of something that is protecting the city sure sounds like a public nuisance.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Notatbm said:

............................

Iirc the church always taught the Nauvoo expositor was just a bunch of viscous lies… ..........................

Is it true that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "always taught the Nauvoo expositor was just a bunch of viscous lies"?  Or does that claim fudge the facts?  Can that claim be supported by actual LDS lesson materials and by formal Church histories published down through the years?

And what is the content of such published views?  Especially when Brigham made polygyny public in the Utah Territory.

[Notatbm]

45 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Is it true that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "always taught the Nauvoo expositor was just a bunch of viscous lies"?  Or does that claim fudge the facts?  Can that claim be supported by actual LDS lesson materials and by formal Church histories published down through the years?

And what is the content of such published views?  Especially when Brigham made polygyny public in the Utah Territory.

I did say “if I recall correctly iirc.”  Proved it with a lesson manual we used to teach the little kids with. 

Joseph smith himself said they ( expositor) were lying about his practicing polygamy. Perhaps the church can now feel safe in coming out and just straight up say Joseph smith was a liar when it came to polygamy. 
 

a carefully worded denial falls clearly within the definition of a lie according to to the church’s own definition of lying: 

“There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

The Lord is not pleased with such dishonesty, and we will have to account for our lies. Satan would have us believe it is all right to lie. He says, “Yea, lie a little; … there is no harm in this” (⁠2 Nephi 28:8⁠). Satan encourages us to justify our lies to ourselves. Honest people will recognize Satan’s temptations and will speak the whole truth, even if it seems to be to their disadvantage.”

look, I merely made a comment about the church recognizing th ed expositor as a legitimate source of information which is true. I was taught growing up ( also the primary manual says as much) that the expositor was a lie. 
 

next we will see Sandra tanner used as a consultant to the correlation committee. 

Edited August 2, 2025 by Notatbm

[Notatbm]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Joseph might have parsed words - denying “polygamy” as practiced by others or as described in specific accusations, while still engaging in a different form of it: sealed, eternal, non-cohabiting marriages in many cases.

Parsing words is just a nice way of describing lying. 

[Notatbm]

59 minutes ago, webbles said:

Slander is different from "vicious lies".  In the Expositor, there is a discussion about the case on Jeremiah Smith.  In that discussion it says:

Is slander really all that different than “viscious lies?” Actually in the case of the expositor we are talking about”libel” but that is just verbal vs printed word. Same thing though. Either one is based on a lie. 

slander

1 of 2noun

slan·der ˈslan-dər 

1

: the making of false statements that damage another's reputation

2

: a false and harmful oral statement about a person

 

the church … err the Nauvoo city council passed a law (ex post facto) outlawing “libel” and then went and trashed the expositor.

Viscious is just an adjective the church added to the lying part to make it more… you know more bad. The church is just as guilty as the expositor in terms of making inflammatory statements not to mention creating a law after the fact to go after the paper with. Thats obviously how Jesus would have done it. 

 

[The Nehor]

One of the secrets to critically reading documents is that some information can be credible while other information is not.

Read a polemic against Cleopatra or the strange and somewhat undeserved praise for the Gracchi brothers.

Or read the sources in Britain during the First World War describing the rape of Belgium. Many of the details in that case were blown up or made hyperbolic but the death and suffering was very real. 

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

I did say “if I recall correctly iirc.”  Proved it with a lesson manual we used to teach the little kids with. 

‘Many lies’ in one or two places is not equivalent to ‘always taught just lies’

Since you are focusing on semantics, parsing words here in your argument, surely you should be precise in your own claims.

Edited August 2, 2025 by Calm

[The Nehor]

48 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

I did say “if I recall correctly iirc.”  Proved it with a lesson manual we used to teach the little kids with. 

Joseph smith himself said they ( expositor) were lying about his practicing polygamy. Perhaps the church can now feel safe in coming out and just straight up say Joseph smith was a liar when it came to polygamy. 
 

a carefully worded denial falls clearly within the definition of a lie according to to the church’s own definition of lying: 

“There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

The Lord is not pleased with such dishonesty, and we will have to account for our lies. Satan would have us believe it is all right to lie. He says, “Yea, lie a little; … there is no harm in this” (⁠2 Nephi 28:8⁠). Satan encourages us to justify our lies to ourselves. Honest people will recognize Satan’s temptations and will speak the whole truth, even if it seems to be to their disadvantage.”

look, I merely made a comment about the church recognizing th ed expositor as a legitimate source of information which is true. I was taught growing up ( also the primary manual says as much) that the expositor was a lie. 
 

next we will see Sandra tanner used as a consultant to the correlation committee. 

This is actually a credible charge against many Church leaders.

It is a pity you debase it and make it facile and cheap with your weird “gotcha” approach to using it.

[Notatbm]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This is actually a credible charge against many Church leaders.

It is a pity you debase it and make it facile and cheap with your weird “gotcha” approach to using it.

What charge? There’s a few in there

[Notatbm]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

‘Many lies’ in one or two places is not equivalent to ‘always taught just lies’

Since you are focusing on semantics, parsing words here in your argument, surely you should be precise in your own claims.

I should work for FAIR. 
 

I did say “IIRC” in my initial post did I not? Do you know what that means? 
 

I’ll help you out:

IIRC" is an acronym that stands for "if I remember correctly" or "if I recall correctly", according to some online sources. It's commonly used in online communication, like text messages and social media, to indicate that the speaker isn't 100% sure about the information they're sharing, but it's what they recall from memory. 

[Notatbm]

24 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

One of the secrets to critically reading documents is that some information can be credible while other information is not.

Read a polemic against Cleopatra or the strange and somewhat undeserved praise for the Gracchi brothers.

Or read the sources in Britain during the First World War describing the rape of Belgium. Many of the details in that case were blown up or made hyperbolic but the death and suffering was very real. 

I’ll pass. Sounds boring

[Pyreaux]

3 hours ago, Notatbm said:

Parsing words is just a nice way of describing lying. 

Ironically, that is a form of word-parsing, therefore by your definition is a lie. Also, it's a sweeping generalization

Parsing ≠ Lying. Parsing words means: Carefully choosing words for precision. Distinguishing between similar but not identical meanings. It's often necessary for truth-telling, especially in legal, diplomatic, or theological contexts.

The Church does not teach strict moral absolutism - not in the sense that every secret, lie, or every kill is always evil. We are taught to follow the spirit/intent of the law. Intent is central to the Church's own definition of lying. 

Elder Dallin H. Oaks taught: "Some acts, like lying or even taking a human life, may be, in exceptional circumstances, not only morally justifiable but morally necessary." ("Weightier Matters," BYU Devotional, 1999)

God's people have always served as spies and soldiers. The scriptures are full of stratagems and secrecy, disguises and deceptions. Yet they are not judged as liars and murderers. There are righteous lies. Lying to protect the innocent, fulfilling a vow/covenant, or obey God’s timing = sometimes righteous. Withholding the truth isn’t always deception - it can be mercy, wisdom, discretion and stewardship.

"Unto you it is given to know the secret of the kingdom... but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables" (Mark 4:11). "I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it." (1 Corinthians 3:2). Some truths you are not ready to receive. “For the unbelieving the truth is harmful... it may rather do harm than good, if it be not presented in the proper time and manner.” (Clementine Recognitions (Book II, ch. 5))

Edited August 2, 2025 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

I did say “IIRC” in my initial post did I not? Do you know what that means? 

And then you said “proved it”.

[Kenngo1969]

6 hours ago, webbles said:

 

Slander is different from "vicious lies".  In the Expositor, there is a discussion about the case on Jeremiah Smith. ... 

To be fair, @Notatbm referred to viscous [sic] lies.  That is a completely different thing (Is it worse?  Is it better?  I dunno.   But it is different!)

 

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/vicious 

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/vicious

And, yeah, for the record, I'm with others here, who have pointed out that citing the Nauvoo Expositor as a credible resource about the fact that something occurred is a far different thing than crediting the paper as being correct and unbiased in every particular.

[Man, I don't think I've posted this much in so short a time in months!]

Would that I were like Norm on "Cheers": "Kennnnnnn!  Where you beennnnn?!"    Thanks, everybody!  Yes, it's nice to see you, too!   (Of course, I'm not sure who, exactly, I expect to be here at four in the blessed A.M., my time!  Hello to all of our friends "across the pond"? )

Edited August 2, 2025 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

5 hours ago, Notatbm said:

Parsing words is just a nice way of describing lying. 

Really?  Well, I know this is going to seem quite redundant, but as far as I'm concerned, never can one quote the classic Princess Bride enough:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/parsing 

 

[Notatbm]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

And then you said “proved it”.

Yep… cv75 acknowledge the iirc part and asked for several examples it was taught. I provided three examples of which one actually said “viscious lies.”

he hasn’t been back to comment on it so he is possibly satisfied the church actually did teach it. 

[Notatbm]

6 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Ironically, that is a form of word-parsing, therefore by your definition is a lie. Also, it's a sweeping generalization

Parsing ≠ Lying. Parsing words means: Carefully choosing words for precision. Distinguishing between similar but not identical meanings. It's often necessary for truth-telling, especially in legal, diplomatic, or theological contexts.

The Church does not teach strict moral absolutism - not in the sense that every secret, lie, or every kill is always evil. We are taught to follow the spirit/intent of the law. Intent is central to the Church's own definition of lying. 

Elder Dallin H. Oaks taught: "Some acts, like lying or even taking a human life, may be, in exceptional circumstances, not only morally justifiable but morally necessary." ("Weightier Matters," BYU Devotional, 1999)

God's people have always served as spies and soldiers. The scriptures are full of stratagems and secrecy, disguises and deceptions. Yet they are not judged as liars and murderers. There are righteous lies. Lying to protect the innocent, fulfilling a vow/covenant, or obey God’s timing = sometimes righteous. Withholding the truth isn’t always deception - it can be mercy, wisdom, discretion and stewardship.

"Unto you it is given to know the secret of the kingdom... but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables" (Mark 4:11). "I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it." (1 Corinthians 3:2). Some truths you are not ready to receive. “For the unbelieving the truth is harmful... it may rather do harm than good, if it be not presented in the proper time and manner.” (Clementine Recognitions (Book II, ch. 5))

I didn’t say whether it was right or wrong. I just maintain the position Joseph smith lied about it. A lot. 
 

here is a good modern day example of “parsing” words:

missionary: hi we r members of tcojcolds, would you like to hear about Jesus Christ?

investigator: aren’t you guys the Mormons?

missionary: no sir, we are missionaries from tcojcolds. 
 

that’s Mormon lying for you right there. Joseph Smith invented it

Edited August 2, 2025 by Notatbm