Elijah Abel

[Cobalt-70]

They are precisely that. You (and Quinn) have accused Smith of deeply immoral and deeply shameful behavior, Cobalt.

Behavior that almost inevitably leads to excommunication even in today's more "permissive" and "tolerant" environment.

The Irene M. Bates and E. Gary Smith work reference allegations and second hand reports. Yet you and Quinn persist as though the accusations against Smith were a done deal. In fact, with the exception of the Bates and Smith work (which is far more circumspect than either you or Quinn) , every single source available through a web search points back to Quinn.

Have you looked at the documentation? This is not just "second-hand reports." These researchers used diary entries of the general authorities, and records from the First Presidency files. It is air-tight research. We even know the name (taken from the First Presidency files) of the man with whom he had a gay relationship (although he had relationships with several others as well, and a record of police complaints). Connell O'Donovan has also done some research and conducted further interviews.

[Cobalt-70]

What I can't seem to wrap my mind around is how these charges can be construed by any fair-minded assessment to have "diminished the stature of the office [of Presiding Patriarch] even further."

But surely you agree that the stature of the office is far less than what it once was. In 1901, the Presiding Patriarch set apart the Prophet and gave him his keys. In 1977, the Presiding Patriarch was given emeritus status and no replacement has been called. The office has not shown up on General Authority charts for decades, whereas originally, when the General Authorities were sustained in General Conference, the Presiding Patriarch was sustained even before the Twelve.

[selek1]

Have you looked at the documentation?

I've looked at everything immediately available to me, which as I admitted above is remarkably sparse- and worse, nearly all of it bears Quinn's finger prints.

This is not just "second-hand reports."

Actually, by definition, they are. You are taking the authors' summaries and synposes at face value. I sincerely doubt you've laid eyes on the diary entries or first person interviews. You are, therefore, relying on the word of second-hand, rather than first hand, witnesses.

And, as I've noted above, the only responsible scholars reviewing this sad, sordid affair are far more circumspect in their judgments than the notorious Quinn.

These researchers used diary entries of the general authorities, and records from the First Presidency files. It is air-tight research. We even know the name (taken from the First Presidency files) of the man with whom he had a gay relationship (although he had relationships with several others as well, and a record of police complaints). Connell O'Donovan has also done some research and conducted further interviews.

We know that these things were alleged, Cobalt. I've yet to see anything which states conclusively that they were proven. Bates and Smith were quick to acknowledge (as was the First PResidency) that said string of "police complaints" were made by Patriarch Smith's political rivals...

As far as the Connel O'Donovan "research" goes, even he acknowledges that his primary source is the execrable Quinn- who has been caught distorting the facts many, many times in pursuit of his ideology.

I further note, that despite having been asked three times (including once by a moderator), you've failed to provide even a book-report version of the "evidence" against Patriarch Smith. You've simply vomited up the accusations made by others.

Since I have little patience with this sort of evasion, I'll take that as a concession and let the matter drop.

You threw out this slander as though it were a done deal- but the best (or worst) the evidence seems to support is a verdict of "not proven".

But surely you agree that the stature of the office is far less than what it once was. In 1901, the Presiding Patriarch set apart the Prophet and gave him his keys. In 1977, the Presiding Patriarch was given emeritus status and no replacement has been called. The office has not shown up on General Authority charts for decades, whereas originally, when the General Authorities were sustained in General Conference, the Presiding Patriarch was sustained even before the Twelve.

I don't believe the stature of the office (as defined below) has been affected in the least bit. If a new Presiding Patriarch were called this afternoon, he would be every bit as revered and respected as were his forebearers.

stature [ˈstætʃə]

n

1. the height of something, esp a person or animal when standing

2. the degree of development of a person the stature of a champion

3. intellectual or moral greatness a man of stature

[via Old French from Latin statūra, from stāre to stand]

I will concede that the visibility and prominance of the post have suffered from the passage of time and the short attention span of the modern Church member.

That is, however, a far cry from your claim. that Patriarch Smith "diminished the stature of the office [of Presiding Patriarch] even further."

Edited October 17, 2011 by selek1

[Cobalt-70]

We know that these things were alleged, Cobalt. I've yet to see anything which states conclusively that they were proven. Bates and Smith were quick to acknowledge (as was the First PResidency) that said string of "police complaints" were made by Patriarch Smith's political rivals...

They were allegations, yes, but after hearing the allegations he had a gay relationship, including information from a police officer about the record of complaints by parents of UofU men, interviewing the "boy" (actually, he was an adult) with which he allegedly had a relationship and his parents, and interviewing Smith's wife, the church leadership concluded that the evidence to exonerate Smith was "not satisfactory." Then a couple of weeks later Smith resigned, ostensibly for health but that was not the true reason because he was exiled to Hawaii and barred from holding a church calling or speaking in church (though he was not disfellowshipped). Then, 11 years later, David O. McKay after records in his diary that Smith had confessed to his wife and written a full confession to the First Presidency, Smith is reinstated. Then later, people from the UofU drama department go on record stating that they, and everybody else in the department, knew he was gay. How could you possibly get better historical evidence than that? If you don't see this as airtight, you are not thinking like a historian. It rarely gets more conclusive than this. It is not merely an allegation because he later confessed to gain reinstatement to full activity.

[selek1]

They were allegations, yes, but after hearing the allegations he had a gay relationship, including information from a police officer about the record of complaints by parents of UofU men, interviewing the "boy" (actually, he was an adult) with which he allegedly had a relationship and his parents, and interviewing Smith's wife, the church leadership concluded that the evidence to exonerate Smith was "not satisfactory." Then a couple of weeks later Smith resigned, ostensibly for health but that was not the true reason because he was exiled to Hawaii and barred from holding a church calling or speaking in church (though he was not disfellowshipped). Then, 11 years later, David O. McKay after records in his diary that Smith had confessed to his wife and written a full confession to the First Presidency, Smith is reinstated.

Thank you for summarizing Quinn's spin on the matter.

Now....how about that evidence you've been desperately failing to produce?

Do you have the diary entries? The minutes of the Church meetings? The oh-so-damning letter of confession?

Quinn and O'Donovan claim to have them- but given Quinn's unvarnished agenda and history of abusing sources, I'd sooner trust the Salamander Letter.

Then later, people from the UofU drama department go on record stating that they, and everybody else in the department, knew he was gay.

Ah yes...the "sympathetic" affadavits and testimonials from pro-gay sources such as Quinn and Connel O'Donovan.

I mean, really. What kind of brute could callously dismiss bath- and coffee-house reminiscences given fifty years after the fact by a collection of aging drama queens?

I've read their carefully-culled collection of reminiscences.

Do you have any evidence- any evidence whatever- that the few testimonials they've posted, published, and referenced represent the unbiased whole of people's experiences with Patriarch Smith?

I was particularly charmed by the "well, we were all a little bit gay back then" vignette , as if a bit of self-flattering and self-reinforcing mind-reading made fifty years after the fact had any bearing on reality.

Quinn and O'Donovan's research and methodology have been repeatedly tainted by thier agenda. Asking these two worthy gentlemen for an unbiased history of the Mormons and homosexuals in thier midst is akin to asking Rob Bowman for the unvarnished truth about Mormon theology.

I'm sorry, but in Quinn and O'Donovan's hands, those alleged testimonials are no more authentic or believable than those drummed up by Philastus Hullburt- and are easily dismissed for exactly the same reasons.

How could you possibly get better historical evidence than that?

Because you've yet to provide any EVIDENCE for these charges- you've just recycled Quinn's version of reality as though it were gospel truth.

If you don't see this as airtight, you are not thinking like a historian.

You're right in one respect- I'm not thinking like Quinn. Whether or not he's a genuine historian, however, is a matter of opinion.

Thinking like an historian,however, I will once again point out that you've yet to provide anything other than second-hand recitation in support of your claims.

No primary sources.

No transcipts.

No first-hand testimony.

Just your own summary of Quinn's conclusions.

We already know what Quinn thinks.

Others are more circumspect.

It rarely gets more conclusive than this. It is not merely an allegation because he later confessed to gain reinstatement to full activity.

Again- that's Quinn's spin on things.

Others are far less eager to rewrite history in support of their appetites and prejudices.

Edited October 17, 2011 by selek1

[phaedrus ut]

Wow Selek seems to be denying what seems to be not only well documented but a unchallenged fact about Joseph Fielding Smith II. One thing that selek seems to be missing in his allegations against Quinn and the Irene M. Bates and E. Gary Smith books is the fact of who E. Gary Smith is. E. Gary Smith is the son of the Eldred G. Smith, current the Patriarch Emeritus of the church, he is great-great-great-grandson to Hyrum Smith and the heir to the office of Patriarch if it continues.

I don't believe the stature of the office (as defined below) has been affected in the least bit. If a new Presiding Patriarch were called this afternoon, he would be every bit as revered and respected as were his forebearers.

It's funny you say a new Patriarch would be "revered and respected" when you've been ignorantly disparaging his scholarship publicly. Nice work.

Phaedrus

[Robert F. Smith]

One other thing, Cobalt....

I can see how (if true) the alleged behavior would diminish Joseph Fielding Smith (II).

(I can also see them diminishing Smith's reputation even if those are false. Where, after all, would the man go to regain his reputation in the face of slander?).

What I can't seem to wrap my mind around is how these charges can be construed by any fair-minded assessment to have "diminished the stature of the office [of Presiding Patriarch] even further."

Surely, any objective observer would differentiate between the intrinsic dignity and moral responsibility of the Office even while acknowledging the failures of the flawed, mortal men holding that office.

We've had some real doozy's as President of the United States (current and past) and will undoubtedly have some in the future.

Yet can anyone really say that these individuals have lessened the stature or public regard for the Office of the President?

There are a couple of things you might want to consider while improperly blaming Mike Quinn and making a huge issue of a matter which is very embarrassing to the Smith family -- the book by Bates and Smith is important for another reason which you ignore, i.e., E. Gary Smith is the son of the still living Patriarch Emeritus and naturally has access to internal family documents and oral tradition. It is regrettable that this subject even came up for discussion, but even more so as you flail about ready to accuse anyone and everyone at hand. Please tone it down a bit.

[Robert F. Smith]

I've been reading about Elijah Abel, a black man who Joseph ordained to the priesthood.

Some sources say that two of his sons were later ordained to the priesthood (after Joseph's death), but I find this confusing.

If there was a ban on blacks holding the priesthood that goes back to Ham, and it was only removed in 1978, how could blacks have been ordained to the priesthood in the 19th century?

You might want to read Gordon C. Thomasson, “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Anti-Slavery” in Encyclopedia of Anti-Slavery and Abolition (Greenwood Press, 2006), I:158-160.

There was no ban on Black priesthood in Joseph's day. Later General Authorities (Pres. David O. McKay for example) inquired about it and concluded that the ban was cultural, not revelatory. However, unanimity of the First Presidency and Twelve was necessary to remove the cultural ban, and that was not possible to achieve until 1978.

[Zakuska]

Dispite Joseph Smith's early condemnation of both the radical Abolishionists and the Pro-Slavery groups, he did die an Abolishionist. He was killed six months after he announced his candidacy for the President of the United States on Jan. 29, 1844, with a promise to free all the Salves by the year 1850.

Eliminating slavery was another important part of his platform. He wrote in General Smith’s Views: “The Declaration of Independence ‘holds these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;’ but at the same time some two or three millions of people are held as slaves for life, because the spirit in them is covered with a darker skin.” 12 Instead of simply calling for the abolition of slavery, Joseph Smith’s platform would have Congress “pay every man a reasonable price for his slaves out of the surplus revenue arising from the sale of public lands, and from the deduction of pay from members of Congress.” 13

http://lds.org/ensig...states?lang=eng

General Smith Views (Joseph Smith's Political Plateform for Presidency)

Petition, also, ye goodly inhabitants of the slave states, your legislators to abolish slavery by the year 1850, or now, and save the abolitionist from reproach and ruin, infamy and shame. Pray Congress to pay every man a reasonable price for his slaves out of the surplus revenue arising from the sale of public lands, and from the deduction of pay from the members of Congress. Break off the shackles from the poor black man, and hire him to labor like other human beings; for "an hour of virtuous liberty on earth, is worth a whole eternity of bondage!" Abolish the practice in the army and navy of trying men by court martial for desertion; if a soldier or marine runs away, send him his wages, with this instruction, that his country will never trust him again; he has forfeited his honor. Make HONOR the standard with all men: be sure that good is rendered for evil in all cases; and the whole nation, like a kingdom of kings and priests, will rise up with righteousness; and be respected as wise and worthy on earth; and as just and holy for heaven; by Jehovah, the author of perfection. More economy in the national and state governments, would make less taxes among the people; more equality through the cities, towns & country, would make less distinction among the people; and more honesty and familiarity in societies, would make less hypocrisy and flattery in all branches of the community; and open, frank, candid, decorum to all men, in this boasted land of liberty, would beget esteem, confidence, union, and love; and the neighbor from any state, or from any country, of whatever color, clime or tongue, could rejoice when he put his foot on the sacred soil of freedom, and exclaim: the very name of "American" is fraught with friendship! Oh! then, create confidence! restore freedom! -- break down slavery! banish imprisonment for debt, and be in love, fellowship and peace with all the world! Remember that honesty is not subject to law: the law was made for transgressors: wherefore, a Dutchman might exclaim: "Ein ehrlicher name ist besser als Reichthum." (a good name is better than riches.)

http://olivercowdery...0s/1844Smit.htm

Edited October 18, 2011 by Zakuska