Grant Palmer Is At It Again...

[thesometimesaint]

Monster:

We have our share of C&E Mormons. Christ himself asked "Will Ye also go away?". I'm sure that every religion, and non religion, on this planet has some aspect that someone of a different religion, or non religion doesn't believe in. LDS don't believe in transubstantiation of the euchrist. Something done publically every Sunday at Catholic Mass. Should the LDS demand that Catholics stop their practice of their religion? I would imagine that any such demand would be met with polite but firm "Mind Your Own Business".

Edited For spelling

Edited March 1, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[ERayR]

Have you ever tried to have sex with 33 women in two years and since they were his wives, more than once and yet, still claim to be a prophet? Is it possible? And what about the women? No one claimed to be slighted or abused or that Joseph Smith was lustful etc. Could this be possible if Joseph was having sex with all these women within a two year period, plus his wife? Something is amiss.

And in a small community where everybody knows everybody else and what they are doing. There should be tidbbits in at least half the journals and diaries from that period. Brother Joseph spent last night with Eliza and the night before with Fanny. The night before with ... That man does get around.

[Darth_Bill]

And in a small community where everybody knows everybody else and what they are doing. There should be tidbbits in at least half the journals and diaries from that period. Brother Joseph spent last night with Eliza and the night before with Fanny. The night before with ... That man does get around.

Actually, he did. We know he was on the run and we do have one letter where he asked for one of his wive's presence from her parents (they were the recipients of the letter.) JS also told them to burn the letter, but they didn't. Yes, just as in every marriage, there are other considerations than sex. I don't doubt that he had other purposes than sex. Still, it isn't quite right to say he didn't. Why the insistance that he didn't have relations with his wives? In the past two years, he had 33 wives! That would have tired any man out, not even speaking about his being on the run much of the time. Yes, I think he did have other goals than just carnal satisfaction, but these were his wives.

And ERayR, I think there were those rumors floating around. The accusation followed him whereever he went. You can dismiss it as straight pursecution, but in the last two years, yes, he had 33 wives, and he did his share of sneaking around, even to save his own life.

[robuchan]

And in a small community where everybody knows everybody else and what they are doing. There should be tidbbits in at least half the journals and diaries from that period. Brother Joseph spent last night with Eliza and the night before with Fanny. The night before with ... That man does get around.

There are numerous journal entries, letters, and other documentation that Joseph was meeting various women alone. Also, some of the possible wives lived in his house at different times. This doesn't prove there were sexual encounters (and I'm not theorizing that there were--I know the rules of the board).

[Darth_Bill]

Back to the OT, Grant pointed to a lot of things pertaining to William Law, mainly about JS wanting to be sealed to his wife. He also made reference to JS proposing this to his wife while he, William Law, was out of town. The only source I found for that was "The 19th Wife" and I'm not sure that is a very reliable source. Is there anyone that knows where he's getting that stuff...without my having to buy the book?

[Nevo]

Back to the OT, Grant pointed to a lot of things pertaining to William Law, mainly about JS wanting to be sealed to his wife. He also made reference to JS proposing this to his wife while he, William Law, was out of town. The only source I found for that was "The 19th Wife" and I'm not sure that is a very reliable source. Is there anyone that knows where he's getting that stuff...without my having to buy the book?

Palmer gives his sources here.

From the article:

William wrote in his diary on May 13, 1844 that, "He [smith] had lately endeavored to seduce my wife, and had found her a virtuous woman."24 Alexander Neibaur, a close friend of Joseph Smith recorded that "When Mr[.] Law came home [one evening,] he Inquired who had been in his Absence. she said no one but Br Joseph. he then demanded what had pass[ed.] Mrs[.] L[aw] then told [him] that Joseph wanted her to be Married to him."25

This all sounds rather damning...but the rest of Neibaur's journal entry (which Palmer conveniently ignores) paints a different picture:

Mr Wm Law–wisht to be Married to his Wife for Eternity Mr [Joseph] Smith said would Inquire of the Lord, Answered no because Law was a Adultereous person. Mrs Law wandet to know why she could not be Married to Mr Law Mr S said would not wound her feeling by telling her, some days after Mr Smith going toward his Office Mrs Law stood in the door beckoned to him more the once did not Know wheter she bekoned to him went across to Inquire yes please to walk in no one but herself in the house. she drawing her Arms around him if you wont seal me to my husband Seal myself unto you. he Said stand away & pushing her Gently aside giving her a denial & going out. when Mr Law came home he Inquired who had been in his Absence. she said no one but Br Joseph, he then demanded what had pass[ed] Mrs L then told Joseph wandet her to be Married to him.

— Alexander Neibaur Journal, 24 May 1844, Church Archives, in Lyndon W. Cook, “William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter,” BYU Studies 22:1 (Fall 1982), 65n82.

For a well-informed, balanced analysis of the Law allegations, see Greg Smith's comments here.

Edited March 1, 2012 by Nevo

[Calm]

Actually, he did. We know he was on the run and we do have one letter where he asked for one of his wive's presence from her parents (they were the recipients of the letter.) JS also told them to burn the letter, but they didn't.

If you mean the Sarah Whitney letter, he was asking for the parents to come along and bring their daughter (whom he didn't even mention by name).

Nauvoo August 18th 1842

Dear, and Beloved, Brother and Sister, Whitney, and &c.— I take this oppertunity to communi[c]ate, some of my feelings, privetely at this time, which I want you three Eternaly to keep in your own bosams; for my feelings are so strong for you since what has pased lately between us, that the time of my abscence from you seems so long, and dreary, that it seems, as if I could not live long in this way: and <if you> three would come and see me in this my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief, of mind, if those with whom I am alied, do love me; now is the time to afford me succour, in the days of exile, for you know I foretold you of these things. I am now at Carlos Graingers, Just back of Brother Hyrams farm, it is only one mile from town, the nights are very pleasant indeed, all three of you come <can> come and See me in the fore part of the night, let Brother Whitney come a little a head, and nock at the south East corner of the house at <the> window; it is next to the cornfield, I have a room inti=rely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect safty, I <know> it is the will of God that you should comfort <me> now in this time of affliction, or not at[ta]l now is the time or never, but I hav[e] no kneed of saying any such thing, to you, for I know the goodness of your hearts, and that you will do the will of the Lord, when it is made known to you; the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty: only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroick undertakeing; but so much the greater frendship, and the more Joy, when I see you I <will> tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper, burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it. one thing I want to see you for is <to> git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c. you wi will pardon me for my earnest=ness on <this subject> when you consider how lonesome I must be, your good feelings know how to <make> every allowance for me, I close my letter, I think Emma wont come tonight if she dont dont fail to come to night. I subscribe myself your most obedient, <and> affectionate, companion, and friend. Joseph Smith

http://en.fairmormon.../Whitney_letter

With only one room available to them, I highly doubt the reason for the three of them to come to visit was for sexual intimacy. Sounds more like he wants to perform an ordinance.

Edited March 1, 2012 by calmoriah

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I am a non-believer who slowly is moving toward my old lds faith again. In the past I have been provocative here but that is history. It is wonderful to be a believer again.

Growing older is great is it not...except for the aches and pains part. Grandchildren make up for that...my 6th will soon be here.

[why me]

The difference is the Mormon church is an intense organization. What I mean is it requires much effort and devotion. When an organization requires this much it needs to be accurate. When it is not and the members find out they tend to fall harder than say the catholics as you say which in general tend to take their religion as not so absolute. Also I would tend to think their are many Catholics over the past 500 years that leave the faith over history issues. To say that they are all happy with the past is not realistic. Also the Catholics have acknowledged their past and made course corrections to some degree to adjust. The best the Mormon church can do is stop practicing in public an offensive doctrine yet still believe it, and the leaders never disavow it as wrong then and now.

Actually, critics do not attempt to lead catholics away based on their history. It plays no role at all with attempting to cast doubt. It has more to do with doctrine and it is there that the discussion takes place. But history is a mute point. However, with the lds critics, it is all about history and innuendo. It goes like this: Look what JS said! Look what BY said! Look what JS did! Look what BY did! Have you heard about this? Have you heard about that? etc.

The present is more or less ignored when it comes to the lds faith.

[Darth_Bill]

If you mean the Sarah Whitney letter, he was asking for the parents to come along and bring their daughter (whom he didn't even mention by name).

Nauvoo August 18th 1842

http://en.fairmormon.../Whitney_letter

With only one room available to them, I highly doubt the reason for the three of them to come to visit was for sexual intimacy. Sounds more like he wants to perform an ordinance.

I don't know what the purpose was. I was only showing that he asked for his wife's attendence through her parents, something that I thought I mentioned. And we all know that once there JS wouldn't have asked for a little privacy with his wife, would he. There seems to be assumptions going on everywhere in this topic. LDS fear that JS had sex with his wives and non-LDS want to make him a predator. Can't you find a middle ground and just be happy with it?

[Darth_Bill]

Palmer gives his sources here.

From the article:

This all sounds rather damning...but the rest of Neibaur's journal entry (which Palmer conveniently ignores) paints a different picture:

For a well-informed, balanced analysis of the Law allegations, see Greg Smith's comments here.

Thanks for the references. Procedural question. It appears that 132 is more of a flowing statement. If it is a revelation, it seems to have come in many parts. First, if JS did know of it in 1831, the other parts seem to have come later. For example, 1831 was before the sealing power and all was restored. Second, it must have been given to Emma some time later because verses 51+ seem to deal with the aftermath. Also, it seems to be very skewed against Emma. I can see why it might be taken to say that it only goes one way. Emma passed her test and she can't go to anyone else but JS and if she doesn't agree, JS can do it anyway. In the world of sealings and all, the men seem to get all the say. Hmmm.

[Nevo]

Thanks for the references. Procedural question. It appears that 132 is more of a flowing statement. If it is a revelation, it seems to have come in many parts. First, if JS did know of it in 1831, the other parts seem to have come later.

Danel Bachman argued that parts of D&C 132 originated in the early 1830s and other parts of it originated in Nauvoo. See his article "New Light on an Old Hypothesis: The Ohio Origins of the Revelation on Eternal Marriage," Journal of Mormon History 5, no. 1 (1978): 19-32 (link).

Also, it seems to be very skewed against Emma...

Yes it does. Unfairly so, in my opinion. Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery mention in their biography of Emma that Joseph F. Smith had reservations about publishing D&C 132, at least in its present form.

In 1878, four years after the publication of Section 132, he stated: "When the revelation was written, in 1843, it was for a special purpose, by the request of the Patriarch Hyrum Smith, and was not designed to go forth to the church or to the world. It is most probable that had it been then written with a view to its going out as a doctrine of the church, it would have been presented in somewhat different form.... There are personalities contained in a part of it which are not relevant to the principle itself, but rather to the circumstances which necessitated it being written at the time" (Journal of Discourses 20:29, quoted in Newell and Avery, Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, 2nd ed. [urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1994], xvi).

[Duncan]

Danel Bachman argued that parts of D&C 132 originated in the early 1830s and other parts of it originated in Nauvoo. See his article "New Light on an Old Hypothesis: The Ohio Origins of the Revelation on Eternal Marriage," Journal of Mormon History 5, no. 1 (1978): 19-32 (link).

Yes it does. Unfairly so, in my opinion. Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery mention in their biography of Emma that Joseph F. Smith had reservations about publishing D&C 132, at least in its present form.

In 1878, four years after the publication of Section 132, he stated: "When the revelation was written, in 1843, it was for a special purpose, by the request of the Patriarch Hyrum Smith, and was not designed to go forth to the church or to the world. It is most probable that had it been then written with a view to its going out as a doctrine of the church, it would have been presented in somewhat different form.... There are personalities contained in a part of it which are not relevant to the principle itself, but rather to the circumstances which necessitated it being written at the time" (Journal of Discourses 20:29, quoted in Newell and Avery, Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, 2nd ed. [urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1994], xvi).

Nevo, color me impressed with your knowledge of historical sources! How do you know all this?!

[Calm]

I don't know what the purpose was. I was only showing that he asked for his wife's attendence through her parents, something that I thought I mentioned. And we all know that once there JS wouldn't have asked for a little privacy with his wife, would he. There seems to be assumptions going on everywhere in this topic. LDS fear that JS had sex with his wives and non-LDS want to make him a predator. Can't you find a middle ground and just be happy with it?

I have no problem with the idea that JS had sexual relations with some of his wives. I am just pointing out that the so-called Sarah Whitney letter isn't an example of JS trying to arrange time to do so.

He might have asked for a little privacy but how would he get it with only one room available to him unless he asked her parents to leave and if there was the danger that he stated, it seems unlikely he would want her to be exposed to going home on her own as would likely happen under that arrangement.

[selek1]

I have no problem with the idea that JS had sexual relations with some of his wives. I am just pointing out that the so-called Sarah Whitney letter isn't an example of JS trying to arrange time to do so.

He might have asked for a little privacy but how would he get it with only one room available to him unless he asked her parents to leave and if there was the danger that he stated, it seems unlikely he would want her to be exposed to going home on her own as would likely happen under that arrangement.

I have to echo Calmoriah, here, and take you to task for misleading a/o imflammatory rhetoric.

I'm not aware of any faithful LDS who "fear that JS had sex with his wives".

It is not "fear" that drives a desire for historical and factual accuracy.

Nor is it "fear" that drives us to point out that the evidence does not support the inflammatory and incisive rehetoric touted by fools and critics.

Virtue is its own reward- and factual accuracy is a virtue in historical analysis (though apparently, not in politics )