Anti-Mormon Lies In The Nauvoo Expositor

[Deborah]

It's always somewhat fascinating when critics of the church are so willing to accept the words of apostates as to what the church believes rather than the words of the believers. Having known a few apostates in my life, including in my own family, I find that they are apostate because of their distorted views of the church and what it teaches in the first place.

 

In the case of the Expositor, none of us were there and so we are making judgements based largely on incomplete facts and not knowing what the emotional climate was at the time. The saints had already been severely persecuted. It is no wonder that they were sensitive to anyone trying to stir up hostilities. The presumption that Joseph Smith coerced women into being his wives is ludicrous when you read the actual testimonies of the faithful women who were sealed to him. I can't imagine for example Eliza Snow being coerced into anything she didn't believe in.

 

Mormons, at least those in the know, acknowledge that the Mormons themselves contributed to some of the hostilities. But that isn't an excuse for rape, murder, unlawful incarceration and expulsion from their homes in the middle of winter. Those who knew Joseph Smith best thought him to be of highest character and a most charitable man. But don't let the facts get in the way of those who want to find fault and persecute him.

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

 

The accusation, having never seen a court of law with the original witnesses and accusers, and which occurred over 150 years can not be automatically assumed a lie.

 

If you are going to dredge up an accusation from the 1840s for which no substantiation exists in the historical record, you are saddled with its lack of credibility and must cope therewith.

 

Does any one really live by the Mantra "There is no evidence therefore it is [a lie]"?

 

I'm unacquainted with such a "mantra." (I'm not sure it is a mantra, which is defined as "a slogan or phrase often repeated." For all I know, you made it up on the spot.)

 

But reasonable and just people accept the principle that for an accusation to have credibility, it must be substantiated with evidence. Furthermore, they accept the corollary that if no such evidence is forthcoming, the accusation collapses from its own vacuousness and no one is obliged to take it seriously.

Edited August 16, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

I'm unacquainted with such a "mantra." (I'm not sure it is a mantra, which is defined as "a slogan or phrase often repeated." For all I know, you made it up on the spot.)

No results with google.

 

12 results for "There is no evidence therefore it is".

 

I do know of another mantra though:  "innocent until proven guilty".

 

Almost 7 million hits on that.

Edited August 16, 2013 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

That is completely irrelevant to Law's experience, as per my previous post. Scott is personally acquainted with the pre-1990 ritual by experience, and his statement is accurate only insomuch as it pertains to his (and, for that matter, Elder Holland's) temple experience. It is not incorrect to say that from the late 1920s forward, no one has sworn in the Temple that they are willing to be put to death as the result of revealing anything. And even prior to that, there is no evidence of anyone ever having to have any affirmed covenant willingness seen through to any fulfillment.

 

Did Law ceremonially make an oath that his life could be forfeit if he revealed confidences? Most likely. Were there those who were intending to see that through? Less likely. Could Law have been afraid some would be tempted to see his oaths literally through? More likely.

 

While certain actions remained in the temple post 1920s, the explicit stated meaning given to them was substantially altered from what one affirmed one was willing to be penalized with, to a symbolic affirmation as to what one would rather have done to them than be willing to divulge a sacred confidence. It is a nuance, but a substantial, important one.

It's my theory that, in all instances, both 19th and 20th century, it stems from the figurative expression from the Old Testament as found in Ruth 1:17 and 1 Kings 2:23, "The Lord do so to me and more also if ...."

 

(See Stephen D. Ricks's article here for a discussion of this and other such expressions as used in Old Testament oath taking.)

 

I thus see it as comparable to this figurative and hyperbolic expression one is apt to utter today: "I would rather die than ...."

 

That's how I have always understood it, in any event, and I believe that's how virtually all temple-goers have understood it through the years.

Edited August 16, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

 

12 results for "There is no evidence therefore it is".

 

Apparently, despite his correction, that is the mantra that foster lives by.

 

It exemplifies the fallacy argument from ignorance.

 

In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

 

Edited August 16, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

No results with google.

 

12 results for "There is no evidence therefore it is".

 

I do know of another mantra though:  "innocent until proven guilty".

 

Almost 7 million hits on that.

FYI, "burden of proof" returns some 4.29 million hits.

[foster]

David T that such oaths existed in the Church provide a reasonable basis that such oaths could have been given in the context of spiritual wifery. We know Joseph Smith denied the practice, we know others involved with practice denied it as well; how can we reasonably expect that every jot & tittle of a persons life is documented must less available for review. Do we really expect to open the journal of member and find Temple Ceremonies or other sacred things written? Given that penalty of death oaths existed in the Church for the most sacred things, is it unreasonable to think such an oath existed for the earliest practices of something sacred like spiritual wifery?

[Calm]

David T that such oaths existed in the Church provide a reasonable basis that such oaths could have been given in the context of spiritual wifery. We know Joseph Smith denied the practice, we know others involved with practice denied it as well; how can we reasonably expect that every jot & tittle of a persons life is documented must less available for review. Do we really expect to open the journal of member and find Temple Ceremonies or other sacred things written? Given that penalty of death oaths existed in the Church for the most sacred things, is it unreasonable to think such an oath existed for the earliest practices of something sacred like spiritual wifery?

CFR please (that is "call for references") that anyone among the Church faithful called plural marriage "spiritual wifery".  I have heard the opposite and if that is wrong, I would like to know.

[David T]

CFR please (that is "call for references") that anyone among the Church faithful called plural marriage "spiritual wifery".  I have heard the opposite and if that is wrong, I would like to know.

 

This is mostly accurate. John C. Bennett (a ticked off polygamy outsider) had his own practice he advocated and referred to as Spiritual Wifery. And rumors caused there to be confusion between Bennett's practice (which was basically, 'It's not adultery and okay with God if you don't tell anyone about it'.), and what was going on with Joseph's Quorum of the Anointed.

 

Joseph never referred to his practice as Spiritual Wifery. Neither did any of the authorized polygamists that I'm aware of. It was a slang catch-all for questionable religiously-motivated adulterous escapades. Although to be fair, someone who didn't believe Joseph's practice came from God would not  see any reason to differentiate the terminology.

Edited August 16, 2013 by David T

[David T]

David T that such oaths existed in the Church provide a reasonable basis that such oaths could have been given in the context of spiritual wifery. 

 

I don't know what you think you're disagreeing with me about. All of those men who were authorized to practice plural marriage, or even monogomous marriage sealings (not called spiritual wifery by any of them) by Joseph were initiated into the Quorum of the Anointed - IE, those who had participated in the Endowment and associated rituals - (and were also mostly Masons) - and had indeed made oaths in more than one context not to reveal this information.

Edited August 16, 2013 by David T

[why me]

His purpose was to cause destruction and chaos by inflaming the antimormons, not to save people.

I think that it is safe to say that Law set out to expose Joseph Smith and his practice of polygamy. But the unintended consequence may have been mobs at the gate. Law being more of an insider carried much weight in his speaking and writing about mormons.

[foster]

We can't call it polygamy, see post 33 of this thread. We can't call it spiritual wifery, because only an anti-Mormon would use that term.What in the world shall it be called? A brief search of the brings up Sarah Pratt and Helen Mar Kimball Whitney. I used the term for context of the discussion.

[David T]

We can't call it polygamy, see post 33 of this thread. We can't call it spiritual wifery, because only an anti-Mormon would use that term.What in the world shall it be called? A brief search of the brings up Sarah Pratt and Helen Mar Kimball Whitney. I used the term for context of the discussion.

 

Is there something wrong with the term "Plural Marriage"?

[Calm]

We can't call it polygamy, see post 33 of this thread. We can't call it spiritual wifery, because only an anti-Mormon would use that term.What in the world shall it be called? A brief search of the brings up Sarah Pratt and Helen Mar Kimball Whitney. I used the term for context of the discussion.

Why not what they called it and the Church still does:  "plural marriage"?

 

Is there something wrong with the term "Plural Marriage"?

 

Beat me to it...darn.

Edited August 16, 2013 by calmoriah

[foster]

CFR please (that is "call for references") that anyone among the Church faithful called plural marriage "spiritual wifery".  I have heard the opposite and if that is wrong, I would like to know.

Please see the following post found on this board

[Calm]

This is mostly accurate. John C. Bennett (a ticked off polygamy outsider) had his own practice he advocated and referred to as Spiritual Wifery. And rumors caused there to be confusion between Bennett's practice (which was basically, 'It's not adultery and okay with God if you don't tell anyone about it'.), and what was going on with Joseph's Quorum of the Anointed.

 

Joseph never referred to his practice as Spiritual Wifery. Neither did any of the authorized polygamists that I'm aware of. It was a slang catch-all for questionable religiously-motivated adulterous escapades. Although to be fair, someone who didn't believe Joseph's practice came from God would not  see any reason to differentiate the terminology.

That is how I understood it, thank you.

[foster]

Is there something wrong with the term "Plural Marriage"?

Is there any difference between the terms"plural marriage" and polygamy? Someone in this thread objected to the term polygamy.

[ZelphtheGreat]

Have read the Expositor as well as what you guys are writing on it and I can't see any Lies. Each of what some of you say are lies are accurate descriptions of what these members saw.

 

Joseph Smith was on the run from the law much of the time and found his own City where he could turn away visiting Sheriffs and such with arrest warrants for him. He lied about so many things from Plural Marriage to finances to the accounts of heavenly messengers.

 

He even tried selling Copyright to the Book of Mormon, after receiving a revelation to do so. Seem, per Joseph, that this 'revelation' was from the Devil. Looks as if he kept this line of communication open if you believe what was written in the Expositor. Those who wrote them were members concerned with the secret practices from Polygamy to Joseph being crowned King of the World in his Council of Fifty.

 

From looking at what was published and how Smith & Co responded it looks to me as if Joseph was caught and reacted with violence, the same as he was known to do when he was questioned at times.

It is a shame the press was destroyed as it would be interesting to see what succeeding papers would publish.

[Calm]

Please see the following post found on this board

See post #84 of this thread.

 

"Spiritual wife" does not equal "spiritual wifery".

[Calm]

Is there any difference between the terms"plural marriage" and polygamy? 

One is the preferred label that was used by Saints in the past and is preferred today, one isn't.

 

See for example the heading in Sec. 132 of the D&C.

Edited August 16, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

 

 

He even tried selling Copyright to the Book of Mormon, after receiving a revelation to do so. Seem, per Joseph, that this 'revelation' was from the Devil. 

You need to keep up with the research.

[foster]

See post #84 of this thread.

 

"Spiritual wife" does not equal "spiritual wifery".

Now you are just being ridiculous. If a person was engaged in the practice of having spiritual wife, would be inappropriate to say the person was involved in spitiual wifery?

[David T]

Is there any difference between the terms"plural marriage" and polygamy? Someone in this thread objected to the term polygamy.

 

The Post 33 objection is incorrect, seeing as Joseph performed marriages for Time and Eternity, as well as Eternity Only sealings. His marriages that included for time (and that is many of them) are by every definition polygamous. I think the term Plural Marriage is a good umbrella to include everything, time and/or eternal marriages to multiple partners.

Edited August 16, 2013 by David T

[Calm]

 If a person was engaged in the practice of having spiritual wife, would be inappropriate to say the person was involved in spitiual wifery?

If they saw the phrase "spiritual wifery" as insulting and didn't see themselves as saying the same thing when they used the term "spiritual wife", yes it would be inappropriate.

 

Considering the negative things said by at least Joseph and I believe others' about what "spiritual wifery" apparently meant to them (Bennett's immoral attempt to take advantage of the plural marriage teachings and possibly other communities' polygynous practices), I think it wisest just to use the most common term used by faithful practitioners, "plural marriage".

 

add-on:  wanted to check that title was what Helen had called her article...note that she labels it "Plural Marriage" even though she uses the term "spiritual wife".  Sometimes different versions of the same word will be seen differently as appropriate or inappropriate even if other versions are viewed completely opposite.  I don't think considering the condemnation of the term in certain cases that it is wise to assume it was alright to use just because the variation "spiritual wife" was acceptable.

Edited August 16, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

 I think the term Plural Marriage is a good umbrella to include everything, time and/or eternal marriages to multiple partners.

I think it avoids the confusion of all other terms because it is unique to the LDS faith (I assume, I can't find anything that indicates otherwise), avoids using any term that was held in contempt at sometime (such as spiritual wifery...which btw appears to have been used in reference to nonLDS practices of polygyny) and is still in common usage in the modern church.

Edited August 16, 2013 by calmoriah