Killing Joseph Smith To Save Mormonism

[The Nehor]

The only way to save the patient is a tourniquet around the neck.

[Analytics]

Well, I did specify a reader of normal intelligence and alertness. Perhaps I should add someone who is not pathologically and intransigently in denial....

 

The question is this: If a reader of normal intelligence and alertness reads D&C 132, should he or she conclude that Joseph Smith must have practiced polygamy? 

 

Here are a few facts from Church History that I think are important to making informed inference about this and related questions.  I’ll just state the facts and will try to refrain from connecting the dots.

1. When the original D&C was published in 1835, Section 101 (since removed) was called “Marriage.”  Verse 3 stated, “’The clerk of every church should keep a record of marriages solemnized in his branch.”  It goes on to say, “Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.”  This was the official, canonized, and sustained law of the church from 1835 to 1852.

    

2. There are no church records of Joseph Smith entering into any polygamous marriages or sealings.  If he did so, the clerk didn’t keep records as instructed by Section 101:3.

    

3. William Law had been a highly loved and respected member of the Church, and was in the First Presidency.  Joseph Smith excommunicated him in April 1844.  After the excommunication, Law told the Saints that the rumors were true: Joseph Smith was in fact secretly practicing polygamy.

    

4.  On May 26, 1844, Joseph Smith gave a speech to the Saints to respond to these allegations.  In that speech, he said, “For the last three years I have a record of all my acts and proceedings, for I have kept several good, faithful, and efficient clerks in constant employ: they have accompanied me everywhere, and carefully kept my history, and they have written down what I have done, where I have been, and what I have said; therefore my enemies cannot charge me with any day, time, or place, but what I have written testimony to prove my actions; and my enemies cannot prove anything against me.”  Later in the speech he said, “What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one.  I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers.”

    

5. The records that Joseph’s clerks kept in his constant employ make no mention of him ever entering into polygamous marriages or sealings.  Thus, if they really are an exhaustive, honest, and contemporaneous record of his actions as Joseph Smith claimed they were, they do in fact prove what he claimed they prove: Joseph Smith was not involved in polygamy.

If somebody is aware of those five facts and reads Section 132, what’s more reasonable: that Joseph Smith never engaged in polygamy as he told the Saints, or that he did in fact practice polygamy and was preparing the Saints to accept it?  I would suggest the correct answer can be ascertained by deciding which man was more honest: Joseph Smith or William Law.

[JLHPROF]

The question is this: If a reader of normal intelligence and alertness reads D&C 132, should he or she conclude that Joseph Smith must have practiced polygamy? 

 

Yes.  I did.  It's pretty clear. 

First Joseph asks specifically about polygamy and that is the subject of the revelation.  - Vs 1-2

Later Joseph was specifically told to do what Abraham did when he married Hagar - Vs 28-35

Then God tells him the conditions under which polygamy is acceptable and when it's adultery.   Vs 37-44

Then God tells Emma to give Joseph the wives he commands her to and to leave polyandry alone.  Vs 51-52, 54

The God tells Joseph that if she refuses to accept the law of God that her consent is no longer required. Vs 64-65

Finally God tells Joseph that he will tell him more about the law.  Vs 66

 

How anyone can't see this meant Joseph would either live polygamy or was already living it is a mystery.  It would require a very blind reading of D&C 132.

Especially since Joseph himself recorded:

 

 

"The same God that has thus far dictated me and directed me and strengthened me in this work, gave me this revelation and commandment on celestial and plural marriage, and the same God commanded me to obey it. He said to me that unless I accepted it, and introduced it, and practiced it, I, together with my people would be damned and cut off from this time henceforth. We have got to observe it. It is an eternal principle and was given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction."

- Prophet Joseph Smith, Contributor, Vol. 5, p. 259

 

As far as records of the marriages, there may not be licenses but there are journal entries, notations, and allusions.

[Analytics]

 

 

How anyone can't see this meant Joseph would either live polygamy or was already living it is a mystery.  It would require a very blind reading of D&C 132.

Especially since Joseph himself recorded:

 

 

As far as records of the marriages, there may not be licenses but there are journal entries, notations, and allusions.

 

 

The Contributor is an independent magazine that was first published in 1879, about 35 years after the death of Joseph Smith.  Where, exactly, did Joseph Smith record what you claim he recorded?  Is it in the Joseph Smith Papers?  If so, where?  If not, why not?

[Analytics]

 

 

The Contributor is an independent magazine that was first published in 1879, about 35 years after the death of Joseph Smith.  Where, exactly, did Joseph Smith record what you claim he recorded?  Is it in the Joseph Smith Papers?  If so, where?  If not, why not?

 

I found the reference.  A pdf of the Contributor ("A Monthly Magazine of Home Literature" edited and published by Junius F. Wells) article is here:

 

https://archive.org/details/contributor0507eng

 

The specific context is that in the April 1884 edition of the magazine, one Horace Cummings wrote a story called "Conspiracy of Navoo," and the above quote is some dialogue of that story.

 

It is quite clear that this quote is mythology from the 1880's, and is not the way Joseph Smith actually talked about polygamy.  According to the story, this made-up quote was spoken a couple of weeks after Joseph Smith did in fact tell the Saints that he could prove that he wasn't practicing polygamy.  Why would Joseph Smith tell the Saints he could prove he wasn't doing something that he was in the process of introducing to them? 

 

Smith must have gone to great lengths to create a record that recorded everywhere he went, everything he did, and everything he said, yet didn't mention him getting married a few dozen times.  If he really wanted to introduce polygamy into the Church, why not record his marriages in his own records and in the church's records?

[why me]

The question is this: If a reader of normal intelligence and alertness reads D&C 132, should he or she conclude that Joseph Smith must have practiced polygamy? 

 

If somebody is aware of those five facts and reads Section 132, what’s more reasonable: that Joseph Smith never engaged in polygamy as he told the Saints, or that he did in fact practice polygamy and was preparing the Saints to accept it?  I would suggest the correct answer can be ascertained by deciding which man was more honest: Joseph Smith or William Law.

I think that in answer to your first question would depend on the teacher of a sunday school class. He or she is perfectly able to convey the possiblity that that section does contain the idea that JS practiced polygamy. We do know that the section did put forth the idea of polygamy. To my understanding, emma did not like that revelation but this could be folklore. I do believe that the saints knew that joseph was practicing polygamy. I do not believe that such a secret could be kept in check since many of the plural wives relatives knew of it since joseph would clear it with them first. Word must have gotten around. However, publically, it was denied in order to protect the saints against the mobs if they were to discover the secret.

 

William's problem was that he attempted to make it public which would have threatend the lives of the saints. Mobs were more than willing to come into nauvoo and burn the mormons out. Thus, Law and his paper was a threat to public order. Let me put it this way: if you were a saint in nauvoo would you want Law's paper to be printed? Would you feel fear if the gentiles surrounding nauvoo were reading his paper? Would you be concerned for your children?

[thatjimguy]

One day the world is going to learn the Prophet Joseph Smith did nothing wrong in the eyes of the Lord; and on that day all his enemies and detractors will learn, much to their shame and sorrow, that they projected their own lustful and iniquitous hearts onto an innocent man. The Prophet was living in obedience to a higher law the Lord Himself commanded him to obey. Because most of the world's people do not at all comprehend the mysteries of God, in their ignorance they will continue to slander and condemn him until, much to their utter shock and astonishment, the Lord sets them straight. Mark my words...

 

If Moses can sin during his leadership, why is it so hard to think that Joseph Smith could be any different? I think the Old Testament have more stories of Prophets and others called of God that followed, but still failed in some way. 

 

Numerous times I have heard that prophets are just men and fallible. We've learned that much in recent events that indeed they are. I don't think anyone is no longer a sinner just because they wear the title Prophet or Apostle. And when I say sinner, I do not mean they are tempted....I mean they still fail somewhere along the line. Some worse off than others.

[why me]

thatjimguy,

 

Although it may be true that all prophets have sinned, it seems that exmembers of the lds church and the critics of the lds church expect Joseph to be perfect as jesus was perfect. Also, it seems that exmembers love to pick out his shortcomings as a way to state that he wasn't a prophet. Likewise for people of other faiths who critique JS too. It is one of those puzzles that one can't seem to find the correct way to put it together. Thus, members tend to defend JSs character. The problem however comes from exmembers and critics.

[Storm Rider]

thatjimguy,

 

Although it may be true that all prophets have sinned, it seems that exmembers of the lds church and the critics of the lds church expect Joseph to be perfect as jesus was perfect. Also, it seems that exmembers love to pick out his shortcomings as a way to state that he wasn't a prophet. Likewise for people of other faiths who critique JS too. It is one of those puzzles that one can't seem to find the correct way to put it together. Thus, members tend to defend JSs character. The problem however comes from exmembers and critics.

 

It is the focus solely on the what perceive as shortcomings that is unfair.  If they were at least slightly willing to look at all the good he did their perception would necessarily change. This fact of maintaining a completely unbalanced perspective has always made me think that they are being lead around by the nose by darker spirits of this world.  They seem incapable of seeing any good; it is all that he did and said that was so uplifting that allows me to maintain that he was called of God and accomplished a great work as an instrument of the Lord.  

[Glenn101]

It is the focus solely on the what perceive as shortcomings that is unfair.  If they were at least slightly willing to look at all the good he did their perception would necessarily change. This fact of maintaining a completely unbalanced perspective has always made me think that they are being lead around by the nose by darker spirits of this world.  They seem incapable of seeing any good; it is all that he did and said that was so uplifting that allows me to maintain that he was called of God and accomplished a great work as an instrument of the Lord.  

 

I think that there just might be a mote and beam thing going on.

[thatjimguy]

thatjimguy,

 

Although it may be true that all prophets have sinned, it seems that exmembers of the lds church and the critics of the lds church expect Joseph to be perfect as jesus was perfect. Also, it seems that exmembers love to pick out his shortcomings as a way to state that he wasn't a prophet. Likewise for people of other faiths who critique JS too. It is one of those puzzles that one can't seem to find the correct way to put it together. Thus, members tend to defend JSs character. The problem however comes from exmembers and critics.

 

I halfway agree with you. Just as much, I think that LDS are a little off in saying that Prophets are fallible, while in practice, many act as if they are not.

[thatjimguy]

It is the focus solely on the what perceive as shortcomings that is unfair.  If they were at least slightly willing to look at all the good he did their perception would necessarily change. This fact of maintaining a completely unbalanced perspective has always made me think that they are being lead around by the nose by darker spirits of this world.  They seem incapable of seeing any good; it is all that he did and said that was so uplifting that allows me to maintain that he was called of God and accomplished a great work as an instrument of the Lord.  

 

This I agree with highly. When looking up Brigham Young when investigating blacks in the Priesthood, many of the things he said made me think that he could not be the diabolical person people made him out to be. I mean, he was still off on target, but I don't buy into the evil thing with him.

 

Also,  I also wonder how the "enduring until the end" thing works in his case. Maybe he didn't sin right at the end of his life, but was he perfected before he left? I doubt it. 

Edited July 23, 2014 by thatjimguy

[mormonnewb]

It is the focus solely on the what perceive as shortcomings that is unfair.  If they were at least slightly willing to look at all the good he did their perception would necessarily change. This fact of maintaining a completely unbalanced perspective has always made me think that they are being lead around by the nose by darker spirits of this world.  They seem incapable of seeing any good; it is all that he did and said that was so uplifting that allows me to maintain that he was called of God and accomplished a great work as an instrument of the Lord.  

 

But isn't our extreme overreaction in the opposite direction just as bad?  We've created a narrative of a perfect JS, which leaves some members crushed when they learn that ... surprise ... he was a MAN ... with incredible power ... in his 30s.  I can't think of ANY examples in which that combination didn't result in some form of error.  Yet, since we can't accept anything less than perfection in our beloved prophet, we find ourselves making the most amazing rationalizations for his behaviors ... take, for instance, his public denials of polygamy.

 

The argument that is continually advanced in FAVOR of lying is that JS and others may have been harmed if the truth had been discovered.  Duh!  That is the case with EVERY lie.  No one lies if the truth would serve their interests better.  A murderer lies because the truth would send him to prison for a very long time.  An adulterer lies to his wife because the truth will make his life a living hell.  If fear of adverse consequences is a justification for lying, then I'm the most righteous man who has ever lived because that's the ONLY time I ever lie.

 

IMO ... this NEVER helps a crisis of faith.  It's one thing to have one's (misplaced) faith in a person shattered.  But it's quite another to have your fundamental sense of ethics upset when well-meaning saints try to convince you that lying is proper if done to avoid detection of your underlying activity.

[ERayR]

IMO ... this NEVER helps a crisis of faith.  It's one thing to have one's (misplaced) faith in a person shattered.  But it's quite another to have your fundamental sense of ethics upset when well-meaning saints try to convince you that lying is proper if done to avoid detection of your underlying activity.

 

I know isn't it terrible the way Abraham lied about his wife.

[mormonnewb]

I know isn't it terrible the way Abraham lied about his wife.

 

YES IT WAS!  Where do we get the impression that HF honored Abraham turning his wife over to another man?  Is that why that man gave her right back (upon learning the truth from the Lord)?

[ERayR]

YES IT WAS!  Where do we get the impression that HF honored Abraham turning his wife over to another man?  Is that why that man gave her right back (upon learning the truth from the Lord)?

 

You missed the point.  To me the take away from the story of Abraham was that error or not Abraham was not chastised by God and was still held in high esteem and honored by God.  There is no condemnation that his actions were damaging to other members and investigators. 

 

And when God sent Moses into Egypt he didn't send in a cadre to apologize for his past behavior.

 

ps.  Your shouting hurts my ears.

[mormonnewb]

You missed the point.  To me the take away from the story of Abraham was that error or not Abraham was not chastised by God and was still held in high esteem and honored by God.  There is no condemnation that his actions were damaging to other members and investigators. 

 

And when God sent Moses into Egypt he didn't send in a cadre to apologize for his past behavior.

 

ps.  Your shouting hurts my ears.

 

fair enough (no shouting this time).  in one sense, we very much agree.  HF does not automatically withdraw His favor and anointing just because we transgress.  He uses imperfect people, because as we've been told repeatedly, that's all that He has to work with.

 

we also agree that no one needs to apologize for JS.  however, i don't think we should pretend that right is wrong just to protect his reputation.  abraham holds a place of honor in christianity, judaism and islam.  yet, not many try to pretend that he acted properly in having a child with hagar.  we simply acknowledge that even great men of faith can sometimes lose their way.

[ERayR]

we also agree that no one needs to apologize for JS.  however, i don't think we should pretend that right is wrong just to protect his reputation.  abraham holds a place of honor in christianity, judaism and islam.  yet, not many try to pretend that he acted properly in having a child with hagar.  we simply acknowledge that even great men of faith can sometimes lose their way.

 

Can you not understand everybody doesn't agree with your evaluation?  Some see things differently than you.

[JLHPROF]

fair enough (no shouting this time).  in one sense, we very much agree.  HF does not automatically withdraw His favor and anointing just because we transgress.  He uses imperfect people, because as we've been told repeatedly, that's all that He has to work with.

 

we also agree that no one needs to apologize for JS.  however, i don't think we should pretend that right is wrong just to protect his reputation.  abraham holds a place of honor in christianity, judaism and islam.  yet, not many try to pretend that he acted properly in having a child with hagar.  we simply acknowledge that even great men of faith can sometimes lose their way.

 

Who's pretending?  I don't believe Abraham did anything wrong in marrying and having a child with Hagar.  And Joseph did absolutely nothing wrong when God commanded that he restore the priesthood law of plural marriage to the earth.  There may have been some imperfections in the execution, but the action was pure and righteous.  And I'm not pretending otherwise.

[why me]

But isn't our extreme overreaction in the opposite direction just as bad?  We've created a narrative of a perfect JS, which leaves some members crushed when they learn that ... surprise ... he was a MAN ... with incredible power ... in his 30s.  I can't think of ANY examples in which that combination didn't result in some form of error.  Yet, since we can't accept anything less than perfection in our beloved prophet, we find ourselves making the most amazing rationalizations for his behaviors ... take, for instance, his public denials of polygamy.

 

What rationalizations for his behavior do you see? I think that most members do not see him as perfect since he was just a man. But what imperfections should the church stress? Can you name any? As a human being he became depressed especially when he saw close friends leave him. He did get angry like any human being and had fights with his wife. Should the church stress these facts? I think that most members understand his public denials of polygamy. Why would he want the blood of his fellow saints on his hands if he made the announcement publically? And when should all this be taught? Should there be a lesson on joseph's imperfections?

[why me]

 

we also agree that no one needs to apologize for JS.  however, i don't think we should pretend that right is wrong just to protect his reputation.  abraham holds a place of honor in christianity, judaism and islam.  yet, not many try to pretend that he acted properly in having a child with hagar.  we simply acknowledge that even great men of faith can sometimes lose their way.

What do you mean by what you wrote? Who  is protecting his reputation? And where did he lose his way? I have no idea what your are talking about. If you think that joseph was a falling prophet you will need to make the necessary decisions to bring yourself inner peace. I don't think that he was a fallen prophet at all. You are writing as if we all agree with you about his poor reputation. I gave you a link about what people wrote about him and said about him. Most loved the man and overlooked whatever imperfections he may have had. But he did have enemies both exmembers and nonmembers who gave their own interpretations about him.

 

But no one thinks that he was perfect.

[JLHPROF]

I'M SORRY BUT...BEGIN RANT!

 

I am getting more than a little irritated at some of the comments being made about Joseph Smith by certain so-called members.

I am also very sick of the "blame Bro. Brigham" trend that creeps through our Church ranks.

 

I can't think of a better time than to bear my testimony of these two men.

I have known from the time I was a youth that Joseph Smith was a prophet called to represent God on the earth and the head of this age of time in which we live and that we will answer to him in the judgement.  Everything I've learned about Joseph Smith that is supposed to shake my testimony from polygamy, polyandry, masonry, and other things has only confirmed to my spirit that he was a righteous man doing exactly what the Lord commanded him to do.

I believe that he stands second only to the Savior in his personal righteousness, and that while he wasn't perfect or without sin, he came as close as is possible for us mere mortals.  The spirit has born witness to me of his life, teachings, and calling more times than I could ever count.  And I would NEVER allow for a second the notion that Joseph was fallen or went outside of his calling.  He made errors yes (his money skills, his trusting nature, and others), but his doctrine was 100% flawless.

 

I also have a testimony that Brigham Young was Joseph's chosen AND rightful successor.  That the gospel lived and taught under his administration was an absolute continuation of the principles and doctrines restored through Joseph Smith and not his own creation, and that only in a VERY few circumstances did Brigham's speculation come across as official.  I believe that the plural marriage practiced in Utah was exactly the same as the plural marriage restored through Joseph Smith, that the United Order he tried to institute was the same basic doctrine as Joseph did in Kirtland and that nobody understood the principles and ordinances of the temple, eternal marriage, sealings, and plural marriage better than Brigham, and that was why Joseph commissioned him to provide a system to the ordinances.  I know that God chose Brigham, in spite of the rougher edges he had than other prophets and I know that the Lord spoke direct to Brigham on numerous occasions.  The spirit has borne witness to me of the calling and difficult position that Brigham held and I know that he was God's prophet, not just a president of the Church.

 

I know everyone has the right to their own opinion, but there is a difference when I hear it from those who claim they have a testimony of this church (vs. the average non-member).  I am not blind to the fact that they were men and made errors, but they were prophets and their actions as prophets were NEVER errors.  And any member who can't differentiate between the prophetic teachings and human opinions should still be very careful of their own covenants and speaking ill of the Lord's anointed.

 

END RANT.

Edited July 23, 2014 by JLHPROF

[mormonnewb]

What do you mean by what you wrote? Who  is protecting his reputation? And where did he lose his way? I have no idea what your are talking about. If you think that joseph was a falling prophet you will need to make the necessary decisions to bring yourself inner peace. I don't think that he was a fallen prophet at all. You are writing as if we all agree with you about his poor reputation. I gave you a link about what people wrote about him and said about him. Most loved the man and overlooked whatever imperfections he may have had. But he did have enemies both exmembers and nonmembers who gave their own interpretations about him.

 

But no one thinks that he was perfect.

 

You and I will have to disagree on whether he should have publicly denied polygamy (if it was truly a commandment from God).  I see nothing in scripture that justifies lying; even if people will persecute you for telling the truth.  In fact, the tradition of Christian martyrdom is precisely the tradition of Christians telling the truth about their beliefs at the costs of their very lives.  I'm just not buying that God wants us to confirm Christ as His Son but to deny His commandments.

 

If JS was so sure that Christ commanded polygamy, then he should have been proclaiming it from the rooftops, just as he did with the Book of Mormon and the restoration of the Gospel.  Obviously, these teachings didn't make the saints popular with their neighbors, but he wasn't lying about or hiding these things from God.

[mormonnewb]

I'M SORRY BUT...BEGIN RANT!

 

I am getting more than a little irritated at some of the comments being made about Joseph Smith by certain so-called members.

I am also very sick of the "blame Bro. Brigham" trend that creeps through our Church ranks.

 

I can't think of a better time than to bear my testimony of these two men.

I have known from the time I was a youth that Joseph Smith was a prophet called to represent God on the earth and the head of this age of time in which we live and that we will answer to him in the judgement.  Everything I've learned about Joseph Smith that is supposed to shake my testimony from polygamy, polyandry, masonry, and other things has only confirmed to my spirit that he was a righteous man doing exactly what the Lord commanded him to do.

I believe that he stands second only to the Savior in his personal righteousness, and that while he wasn't perfect or without sin, he came as close as is possible for us mere mortals.  The spirit has born witness to me of his life, teachings, and calling more times than I could ever count.  And I would NEVER allow for a second the notion that Joseph was fallen or went outside of his calling.  He made errors yes (his money skills, his trusting nature, and others), but his doctrine was 100% flawless.

 

I also have a testimony that Brigham Young was Joseph's chosen AND rightful successor.  That the gospel lived and taught under his administration was an absolute continuation of the principles and doctrines restored through Joseph Smith and not his own creation, and that only in a VERY few circumstances did Brigham's speculation come across as official.  I believe that the plural marriage practiced in Utah was exactly the same as the plural marriage restored through Joseph Smith, that the United Order he tried to institute was the same basic doctrine as Joseph did in Kirtland and that nobody understood the principles and ordinances of the temple, eternal marriage, sealings, and plural marriage better than Brigham, and that was why Joseph commissioned him to provide a system to the ordinances.  I know that God chose Brigham, in spite of the rougher edges he had than other prophets and I know that the Lord spoke direct to Brigham on numerous occasions.  The spirit has borne witness to me of the calling and difficult position that Brigham held and I know that he was God's prophet, not just a president of the Church.

 

I know everyone has the right to their own opinion, but there is a difference when I hear it from those who claim they have a testimony of this church (vs. the average non-member).  I am not blind to the fact that they were men and made errors, but they were prophets and their actions as prophets were NEVER errors.  And any member who can't differentiate between the prophetic teachings and human opinions should still be very careful of their own covenants and speaking ill of the Lord's anointed.

 

END RANT.

 

You're a very bright person who has studied these issues far more in-depth than I EVER will.  As a result, I continually glean insights from your historical and scriptural citations.  But YOUR spiritual witness, by definition, can do nothing to aid MY understanding of the truth.  HF has not provided me with that witness.  So should I simply accept the one He has provided for you or should I continue to "study it out in my mind"?

[Scott Lloyd]

You're a very bright person who has studied these issues far more in-depth than I EVER will.  As a result, I continually glean insights from your historical and scriptural citations.  But YOUR spiritual witness, by definition, can do nothing to aid MY understanding of the truth.  HF has not provided me with that witness.  So should I simply accept the one He has provided for you or should I continue to "study it out in my mind"?

I think that once one has received a witness from another, one is ultimately held accountable for how one deals with it.