Killing Joseph Smith To Save Mormonism

[BookofMormonLuvr]

There is some debate among Bible scholars as to whether the KJV gives the best translation from the Hebrew. Here is how the NIV translates the passages of Exodus 12:35-36:

"35 The Israelites did as Moses instructed and asked the Egyptians for articles of silver and gold and for clothing. 36 The Lord had made the Egyptians favorably disposed toward the people, and they gave them what they asked for; so they plundered the Egyptians."

In any event, I can see how God would give the Jews recompense for centuries of slavery. But why would He have Joseph lie? He doesn't instruct us to lie today about our sacred (but not secret) stuff. We don't actively try to deceive people about what goes on in the temple. We simply say, "Nunya!" (It's none of ya business)

And even if I'm wrong about ALL of this, wouldn't it be better for members to learn your faith promoting theories in one of the HUNDREDS of hours of primary, seminary, young men/women, etc? Or are we just going to HOPE that they come across FAIR/FARMS before they stumble upon Mormonnewb.com?

 

The Inspired Version says "borrowed".

But I believe this was payment for the years of slavery. It's apples and oranges with the situation being discussed.

[Calm]

Whether it was justified or not by past treatment, were they not being deceptive?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Whether it was justified or not by past treatment, were they not being deceptive?

 

I couldn't say, An understanding of the Hebrew used would be important. Also, the text seems to indicate that the Egyptians wanted them gone gone... like "don't come back" - if that is the case they knew they were giving away their stuff for good.

Edited July 24, 2014 by BookofMormonLuvr

[Analytics]

You are referring to the manifesto obviously. 

Your issue seems to be with lying about polygamy as proof it was wrong.  If I am reading this correctly you don't consider the denials of polygamy to be the equivalent protection of sacred practices as the secrecy of the temple practice, because one required "lying" and the other is just kept "quiet".

 

I personally say that it is necessary to protect the most sacred from the views of those who would scorn it.  Sometimes that means transgressing a lesser law.

And as far as the member who resents "being lied to" about polygamy, well I say again, it is not a secret, it is not hidden (although it is often ignored).  Anyone who wants to know about Joseph Smith and polygamy can find it very easily.  Type Joseph Smith into google and the 4th suggestion is Joseph Smith Wives.  Blaming lazy ignorance on Church deception is a cop out.

 

No, I’m not referring to the manifesto.  I’m referring to the original Section 101 of the D&C.  That section was the law of the Church from 1835 to 1852, and solemnly told outsiders, investigators, new members, and rank-and-file members that, “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.”

 

Every single one of Joseph Smith’s marriage from 1835 to 1844 were in direct, flagrant violation of the canonized law of the Church at the time. 

 

The fact of the matter is that Joseph Smith denied polygamy at every level. He told the Saints he didn't do it. He sustained the D&C as the official law of the Church, including the declaration that Mormons aren't polygamists. He publically excommunicated people for doing it. He went out of his way to ensure that he had a contemporaneously written, comprehensive life history that “proved” he didn’t do it.  He made sure there were never any church records of it happening.  He married women behind his wife’s back.  He called people on missions, then married their wives while they were away.  And he excommunicated and slandered people who told the truth.

 

Because of all that, I personally don’t believe Joseph Smith ever intended to incorporate this into the church.  There was just no way to say, “just kidding” after everything he did to deceive the bottom 99.9% of the Church.  Polygamy was just an extracurricular thing he privately did.

 

If he did intend to incorporate it into the Church, I find his lies to the church’s investigators and members absolutely repulsive.  The lies weren’t made to deceive angry anti-Mormon mobs.  The lies were made to deceive the Church's general membership. The Church was supposed to be the true church.  The standard of truth was supposed to have been erected.  The truth was supposed to go forward throughout the earth.  Even if persecutions rage.  Even if mobs combine.  Even if   armies assemble.  It wasn’t supposed to be the church that didn't tell people the truth because that would be throwing pearls before swine.  It certainly wasn't supposed to be the church that published lies in the D&C because if it published the truth in the D&C then it wouldn’t be popular.

 

Because of the depth of his lies and the extent he went to prevent records of his actions from being made, we really don’t know what happened.  We have some information about some of his wives.  Regarding others, we just don’t know.  According to Heber C. Kimball, Joseph Smith was the kind of guy who would go to his trusted friends and say in total seriousness, “God commands you to surrender your wife to me.”  His religious followers were the kind of people who thought that’s the kind of thing God would command. Thus, they’d say “okay, here’s my wife.”  Joseph would then say, sometimes at least, “just kidding!  That was a test of your loyalty!”  It’s just creepy. We have no firsthand accounts of what Joseph Smith was doing or thinking or saying.  All we have is firsthand denials, a few scattered pieces of second-hand evidence, and a lot of speculation.

 

The speculation is usually put together along the lines of, “Joseph Smith was a super-righteous guy, therefore the unknowns must be filled with super-righteous behavior.” For the vast majority of believers, the actual knowns are disturbing, so they try to actually know as little as possible and just believe whatever they make up that’s comforting.  For example, some think Joseph Smith didn’t have sex with any of his wives.  Others think polygamy was only to take care of widows.  Others think he had sex with the virgins (after all, according to D&C 132 seed is the whole point), but didn’t have sex with his spouses that were married to others, or that were too young, or that were too old.  For others, it’s important to believe that he really, really, didn’t want to do this and had absolutely no desire to have sex with anyone other than Emma, but that God ordered him to do it, and therefore he had to.

[JLHPROF]

 

No, I’m not referring to the manifesto.  I’m referring to the original Section 101 of the D&C.  That section was the law of the Church from 1835 to 1852, and solemnly told outsiders, investigators, new members, and rank-and-file members that, “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.”

 

Every single one of Joseph Smith’s marriage from 1835 to 1844 were in direct, flagrant violation of the canonized law of the Church at the time. 

 

Agreed.  Every single one of Joseph's eternal marriages entered into under the auspices of the Melchizedek Priesthood and it's sealing authority was in direct violation of the temporal, organizational, lesser law of the old D&C 101 from the Kirtland era.  Fortunately D&C 110 and 132 came along and surpassed it.  However, just like with the law of Moses, the lesser law stayed in scripture long after the higher law was revealed.  Just like Adam and Eve broke the lesser law of not eating the "fruit" in order that the higher law "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" could be fulfilled.

Yes, Joseph broke the lesser canonized law of marriage in order to live the higher eternal law of marriage.  And I and my eternal companion are very glad he did.

 

 

The fact of the matter is that Joseph Smith denied polygamy at every level. He told the Saints he didn't do it. He sustained the D&C as the official law of the Church, including the declaration that Mormons aren't polygamists. He publically excommunicated people for doing it. He went out of his way to ensure that he had a contemporaneously written, comprehensive life history that “proved” he didn’t do it.  He made sure there were never any church records of it happening.  He married women behind his wife’s back.  He called people on missions, then married their wives while they were away.  And he excommunicated and slandered people who told the truth.

 

Because of all that, I personally don’t believe Joseph Smith ever intended to incorporate this into the church.  There was just no way to say, “just kidding” after everything he did to deceive the bottom 99.9% of the Church.  Polygamy was just an extracurricular thing he privately did.

 

Even members of the Church were considered "swine" at times - Joseph repeatedly lamented their unwillingness to accept the revelations he had.

And if you want my "personal belief" Plural marriage was never a meant to be a law of the Church.  The Church is an earthly organization, bound by statutes, laws, and regulations.  Plural marriage is a law of priesthood (as described in D&C 132) and comes from the eternities.

People don't understand the vision of Joseph Smith where the Church was concerned.  He wanted Hyrum to lead the Church so he could move on and build the temple society (which I guarantee was supposed to include plural marriage) to bring Zion.

 

 

 

According to Heber C. Kimball, Joseph Smith was the kind of guy who would go to his trusted friends and say in total seriousness, “God commands you to surrender your wife to me.”  His religious followers were the kind of people who thought that’s the kind of thing God would command. Thus, they’d say “okay, here’s my wife.”  Joseph would then say, sometimes at least, “just kidding!  That was a test of your loyalty!”  It’s just creepy. We have no firsthand accounts of what Joseph Smith was doing or thinking or saying.  All we have is firsthand denials, a few scattered pieces of second-hand evidence, and a lot of speculation.

 

I personally accept the 2 logical doctrinal explanations for these occurrences.

1. It was an Abrahamic test (as in Heber C. Kimball's case).

2. There were premortal covenants made as to which families we belong in.  Sometimes we end up in the wrong family.

It's not pleasant, but it's true.

 

I said it before and I will say it again.  Joseph Smith the prophet and seer of this final dispensation never lost God's approval, stands at our head and will be our judge, and was the most righteous man to ever walk the earth excepting the flawless Savior.  Joseph made mistakes and was human, but his doctrine was 100% perfect.  And I will defend him to my last breath.  I am one of your "kind of people" who love and honor Joseph Smith and nothing will convince me otherwise.

You want 100% honest and upfront disclosure of all doctrines, then you need to be prepared for it.  Most "converts" weren't and still aren't.

[why me]

Lazy ignorance, huh? Isn't it funny how the Church guards against lazy ignorance when it comes to its MONEY? It could just say, "Hey, the law of tithing is on the web. You could have found out about it if you weren't so lazy!"

No, it makes sure you KNOW about that. And you get a yearly interview with your bishop to make sure that you remember.

Look, I have no problem with tithing. But I have a HUGE problem with a man of great learning blaming those of lesser intellect/curiosity/access for their own ignorance. If those "great unwashed masses" don't know then it is our responsibility to TEACH them; not castigate them for their ignorance.

The law of tithing is a commandment. This does make a difference. We can debate until doomsday about the character of JS and it is now being done on the internet until doomsday. I see joseph as a young man with a mission that he felt that he had to accomplish. And he did accomplish his mission. He organized the church and put in place a succession process. He suffered much in his young life by facing death in liberty jail and by being put to death in a different jail. Many times he lost his home as did his wife. They both suffered for the faith. Emma was tested over polygamy and perhaps she failed that test. She would have accomplished wonderful things for the church if she would have went to utah. But she chose to stay in the nauvoo area. Joseph had no such choice. He was murdered. And emma never said a bad word about joseph not even to her second husband who had a wonderful opinion of joseph. Now what does that say about joseph? Maybe the critic interpretations which you have read may not have gotten it right. Emma also had a gold locket around her neck with a lock of joseph hair. She wore it every day after his death. What does that say about their marriage and love.

 

My advice would be to get away from all the negativity that you have about the church and also stress and embrace the positive. One will never get a clear picture of joseph smith. Too much was written about him by people who dispised him and his calling while others loved him because of his calling and character. He was a polarized figure for many at his time and now.  It all comes down to this: did he received a vision? Did he translate a holy book? And did the 11 witnesses see the book and at least 8 handled the book actually do this? It is really that simple.

Edited July 24, 2014 by why me

[Analytics]

Agreed. Every single one of Joseph's eternal marriages entered into under the auspices of the Melchizedek Priesthood and it's sealing authority was in direct violation of the temporal, organizational, lesser law of the old D&C 101 from the Kirtland era....

I appreciate the frankness and sincerity of your post. There is more I could say, but I’ll leave it at that. Thank you for your thoughts. Edited July 24, 2014 by Analytics

[CV75]

But why would He have Joseph lie?

We do not know, and we do not that He did, and we do not know that Joesph lied.

 

Satan did not know the mind of God and made his accusations on that basis. Faith requires knowledge as a substrate (and vice-versa). There is no role for ignorance and assumption in faith; these only contribute to faith crises.

 

All God's children are given the opportunity to know how He works through personal experience, and it begins with cultivating one's conscience (the light of Christ).

[rodheadlee]

Does anyone remember the quote from Joseph Smith that said something to the effect of "if I told you everything I saw, you would kill me" in regards to a vision of the Celestial Kingdom? I believe it may have been in the History of the Church.

 

Ok, here is the quote, but I still don't know where it is from: "If I revealed all that has been made known to me, scarcely a man on this stand would stay with me.' and 'Brethren, if I were to tell you all I know of the kingdom of God, I do know that you would rise up and kill me."

Joseph Smith, Jr.

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/josephsmit192884.html#3YmRz8vM68fiuyiQ.99

Edited July 24, 2014 by rodheadlee

[Nofear]

Does anyone remember the quote from Joseph Smith that said something to the effect of "if I told you everything I saw, you would kill me" in regards to a vision of the Celestial Kingdom? I believe it may have been in the History of the Church.

 

Ok, here is the quote, but I still don't know where it is from: "If I revealed all that has been made known to me, scarcely a man on this stand would stay with me.' and 'Brethren, if I were to tell you all I know of the kingdom of God, I do know that you would rise up and kill me."

Joseph Smith, Jr.

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/josephsmit192884.html#3YmRz8vM68fiuyiQ.99

 

Perhaps it was in part because he saw more gender equity in practice there than was socially acceptable in the 1800's.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Perhaps it was in part because he saw more gender equity in practice there than was socially acceptable in the 1800's.

I always go with gay marriage on that one.

[Nofear]

I always go with gay marriage on that one.

You think he saw gay marriage in the Celestial Kingdom? Well, I guess each of us is welcome to their own speculation.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

You think he saw gay marriage in the Celestial Kingdom? Well, I guess each of us is welcome to their own speculation.

You think equal opportunities for women would cause Joseph's followers to rise up and kill him? Really? My comment was said with tongue-in-cheek. I don't actually think that Joseph saw gay marriage in the Celestial Kingdom, but I can think of no doctrine more likely to make Joseph's loyal followers rise up and kill him than that one.

Edited July 24, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Scott Lloyd]

That is PRECISELY the situation that Christians were faced with in the first two centuries of the Common Era.  Renounce your belief in Christ (lie) or die.  And over 1 MILLION of them chose to tell the truth in the face of certain death.

No, it is definitely not the same situation. Refusing to renounce your beliefs is not the same thing as facilitating your enemy's destruction of you or your loved ones.

 

I've been over this several times with people who refuse to recognize Joseph Smith's stance as a martyr because he fended off the mob at Carthage. I maintain that  martyrhood amounts to refusing to renounce one's cause as a price for being allowed to remain alive, not in passively accepting death.

 

And by the way, JS followed their example.  To my knowledge, he didn't deny the truth of the BoM or the restored Gospel.

 

But neither did he fail to fight back when the mobbers were about to inflict death upon him and his companions. See above.

 

Also, he mustered and commanded the Nauvoo Legion, a state-chartered militia, for the purpose of fending off mob depradations.

 

And neither did the other saints who were eventually subject to an extermination order.  The saints were not people to shrink from the truth because it would make them unpopular.

 

So why was this different?

 

You are confusing a refusal to be pressured into publicly disclosing and teaching the revelation on plurality of wives before the time was right to "shrinking from the truth." Being prudent and guarded about one's public statements to avoid providing a weapon to one's enemies is not the same thing as "shrinking from the truth."

Edited July 24, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I appreciate the frankness and sincerity of your post. There is more I could say, but I’ll leave it at that. Thank you for your thoughts.

If you are so appreciative, perhaps you should have included the completion of his thought: "Fortunately D&C 110 and 132 came along and surpassed it."

[why me]

No, it is definitely not the same situation. Refusing to renounce your beliefs is not the same thing as facilitating your enemy's destruction of you or your loved ones.

 

You are confusing a refusal to be pressured into publicly disclosing and teaching the revelation on plurality of wives before the time was right to "shrinking from the truth." Being prudent and guarded about one's public statements to avoid providing a weapon to one's enemies is not the same thing as "shrinking from the truth."

I might add an important piece of information. Polygamy was openly practiced when the saints left nauvoo. It was then that they felt free to practice their faith. I am sure that this did not happen in a bubble. The saints must have known that the revelation came from JS and I am sure that Joseph's plural wives were not kept a secret as they journeyed west. If the saints were free to practice their faith without persecution I think that we would see a flourishing faith at that time in history. Persecution became a mindset for the saints in nauvoo. Most suffered from the hostilities that occurred in Missouri and one must reflect on this when taking into account Joseph's denial of polygamy.

 

This is often overlooked by critics and by members who want to find fault with JS.

Edited July 24, 2014 by why me

[Analytics]

If you are so appreciative, perhaps you should have included the completion of his thought: "Fortunately D&C 110 and 132 came along and surpassed it."

 

I'm having a hard time understanding your point.  Do you take issue with me allowing him the last word and trying to exit the conversation gracefully?

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm having a hard time understanding your point. Do you take issue with me allowing him the last word and trying to exit the conversation gracefully?

I take issue with quoting enough of his words to make it seem he conceded your argument when he really didn't.

[rodheadlee]

Perhaps it was in part because he saw more gender equity in practice there than was socially acceptable in the 1800's.

Does anyone know the context and timing of that quote? Pre polygamy or post polygamy?

[Analytics]

... he conceded your argument...

 

Exactly.  I'm glad you agree with JLHPROF and me about that.

[why me]

 

 The fact of the matter is that Joseph Smith denied polygamy at every level. He told the Saints he didn't do it. He sustained the D&C as the official law of the Church, including the declaration that Mormons aren't polygamists. He publically excommunicated people for doing it. He went out of his way to ensure that he had a contemporaneously written, comprehensive life history that “proved” he didn’t do it.  He made sure there were never any church records of it happening.  He married women behind his wife’s back.  He called people on missions, then married their wives while they were away.  And he excommunicated and slandered people who told the truth.

 

Because of all that, I personally don’t believe Joseph Smith ever intended to incorporate this into the church.  There was just no way to say, “just kidding” after everything he did to deceive the bottom 99.9% of the Church.  Polygamy was just an extracurricular thing he privately did.

 

If he did intend to incorporate it into the Church, I find his lies to the church’s investigators and members absolutely repulsive.  The lies weren’t made to deceive angry anti-Mormon mobs.  The lies were made to deceive the Church's general membership. The Church was supposed to be the true church.  The standard of truth was supposed to have been erected.  The truth was supposed to go forward throughout the earth.  Even if persecutions rage.  Even if mobs combine.  Even if   armies assemble.  It wasn’t supposed to be the church that didn't tell people the truth because that would be throwing pearls before swine.  It certainly wasn't supposed to be the church that published lies in the D&C because if it published the truth in the D&C then it wouldn’t be popular.

 

Because of the depth of his lies and the extent he went to prevent records of his actions from being made, we really don’t know what happened.  We have some information about some of his wives.  Regarding others, we just don’t know.  According to Heber C. Kimball, Joseph Smith was the kind of guy who would go to his trusted friends and say in total seriousness, “God commands you to surrender your wife to me.”  His religious followers were the kind of people who thought that’s the kind of thing God would command. Thus, they’d say “okay, here’s my wife.”  Joseph would then say, sometimes at least, “just kidding!  That was a test of your loyalty!”  It’s just creepy. We have no firsthand accounts of what Joseph Smith was doing or thinking or saying.  All we have is firsthand denials, a few scattered pieces of second-hand evidence, and a lot of speculation.

 

Actually, what you wrote is not true.. Interestingly, the story is told in the biography of Hyrum Smith, published in 2003 by Desseret Books. In that biography written by Jeffrey S. Drisscoll we can read about not only Joseph's polygamy but also about the polygamous wives of Hyrum Smith and other men in the church in the early 40's. The prinicple was actively taught and quite a few men were practicing it when Joseph was alive. And Willian Clayton also knew about it because William claimed later that "They were talking on the subject of plural marriage. Hyrum said to Joseph "If you will write the revelation on celestial marriage, I will take and read it to Emma. and I believe that I can convince her of the truth". (289) In truth, Hyrum was sealing plural wives of other members to the partners.(292) So, the secret was not so secret as critics cliam. In fact, the knowledge was so widespread that Hyrum also began to deny that it existed because there were members who were taking liberites with the principle. For example, Hyrum wrote: Whereas...some of your elders say, that a man having a certain priesthood may have as many wives as he pleases, that that  doctrine is taught here,....I say unto you that that man teaches false doctrine, for there is no such doctrine taught her, neither is there any such thing practices here. And any man that is found teaching prvately or plubically any such doctrine, is culpable, and will stand a chance to be brought before a high council, and lose his license and membership also....(page 292-293) But why did he deny it? Because of the idea that any man can begin to take plural wives.

 

However, as we can see, the principle was active among the saints, so much so, that some were taking liberties that they should not have taken. So, why did JS publically deny polgyamy? To safeguard the saints against blood thirsty mobs but within the community, there was no secret. The book opened my eyes as to whether the church hides its history. Because it is all there, warts and all for all to read, published by a church publisher. I would encourage you to read that section of the book. (pages 288-293)

 

http://deseretbook.com/Hyrum-Smith-Life-Integrity-Jeffrey-S-ODriscoll/i/5092621

 

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2061601.Hyrum_Smith

 

Read the comments from good reads.

 

The book is now on sale at Deseret Books. I have no idea how people can claim that the church hides its history when it is pretty much in the books that are published by Deseret. The members who have read this book know the history of the revelation, know the struggle of Hyrum with it, and see him talkiing to others about the principle and doing the sealings. It was not a one man joseph smith show.

Edited July 27, 2014 by why me

[Scott Lloyd]

Actually, what you wrote is not true.. Interestingly, the story is told in the biography of Hyrum Smith, published in 2003 by Desseret Books. In that biography written by Jeffrey S. Drisscoll we can read about not only Joseph's polygamy but also about the polygamous wives of Hyrum Smith and other men in the church in the early 40's. The prinicple was actively taught and quite a few men were practicing it when Joseph was alive. And Willian Clayton also knew about it because William claimed later that "They were talking on the subject of plural marriage. Hyrum said to Joseph "If you will write the revelation on celestial marriage, I will take and read it to Emma. and I believe that I can convince her of the truth". (289) In truth, Hyrum was sealing plural wives of other members to the partners.(292) So, the secret was not so secret as critics cliam. In fact, the knowledge was so widespread that Hyrum also began to deny that it existed because there were members who were taking liberites with the principle. For example, Hyrum wrote: Whereas...some of your elders say, that a man having a certain priesthood may have as many wives as he pleases, that that doctrine is taught here,....I say unto you that that man teaches false doctrine, for there is no such doctrine taught her, neither is there any such thing practices here. And any man that is found teaching prvately or plubically any such doctrine, is culpable, and will stand a chance to be brought before a high council, and lose his license and membership also....(page 292-293) But why did he deny it? Because of the idea that any man can begin to take plural wives.

However, as we can see, the principle was active among the saints, so much so, that some were taking liberties that they should not have taken. So, why did JS publically deny polgyamy? To safeguard the saints against blood thirsty mobs but within the community, there was no secret. The book opened my eyes as to whether the church hides its history. Because it is all there, warts and all for all to read, published by a church publisher. I would encourage you to read that section of the book. (pages 288-293)

http://deseretbook.com/Hyrum-Smith-Life-Integrity-Jeffrey-S-ODriscoll/i/5092621

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2061601.Hyrum_Smith

Read the comments from good reads.

The book is now on sale at Deseret Books. I have no idea how people can claim that the church hides its history when it is pretty much in the books that are published by Deseret. The members who have read this book know the history of the revelation, know the struggle of Hyrum with it, and see him talkiing to others about the principle and doing the sealings. It was not a one man joseph smith show.

Good comment.

But the correct name is Deseret Book (not Books).

It's a shortened form of Deseret Book Company.

[Analytics]

Actually, what you wrote is not true.. Interestingly, the story is told in the biography of Hyrum Smith, published in 2003 by Desseret Books. In that biography written by Jeffrey S. Drisscoll we can read about not only Joseph's polygamy but also about the polygamous wives of Hyrum Smith and other men in the church in the early 40's. The prinicple was actively taught and quite a few men were practicing it when Joseph was alive. And Willian Clayton also knew about it because William claimed later that "They were talking on the subject of plural marriage. Hyrum said to Joseph "If you will write the revelation on celestial marriage, I will take and read it to Emma. and I believe that I can convince her of the truth". (289) In truth, Hyrum was sealing plural wives of other members to the partners.(292) So, the secret was not so secret as critics cliam. In fact, the knowledge was so widespread that Hyrum also began to deny that it existed because there were members who were taking liberites with the principle. For example, Hyrum wrote: Whereas...some of your elders say, that a man having a certain priesthood may have as many wives as he pleases, that that  doctrine is taught here,....I say unto you that that man teaches false doctrine, for there is no such doctrine taught her, neither is there any such thing practices here. And any man that is found teaching prvately or plubically any such doctrine, is culpable, and will stand a chance to be brought before a high council, and lose his license and membership also....(page 292-293) But why did he deny it? Because of the idea that any man can begin to take plural wives.

 

However, as we can see, the principle was active among the saints, so much so, that some were taking liberties that they should not have taken. So, why did JS publically deny polgyamy? To safeguard the saints against blood thirsty mobs but within the community, there was no secret. The book opened my eyes as to whether the church hides its history. Because it is all there, warts and all for all to read, published by a church publisher. I would encourage you to read that section of the book. (pages 288-293)

 

http://deseretbook.com/Hyrum-Smith-Life-Integrity-Jeffrey-S-ODriscoll/i/5092621

 

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2061601.Hyrum_Smith

 

Read the comments from good reads.

 

The book is now on sale at Deseret Books. I have no idea how people can claim that the church hides its history when it is pretty much in the books that are published by Deseret. The members who have read this book know the history of the revelation, know the struggle of Hyrum with it, and see him talkiing to others about the principle and doing the sealings. It was not a one man joseph smith show.

 

Thanks for the book recomendation, I'll check it out.

 

I do have to say though, I don't think the conclusions you and the author get from this incident prove what you think it does.

 

D&C 132:61-62 teaches exactly what Hyrum Smith said is a false doctrine that isn't taught or practiced.  Apparently, somebody told the truth about what was going on, so yes, at least somebody knew.  In response, Hyrum Smith lied and said it didn't exist.  That indicates that most Saints didn't know the truth about polygamy.  If everybody knew the truth, then why lie to them?

[Pahoran]

Exactly.  I'm glad you agree with JLHPROF and me about that.

A tannerite, I see.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Analytics]

...I see.

Regards,

Pahoran

 

I'm glad you agree, too.