Killing Joseph Smith To Save Mormonism

[why me]

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?

I think that the saints did know the truth about polygamy because hyrum was also doing the sealings. For example, it was Hyrum who sealed Elizabeth Brotherton to her husband as a plural wife and eratus snow was also given a second wife by Joseph but his wife was sealed by hyrum. But in the beginning Hyrum was appalled by polygamy. It was his faith in his brother as a prophet that gave him the power to believe in it and eventually through his own spiritual experiences convince him that it was a true principle. And so, for hyrum it would depend on when he said something about it  and not that he lied. Joseph did have to convince hyrum of accepting the principle in hope that he would get a witness of it. Which he did. (see page 291) He also told joseph when joseph told him about the revelation about polygamy that it would cost joseph his life or the church would break up and so, it was known just how dangerous this was to the church. But the prophet listened to the revelation and proceeded anyway in calling people to practice the doctrine.

 

But my point was rather simple: many saints in nauvoo knew about polygamy and they were called to practice it by joseph. It was no secret inside nauvoo. Word would get around. But for the general public outside nauvoo, they were kept in the dark. It was common knowledge that if word got out about what the saints were doing, there would be bloodshed from the mobs.

 

My other point was that the story is in a church sponsored book published in 2003.. It is not hidden as some claim. We need to be careful just what the critics say. And members can read these books and find the information for themselves. Most catholics who know their history did not get it from catechism but from reading books about its history written by historians.

Edited July 29, 2014 by why me

[bcuzbcuz]

I think that the saints did know the truth about polygamy because hyrum was also doing the sealings. For example, it was Hyrum who sealed Elizabeth Brotherton to her husband as a plural wife and eratus snow was also given a second wife by Joseph but his wife was sealed by hyrum. But in the beginning Hyrum was appalled by polygamy. It was his faith in his brother as a prophet that gave him the power to believe in it and eventually through his own spiritual experiences convince him that it was a true principle. And so, for hyrum it would depend on when he said something about it and not that he lied. Joseph did have to convince hyrum of accepting the principle in hope that he would get a witness of it. Which he did. (see page 291) He also told joseph when joseph told him about the revelation about polygamy that it would cost joseph his life or the church would break up and so, it was known just how dangerous this was to the church. But the prophet listened to the revelation and proceeded anyway in calling people to practice the doctrine.

But my point was rather simple: many saints in nauvoo knew about polygamy and they were called to practice it by joseph. It was no secret inside nauvoo. Word would get around. But for the general public outside nauvoo, they were kept in the dark. It was common knowledge that if word got out about what the saints were doing, there would be bloodshed from the mobs.

My other point was that the story is in a church sponsored book published in 2003.. It is not hidden as some claim. We need to be careful just what the critics say. And members can read these books and find the information for themselves. Most catholics who know their history did not get it from catechism but from reading books about its history written by historians.

It would seem the subject of polygamy and who knew what, and when they knew it, can go on endlessly. Those who buy the current line of reasoning about the church being "open" and that what is known now has always been known, choose to give Joseph more than a fair share of reasonable doubt.

I was baptized 1953, I first went through the temple in 1964, back when the temple ceremony took many hours, was performed by actors and all the old signs, tokens and death promises were still included.

Back then Joseph Smith's and Hyrum's polygamy was not common knowledge. Brigham Young's polygamy and the polygamy that existed until the 1890's was common knowledge, but rarely mentioned. Joseph had one wife, named Emma, that was the doctrine which was taught in Sunday School and from the Sacrament meeting pulpit. Joseph's love for Emma and Emma's steadfastness to Joseph, though all the trials and tribulations, was held up as the example for all to follow.

I remember speeches, from the pulpit, about how the example of monogamy was confirmed, even in the animal world. Swans and gibbons were given as primary examples.

Nowadays, DNA testing for parenthood shows that monogamy is the exception in the animal world. And here, on Mormon Dialogue and Discussion, we hear the the idea posited that current members best prepare for polygamy in the future...because that's what Joseph wanted....and practised..

Sorry, I just don't buy it. I only want one wife at a time. I can't imagine the Hell of living with three or four wives, ganging up on me to take out the garbage, clean up my junk in the garage or that all three fully agree that, yes, I had promised to take them out for dinner and my one vote didn't count against their three (or four, or five, or 33) votes.

Joseph tried to sell the idea of polygamy to Emma. She didn't buy it. She wanted Joseph for herself. He should have listened to her.

Edited July 29, 2014 by bcuzbcuz

[Storm Rider]

The subtleties of context seem easily lost on those with an agenda.  I read the opening text and it rings crystal clear what was being denied and what was not being denied. Yet, those with agenda strip sentences from context and run pell-mell shouting to the roof tops that Joseph and Hyrum lied.  It is worse than herding cats because they refuse to see what is in front of their nose.

[bcuzbcuz]

The subtleties of context seem easily lost on those with an agenda.  I read the opening text and it rings crystal clear what was being denied and what was not being denied. Yet, those with agenda strip sentences from context and run pell-mell shouting to the roof tops that Joseph and Hyrum lied.  It is worse than herding cats because they refuse to see what is in front of their nose.

Hyrum and Joseph DID LIE. They told intentionally false statements. That is the definition of a lie. The only question is to whom and when. That is my agenda.

So if you'll excuse me, I've got some cats to herd.

[thesometimesaint]

It would seem the subject of polygamy and who knew what, and when they knew it, can go on endlessly. Those who buy the current line of reasoning about the church being "open" and that what is known now has always been known, choose to give Joseph more than a fair share of reasonable doubt.

I was baptized 1953, I first went through the temple in 1964, back when the temple ceremony took many hours, was performed by actors and all the old signs, tokens and death promises were still included.

Back then Joseph Smith's and Hyrum's polygamy was not common knowledge. Brigham Young's polygamy and the polygamy that existed until the 1890's was common knowledge, but rarely mentioned. Joseph had one wife, named Emma, that was the doctrine which was taught in Sunday School and from the Sacrament meeting pulpit. Joseph's love for Emma and Emma's steadfastness to Joseph, though all the trials and tribulations, was held up as the example for all to follow.

I remember speeches, from the pulpit, about how the example of monogamy was confirmed, even in the animal world. Swans and gibbons were given as primary examples.

Nowadays, DNA testing for parenthood shows that monogamy is the exception in the animal world. And here, on Mormon Dialogue and Discussion, we hear the the idea posited that current members best prepare for polygamy in the future...because that's what Joseph wanted....and practised..

Sorry, I just don't buy it. I only want one wife at a time. I can't imagine the Hell of living with three or four wives, ganging up on me to take out the garbage, clean up my junk in the garage or that all three fully agree that, yes, I had promised to take them out for dinner and my one vote didn't count against their three (or four, or five, or 33) votes.

Joseph tried to sell the idea of polygamy to Emma. She didn't buy it. She wanted Joseph for herself. He should have listened to her.

 

Section 132 has been in our Doctrine and Covenants for a long time now. I have no desire for more than the one wife I have now. When and if God were to ask me to have more. I'll cross that bridge when I get there.

[why me]

Hyrum and Joseph DID LIE. They told intentionally false statements. That is the definition of a lie. The only question is to whom and when. That is my agenda.

So if you'll excuse me, I've got some cats to herd.

I  would have lied too. Why tell the truth to the outside world if this world were out to destroy me? I would have to be crazy. Hyrum was not on board with polygamy in the beginning. But he obtained a testimony of the principle. The problem was basically simple. For many polygamy was a free for all. But for the saints it was not this way. Hyrum said that the saints are not practicing spiritual wifery where men could take as many wives as they wanted. This was never part of the saints agenda. People were called to take plural wives and it must be done with authorization. So,did hyrum lie? My point was simple: this was not a hidden principle. More than joseph were practicing polygamy in the early 40s among the saints. And men and women called to practice it. If you were a saint back then, would you want the mobs to discover what was going on in Nauvoo? I think not. Would you want joseph to lie or mislead? I think so.

[Stargazer]

Hyrum and Joseph DID LIE. They told intentionally false statements. That is the definition of a lie. The only question is to whom and when. That is my agenda.

So if you'll excuse me, I've got some cats to herd.

 

Lying isn't necessarily the good/bad, right/wrong, desirable/undesirable thing that many people make it out to be.  If the Gestapo comes to your door and asks if you have hidden any Jews in your house, and the correct answer is "Yes", do you answer honestly, or not?  If you live in a country where converting to Christianity is a legal offense punishable by death, and you have done so, how do you answer when you are asked?  I would say that for the first case, answering "No, of course not" would be a perfectly moral thing to do.  But in the second, would you want to go on record as denying the Savior in order to save your mortal life?  Don't think I would, but YMMV.

 

I will admit to having told lies when the truth would get me nothing but grief.  But telling my wife that the dress doesn't make her look fat is just not on a par with acknowledging my Lord and Savior when the chips are down.

[bcuzbcuz]

Lying isn't necessarily the good/bad, right/wrong, desirable/undesirable thing that many people make it out to be.  If the Gestapo comes to your door and asks if you have hidden any Jews in your house, and the correct answer is "Yes", do you answer honestly, or not?  If you live in a country where converting to Christianity is a legal offense punishable by death, and you have done so, how do you answer when you are asked?  I would say that for the first case, answering "No, of course not" would be a perfectly moral thing to do.  But in the second, would you want to go on record as denying the Savior in order to save your mortal life?  Don't think I would, but YMMV.

 

I will admit to having told lies when the truth would get me nothing but grief.  But telling my wife that the dress doesn't make her look fat is just not on a par with acknowledging my Lord and Savior when the chips are down.

I've never had any Gestapo at my door. Have you? I don't think such a comparison is valid. Secondly, I don't think telling my wife she's gone up in weight is in the same category as denying my religion.

The ten commandments are quite specific. Don't bear false witness.

You,, and others here, seem comfortable about deciding when and if you'll tell the truth. I imagine if I was having an affair with some other woman my inner self would be telling me to lie to my wife and deny everything. But the gospels seem rather specific on this issue. I can also suppose that the early Christians would have benefitted from telling convenient lies to escape from being fed to the lions.

It seems you're saying denying a truthful answer, is beneficial. Tell me I've mis-understood..

[Calm]

Actually it says:

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" Exodus 20:16

[why me]

It seems you're saying denying a truthful answer, is beneficial. Tell me I've mis-understood..

I am saying that. I lie to protect others. I would not want the bloodshed of others on my hands. Lets say that joseph was so egocentric that he shouted polygamy from the rootops and because of it, saw the deaths of houndreds of people. What would you now be saying about him? But no one is perfert. We all make mistakes too. So he lied. He was human.

 

But to hear critics about his issue is to believe that it was only joseph who practiced polygamy and he kept it from the saints. And because he wanted to keep it  a secret he destroyed the nauvoo expositor. All this is false. The city council voted to shut down the newspaper to preserve the public peace. And quite a few people were called to practice polygamy in early nauvoo.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Lying isn't necessarily the good/bad, right/wrong, desirable/undesirable thing that many people make it out to be.  If the Gestapo comes to your door and asks if you have hidden any Jews in your house, and the correct answer is "Yes", do you answer honestly, or not?  If you live in a country where converting to Christianity is a legal offense punishable by death, and you have done so, how do you answer when you are asked?  I would say that for the first case, answering "No, of course not" would be a perfectly moral thing to do.  But in the second, would you want to go on record as denying the Savior in order to save your mortal life?  Don't think I would, but YMMV.

 

I will admit to having told lies when the truth would get me nothing but grief.  But telling my wife that the dress doesn't make her look fat is just not on a par with acknowledging my Lord and Savior when the chips are down.

 

I'm on the same page as you, but I'm not sure the church is. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, the Gospel Principles manual makes this clear:

 

Lying is intentionally deceiving others.... When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

 

The Lord is not pleased with such dishonesty, and we will have to account for our lies. Satan would have us believe it is all right to lie. He says, “Yea, lie a little; … there is no harm in this” (2 Nephi 28:8). Satan encourages us to justify our lies to ourselves. Honest people will recognize Satan’s temptations and will speak the whole truth, even if it seems to be to their disadvantage.

 

People use many excuses for being dishonest. People lie to protect themselves and to have others think well of them....

 

These excuses and many more are given as reasons for dishonesty. To the Lord, there are no acceptable reasons. When we excuse ourselves, we cheat ourselves and the Spirit of God ceases to be with us. We become more and more unrighteous.

We can hardly complain when people use the church's own standard of lying to judge Joseph. I think the ideal would be to change how we teach these things (honesty/lying) to allow for more nuance.

Edited July 29, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[BookofMormonLuvr]

All this justification for Joseph supposedly lying (I believe he told the truth about not teaching/practicing polygamy) seems to fly in the face of this quote that people like to throw around...
 

I will always maintain a true principle, even if I stand alone in it. (Teachings of the 

Prophet Joseph Smith, p.332) 

 

 

Which is it? Boldly standing alone or sheepishly covering up?

[bcuzbcuz]

Actually it says:

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" Exodus 20:16

And who is thy neighbour?

All I need to do is decide who and which are my neighbours and then I can lie all I want? Amazing.

[Calm]

Please don't put words in my mouth.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

And who is thy neighbour?

All I need to do is decide who and which are my neighbours and then I can lie all I want? Amazing.

It would seem to me that the commandment forbids us from "bearing false witness against our neighbor." Christ has defined who our neighbor is. Bearing false witness against something is far more serious than the white lies we may tell our spouse or lies to protect ourselves or those around us. Bearing false witness against our neighbor would be lying to make them look bad or get them into trouble I would think.

Edited July 29, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[bcuzbcuz]

Please don't put words in my mouth.

Point taken. I take responsibility for my words.

Although deciding who my neighbours are seems to be the whole issue.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Point taken. I take responsibility for my words.

Although deciding who my neighbours are seems to be the whole issue.

 

I think this is pretty settled:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+10%3A25-37

 

The Parable of the Good Samaritan

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]”

28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

[JLHPROF]

And who is thy neighbour?

All I need to do is decide who and which are my neighbours and then I can lie all I want? Amazing.

 

Actually, the "bear false witness" prohibition is AGAINST your neighbor, not TO your neighbor...

 

As long as you aren't lying about your neighbor you aren't breaking that commandment by lying to them.

 

Of course, there are dozens of other scriptures condemning telling lies.  But that being said I don't believe Joseph committed any more than the most trivial of "sins" or transgressions when he told people who were unprepared for the doctrine that he wasn't living polygamy.  I think he made the only choice possible, just as Nephi did when he killed Laban in cold blood or Eve did when she took the fruit.

There are times that lesser laws HAVE to be broken to live higher laws.  That's all this is.

Edited July 30, 2014 by JLHPROF

[bcuzbcuz]

Actually, the "bear false witness" prohibition is AGAINST your neighbor, not TO your neighbor...

 

As long as you are lying about your neighbor you aren't breaking that commandment to lie to them.

 

Of course, there are dozens of other scriptures condemning telling lies.  But that being said I don't believe Joseph committed any more than the most trivial of "sins" or transgressions when he told people who were unprepared for the doctrine that he wasn't living polygamy.  I think he made the only choice possible, just as Nephi did when he killed Laban in cold blood or Eve did when she took the fruit.

There are times that lesser laws HAVE to be broken to live higher laws.  That's all this is.

I'm glad you clarified that. In other words, polygamy is above the ten commandments, but not above the laws of the 1890's United States. You think he lied because it was the only choice possible. That doesn't explain why he lied to Emma. I think he lied to save face, another matter entirely.

As I stated previously, if I was sleeping with another woman than my wife, I'd find many reasons why my lying about the situation, "wasn't all that bad".

As far as your statement, "As long as you are lying about your neighbor you aren't breaking that commandment to lie to them", that's a parsing of the commandment that defies logic. You might want to think about that statement one more time.

[Storm Rider]

Bcuz, let's assume that Joseph lied utterly and completely for a wide range of reasons.  Then what?  What does that mean?  We have had prophets that were incestuous, murderers, polygamists, worshiped false gods.  I think if you find the sin we can find the prophets that will have committed them.  So what else is new?  How does that impact what Joseph, or any other prophet for that matter, did right and at the direction of God?  

[Tacenda]

Bcuz, let's assume that Joseph lied utterly and completely for a wide range of reasons. Then what? What does that mean? We have had prophets that were incestuous, murderers, polygamists, worshiped false gods. I think if you find the sin we can find the prophets that will have committed them. So what else is new? How does that impact what Joseph, or any other prophet for that matter, did right and at the direction of God?

How many of the prophets you mention that did bad things were really of God, maybe we or the writers of history just believed it like we do now with our prophets.

[JLHPROF]

I'm glad you clarified that. In other words, polygamy is above the ten commandments, but not above the laws of the 1890's United States. You think he lied because it was the only choice possible. That doesn't explain why he lied to Emma. I think he lied to save face, another matter entirely.

As I stated previously, if I was sleeping with another woman than my wife, I'd find many reasons why my lying about the situation, "wasn't all that bad".

 

For the same reason he had to lie publicly.  Because he was commanded to live the law and she wasn't prepared to accept it.  Living the higher law of marriage was a requirement.  If that meant transgressing a lower law (like honesty) to allow the higher law to be lived then as I've shown scripturally, it's acceptable before God.

As for the laws of 1890's United States, well, the manifesto stopped virtually nothing.  People winked and nodded at the laws and then moved to Mexico, Canada, or underground for over a decade.

 

 

As far as your statement, "As long as you are lying about your neighbor you aren't breaking that commandment to lie to them", that's a parsing of the commandment that defies logic. You might want to think about that statement one more time.

 

I mistyped.  Fixed it.  But the commandment is clear - thou shalt not bear false witness AGAINST thy neighbor (not to they neighbor).

[bcuzbcuz]

Bcuz, let's assume that Joseph lied utterly and completely for a wide range of reasons.  Then what?  What does that mean?  We have had prophets that were incestuous, murderers, polygamists, worshiped false gods.  I think if you find the sin we can find the prophets that will have committed them.  So what else is new?  How does that impact what Joseph, or any other prophet for that matter, did right and at the direction of God?

Good points. This seems to deal with expectations. I would expect a man of God to live to a higher standard than others. Your response demonstrates that those expectations may not match up to reality.

I can remember laughing with glee at the tribulations of Jimmy Swaggart, and Billy Hargis. Why? Because for myself and many, many others, a self declared man of God shouldn't be caught with his pants down. Their professed "religiousness" didn't match up to how they really lived.

The further back in time one goes, the less I am engaged in whether my expectations match up to godly living. I don't get very upset about whether Jonah actually spent some time in the mouth of a whale, or not. However, if the current president of the church was involved in a sex scandal, or caught cheating on his taxes, I would be shocked, upset and outraged. It would effect my view of the church. I expect him and other leaders of the church to live to a higher standard.

I can understand why some have a perspective of Joseph Smith's life that allows them to be less harsh in their judgements. "It was a long time ago, so I can forgive Joseph." Me? I'm equally outraged today as if he was living today. Why? It comes back to expectations.

I was raised on hearing the stories of Joseph's first vision, of his translation of the Book of Mormon, of how he lived and died. He was the focal point of God's plan. I still have a high standard of expectations for someone given such responsibility. Small lies seem forgivable. Lying to his wife about marrying other women....not so much.

[ERayR]

 I think he lied to save face,

 

 

And you know this how?  Seance perhaps?

[thesometimesaint]

There is no doubt Emma didn't like it, but she was present when most, if not all, of those marriages were performed.