Killing Joseph Smith To Save Mormonism

[Calm]

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

CFR please.

[why me]

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.

Since prophets are not perfect,  I would assume that most were of god. We just need to see prophets or church leaders differently by not giving them perfection status. I would say that if one would ask a teenager of a GA, if their dad were perfect, one would get a resounding no. And most would see them as a dad before a prophet or church leader, with all the imperfections of a dad for a teenager.

 

Show me a born again pastor that is perfect or for that matter anyone who is of god.

Edited July 30, 2014 by why me

[USU78]

Getting back to the title of the OP . . .

 

Does anybody seriously think that anyone, from Ford on down to the Carthage Greys in Amerind Drag, had even a hint of a thought about saving the Poor Mormon Church?

[USU78]

CFR please.

 

Here's a bit about Emma's feelings about polygyny:  http://pt.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Emma_Smith

 

One of the footnotes there cites this: 

See Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997), 409, 475. ( Index of claims )

for the proposition that Emma consented to at least 2 of Joseph's sealings to other women.

[thesometimesaint]

CFR please.

 

http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/viewEM.aspx?number=174

The practice had been privately disclosed as a Church principle in 1840, and Emma´s ambivalence enabled her husband to act on her brief acceptance of the doctrine long enough to take additional wives. But her rejection of the principle soon became paramount. Loyal to her husband for seventeen years through all the vicissitudes that his mission had entailed, Emma Smith was unable, at the end, to make the sacrifice that the doctrine of plural marriage required. She struggled between her faith in her husband´s prophetic role and her aversion to a principle that he, as Prophet, had been instructed to institute.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Smith

Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, in their biography, Mormon Enigma, make the claim that Emma witnessed several marriages of Joseph Smith to plural wives. However, throughout her lifetime Emma publicly denied knowledge of her husband's involvement in the practice of polygamy and denied on her deathbed that the practice had ever occurred. Emma stated,

[BookofMormonLuvr]

So we have Emma's own words vs. those said about her...

Guess we'll have to wait to find out who's lying and who's not.

[ERayR]

So what I told you was true, from a certain point of view. Obi-Wan Kenobi

[Calm]

http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/viewEM.aspx?number=174

The practice had been privately disclosed as a Church principle in 1840, and Emma´s ambivalence enabled her husband to act on her brief acceptance of the doctrine long enough to take additional wives. But her rejection of the principle soon became paramount. Loyal to her husband for seventeen years through all the vicissitudes that his mission had entailed, Emma Smith was unable, at the end, to make the sacrifice that the doctrine of plural marriage required. She struggled between her faith in her husband´s prophetic role and her aversion to a principle that he, as Prophet, had been instructed to institute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Smith

Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, in their biography, Mormon Enigma, make the claim that Emma witnessed several marriages of Joseph Smith to plural wives. However, throughout her lifetime Emma publicly denied knowledge of her husband's involvement in the practice of polygamy and denied on her deathbed that the practice had ever occurred. Emma stated,

Let us be generous and say several marriages equal six or even ten.

Given that he likely married over 20 women (I can't remember the current amounts generally agreed upon by scholars) but I know it is more than that) it hardly comes close to "most" of his marriages.

Edited July 30, 2014 by calmoriah

[USU78]

Let us be generous and say several marriages equal six or even ten.

Given that he likely married over 20 women (I can't remember the current amounts generally agreed upon by scholars) but I know it is more than that) it hardly comes close to "most" of his marriages.

 

Easy Peasy.

 

She consented, and he went forward with living the Principle.

 

She changed her mind/didn't want to hear about it.

 

And there was no way to unring the bell.

 

So . . . he kept her in the dark to spare her feelings.

 

Understandable?  Absolutely.

 

The right thing to do?  Not for me to judge.

[bcuzbcuz]

And you know this how?  Seance perhaps?

If our perspective of Joseph Smith isn't quite 20/20, it is still better than jumbled stories and fantasies. We know, for example, that Joseph Smith used his hat and his old trusted seer stone to translate the golden plates. We know that he sometimes chucked out the principles of the Words of Wisdom to sit together with chosen brethren in Nauvoo and take a drink.

We know how many women he was married to and that Emma was not at all keen on it, either denying that Joseph had other wives, or kept in ignorance to most of it..

We know Joseph lied about his multiple marriages. I prefaced my comment about him lying to save face with the two words "I think".

"Think" does not convey knowledge nor does "think" claim to mean "know". I still say, "I think he lied to save face" because I've interviewed men who were unfaithful to their wives and have heard how they sometimes try to justify their actions. It is not uncommon. They certainly engaged in their actions of being unfaithful while lying about their behaviours. Some men have falsely maintained a picture of righteousness to perform church functions while being unfaithful. They lied to conceal their true actions. I think they did it to save face. That is my opinion.

[Calm]

Easy Peasy.

 

She consented, and he went forward with living the Principle.

 

She changed her mind/didn't want to hear about it.

 

And there was no way to unring the bell.

 

So . . . he kept her in the dark to spare her feelings.

 

Understandable?  Absolutely.

 

The right thing to do?  Not for me to judge.

I am not disputing this theory. I am disputing TSS's claim she was present for most, if not all of his marriages. See post #350

[bcuzbcuz]

 

 

So . . . he kept her in the dark to spare her feelings.

 

Understandable?  Absolutely.

 

The right thing to do?  Not for me to judge.

Wow, You had me right up to the last line.

"The right thing to do?..........(OK, this far I'm still with you. You sound reasonable and understanding)

"Not for me to judge." ???????

WWhat????. You fumbled it. Right at the goal line. You dropped the ball.

I expected more of you, USU78.

[USU78]

I am not disputing this theory. I am disputing TSS's claim she was present for most, if not all of his marriages. See post #350

 

I can only find evidence of 4 . . . and that was 2 separate occasions.

[USU78]

Wow, You had me right up to the last line.

"The right thing to do?..........(OK, this far I'm still with you. You sound reasonable and understanding)

"Not for me to judge." ???????

WWhat????. You fumbled it. Right at the goal line. You dropped the ball.

I expected more of you, USU78.

 

Well . . . I wasn't the guy facing the flaming sword, was I?

 

A backsliding Emma, after giving her consent:  does she have the right to withdraw it?

[why me]

I am not disputing this theory. I am disputing TSS's claim she was present for most, if not all of his marriages. See post #350

Emma was kept in the dark in the early 40s. I believe that she was told in 43 and was present to Joseph being sealed to 4 women. And although she consented, she quickly changed her mind and then became very protective of her marriage and wanted some ensuring in case the marriage failed.

 

 

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/faq/emmas-response/

 

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Emma_Smith/What_was_her_reaction

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Hiding_the_truth/Did_Emma_know

[Analytics]

Getting back to the title of the OP . . .

 

Does anybody seriously think that anyone, from Ford on down to the Carthage Greys in Amerind Drag, had even a hint of a thought about saving the Poor Mormon Church?

 

I think Thomas Ford offered some great advice when he said,

 

But the great cause of popular fury was, that the Mormons at several preceding elections, had cast their vote as a unit thereby making the fact apparent, that no one could aspire to the honors or offices of the country within the sphere of their influence, without their approbation and votes. It appears to be one of the principles by which they insist upon being governed as a community, to act as a unit in all matters of government and religion. They express themselves to be fearful that if division should be encouraged in politics, it would soon extend to their religion, and rend their church with schism and into sects.

This seems to me to be an unfortunate view of the subject, and more unfortunate in practice, as I am well satisfied that it must be the fruitful source of excitement, violence, and mobocracy, whilst it is persisted in. It is indeed unfortunate for their peace that they do not divide in elections, according to their individual preferences or political principles, like other people.

This one principle and practice of theirs arrayed against them in deadly hostility all aspirants for office who were not sure of their support, all who have been unsuccessful in elections, and all who were too proud to court their influence, with all their friends and connections. -Ford, Tomas, A History of Illinois pages 329-330

[USU78]

I think Thomas Ford offered some great advice when he said,

 

Which describes his and some, maybe many others', motivations for assassinations, mobbings and war, but hardly addresses my comment, which you claimed to be responding to.  Unless, of course, you are obliquely making the point that it was all for the Mormons' own good.

[USU78]

I think Thomas Ford offered some great advice when he said,

 

So . . . you would disincorporate Black Churches because they vote almost exclusively Democrat?  And their pastors hardly tend to be shy about issuing voting instructions over the pulpit?

[Analytics]

So . . . you would disincorporate Black Churches because they vote almost exclusively Democrat?  And their pastors hardly tend to be shy about issuing voting instructions over the pulpit?

 

That isn't what I'm saying.  What I'm saying is that the Church's current policy of not endorsing candidates is wise. 

[Analytics]

Which describes his and some, maybe many others', motivations for assassinations, mobbings and war, but hardly addresses my comment, which you claimed to be responding to.  Unless, of course, you are obliquely making the point that it was all for the Mormons' own good.

 

Thomas Ford did in fact give Joseph Smith good advice about how he could better get along with his neighbors.  Joseph Smith chose to disregard that advice.  Of course that doesn't justify how some of Joseph Smith's enemies reacted.

 

Ford wasn't a fan of Joseph Smith, but he did genuinly want peace in Illinois.  His harshest criticisms are targeted towards the mob.  Lumping him in with them is inaccurate and unfair.

[USU78]

That isn't what I'm saying.  What I'm saying is that the Church's current policy of not endorsing candidates is wise. 

 

Well . . . you seem to be chewing that there bone a whole lot.

 

I agree this is better policy . . . but politicians have been courting definable groups of voters ever since voting was invented.

 

Me?  I smell a set up in the County Seat . . .

[USU78]

Thomas Ford did in fact give Joseph Smith good advice about how he could better get along with his neighbors.  Joseph Smith chose to disregard that advice.  Of course that doesn't justify how some of Joseph Smith's enemies reacted.

 

Ford wasn't a fan of Joseph Smith, but he did genuinly want peace in Illinois.  His harshest criticisms are targeted towards the mob.  Lumping him in with them is inaccurate and unfair.

 

Well . . . we'll just have to disagree on that last.  I see him as living in plausible deniability land and having given Joseph and Hyrum a royal and ultimate screwing, pretending to offer police protection.  Maybe you think he overestimated his ability to control events?

[Analytics]

Well . . . we'll just have to disagree on that last.  I see him as living in plausible deniability land and having given Joseph and Hyrum a royal and ultimate screwing, pretending to offer police protection.  Maybe you think he overestimated his ability to control events?

 

In his book, Thomas Ford's harshest criticisms were in fact targeted towards the mob.  That is documented fact.  According to Keith Huntress:

 

 

It seems obvious that Ford’s primary concern was not to save the Smiths but to avoid civil war….No one can tell what might have happened, but there seems every reason to believe that if Ford had stayed in Springfield and the Smiths had remained in Nauvoo, civil war would have occurred; that if Ford had arranged for the Smiths to escape Nauvoo, civil war would have occurred; that if Ford had taken the Smiths with him to Nauvoo, civil war would have occurred.  He did none of those things, and civil war occurred.  The old settlers of Hancock County did not want peace and would not have peace….

 

Those writers who have called Ford weak, and who have pointed out, quite correctly, that he changed his mind during those last days of Carthage, have never suggested just what Ford should have done to save the Smiths and prevent the war. The governor tried almost everything in his endeavor to keep the peace; it was not his fault that nothing worked. The mob wanted Joseph Smith dead and the Mormons out of Illinois. Even after the Smiths were killed and the Mormons leaderless, civil war broke out the next year and the Mormons were finally expelled. The lesson that Thomas Ford learned is given in his History:

 

“In framing our governments, it seemed to be the great object of our ancestors to secure the public liberty by depriving government of power. Attacks upon liberty were not anticipated from any considerable portion of the people themselves. It was not expected that one portion of the people would attempt to play the tyrant over another. And if such a thing had been thought of, the only mode of putting it down was to call out the militia, who are, nine times out of ten, partisans on one side or the other in the contest. The militia may be relied upon to do battle in a popular service, but if mobs are raised to drive out horse thieves, to put down claim-jumpers, to destroy an abolition press, or to expel an odious sect, the militia cannot be brought to act against them efficiently. The people cannot be used to put down the people.”

 

Ford failed to save the lives of the Smiths, and he failed to prevent civil war. It is doubtful whether anyone, given that time, that place, those people, could have succeeded.

 

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V04N02_43.pdf

 

Edited July 30, 2014 by Analytics

[Analytics]

Well . . . you seem to be chewing that there bone a whole lot.

 

I agree this is better policy . . . but politicians have been courting definable groups of voters ever since voting was invented.

 

Me?  I smell a set up in the County Seat . . .

 

"Politicans courting definable groups of voters" isn't what caused the problems.  What caused the problems were the Saints deciding that they would vote as a block rather than vote as individuals.

[Stargazer]

I've never had any Gestapo at my door. Have you?

 

No, I haven't, but just about 70 years ago there was Gestapo at people's doors asking questions just like that.  Just because it is comfortably in the past (for you), doesn't mean it is comfortably never going to happen again to anyone at all, ever.  I am so glad for you that you feel so divorced from modern reality that you cannot conceive that history is notorious for repeating itself.  In fact, the repetition is as near as Gaza.  I'm sure you've heard that up until the latest Israeli intervention Gaza was Judenrein, i.e. Jews were not allowed.  What if Hamas came to your door and asked if you were hiding any Jews in your house, and unfortunately your Jewish brother-in-law was visiting.  Would you say, "Yes, he's sitting right at the dinner table with his Muslim sister, my wife."  Or would you lie to possibly save his life?

 

When I mentioned that such things were comfortably in the past, I qualified it by using the words "to you".  I had a reason.  My wife is from East Prussia, and she was a little girl when the Red Army invaded that part of Germany on the way to Berlin.  To avoid the oncoming shelling and air attacks her family sheltered in an abandoned house, and as the Soviet troops streamed past, many stopped to loot.  Quite a number of times these barely controlled armed men entered that house looking for loot, and upon seeing these German civilians many of them pointed submachineguns at them and asked if they were Capitalists (the house was obviously owned by an upper class family).  My father-in-law could speak passable Russian, and he responded to these questions forthrightly and falsely.  He first made sure that they understood his family were refugees and the house didn't belong to them (true), and that they were fellow Bolsheviks (false)!  Whereupon the Russians would lower their weapons and merely steal as many of their valuables they could find -- and coincidentally they merely raped the pretty young woman who was sheltering with them.  This being a better outcome than being shot out of hand, as many others in that town experienced, would you consider that that lie to be a sin?  That my father-in-law should have freely admitted that he was a loyal German (if not a Nazi Party member), and until very recently had been helping manufacture ammunition to kill Reds?  He was a machinist in an ammunition factory.

 

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.

 

Why isn't it valid?  A lie is a lie, isn't it?  Big lie, little lie, medium lie -- it's all lies.  You're right they are not in the same category.  That's why I would tell my wife that it doesn't make her look fat (even if it did), but I wouldn't deny being a Christian.

 

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

 

If you are going to be specific, you should quote the entire commandment.  It is "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."  Bearing false witness is what Richard Rich did to Sir Thomas More, when More himself was silent about Henry VIII's takeover of the Church and his marriage to Anne Boleyn, thus causing More's being found guilty of treason and causing More's execution.  Bearing false witness is when I accuse another of a crime that he or she has not committed.  It is not false witness to say "No, that dress doesn't make you fat."  If a mere lie were false witness, then Abraham was guilty of a very serious offense when he told Pharoah that Sarah was his sister.  But he wasn't, because that is not bearing false witness against thy neighbor, is it?  

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.

 

You are so enamored of what you see as invalid comparisons, and yet you are quite happy to use them yourself.  Failing to admit to your wife under questioning that you're having an affair with another woman would seem to be such small potatoes in comparison with the affair itself that it seems an invalid comparison to me, even if it doesn't to you.  Perhaps you're comfortable with that particular dichotomy.  

 

More to the point I am trying to make is this: as you may remember, the Israelite midwives told the Egyptians that the Hebrew women were so strong that their babies had already been born by the time they got there, and that was why they did not kill the boy babies.  They were LYING.  It was their clear duty to lie, for to obey the command of the Pharaoh was to disobey the law of God.  But to lie about my faith in Christ, even in the face of death, would be the thing contrary to the law of God, and so I would keep that law and suffer the consequences.

 

I do not believe that there is anything inherently wrong in uttering counter-factual statements.  It is not the lie, per se, which is immoral.  It is the intent of the lie which governs.  All things being equal, I prefer to tell the truth, even when it directly inconveniences me.  But in certain circumstances the truth is not an absolute good.   And since we're on about Joseph Smith, let's just say that God commanded him in strenuous terms to enter into plural marriages (for sake of argument, let's allow that He did, OK?).  His failure to admit the situation to Emma is perhaps a lie, and unfortunate, but if God commanded Abraham to lie to Pharaoh about his marital status vis-a-vis Sarah, then it seems that under the circumstances it might have been acceptable, or even desirable, for Joseph to lie about his situation.

 

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

 

You HAVE misunderstood, because you apply an absolute when the matter is not of absolutes.  I don't think ANY lie is beneficial, but in some rare cases a lie may be more beneficial than the truth. If you don't agree, then fine.  Agreement isn't required -- but please don't interpret my words contrary to how I mean them.  That, ironically enough, would be a lie.

Edited July 30, 2014 by Stargazer