Do The Essays Confirm "anti-Mormon Lies"?

[HappyJackWagon]

You appear to be conflating all the stories as if Joseph told the same thing to each person every time.  There is no indication that Helen was told about the angel or Joseph being destroyed that I recall.  Nor was the eternal promise offered to Mary for her family that I recall.

 

If you have evidence otherwise, please indicate so.

Did Joseph not do each of those things? I don't recall ever saying we were talking about 1 example. I thought we were talking in more general terms. Recognizing that Joseph used multiple tactics with multiple women/girls only goes to show a pattern in his behavior.

[jkwilliams]

And it was Helen's father who initiated the proposal, not Joseph.  There is significant evidence that Heber loved Helen dearly.  It seems unlikely that Helen's father would suggest using the promise simply as a way to coerce his own daughter.

 

It's true that it was apparently Heber who suggested the sealing in the first place, but it was Joseph who made the promise. Like I said, I am not arguing about intent, as who knows what was really going on in Joseph Smith's head? I don't. But yes, that kind of promise resting on Helen's decision put a lot of pressure on her. I think most of us would agree. Maybe not.

[TheSkepticChristian]

You appear to be conflating all the stories as if Joseph told the same thing to each person every time.  There is no indication that Helen was told about the angel or Joseph being destroyed that I recall. 

 

If you have evidence otherwise, please indicate so.

 

Google told him, the Joseph Smith Truthers think Google search makes them scholars. 

He thinks "it is a nice website with a lot of references, therefore it must be true" 

 

I agree with Dan Vogel when he said, "Google is a great tool, but it makes some people lazy. Gathering the data is simple; interpreting it quite another thing"  http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/cracking-the-book-of-mormons-secret-combinations/

Edited July 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[jkwilliams]

Did Joseph not do each of those things? I don't recall ever saying we were talking about 1 example. I thought we were talking in more general terms. Recognizing that Joseph used multiple tactics with multiple women/girls only goes to show a pattern in his behavior.

 

The tipping point for me was when I asked what I would be saying if this wasn't Joseph Smith. If, say, we were talking about a pastor at a megachurch in Dallas doing these things, would I be defending him? 

[TheSkepticChristian]

It's true that it was apparently Heber who suggested the sealing in the first place, but it was Joseph who made the promise. Like I said, I am not arguing about intent, as who knows what was really going on in Joseph Smith's head? I don't.

 

Good 

Edited July 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[jkwilliams]

Google told him, the Joseph Smith Truthers think Google search makes them scholars. 

He thinks "it is a nice website with a lot of references, therefore it must be true" 

 

I agree with Dan Vogel when he said, "Google is a great tool, but it makes some people lazy. Gathering the data is simple; interpreting it quite another thing"  http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/cracking-the-book-of-mormons-secret-combinations/

 

I wrote something in response, but I've decided to stick to my practice of not engaging people who treat others with condescension and derision. So, never mind.

[Calm]

I don't know, cal, the context matters as well.  HMK was growing up in an environment where she saw the Prophet speak of both the saved and the damned with a substantial amount of regularity.  I suspect (but don't know) that she would have believed that rejecting the opportunity to ensure the salvation of her family was tantamount to rejecting that salvation for all time.  It's difficult to look at Joseph's promise to her and not feel uncomfortable with its implications.

I agree the context matters. I am uncomfortable with it for multiple reasons...it isn't quite doctrinal for one thing.

I would really like to know what Joseph said as opposed to what Helen remembered.

I don't think wishing Joseph and Heber had approached it a different way and even believing if Helen is accurate in her recall that they went about it the wrong way requires anyone to also assume coercion was involved.

[TheSkepticChristian]

I wrote something in response, but I've decided to stick to my practice of not engaging people who treat others with condescension and derision. So, never mind.

 

Dude, I just praised what you said in post 230. 

[Calm]

The tipping point for me was when I asked what I would be saying if this wasn't Joseph Smith. If, say, we were talking about a pastor at a megachurch in Dallas doing these things, would I be defending him?

Context matters as ttribe stated.

[ttribe]

I agree the context matters. I am uncomfortable with it for multiple reasons...it isn't quite doctrinal for one thing.

I would really like to know what Joseph said as opposed to what Helen remembered.

I don't think wishing Joseph and Heber had approached it a different way and even believing if Helen is accurate in her recall that they went about it the wrong way requires anyone to also assume coercion was involved.

 

You are correct that it doesn't require such an assumption, but it certainly doesn't help avoid such an assumption.  At all.

[jkwilliams]

You are correct that it doesn't require such an assumption, but it certainly doesn't help avoid such an assumption.  At all.

 

I also think that believing Joseph was a prophet doesn't require us to believe he did right in everything he did. I just don't understand why it's so important in these cases to defend his behavior. No one thinks it's right to have a sexual relationship with another woman without your wife's knowledge or consent, unless your name is Joseph Smith. Why can't we say he screwed up or, heaven forbid, did something wrong?

Edited July 23, 2015 by jkwilliams

[HappyJackWagon]

Calmoriah, how do you view Joseph's proposal to Lucy Walker?

 

http://wivesofjosephsmith.org/23-LucyWalker.htm

 

While living in the Smith home, Lucy remembers: “In the year 1842 President Joseph Smith sought an interview with me, and said, ‘I have a message for you, I have been commanded of God to take another wife, and you are the woman.’  My astonishment knew no bounds. This announcement was indeed a thunderbolt to me...He asked me if I believed him to be a Prophet of God. ‘Most assuredly I do I replied.’...He fully Explained to me the principle of plural or celestial marriage.  Said this principle was again to be restored for the benefit of the human family.  That it would prove an everlasting blessing to my father’s house.”

 

Joseph told Lucy that the marriage would have to be secret, but that he would acknowledge her as his wife, “beyond the Rocky Mountains”.  He then gave Lucy an ultimatum, “It is a command of God to you.  I will give you untill to-morrow to decide this matter. If you reject this message the gate will be closed forever against you.” 

In this example he seems to use his status as the prophet to get her to agree. He promises her everlasting blessings but also gives her an ultimatum that if she refused the gate would be closed to her forever. I would think the gate is the gate to the celestial kingdom. We have use of authority, promises and threats. Seems coersive.

[ttribe]

I also think that believing Joseph was a prophet doesn't require us to believe he did right in everything he did. I just don't understand why it's so important in these cases to defend his behavior. No one thinks it's right to have a sexual relationship with another woman without your wife's knowledge or consent, unless your name is Joseph Smith. Why can't we say he screwed up or, heaven forbid, did something wrong?

 

I have no problem with this.

[jkwilliams]

I have no problem with this.

 

Neither do I. But the second I say I think he was wrong in this case, I'm told I'm condemning, I'm not considering context, I'm finding fault. No, I'm just looking at a situation and following my conscience. I look at what I promised my wife, and I intend to keep my promises to my wife. In my view, what Joseph did was dishonest and violated his promises to Emma, and I can't defend him for something I would not do myself. 

Edited July 23, 2015 by jkwilliams

[ttribe]

Neither do I. But the second I say I think he was wrong in this case, I'm told I'm condemning, I'm not considering context, I'm finding fault.

 

Yes, well, the knee-jerk defense is quite common around here.

[Calm]

From her brother "In the spring of 1843, my father, being away on a mission, the Prophet asked my consent, for my sister Lucy in Marriage. I replied that if it was her choice: that if she entered into the Celestial order of marriage of her own free will and choice, I had no objection. This of course was in contrast with my former education and traditions. It also was altogether different from the course to[o] generally pursued by monogamists. Instead of taking a course to deceive and prostitute and bring about her ruin, he took a straight-forward, honorable, and upright course, in no way depriving her of her agency.

When father returned from his mission, the matter being fully explained in connection with the doctrine, received his endorsement and all parties concerned received his approbation."

I believe Joseph made mistakes, some big ones.

I also believe there are enough contradicting memories out there that I find myself currently unwilling to make a decision as to what I believe Joseph actually did and said and how far he went off a proper course. It is very close to the line, but could go either way imo.

Edited July 23, 2015 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Neither do I. But the second I say I think he was wrong in this case, I'm told I'm condemning, I'm not considering context, I'm finding fault. No, I'm just looking at a situation and following my conscience.

So please point out when and where I have been told I was condemning in the multiple times I've stated I think Joseph went about this the wrong way.

How you say it and what conditions you attach to his mistakes make a huge difference to how comments are perceived.

[Calm]

That was from http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history-2/plural-wives-overview/lucy-walker/

It also appears that Lucy was in the position she had received a strong testimony of the truthfulness of the principle. If so, that could be why the gate would be closed if rejected.

"In the year 1842, President Joseph Smith sought an interview with me, and said: “I have a message for you. I have been commanded of God to take another wife, and you are the woman.” My astonishment knew no bounds. This announcement was indeed a thunderbolt to me. He asked me if I believed him to be a prophet of God. “Most assuredly I do,” I replied. He fully explained to me the principle of plural or celestial marriage. He said this principle was again to be restored for the benefit of the human family, that it would prove an everlasting blessing to my father’s house, and form a chain that could never be broken, worlds without end. “What have you to say?” he asked. “Nothing.” How could I speak, or what could I say? He said, “If you will pray sincerely for light and understanding in relation thereto, you shall receive a testimony of the correctness of this principle. I thought I prayed sincerely, but was so unwilling to consider the matter favorably that I fear I did not ask in faith for light. Gross darkness instead of light took possession of my mind. I was tempted and tortured beyond endurance until life was not desirable. Oh that the grave would kindly receive me, that I might find rest on the bosom of my dear mother. Why should I be chosen from among thy daughters, Father, I am only a child in years and experience, no mother to counsel [she died in January, 1842]; no father near to tell me what to do in this trying hour [he was on a mission to a warmer climate to help his health]. Oh, let this bitter cup pass. And thus I prayed in the agony of my soul.

The Prophet discerned my sorrow. He saw how unhappy I was, and sought an opportunity of again speaking to me on this subject, and said: “Although I cannot, under existing circumstances, acknowledge you as my wife, the time is near when we will go beyond the Rocky Mountains and then you will be acknowledged and honored as my wife.”

5

He also said, “This principle will yet be believed in and practiced by the righteous. I have no flattering words to offer. It is a command of God to you. I will give you until tomorrow to decide this matter. If you reject this message the gate will be closed forever against you.”

This aroused every drop of Scotch in my veins. For a few moments I stood fearless before him, and looked him in the eye. I felt at this moment that I was called to place myself upon the altar a living sacrifice–perhaps to brook the world in disgrace and incur the displeasure and contempt of my youthful companions; all my dreams of happiness blown to the four winds. This was too much, for as yet no shadow had crossed my path, aside from the death of my dear mother. The future to me had been one bright, cloudless day. I had been speechless, but at last found utterance and said: “Although you are a prophet of God you could not induce me to take a step of so great importance, unless I knew that God approved my course. I would rather die. I have tried to pray but received no comfort, no light,” and emphatically forbid him speaking again to me on this subject. Every feeling of my soul revolted against it. Said I, “The same God who has sent this message is the Being I have worshipped from my early childhood and He must manifest His will to me.” He walked across the room, returned and stood before me with the most beautiful expression of countenance, and said: “God Almighty bless you. You shall have a manifestation of the will of God concerning you; a testimony that you can never deny. I will tell you what it shall be. It shall be that joy and peace that you never knew.”

Oh, how earnestly I prayed for these words to be fulfilled. It was near dawn after another sleepless night when my room was lighted up by a heavenly influence. To me it was, in comparison, like the brilliant sun bursting through the darkest cloud. The words of the Prophet were indeed fulfilled. My soul was filled with a calm, sweet peace that “I never knew.” Supreme happiness took possession of me, and I received a powerful and irresistible testimony of the truth of plural marriage, which has been like an anchor to the soul through all the trials of life. I felt that I must go out into the morning air and give vent to the joy and gratitude that filled my soul. As I descended the stairs, President Smith opened the door below, took me by the hand and said: “Thank God, you have the testimony. I too have prayed.” He led me to a chair, placed his hands upon my head, and blessed me with every blessing my heart could possibly desire.

The first day of May, 1843, I consented to become the Prophet’s wife, and was sealed to him for time and all eternity, at his own house by Elder William Clayton."

Lucy appears to have not felt forced into accepting or even believing him.

Edited July 23, 2015 by calmoriah

[jkwilliams]

So please point out when and where I have been told I was condemning in the multiple times I've stated I think Joseph went about this the wrong way.

How you say it and what conditions you attach to his mistakes make a huge difference to how comments are perceived.

 

I've said repeatedly I don't condemn him (though people here keep telling me I am condemning him). I have never in my life suggested he entered into polygamy for lustful reasons (though I'm told I think he was some kind of horn-dog). I've said I don't think his behavior disqualifies him as a prophet (I'm told I can't handle an imperfect prophet). But yes, I think he did wrong, and I've said so. I don't think I've said anything disrespectful or out of turn. 

[HappyJackWagon]

From her brother "In the spring of 1843, my father, being away on a mission, the Prophet asked my consent, for my sister Lucy in Marriage. I replied that if it was her choice: that if she entered into the Celestial order of marriage of her own free will and choice, I had no objection. This of course was in contrast with my former education and traditions. It also was altogether different from the course to[o] generally pursued by monogamists. Instead of taking a course to deceive and prostitute and bring about her ruin, he took a straight-forward, honorable, and upright course, in no way depriving her of her agency.

When father returned from his mission, the matter being fully explained in connection with the doctrine, received his endorsement and all parties concerned received his approbation."

I believe Joseph made mistakes, some big ones.

I also believe there are enough contradicting memories out there that I find myself currently unwilling to make a decision as to what I believe Joseph actually did and said and how far he went off a proper course. It is very close to the line, but could go either way imo.

Thanks for sharing another piece to the story. It appears that her brother behaved well. I'm not sure how that really relates to Joseph's proposal though.

 

The brother essentially gave joseph permission to propose and told him that Lucy would make her own decision. Joseph then went to Lucy and promised her eternal blessings but also warned her the gate would be shut to her if she didn't accept God's will for her as spoken by him, the prophet. These accounts fit together just fine. I don't see a contradiction.

[ttribe]

So please point out when and where I have been told I was condemning in the multiple times I've stated I think Joseph went about this the wrong way.

How you say it and what conditions you attach to his mistakes make a huge difference to how comments are perceived.

 

With respect, cal, you are treated very different by the average defender on this board than John can expect to be treated.  You and he could post the exact same words in a thread and he will be treated very differently than you.  I'd be careful not to place all the blame on the messenger.

[jkwilliams]

With respect, cal, you are treated very different by the average defender on this board than John can expect to be treated.  You and he could post the exact same words in a thread and he will be treated very differently than you.  I'd be careful not to place all the blame on the messenger.

 

That's what I was thinking, but then I didn't think cal was making a serious request. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

In this example he seems to use his status as the prophet to get her to agree. He promises her everlasting blessings but also gives her an ultimatum that if she refused the gate would be closed to her forever. I would think the gate is the gate to the celestial kingdom. We have use of authority, promises and threats. Seems coersive.

 

I don't know what he meant by "gate will be closed forever against you" but she did refuse, and Joseph told her 

 

"He walked across the room, returned, and stood before me. With the most beautiful expression of countenance, he said, "God almighty bless you. You shall have a manifestation of the will of God concerning you; a testimony that you can never deny. I will tell you what it shall be. It shall be that peace and joy that you never knew"  

 

I don't think the sounds like a threat of damnation. 

 

If you give me clear evidence of threats, I will leave the church. How about that?   

Edited July 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Nevo]

FWIW, I think Joseph did sometimes resort to strong-arm tactics to get his way. He pushed people, sometimes in ways that seems manipulative and heavy-handed, but I think he had his reasons. There was much to do and little time to do it in.

[jkwilliams]

FWIW, I think Joseph did sometimes resort to strong-arm tactics to get his way. He pushed people, sometimes in ways that seems manipulative and heavy-handed, but I think he had his reasons. There was much to do and little time to do it in.

 

So many women, so little time. *ducking*