Yesterday's Anti-Mormon Lies are Today's Church Teachings

[JulieM]

20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

We have no idea when Emma was first taught about plural marriage.  Joseph had known about it as early as 1831.  We have no idea when he first told Emma.

Then how can you conclusively state (as it it's a fact) that Emma "fought Joseph severely on plural marriage repeatedly" as a defense for him lying to her? You don't know if she had done this before he started lying to her.  "We have no idea when he first told Emma" or if she even knew about plural marriage at the time he was with Fanny Alger.

Also, was Fanny Alger sealed to Joseph again after the sealing keys were restored, do you know? (Her personally or via a proxy for her?)

Again, what type of marriage was his and Fanny's? Not legal and not a sealing....so what?

Edited February 27, 2017 by JulieM

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not according to vs 64-65

• 64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.
  65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.

Joseph had no obligation to tell Emma once she had rejected the law.

We have no idea when Emma was first taught about plural marriage.  Joseph had known about it as early as 1831.  We have no idea when he first told Emma.

So you understand the law of Sarah to be the husband's responsibility to tell his wife about additional marriages?

If we don't know when Emma was taught about plural marriage, how do we know when she rejected it thus freeing Joseph from the law of Sarah?

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

God said to practice polygamy, so its ok for Joseph to do this behind Emma's back because its God authorized.  And sometimes God commands people to do things that don't make any sense, and instead of questioning whether that person correctly interpreted this communication from God, its better for the person to just trust that their interpretation of God's wishes is correct, move forward with the problematic act, and use a Nuremberg defense if anyone questions their decision making.  

Yep... that's one way to do it.

I choose to judge polygamy by its fruits.  I have therefore concluded that it was not authorized by God.

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yep... that's one way to do it.

I choose to judge polygamy by its fruits.  I have therefore concluded that it was not authorized by God.

And if the prophet tells the Church that polygamy is not lawful and also declares that we are to obey the laws of the land, while actually practicing polygamy and saying he isn't,  the trust factor is pretty shaky, especially for those of us who are investing our whole lives in the Church established during this period of untrustworthiness, teaching our children to do the same.

This is earth-shattering. I'm just now realising how deeply conditioned I am to feel uneasy without my garments, for example. I can see why some check out mentally from church but still go through the motions. Following through on convictions can be scary.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

The fact that Smith lied did harm my faith, but didrnt destroy it. Doubt remained about what the lying meant. 

I'm not sure what you mean about forgiveness. Are you saying that if I had forgiven that ward member that my faith in Joseph Smith might not have been impacted?

There are many strong feelings tied to this troubling situation with the ward member, but the conclusion I drew was a rational conclusion, not based on feelings. I learned a cognitive lesson about personality and behaviour.  

Let me give an example: a nice person can make a mistake like hit someone with their car while using bad judgment like driving when sleepy. But a nice person (or a person with integrity) not tell deliberately threatening things to people and then lie repeatedly about those people, all because they don't get something they want.

I think that I previously allowed myself to conflate honest mistakes and minor flaws with real iniquity and bad faith.

(BTW, I was taking the effort towards forgiveness during this process. I tried to envision that man in the Celestial Kingdom, being glad he was there, him completely whole and healed from whatever it was in him that hurt us. However, even though I was working toward a better attitude about him, I still had to literally look over my shoulder all the time to ensure our safety around him. He could not be trusted.)

I don’t know the full story obviously, but clearly your change of heart about Joseph Smith occurred in connection with your bad experience with a Church member. I think forgiveness of that member would at neutralize the effects of that negative experience so as not to interfere with your assessment of the old reports (and there are many!) about Joseph Smith.

Rational and irrational conclusions (I take irrational to helpful, as in emotional or spiritual) are just as valid as the other far as I’m concerned unless someone insists they are being rational when they appear not to be, or vice-versa.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Maybe.  But would you say the same today about an active member of the church lying to his wife (and being with other women behind her back)?  Men are excommunicated today for doing this.  I'd call that negating. 

Honesty is required of church members today for attending the temple.  We are asked to be honest in ALL our dealings.  

I'd say that Joseph's lies negated trust and still affect members today (and potential members).  

We can't really compare the two since the way the church practices polygamy is different now.   I think the lying would still be a sin but polygamy is sometimes and condoned by God and sometimes condemned by Him.

And of course honesty is required, but that does not mean that if a member lies someone shows up to remove his or her temple recommend.  We hunger and thirst after righteousness but none of us actually are righteous-we all have sins.  As long as we are sincerely trying to follow God and repent of our sins when they occur they don't stop God from being able to use us.

That's true for prophets as well.

And finally, it's true that JS's lies are still issues today.  If we believe that God has told us that JS is a prophet of God, then we need to forgive him for his lies and other human weaknesses and move on.  God will not forgive us if we can't forgive others.

[JulieM]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We can't really compare the two since the way the church practices polygamy is different now.   I think the lying would still be a sin but polygamy is sometimes and condoned by God and sometimes condemned by Him.

And of course honesty is required, but that does not mean that if a member lies someone shows up to remove his or her temple recommend.  We hunger and thirst after righteousness but none of us actually are righteous-we all have sins.  As long as we are sincerely trying to follow God and repent of our sins when they occur they don't stop God from being able to use us.

That's true for prophets as well.

And finally, it's true that JS's lies are still issues today.  If we believe that God has told us that JS is a prophet of God, then we need to forgive him for his lies and other human weaknesses and move on.  God will not forgive us if we can't forgive others.

I know you are sincere, but these were not just tiny slip ups or omissions from Joseph.  He lied repeatedly to his wife and lied to the members while proclaiming to be the Prophet and teaching truths. 

That's a huge betrayal and yes, it does negate.  I don't understand how anyone can claim it didn't and that it doesn't continue to have that affect.  

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And if the prophet tells the Church that polygamy is not lawful and also declares that we are to obey the laws of the land, while actually practicing polygamy and saying he isn't,  the trust factor is pretty shaky, especially for those of us who are investing our whole lives in the Church established during this period of untrustworthiness, teaching our children to do the same.

This is earth-shattering. I'm just now realising how deeply conditioned I am to feel uneasy without my garments, for example. I can see why some check out mentally from church but still go through the motions. Following through on convictions can be scary.

Yes... there is a long list of reasons why people stay active in the church even after losing all belief in its truth claims.

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Then how can you conclusively state (as it it's a fact) that Emma "fought Joseph severely on plural marriage repeatedly" as a defense for him lying to her? You don't know if she had done this before he started lying to her (if "we have no idea when he first told Emma" or if she even knew about plural marriage at the time he was with Fanny Alger.)

Also, was Fanny Alger sealed to Joseph again after the sealing keys were restored, do you know? (Her personally or via a proxy for her?)

We know virtually nothing outside of rumor about the Fanny Alger relationship.
Almost all information on their relationship comes from apostates long after the fact (with just a couple of other references).

And I thought I read of a proxy sealing being done in the temple after her death in 1889 but I can't find that record.
 

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So you understand the law of Sarah to be the husband's responsibility to tell his wife about additional marriages?

If we don't know when Emma was taught about plural marriage, how do we know when she rejected it thus freeing Joseph from the law of Sarah?

That is a fair question.  We simply don't know.  Joseph could have first taught Emma about plural marriage in 1834, before any marriages.  Or he could have taught her in 1842, after a few marriages.
We don't know.  But people do like to assume the worst.
 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, JulieM said:

Joseph did lie (to Emma and others).  How have you been able to reconcile him lying to his wife?  Is it that you feel he was lying for the Lord, so you feel it was justified?  (These are sincere questions as I'd like to know your thought process here).

Maybe you already answered my questions previously.  I haven't read this entire thread.

My thought process is that I think the jury is still out on whether he actually lied or not. I don't think I have sufficient quality facts or context, and I don't consider myself all that demanding.  Of course I'm balancing my thought process with my spiritual experience with the Lord and the Restored Gospel and my resulting attitude about and toward other people's transgressions. But I don't believe Joseph Smith was "lying for the Lord" (a false notion on a number of fronts); I do not believe he or anyone could be justified for lying. But he could, just as anyone, be forgiven of lying with sincere repentance. I would hope that if he did lie to her, he would obtain forgiveness and Emma would be healed. I think a moral dilemma (if that is what he found himself in) by nature/definition cannot be resolved with facts alone, so we'd have to go beyond facts and look to laws and principles; in this case, the law and principle of the gospel as it applies to him and to ourselves.

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

We know virtually nothing outside of rumor about the Fanny Alger relationship.
Almost all information on their relationship comes from apostates long after the fact (with just a couple of other references).

And I thought I read of a proxy sealing being done in the temple after her death in 1889 but I can't find that record.
 

That is a fair question.  We simply don't know.  Joseph could have first taught Emma about plural marriage in 1834, before any marriages.  Or he could have taught her in 1842, after a few marriages.
We don't know.  But people do like to assume the worst.
 

I don't think I am guilty of assuming the worst but I also don't think your justifications for his lack of disclosure to Emma hold water.

Emma apparently was somewhat accepting of the practice by 1843 when she participated in the wedding of four new wives to Joseph.  But he was already 20 wives in by that point.  And evidence points to Joseph having married at least the first two women without Emma's knowledge (see Brian Hales research).

Thought not certain, I believe it's a reasonable conclusion that Joseph practiced plural marriage in secret from his wife, Emma, prior to teaching the principle of plural marriage.  And I don't think there is scriptural justification for what he did.

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I know you are sincere, but these were not just tiny slip ups or omissions from Joseph.  He lied repeatedly to his wife and lied to the members while proclaiming to be the Prophet and teaching truths. 

That's a huge betrayal and yes, it does negate.  I don't understand how anyone can claim it didn't and that it doesn't continue to have that affect.  

Emma was there, and was the one being lied to, and yet even she didn't believe those lies negated it.  Many seem to take it much harder than she did, probably because they don't know what she knew even though they are convinced that they actually know more.

I get that you don't understand my belief system, but I equally don't know how anyone can hope to decide who is a true prophet by a study of history.  I have a degree in history and it is crazy messy.  It completely changed how i look at the historical record and what i believe it can and can't be used for.   I think sometimes people forget that even with good records we know very little that is undisputed.  We start to think that we know what was going on but we hardly ever do.  

To me, that's a crazy way to decide truth.  I have studied and argued many different historical points and then have been asked to turn around and argue the exact opposite of what i was arguing and it was always possible.  Not just possible, it was usually easy.  History is awesome and i LOVE it, but it is not a reliable way to decide how you are going to live your life or what you are going to believe.  There is too much that we don't know, too much that we can't ever know and it's too easy to forget that.

If you believe in God and you don't believe that JS is a prophet and then don't believe it because God told you it's not true.  Don't base it on the historical record.

[Meadowchik]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Emma was there, and was the one being lied to, and yet even she didn't believe those lies negated it.  Many seem to take it much harder than she did, probably because they don't know what she knew even though they are convinced that they actually know more.

I get that you don't understand my belief system, but I equally don't know how anyone can hope to decide who is a true prophet by a study of history.  I have a degree in history and it is crazy messy.  It completely changed how i look at the historical record and what i believe it can and can't be used for.   I think sometimes people forget that even with good records we know very little that is undisputed.  We start to think that we know what was going on but we hardly ever do.  

To me, that's a crazy way to decide truth.  I have studied and argued many different historical points and then have been asked to turn around and argue the exact opposite of what i was arguing and it was always possible.  Not just possible, it was usually easy.  History is awesome and i LOVE it, but it is not a reliable way to decide how you are going to live your life or what you are going to believe.  There is too much that we don't know, too much that we can't ever know and it's too easy to forget that.

If you believe in God and you don't believe that JS is a prophet and then don't believe it because God told you it's not true.  Don't base it on the historical record.

Nah, I wouldn't say that the available historical evidence amounts to a wash-up, not in the case of Joseph Smith and his claims. There is a difference between possibility and probability.

[bluebell]

Just now, Meadowchik said:

Nah, I wouldn't say that the available historical evidence amounts to a wash-up, not in the case of Joseph Smith and his claims. There is a difference between possibility and probability.

What the historical record can't do is tell you whether or not JS was a prophet of God or not. Only God can do that.  If you are basing your beliefs on JS (for or against) on anything other than the witness of the Holy Ghost you are standing on ground that will give out eventually.

[JulieM]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Emma was there, and was the one being lied to, and yet even she didn't believe those lies negated it.  Many seem to take it much harder than she did, probably because they don't know what she knew even though they are convinced that they actually know more.

I get that you don't understand my belief system, but I equally don't know how anyone can hope to decide who is a true prophet by a study of history.  I have a degree in history and it is crazy messy.  It completely changed how i look at the historical record and what i believe it can and can't be used for.   I think sometimes people forget that even with good records we know very little that is undisputed.  We start to think that we know what was going on but we hardly ever do.  

To me, that's a crazy way to decide truth.  I have studied and argued many different historical points and then have been asked to turn around and argue the exact opposite of what i was arguing and it was always possible.  Not just possible, it was usually easy.  History is awesome and i LOVE it, but it is not a reliable way to decide how you are going to live your life or what you are going to believe.  There is too much that we don't know, too much that we can't ever know and it's too easy to forget that.

If you believe in God and you don't believe that JS is a prophet and then don't believe it because God told you it's not true.  Don't base it on the historical record.

We have great resources and records regarding what took place with Joseph's polygamy (even though there was much secrecy).  Do we know everything that took place behind the scenes?  Of course not. But his lies and deceit are well documented by more than one source.

And for you to state that Emma didn't feel that Joseph's lies didn't negate anything is also something you can't know.  There are records of how distraught and hurt and betrayed she felt.  According to at least one source (William Clayton, iirc) Joseph was afraid she'd leave him or divorce him.

Edited February 27, 2017 by JulieM

[bluebell]

Just now, JulieM said:

We have great resources and records regarding what took place with Joseph's polygamy.  Do we know everything that too place behind the scenes?  Of course not.  But his lies and deceit and well documented by more than one source.

And for you to state that Emma didn't feel that Joseph's lies didn't negate it also something you can't know.  There are records of how distraught and hurt and betrayed she felt.  According to at least one source (William Clayton, iirc) Joseph was afraid she'd leave him or divorce him.

But she didn't, and she continued to believe he was a prophet of God even after she knew of the lies.  That's what i was referring to.  Of course she felt hurt and betrayed.  Of course JS would be afraid of the consequences of creating such hurt and feelings of betrayal.  She forgave him though.  For her, the one who knew JS best, his lies did not negate anything.

 

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But she didn't, and she continued to believe he was a prophet of God even after she knew of the lies.  That's what i was referring to.  Of course she felt hurt and betrayed.  Of course JS would be afraid of the consequences of creating such hurt and feelings of betrayal.  She forgave him though.  For her, the one who knew JS best, his lies did not negate anything.

What are your sources for knowing this (that she continued to believe he was a Prophet of God and that she forgave him all the lies, deceit and relationships with other women)?  Do you have her writings or statements specifically regarding this (I'd really love to read them)?

And, I have to believe that it's not true his lies didn't negate ANYTHING.  They had to have negated at least some of the trust Emma had that Joseph wouldn't be with another woman or lie to her.

Edited February 27, 2017 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

58 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I choose to judge polygamy by its fruits.  I have therefore concluded that it was not authorized by God.

I think we are looking at different fruits.

Here are some of my favorite fruits of polygamy:

 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think we are looking at different fruits.

Here are some of my favorite fruits of polygamy:

 

I too am a direct descendant of a polygamist.  And I am not opposed to the practice of polygamy among consenting adults.  But I don't believe the way it was practiced by our early leaders was ordained of God or commanded by Him.

[Hamba Tuhan]

31 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I get that you don't understand my belief system, but I equally don't know how anyone can hope to decide who is a true prophet by a study of history.  I have a degree in history and it is crazy messy.  It completely changed how i look at the historical record and what i believe it can and can't be used for.   I think sometimes people forget that even with good records we know very little that is undisputed.  We start to think that we know what was going on but we hardly ever do.  

To me, that's a crazy way to decide truth.  I have studied and argued many different historical points and then have been asked to turn around and argue the exact opposite of what i was arguing and it was always possible.  Not just possible, it was usually easy.

I have a PhD in history, and I second this entirely.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

What are your sources for knowing this (that she continued to believe he was a Prophet of God and that she forgave him all the lies, deceit and relationships with other women)?  Do you have her writings or statements specifically regarding this (I'd really love to read them)?

This is what the historical record shows:

This is what she wrote about JS right after he left for Carthage (after she knew about his lies to her)-

 “I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side.”

She also said this of him, when speaking to someone else, in 1944-

“If he [Joseph Smith] was a prophet, which he is, … ,”

When Parley P. Pratt visited Emma in Nauvoo many years after the saints left, she said-

 “I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.”

This is what she told her sons before she died-

“My belief is that the Book of Mormon is of divine authenticity. I have not the slightest doubt of it. … Though I was an active participant in the scenes that transpired, and was present during the translation of the plates … and had cognizance of things as they transpired, it is marvelous to me, ‘a marvel and a wonder,’ as much as to anyone else.... The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen tablecloth which I had given him [Joseph] to fold them in. I once felt the plates as they lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape. They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metallic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book.” She also testified, “I know Mormonism to be the truth; and believe the church to have been established by divine direction.”

[Meadowchik]

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What the historical record can't do is tell you whether or not JS was a prophet of God or not. Only God can do that.  If you are basing your beliefs on JS (for or against) on anything other than the witness of the Holy Ghost you are standing on ground that will give out eventually.

Nope. The historical record cannot tell you he is a prophet, but it can negate the possibility, or at the very least, establish the probability as being very low.

And faith is about belief in things unseen which are true, it's not about believing things contrary to what we are and contrary to the truth.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Meadowchik

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This is what the historical record shows:

This is what she wrote about JS right after he left for Carthage (after she knew about his lies to her)-

 “I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side.”

She also said this of him, when speaking to someone else, in 1944-

“If he [Joseph Smith] was a prophet, which he is, … ,”

When Parley P. Pratt visited Emma in Nauvoo many years after the saints left, she said-

 “I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.”

This is what she told her sons before she died-

“My belief is that the Book of Mormon is of divine authenticity. I have not the slightest doubt of it. … Though I was an active participant in the scenes that transpired, and was present during the translation of the plates … and had cognizance of things as they transpired, it is marvelous to me, ‘a marvel and a wonder,’ as much as to anyone else.... The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen tablecloth which I had given him [Joseph] to fold them in. I once felt the plates as they lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape. They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metallic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book.” She also testified, “I know Mormonism to be the truth; and believe the church to have been established by divine direction.”

And yet she left the church which is interesting (and complicated too of course).

Thanks for the sources and quotes, bluebell.  

Emma was an amazing woman.  I hope Joseph is worthy of that kind of love and forgiveness in the eternities.  I hope he chooses to be with her too.  She truly loved him.   In return, I believe he treated her unfairly and with betrayal.  However, I believe he did love her.

Edited February 27, 2017 by JulieM

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

Nope. The historical record cannot tell you he is a prophet, but it can negate the possibility, or at the very least, the probability being very low.

 

It really can't.  

Emma's own words testify of this.  She lived the historical record him and still believed he was a prophet.  She knows more about him than you or i can even pretend to know, and she still believed it.  

That doesn't mean he was or wasn't, it just shows that trying to decide spiritual truths based on the historical record is worthless.  People that know way more than you do on what happened and what kind of person JS was believe the probability of him being a prophet is very very high.  

Does that change your opinion any?  I'm guessing not, and it shouldn't because that's not how we learn spiritual truth.  It's not even how we learn the possibility or probability of spiritual truth.  

[JulieM]

23 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I too am a direct descendant of a polygamist.  And I am not opposed to the practice of polygamy among consenting adults.  But I don't believe the way it was practiced by our early leaders was ordained of God or commanded by Him.

As am I.  But there's good fruit or people that come from all sorts of betrayal, sin (adultery or fornication) and even from evil (rape).

This is a weak argument to use as evidence that polygamy or how Joseph lived it came from God, IMO.

Edited February 27, 2017 by JulieM