New First Vision Video

[carbon dioxide]

41 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Yes we can.  Lying by omission is still lying.  You don't believe he lied by omission when he went through the mock marriages with the Partridge sisters rather than tell Enma the truth that they were already married without her knowledge?  He deceived her.

 

Do you really think Joseph wanted to do anything that Emma did not know about.  Is it possible that Emma put Joseph in a very difficult position?  She would not go along with some things while Joseph knew he had to because he was commanded by God to do so.  I think the easiest decision would have been for Joseph to divorce Emma and find someone else who was more able to help Joseph keep the commandments he was given but perhaps Joseph did not see that as an option.

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Do you really think Joseph wanted to do anything that Emma did not know about. Is it possible that Emma put Joseph in a very difficult position?

He still lied to her.  You can say he didn't want to deceive her or that it was Emma's fault, but he still lied.  

Edited March 9, 2017 by JulieM

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Yes we can.  Lying by omission is still lying.  You don't believe he lied by omission when he went through the mock marriages with the Partridge sisters rather than tell Enma the truth that they were already married without her knowledge?  He deceived her.

 

I got to agree with this one.  It may have been the only time, I don't make assumptions he made a habit of it, but he had no reason to go through two marriages with the same sisters save to deceive Emma.  He knew she would believe it was her idea and not his, that he hadn't already married them without telling her.  In my book that is lying.  I don't make any assumptions why he did it.

Doesn't make him not a prophet for me, just makes him very human.  I believe given Emma's last words she forgave him.  He loved her, came back from freedom to see her and his family in my understanding.  I want a happy ending for them.  

Edited March 9, 2017 by Calm

[JulieM]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

I got to agree with this one.  It may have been the only time, I don't make assumptions he made a habit of it, but he had no reason to go through two marriages with the same sisters save to deceive Emma.  He knew she would believe it was her idea and not his, that he hadn't already married them without telling her.  In my book that is lying.  I don't make any assumptions why he did it.

Doesn't make him not a prophet for me, just makes him very human.  I believe given Emma's last words she forgave him.  He loved her, came back from freedom to see her and his family in my understanding.  I want a happy ending for them.  

I do too.  I think they loved each other deeply and I honestly believe he never meant to hurt her.  I believe if they're not together now, they will be.  

[CV75]

12 hours ago, JulieM said:

You don't believe that there were lies told by Joseph to Emma?  I'm sincerely interested in your answer.

Your question is of such a broad scope that I’m not sure a simple yes/no response applies to the specifics you might have in mind. I can see from your posts that follow you are looking at this very narrowly, with a good deal of bias and with little consideration for the moral and ethical contexts and implications of both lying and truth-telling (both in general and specific to what you might have in mind), and with an insistence to defend your view. For that reason, I’m not sure you are interested in my answer, or even that you would understand it.

How do you think I would answer? I think I could comment on that.

[JulieM]

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Your question is of such a broad scope that I’m not sure a simple yes/no response applies to the specifics you might have in mind.

Actually the question is simple and straight forward (and you should be able to give a yes/no response).  But I'll be more specific if it will help you answer:

Do you believe Joseph lied to Emma in order for him to be able to live polygamy?

 

Edited March 9, 2017 by JulieM

[Gray]

17 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

By not agreeing to solemnize it (civil wedding by Bishop etc) or not allowing the sealing in the temple (eternal wedding).

And simply by taking the stance that such unions are sinful. 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, JulieM said:

Actually the question is simple and straight forward (and you should be able to give a yes/no response).  But I'll be more specific if it will help you answer:

Do you believe Joseph lied to Emma in order for him to be able to live polygamy?

Posted 3 hours ago

[T-Shirt]

14 hours ago, JulieM said:

Yes we can.

As far as providing any evidence of Joseph speaking or writing anything to Emma that was untrue, no we can't.  If you believe we can, please provide such evidence.

Quote

 Lying by omission is still lying.

I understand that, and I addressed that point, which you seemed to have passed over.  

Quote

You don't believe he lied by omission when he went through the mock marriages with the Partridge sisters rather than tell Enma the truth that they were already married without her knowledge?  He deceived her.

Yes he deceived her.  But there was no intent on his part to defraud, injure or in any way cause harm to her.  Frankly, I believe he was trying to protect her.  He probably didn't want to sleep on the couch or have things thrown at him either

The whole point I am trying to make is that I believe it is very unfair of you , or anyone, to label Joseph Smith a liar without any context.  Frankly, insisting that your label of him, as a liar, be a simple "Yes, he was" or "No, he wasn't", without context , is a lie of omission.  

A liar is defined as, "a person who tell lies".  By that definition, every person on earth is a liar.  However, in actual practice, there are only two reasons people are labeled liars, first is if the person has a known habit or compulsion to regularly tell lies with the intent to deceive or do harm.  The second is for purely polemical reasons.

By your narrow view, every person on earth is a liar.  No one can get over the bar you have set.  By your reasoning, if you have ever told a lie, either by commission or omission, then it would be right to place on your gravestone, "Here lies JulieM, a LIAR"  I think that would be totally unfair.  Did Joseph Smith ever say something untruthful or attempt to hide or deceive?  Yes, he did, but I would never label him a liar, and I believe it to be very unfair of anyone who does.  The label is purely polemical.

Edited March 9, 2017 by T-Shirt

[JulieM]

33 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

As far as providing any evidence of Joseph speaking or writing anything to Emma that was untrue, no we can't.  If you believe we can, please provide such evidence.

I understand that, and I addressed that point, which you seemed to have passed over.  

Yes he deceived her.  But there was no intent on his part to defraud, injure or in any way cause harm to her.  Frankly, I believe he was trying to protect her.  He probably didn't want to sleep on the couch or have things thrown at him either

The whole point I am trying to make is that I believe it is very unfair of you , or anyone, to label Joseph Smith a liar without any context.  Frankly, insisting that your label of him, as a liar, be a simple "Yes, he was" or "No, he wasn't", without context , is a lie of omission.  

A liar is defined as, "a person who tell lies".  By that definition, every person on earth is a liar.  However, in actual practice, there are only two reasons people are labeled liars, first is if the person has a known habit or compulsion to regularly tell lies with the intent to deceive or do harm.  The second is for purely polemical reasons.

By your narrow view, every person on earth is a liar.  No one can get over the bar you have set.  By your reasoning, if you have ever told a lie, either by commission or omission, then it would be right to place on your gravestone, "Here lies JulieM, a LIAR"  I think that would be totally unfair.  Did Joseph Smith ever say something untruthful or attempt to hide or deceive?  Yes, he did, but I would never label him a liar, and I believe it to be very unfair of anyone who does.  The label is purely polemical.

 

I haven't painted him with such a broad brush as you portray above.  Of course, we've all told lies.  This discussion has specifically been about Joseph's polygamy.  He was overall an honest man, IMO, but it's disturbing to many to discover how he deceived Emma and did married other women behind her back.  That's what is being discussed here.

I have repeated statedly that there was deception and lies (giving the example of the Partrudge sister's mock wedding as an example of lying by omission) involved with Joseph living polygamy.  He deceived Emma. 

We can discuss why he deceived, and if we believe it was necessary, or what his motives were.  But the evidence shows there was deceit involved.

Others who are honest here have admitted and agreed with this.  We may disagree on motives and conclusions, but I'm surprised anyone serious about this topic denies what was involved in order for Joseph to practice polygamy.

Edited March 9, 2017 by JulieM

[T-Shirt]

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

CFR that I have labeled Joseph a liar

Right here:

14 hours ago, JulieM said:

But that does make him a liar.  

 

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

Right here:

 

Wow.
Such semantic quibbling over whether or not Joseph lied.

Did Joseph marry women and not tell Emma about it?  Yes.
Does that make him a liar?  Dishonest?  Lies of omission/commission?
Probably, but does the label really matter?

If you married a second spouse without telling your first spouse I don't think you could claim to be honest.
So the better question is did Joseph do anything wrong?  I would argue he didn't.

[JulieM]

28 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

Right here:

 

Yup.  Just saw that and removed the CFR (before I saw your post) 

But read the rest of my post.  I'm not painting Joseph with as broad a brush as you portray.  I've tried very hard to not call names or use labels and to keep the discussion focused on what took place specifically regarding polygamy.  It's been others who have repeated used the word "liar" as a label.

I think he told lies and deceived to live polygamy.  There may be reasons for it and some may think these reasons justify what he did.  Others don't agree.

But as both JHLPROF and Calm agreed, lies were told (or lies of omission). Emma was deceived.

Edited March 9, 2017 by JulieM

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Wow.
Such semantic quibbling over whether or not Joseph lied.

Did Joseph marry women and not tell Emma about it?  Yes.
Does that make him a liar?  Dishonest?  Lies of omission/commission?
Probably, but does the label really matter?

If you married a second spouse without telling your first spouse I don't think you could claim to be honest.

Thank you.  As always, you state things much better that I do!

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

Thank you.  As always, you state things much better that I do!

Joseph said ". What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. "

At this point in 1843 he had many, many wives.
And sorry Fair, your explanation doesn't hold water.

So we can be like the critics and anti's and point and scream "liar".
Or we can be like the overly faithful and bend and twist clearly recorded facts.
Or we can be like some and put our heads in the sand and pretend polygamy never happened.

Or we can look at what actually happened, determine the motivation based on the beliefs of the man and not our own beliefs, and actually come to an understanding of the events.
What did Joseph believe about polygamy, about revealing polygamy to those who would mock or reject it, or about continuing in polygamy after Emma had previously rejected it?
Can we do that without putting what we believe in the place of what Joseph believed?

[T-Shirt]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Wow.
Such semantic quibbling over whether or not Joseph lied.

In all that I have said, I have never denied that Joseph told any lies.  However, I will defend him against any claims that he is a liar.  When people want to focus purely on the lies and deceit, ripping it completely out of its context, I find it to be unfair and, in some cases, dishonest.  In this case, context is everything.  When people are disturbed by any of this, is it helpful to focus on the lies and deceit?  Every person that I have discussed this with, outside of this board, after delving into the context, has come away with an understanding that makes it more understandable and far less troubling.  Crying, "lie here" and "lie there" is nothing but a deceitful, polemical tactic.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

In all that I have said, I have never denied that Joseph told any lies.  However, I will defend him against any claims that he is a liar.

 

li·ar

ˈlī(ə)r/

noun

noun: liar; plural noun: liars

1. a person who tells lies.

   synonyms:

   deceiver, fibber, perjurer, false witness, fabricator, equivocator; More

As I said, semantics.  By any definition if Joseph told a lie, he is a liar.  Simple.

 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

In all that I have said, I have never denied that Joseph told any lies.  However, I will defend him against any claims that he is a liar.  When people want to focus purely on the lies and deceit, ripping it completely out of its context, I find it to be unfair and, in some cases, dishonest.  In this case, context is everything.  When people are disturbed by any of this, is it helpful to focus on the lies and deceit?  Every person that I have discussed this with, outside of this board, after delving into the context, has come away with an understanding that makes it more understandable and far less troubling.  Crying, "lie here" and "lie there" is nothing but a deceitful, polemical tactic.

A liar, by definition, is just someone who tells lies.  I don't think that JS was a liar, but i can see why others view that as a reasonable label, based on the fact that he told lies and was dishonest on a few occasions.

I agree with the point of your post, but i think that it's better to come at the issue like JLHProf and others do.  It seems to have better to admit that JS lied and deceived Emma (and others), and then explain why that doesn't have to be a problem, than to spend posts and posts arguing semantics.

[T-Shirt]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

li·ar

ˈlī(ə)r/

noun

noun: liar; plural noun: liars

1. a person who tells lies.

   synonyms:

   deceiver, fibber, perjurer, false witness, fabricator, equivocator; More

As I said, semantics.  By any definition if Joseph told a lie, he is a liar.  Simple.

 

Good grief, did you read anything I wrote?

[T-Shirt]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 It seems to have better to admit that JS lied and deceived Emma (and others), and then explain why that doesn't have to be a problem

This is precisely the point I have been making.

[T-Shirt]

26 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Or we can look at what actually happened, determine the motivation based on the beliefs of the man and not our own beliefs, and actually come to an understanding of the events.
What did Joseph believe about polygamy, about revealing polygamy to those who would mock or reject it, or about continuing in polygamy after Emma had previously rejected it?
Can we do that without putting what we believe in the place of what Joseph believed?

Wow.  This is precisely what I have been doing.

[CV75]

58 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Wow.
Such semantic quibbling over whether or not Joseph lied.

Did Joseph marry women and not tell Emma about it?  Yes.
Does that make him a liar?  Dishonest?  Lies of omission/commission?
Probably, but does the label really matter?

If you married a second spouse without telling your first spouse I don't think you could claim to be honest.
So the better question is did Joseph do anything wrong?  I would argue he didn't.

We know so little about who knew what and when, and who did what and when, that it is ill-considered to insist that the historical evidence is not inconclusive.

42 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Joseph said ". What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. "

At this point in 1843 he had many, many wives.
And sorry Fair, your explanation doesn't hold water.

So we can be like the critics and anti's and point and scream "liar".
Or we can be like the overly faithful and bend and twist clearly recorded facts.
Or we can be like some and put our heads in the sand and pretend polygamy never happened.

Or we can look at what actually happened, determine the motivation based on the beliefs of the man and not our own beliefs, and actually come to an understanding of the events.
What did Joseph believe about polygamy, about revealing polygamy to those who would mock or reject it, or about continuing in polygamy after Emma had previously rejected it?
Can we do that without putting what we believe in the place of what Joseph believed?

This is a good example of hastily-concluded and poorly-assimilated facts without context. Looking at the full reference and the context in which this was said, it was about accusations of adultery (see p. 410 History of the Church Vol. 6 https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/volume-6-chapter-19) and not polygamy, and against a cartoonish misrepresentation of plural marriage. He was as innocent of adultery when making this statement than when he was first married and accused fourteen years before (see p. 411).

So: let's really "look at what actually happened" if that is possible, and with that "actually come to an understanding of the events," but that is why we know so little about who knew what and when, and who did what and when, and why it is ill-considered to insist that the historical evidence is not inconclusive.

[JulieM]

23 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

Wow.  This is precisely what I have been doing.

Then why throw such a fit when someone posts that Joseph told lies and deceived Emma?   

I've repeatedly stated that his motives and reasons for deceiving could be discussed.  But it seems you were focused on the word "liar" and now you agree that's accurate.  

Oh well.  This has been a strange discussion 

Edited March 9, 2017 by JulieM

[CV75]

44 minutes ago, bluebell said:

A liar, by definition, is just someone who tells lies.  I don't think that JS was a liar, but i can see why others view that as a reasonable label, based on the fact that he told lies and was dishonest on a few occasions.

I agree with the point of your post, but i think that it's better to come at the issue like JLHProf and others do.  It seems to have better to admit that JS lied and deceived Emma (and others), and then explain why that doesn't have to be a problem, than to spend posts and posts arguing semantics.

But there is no sound reason to admit that he lied. Given the context, the so-called smoking gun ("What a thing it is...") is nothing more than booger-tipped pointing finger.

[JLHPROF]

31 minutes ago, CV75 said:

This is a good example of hastily-concluded and poorly-assimilated facts without context. Looking at the full reference and the context in which this was said, it was about accusations of adultery (see p. 410 History of the Church Vol. 6 https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/volume-6-chapter-19) and not polygamy, and against a cartoonish misrepresentation of plural marriage. He was as innocent of adultery when making this statement than when he was first married and accused fourteen years before (see p. 411).

That was Fairmormon's explanation too.
I don't think it is a valid argument.  Yes, he was speaking of adultery.  Yes he was referring to the accusations made against him in the early days of the Church. 
That was the context of the discourse.

But he specifically stated he was accused then of having seven wives but he stated " I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago."  This makes the claim of his monogamy a contemporary one to the discourse, not a reminiscence.

Edited March 9, 2017 by JLHPROF