Seven wives or one? Did Joseph lie?

[Calm]

This link was referred to in the First vision thread where the conversation has moved to whether or not Joseph Smith lied to others (Emma, the public) about what he was doing in regards to his plural marriages.  Two instances have been referred to in my recall and both can be discussed here as well as any other specific instances.  Please avoid use of the term "liar", keep that part of the discussion on the former thread as in my opinion it is a time and effort waster, we use it too different to promote understanding of each other, end of story for me.

First example discussed was Joseph not telling Emma he was already married to the Lawerence? sisters and going through a second marriage with them after she selected them as plural wives for him (anyone wonder why she didn't choose someone older if the age difference was an issue back then?, that is a different topic though so treat that as just an aside).

CV has made what is in my opinion a traditional defense of Joseph.  I don't know if he sees it as technical truth with the intent to deceive or he sees no intent to deceive whatsoever.  Both are appropriate topics for this thread as well as any other alleged instances of Joseph lying in general or in regards to plural marriage.

------

The relevant section I believe from CV's link:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/volume-6-chapter-19

"The last discharge was the 40th; now the 41st, 42nd, 43rd; all through falsehood. Matters of fact are as profitable as the Gospel, and which I can prove. You will then know who are liars, and who speak the truth I want to retain your friendship on holy grounds.

Another indictment has been got up against me. It appears a holy prophet has arisen up, and he has testified against me; the reason is, he is so holy. The Lord knows I do not care how many churches are in the world. As many as believe me, may. If the doctrine that I preach is true, the tree must be good. I have prophesied things that have come to pass, and can still.

Inasmuch as there is a new church, this must be old, and of course we ought to be set down as orthodox. From henceforth let all the churches now no longer persecute orthodoxy. I never built upon any other man's ground. I never told the old Catholic that he was a fallen true prophet God knows, then, that the charges against me are false.

I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives. I mean to live and proclaim the truth as long as I can.

This new holy prophet [William Law] has gone to Carthage and swore that I had told him that I was guilty of adultery. This spiritual wifeism! Why, a man dares not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this.

William Law testified before forty policemen, and the assembly room full of witnesses, that he testified under oath that he never had heard or seen or knew anything immoral or criminal against me. He testified under oath that he was my friend, and not the "Brutus." There was a cogitation who was the "Brutus." I had not prophesied against William Law. He swore under oath that he was satisfied that he was ready to lay down his life for me, and he swears that I have committed adultery.

[Page 411]

I wish the grand jury would tell me who they are--whether it will be a curse or blessing to me. I am quite tired of the fools asking me.

A man asked me whether the commandment was given that a man may have seven wives; and now the new prophet has charged me with adultery. I never had any fuss with these men until that Female Relief Society brought out the paper against adulterers and adulteresses.

Dr. Goforth was invited into the Laws' clique, and Dr. Foster and the clique were dissatisfied with that document, and they rush away and leave the Church, and conspire to take away my life; and because I will not countenance such wickedness, they proclaim that I have been a true prophet, but that I am now a fallen prophet.

Jackson has committed murder, robbery, and perjury; and I can prove it by half-a-dozen witnesses. Jackson got up and said--"By God, he is innocent," and now swears that I am guilty. He threatened my life.

There is another Law, not the prophet, who was cashiered for dishonesty and robbing the government. Wilson Law also swears that I told him I was guilty of adultery. Brother Jonathan Dunham can swear to the contrary. I have been chained. I have rattled chains before in a dungeon for the truth's sake. I am innocent of all these charges, and you can bear witness of my innocence, for you know me yourselves.

When I love the poor, I ask no favors of the rich. I can go to the cross--I can lay down my life; but don't forsake me. I want the friendship of my brethren.--Let us teach the things of Jesus Christ. Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a downfall.

Be meek and lowly, upright and pure; render good for evil. If you bring on yourselves your own destruction, I will complain. It is not right for a man to bare down his neck to the oppressor always. Be humble and patient in all circumstances of life; we shall then triumph more gloriously. What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one.

I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers. I labored with these apostates myself until I was out of all manner of patience; and then I sent my brother Hyrum, whom they virtually kicked out of doors.

I then sent Mr. Backenstos, when they declared that they were my enemies. I told Mr. Backenstos that he might tell the Laws, if they had any cause against me I would go before the Church, and confess it to the world. He [Wm. Law] was summoned time and again, but refused to come. Dr. Bernhisel and Elder Rigdon know that I speak the truth. I cite you to Captain Dunham, Esquires Johnson and Wells, Brother Hatfield and others, for the truth of what I have said. I have said this to let my friends know that I am right.

[Page 412]

As I grow older, my heart grows tenderer for you. I am at all times willing to give up everything that is wrong, for I wish this people to have a virtuous leader, I have set your minds at liberty by letting you know the things of Christ Jesus. When I shrink not from your defense will you throw me away for a new man who slanders you? I love you for your reception of me. Have I asked you for your money? No; you know better. I appeal to the poor. I say, Cursed be that man or woman who says that I have taken of your money unjustly. Brother Babbitt will address you. I have nothing in my heart but good feelings."

Edited March 9, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

The FairMormon defense referred to (one instance I would say differently than the writers of the wiki):

It might be easier to read at the link as I can't keep the formatting and the highlighting is helpful, imo.

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

"Question: Why did Joseph Smith say "I had not been married scarcely five minutes...before it was reported that I had seven wives"?

The Laws sought to have Joseph indicted for adultery and perjury

This statement refers to Joseph's well-known declaration on 26 May 1844 in his "Address of the Prophet—His Testimony Against the Dissenters at Nauvoo". Significantly, this address was given the day after the Laws sought to have Joseph indicted for adultery in the case of Maria Lawrence. (They also sought to indict him on a charge of perjury.)

Many have criticized or been concerned by the secrecy with which Joseph instituted plural marriage without appreciating the realities of the dangers involved. Illinois law only criminalized adultery or fornication if it was "open". Since Joseph was sealed to his plural wives for either eternity, or for time and eternity, he did not view these relationships as constituting adultery or fornication. Therefore, under Illinois law, as long as Joseph and his plural wives did not live in an "open," or "public," manner, they were not guilty of breaking any civil law then in force in Illinois. Furthermore, this reality explains some of Joseph's public denials, since he could be truthfully said to not be guilty of the charges leveled against him: he was not committing adultery or fornication.

Joseph was refuting the charge of adultery, not the fact that he had "seven wives"

History of The Church 6:410-411:

"I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives. I mean to live and proclaim the truth as long as I can.

This new holy prophet [William Law] has gone to Carthage and swore that I had told him that I was guilty of adultery. This spiritual wifeism! Why, a man dares not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this.[4]....

A man asked me whether the commandment was given that a man may have seven wives; and now the new prophet has charged me with adultery. I never had any fuss with these men until that Female Relief Society brought out the paper against adulterers and adulteresses.

Dr. Goforth was invited into the Laws' clique, and Dr. Foster and the clique were dissatisfied with that document,[5] and they rush away and leave the Church, and conspire to take away my life; and because I will not countenance such wickedness,[6]they proclaim that I have been a true prophet, but that I am now a fallen prophet.

[Joseph H.] Jackson[7] has committed murder, robbery, and perjury; and I can prove it by half-a-dozen witnesses. Jackson got up and said—"By God, he is innocent," and now swears that I am guilty. He threatened my life.

There is another Law, not the prophet, who was cashiered for dishonesty and robbing the government. Wilson Law also swears that I told him I was guilty of adultery. Brother Jonathan Dunham can swear to the contrary. I have been chained. I have rattled chains before in a dungeon for the truth's sake. I am innocent of all these charges, and you can bear witness of my innocence, for you know me yourselves.

When I love the poor, I ask no favors of the rich. I can go to the cross—I can lay down my life; but don't forsake me. I want the friendship of my brethren.—Let us teach the things of Jesus Christ. Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a downfall.

Be meek and lowly, upright and pure; render good for evil. If you bring on yourselves your own destruction, I will complain. It is not right for a man to bare down his neck to the oppressor always. Be humble and patient in all circumstances of life; we shall then triumph more gloriously. What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one.

I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers. I labored with these apostates myself until I was out of all manner of patience; and then I sent my brother Hyrum, whom they virtually kicked out of doors.[8]"

Note the rejection of the term "spiritual wifeism". Note that "spiritual wifeism" likely refers to John C. Bennett's pattern of seduction and sexual license, which the Saints were always at pains to deny.

Joseph was not merely bluffing, nor was he lying—he literally could prove that the Laws were perjuring themselves on this point

In light of the circumstances under which they were spoken, Joseph's words were carefully chosen. Joseph was not merely bluffing, nor was he lying—he literally could prove that the Laws were perjuring themselves on this point in the charges brought only the day before.

Bradshaw cites a portion of Joseph's above statement, and then concludes:

A review of Joseph's remarks in light of the circumstances under which they were spoken shows that Joseph's words were carefully chosen. In this speech, Joseph was specifically reacting to the indictments for perjury and adultery that were presented by the grand jury the day earlier. Thus, when Joseph affirmed during the same speech: "I am innocent of all these charges," he was in particular refuting a claim that he and Maria [Lawrence] had openly and notoriously cohabitated, thus committing the statutory offense of adultery. He was also refuting the perjury charge. While the overall tone of Joseph's remarks may seem misleading, it is understandable that Joseph would have taken pains to dodge the plural marriage issue. By keeping his plural marriages in Nauvoo secret, Joseph effectively kept them legal, at least under the Illinois adultery statute.[9]:413"

Edited March 9, 2017 by Calm

[CV75]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

This link was referred to in the First vision thread where the conversation has moved to whether or not Joseph Smith lied to others (Emma, the public) about what he was doing in regards to his plural marriages.  Two instances have been referred to in my recall and both can be discussed here as well as any other specific instances.  Please avoid use of the term "liar", keep that part of the discussion on the former thread as in my opinion it is a time and effort waster, we use it too different to promote understanding of each other, end of story for me.

First example discussed was Joseph not telling Emma he was already married to the Lawerence? sisters and going through a second marriage with them after she selected them as plural wives for him (anyone wonder why she didn't choose someone older if the age difference was an issue back then?, that is a different topic though so treat that as just an aside).

CV has made what is in my opinion a traditional defense of Joseph.  I don't know if he sees it as technical truth with the intent to deceive or he sees no intent to deceive whatsoever.  Both are appropriate topics for this thread as well as any other alleged instances of Joseph lying in general or in regards to plural marriage.

First of all, I apologize to all the converts for coming across as traditional

In order of my original thought process, I propose:

1. 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.

2. This*, quoted in isolation, 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 as 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.

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

3. For those who cherry-pick a few lines from this passage (that Calm copied above) to proof-text his lying about polygamy, consider the same lines with a fuller perspective:

He was being accused and lied about being an adulterer, and so went back to the beginning when, as a newlywed, he was accused of having seven wives, when he clearly only had one. He denounces the misrepresentation of and prejudice against plural marriage (that’s how I take the treatment of the unappealing term spiritual wifery) and complains of being accused of adultery when the laws to do support that charge (see elsewhere in the Fairmormon link). He asserts he is as innocent of adultery now as he was in 1827. He says that he kept many men busy witnessing and recording his words and deeds the last few years, without a trace of wrongdoing.

Nothing in there about lying about or denying polygamy to his current audience.

I think it is additionally interesting that the source for “What a thing it is…” smoking gun is not a transcript of anything, but a compilation created by scribes, editors and committee many years after the fact and largely from memory (History of the Church, mostly compiled after JS died,  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Church_(Joseph_Smith) ; Millennial Star, 1861, and so forth).

Saying he is lying about polygamy is not supported by the integrated facts.

4. To answer Calm’s OP: I think in this passage, JS was defending himself against charges of adultery, not trying to misdirect people from his polygamy. I think it is carelessly used as an example of the latter. He is clearly not on the offensive at this point, so he only refers to an accurate picture of what he was doing (and that was not adultery) by making an appeal to the many witnesses and records he offered up for examination, and by discrediting his detractors. In a way he has nothing to prove, being cast in a defendant role.

Edited for proofreading.

Edited March 9, 2017 by CV75

[Calm]

The bolded section is what I see as a lie.  It is present tense and not, in my opinion speaking of the past when the Church first started as I have heard some argue (Joseph was telling the truth because the time he was referring to was in the past when he did only have one wife in this interpretation).

(Btw, does anyone know the earliest accusation of polygamy?)

In my opinion, it may have been technically true in that Joseph had not married the women through a civil, legal ceremony.  But if he is appealing to a legal definition for "wife" and he is saying the women he was sealed to were not his wives, than it seems he should also be using the same standard for adultery.  This gets sticky because a sealing ceremony on its own would not be adultery, but only having sexual relations with another woman not his legal wife (in my opinion).  We cannot demonstrate that JS was having intimate relations with his nonwives (assuming this argument is valid), but given other testimony of the women and others, I believe this is a safe assumption. 

For me, it means JS was intentionally deceiving by shifting his standard between a civil one (he was not legally married to them so they were not wives) to a religious one (it was not adultery to have sexual relations because he was sealed to them, thus they were his wives).

If I understand the FM argument correctly, it leads to the idea that adultery had to be "open" and "public" to qualify. That just doesn't work for me.  The accusation might have been "that he and Maria [Lawrence] had openly and notoriously cohabitated, thus committing the statutory offense of adultery", but adultery is adultery whether open or hidden in my view and I would like to see evidence this wasn't how the term was used back then by the community in general and Joseph in particular.  I remember him saying something about if you find an apostate, you find an adulterer so in that case he was using the term to apply to a case where the adultery was secret.

[JLHPROF]

I still think we are much better served by acknowledging statements of deceit and moving on to understand Joseph's beliefs than we are served by trying to explain away the statements as not really deceitful.

[Ahab]

22 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I still think we are much better served by acknowledging statements of deceit and moving on to understand Joseph's beliefs than we are served by trying to explain away the statements as not really deceitful.

I think we are much better served by thinking that we don't know enough about his "relationships" to know what was going on, and by not thinking of Joseph as someone who was deceitful.

[stemelbow]

37 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I still think we are much better served by acknowledging statements of deceit and moving on to understand Joseph's beliefs than we are served by trying to explain away the statements as not really deceitful.

yes this.  Thanks for saying this, JLHPROF.

This feels like deflection:

Quote

Many have criticized or been concerned by the secrecy with which Joseph instituted plural marriage without appreciating the realities of the dangers involved. Illinois law only criminalized adultery or fornication if it was "open". Since Joseph was sealed to his plural wives for either eternity, or for time and eternity, he did not view these relationships as constituting adultery or fornication. Therefore, under Illinois law, as long as Joseph and his plural wives did not live in an "open," or "public," manner, they were not guilty of breaking any civil law then in force in Illinois. Furthermore, this reality explains some of Joseph's public denials, since he could be truthfully said to not be guilty of the charges leveled against him: he was not committing adultery or fornication.

Joseph was refuting the charge of adultery, not the fact that he had "seven wives"

I would grant it's possible Joseph was doing primarily trying to refute allegations of adultery, but it's also possible he was not only trying to defend himself against adultery but also polygamy.  If it were just about adultery and fornication, then he wouldn't have claimed he only had one wife when he had more.  Indeed, I"d suggest this last sentence doesn't make any sense in light of what Joseph said.  He clearly refuted the notion of having seven wives.  Those were his words. 

Some of the best indications that Joseph lied about polygamy was Emma's reactions and resistances to it, at various times.  What we see from it is she did not know Joseph was marrying other women, until some point afterward.  Then she would condemn it in the Relief Society, oddly enough while some of Joseph's other wives were sitting there. 

[Calm]

CV, Unfortunately he states "can find only one" instead of "could only find one".  And it is in the here and now he was being accused of adultery, not in the past even though it happened also then.

Yes, the compilation is a problem, so adding the caution should be used in what weight we give to this to 'prove' the character of Joseph should, imo, be added to any conclusions drawn.  Maybe he said "could" instead of "can".  I would be happier, but I still think he shifted between using a legal definition and using a religious one for "wife".  

Got to go.

Edited March 9, 2017 by Calm

[stemelbow]

20 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I think we are much better served by thinking that we don't know enough about his "relationships" to know what was going on, and by not thinking of Joseph as someone who was deceitful.

The problem with this is, of course, every single person who has ever lived has been deceitful at some point in his/her life.  Joseph simply had to have been so at some point.  This is pretty good evidence indicating he was being deceitful at this point.  Fighting on this molehill seems pointless.  You have to argue, as was above, that what Joseph said is not what he meant.  that doesn't work very well, though.

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Unfortunately he states "can find only one" instead of "could only find one".  And it is in the here and now he was being accused of adultery, not in the past even though it happened also then.

Yes, the compilation is a problem, so adding the caution should be used in what weight we give to this to 'prove' the character of Joseph should, imo, be added to any conclusions drawn.  Maybe he said "could" instead of "can".  I would be happier, but I still think he shifted between using a legal definition and using a religious one for "wife".  

Got to go.

Depends on what the definition of "is" is, I guess.  It really doesn't matter how much he tried to couch the terms he used, how careful he was trying to be with his wording.  The record indicates he said something that was not true.  There's really no way around that. 

[bcuzbcuz]

19 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I think we are much better served by thinking that we don't know enough about his "relationships" to know what was going on, and by not thinking of Joseph as someone who was deceitful.

Isn't that just steadying the ark? JS never said straight out, in public, that he engaged in polygamy, but many, including Brigham Young and William Law insisted that he did. Whatever words are attached to such denials by JS, we are free to form our own opinions of his actions.

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Isn't that just steadying the ark? JS never said straight out, in public, that he engaged in polygamy, but many, including Brigham Young and William Law insisted that he did. Whatever words are attached to such denials by JS, we are free to form our own opinions of his actions.

Our opinions of others actions are naturally flawed unless we are intimately familiar with their situations, beliefs, perspectives, etc.

Even if we all agree that Joseph was deceiving concerning polygamy, our reactionary opinions of this are meaningless without understanding why Joseph did what he did.

[bcuzbcuz]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Our opinions of others actions are naturally flawed unless we are intimately familiar with their situations, beliefs, perspectives, etc.

Even if we all agree that Joseph was deceiving concerning polygamy, our reactionary opinions of this are meaningless without understanding why Joseph did what he did.

Apart from the idea that it is okey to tell one thing to believers and another to the uninitiated, the question comes back to the actual actions. I cannot find any justification for the actual act of being polygamous.  

[Gray]

Depends on what the definition of "is" is

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

I think we are much better served by thinking that we don't know enough about his "relationships" to know what was going on, and by not thinking of Joseph as someone who was deceitful.

There's a point at which we do ourselves a disservice by not calling a spade a spade. I think that it is true we have to realize we cannot completely imagine another person's perspective, but sometimes we can get close enough to make righteous judgments, especially about extreme cases with much at stake. 

What made a difference to me, what is changing my life, is realizing that, to me, there is a standard deviation, a margin of error if you will, that cannot be infinite when we're talking about someone who is supposed to be the mouthpiece of the Lord.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

I think we are much better served by thinking that we don't know enough about his "relationships" to know what was going on, and by not thinking of Joseph as someone who was deceitful.

I don't see an issue with both being true.

I am certain I must have manipulated the truth sometime in my life to protect myself from embarrassment or unwanted pressure.  I don't think I have done it to avoid punishment, but may have as a kid.

I don't define myself as "deceitful" because I don't make a habit of it.  Those of us who believe Joseph did deceive on some occasions do not have to label him as deceitful to be intellectually honest if we believe these were the exceptions and generally he tried to convey the truth to the best of his ability and the ability of his audience.

We also don't need to know everything about a relationship to state certain likely actions took place.  For example, if a couple of people said they saw my husband bring me flowers and there was a purchase invoice in the store records, we could comfortably claim my husband bought me flowers.  The why he bought me flowers would be more difficult.  If he said nothing, I or my kids are probably the best sources for that.

We know that two marriages were performed for the sisters, correct?  It is stated by someone directly involved (one of the sisters iirc) this was because Emma had chosen them as wives and Joseph didn't tell her they were already married.

Is this in dispute by anyone?

Is everyone also in agreement he was plurally sealed to more than Emma at the time of the "only one" wife quote?

Do we agree that he did not wish plural marriage to be made public yet, for whatever reason?

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

There's a point at which we do ourselves a disservice by not calling a spade a spade. I think that it is true we have to realize we cannot completely imagine another person's perspective, but sometimes we can get close enough to make righteous judgments, especially about extreme cases with much at stake. 

What made a difference to me, what is changing my life, is realizing that, to me, there is a standard deviation, a margin of error if you will, that cannot be infinite when we're talking about someone who is supposed to be the mouthpiece of the Lord.

Joseph made errors but it's silly to think his margin of error was anywhere near infinite.

And you're not supposed to take anyone at their own word anyway, as if it's enough for them to just say so.  What you should want is a spiritual witness from our Father to let you know what is good and true.

[Meadowchik]

7 hours ago, Ahab said:

Joseph made errors but it's silly to think his margin of error was anywhere near infinite.

And you're not supposed to take anyone at their own word anyway, as if it's enough for them to just say so.  What you should want is a spiritual witness from our Father to let you know what is good and true.

But that's the thing...it is finite and far from infinite and I think he crossed the line. For me this knowledge came in the form of a personal spiritual experience lasting a period of time.

Edited March 10, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Calm]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Depends on what the definition of "is" is, I guess.  It really doesn't matter how much he tried to couch the terms he used, how careful he was trying to be with his wording.  The record indicates he said something that was not true.  There's really no way around that. 

If there had been an accusation in the past shortly after the Church begun (was there or was that hyperbole by Joseph and the accusations started several years later?) and Joseph made it clear he was addressing only that claim, than the "could only find one" is not in the least deceptive, imo.  So I can see the position as a fairly reasonable reading, but too dependent on "if he was saying...", too many conditionals, to be the most probable correct interpretation..

Given the context of Law's accusation, that he was defending not against past accusations, but a current one, I can see him showing there was a history of false accusations of adultery/plural marriage (the claim it was all about adultery and not about plural marriage is problematic because he doesn't refer to affairs, but "wives") to dismiss the current one by association, but the language used suggests to me strongly he was referring to the current accusation.  I am open to it being misreported, but given the total lack of acknowledgement publicly of practicing any form of plural marriage, .I don't see a strong argument for suggesting this comment of denial is an outlier of his usual speech and therefore should be dismissed as an inaccurate recording.

add-on:  the Church was founded in 1830.  Fanny Alger possibly married Joseph in 1838.   That seems too long for that to be an early accusation of "seven wives".  Where is Nevo when I need him.

Anyone know the earliest polygamy accusation currently known?

Edited March 9, 2017 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

47 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Apart from the idea that it is okey to tell one thing to believers and another to the uninitiated, the question comes back to the actual actions. I cannot find any justification for the actual act of being polygamous.

If God did indeed command it that is all the justification needed.
If God did NOT command it then all that followed after Joseph became an adulterer is highly doubtful and I'd see little point in remaining Mormon.

• If one portion of the doctrines of the Church is true, the whole of them are true. If the doctrine of polygamy, as revealed to the Latter-day Saints, is not true, I would not give a fig for all your other revelations that came through Joseph Smith the Prophet; I would renounce the whole of them, because it is utterly impossible, according to the revelations that are contained in these books, to believe a part of them to be divine—from God—and part of them to be from the devil; that is foolishness in the extreme; it is an absurdity that exists because of the ignorance of some people. I have been astonished at it. I did hope there was more intelligence among the Latter-day Saints, and a greater understanding of principle than to suppose that anyone can be a member of this Church in good standing, and yet reject polygamy. The Lord has said, that those who reject this principle reject their salvation, they shall be damned, saith the Lord; those to whom I reveal this law and they do not receive it, shall be damned. Now here comes in our consciences. We have either to renounce Mormonism, Joseph Smith, Book of Mormon, Book of Covenants, and the whole system of things as taught by the Latter-day Saints, and say that God has not raised up a Church, has not raised up a prophet, has not begun to restore all things as he promised, we are obliged to do this, or else to say, with all our hearts, ‘Yes, we are polygamists, we believe in the principle, and we are willing to practice it, because God has spoken from the heavens.'”  Now I want to prophesy a little. It is not very often that I prophesy, though I was commanded to do so, when I was a boy. I want to prophesy that all men and women who oppose the revelation which God has given in relation to polygamy will find themselves in darkness; the Spirit of God will withdraw from them from the very moment of their opposition to that principle, until they will finally go down to hell and be damned, if they do not repent.” – Orson Pratt, “God’s Ancient People Polygamists, Etc.”, Journal of Discourses, vol. 17, pp. 223-225, October 7, 1874.

Edited March 9, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't see an issue with both being true.

I am certain I must have manipulated the truth sometime in my life to protect myself from embarrassment or unwanted pressure.  I don't think I have done it to avoid punishment, but may have as a kid.

I don't define myself as "deceitful" because I don't make a habit of it.  Those of us who believe Joseph did deceive on some occasions do not have to label him as deceitful to be intellectually honest if we believe these were the exceptions and generally he tried to convey the truth to the best of his ability and the ability of his audience.

We also don't need to know everything about a relationship to state certain likely actions took place.  For example, if a couple of people said they saw my husband bring me flowers and there was a purchase invoice in the store records, we could comfortably claim my husband bought me flowers.  The why he bought me flowers would be more difficult.  If he said nothing, I or my kids are probably the best sources for that.

We know that two marriages were performed for the sisters, correct?  It is stated by someone directly involved (one of the sisters iirc) this was because Emma had chosen them as wives and Joseph didn't tell her they were already married.

Is this in dispute by anyone?

Is everyone also in agreement he was plurally sealed to more than Emma at the time of the "only one" wife quote?

Do we agree that he did not wish plural marriage to be made public yet, for whatever reason?

I don't know enough about Joseph's sealings to make any judgments of them, and I don't know enough about those women or his relationships with them to make any judgments of them. And I'm not interested in making any judgments or assumptions about them. 

I am a bit curious and I would kinda like to know about anything they said or supposedly said, but I'm not going to go so far as to say any of them were being deceitful, or which ones of them may have been deceitful, because I don't know them well enough to make any judgment against any of them.  

I only know that Joseph told the truth as far as he knew it in most instances that I've read about while going over his history and records. And I know that based on what the Spirit has told me about what has been recorded on his records.

But the Spirit has told me nothing about those women or anything they said or supposedly said, as far as I can now recollect.  So I don't know enough about them to make any judgments either for or against them.

 

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

CV, Unfortunately he states "can find only one" instead of "could only find one".  And it is in the here and now he was being accused of adultery, not in the past even though it happened also then

This is not a transcript, but a record of a conference talk prepared by scribes. If you look closely, many passages are rambling and incohesive; some hardly intelligible. And people colloquially use the present tense all the time (and see how easy it is to alter "could find only one" to "could only find one"?). And sentences seem to be transpositioned apart from the intended paragraph. The speech abruptly stops on page 412 (or is it near the bottom of page 411?). Any of these observations allows for JS to be referring back to the earliest accusation of adultery (1827-ish) in juxtaposing the current accusations… and I just used the present tense.

He calls William Law a holy prophet—is that a lie? He makes reference to “The Voice of Innocence from Nauvoo” as a catalyst to the false charges of adultery being given credence—is that not so? He says, “…I am now a fallen prophet”—is that a confession, or a lie? I could go on and on.

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I still think we are much better served by acknowledging statements of deceit and moving on to understand Joseph's beliefs than we are served by trying to explain away the statements as not really deceitful.

This is not the high road when statements of deceit cannot be proven (see my comments above).

I think we are far better served by understanding God’s teachings as He disseminated them through Joseph Smith on His terms. For those so reliant on the man, whether to condemn or to support him for their own needs and purposes, they are better served by understanding Joseph's beliefs as he shared them on his terms while recognizing that they may have yet to understand God’s teachings as He disseminated them through Joseph Smith on His terms.

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

If there had been an accusation in the past shortly after the Church begun (was there or was that hyperbole by Joseph and the accusations started several years later?) and Joseph made it clear he was addressing only that claim, than the "could only find one" is not in the least deceptive, imo.  So I can see the position as a fairly reasonable reading, but too dependent on "if he was saying...", too many conditionals, to be the most probable correct interpretation..

Given the context of Law's accusation, that he was defending not against past accusations, but a current one, I can see him showing there was a history of false accusations of adultery/plural marriage (the claim it was all about adultery and not about plural marriage is problematic because he doesn't refer to affairs, but "wives") to dismiss the current one by association, but the language used suggests to me strongly he was referring to the current accusation.  I am open to it being misreported, but given the total lack of acknowledgement publicly of practicing any form of plural marriage, .I don't see a strong argument for suggesting this comment of denial is an outlier of his usual speech and therefore should be dismissed as an inaccurate recording.

in addition to highlighting the earliest false charges, he is also using one false accusation (the earlier) to qualify the other (Law's most recent)--pointing out that they are basically of the same mentality. The secrecy of plural marriage has nothing to do with this kind of rhetorical device because it would not constitute adultery either ecclesiastically or by the laws of the state.

Edited March 9, 2017 by CV75
Making a BOGO

[CV75]

...

Edited March 9, 2017 by CV75

[churchistrue]

You've made an effective argument here. But most people, even members, when they see the basic facts of this, they come to conclusion that Joseph was deceitful and have a lot of empathy for Emma. Most find a way to come to terms with this and it doesn't affect their testimony. In terms of strategy for LDS Apologetics, it might be best to concede this one to retain credibility. 

[juliann]

45 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

You've made an effective argument here. But most people, even members, when they see the basic facts of this, they come to conclusion that Joseph was deceitful and have a lot of empathy for Emma. Most find a way to come to terms with this and it doesn't affect their testimony. In terms of strategy for LDS Apologetics, it might be best to concede this one to retain credibility. 

I think it is time to drop the "apologetic" division now that Mormon Studies is in full swing, along with Church support. It came time to drop the "anti-Mormon" but apologist is still used like it is meaningful in all instances....and usually intended to poison the well. 

The problem isn't whether he "lied" or not. It is in the religiously motivated reaction to it and individual reactions should have no place in the narrative itself. That is the standard that Mormon Studies is upholding and the standard that allows us to have meaningful across the spectrum of belief or non-belief discussions. As I listen to the handed down faith promoting stories in Sunday school lessons, I am reminded that this is the era where we have to reevaluate sources. All of us.