Spider-Man Has Left the Church

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Do you believe she knew about Joseph and Fanny’s marriage beforehand or approved of it?

Do you believe she knew about Joseph’s actual marriages to the Partidge sisters?  If so, then why do you think he had to tell them not to let Emma know about them?  Why did he do fake sealings for Emma’s benefit if she knew about the real ones?

I’m not on my computer but I’ll look up references later when I’m home if you need them.

I've posted some of it, so hopefully that's enough. But yes, I have a difficult time believing people around here aren't familiar with the history. 

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I've posted some of it, so hopefully that's enough. But yes, I have a difficult time believing people around here aren't familiar with the history. 

Yes, I thought smac knew the details of Joseph's polygamy.  But, maybe not?

He may be learning right along with others from reading what is in the CES letter 

Edited August 29, 2018 by ALarson

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

In the spring of 1842, Joseph brought up the subject of plural marriage with Emily Partridge, who refused to discuss the matter. Soon after, the sisters were approached by Elizabeth Durfee, whom Joseph frequently employed to convey his proposals to prospective wives:

I had understood Julie's comments as pertaining to Helen Mar Kimball.  That is what I was asking about.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Do you believe she knew about Joseph and Fanny’s marriage beforehand or approved of it?

Do you believe she knew about Joseph’s actual marriages to the Partidge sisters?  If so, then why do you think he had to tell them not to let Emma know about them?  Why did he do fake sealings for Emma’s benefit if she knew about the real ones?

I’m not on my computer but I’ll look up references later when I’m home if you need them.

I had taken your post to be referencing Helen Mar Kimball.  Whom were you referencing?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes, I thought smac knew the details of Joseph's polygamy.  But, maybe not?

I have read quite a bit about Joseph's polygamy.  But I'm certainly not going to claim omniscience about it.

Quote

He may be learning right along with others from reading what is in the CES letter 

I construed Julie's post to be referencing Helen Mar Kimball.  My question pertained to her.  Perhaps I misunderstood Julie.

And yes, I have long been aware that Emma may not have known about all of Joseph's polygamous sealings.  The Church acknowledges this in its essay, "Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo":

Quote

Joseph and Emma

Plural marriage was difficult for all involved. For Joseph Smith’s wife Emma, it was an excruciating ordeal. Records of Emma’s reactions to plural marriage are sparse; she left no firsthand accounts, making it impossible to reconstruct her thoughts. Joseph and Emma loved and respected each other deeply. After he had entered into plural marriage, he poured out his feelings in his journal for his “beloved Emma,” whom he described as “undaunted, firm and unwavering, unchangeable, affectionate Emma.” After Joseph’s death, Emma kept a lock of his hair in a locket she wore around her neck.38

Emma approved, at least for a time, of four of Joseph Smith’s plural marriages in Nauvoo, and she accepted all four of those wives into her household. She may have approved of other marriages as well.39 But Emma likely did not know about all of Joseph’s sealings.40 She vacillated in her view of plural marriage, at some points supporting it and at other times denouncing it.

In the summer of 1843, Joseph Smith dictated the revelation on marriage, a lengthy and complex text containing both glorious promises and stern warnings, some directed at Emma.41 The revelation instructed women and men that they must obey God’s law and commands in order to receive the fulness of His glory.

...

38. Joseph Smith, Journal, Aug. 16, 1842, in Andrew H. Hedges, Alex D. Smith, and Richard Lloyd Anderson, eds., Journals, Volume 2: December 1841–April 1843, vol. 2 of the Journals series of The Joseph Smith Papers, edited by Dean C. Jessee, Ronald K. Esplin, and Richard Lyman Bushman (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2011), 93–96, available at josephsmithpapers.org; Mary Audentia Smith Anderson, ed., Joseph Smith III and the Restoration (Independence, MO: Herald House, 1952), 85.
39. Jenson, “Historical Record,” 229–30, 240; Emily Dow Partridge Young, deposition, United States Testimony 1892 (Temple Lot Case), part 3, pp. 365–66, 384; Orson Pratt, in Journal of Discourses, 13:194.
40. Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, 2:8, 48–50, 80; Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, 473.
41. Doctrine and Covenants 132:54, 64. The warning to Emma Smith also applies to all who receive sacred ordinances by authority of the priesthood but do not abide the covenants associated with those ordinances. See, for example, Psalm 37:38; Isaiah 1:28; Acts 3:19–25; and Doctrine and Covenants 132:26, 64.

I have learned a few things from Runnells letter.  Bits and pieces.  Interesting stuff, but no particular surprises.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 29, 2018 by smac97

[Calm]

9 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Maybe all of this could have been avoided if the CES Director would have kept his word and answered his questions.

I highly doubt the director was anticipating having to deal with an epic. If Runnells and my memory is correct, it was his grandfather who conveyed the offer, so the director may not have understood it in the same way

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I had understood Julie's comments as pertaining to Helen Mar Kimball.  That is what I was asking about.

I stand corrected. As far as I can tell, there's no evidence one way or another about Emma's knowledge of the marriage to Helen Kimball. That said, the date is May 1843, when Emma had consented to the Partridge sisters marrying Joseph. That same month, Joseph was marrying Lucy Walker without Emma's knowledge. 

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I had understood Julie's comments as pertaining to Helen Mar Kimball.  That is what I was asking about.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think it was a general statement in reference to cdowis's claim (which started this specific discussion),  Here's what you referenced for the CFR:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70952-spider-man-has-left-the-church/?do=findComment&comment=1209847803

Here's cdowis's statement:

"She was very aware of  his polygamous marriages, which she initially gave her permission,  but it later caused dissention between." 

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think it was a general statement in reference to cdowis's claim (which started this specific discussion),  Here's what you referenced for the CFR:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70952-spider-man-has-left-the-church/?do=findComment&comment=1209847803

Here's cdowis's statement:

"She was very aware of  his polygamous marriages, which she initially gave her permission,  but it later caused dissention between." 

Yes, that's what I was responding to, though it looks like I conflated his statement with smac's. Sorry about that.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I think it was a general statement in reference to cdowis's claim (which started this specific discussion),  Here's what you referenced for the CFR:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70952-spider-man-has-left-the-church/?do=findComment&comment=1209847803

Here's cdowis's statement:

"She was very aware of  his polygamous marriages, which she initially gave her permission,  but it later caused dissention between." 

She was very aware of some of his polygamous marriages, but apparently not about others.  The circumstantial evidence as to Emma's lack of awareness/consent to some of the sealings/marriages is, I think, fairly persuasive.  The Church's own essay on polygamy acknowledges this ("But Emma likely did not know about all of Joseph’s sealings.").

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The road to hell is lined with good intentions, and actions speak louder than words.

That was my point: judge the actions, not the heart. 

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think it was a general statement in reference to cdowis's claim (which started this specific discussion),  Here's what you referenced for the CFR:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70952-spider-man-has-left-the-church/?do=findComment&comment=1209847803

Here's cdowis's statement:

"She was very aware of  his polygamous marriages, which she initially gave her permission,  but it later caused dissention between." 

Julie's statement (the one for which I requested a CFR), references Joseph marrying a "14 year old."  Julie was responding to Stargazer's comments regarding his (Stargazer's) grandmother marrying at age 14.  I read it too quickly and thought that Julie was referencing Helen Mar Kimball, who was 14 when she was sealed to Joseph (Emily Partridge was 19).

I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Thank you,

-Smac

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That was my point: judge the actions, not the heart. 

A good point.

Having evaluated Mr. Runnells's actions, I have concluded that they are pretty crappy.

I will leave any adjudication of Mr. Runnells's heart / mind / soul / heart to God.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 29, 2018 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

A good point.

Having judged Mr. Runnells's actions, I find them to be pretty crappy.

I will leave any adjudication of Mr. Runnells's heart / mind / soul / heart to God.

Works for me. 

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Maybe all of this could have been avoided if the CES Director would have kept his word and answered his questions.

I highly doubt the director was anticipating having to deal with an epic.

Yep.  And I wouldn't be surprised if the director detected the bad faith endemic to Mr. Runnells's "letter." 

The original was what, 80 pages?  What sort of absurdity is it to expect a CES director, who presumably was initially sincere in desiring to help Mr. Runnells, spend dozens or hundreds of hours researching questions that could (and should) have been researched and studied by Mr. Runnells?

And what of the contents of his "letter?"  Dozens or hundreds of copied-and-pasted grievances and criticisms styled as questions.  Grievances and criticisms which were obviously culled from hostile sources, and obviously not from any legitimate and sincere effort by Mr. Runnells to study and research and seek answers to them.  With virtually no indication that Mr. Runnells had put any thought or effort into addressing these things for himself.

I wonder if the CES director perceived what Mr. Runnells was trying to do.  It's not that hard to surmise, IMO.

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

If Runnells and my memory is correct, it was his grandfather who conveyed the offer, so the director may not have understood it in the same way

Yes, that's in the preamble to the letter.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Julie's statement (the one for which I requested a CFR), references Joseph marrying a "14 year old."  Julie was responding to Stargazer's comments regarding his (Stargazer's) grandmother marrying at age 14.  I read it too quickly and thought that Julie was referencing Helen Mar Kimball, who was 14 when she was sealed to Joseph (Emily Partridge was 19).

I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Thank you,

-Smac

No problem.  I'll let her clarify, but the discussion started because of cdavis's general statement about Joseph's marriages.....then it got a bit confusing! 

Either way, let's not take this any more off topic and make this a discussion about Joseph's polygamy.  I only used it as one example of many regarding what was in the CES letter that was accurate.

Edited August 29, 2018 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No problem.  I'll let her clarify, but the discussion started because of cdavis's general statement about Joseph's marriages.....then it got a bit confusing! 

Either way, let's not take this anymore off topic and make this a discussion about Joseph's polygamy.  I only used it as one example of many regarding what was in the CES letter that was accurate.

Yeah, but it's a good example of the problematic. Some people seem to think that the issues people struggle with just need to be seen from the proper perspective, but really, from what perspective is it right to marry and sleep with women behind your wife's back? If we weren't talking about Joseph Smith, I can't imagine too many people attempting to defend that. 

[ALarson]

22 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yeah, but it's a good example of the problematic. Some people seem to think that the issues people struggle with just need to be seen from the proper perspective, but really, from what perspective is it right to marry and sleep with women behind your wife's back? If we weren't talking about Joseph Smith, I can't imagine too many people attempting to defend that. 

Oh, I agree!  That's another reason I used this as an example.  Even when members try to find the answers to why Joseph did this, there really are no "good answers" for many (or most).  How does one really justify doing that behind your wife's back?  Not to mention him approaching already married women to marry (many of whom were Emma's friends....just as many of the young girls were her housemaids who she loved as daughters).  

We did get off on a tangent a bit here regarding wondering if Emma knew that Joseph married Helen Mar Kimball.  As far as I know, we don't know if she did or she didn't.  But my gut tells me she didn't (don't CFR me, smac....just my opinion based on how Joseph was handling his other marriages at that time).

Do you think he told Emma he was going to go to Heber and ask for Vilate to be his wife?  I doubt it....but I don't know...

Edited August 29, 2018 by ALarson

[SeekingUnderstanding]

My favorite video on context:

 

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No problem.  I'll let her clarify, but the discussion started because of cdavis's general statement about Joseph's marriages.....then it got a bit confusing! 

Either way, let's not take this any more off topic and make this a discussion about Joseph's polygamy.  I only used it as one example of many regarding what was in the CES letter that was accurate.

I'm wondering if you have read Jim Bennett's fisking of the letter.  Not perfect, but definitely worth a read, IMO.

As regarding Mr. Runnells, I am reminded here of a part of C.S. Lewis' The Last Battle, the last book in The Chronicles of Narnia series.  A key plot line in the book involves Shift, a talking ape who lived near his friend/servant, Puzzle the donkey.  Here's a character summary:

Quote

Shift's greed served as his primary motivation. His actions to satisfy his greed increased his vileness over time. From lying to his "friend" Puzzle, he moved to manipulating the other talking animals of Narnia. In the end he had no problem murdering them and selling them into slavery to increase his own wealth and power.

As Shift's actions became increasingly evil, he also became increasingly human in his appearance and in the way he presented himself. He donned human clothing and explained that he was not an ape, and that if he appeared as one, it was only because he was "so very old: hundreds and hundreds of years old."

Shift gained the power to pursue these actions by tricking Puzzle into impersonating Aslan, the true ruler of Narnia, using his claimed humanity as 'evidence' of his great wisdom to justify how he was the only one who could speak to Aslan.

Shift's scheme is summed up this way:

Quote

Shift, a Narnian ape, had been conspiring with the Tisroc, planning the overthrow of Narnia, for a long time. One day, as he was walking by Cauldron Pool with his friend Puzzle, they found the skin of a dumb lion who had been killed by a hunter in the Western Wild. Shift, ignoring Puzzle's protests, sewed the skin into a "fine new winter coat" for Puzzle, as he said. Gradually, he persuaded the donkey that Aslan wanted him to dress up in the lion skin so that Shift could use the Lion's authority to "put everything right" in Narnia. Although Puzzle was hesitant, he knew that Shift was far cleverer than himself and thought that the ape must know what Aslan would want, so he agreed.

...

Shift used the animals' firm faith in and longing for Aslan's return to facilitate his rise to power. He allowed Puzzle in the lion's skin to be sighted by several animals to start rumors, and then presented him openly to all the beasts...

The heroes of the story, Jill and King Tirian, encounter Puzzle wearing the lionskin and sort out Shift's scheme.  They intend to expose the scheme, but before they can do so Shift (who by this point is in league with Rishda Tarkaan, a captain of the Calormenes, the enemies of Narnia, and who has discovered Puzzle's absence) takes the scheme even further:

Quote

Rishda Tarkaan dragged the Ape up close to the fire. The pair of them turned to face the crowd, and this of course meant that their backs were towards Tirian and his friends.

"Now, Monkey," said Rishda Tarkaan in a low voice. "Say the words that wiser heads have put into thy mouth. And hold up thy head." As he spoke he gave the Ape a little prod or kick from behind with the point of his toe.

"Do leave me alone," muttered Shift. But he sat up straighter and began, in a louder voice——

"Now listen, all of you. A terrible thing has happened. A wicked thing. The wickedest thing that ever was done in Narnia. And Aslan ... is very angry about it."

There was a terrible silence while the Beasts waited to hear what new trouble was in store for them. The little party by the end-wall of the stable also held their breath. What on earth was coming now?

"Yes," said the Ape. "At this very moment, when the Terrible One himself is among us—there in the stable just behind me—one wicked Beast has chosen to do what you'd think no one would dare to do even if He were a thousand miles away. It has dressed itself up in a lionskin and is wandering about in these very woods pretending to be Aslan."

Jill wondered for a moment if the Ape had gone mad. Was he going to tell the whole truth? A roar of horror and rage went up from the Beasts. "Grrr!" came the growls, "Who is he? Where is he? Just let me get my teeth into him!"

"It was seen last night," screamed the Ape, "but it got away. It's a donkey! A common, miserable a$s! If any of you see that a$s——"

"Grrr!" growled the Beasts. "We will, we will. He'd better keep out of our way."

The heroes of the story respond this way:

Quote

Jill looked at the King: his mouth was open and his face was full of horror. And then she understood the devilish cunning of the enemies' plan. By mixing a little truth with it they had made their lie far stronger. What was the good, now, of telling the Beasts that an a$s had been dressed up as a lion to deceive them? The Ape would only say, "That's just what I've said." What was the good of showing them Puzzle in his lionskin? They would only tear him in pieces. "That's taken the wind out of our sails," whispered Eustace. "The ground is taken from under our feet," said Tirian.

"By mixing a little truth with it they had made their lie far stronger."

That, I think, typifies the approach to LDS doctrine and history taken by the likes of Runnells.  As Robert previously put it: "Runnells and Zachary both tell the truth sometimes, but they present no fair and balanced statement on the Mormon faith, ... and there are lots of lies -- designed for presentation to the vulnerable and naive."

Yep.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

54 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I will leave any adjudication of Mr. Runnells's heart / mind / soul / heart to God.

 

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  And I wouldn't be surprised if the director detected the bad faith endemic to Mr. Runnells's "letter." 

The original was what, 80 pages?  What sort of absurdity is it to expect a CES director, who presumably was initially sincere in desiring to help Mr. Runnells, spend dozens or hundreds of hours researching questions that could (and should) have been researched and studied by Mr. Runnells?

And what of the contents of his "letter?"  Dozens or hundreds of copied-and-pasted grievances and criticisms styled as questions.  Grievances and criticisms which were obviously culled from hostile sources, and obviously not from any legitimate and sincere effort by Mr. Runnells to study and research and seek answers to them.  With virtually no indication that Mr. Runnells had put any thought or effort into addressing these things for himself....

It's interesting that seven minutes after saying you would leave adjudication of Runnells's heart and mind to God, you proceeded to declare that his efforts to understand his own church were neither legitimate nor sincere.

[smac97]

Just now, Analytics said:

It's interesting that seven minutes after saying you would leave adjudication of Runnells's heart and mind to God, you proceeded to declare that his efforts to understand his own church were neither legitimate nor sincere.

I don't understand.  How are Runnells's bad faith motives in writing his "letter" equivalent to his "heart / mind / soul / heart?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand.  How are Runnells's bad faith motives in writing his "letter" equivalent to his "heart / mind / soul / heart?"

Thanks,

-Smac

His alleged bad-faith motives are squarely within his heart and mind.

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Analytics said:

His alleged bad-faith motives are squarely within his heart and mind.

Meh.  I can conclude that a person has stated an untruth, or acted in bad faith, etc., and yet still abstain from judging his soul or his overall worthiness before God.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"By mixing a little truth with it they had made their lie far stronger."

That, I think, typifies the approach to LDS doctrine and history taken by the likes of Runnells.

And, many members believe this is what has been done by church leaders in the past (lots of omissions or wrong impressions given when relating church history events or details).  When members read the information in the CES letter, many feel they've been lied to at least by omission regarding many issues presented in the letter.

I'm one who believes each member is responsible to do their own reading and research, but I do understand why many feel this way when they get a closer look regarding the details that have been left out over the years in lessons, etc.  I think there's plenty of blame to go around and don't really like playing the "blame game" myself.  However, it does not change the fact that many feel this way regarding the church leaders after learning more from reading the letter (and other sources).

Edited August 29, 2018 by ALarson