Could Joseph Smith be a "Fallen Prophet"

[USU78]

Lori, after receiving an angelic visitation confirming the Principle to him, my great-grandfather and great-grandmother received a call from Church authorities to live it. She at first refused, but had her own angelic visitation, which promised her if she agreed, she would be blessed with children (7 years of marriage and no kids was a real problem in those days). The promise was fulfilled prior to them actually choosing a sister wife.

Here is the real price that was paid (from my great-grandfather's holograph):

October 7, 1887, while I was digging potatoes just south of my house, my wife, [    ], helping to pick them up, the United States Marshals, Steele, Whetstone and C. C. Goodwin, came upon us very suddenly, put me under arrest and subpoenaed my wives to appear in court as witnesses against me.  The court was held in Ogden, [    ] and [    ] went my bonds.  I told the Marshall

[Zakuska]

Hi Zak....

But don't go comdeming Polygamy because of the way some fallible humans lived it.

Zak... I think all forms of mating and partnering at some point had purpose and reasons. If we look back in history we can identify every form imagineable.

But lets for a sec go with modern day life.... for some, myself included, I do think polygamy goes against the way in which the world/life/God/Source/universe is unfolding. IOW, it is a BIG step backward in terms of the developing human consciousness. It is a BIG step backward in terms of understanding compassion, having balance in the world, knowing the depth of relationship that is beyond what has been possible when mating was solely for procreation and species survival.

So... IMO, the very practice is ugly. I don't like the word "wrong" because as I stated various forms of mating have been upon the earth for a very long time. I do however think (at least for the last few thousand years) polygamy is hurtful and unhealthy not only to the individuals involved both men and women, but to society, the greater human experience, and ultimately to the universe.

YANG/yin,yin,yin,yin,yin,yin,yin is not exactly a harmonious balance....

~dancer~

Yes TD... Thats exactly what I have been saying from the get go... theres a time and a place for every thing under the sun the Ecclesiate tells us (Eccl 3)

I might add... there was a time to practice Polygamy and there was a time not to practice it, there was a time to commit incest and there was a time to not. Too many people let their 21st cenutry western scewed sensibilities get in the way of things.

Yes too many yins and too many yangs are not a harmonious balance. but under certian circumstances. It woukld be wrong not to.

[Calm]

Hi Lori...

Here is my understanding regarding how many believers rationalize/justify/accept polygamy...

Or on the other hand, they could have a spiritual witness that the doctrine is of God. And only then do they go back and try to make sense of what happened so that all of that is not rationalization/justification/acceptance, but rather an explanation.

[John Corrill]

After reading this thread, I really have nothing to say. I'm pretty much speechless.

The intense sadness I felt several years ago, when I first learned about Joseph Smith's treatment of women and young girls in renewed in full, and I see that, even today, many of us refuse to learn a lesson from the tragedies of yesteryear.

[Confidential Informant]

After reading this thread, I really have nothing to say. I'm pretty much speechless.

The intense sadness I felt several years ago, when I first learned about Joseph Smith's treatment of women and young girls in renewed in full, and I see that, even today, many of us refuse to learn a lesson from the tragedies of yesteryear.

Yes, John, you are so much more knowledgable and empathetic than the rest of us. You put us all to shame with your righteousness (or self-righteousness).

C.I.

[John Corrill]

CI: Yes, John, you are so much more knowledgable and empathetic than the rest of us. You put us all to shame with your righteousness (or self-righteousness).

John Corrill: CI, can you help me understand why some people are not troubled by Joseph Smith's behavior

[Confidential Informant]

John Corrill: CI, can you help me understand why some people are not troubled that by Joseph Smith's behavior

1. Incomplete evidence. You draw conclusion based on scant evidence.

2. Inconsistency. The conclusion you draw are inconsistent with the known character, public and private of Smith.

3. No Corroboration. The Dead Mormon Women you seek to defend never condemn Smith or draw the same conclusions you draw. In fact, they contradict your conclusions and your only response to this is that they were deceived/deluded/coerced/bullied.

4. No defense from Smith. You draw the most salacious conclusions possible and Smith has no way of defending his actions.

5. Consensus. I have yet to see any scholarly treatment of polygamy, be it Nauvoo era or Utah era that ever drew the conclusion that Smith, Young, et. al., ever practiced it for any reason other than religious devotion.

I could probably think of more, but that's a decent list just off the top of my head.

C.I.

[John Corrill]

CI: 1. Incomplete evidence. You draw conclusion based on scant evidence.

JC: I draw my conclusions from the substantial evidence left by Smith and his wives and others close to Smith who were involved in polygamy. It is hardly scant. Even LDS scholars who are aware of Smith's behavior do not deny or marginalize the evidence. They certainly interpret it differently than me, but they don't call it scant. If you think the evidence is "scant", you haven't done your homework. If you don't trust Compton, read LDS Apologist, CES Institute Instructor and Mission President, Danel Bachman's Masters Thesis regarding the plural wives of Joseph Smith. He knows the evidence is not scant.

CI: 2. Inconsistency. The conclusion you draw are inconsistent with the known character, public and private of Smith.

JC: Hardly. Just because your "known" character of Joseph Smith is squeaky clean, doesn't mean he was. His character has become MUCH more clear to me as I have read the ACTUAL letters, journals, poetry and musings of his wives and associates and not just the propaganda we get in Sunday School.

CI: 3. No Corroboration. The Dead Mormon Women you seek to defend never condemn Smith or draw the same conclusions you draw. In fact, they contradict your conclusions and your only response to this is that they were deceived/deluded/coerced/bullied.

JC: Where does the term "Dead Mormon Women" come from? I find this a HIGHLY OFFENSIVE and demeaning label. Many women who are abused never condemn their abusers. This phenomon is WELL understood today.

CI: 4. No defense from Smith. You draw the most salacious conclusions possible and Smith has no way of defending his actions.

JC: Smith was given MULTIPLE opportunities to defend and answer his actions when challenged by others - and each time he obfuscated or lied. This is beyond dispute. It is recorded in Smith's and his close associates own hand and press. Again, faithful LDS scholars KNOW and ADMIT this. Read Bachman's masters thesis. He is aware that Joseph Smith was not telling the truth - he just finds holy reasons for it - I don't. Smith's failure to come clean of despicable behavior when challenged is indicitive of his abberrant behavior in regards to polygamy. It's incredible that we defend and honor this man today.

CI: 5. Consensus. I have yet to see any scholarly treatment of polygamy, be it Nauvoo era or Utah era that ever drew the conclusion that Smith, Young, et. al., ever practiced it for any reason other than religious devotion.

JC: Then you have some homework to do, because there ARE scholarly treatments out there which discuss this in some detail. Spend a few minutes in the librarly poking around, and if you get stuck, send me an email, and I'll give you some hints...

[Confidential Informant]

JC: I draw my conclusions from the substantial evidence left by Smith and his wives and others close to Smith who were involved in polygamy.  It is hardly scant.  Even LDS scholars who are aware of Smith's behavior do not deny or marginalize the evidence.  They certainly interpret it differently than me, but they don't call it scant.  If you think the evidence is "scant", you haven't done your homework.  If you don't trust Compton, read LDS Apologist, CES Institute Instructor and Mission President, Danel Bachman's Masters Thesis regarding the plural wives of Joseph Smith.  He knows the evidence is not scant.   

I suppose it depends on what you are trying to prove. Yes, there is sufficient evidence to prove that Smith had multiple wives. Beyond that, the evidence proves very little. Of course, I can only appeal to my own expertise as an attorney schooled in the weighing of evidence which, I suppose, you are free to dismiss.

JC: Hardly.  Just because your "known" character of Joseph Smith is squeaky clean, doesn't mean he was.  His character has become MUCH more clear to me as I have read the ACTUAL letters, journals, poetry and musings of his wives and associates and not just the propaganda we get in Sunday School. 

I've read them all too. You are hardly unique. There is nothing there to impugn (sp?) his character.

JC:  Where does the term "Dead Mormon Women" come from?  I find this a HIGHLY OFFENSIVE and demeaning label.  Many women who are abused never condemn their abusers.  This phenomon is WELL understood today.

You are a Defender of Dead Mormon Women, John. You are attempting to defend their honor despite repeatedly being shown quotes from them wherein the specifically stated they neither needed nor wanted your defense. What I find offensive is your blithe dismissal of their actual words on the topic.

JC:  Smith was given MULTIPLE opportunities to defend and answer his actions when challenged by others - and each time he obfuscated or lied.  This is beyond dispute.  It is recorded in Smith's and his close associates own hand and press.  Again, faithful LDS scholars KNOW and ADMIT this.  Read Bachman's masters thesis.  He is aware that Joseph Smith was not telling the truth - he just finds holy reasons for it - I don't.  Smith's failure to come clean of despicable behavior when challenged is indicitive of his abberrant behavior in regards to polygamy.  It's incredible that we defend and honor this man today.

I've never said he didn't deny it. I know he did and I have a pretty good idea of why he did. In my mind, it says more about you that you think that he had a fair opportunity to defend/explain his actions in the environment in which he was surrounded in Nauvoo. I'm glad you won't ever serve as mu judge.

JC: Then you have some homework to do, because there ARE scholarly treatments out there which discuss this in some detail.  Spend a few minutes in the librarly poking around, and if you get stuck, send me an email, and I'll give you some hints...

Help me out here. Can you name a single legitimate scholar who has ever declared that Smith was simply covering up his own sexual pecadillos? i'm not a aware of a single scholar who has ever reached that conclusion because the evidence simply won't support it.

C.I.

[truth dancer]

Hi CI...

Help me out here. Can you name a single legitimate scholar who has ever declared that Smith was simply covering up his own sexual pecadillos? i'm not a aware of a single scholar who has ever reached that conclusion because the evidence simply won't support it.

I'm not sure if I'm following you here...

Why do you think JS lied if it wasn't to cover up his behavior?

Also, are you suggesting that Bachman's Master's Thesis is not reflective of the truth? I sure shed some pretty serious tears reading it!!! I truly don't know how someone could read it and not have some serious questions about JS and polygamy.

But I know we all see things differently...

~dancer~

[Moksha]

You sound like Emma... Denial. <As Chum and anchor would say>

But I can make the aligation.

Get my point?

Zak, that is ingenious. That way all history can be denied.

[Moksha]

What I want to know is whether Joseph will be hitting on Lydia in the next installment of The Work and the Glory?

If he does, I hope it will be handled as an angel specifically commanding Joseph to take Lydia, and not simply as a lustful response to her beauty. Also, I hope they say on a big scrolling legend that the narrator reads, that it was for a higher sealing purpose and not just a roll in the hay.

[John Corrill]

CI: Yes, there is sufficient evidence to prove that Smith had multiple wives. Beyond that, the evidence proves very little.

John Corill: This, of course, is a gross mis-statement. When several women write that they would rather go to the grave than marry Joseph Smith, that tells us a TREMENDOUS amount beyond the mere fact that they were just his wives. There is a HUGE amount of first person documentation from these women wherin they describe their interaction with Joseph Smith and how they felt about marrying him. Eye witness testimony by someone who was there is pretty powerful, wouldn't you say? Speaking as an attorney, of course...

CI: There is nothing there to impugn (sp?) [Joseph Smith's] character.

John Corrill: Only that JS lied repeatedly about his involvement in polygamy AND he offered threats AND rewards to teenagers who married him (This is called coercion. What do you call it in the law business?) AND he lied to his own wife Emma about his involvement with other women, women who just so happened to be her friends AND he was breaking the law by marrying these women AND he destroyed property when the press tried to expose his deviancy.

None of this is in dispute. LDS scholars know and understand this. They ascribe holy and honorable reasons for all this...which baffles me...but they don't dispute these facts.

CI: You are a Defender of Dead Mormon Women, John. You are attempting to defend their honor despite repeatedly being shown quotes from them wherein the specifically stated they neither needed nor wanted your defense.

John Corrill: I urge you to do some reading regarding abusive relationships. What abused women say about their abuse in private (letters, journals, friends, etc) vs public (newspapers, church talks, etc) is VERY different and the reasons for this are recognized and understood. When reading the private and public declarations of young teenagers like Lucy Walker and Helen Mar Kimball, it becomes very obvious that they were being mistreated by Joseph Smith.

CI: ...it says more about you that you think that he had a fair opportunity to defend/explain his actions in the environment in which he was surrounded in Nauvoo.

JC: What kind of "opportunity" should we give to someone who is breaking the law and coercing teenagers (TEENAGERS...did you get that?) into marriage. What would be a "fair" way to let someone like this come clean? William Law approached Smith privately and urged him to obey the law and come clean. Smith refused. How do we as a society help someone like Joseph Smith, who is abusing teenagers, to come clean. What would you suggest as "fair"?

CI: Can you name a single legitimate scholar who has ever declared that Smith was simply covering up his own sexual pecadillos?

JC: Yes

CI: i'm not a aware of a single scholar who has ever reached that conclusion because the evidence simply won't support it.

JC: You have some homework to do... I'd suggest you start by reading about abuse and how abusers treat women and girls and then deny and lie about it.

[truth dancer]

Hi John....

John Corrill: I urge you to do some reading regarding abusive relationships. What abused women say about their abuse in private (letters, journals, friends, etc) vs public (newspapers, church talks, etc) is VERY different and the reasons for this are recognized and understood.

You are absolutely correct here.

One thing I might add...

There are many situations where a woman is in an abusive relationship and she cannot even tell a friend AND there are even those situations where a women is in such denial that she can't even see what is going on to admit it to herself. It is a very clear and common situation. It is the way some women cope and manage their lives.

~dancer~

[Brackite]

Hello truth dancer,

Hi Brackite...

I'm sure you know this but... 

Monogamy was stated as official doctrine in the D&C sec 104 until it was removed and replaced with sec 132.

I find this difficult...   

~dancer~

Yes, I sure know about that. Some LDS Apologists will explain that Oliver Cowdery was the main person who wrote that 'Article for marriage' while Joseph Smith was out of town, and that Oliver Cowdery put that 'Article of marriage' section in the Doctrine and Covenants without the approval of Joseph Smith. However, when Joseph Smith was the main editor of the Times and Season, he publicly endorsed the 'Article of Marriage' by having it being put in into the Times and Season. Here is that part of the Times and Season:

Inasmuch as the public mind has been unjustly abused through the fallacy of Dr. Bennett's letters, we make an extract on the subject of marriage, showing the rule of the church on this important matter. The extract is from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and is the only rule allowed by the church.

"All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled. Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again. It is not right to persuade a woman to be baptized contrary to the will of her husband neither is it lawful to influence her to leave her husband."

"Books", Times and Seasons, September 1, 1842

[USU78]

And this:

There are many situations where a woman is in an abusive relationship and she cannot even tell a friend AND there are even those situations where a women is in such denial that she can't even see what is going on to admit it to herself. It is a very clear and common situation. It is the way some women cope and manage their lives.

adequately describes JSJr.'s wives' experience (and is, thus, evidence of JSJr. being a fallen prophet) exactly how?

[John Corrill]

USU78: adequately describes JSJr.'s wives' experience (and is, thus, evidence of JSJr. being a fallen prophet) exactly how?

John Corrill: Rather than seeing Joseph Smith's threats and abuse for what is was, these young women capitulated to the coercion of the abuser. THEN...and this is very interesting...they directed their discomfort with the situation inward, and blamed themselves for their inability to find peace - seeing it as "their" weakness, asking God for help to overcome, etc. Pretty heartwrenching stuff.

In the year 1842 President Joseph Smith sought an interview with me, and said,

[truth dancer]

We have a fourteen old girl, believing she is being sacrificed so her family and kindred can receive exaltation.... she fasts for a week....

This girl had two choices... either she had to figure out a way to go along with this "hated" practice OR she would be sacrificing herself, her family and her kindred's eternal future FOREVER because she was tempted of the devil.

Our minds are powerful things...

This speaks of abusive of the worse kind IMO.

~dancer~

[Scott Gordon]

We have a fourteen old girl, believing she is being sacrificed so her family and kindred can receive exaltation.... she fasts for a week....

This girl had two choices... either she had to figure out a way to go along with this "hated" practice OR she would be sacrificing herself, her family and her kindred's eternal future FOREVER because she was tempted of the devil.

Our minds are powerful things...

This speaks of abusive of the worse kind IMO.

~dancer~

Nice spin.

But it doesn't hold water. You have to read her later writings.

Scott

[John Corrill]

Scott Gordon: Nice spin.

But it doesn't hold water. You have to read her later writings.

John Corrill: The above account comes from Helen Mar's "1881 Reminscence". She would have been in her mid-50's. Obviously, still remembering the pain she experienced 40 years earlier.

[Zakuska]

John,

Here's a little first hand experience with "eye witnesses"...

This happend to us about a month after my wife and I got married. We where living in an apartment in downtown Salt Lake city (300 East 700 South). I was going to school and so was she. At LDS Business college which is about 700 East South Temple. So to get home she took south temple to 300 East turned south then entered the Apartments at about 720 South on the North/west end of the Apartment complex.

Well this particular day there was a man who lived in the Apartments that was helping a 6 year old neighbor girl cross the street at 300 East 800 South to get to school. He was standing on the corner and when the light turned green and the cross walk sign said to go he looked at her and said it was alright for her to cross. She took one step into the street and a car coming west to make a turn at the corner hit her ripping her out of the hand of this samaritan and throwing her 15 feet into the intersection. Well the man who had just helped her get hit was obviously distrot hit his fist down on the hood of the car looked the driver right in the eyes and screemed what the **** are you doing and he proceeded to run out into the intersection to scooped up the little girl. Then the story goes that he watched the car speed off going North and then ducking into our appartment complex. So he goes calls 911 and then he and the father of the child galivant off trying to find the driver and the car that had just hit and run.

Oddly enough my wifes car just happen to fit the description of the hit and run vehicle. Even though she had returned from school 10 minutes before was dressed in her robe because she was getting ready to get in the shower to get ready for work. So they find her car in the parking lot. (It just happened to be the first one insdie the parking lot, therer where about 6 others that also fit the description) Go to the front desk and get the appartment Managment to come with them to confront my wife (Her english wasnt very good at the time) She calls me up at work in tears... so I have to leave and come deal with all this. So because the "eye witness" said it was my wifes car and her that he had looked in the eyes and cursed at that had did the hit and run. The police officer had no choice but to sight her for hit and run. To which we ended up having to get a lawyer on a student buget, my wife ended up in the hospital with a nervous break down, and had to drop her classes for the semester and retake them later which threw of her entire schedule and delayed graduation for a year. And all because an "eye witness" said it was my wife.

They didn't even listen to the fact that my wife came from the north to return home before going to work up in the avenues. That she had already been home for ten minutes. They saw her as acting and hiding the fact that it was her.

Well... after 5 trial dates that came and went (I had to take vacation to to cover this) without the prosecuter even putting forth any effort to even prepare a case. The Judge finally dropped the charges dew to speedy trial.

I trust "eye witnesses" about as far as I can throw a Lawyer John. Where is the colaboration of testimony?

1 Tim. 5: 19

19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.

PS. The little girl was alright, brused thigh, skinned knee.

BTW... our first year of marriage wasn't a bed of roses and I and my wife still feel trauma from the experience to this day. Ten years later.

Personally I think it was all just a big insurance scam because the claim to the insurance for the hospital bills came the next day and we had to let the Insurance know it was in litigation.

[Scott Gordon]

Scott Gordon: Nice spin.

But it doesn't hold water. You have to read her later writings.

John Corrill: The above account comes from Helen Mar's "1881 Reminscence". She would have been in her mid-50's. Obviously, still remembering the pain she experienced 40 years earlier.

Its partial.

We have to remember that Helen Kimball became a defender of polygamy.

[John Corrill]

John Corrill: Sorry to hear about you and your wife's difficult experience. Having met your wife (a very sweet lady) I'm sure this was very difficult for her. I'm happy it all turned out OK for her and for the little girl.

In this story, I would liken Helen Mar Kimball not to the "eyewitness" who falsely pegged your wive, but to the little girl who was hit by car. I doubt there's much question in the little girls mind that she was smacked by a car. Her injuries prove as much. Helen's injuries, at the hands of Joseph Smith are also very obvious.

Zak: I trust "eye witnesses" about as far as I can throw a Lawyer John. Where is the colaboration of testimony?

1 Tim. 5: 19

19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.

John Corrill: We have more than a handful of young girls and women who have told their stories about Joseph Smith's behavior. We hear the same story of abuse, over and over again. Helen Mar Kimball, Lucy Walker, Almera Johnson, Sarah Ann Whitney, Emily and Eliza Partridge...the list goes on and on....

[John Corrill]

Scott Gordon: We have to remember that Helen Kimball became a defender of polygamy.

John Corrill: Of course. This is a common and understood phenomon of people who are trapped in abusive relationships. Here's an interesting article regarding this (emphasis John Corrill):

Love and Stockholm Syndrome: The Mystery of Loving an Abuser

Joseph M. Carver, Ph.D.

...Stockholm Syndrome (SS) can also be found in family, romantic, and interpersonal relationships. The abuser may be a husband or wife, boyfriend or girlfriend, father or mother, or any other role in which the abuser is in a position of control or authority.

It

[Guest Lori]

"Oh I was trolling along, one moonlight day......yeah just trolling along..."

Why is it that Lori's posts sound suspiciously as if they were being taken verbatim from someone liike John Corrill or Serenity?

As usual, yes, I'm the heartless one whose not buying the premise of this thread.

However, from what I can see in the Bible, there is no such thing as a "fallen prophet." The closest you get is King Davis, who was a prophet of sort, but not "the" prophet as that duty fell to Nathan and it is apparent that David was subject to Nathan as David sought his permission to do certian things like build the temple, etc.

C.I.

This accusation of me being a troll is so funny to me. First of all, I am new to this board and had no idea of who John or serenity is until I just saw his name tonight on this thread. Can you please explain what you are talking about?