Could Joseph Smith be a "Fallen Prophet"

[Guest Lori]

You see, I went to an older singles adult dance once (usually went to the young singles since I was young at the time), and I met two very choice daughters who were still fairly young.  One was younger and was divorced having a couple of kids already and the other was a little older but never married.  Also, most of the men I saw at this dance, were not of the best of quality.  Anyway, while dancing and associating with these good sisters, the spirit of the Lord touched me like never before.  So much love filled my soul that I was pained deeply, and in that moment I understood Gods reasons behind Plural Marriage.  I understood, that it was simply one manifestation of Gods love for ALL of his children.  You see, these good sisters deserved a righteous husband, and their children especially deserved a righteous father to raise them unto righteousness.  Yet today, so many good sisters and their children are essentially thrown to wayside like inferior garbage simply because they could not find a righteous man and have an Eternal Family, and quite often, it is the Children that really suffer, even by Apostacy.  You see, in the LORDS Church, Plural Marriage wasn't about Lust, it wasn't about abusing women, it was about LOVE.  The most purest form of selfless Love.  I can never forget this.  The pure love I felt was so strong, that I still remember it to this day, and am even saddened that the wickedness of man forces us to give up completely this God Ordained practice.  But, nevertheless, it will all work out according to Gods will.  It's simply unfortunate that so many have to suffer and even leave God in the meantime.

I have been reading through all the posts tonight and am grateful for everybody's input.

For women it is selfless to give up her husband and relationship with him to another woman. Here is the problem. You say that these women would not have this eternal family without polygamy. What are you talking about when you say eternal family? If there is one man and one woman that is the only family I would want. When you felt so saddened that plural marriage had to be given up, did you think about what the family life you would be giving to these single girls really was? That is not the dream here or the next life for any single girl I know.

How can you honestly say that lust is gone for the man. Get real. I can believe that for the women they had to give up any kind of emotional connection to allow their husband to sleep with others. But taking the lust out? How can you physiologically procreate without some kind of lust as a man? I felt like I was reading a dirty book when I learned all about Joseph's proposals. It made me physiclly sick. Pure love between a man and a woman is what makes monogamy so beautiful-if you truly love a woman you wouldn't be having sex with another one. I do not see how it's possible to love more than one wife at the same time. I could never love another man while married to my husband. It goes against everything holy and sacred to me about our marriage.

I would rather be alone than a plural wife but that's just me. Obviously some women were happy to be the other woman. That destroys everything I love about the family unit.

I do see what you felt in your story of the single women to be sincere Christ like love. I completly agree with that feeling. It is pure love, but what you are missing is that you can't give that love to all those women. Just because you are a righteous man doesn't mean that they won't have a chance to find some other righteous man. I don't know if there are going to be more righteous women than men in the next life. I think it's silly to even talk about that, but if it's true, you will lose some of them when they find out they have to be polygamists. I don't know too many women who want that kind of eternal family.

I am most disturbed to learn that this is required for exlatation. So if we don't like it here why would we like it there....for ETERNITY.

[Calm]

I can believe that for the women they had to give up any kind of emotional connection to allow their husband to sleep with others.

This is based on your personal highly emotional response.

Do you believe that there could be women out there who felt their emotional connection was actually deepened with their husband due to the additional need to bind themselves together more deeply? And that an equally emotionally rewarding relationship existed with the sisterwife?

If no, how do you explain the accounts of just this happening in some of the journals?

[truth dancer]

Hi Scott...

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

Abuse is abuse.

The incident still happened regardless of how she made sense of it over her life.

There are reasons children will deny the abuse of their parents. There are reasons women cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the abuse of their partners. There are reasons women find ways to cope with unhealthy, difficult, abusive or painful situations. It speaks to the amazing ability our minds have of surviving and coping.

It is the NORM to hear women justify the abuse of their husbands. It is the NORM for women and children to blame themselves for abuse.

Whenever mind games are used to manipulate behavior it is unhealthy and harmful. ESPECIALLY when those who are using these techniques are men in powerful and controlling position (let alone someone who claims to have spoken to GOD) knowing they have the trust of their subjects.

~dancer~

[truth dancer]

Hi Lori...

How can you honestly say that lust is gone for the man. Get real. I can believe that for the women they had to give up any kind of emotional connection to allow their husband to sleep with others. But taking the lust out? How can you physiologically procreate without some kind of lust as a man? I felt like I was reading a dirty book when I learned all about Joseph's proposals. It made me physiclly sick. Pure love between a man and a woman is what makes monogamy so beautiful-if you truly love a woman you wouldn't be having sex with another one. I do not see how it's possible to love more than one wife at the same time. I could never love another man while married to my husband. It goes against everything holy and sacred to me about our marriage.

Nice post!

The suggestion that it helps men not be lustful is laughable to me.

OK... if you lust after women besides your wife, we will just make it ok for you to have sex with them. Then you won't have to worry about controlling yourself. Since affaires are not great, lets just marry the women and girls we want (regardless of how young they are or if they are already married) then we won't go to hell! In fact I'm sure this is actually God's plan so we will all go to heaven!!! The more women the better! PLEASE!!!

In my mind this completey turns a marriage into providing for men, the instinctual mating of animals. NOTHING holy about it! It further reduces (eliminates) the beauty of a connected, unified, emotionally close, intimate, and sexual relationship for women. A great thing only if one doesn't care about women and thinks of women as a possession for the pleasure of man, with no sexual or emotional needs whatsoever.

It just doesn't work for me...

~dancer~

[truth dancer]

Hi USU....

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

With all due respect, and I mean this most sincerely....

When people break the law there are consequences. Whose fault is it that polygamous men were in jail? The government's for enforcing the law or the men who broke the law?

I truly understand those who live their religion and sacrifice for a principle... we see examples of this all over the world... some healthy some not so healthy.

But societies make laws and rules and most are required to conform to the laws of the land. When a society finds a practice going on that (to them) is cruel, hurtful, wrong, or immoral they make laws to protect its citizens whether that practice is child abuse, slavery, polygamy, whatever.

Regardless of why adults break the law and end up in jail, my heart ALWAYS goes out to the children who suffer as a result of the parents actions.

~dancer~

[truth dancer]

Hi Cal....

Do you believe that there could be women out there who felt their emotional connection was actually deepened with their husband due to the additional need to bind themselves together more deeply? And that an equally emotionally rewarding relationship existed with the sisterwife?

There are folks who love and enjoy all sorts of various forms of alternative partnering.

There are folks who enjoy all sorts of, what many consider, unusual sexual interactions.

Are there women who are OK with polygamy? Of course.

My opinion is that if someone wants to have whatever alternative partnership they want it is their business. If a group of folks decide to all marry each other it is not my concern (aside for the issue of the damage it could be to children).

But, to declare that polygamy is a requirement to get to heaven (CKHL) is not appropriate. To use coercion, manipulation, power and control is unhealthy and hurtful. To assert it is a commandment of God speaks to some pretty serious issues IMO.

~dancer~

[Dale]

Hi,

I have my big In Sacred Lonliness by Todd Comptom & looked at Helen Mar Kimballs case.

I have seen Helen's writings & don't see anything that damning of Joseph Smith Jr. in them.

Her sacrifice must have not been that great if there was no sexuality between Helen & Joseph Smith Jr. A mental sacrifice isn't a sacrifice of her chastity for a lustful prophets desires. For all practical purposes the sealing could not have been considered as being for time. At Kerry Shirts Mormonism Researched website in the Tanner section Todd Comptom's note in reply to the Tanners admits no sexuality.

Where Todd Comptom spouts baloney is when he argues Joseph Smith Jr. never married anyone for just eternity.(pg. 500) That's because words like time & for eternity or variations of that wording were thrown into the ceremony. Yet I know of several such marriages where there are doubts of sexuality. If the marriage were really considered for time the parties involved didn't act like it.

There isn't much new on polygamy & Joseph Smith Jr. Alll the quotes I see from Todd Comptom are the ones I saw years ago. The only thing they can add is sensationalistic commentary to sell these books. I bought one so the books do sell. When I was first going through Todd's book a friend of mine had bought one to. We both agreed Todd Comptom speculates way to much. I believe at times he say's a quote say's one thing & I think it should be interpreted another way.

Sincerely,

Dale

[USU78]

Hi USU....

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

With all due respect, and I mean this most sincerely....

When people break the law there are consequences. Whose fault is it that polygamous men were in jail? The government's for enforcing the law or the men who broke the law?

I truly understand those who live their religion and sacrifice for a principle... we see examples of this all over the world... some healthy some not so healthy.

But societies make laws and rules and most are required to conform to the laws of the land. When a society finds a practice going on that (to them) is cruel, hurtful, wrong, or immoral they make laws to protect its citizens whether that practice is child abuse, slavery, polygamy, whatever.

Regardless of why adults break the law and end up in jail, my heart ALWAYS goes out to the children who suffer as a result of the parents actions.

~dancer~

td:

But societies make laws and rules and most are required to conform to the laws of the land. When a society finds a practice going on that (to them) is cruel, hurtful, wrong, or immoral they make laws to protect its citizens whether that practice is child abuse, slavery, polygamy, whatever.

Did you sorta miss the part about the angels and the Sarah-esque promise to my G-Grandmother?

When G-d tells me to do something, personally or through His angel, I'd better do it, don't you think?

[USU78]

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.

Which differs from your typical teenaged girl's marriage experience ca. 1840 as recalled 40ish years later exactly how?

[USU78]

This

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.

acontextual, anachronistic reconstructionism is, alas, unimpressive.

You really should read up a bit more to get a more balanced view. How many stories of young women on the praerie in the later 1800s basically said the same thing?

Willa Cather is really a must if you're to understand American women of the 1800s. I saw a ballet, Wind over the Land, about a young praerie wife's breakdown due to "sacred loneliness" and despair, largely based upon Cather's works, back in the mid 1970s. It was not a Mormon piece, but rather came from a Texas-born, Fokin-trained ballet mistress out of Southern California.

Loneliness and despair ain XIXth Century American Womanhood are not exclusively an LDS issue. In the words of the [non-Mormon] folk song:

Hard luck is the fortune of all womankind.

They're always controlled, they're always confined.

Controlled by their parents until they are wives,

Then slaves to their husbands the rest of their lives.

You appear to be transferring your sympathy to woman's XIXth Century Plight, which does your heart credit, only to her experience in Mormonia, without viewing the larger landscape to see it in context. You would do better to broaden your horizons.

[Confidential Informant]

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

Obviously.

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

Isn't not a question of did he lie to cover up his behavior, it's a question of why did he feel the need to cover his behavior. It's pretty clear that the inner circle of leaders were well aware of it. But that's not what I was referring to. I'm referring to Blink's argument that Smith committed adultery and then simply "made up" section 132 to cover it up. That's crap and no legitimate scholar supports that view. I unaware of any scholar who has ever concluded that it was anything other than legitimate religious devotion to a religious principle that he sincerely believed.

As to why he lied: easy, if he hadn't he'd have been killed (he was anyway). Corrill seems to be the kind of person who would have confessed that Anne Frank was living in his attic if the Nazi's had just asked. I'm sorry, but I have no problem with situational ethics such as this.

Oh, BTW, another reason Smith probably denied the relationships is tha by doing so he prevented possible prosecution under a "common law" marriage claim. One of the requirements for finding a common law marriage is that you hold yourself out openly as married. By denying that he was married, he prevented that from being the case.

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!!!

Did my above comments clear up my meaning?

I truly don't know how someone could read it and not have some serious questions about JS and polygamy.

I do. The author of the very work you cite remains to this day a faithful, practicing Mormon who has served in variouis capacity including mission president. Todd Compton continues to be a faithful, practicing member. Go figure.

But I know we all see things differently...

Obviously. You appear to even disagree with the very authors of the works you cite.

C.I.

[Confidential Informant]

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.

Yes, it proves that they were more than capable of saying, "no," a concept which you seem to struggle with.

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...

Indeed, it can be. It's simply too bad that you and blink simply discount the "eyewitnesses" that you disagree with,dismissing them as deluded, coerced, brainwashed, etc. That's the funny thing about witnesses. When you put them on the stand, you are stuck with "everything" they say. You don't get to pick and chose.

John Corrill:  Only that JS lied repeatedly about his involvement in polygamy

Again...so what? If people were threatening me, I'd lie too. In fact, I can't think of single canon of ethics that wouldn't justify this. Your devotion to the truth is admirable in theory if totally unworkable in practice.

AND he offered threats

Which is, of course, misleading since you make it sound like they were "threatened" with immediate reprecussions and possible physical force. That, of course, wasn't the case.

AND rewards to teenagers who married him (This is called coercion. What do you call it in the law business?)

Threats of eternal consequences don't really cut it in my line of work. The law tends to require that they be of a more immediate nature. Of course, your assertion against ignores the "eye witnesses" assertions that they received independent verification of the rightness of their decisions to go forward with it.

AND he lied to his own wife Emma about his involvement with other women, women who just so happened to be her friends

And I am sure the Lord will take appropriate action for such.

AND he was breaking the law by marrying these women

Actually, I can prove pretty conclusively that he didn't break any marriage laws at all.

AND he destroyed property when the press tried to expose his deviancy.

Oh geez. "The press." Is that what Bennett et al., are called now? "The Press?" Thanks, I needed that laugh. Tell me, do the BTK Killers writings to press qualify him as a "reporter?"

None of this is in dispute.  LDS scholars know and understand this.  They ascribe holy and honorable reasons for all this...

Because that what the evidence supports.

which baffles me..

That doesn't seem to be difficult.

but they don't dispute these facts.

Nor do I.

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.

What makes you think I haven't? I do, afterall, deal with such women on a daily basis. In fact, on the wall opposite where I sit are several volumes dealing w/ these very issues.

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.

Obvioius to whom? Your unilateral declaration that it so hardly makes it truth. In fact, I doubt Helen would agree with your assessments. Not that it would matter, I'm sure you'd pat her condescendingly on the head and say, "It's okay dearing, I know what you really went through."

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.

Gee, my wife was a teenage when I married her. Apparently marrying 14 year olds wasn't that uncommon since the laws in Texas (a decidedly non-LDS state) still allow for 14-year old brides. As to what sort of "opportunity" he deserved: how about an opportunity that didn't include the threat of death?

What would be a "fair" way to let someone like this come clean?

Like I said, how about an environment free of threats of death? But your tone seems to indicate you agree that with what happened. Maybe you and Blink would have been willing to paint the faces of a few mobsters?

William Law approached Smith privately and urged him to obey the law and come clean.  Smith refused.

Smith wasn't breaking any law except maybe the adultery laws of the day. William Law should have been tried as an accessory to murder. If he's your hero, you are truly pathetic.

How do we as a society help someone like Joseph Smith, who is abusing teenagers, to come clean.  What would you suggest as "fair"?   

Please. First of all, there is a lot of evidence that the marriage to the teens were sexless. Second, wanting someone to tell the "truth" when in actuallity you are simply looking for a reason to kill him is hardly "fair."

I suspect that, had Smith been allowed to go West, he could have and would have defended his actions quite ably. Then again, he never go the chance because your "heros" murdered him in cold blood over a printing press. How you find moral equivalency, I don't know.

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.

This is a dodge. Name me ONE scholar who says that Smith ever acted for reasons other than religious devotion. You can't and you can't put the burden on me. I've well enough versed in abuser dynamics thank you very much.

C.I.

[John Corrill]

CI: I unaware of any scholar who has ever concluded that it was anything other than legitimate religious devotion to a religious principle that he sincerely believed.

JC: Wrong! You have homework to do. I can think of several scholars who have concluded such. You need to get informed, CI. Please refrain from speaking for all "scholars" in this type of statement. It's erroneous.

CI: As to why he lied: easy, if he hadn't he'd have been killed (he was anyway)... If people were threatening me, I'd lie too.

JC: Most criminals and abusers are fearful of being found out. They lie about their behavior too. They too feel threatened about being found out.

CI: Corrill seems to be the kind of person who would have confessed that Anne Frank was living in his attic if the Nazi's had just asked.

JC: Actually, I understand perfectly well why Joseph Smith lied. I probably would too if I was secretly marrying other mens wives and pressuring teenagers into marrying me. I would be VERY fearful of getting beatup or killed if I was behaving this way. And rightly so...

CI: By denying that he was married, [smith] prevented [possible prosecution under a "common law" marriage claim].

JC: Yes. That is why most criminals lie; to avoid possible prosecution.

CI: Todd Compton continues to be a faithful, practicing member. Go figure.

JC: I have never seen Todd Compton defend the treatment of these women by Joseph Smith as appropriate. I'm not sure how "faithful" he is. When he was married last year, he didn't get married in the temple. In my discussions with him, I get the feeling he would like to see the church modify it's position on some things, particularly it's defense of Joseph Smith's abusive and abhorant behavior towards women.

CI: Yes, it proves that they were more than capable of saying, "no,"

JC: Abused women often do have a difficult time saying no to their abuser. This is a well understood dynamic of abusive relationships. But you already knew that I'm sure.

CI: It's simply too bad that you and blink simply discount the "eyewitnesses" that you disagree with,dismissing them as deluded, coerced, brainwashed, etc.

JC: I didn't use the words "deluded" or "brainwashed". Coreced and abused...certainly. Women who are abused do not openly share the details of their abuse and typically deny that it is happening altogether.

CI: Your devotion to the truth is admirable in theory if totally unworkable in practice.

JC: I think it's appropriate to shoot for the truth when it's obvious someone is being abused.

CI: [you are] misleading since you make it sound like they were "threatened" with immediate reprecussions and possible physical force. That, of course, wasn't the case.

JC: Joseph Smith said he was threatened with immediate death by an angel with a sword. He put this responsiblity onto the shoulders of the young women. These women certanly felt responsible for immediate consequences. This is abuse.

CI: Threats of eternal consequences don't really cut it in my line of work.

JC: And this explains why you are having such a difficult time "getting it". Maybe you should step outside your "line of work" every now and then and look at things from a different perspective. Your "line of work" isn't the center of the world.

CI: Actually, I can prove pretty conclusively that he didn't break any marriage laws at all.

JC: Go for it... (start another thread and I'll happy to discuss this with you)

CI: What makes you think I haven't [read about abuse]?

JC: It's pretty obvious...

CI: I do, afterall, deal with such women on a daily basis.

JC: I'm very sorry to hear that. What do you do, provide defense for their abusive husbands? Seems to be your "line of work".

CI: In fact, on the wall opposite where I sit are several volumes dealing w/ these very issues.

JC: It's time to dust of the volumes, open 'em up and read a bit...

CI: Apparently marrying 14 year olds wasn't that uncommon since the laws in Texas (a decidedly non-LDS state) still allow for 14-year old brides.

JC: The "law" is your standard of morality? [John Corrill shaking his head in unbelief]

CI: Maybe you and Blink would have been willing to paint the faces of a few mobsters?

JC: Had I been there and knew the way Joseph Smith was treating these women, I woulda considered going after him myself.

CI: Smith wasn't breaking any law except maybe the adultery laws of the day.

JC: Wrong! You have some homework to do. Here's a start:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=1...law&btnG=Search

CI: Second, wanting someone to tell the "truth" when in actuallity you are simply looking for a reason to kill him is hardly "fair."

JC: What I would have REALLY liked is for Joseph Smith to stop abusing young girls and women. I would have preferred that he didn't have to lie about it or be killed over it. I would just have liked to see his abuse come to an end.

CI: Then again, he never go the chance because your "heros" murdered him in cold blood over a printing press. How you find moral equivalency, I don't know.

JC: He could have ended the abuse himself. Or maybe he couldn't have. Some abusers need to be locked up before it stops. That probably would have been a better solution to his problem than killing him. He dished out his abuse on these women for more than five years. To bad the abuse of polygamy didn't die at the same time Joseph Smith did.

CI: Name me ONE scholar who says that Smith ever acted for reasons other than religious devotion. You can't and you can't put the burden on me.

JC: I can. I suggest you do some homework before you make erroneous claims like this.

CI: I've well enough versed in abuser dynamics thank you very much.

JC: Or not....

[Guest Lori]

Is it sinful for a couple to seek alternate means of conception?

[Confidential Informant]

JC:  Wrong!  You have homework to do.  I can think of several scholars who have concluded such.  You need to get informed, CI.  Please refrain from speaking for all "scholars" in this type of statement.  It's erroneous.

Then post it and prove me wrong. I'm more than willing to eat crow.

JC:  Most criminals and abusers are fearful of being found out. They lie about their behavior too.  They too feel threatened about being found out.

Joseph wasn't "fearful" of being "found out." The majority of the leadership was already aware. The ones who didn't know were his enemies, and I'm not sure what right they had to the truth anyway.

JC:  Actually, I understand perfectly well why Joseph Smith lied.  I probably would too if I was secretly marrying other mens wives and pressuring teenagers into marrying me

It must not have been too secret. Compton claims that the other men actually knew about the marriages.

I would be VERY fearful of getting beatup or killed if I was behaving this way.  And rightly so...

Let's see, the husbands knew...the paents of the teens knew....so who, besides the mob, was going to beat him up?

JC:  Yes.  That is why most criminals lie; to avoid possible prosecution.

You haven't established that a crime was committed.

JC:  I have never seen Todd Compton defend the treatment of these women by Joseph Smith as appropriate.  I'm not sure how "faithful" he is.

Since I know Todd, I am "sure" how faithful he is.

When he was married last year, he didn't get married in the temple.  In my discussions with him, I get the feeling he would like to see the church modify it's position on some things, particularly it's defense of Joseph Smith's abusive and abhorant behavior towards women.

You "get the feeling?"

JC:  Abused women often do have a difficult time saying no to their abuser.  This is a well understood dynamic of abusive relationships.  But you already knew that I'm sure.

Yes, they do. That's why the fact that these women told Joseph "no" is evidence that they weren't abused as you insinuate.

JC:  I didn't use the words "deluded" or "brainwashed".  Coreced and abused...certainly.  Women who are abused do not openly share the details of their abuse and typically deny that it is happening altogether.

This reminds me a scene from "The Life of Brian."

Brian: I am not the Messiah!

Crowd: Only the Messiah would say that he is not the Messiah!

Brian: Fine, then I am the Messiah!

Crowd: Cheers fanatically at having found the Messiah.

Your argument is the same. If they say they weren't abused, then you just chalk it up to "abused women typically deny" it excuse. Under that paradigm, the conclusion is always pretermined.

JC: Helen, were you abused by Jospeh?

Helen: No.

JC: Only a woman who was really abused would say she wasn't....

Priceless (or worthless).

JC:  I think it's appropriate to shoot for the truth when it's obvious someone is being abused.

I'm still at a loss as to your qualifications to make that diagnosis.

JC:  Joseph Smith said he was threatened with immediate death by an angel with a sword.

Joseph Smith never said any such thing. Other people claimed he said it something like four decades after the fact.

He put this responsiblity onto the shoulders of the young women.

And yet several still said "no."

These women certanly felt responsible for immediate consequences.  This is abuse. 

Which, of course, ignore the possibility that an angel really did appear, etc. I know guys who've told women they'd die if they didn't get sex. Those women still said "no." In my view, your definition of "abuse" trivializes and cheapens the expericnes of women who have actually been abused. But that's okay because from what I can see, you trivialize and cheapen these Dead Mormon Women.

JC:  And this explains why you are having such a difficult time "getting it".  Maybe you should step outside your "line of work" every now and then and look at things from a different perspective.  Your "line of work" isn't the center of the world.

You were the one who brought up my line of work No that you discover the argument doesn't work for you, don't try to blame my viewpoints on my job.

JC:  Go for it...  (start another thread and I'll happy to discuss this with you)

First, maybe you ought to inform me of what law you accuse him of breaking.

JC:  I'm very sorry to hear that.  What do you do, provide defense for their abusive husbands?  Seems to be your "line of work".

I prosecute "real" abuse. No the imaginary stuff you are dredging up.

JC:  The "law" is your standard of morality?  [John Corrill shaking his head in unbelief]

And this is where it really comes down to it. YOU are applying YOUR standard of morality to a place and time where it doesn't fit. That's the problem with "moral" arguments...whose version of morality are you going to apply, John? Mine? Yours? Blinks? Are you asserting that there is a "gold standard" for morality? If so, who dictates it? God? Man? the Majority? Who?

JC:  Had I been there and knew the way Joseph Smith was treating these women, I woulda considered going after him myself.

And you'd have gotten you *** kicked. That's why you'd have taken the mob w/ you.

As to the bigamy laws in Illinois, I'm well aware of them. Smith didn't violate them.

And I have access to the case law from the time period to prove it.

JC:  What I would have REALLY liked is for Joseph Smith to stop abusing young girls and women.

Funny, what I would really like is for you to stop abusing their memories by discounting their words and deeds.

JC:  I can.  I suggest you do some homework before you make erroneous claims like this. 

Then post the name and source and prove me wrong.

C.I.

[Zakuska]

Lori,

So you don't have to break commandments to go through fertility.

Please list line and verse where "this" is listed as a commandment.

[truth dancer]

Hi CI....

I do. The author of the very work you cite remains to this day a faithful, practicing Mormon who has served in variouis capacity including mission president. Todd Compton continues to be a faithful, practicing member. Go figure.

I understand this. I didn't say "leave the church" I said,

I truly don't know how someone could read it and not have some serious questions about JS and polygamy.

I guess you think all was fine and dandy, no problems, nothing inappropriate, no wrong doing, just the way God wanted it to be... ?

Ok then....

~dancer~

[John Corrill]

CI: And you'd have gotten you *** kicked.

JC: Ahhhh! I think I know who you are now. I didn't recognize you with the name change and all, but now I can see the familiar pattern.

I very well may have gotten my *** kicked...but I doubt it. In fact, I'm quite sure of it.

CI: Then post it and prove me wrong. I'm more than willing to eat crow.

JC: If I remember correctly, you work close to the library. Stop by after work and do a little research. It's not all that tough. I think a smart lawyer like you can handle it.

CI (before): As to why he lied: easy, if he hadn't he'd have been killed

CI (now): Joseph wasn't "fearful" of being "found out."

JC: [scratching his head]:

CI: Compton claims that the other men actually knew about the marriages.

JC: No... Compton discussed BOTH situations when the husbands new and when the husbands didn't know. I'm thinking you haven't read the book. And you had me fooled into believing you had.

CI: ...the parents of the teens knew....

JC: No... Compton also discussed BOTH situations when the parents knew and when they didn't. In fact, the only living parent of teenager Lucy Walker (her Father) was sent on a mission by Joseph Smith and THEN JS married her while he was gone. Why do you keep making up such obviously erroneous statements like this? This is weird.

CI: You haven't established that a crime was committed.

JC: Man! Your homework list is growing. You didn't even read the 1833 Illinois Bigamy link I posted last time. Sheesh!

CI: That's why the fact that these women told Joseph "no" is evidence that they weren't abused as you insinuate.

JC: Um...the women we have been discussing in this thread did not tell Smith "no". They gave in to his abuse. I'm serious, you need to read the book and get informed.

CI: If they say they weren't abused, then you just chalk it up to "abused women typically deny" it excuse. Under that paradigm, the conclusion is always pretermined.

JC: No... The abuse is determined by the way the man treats the women. NOT whether the women says she is abused or not.

CI: I'm still at a loss as to your qualifications to make that diagnosis. [abuse]

JC: The abuse Joseph Smith dished out on these women is not that difficult to see. When someone is threatened with harm to do something they don't want to do, it's a pretty obvious clue.

CI: Other people claimed he said [he was threatened by angel with a sword] something like four decades after the fact.

JC: Yes, those *other people* were the *actual* women who Joseph Smith abused and coerced into being his wives.

CI: I prosecute "real" abuse.

JC: God help us...

[Confidential Informant]

You didn't even read the 1833 Illinois Bigamy link I posted last time. Sheesh!

I have, in fact, read the statute. I am, in fact, quite well versed in criminal law and its prosecution. Smith's actions do not fit under the bigamy statute.

C.I.

[truth dancer]

Hi CI...

If they say they weren't abused, then you just chalk it up to "abused women typically deny" it excuse. Under that paradigm, the conclusion is always pretermined.

I'm not sure where you live but in the states in which I have resided when an abuse case is taken to court, it is the state VS the abuser.

I'm sure you know that the reason for this is that the survivors of abuse will usually not prosecute. They typically defend the abuser and deny that abuse even occurred.

~dancer~

[Confidential Informant]

I'm sure you know that the reason for this is that the survivors of abuse will usually not prosecute. They typically defend the abuser and deny that abuse even occurred.

Typically?

I have never seen the woman "deny" the abuse because usually she can't. She's got a bruise, a scar, a welt, a black eye or something else that clearly indicates that something happened. ACtually, I may be drawing too fine a line there.

What they will often do is blame themselves ("It was my fault.").

They might try to give an alterante explanation ("I ran into a door"; "I fell," etc).

When they actually "defend" the abuse they usually acknowlege that it happened but try to defend his motives, ("He didn't mean it, it was an accident." ect.)

Nevertheless, TD, the fact remains that in a lot of cases, the woman actually tells the truth too! I have seen cases (many) where the injuries actually came from another source (accidents, etc). I have also seen cases where the husband did it but it was genuinely an accident.

But from what I see, in those cases you and John appear to suggest that we just ignore what the wife's said because "typically" some abuse victims act a certain way.

C.I.

[John Corrill]

CI: Smith's actions do not fit under the bigamy statute.

The REVISED LAWS of ILLINOIS 1833

Sec 121:  Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one time and the same time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive.  If any person within this state, being married, or who shall hereafter marry, do at any time marry any person or persons, the former husband or wife being alive; the person so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned in the penitentiary not exceeding two years.

I think I have heard the lame reasoning in the past that Joseph Smith

[Confidential Informant]

Perry Mason you ain't.

I think I have heard the lame reasoning in the past that Joseph Smith’s plural marriages were not performed by someone who was legally qualified to perform marriages, so they were not real marriages and so the Bigamy law doesn’t apply.  This is not the case.  The bigamy law did not require a legal marriage to be performed in order for one to be guilty of bigamy.

That's not what I'm saying. "Marriage" is a legal term. For a person to be "married" they must meet certain requirements such as obtaining a valid marriage license and then registering that license w/ the county clerk. That was never done in this case.

In some instances, the Illinois court would not require a license to find that a valid marriage existed, (common law marriage) but in those cases the couple must meet certain criteria. Smith relationships did not meet those criteria.

Thus, either way you look at it, no marriage existed.

It shall not be necessary to prove either of the said marriages by the register or certificate thereof, or other record evidence; but the same may be proved by such evidence as is admissible to prove a marriage in other cases...

You chastise me for not reading the statute but its obvious you've read it and have no idea what it says. This section goes to the evidence required by the State to establish the existence of the marriage. All it says is that the prosecutore is not "required" to present the marriage license or other document evidence to establish that the marriage existed. In other words, in a case where the license was obtained and filed in another state, or where it had been destroyed or was, for some other reason, not available, the prosecutor was allowed to establish the existence of the marriages by other means.

That's all that section says and it doesn't support your position.

C.I.

[John Corrill]

CI: In other words, in a case where the license was obtained and filed in another state, or where it had been destroyed or was, for some other reason, not available, the prosecutor was allowed to establish the existence of the marriages by other means.

John Corrill: Read the Illinois law. It considered co-habitation in the state of Illinois the same as marriage and it qualified as bigamy. A legal document was not necessary.

Lucy Walker, wife of Joseph Smith: "I afterwards married Joseph as a plural wife and lived and cohabitated with him as such...Emma Smith was not present and she did not consent to the marriage; she did not know anything about it at all."

[Moksha]

If too many distortions of reality exist in one place at one time, do you think it could effect the space-time continuum? effect the space-time continuum? effect the space-time continuum?