Presentism and the Persecutors of the Early Saints

[_Nightlion]

Are we guilty of presentism when we condemn those mobs and vigilantes and purveyors of "frontier justice" that gave the early members of the Church such a hard time? These were, after all, simply men of their time, place, and culture. It would be intellectually dishonest to hold them to the enlightened standards of our day.

Right?______________

The Prophet Joseph Smith a virturous man from the beginning to the end. The presentism about him is that you guys present and present the same lies over and over and over again just to smear him again and again and again and that it becomes indisputable by way of the siege mentality of all of Satan's feeding piranhas. This vile attack has never abatted from the time he left the grove.

With so many wolves prowling around to devour Joseph Smith you would think that he would have been caught once sleeping with another woman if he was a salacious man. Never was. Did not happen. No children. Lots of witches saying otherwise. Who cares. Sealed for eternity does not men consumated on earth by the way.

[_Seven]

The Prophet Joseph Smith a virturous man from the beginning to the end. The presentism about him is that you guys present and present the same lies over and over and over again just to smear him again and again and again and that it becomes indisputable by way of the siege mentality of all of Satan's feeding piranhas. This vile attack has never abatted from the time he left the grove.

With so many wolves prowling around to devour Joseph Smith you would think that he would have been caught once sleeping with another woman if he was a salacious man. Never was. Did not happen. No children. Lots of witches saying otherwise. Who cares. Sealed for eternity does not men consumated on earth by the way.

13 faithful LDS plural wives swore court affidavits that their marriages to Joseph Smith were sexual.

Compton writes:
"Because of claims by Reorganized Latter-day Saints that Joseph was not really married polygamously in the full (i.e., sexual) sense of the term, Utah Mormons (including Joseph's wives) affirmed repeatedly that Joseph had physical sexual relations with his plural wives-despite the Victorian conventions in nineteenth-century American religion which otherwise would have prevented mention of sexual relations in marriage."

- Faithful Mormon Melissa Lott (Smith Willes) testified that she had been Joseph's wife "in very deed." (Affidavit of Melissa Willes, 3 Aug. 1893, Temple Lot case, 98, 105; Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 156.)

- In a court affidavit, faithful Mormon Joseph Noble wrote that Joseph told him he had spent the night with Louisa Beaman. (Temple Lot Case, 427)

- Emily D. Partridge (Smith Young) said she "roomed" with Joseph the night following her marriage to him and said that she had "carnal intercourse" with him. (Temple Lot case (complete transcript), 364, 367, 384; see Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 15.)

In total, 13 faithful latter-day saint women who were married to Joseph Smith swore court affidavits that they had sexual relations with him.

- Joseph Smith's personal secretary records that on May 22nd, 1843, Smith's first wife Emma found Joseph and Eliza Partridge secluded in an upstairs bedroom at the Smith home. Emma was devastated.
William Clayton's journal entry for 23 May (see Smith, 105-106)

- Smith's secretary William Clayton also recorded a visit to young Almera Johnson on May 16, 1843: "Prest. Joseph and I went to B[enjamin] F. Johnsons to sleep." Johnson himself later noted that on this visit Smith stayed with Almera "as man and wife" and "occupied the same room and bed with my sister, that the previous month he had occupied with the daughter of the late Bishop Partridge as his wife." Almera Johnson also confirmed her secret marriage to Joseph Smith: "I lived with the prophet Joseph as his wife and he visited me at the home of my brother Benjamin F." (Zimmerman, I Knew the Prophets, 44. See also "The Origin of Plural Marriage, Joseph F. Smith, Jr., Deseret News Press, page 70-71.)

- Faithful Mormon and Stake President Angus Cannon told Joseph Smith's son: "Brother Heber C. Kimball, I am informed, asked [Eliza R. Snow] the question if she was not a virgin although married to Joseph Smith and afterwards to Brigham Young, when she replied in a private gathering, "I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that."" (Stake President Angus M. Cannon, statement of interview with Joseph III, 23, LDS archives.)

more here

[_Kishkumen]

You have to be careful with the tarring and feathering incident, as the mention of Eli Johnson is secondhand.

Only someone hellbent on maligning a beautiful religion like Mormonism would put forward such a hypothesis. What do you get from behaving like this, 24/7? You can't possibly be a happy person.

-rcrocket (as impersonated by Kishkumen)

[_Kishkumen]

The presentism about him is that you guys present and present the same lies over and over and over again just to smear him again and again and again and that it becomes indisputable by way of the siege mentality of all of Satan's feeding piranhas.

Well, I guess that about covers it. You guys just got pwned.

[_JohnStuartMill]

I honestly believe that Nightlion is mentally ill. Is there any way that we can help him?

[_Kishkumen]

I honestly believe that Nightlion is mentally ill. Is there any way that we can help him?

You know, this is an excellent question. It appears that we have a number of individuals here at MDB who exhibit signs of various disabilities and illnesses. And I, for one, am wondering what our ethical responsibility in this matter is.

Here we have Nightlion, who, out of disappointments that he could not bear (divorce? pedophilic urges? a combination or neither?), or maybe just a chemical imbalance that is no fault of his own, has lapsed into a kind of complex religious delusion. Unlike an LDS bishop, who might think him the victim of demons or Satan, and therefore prescribe repentance, I am loathe to diagnose him. What I think we must do is talk him into getting some therapy and let the professionals decide.

For Drippy the easiest answer would be an adult literacy course at the local library or high school and then a twelve-step program of some kind to deal with his frothing at the mouth rage. I am betting that his experience with AA was a success, and, now that he knows the advantage of turning to a "higher power" in dealing with alcohol, he can seek the same relief from the alienating burden of his rage in a similar program.

I appreciate you bringing this up, Mr. Mill. It is important that we all give this careful thought and come to some determination about how to best deal with these poor, afflicted souls, and ask ourselves WWDPD (What would Dr. Phil do?)?

[_Runtu]

Only someone hellbent on maligning a beautiful religion like Mormonism would put forward such a hypothesis. What do you get from behaving like this, 24/7? You can't possibly be a happy person.

-rcrocket (as impersonated by Kishkumen)

I'm sure Bob is disappointed.

As I said on the MADB thread about Joseph lying, what always gets me is how otherwise good people can be persuaded to justify the kind of stuff Joseph pulled with his wife and other women. There were even people comparing Joseph's lying to Emma to people hiding Jews from the Nazis and (my personal favorite) Jesus' parables.

Realizing just what I was justifying was the turning point for me regarding Mormonism. I could rationalize away all the problems with Mormon scripture and history, but for some reason my conscience finally caught up with me, and I realized I couldn't justify Joseph's lying and coercion in his practice of polygamy.

I guess that makes me a maligner who is full of crap. So be it.

[Guest]

But the LDS church does take a stand on certain issues that have a moral overtone.

As do I.

You see WhyMe, your definition of morals are quite different than mine -- and I would venture to say, most of the non-Mormons of the world. Of course "you" take a stand on something you se as "sin." That's why we've had such bizarre liquor laws here in Utah. But I submit that the church' stand on most issues lately is quite immoral.

By morality, I mean equal rights for all. In fact, you call it "agency," but you don't live it. There is no logical way to twist your stance against gay marriage any way but what it is. Immoral.

Now again, through your Mormon lens, you see gay behavior as disgusting. But remember from your primary story days of the pre-existence, there was only one who tried to make everybody behave "right"

And he didn't get chosen.

So you don't see the irony in "your position" of allowing agency for the gay folks?

Your moral lens bishopric is basically to accept the opposite of what the LDS church teaches. And you call that a moral lens. Actually, your moral lens is very much shaped by postmodernism.

I can't say that I see gay behavior as disgusting although I can not understand two guys getting it on. I find what they do together uncomphehensible. And I do not believe in same sex marriage or in same sex unions. But I can understand why you do. Because you know the difficulties it would cause the LDS church.

Gay marriage is something new on the postmodernist agenda. The world did just fine without gay marriage but now, with a lack of truth, anything goes.

[_why me]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon ... s_polygamy

From that Web Site Page:

Jacob 2:30 is the key verse for understanding why Mormons believe that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other nineteenth-century Mormons were justified in their practice of polygamy, but that this is the exception to the Lord's law, not the rule.... Mormons believe that the period when polygamy was publicly sanctioned (1852–1890)—and the longer period in which it was privately approved (the early 1830s to 1904)—were exceptions to God's basic law that Jacob spelled out in verse 27.[1]

( Bold Emphasis Mine. )



From Brigham Young:

Those who are acquainted with the history of the world are not ignorant that polygamy has always been the general rule and monogamy the exception.

( Journal of Discourses, Volume #11. )



Is this a Contradiction???

No, I don't. And why should you? You had no problem with this verse when you were a member of the LDS church. And so, why now? I can understand why you do it but still I don't see a contradiction.

The instructions were clear in Jacob because that is what god wanted the people to practice. And he had his reasons. And likewise of Joseph Smith. God would have his reasons. Where is the contradiction?

[_why me]

I guess that makes me a maligner who is full of crap. So be it.

Maybe, but I just think that you found a way out and you took it and ran with it. And here you are. Nothing new in it. Many have followed your path and more will follow. It is always easy to find a way out, if one wishes to find a way out.