What lies did the Nauvoo Expositor print?

[_Eric]

Joseph Smith's unorthodox marriage practice—like Jesus'—fits within this broader context.

Sig line, anyone?

[_Kishkumen]

An honest mistake, perhaps.

So is an honest mistake a lie in your book? I mean, if the Laws truly abhorred the practice of polygamy, would it be dishonest of them to describe it in terms that reflected their outrage over the matter?

But even Brodie recognized, as MCB pointed out a few weeks ago, that "Joseph was no careless libertine...there was too much of the Puritan in him."

So, if he was no careless libertine, that means, ergo, that he could also not be a careful, albeit conflicted, one? My understanding of Don Bradley's past interpretations of D&C 132 is that they point to the fact that Joseph was conflicted over the issue. A porn addict who carefully hides his browser history and feels guilty is still a porn addict, no?

After all, he had recorded numerous revelations condemning extra-marital sexual relations:

And yet he engaged in numerous extra-marital relations. You can accept his justifications for doing so, but I don't see how those justifications necessarily oblige the Laws to have agreed or to have remained silent about the matter.

Interestingly, none of the women who actually married Joseph Smith ever denounced him or accused him of impropriety. They do not seem to have regarded his behavior toward them as incompatible with his divine calling.

Why should I expect that they would condemn themselves in condemning Joseph Smith?

Joseph Smith, it should be remembered, was—like Jesus—a millenarian prophet. They do things differently. Discussing Jewish messianic movements, Gershom Scholem noted: "There seems to be an intrinsic connection between active messianism and the courage for religious innovation."

Which means, I suppose, that he is excused in breaking marriage vows in the pursuit of extra-marital relationships? I tend to think there is a difference between describing a phenomenon and excusing it. You seem to be making the mistake of equating the two things. If only I understood why a mother killed her two children, I wouldn't blame her for having done so or hold her responsible. Maybe if she were a millenarian prophet it would be OK. Right?

like Jesus'—fits within this broader context.

The fact that he was celibate, or, as Pratt claimed, that he had three wives?

[_Buffalo]

Joseph Smith: Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

[_Darth J]

Mr. Law also says, that he has no doubt that Joseph believed he had received the doctrine of plural marriage from the Lord. The Prophet's manner being exceedingly earnest, so much so, that Mr. Law was convinced that the Prophet was perfectly sincere in his declaration

That's very interesting, because religious scholars who have studied David Koresh think that he sincerely believed in what he was doing, too.

We can speculate that David was a criminal, a mere con man, cloaking his evil motives under a religious garb, as the FBI repeatedly said. But I am personally of the opinion that David Koresh was absolutely sincere in his
beliefs. Indeed, that is what made the situation so explosive. I know the Branch Davidian people were absolutely sincere. Dr. Arnold and I have spent many hours interviewing them, both before and since the fire. These are convicted religious people who find their views in the Bible.

Rethinking Waco:
The Perspective of the Academic Study of Religion

by James D. Tabor
Associate Professor
Department of Religious Studies
University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Originally delivered before the Annual Meeting of the
American Academy of Religion in Washington, D.C.,
November 22, 1993.

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/gopher/text/r ... erspective

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

Joseph Smith: Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

http://espanol.video.yahoo.com/watch/8276799/22054941

[Anonymous]

Nevo, let me simplify this for you:

Joseph Smith had a total of one legally recognized wife. He entered into numerous adulterous relationships with other females.

I'm afraid that is too simplistic for me. The relationships were understood to be marriages by all parties involved. You, of course, are free to continue insisting that plural marriage never existed because it wasn't legally recognized under nineteenth-century US state and federal laws. I disagree.

He was engaging in secret sexual relations mainly unknown to his legal wife and unknown to the majority of his followers....He lied about engaging in secret sexual liaisons in violation of his legally-recognized marriage to Emma.

Reducing Joseph Smith's polygamous relationships—which were typically all about forging bonds of loyalty and creating "fictive kin" and involved little, if any, intimacy—to mere "secret sexual liaisons" is another gross oversimplication.

He lied about it to Emma. He lied about it to most of the members of his church. He lied about it to his closest followers.

He also told the truth to Emma and his closest followers.

And as I predicted, there is a lot of talk in this thread about William Law's motives without mentioning that Joseph propositioned William Law's wife.

There's also a contemporary report that Jane Law propositioned Joseph, but predictably that has gone unacknowledged in this thread. Likewise, William Law's adultery.

As far as I have been able to determine from the Bible, Jesus of Nazareth did not have secret, illegal sexual relations with female members of his flock.

No, he was celibate and traveled the countryside with an entourage that included single women—which was every bit as shocking to contemporary sensibilities as Joseph Smith's polygamy is to modern sensibilities.

He did not have God command his followers to purchase stock to build a big, nice house for him to live in.

No, he had God command them to their leave their livelihoods and families and to divest themselves of all earthly attachments. Jesus and the Twelve were supported financially by Mary Magdalene and a few others (Luke 8:3).

When Jesus was arrested, he told his followers to put away their weapons. He did not send them an order to arm themselves and come rescue him.

Neither did Joseph Smith as far as I know. Wasn't the Dunham letter a Hofmann forgery?

If you want a millennial prophet to whom Joseph Smith's behavior is comparable, including the circumstances of his death, the name you are looking for is not Jesus of Nazareth. It is David Koresh.

There are similarities to Koresh, true, but I don't think we'll see many people 200 years from now devoting a significant portion of their lives to thinking and arguing about his life and legacy.

[_Buffalo]

I'm afraid that is too simplistic for me. The relationships were understood to be marriages by all parties involved. You, of course, are free to continue insisting that plural marriage never existed because it wasn't legally recognized under nineteenth-century US state and federal laws. I disagree.

The church doesn't recognize a monogamous marriage if it isn't legal. And Joseph's first "marriages" were done without even the sealing power, so they were neither legal on earth or in heaven.

[_Buffalo]

delete

[_Kishkumen]

There are similarities to Koresh, true, but I don't think we'll see many people 200 years from now devoting a significant portion of their lives to thinking and arguing about his life and legacy.

You never know. But that really isn't the benchmark of legitimacy you hew to is it?

[_harmony]

I'm afraid that is too simplistic for me. The relationships were understood to be marriages by all parties involved. You, of course, are free to continue insisting that plural marriage never existed because it wasn't legally recognized under nineteenth-century US state and federal laws. I disagree.

ery
The church doesn't recognize a monogamous marriage if it isn't legal. And Joseph's first "marriages" were done without even the sealing power, so they were neither legal on earth or in heaven.

It's very difficult to get around Fanny.

The myth that the church has created around Joseph serves the simplistic (to use Nevo's word) needs of most members, but as an indicator of what was real... well, it's very difficult to get around Fanny. The myth is, after all, just a myth.