Page 1 of 2

Was William Law Right About Emma Smith?

Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:54 pm
by _Ray A
From the William Law Interview:


"Did Emma, the elect lady, come to your house and complain about Joseph?"

"No. She never came to my house for that purpose. But I met her sometimes on the street and then she used to complain, especially because of the girls whom Joseph kept in the house, devoting his attention to them. You have overrated her, she was dishonest."


Emma Smith Interview:

Q. What about the revelation on Polygamy? Did Joseph Smith have anything like it? What of spiritual wifery?

A. There was no revelation on either polygamy, or spiritual wives. There were some rumors of something of the sort, of which I asked my husband. He assured me that all there was of it was, that in a chat about plural wives, he had said, "Well, such a system might possiblybe, if everybody was agreed to it, and would behave as they should; but they would not; and, besides, it was contrary to the will of heaven." Q. Did he not have other wives than yourself?

A. He had no other wife but me; nor did he to my knowledge ever have.

Q. Did he not hold marital relation with women other than yourself?

A. He did not have improper relations with any woman that ever came to my knowledge.

Q. Was there nothing about spiritual wives that you recollect?

A. At one time my husband came to me and asked me if I had heard certain rumors about spiritual marriages, or anything of the kind; and assured me that if I had, that they were without foundation; that there was no such doctrine, and never should be with his knowledge, or consent. I know that he had no other wife or wives than myself, in any sense, either spiritual or otherwise.8



From Charles M. Turner, SISTER EMMA'S LAST TESTIMONY: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS:

How can one account for the false nature of Sister Emma's Last Testimony, given her reputation for honesty? Why did the motives, cited above, overcome her deep-seated integrity? Three possible explanations suggest themselves.

First, psychological or physical factors may have altered her memory of the past. The passing of time, failing memory, or psychological denial may have altered her recollections. In a similar case of historical misstatement in old age, RLDS Church Historian Richard P. Howard suggested that "the endless nuances of the polemic process" distorted the memory of one caught up in it, "encouraging anomalies in statements over time and under tumultuous conditions."24 But this will hardly explain Emma Smith's denials spanning several decades.

Second, the Last Testimony may contain truthful incidents designed to mislead, half-truths, ambiguous language, and term-switching.25 The accounts of the prophet's denials of polygamy are probably true, taking place before 1843, when he first spoke to his wife about it openly. The statement that there was "no revelation" and that there were "no other wives" may be a way of saying, "There was no true revelation," and, "There were no true wives but myself." The phrase, "that ever came to my knowledge," may be akin to Emma Smith Bidamon's refusal to acknowledge Nancy Abercrombie's affair with L. C. Bidamon.

Third, and last, the denials of polygamy in Sister Emma's Last Testimony may be regarded simply as lies. However much the prophet's first wife may have justified her answers as technically true but semantically evasive, the bald fact remains that, by design, they conveyed to the reader or listener an idea which was false. In the case of a woman noted for her integrity, only extremities could have driven her to such dissimulation. In the case of the hateful doctrine of plural marriage, Emma Smith Bidamon faced just such an extremity. The truth was too painful, too dangerous, and too wicked, in her eyes, to testify to, even as she approached death, in 1879.
(Emphasis added)

Dishonest? Or just self-deluded? Or both?

Re: Was William Law Right About Emma Smith?

Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:02 pm
by _dblagent007
I think she was clearly dishonest when she denied polygamy (but she probably developed some justification to satisfy her that it was not lying).

The ironic thing about this is that Emma once demanded a plural husband reasoning that if Joseph got to practice the "principle" she should too. Who did she want? None other than William Law.

Re: Was William Law Right About Emma Smith?

Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:04 pm
by _Uncle Dale
Ray A wrote:...
truthful incidents designed to mislead, half-truths, ambiguous language,
and term-switching.
...
Dishonest? Or just self-deluded? Or both?


Just a typical Mormon.

As I once heard it said:
"Anything to get them into the Church...
and anything to keep them in the Church."

That poor excuse for a couplet need not be taken as an admission
of latter day dishonesty -- just as an example of a "short-cut" to
"the good." Read the Book of Ether. Anything that leads to "good"
must also be "good" itself -- if not by definition, then by its effects.

Emma just thought she was helping bring "more good" to us...

UD

Re: Was William Law Right About Emma Smith?

Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:07 pm
by _Ray A
dblagent007 wrote:The ironic thing about this is that Emma once demanded a plural husband reasoning that if Joseph got to practice the "principle" she should too. Who did she want? None other than William Law.


I was going to quote that in your "crazy story" thread, but thought I'd do this instead.

What's interesting to me is the idea of "semantic evasivness". It sort of reminds me of a lot of what I see in modern apologetics.

Re: Was William Law Right About Emma Smith?

Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:59 pm
by _Morrissey
Ray A wrote:From the William Law Interview:


"Did Emma, the elect lady, come to your house and complain about Joseph?"

"No. She never came to my house for that purpose. But I met her sometimes on the street and then she used to complain, especially because of the girls whom Joseph kept in the house, devoting his attention to them. You have overrated her, she was dishonest."


Emma Smith Interview:

Q. What about the revelation on Polygamy? Did Joseph Smith have anything like it? What of spiritual wifery?

A. There was no revelation on either polygamy, or spiritual wives. There were some rumors of something of the sort, of which I asked my husband. He assured me that all there was of it was, that in a chat about plural wives, he had said, "Well, such a system might possiblybe, if everybody was agreed to it, and would behave as they should; but they would not; and, besides, it was contrary to the will of heaven." Q. Did he not have other wives than yourself?

A. He had no other wife but me; nor did he to my knowledge ever have.

Q. Did he not hold marital relation with women other than yourself?

A. He did not have improper relations with any woman that ever came to my knowledge.

Q. Was there nothing about spiritual wives that you recollect?

A. At one time my husband came to me and asked me if I had heard certain rumors about spiritual marriages, or anything of the kind; and assured me that if I had, that they were without foundation; that there was no such doctrine, and never should be with his knowledge, or consent. I know that he had no other wife or wives than myself, in any sense, either spiritual or otherwise.8



From Charles M. Turner, SISTER EMMA'S LAST TESTIMONY: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS:

How can one account for the false nature of Sister Emma's Last Testimony, given her reputation for honesty? Why did the motives, cited above, overcome her deep-seated integrity? Three possible explanations suggest themselves.

First, psychological or physical factors may have altered her memory of the past. The passing of time, failing memory, or psychological denial may have altered her recollections. In a similar case of historical misstatement in old age, RLDS Church Historian Richard P. Howard suggested that "the endless nuances of the polemic process" distorted the memory of one caught up in it, "encouraging anomalies in statements over time and under tumultuous conditions."24 But this will hardly explain Emma Smith's denials spanning several decades.

Second, the Last Testimony may contain truthful incidents designed to mislead, half-truths, ambiguous language, and term-switching.25 The accounts of the prophet's denials of polygamy are probably true, taking place before 1843, when he first spoke to his wife about it openly. The statement that there was "no revelation" and that there were "no other wives" may be a way of saying, "There was no true revelation," and, "There were no true wives but myself." The phrase, "that ever came to my knowledge," may be akin to Emma Smith Bidamon's refusal to acknowledge Nancy Abercrombie's affair with L. C. Bidamon.

Third, and last, the denials of polygamy in Sister Emma's Last Testimony may be regarded simply as lies. However much the prophet's first wife may have justified her answers as technically true but semantically evasive, the bald fact remains that, by design, they conveyed to the reader or listener an idea which was false. In the case of a woman noted for her integrity, only extremities could have driven her to such dissimulation. In the case of the hateful doctrine of plural marriage, Emma Smith Bidamon faced just such an extremity. The truth was too painful, too dangerous, and too wicked, in her eyes, to testify to, even as she approached death, in 1879.
(Emphasis added)

Dishonest? Or just self-deluded? Or both?


Hey, this can't be right, because according to Holland no one facing death would continue to perpetuate a lie/deception. Isn't that an empirically established, iron law of human behavior?

Re: Was William Law Right About Emma Smith?

Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:27 pm
by _SoHo
Emma seems to have suffered from the same condition as Joseph, and which continues in the church. You can change history simply by misrepresenting it and insisting that you're telling the truth. We now have an entire team of trained mopologists who will create a logical basis for why it is true. Often after the fact, but good enough for the faithful person troubled by being fed a dishonest history.

Re: Was William Law Right About Emma Smith?

Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:38 pm
by _beastie
Obviously Emma deliberately lied. My personal opinion is that she just couldn't stand the thought of her children knowing about their father's intimate habits, and she also didn't want them to know she tolerated it.

Re: Was William Law Right About Emma Smith?

Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:52 pm
by _SoHo
beastie wrote:Obviously Emma deliberately lied. My personal opinion is that she just couldn't stand the thought of her children knowing about their father's intimate habits, and she also didn't want them to know she tolerated it.


And for the many that believed her testimony, she created a false history that gave them comfort in their rejection of Brighamite LDS practices.

Re: Was William Law Right About Emma Smith?

Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:03 pm
by _Nevo
dblagent007 wrote:The ironic thing about this is that Emma once demanded a plural husband reasoning that if Joseph got to practice the "principle" she should too. Who did she want? None other than William Law.

I thought it was William Clayton with whom she was threatening to indulge herself. According to Clayton's 23 June 1843 journal entry, "This A.M. President Joseph took me and conversed considerable concerning some delicate matters. Said [Emma] wanted to lay a snare for me. He told me last night of this and said he had felt troubled. He said [Emma] had treated him coldly and badly since I came...and he knew she was disposed to be revenged on him for some things. She thought that if he would indulge himself she would too. He cautioned me very kindly for which I felt thankful."

Re: Was William Law Right About Emma Smith?

Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:23 am
by _Ray A
Nevo wrote:
dblagent007 wrote:The ironic thing about this is that Emma once demanded a plural husband reasoning that if Joseph got to practice the "principle" she should too. Who did she want? None other than William Law.

I thought it was William Clayton with whom she was threatening to indulge herself. According to Clayton's 23 June 1843 journal entry, "This A.M. President Joseph took me and conversed considerable concerning some delicate matters. Said [Emma] wanted to lay a snare for me. He told me last night of this and said he had felt troubled. He said [Emma] had treated him coldly and badly since I came...and he knew she was disposed to be revenged on him for some things. She thought that if he would indulge himself she would too. He cautioned me very kindly for which I felt thankful."


It's quite possible I have my "Williams" mixed up, but what does it matter? The "gross sexual perversion" that went on in Mormonism is hardly different to, say, swinger's groups today (polyandry and all that). As long as it has the Prophet's "stamp", then it transcends human boundaries. This is saying that virtually anything may be "right", "under certain circumstances", as long as it is "commanded by God".

If killing can be sanctioned by God, then what is forbidden?

It seems like "do whatever you want", just stamp-mark it with "Thus saith the Lord".

Well if that's the "order of heaven", then count me out of such cultic-thinking.

Imagine belonging to a religion that says it's better to lie in a burial casket than "break the law of chastity", when its founder seduced other men's wives. "In the name of God."

And all the while parading itself as a "Christian religion". If, that is, you have to reinterpret just about everything Christ taught as being on "Level One", while what Joseph Smith taught was on "Level Five".

"Hear the Real Truth about Jesus." He was actually, er, a polygamist.

The greatest burden on Mormonism's back is its dual theology - the one it "presents" to the world as "orthodox", and the one that is completely, absolutely, foreign to the man known as Jesus.

But on this point, I don't expect to gain one yard with apologists.