maklelan wrote:Bazooka wrote:Why is it now suddenly important, and what type of information were you previously providing?
They're starting to emphasize publishing "warts and all" stuff in the interest of transparency and accuracy.
The recent essays are neither transparent nor accurate. For example, in the recent essay they claim,
When God commands a difficult task, He sometimes sends additional messengers to encourage His people to obey. Consistent with this pattern, Joseph told associates that an angel appeared to him three times between 1834 and 1842 and commanded him to proceed with plural marriage when he hesitated to move forward. During the third and final appearance, the angel came with a drawn sword, threatening Joseph with destruction unless he went forward and obeyed the commandment fully.
Fragmentary evidence suggests that Joseph Smith acted on the angel’s first command by marrying a plural wife, Fanny Alger, in Kirtland, Ohio, in the mid-1830s. Several Latter-day Saints who had lived in Kirtland reported decades later that Joseph Smith had married Alger, who lived and worked in the Smith household, after he had obtained her consent and that of her parents.10 Little is known about this marriage, and nothing is known about the conversations between Joseph and Emma regarding Alger. After the marriage with Alger ended in separation, Joseph seems to have set the subject of plural marriage aside until after the Church moved to Nauvoo, Illinois.
Fragmentary evidence? There is no evidence, only folklore. An angel with a drawn sword threatening to slay you if you do not obey is not simply "encouragement", it is a threat. This also contradicts the doctrine of free agency. There is no mention that the folklore about the angel with the sword can only be dated to about 1853, almost 10 years after Smith died. They only footnote an article by Brian Hales that doesn't even mention the doctrinal contradictions that such a visit would entail and is simply more apologist nonsense.
Also, where in this "transparent" essay is the Oliver Cowdery claim that the Fanny Alger "marriage" was an adulterous affair? The Church Trial that took place where this was discussed? Nowhere to be found. This is not transparency, it is one sided apologetics.
The essay also claims,
In Joseph Smith’s time, monogamy was the only legal form of marriage in the United States. Joseph knew the practice of plural marriage would stir up public ire. After receiving the commandment, he taught a few associates about it, but he did not spread this teaching widely in the 1830s.
There is absolutely no contemporary accounts that affirm that Smith taught celestial marriage/polygamy in the 1830's. The evidence they give are from three sources (of course in a footnote). First is Lorenzo Snow's Temple Lot deposition. I happen to have a copy of the original typed transcript. Now where can the average Mormon readily find that without going to the Church History Library or reading carefully ellipsed excerpts in Brian Hales Polygamy Books? Please enlighten us on that. Here is what Snow actually said,
244. Q. Was she [Eliza R. Snow] to you knowledge a wife to him? A. A wife to him? Now,--
245 Q. Yes sir, a wife to him. A. Of course she was a wife to him.
246. Q. In what way? A. Having been sealed to him for time and eternity.
247. Q. How do you know that to be the fact? A. Why I know it because he stated it to me.
248. Q. He stated it to you? A. Yes sir.
249. Q. What was it he stated to you? That she had been sealed to him for time and eternity.
250. Q. And he stated that to you before the giving of the revelation? A. Before it was published.
251. Q. Was it not before it was given. A. Yes sir.
252. Q. You stated that he told you that in April 1843? A. Yes sir, but that was not before it was given to him, it was before it was published or made known to any great number though.
253. Q. You stated that he stated that to you in April 1843? A. Yes sir, that is just exactly what I stated.
254. Q. The revelation that I have read to you or the caption of which I have read to you from your own work said it was given July 12 1843, did it not? A. Given to whom?
255. Q. Given to Joseph Smith? A. Read that and see what it says.
256. Q. I have read it once and that is what it says? A. Read it again so that I can see what it says?
257. Q. Revelation on the eternity of the Marriage Covenant, including plurality of wives. Given through Joseph the Seer in Nauvoo, Hancock County, Illinois, July 27th 1843. That is it? A. Does that say it was not given to him before that time?
258. Q. Do you say it was given to him before that time? A. I say that he explained to me the principle of plural marriage distinctly and clearly, and told me that the Lord had revealed the principle, and had commanded him to enter into that practice, and that he had received a revelation to that effect. He said that he had demurred to doing so as he foresaw the trouble that would ensue, but that an angel of the Lord had appeared before him with a drawn sword commanding him to do so, and he could not go backward. It was in substance that that he told me, but of course I do not pretend to relate the exact language he used.
Notice that this does not address when Smith got any "revelation" earlier than 1843. Only that Snow claimed that Smith told him that an angel with a drawn sword threatened him at some point and that he got it "earlier". Snow never mentions the 1830's at all because he can hardly remember the conversation, probably because it didn't take place at all since there are no contemporary accounts about an angel and a sword that exist before 1853. The testimony continues,
259. Q. Well now then if it is a fact that he married your sister in April, or had married her at the time he told you this in April, and the date of the revelation is given as July 12th of the same year, the date of the revelation is wrong? A. No sir, not entirely.
260. Q. This is not the time it was given? A. That was the first time it was given to the public, but not the first time it was given to Joseph Smith.
261. Q. What publicity was given to it in July 1843? A. Well I think it was the people in Nauvoo.
262. Q. Was it given to the people of Nauvoo on July 12th 1843? A. I don’t know.
263. Q. Do you, you do not know that it was given to the people of Nauvoo on that date? A. No sir.
264. Q. Do you know that it was not given to them on that date? A. Given to whom?
265. Q. Given to the people of Nauvoo on that date, published to the people there on that date, given to them publicly? A. I do not know for I was not there. I was not there I told you. Well I was,--
266. Q. Have you not already testified that you never saw it until after it was in print? A. Yes sir, that is what I said.
267. Q. You have testified that you never saw it until the time that you saw it in print?? A. Yes sir, that is what I said, and I say it again.
268. Q. And that was long after the time that you left Nauvoo? A. Long after I left Nauvoo?
269. Q. Yes sir, and while you were in France?
Snow tells the questioner that the “revelation” was given to Joseph at an earlier time, but gives no evidence of that. If it was, then why did it take Joseph Smith many hours to compose it? But this is how Snow will justify that Smith had a right to do what no one else could do, commit adultery and really not commit adultery.
Snow then gives objection that he wasn’t in France, but in Europe, and they discuss his Missions and that he was at later time in France
274. Q. Where you a member of the church at an early date in Kirtland? A. Yes sir.
275. Q. When was that? A. That was in ’36.
276. Q. And that was your first connection with the church? A. Yes sir.
277. Q. Then to your knowledge this purported revelation of 1843 was never brought before the church for acceptance during the life-time of Joseph Smith? A. No sir, it was never brought before the public in a public was by public proclamation or announcement. It was never brought before the public in any other way before the death of Joseph Smith, only as I have stated it there.
278. Q. Only as stated here? A. Yes sir.
279. Q. And that was the only way? A. The only way I know anything about. It was taught privately.
280. Q. Was it ever presented to the church for acceptance? A. I do not know.
281. Q. Do you say that it was? A. No sir.
282. Q. Do you say that it was not? A. No sir.
283. Q. Would a revelation as such, or that which purported to be such, that is to be a revelation, be binding upon the church unless it was accepted? A. Yes sir, it would be to some.
284. Q. I asked you Mr. Snow, if it would be binding upon the church until it had been accepted by the church? A. Yes sir, it would be to those that chose to accept it as binding. The people had the most implicit and perfect confidence in Joseph Smith, and when he gave a revelation, whether it was accepted or not, it didn’t make any difference with some, for they had to most perfect confidence in him, so they would accept it and act upon it whether the church as a church had acted upon it by accepting it did not make any difference.
According to Snow, Smith could say anything was a "revelation" and some would simply accept it and act on it, even though it contradicts their scriptures, which were binding on the church that they could only have one wife. (Doctrine and Covenants). It even contradicts Smith himself who said in 1844:
Thursday, October 5[th] Morning rode out with Esqu[ire] Butterfield to farm &c. P.M. rode on prairie to shew some brethren some land. Eve[ning] at home. Walked up and down St[reet] with Scribe and gave instructions to try those who were preaching, teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives on this Law. Joseph forbids it and the practice thereof. No man shall have but one wife. [rest of page blank] {page 116} (Scott H. Faulring, An American Prophet's Record, p.417)
They then give a reference to Orson Pratt and the Journal of Discourses where Pratt says,
I will tell you what the Prophet Joseph said in relation to this matter in 1831, also in 1832, the year in which the law commanding the members of this Church to cleave to one wife only was given. Joseph was then living in Portage County, in the town of Hiram, at the house of Father John Johnson. Joseph was very intimate with that family, and they were good people at that time, and enjoyed much of the Spirit of the Lord. In the forepart of the year 1832, Joseph told individuals, then in the Church, that he had inquired of the Lord concerning the principle of plurality of wives, and he received for answer that the principle of taking more wives than one is a true principle, but the time had not yet come for it to be practiced. That was before the Church was two years old.
Heresay. We know Pratt (an Apostle at the time) knew nothing about it, because when he found out about polygamy in Nauvoo, he almost lost his mind. If Pratt knew all about Smith's polygamy "revelations" in the 1830's, why did he come out against Smith in the 1840's and side with his wife who accused Smith of trying to seduce her? Why did Smith say in relation to practicing polygamy,
"And as to all that Orson Pratt, Sidney Rigdon, or George W. Robinson can do to prevent me, I can kick them off my heels, as many as you can name" (Manuscript History, 29 Aug. 1842).
And then to top all this off, Pratt in 1869 in the same speech referenced (they don't quote any of these sources at all) by the Essay says,
Now supposing the members of this Church had undertaken to vary from that law given in 1831, to love their one wife with all their hearts and to cleave to none other, they would have come under the curse and condemnation of God's holy law. Some twelve years after that time the revelation on Celestial Marriage was revealed. This is just republished at the Deseret News office, in a pamphlet entitled, “Answers to Questions,” by President George A. Smith, and heretofore has been published in pamphlet form and in the Millennial Star, and sent throughout the length and breadth of our country, being included in our works and published in the works of our enemies. Then came the Lord's time for this holy and ennobling principle to be practiced again among His people. (JOD Vol. 13, page 193).
Pratt here contradicts Lorenzo Snow who said that it would have been binding. Pratt says they would have come under condemnation. That means Smith as well with Fanny Alger and anyone else he "married" before 1843! Do they even research this stuff before they source it?
Is this the Church's transparency and accuracy? To say so, is to be ignorant of the historical facts. They next give Ezra Booth as a source. This is rich. Here is what Booth said about Smith,
In the preceding revelation, the principal thing which claims your attention, is the mission to the Indians; for with that mission many circumstances are connected, which clearly evince, that it originated from human imbecility, and diabolical depravity. -- There are also some other things, the meaning of which, you will not be likely to apprehend, without some explanation. In this, as well as several of the commandments, it is clearly and explicitly stated, that the right of delivering written commandments, and revelations, belong exclusively to Smith, and no other person can interfere, without being guilty of sacrilege. In this office he is to stand, until another is appointed in his place, and no other person can be appointed in his stead, unless he falls through transgression; and in such a case, he himself is authorized to appoint his successor. But how is he to be detected, should he become guilty of transgression. The commandment makes provision for this. His guilt will become manifest by his inability to utter any more revelations, and should he presume "to get another man's wife," and commit adultery; and "by the shedding of blood, seek to kill her husband," if he retains the use of his tongue, so as to be able to utter his jargon, he can continue as long as he pleases in the bed of adultery, and wrap himself with garments stained with blood, shed by his own hands, and still retain the spotless innocence of the holiest among mortals; and must be continued in the office of revelator, and head of the Church. Some others, and especially Cowdery, have earnestly desired to relieve Smith of some part of his burden.
Getting another man's wife and committing adultery is plural marriage? Oh yeah, they don't reference THAT LETTER. They reference this one,
Another method has been invented, in order to remove obstacles which hitherto had proved insurmountable. "The Lord's store-house," is to be furnished with goods suited to the Indian trade, and persons are to obtain license from the government to dispose of them to the Indians in their own territory; at the same time they are to disseminate the principles of Mormonism among them. From this smug[g]ling method of preaching to the Indians, they anticipate a favorable result. In addition to this, and to co-operate with it, it has been made known by revelation, that it will be pleasing to the Lord, should they form a matrimonial alliance with the Natives; and by this means the Elders, who comply with the thing so pleasing to the Lord, and for which the Lord has promised to bless those who do it abundantly, gain a residence in the Indian territory, independent of the agent. It has been made known to one, who has left his wife in the State of N. Y. that he is entirely free from his wife, and he is at liberty to take him a wife from among the Lamanites. It was easily perceived that this permission, was perfectly suited to his desires. I have frequently heard him state, that the Lord has made it known to him, that he is as free from his wife as from any other woman; and the only crime that I have ever heard alleged against her is, she is violently opposed to Mormonism. But before this contemplated marriage can be carried into effect, he must return to the State of N. Y. and settle his business, for fear, should he return, after that affair had taken place, the civil authority would apprehend him as a criminal.
Of course, this is not plural marriage as defined in 1843, Booth calls it an affair and a sham marriage for the purpose of getting into Indian territory. So I guess if they are referencing Booth about the Lamanite "marriages" we should also believe him when he says that Smith said that adultery was OK. These are the references that the Mormon Church gives for polygamy in the 1830's? They are being neither accurate or transparent here.
These essays are apologist drivel and whoever wrote them was blatantly disingenuous. And I've only given a couple of examples. There are many, many more.
