IMHO, Joseph Smith was not a Polygamist.

[_sock puppet]

What if Joseph denied being a polygamist because he didn't consider what he was doing polygamy? Spiritual wifery, plural marriage or celestial marriage. As long as what he was doing was considered to be something else by him then he could parse words and claim to be innocent. Lawyers do this all the time to justify stuff.

How do you parse unmodified "wives" from unmodified "wives"?

I suppose your rationale, stockoneder, should save cities, counties, states and the federal government billions and billions per year. Imagine the cost savings from not incarcerating anyone. The only people jailed are obviously ones that did not have competent word-parsers for lawyers, and the 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives accused a right to competent legal representation. So, by the logic that any words can be parsed, such as adultery into "plural marriage" that would have been illegal bigamy, there is no such thing as truth or meaning, and there can be no one guilty of a crime expressed as verbiage. So let's open the doors and empty out the jails and prisons across the U.S.

For example, how could anyone be guilty of speeding? "Officer/prosecutor/judge/jury, in my mind, I wasn't speeding." Voila. He's innocent, right?

Relationships involving two or more people are not merely defined and justified by the subjective beliefs of just one of them. There is a reasonably objective determination to be made. It involves, in the situation of JSJr's extra tail, not only him, but the woman (and in some cases, young girl), actual wife, Emma, the civil community. For example, JSJr's untoward propositioning of Jane Law also impacted her husband, William Law. Etc.

By any objective measure, JSJr was committing adultery, often behind his wife's back, secretively so as to keep himself in good standing with the community and his following, and seducing his conquests with promises of eternal salvation. What a scoundrel. But maybe you can parse the word scoundrel somehow into being great leader and prophet of god.

[_Nightlion]

For an attorney you suck. You prove Joseph free and clear and somehow based on what declare him more guilty. Pick a side. Or you just playing to the peanut gallery?

[_sock puppet]

For an attorney you suck. You prove Joseph free and clear and somehow based on what declare him more guilty. Pick a side. Or you just playing to the peanut gallery?

Can I put your ringing endorsement on my law office website? Always helps to add a few personal endorsements.

I prove only that words have accepted meanings and cannot be willy-nilly wiggled out of, cannot be rendered meaningless whenever convenient. "Wives" means "wives", for you, for me, and for JSJr.

If that makes me suck as an attorney, so be it.

[_Dantana]

Prevaricating is one thing. Destroying a print shop to bolster ones bluster is really quite another.

Is it? I wasn't aware that human-beings were incapable of destroying things as well? So what is the difference between someone that lies and someone that destroys property other than the act itself? And is the proper response to then take such a person and murder them? It would seem to be where you are going.

I've been seeing on the boards, apologetic attempts to downplay, minimize and justify Joseph's lying.
I'm just simply pointing out that Joseph's - 'Lance Armstrong' type of 'Scorched earth'....lie-smithing, is anything but minimal.

[_Tobin]

I've been seeing on the boards, apologetic attempts to downplay, minimize and justify Joseph's lying.
I'm just simply pointing out that Joseph's - 'Lance Armstrong' type of 'Scorched earth'....lie-smithing, is anything but minimal.

How did I minimize it exactly? I actually acknowledged it. The point I was making is that it is human nature.

Now, let's do a thought experiment. Let's suppose Joseph Smith had an experience with a something he considered God and after that he lied about everything else. Does that change the fact he encountered these beings? I'd suggest it doesn't change the facts at all.

[_Nightlion]

For an attorney you suck. You prove Joseph free and clear and somehow based on what declare him more guilty. Pick a side. Or you just playing to the peanut gallery?

Can I put your ringing endorsement on my law office website? Always helps to add a few personal endorsements.

I prove only that words have accepted meanings and cannot be willy-nilly wiggled out of, cannot be rendered meaningless whenever convenient. "Wives" means "wives", for you, for me, and for JSJr.

If that makes me suck as an attorney, so be it.

I was not talking to you man. Sorry. Just giving the thread master a jolt.

[_readtoomuch]

Here's a summary of your post: From all the evidence, Joseph seemingly practiced a clandestine form of polygamy which God told him to do. But since Joseph always denied it, he must not have been practicing polygamy. I will disregard the evidence, such as journals and records of the church, because anyone can write anything. I will instead accept Joseph's constant denials. While anyone can write anything, if someone says it, it carries much more force.

This is hardly a "real-ville" perspective. You're admitting Joseph practiced polygamy, just not the traditional polygamy, but rather a different, clandestine form of polygamy. How could he not live polygamy, but justify his polygamy at the same time saying God told him to do it.

Based on your words, I have to presume that you did not read my post. You can say what you want. I am not asking you to agree or disagree with my reasoning. What I am saying is that "I don't see a Polygamist". Bill Clinton made himself famous by redefining words. "Depends on how you define the word is" Likewise, if Joseph lived some kind of clandestine polygamy, as you stated, well I guess it would depend how you define polygamy. Marriage is a legal term. Polygamy is a legal term. Common Law marriages are also real marriages except not recognized by the government. Furthermore, the stated, published and acceptable policy toward marriage in the church was "one man one woman" As a result, Joseph was on his own. He couldn't appeal to the government defined term of marriage and he couldn't appeal for the church definition either. So in a sense, The church didn't have the moral authority to seal and he couldn't gain moral authority in the eyes of the state. He was in "no mans" land for sure. Therefore, he decided to pursue a so called sealing with these women in which he was spiritually married. Yes, he did not operated in a vacuum, others participated in it too. But he started it and defined what it was. Evidence suggests that John Bennett also was part of it. But IMHO, he was forced to bring others in on the gig in order to keep the appearance of legitimacy. Others felt the way they did because Joseph told them It was ok and that they need to keep it secret. So they did. So they lied when they had to. Lying was acceptable because they were lying for the Lord. Yea right! So I am not trying to disregard the evidence. But Eliza R Snow, denied to the world that there was no polygamy being taught or practiced in Nauvoo. She and other members in the RS Board all did so. At the time she did it, She was already married to Joseph. My point is, lying about this stuff was common and those involved did it whenever they felt they needed to. If dishonesty can be proven during the Nauvoo era, who is to say that dishonesty was not a major contributor to the Polygamy being done in Utah? If so, then anything could have been fabricated in later years in order to justify and point the origins of Polygamy to Joseph Smith

[_grindael]

Unfortunately, William Law, the man who was behind the Nauvoo Expositor had direct knowledge of the polygamy revelation and gave an interview about it. He said,

"What do you know about the revelation on POLYGAMY?"

"The way I heard of it was that Hyrum gave it to me to read. I was never in a High Council where it was read, all stories to the contrary notwithstanding. Hyrum gave it to me in his office, told me to take it home and read it and then be careful with it and bring it back again. I took it home, and read it and showed it to my wife. She and I were just turned upside down by it; we did not know what to do. I said to my wife, that I would take it over to Joseph and ask him about it. I did not believe that he would acknowledge it, and I said so to my wife. But she was not of my opinion. She felt perfectly sure that he would father it. When I came to Joseph and showed him the paper, he said: 'Yes, that is a genuine revelation.' I said to the prophet: 'But in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants there is a revelation just the contrary of this.' 'Oh,' said Joseph, 'that was given when the church was in its infancy, then it was all right to feed the people on milk, but now it is necessary to give them strong meat' We talked a long time about it, finally our discussion became very hot and we gave it up. From that time on the breach between us became more open and more decided every day, after having been prepared for a long time. But the revelation gave the finishing touch to my doubts and showed me clearly that he was a rascal. I took the revelation back to my wife and told her that Joseph had acknowledged it. 'That is what I fully expected.' said she. 'What shall we do?' said I. She advised me to keep still try to sell my property quietly for what I could get. But I did not follow her advice. My heart was burning. I wanted to tread upon the viper."

"You returned the revelation to Hyrum?"

"Yes, I did. I was astonished to see in your book that the revelation was such a long document. I remember DISTINCTLY that the original given me by Hyrum was MUCH SHORTER. It covered not more than two or three pages of foolscap. The contents are substantially the same, but there was not that theological introduction. The thing consisted simply in the command of doing it, and that command was restricted to the High Priesthood and to virgins and widows. But as to Joseph, himself, the Lord's chosen servant, it was restricted to virgins only, to clean vessels, from which to procure a pure seed to the Lord." (THE DAILY TRIBUNE: SALT LAKE CITY, SUNDAY MORNING, JULY 31, 1887. See also, William Law's Nauvoo Diary).

Joseph wrote the "revelation" and practiced what they called POLYGAMY. Joseph denied it because he knew it would not be accepted by the Church then. Joseph LIED about it. He didn't deny it because he wasn't practicing it. There are too many testimonies of people that were involved with it and got it directly from Joseph in Nauvoo.

In this, your analysis is flawed, but I do agree that Joseph invented polygamy (Celestial Marriage, whatever) because he was a womanizer. The reason that they denied POLYGAMY in Nauvoo, is that it was associated with John C. Bennett's form of spiritual wifeism. Even Helen Mar Kimball called it polygamy in later life. They called what Joseph practiced POLYGAMY. They always did. Read the many, many entries in the Journal of Discourses. They call it POLYGAMY over and over again, also "Celestial Marriage", Sealing, Plurality of Wives but it ALL MEANT THE SAME THING. Trying to not call it polygamy is just splitting hairs. Smith wrote D&C 132. We have a direct testimony of William Law that he said he did. We have direct testimony of many others. Nothing was "fabricated" in regards to this.

[_readtoomuch]

Ok, they all called it Polygamy. Ok, we have the journals. But none of this was present while Joseph was alive. I am not trying to labor the point. Word, Words, Words, they are a bunch of words. People Lie, People make things up, People redefines words, People obfuscate. Blah Blah Blah. In the world as I see it, actions speak louder than words. Joseph's actions don't support a Polygamist lifestyle. It supports the lifestyle of someone using religion to justify his actions with other women. In my view of the world, the term of Polygamy was conveniently modified to meet his needs and to add creditability to his actions. He used his creative mind and influence to suck others into his game. Thus, he could perpetuate his life style. I do not see the evidence to suggest that he was a polygamist. I see a liar, con-man, using whatever method he could use to allow every temporal desire to be met by the church. Interestingly, Why would God have commanded Joseph to build himself a mansion? Furthermore, while trying to build the Temple, he diverted resources of man power and supplies to the building of the mansion house as well as the Nauvoo House. How convenient. You see, there was nothing he couldn't or woundnt do to get what he wanted. Need sex....get a revelation, Need a house.....get a revelation, back up against a wall with the Government over Polygamy.......get a revelation. Blah, Blah Blah. It is all the same. Joseph started the church gig in order to fool his Father-in-law. He never stopped being a con-man however. Sad

[_grindael]

Ok, they all called it Polygamy. Ok, we have the journals. But none of this was present while Joseph was alive. I am not trying to labor the point. Word, Words, Words, they are a bunch of words. People Lie, People make things up, People redefines words, People obfuscate. Blah Blah Blah. In the world as I see it, actions speak louder than words. Joseph's actions don't support a Polygamist lifestyle. It supports the lifestyle of someone using religion to justify his actions with other women. In my view of the world, the term of Polygamy was conveniently modified to meet his needs and to add creditability to his actions. He used his creative mind and influence to suck others into his game. Thus, he could perpetuate his life style. I do not see the evidence to suggest that he was a polygamist. I see a liar, con-man, using whatever method he could use to allow every temporal desire to be met by the church. Interestingly, Why would God have commanded Joseph to build himself a mansion? Furthermore, while trying to build the Temple, he diverted resources of man power and supplies to the building of the mansion house as well as the Nauvoo House. How convenient. You see, there was nothing he couldn't or woundnt do to get what he wanted. Need sex....get a revelation, Need a house.....get a revelation, back up against a wall with the Government over Polygamy.......get a revelation. Blah, Blah Blah. It is all the same. Joseph started the church gig in order to fool his Father-in-law. He never stopped being a con-man however. Sad

William Law was present when Joseph was alive. He wrote about it in the Nauvoo Expositor and he wrote about it in his Nauvoo Journal. William Law was in the First Presidency of the Church and had immense power. Why would he give that up, to MAKE UP that Joseph Smith was practicing polygamy? Law also thought it was wrong and ADULTERY. But he knew it was polygamy. It doesn't make any sense at all that he would make this up. There is also context and the historical record. To say that Joseph Smith didn't author the polygamy "revelation" is simply wrong. Like I said, I also believe that Smith was a con-man, but he did advocate and practice polygamy. He told William Clayton "you have a right to get all the wives you can". Clayton practiced it IN NAUVOO in 1843-44 and got his polygamous wife pregnant. You think Joseph didn't sanction that? Smith told him if it gets found out I will just excommunicate you and then set you back up as good as ever. Benjamin F. Johnson said that Joseph would cohabitate with his sisters for days. There is too much evidence here that proves it. It is simply mystifying why you would even try and make the distinction. Polygamy means simply having more than one wife. It doesn't specify how long you live with them or how you PRACTICE it. What Joseph did was practice polygamy, plain and simple.