Joseph Smith's most breathtaking lie.

[_grindael]

I still can't get over how Joseph Smith could stand in front of an audience of hundreds, maybe thousands, and say with a straight face, "What a thing it is to be accused of having seven wives when I can only find one". He was speaking to people who knew he was lying, to people who suspected, and for those of us who believe in God, the God of Truth himself.
Calling such words "a carefully worded denial" only extends the deception, and is sad indeed.

Here's what my family says to this type of comment. This is fast becoming their canned response to anything critical and it's annoying as hell:

"We can't be sure that this is actually what happened or what was said. This comes through multiple dubious sources like gossip. The fact is, we just don't know what exactly happened."

And you know, I think this answer works pretty well because I never know how to respond to that besides by shaking my head and throwing up my arms.

This is an interesting discourse, one of the most interesting of Joseph's career. It is a very important discourse. That may be why there is no original manuscript, it is one of the few discourses of Joseph that were "lost". Here is Prof. Dean Jessee,

The report of this discourse published in History of the Church was made by Thomas Bullock, but has either been lost or misplaced. The brief accounts by Willard Richards (Joseph Smith Diary) and Thomas Bullock (personal diary) are here published for the first time. https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/words-jose ... 6-may-1844

Unfortunately, your relatives have a point with THIS particular discourse. And with the way that the History of the Church was edited, we do not really know if what Joseph said, was worded the way it is in HotC. It may not have been such a "carefully worded denial". We have no way of knowing. Here is the History of the Church account,

What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers. (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 6, p.411, taken from Thomas Bullock recording of sermon which was "lost")

Here is what the accounts from the Diaries of Bullock and Willard Richards say,

10 A M. preached at the stand about Joseph Jackson and the Mobocrats. (Joseph Smith Diary, by Willard Richards)

At the Stand recording J. Smith's sermon. —26 May 1844 (Thomas Bullock Diary)

Not much help. But this discourse is compiled from a better source than just simple "gossip" though. Bullock was a good recorder, so the sermon is probably pretty accurate. Here is a picture of the Manuscript History First Draft for that date:



Notice that it says

"The following synopsis ws reported by Mr. though Bullock, clerk of the Steamer "Maid of Iowa":--

"(see Manuscript in Leo's [Hawkins] writings)"

That is where it was, (with Clerk Leo Hawkins writings) so they had it and it in the 1850's, and then it disappeared. The finished copy of the quote in the OP from the Manuscript History looks like this:



Word for word what was used for the HotC. Unfortunately, we have nothing to compare it to, as we do with most of Smith's other discourses. But you can give your relatives this provenance, and it is far more reliable than just "gossip".

Manuscript History for that date (JSP) http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSumma ... -1844&p=66

Manuscript Draft for that date (JSP) http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSumma ... -1844&p=68

[_grindael]

The entry says that Joseph preached at the "Stand" in Nauvoo. I'm not sure that means on the Maid of Iowa. It simply says that the sermon was recorded by Bullock who was the clerk OF the Maid of Iowa. See http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/view ... ontext=etd JSP says this about "the Stand" in Nauvoo:

Term usually refers to speaker’s stand located in one of three groves where Joseph Smith and others often spoke.1 Joseph Smith also preached at temple stand, temporary structure built at various times on east, west, and south walls of unfinished Nauvoo temple.2 See also “Grove.” http://josephsmithpapers.org/place/stan ... o-illinois

[_sock puppet]

I still can't get over how Joseph Smith could stand in front of an audience of hundreds, maybe thousands, and say with a straight face, "What a thing it is to be accused of having seven wives when I can only find one". He was speaking to people who knew he was lying, to people who suspected, and for those of us who believe in God, the God of Truth himself.
Calling such words "a carefully worded denial" only extends the deception, and is sad indeed.

Here's what my family says to this type of comment. This is fast becoming their canned response to anything critical and it's annoying as hell:

"We can't be sure that this is actually what happened or what was said. This comes through multiple dubious sources like gossip. The fact is, we just don't know what exactly happened."

And you know, I think this answer works pretty well because I never know how to respond to that besides by shaking my head and throwing up my arms.

Doesn't the same uncertainty then go for all the claims made by JSJr? The first vision? Nephi/Moroni angelic visitations? Gold plates? Papyrus written on by Abraham? Etc., etc., etc.

[_grindael]

Doesn't the same uncertainty then go for all the claims made by JSJr? The first vision? Nephi/Moroni angelic visitations? Gold plates? Papyrus written on by Abraham? Etc., etc., etc.

Sock, I don't think that is addressing the claims made by Joseph, but the accuracy of the reporting of those claims? That's what I thought, anyway.

[_sock puppet]

Doesn't the same uncertainty then go for all the claims made by JSJr? The first vision? Nephi/Moroni angelic visitations? Gold plates? Papyrus written on by Abraham? Etc., etc., etc.

Sock, I don't think that is addressing the claims made by Joseph, but the accuracy of the reporting of those claims? That's what I thought, anyway.

But since zeezrom's parents, like all current LDS, never spoke with JSJr directly, aren't they all "reports" that we people today have to deal with except what was written in his own handwriting (very little as he relied on scribes)?

[Guest]

What is great about the 1832 History is that about half of it is in Joseph's hand, while the other in Frederick G. Williams. And of course, some make much ado of the parts written by Williams, like the (16th year) age insertion by him. The text and caret is in Joseph's hand, written together, so Joseph himself wanted to put in the age at a later time.



Notice the ink flow ...

"calling upon the Lord ^ a piller of fire light"

Joseph wrote the caret (^) at the same time he wrote the word "Lord". Ink is the same shade with both "Lord" and the caret. So he intended at that time to insert an age into the text as he did with the word "Lord" below. In other parts of the history, this was not the case. For example,



Notice with this text,

"instructing me in ^ <the> Christian religion"

The caret is in a heavier ink flow as is the word "the" and the "ing" added to the word "instruct". Therefore a later addition. For the addition above,

"the ^ <state> of Vermont"

This was all done at the same time, and is in Joseph's handwriting, as the flow of the ink indicates. Therefore, Joseph didn't just leave out the age as he did with the word "state", he meant to write it in later, and had Frederick G. Williams do so. It seems to indicate Joseph was unsure of how old he was at the time of this claimed vision when he was writing this.

[_grindael]

But since zeezrom's parents, like all current LDS, never spoke with JSJr directly, aren't they all "reports" that we people today have to deal with except what was written in his own handwriting (very little as he relied on scribes)?

Yup. That is why getting to know who took those reports, how they did it, and having the original documents to analyze is so important. It's far easier to just shrug it all off as "gossip".

[_sock puppet]

But since zeezrom's parents, like all current LDS, never spoke with JSJr directly, aren't they all "reports" that we people today have to deal with except what was written in his own handwriting (very little as he relied on scribes)?

Yup. That is why getting to know who took those reports, how they did it, and having the original documents to analyze is so important. It's far easier to just shrug it all off as "gossip".

Yea, the LDS truth claims are very easy to shrug off as gossip.

[_mentalgymnast]

Putting on my apologists hat I would say: Typical anti Mormon lies. Joseph Smith never denied having multiple wives. He said "what a thing it is to be accused of having seven wives". He is simply acknowledging he is being accused of having seven wives. No lie there. He then says "I can only find one". At that moment he only knew where one of his wives was. He didn't know where the others were, thus he could only find one at that moment. Typical stupid anti-mormon liberals to take the quote totally out of context and make up lies about it.

To be fair, looking at the context in which Joseph purportedly made this statement shows that there was a lot going on during this time. Some folks were for him, some against. And some apparently going back and forth. It's questionable as to whether Joseph Smith knew whom was which at times.

https://archive.org/stream/TheWordsOfJo ... n+wives%22

https://archive.org/stream/TheWordsOfJo ... n+wives%22

I know Zeezrom is going to chuckle when he reads this, but here goes:

There were a lot of players active at the time that Joseph was being accused of moral bankruptcy in Nauvoo. It is difficult using primary sources to pin down what really was going on. Some of the sources are antagonistic. Some are not. Where do you draw the line between what can be trusted as 'the truth' and what is not? For example, are John C. Bennett and Sarah Brotherton to be trusted? When is William Law to be trusted and when is he not? The Fosters? And so forth.

Regards,
MG

[_sock puppet]

There were a lot of players active at the time that Joseph was being accused of moral bankruptcy in Nauvoo. It is difficult using primary sources to pin down what really was going on. Some of the sources are antagonistic. Some are not. Where do you draw the line between what can be trusted as 'the truth' and what is not? For example, are John C. Bennett and Sarah Brotherton to be trusted? When is William Law to be trusted and when is he not? The Fosters? And so forth.

Regards,
MG

When is JSJr to be trusted? and WHY?