Our leaders

[_Inconceivable]

You and the rest of the mob the murdered Smith.

That's quite an indictment upon me, Jason. I would not have hid behind a mask.

However, if Smith came for my 15 year old daughter to destroy all of our hopes and dreams for her to live a lawful, chaste and happy mortal life I may very well have sent him straight to Jesus. I also would have told the Mormon God and his angel creep to go ahead and run me through with that flaming sword rather than bow down to such depravity.

I would prefer to file charges and bring him to the justice of the laws of the land. Choose whatever God you want to be my witness.

Seeing that Mayor and militia commander Smith controlled Nauvoo, the Laws (William and Wilson) reacted to his perversion by publishing his infidelities. I whole heartedly approve of what they did.

inc

[_Inconceivable]

(My latest comments in bold)

Jason,

My point is that the people of Illinois didn't drive the "saints" out.

And you are incorrect.

Actually it could be argued that the Saints drove themselves out. No one ever died from a threat

BY and his band (not the "saints") were lawbreakers. The law drove the band out.

What law? It was not well known that polygamy was being practiced? There was not law. Outlaws drove them out.

What law? The law of the land. Polygamy (adultery) was never legal in the US. Ever. Everyone knew of the rumors that Smith was committing adultery in the name of his God. Not everyone that wished him away was an outlaw or belonged to a mob.

The band put fear into the hearts of the "saints" to follow them.

Sure. I imagine being threatened, having your leaders murdered, and all the other "wolf" hunts were a bit nerve wracking. But the band was not BY it was the good citizens of Hancock county.

I refer to BY and Joseph Smith's polygamous band - a secret combination. And true, not all the "saints" were aware of why the world was liberated of the Smiths. The faithful "saints" unaware of Smith and Young's secret combination emphatically supported the brethren testifying that they did not practice Mormon adultery - pretty nerve racking for those not privy to the dirty little secret. To them it was persecution

As you may recall, Joseph and Hyrum attempted the same as BY when they fled across the river to the Rocky Mountains several weeks before Carthage. They were denounced as cowards, causing them to return to Nauvoo, contrary to the revelation of the Mormon God.

I know that Joseph Smith and Hyrum were leaving town sure. So what?

So what? There were formal and lawful charges brought against them. Their intent was to become fugitives from the law and leave the United States permenantly. That is why Smith was called a coward even by his only legal wife, Emma.

Smith understood justice, why else would he say he was going as "a lamb to the slaughter". The cause set in motion was unavoidable.

Wow. Once again you view mob murder as justice. You are a scary man. And irrational about things LDS.

I do not see him as a lamb, but a wolf. He knew he didn't have a snowball's chance of being aquitted this time.

See my previous post for comment on refering to me as a cowardly mobber.

[_Nevo]

Now, other than the quibble about "spiritual manipulation", what could you possibly reject, factually, in my characterization?

lying to his wife about it

using God to threaten her into submission

not openly recognizing or taking care of his wives

Seriously, which one of these do you reject on the basis of fact?

So, Nevo, are you as generous to Bent? (see the story I already linked). Time to put your money where you mouth is.

• Joseph concealed the extent of his polygamy from Emma, but he didn't lie to her about practicing polygamy. They discussed it many, many times.
  
• Perhaps Joseph "used God to threaten her into submission, " but I suspect he really believed that he and anyone else who disobeyed this law risked spiritual death.
  
• No, Joseph didn't openly acknowledge being married to thirty or more women, you're right. But how do you suppose he could have done so, in Nauvoo, in the 1840s? This is a preposterous criticism, completely unmoored from reality.

As for Bent, I know almost nothing about the guy. Am I supposed to offer a considered opinion about the sincerity of his religious claims based on a single CNN article? For what it's worth, my initial impression of him is unfavorable.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Nevo,

No, Joseph didn't openly acknowledge being married to thirty or more women, you're right. But how do you suppose he could have done so, in Nauvoo, in the 1840s? This is a preposterous criticism, completely unmoored from reality.

The way I see it, if God could create a whole universe, we're talking galaxies, solar systems, life, consciousness, rainbows, and butterflies, he could probably figure out a way to have Joseph Smith obey his commandments without having to deceive, lie, and mislead folks. (Of course that begs the question, why would God have to have men sleep with multiple women other than their wives to start with, but that is another thread.. smile).

Just sayin... ;-)

To be honest whenever I hear arguments that suggest God couldn't do something or another, (not saying this is your specific argument), I have to wonder about God. Well I don't believe in this sort of God still, it doesn't make sense to me that an all powerful God who could send an angel to Joseph Smith, who could cause the whole world to be destroyed by a flood, who could create a universe that would one day make humans, couldn't step in and help with something as important as the claimed resotration of this supposedly essential and eternal principle.

Just seems weird. Oh well...

~dancer~

[_mcjathan]

• Joseph concealed the extent of his polygamy from Emma, but he didn't lie to her about practicing polygamy. They discussed it many, many times.
  
• Perhaps Joseph "used God to threaten her into submission, " but I suspect he really believed that he and anyone else who disobeyed this law risked spiritual death.
  
• No, Joseph didn't openly acknowledge being married to thirty or more women, you're right. But how do you suppose he could have done so, in Nauvoo, in the 1840s? This is a preposterous criticism, completely unmoored from reality.

As for Bent, I know almost nothing about the guy. Am I supposed to offer a considered opinion about the sincerity of his religious claims based on a single CNN article? For what it's worth, my initial impression of him is unfavorable.

Nevo,

• Of course Joseph lied to Emma about practicing polygamy. If you've read anything on this subject you can't possibly say that Joseph didn't lie to Emma about polygamy. Just off the top of my head, don't you remember how Joseph married the Partridge sisters behind Emma's back and then later setup a 2nd sham wedding with the sisters this time for Emma's benefit? Dude, pick up a book or two and do some reading before making such an inaccurate statement.
  
• Do you really want to try to justify Joseph using God to threaten Emma? Whatever happened to the long-suffering Joseph who lived by the creed: "No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned. By kindness, and pure knowledge"? Furthermore, for a man who routinely taught his followers that they were entitled to a powerful spiritual witness of God's very own truth, Joseph seems to display a profound lack of faith in God's ability to persuade Emma, don't you think?
  
• So you think that it is preposterous that Joseph wasn't open about polygamy because it would have been too hard on him. On the other hand, the church glorifies Joseph for his courage in proclaiming his first vision despite the persecution. Remember this? "I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it." It isn't believable to me that the God of the universe command Joseph to practice polygamy and despite this close communion with the Almighty, Joseph can't muster the courage to proclaim God's will to the world (or his wife, or even his church). I find it upsetting that the only place we have a record of "courage" displayed by Joseph regarding polygamy is behind closed doors with teenage girls when he talks about angels, flaming swords, and how the entire family of the girl would be given exaltation.

Nevo, the bottom line is that for you as a believer to justify Joseph's behavior, you have to justify all sorts of hypocritical behavior. Honestly, you and the church would be better served in the long run by simply saying that much of Joseph's behavior in regards to polygamy seems to be inexcusable, and then repeat the often used phrase that a prophet isn't always speaking (or acting) as a prophet.

[_Droopy]

Our leaders today are so different from the flamboyant, outgoing, doctrine-creating leaders of the past. I'm wondering... which leaders today do you think would have been leaders in the beginning? Can you see Pres Monson sneaking around with Joseph, gathering plural wives behind Emma's back? Can you see Elder Oaks smashing a printing press, because it was printing the truth? Can you see Elder Scott standing in conference and laying plural marriage out for everyone to see and telling them to like it or leave?

Why were our early leaders not men of minimal integrity, while our leaders now for the most part show very high personal integrity? (I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt on the money thing, for the purposes of this discussion.) Is this a process where the scoundrels gave it a start, and the men with integrity moved them aside and stepped into the leadership positions? Or did the early Saints want scoundrels for leaders for some reason, while the current Saints want a higher standard?

Some of our modern members too, it seems, are so very different from the faithful, valiant, committed members of yore.

[_Inconceivable]

Honestly, you and the church would be better served in the long run by simply saying that much of Joseph's behavior in regards to polygamy seems to be inexcusable, and then repeat the often used phrase that a prophet isn't always speaking (or acting) as a prophet.

Amen.

Perhaps I would still belong to the club if this had been said to me before I began to dig deeper into the history of the Mormon trainwreck. Big hurdle here - taking responsibility, calling a duck a duck. Good luck.

[Anonymous]

But let's understand, there was not polygamy in Palmyra, Fayette, Colesville, Harmony, Kirtland or Missouri. The problems the Saint initially had in Jackson County were before Smith spent any time there at all. YOu seem to think the local county side was in an uproar over polygamy. Really it had nothing to do with it in all the places I mention and even little in Nauvoo. Sharp was major enemy and critic long before polygamy was even whispered about.

Polygamy was not the main issue in Nauvoo or any other place really.If you think it was you need to study LDS history much better.

Also, I still see you have not explained your idea that because your neighbors don't like you this somehow shows you are really bad. That is just nonesense.

As far as Joseph Smith is concerned I have admitted that emotionally I am more apt to cut him slack. You know I despise polygamy and if I believe Smith as prophet I certainly do not believe he was in regards to that.

Jason, didn't Joseph Smith speak publicly several times in Nauvoo denying the doctrine and practice of polygamy?
http://www.restorationbookstore.org/jsfp-index.htm

Nauvoo polygamy had caused quite an uproar and divide within the church itself.
I have a hard time believing that non members in that community weren't concerned or fearful when exd members began talking or when Joseph spoke publicly about the rumors.

I do agree that it wasn't the main issue in other places, like for example Jackson County. There were more troublesome issues than polygamy in places like that. Hmmm, weren't Mormons telling the people in Missouri that God had given them all that land? Did Sidney Rigdon give a sermon calling out a war of extermination on the state militia? Did the Mormon army attack and burn many gentile settlements? Were they preaching that believers were going to unify with the converted Indians to establish a New Jerusalem theorcracy? Were they preaching to destroy the wicked Gentiles? Yeah, that's not the kind of neighbor I would want next door. I can only imagine how frightened the people of Missouri must have been.

I'm not condoning what happened to the Mormons but I believe there are two sides to every story.

[_Boaz & Lidia]

BY and his band (not the "saints") were lawbreakers. The law drove the band out.

What law? It was not well known that polygamy was being practiced? There was not law. Outlaws drove them out.

Are you serious?

Do you not know about the 1833 anti bigamy law which was enacted in the state of Illinois years before the polygamists showed up in Nauvoo?

"Sec 121. Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one and the same time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive. If any person or persons within this State, being married, or who shall hereafter marry, do at any time marry any person or persons, the former husband or wife being alive, the person so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine, not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned in the penitentiary, not exceeding two years. It shall not be necessary to prove either of the said marriages by the register or certificate thereof, or other record evidence; but the same may be proved by such evidence as is admissible to prove a marriage in other cases, and when such second marriage shall have taken place without this state, cohabitation in this state after such second marriage shall be deemed the commission of the crime of bigamy, and the trial in such case may take place in the county where such cohabitation shall have occurred."
Revised Laws of Illinois, 1833, p.198-99

[_Droopy]

Nevo, the bottom line is that for you as a believer to justify Joseph's behavior, you have to justify all sorts of hypocritical behavior. Honestly, you and the church would be better served in the long run by simply saying that much of Joseph's behavior in regards to polygamy seems to be inexcusable, and then repeat the often used phrase that a prophet isn't always speaking (or acting) as a prophet.

The problem remains, of course, regarding just what Joseph's "behavior" entailed, as the historical record is, for all intents and purposes, silent on the matter.

Plenty of room for conjecture, speculation, and the free roaming of the imagination (not to something along the lines of what Freud called "reaction formation, given my and all previous generation's general attitudes towards human sexuality) however.