"Drastic Measures Were Called For"

[_harmony]

Do you have the inside scoop on how much Elder Holland does or does not know regarding Joseph Smith?

Regards,
MG

If Elder Holland knows what there is to know about Joseph Smith, and if he is a man of integrity, he would not be party to what he now condones.

I prefer to think of him as a man of integrity who simply doesn't know enough (he's not Packer, after all).

Your mileage may vary.

[_mentalgymnast]

mentalgymnast,

So, permit me to ask you what you think Smith's reason was for lying to Sydney Rigdon about the letter he had written to Nancy?

If the facts and circumstances surrounding polygamy, and especially Smith's practice thereof, were truly and factually commanded of God, why would Smith feel compelled to lie about it? And to Sydney Rigdon, of all people?

Why would God suffer that Rigdon could be so high in his one true church on Earth, while at the same time stand in defiance of God in the matter of accepting the doctrine of Polygamy?

The circumstances revolving around the letter, Nancy Rigdon's behavior, Sidney's issues, Francis Higbee, and Bennett are rather convoluted. Let it be said that there were lies being thrown around by those that were enemies of Joseph. Rigdon was not on the best of terms because of other issues, yada, yada, yada.

To make an armchair judgment and come down on the side of Bennett and Higbee and other enemies of Joseph Smith is your prerogative. But again, the story is much more complex than you're making it out to be. There are more ways to interpret polygamy during the Nauvoo period than simply reading Van Wagoner and Bennett's "History of the Saints".

Here is a good place to start:

http://pool.fairmormon.org/wiki/images/ ... _draft.pdf

Have you already read it? It's worth the read if you haven't done so.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

. . . neither do we have any personal writings (correspondence, newspaper clippings, journal entries, meeting minutes, etc.) which demonstrate directly or even indirectly that they were true believers in their con and that what they were doing was right. Or condoned/authorized by God.

We do for Joseph Smith.

As we do for the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, for David Koresh, and for Marshall Applewhite. If memory serves, we do for Jim Jones as well.

By your logic, they must be prophets, too.

But I don't see them as prophets. There must be some other factors involved...hmmm...

Regards,
MG

[_Yong Xi]

Though not from Joseph Smith, here is an affidavit from Peter Ingersoll.


"In the month of August, 1827, I was hired by Joseph Smith, Jr. to go to Pennsylvania, to move his wife's household furniture up to Manchester, where his wife then was."

"When we arrived at Mr. Hale's, in Harmony, Pa. from which place he had taken his wife, a scene presented itself, truly affecting. His father-in-law (Mr. Hale) addressed Joseph, in a flood of tears: "You have stolen my daughter and married her. I had much rather have followed her to her grave. You spend your time in digging for money -- pretend to see in a stone, and thus try to deceive people.""

"Joseph wept, and acknowledged he could not see in a stone now, nor never could; and that his former pretensions in that respect, were all false. He then promised to give up his old habits of digging for money and looking into stones."

"Joseph told me on his return, that he intended to keep the promise which he had made to his father-in-law; "but," said he, "it will be hard for me, for they will all oppose, as they want me to look in the stone for them to dig money." And in fact it was as he predicted. They urged him, day after day, to resume his old practice of looking in the stone."

- Peter Ingersoll Affidavit, Palmyra, Wayne County. N. Y. Dec. 2, 1833,

[_Dr. Shades]

As we do for the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, for David Koresh, and for Marshall Applewhite. If memory serves, we do for Jim Jones as well.

By your logic, they must be prophets, too.

But I don't see them as prophets. There must be some other factors involved...hmmm...

The "other factors involved" is that A) all of those people claimed to be prophets, and B) none of those people admitted that they were frauds either.

So your idea that Joseph Smith must've been a true prophet since he never admitted that he was a fraud is a fallacious one.

[_Fence Sitter]

The circumstances revolving around the letter, Nancy Rigdon's behavior, Sidney's issues, Francis Higbee, and Bennett are rather convoluted. Let it be said that there were lies being thrown around by those that were enemies of Joseph. Rigdon was not on the best of terms because of other issues, yada, yada, yada.

To make an armchair judgment and come down on the side of Bennett and Higbee and other enemies of Joseph Smith is your prerogative. But again, the story is much more complex than you're making it out to be. There are more ways to interpret polygamy during the Nauvoo period than simply reading Van Wagoner and Bennett's "History of the Saints".

Here is a good place to start:

http://pool.fairmormon.org/wiki/images/ ... _draft.pdf

Have you already read it? It's worth the read if you haven't done so.

Regards,
MG

Perhaps you will take William Claytons word when he talks about the prophet offering to excommunicate him and then rebaptise him so Clayton can avoid the trouble regarding his second wife.


19 October 1843, Thursday
Nauvoo 2
Thursday 19. A.M at the Temple Office comparing books & recording
deeds. at 11 W. Walker came & said Prest. J wanted me to go to
Macedonia I went immediately to see him & he requested me to go with
him. I went home & got dinner & got ready he soon came up and we
started out After we had got on the road he began to tell me that E.
was turned quite friendly & kind. she had been anointed & he also had
been a. K. He said that it was her advice that I should keep M at home
and it was also his council. Says he just keep her at home and brook
it and if they raise trouble about it and bring you before me I will
give you an awful scourging & probably cut you off from the church and
then I will baptise you & set you ahead as good as ever.

[_beefcalf]

mentalgymnast,

So, permit me to ask you what you think Smith's reason was for lying to Sydney Rigdon about the letter he had written to Nancy?

If the facts and circumstances surrounding polygamy, and especially Smith's practice thereof, were truly and factually commanded of God, why would Smith feel compelled to lie about it? And to Sydney Rigdon, of all people?

Why would God suffer that Rigdon could be so high in his one true church on Earth, while at the same time stand in defiance of God in the matter of accepting the doctrine of Polygamy?

The circumstances revolving around the letter, Nancy Rigdon's behavior, Sidney's issues, Francis Higbee, and Bennett are rather convoluted. Let it be said that there were lies being thrown around by those that were enemies of Joseph. Rigdon was not on the best of terms because of other issues, yada, yada, yada.

To make an armchair judgment and come down on the side of Bennett and Higbee and other enemies of Joseph Smith is your prerogative. But again, the story is much more complex than you're making it out to be. There are more ways to interpret polygamy during the Nauvoo period than simply reading Van Wagoner and Bennett's "History of the Saints".

Here is a good place to start:

http://pool.fairmormon.org/wiki/images/ ... _draft.pdf

Have you already read it? It's worth the read if you haven't done so.

Regards,
MG

mentalgymnast,

Thanks for the link to the FAIR Bennett analysis; I had not read through it previously.

Let it be said that there were lies being thrown around by those that were enemies of Joseph

I do not take the stance that those who opposed Smith were always honest. No group of people, however you define that group, can claim to be 100% honest. But let me point out that there can be absolutely no disputing that Joseph Smith, Junior, lied repeatedly about his involvement with polygamy. He lied to his wife, to the membership of the church, to Sydney Rigdon, to everybody except those he convinced to join him in his escapades. Further, I do not side with Bennett. I believe he was man of almost zero ethics or morals.

The FAIR analysis of Bennett briefly touches on what I believe to be the nail in this coffin: D&C 124. The FAIR author Gregory Smith lays out his defense of D&C 124 which is very weak, as it must be given what is actually written there. Basically, Bennett was rotten to the core, from the beginning, even prior to his arrival in Nauvoo. And yet Joseph Smith was likely unaware of his sordid history, as, apparently, was God who 'revealed' to Smith D&C 124, granting provisional acceptance of Bennett's good works, should he continue.

This is absolutely unbelievable. Bennett was involved with not just numerous and frequent adulterous relationships with the women of Nauvoo, he also made provisions for aborting those unwanted pregnancies which resulted, according to Hyrum Smith. He even offered to poison the husband of a woman whom he wanted for himself. And yet God would say, about this very man, the following?

16 Again, let my servant John C. Bennett help you in your labor in sending my word to the kings and people of the earth, and stand by you, even you my servant Joseph Smith, in the hour of affliction; and his reward shall not fail if he receive counsel.

17 And for his love he shall be great, for he shall be mine if he do this, saith the Lord. I have seen the work which he hath done, which I accept if he continue, and will crown him with blessings and great glory. (emphasis added)

I cannot fathom how much more transparent Smith's false and self-serving 'revelations' must be for someone to accept the fact of his duplicity. For the purposes of exposing chicanery , this 'revelation' is as clear an example as you might every hope to see!

Please rationally explain how God could actually utter the words of D&C 124:16-17 given what we all agree Bennett was engaged in during his time in Nauvoo.

Thanks.

[_moksha]

Elder Holland and the rest of our leaders, and a huge majority of our members, do not... do NOT... want to know about anything about Joseph that conflicts with the one-dimensional stand up cut out that passes for reality in SLCentral.

Real reality bites.

Why should they? Hasn't FARMS/FAIR conclusively shown that all of BH Robert's concerns were swamp gas and weather balloons?

[_Buffalo]

mentalgymnast,

Thanks for the link to the FAIR Bennett analysis; I had not read through it previously.

Let it be said that there were lies being thrown around by those that were enemies of Joseph

I do not take the stance that those who opposed Smith were always honest. No group of people, however you define that group, can claim to be 100% honest. But let me point out that there can be absolutely no disputing that Joseph Smith, Junior, lied repeatedly about his involvement with polygamy. He lied to his wife, to the membership of the church, to Sydney Rigdon, to everybody except those he convinced to join him in his escapades. Further, I do not side with Bennett. I believe he was man of almost zero ethics or morals.

The FAIR analysis of Bennett briefly touches on what I believe to be the nail in this coffin: D&C 124. The FAIR author Gregory Smith lays out his defense of D&C 124 which is very weak, as it must be given what is actually written there. Basically, Bennett was rotten to the core, from the beginning, even prior to his arrival in Nauvoo. And yet Joseph Smith was likely unaware of his sordid history, as, apparently, was God who 'revealed' to Smith D&C 124, granting provisional acceptance of Bennett's good works, should he continue.

This is absolutely unbelievable. Bennett was involved with not just numerous and frequent adulterous relationships with the women of Nauvoo, he also made provisions for aborting those unwanted pregnancies which resulted, according to Hyrum Smith. He even offered to poison the husband of a woman whom he wanted for himself. And yet God would say, about this very man, the following?

16 Again, let my servant John C. Bennett help you in your labor in sending my word to the kings and people of the earth, and stand by you, even you my servant Joseph Smith, in the hour of affliction; and his reward shall not fail if he receive counsel.

17 And for his love he shall be great, for he shall be mine if he do this, saith the Lord. I have seen the work which he hath done, which I accept if he continue, and will crown him with blessings and great glory. (emphasis added)

I cannot fathom how much more transparent Smith's false and self-serving 'revelations' must be for someone to accept the fact of his duplicity. For the purposes of exposing chicanery , this 'revelation' is as clear an example as you might every hope to see!

Please rationally explain how God could actually utter the words of D&C 124:16-17 given what we all agree Bennett was engaged in during his time in Nauvoo.

Thanks.

Having purposely avoided reading much D&C as a TBM since so much of it seemed threatening to testimony, I wasn't aware of this smoking gun issue. Thanks for bringing it up.

[_EAllusion]

I recently watched "My Kid Could Paint That." It's documentary about the rise of a child prodigy painter. I don't want to give away the details of the film, but I highly recommend you watch it.

*spoilers*

And, for those who have, the question I have that is relevant to this thread is Why would the Olmstead's invite 60 Minutes, and the documentarians for that matter, into their home? I think I know the answer to that. Or at least non-answer answer. I think that happens all to often. People get caught up in their big lie and will go down in flames acting as if it is true to the bitter end, even to the point of blurring their own understanding of the truth. That happens all the time.