What lies did the Nauvoo Expositor print?

[_harmony]

Whereas David Koresh's movement withered and died on the branch (pardon the pun), Joseph Smith founded an emergent global faith. I think that places him closer to Moses and Jesus and Muhammad than to David Koresh—or any of the other myriad largely forgotten failed prophets/messiahs.

Lump him with the other men, but putting Christ in that catagory is just wrong.

However... adherents today:

Moses = Jews = 14.5 million
Jesus = Christians = 2+ billion
Muhammad = Muslims = 1.5+ billion

source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

Looks like Joseph's impact is pretty negligent, compared with Muhammed.

[_Aristotle Smith]

The Church's official position on polygamy, as taught in its scriptures and believed by its rank-and-file members, was this:

Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again. ~D&C 101:4

These "marriages" weren't even recognized by the Church. That's why there are no church records that indicate to whom Joseph Smith was "married".

It just goes to show, the "not official doctrine" defense is a double-edged sword.

Yep, and it's always fun to watch apologists gleefully slice themselves when they grip that second side hard with both hands, forgetting it has an edge.

[_Nevo]

You do think that Joseph Smith's marriages were legally valid? In what jurisdiction of the United States would they have been legally valid? Is it your considered opinion that mutual belief is sufficient to give legal sanction to a relationship between two or more persons?

Joseph Smith's polygamous unions weren't legal marriages. Nor were any one elses'. It doesn't follow, however, that all polygamous relationships are reducible to adulterous sexual liaisons. They were legitimated by religious rather than civil authority: "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." You might not accept that authority, but there it is.

You are not seriously going to start arguing that he never had sex with his plural "wives," are you?

Not seriously, no. But I think you overestimate the role physical intimacy played in Joseph Smith's polygamy.

Are you suggesting that William Law helped write the Expositor to cover up his own adultery?

Not at all. Law confessed his adultery. I was just observing that it hadn't been mentioned that Joseph's accuser was himself an adulterer.

You can't think of an example of Jesus using his followers for his personal benefit either, huh?

I did give you an example of Jesus benefitting from his followers. No, they didn't build him a big house—he didn't need one; he was an itinerant preacher—but they did underwrite his ministry.

Was Allen Stout's journal a forgery?

Thanks for the source. Obviously that is where Hofmann got the story from. It would be nice to know, though, where Stout got his information from since Dunham apparently didn't tell a soul about receiving the order and no other sources seem to mention it.

In any case, I'm not sure what your point is. Jesus went passively to his death and Joseph didn't? So what? How does that refute my observation that both were millenarian prophets?

[_harmony]

Jesus went passively to his death and Joseph didn't? So what? How does that refute my observation that both were millenarian prophets?

Holy smokes. There it is again.

Which part of "Jesus was God" and "Joseph was not God" isn't clear?

Jesus was not a millenarian prophet. Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah, God's own Son in the flesh.

Joseph was just one of a long line of men who claimed that God spoke to them.

Not on the same plane, not even in the same dimension.

[_Kishkumen]

How does that refute my observation that both were millenarian prophets?

I am still uncertain what defining Smith as a millenarian prophet is supposed to accomplish in making your point that the Expositor lied. If he fits a particular scholarly category, that does not make the Expositor wrong or his practice of polygamy truly inspired by God, as you surely recognize.

[Guest]

You do think that Joseph Smith's marriages were legally valid? In what jurisdiction of the United States would they have been legally valid? Is it your considered opinion that mutual belief is sufficient to give legal sanction to a relationship between two or more persons?

Joseph Smith's polygamous unions weren't legal marriages. Nor were any one elses'. It doesn't follow, however, that all polygamous relationships are reducible to adulterous sexual liaisons. They were legitimated by religious rather than civil authority: "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." You might not accept that authority, but there it is.

By definiton, they were unlawful adulterous sexual liaisons. Adultery is a crime in pretty much every U.S. jurisdiction, as well as grounds for divorce. Adultery means having sex with someone other than your spouse when are legally married. That's also the definition of the law of chastity taught in the temple endowment.

You are not seriously going to start arguing that he never had sex with his plural "wives," are you?

Not seriously, no. But I think you overestimate the role physical intimacy played in Joseph Smith's polygamy.

That must be why I said on page 3, "Whether it was for sex, or some neurotic need for an expansive "family," or both, plural marriage was for the gratification of Joseph Smith."

Are you suggesting that William Law helped write the Expositor to cover up his own adultery?

Not at all. Law confessed his adultery. I was just observing that it hadn't been mentioned that Joseph's accuser was himself an adulterer.

I have no problem talking about an admitted adulterer versus someone who lied about it so that the newspaper reporting his adultery would be destroyed.

You can't think of an example of Jesus using his followers for his personal benefit either, huh?

I did give you an example of Jesus benefitting from his followers. No, they didn't build him a big house—he didn't need one; he was an itinerant preacher—but they did underwrite his ministry.

People underwrite Benny Hinn's ministry, too. But that isn't comparable to Jesus' life, either.

Was Allen Stout's journal a forgery?

Thanks for the source. Obviously that is where Hofmann got the story from. It would be nice to know, though, where Stout got his information from since Dunham apparently didn't tell a soul about receiving the order and no other sources seem to mention it.

Actually, the inference would be that Dunham did say something about it for Allen Stout to be writing about it in his journal. It does not make a lot of sense for Stout to be giving a factual journal account and then add in something he made up apropos of nothing, especially something inconsistent with the faith-promoting version of Joseph Smith's murder (lamb to the slaughter).

In any case, I'm not sure what your point is. Jesus went passively to his death and Joseph didn't? So what? How does that refute my observation that both were millenarian prophets?

I wasn't talking just about how they died, but how they lived.

But I do not fault Joseph Smith at all for trying to run away, shooting back, or appealing to fellow Masons to save him. Those were very human, very natural, and very understandable things for him to have done. It's the spin on the story that I don't care for.

[_Joseph]

DarthJ wrote:
When Jesus was arrested, he told his followers to put away their weapons. He did not send them an order to arm themselves and come rescue him.


Hehi wrote: "Neither did Joseph Smith as far as I know. Wasn't the Dunham letter a Hofmann forgery?"
*****************************************

would really help the world if it turned out Joseph Smith and the whole Mormon fiasco was a Hoffman forgery.

[_Joseph]

Whymy wrote: "Go figure is right. William Law wanted to destroy the LDS church by any means necessary and most likely declare himself leader of the new church when Joseph Smith and the leadership were disposed. His paper was a paper of vengance and bitterness. And the first issue was a reflectiion of it."
************************************************
^^^^^^^^^^^^++++++++++^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So what were the Lies printed in the Expositor?

[_LDS truthseeker]

Nevo, let me simplify this for you:

.

8 January 1844
William Law released as Second Counselor in the First Presidency; Joseph Smith noted that William “was injuring him by telling evil of him…” William considered his release to be “illegal,” since he had been called “by revelation,” but wrote “I cannot fellowship the abominations which I verily know are practiced by this man [Joseph], consequently I am glad to be free from him."[6] One of William’s key concerns seems to have revolved around plural marriage. His non-member son, Richard, later recounted:
About the year 1842, he was present at an interview between his father and the Prophet Joseph. The topic under discussion was the doctrine of plural marriage. William Law, with his arms around the neck of the Prophet, was pleading with him to withdraw the doctrine of plural marriage, which he had at that time commenced to teach to some of the brethren, Mr. Law predicting that if Joseph would abandon the doctrine, 'Mormonism' would, in fifty or one hundred years, dominate the Christian world. Mr. Law pleaded for this with Joseph with tears streaming from his eyes. The Prophet was also in tears, but he informed the gentleman that he could not withdraw the doctrine, for God had commanded him to teach it, and condemnation would come upon him if he was not obedient to the commandment.
During the discussion, Joseph was deeply affected. Mr. Richard S. Law says the interview was a most touching one, and was riveted upon his mind in a manner that has kept it fresh and distinct in his memory, as if it had occurred but yesterday.
Mr. Law also says, that he has no doubt that Joseph believed he had received the doctrine of plural marriage from the Lord. The Prophet's manner being exceedingly earnest, so much so, that Mr. Law was convinced that the Prophet was perfectly sincere in his declaration


http://en.fairmormon.org/City_of_Nauvoo ... _Expositor

Now this is pretty simple. :=)

Law might have been right - perhaps the church would have dominated the Christian world if they abandoned polygamy. It would be interesting to know what would have happened with the church had they never practiced polygamy.

[_Nevo]

Holy smokes. There it is again.

Which part of "Jesus was God" and "Joseph was not God" isn't clear?

To say that Jesus of Nazareth and Joseph Smith were both millenarian ("apocalyptic") prophets is not to say that Jesus was not God or that Joseph was God.

Like you, I believe that Jesus was divine. But I also believe he lived out his life on earth as a man, with human limitations. I think the New Testament is clear that Jesus believed that the end of the world was imminent, and that his mission (as God's eschatological agent) was to reconstitute a new Israel in preparation for the End—and perhaps inaugurate the End himself by his death.