What lies did the Nauvoo Expositor print?

[_Buffalo]

Do you believe that other millenarian prophets (e.g., David Koresh and Michael Travessor (a.k.a. Wayne Bent)) engaged in polygamy for reasons other than "he couldn't keep it in his pants?"

I don't know about Wayne Bent. I think Koresh was, by and large, sincere. I think religious motives did play a role in his polygamy.

But never mind. What's important here is to moralize and pass judgment, not to understand. Polygamy is never OK. Never ever. And God, if he exists, would never command or countenance such an abhorrent practice.

Joseph Smith went way beyond mere polygamy.

[_sock puppet]

I wasn't making the point that the Expositor lied. I made that more modest claim that it was slanderous; that it made representations intended to defame and injure Joseph Smith. I also expressed the view that it claimed things that were not true (such as Joseph Smith being an iniquitous monster).

Then by the definition apparent from your use of the term, it was JSJr's own actions that "defamed" him and rendered him, in the opinion of Walmart Law, to be an 'iniquitous monster'.

But defamation is a factual untruth.

Did Walmart Law intend to injure JSJr? If by informing the sheeple Mormons of Nauvoo about the truth of JSJr's actions despite his lying denials to the contrary, yes. Walmart Law's intents were obviously to inform the Mormon sheeple about JSJr's duplicity so that they could make informed decisions about whether to continued to follow hm.

Nevo, who is the law giver in religious terms? If you believe the originating source of religious laws is JSJr, then I agree with you that by definition he could not do anything 'illegal' religiously. However, if you think elohim/jehovah are the law givers, then JSJr's breach of those 'laws' was a violation.

[Guest]

And when you reach the point of "whatever our beloved leader does is justified," you're not even pretending not to be a cult.

Although mostly unrelated, I find it an interesting coincidence that both Joseph Smith and Alexander the Great drew closer to pretensions of divine status at the very time they were transgressing basic societal rules or morals. In fact, for a long time it was considered necessary to break with western society by practicing polygamy in order to secure deification in Mormonism, thus showing that a form of transgression was actually required to attain Mormonism's greatest rewards.

More interesting yet is the fact that attaining the assurance of future deification freed the believer from all but a couple of moral or theological limitations. By having one's calling and election made sure, one essentially received a blank check to engage in almost any sin with impunity! Wow.

[_GR33N]

It's like... you see non-existant things simply because your belief system demands that they be there.

I agree with you. There seems to be a lot of that going on around here. :)

[_Fifth Columnist]

I don't know about Wayne Bent. I think Koresh was, by and large, sincere. I think religious motives did play a role in his polygamy.

I think Koresh and Bent were both sincere, which is a problem for me since they all seem so similar. How can I say that Joseph was actually inspired by God and the others weren't?

But never mind. What's important here is to moralize and pass judgment, not to understand. Polygamy is never OK. Never ever. And God, if he exists, would never command or countenance such an abhorrent practice.

Nevo, most people don't object to Joseph practicing polygamy, it was the way he practiced it. Yeah, I can safely say that the God I learned about growing up in the Church would never command or countenance the way Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. Maybe if I had been raised to believe in a fallible God (like the Greek Gods), then I could have made it all work out.

[_Kishkumen]

Nevo, most people don't object to Joseph practicing polygamy, it was the way he practiced it. Yeah, I can safely say that the God I learned about growing up in the Church would never command or countenance the way Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. Maybe if I had been raised to believe in a fallible God (like the Greek Gods), then I could have made it all work out.

That is certainly the case for me. I think there are certain things that must be held sacred without exception. Realizing the Joseph Smith violated the marriages of others in his practice of polygamy was really too much for me. There was a time I wished I had lived in Joseph Smith's Nauvoo, believe it or not. This discovery made me thank my lucky stars that I did not.

[_beefcalf]

It's like... you see non-existant things simply because your belief system demands that they be there.

I agree with you. There seems to be a lot of that going on around here. :)

Ha Ha! Well spoken, GR33N. ;-)

Everybody's got a perspective, eh? Touché!

[_Fence Sitter]

[Nevo, most people don't object to Joseph practicing polygamy, it was the way he practiced it. Yeah, I can safely say that the God I learned about growing up in the Church would never command or countenance the way Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. Maybe if I had been raised to believe in a fallible God (like the Greek Gods), then I could have made it all work out.

What Fifth says here is dead on. Those of us that grew up in the church heard all the time about BY and his polygamous wives. We kind of shrugged our shoulders and said "so what?". We had no issue with BY and polygamy. What is difficult for most of us raised in the church is to find out how Joseph Smith practiced polygamy or that he even had. I asked my mother and father the other day (members for all or their lives, both in their 80s) how many wives did J.S. have? "Six or so" was the response and it was something they just found out in the last ten years or so.

[_Runtu]

But never mind. What's important here is to moralize and pass judgment, not to understand. Polygamy is never OK. Never ever. And God, if he exists, would never command or countenance such an abhorrent practice.

I don't know about anyone else, but that is not the case for me. My ancestors were polygamists, and although I can't imagine living the principle like that, I know from their journals and family history that they practiced it because they believed it was right. They were open and honest with their spouses about the practice, and I don't have a problem with them doing what they thought was right.

With Joseph Smith, it's not the polygamy that bothers me. It's the coercion, the deception, the ruining of reputations that I find utterly removed from godly behavior. I don't believe God would command or countenance lying and coercion like that. If that makes me a hard-hearted unbeliever, so be it.

But kindly do not put words into my mouth.

[_Kishkumen]

With Joseph Smith, it's not the polygamy that bothers me. It's the coercion, the deception, the ruining of reputations that I find utterly removed from godly behavior. I don't believe God would command or countenance lying and coercion like that. If that makes me a hard-hearted unbeliever, so be it.

But kindly do not put words into my mouth.

Agreed on all accounts.