What lies did the Nauvoo Expositor print?

[_harmony]

I've never understood this notion that, because the coerced people entered into relationships voluntarily, this somehow absolves the person who coerced them.

I've never been able to figure out how a coerced person can enter into a voluntary relationship with the person coercing them.

Seems to me like the coercion wipes out the voluntary quality. Kinda like when a person voluntarily hands over their wallet at the point of a gun.

[_Runtu]

I don't think it's repellent. Maybe just misguided. We were both there once.

It was precisely this issue that caused the collapse of my faith. It wasn't so much that I knew Joseph Smith had done these things, but that I had defended and rationalized them in the same way Nevo has. I don't think Nevo is a bad person (I don't think I was a bad person for defending it, either), but at some point it really hits you: My God, what am I doing? Why am I defending this?

[_Runtu]

I've never been able to figure out how a coerced person can enter into a voluntary relationship with the person coercing them.

Seems to me like the coercion wipes out the voluntary quality. Kinda like when a person voluntarily hands over their wallet at the point of a gun.

I think you know what I meant. But I completely agree with you.

[_harmony]

I don't think it's repellent. Maybe just misguided. We were both there once.

I agree with repellent. And I was never there. People deliberately kept in the dark cannot give even tacit approval to something they know nothing about.

[_Runtu]

I agree with repellent. And I was never there. People deliberately kept in the dark cannot give even tacit approval to something they know nothing about.

I wish I had never been there. The question one needs to ask is this: If this were anyone other than Joseph Smith, would I have any reason to justify his behavior? The answer is obvious.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

I agree with repellent. And I was never there. People deliberately kept in the dark cannot give even tacit approval to something they know nothing about.

I wish I had never been there. The question one needs to ask is this: If this were anyone other than Joseph Smith, would I have any reason to justify his behavior? The answer is obvious.

The better question is whether god would expect you to. That is the fish slap to the face.

[Guest]

Hi Fifth Columnist,

Let me first say that I agree that Joseph pressured these women. I've explicitly acknowledged this. So your sarcastic "gee, no pressure there" refrain doesn't really apply.

I was responding to your claim that they offered "unforced consent" and that they ignored Joseph's threats/promises. I think that is demonstrably false. Zina only agreed once Joseph threatened his own death by a sword wielding angel. Helen only agreed after she and her entire family were guaranteed exaltation. Joseph didn't have to go to these extremes in every case, but he was certainly willing to when the subject of his affections was especially uncooperative.

The bottom line is that these women agreed to marry Joseph Smith because they believed that God wanted them to. They believed God wanted them to, not just because Joseph Smith said so, but because of personal, deeply felt spiritual experiences that convinced them that polygamy was a true principle. Yes, they trusted Joseph Smith. But they trusted their own experiences with God even more.

And so did Bent's followers, and Koresh's followers, and any of the other countless followers of millenarian prophets who reinstituted polygamy.

One of the first cracks in my reliance on spiritual experiences as a way to determine truth occurred when I realized the absolutely abhorrent things people were doing in reliance on these experiences. After studying these experiences a bit more, I realized that many, many other cult leaders rely on these same experiences to get their followers to do atrocious things.

There were 196 men and 717 women who formed polygamous relationships in Nauvoo. Were they all duped, coerced, manipulated into it against their wills by Joseph Smith? Of course not. They did it because they believed it was right.

Okay. I will agree that most of Joseph's followers were true believers (just like Koresh's and Bent's). That really does nothing to justify or minimize the incredibly bad things that Joseph Smith did in the name of restoring polygamy.

[_Kishkumen]

I don't think it's repellent. Maybe just misguided. We were both there once.

Well, begging to differ, I do. No offense to you either, Spurven. I think you are a wonderful person. To clarify--I think it is absolutely possible, and often is the case, that a good person like Nevo can make an argument with completely repellent implications. I call that a "repellent argument," but we can settle on a less heated term.

I think it is absolutely crucial for LDS people to realize that the historical space they carve out for Joseph Smith has far-reaching theological implications, and that they should be very careful what they allow in their leaders, because it is not impossible that they will have to deal with the consequences at some time in the future. If they continue, as they do, to deny the deity of Joseph Smith, while smiling on everything he does with a kind of lackadaisical antinomian free pass, then it becomes possible for any one of their leaders to demand things equally disturbing, and, as long as they feel the Spirit, they will feel compelled to go along with it.

In fact, I would submit that they will be much more likely to feel the Spirit if they allow for the possibility up front. But this is because I do not place unquestioned trust in my feelings like Simon Belmont (the more fool I, right?). Now, if it is their idea of bliss to send all of their beloved family members to live in the leader's tent, then so be it, but I want to give them the opportunity to consider this a little more carefully before it gets to that point. Just wait until Will Schryver or his spiritual twin is calling the shots.

[_Runtu]

The better question is whether god would expect you to. That is the fish slap to the face.

I heard a prominent apologist say that God must have a more "expansive" view of morality than we do. I guess I don't want to worship a God with looser morals than the ones He expects me to live by.

[_Kishkumen]

What happens when the Spirit tells people to commit genocide? Is it impossible?