G.Palmer Mormon Discussions Podcast on Joseph Smith Sexual Allegations

[_Tobin]

... I think it is important that if they read this discussion (or are linked to it) that they know that there are members here that urge them to avoid the topic and not trust the source William Law.

And what source can they trust?

I'm a pretty nice guy. They should trust me when I say - DO NOT trust anything William Law has to say.

[_Chap]

And what source can they trust?

I'm a pretty nice guy. They should trust me when I say - DO NOT trust anything William Law has to say.

Let's think now: Tobin says we cannot trust William Law because (see above) he was involved in the conflict with Joseph Smith and his lieutenants, and is therefore not 'objective'.

By similar reasoning, we should certainly not trust any account given by Joseph Smith and his lieutenants, because they were involved in the conflict with William Law, and are therefore not 'objective'.

But we should trust Tobin, because ... because what?

In fact this search for a single objective source is foolish. There never is one in history. We just have to read all the relevant documents, and try to see what overall picture emerges from what is sometimes the open conflict between them. So anyone who is not too scared to dare to think for themselves will certainly want to know what William Law, did, said and wrote.

Why not start with the article from BYU that Mr Geisner cited earlier?

https://byustudies.BYU.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=5507

Remember, that is the Lord's University.

[_Jason Bourne]

Oh, I'm not personally afraid of anything William Law is going to say.

I do have a "concern" that TBMs (and I'm sure they've seen the term or "Good LDS") are not equipped for this kind of stuff. Many don't even know that Joseph Smith was a polygamist and that is where the problem arises.

So good active LDS people need protection. Don't you think this is huge problem? You think many are not equipped and no nothing of polygamy? Why is that? Why doesn't the Church present a more balanced history?

I have asked a few LDS friends to visit this site so they become more familiar with the issues.

If I were a TBMer and not the filthy NOMer that I am I would never send an active TBM to this site or the MDD. In fact I doubt I would even now.

However, I would definitely wave them away from this rose bush. Most have a very literal view of Mormonism and that is also a "concern" when dealing with issues like this. They have an expectation of perfection in Joseph Smith that is simply not there and this can have a deleterious effect on their faith.

And who do you think created such and expectation?

[_RockSlider]

I'm sure it claims to be "balanced" and "well sourced". It also happens to be a hatchet job that TBMs should just ignore. There is nothing pleasant that William Law is going to say about Joseph Smith. He has no reason to and to ignore his motivations is to be completely disingenuous about it.

Let's see, he loses a 2000 dollar investment in a printing press, after being asked to be Emma's "substitute for Joseph Smith", and after refusing to allow his wife to be sealed to Joseph Smith. Within weeks of this leaves 30k in properties and runs, likely for fear of their lives, and never mentions Mormonism again for 40 years.

Sure bitter, nasty apostate, can leave the church can't leave it alone and all that. You did not even listen to the pod cast did you?

I think this information is more devastating than Book of Abraham, DNA, etc.

[_DarkHelmet]

I'm very interested in hearing about his decision to resign. I wonder if it was prompted by additional church discipline coming down the pike or recommendation to do so by a PH leader, or if he finally just had enough?

His stake prez said he must repudiate every chapter of his origins book AND regain his testimony to forgo being excommunicated.

That's impossible. According the apologists, the Bishops and Stake Presidents would never do anything like that. And even if they did, you don't have to obey them.

[_DarkHelmet]

Oh, I'm not personally afraid of anything William Law is going to say.

I do have a "concern" that TBMs (and I'm sure they've seen the term or "Good LDS") are not equipped for this kind of stuff. Many don't even know that Joseph Smith was a polygamist and that is where the problem arises. I have asked a few LDS friends to visit this site so they become more familiar with the issues. However, I would definitely wave them away from this rose bush. Most have a very literal view of Mormonism and that is also a "concern" when dealing with issues like this. They have an expectation of perfection in Joseph Smith that is simply not there and this can have a deleterious effect on their faith.

That's impossible. According to the apologists, all of these issues are readily available to all TBMs and have been thoroughly covered by the church. Any TBM that doesn't already know these things, and the apologetic answers to them, is either stupid, lazy, or probably both.

[_SteelHead]

How many investigators do you think would be baptized each year if the church taught the true history of the 1st vision, the translation process, Kirtland, Nauvoo, polygamy/polyandry, and the priesthood ban? I would think very few, but perhaps they should become required material for baptism.

[_why me]

Moksha, is it being discussed on the apologetic board? I find that I am blocked from even viewing material on the site. I would be interested if it comes up there and what is being said..

This is an area of great personal interest to me, because Fanny Alger in Van Wagoner's Mormon Polygamy was one of my great moments of 'oh no, I think there's more to the history than I have been taught at church'

I'm not surprised that the allegations were many. Also greatly interested in William Law and another viewpoint on him, because again it was always my impression from church that he was an embittered apostate, full of lies and deceit.

Hello! It has been a long time. I think that you should read Don Bradley's account of the alger episode. I think that he covers it quite well. He also returned to the LDS church after doing some in-depth research about some of the more controversial aspects of church history. I think that you may find his writings about Alger and Joseph interesting.

[_why me]

Thanks Dr W. That is interesting. I tried again to log in to the MDD site, but just get error 2000 saying I'm not permitted to visit the site. I used to post there as Abulafia, and didn't think that I had a reputation over there that would merit my blocking. Oh well. I would have preferred to have been banned or something, so that I could still keep up with what the apologists are saying. Or do you get blocked from visiting if you are banned?

Maybe I can put in a word for you. I think that they made a mistake. Or maybe because you haven't posted in a while, something happened. Lets see what happens. I have always known you to be balanced and a good person, especially during are times on the postmo. You were basically my only friend there. Good to see you back.

[_why me]

Uh huh, sure it is. Let me sum up what it really is - hearsay sprinkled with rancid drivel. Just the concoction that enemies of Mormonism love to drink. Sounds lovely. Any TBM with any sense will just ignore it and let it pass like the other non-sense out there.

William certainly had a dog in the fight. He did not get along with Joseph at all and had a hard time with polygamy. Times have not changed since then. Many critics today also want to destroy the LDS church. They are no different than Law in that regard. As I predicted on your thread...grant has gotten his publicity. He is back in the game as you can see.