G.Palmer Mormon Discussions Podcast on Joseph Smith Sexual Allegations

[_Tobin]

Tobin, can you give sources for this.

He has no credibility given the bitter and hateful things he spewed into his journal (and did immediately after he was excommunicated).

Which bits in particular do you think gives him no credibility? Cook, again deals with the reasons for his disillusionment in quite a rational manner, and even seems to have some sympathy with his position.

This is the very same William Law that wrote: "to demoralize the world, to give it to Satan, his master .... He claimed to be a god, whereas he was only a servant of the Devil, and as such he met his fate." - about Joseph Smith in his journal
This is the very same William Law that plotted again the prophet with a group of other dissenters.
This is the very same William Law that formed True Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and became its President.
This is the very same William Law that published the Nauvoo Expositor, which was subsequently destroyed.
Oh and we can't forget, that thanks to the very same William Law who did all that - this resulted in Joseph Smith being arrested and killed by a mob.

[_Joe Geisner]

We are talking about William Law. ... He has no credibility given the bitter and hateful things he spewed into his journal (and did immediately after he was excommunicated). I think that gives a very accurate picture of his frame of mind at the time.

I am guessing that you are referring to Law's entry where he writes:

"Joseph declares that he and I are very good friends and that the Devil gets into people to destroy and break up friends; that he has nothing against me, and would not be afraid to trust his life in my hands; that I was too good a man to injure him."

I am convinced that the Mormon apologists of today neither read nor think. I am convinced that the comments made by apologists about Walmart Law is as much like the slander that Joseph Smith was fighting against the day Law wrote this entry diary.

Miss Taken is correct, it would be nice if people had the ability to provide actual sources for their claims that Law is inaccurate and cannot be trusted. Miss Taken has provided Law's words, we have seen nothing from apologists but noise.

[Guest]

Oh please. We are talking about William Law. I don't care if he baked cookies for the rest of his life and gave them to orphans. He has no credibility given the bitter and hateful things he spewed into his journal (and did immediately after he was excommunicated). I think that gives a very accurate picture of his frame of mind at the time.

Typical mopologetic tripe. A lot of heated rhetoric, name-calling, smearing, without facts or evidence of any kind. Tobin, how about reading up on the subject and letting us know what, precisely, Law said that wasn't true. The church claims Law "defamed" Joseph Smith with the Nauvoo Expositor, but what he said was true! He accused Smith of being a secret polygamist. In response, Smith said something along the lines of "I'm accused of having seven wives but I can barely keep one" or some other such lie (at the time he had dozens of wives). Smith was the liar; Law told the truth. Even uber-faithful Mormon historians acknowledge that fact. Why can't you?

Wow, really? You think by attacking me personally, that is going to convice me that you have a valid argument that William Law was an objective witness to anything? William Law was a walking disaster for the early church. Any Mormon that puts any faith in anything William Law had to say is nuts.

[_RockSlider]

I am sorry to hear that Grant was bullied out of the LDS Church.

x2

Very sad that he was forced to choose to resign or be ex'ed, when his only desire was to let sleeping dogs lie.

[_Darth J]

This is the very same William Law that wrote: "to demoralize the world, to give it to Satan, his master .... He claimed to be a god, whereas he was only a servant of the Devil, and as such he met his fate." - about Joseph Smith in his journal

The above statement is similar to Joseph Smith's statements about all other churches in the world being in apostasy. Therefore, by what you attempt to pass off as reasoning, Joseph Smith is not credible, either.

You also are acting as if the sacrilege of this statement speaks for itself, instead of addressing Joseph Smith's behavior that led William Law to arrive at this belief.

This is the very same William Law that plotted again the prophet with a group of other dissenters.

Plotted against him to do what?

This is the very same William Law that formed True Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and became its President.

That's because he still believed in Mormonism, but believed that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet. And Joseph Smith started his own church, too, so he must not be credible, either.

Your displeasure at William Law daring to exercise the same rights as Joseph Smith---to start your own church---are irrelevant to the issue of whether it was true what William Law said about Joseph Smith that led Law to form his own church.

This is the very same William Law that published the Nauvoo Expositor, which was subsequently destroyed.

Subsequently unlawfully destroyed, after meetings in which Joseph and Hyrum Smith lied to the Nauvoo city council about whether Joseph Smith was practicing plural marriage.

Oh and we can't forget, that thanks to the very same William Law who did all that - this resulted in Joseph Smith being arrested and killed by a mob.

No. Joseph Smith was not killed because of his religious beliefs. He was killed because of his unlawful destruction of a printing press that published true things that Joseph Smith was hiding from his followers and the general public. That does not make Joseph Smith's murder either legally or morally justifiable at all, but it was Joseph Smith's own reaction to the Expositor's publication that led to his death.

[_Equality]

Wow, really? You think by attacking me personally, that is going to convice me that you have a valid argument that William Law was an objective witness to anything? William Law was a walking disaster for the early church. Any Mormon that puts any faith in anything William Law had to say is nuts.

You seem to think that your arguments get stronger merely by repeating accusations without facts and evidence to support them. You did the same thing in the thread on the Jaredite barges. You keep asserting that William Law's testimony should not be viewed as credible, yet you offer nothing other than "he was an apostate!" as support for your assertion, which is to say, no support at all. The historical record appears to lend far more support to Law's credibility than to Smith's. Have you read Lyndon Cook's article (Lyndon W. Cook, "William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter," BYU Studies 22 (Winter 1982))? Have you listened to the Mormon Expressions podcast where they go through the Nauvoo Expositor line by line and examine the claims made therein? Do you have anything other than heated rhetoric to bring to the debate?

by the way, no one has said William Law was an "objective witness." Witnesses who provide testimony about their interactions with others are, of course, reporting their subjective experiences. Law is no different. The question for historians in assessing things that witnesses report is how much credibility to give to their accounts, or in other words, how much to rely on their reports in establishing what may have happened. A witness's bias is certainly worth looking into when examining the witness's credibility. But identifying a bias, alone, will not end the inquiry. With respect to Law, his most damaging allegations against Smith are corroborated by other sources, sometimes multiple sources both friendly and unfriendly. When put under the microscope, his reports hold up very well. He appears to have been a very credible source. If he were not, it would not be hard for you to identify with specificity that which ought to cause people to doubt his testimony.

[_RockSlider]

I’m not sure why I always glazed over why Joseph Smith was in Carthage jail in the first place. Grant mentioning how the Governor of the State was forced to action when he caused personal property to be destroyed and violated the freedom of the press really brought this home for me.

No matter what the circumstances of the printing office or what they did print or were going to print, its fundamental American rights that were violated. Joseph Smith had placed himself above the law, and above the constitution, heck he’s the king of the world now right?

And yet when John asked Grant if this was the reason for the mob that killed him, his immediate response was no. There were five or six reasons why different segments of the mob were there.

Masonry defiled, Stealing from travelers, The man with the defiled sister, Etc.

Bottom line it seems that the reasons for the mob did not involve religious persecution. It appears they simply viewed him as a scoundrel.

[_Joe Geisner]

Tobin has written about Walmart Law:

"There is nothing pleasant that William Law is going to say about Joseph Smith."

"he is not going to have anything nice to say about Joseph Smith period."

"DO NOT trust anything William Law has to say."

"not trust the source William Law"

Walmart Law wrote this about Smith:

"We had the blessing of a visit (Churchville, Ontario) from Bro Joseph Smith and Bro Sidney Rigdon they were here for four or five days, from whom we received much information one thing I would mention he says we have a right to administer to such as sister graham who is prevented by their husbands from baptism we may confirm such and give the Sacrament etc.

Bro Joseph is truly a wonderful man he is all we could wish a prophet to be --- and Bro Sidney what eloquence is his and think how he has sacrificed for the truth"

I find the comparison striking. The vile tone of one person is quite informative.

But the real question would be, what do we make of Tobin's claims with Law writing such words?

[_Tobin]

You seem to think that your arguments get stronger merely by repeating accusations without facts and evidence to support them. You did the same thing in the thread on the Jaredite barges. You keep asserting that William Law's testimony should not be viewed as credible, yet you offer nothing other than "he was an apostate!" as support for your assertion, which is to say, no support at all. The historical record appears to lend far more support to Law's credibility than to Smith's. Have you read Lyndon Cook's article (Lyndon W. Cook, "William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter," BYU Studies 22 (Winter 1982))? Have you listened to the Mormon Expressions podcast where they go through the Nauvoo Expositor line by line and examine the claims made therein? Do you have anything other than heated rhetoric to bring to the debate?

by the way, no one has said William Law was an "objective witness." Witnesses who provide testimony about their interactions with others are, of course, reporting their subjective experiences. Law is no different. The question for historians in assessing things that witnesses report is how much credibility to give to their accounts, or in other words, how much to rely on their reports in establishing what may have happened. A witness's bias is certainly worth looking into when examining the witness's credibility. But identifying a bias, alone, will not end the inquiry. With respect to Law, his most damaging allegations against Smith are corroborated by other sources, sometimes multiple sources both friendly and unfriendly. When put under the microscope, his reports hold up very well. He appears to have been a very credible source. If he were not, it would not be hard for you to identify with specificity that which ought to cause people to doubt his testimony.

Well, since you immediately started of lobbing insults in here instead of making a coherent argument, I'm not surprised you take the position you do about the Jaredite barges thread. You must have learned how to make arguments from DrW where if that doesn't work, you just start calling the opposing side names.

As far as stating William Law is not credible, I have given mutlipe reasons and citations as to why he is not. If you would care to address why William Law is credible after his bitter journal entries, his assocation with dissenters (which was exposed), his formation of a new church (to compete with the Mormon church), or his publication of a newspaper critical of Joseph Smith and its subsequent destruction which was the cause of Joseph Smith's arrest and death, then I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, I think it is clear that William Law is not credible. In fact, it is clear William Law was actively working against Joseph Smith with a grudge to get even no matter the cost.

[_Morley]

You seem to think that your arguments get stronger merely by repeating accusations without facts and evidence to support them. You did the same thing in the thread on the Jaredite barges. You keep asserting that William Law's testimony should not be viewed as credible, yet you offer nothing other than "he was an apostate!" as support for your assertion, which is to say, no support at all. The historical record appears to lend far more support to Law's credibility than to Smith's. Have you read Lyndon Cook's article (Lyndon W. Cook, "William Law, Nauvoo Dissenter," BYU Studies 22 (Winter 1982))? Have you listened to the Mormon Expressions podcast where they go through the Nauvoo Expositor line by line and examine the claims made therein? Do you have anything other than heated rhetoric to bring to the debate?

by the way, no one has said William Law was an "objective witness." Witnesses who provide testimony about their interactions with others are, of course, reporting their subjective experiences. Law is no different. The question for historians in assessing things that witnesses report is how much credibility to give to their accounts, or in other words, how much to rely on their reports in establishing what may have happened. A witness's bias is certainly worth looking into when examining the witness's credibility. But identifying a bias, alone, will not end the inquiry. With respect to Law, his most damaging allegations against Smith are corroborated by other sources, sometimes multiple sources both friendly and unfriendly. When put under the microscope, his reports hold up very well. He appears to have been a very credible source. If he were not, it would not be hard for you to identify with specificity that which ought to cause people to doubt his testimony.

Well, since you immediately started of lobbing insults in here instead of making a coherent argument....

Tobin, where are Equality's insults? I missed them.