G.Palmer Mormon Discussions Podcast on Joseph Smith Sexual Allegations

[_Tobin]

And here you go again. Care to join the discussion on substance or are you just going to continue to smear the reputation of William Law without any factual support? When determining the credibility of an accusation, you can't use the fact that an accusation was made as evidence that the accusation is not credible. You are essentially arguing just that here, saying that because Law accused Smith, Law's accusations are not credible. Do you really not see why that makes no sense?

It isn't a smear when I quote his own journal.

And to deny there aren't actions Law took against Smith is factually inaccurate, since clearly he took a number of steps. There was no need for him to take any of these steps and that is what make him not credible in my opinion. It is the fact that he did that is bothersome (coupled with his own words in his journal).

[_Equality]

Here are some of Law's allegations. Tobin, please tell us which of these are not credible and why:
1. Joseph Smith ordered the assassination of Lilburn Boggs.
2. Joseph Smith tried to secure Jane Law as a plural wife.
3. Emma Smith wanted William Law as a "substitute" husband in exchange for allowing Joseph to live with some of his plural wives in their mansion and Emma's cessation of her opposition to polygamy.
4. Joseph Smith set up a secret Council of Fifty that crowned him King of the World.
5. Joseph Smith secretly practiced polygamy.
Here's a thought experiment for you, Tobin. If you were a faithful member of the church and your Prophet leader did the things listed above (assume, for a moment, that Law was telling the truth about them), would you have left the church? Joined with dissenters? Exposed the corruption? Would you perhaps feel "bitter" if the man you had trusted tried to take your wife, engaged the services of an assassin, and so forth?

1. Not credible because of no proof (Rockwell acquitted - no proof of bounty - and violent rivals who were just as likely to be involved).
2. Not credible because of no proof (Laws word against Smiths)
3. Not credible because of no proof (Laws word against Smiths)
4. Not credible because it is inaccurate (it was symbolic setting up of the "Kingdom of God" on earth)
5. Not credible because it is inaccurate (apparently it wasn't secret at all, Law knew about it as did a number of other people - Emma was just in denial period)

This is a ridiculous exercise and I'm sure that is why everyone at the time was incensed by it (and other accusations he made). Making accusations is cheap. Proving them is the hard part and when you make an accusation - you need to be very clear about it. Obviously the last 2 suffered from this problem. Where number 4 was mischaracterized and number 5 was unspecific. Polygamy was secret from the world (not stated in the accusation). It wasn't secret from the membership since a number of people knew about it. There were undoubtedly members that were unaware, but it wasn't truly "secret" in that they couldn't find out if they wanted to (and did as a result of this publication).

Polygamy wasn't secret? That's an interesting take. I don't think Bushman would agree with you. Palmer says about 100 people in Nauvoo, a city of approximately 18,000, knew about it. If it wasn't secret, and if the "King of the Earth" thing was just symbolic, why did Joseph Smith send Sidney Rigdon to the Laws' house to offer to reinstate them into the church after the prospectus for the Expositor was distributed in May 1844? Why did Joseph Smith order the destruction of the press if it wasn't really "exposing" polygamy? Again, you just make assertions. "Not credible because no proof." Of course, that's not true. You may be ignorant of the evidence but it's there. Have you looked at it? Have you listened to the Grant Palmer podcast? Read the Cook article? Have you ever read the Expositor? Have you read Klaus Hansen's book on the Council of Fifty?

Are you aware that the accusations that the Laws made regarding Smith's advances are similar to many reports of Joseph Smith's advances toward other women? Does the fact that Smith had at least 11 plural wives already married to other men, many of whom were very faithful? Does the fact that their story matches closely with Joseph Smith's known modus operandi not give them credibility?

[_Equality]

And here you go again. Care to join the discussion on substance or are you just going to continue to smear the reputation of William Law without any factual support? When determining the credibility of an accusation, you can't use the fact that an accusation was made as evidence that the accusation is not credible. You are essentially arguing just that here, saying that because Law accused Smith, Law's accusations are not credible. Do you really not see why that makes no sense?

It isn't a smear when I quote his own journal.

And to deny there aren't actions Law took against Smith is factually inaccurate, since clearly he took a number of steps. There was no need for him to take any of these steps and that is what make him not credible in my opinion. It is the fact that he did that is bothersome (coupled with his own words in his journal).

That's not all you did. The smear wasn't quoting his journal, though you did, of course, quote it out of context, and did not address why he said what he said and whether he had good reason to say it, which he did.

[_Equality]

And here you go again. Care to join the discussion on substance or are you just going to continue to smear the reputation of William Law without any factual support? When determining the credibility of an accusation, you can't use the fact that an accusation was made as evidence that the accusation is not credible. You are essentially arguing just that here, saying that because Law accused Smith, Law's accusations are not credible. Do you really not see why that makes no sense?

It isn't a smear when I quote his own journal.

And to deny there aren't actions Law took against Smith is factually inaccurate, since clearly he took a number of steps. There was no need for him to take any of these steps and that is what make him not credible in my opinion. It is the fact that he did that is bothersome (coupled with his own words in his journal).

Who did that? Tobin, meet Straw Man.

[_Equality]

And here you go again. Care to join the discussion on substance or are you just going to continue to smear the reputation of William Law without any factual support? When determining the credibility of an accusation, you can't use the fact that an accusation was made as evidence that the accusation is not credible. You are essentially arguing just that here, saying that because Law accused Smith, Law's accusations are not credible. Do you really not see why that makes no sense?

It isn't a smear when I quote his own journal.

And to deny there aren't actions Law took against Smith is factually inaccurate, since clearly he took a number of steps. There was no need for him to take any of these steps and that is what make him not credible in my opinion. It is the fact that he did that is bothersome (coupled with his own words in his journal).

This makes no sense. It's like saying you don't believe a whistleblower because he reports a crime he witnesses at work. How does taking steps to expose a fraud make the person exposing the fraud less credible?

[_moksha]

Oh, I'm sure he had some very true and bitter things to say about Joseph Smith. Some of the nastiest things you can say about someone is pointing out their faults. In fact, I've often had the view that Joseph Smith was rather full of himself too. And most disputes, especially the really bitter ones like this one, are grounded in some kind of real nasty issue and William Law was rather appalled at the practice of polygamy that Joseph Smith was secretly engaged in. But there is no new information here. That being said, this guy (and his wife) is NOT going to be objective about his remarks because he had some very bitter feelings towards Joseph Smith and he is most definitely not going to be nice about it.

Would corroborating evidence in the McLellin papers quoting Emma Smith be equally biased? by the way, what does it take to be objective?

[_moksha]

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.

Isn't it strange that there is no corresponding proverb regarding the danger of being bitten once you kick a sleeping dog.

[_hatersinmyward]

The fact he resigned makes him a disgusting worthless human; a chicken s***. He's lying to uphold a lie, he knows its a lie, boggles my mind. When he sits face to face with Jesus he'll somberly say, "I lied for you My Lord"... What a Pathetic Person.

Mormons do all kinds of twisted things to keep their temple vows(which center around saving face)

[_Equality]

The fact he resigned makes him a disgusting worthless human; a chicken s***. He's lying to uphold a lie, he knows its a lie, boggles my mind. When he sits face to face with Jesus he'll somberly say, "I lied for you My Lord"... What a Pathetic Person.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw9oX-kZ_9k

[_why me]

If, by their 'fruits ye shall know them' is applied to all, then it seems William Law was a good, honourable man. I'm inclined to take his word with some degree of seriousness.

I also think that Law was humbled a little about what happened to Joseph Smith after Joseph Smith destroyed his press. I do believe that if one puts themselves in his position, knowing that Mormon presses were destroyed at will without criminal charges being applied to the perpetrators, William must have been humbled by the hatred toward Joseph. Also, since he saw that this impact had on Emma who not only lost a husband but a friend in Hyrum, he must have been feeling a little guilty. After such a humbling experience, I may also past my life away in humble contemplation.

But the damage was done.