G.Palmer Mormon Discussions Podcast on Joseph Smith Sexual Allegations

[Guest]

It is perfectly clear what I mean when I invite you to list the falsehoods stated by William Law and/or printed in the Nauvoo Expositor. You are not avoiding the issue because you don't understand it, but because you are incapable of supporting your assertions about libel (which you continually mislabel as "slander").
And I completely understand what you are saying. The problem is not miscommunication. The problem is that your reasoning is specious, your evidence is not to be found, and your arguments are sophomoric.

Actually, that is absolutely the problem. Your position makes no sense at all and so responding to you is pointless.

I state that the reason I don't find William Law credible is because he is trying to hit back at Joseph Smith. I use examples of his actions and statements. So your counter is, what did he say that wasn't true?

What is there left to say? Your position is completely idiotic. There is NO intelligent way to respond to you. So, I just ignore you.

If you are saying a person is not credible, it means that you do not believe what he says.

credible

1. capable of being believed
2. trustworthy or reliable: the latest claim is the only one to involve a credible witness

If you do not believe what William Law said, it is the same as claiming that what William Law said is not true.

You have given repeated non sequitur conclusory statements about why you do not think William Law is credible. However, a motive to fabricate is not the same as actual fabrication. The statements by William Law that are distasteful to Mormons are corroborated by other sources. By continuously failing to indicate a single falsehood stated by William Law, you are left with the meaningless position that he was telling the truth but he was not credible.

[_Darth J]

I hate to break it to you, Tobin old boy, but DarthJ is one of the most intelligent and incisive posters on this board.

Intelligence doesn't compensate for bias.

It's that intractable, pernicious bias against stupid BS that prevents me from being fair and balanced the way Ray would like everyone to be.

[_RayAgostini]

It's that intractable, pernicious bias against stupid b***s*** that prevents me from being fair and balanced the way Ray would like everyone to be.

Precisely my point.

[_RockSlider]

Ray, what are your thoughts on the interview? I assume you've listened to it or read the material.

[_RayAgostini]

Ray, what are your thoughts on the interview? I assume you've listened to it or read the material.

No, I haven't, as I'm still very busy with work (last night), but I will listen to it over the next few days (with an open mind). I wasn't commenting on the interview itself, but I have read An Insider's View. I, for one, think very highly of John's (Dehlin) Mormon Stories Podcast.

[_RockSlider]

No, I haven't, as I'm still very busy with work (last night), but I will listen to it over the next few days (with an open mind). I wasn't commenting on the interview itself, but I have read An Insider's View. I, for one, think very highly of John's (Dehlin) Mormon Stories Podcast.

Yes, I understand/stood that ... I am interested in your take, as I know how well read you are on Mormonism in general. When you do get around to it, please comment ... I think the William Law segment is the more interesting, and worth your time.

[_RayAgostini]

When you do get around to it, please comment ... I think the William Law segment is the more interesting, and worth your time.

Going on what I've read in the past, I don't lightly dismiss Law, but he was also very bitter, and some of his views a bit "coloured" because he felt Joseph Smith ruined his life. (On a side note, I haven't read anywhere where he considered the Book of Mormon to be a fraud.)

I'll listen to the interview and comment in a couple of days.

[_Darth J]

It's that intractable, pernicious bias against stupid b***s*** that prevents me from being fair and balanced the way Ray would like everyone to be.

Precisely my point.

Whereas Ray's amenability to stupid BS allows him that sense of balance that we should all strive for.

[_RockSlider]

Going on what I've read in the past, I don't lightly dismiss Law, but he was also very bitter, and some of his views a bit "coloured" because he felt Joseph Smith ruined his life. (On a side note, I haven't read anywhere where he considered the Book of Mormon to be a fraud.)

I'll listen to the interview and comment in a couple of days.

I can see where dropping 32k in that times money could leave one angry. But what really spoke to me was the 40 years of silence, and just putting it behind him to carry on and remain successful.

[_Darth J]

And which one of these wives said that Joseph Smith was a horny toad?

You have not defined how much sex a man has to have before he qualifies as a "horny toad." But as far as which of those wives said Joseph Smith had sex with them, the answer is several. For example, from page 493 of Rough Stone Rolling:

When her sons, then leaders of a rival branch of Mormonism, the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, came to Utah on missions in the 1860s, they tried to trace and discredit every claim that Joseph had multiple wives. In response, the Utah church secured scores of affidavits from people who knew of the practice in Nauvoo. Besides proving the existence of plural marriage, the affidavits attempted to refute the hypothesis that Joseph's relations with his plural wives were purely spiritual. Some members of the Reorganized Church accepted ceremonial marriages but thought Joseph never slept with his wives. To rebut that view, the affidavits noted the occasions when Joseph occupied the same room with a wife, facts that might have been omitted had not the Utah Mormons been determined to prove the Joseph and his plural wives were married as completely as the later polygamists under Brigham Young.

Which one said that he abused them? As far as I can tell, not one.

I don't know of anyone else who said he abused them, either. The claim is that he coerced some of them. But you know, when you are a religious leader and a grown man, and you tell a teenage girl who is among your followers that she needs to marry you for her family to get into heaven, then sure, I can see a good faith argument for this being a mature, rational decision between mature and consenting adults.

And after he was murdered, no women claimed that he was lustful jerk who was in it for the sex. How to explain it?

With affidavits from them in Utah and testimony from them in the Temple Lot case.

And fanny's parents never thought that this relationship with fanny was improper. Why should I think any different?

David Korseh had plenty of followers who thought his relations with their daughters were just wonderful, too. So who are we to think any different?

And not one claimed that Joseph Smith was committing adultery.

Yes, indeed, not a single one of Joseph Smith's wives was bothered by his plural marriages. Oh, except for the only one who was actually his legally-recognized wife.