Joseph Smith's Memory

[_lulu]

Until Mormon Studies breaks out of the death spiral of Emma was an apostate from God's True Brighamite Church or Emma never knew about polygamy, we ain't a gonna understand Emma.

[_CaliforniaKid]

I don't think Emma was an apostate, but it seems pretty clear that she was a liar, at least where her late husband was concerned.

[_CaliforniaKid]

In examining Smith's ability to dictate the Book of Mormon, I found his letters to Newell Knight and the Colesville Saints an interesting window into Smith's King James vernacular.

The two letters are conveniently found:

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSumma ... ember-1830

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSumma ... ugust-1830

Yep. Those are great examples of how he could blend biblical quotation pretty seamlessly with everyday prose.

[_lulu]

I don't think Emma was an apostate

Good. It's taken me along time to get out of the UT Mormon mind set. You have the advantage of never having been in it. But once I did, Emma started to appear differently to me.

but it seems pretty clear that she was a liar, at least where her late husband was concerned.

Yes. And it starts to raise a host of other questions. Not that I have the answers to them. Did she lie about anything else besides her husband's polygamy? What was the effect of her lies, the most obvious of which is the polygamy one? Did she want a new church established after Joseph Smith's death more in line with her beliefs or was that just the outcome? I guess its the last one that interests me the most.

[_Uncle Dale]

I don't think Emma was an apostate, but it seems pretty clear that she was a liar, at least where her late husband was concerned.

As I attempted to communicate previously, I do not blame
Emma for lying about her late husband's private life.

What is inexcusable, is the fact that she supplied the support
necessary to start up a church based upon such lies. It can
be argued that she mainly served in a passive role in this
respect -- that she seldom evangelized for the RLDS. But
I see the same lies repeated by William Smith and by.
Katherine Smith Salisbury, for the RLDS. It was a religious
conspiracy. At times it was a conspiracy of silence, and at
other times it was a conspiracy of falsehoods --but it all
worked together to establish a false church, palming off
false doctrines upon believing members.

That is what I find inexcusable. Today even the topmost
leaders in Community of Christ are beginning to admit
openly that the founders of their sect lied about the
basic doctrines of the Church from the 1850s onward. I
guess that counts as progress.

As for Emma, I would caution any student of Mormon
History not to take her words at face value, no matter
how pious-sounding or plausible her testimony may be.
Same goes for that of Apostle William Smith and his
sister Katherine. Their lies amount to human evil.

UD

[_MCB]

Which all point to the certainty that it was a family conspiracy.

[_lulu]

I don't think Emma was an apostate, but it seems pretty clear that she was a liar, at least where her late husband was concerned.

As I attempted to communicate previously, I do not blame
Emma for lying about her late husband's private life.

What is inexcusable, is the fact that she supplied the support
necessary to start up a church based upon such lies. It can
be argued that she mainly served in a passive role in this
respect -- that she seldom evangelized for the RLDS.

Its the "supplied the support necessary" part that I think is facinating. What is "passive" in terms of what women could and did do in the mid-1800's? True she did not evangelize and that was becoming more common for women of the time.

No, I don't think we would have the RLDS if she hadn't have lied. But did she know where she was going with it at the time?

And thanks for mentioning Katherine again, I've been negligent in not knowing more about her.

[Guest]

As I attempted to communicate previously, I do not blame
Emma for lying about her late husband's private life.

What is inexcusable, is the fact that she supplied the support
necessary to start up a church based upon such lies. It can
be argued that she mainly served in a passive role in this
respect -- that she seldom evangelized for the RLDS. But
I see the same lies repeated by William Smith and by.
Katherine Smith Salisbury, for the RLDS. It was a religious
conspiracy. At times it was a conspiracy of silence, and at
other times it was a conspiracy of falsehoods --but it all
worked together to establish a false church, palming off
false doctrines upon believing members.

That is what I find inexcusable. Today even the topmost
leaders in Community of Christ are beginning to admit
openly that the founders of their sect lied about the
basic doctrines of the Church from the 1850s onward. I
guess that counts as progress.

As for Emma, I would caution any student of Mormon
History not to take her words at face value, no matter
how pious-sounding or plausible her testimony may be.
Same goes for that of Apostle William Smith and his
sister Katherine. Their lies amount to human evil.

UD

Very interesting take. You almost can't blame Emma for doing so with her son, if she'd watched the meteoric rise of Joseph and worked so hard and sacrificed that much with him to build a dynasty, what's a word here or there to keep it going and make sure her son had a life where his history worked to his advantage instead of his detriment?

It's hard to blame Emma at all, in fact she's probably one of the few many that feel on the fringe can sympathize with. She was essentially a Mormon by marriage and locked in to be a good support, and tried to make the most of a hellish life it caused her. Some Mormons that call themselves NOM are only culturally Mormon and can't leave because they're tied so deeply into it for marriage/family/other reasons. If Joseph had left the whole Mormon thing behind and decided to live a quiet farm life I don't think Emma would have fought a bit against it on any spiritual grounds. It seems like when Emma was corroborating the stories, it was more about supporting family than actually believing it.

Looking at the night and day differences in the future her son would face if she went along with the story or denied it, it's hard to blame her for deciding to stick with it to the end.

[_Fence Sitter]

I don't think Emma was an apostate, but it seems pretty clear that she was a liar, at least where her late husband was concerned.

As I attempted to communicate previously, I do not blame
Emma for lying about her late husband's private life.

What is inexcusable, is the fact that she supplied the support
necessary to start up a church based upon such lies. It can
be argued that she mainly served in a passive role in this
respect -- that she seldom evangelized for the RLDS. But
I see the same lies repeated by William Smith and by.
Katherine Smith Salisbury, for the RLDS. It was a religious
conspiracy. At times it was a conspiracy of silence, and at
other times it was a conspiracy of falsehoods --but it all
worked together to establish a false church, palming off
false doctrines upon believing members.

That is what I find inexcusable. Today even the topmost
leaders in Community of Christ are beginning to admit
openly that the founders of their sect lied about the
basic doctrines of the Church from the 1850s onward. I
guess that counts as progress.

As for Emma, I would caution any student of Mormon
History not to take her words at face value, no matter
how pious-sounding or plausible her testimony may be.
Same goes for that of Apostle William Smith and his
sister Katherine. Their lies amount to human evil.

UD

Which is worse, the lies to maintain appearances or the one that starts "I Nephi, having been born..."?

[_Uncle Dale]

No, I don't think we would have the RLDS if she hadn't have lied. But did she know where she was going with it at the time?

And thanks for mentioning Katherine again, I've been negligent in not knowing more about her.

In 1895 at the RLDS annual conference in Independence,
Katherine testified that an angel (Moroni?) had just appeared
to her and given revelation to the Church through her.

See the Kansas City Daily Journal of April 14, 1895' etc.

At the same time Katherine gave testimony regarding the
angel who purportedly appeared to her brother 70 years
before. See my on-line newspaper clippings.

I suppose, if Mormons accept Katherine's testimony on
Moroni, they should also accept her testimony of God
giving revelation to the Saints through her in 1895.

UD