Joseph Smith's Conspiracy

[_Analytics]

Let's simplify things a bit. Suppose I were NOT to have been legally married (i.e. via legal procedures and by those legally authorized by the state to perform marriages) to multiple women...

Would I be lying to say...

What you would be doing is telling less than the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. What you’d be doing is intentionally misleading people who trusted you. What you’d be doing is establishing a pattern of always denying allegations related to polygamy: of denying the ones that were false, sort of false, sort of true, and absolutely true.

If you’d be able to look yourself in the eye and think that you had integrity despite being intentionally misleading, then that’s between you and your conscience. Just don’t ask me to believe what you have to say about the plurality of wives; you have forfeited your right to be a credible witness.

I think that is quite an extreme and un-empathetic way of looking at it. But, you are entitled to you own opinion. I just hope that you won't be judged so harshly throughout this life or the next.

Will you be responding to my other post (the one in which I am testing your argument using just the statements of Mary, John, and Vilate)?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The issue isn't how much empathy I have. The issue is whether or not they were credible witnesses when they talked about polygamy.

They were not.

[_Runtu]

The issue isn't how much empathy I have. The issue is whether or not they were credible witnesses when they talked about polygamy.

They were not.

Interesting that Wade is now touting empathy as a good thing. Here's what he said a while back:

I said:

Seems to me that one would need two things for this approach to work:

1. Empathy

2. Comprehension

to which Wade responded:

I am not so sure about empathy. When I look in the mirror in the morning, I see blemishes and red/sleepy eyes and disheveled hair, etc.. The mirror isn't all that empathetic, if at all. But, I don't expect it to be. In fact, I am glad to be made aware of things about me that may be out of sorts, so that I can gladly correct them. In that sense, the unempathetic mirror works for me.

However, for those people, for whatever reason (perhaps due to personal insecurities and a low senses of self, which may engender over-protection of one's self) who may want empathy from a mirror, and are put off by seeing their blemishes and so forth reflected back at them, then it wouldn't work. But, to me, that would be dysfunctional--some of the very things that may be unempathetically reflected in the mirror, may be at the very heart of one's personal insecurities and so forth. And if, because of those those personal insecurities and so forth, one is prevented from looking in the unempathetic mirror, one would then be self-denied (dysfunctionally) from seeing, let alone enabled to correct, the things causing the personal insecurities and so forth.

As for comprehension, that is true both for the person doing the mirroring, as well as the person being mirrored. In my experience, invariably there has been a breakdown on one or both ends (to me, this may be due in part to the dysfunction mentioned above).

Apparently, empathy is important when discussing the Lord's servants, but not in discussing the critics. :-)

[_wenglund]

The issue isn't how much empathy I have. The issue is whether or not they were credible witnesses when they talked about polygamy.

They were not.

Obviously, I don't share your sweepingly dismissive opinion. To each their own.

Should I take your silence to mean that you wont be responding to my other post (the one in which I am testing your argument using just the statements of Mary, John, and Vilate)"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Apparently, empathy is important when discussing the Lord's servants, but not in discussing the critics. :-)

Either that, or I have had a change of heart and mind, and now think that all parties are deserving of empathy--whether the critics extend the same towards my faith or not. ;-)

Please don't underestimate your own powers to positively influence people like me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Apparently, empathy is important when discussing the Lord's servants, but not in discussing the critics. :-)

Either that, or I have had a change of heart and mind, and now think that all parties are deserving of empathy--whether the critics extend the same towards my faith or not. ;-)

Please don't underestimate your own powers to positively influence people like me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I hope that's true. I for one have tried very hard to extend kindness and empathy towards you and other believers. I may not have succeeded always, and for that I am sorry, but I have tried.

[_Jason Bourne]

Lets say an apologist developed an analogy in a hopeless attempt to defend his idol.

Would that be intellectually honest?

No it wouldn't be. I've seen this same sort of idol worship behavior which leads to a "protect at all costs even if one has to be intellectually dishonest" attitude on an internet message board for a pop star. The young fans would quite literally go berserk if anyone so much as slightly criticized him. What made it rather interesting is that unbenownest to the young fans, the pop star had a prankster side and would post as various people criticizing himself...I think just to see how the fans would react. It got to be quite absurd with none of the fans catching on to the game even though it got more and more ridiculous in time.

Now marg, you and I actually agree on something.

[_Mister Scratch]

The issue isn't how much empathy I have. The issue is whether or not they were credible witnesses when they talked about polygamy.

They were not.

Interesting that Wade is now touting empathy as a good thing. Here's what he said a while back:

I said:

Seems to me that one would need two things for this approach to work:

1. Empathy

2. Comprehension

to which Wade responded:

I am not so sure about empathy. When I look in the mirror in the morning, I see blemishes and red/sleepy eyes and disheveled hair, etc.. The mirror isn't all that empathetic, if at all. But, I don't expect it to be. In fact, I am glad to be made aware of things about me that may be out of sorts, so that I can gladly correct them. In that sense, the unempathetic mirror works for me.

However, for those people, for whatever reason (perhaps due to personal insecurities and a low senses of self, which may engender over-protection of one's self) who may want empathy from a mirror, and are put off by seeing their blemishes and so forth reflected back at them, then it wouldn't work. But, to me, that would be dysfunctional--some of the very things that may be unempathetically reflected in the mirror, may be at the very heart of one's personal insecurities and so forth. And if, because of those those personal insecurities and so forth, one is prevented from looking in the unempathetic mirror, one would then be self-denied (dysfunctionally) from seeing, let alone enabled to correct, the things causing the personal insecurities and so forth.

As for comprehension, that is true both for the person doing the mirroring, as well as the person being mirrored. In my experience, invariably there has been a breakdown on one or both ends (to me, this may be due in part to the dysfunction mentioned above).

Apparently, empathy is important when discussing the Lord's servants, but not in discussing the critics. :-)

Ouch.

[_Analytics]

I think that is quite an extreme and un-empathetic way of looking at it. But, you are entitled to you own opinion. I just hope that you won't be judged so harshly throughout this life or the next.

Will you be responding to my other post (the one in which I am testing your argument using just the statements of Mary, John, and Vilate)?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Let’s put this into perspective. You seem to admit that Joseph Smith and his polygamy cohorts said things to mislead people about who they were “married” to, and you think that given the circumstances, doing this was justifiable. Yet you adamantly refuse to admit that they blatantly lied.

For example, the following statement is the main point of this thread, and is a smoking gun that Joseph Smith was not only telling unmitigated lies, it is a smoking gun that Joseph Smith and his scribes had falsified his personal records, and were willing to lie under oath that these falsified records were accurate and complete.

For the last three years I have a record of all my acts and proceedings, for I have kept several good, faithful, and efficient clerks in constant employ: they have accompanied me everywhere, and carefully kept my history, and they have written down what I have done, where I have been, and what I have said; therefore my enemies cannot charge me with any day, time, or place, but what I have written testimony to prove my actions; and my enemies cannot prove anything against me.

Falsifying records is lying in the extreme. Joseph Smith did that.

But in your response, you completely disregarded this, and instead focused on Joseph’s claim that he hadn’t committed adultery, which is true if you believe he was “married” to his polygamous “wives”, even though their were no civil no church records that such a marriage happened.

It appears you are unwilling to even consider the possibility that Brigham Young and Joseph Smith were anything less than the paragons of integrity. It appears that you need to believe that they are among the most honest men ever to have walked the earth, and thus take their word as the ultimate truth when they denied that Brigham Young proposed to Martha.

Ironically, the reason why anybody even cared about this is because Martha’s story was evidence that Joseph Smith and his cohorts were in fact pulling women aside and proposing secret marriages to them. They denied this story to cover up the facts about what they were in fact doing. You now admit that they were in fact pulling women aside and proposing secret marriages to them. Yet you are adamant that they should be believed when they said didn’t do so in this particular case.

[_Inconceivable]

Joseph Smith:
Performed illegal and unauthorized marriages in the state of Illinois (a punishable crime)
He deceived and humiliated his one legal wife numerous times (breaking his original marriage vows continually)
He had sex with at least some (Several personal diaries and later public statements/affidavits - for example - History of BF Johnston - TBM)
He had children with at least some (Several personal diaries or TBM's are explicit on this issue)
He lied many times in public (The record is open)
He justified his crimes by testifying that he was forced by an angel of God (Agency to act... what was Satan's plan?)
He attempted to cover his whoredoms by compelling members of his secret society to lie with him.
Keep in mind that William Law was an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ when he refused to accept Mormon adultery - he later presented his disgust by way of the Nauvoo Expositor. 90% of his alegations were dead on. TBM's, I'll assume you have never read it. I hadn't till a year ago. Smith had the press destroyed at an attempt to unring the bell.

What would I have done if he came for my only daughter?

What the problem is?


Marvin J. Ashton made the following comments in his sermon "This Is No Harm" (from Ensign magazine 2000):
"A lie is any communication given to another with the intent to deceive." A lie can be effectively communicated without words ever being spoken. Sometimes a nod of the head or silence can deceive....
It is a tragedy to be the victim of lies. Being trapped in the snares of dishonesty and misrepresentation does not happen instantaneously. One little lie or dishonest act leads to another until the perpetrator is caught in the web of deceit. ...

A wise person will not allow himself to be victimized by the unscrupulous because of false pride. Oftentimes people are swindled because false pride prevents them from asking questions and seeking additional information. For fear of embarrassment or being thought ignorant, a prospect ofttimes nods his head in the affirmative when he really doesn't understand the glib salesman's line of chatter. "What does that mean?" "What are the risks?" "What are the pitfalls?" "What is the history of the company?" "What references do you have?" are questions worthy of pursuit. ....If prudent decisions cannot be reached on the basis of one's own expertise, advice should be sought from knowledgeable and trusted counselors. Offers that cannot wait or stand review are not worthy.

Here's a very compelling article by Richard Packham:

http://home.teleport.com/~packham/lying.htm

[_harmony]

The thing that really gets to me about Joseph and polygamy is that none of this happens, if the women refuse. The women let it happen; not only did they let it happen, the women participated. They allowed ourselves to be bamboozled, to be bought cheap, to be treated as things. And their husbands and fathers played along, drunk on power, greedy for the glory Joseph promised. Without the greed of the mark, no con can work. So our ancestors are the ones who bear the burden, the stigma, the shame of polygamy, as much as Joseph.