[toc]In part 1 of this report, an assertion that the Nauvoo Expositor had published a “vicious lie” that Joseph had made improper proposals of plural marriage to women in the church. By examining the accounts of 3 women, Martha Brotherton, Nancy Rigdon and Sarah Pratt, which had been publicized by John C Bennett it was established that the narrative and details of these proposals was an amalgamation of these women’s reported experiences. I invite the reader to review that article for full details.
While the details contained in the Expositor are taken from John Bennett’s published versions of these proposals, the question remains as to whether or not the letters and accounts that Bennett published were themselves true or at least whether the publishers of the Expositor had reason to believe that they were true, thereby justifying their inclusion in the Expositor preamble.
It will be recalled from Part 1 that John C Bennett had previously been a close friend and confidant of Joseph Smith. He had risen to great position in both the organization of the church as well as city government, becoming the first Mayor of Nauvoo and the assistant to the Prophet. He was discovered to be practicing a form of spiritual wifery which he claimed to be based on a revelation regarding plural marriage that Joseph had received. After a tumultuous disciplinary process he resigned rather than be excommunicated from the church and left the company of the saints only to publish a series of letters which were then combined into a book as an expose of the activities of Joseph Smith. Among the accusations in his book was that Joseph Smith had been marrying and having relations with multiple women other than his first wife in a system of polygamy which was said to be justified by a revelation from God.
Dissent in the Ranks
Orson Pratt
In order to combat the wide publication of Bennett’s expose and the allegations impugning the character of Joseph Smith, a special conference was held on 22 July 1842. In this conference, a resolution was voted upon (Manuscript History of the Church, BOAP.org also Times and Seasons 3, 1 Aug 1842, pg. 869, archive.org) declaring Joseph Smith “to be a good, moral, virtuous, peaceable and patriotic man, and a firm supporter of law, justice and equal rights; that he at all times upholds and keeps inviolate the constitution of this State and of the United States.” A resolution designed to support affidavits recently printed in the Mormon newspaper The Wasp which denounced Bennett’s accusations of Joseph’s fornication, adultery and spiritual wifery etc. (BOAP.org). Approximately 1,000 men were in attendance and all but 3 voted in support of the resolution.
Orson Pratt, Sidney Rigdon and George W Robinson did not support the resolution.
Orson Pratt stood in the conference and explained the reasons for his dissenting vote. After he addressed the conference, Joseph Smith stood and addressed Elder Pratt: “Have you personally a knowledge of any immoral act in me?” Answer, by Elder O. Pratt — ‘Personally, I have not.’ (Wasp 23 July 1842, sidneyrigdon.com). Since Pratt was on his mission while the improper proposals were alleged to have taken place – he could not claim to have personal knowledge of them, only the account of his wife and John C Bennett. Orson acknowledged this in his reply, but persisted in believing his wife over the prophet and abstaining from support of the resolution.
Remember from part 1 that Pratt still believed his wife over the prophet – that Joseph had made polygamous advances to Sarah. Furthermore, Sidney Rigdon and George Robinson were witnesses to the aftermath of Joseph’s proposition to Nancy Rigdon. These men had reason to believe at least some aspects of John Bennett’s accusations. These 3 men who would not vote in support of a resolution in favor of Joseph Smith’s innocence had a reason to believe Bennett’s accusations because of their personal familiarity with the circumstances and women involved in them.
Keep in mind that as part of his defense Joseph was flat out and absolutely denying any involvement in anything even remotely similar to polygamy. History would eventually reveal that it was Joseph who was lying regarding polygamy.
Spending the good name of his supporters
Bennett was decried as a scoundrel and a liar. Why would the authors of the Expositor feel inclined to believe Bennett on this issue? Why would they believe that these tales of secret meetings and proposals under oath were true? This is due to the fact that after Bennett published his expose, Joseph Smith had many of the prominent church leaders and citizens of Nauvoo give testimony and affidavits under oath that he had not taught, in secret or in private, anything at all like polygamy or spiritual wifery and that he was of unimpeachable character.
In a followup to the earlier conference described above, on Aug 29, 1842 Joseph held a special conference presenting a broadside flyer titled “Affidavits and Certificates Disproving Statements and Affidavits Contained in John C. Bennett’s Letters” to be distributed to the papers and towns in the region:
“President Hyrum Smith introduced the object of the conference by stating that the people abroad had been excited by John C. Bennett’s false statements, and that letters had frequently been received inquiring concerning the true nature of said reports; in consequence of which it is thought wisdom in God that every elder who can, should go forth to every part of the United States, and take proper documents with them, setting forth the truth as it is…. They must go wisely, humbly setting forth the truth as it is in God, and our persecutions, by which the tide of public opinion will be turned.” (LDS History of the Church 5:136)
Reproduction courtesy of Signature Books
A facsimile reprint of the broad sheet has been meticulously recreated by Signature Books and has also been made available at archive.org and is in a more readable format at mormonbookshelf.com. These affidavits, carrying the weight of the names and reputations of those who provided them, was accordingly distributed to the surrounding region defending the character and name of Joseph Smith. Among those whose reputation and name Joseph used in such a manner was William Law, his brother Wilson Law (on the Nauvoo City Council), Francis Higbee and his brother Chauncey Higbee. You can examine their statements in the broadsheet to see that each of them defended Joseph with phrases such as “Joseph Smith’s innocence, virtue, and pure teaching”
Beyond this broadside flyer, other members of the church personally wrote letters, on their own name and reputation, defending the prophet.
In response to Bennet’s Expose, Dr. Robert D. Foster wrote a public letter to the editor of the New York Herald condemning John C Bennett as a base liar, naming women who were allegedly seduced by Bennett and defending the virtue of Joseph Smith:
“…I challenge Bennett or any other man or woman to shew a more examplary man beneath the sun, or cite to any time or place when he has violated the laws of his country, or when he has taught, either publicly or privately, by precept or example, any thing repugnant to the laws of the Holy Bible, or worthy of bonds or death. It can’t be done; it is too well known that he stamps with indignation and contempt every species of vice…
…Alas, none but the seduced join the seducer; those only who have been arraigned before a just tribunal for the same unhallowed conduct can be found to give countenance to any of his black hearted lies, and they, too, detest him for his seduction, these are the ladies to whom he refers his hearers to substantiate his assertions. Mrs. White, Mrs. Pratt, Niemans, Miller, Brotherton, and others. Those that belong to the church have had to bear the shame of close investigation as to their adulteries, and have been dealt with according to church order…
…[regarding Bennett] he is a liar and a vender of lies, and is a liar from the beginning.”
(Robert D. Foster Letter reprinted in the Wasp 15 October 1842,)
At the time, Joseph Smith’s revelation on polygamy was unknown to Dr. Foster. In this letter he publicly put his own reputation on the line by calling out Dr. Bennett as a liar for describing the revelation which we now know was real. Furthermore, he did damage to the reputation of 5 women by naming them publicly as victims and parties to seduction and adultery, all the while extolling Joseph Smith as a paragon of virtue.
Reflection after the revelation
Each of these men put their own reputation and name on the line. They trusted that Joseph Smith’s bold and unequivocal denials of anything to do with polygamy were sincere and genuine.
It would be two years later that Joseph Smith would disclose the fact of a revelation on polygamy to a few select individuals in the Mormon leadership including Wiliam Law. They would also become aware of Joseph’s own longstanding practice of secretly obtaining and enjoying plural wives of his own. Each of these men who had previously come to the defense of the Prophet against the accusations of John Bennett would learn that Joseph Smith had been practicing polygamy secretly while publicly denying it.
Given that they did not originally know of the revealed doctrine of Polygamy that Joseph Smith had held secretly – how do you think these men would look back on the testimony they gave supporting Joseph Smith once they discovered that he had lied to them? Would they not have to confront the fact that there was some truth to Bennett’s tales – even if Bennett went beyond the strict law set forth in the revelation? Joseph Smith himself did not follow the law of the revelation recorded in D&C 132 as he had taken additional wives without his first wives knowledge and he had taken women who were not virgins and were already wed to other men (both violations of 132:61).
Might these men see Joseph’s use of their good names and reputations to cover up his own deception as a base affront to themselves? With this subsequent revelation that Joseph had in fact been practicing plural marriage these men had to confront the fact that it was John Bennett who had spoken truly on this point and not Joseph.
Seeing the truth in Bennett’s account of a doctrine of polygamy, it is surprising that they would also consider the possibility that other aspects of Bennett’s expose were also based in fact? Particularly the accounts of Joseph’s attempted proposals to Sister Rigdon, Brotherton and Pratt as they had previously been considered honest good women and it was only after they had gone public with their statements about Joseph that they had been cast in the light of unvirtuous and dishonest women. Furthermore, Sidney Rigdon, Orson Pratt and George W. Robinson – respected men close to these women, had refrained from supporting the resolution declaring Joseph to be innocent at a conference.
Surely Dr. Foster, the Wilson and Higbee brothers would now view the events around John C Bennett’s accusations in a different light. These men were the principles authors and publishers of the Nauvoo Expositor. Is it any surprise that they would reconsider Bennetts accusations in light of the new information they received? The description of Joseph’s proposals of plural marriage given in the expositor were not conjured out of thin air. They were derived from accounts given by women and men, previously respected in the community, who came to have their reputation and character abused only after publicly disclosing facts about Joseph Smith which were later proven to be true.
Missing evidence of non-coercion.
Defenders of Joseph Smith bristle at the notion that Joseph would have undertaken his proposals to women under any degree of coercion or duress. There is a simple way to analyze this possibility.
If I were to propose to a woman without any unethical or inappropriate constraints and she were to turn me down, then I would have no cause to either call her a liar or insult her character if she were to tell her friends, family or community that she had refused a proposal from me. Furthermore, if any of my associates were to insult her likewise, it would be consistent with the feelings of affection that drove my initial proposal for me to come to her defense.
Given the unusual nature of a proposal of plural marriage for the time, it is highly unlikely that every single woman that Joseph proposed to would accept him. If there was no element of unethical or inappropriate coercion or entrapment, then there should at least be one or two accounts of women who publicly disclosed the fact of Joseph Smith’s proposal who were not immediately declared to be liars and unvirtuous by Joseph or his colleagues. Furthermore, if there were insults cast at those who came forth, Joseph himself should have stepped forward and confirmed their story so that the women did not continue to bear the burden of having their reputation completely destroyed.
Is there one instance of a woman coming forth with such a pronouncement who was not thrashed in the public pronouncements by Joseph and his allies? The answer is NO.
Brian Hales, who has done some of the most extensive research on the documentation around polygamy addressed the question of whether or not women were threatened with having their reputations ruined if they refused Joseph Smith’s proposals. He describes this idea as of the 12 myths of Joseph Smith’s polygamy covered in an interview with John Delin. In the interview Mr. Hales describes 5 women who refused Joseph’s proposals but qualifies this with the statement “we know of their rejections only because they or other close to them left late recollections. According to all available records, Joseph respected their decisions without any retaliation.” He sees this as evidence that there was no threat involved in Joseph’s proposals.
The problem with Mr. Hales defense here is that it does not cover the actual problem, but instead defends a strawman. The problem was that Joseph would retaliate or tolerate retaliation against any woman who refused him and then went public about it. That is the true nature of the trap. It’s fine to refuse him – but if you go public then your name and that of your family will be dragged through the mud and Joseph will not only tolerate it, but have it printed in a broadside flyer and distributed throughout all the region.
If there truly was no element of entrapment or coercion to the proposals that Joseph Smith made, then women who went public about them would not have been so meanly dealt with or Joseph would have come to their aid.
Further Evidence of Bennett’s Veracity
There is at least one other point which leads one to the conclusion that Bennett was telling the truth in parts of his expose regarding Joseph Smith’s polygamy. Bennett provided the names of 5 women whom he claimed were secret wives of Joseph Smith, but in order to protect their reputation, he concealed their full name, listing only their initials and the number of characters in their names:
I will semi-state two or more cases, among the vast number, where Joe Smith was privately married to his spiritual wives – in the case of Mrs. A**** S****, by Apostle Brigham Young; and in that of Miss L***** B*****, by Elder Joseph Bates Noble. Then there are the cases of Mrs. B****, Mrs. D*****, Mrs. S*******, Mrs. G*****, Miss B***** etc. etc.
(“History of the Saints”, John C Bennett, pg. 256, archive.org)
If Bennett had correctly identified women who were later revealed to have been secretly married to Joseph Smith, it would greatly increase the credibility of his claims in the expose.
Andrew Jensen was a church employee who worked in the historians office from 1886 to 1941 where he worked as Assistant Church Historian. He collected all of the available documents regarding Joseph Smith’s marriages and compiled an official list of his wives which was published in the Official Church Historical Record Volume 6. You can see the published list in context here. In that record and other sources we find that several wives match the initials and length of those named by Bennett
[table]
Bennett’s Code, Real Name, Notes
Mrs. A**** S****, Mrs Agnes Smith, Widow of Joseph’s brother Don Carlos. While not listed in Jensen’s compilation is verified on JosephSmithPapers.org and recorded in Brigham Young’s journal on January 6\, 1842.
Miss L***** B*****, Louisa Beaman, Note that Bennett identified the sealer correctly as Joseph B. Noble.
Mrs. B****, Mrs Buell, Presendia L Huntington Buell\, married to Norman Buell
Mrs. D*****, Mrs Durfee, Mrs. Elizabeth Davis Durfee\, married to Jabez Durfee\, Not official recognized by the church but acknowledged by historians
Mrs. S*******, Mrs Sessions, Sylvia Session Lyons\, married to Windsor Lyon
Mrs. G*****, unknown
Miss B*****, unknown
[/table]
While not absolutely conclusive, this list of names provides significant evidence that Bennett was familiar with Joseph’s own plural marriage activities.
Conclusion
I have attempted to demonstrate through this and the preceding part 1 that the description of secret and coercive proposals of plural marriage by Joseph Smith given in the Nauvoo Expositor was not in fact a “vicious lie” but rather an amalgamation of accounts given by previously respected members of the community who paid a high price for coming forward with their story. The authors and publishers of the Expositor had very good reason for believing the truthfulness of the tales because they themselves had been unwittingly involved in the coverup of what they now knew was Joseph’s own practice of polygamy. Since they now saw how completely Joseph could deceive everyone around him, they felt it necessary to try to disclose his deceptive dealings with all who would listen by publishing the Expositor.
There may still be people who would come to the defense of Joseph by claiming that all we have are the accounts of these three women – they could all be lying. These three witnesses paint a cohesive picture of secret proposals that were taken under oath and carried the threat of ruined character were they to be made public. There are other ancillary witnesses to the surrounding events, such as George W. Robinson and Sidney Rigdon. It is true that people may still find reason not to believe the account. Consider this, however – Joseph Smith’s account of the first vision in the sacred grove is given by only one source – himself. His various accounts over the years contradict in significant details. There are no contemporaneous witnesses to any of the persecution he reported or documentation confirming that he shared his story with anyone else – even his family at the time. In spite of the lack of any and all corroborating evidence of this event – Believing Mormons still maintain the truthfulness of it.
If you allow the same standard of evidence in the accounts of Martha Brotherton, Sara Pratt and Nancy Rigdon, as depicted in the Nauvoo Expositor – then you actually have a stronger case for belief than you do in the First Vision account. In view of this, it is a remarkable feat of mental acrobatics to call the account in the Expositor a “vicious lie” and yet believe the first vision, which carries less evidence for it’s reality.
I’m not sure you can call that mental acrobatics. One is a person’s personal experience which you may accept or reject, but in this case there are other witnessed and testimony accounts, verifying some of the facts he related, such as the heavenly father and the son being separate beings. The other is clearly a case of “he said, she said”. It is at least gossip. However, “he said, she said” doesn’t pass muster in a court of law. There are certainly cases even today of people’s reputations utterly destroyed by false allegations where merely the idea that impropriety might exist was damning enough. Have you considered what makes evidence inadmissible in court? Not that courts get every case right either, but its probably the best model for posing arguments where at least I think we struggle to keep biases minimized, since we probably can’t root them out entirely.
I think Hales isn’t saying this is a definitive counter-argument to the problem you draw out. More questions remain and he says so, so painting it as a straw man argument doesn’t really work, to my way of thinking, maybe I’m off, I dunno.
I don’t know if you’ve ever had the experience of reading how someone sounds on paper and then meeting them to find a surprisingly different person, not different as in duplicitous, but not what you’d expect. I imagine that effect can be exaggerated even more when you read it through the writing of another person. I suppose the point I am afraid to ask you to consider is…
Do you really think it’s helpful to tell people their standards must be lower than your standards, that they are doing mental acrobatics, that your readers must only consider the worst opinions about someone they only know about from history and from a book that speaks of people with the best character? Do you have no fear of being incorrect or wrong or that perhaps you may mislead people? That is either very bold or very reckless. You might say that you’re providing a glimpse into a historical setting for people to make a fair and balanced assessment, but your not only poisoning the well, you’re subtlety making an appeal to ridicule. I don’t think I would have many friends if I insisted on my opinions and my way of thinking over theirs, but you gently press that idea into your readers’ mind.
What happens when people ask questions of others, perhaps before they’re ready to make certain facts known or things that are private or sacred or that they have been commanded to keep private? What’s the difference between lying and not telling? If the only difference is just not saying anything, then I can think of many times when silence is more telling to the point that you might as well have said it anyway. Not so many years ago Star Trek had an interesting episode Star Trek TNG 4×14 – “Clues” where Lt. Commander Data was put in this kind of pickle, and the crew was ready to strip him to his wires to see what the @#$! had gone wrong.
Plural marriage is a strange topic to mormons and non-mormons, I have no argument here. However, there is evidence it was sanctioned by God in the bible to certain people at certain times. The picture of events and people from either time is far from crystal, especially from our vantage point. The fundamental problem with being critical of Joseph Smith, if we put ourselves in his shoes, is that if God says do something, you do it, because if he commanded it, whatever it is, it’s right. That includes having more than one wife, chopping off your foreskin and everyone in your household, not looking back at a city or turn into a condiment, scaring the crap out of your son when he learns he’s the sacrament and you’re about to sink a 5 inch blade into his heart, Smearing goats blood on your door so you’re safe from the angel of death (its the old timey version of a tin foil hat), killing a bully by sinking a rock in his head, Killing someone for killing a wicked and fallen king of israel who wanted to be finished off, sanctioning a blessing and birthright obtained through deception, etc. Sure we could just call it all an allegory, and then it’s easier to believe it is a teaching tool, but I sure hope Jesus rising from the dead isn’t an allegory, otherwise we’re all hosed.
The most important point that you bring up is this:
“The fundamental problem with being critical of Joseph Smith, if we put ourselves in his shoes, is that if God says do something, you do it, because if he commanded it, whatever it is, it’s right.”
There are many assumptions in this statement: You assume that the person telling you what God commands is telling the truth. You assume that they are not mistaken or deluded. You assume that they correctly interpreted what God told them to do.
Bringing up examples of atrocities committed in the name of God in the old testament is not a satisfactory defense. It sets you up to excuse the most heinous crimes today. There are things that are simply wrong and if someone tells you that God commanded them to do it – then it is a sure sign that they are not agents of God.
When you bring up a defense of Joseph Smith – I ask you to have at least one standard for what is a legitimate defense. That standard is “If this defense would also let a total Con-man get away with his crime, then I cannot use this defense to excuse Joseph Smith”
For example – there is a faction of seventh day adventists in new mexico who follow a man who claims that god declared him to be the messiah. He used his claimed prophetic calling to justify sleeping with the wife of his son by saying that God forced him to do it (you can see their own account of it in a documentary here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nXkTDIbJ_4). He also used similar justification to have inappropriate sexual relations with young teenage girls.
If the excuse “Whatever God Commands is right, no matter what it is” is provided to a follower of this man who questions his actions, then they may accept it and excuse his behavior (which it appears his son has done). Since that defense would allow a total con-man to get away with anything, I cannot accept it as a defense of Joseph Smith’s behavior, because a true prophet should not have to rely on the same defense a con-man has to rely on in order to avoid accountability.
As to whether or not I might be misleading people about history – if you go back to the first article about the Many Vicious Lies in the expositor, then you can see that the church has lead kids in primary to think of the authors of the expositor in a certain way. I am examing what is in the Expositor to see if the Church is being honest in those assertions. So far I find that it is the church who is misleading people about history, according to the record that is available.
Do you ever write to the church and warn them that they may be misleading people about history?
As to justification of scriptural atrocities, I’m going to disagree with you, if that’s alright. My reading of the scriptures does not agree. Perhaps you could help me to understand why you feel this way? Some of them were the basis for covenants that are still considered in effect.
If I may exercise some skepticism of my own, your standard raises questions for me. Part of how you deflect my comments seems to assume that without an answer to every question about the character and actions of Joseph Smith, I nor anyone can come to an understanding that he was a prophet of god. I hope you aren’t offended, but why do you get off easier than him? You assume they (a prophet or prophets) are lying. You assume they are mistaken or deluded. You assume they did not correctly interpret what God told them to do. You also make other assumptions, which I’ve already discussed.
What is you’re solution to the problem of “how to know what god wants? I agree we do have to come to a decision somehow, but why is it that you get to assume I or your readers haven’t done that very thing in our own personal way? From your perspective, on your right hand you’re saying “no, he cannot know god’s commands, he might be wrong” and then on your left, you repackage the problem of “how to know” what god wants or “how to know when someone else truthfully speaks what god wants”, with your own opinion, which has all the earmarks of the problem that you condemn. What is your success story? What compels someone to accept your point of view over anyone else, a youtube video, or appealing to uncertainty? Don’t you think that’s a little more emphasis on doubt and a little less emphasis on optimism?
How does one know that you also did not correctly interpret what is or, in this case, is not the will of god? Your standard is an opinion, a point of view (and there are many). Does it even have the benefit of at least some scripture supporting it and not just your say so? Even if there was, there is the age old problem many atheists complain about christianity’s circular reasoning using the writings of the scriptures to defend both the existence of god and establishing his commandments to the sons of god, those who desire his blessings.
Your statements cannot escape the dilemma that if God has given you a command to do X, and you know it, you must act. This is the price of knowledge. If you do X, you’re obedient and you retain the blessing for obedience, if you do Y you’re disobedient and you retain the punishment for rebellion. You can think for yourself and question god’s reasons, power or modus operandi (which is a form of rebellion lest you forget how Zacharias lost his speech), but if god commands you to slay the wicked, when he’s given a commandment that thou shalt not kill, then whatever he says is right, that’s the standard. It’s the difference between using the crutch of pre-derived formulas and being able to independently derive all the equations and engineer creative solutions.
Now, reading between the lines, you ask a very good question and I think its one everyone of us resolves personally. Your question was, “How do we know what god wants?” I have a few ideas I could throw out, but realistically, why would you listen to me? You’re can take someone’s word and benefit positively or negatively in someway from their experience or, like you said, you’re going to decide for yourself by some strategem, experiment or standard hopefully on the Lord’s terms. I think you agree that the Lord doesn’t desire blind obedience, but he does require faith and a desire to know him, which presupposes that not all the answers will be forthcoming. To me, this means we’re going to be placed in a situation where we have to figure out on our own with his help, how to not be paralyzed when our footing isn’t 100% sure. We won’t have a home-baked answer for every problem we encounter. Here I think the scriptures can help, but that is my opinion. Obviously, you decide what you can accept and I respect that your statement is a summary to that end of what you’ve personally decided.
No, I have not found it necessary to write the church, though I have prayed that they would be inspired in the work that they do. If they work in the same way me and other members hold our meetings, and I have every reason to believe they do, they meet together with other counselors, pray for inspiration and guidance, and ask each other for their thoughts and impressions on how to meet the pressing needs in their circle of responsibility. I’m sure certain issues rise to the fore and other issues give way to the highest priorities. I think there is a need for proportion even among good things and I’m sure there are some hard choices. Here I suppose is an area that I am personally lacking that is in more personal involvement in the church. I don’t want to overstate my own personal commitment and there is always room for improvement. Not that it’s any of my business so no need to respond, but is this similar to how you also came to your own conclusions?
I believe that a greater responsibility rests with ourselves, and we should read and learn the scriptures more diligently, delve into history on our own, pray for answers from our heavenly father and learn the skill of personal revelation so that when the time comes, we have the ability to recognize the spirit when it speaks. Blaming other members for the personal growth we’ve not applied ourselves to receive is a little short sighted. Is it so incredible to believe that some teachings require proper preparation and readiness? I don’t think the lord ever wanted us to take Joseph’s word for it. Christ taught us to pray, he led by example, he never forgot that his father was always watching. I think he wanted us to get to know him and then we would know for ourselves because we would hear his voice. We need to learn to recognize that voice. That is my belief.
“You assume they (a prophet or prophets) are lying. ”
Let’s start with this one point. I think since you bring it up, the honesty of Prophets is important to you. I want to make it clear to you that I am not assuming that Joseph Smith lied. It is a fact documented in the LDS scriptures and church history. Read the header of D&C 132 which gives the date of the revelation on polygamy then look up the dates of the polygamous marriages of Joseph Smith as detailed in Brother Jensen’s historical record cited in the above essay. Then read the speech of Joseph smith where he blatantly and publically denies polygamy saying “what a thing it is to be accused of having seven wives when I can only see one”.
I have laid all this out in an essay that is linked to all official sources here:
http://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/honesty-and-polygamy-a-timeline-from-only-official-lds-sources/
To be clear, I am not assuming Joseph smith lied. He lied. Period. Your natural response should likely be that if God may command nephi to kill Laban, then he command Joseph to lie about polygamy.
Okay.
Who then is the “father of all lies”?
I do not mean to say that Joseph has to be held to a standard of never telling any lies. If Emma asked him if her bonnett made her butt look big, I fully expect him to say no! But it is a whole other thing to lie repeatedly about Gods law.
I’ve already addressed this concern, In my first response. There is a time and a place for all things, and not before the appointed time. You can rattle the cage that “it was a lie!” but since you cannot know the thoughts of Joseph Smith, the circumstances and commandments he was under, you’re going to have to give Joseph the same space allotted to every sentient living creature and their creator.
I agree with Hale, there are questions we want answers to, but the only thing that I believe we need to work on is our own personal relationship with heavenly father. I think everyone has the assurance that we will have the answers someday, so it’s not a matter of if, but when.
Yes, I know that there are historical accounts, that there are genealogical records and that together, with the reading of D&C 132, produce questions to which the church has not provided an answer. I don’t disagree here, but this returns to my original statement that we don’t have all the answers, and my testimony that Joseph Smith was a prophet doesn’t come from my knowing the particulars of his life. I am not ignoring them, I am aware of them, I do have questions, and I’m going to continue to wait for the answers.
You know that the scriptures show instances where other prophet’s have lied and while each instance has a different context, that alone should convince you that this is not a “slam dunk”. I understand that you want to end the chapter and put away all doubt with an easy fix that doesn’t require an answer from God, I suppose you can, but for me it’s not that easy.
Followers of Bob Jones or David Koresh who discovered deception in their leaders might comfort them with these same platitudes.
I don’t think you can dismiss Joseph Smith based simply on discovering that he lied about polygamy. I do think that that discovery should open your mind to the possibility that there is something amiss. Then when you discover other problems, they are not so easily dismissed.
For example, now that you know Joseph would lie when necessary, how do you view the fact that there are so many anachronism in the book of Mormon, there are 16th century KJV errors in the book of Mormon, there were significant changes made to it, the book of Abraham facsimiles and papyri have nothing at all to do with Abraham and the temple ceremony is a ripoff of masonic ritual? Knowing that Joseph was in fact a deceiver about polygamy should at least allow you to consider the possibility these other problems may have deception as their cause as well.
The fact that the church today is disavowing things which are undeniably a part of the book of Mormon and book of Abraham regarding race. Tells you that something is up. The church just doesn’t want you to put these pieces together, just as the Jehovas Witnesses don’t want their members to see the inconsistencies in their own founders teachings, but instead focus on what the watchtower publishes today only.
I think the common ground that we share is that we both have questions.
May I ask you a question (possibly more than one)?
When waiting for an answer, how long is long enough?
I suppose that is partially a rhetorical question, though I am morbidly curious what the Guinness Book of World Records would say were it to chronicle this type of supernatural communion. I don’t think it’s a matter of a span of time, I think it’s similar to cooking at time index 0:30-1:00 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2KrgDuU3K8) or art (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ppaiQ6mhbE). It may come across as a platitude but for somethings, it simply does take as long as it takes. So I believe it can take time, a long time, sometimes longer than we imagine reasonable.
What do the scriptures say?
I suppose when I get discouraged, I begin to seek for people who face similar problems. Here is where I turn to my heavenly father, my parents, history and to the scriptures because I feel there is a sacred harmony that we share. I don’t necessarily long for death, I long to know the dead, to understand them, to remember what I have forgotten and I am envious of the knowledge they possess. When I pass a cemetery, I know that one day I will enter and I wonder what news I shall bring and what I will learn.
I really do empathize with people who are tired of waiting or who are frustrated with an unfinished equation that remains unbalanced. That really is no different for people in or out of the church, so I imagine you probably might even share some of these feelings in your own quiet moments.
What is your personal opinion about “time frames”?
I believe another common trait we share is a natural curiosity.
You said:
“Joseph would lie when necessary” and “…other problems, they are not so easily dismissed.”
I agree there is a lack of clarity here. 2 points for obscurity (swhoosh…ding-ding). There is no narrative that anyone has yet conducted that satisfactorily casts Joseph as the villain or the virtuous [V (V for Vendetta Kinetic Typography)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Otv5ywOa-8U), which I suppose is probably more frustrating than if he were just simply the common variety snake oil salesman. Flipping a coin creates a false sense of tension that the next time you flip the coin, the coin will somehow remember that it’s been heads five times in a row, so on the next round it’s bound to be tails. I would argue that Mormon bookshelves are subject to the same phenomenon. We can despair because of the enormity of the task and at times feel like we are on a fool’s errand, because of what we lack. We’re more accustomed to creating simpler theories and usually this allows us to move forward with an approximation. However, even Occam’s razor states that “…one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power.” [Occam’s razor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor)
The Masonic ritual is subject to the “which came first the chicken or the egg” dilemma. You’ll be hard pressed to make that argument stick.
The bible quotes are probably one of my favorite inclusions. That Joseph would insert them surreptitiously to pass them off as scripture from ancient times is an insult to the genius that his detractors also try to credit him with.
You said:
“The church just doesn’t want you to put these pieces together”
You keep projecting your perceptions onto the motivations that Joseph Smith and the church use. It’s misleading and that is a source of error in any investigation that injects bias. I’m not saying I’m not leaning on my own biases, remember it’s a game of minimizing them, but I *try* to avoid yielding to them outright.
[End of Line] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tWLffi-XUg)
clip I was thinking about but it’s too long.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-_Uy_DIwaY)
I have responded to your specific questions below:
=== When waiting for an answer, how long is long enough? ===
At some point you have to go with what you have before you. “We will find out in the afterlife” is not a sufficient answer for some questions, because those questions are critical for decisions which must be made in *this* life. People stuck in groups like that “end of the world cult” in new mexico had best not placate their questions about inconsistencies in the teachings and actions of their leader with the answer “we will find out in the next life” because by then they will have given their entire life to a false deception and it will be too late. By the same token, that particular excuse should not be used to settle questions about Joseph Smith – because if the same answer would excuse a *known* con man – then that answer does not have the ability to discern truth from error. Some other type of answer must be sought.
Note that, in the case of the group in new mexico, the answer may actually be “it is all based on a lie.” For the people in that group – this answer would suddenly solve any questions or inconsistencies they notice about their group.
The more I learned about Mormon history and doctrine the more I could not avoid the conclusion that the same answer solves all the challenging issues in mormondom as well.
=== What do the scriptures say? ===
Joseph Smith decried the fact that all the different ministers contended with one another about what the scriptures actually mean and this destroyed all confidence in being able to know anything.
This is also a hallmark of Mormonism. The things about race, the curse of cain and the pre-existence have had many interpretations over the years by people in and around the seat of the prophet. Most recently the “Race and Priesthood” essay upturned and disavowed interpretations of LDS scripture that prior prophets had held strongly to. Blood atonement and Adam-God are other examples.
I had had many conversations with believing mormons in the past year, some of whom swear that Mormon doctrine is salvation by grace alone – others of whom swear that it is grace and works that are the keys to salvation. This fundamental point of doctrine is not even uniformly accepted by mormons. The fact of the matter is that individuals interpret scriptures according to their own experience and what they want to get out of scripture. It happens both inside and out of the church.
That is not even the biggest point related to your question.
In mormonism, the biggest question is “What constitutes legitimate scripture?” There are people who claim to have “scripture” in the form of the translation of the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon as well as the Book of Lehi. Why don’t you ask me what those scriptures say? probably because you don’t trust the source of those scriptures. Neither do I – they are obvious frauds. Not all frauds are obvious – they are particularly difficult to detect if one is born in them and never knows anything different or have the opportunity to view them objectively from the perspective of an outsider.
When you look at the book of Abraham, it is now clearly established by Mormon scholars that that “scripture” has nothing at all to do with either the papyri which were recovered or the facsimiles that are part of the canonized scripture. Why should i trust the source of this scripture when it was put forth with fraudulent claims?
The Book of Mormon itself makes references to plants, animals and technologies which are completely anachronistic. It contains *errors* which are specific to the KJV bible of the 1800’s, which are a product of a translation process running through greek, latin.. etc up until the english translators under King James in the Church of England. Why would the book of mormon translation – which went through the reformed Egyptian then straight to english through the urim and thummim have *the exact same errors*? that can only mean plagiarism. Why should we consider a scripture which contains numerous anachronisms and evidence of falsification of its source to be legitimate?
The doctrine and covenants were significantly changed from the revelations originally recorded in the Book of Commandments – all without attribution or explanation. Those changes served a purpose which gave more power to Joseph and painted a false picture of the founding of the church and the origin of priesthood. The same witness who we are supposed to believe for the origin of the book of mormon (david whitmer) said as much about the founding of the church in his Address to all believers in christ (https://archive.org/stream/addresstoallbeli00whit#page/n9/mode/2up). These changes reveal the D&C to be a tool supporting the power of the leadership with the same degree of integrity as the writings on the barn wall in Animal Farm.
The real question is – why should we care what they say once we discover them to be a fraud?
But what does the Old Testament and New testament say? This is the likely rejoinder of a Mormon who sees foreshadowing of Mormonism in those legitimately ancient scriptures. The problem is that other groups, such as Jehovahs witnesses see foreshadowing and predictions in those ancient scriptures which, to them, prove the legitimacy of their faith and disprove the claims of mormonism. Since each group selectively interprets scripture to support their own view, and claims exclusive authority that they have the RIGHT interpretation – then you cannot rely on the claim of either. Certainly the abundant evidence of fraud in the modern LDS scriptures cited above should make the default position be that of skepticism when regarding LDS claims to foreshadowing of their religion in the Bible.
=== What is your personal opinion about “time frames”? ===
Time frame doesn’t matter once you have enough evidence to make a determination with sufficient confidence. When you examine the claims of the guy who says that he was taught by the three nephites and has translated the sealed portion – how much time do you have to wait upon asking if what he claims is true? Your mental faculties tell you that it is a sham in no time at all. The more you study mormonisms history and doctrine, the more you can see the patterns of deception. Soon you realize that an answer which would restore your doubting faith in the church can never be forthcoming – no matter the time frame – because the “truth” of the matter is that it is build on deception and your question is simply your mind flexing it’s long dormant ability to think outside the parameters that were previously prescribed to you. Just as the members of the group in new mexico who left had to learn how to view the world outside of the system that their leader had prescribed for them, people coming out of mormonism go through that process.
You are on that journey yourself. The fact that you don’t simply close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ear is enough to demonstrate that you are willing to face facts and let them start to paint a picture. As the picture comes together – you want it to depict what was told to you and you are trying to imagine the shape that is taking form to be that which you were always taught it to be. As the picture starts to take a shape which is clearly different from what you are taught – you having to re-define what you expect of the church. At the start of your journey, you probably would vehemently deny that any church leader would lie to cover up church doctrine or their own actions. Now that you have read a bit of history – you probably concede that there may be circumstances where that was necessary – perhaps God even commanded it. That is a significant change in your mentation. The fact that you can scknowledge realities from church history and re-align your view of the church to fit those facts is a healthy thing – you are trying to resolve cognitive dissonance.
Once you realize that greatest degree of relief from cognitive dissonance that could come to a member of groups like that one in New Mexico would be to acknowledge that it was all a sham. Test that possibility out on mormonism. If the same conclusion resolves all of the unanswered or conflicting questions in mormonism – the conclusion is just as powerful as it would be to members of those other groups.