Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
MisterCurie wrote:
All of the real Mormon history books I have read recognize that Bennett was a bad character and are skeptical…You can make a case for it, for sure. But I think if you start from scratch, drop all assumptions, and weigh the evidence, it comes out in Joseph’s favor. Basically you have people who say JS did practice p. and people who say he didn’t. Then you have a whole host of other evidence. I maintain that the DNA evidence is strong. 33 wives and they can’t round up 1 kid?
Think how easy it is to prove BY practiced p. Everyone else involved admitted it. In some cases even before it was accepted doctrine. Why not JS? Notice that the people accusing JS are polygamists themselves. I wonder if there are there any people innocent of polygamy, with first hand knowledge of JS that accuse him?
Well, I hope you end up with a copy of JSFP to read. It sound like you’ll at least enjoy reading it.
Valoel, I can see why it might be better to leave the whole thing alone. And why to some people the matter is irrelevant. But to me it’s important just to know the truth. Also, if JS did not practice polygamy, it clears up a lot of other things, such as screwy teachings by BY. I also find it reassuring that the Founder of the church at least was not corrupt. It gives more weight to the BoM. And it lets you know something about how God operates with regard to the Church.
Rix wrote:
The idea of those in his day denying it…even testifying to that effect, had very good reason to do so: it was illegal, it didn’t look good to Emma, and it was bad PR for the “prophet” to be doing it. That alone put the bar, the onus of presenting evidence otherwise extremely high for me. IOW, it’s like if I am having an affair, and if I have MUCH to lose if it comes out, then I will deny that it is happening — even if it is. I see Joseph this way.
But to be fair, you have to consider that if JS was innocent of polygamy, this also gives him good reason to deny it. And when some of the people accusing him are known liars, his declared enemies, who already confessed to lying about him…The case gets much stronger.
I got similar advice once from a friend when I told him Church was boring and I didn’t get much out of it. He told me about a talk he heard. It may have been his SP or some GA–I don’t remember. But the speaker basically said he too found church pretty dull–until he decided to go with the intent to help some person each time. That was his purpose at church each week and it took precedence over the ordinary. His intent before was to learn something, or be entertained or maybe be uplifted (by others). Not bad bad things maybe–but self centered for sure.
So I tried going with a spirit of contributing and helping. And of course it changed things entirely. I agree that the needs are many. And even if wanting to hear a good talk and be uplifted is a good thing–well sometimes when you feel spiritually needy, it works better to just be humble and serve rather than wait and hope that the church atmosphere or other people will lift you up.
Lol–Okay, I have practically re-read 1/2 the book trying to answer y’all’s questions. I needed a refresher anyhow. Here is an excerpt from the book. (Higbee was another member of Bennett’s circle, who confessed in writing to fornication and telling the lie that JS secretly preached polygamy. Like Bennett he later went back to the lie.)
JSFP wrote:Even though the case against Chauncey L. Higbee did not come to trial at Carthage on October 3, 1842, it was a very significant factor in Joseph Smith’s fight against polygamy. It showed that Joseph vigorously contended against that evil doctrine in private and in public. If Joseph had been guilty, he certainly would not have sued a competent lawyer and insisted that the case be tried at Carthage among his enemies. Would a man with plural wives sue a lawyer—in the state of Illinois, where polygamy was a crime at that time (see Statutes of Illinois, Criminal Code,Section 121–122)? If Joseph had been guilty, Chauncey could have easily proven it, and no doubt Joseph would have gone to jail for that crime.
One needs to be aware that the women Chauncey chose for his witnesses were a part of “Bennett’s clique.” As already stated, his witnesses (those who were members of the Church) had suffered the shame of an investigation before the Nauvoo High Council. Dr. John C. Bennett published their names in newspapers across the land, and in his book, claiming that Joseph had attempted to take them as his plural wives. No doubt Chauncey hoped that by using these women as witnesses, he could convince the world that he was innocent and that Joseph was a polygamist, so the blame would be on Joseph and not himself. The cases of these women are to be treated later.
Because Joseph was innocent, he did not hesitate to have Chauncey arrested and charged. The case of The People vs. Chauncey L. Higbee attests to the innocence of the Prophet, and to his courageous fight to clear his and Emma’s names of the fraudulent charges that he had received a polygamous revelation and had plural wives.
Rix, I’ve been meaning to but have not yet read In Sacred Loneliness.
The authors of JSFP show a mountain of evidence in the forms of journal entries, sworn statements, etc. that John C. Bennett and his circle of friends were seducing women in the Church by claiming JS secretly taught polygamy. Their closeness to the Prophet lent weight to their lies and persuasions. Sydney Rigdon’s daughter and probably Eliza R. Snow were among their victims. When Joseph sued him in court and prepared witnesses/statements for the trial, Bennett and co. fabricated testimonies and statements accusing JS of adultery, polygamy, etc. Probably this is where some of the evidence for JS polygamy comes from.
I guess I will have to read ISL to properly respond, but when you understand that there were enemies of JS motivated to lie about this particular thing, and that JS consistently and publicly refuted it, you also understand that the evidence must be scrutinized. You can’t take all these claims at face value. You have to understand who wrote it and who they were allied with.
One of the things that stood out to me in JSFP is how often, how clearly and how publicly the Prophet and his associates denied these accusations. You can say maybe JS was lying and not Bennett, but there are certain undisputed facts concerning Bennett’s character that overwhelmingly discredit him. Also, there is a sworn statement by Bennett confessing his guilt and declaring JS’s innocence. When JS sued him though he went back to blaming Joseph. In fact, Bennett continued to publicly attack Joseph’s character after being excommunicated, contributing greatly to anti-mormon sentiment in the area.
If you haven’t read up on this Bennett character, well, he is central to the whole mess. He is a sort of Amalickiah.
I also wanted to respond more to MisterCurie’s comment. MisterCurie wrote:
The FLDS church seems to have a history of denying JS involvement in polygamy, so I’m not sure they are the most reliable source.Making a claim that differs from widely accepted beliefs shouldn’t imply unreliability. It just requires evidence. Also, I believe they are former FLDS members.
MisterCurie wrote:
His son is hardly a reliable source due to his age at JS death. There are also quotes by Emma and his mother that suggest he was involved in polygamy. There are also private journal entries and sworn affidavits by his polygamous wives (who would be considered close to JS).My point was that some people close to him said he had only one wife. It’s a good thing to take into account. And flat out denials seem much stronger than quotes that “suggest.”
The affadavits from the 1870’s seem very suspect to me. There is much reason to doubt them. I think they even have Eliza R. Snow on record early denying JS’s polygamy, then much later on, after his death, signing one of these affadavits.
MisterCurie wrote:
JS phrasing of his denial was parsed in a particular manner to maintain his integrity without revealing his doctrine of Celestial (plural) marriage.But surely you can see that this is just your interpretation? I don’t get any of that from the text.
MisterCurie wrote:D&C 101 was written and ratified when JS was not at the church conference. D&C 132 supports plural marriage. The Book of Mormon speaks positively of wine, does this prove JS did not reveal the WoW? The BoM presents a trinitarian view of God, does this refute God, Christ and HG being distinct personages in the Godhead?
As I understand it, there is much evidence for JS writing it. Also, Joseph was president of the Church and had it published and disseminated.
Tradition says JS wrote 132, but evidence suggests BY wrote it.
Wine is a light matter and the trinitarian view is debatable.The point is, it’s something to consider. Why would JS produce a book harshly condemning polygamy, and preach against it, if he wanted to introduce it? It’s one more instance of the traditional view not making sense.
MisterCurie wrote:
There are multiple diary accounts of plural marriage written at the time of the plural marriages. BY and Richards both record marriages of JS to other women. There are records of multiple sealings to other women (often after they were married).I am not an expert on this, but I don’t think there are many accusations of polygamy before his death. And the authors do address this. JS had enemies lying about him before and after his death. Many of those making the accusations have been completely discredited–like John C. Bennett. Why believe JS’s enemies over himself, and his family’s, and many other people’s claims?
Mister Curie, I am aware that none of these single facts proves their claim. But taken together, I find the evidence very convincing. I know there is evidence JS was a polygamist, but I think the evidence against is stronger. I also think people are generally unaware of it. I actually enjoy debating the matter, but also I think you would do better reading the book and debating it as you read. I did an awful lot of research as I read it. I honestly can’t remember half of what was in the book, and I can’t present their arguments as well as they did.
I looked up the DNA research a while ago. It’s called the Joseph Smith DNA Project or something like that. I think it’s funded by BYU, and it seemed to me that the guy doing it fully expects to find these descendants. I emailed the guy and he wrote me back–he seems like a regular Mormon with regular Mormon beliefs about polygamy.
Peaceandjoy wrote:Oh, and Allquieton, what about Doctrine and Covenants section 132. It seem obvious from that that he did practice polygamy
Apparently Brigham wrote 132. There is no copy of it in Joseph’s writing. Brigham said the original was destroyed and he produced a copy of it in his own handwriting, which was then published.
Interestingly it was not included in the D+C until 1876.
Here, I found it. Ray, It may sound farfetched b/c of the Mormon story we have inherited. But the book is arguing that JS literally never had more than one wife, legally, spiritually, or any which way. (At least not while he was alive.) No word games or technicalities. And like I said, it’s a whole book. The case doesn’t rest entirely on lack of documents or JS’s denial of polygamy. There’s a whole body of evidence.
I just brought up a couple points. But I did notice you didn’t mention point #1 or #3. I wonder what you think of these…
The authors used to have some chapters of the book posted on their website. I think anyone interested in JS should read it. I think if you google the title it will come up–Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy.
I would say read everything you can about Joseph. He has been lied about to an extraordinary degree though… So I would also say, when you read something about Joseph, look up the person that wrote/said it, try to understand their relationship to Joseph, and their motivation for writing it. And very importantly note the date it was written/said. These kinds of things make all the difference in the world. I read a book called Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy that dramatically influenced my opinion of JS. Has anyone else read this?It asserts that JS never did have more than one wife. Which I know may sound crazy to many–yet I found the evidence very convincing. I believe it was written by a former FLDS couple by the name of Price.
Some of the points/claims (as I remember them) made in the book:
1. No descendent of JS has been found–except by Emma.
I looked into this. The 8 or so most likely candidates have been DNA tested with negative results. Their family legends are proven to be false.
2. Joseph denied he had more than one wife just 2 months before he died. Many close to him denied it as well–his mother, Emma, and his son Joseph.
3. The Book of Mormon (which JS produced) preaches against polygamy. In all 3 instances where it is mentioned, it is condemned. Also, the original 101st Section of the D+C soundly condemns polygamy.
4. There are no original documents recording marriages to other women. Most of the claims of JS practicing polygamy originate many years after his death.
Obviously there is much more to the story. But this book settled my misgivings about Joseph and cleared up a lot of murky Church history for me. I was surprised again and again when I realized many things I “knew” about Church history and the people involved were essentially foundationless.
For me, the strongest evidence that Joseph was a prophet is the Book of Mormon. I realize some have issues with the BoM, but I don’t, so that settles it for me. I think it is sound on a reasonable and on a spiritual level. I always like to stick up for Joseph. I think he has been lied about and slandered to an extraordinary degree. I may post about this later on.
In a small way it’s comforting, but also highlights another problem. I don’t believe Church leaders should have to be so careful with their words. I think the types that Hawkgirl mentioned… hawkgrrrl wrote:plenty of types in the church who are looking for a to do list from the higher ups so they can work their way to salvation and keep score.
are slowly killing those poor men. And imprisoning the rest of us. They seem to resemble the Pharisees that Jesus kept butting heads with. Building a hedge around the law isn’t good for anyone. I would go so far as to say these scorekeepers are acting in an evil manner. There’s something just a little screwy about wanting to impose rules on others.
In the BoM, prophets emphasize the distinction between God’s words and their own. They say “Thus saith the Lord,” as opposed to “I say unto you.” This clears up just about everything for me.
