Two new essays from Gospel Topics Essays

[Just_A_Guy]

A couple of clarifications to the proposed questions:

 

To say that Smith "married" married women, is rather presentist and carries connotations that may not be accurate.  It is more correct to say that Smith was sealed to married women, and invite people to do the research as to what precisely a "sealing" would have meant in the 1840s.

 

Also:  The Expositor incident has been covered by official Church sources (see, e.g., this 1994 Ensign article), and I believe numerous sources indicate that Nauvoo--and indeed, Warsaw--was indeed in an uproar over the charges and that to say that the paper was inciting a riot wasn't too much of a stretch.  (The Expositor did cover allegations of polygamy, but also included allegations of financial malfeasance and plots to overthrow the democratically elected governments--and this in an environment of neighbors who already thought Nauvoo was getting too big for its britches.)  The Nauvoo City Council's decision thereafter got all of them charged with riot. To make a long story short, Smith posted bail for the riot charge but was then immediately thereafter charged with treason, which was not a bailable offense.  The treason charge came from Smith's decision to declare martial law in Nauvoo in the wake of the Expositor incident.

 

The doctrine of "polygamy" didn't get Smith killed anymore than the doctrine of "Zion", or his civic role as mayor, did.  And it's worth noting that a) people were trying to get Smith killed well before his polygamy came to light (or, indeed, ever started), and b ) Smith's ultimate death does seem to be the culmination of a deliberate plan to keep him in Carthage as long as possible with a hostile group of recently-disbanded militia and the removal of any armed body that might have come to Smith's aid, and let nature take its course--a plan which anecdotal evidence suggests was actually greenlit by Governor Ford himself.

Edited October 30, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

A couple of clarifications to the proposed questions:

 

To say that Smith "married" married women, is rather presentist and carries connotations that may not be accurate.  It is more correct to say that Smith was sealed to married women, and invite people to do the research as to what precisely a "sealing" would have meant in the 1840s.

 

Good point. 

 

omegaseamaster75, I propose we change question 1 to:

1. Did you know that JS was sealed women who were already married?

Edited October 30, 2014 by The Folk Prophet

[Suzie]

I hope the survey omegaseamaster75 is going to do works out well but don't be surprised if it doesn't. In my personal experience, members react in very interesting ways when you mention parts of Church history that a lot of people think we should be either whispering about or not talking about it at all.

 

My former Bishop called me once asking me if I could help answering some questions regarding Church history to a member who was struggling. I sat down with both of them and we started going through the list of questions. When the issue of Polygamy was mentioned, particularly related to Joseph Smith and I was about to explain, the person interrupted me and kindly asked me to stop. I looked at the Bishop and he looked at me and then this member said "I do not want to know anything about it.". I said okay. When they left, this member apologized and said "I know I am wrong, but I don't want to know".

[Crypto]

I think if the wrong members hear such questions being asked rather than stirring the pot it would be like taping on a hornets nest, with you subsequently being labeled apostates to those particular individuals. Or this could not happen at all.

I'm quite curious really. Both for the responses and reactions.

Keep the forum informed on what happens.

 

There are a few flaws with your survey, such as sample selection and results could be skewed by differences in each population. Still anecdotally interesting.

[The Folk Prophet]

I think if the wrong members hear such questions being asked rather than stirring the pot it would be like taping on a hornets nest, with you subsequently being labeled apostates to those particular individuals. Or this could not happen at all.

I'm quite curious really. Both for the responses and reactions.

Keep the forum informed on what happens.

 

There are a few flaws with your survey, such as sample selection and results could be skewed by differences in each population. Still anecdotally interesting.

 

How can you be labeled apostate for bringing up the church essays on lds.org?

[RMGuy]

You can get invited to a court of love simply for speaking the truth. Good luck with the survey however, I'm quite interested in your results.

[The Folk Prophet]

You can get invited to a court of love simply for speaking the truth. 

 

O....kay.....

[RMGuy]

TFP, if your local or stake leaders believe that your asking these questions lead members to question their faith, or worse leave, they will invite you to come in and give an accounting of yourself. Just because it is true doesn't mean it is useful. Shake some members testimonies and the leaders will pretty quickly act to protect the good name of the church.

[omegaseamaster75]

And do these:

 

"did you know that JS was in Carthage jail on charges that he ordered the destruction of a printing press?"

 

"did you know he had the press destroyed because it printed that he practiced polygamy?"

 

I hear people say that he was martyred for the BoM or some other reason.  He was martyred for polygamy.

Over simplification, he was martyred because he was the leader of the mormon church by people who hated him and his religion. JS destruction of the printing press gave them the pretext to kill him. The "mob" had plenty of other opportunities to kill him prior to this but his life had been spared up to that point.

Edited October 31, 2014 by omegaseamaster75

[omegaseamaster75]

Good point. 

 

omegaseamaster75, I propose we change question 1 to:

1. Did you know that JS was sealed women who were already married?

will do

Edited October 31, 2014 by omegaseamaster75

[omegaseamaster75]

TFP, if your local or stake leaders believe that your asking these questions lead members to question their faith, or worse leave, they will invite you to come in and give an accounting of yourself. Just because it is true doesn't mean it is useful. Shake some members testimonies and the leaders will pretty quickly act to protect the good name of the church.

These will be yes and no questions, I will document the response and decline to engage in further conversation about the subject. 

 

I will point them to the church website references if they want to.

 

I have my suspicions about how this will go. I think that most members have their head in the sand about the specifics of church history.

 

I am curious to see if my theory is correct 

[Guest]

I have my suspicions about how this will go. I think that most members have their head in the sand about the specifics of church history.

 

 

This is true not just in LDS, nor religion in general...

 

In the Philippines, most Catholic kids go to a Catholic School so they get taught Church History outside of Sunday School in the same manner as Philippine History.  So, there are people like me who are into all the nitty-gritty of history and there are people like most who study Church and Philippine history just enough to pass the class and it's forgotten the next day.

 

American schools are the same - you got students going through History class who can't tell you what the issue behind the debate over slavery in Congress was, who the people behind it were, what their lives were like, nor do they care.

Edited October 31, 2014 by anatess

[Maureen]

...To say that Smith "married" married women, is rather presentist and carries connotations that may not be accurate.  It is more correct to say that Smith was sealed to married women, and invite people to do the research as to what precisely a "sealing" would have meant in the 1840s.

 

 

But it was still presented secretly at first as "plural marriage"; supposedly with the goal to "raise up seed onto God".

 

M. 

[garryw]

 

 

Over simplification, he was martyred because he was the leader of the mormon church by people who hated him and his religion

 

I'm referring to the martyrdom "trigger".  What "triggered" his arrest?  Destruction of the press.  What triggered the press's existence in the first place?  Disaffection/Excommunication of William Law.  And what triggered that?  Polygamy.  William was 100% committed to the veracity Book of Mormon, even after his excommunication.  He loved the religion and attempted to "save" it by founding the TLDS church.  

 

What I'm saying is JS would never had died in Carthage if not for polygamy.  Who knows how he would have died?  I'm just saying it wouldn't have been there, and it wouldn't have been then.  If not for polygamy, William Law would have remained his 2nd counselor instead of printing the expositor.  

[Guest]

But it was still presented secretly at first as "plural marriage"; supposedly with the goal to "raise up seed onto God".

 

M. 

 

You keep on bringing this up... "raise up seed" is not just birthing Mormon children.  It is specifically bringing people into the covenant - sealing being one of them.

[omegaseamaster75]

I agree fundamentally, who knows when he would have died. The practice of polygamy was very trying for many members of the church inclusive of its leaders, and William Law was not the first to think the JS had lost his way. 

[Guest]

What I'm saying is JS would never had died in Carthage if not for polygamy.

 

It's really futile to conclude that "one would never have x if he would not have done y" in this type of scenario.  There are too many balls in the air that "never" is just not a valid conclusion.  I mean, you can't even say Joseph Smith would never have been martyred if he didn't have many wives.  Or even that Joseph Smith would never have been martyred if he never laid eyes on the Book of Mormon and start his own church...  I mean, even the "never exactly there on that exact time" can't be concluded...

 

I think there's a movie about that...

Edited October 31, 2014 by anatess

[Just_A_Guy]

TFP, if your local or stake leaders believe that your asking these questions lead members to question their faith, or worse leave, they will invite you to come in and give an accounting of yourself. Just because it is true doesn't mean it is useful. Shake some members testimonies and the leaders will pretty quickly act to protect the good name of the church.

 

RMGuy, if you make it your mission to tell your fellow ward members the "truth" about Mormon history, and you do it in such a ham-fisted manner that they panic and resign their membership--why in sam hill would you continue in that course of action without doing some serious soul searching?  And what, exactly, is wrong with meeting a bishop or a stake president and accepting counsel of them if it turns out that you have inadvertently been causing harm with your activities? 

 

It's a bishop's office, not the star chamber.  And, bizarre as it may seem, my experience is that bishops and stake presidents really do (ulp!) sincerely love their congregants.

 

 

But it was still presented secretly at first as "plural marriage"; supposedly with the goal to "raise up seed onto God".

 

M. 

 

That was the justification given to every single wife, including the already-married ones and the teenagers? 

 

You sure about that?

 

What I'm saying is JS would never had died in Carthage if not for polygamy.  Who knows how he would have died?  I'm just saying it wouldn't have been there, and it wouldn't have been then.  If not for polygamy, William Law would have remained his 2nd counselor instead of printing the expositor.  

 

Only if you think Joseph Smith would have tolerated the presence of an adulterer in the First Presidency indefinitely.  It was because of Law's immoral conduct that Joseph Smith refused to seal Law to his wife when the Laws requested it (Smith subsequently recounted this story to Alexander Neibaur, who recorded it in his journal in May of 1844).  Hyrum Smith partially corroborated Joseph's story--he claimed it was he who had informed the Laws of the content of D&C 132; and further claimed that Law had at some point confessed to him that he had previously committed adultery.  

Edited October 31, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[garryw]

Neibaur story aside for the moment, I have to ask this.  Without the accusation of polygamy in the expositor, would JS have ordered it to be destroyed?  

 

No.  No way.  

[Maureen]

You keep on bringing this up... "raise up seed" is not just birthing Mormon children.  It is specifically bringing people into the covenant - sealing being one of them.

 

I have? I've mentioned this more than once in this thread? I didn't check and I don't remember. But either way, I suspect that in the 19th century, "raise up seed" meant having babies.

 

M.

[Traveler]

I have? I've mentioned this more than once in this thread? I didn't check and I don't remember. But either way, I suspect that in the 19th century, "raise up seed" meant having babies.

 

M.

 

I believe anstess is correct.  "raise up seed" is more than having babies.   Think of it as the difference in haveing seeds and planting the seeds so the seeds will grow "raise up" and produce something.  The opperative (action) words are "raise up" -- not so much "seed" - whcih is the noun not the action.

[Just_A_Guy]

Garryw, I once again disagree and would answer your question with "Yes, yes he would have".  

 

In early April 1842, a group of dissenters began meeting; and their ranks eventually swelled to about two hundred people.  Two of these individuals were young men named Dennison Harris and Robert Scott.  By the second meeting, discussions of murder were being floated openly.  At the third meeting, all participants were required to swear an oath to kill Smith.  Harris and Scott refused to take the oath and barely escaped with their lives.  They reported the events back to Smith, and named names.  When the Expositor was published in early June, virtually every one of its principals were people that Smith already knew were part of that conspiracy.

 

Moreover, the Expositor's accusations went beyond polygamy.  Going off memory, I think it repeated rumors that Smith had mismanaged Church funds generally, that the Church itself was involved in counterfeiting and was plotting against democracy (including dark hints, I think, about the Council of Fifty, the Nauvoo Legion, and the fact that the new temple rituals referred to those so anointed as "kings")--really, the same sort of stuff that had already led to the Saints' being run out of Kirtland and Missouri.  It further called for the repeal of the Nauvoo city charter and called for making peace with the Missourians (who, as everyone in Nauvoo would have known, still had a price on Smith's head).

 

The Nauvoo City Council didn't shut down the Expositor because it was publicizing embarrassing truths that Smith didn't want publicized.  The council shut down the Expositor because it was generally "inciting riot".  That was pre-Brandenberg v. Ohio, so the legal terminology has evolved.  Today, as a matter of law, we'd call it "hate speech"--speech that "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".  Ironically, Smith's subsequent murder at the hands of a mob is prima facie evidence that the Expositor's claims did indeed "incite a riot"--just as the Nauvoo City Council claimed.

 

Under contemporary case law, the City Council was within its rights to shut the Expositor down and destroy the extant copies of it (the First Amendment didn't even apply to state or municipal governments until the early 20th century, and the notion of "prior restraint" as impermissible didn't get Supreme Court validation until about the 1930s); though even by 1840s standards they most likely exceeded their authority by actually destroying the press itself.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Maureen]

But it was still presented secretly at first as "plural marriage"; supposedly with the goal to "raise up seed onto God".

 

 

...That was the justification given to every single wife, including the already-married ones and the teenagers? 

 

You sure about that?....  

 

I have no clue what was said to every woman that JS asked. But it was presented as "marriage", if the members did not think that it was "marriage", why were they so hesitant in accepting it?

 

M.

[The Folk Prophet]

TFP, if your local or stake leaders believe that your asking these questions lead members to question their faith, or worse leave, they will invite you to come in and give an accounting of yourself. Just because it is true doesn't mean it is useful. Shake some members testimonies and the leaders will pretty quickly act to protect the good name of the church.

 

Hahahahaha HA!!! 

 

Speaking of Mormon Paranoia Syndrome.

[Just_A_Guy]

I have no clue what was said to every woman that JS asked. But it was presented as "marriage", if the members did not think that it was "marriage", why were they so hesitant in accepting it?

 

M.

 

I'm not convinced that the relationships to already-married-and-cohabiting women, or very young teenagers, were pitched as marriages--at least, not as sexual ones (and let's face it--at least where such relationships are concerned, 75% of the concerns people tend to express is because of the sex that we assume was taking place under the auspices of those relationships).

 

There's a sort of a parallel among Catholicism, where my understanding is that if a woman becomes a nun, she's theoretically married to Jesus (that's the perception, at least.  Obviously I can't speak to the theological nuances).  But to tell someone wholly unacquainted with Catholic theology or practice "Oh, yeah, this is Sister Maria and she is married to Jesus" would create a very different idea of the relationship than what actually exists.