Did Joseph Lie about Polygamy?

[inquirringmind]

And lying was rampant at that point in LDS history...

Is there any proof of that?

LOL. Yes.

http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2013/ ... -fire.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - short, sweet, and to the point.

http://bycommonconsent.com/2010/03/03/c ... derground/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - read through all 9 parts.

I've read the first one before, but do you know that Wilford Woodruff lied about this?

Isn't it possible (as someone on another forum once told me) that "the work was not done correctly or the vision just referred to complete temple work and WW made the assumption that included baptism when the reality was endowments and sealings or he felt it should be done from scratch just to be sure it was done correctly. "?

[log]

No, it is not possible, given the things that were said and the records that were kept. If the records and the witnesses are true, then Woodruff lied.

But all of that is addressed in the article itself...? And, either way, it is proof lying was rampant, no matter which is false.

[inquirringmind]

No, it is not possible, given the things that were said and the records that were kept. If the records and the witnesses are true, then Woodruff lied.

But all of that is addressed in the article itself...?

I guess I'll have to read the article all over again, but I thought some of the posters on that thread made some pretty good points the last time I looked at it.

[log]

Well, since I'm banned, I guess I'll never know.

But, as I mentioned - either way, it's proof lying was rampant, no matter which side turns out false.

[inquirringmind]

Does that mean you can't even view the posts?

[log]

I don't know. I ain't gone back since, I think, and I'm also not inclined to go back. Ya know?

[iamse7en]

inquirringmind, I cannot find that so-called October 1885 meeting anywhere on the netz, other than the article you pasted. Joseph Smith's Polygamy, which has from what I understand, every single reference (for or against) to Joseph Smith's polygamy ever known up to this point in time (2013), does not mention this at all. But also, logically, think about what is inferred. Malissa Lott always claimed she was a wife. She testified to Joseph F. Smith, to George A. Smith, written in her family bible, she testified of her sexual cohabitation with Joseph in the Temple Lot case, she was one of the major sources of providing the list of Joseph's other wives in addition to herself, plus she was sealed again to Joseph in 1846... but randomly in 1885 she suddenly spills the beans and rats herself out as a liar/conspirator?

Then, in August of 1893, Joseph Smith III interviews her again?, where she is pretty explicit about her relationship to him as a wife and their sexual cohabitation. (Malissa Lott, notarized statement to Joseph Smith III, August 4, 1893). JS III writes the next year:

Melissa Lott. I knew her well, a bright good girl. Am glad that she was only for eternity or adopted into the family. But she was plenty large and old enough to be any man’s companion in cohabitation when I knew her; and about the only one of the entire outfit name by you [of twenty possible plural wives of Joseph Smith] whom I would be inclinded to believe if she should tell me herself that father did cohabit with her.” Joseph Smith II to Bro. E.C. Brand, Joseph Smith II Letter Press Book, P6, JSLB4, page 63, Community of Christ Archives, January 26, 1894, page 66.

That doesn't sound like a person who met with the same lady 8 years earlier to learn that she WASN'T his wife. Based on this evidence I am only left to conclude that the writer of Defending Joseph is either greatly mistaken or a liar. I would like to see the source material of this supposed meeting, because it's inconsistent with everything else that legitimately exists, including Joseph Smith III's own writings.

[inquirringmind]

Thank you.

[log]

Melissa Lott. I knew her well, a bright good girl. Am glad that she was only for eternity or adopted into the family. But she was plenty large and old enough to be any man’s companion in cohabitation when I knew her; and about the only one of the entire outfit name by you [of twenty possible plural wives of Joseph Smith] whom I would be inclinded to believe if she should tell me herself that father did cohabit with her.” Joseph Smith II to Bro. E.C. Brand, Joseph Smith II Letter Press Book, P6, JSLB4, page 63, Community of Christ Archives, January 26, 1894, page 66.

That statement is curious both for what it says, and what it does not say. Did she not tell him herself that Joseph did cohabit with her or not? From this statement, it seems she did not. Indeed, he seems to be saying explicitly she was only sealed into the family. It does not appear he's describing her as a wife.

[Elizabeth]

The two statements were not made by the one person, but by two different individuals...
Joseph Smith 11
Joseph Smith 111

[log]

Anyways, I just dropped a comment on Waterman's blog, and will await his response.

Turns out Rock didn't know about the journal entries.

Here's what he said:

I have not seen that, but only read of the frustration of another researcher by the name of Robert Fields who wishes we could see the actual journals. He says according to the description, they don't match up in size and page numbers and such.

I agree with him. If the journals are in the Church archives, we should be allowed to see them and have them forensically tested.