LDS Freedom Forum

"I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives.... I am innocent of all these charges.... What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers."

—Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6:410–411

This quote above was given by Joseph Smith, one month before he was murdered. Our LDS Church released articles that state Joseph had multiple wives. This is clearly a contradiction, as Joseph's own words say he is innocent of that charge. I've read alot of things about him, and about Brigham Young, and others.

This website http://restorationbookstore.org/jsfp-index.htm was compiled by a couple who said they took several years to pour through all available documents from that time period, including court papers. They went through the libraries at Nauvoo, the Library of Congress, etc. As most of us may not have the time, means or inclinations to put up the same effort, we're left to decide whether or not to give this couple the benefit of doubt about their work and their conclusions. Nethertheless, I have looked up some of the sources they cited, found at BYU's archives of scanned/digitized images of all periodicals of that era. I find their argument very compelling.

Their argument is that Joseph did not start polygamy, never taught it, never practiced it, and in fact, fought against it all his life. He even went so far as to excommunicate two members for polygamy, and sued one in court for claiming that Joseph permitted the practice. They further claim that Brigham Young was the one who made polygamy the doctrine of the church. They say he did so by changing the scriptures, and the history of the church. I saw for myself the befores and afters of those changes, and I cannot reconcile it.

The changes included a change in punctuation to Jacob 2:30 in the BoM, the introduction of D&C 132, the removal of a section from D&C(which stated that monogamy was the only law recognized by the church...), and various edits in the History of the Church to make it appear that Joseph endorsed the doctrine. They further show that BY's story of how he kept his copy of D&C 132 in his desk drawer all these years, and that Emma burnt the original(Emma denied this in a letter to him, and stated that she had never heard of this revelation until she received news of it after BY announced it).

This link is one member's views on why polygamy is wrong. He has a section further down discussing the various problems with D&C 132.
http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2010/ ... y.html?m=1

I've learned also, that during BY's time, while BY was trying to push the practice and "doctrine" of polygamy on the members, several women came forward and claimed they were married to JS. When challenged, they admitted there were no church records to substantiate their claims. So what did they do? BY had them "officially" sealed to JS, long after JS's death. Among those "sealed" to JS was one of BY's wives.

I am not going to leave the church over this issue, make no mistake about that. I believe in Joseph Smith, and I believe that God rescued his church from polygamy. But, it appears that the church has a hard time admitting its mistakes in this one subject. With the release of these recent articles on the subject of polygamy, it seems they're only digging themselves deeper into a pit of error.

It is not my intention to cause doubt in anyone's faith in the church. If you feel doubts after hearing about this issue above, please, please don't leave the church. There is no better place for you to be. I don't think anyone has all the answers on this subject, not me, and not the people who researched this topic for years. I trust that in time, the Lord God will reveal all things to our satisfaction.

Now then, who else is as confused/concerned about this topic as I?

As BrianM recently pointed out in another thread, the content of the Nauvoo Expositor itself blasts a very large hole in the theory that someone other than JS concocted sec. 132. And if JS was responsible for that section, then it is difficult to maintain the view that he neither practiced nor preached polygamy.

I was kind of bummed when Brian pointed that out, because I really wanted to believe that JS had nothing to do with that stuff. But it is what it is.

jbalm wrote:As BrianM recently pointed out in another thread, the content of the Nauvoo Expositor itself blasts a very large hole in the theory that someone other than JS concocted sec. 132. And if JS was responsible for that section, then it is difficult to maintain the view that he neither practiced nor preached polygamy.

I was kind of bummed when Brian pointed that out, because I really wanted to believe that JS had nothing to do with that stuff. But it is what it is.

Sorry, but that doesn't fly. The Nauvoo Expositor was written by enemies of the Church. As such, it is not likely that they would be telling the truth in that newspaper. By the way, Joseph had the press responsible for publishing that newspaper destroyed. In addition, the accusations of polygamy against Joseph in that newspaper is actually just more of the same that had been thrown at him for some time before then. I would take Joseph's own words on this subject over any "second-hand" account from others who say Joseph "said this" or "said that". Remember, I pointed out that Joseph sued a member for saying that he preached polygamy, in court. THAT, is a matter of public record.

ocarinahuff wrote:

jbalm wrote:As BrianM recently pointed out in another thread, the content of the Nauvoo Expositor itself blasts a very large hole in the theory that someone other than JS concocted sec. 132. And if JS was responsible for that section, then it is difficult to maintain the view that he neither practiced nor preached polygamy.

I was kind of bummed when Brian pointed that out, because I really wanted to believe that JS had nothing to do with that stuff. But it is what it is.

Sorry, but that doesn't fly. The Nauvoo Expositor was written by enemies of the Church. As such, it is not likely that they would be telling the truth in that newspaper.

That's not a safe generalization. The enemies of Hitler for instance, were probably telling the truth about him.

ocarinahuff wrote:By the way, Joseph had the press responsible for publishing that newspaper destroyed. In addition, the accusations of polygamy against Joseph in that newspaper is actually just more of the same that had been thrown at him for some time before then.

Always seemed a little high-handed to me. Seems more like guilty than innocent behavior.

ocarinahuff wrote:I would take Joseph's own words on this subject over any "second-hand" account from others who say Joseph "said this" or "said that". Remember, I pointed out that Joseph sued a member for saying that he preached polygamy, in court. THAT, is a matter of public record.

You're aware you can sue anybody for anything, right? The mere fact that Joseph sued somebody for saying that really doesn't prove much.

ocarinahuff wrote:Now then, who else is as confused/concerned about this topic as I?

Many.

jbalm wrote:As BrianM recently pointed out in another thread, the content of the Nauvoo Expositor itself blasts a very large hole in the theory that someone other than JS concocted sec. 132. And if JS was responsible for that section, then it is difficult to maintain the view that he neither practiced nor preached polygamy.

I was kind of bummed when Brian pointed that out, because I really wanted to believe that JS had nothing to do with that stuff. But it is what it is.

The Nauvoo Expositer doesn't prove authorship.

Who started Polygamy?

Apparently God.

ocarinahuff wrote:
Now then, who else is as confused/concerned about this topic as I?

I could'nt care less. Try bringing up a topic with bearing on my personal salvation, or anyone else's for that matter, next time.

Fiannan wrote:Who started Polygamy?

Apparently God.

Apparent to who? I don't think that's at all apparent.

KMCopeland wrote:

Fiannan wrote:Who started Polygamy?

Apparently God.

Apparent to who? I don't think that's at all apparent.

Its in the Bible and the Koran. So...

Fiannan wrote:

KMCopeland wrote:

Fiannan wrote:Who started Polygamy?

Apparently God.

Apparent to who? I don't think that's at all apparent.

Its in the Bible and the Koran. So...

Okay. I see your line of reasoning. I guess I would say that there are things in the Bible and the Koran that are probably the inventions of men. Polygamy would belong squarely in that category. IMHO.

Great that you can pick and choose so conveniently. :ymdevil:

KMCopeland wrote:

ocarinahuff wrote:

jbalm wrote:As BrianM recently pointed out in another thread, the content of the Nauvoo Expositor itself blasts a very large hole in the theory that someone other than JS concocted sec. 132. And if JS was responsible for that section, then it is difficult to maintain the view that he neither practiced nor preached polygamy.

I was kind of bummed when Brian pointed that out, because I really wanted to believe that JS had nothing to do with that stuff. But it is what it is.

Sorry, but that doesn't fly. The Nauvoo Expositor was written by enemies of the Church. As such, it is not likely that they would be telling the truth in that newspaper.

That's not a safe generalization. The enemies of Hitler for instance, were probably telling the truth about him.

Actually, it is. In your example, most people would agree that Hitler is the bad guy, and used lies, deceit, murder, etc. to grab power. Those that would speak the truth about him would be his enemies, naturally. But, that is not the case here, unless you are comparing Joseph to Hitler.

It goes like this:

If Joseph was lying about polygamy, then that would make the Nauvoo Exposistor the "truth" exposing Joseph for his lies. On the other hand, if Joseph was telling the truth, then the Nauvoo Exposistor is nothing but a pack of lies written by bad people seeking to destroy Joseph.

It's a simple case of whether you believe Joseph, or his enemies. I choose to side with Joseph. If he says he is innocent of polygamy, then I believe he is innocent. Therefore, those that say he isn't, I believe are lying.

I'm not going to bother trying to answer the rest of your "charge", as I feel you are just looking for a fight. I'm just going to ignore you after this post, as I do not want to waste my time with people like you. This post is just a courtesy to let you know I'm going to ignore you from here on out.

Fiannan wrote:Great that you can pick and choose so conveniently.

Great for you too huh? (Participated in any stonings lately?)

durangout wrote:

ocarinahuff wrote:
Now then, who else is as confused/concerned about this topic as I?

I could'nt care less. Try bringing up a topic with bearing on my personal salvation, or anyone else's for that matter, next time.

It's fine if you don't care, I don't care that you don't care :ymsmug:

I'm perfectly within my rights to post what ever topic I feel like, at any time. Of course, the moderators and/or administrators are well within their rights to limit what I post as well, so there's that. Seeing as you are neither a moderator nor an administrator, don't tell me what I should or should not post next time. /:)

ocarinahuff wrote:

jbalm wrote:As BrianM recently pointed out in another thread, the content of the Nauvoo Expositor itself blasts a very large hole in the theory that someone other than JS concocted sec. 132. And if JS was responsible for that section, then it is difficult to maintain the view that he neither practiced nor preached polygamy.

I was kind of bummed when Brian pointed that out, because I really wanted to believe that JS had nothing to do with that stuff. But it is what it is.

Sorry, but that doesn't fly. The Nauvoo Expositor was written by enemies of the Church. As such, it is not likely that they would be telling the truth in that newspaper.

KMCopeland wrote:That's not a safe generalization. The enemies of Hitler for instance, were probably telling the truth about him.

ocarinahuff wrote:Actually, it is. In your example, most people would agree that Hitler is the bad guy, and used lies, deceit, murder, etc. to grab power. Those that would speak the truth about him would be his enemies, naturally. But, that is not the case here, unless you are comparing Joseph to Hitler.

That's simply not true. People who dared to speak the truth about Hitler in Nazi Germany were a decided minority. It wasn't "most people" at all. And I'm well aware that Joseph Smith was no Hitler. It's just a very good example of why your belief that because it was his enemies who published the Expositor, what they said about him was de facto not true, is badly mistaken.

ocarinahuff wrote:If Joseph was lying about polygamy, then that would make the Nauvoo Exposistor the "truth" exposing Joseph for his lies. On the other hand, if Joseph was telling the truth, then the Nauvoo Exposistor is nothing but a pack of lies written by bad people seeking to destroy Joseph.

I fully agree.

ocarinahuff wrote:It's a simple case of whether you believe Joseph, or his enemies. I choose to side with Joseph. If he says he is innocent of polygamy, then I believe he is innocent. Therefore, those that say he isn't, I believe are lying.

Sounds good.

ocarinahuff wrote:I'm not going to bother trying to answer the rest of your "charge", as I feel you are just looking for a fight. I'm just going to ignore you after this post, as I do not want to waste my time with people like you. This post is just a courtesy to let you know I'm going to ignore you from here on out.

Nice temper tantrum. Which, in itself, is quite revealing.

ajax wrote:

jbalm wrote:As BrianM recently pointed out in another thread, the content of the Nauvoo Expositor itself blasts a very large hole in the theory that someone other than JS concocted sec. 132. And if JS was responsible for that section, then it is difficult to maintain the view that he neither practiced nor preached polygamy.

I was kind of bummed when Brian pointed that out, because I really wanted to believe that JS had nothing to do with that stuff. But it is what it is.

The Nauvoo Expositer doesn't prove authorship.

No, but it proves that it was extant while JS was still alive.

One of the main arguments made in the book cited by the OP is that BY and co. made up sec. 132 after JS died. The Nauvoo Expositor torpedoes that theory pretty well.

ETA: I shouldn't have said the the NE blasts a hole in the that someone other than JS concocted sec. 132. I stand corrected.

ocarinahuff wrote:

jbalm wrote:As BrianM recently pointed out in another thread, the content of the Nauvoo Expositor itself blasts a very large hole in the theory that someone other than JS concocted sec. 132. And if JS was responsible for that section, then it is difficult to maintain the view that he neither practiced nor preached polygamy.

I was kind of bummed when Brian pointed that out, because I really wanted to believe that JS had nothing to do with that stuff. But it is what it is.

Sorry, but that doesn't fly. The Nauvoo Expositor was written by enemies of the Church. As such, it is not likely that they would be telling the truth in that newspaper. By the way, Joseph had the press responsible for publishing that newspaper destroyed. In addition, the accusations of polygamy against Joseph in that newspaper is actually just more of the same that had been thrown at him for some time before then. I would take Joseph's own words on this subject over any "second-hand" account from others who say Joseph "said this" or "said that". Remember, I pointed out that Joseph sued a member for saying that he preached polygamy, in court. THAT, is a matter of public record.

Exceedingly poor logic there.

I guess we shouldn't believe anything that Mormons write about John Bennett or William Law, since Mormons are enemies of those men.

ocarinahuff wrote:

durangout wrote:

ocarinahuff wrote:
Now then, who else is as confused/concerned about this topic as I?

I could'nt care less. Try bringing up a topic with bearing on my personal salvation, or anyone else's for that matter, next time.

It's fine if you don't care, I don't care that you don't care :ymsmug:

I'm perfectly within my rights to post what ever topic I feel like, at any time. Of course, the moderators and/or administrators are well within their rights to limit what I post as well, so there's that. Seeing as you are neither a moderator nor an administrator, don't tell me what I should or should not post next time. /:)

Little on the touchy side are we? I mean, you did show up here asking a question. Seeing how you respond when the answers aren't what you wanted, you probably should have warned us all that if we couldn't come up with something that supports what you've already decided to believe we should keep our responses to ourselves. I for one would have absolutely honored that request.

ocarinahuff wrote:
Actually, it is. In your example, most people would agree that Hitler is the bad guy, and used lies, deceit, murder, etc. to grab power. Those that would speak the truth about him would be his enemies, naturally. But, that is not the case here, unless you are comparing Joseph to Hitler.

It goes like this:

If Joseph was lying about polygamy, then that would make the Nauvoo Exposistor the "truth" exposing Joseph for his lies. On the other hand, if Joseph was telling the truth, then the Nauvoo Exposistor is nothing but a pack of lies written by bad people seeking to destroy Joseph.

It's a simple case of whether you believe Joseph, or his enemies. I choose to side with Joseph. If he says he is innocent of polygamy, then I believe he is innocent. Therefore, those that say he isn't, I believe are lying.

I'm not going to bother trying to answer the rest of your "charge", as I feel you are just looking for a fight. I'm just going to ignore you after this post, as I do not want to waste my time with people like you. This post is just a courtesy to let you know I'm going to ignore you from here on out.

Have you even read the Nauvoo Expositor?

jbalm wrote:

ajax wrote:

jbalm wrote:As BrianM recently pointed out in another thread, the content of the Nauvoo Expositor itself blasts a very large hole in the theory that someone other than JS concocted sec. 132. And if JS was responsible for that section, then it is difficult to maintain the view that he neither practiced nor preached polygamy.

I was kind of bummed when Brian pointed that out, because I really wanted to believe that JS had nothing to do with that stuff. But it is what it is.

The Nauvoo Expositer doesn't prove authorship.

No, but it proves that it was extant while JS was still alive.

One of the main arguments made in the book cited by the OP is that BY and co. made up sec. 132 after JS died. The Nauvoo Expositor torpedoes that theory pretty well.

True, so I guess that leaves us that somebody made it up before Joseph died, which there doesn't seem to be a shortage of maker-uppers at the time, or Joseph produced it. And around and around we go.

You're correct. Check out my edit.

durangout wrote:

ocarinahuff wrote:
Now then, who else is as confused/concerned about this topic as I?

I could'nt care less. Try bringing up a topic with bearing on my personal salvation, or anyone else's for that matter, next time.

The very idea of ignoring and not commenting on threads you don't care for amazingly seems to be lost on people.

ajax wrote:

durangout wrote:

ocarinahuff wrote:
Now then, who else is as confused/concerned about this topic as I?

I could'nt care less. Try bringing up a topic with bearing on my personal salvation, or anyone else's for that matter, next time.

The very idea of ignoring and not commenting on threads you don't care for amazingly seems to be lost on people.

It's like being in a crowded auditorium and someone across the room yells out "hey John, how are you?" Then half a dozen people get mad and yell back "my name isn't John, [Insert Obrien's favorite curse word here]."

jbalm wrote:

ocarinahuff wrote:

jbalm wrote:As BrianM recently pointed out in another thread, the content of the Nauvoo Expositor itself blasts a very large hole in the theory that someone other than JS concocted sec. 132. And if JS was responsible for that section, then it is difficult to maintain the view that he neither practiced nor preached polygamy.

I was kind of bummed when Brian pointed that out, because I really wanted to believe that JS had nothing to do with that stuff. But it is what it is.

Sorry, but that doesn't fly. The Nauvoo Expositor was written by enemies of the Church. As such, it is not likely that they would be telling the truth in that newspaper. By the way, Joseph had the press responsible for publishing that newspaper destroyed. In addition, the accusations of polygamy against Joseph in that newspaper is actually just more of the same that had been thrown at him for some time before then. I would take Joseph's own words on this subject over any "second-hand" account from others who say Joseph "said this" or "said that". Remember, I pointed out that Joseph sued a member for saying that he preached polygamy, in court. THAT, is a matter of public record.

Exceedingly poor logic there.

I guess we shouldn't believe anything that Mormons write about John Bennett or William Law, since Mormons are enemies of those men.

Maybe you didn't read the latter post to KMCopeland...I'll try rephrasing it.

It depends on who one choose to believe is right, and who is wrong. If I choose to believe Joseph Smith, and his claims of innocence on the charges of polygamy, then I must assume that those who say he isn't are wrong. Is that clear enough? In your example above, I would usually side with the Mormons as being the good guys, and therefore believe what they say about John Bennett or William Law since they would be the bad guys in this case. Once you decide who is good and who is bad, it makes it a bit easier to decide who to believe. By this logic, I chose not to believe what is written in the Nauvoo Expositor, since it was written by people who left the church, and non-members. The church had a lot of enemies at the time, spreading lies left and right.

I did in fact read excerpts from that newspaper, and WM Law and one other individual claim to have seen a document from Hyrum Smith who claimed Joseph Smith received it as revelation. So it appears that the document may have existed while Joseph was alive. But again, this is a second-hand account from an enemy, who claims Joseph privately taught polygamy while publicly denouncing it. I would not follow a man so conflicted like that.

Since I choose to believe Joseph Smith's claims of innocence, I will thus throw out WM Law's claim. I do see the possibility that Section 132 may have been written during Joseph's time, but whether he wrote it or not is another question. I personally have reason to believe that Joseph Smith did not write it, nor received it from the Lord.

I should warn you, I'm an introvert, and joining this forum and posting stuff like this is way outside my comfort zone. I do not like arguing, it makes me feel angry. I blocked KMCopeland because I did not like the feeling I got from his posts. Be nice, and I will respond in kind. Remember, Christ taught that contention is of the devil, and I certainly have never felt the Spirit in ANY of KMCopeland's posts in all the months i have spent reading this forum before I joined. And no, I will not apologize if he feels offended at the insinuation.

If you have nothing nice to say to me, say nothing at all.