POLYGAMY: Nauvoo Expositor & Interview with William Law, March 30, 1887

Jesef · Post by **Jesef** » February 17th, 2019, 3:37 pm

William Law, his wife Jane, & his brother, Wilson Law, produced the one & only edition of the Nauvoo Expositor on June, 7, 1844. You can read it here:
http://www.mormonthink.com/glossary/nau ... e-Wife19-3

In that publication, they claim that they fell out of favor with Joseph over the revelation on plural marriage, as well as other heretical doctrines being taught be Joseph at the time in private, which they expose in the Expositor, including plurality of gods & unconditional sealing up to eternal life (second anointing, calling & election, etc.) - 2 of these 3 heretical teachings are uncontested today by both camps (those who believe Joseph originated plural marriage doctrine/revelation & those who claim he "fought" it & Brigham was the real culprit). What is interesting about the Laws & the Higbees is that they were no longer friendly to Joseph & Hyrum but neither were they friends of Brigham Young, whom they said presided over their High Council excommunications without their being invited to be present. This puts them uniquely in a position outside the supposed "conspiracy theory" that polygamy was perpretrated by Brigham Young & Twelve, at odds with Joseph & Hyrum - & they claim all of those were in cahoots. If you're interested in the history surrounding the origins of polygamy & how Joseph WAS THE ORIGINATOR of the revelation that later became D&C 132, you need to read William Law's account. He left the Church & Joseph over it. His later interview (below) is also extremely interesting as it gives many intimate details from the Nauvoo time period, Joseph, Hyrum, Brigham, Emma, his interactions with them, etc. His testimony in both the Expositor and this later interview are not only CONSISTENT, they seem entirely credible & support the "secrecy" theory rather than the "conspiracy" theory. The Laws were in GOOD company, btw: Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer - all good men who became disaffected with Joseph & brethren. Joseph took to later indisputably recognized scoundrels such as John C. Bennett while falling out with good, conscientious men like Oliver, David, & William. Read the Expositor & tell if you think it was just "anti-Mormon libel" - I think you will find a sincere whistleblowing that came at nearly $2000 of William's personal expense, plus all the property he lost in Nauvoo. He says several attempts were made on his life. He talks about Porter Rockwell trying to assassinate Gov. Boggs at Joseph's orders. It's a very interesting story.

http://www.mrm.org/law-interview

Interview with Wm. Law. March. 30, 1887

Dr. William Law lives with his son, Judge “Tommy” Law. The house is a fine cottage, large, well-kept grounds surround it. We entered a cheerful looking room and there sat William Law, dressed in black, a most venerable looking figure. The head has a striking expression of intelligence, the large clear eyes are of a remarkably deep steel blue; the general impression is that of a thinker, of a benevolent and just man. He greeted me in a fatherly way. I expressed my joy at seeing at last so important a witness of a history, to whose study I had devoted two years.

I sat down near the venerable figure. I hesitated to put any question to him, but he made my task easy by saying: “You speak, in your book, of Joseph Smith having sent Rockwell to kill Governor Boggs. Let me tell you, that Joe Smith, told me the fact himself. The words were substantially like this, “I sent Rockwell to kill Boggs, but he missed him, it was a failure; he wounded him instead of sending him to Hell.”

This beginning gave me some courage and I began the pumping business, in a cautious way, though, that I might not frighten my subject. I had put down in my notebook a score of questions or so. So I glanced over them now and then, stealthily, and ventured this or that question, waiting till the good doctor would get warm in the recollections of the past. This happened soon and then I could ask with more liberty.

“What position had Rockwell in Joseph’s house?”

“Rockwell was the lackey of the house. He used to comb and shave Joseph, blackened his boots and drove his carriage. He would have done anything Joe wanted him to do. I never saw a horse or carriage belonging to Rockwell which you say he got from Joseph for the attempt to kill Boggs.”

The reader will easily understand that I had particular reasons to ask about the Expositor, Wm. Law being the only surviving publisher and editor of that celebrated sheet, born and killed June 7th, 1844. So I began:

“I suppose that you originated the Expositor, Doctor Law?”

“Yes, I originated the idea to publish that paper. I had friends in many parts of the country. They knew that I had become a member of the Mormon religion. I wanted to show them, by publishing the paper, that I had not been in a fraud willingly (here the old man’s eyes filled with tears and his voice trembled). I started the idea, and my brother, Wilson, stood to me like a brother should. I don’t remember whether it was I, or not, who gave the name “Expositor.” But I and my brother, we gave the money, about $2000. I gave the biggest part. The Higbees etc., had scarcely a dollar in it.”

“You were well off at that time. Dr. Law?”

“We had property to the amount of about $30,000, which was a good deal in those days. We had farms in Nauvoo, city lots and our residences. My brother had a fine brick two story building. By starting the Expositor we lost nearly everything.”

“Didn’t you have a store and a mill?”

“Yes, we had a large steam flour and saw mill and a store. It would have been the smart thing to do, to remain quiet, sell our property without noise for what we could get and move away. That would have been smart, but I wasn’t cool and smart then. I wanted to do my duty and nothing else, and didn’t care for the consequences, not a bit. Many friends advised me to be smart and remain quiet, but I would not hear of it and spoke my mind whenever an opportunity offered. When the Smiths saw that we were against them, then they applied to us their usual system, that is, to freeze us out. Secret orders went out that nobody could buy property without the permission of Joseph Smith, Hyrum or the authorities, as they called them, so our property was practically worthless. Yes, my brother Wilson stood to me like a man, fully, fearlessly. He died, here in Shullsburgh, of a stroke of apoplexy, after an illness of three days, ten years ago. He was a very fine and tremendously strong man. He wrestled with Joe in Nauvoo and threw him on his back.”

“How did you become a Mormon, Doctor?”

“John Taylor and Almon W. Babbitt came as missionaries to Canada and preached where I lived, twenty-five miles south of Toronto. I believe that Taylor was sincere then and I believe he was to a late day. Finally the greed of power and money killed his conscience. There was, now and then, a good man in Mormondom, for instance Wm. Marks. He was a very good man and knew as little of the secret crimes of the leaders as I knew myself.”

“The letters you wrote me, made me suppose that the Smiths tried to kill you when they saw an enemy in you?”

“They tried to get rid of me in different ways. One was by poisoning. I was already out of the church when Hyrum called one day and invited me for the next day to a reconciliation dinner as he called it, to his house. He said Joseph would come, too. He invited me and my wife. He was very urgent about the matter, but I declined the invitation. Now I must tell you that I, in those dangerous days, did not neglect to look out somewhat for the safety of my person and that I kept a detective or two among those who were in the confidence of the Smiths. That very same evening of the day on which Hyrum had been to my house inviting me, my detective told me that they had conceived the plan to poison me at the reconciliation dinner. Their object was a double one. My going to the dinner would have shown to the people that I was reconciled and my death would have freed them of an enemy. You may imagine that I didn’t regret having declined that amiable invitation.”

“Have you had any knowledge of cases of poisoning in Nauvoo, ordered by the authorities?”

“I know that several men, six or seven, died under very suspicious circumstances. Among them were two secretaries of the prophet, Mulholland and Blaskel Thompson. I saw Mulholland die and the symptoms looked very suspicious to me. Dr. Foster, who was a very good physician, believed firmly that those six or seven men had been poisoned, and told me so repeatedly.”

“What may have been the reason for poisoning the secretaries?”

(With a smile) “They knew too much, probably.”

“What do you know about the Dani
tes?”

“Nothing of my personal knowledge. They existed, but their workings were kept very secret. I never belonged to the initiated. Smith tried very hard to get them to kill me. One day my detective told me, that two Danites had gone to Joseph and told him that they wanted to put me out of the way. Joseph said: “Don’t–he (Law) is too influential; his death would bring the country down upon us; wait.” Later when I was thoroughly aware of my danger, they tried in all manners to use me up and had Danites all day and night after me, but I looked out and kept myself safe. Whatever there was of crime in Nauvoo, was kept secret. On the outside everything looked nice and smooth. There were lots of strangers every Sunday as visitors and then the best speakers were put on the stand as samples of the fruits of this fine religion.”

“Did Emma, the elect lady, come to your house and complain about Joseph?”

“No. She never came to my house for that purpose. But I met her sometimes on the street and then she used to complain, especially because of the girls whom Joseph kept in the house, devoting his attention to them. You have overrated her, she was dishonest.”

“Do you mean to say that she was so outside of the influence Joseph had over her?”

“Yes, that is exactly what I mean. Let me tell you a case that will be full proof to you. Soon after my arrive in Nauvoo the two L[awrence] girls came to the holy city, two very young girls, 15 to 17 years of age. They had been converted in Canada, were orphans and worth about $8000 in English gold. Joseph got to be appointed their Guardian, probably with the help of Dr. Bennett. He naturally put the gold in his pocket and had the Girls sealed to him. He asked me to go on his bond as a guardian, as Sidney Rigdon had done. “It is only a formality,” he said. Foolishly enough, and not yet suspecting anything, I put my name on the paper. Emma complained about Joseph’s living with the L[awrence] girls, but not very violently. It is my conviction that she was his full accomplice, that she was not a bit better than he. When I saw how things went I should have taken steps to be released of that bond, but I never thought of it. After Joseph’s death, A. W. Babbitt became guardian of the two girls. He asked Emma for a settlement about the $8000. Emma said she had nothing to do with her husband’s debts. Now Babbitt asked for the books and she gave them to him. Babbitt found that Joseph had counted an expense of about $3000 for board and clothing of the girls. Now Babbitt wanted the $5000 that was to be paid Babbitt, who was a straight, good, honest, sincere man, set about to find out property to pay the $5000 with. He could find none. Two splendid farms near Nauvoo, a big brick house, worth from $3000 to $4000, the hotel kept by Joe, a mass of vacant town lots, all were in Emma’s name, not transferred later, but transferred from the beginning. She always looked out for her part. When I saw how things stood I wrote to Babbitt to take hold of all the property left by me in Nauvoo and of all claims held by me again in people in Nauvoo. And so the debt was paid by me–Emma didn’t pay a cent.”

We had chatted about an hour when Dr. Law said that he felt a little tired. I kept silent for a few minutes. The old gentleman rallied very soon, and began to speak without being questioned.

“I told you that the Smiths tried to poison me. When Joseph saw that I had no great appetite for reconciliation dinners, he tried with the Indians. The plan was, that somebody should use me up who was not openly connected with the church, he was yet afraid of the people because of my influence. Later he would have killed me without any regard. One day about one hundred redskins came to town and twenty or thirty were sent to my house. We tried to get rid of them, but could not and we saw clearly that they had a dark plan for the night. But we had to keep them, gave them blankets and they were all night in our hall. Wilson Law, I and some friends, though, kept good watch all night, with barricaded windows and doors and guns and pistols ready.”

“You have known the parents of the prophet, old Lucy and old Joe, the Abraham of this new dispensation?”

“Oh, yes, I knew them. Old Lucy was in her dotage at that time; she seemed a harmless old woman. Old Joe sold blessings, so much a head, always in the same style–that my sons should be emperors and my daughters mothers of queens, and that everybody should have as many children as there was sands on the shore. Old Joe was an old tramp.”

“How about Dr. Bennett?”

“Bennett was very smart and clever, but a thorough scoundrel. Never could find out the reason of his downfall. Mrs. Pratt was a most excellent, pure woman, but the fact that Bennett visited her sometimes, was used by Joseph to ruin her character. He had his spies everywhere, and if a woman refused him, he sent his fellows out to whisper stories around about her.”

“What do you remember about Emma’s relations to the revelation on celestial marriage?”

“Well, I told you that she used to complain to me about Joseph’s escapades whenever she met me on the street. She spoke repeatedly about that pretended revelation. She said once: “The revelation says I must submit or be destroyed. Well, I guess I have to submit.” On another day she said: “Joe and I have settled our troubles on the basis of equal rights.” * * * Emma was a full accomplice of Joseph’s crimes. She was a large, coarse woman, as deep a woman as there was, always full of schemes and smooth as oil. They were worthy of each other, she was not a particle better than he.”

“You think that Joseph was an infidel?”

“Yes, that he was I have not the slightest doubt. What proofs have I? Well, my general and intimate knowledge of his character. And is it possible that a man who ascribes all kinds of impudent lies to the Lord, could have been anything else but an infidel?”

“Did you ever see the celebrated peepstone?”

“No. I never saw it and I never saw Joseph giving a revelation. But Hyrum told me once that Joseph, in his younger years, used to hunt for hidden treasures with a peepstone.”

“Was Joseph a habitual drunkard?”

“I don’t believe he was. I only saw him drunk once. I found Joseph and Hyrum at a place where they kept quantities of wine. I remember that Joseph drank heavily, and that I talked to Hyrum begging him to take his brother away, but that was the only time I saw the prophet drunk.”

“Have you ever heard of the old woman that was drowned in the interest of the church?”

“I have heard of a woman being put aside. They said she had been brought over the river and buried on an island near the shore or on the other shore, near the water. But at that time I did not believe a word of rumors of this kind, and did not investigate them.”

“Did you ever hear of abortion being practiced in Nauvoo?”

“Yes. There was some talk about Joseph getting no issue from all the women he had intercourse with. Dr. Foster spoke to me about the fact. But I don’t remember what was told about abortion. If I heard things of the kind, I didn’t believe in them at that time. Joseph was very free in his talk about his women. He told me one day of a certain girl and remarked, that she had given him more pleasure than any girl he had ever enjoyed. I told him it was horrible to talk like this.”

“What do you know about robbery being practiced for the benefit of the church?”

“That sort of business was kept very secret. Hyrum had once a very fine, brand new blue suit, and people told me the suit was the produce of the spoils of the Gentiles. I have no doubt, that Hyrum played an important role in this department of church affairs. I think I can prove it. There was one day a “little council” called in Hyrum’s office, and I was invited to come. Joseph called at my house and took me to the little council. Eight or ten were present, all leaders in the church. Hyrum made a long a
rgument–said he: “The Missourians have robbed, plundered and murdered our people. We should take our revenge on them as thoroughly as possible, and regain what we have lost in Missouri. The simplest way would be if our people would go to Missouri and buy their horses and cattle on credit and then not pay for them; and our merchants would go to St Louis and take their large quantities of goods on credit and then, when the notes became due, simply not pay them; our people always go there and pay for everything. That’s foolish, very foolish, but it is just the thing that, for instance, Brother Law is doing. He has paid thousands of dollars there; but get all these things from them for nothing, horses, cattle and goods, that would help the people wonderfully. Our merchants should transfer all they have–not only their stock in trade, but their lots, houses and farms, too; to their wives and friends in general, so that the creditors could not get a cent out of them.” Some of those present applauded the proposition, and said that would be only fair. I said nothing. Then somebody said: Brother Law has said nothing. I said: This seems to me not only wrong and unjust, but at the same time very ridiculous, because it is not practicable. You cannot buy horses and cattle on credit without having established a credit by long trading; and as to St. Louis, I was always of the opinion that the people there had been very good to the Mormons. So you would ruin your friends to injure your enemies, punish the innocent to hurt the guilty. The St. Louis merchants were surely not the men that persecuted you in Missouri. Hyrum got up, furious. ready to attack me. But Joseph rose and said: “I move that we adjourn this meeting. Brother Law has said his opinion, and that is all you wanted from him. Joseph went home with me and on the way he told me that he shared my views fully, and that I had exactly spoken his mind. He praised me very much for the justice and honesty of my views. ‘I did not talk,’ said he, ‘since you took the very words from my lips.’ I need not tell you, that this was diplomacy on Joseph’s part, but Hyrum hated me from that moment, and never forgave me for what I had said at that little council. But Hyrum hated me for another reason.”

“Was that in the robbery line, too?”

“No. That was from a political reason. It was because I opposed him in the dirty political trade he made with Hoge against Walker. Walker had bought Joseph’s influence by declaring that the city charter of Nauvoo secured the habeas corpus. I stood by them when Joseph promised that he should have nine out of every ten Mormon votes. But Hyrum went to Galena to meet the Democratic convention there, and promised the support of the church to Mr. Hoge for a seat in Congress. Yes, General Hyrum Smith was to sit in Congress next year. Saturday came and I went to Hyrum and had a talk with him. He said he would tell the people to vote for Hoge, and I said I would oppose him on the stand. He made objections but finally had to consent to my speaking on the stand in this matter. When it came to the speaking in public Hyrum did all he could to obstruct me by putting longwinded speakers on the stand, one after the other, so that it was nearly dark when I got on the stand. Now, I showed the people how shamefully they had treated Mr. Walker, and I made such an impression that they began to shout for Mr. Walker. Then, Hyrum jumped on the stand and declared that he had a revelation from the Lord, that the people should vote for Mr. Hoge. This was Saturday. Sunday morning I went to Joseph and told him what Hyrum had done. We went over to the meeting and Joseph told Hyrum what I had said. Hyrum insisted that he had had a revelation. Oh, said Joseph, if this is a revelation, then it is all right, and he went on the stand and said to the people: ‘My office is so high, that I could not think of bothering the Lord with political affairs. But brother Hyrum has had a revelation–when the Lord speaks let the people obey.'”

“Had you ever some dramatic scene with Joseph about the difficulties between you and him?”

“He avoided me. But once I got hold of him in the street and told him in very plain terms what I thought of him. I said: ‘You are a hypocrite and a vulgar scoundrel, you want to destroy me.’ Instead of knocking me down, which he could have done very easily, being so much bigger and stronger than I, he went away hurriedly without uttering a single word.”

“Were you in Nauvoo when the Expositor was destroyed?”

“No. I was in Carthage. There was a meeting at the court house, many people were present and it was considered what should be done regarding the Mormons. I think Stephen A. Douglas was present at the meeting. My friends urged me to come to Carthage with the press immediately. No conclusion was arrived at, however. The same evening we went home and when we came to Nauvoo we rode over our type, that was scattered in the street, and over our broken office furniture. The work of Joseph’s agents had been very complete; it had been done bv a mob of about 200. The building, a new, pretty brick structure, had been perfectly gutted, not a bit had been left of anything.”

“Had anything been prepared for a second number?”

“Yes, the inside of number two had been set up. Seeing what had been done, I my abode, for safety’s sake, at my brother’s. I left Nauvoo on a large new steam ferry-boat, which transported me, my family and my brother to Burlington, Iowa. While we had people packing our things in my house, we rode, my brother and I, through the city in an open carriage, to show that we were not afraid.”

“Did you ever see Joseph again after you left Nauvoo?”

“Only once. I saw him in Carthage at the trial. We spoke not to each other and he seemed greatly preoccupied. We left Nauvoo on the second day after the passing of the ordinance which put the press under the absolute will of Joseph and his creatures. This ordinance gave them power to imprison and fine us at liberty.”

“What opinion have you of Governor Ford?”

“Ford made a good impression upon me; he was surely a good, straight man.”

“What kind of a life did the prophet lead in Nauvoo?”

“Joseph lived in great plenty. He entertained his friends and had a right good time. He was a jolly fellow. I don t think that in his family tea and coffee were used, but they were served to the strangers when he entertained as tavern-keeper. At least, I suppose so. The Smiths had plenty of money. Why, when I came to Nauvoo I paid Hyrum $700 in gold for a barren lot and at that rate they sold any amount of lots after having got the land very cheap, to be sure Their principle was to weaken a man in his purse, and in this way take power and influence from him. Weaken everybody, that was their motto. Joseph’s maxim was, when you have taken all the money a fellow has got, you can do with him whatever you please.”

“What became of Dr. Bennett?”

“The last thing I heard of him was that he went up the river with a large lot of fancy fowls, a speculation of his.”

“What do you know about the revelation on polygamy?”

“The way I heard of it was that Hyrum gave it to me to read. I was never in a High Council where it was read, all stories to the contrary notwithstanding. Hyrum gave it to me in his office, told me to take it home and read it and then be careful with it and bring it back again. I took it home, and read it and showed it to my wife. She and I were just turned upside down by it; we did not know what to do. I said to my wife, that I would take it over to Joseph and ask him about it. I did not believe that he would acknowledge it, and I said so to my wife. But she was not of my opinion. She felt perfectly sure that he would father it. When I came to Joseph and showed him the paper, he said: ‘Yes, that is a genuine revelation.’ I said to the prophet: ‘But in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants there is a revelation just the contrary of this.’ ‘Oh,’ said Joseph, ‘that was given
when the church was in its infancy, then it was all right to feed the people on milk, but now it is necessary to give them strong meat’ We talked a long time about it, finally our discussion became very hot and we gave it up. From that time on the breach between us became more open and more decided every day, after having been prepared for a long time. But the revelation gave the finishing touch to my doubts and showed me clearly that he was a rascal. I took the revelation back to my wife and told her that Joseph had acknowledged it. ‘That is what I fully expected.’ said she. ‘What shall we do?’ said I. She advised me to keep still try to sell my property quietly for what I could get. But I did not follow her advice. My heart was burning. I wanted to tread upon the viper.”

“You returned the revelation to Hyrum?”

“Yes, I did. I was astonished to see in your book that the revelation was such a long document. I remember DISTINCTLY that the original given me by Hyrum was MUCH SHORTER. It covered not more than two or three pages of foolscap. The contents are substantially the same, but there was not that theological introduction. The thing consisted simply in the command of doing it, and that command was restricted to the High Priesthood and to virgins and widows. But as to Joseph, himself, the Lord’s chosen servant, it was restricted to virgins only, to clean vessels, from which to procure a pure seed to the Lord.”

“In what manner would Joseph succeed to keep you and others from knowing what was going on behind the curtain?”

“Marks, Yves, I and some others had, for a long time, no idea of the depravity that was going on. This was simply the result of a very smart system adopted by the prophet and his intimate friends like Brigham Young, Kimball and others. They first tried a man to see whether they could make a criminal tool out of him. When they felt that he would not be the stuff to make a criminal of, they kept him outside the inner circle and used him to show him up as an example of their religion, as a good, virtuous, universally respected brother.”

“Was Joseph a coward?”

“Yes, he was a coward and so was Hyrum. You see it already in the fact that when I attacked him on the street with most violent words, he did not dare to answer a word.”

“How did the prophets dress?”

“Joe and Hyrum were always dressed well, generally in blue, sometimes in black. Joseph was a fine man, no doubt of it.”

“How was it with Joseph’s wrestling?”

“The forces of the prophet in this line have been exaggerated. My brother Wilson wrestled once with him and he laid him down on the floor like a baby. Wilson could throw a lead bar much farther than Joe could. But Wilson was an uncommonly fine and strong man, over 6 feet. He could hold a weight of 56 pounds on his little finger and write his name on the wall in big letters. Joseph was flabby; he never worked at anything and that probably made him so. Rockwell did everything about the house.”

“Had you any idea that there was a sort of conspiracy to kill Joseph in jail?”

“No. I had no idea, no idea. I had been ruined by that man; all my property was gone; all my dearest illusions destroyed, and through my connection with him I got a black spot on my life, which will pain me to the very last minute of my existence. But I tell you [The old gentlemen buried his head in his hands and when he removed them, his eyes were wet.] I tell you, no, if I had had any idea of any such scheme, I would have taken steps to stop it. I have always considered the killing of Joseph Smith a wrong action. It is my opinion that he deserved his fate fully, much more than thousands of men who paid the penalty of their crime to Judge Lynch–but I would have preferred that he should have been tried by court and sent to the Penitentiary.”

“Did you practice medicine in Nauvoo, Doctor?”

“Only occasionally. I came to Nauvoo with money. I had had a mill in Canada, already. Joseph said to me: ‘You must not be a doctor here. Buy lands, build mills and keep a store to keep you running. As to practicing and not making anything, let some Gentiles come and do that. You look out for business and profit. I practiced, however, occasionally. Once John Taylor was taken with a very malignant fever. He was treated by his regular physician. I think Dr. Wells was his name. He grew worse and worse. At last I was called in, saw him and prescribed for him. They followed my prescriptions and he got better. This is, I believe, the worst thing I did in Nauvoo or anywhere else!” –[Dr. Law followed this joke with a chuckle, so as to give me to understand that it was a sin to cure so great a rascal]

“What kind of men were the other editors of the Expositor?”

“Dr. Foster was a fine physician and surgeon and a very agreeable, lively, interesting man. The Higbees had been very good friends of Joseph in Missouri and had served his cause there with a kind of boyish enthusiasm. Frank died long ago and Chauncey only lately. He had studied law, was an attorney and sat on the bench for a while. He was quite intelligent. The father of the Higbees had been an excellent man. He died rather suddenly, and from that time there was something between his boys and Joseph.”

“What kind of a physician was Dr. Bennett?”

“He was a physician of the old school. I could not say whether he was very successful as a doctor or not. He was so much occupied for Joseph, that he had no time to attend the sick.”

“Did Joseph pay any salary to this Bismarck of his?”

“I don’t know, but in that honeymoon of favor, which he enjoyed in his first Nauvoo time, Joseph gave him surely all he wanted.”

“Did you ever hear Joseph speak of his money?”

“Oh yes, he used to boast of his riches. He expressed the opinion, that it was all-important that he should be rich. I heard him say myself, ‘it would be better that every man in the church should lose his last cent, than that I should fall and go down.'”

After pumping the dear, good old Doctor for two hours. I relaxed my hold on him and our conversation began to run on in an easier style. He made some interesting remarks, still, indeed he didn’t say anything that wasn’t interesting, every instance bearing the strong impress of his keen intelligence and interesting strong, manly character. Let me quote one more detail. Said Wm. Law: “What saved me from death in 1844 was, 1, my caution; 2, the devotion of my detectives and 3, Joseph himself. He had inculcated into the minds of his followers the rule, that the “heads” of the church must be safe before all. This became a strong superstition in the minds of his people, so strong that they did not dare to touch me. And he himself feared me so much because of my popularity and good standing, that he tried for a long time to put me out of the way in a manner that the church could not be charged with it. At last, however, he became desperate and would have killed me in any manner–but then it was too late in the day.”

setyourselffree · Post by **setyourselffree** » February 17th, 2019, 3:45 pm

So what are your thoughts on this? Do you believe it? Very odd that you give no commentary instead you just post this.

LukeAir2008 · Post by **LukeAir2008** » February 17th, 2019, 4:16 pm

So for those who still insist that Brigham Young was the author of these doctrines, here is a summary of the doctrines of which William Law and the Nauvoo Expositor correctly accused Joseph Smith of teaching:

A plurality of gods above the God of this universe;

His ability to fall with all his creations (Adam God Doctrine)

The plurality of wives, for time and eternity;

The doctrine of unconditional sealing up to eternal life, against all crimes except that of sheding innocent blood (Calling and Election Made Sure)

Jesef · Post by **Jesef** » February 17th, 2019, 5:07 pm

setyourselffree wrote: ↑February 17th, 2019, 3:45 pm So what are your thoughts on this? Do you believe it? Very odd that you give no commentary instead you just post this.

It sounds consistent & reliable with the history, only it's provided by someone who became disaffected over the very issues he exposed. I think it very well could be true. He sounds like a real whistleblower.

Hie'ing to Kolob · February 17th, 2019, 6:54 pm

Jesef, have you read?:

https://theexonerationofemmajosephandhyrum.com

I disagree with his ultimate conclusion, but he references some excellent source documents. After reading it, I'm still not on board with the conspiracy to frame Joseph for polygamy and ultimately have him killed, but I feel like I learned a lot about the issue that I didn't know.

I'd highly recommend giving it a read to fully understand the other side of this argument (from a non-religious perspective).

There is a lot there sourced on Brigham Young and his early exposure to polygamy and a history of deception that his pretty troubling.

Again, I highly doubt he will ultimately persuade you, but I enjoyed the perspective.

ElizaRSkousen · Post by **ElizaRSkousen** » February 17th, 2019, 7:42 pm

For those who don’t know already: William law was Joseph’s 2nd counselor in he first presidency and was later excommunicated. He had serious issues with polygamy just like Emma did.

setyourselffree · Post by **setyourselffree** » February 17th, 2019, 8:51 pm

ElizaRSkousen wrote: ↑February 17th, 2019, 7:42 pm For those who don’t know already: William law was Joseph’s 2nd counselor in he first presidency and was later excommunicated. He had serious issues with polygamy just like Emma did.

Yes and I believe nothing of what he says as he was behind having the Prophet killed. He is a disgusting man much like Judas.

iWriteStuff · Post by **iWriteStuff** » February 17th, 2019, 8:58 pm

I can't believe I read that whole thing.

My two cents: If there was a "Book of Laman" to rival the Book of Nephi, it would look a lot like William Law's writings. The truth is with the Lord. Ask Him.

That being said, I understand the purpose of this thread is to substantiate the claims that Joseph practiced polygamy. Having read "Rough Stone Rolling", I already believed that.

nvr · Post by **nvr** » February 17th, 2019, 11:02 pm

William Smith's (Joseph's younger brother) wrote to his nephew, Joseph Smith III that Joseph had no part of polygamy. 12. From a post I made at the time:

nvr wrote: ↑May 7th, 2018, 1:59 pm ...William (Smith) was away on a mission to the East when Joseph was killed. While he was known to have a a temper and 'rebellious nature' at times, he remained faithful to Joseph until his death and defended his name.
The article is too long to post, so here's some highlights. (more analysis and quotes at this link )

(letter to Josephs Smith III) Joseph; Dear Nephew:—Several times I have taken the pen to write you on the subject of this caption, the death of the two Martyrs, and the principal causes that led to their death. But the causes have been so misunderstood and I have felt so diffident about writing the facts in the case as I understand them, that I have refrained from the task, for fear that the circumstances I have to name might throw a back [black] influence upon the character of the man whom we all esteem as the prophet of God; and the longer I have put this matter off, the more and more I have felt it impressed upon my mind that I should write.

The history and the circumstances connected with the death of your father [Joseph Smith, Jr.], and your Uncle Hyrum, are events that transpired, for the greater part while I was residing in Philadelphia in 1842–3–4, having charge of the Church in the east. But the links in the chain of circumstances that I am about to relate were occurrences that took place while I was on a visit to Nauvoo, for the purpose of attending the April Conference in 1844.
...
I began to arrange matters to return to my family who were, as I have before stated, residing in the City of Philadelphia; and on the morning previous to my leaving Nauvoo,1

I called on your father and took breakfast with him. While seated at the table a conversation was had participated in by your mother [Emma], concerning some things that she had learned in the discharge of her mission among the Saints as one of a committee appointed by the Female Relief Society, to visit the Saints and look after the interest of the poor of [the] Church; to enquire after their occupation and financial prospect for food and means of support. In relating her report she said, that some complaint had been made to her by females whom she had visited, that John Taylor, Willard Richards, and Brigham Young had been teaching some doctrines among the Saints privately that was going to ruin the Church, unless there was a stop put to it, as it was contrary to the law and rules governing the Church. Your father remarked that he would attend to the matter as soon as he got through with his troubles with the Laws and Fosters. But mark you their conversation took place only a few days previous to your father's death. What that private teaching might have been, that those persons whom your mother named, were circulating in a clandestine manner, (since there has been so much said about a doctrine called the plural wife doctrine on this subject), I leave the reader to judge. [italics added]
One other point I wish to notice in the conversation that took place while I was eating at your father’s table, and that was, as the conversation turned upon Brigham Young, your father remarked that with regard to the charge brought against those brethren, that he expected that he would have trouble with Brigham Young, especially, and added that "should the time ever come that this man B. Young should lead the Church that he would lead it to hell." And these words I remember as plainly as though they were spoken but yesterday; as at this time I had not known that there could have been a charge of fault brought against the man. My association with this man Brigham Young for near three years previous, had been very limited, in consequence of our different localities and fields of labor.
These matters that I have thus named do not comprise the whole ground of the causes that led to your father’s death; although in part it did, as this secret evil that had crept into the Church, by means of this private teaching, gave food and material for the Expositor2 press to pour out its vials of wrath upon the head of the prophet, making him responsible for the conduct and teaching of these secret and clandestine teachers. What fixes the stain of guilt upon these parties named in this letter making them more criminally murderous, is the part that the City Council at Nauvoo took in getting up the ordinance which resulted in the destruction of the Expositor press. And I wish here to name the fact that the principal instigators in getting up that ordinance were men who feared the revelations that this organ (Expositor) was about to make of their secret and ungodly doings to the world. The persons who were most conspicuous in the work, and were the means of bringing on the scenes that finally resulted in the bloody tragedy which took place at Carthage Jail were no other than John Taylor and Willard Richards, who by constant importunities prevailed upon your father to sign his own death warrant by placing his name to that accursed ordinance which resulted in his death and the death of your Uncle Hyrum. [italics added]

To these importunities of Richards and Taylor I was a witness, and was present when Richards brought in the book containing the ordinance and asked for your father’s signature to make it a law in the City of Nauvoo. I remonstrated with Richards at the time, against my brother Joseph putting his name down in such a place, as it would most certainly result in his death. Richards, failing to secure your father’s name at this time, both he and Taylor called on your father the next morning, with feigned tears of desperation, expatiating upon the great necessity of having that Expositor removed, as a means to the further growth and prosperity not only of the City of Nauvoo, but of the cause of the Church abroad.
Thus these men, with the sophistry of their lying tongues, like wolves in sheep’s clothing, ensnared the prophet from off his watch tower, and led him as a lamb to the slaughter, they promising, also, to be his assistants in case he should fall into trouble, as a result of his name being placed to that ordinance. This accounts for the whys and the wherefores, that Taylor and Richards were both in the jail at the time your father and your uncle Hyrum were murdered. The principal reasons why these conspirators against your father’s life did not suffer the same fate that your father and your uncle Hyrum did, are, because, like cowards they hid themselves away—Taylor under a bed that was in the room where the prisoners were confined and Richards behind the door.
Thus you see, by the secret workings and secret doings of these men for years gone by, the Church was robbed of her prophet and patriarch, by a most hellish plot [a conspiracy] that had been in vogue for not only months, but years previous to the time of their deaths. When I see men whose finger stains show positive signs of their guilt in the death of the martyrs, now revelling in the spoils of the Church robbed from the innocent and unsuspecting saints, I cannot restrain my pen from writing the facts and incidents that I do know before God and man were the means of your father and uncle Hyrum’s death.

There is one more fact I will notice and that is, that however strange or great the testimony that might be brought against these men, John Taylor3 and others, in this murderous affair, the Utah Mormons would not credit it though one rose from the dead to bear witness of it, and as for the redemption of any from their blindness, who have willingly given their names in support of this great apostacy, l am in much doubt that there are many who will be saved or forsake the great error they have fallen into.

And especially do I believe this in regard to the remnants of the Smith family in Utah, whose chances for knowing the erroneous position they are in, and with ample proof from the Word of God that their whole system of church organization is founded in corruption and fraud; and still they persist in their unholy alliance with that apostate and Godforsaken people. "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
This, then, is the end of this epistle, and I conclude with many good wishes to you and to all good saints. Your brother in bonds of love. Wm. B. Smith. Kingston, Caldwell Co., Mo., March 25th, 1879. (The Saints' Herald 26 [April 15, 1879]: 117)

William Smith wrote the above letter after he became affiliated with the RLDS Church and was traveling in the mission field in Missouri with Elder Gomer T. Griffiths, who later became an apostle (see The Saints‘ Herald [October 20, 1920], 1018; ibid. [July 29, 1925], 793).

After Joseph was martyred, Brigham Young as president of the Twelve moved quickly to take control of the government of the Church. He forced President Sidney Rigdon out of the leading quorums and sent a message to William Smith, who was serving as apostle-in-charge in the East, to remain there and continue to preside over the Church in that area. With William gone and his brothers, Joseph, Hyrum, and Samuel H. Smith dead, Brigham soon obtained complete control. (Samuel died only one month and three days after his brothers were murdered at Carthage.) When William returned to Nauvoo the next year, he was ordained presiding patriarch—which removed his authority in administrative affairs. William was not long in Nauvoo before he found the extent of the Twelve and their close friends’ practicing polygamy. When he objected, he was threatened with death and found it necessary to flee for his life. He left Nauvoo and wrote a pamphlet entitled A Proclamation, in which he publicly exposed the apostles’ crimes. In his proclamation, he made several important statements which reveal the fact that the leading apostles were introducing polygamy into the Church. William wrote:

And further it can be proved that B. Young and P. P. Pratt were the first to preach and to practice the "spiritual wife" doctrine, in the city of Boston and other places, my dissent from any such doctrine of course gave annoyance [page 1, col. 2].... That the church funds have been misapplied, I have no hesitation in asserting, for of necessity I have been made acquainted with the fact, that several houses have been filled up with women who have been secretly married to Brigham Young, H. C. Kimble [Kimball], and Willard Richards—women with little children in their arms, who had no means of support except from the tithing funds [which these apostles controlled].... I heard my brother Joseph declare before his death, that Brigham Young was a man, whose passions, if unrestrained, were calculated to make him the most licentious man in the world [page 1, col. 4].... And to complete this man’s [Brigham’s] reign of power, there was adopted, as I have before alluded to, the system of spiritual wifery, which was entered into secretly.... Men’s wives and daughters were secretly married at night-time to this Young, H. C. Kimball, William [Willard] Richards, and others, and, in the dark night, were attending the secret lodges, until most of the "Seventies" were thus sealed and bound under a cloak of adopting children into their kingdoms.... [I)t was the common practice for these wicked plotters to boldly and blasphemously proclaim before people, in the presence, too of hundreds that had been "sealed up" to them, that such a doctrine [as polygamy] was false, and he that practiced it was a scoundrel, and the woman that admitted it, no other than a harlot.

I declare to you, my brethren, that I heard John Taylor proclaim this on one occasion, so vociferously as almost to turn him black in the face, while in a day or two afterwards he was seen sneaking through a garden, to get into a house by the back way to visit his ‘spiritual wives’ [page 1, col. 6]. (William Smith, A Proclamation, Warsaw Signal, Warsaw, Illinois [October 29, 1845], page 1, columns 2,4, 6)
William Smith was apparently not a huge fan of B. Young, J. Taylor, or W. Richards. His take on this time period, for what it is worth, does seem to agree with some of the conclusions pointed at by the original posts in this thread asserting that changes were made to early church history. I'm glad that the Church, as a whole, has moved away from the non-doctrinal teachings / practices that were introduced. I'm hopeful they'll take the opportunity soon to re-examine the history here and lay bare the truth and put this topic to rest so we can all move on.

nvr · Post by **nvr** » February 17th, 2019, 11:46 pm

William Law had previously confronted Dr. J.C. Bennet, about his claiming to young women that Joseph had given authorization to pursue his illicit activities. When questioned directly, Bennett admitted to adultery, but that Joseph 'never taught him such doctrines' and that he'd never told people that Joseph had taught any such things. Law changed his tone later though in the Expositor saying essentially Joseph was in fact guilty of doing/teaching what Bennett said he was innocent of. Of course, Bennett changed his tone later as well, accusing Joseph of every kind of crime.

Affidavit of [President] Wm. Law.

I believe it was on the evening of the 11th day of May ...I had some conversation with J. C. Bennett and intimated to him that such a thing [as his expulsion] was concluded upon, which intimation I presume led him to withdraw immediately. I told him we could not bear with his conduct any longer—that there were many witnesses against him, and that they stated that he gave Joseph Smith as authority for his illicit intercourse with females. J. C. Bennett declared to me before God that Joseph Smith had never taught him such doctrines, and that he never told any one that he (Joseph Smith) had taught any such things, and that any one who said so told base lies; nevertheless, he said he had done wrong, that he would not deny, but he would deny that he had used Joseph Smith's name to accomplish his designs on any one; stating that he had no need of that, for that he could succeed without telling them that Joseph approbated such conduct.... He plead with me to intercede for him, assuring me that he would turn from his iniquity, and never would be guilty of such crimes again.... I accordingly went to Joseph Smith and plead with him to spare Bennett from public exposure, on account of his mother. On many occasions I heard him acknowledge his guilt, and beg not to be destroyed in the eyes of the public, and that he would never act so again, "So help him God." From such promises, and oaths, I was induced to bear with him longer than I should have done.

On one occasion I heard him state before the city Council that Joseph Smith had never taught him any unrighteous principles, of any kind, and that if any one says that he ever said that Joseph taught such things they are base liars, or words to that effect. This statement he made voluntarily; he came into the council room about an hour after the council opened, and made the statement, not under duress, but of his own free will, as many witnesses can testify.

On a former occasion he came to me and told me that a friend of his was about to be tried by the High Council, for the crime of adultery, and that he feared his name would be brought into question.—He entreated me to go to the council and prevent his name from being brought forward, as, said he, "I am not on trial, and I do not want my mother to hear of these things, for she is a good woman."

I would further state that I do know from the amount of evidence which stands against J. C. Bennett, and from his own acknowledgements, that he is a most corrupt, base, and vile man; and that he has published many base falsehoods since we withdrew the hand of fellowship from him.

About the time that John C. Bennett was brought before the Masonic Lodge he came to me and desired that I would go in company with B. Young, to Hyrum Smith, and entreat of him to spare him—that he wished not to be exposed.... WM. LAW. (ibid., 872–873)

cab · Post by **cab** » February 18th, 2019, 12:26 am

nvr wrote: ↑February 17th, 2019, 11:46 pm William Law had previously confronted Dr. J.C. Bennet, about his claiming to young women that Joseph had given authorization to pursue his illicit activities. When questioned directly, Bennett admitted to adultery, but that Joseph 'never taught him such doctrines' and that he'd never told people that Joseph had taught any such things. Law changed his tone later though in the Expositor saying essentially Joseph was in fact guilty of doing/teaching what Bennett said he was innocent of. Of course, Bennett changed his tone later as well, accusing Joseph of every kind of crime.

Affidavit of [President] Wm. Law.

I believe it was on the evening of the 11th day of May ...I had some conversation with J. C. Bennett and intimated to him that such a thing [as his expulsion] was concluded upon, which intimation I presume led him to withdraw immediately. I told him we could not bear with his conduct any longer—that there were many witnesses against him, and that they stated that he gave Joseph Smith as authority for his illicit intercourse with females. J. C. Bennett declared to me before God that Joseph Smith had never taught him such doctrines, and that he never told any one that he (Joseph Smith) had taught any such things, and that any one who said so told base lies; nevertheless, he said he had done wrong, that he would not deny, but he would deny that he had used Joseph Smith's name to accomplish his designs on any one; stating that he had no need of that, for that he could succeed without telling them that Joseph approbated such conduct.... He plead with me to intercede for him, assuring me that he would turn from his iniquity, and never would be guilty of such crimes again.... I accordingly went to Joseph Smith and plead with him to spare Bennett from public exposure, on account of his mother. On many occasions I heard him acknowledge his guilt, and beg not to be destroyed in the eyes of the public, and that he would never act so again, "So help him God." From such promises, and oaths, I was induced to bear with him longer than I should have done.

On one occasion I heard him state before the city Council that Joseph Smith had never taught him any unrighteous principles, of any kind, and that if any one says that he ever said that Joseph taught such things they are base liars, or words to that effect. This statement he made voluntarily; he came into the council room about an hour after the council opened, and made the statement, not under duress, but of his own free will, as many witnesses can testify.

On a former occasion he came to me and told me that a friend of his was about to be tried by the High Council, for the crime of adultery, and that he feared his name would be brought into question.—He entreated me to go to the council and prevent his name from being brought forward, as, said he, "I am not on trial, and I do not want my mother to hear of these things, for she is a good woman."

I would further state that I do know from the amount of evidence which stands against J. C. Bennett, and from his own acknowledgements, that he is a most corrupt, base, and vile man; and that he has published many base falsehoods since we withdrew the hand of fellowship from him.

About the time that John C. Bennett was brought before the Masonic Lodge he came to me and desired that I would go in company with B. Young, to Hyrum Smith, and entreat of him to spare him—that he wished not to be exposed.... WM. LAW. (ibid., 872–873)

Don't you see the problem with what you all are saying here???? You are choosing to side with William Law and the Expositor and cite it as proof of Joseph's secret works and lies? Hopefully you are aware that Joseph denied all the claims of polygamy, Hyrum denied all the claims, and Emma denied all the claims, each to their deaths. Do you take the word of William Law over theirs? Maybe, just maybe, this is all evidence that there was a conspiracy afoot. Yes, somebody was definitely practicing and teaching polygamy in the secret chambers..... But is it so dificult to consider that Satan may have been combining against the prophet and the Saints,
with secret works of whoredoms and murder, just as the Book of Mormon foretold! Jesus had a Judas, could not have Joseph had half a quorum of them? Study about the Cochranites, PLEASE!!! That is where the term spiritual wifery came from!

If we are wrong about polygamy, how bad would this look in the eyes of the Lord? We have a PERFECT case study in Jacob 1 showing that immediately after Nephi died, the Nephites turned to polygamy and were seriously cursed for the abomination. This would not leave us guiltless for placing this blame on Joseph, shortly after his death. Would his blood not cry from the ground against them?

Can we not keep an open mind while examining all the evidence instead of using it as proof to back our presupposed conclusions? Let us be very careful about how we treat the Lord's anointed... Yes, Joseph is and was the only anointed one of the Lord, by the literal hands of angels in this dispensation.

nvr · Post by **nvr** » February 18th, 2019, 12:45 am

caburnha wrote:
nvr wrote: ↑February 17th, 2019, 11:46 pm William Law had previously confronted Dr. J.C. Bennet, about his claiming to young women that Joseph had given authorization to pursue his illicit activities. When questioned directly, Bennett admitted to adultery, but that Joseph 'never taught him such doctrines' and that he'd never told people that Joseph had taught any such things. Law changed his tone later though in the Expositor saying essentially Joseph was in fact guilty of doing/teaching what Bennett said he was innocent of. Of course, Bennett changed his tone later as well, accusing Joseph of every kind of crime.

Affidavit of [President] Wm. Law.

I believe it was on the evening of the 11th day of May ...I had some conversation with J. C. Bennett and intimated to him that such a thing [as his expulsion] was concluded upon, which intimation I presume led him to withdraw immediately. I told him we could not bear with his conduct any longer—that there were many witnesses against him, and that they stated that he gave Joseph Smith as authority for his illicit intercourse with females. J. C. Bennett declared to me before God that Joseph Smith had never taught him such doctrines, and that he never told any one that he (Joseph Smith) had taught any such things, and that any one who said so told base lies; nevertheless, he said he had done wrong, that he would not deny, but he would deny that he had used Joseph Smith's name to accomplish his designs on any one; stating that he had no need of that, for that he could succeed without telling them that Joseph approbated such conduct.... He plead with me to intercede for him, assuring me that he would turn from his iniquity, and never would be guilty of such crimes again.... I accordingly went to Joseph Smith and plead with him to spare Bennett from public exposure, on account of his mother. On many occasions I heard him acknowledge his guilt, and beg not to be destroyed in the eyes of the public, and that he would never act so again, "So help him God." From such promises, and oaths, I was induced to bear with him longer than I should have done.

On one occasion I heard him state before the city Council that Joseph Smith had never taught him any unrighteous principles, of any kind, and that if any one says that he ever said that Joseph taught such things they are base liars, or words to that effect. This statement he made voluntarily; he came into the council room about an hour after the council opened, and made the statement, not under duress, but of his own free will, as many witnesses can testify.

On a former occasion he came to me and told me that a friend of his was about to be tried by the High Council, for the crime of adultery, and that he feared his name would be brought into question.—He entreated me to go to the council and prevent his name from being brought forward, as, said he, "I am not on trial, and I do not want my mother to hear of these things, for she is a good woman."

I would further state that I do know from the amount of evidence which stands against J. C. Bennett, and from his own acknowledgements, that he is a most corrupt, base, and vile man; and that he has published many base falsehoods since we withdrew the hand of fellowship from him.

About the time that John C. Bennett was brought before the Masonic Lodge he came to me and desired that I would go in company with B. Young, to Hyrum Smith, and entreat of him to spare him—that he wished not to be exposed.... WM. LAW. (ibid., 872–873)

Don't you see the problem with what you all are saying here???? You are choosing to side with William Law and the Expositor and cite it as proof of Joseph's secret works and lies? Hopefully you are aware that Joseph denied all the claims of polygamy, Hyrum denied all the claims, and Emma denied all the claims, each to their deaths. Do you take the word of William Law over theirs? Maybe, just maybe, this is all evidence that there was a conspiracy afoot. Yes, somebody was definitely practicing and teaching polygamy in the secret chambers..... But is it so dificult to consider that Satan may have been combining against the prophet and the Saints,
with secret works of whoredoms and murder, just as the Book of Mormon foretold! Jesus had a Judas, could not have Joseph had half a quorum of them? Study about the Cochranites, PLEASE!!! That is where the term spiritual wifery came from!

If we are wrong about polygamy, how bad would this look in the eyes of the Lord? We have a PERFECT case study in Jacob 1 showing that immediately after Nephi died, the Nephites turned to polygamy and were seriously cursed for the abomination. This would not leave us guiltless for placing this blame on Joseph, shortly after his death. Would his blood not cry from the ground against them?

Can we not keep an open mind while examining all the evidence instead of using it as proof to back our presupposed conclusions? Let us be very careful about how we treat the Lord's anointed... Yes, Joseph is and was the only anointed one of the Lord, by the literal hands of angels in this dispensation.

What I'm saying is, Law and Bennett each reversed on their statements. Bennett appeared to be a crook all around and was telling the truth when he said Joseph never taught him anything. I think it likely Law reversed because he developed some vendetta from a falling out he had with Joseph and he was making stuff up for the expositor. I think Joseph was innocent, that he actually fought polygamy and these other men putting out the Expositor were not printing the truth.

Robin Hood · Post by **Robin Hood** » February 18th, 2019, 12:58 am

I find it more than a little odd that those who claim Joseph was the originator of the practice of polygamy in the church, rely on the evidence of Bennett and Law et al. To say these characters were unfriendly to the Prophet and the Mormon people is an understatement.

No doubt when they find a copy of the Nazareth Expositor by Judas Iscariot, we'll finally have the truth about this Jesus character.

Davka · Post by **Davka** » February 18th, 2019, 9:33 am

Robin Hood wrote: ↑February 18th, 2019, 12:58 am I find it more than a little odd that those who claim Joseph was the originator of the practice of polygamy in the church, rely on the evidence of Bennett and Law et al. To say these characters were unfriendly to the Prophet and the Mormon people is an understatement.

No doubt when they find a copy of the Nazareth Expositor by Judas Iscariot, we'll finally have the truth about this Jesus character.

**Applause**

cab · Post by **cab** » February 18th, 2019, 4:06 pm

nvr wrote: ↑February 18th, 2019, 12:45 am
caburnha wrote:
nvr wrote: ↑February 17th, 2019, 11:46 pm William Law had previously confronted Dr. J.C. Bennet, about his claiming to young women that Joseph had given authorization to pursue his illicit activities. When questioned directly, Bennett admitted to adultery, but that Joseph 'never taught him such doctrines' and that he'd never told people that Joseph had taught any such things. Law changed his tone later though in the Expositor saying essentially Joseph was in fact guilty of doing/teaching what Bennett said he was innocent of. Of course, Bennett changed his tone later as well, accusing Joseph of every kind of crime.

Affidavit of [President] Wm. Law.

I believe it was on the evening of the 11th day of May ...I had some conversation with J. C. Bennett and intimated to him that such a thing [as his expulsion] was concluded upon, which intimation I presume led him to withdraw immediately. I told him we could not bear with his conduct any longer—that there were many witnesses against him, and that they stated that he gave Joseph Smith as authority for his illicit intercourse with females. J. C. Bennett declared to me before God that Joseph Smith had never taught him such doctrines, and that he never told any one that he (Joseph Smith) had taught any such things, and that any one who said so told base lies; nevertheless, he said he had done wrong, that he would not deny, but he would deny that he had used Joseph Smith's name to accomplish his designs on any one; stating that he had no need of that, for that he could succeed without telling them that Joseph approbated such conduct.... He plead with me to intercede for him, assuring me that he would turn from his iniquity, and never would be guilty of such crimes again.... I accordingly went to Joseph Smith and plead with him to spare Bennett from public exposure, on account of his mother. On many occasions I heard him acknowledge his guilt, and beg not to be destroyed in the eyes of the public, and that he would never act so again, "So help him God." From such promises, and oaths, I was induced to bear with him longer than I should have done.

On one occasion I heard him state before the city Council that Joseph Smith had never taught him any unrighteous principles, of any kind, and that if any one says that he ever said that Joseph taught such things they are base liars, or words to that effect. This statement he made voluntarily; he came into the council room about an hour after the council opened, and made the statement, not under duress, but of his own free will, as many witnesses can testify.

On a former occasion he came to me and told me that a friend of his was about to be tried by the High Council, for the crime of adultery, and that he feared his name would be brought into question.—He entreated me to go to the council and prevent his name from being brought forward, as, said he, "I am not on trial, and I do not want my mother to hear of these things, for she is a good woman."

I would further state that I do know from the amount of evidence which stands against J. C. Bennett, and from his own acknowledgements, that he is a most corrupt, base, and vile man; and that he has published many base falsehoods since we withdrew the hand of fellowship from him.

About the time that John C. Bennett was brought before the Masonic Lodge he came to me and desired that I would go in company with B. Young, to Hyrum Smith, and entreat of him to spare him—that he wished not to be exposed.... WM. LAW. (ibid., 872–873)

Don't you see the problem with what you all are saying here???? You are choosing to side with William Law and the Expositor and cite it as proof of Joseph's secret works and lies? Hopefully you are aware that Joseph denied all the claims of polygamy, Hyrum denied all the claims, and Emma denied all the claims, each to their deaths. Do you take the word of William Law over theirs? Maybe, just maybe, this is all evidence that there was a conspiracy afoot. Yes, somebody was definitely practicing and teaching polygamy in the secret chambers..... But is it so dificult to consider that Satan may have been combining against the prophet and the Saints,
with secret works of whoredoms and murder, just as the Book of Mormon foretold! Jesus had a Judas, could not have Joseph had half a quorum of them? Study about the Cochranites, PLEASE!!! That is where the term spiritual wifery came from!

If we are wrong about polygamy, how bad would this look in the eyes of the Lord? We have a PERFECT case study in Jacob 1 showing that immediately after Nephi died, the Nephites turned to polygamy and were seriously cursed for the abomination. This would not leave us guiltless for placing this blame on Joseph, shortly after his death. Would his blood not cry from the ground against them?

Can we not keep an open mind while examining all the evidence instead of using it as proof to back our presupposed conclusions? Let us be very careful about how we treat the Lord's anointed... Yes, Joseph is and was the only anointed one of the Lord, by the literal hands of angels in this dispensation.
What I'm saying is, Law and Bennett each reversed on their statements. Bennett appeared to be a crook all around and was telling the truth when he said Joseph never taught him anything. I think it likely Law reversed because he developed some vendetta from a falling out he had with Joseph and he was making stuff up for the expositor. I think Joseph was innocent, that he actually fought polygamy and these other men putting out the Expositor were not printing the truth.

Oops, sorry I thought I had quoted the Expositor apologist.... My bad, I was preaching to the choir. =)

harakim · Post by **harakim** » February 19th, 2019, 5:04 pm

The book Saints clearly holds the position that Joseph initiated the practice of polygamy.

Jesef · Post by **Jesef** » February 19th, 2019, 5:20 pm

Those who choose to be biased in favor of Joseph Smith, based on their beliefs about him, will never be able to open-mindedly consider the testimonies of those who fell out of favor with him. Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, William Law - they all get discredited & demonized - without even a fair shake. I'm open to the possibility that Joseph chose some scoundrels as friends, like John C. Bennett - who we have on several accounts, other than Joseph, was a sexual predator - and that Joseph also chose to oust or throw away friendships with some really good men. It's hard to discern. We like simple answers, simple beliefs - but they're mostly fantasies, idealism, & caricatures of reality/truth. Oh well.

setyourselffree · Post by **setyourselffree** » February 19th, 2019, 5:51 pm

Jesef wrote: ↑February 19th, 2019, 5:20 pm Those who choose to be biased in favor of Joseph Smith, based on their beliefs about him, will never be able to open-mindedly consider the testimonies of those who fell out of favor with him. Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, William Law - they all get discredited & demonized - without even a fair shake. I'm open to the possibility that Joseph chose some scoundrels as friends, like John C. Bennett - who we have on several accounts, other than Joseph, was a sexual predator - and that Joseph also chose to oust or throw away friendships with some really good men. It's hard to discern. We like simple answers, simple beliefs - but they're mostly fantasies, idealism, & caricatures of reality/truth. Oh well.

Just for clarification purposes, I don't have any hidden agenda. Are you an active member of the Church? What is your status? This would help me in understanding your purpose on this site. Thanks!

Col. Flagg · Post by **Col. Flagg** » February 19th, 2019, 6:45 pm

setyourselffree wrote: ↑February 19th, 2019, 5:51 pm
Jesef wrote: ↑February 19th, 2019, 5:20 pm Those who choose to be biased in favor of Joseph Smith, based on their beliefs about him, will never be able to open-mindedly consider the testimonies of those who fell out of favor with him. Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, William Law - they all get discredited & demonized - without even a fair shake. I'm open to the possibility that Joseph chose some scoundrels as friends, like John C. Bennett - who we have on several accounts, other than Joseph, was a sexual predator - and that Joseph also chose to oust or throw away friendships with some really good men. It's hard to discern. We like simple answers, simple beliefs - but they're mostly fantasies, idealism, & caricatures of reality/truth. Oh well.
Just for clarification purposes, I don't have any hidden agenda. Are you an active member of the Church? What is your status? This would help me in understanding your purpose on this site. Thanks!

I can't speak for Jesef, but mine is and always has been the pursuit of truth.

Jesef · Post by **Jesef** » February 19th, 2019, 8:42 pm

setyourselffree wrote: ↑February 19th, 2019, 5:51 pm
Jesef wrote: ↑February 19th, 2019, 5:20 pm Those who choose to be biased in favor of Joseph Smith, based on their beliefs about him, will never be able to open-mindedly consider the testimonies of those who fell out of favor with him. Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, William Law - they all get discredited & demonized - without even a fair shake. I'm open to the possibility that Joseph chose some scoundrels as friends, like John C. Bennett - who we have on several accounts, other than Joseph, was a sexual predator - and that Joseph also chose to oust or throw away friendships with some really good men. It's hard to discern. We like simple answers, simple beliefs - but they're mostly fantasies, idealism, & caricatures of reality/truth. Oh well.
Just for clarification purposes, I don't have any hidden agenda. Are you an active member of the Church? What is your status? This would help me in understanding your purpose on this site. Thanks!

Active member, but open-minded & skeptical of idealized, fantasized, romanticized history, narratives, etc. So I'm always questioning & seeking truth, ugly or beautiful - reality is truth. I don't have an "agenda" to prove or disprove, but to discover what is most likely & what makes sense.

I lapped up the caricaturized narratives my whole life - now I am analytically & critically questioning those & considering all the evidence, hence I am open to much that I previously demonized & discredited spuriously & superficially.

I think it's possible that Joseph went off the rails there toward the end of his life - the things he was teaching & how he was teaching them - how he treated people even - how he viewed the "neighbors" (as enemies) - he was like a rough stone rolling that picked up so much speed rolling down the mountain that he pulverized himself. It seems to me.

ajax · Post by **ajax** » February 19th, 2019, 8:47 pm

Jesef wrote: ↑February 19th, 2019, 5:20 pm Those who choose to be biased in favor of Joseph Smith, based on their beliefs about him, will never be able to open-mindedly consider the testimonies of those who fell out of favor with him. Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, William Law - they all get discredited & demonized - without even a fair shake. I'm open to the possibility that Joseph chose some scoundrels as friends, like John C. Bennett - who we have on several accounts, other than Joseph, was a sexual predator - and that Joseph also chose to oust or throw away friendships with some really good men. It's hard to discern. We like simple answers, simple beliefs - but they're mostly fantasies, idealism, & caricatures of reality/truth. Oh well.

Goes both ways:

“Those who choose to be biased against Joseph Smith, based on their beliefs about him, will never be able to open-mindedly consider...” yada yada yada.

Thing is, I was always a Joseph polygamist believer. I was never was exposed to the argument against until recently, last couple of years. Not saying my mind is made up, but Brigham’s doctoring of history, public denials by Joseph, no children with other women, Cochranites, questionable origins of 132 etc, has thrown a wrench into my previously held position, which was Joseph = polygamist.

Jesef · Post by **Jesef** » February 19th, 2019, 8:50 pm

ajax wrote: ↑February 19th, 2019, 8:47 pm
Jesef wrote: ↑February 19th, 2019, 5:20 pm Those who choose to be biased in favor of Joseph Smith, based on their beliefs about him, will never be able to open-mindedly consider the testimonies of those who fell out of favor with him. Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, William Law - they all get discredited & demonized - without even a fair shake. I'm open to the possibility that Joseph chose some scoundrels as friends, like John C. Bennett - who we have on several accounts, other than Joseph, was a sexual predator - and that Joseph also chose to oust or throw away friendships with some really good men. It's hard to discern. We like simple answers, simple beliefs - but they're mostly fantasies, idealism, & caricatures of reality/truth. Oh well.
Goes both ways:

“Those who choose to be biased against Joseph Smith, based on their beliefs about him, will never be able to open-mindedly consider...” yada yada yada.

Thing is, I was always a Joseph polygamist believer. I was never was exposed to the argument against until recently, last couple of years. Not saying my mind is made up, but Brigham’s doctoring of history, public denials by Joseph, no children with other women, Cochranites, questionable origins of 132 etc, has thrown a wrench into my previously held position, which was Joseph = polygamist.

Good way to become less biased is to actually taken both positions at some point: for & against. But most of the people in this crowd are pro-Joseph (to the point of silly & fantastic/delusional idealism), so they probably have never seriously considered the positions of David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, or William & Jane Law because their confirmation bias precludes it. Brigham is his own separate case in my view, although I've seen a lot of vilifying or scapegoating Brigham to exonerate Joseph lately.

ajax · Post by **ajax** » February 19th, 2019, 8:54 pm

I have

nvr · Post by **nvr** » February 20th, 2019, 12:13 pm

Jesef wrote: ↑February 19th, 2019, 8:50 pm
ajax wrote: ↑February 19th, 2019, 8:47 pm
Jesef wrote: ↑February 19th, 2019, 5:20 pm Those who choose to be biased in favor of Joseph Smith, based on their beliefs about him, will never be able to open-mindedly consider the testimonies of those who fell out of favor with him. Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, William Law - they all get discredited & demonized - without even a fair shake. I'm open to the possibility that Joseph chose some scoundrels as friends, like John C. Bennett - who we have on several accounts, other than Joseph, was a sexual predator - and that Joseph also chose to oust or throw away friendships with some really good men. It's hard to discern. We like simple answers, simple beliefs - but they're mostly fantasies, idealism, & caricatures of reality/truth. Oh well.
Goes both ways:

“Those who choose to be biased against Joseph Smith, based on their beliefs about him, will never be able to open-mindedly consider...” yada yada yada.

Thing is, I was always a Joseph polygamist believer. I was never was exposed to the argument against until recently, last couple of years. Not saying my mind is made up, but Brigham’s doctoring of history, public denials by Joseph, no children with other women, Cochranites, questionable origins of 132 etc, has thrown a wrench into my previously held position, which was Joseph = polygamist.
Good way to become less biased is to actually taken both positions at some point: for & against. But most of the people in this crowd are pro-Joseph (to the point of silly & fantastic/delusional idealism), so they probably have never seriously considered the positions of David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, or William & Jane Law because their confirmation bias precludes it. Brigham is his own separate case in my view, although I've seen a lot of vilifying or scapegoating Brigham to exonerate Joseph lately.

Can you explain what you're talking about with David Whitmer's position? As far as I've found, he would not have been able to witness firsthand that Joseph taught or supported polygamy because he was out of the church for years before Joseph's death (1838) and wasn't located near the Church in that time period. The one resource I found where he comments on it was in a letter in the 1880's that showed he condemned the church's practice of polygamy where he said the practice had started 14 years after the church was founded (1844), but he wouldn't have been there to witness Joseph having any part of it.
http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/address1.htm

Zathura · Post by **Zathura** » February 20th, 2019, 12:51 pm

Law claims that Joseph and Hyrum had prepared POISON to kill him. Then he says Emma would occasional meet him out on the street to complain about women that Joseph would have in the house, which contradicts every verifiable statement that Emma(and Joseph) ever made on the subject.

Then supposedly Joseph and Hyrum got 100 Indians to run into town and have 20 of them go to his house?

He goes on to say that Joseph Smith SR is an Old Tramp, that he always gave the same old boring blessings.

Then, Joseph supposedly talked about how much these girls pleased him. Although he was soo open about this stuff, he only mentioned it to William Law?

Then this guy went and started his own church with himself as President.

On top of that, William Law approached Bennett about this abomination of Plural Marriage and Bennett admitted that Joseph never actually taught him anything about plural marriage or spiritual wifery. After that, William Law(the guy who hates polygamy) went to Joseph Smith(the guy who apparently practices polygamy and wants to practice with William Law's wife) and pleads with Joseph not to go too hard on Bennet(The other guy who practices polygamy who said he learned from Joseph, then said he didn't, then said he did again)

...
I mean, aside from some extraordinary claims and obvious emnity towards the entire Smith Family, I just really don't believe him over every single public statement made by Hyrum, Joseph, William Smith, and Emma.

add that to this:

ajax wrote: ↑February 19th, 2019, 8:47 pm
Goes both ways:

“Those who choose to be biased against Joseph Smith, based on their beliefs about him, will never be able to open-mindedly consider...” yada yada yada.

Thing is, I was always a Joseph polygamist believer. I was never was exposed to the argument against until recently, last couple of years. Not saying my mind is made up, but Brigham’s doctoring of history, public denials by Joseph, no children with other women, Cochranites, questionable origins of 132 etc, has thrown a wrench into my previously held position, which was Joseph = polygamist.

I've done my research, I'm no longer convinced that Joseph Smith taught or practiced polygamy.

POLYGAMY: Nauvoo Expositor & Interview with William Law, March 30, 1887

POLYGAMY: Nauvoo Expositor & Interview with William Law, March 30, 1887

Re: POLYGAMY: Nauvoo Expositor & Interview with William Law, March 30, 1887

Re: POLYGAMY: Nauvoo Expositor & Interview with William Law, March 30, 1887

Re: POLYGAMY: Nauvoo Expositor & Interview with William Law, March 30, 1887

Re: POLYGAMY: Nauvoo Expositor & Interview with William Law, March 30, 1887

Re: POLYGAMY: Nauvoo Expositor & Interview with William Law, March 30, 1887

Re: POLYGAMY: Nauvoo Expositor & Interview with William Law, March 30, 1887

Re: POLYGAMY: Nauvoo Expositor & Interview with William Law, March 30, 1887

Re: POLYGAMY: Nauvoo Expositor & Interview with William Law, March 30, 1887

Re: POLYGAMY: Nauvoo Expositor & Interview with William Law, March 30, 1887

Re: POLYGAMY: Nauvoo Expositor & Interview with William Law, March 30, 1887

Re: POLYGAMY: Nauvoo Expositor & Interview with William Law, March 30, 1887

Re: POLYGAMY: Nauvoo Expositor & Interview with William Law, March 30, 1887

Re: POLYGAMY: Nauvoo Expositor & Interview with William Law, March 30, 1887

Re: POLYGAMY: Nauvoo Expositor & Interview with William Law, March 30, 1887

Re: POLYGAMY: Nauvoo Expositor & Interview with William Law, March 30, 1887

Re: POLYGAMY: Nauvoo Expositor & Interview with William Law, March 30, 1887

Re: POLYGAMY: Nauvoo Expositor & Interview with William Law, March 30, 1887

Re: POLYGAMY: Nauvoo Expositor & Interview with William Law, March 30, 1887

Re: POLYGAMY: Nauvoo Expositor & Interview with William Law, March 30, 1887

Re: POLYGAMY: Nauvoo Expositor & Interview with William Law, March 30, 1887

Re: POLYGAMY: Nauvoo Expositor & Interview with William Law, March 30, 1887

Re: POLYGAMY: Nauvoo Expositor & Interview with William Law, March 30, 1887

Re: POLYGAMY: Nauvoo Expositor & Interview with William Law, March 30, 1887

Re: POLYGAMY: Nauvoo Expositor & Interview with William Law, March 30, 1887

Login • Register