How the Hell Do We Respond to John Taylor's Denial of Polygamy?
Fool Speck
Taylor denial of polygamy? Excuse him? Condemn him?
---------
True believing Mormons never accept the fact that John
Taylor lied blatantly to his proselytes about polygamy. During a
debate in France while on his mission to England, he concocted the
following blatant lie where he condemns polygamy, by quoting D&C 101:4
which at that time also condemned polygamy:
"We are accused here of polygamy,... and actions the most indelicate,
obscene, and disgusting, such that none but a corrupt and depraved
heart could have contrived. These things are too outrageous to admit
of belief;... I shall content myself by reading our views of chastity
and marriage, from a work published by us containing some of the
articles of our Faith. 'Doctrine and Covenants,' page 330... Inasmuch
as this Church of Jesus Christ has been reproached with the crime of
fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man
should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the
case of death,..."' (A tract published by John Taylor in 1850, page 8;
found in Orson Pratt's Works, 1851 edition)
In 1850, John Taylor had married twelve polygamous wives. The
following is a list of those wives and children they eventually bore
him:
Leonora Cannon, md 1833, 4 children
Elizabeth Kaighin, md 1843, 3 children
Jane Ballantyne, md 1844, 3 children
Anna Ballantyne (Allen), md 1844, separated 1845, divorced 1852
Mary A. Oakley, md 1845, 5 children
Mary A. Utley, md 1846
Mary Ramsbottom, md 1846
Sarah Thornton (Coleman) md 1846, div 1852
Lydia Dible (Granger Smith), md 1846
Ann Hughlings (Pitchforth), md 1846
Sophia Whittaker, md 1847, 8 children
Harriet Whittaker, md 1847, 3 children
He had also been married to Mercy R. Fielding (Thompson Smith) for 2
years, 1845-1847.
In other words, lies like this by an apostle and future prophet of the
church has caused a great deal of pain to many one-time faithful
Mormons, hence the generality that TBMs cannot appreciate the
justified pain and suffering caused by historical lies.
Steve Lowther
Innovators_Dilemma
"Fool Speck" <srlo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da736b0d.01120...@posting.google.com...
> What are the valid responses a seeker of truth would have to the John
> Taylor denial of polygamy? Excuse him? Condemn him?
> ---------
who really cares? That was 150 years ago? How can we reconstruct his state
of mind, the circumstances, and the nature of what he actually knew?
R. L. Measures
srlo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote:
> What are the valid responses a seeker of truth would have to the John
> Taylor denial of polygamy? Excuse him? Condemn him?
> ---------
€ It is said that The Devil is the father of the lie and that The Lord
said "I am the truth". Beginning with the first "prophet", the sect's
leaders have been somewhat less than truthful. The latest "prophet"
claimed (on "Larry King Live") that polygamy is no longer part of LDS
doctrine - yet the first prophet taught that salvation and exhaltation
involved impregnation of many wives in the Celestial Kingdom. --- As I
see it, "God's one true church" probably isn't as advertised.
cheers
--
- Rich... 805.386.3734.
www.vcnet.com/measures
R. L. Measures
<innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote:
€ Good point. After marrying so many wimmen he probably just plumb forgot.
Tyler Waite
> Taylor denial of polygamy? Excuse him? Condemn him?
a Clintonesque definition of polygamy that allowed him to believe what he
was doing was not really polygamy by the strict definition.
KDavis
> What are the valid responses a seeker of truth would have to the John
> Taylor denial of polygamy? Excuse him? Condemn him?
> ---------
> True believing Mormons never accept the fact that John
> Taylor lied blatantly to his proselytes about polygamy. During a
> debate in France while on his mission to England, he concocted the
> following blatant lie where he condemns polygamy, by quoting D&C 101:4
> which at that time also condemned polygamy:
>
> "We are accused here of polygamy,... and actions the most indelicate,
> obscene, and disgusting, such that none but a corrupt and depraved
> heart could have contrived. These things are too outrageous to admit
> of belief;... I shall content myself by reading our views of chastity
> and marriage, from a work published by us containing some of the
> articles of our Faith. 'Doctrine and Covenants,' page 330... Inasmuch
> as this Church of Jesus Christ has been reproached with the crime of
> fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man
> should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the
> case of death,..."' (A tract published by John Taylor in 1850, page 8;
> found in Orson Pratt's Works, 1851 edition)
You wouldn't mind publishing the entire quotation, would you? For
example, here is a part you left out:
"These things are too outrageous to admit of belief...I shall content
myself by reading views of chastity and marriage... "You both mutually
agree to be each other's companion, husband and wife, observing the
legal rights belonging to this condition; that is keeping yourselves
wholly for each other, and from all others, during your lives...."
I think the full context sends your criticism to nothing less than an
act of desparation. Did John Taylor "lie" here? I think that the
full text will show that he did not.
Care to post it?
-Red Davis
Michael T. Griffith
tell no one that he was the Messiah? (Matthew 16:20)
Or how about Christ's instruction to some of those whom he healed not to tell
anyone who he was? (Matthew 12:15; see also Matthew 9:29-30)
Could it be that there are times when the Lord's servants must withhold
information from some people, even by invalid denial? If you're not prepared
to admit this is the case, then I trust you also reject Christ for his
instructions not to tell anyone he was the Messiah or even who he was.
MICHAEL T. GRIFFITH
Visit my Real Issues Home Page, where you'll find web pages
on the LDS Church, creation vs. evolution, American politics,
and the JFK assassination:
http://www.geocities.com/mtgriffith1/
wombat
news:20011209093853...@mb-cr.news.cs.com...
> I trust you also reject Christ for his instructions not to tell anyone he
was the
> Messiah or even who he was.
Is there a difference between "tell no one" and "tell them I am not"?
TheJordan6
>Date: Fri, Dec 7, 2001 11:25 EST
>Message-id: <9uqqfc$25g7$1...@news.aros.net>
Yep, that's pretty much how a TBM responds to a Mormon leader's lie: Make
excuses and try to justify it.
Until 1852, the official policy of the Utah LDS church concerning "plural
marriage" was to deny that they practiced it, and condemn all those who accused
them of practicing it.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: Sat, Dec 8, 2001 11:56 EST
>Message-id: <9utgj2$2es$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>
Nope. Taylor CATEGORICALLY DENIED any type of non-monogamous marriage systems,
regardless of terminology. Taylor even quoted the "Article on Marriage" from
the D&C to aid him in his lie. The thing that today's TBMs cannot understand
is that 19th-century Mormonism had one standard of behavior for public image,
and an opposite one for private reality.
Randy J.
Cheap Suit
LOL.
dangerous
think global, act loco
<------------------------------------------------------------------------------>
chea...@dangerous1.com
<www.dangerous1.com>
don marchant
<------------------------------------------------------------------------------>
Fool Speck
> Tell me, are you just as outraged by Christ's instruction to his apostles to
> tell no one that he was the Messiah? (Matthew 16:20)
>
> Or how about Christ's instruction to some of those whom he healed not to tell
> anyone who he was? (Matthew 12:15; see also Matthew 9:29-30)
>
> Could it be that there are times when the Lord's servants must withhold
> information from some people, even by invalid denial? If you're not prepared
> to admit this is the case, then I trust you also reject Christ for his
> instructions not to tell anyone he was the Messiah or even who he was.
I think you have come as close to a justification as can be had here.
Critics call this justification the implicit LDS doctrine of "Lying
for the Lord". The term is brutal, but it is unfortunately an apt
description. In fact, it is just about the only route here an
apologist can take, but it leads unfortunately to an ethical dead end.
We would have to describe this attempt at justification as a moral air
ball, missing the backboard by an embarrassing distance. Christ's
instruction to his apostles and the healed is reserving information;
not releasing it for public consumption. His withholding the
announcement is in no way deception. There are none who come to him
and ask him if it is true. He does not ask anyone to bear FALSE
witness. He asks them to bear no witness. This is even a purer
action than "taking the fifth". Whenever a man pure of heart wishes
not to reveal, he remains in humble silence. He does not employ
tactics so well-honed by the Father of Lies.
What you are justifying in John Taylor and the others who deceived, is
a bold-faced lie. It is not couched in ambiguous escape route terms
like Clinton's denial of sexual intercourse. It is not a refusal to
answer because of the impertinence of the question.
Rather it is a dishonest answer to a legitimate question. It is a
very skillfully structured deceit that masterfully proclaims wounded
innocence as it flings mud at the character of the person asking it:
"We are accused here of polygamy,... and actions the most indelicate,
obscene, and disgusting, such that none but a corrupt and depraved
heart could have contrived." It did its job well; it silenced his
accuser. One cannot help but smile at his cleverness. As well proud
of it as John Taylor was, he published it in a missionary tract, and
afterwards in Orson Pratt's book. Could we imagine Satan himself
contriving a more skillful lie? Think of it! How could one improve
upon it to make it more effective? Better yet, could we imagine
Christ speaking these words of deceit? Not on your life!
What type of spirit is it that whispers in the apologist's ear that
wrong is right, and right is wrong? What is it in a man that makes
him grasp at it so desperately?
Steve Lowther
Fool Speck
denying polygamy? You just quoted another part of his lie! "that is
keeping yourselves wholly for each other, and from all others, during
fact, he quoted a large portion of what was then D&C 101:
"Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime
of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man
should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the
case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."
> Care to post it?
>
> -Red Davis
This is little like killing ants with a hammer, but I can include even
more context if you like. I am familiar with the entire debate, and
it would take me a while to type it in from the xerox copy I have of
_Orson Pratt's Works_. I could give it a shot at running it thru come
OCR software if you really want me to post it.
Or I could have a xerox copy of the book sent to you if you like. My
treat.
Steve Lowther
Michael T. Griffith
anyone he
was the Messiah or even who he was.
WOMBAT: Is there a difference between "tell no one" and "tell them I am not"?
>>>
The issue of who Christ was, whether he was the Messiah or a prophet, was a hot
one early on. Are you going to say no one ever asked the apostles if Jesus was
the Messiah? Surely you don't think this, do you?
Well, if someone asked the apostles if Christ was the Messiah, they either
followed Christ's directive to conceal this fact or they disobeyed and answered
in the affirmative.
Any way you want to look at it, Christ's directive to the apostles not to
reveal that he was the Messiah was, in effect, an instruction for them to
engage in deception.
Tyler Waite
systems,
> regardless of terminology. Taylor even quoted the "Article on Marriage"
from
> the D&C to aid him in his lie. The thing that today's TBMs cannot
understand
> is that 19th-century Mormonism had one standard of behavior for public
image,
> and an opposite one for private reality.
Just 19th century?
In EQ today (yes I actually went) the teacher was talking about how
integrity is an essential quality to have as a member of the church. I
thought immediately of JT.
>
> Randy J.
TheJordan6
>wrong is right, and right is wrong? What is it in a man that makes
>him grasp at it so desperately?
>
>Steve Lowther
It's called "brainwashing."
Randy J.
Fool Speck
> <<< MTG: I trust you also reject Christ for his instructions not to tell
> anyone he
> was the Messiah or even who he was.
>
> WOMBAT: Is there a difference between "tell no one" and "tell them I am not"?
> >>>
>
> The issue of who Christ was, whether he was the Messiah or a prophet, was a hot
> one early on. Are you going to say no one ever asked the apostles if Jesus was
> the Messiah? Surely you don't think this, do you?
>
> Well, if someone asked the apostles if Christ was the Messiah, they either
> followed Christ's directive to conceal this fact or they disobeyed and answered
> in the affirmative.
>
> Any way you want to look at it, Christ's directive to the apostles not to
> reveal that he was the Messiah was, in effect, an instruction for them to
> engage in deception.
Michael, not volunteering information is in no way a deception. If it
were, then you would have to conceed that the LDS Church is deceiving
the public by withholding its historical documents. Can't have it
both ways.
I think you would be hard put to illustrate someone asked the apostles
if Christ was the Messiah with a Biblical citation. You can speculate
someone did, but then you could speculate only on how he answered if
he answered at all. When Jesus did not want to answer questions at
his trial, he did not deceive. He remained silent. This is his
example of how moral men deal with demanded information without
deception. Jesus did not break the commandments claiming a divine
right to do so. Bearing false witness is a sin. Bearing no witness
is not.
Saying that Jesus lied about his being the messiah is blasphemy
indeed!
Steve Lowther
wombat
> <<< MTG: I trust you also reject Christ for his instructions not to tell
> anyone he
> was the Messiah or even who he was.
>
> The issue of who Christ was, whether he was the Messiah or a prophet, was
a hot
> one early on. Are you going to say no one ever asked the apostles if
Jesus was
> the Messiah? Surely you don't think this, do you?
>
> Well, if someone asked the apostles if Christ was the Messiah, they either
> followed Christ's directive to conceal this fact or they disobeyed and
answered
> in the affirmative.
Why don't you read "tell no one" as "don't volunteer" but if they ask....
James C. Miller
> > Tell me, are you just as outraged by Christ's instruction to his apostles to
> > tell no one that he was the Messiah? (Matthew 16:20)
> > Could it be that there are times when the Lord's servants must withhold
> > information from some people, even by invalid denial?
> I think you have come as close to a justification as can be had here.
> Critics call this justification the implicit LDS doctrine of "Lying
> for the Lord". The term is brutal, but it is unfortunately an apt
> description.
> What type of spirit is it that whispers in the apologist's ear that
> wrong is right, and right is wrong? What is it in a man that makes
> him grasp at it so desperately?
>
> Steve Lowther
reject your suggestion that a Satan or devil whispers in LDS GAs' ears
to "Lie for the Lord." However, I _do_ believe that "Lying for the
Lord" tells us about the deteriorated state of "faith" and personal
integrity and character of the person who "Lies for the Lord."
From my perspective, GAs and TBs who "Lie for the Lord" clearly don't
really believe at all (or at least not strongly) and are engaged in a
desperate attempt to fool themselves as well as others. How sad to be
in a situation like that.
To tie this back to this thread's topic, I think we have to respond to
LDS GAs' and John Taylor's denial of polygamy by rejecting everything
they said after that. Even if they had what they thought was a
perfectly good reason for lying, it still means you couldn't believe
them because of their proven propensity to lie. And these are people
who claim to occupy the moral high ground. In my mind, they're only
little better than the despicable con artist televangelists who rake
in millions of dollars pretending to heal people and to speak for the
Lord.
James C. Miller
Xan Du
R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
news:2-0812010...@port89.dial.vcnet.com...
> In article <da736b0d.01120...@posting.google.com>,
> srlo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote:
>
> > What are the valid responses a seeker of truth would have to the John
> > Taylor denial of polygamy? Excuse him? Condemn him?
> > ---------
> said "I am the truth". Beginning with the first "prophet", the sect's
> leaders have been somewhat less than truthful. The latest "prophet"
> claimed (on "Larry King Live") that polygamy is no longer part of LDS
> doctrine - yet the first prophet taught that salvation and exhaltation
> involved impregnation of many wives in the Celestial Kingdom.
Let's not forget that if the woman of a Temple union dies, the man is free
to be sealed to another wife, with the understanding that *both* women will
be his wives in the Celestial Kingdom.
-Xan
<snip to end>
Xan Du
Innovators_Dilemma <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9uqqfc$25g7$1...@news.aros.net...
>
> "Fool Speck" <srlo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:da736b0d.01120...@posting.google.com...
> > What are the valid responses a seeker of truth would have to the John
> > Taylor denial of polygamy? Excuse him? Condemn him?
> > ---------
>
> who really cares? That was 150 years ago?
Isn't a lie still a lie no matter how old it is? Is there some sort of LDS
statute of limitations on telling lies?
> How can we reconstruct his state
> of mind, the circumstances, and the nature of what he actually knew?
No one is talking about his state of mind. Steve has pointed out that John
Taylor publicly condemned polygamy, and denied it's practice while knowingly
being married to more than one woman.
-Xan
Xan Du
> Tell me, are you just as outraged by Christ's instruction to his apostles
to
> tell no one that he was the Messiah? (Matthew 16:20)
Why would a God of truth ask his disciples to lie?
> Or how about Christ's instruction to some of those whom he healed not to
tell
> anyone who he was? (Matthew 12:15; see also Matthew 9:29-30)
I see a pattern developing: the God of the NT is not a God of Truth.
> Could it be that there are times when the Lord's servants must withhold
> information from some people, even by invalid denial?
A person who contracts someone else to commit a murder is just as culpable
as the person who pulls the trigger. I'd say that this holds for somone, or
some God, who compels somone else to tell a lie.
2 Ne. 2: 18
18 And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever,
he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea,
even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies,
wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but
ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.
If Satan is the Father of all Lies, and God tells someone to lie, then God
has been complicit with Satan.
Try this one:
D&C 62: 6
6 Behold, I, the Lord, have brought you together that the promise might be
fulfilled, that the faithful among you should be preserved and rejoice
together in the land of Missouri. I, the Lord, promise the faithful and
cannot lie.
or
Titus 1:1-2
1 PAUL, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the
faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after
godliness;
2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie,
> If you're not prepared
> to admit this is the case, then I trust you also reject Christ for his
> instructions not to tell anyone he was the Messiah or even who he was.
I reject the Gods of the Q'ran, OT, NT, BoM, D&C, and PofGP.
-Xan
Xan Du
James C. Miller <miller...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
<snip>
> Even if they had what they thought was a
> perfectly good reason for lying, it still means you couldn't believe
> them because of their proven propensity to lie.
This is exactly why I have so much trouble getting out to the voting booth
on election day.
-Xan
TheJordan6
>Date: 12/9/2001 3:40 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <9v0i1b$dj5$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>
Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Willard Richards, Parley P.
Pratt, Orson Pratt, Orson Hyde, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, and dozens of
other early Mormon leaders were no worse liars than Taylor. They ALL denied
the teaching or practice of polygamy until 1852, when they reversed themselves
and admitted it (but only after they were in the wilds of Utah, safe from
Illinois state bigamy laws).
Speaking of the image of "integrity" that the modern LDS church likes to
portray---When I was studying my way out of Mormonism, and learning of the
culture of lying about such things as polygamy, I thought of the question every
Mormon is asked in the temple recommend interview: "Are you honest in your
dealings with your fellow man?" I recognized that a religion that is
unwilling to admit to, or apologize for such lies in its own history, has no
moral authority to judge the honesty or integrity of its adherents. That was
one of the major issues that spurred me to resign my membership from the LDS
church.
Randy J.
Joel Rees
> This is little like killing ants with a hammer, but I can include even
> more context if you like. I am familiar with the entire debate, and
> it would take me a while to type it in from the xerox copy I have of
> _Orson Pratt's Works_. I could give it a shot at running it thru come
> OCR software if you really want me to post it.
You brought it up, I would say you have a duty to post the whole thing.
Or back off.
Joel
Cheap Suit
Next time someone gives a quote from the book of mormon I'll be sure to
remind them that they have the /duty/ to type in the whole BOM.
Or back off. LOL. after Steve types in the whole book Guy will say it's
not doctrinal because it's not in the standard works, and woody will whine
that some anti has probably altered it.
You guys crack me up.
cdowis
Read the biography of John Taylor, and his disagreement with BY over this issue.
Fool Speck
"We are accused here of polygamy, and actions the most indelicate
obscene, and disgusting, such that none but a corrupt and depraved
heart could have contrived. These things are too outrageous to admit
of belief; therefore leaving the sisters of the 'White Veil,' the
'Black Veil,' and all the other veils, with those gentlemen to dispose
of together with their authors, as they think best, I shall content
myself by reading our views of chastity and marriage, from a work
published by us containing some of the articles of our
faith.-_Doctrine and Covenants_ page 330. 'Inasmuch as this church of
Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and
polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one
wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death,
when either is at liberty to marry again.'* -Orson Pratt's Works,
Public Discussion between Reverends C W Cleeve, James Robertson and
Philip Cater, and Elder John Taylor, p. 8
*(Doctrine and Covenants, section 101, verse 4)
Steve Lowther
Fool Speck
> example, here is a part you left out:
>
> "These things are too outrageous to admit of belief...I shall content
> myself by reading views of chastity and marriage... "You both mutually
> agree to be each other's companion, husband and wife, observing the
> legal rights belonging to this condition; that is keeping yourselves
> wholly for each other, and from all others, during your lives...."
>
> I think the full context sends your criticism to nothing less than an
> act of desparation. Did John Taylor "lie" here? I think that the
> full text will show that he did not.
>
> Care to post it?
>
> -Red Davis
Here is the quote without the elipses:
"We are accused here of polygamy, and actions the most indelicate
obscene, and disgusting, such that none but a corrupt and depraved
heart could have contrived. These things are too outrageous to admit
of belief; therefore leaving the sisters of the 'White Veil,' the
'Black Veil,' and all the other veils, with those gentlemen to dispose
of together with their authors, as they think best, I shall content
myself by reading our views of chastity and marriage, from a work
published by us containing some of the articles of our
Innovators_Dilemma
"Xan Du" <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9v0va4$bqt87$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de...
>
> Innovators_Dilemma <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9uqqfc$25g7$1...@news.aros.net...
> >
> > "Fool Speck" <srlo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:da736b0d.01120...@posting.google.com...
> > > What are the valid responses a seeker of truth would have to the John
> > > Taylor denial of polygamy? Excuse him? Condemn him?
> > > ---------
> >
> > who really cares? That was 150 years ago?
>
> Isn't a lie still a lie no matter how old it is? Is there some sort of
LDS
> statute of limitations on telling lies?>
No one has proven John Taylor was lying.
Woody Brison
> Here is the quote without the elipses:
>
> "We are accused here of polygamy, and actions the most indelicate
> obscene, and disgusting, such that none but a corrupt and depraved
> heart could have contrived. These things are too outrageous to admit
> of belief; therefore leaving the sisters of the 'White Veil,' the
> 'Black Veil,' and all the other veils, with those gentlemen to dispose
> of together with their authors, as they think best, I shall content
> myself by reading our views of chastity and marriage, from a work
> published by us containing some of the articles of our
> faith.-_Doctrine and Covenants_ page 330. 'Inasmuch as this church of
> Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and
> polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one
> wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death,
> when either is at liberty to marry again.'* -Orson Pratt's Works,
> Public Discussion between Reverends C W Cleeve, James Robertson and
> Philip Cater, and Elder John Taylor, p. 8
> *(Doctrine and Covenants, section 101, verse 4)
The more you prod and push this text around the less it looks
like John Taylor lied about anything; I could not at this point
look up to heaven and affirm that I know or have any real idea
of what he said. For instance,
In this second version, the second and fourth "..." have been
replaced with text. The first and third "..." have been removed
with no text furnished; they have simply been ducked. Why?
Was this oral? Who took down the transcript? Was it indeed a
tract published by Taylor? Why did that information drop out of
your 2nd version here, was that an error too?
Why were Orson Pratt's Works collected together in an 1851
edition? He continued to live and work for another thirty
years. Or was that an error also in your first version?
Care to offer a third version?
Wood
newguy
--
.
"Cheap Suit" <chea...@dangerous1.com> wrote in message
news:3C148122...@dangerous1.com...
| Joel Rees wrote:
|
| > srlo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote:
| >
| > > This is little like killing ants with a hammer, but I can include even
| > > more context if you like. I am familiar with the entire debate, and
| > > it would take me a while to type it in from the xerox copy I have of
| > > _Orson Pratt's Works_. I could give it a shot at running it thru come
| > > OCR software if you really want me to post it.
| >
| > You brought it up, I would say you have a duty to post the whole thing.
| >
| > Or back off.
| >
| > Joel
|
| Next time someone gives a quote from the book of mormon I'll be sure to
| remind them that they have the /duty/ to type in the whole BOM.
|
| Or back off. LOL. after Steve types in the whole book Guy will say it's
| not doctrinal because it's not in the standard works, and woody will whine
| that some anti has probably altered it.
|
| You guys crack me up.
|
|
|
| dangerous
| think global, act loco
LOL, now you can see why I do not belong to any organized faith. newguy
Xan Du
>
> "Xan Du" <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9v0va4$bqt87$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > Innovators_Dilemma <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:9uqqfc$25g7$1...@news.aros.net...
> > >
> > > "Fool Speck" <srlo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:da736b0d.01120...@posting.google.com...
> > > > What are the valid responses a seeker of truth would have to the
John
> > > > Taylor denial of polygamy? Excuse him? Condemn him?
> > > > ---------
> > >
> > > who really cares? That was 150 years ago?
> >
> > Isn't a lie still a lie no matter how old it is? Is there some sort of
> LDS
> > statute of limitations on telling lies?>
>
> No one has proven John Taylor was lying.
I suppose you have evidence which suggests that Steve Lowther's
documentation is not genuine? If so, why then are you bothering with your,
"who really cares? That was 150 years ago?" argument?
Are you knowingly perpetuating a fraud, Mr. Dilemma, or are you just
catatonic?
Please don't respond until you have an intelligent argument backed up by
documentation.
-Xan
Innovators_Dilemma
>
> Innovators_Dilemma <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9v2pb2$1tu1$1...@news.aros.net...
> >
> > "Xan Du" <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:9v0va4$bqt87$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de...
> > >
> > > Innovators_Dilemma <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:9uqqfc$25g7$1...@news.aros.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Fool Speck" <srlo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:da736b0d.01120...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > What are the valid responses a seeker of truth would have to the
> John
> > > > > Taylor denial of polygamy? Excuse him? Condemn him?
> > > > > ---------
> > > >
> > > > who really cares? That was 150 years ago?
> > >
> > > Isn't a lie still a lie no matter how old it is? Is there some sort
of
> > LDS
> > > statute of limitations on telling lies?>
> >
> > No one has proven John Taylor was lying.
>
> I suppose you have evidence which suggests that Steve Lowther's
> documentation is not genuine? If so, why then are you bothering with
your,
> "who really cares? That was 150 years ago?" argument?>
He simply provided evidence of a statement of John Taylor's in the 1830's
while on a mission in England. He provided no evidence that John Taylor
didn't actually believe what he said was true. That's what I meant by "no
evidence of John Taylor's state of mind." To be a lie, the person has to
know the statement to untrue at the time it was made.
Koat
already. Mormonism is just the concocted seamy part 3 of the franchise. I
can't wait to read their "holy book" it ought to be a hoot.
Innovators_Dilemma
>
> Innovators_Dilemma <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9v2pb2$1tu1$1...@news.aros.net...
> >
> > "Xan Du" <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:9v0va4$bqt87$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de...
> > >
> > > Innovators_Dilemma <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:9uqqfc$25g7$1...@news.aros.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Fool Speck" <srlo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:da736b0d.01120...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > What are the valid responses a seeker of truth would have to the
> John
> > > > > Taylor denial of polygamy? Excuse him? Condemn him?
> > > > > ---------
> > > >
> > > > who really cares? That was 150 years ago?
> > >
> > > Isn't a lie still a lie no matter how old it is? Is there some sort
of
> > LDS
> > > statute of limitations on telling lies?>
> >
> > No one has proven John Taylor was lying.
> >
> catatonic?
>
Catatonic? One word of advise, Mr. Du. When trying to impress others by
using what sound like clever medical terms, first understand their meaning
before making a fool of yourself.
Xan Du
Did you miss the bit about John Taylor being husband to more than one wife
*while* he was on his mission, and therefore *while* he made the statements
against polygamy? Are you arguing that John Taylor forgot that he was
practicing polygamy at the time he made the statement? Or do you have
evidence that John Taylor divorced all but one of his multiple wives before
denouncing polygamy?
-Xan
>
>
Innovators_Dilemma
In the 1830's Taylor had one wife, as evidenced by Steve's post. It is
loose on when the alleged statement by Taylor was actually made, though it
insinuates he made it in 1850. But, Taylor was not on a mission in England
in 1850, so the insinuation is weird at best.
Xan Du
Websters:
catatonia (n.) cat·a·to·ni·a
1. a syndrome seen most frequently in schizophrenia, characterized by
muscular rigidity and mental stupor, sometimes alternating with great
excitement and confusion.
-----------------------
Very often, the catatonic person is found curled up in a fetal position. It
is this sort of navel-gazing and "mental stupor" that I was alluding to,
since you seem to have a wonderful ability to ignore evidence, and an even
more marvelous inability to provide substantial refuting evidence. There
are two possibilities: (1) you are a liar (2) you aren't dealing with
reality. I was asking for clarification. I might have been safer to ask
you if you are psychotic, since that is a much broader term describing
"impared contact with reality", including but not limited to delusions,
hallucinations, schizophrenia and paranoia.
-Xan
Fool Speck
> The more you prod and push this text around the less it looks
> like John Taylor lied about anything;
Explain why that is so. Explain what meaning has changed.
> I could not at this point
> look up to heaven and affirm that I know or have any real idea
> of what he said.
Why do you need to look up to heaven, Woody? What is keeping you from
simply reading the quote and face up to what he said? The only thing
that is preventing you would be denial. Take a breath and some fresh
courage, and read it and ask yourself could he possibly be lying.
What other conclusion could there be?
You know John Taylor practiced polygamy in 1850.
You know that the Church practiced polygamy in 1850.
You know the Church condemned polygamy in D&C 101 in 1835.
You know John Taylor denied in 1850 the Church practiced polygamy.
You know that Orson Pratt published John Taylor's pamphlet where he
lied about polygamy.
That denial simply amounts to a lie by an apostle and future prophet,
seer, and revelator of the Church.
> For instance,
> In this second version, the second and fourth "..." have been
> replaced with text. The first and third "..." have been removed
> with no text furnished; they have simply been ducked. Why?
>
> Was this oral? Who took down the transcript? Was it indeed a
> tract published by Taylor? Why did that information drop out of
> your 2nd version here, was that an error too?
Woody, there has been no difference in meaning in any of the versions
I have printed. If elipses have been mistakenly inserted, they are
only elipses.
I know you are in a tough spot. There is little you can do but
quibble over the minutae. John Taylor's statement can in no way be
described in any other terms than a bald-faced lie. He was questioned
on polygamy, and he insulted the questioner and denied the Church
practiced it. It is found in his pamphlet HE published and Orson
Pratt liked it so much, Pratt published it as well.
Do you want me to send you photocopies of the title page and the
quote? It is obvious they are 160 photocopied pages of a very old
book. It is zealously pro-Mormon, of course. You want to order a
copy of the whole book for yourself? It will cost you $19.
http://www.utlm.org/booklist/titles/up013_orsonprattsworks.htm
> Why were Orson Pratt's Works collected together in an 1851
> edition? He continued to live and work for another thirty
> years. Or was that an error also in your first version?
You want me to tell you why Orson Pratt published his book in 1851?
How would I possibly know? Yes he lived a good deal longer. So what?
Was what an error? This quotation is directly from a pamphlet
published in 1850 by John Taylor, and included as an of addendum in
_Orson Pratt's Works_ published in 1851. What bearing does your
thirty year figure have on anything? Where did it come from?
>
> Care to offer a third version?
When I get my photocopy of the pages of _Orson Pratt's Works_
replaced, I will have the original to type from.
Why can't you just look at the content of John Taylor's statement and
deal with it? Your red herrings do nothing but weaken your case.
There are other quotations taken from newspapers published by the
Church in England at that time by Orson Pratt denying the Church
practiced polygamy. Do you wish to see those as well?
Steve Lowther
Fool Speck
<snip>
> > > No one has proven John Taylor was lying.
> >
> > I suppose you have evidence which suggests that Steve Lowther's
> > documentation is not genuine? If so, why then are you bothering with
> your,
> > "who really cares? That was 150 years ago?" argument?>
>
> He simply provided evidence of a statement of John Taylor's in the 1830's
> while on a mission in England.
It was not 1830; it was 1850. It was after he survived the
assassination of Joseph Smith in 1844. It was after the Saints
migrated to Utah in 1847.
> He provided no evidence that John Taylor
> didn't actually believe what he said was true.
> That's what I meant by "no
> evidence of John Taylor's state of mind." To be a lie, the person has to
> know the statement to untrue at the time it was made.
John Taylor was married to multiple wives and had multiple children by
most of them at the time he made his denial. This is conclusive proof
that John Taylor knew he himself was practicing polygamy. Beyond a
shadow of any doubt he denied the church practiced or sanctioned
polygamy. There is absolutely no ambiguity, no doubt about what he
stated. Beyond a shadow of any doubt he knew the Church both
sanctioned and practiced polygamy. This is NOT just strong, high
quality evidence. This is proof. No if, ands, or buts. John Taylor
lied. No question.
He was not ignorant of the practice of polygamy because he himself was
polygamous. He knew the Church was covertly practicing polygamy and
denying it publically. He participated in those denials. Orson Pratt
participated in those denials.
Steve Lowther
Fool Speck
> > Are you knowingly perpetuating a fraud, Mr. Dilemma, or are you just
> > catatonic?
> >
>
> Catatonic? One word of advise, Mr. Du. When trying to impress others by
> using what sound like clever medical terms, first understand their meaning
> before making a fool of yourself.
catatonic -- stiff and not moving, as if dead
John, seems like it is an accurate usage to me. He was simply being
sarcastic, figuritively implying there was no life where your idea
came from. And it really is a very common term, I don't think he was
trying to impress anyone.
Steve
Cheap Suit
"Advice".
Wouldn't want you to make a fool of yourself.
dangerous
think global, act loco
Xan Du
Oh good, a real argument. See, that wasn't so hard.
The tract, published first in 1850 by Taylor, then later by Pratt in 1851,
recounts a debate Taylor engaged in while on his mission which started in
1839. The fact remains that the tract condemns polygamy, when in fact John
Taylor himself was engaged in the practice at the time he published it.
-Xan
Xan Du
Fool Speck <srlo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da736b0d.01120...@posting.google.com...
> What are the valid responses a seeker of truth would have to the John
> Taylor denial of polygamy? Excuse him? Condemn him?
> ---------
> Taylor lied blatantly to his proselytes about polygamy. During a
> debate in France while on his mission to England, he concocted the
> following blatant lie where he condemns polygamy, by quoting D&C 101:4
> which at that time also condemned polygamy:
>
> "We are accused here of polygamy,... and actions the most indelicate,
> heart could have contrived. These things are too outrageous to admit
> and marriage, from a work published by us containing some of the
> as this Church of Jesus Christ has been reproached with the crime of
> fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man
> should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the
> case of death,..."' (A tract published by John Taylor in 1850, page 8;
> found in Orson Pratt's Works, 1851 edition)
>
> following is a list of those wives and children they eventually bore
> him:
>
> Leonora Cannon, md 1833, 4 children
> Elizabeth Kaighin, md 1843, 3 children
> Jane Ballantyne, md 1844, 3 children
> Anna Ballantyne (Allen), md 1844, separated 1845, divorced 1852
> Mary A. Oakley, md 1845, 5 children
> Mary A. Utley, md 1846
> Mary Ramsbottom, md 1846
> Sarah Thornton (Coleman) md 1846, div 1852
> Lydia Dible (Granger Smith), md 1846
> Ann Hughlings (Pitchforth), md 1846
> Sophia Whittaker, md 1847, 8 children
> Harriet Whittaker, md 1847, 3 children
>
> He had also been married to Mercy R. Fielding (Thompson Smith) for 2
> years, 1845-1847.
>
> In other words, lies like this by an apostle and future prophet of the
> church has caused a great deal of pain to many one-time faithful
> Mormons, hence the generality that TBMs cannot appreciate the
> justified pain and suffering caused by historical lies.
>
> Steve Lowther
From the HotC, I found the following:
-------------------------------------
[Vol. 2, p. 247 - Aug. 17, 1835. Priesthood General Assembly.]
President W. W. Phelps then read the following article on marriage, which
was accepted and adopted and ordered to be printed in said book, by a
unanimous vote, namely:
Article on Marriage.
[ . . . ]
Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of
fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should
have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in case of death, when
either is at liberty to marry again.
-------------------------------------
Then later comes this little gem:
-------------------------------------
[Vol. 5, p. xxx]
Corroborative evidences of the fact of the revelation having been given thus
early in the Prophet's career are to be found in the early charges against
the Church about its belief in "polygamy." For example: When the Book of
Doctrine and Covenants was presented to the several quorums of the
priesthood of the Church for acceptance in the general assembly of that
body, the 17th of August, 1835, an article on "Marriage" was presented by W.
W. Phelps, which for many years was published in the Doctrine and Covenants.
It was not a revelation, nor was it presented as such to the general
assembly of the priesthood. It was an article, however, that represented the
views of the assembly on the subject of marriage at that time, unenlightened
as they were by the revelation already given to the Prophet on the subject.
What the Prophet Joseph's connection was with this article cannot be
learned. Whether he approved it or not is uncertain, since he was absent
from Kirtland at the time of the general assembly of the priesthood which
accepted it, on a visit to the Saints in Michigan (see HISTORY OF THE
CHURCH, Vol. I, pp. 243-53).
-------------------------------------
One wonders where the Lord was. Why should it matter if Joseph was in
Michigan during a general assembly of the priesthood? The Lord's will is
the Lord's will, right?
-Xan
newguy
--
.
"Fool Speck" <srlo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da736b0d.01121...@posting.google.com...
Indeed, . . . I think all who post here are trying to impress someone, else
why post? ;-))) newguy
Woody Brison
> wwbr...@lds.net (Woody Brison) wrote...
>
> > The more you prod and push this text around the less it looks
> > like John Taylor lied about anything;
>
> Explain why that is so. Explain what meaning has changed.
What meaning can even be established if we don't know
what exactly he said? One word can change entire meanings.
> > I could not at this point
> > look up to heaven and affirm that I know or have any real idea
> > of what he said.
>
> Why do you need to look up to heaven, Woody?
I look up to heaven all the time, get over it if you can.
>... What is keeping you from
> simply reading the quote and face up to what he said?
Your bungling of it.
>... The only thing
> that is preventing you would be denial.
Are you in denial, Steve?
>... Take a breath and some fresh
> courage, and read it and ask yourself could he possibly be lying.
> What other conclusion could there be?
How can we begin to guess at what conclusion should be drawn
from an unknown source delivering vaguely defined data?
> You know John Taylor practiced polygamy in 1850.
I do?
> You know that the Church practiced polygamy in 1850.
Hmmm, I think that's true, but as far as knowing goes, I'd
have to apologize, I don't for sure.
> You know the Church condemned polygamy in D&C 101 in 1835.
Not so; it was a statement of belief put together in the
Prophet's absence, contrary to his wishes, and reflected
the opinion of those brethren who did not know of the
higher law.
> You know John Taylor denied in 1850 the Church practiced polygamy.
You are in error there, I don't know that.
> You know that Orson Pratt published John Taylor's pamphlet where he
> lied about polygamy.
No, I don't know that either. All I have to go on is your
posts about it, and they are most confused.
> That denial simply amounts to a lie by an apostle and future prophet,
> seer, and revelator of the Church.
You sound very vehement. Wouldn't it be great if we could
establish truth by means of vehemence? We could get a
vehemence meter and just read it off.
> > For instance,
> > In this second version, the second and fourth "..." have been
> > replaced with text. The first and third "..." have been removed
> > with no text furnished; they have simply been ducked. Why?
Yo, Steve, why?
> > Was this oral?
Yo, Steve, was this oral?
>... Who took down the transcript?
Yo, Steve, who took down the transcript?
>... Was it indeed a
> > tract published by Taylor? Why did that information drop out of
> > your 2nd version here, was that an error too?
>
> Woody, there has been no difference in meaning in any of the versions
> I have printed. If elipses have been mistakenly inserted, they are
> only elipses.
So, Steve, which ellipses were mistakenly inserted?
What does it mean that ellipses are only ellipses? That they
don't represent deleted text? or that we just shouldn't worry
about the text that was deleted, it just shows that the whole
thing is blown out of proportion, we should just trust you?
Why did the publishing info disappear?
Why are you ignoring all these questions?
> I know you are in a tough spot.
Little manny, you are the one who posted a doctored quotation,
then tried to CYA with some incompetent edits. You don't
know that I'M in a tight spot.
>... There is little you can do but
> quibble over the minutae.
It would be nice to find out exactly what John Taylor said,
or wrote, or published, or what, before we go condemning him,
wouldn't it? or did you just want to condemn first and find
out second? Until I can get some real data, all I can do is
query what's presented.
>... John Taylor's statement can in no way be
> described in any other terms than a bald-faced lie.
I'd describe it as an interesting clue dropped (and I do mean
dropped) by an overexcited student. Until we can establish for
sure who said it and what exactly they said, it seems a little
risky to me to start assigning definitive judgements and facial-
hair characterizations.
>... He was questioned
> on polygamy, and he insulted the questioner and denied the Church
> practiced it. It is found in his pamphlet HE published and Orson
> Pratt liked it so much, Pratt published it as well.
From the little you gave us, it sounded like his opposition
tried to drag in some nonsense about different colored veils.
What was all that? Did they follow up on this, was it a
"bald-face lie" by Taylor which they called him on? or did they
let it go in embarrassed silence?
> Do you want me to send you photocopies of the title page and the
> quote?
Sure, I'll send you my address via email. I have a scanner,
and a good "OCR" program. I will post the text. Could you
please send the page before the quotation and the page after
also?
>... It is obvious they are 160 photocopied pages of a very old
> book. It is zealously pro-Mormon, of course. You want to order a
> copy of the whole book for yourself? It will cost you $19.
>
> http://www.utlm.org/booklist/titles/up013_orsonprattsworks.htm
I'm going to have to decline paying $19 to the Tanners to
support their career of opposition to the Lord's work. I
think it is destroying their souls and others', how could
I possibly lend assistance to that sad fact?
But thank you for indicating honestly the source.
> > Why were Orson Pratt's Works collected together in an 1851
> > edition? He continued to live and work for another thirty
> > years. Or was that an error also in your first version?
>
> You want me to tell you why Orson Pratt published his book in 1851?
> How would I possibly know?
There must be documents around somewhere relating to this
tract, and to this book. There is a history to it, why it was
published, what the point was, who paid for it, who typeset
it, who provided the material, etc. etc. If we can get at
some of that information we might know whether this statement
of John Taylor's, whatever it is, was 1st person by him,
whether it was taken down verbatim in an oral debate, whether
he edited it afterward, or what was the deal. For all I know,
it's in the book itself, you haven't indicated. THEN we might
be in a position to decide if he LIED as you say. As it
stands now, I don't think you know if he lied or not.
BTW, John Taylor was an extremely honest and good man, if
that's any help.
>... Yes he lived a good deal longer. So what?
> Was what an error? This quotation is directly from a pamphlet
> published in 1850 by John Taylor, and included as an of addendum in
> _Orson Pratt's Works_ published in 1851. What bearing does your
> thirty year figure have on anything? Where did it come from?
It was my understanding that this was some kind of anthology
of Pratt's works, the kind of thing they put together after
the quantity is known (i.e. he's dead). I was questioning
to get information, to see if there was a major disconnect
here somewhere.
> > Care to offer a third version?
>
> When I get my photocopy of the pages of _Orson Pratt's Works_
> replaced, I will have the original to type from.
Um, what are you talking about now? You have a copy of Tanner's
xeroxed book? But you don't have it right now? How did you
provide those 1st and 2nd attempts at quotations, from memory?
You're not improving the confidence in this quotation here...
> Why can't you just look at the content of John Taylor's statement and
> deal with it?
Because I don't honestly know what the thing says. Do you?
>...Your red herrings do nothing but weaken your case.
No, I would like to know what the resolution of this is. I
know that the Lord restored his Gospel to the earth, and this
is it; that Pratt and Taylor were good Apostles of the Gospel;
that they were not liars, but good honest men -- with a mission.
A mission of surpassing goodness and importance. I know these
things in general. There are also a lot of antimormons prowling
around like wolves, seeking to villify the religion and find
any weakness they can. But the essential truths of it are
sound. I have full confidence in that. So, I find it
entertaining to just seek the truth in any of these matters,
let the chips fall where they fall, and see if it doesn't fall
out that the Lord and his servants have done right. It always
has so fallen out so far.
And on this accusation, what do we have so far? That John
Taylor referred his audience to the official document, sec.
101, or something.
> There are other quotations taken from newspapers published by the
> Church in England at that time by Orson Pratt denying the Church
> practiced polygamy. Do you wish to see those as well?
Sure, it's always interesting to see the old Apostles preaching
the same doctrines taught today, same spirit, same authority,
same honest cheerfulness. Or did you mean Church OF England?
See how one word can change a world of meaning.
Wood
Innovators_Dilemma
"wombat" <wom...@privacyx.com> wrote in message
news:chLQ7.11570$va.54...@news2.rdc1.mi.home.com...
> "Michael T. Griffith" <mikegr...@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:20011209093853...@mb-cr.news.cs.com...
>
> > I trust you also reject Christ for his instructions not to tell anyone
he
> was the
> > Messiah or even who he was.
>
> Is there a difference between "tell no one" and "tell them I am not"?
No. Because that's the issue on everyone's minds. Silence implies denial.
Innovators_Dilemma
Maybe. But the actual statements were made in 1839, when he clearly was not
practicing it. As Jesus told his Apostles, "Tell no man I am the Messiah."
Innovators_Dilemma
Well, that just about describes Mr. Du.
Xan Du
>
> "Xan Du" <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9v3v3s$cqhf6$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > Innovators_Dilemma <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:9v3adi$2ak4$1...@news.aros.net...
<snip>
> > > In the 1830's Taylor had one wife, as evidenced by Steve's post. It
is
> > > loose on when the alleged statement by Taylor was actually made,
though
> it
> > > insinuates he made it in 1850. But, Taylor was not on a mission in
> > England
> > > in 1850, so the insinuation is weird at best.
> >
> > Oh good, a real argument. See, that wasn't so hard.
> >
> > The tract, published first in 1850 by Taylor, then later by Pratt in
1851,
> > recounts a debate Taylor engaged in while on his mission which started
in
> > 1839. The fact remains that the tract condemns polygamy, when in fact
> John
> > Taylor himself was engaged in the practice at the time he published it.
> >
>
> Maybe. But the actual statements were made in 1839, when he clearly was
not
> practicing it.
That has no relevance. He published a tract denouncing polygamy, and
denying that such practice was authorized by the Church in 1850, when he in
fact was a practicing polygamist. This is called lying, and is the basis
for Steve's argument.
> As Jesus told his Apostles, "Tell no man I am the Messiah."
Then Jesus also is a liar, since compelling somone else to lie is the same
as telling the lie personally. Just the same as contracting a murder bears
the same responsibility as personally committing a murder.
LDS modern day scripture teaches that God cannot lie:
D&C 62: 6
6 Behold, I, the Lord, have brought you together that the promise might be
fulfilled, that the faithful among you should be preserved and rejoice
together in the land of Missouri. I, the Lord, promise the faithful and
cannot lie.
So does the NT itself:
Titus 1:1-2
1 PAUL, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the
faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after
godliness;
2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie,
So, something is seriously amiss here. Perhaps the story of Christ telling
his disciples to lie was inserted by unscrupulous men seeking to justify
having been caught in their own lying, as unscrupulous men are wont to do.
Or perhaps the Lord really can lie, and Joseph Smith and Paul were wrong?
-Xan
Xan Du
To be fair, I don't really think you're catatonic or a pathological liar. I
think you are the victim of a fraud which has been perpetuated since 1830,
which fraud has spawned an often wonderful social system and culture that I
myself had a great deal of difficulty recognizing as based on myths,
stories, and blatant lies. My comments are largely sarcastic because I am
frustrated with how effectively the LDS Church has taught its members turn
off their brains and make disparaging remarks about "anti-Mormons" who dare
to be critical of the True Gospel.
Having made that speech, you made two arguments that prompted my use of the
word "catatonic":
1) who really cares? That was 150 years ago?
2) No one has proven John Taylor was lying.
Both of these responses, if one could call them arguments, failed to address
or respond to direct evidence that John Taylor publicly lied about the
practice of polygamy. This led me to suspect that you might have trouble
dealing with reality, which is a key indication for several types of
psychoses, one of which is catatonia.
My other suspicion of you is that you are deliberately perpetuating a fraud,
based on your evasive and dismissive style of responding to documented
evidence.
If you'd like to present evidence of similar behavior in my posts, I invite
you to do so. Until then, your allegation that I am catatonic stands as an
unsupported and baseless accusation.
-Xan
Fool Speck
> > *while* he was on his mission,>
>
> In the 1830's Taylor had one wife, as evidenced by Steve's post. It is
> loose on when the alleged statement by Taylor was actually made, though it
> insinuates he made it in 1850. But, Taylor was not on a mission in England
> in 1850, so the insinuation is weird at best.
His two missions to England were from 1839-1841 and again from
1846-1847.
His mission to France and Germany was from 1850-52.
As noted previously, the debate is documented by Orson Pratt to have
taken place in in Boulogne-Sur-Mer, France, in July 1850.
From the Church's website we find that "In 1849, Taylor returned to
Europe, where he presided over missionary work in France and Germany
and directed the translation and publication of a French-German
edition of the Book of Mormon."
http://www.familyforever.com/temples/prophets/jtaylor.htm
Your next attack may be to prove his was not married to these
polygamous wives at the time he lied. We can find these marriages and
another reference to his mission to France at another LDS website:
http://smithinstitute.byu.edu/register/t_v.html
The lies about the Church's involvement in polygamy did nothing for
their reputation when the Church officially stopped lying about
polygamy in 1852 with a public declaration admitting to it by Orson
Pratt. We can see the baptisms then plummeted:
http://www.isle-of-man.com/manxnotebook/famhist/genealgy/mormon.htm
But what is the Church's official position about lying? Apostle
Dallin Oaks makes it clear in his talk "Gospel Teachings About Lying":
"There is no more authoritative or clear condemnation of the dishonest
and lying person than the Savior's description of the devil as a liar
and the father of lies (see John 8:44). Modern scripture refers to
Satan as “that wicked one who was a liar from the
beginning” (D&C 93:25). Jacob, the Book of Mormon prophet,
declared that the liar “shall be thrust down to hell” (2
Ne. 9:34)."
http://www.lds-mormon.com/oakslying.shtml
As Elder Oaks points out, there is no excuse for lying! So perhaps
the apologists should stop trying to excuse the Church?
In the same talk Elder Oaks even acknowledges that there was lying
about polygamy:
"The whole experience with polygamy was a fertile field for deception.
It is not difficult for historians to quote LDS leaders and members in
statements justifying, denying, or deploring deception in furtherance
of this religious practice....
"I ask myself, “If some of these Mormon leaders or members lied,
therefore, what?” I reject a “therefore” which
asserts or implies that this example shows that lying is morally
permissible or that lying is a tradition or even a tolerated condition
in the Mormon community or among the leaders of our church. That is
not so.
"I suppose most mortals employ some exaggeration and a little of what
someone called “innocent after-mindedness.” But does this
mean we condone deliberate and important misrepresentations of fact in
a circumstance in which they are clearly intended to be believed and
relied upon? Never! Lying is sinful, as it has always been, and there
is no exempt category for so-called “lying for the Lord.”
Lying is simply outside the range of permitted or condoned conduct by
Latter-day Saints—members or leaders."
So there you have it. There was lying about polygamy -- outrageous
lies. I know it, Apostle Dallin Oaks knows it. So accept the fact
that the very elite of the Church lied about a fundamental doctrine.
The lying started with Joseph Smith and continued until Orson Pratt
declared it doctrine from the pulpit in 1852.
They lied about polygamy. What other fundamental doctrines did they
lie about?
Steve Lowther
TheJordan6
>described in any other terms than a bald-faced lie. He was questioned
>on polygamy, and he insulted the questioner and denied the Church
>practiced it. It is found in his pamphlet HE published and Orson
>Pratt liked it so much, Pratt published it as well.
>
>Do you want me to send you photocopies of the title page and the
>quote? It is obvious they are 160 photocopied pages of a very old
>book.
The story of Taylor's, and other Mormon leaders' denials of polygamy in England
in the late 1840's and early 1850's, can be read in Fanny Stenhouse's "Tell It
All" at
http://moa.umdl.umich.edu/cgi/pageviewer?root=mm000012%2F0223tell%2Fv0000%
2Fi000%2F&tif=0010r008.tif&cite=http%3A%2F%2Fmoa.umdl.umich.edu%2Fcgi%2Fsg
ml%2Fmoa-idx%3Fnotisid%3DANT6396&coll=moa&frames=1&view=75
The site is a photocopy of the original book, and is not cut-and-pasteable, so
you'll have to read to the part where she discusses the lies.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 12/10/2001 10:38 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <9v3v3s$cqhf6$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>
The thing that Mobots simply refuse to understand is that Utah Mormons
offifically denied the teaching or practice of polygamy until they reversed
themselves and admitted it in 1852. That's the earliest they began publicly
advocating and making speeches justifying the practice. To learn the facts
about this policy of denial, it would be more productive for Mobots to study
the issue and cite the instances where polygamy was PUBLICLY taught or
advocated BEFORE 1852.
Randy J.
Cheap Suit
LOL
Fool Speck
<snip>
> I'm going to have to decline paying $19 to the Tanners to
> support their career of opposition to the Lord's work. I
> think it is destroying their souls and others', how could
> I possibly lend assistance to that sad fact?
>
> But thank you for indicating honestly the source.
The source is Orson Pratt. I love the irony that you refuse to buy a
book produced by an apostle of the church. I also love the irony that
Pratt's book is not used today except to prove Taylor's lie.
Anyway, after much searching I found my copy. I will gladly send you
a photocopy of the portrait included at the beginning, the title page,
and the John Taylor pamphlet portion. I am awaiting your address via
email.
> > > Why were Orson Pratt's Works collected together in an 1851
> > > edition? He continued to live and work for another thirty
> > > years. Or was that an error also in your first version?
> >
> > You want me to tell you why Orson Pratt published his book in 1851?
> > How would I possibly know?
>
> There must be documents around somewhere relating to this
> tract, and to this book. There is a history to it, why it was
> published, what the point was, who paid for it, who typeset
> it, who provided the material, etc. etc.
Buy a photocopy of the book and scrutinize it yourself.
> If we can get at
> some of that information we might know whether this statement
> of John Taylor's, whatever it is, was 1st person by him,
> whether it was taken down verbatim in an oral debate, whether
> he edited it afterward, or what was the deal. For all I know,
> it's in the book itself, you haven't indicated. THEN we might
> be in a position to decide if he LIED as you say. As it
> stands now, I don't think you know if he lied or not.
> BTW, John Taylor was an extremely honest and good man, if
> that's any help.
I have no doubt he was a good man. He just engaged in "lying for the
Lord." See my post about Dallin Oaks' condemnation of it.
> >... Yes he lived a good deal longer. So what?
> > Was what an error? This quotation is directly from a pamphlet
> > published in 1850 by John Taylor, and included as an of addendum in
> > _Orson Pratt's Works_ published in 1851. What bearing does your
> > thirty year figure have on anything? Where did it come from?
>
> It was my understanding that this was some kind of anthology
> of Pratt's works, the kind of thing they put together after
> the quantity is known (i.e. he's dead). I was questioning
> to get information, to see if there was a major disconnect
> here somewhere.
It is a collection of missionary tracts, presumably used in missionary
work.
> > When I get my photocopy of the pages of _Orson Pratt's Works_
> > replaced, I will have the original to type from.
>
> Um, what are you talking about now? You have a copy of Tanner's
> xeroxed book? But you don't have it right now? How did you
> provide those 1st and 2nd attempts at quotations, from memory?
> You're not improving the confidence in this quotation here...
The quotation is found in numerous places on the internet. The
remainder of your questions can be easily answered with the
photocopies I will send you. Awaiting your email.
<snip>
Steve Lowther
Fool Speck
I guess that means Jesus lied at his trial. Imagine that.
Steve Lowther
Fool Speck
> Maybe. But the actual statements were made in 1839, when he clearly was not
> practicing it. As Jesus told his Apostles, "Tell no man I am the Messiah."
No, John. Repeating 1839 over and over again does not make it true.
The debate occurred on 15 July 1850 according to John Taylor.
Steve Lowther
Innovators_Dilemma
At least that's the allegation. I'd certainly like to see the tract
reproduced here so I can verify its contents. Any chance that might happen?
Innovators_Dilemma
<snip>
I sure would like to see the content of that alleged tract reproduced here
so I can see and verify its content.
Innovators_Dilemma
I see the exact same type of behavior from self-proclaimed "scientists"
("True believing atheists") on this board whenever anyone dares to question
the adequacy of what is at best very speculative evidence as to the origin
of life. Boy, make any suggestion that the sparse evidence doesn't add up
and the TBA's jump on you with more ferocity than TBM's. It's as if there
are two different standards. A very exacting one for Mormons and their
beliefs, and a very lenient, shifting one for TBA's and their beliefs.
I, as a Mormon, am well aware of some of the idiosyncracies and errors that
occurred and probably still occur in the church. However, I see no problem
with the notion that God's church is run by imperfect humans who make
mistakes. I can easily overlook such things because I can see that, on
balance, there is much more that is virtuous, praiseworthy and of good
report about the Mormon church than the minutia brought up and hashed and
rehashed ad nauseum on ARM. Just because such things are brought up over
and over and sliced ever thinner doesn't increase the small quantity of such
things compared to the huge quantity of great things about the church that
more than offset the negative ones, in my opinion. Thus, I could score the
pros and cons as being in a ratio of about 85:15 (again, simply my opinion
based on my personal experience, which is the only "consciousness" that is
relevant to me. See GFW Hegel).
On the other hand, the thin reeds relied up by TBA's in supposedly
explaining everthing that has happened in the last 10 billion years of the
universe's existance is mind-bogglingly pretentious in view of the utter
palcity of actual evidence. There are whole systems of dogmatic
"scientific" beliefs that begin with a whole series of unproven and
unprovable postulates that are simply accepted as true (e.g. life emerged
unaided from primordial soup) and then whole disciplines emerge whose
foundation is merely speculative. Challenge such foundations and you're in
for a bitter war (e.g., it is impossible for DNA to spontanously form in
either a reductive or oxidative environment; the same is true for proteins).
The carboxyl moeity of amino acids cannot form in a reductive environment
because there is no source of oxygen. The amino portion cannot form in an
oxidative environment because there would be no source of ammonia. Ammonia
was first synthesized about 100 years ago by Haber. Before that, there was
no man-made fixation of nitrogen.
Now, I am well aware that all kinds of rationalizations can be made ad
naseum as to how or why amino acids and DNA would have, or could have,
spontaneously formed themselves as initially meaningless sequences unrelated
to life, only to come together in some fantastic way to start
synergistically interacting, but such pretenses are merely speculative. The
problem with "scientists" is that they will no admit that it is speculative,
or they blow through it uncritically as if no one has the right to question
the origin of life. When pinned into a corner, they start making rude
comments about the stupidity of a belief in God, as if that logically
relates to the inadequacy of their own assumptions. It's as if it logically
follows that, if one can question the existance of God long enough (even
though His existance cannot be disproven) that somehow "proves" the
necessary truth of abiogenesis. This is tautological and just plain silly.
In short. I see far less ambiguity in believing in God and the veracity of
the Mormon church than in believing life began randomly in the premordial
soup. And there is much less evidence (including personal experience and
revelation) for the latter.
Guy R. Briggs
>
> Until 1852, the official policy of the Utah LDS church
> concerning "plural marriage" was to deny that they practiced
> it, and condemn all those who accused them of practicing it.
>
And what was it that happened in 1852 to change things? Oh yes, it
was that little thing about presenting it in General Conference for the
sustaining vote of the membership, making it official Church doctrine.
That's it.
IOW, the corporate Church didn't practice polygamy until then,
although some of the leaders did. Official Church doctrine was
monogamy, as stated in the Book of Commandments.
Also, in both Taylor's speech and the Section CI, "polygamy" is also
linked to "fornication". Any first-year programming student can tell
you that if any of the conditions of the IF are false then the whole
statement is false.
Church leaders, Taylor included, did not believe that plural
marriage was fornication. Adultery either, for that matter. The
argument might be made that they were mistaken - but they certainly
weren't lying about the fornication part. Lying is when one
deliberately makes a statement one knows is untrue. Thus, the "IF
(polygamy.AND.fornication)" statement tests false - because
"fornication" was false (at least, in their minds) regardless of
whether polygamy was true or not. As quoted by Steve:
"We [that is, the Church] are accused here of
polygamy,... AND [emphasis mine] actions the most
indelicate, obscene, and disgusting, such that none
but a corrupt and depraved heart could have
contrived."
IOW, enemies of the Church were spreading lies about plural
marriage. They weren't content to just tell the truth - that certain of
the leaders were practicing it - they felt the need to embellish and
distort the truth. Girls being imported from the farthest reaches of
the Eastern Hemisphere, communities of communal wives, "Cloistered
Saints" or "Saints of the Black Veil". Leaders of the Church had every
right to deny these "actions most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting"
because they were untrue.
But did they have the duty to reveal all that they knew? I think
that's the real question here. In court, the witness is sworn to tell
"the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Does that mean
that a Doctor is obligated to reveal "the whole truth" about his
patient? No, it does not. Does that mean an attorney is obligated to
reveal "the whole truth" about his client? Again, no. Must a wife
reveal the "whole truth" about her husband and testify against him?
Still no. Does the witness have the obligation to tell the "whole
truth" if it incriminates him? No, and the right is constitutionally
protected.
Or how about Peter, James and John, descending the Mount of
Transfiguration, when Christ instructed them to "... tell the vision to
no man, until the Son of Man be risen from the dead...?" Did they have
the obligation to reveal the experience in direct disobedience to the
Saviour's command?
bestRegards, Guy.
Xan Du
>
> "Xan Du" <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9v66o5$d03r3$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > Innovators_Dilemma <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:9v65gi$194p$1...@news.aros.net...
<snip>
> > > Maybe. But the actual statements were made in 1839, when he clearly
was
> > > not practicing it.
> >
> > That has no relevance. He published a tract denouncing polygamy, and
> > denying that such practice was authorized by the Church in 1850, when he
> > in fact was a practicing polygamist. This is called lying, and is the
basis
> > for Steve's argument.
>
> At least that's the allegation. I'd certainly like to see the tract
> reproduced here so I can verify its contents.
That is reasonable. But is there really any possibility you'll accept the
tract's authenticity based on a photocopy obtained from the UTLM? The
obvious argument is that the Tanners fabricated it. I'm not sure that if
Steve scans the whole text and e-mails it to ARM that you'll be convinced
that the tract was authentic.
> Any chance that might happen?
That's up to Steve, not me.
-Xan
<snip to end>
Xan Du
>
> "Xan Du" <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9v67sk$d1fbn$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > Innovators_Dilemma <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:9v65l4$195u$1...@news.aros.net...
> > >
> > > "Xan Du" <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:9v3ak6$ckrr8$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de...
<snip>
There's even less *tangible* evidence for the origin of God. Furthermore,
there are at least as many conflicting theories on what God is, and where
God came from, as there are scientific theories for the origin of life on
this planet. And I might add that while creationism isn't necessarily
incompatible with scientific theory, traditional Judeo-Christian doctrines
on the origin of Man is all but indistinguishable from the physical evidence
available.
My observation of what typically happens is that a scientific theory
emerges, is roundly rejected by the religious powers that be, the scientists
are persecuted, the laity figures out that the science has merit, the
religious leadership realizes that it needs to change stance to maintain
credibility, the religious doctrine changes. This process can last for 100s
of years, by which time science has of course "concocted" thousands more
blashpemous theories.
This is an acrimonious process to be sure, and strident rhetoric is noted on
both sides. In a forum such as ARM where 99% of us are just amateurs, the
problem is only amplified.
> Boy, make any suggestion that the sparse evidence doesn't add up
> and the TBA's jump on you with more ferocity than TBM's. It's as if there
> are two different standards. A very exacting one for Mormons and their
> beliefs, and a very lenient, shifting one for TBA's and their beliefs.
Ah, the irony. On this very thread, you have been constantly hounding
Lowther about the authenticity of the John Taylor tract from which he builds
a major portion of his argument.
But, don't most organized religions set themselves up for this level
scrutiny? The LDS Church claims the *only* direct authority of God extant
on the planet, which authority allows the organization to receive pure
knowledge from an omniscient being. Pretty heady claim for an organization
that represents less than 0.002% of the Earth's population. Other, much
larger churches make similarly strong statements about the accuracy of their
doctrine.
On the other hand, legitimate scientific communities understand that
knowledge is only as good as the quality of the evidence, and the quality of
the interpretation of that evidence. And while there are a lot of
egotistical, know-it-all scientists, the most respected investigators are
the ones who best demonstrate to modify their conclusions when presented
with further evidence.
Both sides demand exacting documentation from the other. Charles Dowis is
constantly busting my balls for documentation and references. I make sure
to return the favor. It's a chicken or the egg first problem -- it doesn't
make sense to figure out who started it, it makes much better sense to
either document allegations, or else be prepared to admit that a statement
was simply an opinion.
> I, as a Mormon, am well aware of some of the idiosyncracies and errors
that
> occurred and probably still occur in the church. However, I see no
problem
> with the notion that God's church is run by imperfect humans who make
> mistakes.
I'm with you there. The Bible is rife with examples of fallen leaders. I
don't have a testimony of the Church mostly because I sought for spiritual
confirmation and didn't get it. Once I admitted that, I was free to explore
issues like human migratory patterns into N. America from Asia. The whole
polygamy thing bothers me now only because it fits a larger pattern of what
I consider to be deliberate deception. But, I realize that my convictions
are based upon the evidence that I am *willing* to accept. Because I am
willing to make that public admission, I have little tolerance for those who
don't. You'll find that I'm often critical of people on "my side" who
blatantly overlook their own limited perspective.
> I can easily overlook such things because I can see that, on
> balance, there is much more that is virtuous, praiseworthy and of good
> report about the Mormon church
The Church *works* for you, so of course you concentrate on the benefits of
the organization. I'm happy for you, honestly, even though I believe that
you have been deceived.
> than the minutia brought up and hashed and
> rehashed ad nauseum on ARM.
An apostle publicly lying about the doctrine and practices of the Church is
not "minutia". Presenting evidence against the historicity and authenticity
of the BoM is entirely appropriate to the persuit of truth. My largest
criticsm of you derives exactly from this sort of arrogant dismissiveness.
The best defense is a good offense? I think not -- such tactics imply that
you don't have a valid defense and weaken your reputation and position.
I, of course, not being perfect, go offensive at times too, but dammit Jim,
I try not to make those tactics my bread and butter.
> Just because such things are brought up over
> and over and sliced ever thinner doesn't increase the small quantity of
such
> things compared to the huge quantity of great things about the church that
> more than offset the negative ones, in my opinion. Thus, I could score
the
> pros and cons as being in a ratio of about 85:15 (again, simply my opinion
> based on my personal experience, which is the only "consciousness" that is
> relevant to me. See GFW Hegel).
See, the only reason I've bothered responding in such detail, and dropped
the ad hominems, is because you make this admission.
> On the other hand, the thin reeds relied up by TBA's in supposedly
> explaining everthing that has happened in the last 10 billion years of the
> universe's existance is mind-bogglingly pretentious in view of the utter
> palcity of actual evidence.
What a nice strawman you've built out of those reeds! :)
> There are whole systems of dogmatic
> "scientific" beliefs that begin with a whole series of unproven and
> unprovable postulates that are simply accepted as true (e.g. life emerged
> unaided from primordial soup) and then whole disciplines emerge whose
> foundation is merely speculative.
Again, most such disciplines have the honesty to admit that their
conclusions are speculative.
> Challenge such foundations and you're in
> for a bitter war (e.g., it is impossible for DNA to spontanously form in
> either a reductive or oxidative environment; the same is true for
proteins).
Humans will be humans.
> The carboxyl moeity of amino acids cannot form in a reductive environment
> because there is no source of oxygen. The amino portion cannot form in an
> oxidative environment because there would be no source of ammonia.
Ammonia
> was first synthesized about 100 years ago by Haber. Before that, there
was
> no man-made fixation of nitrogen.
Ah, but once that discovery was made, it was almost immediately utilized to
produce fertilizers. Well, ok, and explosives and poisonous war gasses too.
No one bothered to ponder some dogmatic belief that humans weren't meant to
manufacture ammonia.
> Now, I am well aware that all kinds of rationalizations can be made ad
> naseum as to how or why amino acids and DNA would have, or could have,
> spontaneously formed themselves as initially meaningless sequences
unrelated
> to life, only to come together in some fantastic way to start
> synergistically interacting, but such pretenses are merely speculative.
The
> problem with "scientists" is that they will no admit that it is
speculative,
> or they blow through it uncritically as if no one has the right to
question
> the origin of life. When pinned into a corner, they start making rude
> comments about the stupidity of a belief in God, as if that logically
> relates to the inadequacy of their own assumptions.
I think you are unfairly judging the minority by a percentage of a vocal
few. Nearly any honest scientist will tell you that the more he or she
learns, the more he or she realizes how much he or she doesn't know.
> It's as if it logically
> follows that, if one can question the existance of God long enough (even
> though His existance cannot be disproven) that somehow "proves" the
> necessary truth of abiogenesis. This is tautological and just plain
silly.
That's a reasonable argument. However, you are still not able to answer the
question about the origin of God, an omnipotent, omniscient being. This
particular discussion will always be a draw in my mind, which is why I am
agnostic, not atheist.
At this point, I feel compelled to remind you that the topic of this thread
is an allegation that John Taylor knowingly and publicly misrepresented the
practice of polygamy, and that attacking the entire scientific method on the
basis of inconsistent theories of abiogenisis is largely irrelevant. Not
that I didn't enjoy the conversation, mind you. But the fact remains that
we don't need to use organic chemistry and molecular biology to determine
whether the Church misrepresented its position on the plurality of wives.
> In short. I see far less ambiguity in believing in God and the veracity
of
> the Mormon church than in believing life began randomly in the premordial
> soup. And there is much less evidence (including personal experience and
> revelation) for the latter.
I would not suppose to ask you to change your personal philosophy. I would
ask you to answer evidence with evidence, which is something you seem to
have an aversion for.
I've enjoyed this post much more than any of your others in recent history.
Keep it up. I'll try to lay off the remote psychoanalysis in return. Deal?
-Xan
alienward
> And what was it that happened in 1852 to change things? Oh yes, it
> was that little thing about presenting it in General Conference for the
> sustaining vote of the membership, making it official Church doctrine.
> That's it.
>
“All these incidents blend together and make it clearly evident
that the revelation on marriage was given long before the 12th of
July, 1843. Doubtless as early as 1831.” (History of the Church)
The apologist is trying to tell us revelations aren’t doctrine
until voted on in General Conference. If that was true, African
Americans would still be denied the priesthood.
> IOW, the corporate Church didn't practice polygamy until then,
> although some of the leaders did. Official Church doctrine was
> monogamy, as stated in the Book of Commandments.
>
> Also, in both Taylor's speech and the Section CI, "polygamy" is also
> linked to "fornication". Any first-year programming student can tell
> you that if any of the conditions of the IF are false then the whole
> statement is false.
>
> Lying is when one
> deliberately makes a statement one knows is untrue. Thus, the "IF
> (polygamy.AND.fornication)" statement tests false - because
> "fornication" was false (at least, in their minds) regardless of
> whether polygamy was true or not.
>
The programming here is as lame as the apologetics. This would be like
coding a statement IF (Mormon.AND.Muslim). A programmer that would
write this needs to have every line of their code reviewed.
“Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the
crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one
man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in
case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.”
When the Mormon church said “we believe that one man should have
one wife” they were lying. Notice they didn’t elaborate
on the fornication part.
Alien
Fool Speck
> >
> > Until 1852, the official policy of the Utah LDS church
> > concerning "plural marriage" was to deny that they practiced
> > it, and condemn all those who accused them of practicing it.
> >
> And what was it that happened in 1852 to change things? Oh yes, it
> was that little thing about presenting it in General Conference for the
> sustaining vote of the membership, making it official Church doctrine.
> That's it.
Yes! That must be it!
> IOW, the corporate Church didn't practice polygamy until then,
> although some of the leaders did. Official Church doctrine was
> monogamy, as stated in the Book of Commandments.
You are right. And in fact we can further improve the innocence of
the corporate Church, because as a corporation, it didn't practice
marriage in any form at all! Only individuals can be married, so it
is false to say the Church practiced or even endorsed polygamy.
> Also, in both Taylor's speech and the Section CI, "polygamy" is also
> linked to "fornication". Any first-year programming student can tell
> you that if any of the conditions of the IF are false then the whole
> statement is false.
That's right! Taylor was actually speaking in an early form of a
programming language! I'll look again, because I am sure it is there,
but apparently I missed the "If" where he inserted the construct.
I'll also look again for the "Then" and perhaps an "Else" and any
other boolean operators. That Taylor sure was clever!
> Church leaders, Taylor included, did not believe that plural
> marriage was fornication. Adultery either, for that matter. The
> argument might be made that they were mistaken - but they certainly
> weren't lying about the fornication part. Lying is when one
> deliberately makes a statement one knows is untrue. Thus, the "IF
> (polygamy.AND.fornication)" statement tests false - because
> "fornication" was false (at least, in their minds) regardless of
> whether polygamy was true or not. As quoted by Steve:
>
> "We [that is, the Church] are accused here of
> polygamy,... AND [emphasis mine] actions the most
> indelicate, obscene, and disgusting, such that none
> but a corrupt and depraved heart could have
> contrived."
>
> IOW, enemies of the Church were spreading lies about plural
> marriage. They weren't content to just tell the truth - that certain of
> the leaders were practicing it - they felt the need to embellish and
> distort the truth. Girls being imported from the farthest reaches of
> the Eastern Hemisphere, communities of communal wives, "Cloistered
> Saints" or "Saints of the Black Veil". Leaders of the Church had every
> right to deny these "actions most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting"
> because they were untrue.
I'm glad you set me straight, Guy. For some unfathomable reason I
thought Taylor, as a polygamist, was representing himself as a
monogamist.
It was really unfair for that preacher to accuse them of polygamy when
in their hearts each was a monogamist. If the truth be known, because
of the nature of their marriages, no one can say they were polygamists
at all. They practiced something more like parallel monogamy.
> But did they have the duty to reveal all that they knew? I think
> that's the real question here. In court, the witness is sworn to tell
> "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Does that mean
> that a Doctor is obligated to reveal "the whole truth" about his
> patient? No, it does not. Does that mean an attorney is obligated to
> reveal "the whole truth" about his client? Again, no. Must a wife
> reveal the "whole truth" about her husband and testify against him?
> Still no. Does the witness have the obligation to tell the "whole
> truth" if it incriminates him? No, and the right is constitutionally
> protected.
>
> Or how about Peter, James and John, descending the Mount of
> Transfiguration, when Christ instructed them to "... tell the vision to
> no man, until the Son of Man be risen from the dead...?" Did they have
> the obligation to reveal the experience in direct disobedience to the
> Saviour's command?
>
> bestRegards, Guy.
Exactly. Jesus asking his disciples to keep a secret was deliciously
deceitful.
But thankfully when deceit is practiced for a good cause like
spreading the gospel, it isn't a sin at all!
Steve Lowther
Fool Speck
<snip>
> I, as a Mormon, am well aware of some of the idiosyncracies and errors that
> occurred and probably still occur in the church. However, I see no problem
> with the notion that God's church is run by imperfect humans who make
> mistakes. I can easily overlook such things because I can see that, on
> balance, there is much more that is virtuous, praiseworthy and of good
> report about the Mormon church than the minutia brought up and hashed and
> rehashed ad nauseum on ARM. Just because such things are brought up over
> and over and sliced ever thinner doesn't increase the small quantity of such
> things compared to the huge quantity of great things about the church that
> more than offset the negative ones, in my opinion. Thus, I could score the
> pros and cons as being in a ratio of about 85:15 (again, simply my opinion
> based on my personal experience, which is the only "consciousness" that is
> relevant to me. See GFW Hegel).
I have to agree that here on ARM nearly all of the positive aspects of
Mormon religion and culture go unacknowledged. This is a debate
forum, and those things which are not controversial by definition are
usually not addressed.
Indeed there is much about LDS culture that is praiseworthy.
Unfortunately, most of the critics who are not antimormon, do not
express the positive nearly enough to portray a more circumspect
perspective which we really feel.
At the same time, by virtue of its claims, the LDS Church has given
itself little latitude for flaws. Doctrine that claims divinity is by
definition perfect doctrine. Revelations from God are by definition
are from a perfect source. The leaders who claim divine authority and
declare it is impossible for them to lead the Church astray leave
little room for spiritual or even institutional navigation errors.
The Bible itself proclaims that if a prophet makes a single false
prophecy, then he is a false prophet. He can prophesy non-stop all of
his waking hours for 50 years, all of his prophecies having been
fulfilled, then if he utters something false in the name of the Lord,
the Bible then declares him a fraud. The LDS Church adheres to this
Biblical standard.
In examining its foundations, it is at this point where this exacting
standard forces us to ignore all of the good the Church has done. For
by reason of its self-imposed exacting standards, its entire claim to
authority can be completely undermined by a single misdirected
utterance. This self-imposed standard produces passionate, zealous
followers, but it is so impossibly difficult to maintain.
Yes, it is a positive force in peoples' lives. Yes, it brings peace
to the lives of millions. Yes, it is a powerful source of social
cohesion. However, everything stands on impossible claims. Its
perceived authority and its very survival therefore depends upon its
members willingness to maintain its solid perimeter wall of ignorance
and denial.
For those observers whose sensibilities this offends, they will often
become so very hypercritical and completely ignore any of the
positive. They deny any good exists in the Church at all, and they
contaminate themselves unnecessarily with hate and sometimes even
spiritual darkness.
For those who remain loyal, they must build a belief defense that is
powerful enough to convince them and their coreligionists that black
is white, that fantasy is reality.
For me, the only reality is to accept that both paradigms exist
mutually exclusively within a single great paradigm -- a meta-paradigm
if you will. It is here where all of the truths within the Church can
be celebrated and loved, and all of its mythologies put into proper
perspective without having to embrace all of the dark cynicism.
Steve Lowther
Innovators_Dilemma
Well, all we have so far are allegations.
>
> -Xan
>
> <snip to end>
>
>
Innovators_Dilemma
Sure Xan. You main this is this. It's damn hard not to rant and raive on
this board when everyone else seems to be flinging shit.
Xan Du
>
> "Xan Du" <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9v8mik$dq5tp$7...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > Innovators_Dilemma <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:9v83vg$2od5$1...@news.aros.net...
<snip>
> > > In short. I see far less ambiguity in believing in God and the
veracity
> > > of the Mormon church than in believing life began randomly in the
> > > premordial soup. And there is much less evidence (including personal
> > > experience and revelation) for the latter.
> >
> > I would not suppose to ask you to change your personal philosophy. I
> > would ask you to answer evidence with evidence, which is something
> > you seem to have an aversion for.
> >
> > I've enjoyed this post much more than any of your others in recent
> > history. Keep it up. I'll try to lay off the remote psychoanalysis in
return.
> > Deal?
> >
> > -Xan
> >
>
> Sure Xan. You main this is this. It's damn hard not to rant and raive on
> this board when everyone else seems to be flinging shit.
I agree. I am often guilty of both ranting and raving. But in my calm
moments, which I think represent at least 75% of the time, I try to stick to
logic, issues, arguments, evidence and documentation. It seems that the
best way to respond to fecal flinging has always been a logical, calm
response devoid of sarcasm and ad hominem.
But some people are just assholes, and nothing will do but to call a spade a
spade.
-Xan
Xan Du
> "Innovators_Dilemma" <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<9v3adi$2ak4$1...@news.aros.net>...
> > "Xan Du" <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:9v39og$crh28$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de...
> > > Did you miss the bit about John Taylor being husband to more than one
wife
> > > *while* he was on his mission,>
> >
> > In the 1830's Taylor had one wife, as evidenced by Steve's post. It is
> > loose on when the alleged statement by Taylor was actually made, though
it
> > insinuates he made it in 1850. But, Taylor was not on a mission in
England
> > in 1850, so the insinuation is weird at best.
>
> His two missions to England were from 1839-1841 and again from
> 1846-1847.
> His mission to France and Germany was from 1850-52.
>
> As noted previously, the debate is documented by Orson Pratt to have
> taken place in in Boulogne-Sur-Mer, France, in July 1850.
<snip>
> But what is the Church's official position about lying? Apostle
> Dallin Oaks makes it clear in his talk "Gospel Teachings About Lying":
>
> "There is no more authoritative or clear condemnation of the dishonest
> and lying person than the Savior's description of the devil as a liar
> and the father of lies (see John 8:44). Modern scripture refers to
> Satan as “that wicked one who was a liar from the
> beginning” (D&C 93:25). Jacob, the Book of Mormon prophet,
> declared that the liar “shall be thrust down to hell” (2
> Ne. 9:34)."
>
> http://www.lds-mormon.com/oakslying.shtml
For those who may doubt the authenticity of the text presented in the above
link, this speech is available online in PDF format in the Spring 1994 issue
of _Clark Memorandum_, BYU's quarterly law school publication.
http://www.law2.byu.edu/Clark_Society/clark_memorandum.htm
-Xan
Xan Du
No, we have documented evidence.
http://www.familyforever.com/temples/prophets/jtaylor.htm
Establishes that John Taylor was in France and Germany from 1849 to 1850.
http://smithinstitute.byu.edu/register/t_v.html
Establishes that John Taylor was indeed married to multiple women before and
after the time he served his mission in France and Germany.
http://www.lds-mormon.com/oakslying.shtml
Establishes that Dallin H. Oaks recognizes that some early Church leaders
lied about the Church's polygamy policies. "The whole experience with
polygamy was a fertile field for deception. It is not difficult for
historians to quote LDS leaders and members in statements justifying,
denying, or deploring [sic?] deception in furtherance of this religious
practice." Elder Oaks specifically condemns all lying in this speech: "We
must not lie. I know of no category of justified lies."
For those who may doubt the authenticity of the text presented in the above
link, this speech is available online in PDF format in the Spring 1994 issue
of _Clark Memorandum_, BYU's quarterly law school publication. The Title of
the speech is, "Gospel Teachings About Lying."
http://www.law2.byu.edu/Clark_Society/clark_memorandum.htm
The above evidence is found on official LDS websites, or sites supportive of
LDS belief and practice as documented by the hypertext links provided. Even
the most critical LDS proponent will have trouble finding some "anti-Mormon"
bias to use to discredit the data as here presented.
Steve's point is that early Church officials lied about the practice of
polygamy. That assertion has been supported by Elder Oak's statement.
Therefore, to continue arguing about whether early LDS officials lied about
polygamy is moot.
Having established that lies were told, it becomes interesting and
informative to discover which officials, when, in what historical context
officials lied, what lies were told, etc. Steve Lowther has provided
quotations from a pamphlet published by John Taylor, and used by him during
his mission in France and Germany from 1849 to 1850. Steve has provided
excerpts from that pamphlet that specifically stated that the Church does
not practice polygamy.
Steve is a man of his word. I'm sure he'll deliver the entire text of the
pamphlet if that is really what you want. However, I think it would be much
better if we all realized that as soon as you read the entire pamphlet, that
you will want to see proof that the pamplet is authentic, etc. So, I'm
suggesting that we address the authenticity issue first, before we make poor
Steve OCR the whole document, only to have you reject it out of hand.
-Xan
Fool Speck
> Innovators_Dilemma <innovato...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9vdkej$l2h$1...@news.aros.net...
> > Well, all we have so far are allegations.
Thanks, Xan, for your support. I certainly appreciate your
validation.
I have sent Woody Brison some enlarged copies of the title page, the
page with a portrait of Orson Pratt, table of contents, portions of
the first chapter, the correspondence between the parties in setting
up the debate, and the first evening's transcript of the debate
itself.
The entire book is a compilation of missionary pamphlets written by
Orson Pratt, with an addendum of a pamphlet by John Taylor of this
debate, and finally a chapter with a facsimile of the Kinderhook
plates. My copy is 160 sheets, two pages per sheet where somebody
took the book and placed it on the face of a copy machine, showing the
curvature of the pages at the spline and the old-fashioned type font.
It is obvious this book is genuine, and I think even Woody will come
to the same obvious conclusion when he receives the pages.
Some additional information as evidence to its authenticity, is that
the Library of Congress has copies of it, apparently from a 1945
reprint by Deseret News Press:
LC Control Number: 45010793
Type of Material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.)
Brief Description: Pratt, Orson, 1811-1881. [from old catalog]
Orson Pratt's works on the doctrines of the gospel,
Salt Lake City, Utah, The Deseret news press [1945-]
1 v. front. (port.) 22 cm.
CALL NUMBER: BX8609 .P74
Copy 1
-- Request in: Jefferson or Adams Bldg General or Area Studies Reading
Rms
-- Status: Not Charged
http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?SC=Title&SA=Orson+Pratts+Works&PID=16596&SEQ=20011215122353&HIST=1&CNT=25+records+per+screen
In fact, the Library of Congress will loan you a copy of it thru your
local library:
Xan Du
Always willing to help a friend engaged in a good cause.
> I have sent Woody Brison some enlarged copies of the title page, the
> page with a portrait of Orson Pratt, table of contents, portions of
> the first chapter, the correspondence between the parties in setting
> up the debate, and the first evening's transcript of the debate
> itself.
>
> The entire book is a compilation of missionary pamphlets written by
> Orson Pratt, with an addendum of a pamphlet by John Taylor of this
> debate, and finally a chapter with a facsimile of the Kinderhook
> plates. My copy is 160 sheets, two pages per sheet where somebody
> took the book and placed it on the face of a copy machine, showing the
> curvature of the pages at the spline and the old-fashioned type font.
> It is obvious this book is genuine, and I think even Woody will come
> to the same obvious conclusion when he receives the pages.
The obvious defense is that the Lord punished Pres. Taylor for his lies by
allowing the U.S. government to sieze Church property, forcing him into
exile, where he died.
> Some additional information as evidence to its authenticity, is that
> the Library of Congress has copies of it, apparently from a 1945
> reprint by Deseret News Press:
>
> LC Control Number: 45010793
> Type of Material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.)
> Brief Description: Pratt, Orson, 1811-1881. [from old catalog]
> Orson Pratt's works on the doctrines of the gospel,
> Salt Lake City, Utah, The Deseret news press [1945-]
> 1 v. front. (port.) 22 cm.
>
> CALL NUMBER: BX8609 .P74
> Copy 1
> -- Request in: Jefferson or Adams Bldg General or Area Studies Reading
> Rms
> -- Status: Not Charged
>
>
http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?SC=Title&SA=Orson+Pratts+Works&
PID=16596&SEQ=20011215122353&HIST=1&CNT=25+records+per+screen
>
> In fact, the Library of Congress will loan you a copy of it thru your
> local library:
>
> http://lcweb.loc.gov/rr/loan/
Excellent.
-Xan
TheJordan6
>>Until 1852, the official policy of the Utah LDS church concerning "plural
marriage" was to deny that they practiced it, and condemn all those who accused
them of practicing it.
Guy Briggs wrote:
>And what was it that happened in 1852 to change things? Oh yes, it was that
little thing about presenting it in General Conference for the sustaining vote
of the membership, making it official Church doctrine. That's it.
The subject under discussion here is whether or not early Mormon leaders denied
or lied about teaching or practicing polygamy before 1852. Since you concede
that LDS leaders first publicly admitted the practice of polygamy in 1852, you
are by default conceding that they denied or lied about it before 1852. Also,
since you admit that polygamy wasn't "sustained" by the membership until 1852,
you concede that all polygamy practiced before that date was illicit and
unapproved---since that is the same standard you use for such items as the
"Adam-God" doctrine.
>IOW, the corporate Church didn't practice polygamy until then, although some
of the leaders did.
Although most Nauvoo-era polygamists were leaders, some others just happened to
be in Joseph Smith's circle of people whom he thought would go along with the
illegal, immoral practice. As William Law said in his 1887 interview with
Wilhelm von Wymetal:
"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."
IOW, since polygamy was illegal in Illinois, and directly contradicted LDS
policy, those who accepted Smith's secret, illegal, immoral practice (such as
Young and Kimball) were of an immoral or criminal bent. But Law, Marks, and
others---the honest, moral men who opposed polygamy--- are ironically viewed
today as "sinners" by Mobots like yourself.
"Law, a prominent Nauvoo businessman, was solidly devoted to Smith until
mid-1843. During the Bennett scandal, he quickly came to Smith's defense,
reassuring the Saints that church leaders did not condone 'spiritual wifery' or
any such behavior. Smith held his counselor in such high esteem that he
included him in the first small group of male initiates to the endowment
ceremony in May 1842. And Law rendered much moral and financial support to a
discouraged Smith when Missouri officials were attempting to extradite him on
the Boggs case.
"By early 1843, however, Law began to waver in his commitment to Smith.
Initial difficulties between the two centered on business matters.....But a
deeper source of the Laws' disaffection was their detestation of polygamy. In
an 1887 interview William explained that Hyrum Smith had shown him the
'revelation on celestial marriage' in the fall of 1843. 'Hyrum gave it to me
in his office,' Law said, and 'told me to take it home and read it'.....He and
Jane 'were just turned upside down by it'.....William took the document
directly to the prophet and commented that it was in contradiction to the
Doctrine and Covenants. Smith noted that the section on marriage in the
Doctrine and Covenants was 'given when the Church was in its infancy, when they
were babes, and had to be fed on milk, but now they were strong and must have
some meat. He seemed much disappointed in my not receiving the revelation,'
William wrote. 'He was very anxious that I would accept the doctrine and
sustain him in it. He used many arguments at various times in its favor."
("Mormon Polygamy: A History," Richard van Wagoner, pp. 64-65.)
Thus we see that Smith kept his own counselor in the First Presidency in the
dark about polygamy, even allowing Law to naively file an 1842 affidavit
swearing that Bennett, rather than Smith, was the originator of "spiritual
wifery." And because Law opposed Smith's illegal, immoral, secret,
contradictory polygamy practice, Smith assassinated his character and
excommunicated him in absentia; and Law, the honest man in the case, has become
the "bad guy" to Mobots like yourself.
The above passage also shows that Smith acknowledged the authority of the
"Article on Marriage", as published in the 1835 D&C, but Smith treated it as
"milk" doctrine that was to be replaced by the "meat" of polygamy. The fact
that Smith acknowledged the efficacy of the "Article on Marriage" refutes the
fallacious assertion which you and Woody Brison have repeated, that Smith did
not approve of the "Article on Marriage," which specifically prohibited
polygamy.
>Official Church doctrine was monogamy, as stated in the Book of Commandments.
And that fact of history makes Smith's secret polygamy practice contradictory
to "official church doctrine." You, more than any other Mobot on ARM, have
repeatedly stated that no teaching or practice is "official" unless it is
agreed on by the First Presidency and the Q12, and approved by the sustaining
vote of the church members. But your above silly remark tries to justify
Smith's attempt to have one "approved" standard of behavior for public
consumption, and an opposite, secret, "unapproved" standard of behavior for the
benefit of a few elite leaders. Those of us who live on Planet Sane call that
"hypocrisy."
".....neither shall anything be appointed unto any of this church contrary to
the church covenants. For all things must be done in order, and by common
consent in the church..." (D&C 28:12-13.) Smith's secret polygamy practice
contradicted his own "revelations," and your support of his secret,
contradictory practice makes you as hypocritical as he was.
Since neither Smith's polygamy practice, nor his "revelation on celestial
marriage" were approved by the First Presidency or the Twelve, (or even known
about by many of them), nor sustained by the church membership at any time
during Smith's life, his secret teaching and practice of it ran directly
against the principles of "common consent" that supposedly governs Mormon
policy.
At various times, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and William Law were Joseph
Smith's counselors in the First Presidency; and William Marks was the Nauvoo
Stake and High Council President, which at that time, was the governing body of
the church, rather than the Q12. Since all of those men were strongly against
polygamy, Smith's secret polygamy practice ran counter to the laws and orders
of the church which he himself established. As I've documented for you many
times, when Smith tried to have his "revelation on celestial marriage"
sustained by the High Council on August 12, 1843, his attempt was defeated:
"In early 1843 Austin [Cowles]....played an important role when a storm of
opposition confronted Joseph Smith in the summer. On July 16 Smith preached,
denouncing internal traitors, and Willard Richards, writing to Brigham Young,
guessed that the church president was referring to William Marks, Austin
Cowles, and Parley P. Pratt. These men---the Nauvoo Stake President, his first
counselor, and an eloquent apostle---would be a serious obstacle to Smith,
despite his charismatic authority and ecclesiastical position, especially when
one considers the dominance of central stake leadership in early Mormonism.
Soon William Law, a counselor in the First Presidency, would be another
formidable opponent.
Their opposition became public when Hyrum Smith read the revelation on
polygamy, presently LDS Doctrine and Covenants 132, to the Nauvoo High Council
on August 12. Three of the leading brethren opposed it: William Marks, Austin
Cowles, and Leonard Soby. Considering the secrecy of polygamy, it is
remarkable that Hyrum would announce it even to the high council. It is also
remarkable that Marks, Cowles, and Soby would openly reject it. This was a
watershed moment in Latter-Day Saint history.
"Undoubedtly Austin soon saw that he could not function as a church leader
while he and Marks were opposing one of Joseph Smith's revelations so bluntly
and completely. On September 12, according to the high council minutes,
'President Austin Cowles resigned his seat in the Council as Councillor to
President Marks which was accepted by the Council.' Ebenezer Robinson later
wrote that Austin 'was far more outspoken and energetic in his opposition to
that doctrine [polygamy] than almost any other man in Nauvoo.' After resigning
his presidency, he 'was looked upon as a seceder, and no longer held a
prominent place in the Church, although morally and religiously speaking he was
one of the best men in the place.'.....Toward the end of April 1844, the
anti-polygamy dissenters began organizing a new church. William Law was
appointed president and selected Austin Cowles as his first counselor. Not
surprisingly, Austin was 'cut off' from the main LDS church for apostasy soon
thereafter, on May 18. He then helped write the fateful first and only issue
of the 'Nauvoo Expositor,' the paper which so infuriated Smith with its
criticisms of him and public discussion of polygamy. It appeared on June 7,
with an anti-polygamy affidavit by Cowles on the second page. The destruction
of the 'Expositor' press, engineered by Smith, set off a chain of events that
led to his martyrdom." ("In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph
Smith", pp. 549-550.)
The Nauvoo High Council's failure to sustain the "revelation on celestial
marriage" should have brought an end to the practice, if the LDS Church
operated according to its stated rules of order; but to the contrary, Smith
retaliated against those who refused to sustain his heinous practice by having
his pro-polygamous minions swear false accusations against them, assassinating
their characters, and excommunicating them in absentia. These actions of
Smith's show that the rule of "common consent" in the LDS Church is a sham, and
that Joseph Smith alone held absolute power.
Like Law and Marks, Austin Cowles had his character assassinated, and was
accused of sexual sins, simply because he opposed Smith's secret sexual
practices. And to this day, Mobots like Woody Brison believe that those men
were all libertines, because Woody believes the demonstrable liar Joseph Smith,
rather than the men who sought to expose the liar.
>Also, in both Taylor's speech and the Section CI, "polygamy" is also linked to
"fornication". Any first-year programming student can tell you that if any of
the conditions of the IF are false then the whole statement is false.
You're a liar. Taylor SPECIFICALLY DENIED ANY AND ALL SORTS OF NON-MONOGAMOUS
MARRIAGE SYSTEMS in his debate:
"We are accused here of polygamy,... and actions the most indelicate, obscene,
and disgusting, such that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have
contrived. These things are too outrageous to admit of belief;... I shall
content myself by reading our views of chastity and marriage, from a work
published by us containing some of the articles of our Faith. 'Doctrine and
Covenants,' page 330... Inasmuch as this Church of Jesus Christ has been
reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we
believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband,
except in the case of death,..."' (tract published by John Taylor in
England, in 1850, page 8; published in "Orson Pratt's Works," 1851 edition).
If you weren't a dishonest spin-doctor, you would realize that Taylor quoted
from the "Article on Marriage" to support his lie: "we believe that one man
should have ONE WIFE, and one woman but ONE HUSBAND, EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF
DEATH." Taylor did not qualify his statement with "fornication," as you
deceitfuly attempt to do; he stated uncategorically that his church's published
rules allowed for only one wife, unless she died. Taylor's "inspiration" for
such deceit was obviously Joseph Smith's lie of May 6, 1838: "Do the Mormons
believe in having more wives than one? No, not at the same time. But they
believe that if their companion dies, they have a right to marry again."
(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 119.)
The same verbiage was used to deny polygamy again in the "Times and Seasons,"
vol. 6, pg. 894 (May 1, 1845)
"As to the charge of polygamy, I will quote from the Book of Doctrine and
Covenants, which is the subscribed faith of the church and is strictly
enforced. Article of Marriage, sec. 91, par. 4, says, "Inasmuch as this church
of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we
declare that we believe that one man should have but one wife except in the
case of death when either is at liberty to marry again."
Thus we see that the "Article on Marriage" was nothing more than a
smokescreen---an "official policy" that was used to hide the secret, opposite
practice of polygamy. Bill Clinton must have studied Mormon history intensely
as a young man.
>Church leaders, Taylor included, did not believe that plural
marriage was fornication. Adultery either, for that matter.
Both the laws of the state of Illinois and the published laws of the LDS Church
stated that plural marriage was fornication and prohibited. If plural
marriage, and thus fornication, was not illicit and immoral, neither Taylor nor
any other Mormon leaders would have had to lie about it.
>The argument might be made that they were mistaken - but they certainly
weren't lying about the fornication part.
Since plural marriage was illegal in Illinois, and Taylor was secretly
practicing polygamy at the time, and Mormon plural marriage included sexual
relations, then plural marriage was indeed illegal fornication. What they
BELIEVED is irrelevant, just as Osama bin Ladin's 'belief" that he is led by
God is irrelevant to the issue of whether his activities are illegal and
immoral.
>Lying is when one deliberately makes a statement one knows is untrue.
Since Taylor quoted from the "Article on Marriage" in his debate, which
specifically forbade more than one living wife, while he was simultaneously a
"husband" to seven living "plural wives," his statement was indeed a lie.
>Thus, the "IF (polygamy.AND.fornication)" statement tests false - because
"fornication" was false (at least, in their minds) regardless of whether
polygamy was true or not.
What was "in their minds" is irrelevant. If they had sex with their "plural
wives," they were fornicators and adulterers, according to the laws of Illinois
and of the LDS church. If they didn't think so, they wouldn't have lied about
it.
>As quoted by Steve:
> "We [that is, the Church] are accused here of
polygamy,... AND [emphasis mine] actions the most
indelicate, obscene, and disgusting, such that none
but a corrupt and depraved heart could have
contrived."
>IOW, enemies of the Church were spreading lies about plural marriage.
False. People who got wind of polygamy, such as Law, Marks, Cowles, etc., were
disgusted by it, and sought to expose the TRUTH about it. The liars were
Smith, Taylor, and other polygamists, as the documentation clearly shows.
>They weren't content to just tell the truth - that certain of the leaders were
practicing it - they felt the need to embellish and distort the truth.
Here is your latest attempt to "spin" the case away from the Mormons who were
lying, and focus on "embellishments and distortions" of those who exposed it.
Since Mormons such as Smith and Taylor were obviously blatantly lying about
polygamy, why do you have any problem with "embellishments and distortions" of
their opponents? Do you hold the exposers of polygamy to a higher moral
standard than you hold the "prophets of God?" No need to answer, you've shown
many times over the years that the answer is "yes."
>Girls being imported from the farthest reaches of the Eastern Hemisphere,
communities of communal wives, "Cloistered Saints" or "Saints of the Black
Veil". Leaders of the Church had every right to deny these "actions most
indelicate, obscene, and disgusting" because they were untrue.
Your attempt to shift the conversation onto perceived "embellishments" does not
wash away Smith's or Taylor's bald-faced denials of ANY SORT OF NON-MONOGAMOUS
MARRIAGE SYSTEMS. What you cannot get through your brick-wall skull is that
Mormon leaders, until 1852, CATEGORICALLY DENIED ANY AND ALL TYPES of marriage
relationships EXCEPT for monogamy. THAT IS THE ISSUE. Your repeated drumming
up of perceived "embellishments" and "distortions" of anti-polygamists pale in
comparison to the bald-faced lies of Mormon leaders.
You are apparently too dense to realize that Joseph Smith's categorical denial
of polygamy on May 6, 1838, occurred six years before your perceived
"embellishments" and "distortions" of the "Expositor" in 1844; and Taylor's
categorical denial of polygamy in 1850 was six years AFTER the "Expositor," and
half a world away, in England. Thus, Smith's and Taylor's denials of polygamy
could not possibly have been due to your perceived "embellishments" and
"distortions" of Bennett, Law, etc.
In fact, one of the earliest allegations that Smith was secretly advocating a
"community of wives" came not from "anti-Mormons," but from "Gold Plate
witness" and church historian John Whitmer, in 1838, which Smith denied even
then.
Mormon converts in England had heard the rumors about Nauvoo polygamy, but the
apostles like Taylor, who were overseeing the missionary work there,
steadfastly reassured them that the rumors were false. Then, in 1852, when
the main body of Mormons had settled in Utah, seemingly safe from prosecution,
they reversed themselves and publicly admitted polygamy. That reversal caused
thousands of European Mormons to leave the church, because they were disgusted
at having been lied to by church leaders for years. I recommend you read
Fannie Stenhouse's "Tell It All" to see how LDS church leaders' lies affected
Mormon success in Europe for years.
>But did they have the duty to reveal all that they knew?
There is a difference between not revealing all you know, and stating the
opposite of what you know to be truth. That is what Smith and Taylor did, and
it is called "lying." If, when Smith or Taylor were asked about polygamy,
they replied "no comment," that would fall in the category of "not revealing
all you know." But they specifically denied teaching or practicing anything
other than monogamy, and that was a lie.
> I think that's the real question here. In court, the witness is sworn to tell
"the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Does that mean that a
Doctor is obligated to reveal "the whole truth" about his patient? No, it does
not. Does that mean an attorney is obligated to reveal "the whole truth" about
his client? Again, no. Must a wife reveal the "whole truth" about her husband
and testify against him? Still no. Does the witness have the obligation to
tell the "whole truth" if it incriminates him? No, and the right is
constitutionally
protected.
In your examples, if someone is asked a question, and they decline to answer,
that is their right, and no can call them a liar if they don't respond, IOW
"pleading the fifth." In contrast, Smith and Taylor were asked specifically
about whether they practiced polygamy, and they gave answers that were contrary
to the truth. And that, O Brickwall, is called "lying." Your inability to
perceive that distinction tells us as much about the level of your own morality
and honesty as this entire subject tells us about Smith's and Taylor's.
>Or how about Peter, James and John, descending the Mount of Transfiguration,
when Christ instructed them to "... tell the vision to no man, until the Son of
Man be risen from the dead...?" Did they have the obligation to reveal the
experience in direct disobedience to the Saviour's command?
>bestRegards, Guy.
What an utterly invalid analogy. For your analogy to have any relevance
whatsoever to the issue under discussion, Jesus and the apostles would have had
to be involved in some illegal activity that they didn't want revealed, the
apostles would have to be asked specifically the question you pose, and the
apostles would have to give a response that was contrary to the truth. That
story doesn't relate at all to the specific questions asked of Smith and
Taylor, or excuse their false responses.
And, since later Mormon leaders have admitted that early Mormons lied about
polygamy, your spin-doctoring for them is moot.
Randy J.
Chris in Oz
"TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011222230848...@mb-fw.aol.com...
> Randy wrote:
>
<<<Snip Randy's thorough demolition of Guy's argument>>>.
>
> > I think that's the real question here. In court, the witness is sworn to
tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Does that mean
that a Doctor is obligated to reveal "the whole truth" about his patient?
No, it does not. Does that mean an attorney is obligated to reveal "the
whole truth" about his client? Again, no. Must a wife reveal the "whole
truth" about her husband and testify against him? Still no. Does the
witness have the obligation to tell the "whole truth" if it incriminates
him? No, and the right is constitutionally protected.
Sounds a little Boyd K Packerish!
Chris
Cheap Suit
Funny that siding with the liars puts you on "the Lords side". Isn't that
"satans" work, to make good look bad, and bad look good? Confuse and confound ?
This is pure evil, to try and sell right as wrong, and bad as good.
It was exactly that, a watershed moment, and most mormons don't have a clue about
it.
>
> "Undoubedtly Austin soon saw that he could not function as a church leader
> while he and Marks were opposing one of Joseph Smith's revelations so bluntly
> and completely. On September 12, according to the high council minutes,
> 'President Austin Cowles resigned his seat in the Council as Councillor to
> President Marks which was accepted by the Council.' Ebenezer Robinson later
> wrote that Austin 'was far more outspoken and energetic in his opposition to
> that doctrine [polygamy] than almost any other man in Nauvoo.' After resigning
> his presidency, he 'was looked upon as a seceder, and no longer held a
> prominent place in the Church, although morally and religiously speaking he was
> one of the best men in the place.'.....
Too many cowards in the church now to see something like that ever happen again.
His opposition might have had something to do with smith "marrying" his daughter
even though she was already married.
> Toward the end of April 1844, the
> anti-polygamy dissenters began organizing a new church. William Law was
> appointed president and selected Austin Cowles as his first counselor. Not
> surprisingly, Austin was 'cut off' from the main LDS church for apostasy soon
> thereafter, on May 18. He then helped write the fateful first and only issue
> of the 'Nauvoo Expositor,' the paper which so infuriated Smith with its
> criticisms of him and public discussion of polygamy. It appeared on June 7,
> with an anti-polygamy affidavit by Cowles on the second page. The destruction
> of the 'Expositor' press, engineered by Smith, set off a chain of events that
> led to his martyrdom." ("In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph
> Smith", pp. 549-550.)
>
> The Nauvoo High Council's failure to sustain the "revelation on celestial
> marriage" should have brought an end to the practice, if the LDS Church
> operated according to its stated rules of order; but to the contrary, Smith
> retaliated against those who refused to sustain his heinous practice by having
> his pro-polygamous minions swear false accusations against them, assassinating
> their characters, and excommunicating them in absentia. These actions of
> Smith's show that the rule of "common consent" in the LDS Church is a sham, and
> that Joseph Smith alone held absolute power.
"Common consent" is as big a sham as "free agency".
>
>
> Like Law and Marks, Austin Cowles had his character assassinated, and was
> accused of sexual sins, simply because he opposed Smith's secret sexual
> practices. And to this day, Mobots like Woody Brison believe that those men
> were all libertines, because Woody believes the demonstrable liar Joseph Smith,
> rather than the men who sought to expose the liar.
Some are no longer capable of telling right from wrong anymore. They have sucked
up lies for so long that they can't even recognize that they have become liars
themselves.
When you defend evil, you become evil. When you defend liars you become a liar.
What I don't understand is why Woody and Guy think that defending liars is doing
the Lord's work.
LOL.
Woody and Guy have differing standards for different occasions.
Witness Woody getting all apoplectic whenever someone posts a quote with an
ellipse in it, but he can run off some total bullshit story like his book of
abraham laugher and expect everyone to accept it as fact.
Bozos abound on this list. And liars too.
TheJordan6
>Date: Sun, Dec 23, 2001 05:25 EST
>Message-id: <CfiV7.13617$HW3....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>
>
>
>"TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20011222230848...@mb-fw.aol.com...
>> Randy wrote:
>>
><<<Snip Randy's thorough demolition of Guy's argument>>>.
Aw, and it wuz so good, too.
>> > I think that's the real question here. In court, the witness is sworn to
>tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Does that mean
>that a Doctor is obligated to reveal "the whole truth" about his patient?
>No, it does not. Does that mean an attorney is obligated to reveal "the
>whole truth" about his client? Again, no. Must a wife reveal the "whole
>truth" about her husband and testify against him? Still no. Does the
>witness have the obligation to tell the "whole truth" if it incriminates
>him? No, and the right is constitutionally protected.
>Sounds a little Boyd K Packerish!
>
>Chris
Well, it should. Guy's a "G. A. wannabee."
Randy J.
Guy R. Briggs
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>> thejo...@aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Until 1852, the official policy of the Utah LDS church
>>> concerning "plural marriage" was to deny that they
>>> practiced it, and condemn all those who accused them of
>>> practicing it.
>>
>> yes, it was that little thing about presenting it in
>> General Conference for the sustaining vote of the
>> membership, making it official Church doctrine. That's it.
>
> The subject under discussion here is whether or not early
> Mormon leaders denied or lied about teaching or practicing
> polygamy before 1852.
>
statement in question was made in 1839, some two years before Joseph
Smith taught the principle to John Taylor and 3-4 years before Taylor
entered into any plural marriages himself.
>
> Since you concede that LDS leaders first publicly admitted
> the practice of polygamy in 1852, you are by default
> conceding that they denied or lied about it before 1852.
>
The only thing I am conceding is that there is a fundamental
difference between the question "Do you, John Taylor, practice
polygamy?" and "Does the LdS Church practice polygamy?" Prior to 1852,
the accurate, truthful answer to the second question was "No." Prior
to 1842, the truthful answer to the first question was "No."
>
> Also, since you admit that polygamy wasn't "sustained" by
> the membership until 1852, you concede that all polygamy
> practiced before that date was illicit and unapproved---
>
I concede no such thing.
One of the mos
t basic tenets of Mormonism is that a man must have authority to
perform any priesthood ordinance. We even have an Article of Faith to
that effect. To one man is given /all/ the priesthood keys, and he
delegates or authorizes other men to use that authority as seems good
to him and the Holy Ghost. The NT is the model for this doctrine:
remember when Christ gave Peter the "keys of the kingdom" - which gave
Peter the ability to "seal on earth" and have it sealed in heaven?
The priesthood authority for plural marriage was given to Joseph
Smith, perhaps as early as 1831 - which means that he had the authority
and commandment to practice it. But either by choice or by commandment,
Smith did not delegate that authority to the outward Church, only to a
few trusted individuals in his inner circle.
Thus, Smith was practicing polygamy before it was given to the
outward Church. A similar situation occurred with the restoration of
the Aaronic Priesthood in 1829 - Joseph and Oliver performed a
priesthood ordinance (baptism) which wasn't presented to the outward
Church until sometime the following year, because there was no outward
Church to present it to until the following year! That didn't make
Joseph & Oliver's baptisms "illcit and unapproved".
We can discuss whether not not Smith /should/ have given the
authority to the outward Church - but that's a different conversation.
As it stands, the Church didn't practice polygamy until 1852 - 'tho
some of Smith's inner circle did.
>
> ... since that is the same standard you use for such items
> as the "Adam-God" doctrine.
>
The guideline I use is simple: The Standard Works (properly
interpreted), joint declaration by the 1st Presidency and/or Qot12, or
presented in General Conference for sustaining vote. If I can't find it
in one of those sources, it ain't official doctrine as far as I'm
concerned. I find plural marriage in both OT and D&C. I find Adam-God
in neither.
>>
>> IOW, the corporate Church didn't practice polygamy until
>> then, although some of the leaders did.
>
> Although most Nauvoo-era polygamists were leaders, ...
>
Duly noted. Not all were leaders.
>
> ... some others just happened to be in Joseph Smith's circle
> of people whom he thought would go along with the illegal,
> immoral practice.
>
There is a big difference between illegal and immoral. For example,
consensual sex between adults is /legal/ in most of the states in the
Union - but it's /immoral/ unless the two adults are married to one
another.
How do we tell the difference between illegal and immoral? It's
easy. Illegal is when one breaks a law made by men. Immoral is when
one breaks a law made by God. We believe that John Taylor (Smith, too,
for that matter) was practicing plural marriage under the authorization
and commandment of God, therefore what he was doing was not immoral.
Was Taylor breaking the law? Technically, bigamy is registering more
than one marriage with the state: So how many marriages did Taylor
register with the state?
<snip Law quote>
>
> IOW, since polygamy was illegal in Illinois, ...
>
/Bigamy/ was illegal in Illinois. It was illegal to register more
than one state-sanctioned marriage.
>
> ... and directly contradicted LDS policy, those who accepted
> Smith's secret, illegal, immoral practice (such as Young and
> Kimball) were of an immoral or criminal bent.
>
You are confusing policy with doctrine.
>
> But Law, Marks, and others---the honest, moral men who
> opposed polygamy--- are ironically viewed today as "sinners"
> by Mobots like yourself.
>
Honest is not a word I would use to describe those who signed their
names to the Expositor. Far as I can tell, you don't encounter
anything honest in that rag until about half-way into the second page.
"Honest" and "moral" men do not seek the overthrow and death of another
citizen without due process of law.
<snip Van Waggoner quote>
> Thus we see that Smith kept his own counselor in the First
> Presidency in the dark about polygamy, even allowing Law to
> naively file an 1842 affidavit swearing that Bennett, rather
> than Smith, was the originator of "spiritual wifery."
>
Bennett /was/ the originator of "spiritual wifery". As Brodie
wrote, the system Bennett improvised, including the "Cloistered Saints"
and "Saints of the [green|black] veil" were likely adaptations that
Bennett had made to the revelation and instruction received by Smith -
or else the product of his own fertile imagination.
>
> And because Law opposed Smith's illegal, immoral, secret,
> contradictory polygamy practice, Smith assassinated his
> character and excommunicated him in absentia; and Law, the
> honest man in the case, has become the "bad guy" to Mobots
> like yourself.
>
I don't suppose you consider an ad hominem like "mobot" to be any
sort of character assasination, hmm?
>
> The above passage also shows that Smith acknowledged the
> authority of the "Article on Marriage", as published in the
> 1835 D&C, but Smith treated it as "milk" doctrine that was
> to be replaced by the "meat" of polygamy.
>
We also believe that what Moses originally brought down from the
mountain was a more complete version of the gospel. Unfortunately, the
people were not yet ready for it, so they were given the Law of Moses
instead.
Also, milk before meat is a Biblical concept - see 1 Cor.3 & Heb.5.
>
> The fact that Smith acknowledged the efficacy of the
> "Article on Marriage" refutes the fallacious assertion which
> you and Woody Brison have repeated, that Smith did not
> approve of the "Article on Marriage," which specifically
> prohibited polygamy.
>
You can't change history, Randy. Smith was not present when the AoM
was read and accepted by Common Consent.
>>
>> Official Church doctrine was monogamy, as stated in the
>> Book of Commandments.
>
> And that fact of history makes Smith's secret polygamy
> practice contradictory to "official church doctrine." You,
> more than any other Mobot on ARM, have repeatedly stated
> that no teaching or practice is "official" unless it is
> agreed on by the First Presidency and the Q12, and approved
> by the sustaining vote of the church members.
>
It's Mormon doctrine. What do you expect me to write?
>
> But your above silly remark tries to justify Smith's attempt
> to have one "approved" standard of behavior for public
> consumption, and an opposite, secret, "unapproved" standard
> of behavior for the benefit of a few elite leaders.
>
Same as baptism, 1829-1830. Same as Paul and the author of Hebrews,
for that matter, where they only taught the "milk" doctrine until the
people were able to endure the "meat" doctrine.
>
> Those of us who live on Planet Sane call that "hypocrisy."
>
Those of us who live on Planet Earth call it following the Biblical
model.
But you don't even need to turn to the Bible for an example: There
is a small group of citizens that we empower with the right to use
sirens and flashing red/blue lights on their cars, drive faster than
posted speed limits, run red lights, carry handguns and other weaponry
and make arrests. We call them policemen. IOW, there is one approved
standard for rank and file citizenry and another standard for police.
Is that hipocrisy?
>
> ".....neither shall anything be appointed unto any of this
> church contrary to the church covenants. For all things
> must be done in order, and by common consent in the
> church..." (D&C 28:12-13.)
>
As you wrote earlier, I more than any other apologist, believe those
verses.
>
> Smith's secret polygamy practice contradicted his own
> "revelations," ...
>
Erm, no it didn't. Section CI in the Book of Commandments was not a
revelation received by Smith.
>
> ... and your support of his secret, contradictory practice
> makes you as hypocritical as he was.
>
Sticks and stones, Randy. Sticks and stones.
>
> Since neither Smith's polygamy practice, nor his "revelation
> on celestial marriage" were approved by the First Presidency
> or the Twelve, (or even known about by many of them), nor
> sustained by the church membership at any time during Smith's
> life, ...
>
It means that Plural Marriage was not yet an official doctrine of
the Church. Thank you for making my point.
>
> ... his secret teaching and practice of it ran directly
> against the principles of "common consent" that supposedly
> governs Mormon policy.
>
Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses and several other patriarchs practiced
plural marriage contrary to Mormon doctrine 1830-1852. The only
difference is the length of time between its practice and its adoption
by Church members: a couple of decades in Smith's case, several
millenia in Abraham's case.
>
> At various times, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and William
> Law were Joseph Smith's counselors in the First Presidency;
> and William Marks was the Nauvoo Stake and High Council
> President, which at that time, was the governing body of the
> church, rather than the Q12. Since all of those men were
> strongly against polygamy, Smith's secret polygamy practice
> ran counter to the laws and orders of the church which he
> himself established. As I've documented for you many times,
> when Smith tried to have his "revelation on celestial
> marriage" sustained by the High Council on August 12, 1843,
> his attempt was defeated:
<snip>
Which only shows that the Church - including some of the top leaders
- were not ready for the "meat".
>
> The Nauvoo High Council's failure to sustain the "revelation
> on celestial marriage" should have brought an end to the
> practice, if the LDS Church operated according to its stated
> rules of order;
>
How could the Church bring "an end to the practice" it hadn't yet
started?
>
> ... but to the contrary, Smith retaliated against those who
> refused to sustain his heinous practice by having his pro-
> polygamous minions swear false accusations against them,
> assassinating their characters, and excommunicating them in
> absentia. These actions of Smith's show that the rule of
> "common consent" in the LDS Church is a sham, and that
> Joseph Smith alone held absolute power.
>
Which is as it should be, IMHO. How can a person continue to be a
leader in the only church professing modern-day revelation - when one
feels that the revelations are bogus? If they had as much integrity as
you seem to feel they did, they should have stepped down voluntarily.
>
> Like Law and Marks, Austin Cowles had his character
> assassinated, and was accused of sexual sins, simply because
> he opposed Smith's secret sexual practices. And to this day,
> Mobots like Woody Brison believe that those men were all
> libertines, because Woody believes the demonstrable liar
> Joseph Smith, rather than the men who sought to expose the
> liar.
>
"Early in the spring of 1844, the Prophet was apprised
by two young men, Denison L. Harris and Robert Scott,
the latter living in the family of William Law, of a
secret movement then on foot to take his life, and
the lives of several other leading men of the church;
among them the Prophet's brother, Hyrum. These young
men were invited to the secret meetings by the
conspirators, but before going conferred with the
Prophet, who told them to go, but to take no part in
the proceedings of these wicked men against himself.
They carried out his instructions, and at the risk of
their lives attended the secret meetings three times,
and brought to President Smith a report of what they
had witnessed - the hatching of plots to take the
life of the Prophet and his brother Hyrum.
"In addition to the testimony of these young men was
that of M. G. Eaton, and A. B. Williams who related,
substantially, the same thing. These men went before
Daniel H. Wells, a justice of the peace, and made
affidavit that such a plot existed. In their
statements they named as leaders of the movement,
Chauncey L. Higbee, R. D. Foster, Joseph H. Jackson,
and William and Wilson Law. These names corresponded
with those given by the young men before alluded to,
except that they also named Austin Cowles, a member
of the high council at Nauvoo, as one of the active
and leading conspirators.
-- CHC, v.2, ch.54, p.224
These would be the "honest and moral men" you spoke of, no?
>>
>> Also, in both Taylor's speech and the Section CI,
>> "polygamy" is also linked to "fornication". Any first-year
>> programming student can tell you that if any of the
>> conditions of the IF are false then the whole statement is
>> false.
>
> You're a liar. Taylor SPECIFICALLY DENIED ANY AND ALL SORTS
> OF NON-MONOGAMOUS MARRIAGE SYSTEMS in his debate:
>
> "We ...
>
That is, the Church, not yet practicing plural marriage.
>
> ... are accused here of polygamy,... and actions the most
> indelicate, obscene, and disgusting, such that none but a
> corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived.
>
Actions such as Bennett's Cypian Saints, Saints of the Green Veil,
Saints of the Black Veil, etc. Such as the _Expositor's_ girls coming
from the "furthest reaches of the Eastern hemisphere" only to get
knocked up, abandoned and dead. Actions "too outrageous to admit
belief." Yes, I agree - the Church /was/ accused of indelicate, obscene
and disgusting actions of which they were not guilty.
>
> These things are too outrageous to admit of belief;... I
> shall content myself by reading our views of chastity and
> marriage, from a work published by us containing some of the
> articles of our Faith. 'Doctrine and Covenants,' page 330...
> Inasmuch as this Church of Jesus Christ has been reproached
> with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that
> we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman
> but one husband, except in the case of death,..."' (tract
> published by John Taylor in England, in 1850, page 8;
> published in "Orson Pratt's Works," 1851 edition).
>
> If you weren't a dishonest spin-doctor, you would realize
> that Taylor quoted from the "Article on Marriage" to support
> his lie: "we believe that one man should have ONE WIFE, and
> one woman but ONE HUSBAND, EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF DEATH."
>
That was the official belief of the Church until 1852. We - that is,
the Church - held monogamy was the official standard.
>
> Taylor did not qualify his statement with "fornication," as
> you deceitfuly attempt to do;
>
He most certainly did - it's right up there in the quote you
included. "Inasmuch as this Church of Jesus Christ has been reproached
with the crime of fornication and polygamy ..." What part of that is
unclear to you?
>
> ... he stated uncategorically that his church's published
> rules allowed for only one wife, unless she died.
>
Which, until 1852 was absolutely, positively accurate.
>
> Taylor's "inspiration" for such deceit was obviously Joseph
> Smith's lie of May 6, 1838: "Do the Mormons believe in
> having more wives than one? No, not at the same time. But
> they believe that if their companion dies, they have a right
> to marry again." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.
> 119.)
>
Again, until 1852 that was 100% accurate. The Mormons, as a church,
believed in monogamy. Some, in fact, were excommunicated for preaching
differently.
But you may want to check out the entire article you're quoting. It
was intended to be a light-hearted and whimsical FAQ. It also included
such questions as:
"Do the Mormons baptize in the name of 'Joe' Smith?"
"No, but if they did, it would be as valid as the
baptism administered by sectarian priests."
... and ...
"Does not 'Joe' Smith profess to be Jesus Christ?"
"No, but he professes to be His brother, as all other
saints have and now do: Matt. xii:49,50."
Smith seems to have had more of a sense of humor than some of his
critics.
>
> The same verbiage was used to deny polygamy again in the
> "Times and Seasons," vol. 6, pg. 894 (May 1, 1845) "As to
> the charge of polygamy, I will quote from the Book of
> Doctrine and Covenants, which is the subscribed faith of the
> church and is strictly enforced. Article of Marriage, sec.
> 91, par. 4, says, "Inasmuch as this church of Christ has
> been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy,
> we declare that we believe that one man should have but one
> wife except in the case of death when either is at liberty
> to marry again."
>
> Thus we see that the "Article on Marriage" was nothing more
> than a smokescreen---an "official policy" that was used to
> hide the secret, opposite practice of polygamy. Bill Clinton
> must have studied Mormon history intensely as a young man.
>
Clinton was guilty of fornication in the Oval Office. Does that mean
that fornication is the "official doctrine" of the United States of
America?
>
>> Church leaders, Taylor included, did not believe that
>> plural marriage was fornication. Adultery either, for that
>> matter.
>
> Both the laws of the state of Illinois and the published
> laws of the LDS Church stated that plural marriage was
> fornication and prohibited.
>
Call for references. Where, in Illinois Law, was plural marriage
made synonymous with fornication?
>
> If plural marriage, and thus fornication, was not illicit
> and immoral, neither Taylor nor any other Mormon leaders
> would have had to lie about it.
>
I would argue that the need for secrecy was more the result of fear
of mobocracy than anything else. Taylor got to see, up close and
personal, what happens when a mob gets whipped up to a frenzy by
antiMormon lies, distortions and exaggerations about polygamy. He took
4 bullets that day, and carried one of them in his hip the remainder of
his life.
>>
>> The argument might be made that they were mistaken - but
>> they certainly weren't lying about the fornication part.
>
> Since plural marriage was illegal in Illinois, and Taylor
> was secretly practicing polygamy at the time, and Mormon
> plural marriage included sexual relations, then plural
> marriage was indeed illegal fornication. What they BELIEVED
> is irrelevant, ...
>
It is most relevant. If they believed that plural marriage was, in
fact, fornication and then tried to tell us it wasn't - that's lying.
If they believed that plural marriage was /not/ fornication and said
that it wasn't fornication - that is, at worst, being mistaken.
>
> ... just as Osama bin Ladin's 'belief" that he is led by
> God is irrelevant to the issue of whether his activities are
> illegal and immoral.
>
It's relevant if the question is whether or not he is lying. Can you
not see the difference between being mistaken and lying? Is that why
you keep accusing /me/ of lying?
>>
>> Lying is when one deliberately makes a statement one knows
>> is untrue.
>
> Since Taylor quoted from the "Article on Marriage" in his
> debate, which specifically forbade more than one living
> wife, while he was simultaneously a "husband" to seven
> living "plural wives," his statement was indeed a lie.
>
Taylor's debate took place several years before he took any plural
wives. Two years before he learned of polygamy. He wasn't lying during
he debate.
The question is whether or not we can consider it lying when the
details of the debate were again published in 1852. Again, there is a
fundamental difference between the question "Do you, John Taylor,
practice polygamy?" and "Does the LdS Church practice polygamy?" In the
pulished details, Taylor was speaking as a representatve of the Church,
which had not yet formally and officially adopted plural marriage as a
doctrine.
>>
>> Thus, the "IF (polygamy.AND.fornication)" statement tests
>> false - because "fornication" was false (at least, in their
>> minds) regardless of whether polygamy was true or not.
>
> What was "in their minds" is irrelevant.
>
Not in the question of whether or not they were lying. If they were
truly speaking what was "in their minds" they weren't lying -
regardless of how accurate they may or may not have been.
>
> If they had sex with their "plural wives," they were
> fornicators and adulterers, according to the laws of
> Illinois and of the LDS church. If they didn't think so,
> they wouldn't have lied about it.
>
You haven't shown that they were lying yet, at least WRT
polygamy.and.fornication. If they were, in fact, lying about it, then
it was most likely out of fear from anti-Mormons than it was anything
else.
>>
>> As quoted by Steve:
>
> "We [that is, the Church] are accused here of
> polygamy,... AND [emphasis mine] actions the most
> indelicate, obscene, and disgusting, such that none
> but a corrupt and depraved heart could have
> contrived."
>
>> IOW, enemies of the Church were spreading lies about plural
>> marriage.
>
> False.
>
True. Enemies of the Church - not content with the truth - were
spreading all manner of wild stories.
>
> People who got wind of polygamy, such as Law, Marks, Cowles,
> etc., were disgusted by it, and sought to expose the TRUTH
> about it.
>
Again, if they were trying to expose truth, why didn't they stick to
the plain, unvarnished version of it?
>
> The liars were Smith, Taylor, and other polygamists, as the
> documentation clearly shows.
>
The documentation is not so clear as you would have us believe.
>>
>> They weren't content to just tell the truth - that certain
>> of the leaders were practicing it - they felt the need to
>> embellish and distort the truth.
>
> Here is your latest attempt to "spin" the case away from the
> Mormons who were lying, and focus on "embellishments and
> distortions" of those who exposed it.
>
I see. Anti-Mormons get to tell all sorts of wild and lurid tales
about plural marriage - and that's OK by you - but us Mormons are
limited to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Is
that the double-standard you're proposing?
>
> Since Mormons such as Smith and Taylor were obviously
> blatantly lying ...
>
Not so obvious and, especially in the case of Taylor in 1839, not
lying, blatantly or otherwise.
>
> ... about polygamy, why do you have any problem with
> "embellishments and distortions" of their opponents?
>
Because of the effect it had on the good people of the Great State
of Illinois. You remember, the ones who got all excited and took the
lives of Joseph and Hyrum? Tried their hardest to take the life of
Taylor? Yeah, those guys.
>
> Do you hold the exposers of polygamy to a higher moral
> standard than you hold the "prophets of God?" No need to
> answer, you've shown many times over the years that the
> answer is "yes."
>
Actually, the answer is "No." As I wrote the other day, there is no
need to sugar-coat the truth, there is no need to lace it with arsenic.
I've found, however, that given the choice of one or the other, sugar
is generally less toxic.
>>
>> Girls being imported from the farthest reaches of the
>> Eastern Hemisphere, communities of communal wives,
>> "Cloistered Saints" or "Saints of the Black Veil". Leaders
>> of the Church had every right to deny these "actions most
>> indelicate, obscene, and disgusting" because they were
>> untrue.
>
> Your attempt to shift the conversation onto perceived
> "embellishments" does not wash away Smith's or Taylor's
> bald-faced denials of ANY SORT OF NON-MONOGAMOUS MARRIAGE
> SYSTEMS. What you cannot get through your brick-wall
> skull ...
>
More ad hominem.
>
> ... is that Mormon leaders, until 1852, CATEGORICALLY
> DENIED ANY AND ALL TYPES of marriage relationships EXCEPT
> for monogamy. THAT IS THE ISSUE. Your repeated drumming
> up of perceived "embellishments" and "distortions" of anti-
> polygamists pale in comparison to the bald-faced lies of
> Mormon leaders.
>
The so-called lies of Mormon leaders never got anybody assasinated.
>
> You are apparently too dense to realize ...
>
More ad hominem.
>
> ... that Joseph Smith's categorical denial of polygamy on
> May 6, 1838, occurred six years before your perceived
> "embellishments" and "distortions" of the "Expositor" in
> 1844;
>
The _Expositor's_ lies were only an example. The rumors and wild
stories were circulating for years before that - to such an extent that
the preamble to Sec. CI reads "... inasmuch as the Church has been
reproached with adultery and fornication ...".
>
> ... and Taylor's categorical denial of polygamy in 1850 was
> six years AFTER the "Expositor," and half a world away, in
> England.
>
Erm, no. It was 5 years before the _Expositor_.
>
> Thus, Smith's and Taylor's denials of polygamy could not
> possibly have been due to your perceived "embellishments"
> and "distortions" of Bennett, Law, etc.
>
You'd have a point if they were the onliest ones spreading lies and
rumors.
>
> In fact, one of the earliest allegations that Smith was
> secretly advocating a "community of wives" came not from
> "anti-Mormons," but from "Gold Plate witness" and church
> historian John Whitmer, in 1838, which Smith denied even
> then.
>
Whitmer, Cowdery, Lyman Johnson and even Wm. Law believed that the
established laws of the Church and the revelations had been trampled
underfoot for expedience in order to remove undesirables. Indeed, Law
maintained that the written revelations - the scriptures - were
superior to the living prophet. Thus, he quoted Sec. CI and Jacob 2 in
defense of monogamy, but completely rejected what later became D&C 132.
These men were more comfortable with the then popular values of
evangelical Protestantism than they were with Mormonism.
>
> Mormon converts in England had heard the rumors about Nauvoo
> polygamy, but the apostles like Taylor, who were overseeing
> the missionary work there, steadfastly reassured them that
> the rumors were false. Then, in 1852, when the main body
> of Mormons had settled in Utah, seemingly safe from
> prosecution, ...
>
And yet not really safe - or free to practice religion according to
the dictates of their own conscience.
>
> ... they reversed themselves and publicly admitted polygamy.
>
Because it had then become official Mormon doctrine and practice.
This isn't rocket science, Randy.
>
> That reversal caused thousands of European Mormons to leave
> the church, because they were disgusted at having been lied
> to by church leaders for years. I recommend you read
> Fannie Stenhouse's "Tell It All" to see how LDS church
> leaders' lies affected Mormon success in Europe for years.
>
>> But did they have the duty to reveal all that they knew?
>
> There is a difference between not revealing all you know,
> and stating the opposite of what you know to be truth.
>
Agreed. Correctly stating that the Chruch believed in monogamy,
while remaining silent about personal involvement with "the Principle"
would be an example of the former, not the latter.
>
> That is what Smith and Taylor did, and it is called "lying."
> If, when Smith or Taylor were asked about polygamy, they
> replied "no comment," that would fall in the category of
> "not revealing all you know." But they specifically denied
> teaching or practicing anything other than monogamy, and
> that was a lie.
>
But there's the rub. When somebody answers, "No comment" you know
they're trying to hide something. And if Taylor had been asked, "Are
you practicing polygamy?" and Taylor had answered, "No comment" then
I'd agree with you 100%.
Problem is, the questions were more on the order of, "Are you
practicing plural marriage and doing all those terrible, immoral
things?" And there's no good answer to that. Answer "Yes" and it's
wrong because they weren't doing the terrible, immoral things. Answer
"No" and it's wrong because they were practicing plural marriage.
Answer "No comment" and they think you're doing all the terrible,
immoral things anyway. Answer "Yes on PM, No on the rest" and they burn
down your town and drive you out of the state anyway.
>>
>> I think that's the real question here. In court, the
>> witness is sworn to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and
>> nothing but the truth." Does that mean that a Doctor is
>> obligated to reveal "the whole truth" about his patient?
>> No, it does not. Does that mean an attorney is obligated to
>> reveal "the whole truth" about his client? Again, no. Must
>> a wife reveal the "whole truth" about her husband and
>> testify against him? Still no. Does the witness have the
>> obligation to tell the "whole truth" if it incriminates
>> him? No, and the right is constitutionally protected.
>
> In your examples, if someone is asked a question, and they
> decline to answer, that is their right, and no can call them
> a liar if they don't respond, IOW "pleading the fifth."
>
They don't burn down the town and drive you out of the state,
either.
>
> In contrast, Smith and Taylor were asked specifically
> about whether they practiced polygamy, and they gave
> answers that were contrary to the truth.
>
You keep trying to turn a question about Taylor into a referendum on
Smith. Taylor responded not with "Yes," not with "No," but with, "I
will read you the official doctrine of the Church. He did and it was.
>
> And that, O Brickwall, is called "lying." Your inability to
> perceive that distinction tells us as much about the level
> of your own morality and honesty as this entire subject
> tells us about Smith's and Taylor's.
>
I'm interested in the truth. Without the arsenic.
>>
>> Or how about Peter, James and John, descending the Mount of
>> Transfiguration, when Christ instructed them to "... tell
>> the vision to no man, until the Son of Man be risen from
>> the dead...?" Did they have the obligation to reveal the
>> experience in direct disobedience to the Saviour's command?
>
> What an utterly invalid analogy. For your analogy to have
> any relevance whatsoever to the issue under discussion,
> Jesus and the apostles would have had to be involved in some
> illegal activity that they didn't want revealed, the
> apostles would have to be asked specifically the question
> you pose, and the apostles would have to give a response
> that was contrary to the truth.
>
As I recall, Christ and the apostles /were/ breaking Jewish and
Roman law. They healed on the Sabbath day. They picked grain on the
Sabbath day. They claimed that Jesus was God which was the height of
blasphemy. They claimed Jesus was King of the Jews (which was what got
Jesus taken before Herod, IIRC). The apostles tried to talk Jesus out
of returning to Jerusalem because they feared he would be captured and
executed.
And, IIRC, the head Apostle, Peter, repeated an answer that was
contrary to the truth three times before the cock crowed.
>
> That story doesn't relate at all to the specific questions
> asked of Smith and Taylor, or excuse their false responses.
>
Sure, Randy. Sure. Whatever.
bestRegards, Guy.
Jackie Chan
* * *
> Smith was practicing polygamy before it was given to the
> outward Church. A similar situation occurred with the restoration of
> the Aaronic Priesthood in 1829 - Joseph and Oliver performed a
> priesthood ordinance (baptism) which wasn't presented to the outward
> Church until sometime the following year, because there was no outward
> Church to present it to until the following year! That didn't make
> Joseph & Oliver's baptisms "illcit and unapproved".
>
> We can discuss whether not not Smith /should/ have given the
> authority to the outward Church - but that's a different conversation.
> As it stands, the Church didn't practice polygamy until 1852 - 'tho
> some of Smith's inner circle did.
some would say the inner circle kept its nasty practices to itself,
protected by lying denials and bloody oaths until the cat could no
longer be kept in the bag
two centuries later the Mormons are still having to spin out damage
control stories!
Fool Speck
> The only thing I am conceding is that there is a fundamental
> difference between the question "Do you, John Taylor, practice
> polygamy?" and "Does the LdS Church practice polygamy?" Prior to 1852,
> the accurate, truthful answer to the second question was "No." Prior
> to 1842, the truthful answer to the first question was "No."
You are tying yourself into knots with weaseling, fanaticism and blind
denial. Your arguments are beyond unreasonable. John Taylor
deceived. John Taylor lied. It could not be more clear that he did.
Even Dallin Oaks concedes that leaders lied about polygamy. By
maintaining there was no prevarication, you are portraying yourself as
pityful and logically unreasonable. I like you, Guy, and I hate
seeing you do this to yourself. It borders on being self-destructive.
> Thus, Smith was practicing polygamy before it was given to the
> outward Church. A similar situation occurred with the restoration of
> the Aaronic Priesthood in 1829 - Joseph and Oliver performed a
> priesthood ordinance (baptism) which wasn't presented to the outward
> Church until sometime the following year, because there was no outward
> Church to present it to until the following year! That didn't make
> Joseph & Oliver's baptisms "illcit and unapproved".
Guy, do you ever have pangs of conscience when stretching to make two
unrelaated issues somehow connect to justify?
Baptism is not a moral issue. It was not concealed. No one lied
about it.
Polygamy is a moral issue. It was concealed. Leaders lied about it.
Good grief.
Steve Lowther
TheJordan6
>Date: 1/2/2002 2:22 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <da736b0d.02010...@posting.google.com>
>
>net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote in message
>news:<9188D124Anetza...@209.84.17.10>...
>
>> The only thing I am conceding is that there is a fundamental
>> difference between the question "Do you, John Taylor, practice
>> polygamy?" and "Does the LdS Church practice polygamy?" Prior to 1852,
>> the accurate, truthful answer to the second question was "No." Prior
>> to 1842, the truthful answer to the first question was "No."
>You are tying yourself into knots with weaseling, fanaticism and blind
>denial. Your arguments are beyond unreasonable. John Taylor
>deceived. John Taylor lied. It could not be more clear that he did.
>Even Dallin Oaks concedes that leaders lied about polygamy. By
>maintaining there was no prevarication, you are portraying yourself as
>pitiful and logically unreasonable. I like you, Guy, and I hate
>seeing you do this to yourself. It borders on being self-destructive.
>> Thus, Smith was practicing polygamy before it was given to the
>> outward Church. A similar situation occurred with the restoration of
>> the Aaronic Priesthood in 1829 - Joseph and Oliver performed a
>> priesthood ordinance (baptism) which wasn't presented to the outward
>> Church until sometime the following year, because there was no outward
>> Church to present it to until the following year! That didn't make
>> Joseph & Oliver's baptisms "illcit and unapproved".
>Guy, do you ever have pangs of conscience when stretching to make two
>unrelated issues somehow connect to justify?
>
>Baptism is not a moral issue. It was not concealed. No one lied
>about it.
>
>Polygamy is a moral issue. It was concealed. Leaders lied about it.
>
>Good grief.
>
>Steve Lowther
I don't have the time, nor do I find it necessary to respond point-by-point to
Guy's onerous, delirious, Johnny Cochran-esque defense of Mormon leaders' lies.
I think your post pretty much follows along what I would respond with.
The thing that is most shocking is that Guy, and many other Mormons like him,
actually believe that their responses are honest and rational. They have
brainwashed themselves so deeply for so long, that they are no longer capable
of descerning truth from lies. Guy Briggs is the very protrait of cult
mind-control, and he doesn't have the slightest clue that he's in the same
mental boat as a glassy-eyed Moonie.
Randy J.
Jackie Chan
* * *
> The thing that is most shocking is that Guy, and many other Mormons like him,
> actually believe that their responses are honest and rational. They have
> brainwashed themselves so deeply for so long, that they are no longer capable
> of descerning truth from lies. Guy Briggs is the very protrait of cult
> mind-control, and he doesn't have the slightest clue that he's in the same
> mental boat as a glassy-eyed Moonie.
these jokers sometimes produce posts worth a good belly laugh, but I
suspect many of their fellow Mormons are ashamed of them - it take all
kinds of fruits, you know
TheJordan6
>Date: 1/4/2002 11:44 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3C36848C...@earthlink.net>
>
>TheJordan6 wrote:
>* * *
>> The thing that is most shocking is that Guy, and many other Mormons like
>him,
>> actually believe that their responses are honest and rational. They have
>> brainwashed themselves so deeply for so long, that they are no longer
>capable
>> mind-control, and he doesn't have the slightest clue that he's in the same
>> mental boat as a glassy-eyed Moonie.
> these jokers sometimes produce posts worth a good belly laugh, but I
>suspect many of their fellow Mormons are ashamed of them - it take all
>kinds of fruits, you know
And those ashamed Mormons who read the ridiculous apologetics and
spin-doctoring from people like Guy Briggs are the ones who are leaving the LDS
Church in droves. While Guy's mission is to defend Mormonism at all costs,
he's utterly clueless of the fact that he is exposing untold numbers of Mormons
to the basic, pervasive, deep-seated dishonesty of Mormon leaders and
apologists.
At some point in the future, most Mormons who are honest, reasonable people
will have abandoned the LDS Church, and most of the people who remain in the
LDS Church will be glassy-eyed fanatics like Guy Briggs. And they'll deserve
each other.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>>>> Until 1852, the official policy of the Utah LDS church
>>> concerning "plural marriage" was to deny that they
>>> practiced it, and condemn all those who accused them of
>>> practicing it.
Guy Briggs wrote:
>>> And what was it that happened in 1852 to change things? Oh
>> yes, it was that little thing about presenting it in
>> General Conference for the sustaining vote of the
>> membership, making it official Church doctrine. That's it.
Randy wrote:
>> The subject under discussion here is whether or not early
> Mormon leaders denied or lied about teaching or practicing
> polygamy before 1852.
Guy Briggs wrote:
>Actually, one leader in particular - John Taylor.
Randy's response:
Although Steve Lowther's original point concerned Taylor's 1850 denial of
polygamy, the purpose of my responses and documentation is to show that
Taylor's 1850 prevarication merely followed the pattern of all LDS leaders,
including Joseph Smith, to lie about and/or deny the teaching and practice of
polygamy, until they reversed themselves and admitted it in 1852.
Guy Briggs wrote:
>IIRC, the statement in question was made in 1839, some two years before Joseph
Smith taught the principle to John Taylor and 3-4 years before Taylor
entered into any plural marriages himself.
Randy's response:
This response indicates that you are either
a) too ignorant of the incident in question to offer any intelligent comments
on the subject, or
b) you are basing your invalid assertion on false information published by
Mormon apologists, or
c) You know the true facts, but you are deliberately lying to defend Mormonism
at the expense of your personal integrity.
The incident under discussion did not take place in 1839, as you falsely
assert, but in 1850, in France, during Taylor's second mission there, when he
himself was fully informed of, and fully immersed in, the secret polygamy
practice.
From http://smithinstitute.byu.edu/register/t_v.html:
"Taylor, John. Son of James Taylor and Agnes Taylor. Born 1 November 1808 in
Milnthorpe, Westmoreland County, England. Joined Methodist Church about 1823;
subsequently appointed preacher. Emigrated to Toronto, Canada, 1828-29. Married
Leonora Cannon (born 1796 at Isle of Man) 28 January 1833 in Toronto. Four
children: George John, Mary Ann, Joseph James, and Leonora Agnes. Baptized 9
May 1836 by Parley P. Pratt, and ordained elder shortly thereafter. Visited
Kirtland March 1837. Ordained high priest 21 August 1837. Appointed by
revelation 8 July 1838 to be ordained apostle. Moved to Missouri in fall of
1838. Ordained apostle 19 December 1838 in Far West, Missouri. Located
temporarily in Quincy, Illinois, 1839. Accompanied others of Twelve to Far
West, Missouri, 26 April 1838. Located family at Montrose, Iowa, 1839. Mission
to England 1839-41. Left Montrose 8 August 1839. Arrived Liverpool 11 January
1840. Left Liverpool for United States 20 April 1841. Arrived in Nauvoo 1 July
1841. Elected member of Nauvoo City Council and Nauvoo Legion, and regent of
Nauvoo University. Appointed associate editor of the Times and Seasons 3
February 1842. Initiated into Masonry 22 April 1842. Editor-in-chief of Times
and Seasons 1842-1846. Editor and proprietor of Nauvoo Neighbor May
1843-October 1845. Received endowment 28 September 1843. Sealed to Elizabeth
Kaighin 12 December 1843. Three children: Josephine, Thomas Edward, and Arthur
Bruce. Sealed to Jane Ballantyne 25 February 1844. Three children: Richard
James, Annie Maria, and David John. Member of Council of Fifty 10 March 1844.
Accompanied Prophet to Carthage Jail June 1844. Received four balls into body
from guns of mob 27 June 1844. Sealed to Mary Ann Oakley April 1845. Five
children: Henry Edgar, Mary Elizabeth, Brigham John, Ida Oakley, and Ezra
Oakley. Nauvoo Temple sealing to Leonora Cannon 7 January 1846. Nauvoo Temple
sealing to Elizabeth Kaighin (born 1811 in Isle of Man) 14 January 1846. Nauvoo
Temple sealing to Jane Ballantyne (born 1813 in Scotland) 14 January 1846.
Nauvoo Temple sealing to Mary Ann Oakley (born 1826 in New York) 14 January
1846. Nauvoo Temple sealing to Mary Rainsbottom (born 1826 in England) 23
January 1846. Nauvoo Temple sealing for time to Lydia Dibble 30 January 1846.
Left Nauvoo for West in spring of 1846. To Winter Quarters 1846. Mission to
England 1846-47. Arrived in England 3 October 1846. Sealed to Sophia Whitaker
(born 1825 in England) 23 April 1847 at Winter Quarters. Seven children:
Harriet Ann Whitaker, James Whitaker, Hyrum Whitaker, John Whitaker, Helena
Whitaker, Moses Whitaker, and Frederick Whitaker. To Salt Lake Valley in fall
of 1847. Sealed to Harriet Whitaker (born 1825 in England) 4 December 1847 in
Salt Lake Valley. Three children: Sophia Elizabeth, William Whitaker, and John.
Elected associate judge of provisional State of Deseret 12 March 1849. Called
on mission to France October 1849. Arrived in Liverpool 27 May 1850. Arrived in
Boulogne, France, 18 June 1850. Left England for United States 6 March 1852.
Arrived in Salt Lake City 20 August 1852."
Note that BYU's official biography of Taylor names the seven women to whom he
was "sealed", all before 1850, as well as children born of those relationships,
indicating that they were sexual in nature, making them polygamy in very deed.
(Other historians claim that Taylor actually had 15 plural wives by 1850.) The
bio also documents Taylor's arrival in Boulogne, France, on June 18, 1850, to
begin his second European mission.
I have recommended several times that readers who are interested in learning
the facts about Taylor's and other Mormon leaders prevarications on this issue,
should read Fannie Stenhouse's "Tell It All," to obtain a first-hand account of
the events in their historical context. Since you are apparently not willing
to read it for yourself, I'll provide the relevant excerpts, beginning from
page 97 of her autobiography, with a conversation with a friend, Mary Burton:
"Sister Stenhouse, do you know the meaning of the word Polygamy!" "Why, what a
funny question to ask me, child!" I exclaimed. "Child, you call me, Sister
Stenhouse, but I'm not a child at least not quite a child-I shall be fifteen
next birthday." "Well dear," I said, "I did not mean to offend you; and I call
you 'child' because I love you; but you asked me such a strange question and
used such a strange word. "This was quite true, for at that time the word
Polygamy was as seldom used as the word 'polyandry,' or any other word
signifying a state of things with which we have nothing to do."I'm not
offended," she said, "only people have a way of treating me as if I were only
such a very little girl: -I suppose I look so." She certainly did look so, and
I suppose she read my thoughts. Womanhood, by and by, brought to her more of
reality both in face and figure as well as in the terrible facts of life; but
at that time the term "little fairy," which I have so often used respecting
her, seemed the most appropriate. The meaning of that terrible word "Polygamy"
she understood, in later years, fully as well as I did. "Well dear," I said,
"Why did you ask me that strange question?" "You must promise not to be angry
with me if I tell you," she answered, "and yet I think you ought to know." I
readily promised-what could I have refused her?-and she said: "The other day
two of the Sisters were at our house-I may not tell you their names for fear of
making mischief and they were talking together between themselves and did not
notice that I was present-or else they didn't care. And I heard one of them
tell the other that she had heard secretly that in Zion men were allowed to
have many wives, and she used that word "Polygamy" very often, and said that
was what the world called it." "Well, Mary dear," I replied, "that is no great
secret. We have all heard that said before. Wicked people who hate the Gospel
say that, and a great deal more, in order to bring scandal upon the Church; but
of course it isn't true." "Ah, but I haven't told you all," she said, "the
sisters had a long talk about it and they explained who they heard it from, and
it was from no one outside the Church; and then one of them said that Elder
Stenhouse had heard all about it and knew it was true, only of course he did
not talk about such things yet; but that the time would come when everyone
would acknowledge it, and all the Saints would have many wives. I was
frightened when I heard this, and very angry-for I thought of you-and I spoke
to her and said itwas all untrue and I'd ask Elder Stenhouse; and they scolded
me very much for saying so, and said it was very wicked for a child to listen,
and that was why I did not like you to call me 'child." '"Well darling," I
said, "I'll not offend you any more in that way-and it was very good of you to
tell me anything you thought I ought to know." Then I kissed her, and
continued: "But, after all, I don't think it's of any consequence. It's the
old scandal, just as in the early days they said wicked things of Christ and
His apostles. Elder Stenhouse knows all that people say, but he has told me
again and again that there is not a word of truth in it, and I believe him."
"You think so, Sister Stenhouse," she replied, "and I suppose I ought to think
so too, but if it's all false how did people first begin to think of it?
People don't say that theMormons are murderers or thieves, because we have
given them no reason to think so. Then why should they think of such an
unheard-of thing as Polygamy- surely there must have been some reason. Don't
you think so?" "No, dear," I answered, " Elder Stenhouse says that some very
wicked men have sometimes joined the Church, and have done all manner of
shocking things, so that they had to be cut off, and then they went about
trying to make other people believe that the Mormons were as wicked as they
were. There was John C. Bennett who lived a frightful life at Nauvoo, and then
tried to make out that Joseph Smith was as bad as he was. And Marsh, the
president of the twelve apostles, and Orson Hyde, when they apostatised not
only said bad things of Joseph, but took affidavit and swore solemnly before
the magistrates that the prophet had been guilty of the'most fearful crimes."
I kissed her again, and she said, "Well, perhaps you are right"; but I could
see that in her heart she was not convinced. Then we talked of ourselves and
all that interested us, and she told me all her childish hopes and ambitions;
and to me young as I was myself-it was pleasant to listen to her innocent
prattle. She promised to come and see me when Elder Stenhouse had gone and I
should be left alone; and when we got back to the rest of the party we were as
firm friends as if we had known each other a lifetime. At midnight, Saturday,
June I5th, I850, the steamer left Southampton for Havre-de-Grace, bearing on
board the first two Mormon Missionaries to Italy-one of them was my
husband.....
[Note that Stenhouse affirms that Mormon leaders claimed that rumors of
polygamy were "lies" spread by "wicked people" and apostates. These efforts to
blame rumors of polygamy on other people puts Mormon leaders beyond the realm
of merely withholding facts, and installs them into the category of deliberate
deception.]
Although Polygamy was utterly denied by the Missionaries in Europe, yet long
before it was openly avowed a great deal was written and said on the subject.
Joseph Smith, whatever he said and did in private, always denied it in public,
and after his death the leaders of the Church followed his example. In some
way, however, an idea had got abroad that the Mormons were somewhat unsound
respecting the marriage question. Still the elders stoutly denied the charge,
and the more they were accused the more strenuous became their denials. At a
public discussion at Boulogne-sur-mer in France, the Apostle John Taylor, in
reply to the accusations of Polygamy which were brought against him, said: "We
are accused here of actions the most indelicate and disgusting, such as none
but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived. These things were too
outrageous to admit of belief....... I shall content myself with quoting our
views of chastity and marriage from a work published by us, containing some of
our articles of faith-Doctrine and Covenants." He then proceeded to quote from
the Book of Doctrine and Covenants such passages as the following: "Marriage
is ordained by God unto man; wherefore it is lawful that he should have one
wife, and they twain should be one flesh. [p. 218]. He quoted many other
things also, among which might be enumerated the following: "Thou shalt love
thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her, and none else." He
quoted also many other passages of Scripture which had reference to the
subject;-each powerful to put aside even the idea of polygamy; and each equally
powerful as an argument against polygamy itself. Let the reader here note the
value of what Mormons say when their faith is called in question:-See and
judge: Brother Taylor, who spoke at that meeting, and utterly denied polygamy,
had himself---at that very moment when he so atrociously perjured himself and
when he swore that no Mormon had more than one wife---five wives living in Salt
Lake City: One of his friends there present had two wives; and the other was
married to a mother and her own daughter! Any conclusion, any expression of
disgust at these abominations and deliberate perjuries, I leave to the
reader.".....
In the beginning of June a General Conference of the branches of the Church in
Britain was held in London. The Apostles and foreign Missionaries were present,
and my husband and I were also there. We had speeches and prayers. The
business of the Conference occupied but very few minutes, for no measure was
questioned. Among the Mormons there are no opinions, no discussion. The
presiding head has made out his programme before he comes to the conference; he
knows what he wants to do, and no one ever questions him. He may perhaps for
form's sake invite the brethren to speak on any point he introduces; but when
he has furnished the clew to his wishes, the Elders who speak only spend their
time in arguments in favor of his measures. At the Conference of which I speak
the reports of the native elders were very cheering to us. Throughout England
and Wales they had been most successful in adding members to the Church.
Mormonism was then most successfully preached in Britain. There were more
Mormons there than in all Utah Territory: there were fifty Conferences, with
over seven hundred organised "Branches," and more than six thousand men
ordained to the priesthood. That peculiar influence which the Mormons call
"the Spirit," of which I have spoken, elsewhere, was spoken of by the Elders as
being a common experience everywhere. During all that Conference, I listened
carefully for a word from the lips of any of the speakers which might indicate
in any way that Polygamy was part of the Mormon faith; but not a whisper, not a
hint was uttered. I naturally concluded that the Elders, whose doubtful
expressions at Southampton had so troubled my mind, were misinformed or unsafe
men. Still I could not altogether banish my apprehension of coming evil; but
so bound to secresy were those who did know of Polygamy being practiced in
Utah, that there was not one who would admit it, and even my own husband's lips
were sealed to me. He did not deny it, but he would not talk about it, and did
everything he could to banish the thought from my mind.
Stenhouse then quotes a later letter from her friend Mary Burton:
Since you went, I have grown quite an old woman. You used to call me:' little
fairy," but, Sister Stenhouse, I am much bigger now. I am now a good deal over
fifteen, and people say that I am getting to be quite a woman. I might tell
you some other pretty things that are said about me, but I'm afraid you'd say
it was all vanity of vanities. If you stay away much longer you won't
recognise me when we meet again. And now I want to tell you something that
interests you as much as me. I have not been able to discover anything more
with certainty about those hateful things of which I told you, although the
word Polygamy seems to me to become every day much more familiar in people's
conversation. Elder Shrewsbury tells me that there is not a word of truth in
it, and he has had a good deal of conversation upon that subject with the
apostles who are here, and also with a man named Curtis E. Bolton-an Elder from
the Salt Lake; and they all positively declare that it is a foul slander upon
the Saints of the Most High. So you see that all our unhappiness was for
nought. Our Saviour said we should be blessed when all men spoke evil of us
falsely for His name's sake; and the wicked scandal which has been raised
against our religion has had a tendency to strengthen my faith, which you know
was rather wavering. And yet do you know, Sister Stenhouse, that even while I
am writing to you in this strain, I am weak enough to allow doubts and fears to
creep into my heart when I think of the conduct of some of the American
brethren. They appear to me, for married men, to act so very imprudently; and
to call their conduct 'imprudent' is really treating it with the greatest
leniency, for I have often been quite shocked at the way in which some of the
brethren and sisters acted.
I read this letter carefully through, and I sat down and thought of dear Mary
Burton, and felt deeply sorry that she should be placed in a situation
surrounded by so many temptations. To myself the letter brought a sad
confirmation of all my fears. There was something painful in the thought. Had
polygamy been openly avowed as a Mormon doctrine I should never have joined the
Church. But now, what could I do?
I was now more than ever anxious about Polygamy. From much thinking on that
subject, it had become the haunting spectre of my existence, and I dreaded what
every day might bring forth. The news which my husband brought with him by no
means reassured me. He told me that he had heard in England from the American
Elders that there was a general expectation among the Saints in Utah that at
the October Conference in Salt Lake City, Brigham Young would publish to the
world that Polygamy was a doctrine of the Mormon Church. After all the
prevarications and denials then of the Apostles and Elders, Polygamy among the
Saints was really a fact. As the truth became clearer to my mind, I thought I
should lose my senses;-the very foundations of my faith were shaken, and not
only did I feel a personal repugnance to the unholy doctrine, but I began to
realise that the men to whom I had listened with such profound respect and had
regarded as the representatives of God, had been guilty of the most deliberate
and unblushing falsehood, and I began to ask myself whether if they could do
this in order to carry out their purpose in one particular, might they not be
guilty of deception upon other points? Who could I trust now? For ten years
the Mormon Prophets and Apostles had been living in Polygamy at home, while
abroad they vehemently denied it and spoke of it as a deadly sin. This was a
painful awakening to me; we had all of us been betrayed; I lost confidence in
man, and even began to question within myself whether I could even trust in
God. There was no argument between Mr. Stenhouse and myself. It would have
been worse than useless, for it was not his doing, and he assured me that he
had as great a repugnance to the doctrine as I had. He had at first only
hinted that it might eventually be acknowledged by the leaders of the Church,
but it was a matter of too deeply a personal character for me to keep silence,
and I did not rest until he had told me all.....
After discovering that the previously-denied "revelation on celestial
marriage" was indeed a reality, Stenhouse then quotes from a letter from
another Mormon friend, one Madame Baliff:
...... I am very miserable, Sister Stenhouse, and furiously indigonant. I
little thought when I last wrote to you that I should have such news to tell;
but I suppose you know it all without my saying a word. How we all felt when
we first learned that Polygamy was true, no words of mine can describe; we
hardly dared look one another in the face. Let me tell you how it was. One
night, quite late, Elder Shrewsbury came round in a hurry, and asked to see me.
I went down into the parlour to meet him, and Mrs. Elsworth came down also,
and remained until he went away. Elder Shrewsbury looked very strange that
night, just like a man who had been doing something wrong and was ashamed of
it-and well he might feel so. He began by talking to Mrs. Elsworth about the
weather, and when they had both said all they could think of on that
interesting and original subject, we all three sat silent for some time. Elder
Shrewsbury at last spoke. He excused himself for coming so late, but he said
he had only just received some important news, and could not rest until he had
seen us. He had been round at the Conference-house, and had there seen a good
many of the Elders. They were all talking earnestly upon the same subject, for
that day they had received not only letters from the Apostle at Liverpool, but
also copies of the Millennial Star, with the Revelation in it, which I suppose
you have seen. Of course it was impossible for them to doubt any longer, but
most of them felt it was a cruel blow. Elder Shrewsbury said they looked at
one another, but did not dare to speak. Nearly all of them had been anxiously
trying to get rid of the false scandal, as they supposed the accusation of
Polygamy to be; and in public in their sermons, and in private to all the weak
brethren, they had over and over again solemnly declared that Polygamy was
unheard of among the Saints, that it was a Gentile lie; and they had proved
from the Bible, and from the Book of Mormon, that a doctrine so sinful could
never be believed or practiced by God's people. Now, all this would be thrown
in their teeth. Those who hated Mormonism would revile them for it, and, worse
still, the Saints themselves would despise and doubt them for the lies which
many of them had innocently told. Who could tell where all this would end?
When they were found to have been deceived in a matter like Polygamy, about
which it was so easy to arrive at facts and certainty, who would trust them
concerning other doctrines which depended upon their veracity and testimony
alone? Then, too, there was worse to be said about the American Elders and
Apostles. Who could believe that Orson Pratt or Lorenzo Snow knew nothing of
Polygamy? And yet they denied it in the most solemn way. And, oh, Sister
Stenhouse, think of the Apostle Taylor calling God to witness his truth when he
proved from the Book of Covenants that there was no such thing as Polygamy: and
all the while he had himself five wives in Salt Lake City! Oh, my! This is
dreadful. Whether the doctrine is true or not, I can never believe that God
would forgive all that abominable lying about it. But I was telling you of
that evening. Elder Shrewsbury told us all this, but he spoke slowly and
disjointedly, like a man whose mind is troubled. He said he hardly knew what
he was doing. Then he gave Mrs. Elsworth a copy of the Star, and he asked me,
too, to read the Revelation carefully before I condemned it. "If the
Revelation, as you call it, allows Polygamy," I exclaimed, "it is a lie, and I
hate and despise it, and you, and Mormonism, and all!" I was quite in a fury,
and I did feel as if I hated him then.
Stenhouse then relates an example of the effect the "revelation" had on naive,
trusting, European converts:
T'was fortunate for the Swiss Mission that the new converts in general could
not read any language but their own, and thus were ignorant of the deceptions
which the American Elders had practiced upon the people. Monsieur Petitpierre,
the Protestant minister, who thought that the Revelation ought to be
"prayerfully considered," was the only one who understood English, and his
knowledge was very limited. His wife did not at all coincide with him about
the prayerful consideration of Polygamy; she disposed of the subject without
any prayer at all, and it is to be regretted that in this respect the whole
body of the Mormon women did not follow her example.
Stenhouse then relates how Mormon leaders' lies and reversal of position on
polygamy negatively affected church growth in Europe:
The Pastor over the London and adjoining Conferences was the son of one of the
chief Apostles in Utah-a young man, whose good nature was far better than his
religion. He visited us very frequently, and used to bring with him the
distinguished American Elders who might be visiting the metropolis. I have no
doubt that they were sincere in their desire to do me good, but it was not kind
attentions that I then needed, it was the removal of the cause of my sorrows.
They tried to persuade me that it was all "the work of the Lord;" but I could
not see it in that light, and very often in reply to their consolations I said
very hard things of Polygamy and the leaders of the Church, whose conduct I
considered sinful. And in this I did not stand alone, for I soon found that
the President of the Conference-Elder Marsden-had been in the same position for
years, and his wife was "quite through" with Mormonism. In fact, so great had
been the distrust occasioned by Polygamy, that in the report ending June 30th,
I853, it was stated that from the whole British Church-which then numbered very
nearly thirty-one thousand souls-seventeen hundred and seventy-six had been
excommunicated for apostasy! Of those who remained faithful I cannot give a
much more cheering account. The Elders who visited President Marsden made as
damaging reports of the condition of the Saints as their worst enemies could
desire. All that my young friend, Mary Burton, had told me did not equal the
truth of what I saw for myself. No one had any confidence now in what the
Elders said;-how could they be trusted after so many years of deception?
End quotes. Stenhouse shows that Mormon leaders effectively maintained a
pattern of deceit before the entire European continent, including some 31,000
converts to Mormonism for years, and that nearly 1,800 of them abandoned
Mormonism because of those lies. Obviously, that culture of deceit caused a
major shock wave in Mormon efforts in Europe. Thus, Guy, your attempts to
show that Taylor's remarks were not lies are trounced by the documented facts
of history.
In addition, I have repeated several times another denial of polygamy from the
"Times and Seasons", vol. 6, pg. 894 (May 1, 1845):
"As to the charge of polygamy, I will quote from the Book of Doctrine and
Covenants, which is the subscribed faith of the church and is strictly
enforced. Article of Marriage, sec. 91, par. 4, says, "Inasmuch as this church
of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we
declare that we believe that one man should have but one husband except in the
case of death when either is at liberty to marry again." Sec. 12, par. 7.
"Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart and shall cleave unto her and NONE
ELSE." In ancient till God cleanses the earth, and restores the government of
his says, "know this that, in (the last days of perilous times shall come), for
men shall be TRAITORS, FALSE ACCUSERS, INCONTINENT, fierce despiser of those
that are good. No wonder then that apostates rage, or that the fulness of
truth revealed again should bring a storm of persecution."
As the BYU bio of Taylor quoted above shows, Taylor was the editor of the
"Times and Seasons." Thus, the 1846 denial of polygamy, and its attempt to
saddle rumors of it onto "false accusers," was likely penned by Taylor himself.
That demonstrates two facts: One, Taylor was an "equal opportunity liar," who
spread falsehoods about polygamy on two continents, America and Europe; and
two, your deceitful attempt to claim that Taylor's denial of polygamy came in
1839, before he was aware of the practice, is further trounced by the fact that
he continued to deny polygamy in the official church newspaper in 1846.
In other words, Guy---your credibility on this subject is non-existent.
Late LDS Apostle John A. Widtsoe admitted that church leaders lied about
polygamy in the Nauvoo era: "Authentic history says that plural marriage
originated with Joseph Smith the Prophet. And so it did. The apparent denials
by Church leaders in Nauvoo days that the Church practised polygamy were
correct." (Evidences and Reconciliations, p. 344.)
Seeing as how Widtsoe conceded that early Mormon leaders denied practicing
polygamy (which equated to lying), it's futile for modern Mopologists like Guy
Briggs to still try to claim that they did not. At some point, the rational
mind just has to accept the facts and concede the issue. Guy, here is an
excellent opportunity to show the forum whether or not you possess a rational
mind.
Randy J.
Jackie Chan
* * *
JC comments:
lying for Joseph (Smith) is evidently one of the hallowed pillars of
Mormondom
Cheap Suit
If we're voting, I vote for C.
>
>
snipped
> "...... I am very miserable, Sister Stenhouse, and furiously indigonant. I
> little thought when I last wrote to you that I should have such news to tell;
> but I suppose you know it all without my saying a word. How we all felt when
> we first learned that Polygamy was true, no words of mine can describe; we
> hardly dared look one another in the face. Let me tell you how it was. One
> night, quite late, Elder Shrewsbury came round in a hurry, and asked to see me.
> I went down into the parlour to meet him, and Mrs. Elsworth came down also,
> and remained until he went away. Elder Shrewsbury looked very strange that
> night, just like a man who had been doing something wrong and was ashamed of
> it-and well he might feel so. "
"Raise me up a righteous generation".
Guy R. Briggs
<snip>
> Although Steve Lowther's original point concerned Taylor's
> 1850 denial of polygamy, the purpose of my responses and
> documentation is to show that Taylor's 1850 prevarication
> merely followed the pattern of all LDS leaders, including
> Joseph Smith, to lie about and/or deny the teaching and
> practice of polygamy, until they reversed themselves and
> admitted it in 1852.
>
Well, Randy, I've never known you to pass up a chance to take a
subject - any subject - and try to turn it into a referendum against
Smith. Sort of knee-jerk, IMHO.
>
> Guy Briggs wrote:
>
>> IIRC, the statement in question was made in 1839, some two
>> years before Joseph Smith taught the principle to John
>> Taylor and 3-4 years before Taylor entered into any plural
>> marriages himself.
>
> Randy's response:
>
> This response indicates that you are either
>
> a) too ignorant of the incident in question to offer any
> intelligent comments on the subject, or
>
> b) you are basing your invalid assertion on false
> information published by Mormon apologists, or
>
> c) You know the true facts, but you are deliberately lying
> to defend Mormonism at the expense of your personal
> integrity.
>
None of the above. Lowther's first post claimed Taylor was on a
mission to England at the time. Then XanDu and InnovatorsDilemma posted
a series of responses, culminating with Xan's final
"The tract, published first in 1850 by Taylor, then
later by Pratt in 1851, recounts a debate Taylor
engaged in while on his mission which started in
1839. The fact remains that the tract condemns
polygamy, when in fact John Taylor himself was
engaged in the practice at the time he published it."
>
> The incident under discussion did not take place in 1839, as
> you ...
>
And Steve. And Xan Du. And Innovator's Dilemma.
>
> ... falsely assert, but in 1850, in France, during Taylor's
> second mission there,
>
Erm, Taylor served three missions. England (1839-41), England (1846-
47) and France (1849-52). This would have been his 1st mission to
France or his 3rd mission to Europe. It could not possibly have been
his 2nd mission to France.
So you're saying it wasn't England at all, but France. You guys
really need to get your stories straight. But I'll tell you what - let
me research it, and if the original statement was, indeed, made on
Taylor's mission to France, I'll post an apology and resolve to never
believe a single fact presented by CsOTMC without checking it out
thoroughly.
<snip Taylor bio, including 3 European missions>
>
> Note that BYU's official biography of Taylor names the seven
> women to whom he was "sealed", all before 1850, as well as
> children born of those relationships, indicating that they
> were sexual in nature, making them polygamy in very deed.
>
Nobody is disputing Taylor's involvement in plural marriage.
>
> I have recommended several times that readers who are
> interested in learning the facts about Taylor's and other
> Mormon leaders prevarications on this issue, should read
> Fannie Stenhouse's "Tell It All," to obtain a first-hand
> account of the events in their historical context.
>
I have better uses for my time than reading antiMormon literature,
though I admit to having a copy of NMKMH - mostly used as a rich source
for poking holes in critic's claims.
>
> Since you are apparently not willing to read it for
> yourself, I'll provide the relevant excerpts, beginning from
> page 97 of her autobiography, with a conversation with a
> friend, Mary Burton:
<snip touching story with no mention of Taylor>
> Joseph Smith, whatever he said and did in private, always
> denied it in public, and after his death the leaders of the
> Church followed his example.
>
They all valued their lives, their families and their property.
>
> In some way, however, an idea had got abroad that the
> Mormons were somewhat unsound respecting the marriage
> question.
>
Wouldn't have had anything to do with scurrilous writers such as
Bennett, Law, Higbee and others, would it? No, of course not. Couldn't
be.
>
> Still the elders stoutly denied the charge, and the more
> they were accused the more strenuous became their denials.
>
But what, exactly, were they denying, Randy? If they're denying
plain, standard-issue, one each, OD, plural marriage then you have a
very valid point. If they're denying orgies, communities of wives
servicing the elite leaders, kidnapping women, taking them to the
temple and (if they refuse to become involved) throwing them over the
wall of Temple Square and into the Great Salt Lake - then they have
every right to deny the charges.
This is the problem with most every discussion of plural marriage
takes place on a.r.m - CsOTMC believe everything written by antiMormons
on the subject without questioning the validity of the claims, and then
lump it all under one heading: polygamy.
>
> At a public discussion at Boulogne-sur-mer in France,
>
During the 2nd mission to France, right? ;)
>
> ... the Apostle John Taylor, in reply to the accusations of
> Polygamy which were brought against him, said: "We are
> accused here of actions the most indelicate and disgusting,
> such as none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have
> contrived. These things were too outrageous to admit of
> belief.......
>
And he must have been lying his ass off, right? Because he's a
Mormon and all Mormons are liars? I'm willing to bet that if you
produce the /entire/ piece (and not just the part that paints Taylor as
a liar) you'll find that he is not denying polygamy, but rather, some
twisted, antiMormon presentation of it - as different from the pure
doctrine of plural marriage as devil worship is from Christianity.
>
> ... I shall content myself with quoting our views of
> chastity and marriage from a work published by us,
> containing some of our articles of faith-Doctrine and
> Covenants." He then proceeded to quote from the Book of
> Doctrine and Covenants such passages as the following:
> "Marriage is ordained by God unto man; wherefore it is
> lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain should
> be one flesh. [p. 218]. He quoted many other things also,
> among which might be enumerated the following: "Thou shalt
> love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her,
> and none else."
>
And all of this was and is official LdS doctrine.
>
> He quoted also many other passages of Scripture which had
> reference to the subject;-each powerful to put aside even
> the idea of polygamy; and each equally powerful as an
> argument against polygamy itself.
>
Just as Jacob, in the BofM, is a powerful argument against
unsanctioned polygamy.
>
> Let the reader here note the value of what Mormons say when
> their faith is called in question:-See and judge: Brother
> Taylor, who spoke at that meeting, and utterly denied
> polygamy, had himself---at that very moment when he so
> atrociously perjured himself and when he swore that no
> Mormon had more than one wife---five wives living in Salt
> Lake City: One of his friends there present had two wives;
> and the other was married to a mother and her own daughter!
>
CFR - and I want the whole thing, not just the snippet you want us
to read. Was Taylor denying polygamy, per se - or was he denying some
twisted misrepresentation of it? If this really happened in 1850, they
could have been denying what Bennett wrote - the whole cyprian-saints-
chambered-sisters-of-charity-cloistered-saints thing. Certainly what
Bennett described could be called, accurately, "actions the most
indelicate and disgusting, such as none but a corrupt and depraved
heart could have contrived."
>
> Any conclusion, any expression of disgust at these
> abominations and deliberate perjuries, I leave to the
> reader.".....
>
And hopefully, the informed reader can make a distinction between
Plural Marriage, as taught by Smith, and the obscenities published by
Bennett and other enemies of the Church.
<snip Stenhouse reminiscence of Conference in England, at
which no mention was made of polygamy>
> Stenhouse then quotes a later letter from her friend Mary
> Burton:
<snip letter>
> After discovering that the previously-denied "revelation
> on celestial marriage" was indeed a reality, Stenhouse then
> quotes from a letter from another Mormon friend, one Madame
> Baliff:
>
<snip letter, down to ...>
> Who could believe that Orson Pratt or Lorenzo Snow knew
> nothing of Polygamy? And yet they denied it in the most
> solemn way. And, oh, Sister Stenhouse, think of the Apostle
> Taylor calling God to witness his truth when he proved from
> the Book of Covenants that there was no such thing as
> Polygamy: and all the while he had himself five wives in
> Salt Lake City! Oh, my! This is dreadful. Whether the
> doctrine is true or not, I can never believe that God would
> forgive all that abominable lying about it.
>
Which is the crux of the matter, is it not? Leaders of the Church
denying all that was written on the subject in antiMormon literature
had the effect of making members - and other honest people - think that
plural marriage, per se, as Smith taught it, was /also/ being denied.
With perfect 20-20 hindsight, I can see that it wasn't a particularly
good strategy. But, as I've said many times, I wasn't there to know all
the dynamics that went into the decision.
>
> Stenhouse then relates an example of the effect the
> "revelation" had on naive, trusting, European converts:
>
> T'was fortunate for the Swiss Mission that the new converts
> in general could not read any language but their own,
>
Why was this so fortunate, if Stenhouse was so bitterly against
plural marriage? Wouldn't she think this was a bad thing?
>
> ... and thus were ignorant of the deceptions ...
>
So-called
>
> ... which the American Elders had practiced upon the people.
> Monsieur Petitpierre, the Protestant minister, who thought
> that the Revelation ought to be "prayerfully considered,"
> was the only one who understood English, and his knowledge
> was very limited. His wife did not at all coincide with him
> about the prayerful consideration of Polygamy; she disposed
> of the subject without any prayer at all,
>
But, I expect, had no problem at all with the idea that Abraham,
Issac, Jacob, Moses, David, etc., etc. were all polygamists. It's only
a problem for prophets who have a last name.
>
> ... and it is to be regretted that in this respect the whole
5.8% is a "major shock wave?" I would have thought the effect would
have been greater. I expect we'd lose half the Church if we brought it
back.
>
> Thus, Guy, your attempts to show that Taylor's remarks were
> not lies are trounced by the documented facts of history.
>
Well, Randy, all that remains is to leave dear Mrs. Stenhouse's
sentimental account and produce the real documentation. What /was/ it
that Taylor was denying?
<snip>
> Late LDS Apostle John A. Widtsoe admitted that church
> leaders lied about polygamy in the Nauvoo era:
>
Has nothing to do with the question at hand.
>
> "Authentic history says that plural marriage originated with
> Joseph Smith the Prophet. And so it did. The apparent
> denials by Church leaders in Nauvoo days that the Church
> practised polygamy were correct." (Evidences and
> Reconciliations, p. 344.)
>
This is the kind of snippage that makes me nuts, Randy, and give me
the sense of "Do as Randy says but not as Randy does" WRT being
truthful on this newsgroup. Here's a more complete version:
"Authentic history says that plural marriage
originated with Joseph Smith the Prophet. And so it
did."
The context is the charges that Smith didn't do plural marriage,
that it was the wicked invention of Brigham Young (or else Smith /did/
do it but later repented - RLDS have presented it both ways)
"The apparent denials by Church leaders in Nauvoo days
that the Church practiced plural marriage were
correct."
They /were/ correct. The Church, as a whole, didn't practice
polygamy.
"At that time the Church members as a whole had not
heard the revelation, nor had they been given an
opportunity to accept it. But many of the leaders
knew of it and were polygamists."
What I've been saying all along. Plural Marriage wasn't official
Church doctrine until 1852, though some of the leaders did, in fact,
practice "the Principle" before that.
"The chaotic conditions of the years immediately
following the Prophet's death, delayed the formal
presentation of the revelation. Soon after the Church
was established in the Great Salt Lake region, at the
conference in 1852, the doctrine of celestial and
plural marriage was accepted by the Church as a
whole. During the intervening years, however, it was
taught and practiced."
>
> Seeing as how Widtsoe conceded that early Mormon leaders
> denied practicing polygamy (which equated to lying),
>
Not equated to lying, and Widtsoe concedes nothing of the sort.
Can't you read? Widtsoe said that the denials were CORRECT.
>
> ... it's futile for modern Mopologists like Guy
>
Back to ad hominem. How lame.
>
> ... Briggs to still try to claim that they did not. At some
> point, the rational mind just has to accept the facts
>
And we all sincerely wish that you WOULD accept the facts.
>
> ... and concede the issue.
>
That, too.
bestRegards, Guy.
Xan Du
"Guy R. Briggs" <net...@GeoCities.com> wrote in message
news:918DD9B88netza...@209.84.17.10...
> thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Although Steve Lowther's original point concerned Taylor's
> > 1850 denial of polygamy, the purpose of my responses and
> > documentation is to show that Taylor's 1850 prevarication
> > merely followed the pattern of all LDS leaders, including
> > Joseph Smith, to lie about and/or deny the teaching and
> > practice of polygamy, until they reversed themselves and
> > admitted it in 1852.
> >
> Well, Randy, I've never known you to pass up a chance to take a
> subject - any subject - and try to turn it into a referendum against
> Smith. Sort of knee-jerk, IMHO.
LDS Polygamy practice originated with Joseph Smith, Jr. It makes perfect
sense to hold him chiefly responsible for denials that he, and other LDS
leaders of the time made about the practice of plural marriage. I'm not
fooled by your attempt to deflect the issue.
> > Guy Briggs wrote:
> >
> >> IIRC, the statement in question was made in 1839, some two
> >> years before Joseph Smith taught the principle to John
> >> Taylor and 3-4 years before Taylor entered into any plural
> >> marriages himself.
> >
> > Randy's response:
> >
> > This response indicates that you are either
> >
> > a) too ignorant of the incident in question to offer any
> > intelligent comments on the subject, or
> >
> > b) you are basing your invalid assertion on false
> > information published by Mormon apologists, or
> >
> > c) You know the true facts, but you are deliberately lying
> > to defend Mormonism at the expense of your personal
> > integrity.
> >
> None of the above. Lowther's first post claimed Taylor was on a
> mission to England at the time. Then XanDu and InnovatorsDilemma posted
> a series of responses, culminating with Xan's final
>
> "The tract, published first in 1850 by Taylor, then
> later by Pratt in 1851, recounts a debate Taylor
> engaged in while on his mission which started in
> 1839. The fact remains that the tract condemns
> polygamy, when in fact John Taylor himself was
> engaged in the practice at the time he published it."
Guy, do you accept that a) the tract was published in 1850 and 1851 by
Taylor and Pratt, b) that the tract denies the practice of polygamy and c)
that Taylor was knowingly engaged in polygamous unions at the time the tract
was published?
> > The incident under discussion did not take place in 1839, as
> > you ...
> >
> And Steve. And Xan Du. And Innovator's Dilemma.
>
> >
> > ... falsely assert, but in 1850, in France, during Taylor's
> > second mission there,
> >
> Erm, Taylor served three missions. England (1839-41), England (1846-
> 47) and France (1849-52). This would have been his 1st mission to
> France or his 3rd mission to Europe. It could not possibly have been
> his 2nd mission to France.
Randy's statement is fundamentally correct. John Taylor visited France
twice in the capacity of a missionary: first in 1839 where he engaged in a
debate denying polygamy, second, while serving his third mission, at which
time he published a tract quoting from statements he'd made while serving
there in 1839. Technically, Taylor's 1849-52 mission to France was his
second mission there.
> So you're saying it wasn't England at all, but France. You guys
> really need to get your stories straight.
You need to quit dodging the issue.
> But I'll tell you what - let
> me research it, and if the original statement was, indeed, made on
> Taylor's mission to France, I'll post an apology and resolve to never
> believe a single fact presented by CsOTMC without checking it out
> thoroughly.
>
> <snip Taylor bio, including 3 European missions>
>
> >
> > Note that BYU's official biography of Taylor names the seven
> > women to whom he was "sealed", all before 1850, as well as
> > children born of those relationships, indicating that they
> > were sexual in nature, making them polygamy in very deed.
> >
> Nobody is disputing Taylor's involvement in plural marriage.
>
> >
> > I have recommended several times that readers who are
> > interested in learning the facts about Taylor's and other
> > Mormon leaders prevarications on this issue, should read
> > Fannie Stenhouse's "Tell It All," to obtain a first-hand
> > account of the events in their historical context.
> >
> I have better uses for my time than reading antiMormon literature,
Translation: I'm intellectually dishonest, and I don't care to recognize a
distinction between anti-Mormon garbage, and valid critical historic
research.
> though I admit to having a copy of NMKMH - mostly used as a rich source
> for poking holes in critic's claims.
It is fallacious to argue that if one LDS critic makes a mistake that all
LDS critics and LDS critical material is false.
> > Since you are apparently not willing to read it for
> > yourself, I'll provide the relevant excerpts, beginning from
> > page 97 of her autobiography, with a conversation with a
> > friend, Mary Burton:
>
> <snip touching story with no mention of Taylor>
>
> > Joseph Smith, whatever he said and did in private, always
> > denied it in public, and after his death the leaders of the
> > Church followed his example.
> >
> They all valued their lives, their families and their property.
Why are you making excuses for something that you don't believe happened?
> > In some way, however, an idea had got abroad that the
> > Mormons were somewhat unsound respecting the marriage
> > question.
> >
> Wouldn't have had anything to do with scurrilous writers such as
> Bennett, Law, Higbee and others, would it? No, of course not. Couldn't
> be.
You're deflecting the issue again. I'm not fooled again.
> > Still the elders stoutly denied the charge, and the more
> > they were accused the more strenuous became their denials.
> >
> But what, exactly, were they denying, Randy? If they're denying
> plain, standard-issue, one each, OD, plural marriage then you have a
> very valid point. If they're denying orgies, communities of wives
> servicing the elite leaders, kidnapping women, taking them to the
> temple and (if they refuse to become involved) throwing them over the
> wall of Temple Square and into the Great Salt Lake - then they have
> every right to deny the charges.
Taylor specifically denied practicing polygamy, equating such practice with
all manner of other whoredoms.
This other stuff about chucking women into the Great Salt Lake was not part
of the original charge made by Steve Lowther. Again, your diversion doesn't
fool me.
> This is the problem with most every discussion of plural marriage
> takes place on a.r.m - CsOTMC believe everything written by antiMormons
> on the subject without questioning the validity of the claims, and then
> lump it all under one heading: polygamy.
The evidence that has been presented concerning John Taylor has all come
from pro-LDS publications, Guy. Your sweeping generalization above does not
apply, and is not a convincing diversion. Again, I'm not fooled.
> > At a public discussion at Boulogne-sur-mer in France,
> >
> During the 2nd mission to France, right? ;)
>
> >
> > ... the Apostle John Taylor, in reply to the accusations of
> > Polygamy which were brought against him, said: "We are
> > accused here of actions the most indelicate and disgusting,
> > such as none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have
> > contrived. These things were too outrageous to admit of
> > belief.......
> >
> And he must have been lying his ass off, right?
When he published that statement in 1851, at a time when Church records
indicate he was married to multiple women, he was lying.
> Because he's a Mormon and all Mormons are liars?
Strawman.
> I'm willing to bet that if you
> produce the /entire/ piece (and not just the part that paints Taylor as
> a liar) you'll find that he is not denying polygamy, but rather, some
> twisted, antiMormon presentation of it - as different from the pure
> doctrine of plural marriage as devil worship is from Christianity.
Speculation with no substantive evidence.
> > ... I shall content myself with quoting our views of
> > chastity and marriage from a work published by us,
> > containing some of our articles of faith-Doctrine and
> > Covenants." He then proceeded to quote from the Book of
> > Doctrine and Covenants such passages as the following:
> > "Marriage is ordained by God unto man; wherefore it is
> > lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain should
> > be one flesh. [p. 218]. He quoted many other things also,
> > among which might be enumerated the following: "Thou shalt
> > love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her,
> > and none else."
> >
> And all of this was and is official LdS doctrine.
Then why didn't the leadership practice it?
> > He quoted also many other passages of Scripture which had
> > reference to the subject;-each powerful to put aside even
> > the idea of polygamy; and each equally powerful as an
> > argument against polygamy itself.
> >
> Just as Jacob, in the BofM, is a powerful argument against
> unsanctioned polygamy.
If the Church was practicing sanctioned polygamy, why lie about it?
> > Let the reader here note the value of what Mormons say when
> > their faith is called in question:-See and judge: Brother
> > Taylor, who spoke at that meeting, and utterly denied
> > polygamy, had himself---at that very moment when he so
> > atrociously perjured himself and when he swore that no
> > Mormon had more than one wife---five wives living in Salt
> > Lake City: One of his friends there present had two wives;
> > and the other was married to a mother and her own daughter!
> >
> CFR - and I want the whole thing, not just the snippet you want us
> to read. Was Taylor denying polygamy, per se - or was he denying some
> twisted misrepresentation of it? If this really happened in 1850, they
> could have been denying what Bennett wrote - the whole cyprian-saints-
> chambered-sisters-of-charity-cloistered-saints thing. Certainly what
> Bennett described could be called, accurately, "actions the most
> indelicate and disgusting, such as none but a corrupt and depraved
> heart could have contrived."
More speculation and dodging. I'm still not fooled.
> > Any conclusion, any expression of disgust at these
> > abominations and deliberate perjuries, I leave to the
> > reader.".....
> >
> And hopefully, the informed reader can make a distinction between
> Plural Marriage, as taught by Smith, and the obscenities published by
> Bennett and other enemies of the Church.
Because, according to your logic, all LDS critics are enemies and liars.
> <snip Stenhouse reminiscence of Conference in England, at
> which no mention was made of polygamy>
>
> > Stenhouse then quotes a later letter from her friend Mary
> > Burton:
>
> <snip letter>
>
> > After discovering that the previously-denied "revelation
> > on celestial marriage" was indeed a reality, Stenhouse then
> > quotes from a letter from another Mormon friend, one Madame
> > Baliff:
> >
>
> <snip letter, down to ...>
>
> > Who could believe that Orson Pratt or Lorenzo Snow knew
> > nothing of Polygamy? And yet they denied it in the most
> > solemn way. And, oh, Sister Stenhouse, think of the Apostle
> > Taylor calling God to witness his truth when he proved from
> > the Book of Covenants that there was no such thing as
> > Polygamy: and all the while he had himself five wives in
> > Salt Lake City! Oh, my! This is dreadful. Whether the
> > doctrine is true or not, I can never believe that God would
> > forgive all that abominable lying about it.
> >
> Which is the crux of the matter, is it not? Leaders of the Church
> denying all that was written on the subject in antiMormon literature
> had the effect of making members - and other honest people - think that
> plural marriage, per se, as Smith taught it, was /also/ being denied.
You haven't documented that Taylor denied some sort of "peversion" of
polygamy. This smoke and mirrors isn't fooling me.
> With perfect 20-20 hindsight, I can see that it wasn't a particularly
> good strategy. But, as I've said many times, I wasn't there to know all
> the dynamics that went into the decision.
Yet you're not hesitant to make speculative defensive statements like, "They
all valued their lives, their families and their property." You're long on
rhetoric, short on documentation. And I'm still not fooled.
> > Stenhouse then relates an example of the effect the
> > "revelation" had on naive, trusting, European converts:
> >
> > T'was fortunate for the Swiss Mission that the new converts
> > in general could not read any language but their own,
> >
> Why was this so fortunate, if Stenhouse was so bitterly against
> plural marriage? Wouldn't she think this was a bad thing?
>
> >
> > ... and thus were ignorant of the deceptions ...
> >
> So-called
>
> >
> > ... which the American Elders had practiced upon the people.
> > Monsieur Petitpierre, the Protestant minister, who thought
> > that the Revelation ought to be "prayerfully considered,"
> > was the only one who understood English, and his knowledge
> > was very limited. His wife did not at all coincide with him
> > about the prayerful consideration of Polygamy; she disposed
> > of the subject without any prayer at all,
> >
> But, I expect, had no problem at all with the idea that Abraham,
> Issac, Jacob, Moses, David, etc., etc. were all polygamists. It's only
> a problem for prophets who have a last name.
Yeah, Abraham was a real treat -- he knocked up his wife's handmaiden,
claiming that God told Sarah to let him do it. What a hoot. And David had
Bath-Sheeba's husband sent to the front to be conveniently killed in action
just so he could get some action. This sort of sexual predation follows a
pattern, does it not?
BTW, you'd be amazed at the number of Christians I've met who are ignorant
of OT-sanctioned polygamy.
Enough for now.
-Xan
<snip to end>
Fool Speck
I accept that I mistakenly said that John Taylor was on a mission to
England when I stated that he participated in that debate in France.
He was, duh, on a mission to France. However, when such importance to
a minute, immaterial detail is being grossly blown out of proportion,
it is an obvious consequence of a desperate defense. No minutia is
too insignificant when reason and facts are not on one's side.
John Taylor lied. No ifs ands or buts. I sent a portion of a copy of
_Orson Pratt's Works_ to Woody. If you need to see the accusation and
Taylor's rebuttal, ask Woody. As a last resort, if Woody will not
comply with your request, I'll send you what I sent Woody.
I said nothing about 1839. I mentioned only 1850 as the date of the
debate and 1851 as the date of the publication of _Orson Pratt's
Works_.
Taylor read D&C 101 (which was deleted in 1879) in response to the
polygamy accusation which denied polygamy and stated that one man
should be married to one woman, and one woman to one husband. That is
not the form of marriage he practiced. That was not the form any the
of apostles or BY practiced. They represented themselves as
monogamists.
John Taylor practiced overt prevarication by misrepresenting and
implying that nothing but monogamy was practiced.
Apostle Dallin Oaks condemned "Lying for the Lord". He admitted
church leaders lied about polygamy. He said it was wrong. Why can't
you face the same reality that Dallin Oaks condemned?
http://www.lds-mormon.com/oakslying.shtml
When the church admitted to polygamy in 1852, the baptisms in a
shocked England plummetted as the news spread.
http://www.isle-of-man.com/manxnotebook/famhist/genealgy/mormon.htm
So it is obvious WHY the church leaders denied polygamy. But by 1852,
it was getting impossible to hide.
The denial of polygamy was a lie. Dallin Oaks admitted church leaders
lied about polygamy. Joseph Smith lied about polygamy. Orson Pratt
lied about polygamy. John Taylor lied about polygamy. Church
publications at home and abroad lied about polygamy. Having trouble
with that word "polygamy"?
Let's then say:
The status of monogamy within the church was a lie. Dallin Oaks
admitted church leaders lied about polygamy. Joseph Smith lied about
his status as a monogamist. Orson Pratt lied about his status as a
monogamist. John Taylor lied about his status as a monogamist.
Church publications at home and abroad lied about the church's claim
to monogamy.
One can only conclude that at least one important doctrine of the
Church was hidden under a blanket of lies. How can one trust a
church, which beginning with its founder, lied so profusely? What
else did it lie about in the name of the Lord, spreading its theology?
The first vision? The Book of Mormon? Joseph Smith's revelations?
By its irrefutable history, the church has shown it is not worthy of
the sacred trust of its members.
Steve Lowther
Cheap Suit
I posted months ago two different sources that had published photocopies of
Taylor's pamphlet. Anyone who was really looking for facts could have obtained
a copy if they didn't believe what the wicked antis were posting.
"Orson Pratt's Works", Utah Lighthouse Ministry product code UP013, $19.00
"For Any Latter-day Saint:" S.I. Banister,
>
> > I have better uses for my time than reading antiMormon literature,
>
> Translation: I'm intellectually dishonest, and I don't care to recognize a
> distinction between anti-Mormon garbage, and valid critical historic
> research.
Guy thinks its our fault that orson pratt's garbage is only printed by wicked
antis.
Good post Mr. Xan.
Guy R. Briggs
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
<snip>
>> Well, Randy, I've never known you to pass up a chance to
>> take a subject - any subject - and try to turn it into a
>> referendum against Smith. Sort of knee-jerk, IMHO.
>
> LDS Polygamy practice originated with Joseph Smith, Jr.
>
Actually, it started with God, and the first prophet we know who
practiced it was Abraham.
>
> It makes perfect sense to hold him chiefly responsible for
> denials that he, and other LDS leaders of the time made
> about the practice of plural marriage.
>
Then perhaps the "Subject:" line should be changed, to reflect wehre
you all really want to take the conversation.
>
> I'm not fooled by your attempt to deflect the issue.
>
Since the original treatise was "How ... do we respond to John
Taylor's denial of polygamy?" the only deflection going on is trying to
turn it into a referendum on Smith.
bestRegards, Guy.
Guy R. Briggs
>
> <snip>
>
> I accept that I mistakenly said that John Taylor was on a
> mission to England when I stated that he participated in
> that debate in France. He was, duh, on a mission to France.
>
any accusations I may have made vis-a-vis a 1839 statement being
presented as an 1850 statement.
I was mistaken. It happens from time to time.
>
> However, when such importance to a minute, immaterial detail
> is being grossly blown out of proportion, it is an obvious
> consequence of a desperate defense. No minutia is too
> insignificant when reason and facts are not on one's side.
>
I was, however, right about what Taylor was denying. It was NOT
polygamy, per se. It was the lies written in Bennett's book.
"The doctrine of plural marriage both by those who
without authorization and, prematurely, undertook to
teach it, and those who bitterly denounced it, was
not properly apprehended either by such advocates or
such denunciators. Plural marriage as taught by the
Prophet was not the 'polygamy' of the orient, with
its attendant despotism and harems; nor the 'bigamy'
of western civilization, banned by the law of all the
western nations, including our own, and in which the
element of deception was always present by keeping
the fact of the first and perhaps other marriages
secret, thus betraying its victims to unsuspected
disgrace and humiliation. And hence, because these
overzealous advocates, and ill informed denunciators
never truly represented the doctrine of the revelation
on marriage, the denial of their misstatements of the
doctrine and its practice was not regarded by the
leading elders of the church as a denial of the
doctrine of the revelation given to the Prophet; and
while this may be considered a refinement in
presentation that the world will not allow, it
nevertheless represents a distinction that was real
to those who were struggling with a difficult
proposition, and accounts for the seeming denials
referred to in the text above; as also later seeming
denials made by John Taylor, in a public discussion
with three ministers at Boulogne-sur-mer, France, 1850
(Public Discussion in France, included in Orson
Pratt's Works, 1851 edition, England. Also Life of
John Taylor, ch, xxiv); and by Parley P. Pratt in
England, 1845 (Millennial Star, vol. vi, p. 22). BOTH
ELDERS PRATT AND TAYLOR IN THEIR DENIALS WERE
REFERRING TO THE CHARGES MADE BY JOHN C. BENNETT AND
OTHER APOSTATES. Pratt says, in his denial: 'Beware
of seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, as first
introduced by John C. Bennett under the name of 'the
spiritual wife doctrine.' ... It is but another name
for whoredom, wicked and unlawful connection and every
kind of confusion, corruption and abomination. ... The
spiritual wife doctrine of J. C. Bennett and numerous
other apostates, is as foreign from the real
principles of the church as the devil is from God, or
as sectarianism is from Christianity." (Ibid.)
-- Roberts, B.H., _Comprehensive
History of the Church_, V.2,
Ch.45, p.104
>
> John Taylor lied. No ifs ands or buts.
>
John Taylor denied the lies printed by Bennett. If there was a
little less snippage going on around here, that would have been plain.
bestRegards, Guy.
Jackie Chan
take a subject - any subject - and try to turn it into a
referendum against Smith. Sort of knee-jerk, IMHO.
Xan Du
LDS Polygamy practice originated with Joseph Smith, Jr.
Guy Briggs
Actually, it started with God, and the first prophet we know who
practiced it was Abraham.
JC comments:
erm, no, Guy - unlike father Abraham, Smith's early "marriages" were
usually to other men's wives, all were illegal and immoral - one reason
Smith lied about them
yes, Joseph Smith originated the Mormon leadership's code of deception,
of which you are a fruit
Cheap Suit
Pratt must have been thinking about what Joe did to Emma.
Guy R. Briggs
<snip>
>>> This response indicates that you are either
>>>
>>> a) too ignorant of the incident in question to offer any
>>> intelligent comments on the subject, or
>>>
>>> b) you are basing your invalid assertion on false
>>> information published by Mormon apologists, or
>>>
>>> c) You know the true facts, but you are deliberately lying
>>> to defend Mormonism at the expense of your personal
>>> integrity.
>>
>> None of the above. Lowther's first post claimed Taylor was
>> on a mission to England at the time. Then XanDu and
>> InnovatorsDilemma posted a series of responses, culminating
>> with Xan's final
>>
>> "The tract, published first in 1850 by Taylor, then
>> later by Pratt in 1851, recounts a debate Taylor
>> engaged in while on his mission which started in
>> 1839. The fact remains that the tract condemns
>> polygamy, when in fact John Taylor himself was
>> engaged in the practice at the time he published it."
>
> Guy, do you accept that a) the tract was published in 1850
> and 1851 by Taylor and Pratt,
>
Yes, I do.
>
> b) that the tract denies the practice of polygamy
>
No, I do not. The tract denies the practice of all the junk that
Bennett printed.
>
> c) that Taylor was knowingly engaged in polygamous unions at
> the time the tract was published?
>
Yes, but in light of #2 the point is moot.
>>>
>>> The incident under discussion did not take place in 1839, as
>>> you ...
>>
>> And Steve. And Xan Du. And Innovator's Dilemma.
>>
>>> ... falsely assert, but in 1850, in France, during Taylor's
>>> second mission there,
>>
>> Erm, Taylor served three missions. England (1839-41),
>> England (1846-47) and France (1849-52). This would have
>> been his 1st mission to France or his 3rd mission to
>> Europe. It could not possibly have been his 2nd mission to
>> France.
>
> Randy's statement is fundamentally correct. John Taylor
> visited France twice in the capacity of a missionary: first
> in 1839 where he engaged in a debate denying polygamy,
>
If that's true (I no longer believe it is) then the actual debate
took place BEFORE Taylor learned of plural marriage and BEFORE he
entered into any marriage besides the first. This hurts your case,
IMHO.
But your facts are wrong, it turns out the actual debate took place
in 1850. Taylor denied all the lies that Bennett had published, and
though he was practicing plural marriage at the time, he was not party
to any of the wickedness that Bennett described.
<snip>
>> I have better uses for my time than reading antiMormon
>> literature,
>
> Translation: I'm intellectually dishonest, and I don't care
> to recognize a distinction between anti-Mormon garbage, and
> valid critical historic research.
>
Have now done the research, and I've come away better informed.
>>
>> ... though I admit to having a copy of NMKMH - mostly used
>> as a rich source for poking holes in critic's claims.
>
> It is fallacious to argue that if one LDS critic makes a
> mistake that all LDS critics and LDS critical material is
> false.
>
Granted. I've studied Brodie enough to form an opinion. Today's
research has given me eough information to form an opinion about
Taylor's "lies" (so-called).
>>>
>>> Since you are apparently not willing to read it for
>>> yourself, I'll provide the relevant excerpts, beginning from
>>> page 97 of her autobiography, with a conversation with a
>>> friend, Mary Burton:
>>
>> <snip touching story with no mention of Taylor>
>>
>>> Joseph Smith, whatever he said and did in private, always
>>> denied it in public, and after his death the leaders of the
>>> Church followed his example.
>>
>> They all valued their lives, their families and their
>> property.
>
> Why are you making excuses for something that you don't
> believe happened?
>
Oh, I believe that the practice of plural marriage was kept hidden.
I just don't think what Taylor did in France was a simple denial of
polygamy.
>>>
>>> In some way, however, an idea had got abroad that the
>>> Mormons were somewhat unsound respecting the marriage
>>> question.
>>
>> Wouldn't have had anything to do with scurrilous writers
>> such as Bennett, Law, Higbee and others, would it? No, of
>> course not. Couldn't be.
>
> You're deflecting the issue again.
>
Actually, I'm not. Taylor's denial in France was directly tied to
Bennett's lies. They were what Taylor was specifically denying.
"There is one item connected with this discussion that
should be dealt with, since it is a matter that the
enemies of Elder Taylor have sought to make much of
in casting reproach upon his veracity and moral
courage. In the course of the discussion his
opponents rehearsed writings and lectures of John C.
Bennett after he was excommunicated from the church,
and accused the saints with practicing the grave
immoralities described by this arch apostate. Among
the immoralities charged were those of promiscuous
intercourse, a community of wives, the keeping of
seraglios, polygamy, illicit intercourse, by
permisison of the Prophet, and the keeping of
spiritual wives.
"To all this Elder Taylor made a general and emphatic
denial, and read from an article then published in
the Appendix of the Doctrine and Covenants,
expressing the belief of the church on the subject of
marriage; and inasmuch as he knew of and had obeyed
the law of celestial marriage, including as it does a
plurality of wives, he has been accused of falsehood,
and of seeking to deceive by denying the charges then
brought against the church.
"The polygamy and gross sensuality charged by Bennett
and repeated by those ministers in France, had no
resemblance to celestial or patriarchal marriage
which Elder Taylor knew existed in Nauvoo, and which
he had obeyed. Hence in denying the false charges of
Bennett he did not deny the existence of that system
of marriage that God had revealed; no more than a man
would be guilty of denying the legal, genuine
currency of his country, by denying the genuineness
and denouncing what he knew to be a mere counterfeit
of it."
-- Roberts, B.H., _Comprehensive
History of the Church_
>
> I'm not fooled again.
>
I know. There's no confusing you with facts once you mind's made up.
>>>
>>> ... the Apostle John Taylor, in reply to the accusations of
>>> Polygamy which were brought against him, said: "We are
>>> accused here of actions the most indelicate and disgusting,
>>> such as none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have
>>> contrived. These things were too outrageous to admit of
>>> belief.......
>>
>> And he must have been lying his ass off, right?
>
> When he published that statement in 1851, at a time when
> Church records indicate he was married to multiple women, he
> was lying.
>
Because he WAS involved in keeping seraglios, practicing promiscuous
iintercourse, having a community of wives, illicit intercourse by
permisison of the Prophet, and the keeping of spiritual wives?!? I do
not believe that Church records show any thing of the sort.
<snip>
>> I'm willing to bet that if you produce the /entire/ piece
>> (and not just the part that paints Taylor as a liar) you'll
>> find that he is not denying polygamy, but rather, some
>> twisted, antiMormon presentation of it - as different from
>> the pure doctrine of plural marriage as devil worship is
>> from Christianity.
>
> Speculation with no substantive evidence.
>
Seen the evidence, now. I would win the bet.
<remainder snipped>
bestRegards, Guy.
Guy R. Briggs
<snip>
>> nor the 'bigamy' of western civilization, banned by
>> the law of all the western nations, including our
>> own, and in which the element of deception was
>> always present by keeping the fact of the first
>> and perhaps other marriages secret, thus betraying
>> its victims to unsuspected disgrace and humiliation.
>
> Pratt must have been thinking about what Joe did to Emma.
>
Is English you second language? Bigamy is keeping the FIRST
marriage secret from subsequent victims. I don't believe that Joe kept
his first marriage a secret from Emma.
bestRegards, Guy.
Fool Speck
> srlo...@hotmail.com (Fool Speck) wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > I accept that I mistakenly said that John Taylor was on a
> > mission to England when I stated that he participated in
> > that debate in France. He was, duh, on a mission to France.
> >
> My own research leads me to the same conclusion, and I apologise for
> any accusations I may have made vis-a-vis a 1839 statement being
> presented as an 1850 statement.
>
> I was mistaken. It happens from time to time.
It does, and I have made mistakes as well. You have done nothing
dishonest here.
> > However, when such importance to a minute, immaterial detail
> > is being grossly blown out of proportion, it is an obvious
> > consequence of a desperate defense. No minutia is too
> > insignificant when reason and facts are not on one's side.
> >
> I was, however, right about what Taylor was denying. It was NOT
> polygamy, per se. It was the lies written in Bennett's book.
>
> "The doctrine of plural marriage both by those who
> without authorization and, prematurely, undertook to
> teach it, and those who bitterly denounced it, was
> not properly apprehended either by such advocates or
> such denunciators. Plural marriage as taught by the
> Prophet was not the 'polygamy' of the orient, with
> its attendant despotism and harems; nor the 'bigamy'
> of western civilization, banned by the law of all the
> western nations, including our own, and in which the
> element of deception was always present by keeping
> the fact of the first and perhaps other marriages
> secret, thus betraying its victims to unsuspected
> disgrace and humiliation.
He is simply stating the necessity of compounding one lie with
another. He is admitting that the doctrine of plural marriage could
not stand the light of day.
Most any criminal will justify his crime, and will try to give
palpable explanations as to why a given law is just in most cases, but
unjust in his. Defense attorneys resort to this very tactic when
facts cannot be refuted.
> And hence, because these
> overzealous advocates, and ill informed denunciators
> never truly represented the doctrine of the revelation
> on marriage, the denial of their misstatements of the
> doctrine and its practice was not regarded by the
> leading elders of the church as a denial of the
> doctrine of the revelation given to the Prophet; and
No reasonable person could read the affirmation of monogamy as stated
in D&C 101:4 and believe any form of polygamy, no matter in what
language it is couched, is given lee to exist within the Church's
doctrines. That is why that section was removed in 1879! Spin
doctoring is a time-honored tradition.
> while this may be considered a refinement in
> presentation that the world will not allow, it
> nevertheless represents a distinction that was real
> to those who were struggling with a difficult
> proposition, and accounts for the seeming denials
A difficult proposition always occurs when one must lie to cover
another lie. It is the proverbial tangled web of deception.
> referred to in the text above; as also later seeming
> denials made by John Taylor, in a public discussion
> with three ministers at Boulogne-sur-mer, France, 1850
> (Public Discussion in France, included in Orson
> Pratt's Works, 1851 edition, England. Also Life of
> John Taylor, ch, xxiv); and by Parley P. Pratt in
> England, 1845 (Millennial Star, vol. vi, p. 22). BOTH
> ELDERS PRATT AND TAYLOR IN THEIR DENIALS WERE
> REFERRING TO THE CHARGES MADE BY JOHN C. BENNETT AND
> OTHER APOSTATES. Pratt says, in his denial: 'Beware
> of seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, as first
> introduced by John C. Bennett under the name of 'the
> spiritual wife doctrine.' ... It is but another name
> for whoredom, wicked and unlawful connection and every
> kind of confusion, corruption and abomination. ... The
> spiritual wife doctrine of J. C. Bennett and numerous
> other apostates, is as foreign from the real
> principles of the church as the devil is from God, or
> as sectarianism is from Christianity." (Ibid.)
In making this feeble defense, Pratt nowhere implies that there is an
defensible alternative "holy" polygamy previously introduced by Smith
to the counterfeit corrupted version that Bennett originated. He
leaves the distinct impression on the reader's mind that no form of
polygamy is acceptable. This is yet another deception.
> -- Roberts, B.H., _Comprehensive
> History of the Church_, V.2,
> Ch.45, p.104
>
> >
> > John Taylor lied. No ifs ands or buts.
> >
> John Taylor denied the lies printed by Bennett. If there was a
> little less snippage going on around here, that would have been plain.
>
>
> bestRegards, Guy.
I think we have turned a page in the debate, here. There are two
points worth arguing:
1) Was Taylor's reply strickly a rebuttal to Bennett's book? Why
then did he quote the affirmation to monogamy as stated in D&C 101:4?
This was much, much more than an ambiguous implication that the Church
believed only in monogamy.
************
No one could possibly look at that statement and still believe there
is enough wiggle room to include Joseph Smith's revelation on
celestial marriage in *any* form. It simply was a lie! Again, no
IFs, ANDs or BUTs!
************
2) What are Bennett's lies, exactly? An insightful review of
Bennett's book states:
"This book is fairly sensational when read in a vacuum. When you read
it in conjunction with other books (that aren't too sanitized and
"faith promoting" like the 7 volume "History of the Church"), you will
realize that some (if not much) of what Bennett says is true
(including the details of the Nancy Rigdon and Sarah Pratt
affairs).... A letter he quotes (that the church leaders later denied
existed) turned up in the official "History of the Church" as a letter
of Joseph Smith used when the polygamy doctrine was being introduced.
Bennett isn't much of a writer though. Most of the book merely quotes
other books, newspaper articles, and letters."
So what exactly does John Bennett accuse the Church of that turns the
general accusation of the practice of polygamy around? Did Bennett
make the accusation of polygamy a lie because he did not couch it in
enough religious terms but instead couched it in adulterous terms?
There is no inaccurate accusation in Bennett's book that compares with
the claim of cleaving to monogamy as Taylor asserted by his quoting
D&C 101:4. In terms of the debate, Taylor, by far, was the worse liar
of the two.
But what of the character of Bennett?
According to Brigham Young, Bennett never had any faith at all. But
Joseph Smith quotes the Lord as saying:
"Again, let my servant John C. Bennett help you in your labor in
sending my word to the kings and people of the earth, and stand by
you, even you my servant Joseph Smith, in the hour of affliction; and
his reward shall not fail if he receive counsel.
"And for his love he shall be great, for he shall be mine if he do
this, saith the Lord, I have seen the work which he hath done, which I
accept if he continue, and will crown him with blessings and great
glory." (Doctrine and Covenants 124:16-17)
Joseph knew from the beginning that Bennett was a scoundrel, as he
admits receiving reports that Bennett had deserted a wife and children
in Indiana very early on. This jives precisely with what Brigham
Young said.
But it was Bennett who secured the all powerful Nauvoo Charter that
granted Joseph immunity from prosecution. That charter granted the
city the rights to issue writs of habeus corpus, a major issue to the
enemies of the Church. Smith's enemies were forced to pursue legal
strategy to somehow work around the city's powers in order to get
Smith into court. It wasn't until after Smith's assassination they
eventually were granted a repeal of the charter.
http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/benintro.htm
So we find that B.H. Roberts cannot use as an excuse that Taylor
appeared to lie because he was merely answering Bennett's accusations,
for with the benefit of modern illumination, we can clearly see that
much of what Bennett accused Church leaders of was true!
In addition, the denials of polygamy of section 101 predated Bennett's
book by many years. So rumors of polygamy and the denials were in
place well before Bennett arrived on the scene.
Taylor blatantly lied, and B.H. Roberts was doing nothing more than
attempting to spin doctor Taylor's lies and other's lies with strained
sophistry.
Steve Lowther
Fool Speck
> "Guy R. Briggs" wrote:
>
> > "The doctrine of plural marriage both by those who
> > without authorization and, prematurely, undertook to
> > teach it, and those who bitterly denounced it, was
> > not properly apprehended either by such advocates or
> > such denunciators. Plural marriage as taught by the
> > Prophet was not the 'polygamy' of the orient, with
> > its attendant despotism and harems; nor the 'bigamy'
> > of western civilization, banned by the law of all the
> > western nations, including our own, and in which the
> > element of deception was always present by keeping
> > the fact of the first and perhaps other marriages
> > secret, thus betraying its victims to unsuspected
> > disgrace and humiliation.
>
> Pratt must have been thinking about what Joe did to Emma.
Yes, this is exactly what Joseph did to Emma. This is precisely why
Joseph "remarried" the Partridge sisters in Emma's presence according
to William Clayton's journal.
Emma was so destroyed by Joseph's treachery that she died denying
Joseph ever practiced it. This was in spite of the threats from God
he pronounced on her.
Joseph even accused Emma of trying to poison him in her rage.
Steve Lowther