Do Mormons really believe the following?
grouch
when we get rid of Joseph Smith, the devil will also go? Very curious. G
"Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning
mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on top at last. I have more
to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to
keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the
whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I
boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away
from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet...When they can
get rid of me, the devil will also go." (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 408,
409)
- Joseph Smith: founder, prophet, seer, and revelator of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints.
AnthonyPaul
>From: rgro...@wmconnect.com (grouch)
>Date: 8/25/02 8:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20020825204727...@mb-ff.wmconnect.com>
>
>Do Mormons really accept the following by Joseph Smith? What does it mean
>that
>when we get rid of Joseph Smith, the devil will also go? Very curious. G
The devil in this context does not refer to Satan himself, but rather "In all
these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil--all corruption. Come on!
ye prosecutors! ye false swearers!" The devil which will go is the persecution
which Joseph Smith had to endure. Only in death could he be freed from it - or
as the song goes; "Traitors and tyrants now fight him in vain."
Anthony
History of the Church, Vol. 6, pp. 408-409
Address of the Prophet - His Testimony Against the Dissenters at Nauvoo.
President Joseph Smith read the 11th Chap. II Corinthians.
["Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with
me. For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to
one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear,
lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your
minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he
that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye
receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye
have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. For I suppose I was not a whit
behind the very chiefest apostles. But though I be rude in speech, yet not in
knowledge; but we have been throughly made manifest among you in all things.
Have I committed an offence in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because
I have preached to you the gospel of God freely? I robbed other churches,
taking wages of them, to do you service. And when I was present with you, and
wanted, I was chargeable to no man: for that which was lacking to me the
brethren which came from Macedonia supplied: and in all things I have kept
myself from being burdensome unto you, and so will I keep myself. As the truth
of Christ is in me, no man shall stop me of this boasting in the regions of
Achaia. Wherefore? because I love you not? God knoweth. But what I do, that I
will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that
wherein they glory, they may be found even as we. For such are false apostles,
deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no
marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it
is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of
righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. I say again, Let
no man think me a fool; if otherwise, yet as a fool receive me, that I may
boast myself a little. That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but
as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting. Seeing that many glory
after the flesh, I will glory also. For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye
yourselves are wise. For ye suffer, if a man bring you into bondage, if a man
devour you, if a man take of you, if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you on
the face. I speak as concerning reproach, as though we had been weak. Howbeit
whereinsoever any is bold, (I speak foolishly) I am bold also. Are they
Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham?
so am I. Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in
labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in
deaths oft. Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice
was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night
and a day I have been in the deep; In journeyings often, in perils of waters,
in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the
heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the
sea, in perils among false brethren; In weariness and painfulness, in
watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and
nakedness. Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me
daily, the care of all the churches. Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is
offended, and I burn not? If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things
which concern mine infirmities. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not. In Damascus the
governor under Aretas the king kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison,
desirous to apprehend me: And through a window in a basket was I let down by
the wall, and escaped his hands."]
My object is to let you know that I am right here on the spot where I intend to
stay. I, like Paul, have been in perils, and oftener than anyone in this
generation. As Paul boasted, I have suffered more than Paul did. I should be
like a fish out of water, if I were out of persecutions. Perhaps my brethren
think it requires all this to keep me humble. The Lord has constituted me so
curiously that I glory in persecution. I am not nearly so humble as if I were
not persecuted. If oppression will make a wise man mad, much more a fool. If
they want a beardless boy to whip all the world, I will get on the top of a
mountain and crow like a rooster: I shall always beat them. When facts are
proved, truth and innocence will prevail at last. My enemies are no
philosophers: they think that when they have my spoke under, they will keep me
down; but for the fools, I will hold on and fly over them.
God is in the still small voice. In all these affidavits, indictments, it is
all of the devil--all corruption. Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers!
All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come
out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the
only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days
of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John,
Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I.
The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran
away from me yet. You know my daily walk and conversation. I am in the bosom of
a virtuous and good people. How I do love to hear the wolves howl! When they
can get rid of me, the devil will also go. For the last three years I have a
record of all my acts and proceedings, for I have kept several good, faithful,
and efficient clerks in constant employ: they have accompanied me everywhere,
and carefully kept my history, and they have written down what I have done,
where I have been, and what I have said; therefore my enemies cannot charge me
with any day, time, or place, but what I have written testimony to prove my
actions; and my enemies cannot prove anything against me. They have got
wonderful things in the land of Ham. I think the grand jury have strained at a
gnat and swallowed the camel.
A man named Simpson says I made an affidavit against him, &c. Mr. Simpson says
I arrested him. I never arrested Mr. Simpson in my life. He says I made an
affidavit against him. I never made an affidavit against him in my life. I will
prove it in court. I will tell you how it was: Last winter I got ready with my
children to go to the farm to kill hogs. Orrin P. Rockwell was going to drive.
An Englishman came in and wanted a private conversation with me. I told him I
did not want any private conversations. "I demand one of you! " Such a one I am
bound to obey anyhow. Said he-"I want a warrant against the man who stabbed
Brother Badham. He said it was a man who boarded at Davis'. He said it was Mr.
Simpson-it answered his description. I said I had no jurisdiction out of the
city. He said-"The man must be arrested, or else he will go away." I told
him-"You must go to Squire Wells, Johnson, or Foster." Mr. Lytle stepped up and
said-"I am a policeman." I jumped into my carriage, and away I went.
TheJordan6
>Date: 8/25/2002 9:33 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20020825213322...@mb-fz.aol.com>
>
>>Subject: Do Mormons really believe the following?
>>From: rgro...@wmconnect.com (grouch)
>>Date: 8/25/02 8:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <20020825204727...@mb-ff.wmconnect.com>
>>
>>Do Mormons really accept the following by Joseph Smith? What does it mean
>>that
>>when we get rid of Joseph Smith, the devil will also go? Very curious. G
>
>The devil in this context does not refer to Satan himself, but rather "In all
>these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil--all corruption. Come
>on!
>ye prosecutors! ye false swearers!" The devil which will go is the
>persecution
>which Joseph Smith had to endure. Only in death could he be freed from it -
>or
>as the song goes; "Traitors and tyrants now fight him in vain."
>
>Anthony
It should be noted that the affidavits and indictments Smith was referring to
were those which charged him with adultery and polygamy. His remarks in this
speech were
merely the last in a long line of denials that he was practicing polygamy. He
called his accusers "corrupt" and "false swearers," but history has proven that
Smith himself was the liar.
Randy J.
grouch
>The devil in this context does not refer to Satan himself, but rather "In all
>these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil--all corruption. Come
>on!
>ye prosecutors! ye false swearers!" The devil which will go is the
>persecution
>which Joseph Smith had to endure. Only in death could he be freed from it -
>or
>as the song goes; "Traitors and tyrants now fight him in vain."
>
>Anthony
>
question is, do you accept the statement as true? G
grouch
>It should be noted that the affidavits and indictments Smith was referring to
>were those which charged him with adultery and polygamy. His remarks in
>this
>speech were
>merely the last in a long line of denials that he was practicing polygamy.
>He
>called his accusers "corrupt" and "false swearers," but history has proven
>that
>Smith himself was the liar.
>
>Randy J.
>
GRaleigh345
rgro...@wmconnect.com (grouch) writes:
Smith's prophecy that he would come out on top came true. Unfortunately,
he failed to realize that a prophet, like an artist, really achieves lasting
greatness only after death. This entire speech, along with the later
consequences, read like an episode of THE TWILIGHT ZONE.
Raleigh
After editing e-texts of four different public domain translations of the Bible
for use with a freeware reader, I have concluded that there is a very good
reason why the expression "te Deum" and the word "tedium" look so much alike.
AnthonyPaul
>From: rgro...@wmconnect.com (grouch)
>Date: 8/26/02 3:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20020826153515...@mb-cl.wmconnect.com>
I do accept the statement as true - but then again, I am a Mormon.
Anthony
TheJordan6
>Date: 8/26/2002 6:31 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20020826183105...@mb-mr.aol.com>
Joseph Smith was referring to the affidavits and indictments which had been
sworn against him for charges of adultery and polygamy.
Was Joseph Smith telling the truth when he called those who charged him with
adultery and poygamy "corrupt" and "false swearers?"
Surely even a Mormon can answer that one.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 8/26/2002 3:36 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20020826153616...@mb-cl.wmconnect.com>
>
>>
>>It should be noted that the affidavits and indictments Smith was referring
>to
>>were those which charged him with adultery and polygamy. His remarks in
>>this
>>speech were
>>merely the last in a long line of denials that he was practicing polygamy.
>>He
>>called his accusers "corrupt" and "false swearers," but history has proven
>>that
>>Smith himself was the liar.
>>
>>Randy J.
>This is my current understanding, unless someone can convince me otherwise.
>G
"The marriage to the Lawrence sisters became public knowledge when William Law,
Joseph's second counselor in the First Presidency, became alienated from the
Prophet. Law, who had known the Lawrence family since their conversion in
Canada, chose the marriage of Smith and Maria Lawrence as a test case with
which to prosecute Smith for adultery. On May 23 he filed suit against the
Mormon leader in Hancock Count Circuit Court, at Carthage, charging that Smith
had been living with Maria Lawrence 'in an open state of adultery' from October
12, 1843, to the day of the suit.
In response, Smith flatly denied polygamy in a speech delivered on May 26:
'What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having
seven wives, when I can find only one.' As polygamy was illegal under US law,
Smith had little choice but to openly repudiate the practice. But as is often
the case with secret policies that are denied publicly, Smith's credibility
would later suffer. Realistically he must have understood that thirty-three or
more marriages could not be kept a secret forever, and that when they became
known the gulf between his public statements and private practice would come
back to haunt him."
("In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith," Todd Compton, pp.
476-477.)
Smith boasted that he could prove his accusers (William Law & Co.) to be
"perjurers." But instead, when Law & Co. published their sworn affidavits
testifying to their knowledge of Smith's secret wife practice two weeks after
Smith's speech, Smith ordered their printing press and office destroyed. That
act enraged the non-Mormon public, and led directly to Smith's murder 18 days
later.
You can read the text of Law & Co.'s "Nauvoo Expositor" newspaper containing
those affidavits at
http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/exposit1.htm
Randy J.
Randy J.
grouch
the stamp of credibility on the incident. It is apparent that Joseph Smith is
a liar, a proven liar. Here is the problem with some Mormons. I discussed
this with some of the church's missionaries and the response was that God works
in strange ways and if it serves His (God's) purpose to lie, then that is
God's will. I suggested that this tends to humanize God in my eyes, but they
did not see it that way. It appears that when one is brainwashed that they
have the truth, the ends justify the means. They, (missionaries) applied the
same principle to God killing the innocent to accomplish His ends, that if God
killed the innocent, it is because he did so for the betterment of mankind,
also, the innocent killed by God would have probably ended their life as
sinners anyway and God knew this, therefore He was saving the innocent by
killing them. This is direct from the missionaries mouth. This describes a
very dangerous God. But thanks for the link, I enjoyed reading the
resulutions. G
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
grouch
I do accept the statement as true - but then again, I am a Mormon.
Anthony
Are you suggesting that if you were not a Mormon, you would give the statement
more consideration? G
AnthonyPaul
>Message-id: <20020826214000...@mb-mp.wmconnect.com>
On the contrary, if I was not a Mormon, then I would not even give it a second
glance - much less a thought for any consideration.
Anthony
AnthonyPaul
>Date: 8/26/02 7:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20020826194127...@mb-ml.aol.com>
Were they corrupt? Sure.
Were they false swearers? Yes.
Anthony
Woody Brison
Here we go again, Rantin' Randy proves once again that
he cannot learn anything. How many times have I corrected
you on this? I flat give up ever again expecting to see
you come to an understanding. You are free. Maybe with
this expectation dissolved and abandoned, you will be
free to think perhaps a bit more freely. You do not
have to constantly be in a cold sweat that Woody will
expose yet one more time your lies and slants. You
can ignore every word I ever post from now on.
But for the other people here, I will occasionally
offer corrections when I think they are warranted.
> "The marriage to the Lawrence sisters became public knowledge when William Law,
> Joseph's second counselor in the First Presidency, became alienated from the
> Prophet. Law, who had known the Lawrence family since their conversion in
> Canada, chose the marriage of Smith and Maria Lawrence as a test case with
> which to prosecute Smith for adultery. On May 23 he filed suit against the
> Mormon leader in Hancock Count Circuit Court, at Carthage, charging that Smith
> had been living with Maria Lawrence 'in an open state of adultery' from October
> 12, 1843, to the day of the suit.
Notice the FACTS here. Joseph was MARRIED to the girl.
William Law charged a MARRIED man with adultery in
connection with his MARRIED wife. The issue is not
whether Joseph committed adultery -- he did not. The
issue is whether his marriage was real.
Since this marriage was (presumably, we have few
details) performed under the authority of the
priesthood which Joseph had received from God, the
issue is really whether Joseph was a prophet or wasn't.
Note that if he was a prophet, then his authority was
real, and the marriage was valid. So, the charge of
adultery is invalid, and the charge of adultery cannot
be used in attempting to determine if he was a prophet.
Randy Jordan will NOT accept the above logic. As Joseph
Smith himself prophesies of Randy, he is no philosopher.
But the logic is still valid whether Randy can live with
that or can't.
To claim that Joseph is a false prophet on the basis of
a charge of adultery is circular reasoning -- he's
commited adultery because he's married without authority;
his authority to marry is nil because he's a false
prophet; but he's a false prophet because he's committed
adultery.
It always amazes me when people decline to have faith
the Church Joseph founded, on such poor reasoning, but
that is exactly what they do. The inference is that they
want to quit the Church for other reasons, and are just
going thru an exercise in self-deception, pretending to
base their desertion on logic.
> In response, Smith flatly denied polygamy in a speech delivered on May 26:
> 'What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having
> seven wives, when I can find only one.'
The reference to seven wives is easily found, it is
earlier in the same sermon:
"I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and
made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was
reported that I had seven wives."
Joseph first started proclaiming the Gospel, and was
first married, back in the 1820's. At that time, all
sorts of maneuvers were undertaken by enemies to try
to derail the Restoration. If they could prove he was
guilty of this, that, or the other, it would destroy
his credibility. Fortunately, he was never guilty of
anything major, other than praying to the Father in the
name of Christ, and getting answers, and daring to
share those answers with the rest of humanity. But
in the absence of any real crime, imaginary crimes were
invented to harrass him. He is saying here that one of
those was the invention that he had seven wives. At that
time, there were various cults in the region, advocating
various cures for the ills of mankind: celibacy, hedonism,
vegetarianism, naturalism, spiritualism, etc. etc. etc.
Some of these were thoroughly scurrilous, and the folks
who wanted to bring Joseph down thought that if they could
associate him in the people's mind with those cults, it
would be effective. It was quite disgusting to Joseph,
and he is here remarking on how disgusting and absurd
all these false accusations have always been, right from
the start of his ministry.
His remarks about those scurrilous accusations have
zero to do with the system of plural marriage which he
had later been commanded of the Lord to live. None of
his accusers knew anything about that, altho some of
them imagined freely.
We should also note that this sermon comes to us not
as a full transcript but as a synopsis, made by a
river boat clerk and included into the History of the
Church after Joseph was dead, when he had no chance
to verify it was what he said or meant.
>... As polygamy was illegal under US law,
Polygamy was NOT illegal under US law. This can be
proven by the simple fact that when Congress wanted
to interfere with the Latter-day Saints out in Utah
Territory, they had to pass a law against polygamy,
and drag the LDS into court, all the way to the
Supreme Court, to have any law against them. In
1844 when Joseph was alive no such law existed.
There was at some point an anti-bigamy law passed
in Illinois, contrary to the State Constitution,
which echoed the U.S. Constitution in forbidding
religious interference by the government. (Marriage
as a religious ceremony is quite legal and binding.)
Joseph considered that being commanded by God, his
duty was to obey regardless of the unwise laws of
the state legislature, contrary to the Constitution.
He was in all conscience ready to go to prison,
or argue the case all the way to the Supreme Court,
should any of his enemies ever have gotten a real
case against him; all of which his followers
demonstrated later, in the Territory. (Joseph's
enemies did not get any case against him. They
could not. They had no proof. So, they shot him.)
> Smith had little choice but to openly repudiate the practice.
We've been over and over and over this. It's not
hard for Randy to claim that Joseph repudiated it,
but so far, in about 30 attempts, he has not come
up with any real evidence that he did. We've had
quotes by others, pushed as quotes by Joseph; we've
had affidavits by various members of the Church,
who did not know; we've had quotes about other things,
presented out of context to make them fit; even
doctored quotes and misattributed quotes. Does any
of this indict Joseph? Not at all; it just shows
that he is innocent; for his enemies must resort to
making stuff up to have anything to fling at him.
I feel completely confident that if there ever had
been anything real he was guilty of, they had found
it and trumpeted it over the earth. That they are
willing to resort to lies, truth not working for them,
just further shows the worthlessness of their character
and thus further the flimsiness of their accusations,
if further proof were needed.
> Smith boasted that he could prove his accusers (William Law & Co.) to be
> "perjurers."
And he did. Right there in this sermon, if you will
read it.
"This new holy prophet [William Law] has gone to
Carthage and swore that I had told him that I was
guilty of adultery. ... William Law [earlier]
testified before forty policemen, and the assembly
room full of witnesses, that he testified under oath
that he never had heard or seen or knew anything
immoral or criminal against me. ... He swore under
oath that he was satisfied that he was ready to lay
down his life for me, and [now] he swears that I
have committed adultery."
Either the earlier oath was false, or the later one was,
for they contradict. William Law was guilty of falsehood
under oath, which is perjury. QED.
>... But instead, when Law & Co. published their sworn affidavits
> testifying to their knowledge of Smith's secret wife practice two weeks after
> Smith's speech, Smith ordered their printing press and office destroyed.
Law & Co.'s newspaper did not contain any real affidavits.
It contained scurrilous accusations, with flowery wording
from some dime novel, about how girls would be seduced,
then sent away to keep them quiet, with ruined virtue
(and ruined health from venereal disease). None of that
has anything to do with Joseph or plural marriage. Joseph's
plural marriage was marriage, where the man took full
responsibility for his wives, in full family relationship,
house and home, community acceptance, children and honor.
Altho the bigotry of the people prevented Joseph from
living it thus fully, that is the way the LDS lived this
law out in Deseret Territory, following the teachings of
Joseph and those he had taught it to. It was announced
over the public pulpit in the Tabernacle in 1852. That
was the earliest the LDS could practice this law without
being murdered, they were far from the bigots and rabble-
rousers and so could establish their society just as they
wanted. And plural marriage was a completely honorable
thing, husband taking full responsibility for all his
wives and providing fully for them and the children.
The system described by Law & Co. could not have been
even somewhat based on Joseph's, for it was far, far
different. In their porno rag, they described events
that supposedly took place behind closed doors. How
could they possibly know what Joseph did behind closed
doors? All they could know was what they themselves did
behind closed doors, how they seduced the girls, how they
deceived them by claiming priesthood authority to do it,
and how they sent them away, and how their own health
was destroyed by venereal disease. (One of the
Expositor conspirators, Francis Higbee, confessed to
Hyrum Smith that he had committed adultery and contracted
this deadly problem, incurable at that time; and John
Tayor, who was present at their excommunications,
explained later that they had learned their tricks from
John C. Bennett, the infamous seducer and deadbeat father.)
>... That
> act enraged the non-Mormon public, and led directly to Smith's murder 18 days
> later.
Higbee's and Law's lies did indeed enrage the people,
and they were thus complicit in the murders, altho
they were also more directly involved. The destruction
of the Expositor was carried out by the sherriff and
his posse, under court order, completely legal under
the existing laws, permitting the city to abate any
nuisance to public safety, which the Expositor was.
The people of the region were truly enraged, beyond
any rational basis, arming and preparing to smash
Nauvoo and kill everyone. The lies and libels of the
Expositor could not be tolerated by any responsible
City Council.
The charges against Joseph? 1) Riot, for the posse's
actions, which were quite under control by the sherriff,
not a riot, in which Joseph was not present; and 2)
treason, for calling up the militia to protect the town
against the mobs. It was zero in terms of legal force.
Even the anti-mormon judge in Carthage dismissed the riot
charge out of hand. But he left them in jail for a while
on the other -- thus making it easy for the mob to kill
them, rushing past the town militia (which he was in
command of), which fired weapons but hit no one,
surprise surprise.
The whole history was nothing but a shameful fraud
on the part of the rabble-rousers, who whipped the
American public up into hatred of something good.
So what's new? There's nothing really incredible
here, like, how could we possibly believe that
Americans of previous centuries would persecute
innocent people.
Wood
Woody Brison
> Smith's prophecy that he would come out on top came true. Unfortunately,
> he failed to realize that a prophet, like an artist, really achieves lasting
> greatness only after death.
Joseph was fully aware that he was going to be killed.
He said so, several times before his death.
But, many artists achieve greatness before their death.
Joseph easily qualifies as great before he died. Founded
a church which has lasted 172 years, experiencing
continuous growth the entire span, and delivering
immense happiness to mankind. The organization was
fully set forth and functioning during his life. He
organized his followers to build a great city, the
largest in Illinois at the time (far larger than
Chicago). Issued hundreds of prophecies, none of which
have failed. Traveled thousands of miles, delivered
hundreds of sermoms, gave laws, was greatly beloved by
thousands, commander of a militia of 5000, published
two full books of new scripture from God, translated
a third and published part of it; from little education
acquired a deep facility in language, even to speaking
in tongues and translating ancient hieroglyphics opaque
to the scholars of his day; communing with God directly
and reading the mind of prophets throughout history.
What facet of great could possibly be added?
>...This entire speech, along with the later
> consequences, read like an episode of THE TWILIGHT ZONE.
It is not a transcript, it is only a synopsis. Not
very fair to hold Joseph to the exact wording. Why
not study with the same intensity things he himself
published?
Wood
TheJordan6
>Date: 8/27/2002 1:52 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <f36171a3.02082...@posting.google.com>
>
>thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote in message
>news:<20020826200438...@mb-ml.aol.com>...
>
>Here we go again, Rantin' Randy proves once again that
>he cannot learn anything. How many times have I corrected
>you on this?
Woody, you have never corrected me on anything. You are not in an intellectual
position to be able to correct anyone on any subject concerning Mormonism.
> I flat give up ever again expecting to see
>you come to an understanding. You are free. Maybe with
>this expectation dissolved and abandoned, you will be
>free to think perhaps a bit more freely. You do not
>have to constantly be in a cold sweat that Woody will
>expose yet one more time your lies and slants.
You have never "exposed" anything I have written. All you have done is blow
and blather like the insane fanatic you are.
>You
>can ignore every word I ever post from now on.
After trying to educate you for five years, and having given up hope, I
generally ignore most of what you write anymore. The only reason I'm
respondgin to this post is to let newcomers see how imbecilic you are.
>But for the other people here, I will occasionally
>offer corrections when I think they are warranted.
>
>> "The marriage to the Lawrence sisters became public knowledge when William
>Law,
>> Joseph's second counselor in the First Presidency, became alienated from
>the
>> Prophet. Law, who had known the Lawrence family since their conversion in
>> Canada, chose the marriage of Smith and Maria Lawrence as a test case with
>> which to prosecute Smith for adultery. On May 23 he filed suit against the
>> Mormon leader in Hancock Count Circuit Court, at Carthage, charging that
>Smith
>> had been living with Maria Lawrence 'in an open state of adultery' from
>October
>> 12, 1843, to the day of the suit.
>Notice the FACTS here. Joseph was MARRIED to the girl.
>William Law charged a MARRIED man with adultery in
>connection with his MARRIED wife. The issue is not
>whether Joseph committed adultery -- he did not. The
>issue is whether his marriage was real.
Very well, Woody. Since you're in the business of "correcting" me, then please
provide us with
a) the State of Illinois' laws concerning marriage that were in force in 1844
b) the LDS Church's canonized, published rules of marriage which were in force
in 1844 (which were endorsed and quoted from by Joseph Smith, Jr.)
c) the source where we can examine the legal document certifying a "marriage"
between Joseph Smith, Jr., and Maria Lawrence
d) the certificate of divorce which ende the marriage of Joseph Smith, Jr., and
Emma Hale.
After you have provided that documentation, then please inform us as to why, If
Joseph Smith's relationship with Maria Lawrence, or any of his other "plural
wives" was a legal marriage, did Smith desperately try to keep the knowledge of
those relationships secret from the public, as well as from his own legal wife,
Emma Hale?
When you have provided us with the documentation on those points, then perhaps
we can discuss the rest of your post.
But don't bother to respond unless you can give us the documentation on my
above request, from historical sources. Not your opinions, Woody---not your
interminable blowing and blathering---just give us the documentation.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 8/27/2002 12:56 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20020827005606...@mb-fm.aol.com>
Here is more of Joseph Smith's statement from that particular speech of May 26,
1844:
"This new holy prophet [William Law] has gone to Carthage and swore that I had
told him that I was guilty of adultery. This spiritual wifeism! Why, a man
dares not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this.....A man asked me
whether the commandment was given that a man may have seven wives; and now the
new prophet has charged me with adultery.....
"God knows...that the charges against me are false....What a thing it is for a
man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can
find only one....I can prove them all perjurers."
Joseph Smith's entry in the "History of the Church", vol. 6, pg. 405 (May 25,
1844), reads:
"Saturday, 25 -- At home, keeping out of the way of expected writs from
Carthage. Towards
evening, Edward Hunter and William Marks, of the grand jury returned from
Carthage; also Marshal
John P. Greene and Almon W. Babbitt, who informed me there were two
indictments found against
me, one charging me with false swearing on the testimony of Joseph H. Jackson
and
Robert D. Foster,
and one charging me of polygamy, or something else, on the testimony of
William Law....."
(Note that this entry in the History of the Church was the day before Smith's
speech we atre discussing.)
Now, Anthony, my questions for you:
Was William Law's accusation that Joseph Smith was an adulterer and a
polygamist in May 1844 true?
Was Joseph Smith's assertion that those who accused him of being a polygamist
were "false swearers" true?
Was Joseph Smith being truthful in his assertion that he was being "accused of
committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can find only one?"
Where Joseph Smith asserted that "I can prove them all [his accusers]
perjurers," what was Joseph Smith's actual response to the affidavits and
indictments which accused him of polygamy and adultery? Did Smith take his
accusers to court, and file charges of slander against them, as he boasted that
he could?
Randy J.
Woody Brison
> >From: wwbr...@lds.net (Woody Brison)
> >Date: 8/27/2002 1:52 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <f36171a3.02082...@posting.google.com>
> >
> >thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote in message
> >news:<20020826200438...@mb-ml.aol.com>...
> >
> >Here we go again, Rantin' Randy proves once again that
> >he cannot learn anything. How many times have I corrected
> >you on this?
>
> Woody, you have never corrected me on anything. You are not in an intellectual
> position to be able to correct anyone on any subject concerning Mormonism.
You are ranting, Randy... were you aware of it?
> You have never "exposed" anything I have written. All you have done is blow
> and blather like the insane fanatic you are.
This is fun. Besides the correction I JUST WROTE, and
to which you are not exactly answering, but are posting
on, showing the audience that you had to have been aware
of it, here are some other corrections I've written on
some of your material in the past. You have never
responded to a single one of them, as far as I know,
whether from inattention, inability, or just plain old
intellectual fossilization. I have invited you to do
so for several of them, some several times. The
invitation is still open, for any or all.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8e4b5m%2497g%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=f36171a3.0106150800.36691952%40posting.google.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=83i04j%24nnb%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=f36171a3.0202011158.4faa2c2d%40posting.google.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=f36171a3.0107290826.2cb6bbbc%40posting.google.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8cnsmf%24tmv%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=83m6os%24h3i%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
Then there's the good ol'
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=39EB0CEE.FECE1CB%40nospam.com
I've invited you to answer this several times, but as far
as I know you never have. <sigh> I'm just sad, you frequently
post these awful falsehoods, I correct you, then you don't
answer. I envy the coyotes, they just howl when they're sad.
And why not? OWWWWWWWWW
There have been occasions where you have tried to correct me,
and I've not answered. This afflicts me, but the facts of
life are that I don't always have time to respond to your
hysterical titters.
If I make it sound like I think you, Randy, are pretty much
a silly girl, here is ANOTHER post you've never answered,
which will clarify that question:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3ad35fe8%241%40nntp.networld.com
Read the whole thing, Randy, look up the post you posted
that it was a response to, and ask yourself some honest
questions. I think you cannot be a young man any more.
I say it is time you looked in the mirror and started
thinking about what's ahead. Do you really want to face
Marie Osmond someday and answer for the filthy insinuations
you've made about her?
> >You
> >can ignore every word I ever post from now on.
>
> After trying to educate you for five years, and having given up hope, I
> generally ignore most of what you write anymore. The only reason I'm
> respondgin to this post is to let newcomers see how imbecilic you are.
You are not an educator. You are a supercilious,
overcredulous gossip -- when it comes to anything
negative about the Church. You don't even know how
to form an intelligent insult.
> >Notice the FACTS here. Joseph was MARRIED to the girl.
> >William Law charged a MARRIED man with adultery in
> >connection with his MARRIED wife. The issue is not
> >whether Joseph committed adultery -- he did not. The
> >issue is whether his marriage was real.
>
> Very well, Woody. Since you're in the business of "correcting" me, then please
> provide us with
>
> a) the State of Illinois' laws concerning marriage that were in force in 1844
How will that correct you?
> b) the LDS Church's canonized, published rules of marriage which were in force
> in 1844 (which were endorsed and quoted from by Joseph Smith, Jr.)
He endorsed and quoted them? When?
> c) the source where we can examine the legal document certifying a "marriage"
> between Joseph Smith, Jr., and Maria Lawrence
How will lack of a document from the 1800's prove that
an event did not happen? REally, Randy, this is absurd.
You've never done any family history I take it.
> d) the certificate of divorce which ende the marriage of Joseph Smith, Jr., and
> Emma Hale.
There was no such divorce.
> After you have provided that documentation, then please inform us as to why, If
> Joseph Smith's relationship with Maria Lawrence, or any of his other "plural
> wives" was a legal marriage, did Smith desperately try to keep the knowledge of
> those relationships secret from the public, as well as from his own legal wife,
> Emma Hale?
Simple. Bigots like yourself would have whipped the
people up and torn him apart. But more important to
him, God had commanded him not to reveal it.
> When you have provided us with the documentation on those points, then perhaps
> we can discuss the rest of your post.
Horse hockey, you aren't ready to discuss any of this.
> But don't bother to respond unless you can give us the documentation on my
> above request, from historical sources.
I will respond, or not, as I choose, without reference
to any little rules you will make up, thanks tho.
>... Not your opinions, Woody---not your
> interminable blowing and blathering---just give us the documentation.
I've given you seven or eight links above to EXACTLY
what you are asking for. You are the one blowing and
blathering. You are asking for something but when you
get it you do not even know what it is.
Wood
AnthonyPaul
sworn against him for charges of adultery and polygamy.
Was Joseph Smith telling the truth when he called those who charged him with
adultery and [polygamy] "corrupt" and "false swearers?" [Randy]
>speech we are discussing.)
I suppose a one-sided discussion is still a discussion.
>
>Now, Anthony, my questions for you:
>
>Was William Law's accusation that Joseph Smith was an adulterer and a
polygamist in May 1844 true?
>
>Was Joseph Smith's assertion that those who accused him of being a polygamist
were "false swearers" true?
>
>Was Joseph Smith being truthful in his assertion that he was being "accused of
committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can find only one?"
>
>Where Joseph Smith asserted that "I can prove them all [his accusers]
>perjurers," what was Joseph Smith's actual response to the affidavits and
>indictments which accused him of polygamy and adultery? Did Smith take his
>accusers to court, and file charges of slander against them, as he boasted
>that he could?
>
>Randy J.
And prior to these sections, there is evidence that a "plurality of wives"
doctrine was preached and/or being practiced without authority.
Thursday, 5.-- This morning I rode out with Esquire Butterfield to the farm.
In the afternoon, rode to the prairie to show some of the brethren some land.
Evening, at home, and walked up and down the streets with my scribe. Gave
instructions to try those persons who were preaching, teaching, or practicing
the doctrine of plurality of wives: for, according to the law, I hold the keys
of this power in the last days; for there is never but one on earth at a time
on whom the power and its keys are conferred; and I have constantly said no man
shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord directs otherwise.
Saturday, 23.--Day warmer. Rode out with Clayton to endeavor to raise money to
furnish the hands in the Pinery with supplies. Visited the Temple and public
works
Also called with William Clayton and Alexander Neibaur at Dr. Foster's. He was
gone to Appanoose, and Mrs. Foster was at Mr. Gilman's.
I here extract from William Clayton's journal:-- President Smith's Interview
With Mrs. Foster.
We went down there and saw her, [Mrs. Foster]. President Joseph asked Sister
Foster if she ever in her life knew him guilty of an immoral or indecent act,
She answered, "No." He then explained his reasons for asking; which were, he
had been informed that Dr. Foster had stated that Joseph made propositions to
his wife calculated to lead her astray from the path of virtue; and then asked
if ever he had used any indecent or insulting language to her. She answered,
"Never." He further asked if he ever preached anything like the "plurality of
wife" doctrine to her other than what he had preached in public? She said,
"No." He asked her if he ever proposed to have illicit intercourse with her,
and especially when he took dinner during the doctor's absence. She said, "No."
After some further conversation on the subject, we left. Mrs. Gillman was
present all the time. President Joseph and Neibaur then went on foot to the
farm.
What I would like to know, is how accurate was William Law's testimony
concerning the situation.
Regardless tho, those people who brought about charges against Joseph Smith are
guilty of breaking the covenants they made to God - which makes them false
swearers. Their hearts were bent upon the death of Joseph Smith - which makes
them corrupt.
Anthony
TheJordan6
>Date: 8/27/2002 8:00 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20020827200052...@mb-mw.aol.com>
Anthony, I didn't see any answers in your response to the questions I asked
you. Would you like to try it again?
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 8/27/2002 7:59 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <f36171a3.0208...@posting.google.com>
Woody, I asked you to provide documentation on four items. The one immediately
above is the only item you even began to address.
You are correct when you state that there was no divorce which ended the legal
marriage between Joseph Smith, Jr., and Emma Hale.
Now, what you need to do is give us the documentation I asked for in my
previous post, which is
a) The state of Illinois' laws on marriage that were in force in 1844
b)The LDS church's published, canonized, rules on marriage that were in effect
in 1844, and
c) the legal document which certifies a marriage between Joseph Smith Jr. and
Maria Lawrence.
I asked you in my previous post to not reply with your usual blather and
blowing, but that is all you have done. I ask you again to publish the
documentation I ask for. If you cannot do so, then I suggest you shut the hell
up.
Randy J.
AnthonyPaul
>you. Would you like to try it again?
>
>Randy J.
How many times would you like me to answer the same question with the same
answer?
Or perhaps you would like to quote more stuff that I have already read and then
ask me the same questions to get the same answers......
Or perhaps you just think I am your puppet and want me to jump thru your
hoops.....
My answer remains that Joseph Smith was accurate in his portrayal of Law and
Co. They were a pack of howling wolves bent on the death of Joseph Smith; they
had broken their covenants with God, and their hearts and minds had been given
over to Satan for the persecution of the Saints.
I could not care any less about whether Joseph Smith had 1 wife, 7 wives, or
more, and if he lied or told the truth about it.
Law and Co. motives were not righteous by any means, and in hypocrisy did they
bring charges against Joseph Smith.
Anthony
Romans 2:1, "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that
judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou
that judgest doest the same things."
John 8:3-7, "And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto [Jesus] a woman taken
in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him,
Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the
law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they
said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down,
and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when
they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is
without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."
TheJordan6
>Date: 8/27/2002 2:20 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <f36171a3.0208...@posting.google.com>
>
>grale...@cs.comQQQ (GRaleigh345) wrote in message
>news:<20020826172404...@mb-cs.news.cs.com>...
>
>> Smith's prophecy that he would come out on top came true.
>Unfortunately,
>> he failed to realize that a prophet, like an artist, really achieves
>lasting
>> greatness only after death.
>
>Joseph was fully aware that he was going to be killed.
>He said so, several times before his death.
If Smith was so sure he was going to be killed, then it's strange that he would
*Run away from Nauvoo when the sheriff came to arrest him for inciting a riot
*Only come back to Nauvoo because his wife and friends called him a coward
*When incarcerated in Carthage Jail, he allowed his cronies to smuggle in two
guns in case they neeeded to shoot their way out
*He smuggled a note out of the jail oredering Jonathan Dunham, the Nauvoo
Legion commander, to bring troops to come and bust them out of jail (which
Dunham refused to obey)
*When the shooting started, Smith ran to the jail window and attempted to give
the Masonic distress signal, in hopes that Masons in the crowd outside would
save his life.
Do those actions sound like the actions of a man who had accepted imminent
death?
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>> After you have provided that documentation, then please inform us as to
>why, If
>> Joseph Smith's relationship with Maria Lawrence, or any of his other
>"plural
>> wives" was a legal marriage, did Smith desperately try to keep the
>knowledge of
>> those relationships secret from the public, as well as from his own legal
>wife,
>> Emma Hale?
Woody replied:
>Simple. Bigots like yourself would have whipped the
>people up and torn him apart.
Dear ARMekites,
I hope I'm not the only one who espied Woody's hopelessly flawed logic here, to
wit: Woody asserts that Joseph Smith's polygamy practice was not illegal, and
that his "plural marriages" to such women as Maria Lawrence were open and
above-board.
And yet, Woody opines that Smith kep his "plural marriages" secret because if
the public knew about them, then "bigots like yourself would have whipped the
people up and torn him apart."
So, I'd like Woody to ask himself why "bigots" would do such a thing, if
Smith's plural marriages were legal and proper, as he asserts.
If polygamy had been legal and proper, and if anyone had "persecuted" Smith for
practicing it, then all Smith would have had to do is bring legal charges
against such "persecutors" for violating his rights of religious freedom.
But Smith didn't do that. Rather, vehemently denied being a polygamist, and he
called those who had him indicted for polygamy and adultery "corrupt" and
"false swearers."
>But more important to
>him, God had commanded him not to reveal it.
And here we have the same problem. If Smith's "plural marriages" were legal
and proper, there would have been no need for "God" to command him to not
reveal it.
But, Smith not only didn't "reveal" his "plural marriages," he vehemently
denied that any such doctrine was taught or practiced in his religion. And, he
called those who sought to publish the facts about his secret polygamy practice
liars, perjurers, and false swearers.
So what we have here is, if one is to be a "faithful Mormon," one has to
believe that not only did the god of Mormonism instruct Joseph Smith to lie
about polygamy, he also allowed Joseph Smith to call those people liars who
sought to report the facts about Joseph Smith's polygamy.
Is that the sort of "god" worthy of worshipping?
Randy J.
Lee Paulson
"Woody Brison" <wwbr...@lds.net> wrote in message
news:f36171a3.02082...@posting.google.com...snip Woody's nastiness
> > "The marriage to the Lawrence sisters became public knowledge when
William Law,
> > Joseph's second counselor in the First Presidency, became alienated from
the
> > Prophet. Law, who had known the Lawrence family since their conversion
in
> > Canada, chose the marriage of Smith and Maria Lawrence as a test case
with
> > which to prosecute Smith for adultery. On May 23 he filed suit against
the
> > Mormon leader in Hancock Count Circuit Court, at Carthage, charging that
Smith
> > had been living with Maria Lawrence 'in an open state of adultery' from
October
> > 12, 1843, to the day of the suit.
>
> Notice the FACTS here. Joseph was MARRIED to the girl.
> William Law charged a MARRIED man with adultery in
> connection with his MARRIED wife. The issue is not
> whether Joseph committed adultery -- he did not. The
> issue is whether his marriage was real.
>
Wait a minute. The woman was already married. A second marriage would not
be a valid marriage. And fornicating with a married man or woman is
adultery.
> Since this marriage was (presumably, we have few
> details) performed under the authority of the
> priesthood which Joseph had received from God, the
> issue is really whether Joseph was a prophet or wasn't.
>
What happened to obeying the laws of the land?
> Note that if he was a prophet, then his authority was
> real, and the marriage was valid. So, the charge of
> adultery is invalid, and the charge of adultery cannot
> be used in attempting to determine if he was a prophet.
Biblically, if you have relations with another man's wife, you're an
adulterer. Believe Joseph was a prophet if you like, but he was an
adulterous prophet according to the facts.
>
> Randy Jordan will NOT accept the above logic. As Joseph
> Smith himself prophesies of Randy, he is no philosopher.
>
It's not logic, that's why, Woody. It's rationalization.
snip
> that is exactly what they do. The inference is that they
> want to quit the Church for other reasons, and are just
> going thru an exercise in self-deception, pretending to
> base their desertion on logic.
No, the inference is that they don't want to accept a particular form of
religious lie, whether it's the LDS form or anything else.
snip more rationalization.
So, Woody. If Joseph were alive today, you wouldn't object to him marrying
your wife, I guess.
Lee Paulson
"AnthonyPaul" <antho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020827225951...@mb-da.aol.com...
> >Anthony, I didn't see any answers in your response to the questions I
asked
> >you. Would you like to try it again?
> >
> >Randy J.
>
>
> My answer remains that Joseph Smith was accurate in his portrayal of Law
and
> Co. They were a pack of howling wolves bent on the death of Joseph Smith;
they
> had broken their covenants with God, and their hearts and minds had been
given
> over to Satan for the persecution of the Saints.
>
> I could not care any less about whether Joseph Smith had 1 wife, 7 wives,
or
> more, and if he lied or told the truth about it.
>
> Law and Co. motives were not righteous by any means, and in hypocrisy did
they
> bring charges against Joseph Smith.
>
> Anthony
Anthony, am I correct in assuming from reading above that you believe
Joseph's unrighteous actions were justified by the unrighteous actions of
Law et al.?
Woody Brison
> I asked you in my previous post to not reply with your usual blather and
> blowing, but that is all you have done. I ask you again to publish the
> documentation I ask for. If you cannot do so, then I suggest you shut the hell
> up.
You seem to be unaware of a certain absurdity about your
output. You seem to be asking for me to post the entire legal
code of Illinois from 1844. I'm not sure, but this sounds
like it would take several hundred K if not megabytes, even if
I had this arcane material available to me. Seems like you are
acting you usual overacted blowhard over a minor point.
You are definitely confused about roles. I'm under no
responsibility to dig for documents you call for. If you wish
to refer to a document to prove something, you should provide
the document, cite it or quote it. You should not expect your
opponent to provide YOUR material. If you want to accuse
Joseph Smith of something which I know is false, it's not
reasonable that I should have to work to help you promote your
filthy accusation, and indeed, I'm not going to, because I
know it's entirely false.
When you demand hysterically that I do so, it not only shows
that you do not understand the most basic forces, but when I
decline, it leaves you without any supporting evidence for
your claims.
If you are too het up to realize that you are out on a limb,
and want to try the strategy of petulantly DERIDING me for not
doing YOUR research, all it amounts to is you going further
out on the limb. It will not save your image. It will just
make you look more like a dummy, if that's possible.
You are also confused on the logic of the situation. The
documents you demand that I provide, such as a copy of the
entire legal code of Illinois in 1844, could at best establish
that the legislature at some point passed an anti-bigamy law.
There is no need -- I posted this, as you'd know if you were
a reader.
You've completely avoided my point that to deduce that Joseph
must be a false prophet on the basis of plural marriage is
circular logic, since if he's a true prophet he can inaugurate
plural marriage again, just as the ancient prophets like
Abraham and Israel used to have.
You've ENTIRELY roaded around the explanation I've given,
several times now, that Joseph felt himself bound for
conscience' sake to obey the laws of God and the Constitution
in preference to unconstitutional legislation.
Your whole attempt to prove that he broke a law is an attempt
to equate illegality to immorality. It's a smokescreen, it is
neither reasonable nor true.
In other words, if this were a debate before a competent
debate judge, you'd have comprehensively lost the debate.
Incidentally, you are still avoiding even acknowledging all
the times I've corrected you. All you've done is to declare
that I've never corrected you on anything, and that my output
is just "blather and blowing".
The evidence suggests that Mark Hines is dead, and that you
are not him. Is this somehow incorrect? He used to try just
about the same "strategies" as I see you trying here.
Wood
Lee Paulson
> news:<20020827223110...@mb-fn.aol.com>...
>
> > I asked you in my previous post to not reply with your usual blather and
> > blowing, but that is all you have done. I ask you again to publish the
> > documentation I ask for. If you cannot do so, then I suggest you shut
the hell
> > up.
>
> You seem to be unaware of a certain absurdity about your
> output. You seem to be asking for me to post the entire legal
> code of Illinois from 1844. I'm not sure, but this sounds
> like it would take several hundred K if not megabytes, even if
> I had this arcane material available to me. Seems like you are
> acting you usual overacted blowhard over a minor point.
>
> You are definitely confused about roles. I'm
snip
Woody, was bigamy legal in Illinois in 1844?
I don't mean did Joseph Smith Jr. say God told him to practice it. Was it
legal in Illinois in 1844?
AnthonyPaul
>Date: 8/28/02 8:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <akie85$1igh1g$1...@ID-146277.news.dfncis.de>
No.
One persons actions are not justified or condemned by any other persons
actions. An action is only justifiable when the person is acting under the
will and commandment of God - and likewise, an action is reprehensible when it
is contrary to the will and commandment of God.
In my view, Joseph Smith was acting in accordance to the will and commandment
of God; while Law (the new prophet) and Co. acted in opposition to the will and
commandment of God - which is why Smith called William Law the "new prophet",
because Law decided to try to usurp the authority of the living prophet of God
and put Smith under condemnation.
Anthony
TheJordan6
>Date: 8/28/2002 1:02 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <f36171a3.02082...@posting.google.com>
>
>thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote in message
>news:<20020827223110...@mb-fn.aol.com>...
>
>> I asked you in my previous post to not reply with your usual blather and
>> blowing, but that is all you have done. I ask you again to publish the
>> documentation I ask for. If you cannot do so, then I suggest you shut the
>hell
>> up.
>
>You seem to be unaware of a certain absurdity about your
>output. You seem to be asking for me to post the entire legal
>code of Illinois from 1844. I'm not sure, but this sounds
>like it would take several hundred K if not megabytes, even if
>I had this arcane material available to me.
No, you won't have to publish "the entire legal code of Illinois from 1844,"
Woody. All you need to quote is the relevant parts, a couple of sentences,
which define legal marriage contracts and bigamy.
Hint: I myself have posted that information numerous times on ARM, the latest
time being just a few days ago. It shouldn't be that hard to find.
>Seems like you are
>acting you usual overacted blowhard over a minor point.
To the contrary, it's an essential point in this discussion, because you have
repeatedly asserted that Joseph Smith's "plural marriages" were legal
marriages. We can discover if your assertion is true or false by reading the
Illinois state law on marriages.
>You are definitely confused about roles. I'm under no
>responsibility to dig for documents you call for.
When you assert a position, you are under the obligation to provide
documentation to support your position. *I* don't need you to find the
documentation for me, Woody, because *I* already know the information. The
reason I ask YOU to provide the documentation is so that you can educate
yourself on the facts.
> If you wish
>to refer to a document to prove something, you should provide
>the document, cite it or quote it. You should not expect your
>opponent to provide YOUR material.
I'm already conversant on the material, and I have quoted it numerous times on
ARM. If you had half a brain, you should have realized that I have already
posted the information numerous times.
> If you want to accuse
>Joseph Smith of something which I know is false,
If you won't provide any documentation to support your position, how can we
know if your position is true or false?
>it's not
>reasonable that I should have to work to help you promote your
>filthy accusation,
How can we know my position is a "filthy accusation" unless you provide the
documentation to support your position?
>and indeed, I'm not going to, because I
>know it's entirely false.
Oh, right. You have concluded that my position is false, and therefore you
don't need to support your position with any facts. Well, let's not let facts
stand in the way of your opinions, Woody.
>When you demand hysterically that I do so, it not only shows
>that you do not understand the most basic forces, but when I
>decline, it leaves you without any supporting evidence for
>your claims.
I'm not hysterical in the least. I'm simply asking you to provide some
documentation for your claims. You know, something other than your opinions.
What we need is quotes from historical sources, legal sources, journals,
diaries, newspaper articles, scholarly works which address the issues, that
sort of thing. IOW, the kind of documentation I provide to ARM all the time.
>If you are too het up to realize that you are out on a limb,
>and want to try the strategy of petulantly DERIDING me for not
>doing YOUR research, all it amounts to is you going further
>out on the limb. It will not save your image. It will just
>make you look more like a dummy, if that's possible.
I don't want you to do my research, Woody. I've already done the research.
What I want you to do is your own research.
>You are also confused on the logic of the situation. The
>documents you demand that I provide, such as a copy of the
>entire legal code of Illinois in 1844, could at best establish
>that the legislature at some point passed an anti-bigamy law.
>There is no need -- I posted this, as you'd know if you were
>a reader.
Post it again, so we can determine whether or not Joseph Smith's "plural
marriages" were legal marriages.
>You've completely avoided my point that to deduce that Joseph
>must be a false prophet on the basis of plural marriage is
>circular logic,
<chuckle> Dude, there are so many OTHER reasons Smith is a false prophet.
"Plural marriage" in merely one of them.
>since if he's a true prophet he can inaugurate
>plural marriage again, just as the ancient prophets like
>Abraham and Israel used to have.
We're not talking about Abraham or Israel here. We're talking about what was
or was not a legal state of matrimony in the state of Illinois in 1844, who or
whom not Joseph Smith was legally married to, and the LDS church's published,
canonized rules of marriage that were in effect in 1844.
>You've ENTIRELY roaded around the explanation I've given,
>several times now, that Joseph felt himself bound for
>conscience' sake to obey the laws of God and the Constitution
>in preference to unconstitutional legislation.
Please provide documentation that the U. S. Constitution allows for any such
state as "plural marriage." Please define your term "unconstitutional
legislation." Please document where and when Joseph Smith made any legal
challenges to the Illinois state marriage laws, and the outcome of those
challenges.
>Your whole attempt to prove that he broke a law is an attempt
>to equate illegality to immorality. It's a smokescreen, it is
>neither reasonable nor true.
Just tell us what Illinois' laws stated about marriage, and we'll determine
whether or not Joseph Smith broke the law.
>In other words, if this were a debate before a competent
>debate judge, you'd have comprehensively lost the debate.
Perhaps if the debate judge were an insane Mormon fanatic like unto yourself.
>Incidentally, you are still avoiding even acknowledging all
>the times I've corrected you. All you've done is to declare
>that I've never corrected you on anything, and that my output
>is just "blather and blowing".
You are correct on that point.
>The evidence suggests that Mark Hines is dead, and that you
>are not him. Is this somehow incorrect? He used to try just
>about the same "strategies" as I see you trying here.
>
>Wood
Dear ARMekites,
Let the record show that I asked Woody Brison to provide documentation on four
points to support his arguments. He has only responded to one of them. I
asked him to not respond with more of his typical insufferable blowing and
blather, but to simply publish the documentation that will support his
position. The reason I ask for such documentation is because the historical
record contradicts Woody's opinions. So, I'll ask Woody to either provide
something other than his opinions, or to stop posting on this thread.
Randy J.
Woody Brison
> Woody, was bigamy legal in Illinois in 1844?
>
> I don't mean did Joseph Smith Jr. say God told him to practice it. Was it
> legal in Illinois in 1844?
Yes and no. Did the legislature make a law forbidding
it at some time around then? Yes, so I have heard.
Was that law constitutional? No.
So, define "legal".
Wood
TheJordan6
>Date: 8/28/2002 7:31 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <f36171a3.02082...@posting.google.com>
>
Woody, your assertion that the Illinois state law prohibiting bigamy was
unconstitutional is merely your OPINION. To prove your assertion, you're going
to have to support it with some documentable facts. You need to document that
the Mormons filed a legal challenge to Illinois' bigamy laws on the basis of
"religious freedom" (as you have alleged), and cite the court record detailing
the outcome of such a challenge. If you're asserting that that law was
"unconstitutional," then you need to cite the court record wherein that law was
declared unconstitutional by Illinois lawmakers, and was expunged from the
state's laws.
However, because I'm such a nice guy, I'm going to give you a hint that will
hopefully steer you in the direction of the truth. Answer the following
question for yourself:
In 1846, why did Brigham Young decide to move the Mormons to Utah, rather than
Oregon or California, which were other potential abodes which had been
suggested to him?
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 8/28/2002 7:59 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <akidvt$1im9h7$1...@ID-146277.news.dfncis.de>
Lee, this particular woman under discussion, Maria Lawrence, was not married
when she "plural married" Smith at age 21. After Smith's death, she was
"sealed" to Brigham Young, but separated from him shortly thereafter. She was
then "sealed" to Almon W. Babbit, by which she bore one child. Maria died in
1847 "of a broken heart," according to a friend. Her sense of
self-worthlessness from being passed around from one polygamous "husband" to
another may have contributed to her early demise at age 24.
But of course, although Maria wasn't a married woman, Joseph Smith was married
to Emma Hale at the time, so he committed bigamy and adultery in his
relationship with Maria Lawrence.
Your comment about Maria being married, though, brings up another point---at
least eleven of Joseph Smith's "plural wives" were legally married to other men
at the time they were "sealed" to Smith, including the wives of Orson Pratt and
Orson Hyde. That means that those eleven women were committing adultery and
bigamy just as Smith was, because they already had legal, living husbands.
>> Since this marriage was (presumably, we have few
>> details) performed under the authority of the
>> priesthood which Joseph had received from God, the
>> issue is really whether Joseph was a prophet or wasn't.
>What happened to obeying the laws of the land?
Please don't make Woody's head explode.
>> Note that if he was a prophet, then his authority was
>> real, and the marriage was valid. So, the charge of
>> adultery is invalid, and the charge of adultery cannot
>> be used in attempting to determine if he was a prophet.
>Biblically, if you have relations with another man's wife, you're an
>adulterer. Believe Joseph was a prophet if you like, but he was an
>adulterous prophet according to the facts.
According to the law, that is.
Randy J.
Cheap Suit
>
> snip more rationalization.
>
> So, Woody. If Joseph were alive today, you wouldn't object to him marrying
> your wife, I guess.
I don't think woody's wife will like his answer to this question.
--
Best,
don m
Don Marchant
Dangerous1.com
Cheapsuit @ Dangerous1.com
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks
without knowledge, of things without parallel.
[Ambrose Bierce]
Woody Brison
> >From: wwbr...@lds.net (Woody Brison...
> >"Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote...
> >
> >> Woody, was bigamy legal in Illinois in 1844?
> >>
> >> I don't mean did Joseph Smith Jr. say God told him to practice it. Was it
> >> legal in Illinois in 1844?
>
> >Yes and no. Did the legislature make a law forbidding
> >it at some time around then? Yes, so I have heard.
> >
> >Was that law constitutional? No.
> >
> >So, define "legal".
>
> unconstitutional is merely your OPINION. To prove your assertion, you're going
> to have to support it with some documentable facts. You need to document that
> the Mormons filed a legal challenge to Illinois' bigamy laws on the basis of
> "religious freedom" (as you have alleged),
I have never alleged this, I cannot imagine any good reason
for you to say I did. Either you are a liar, or incapable of
processing information; either way, no one should believe your
rubbish.
>...and cite the court record detailing
> the outcome of such a challenge. If you're asserting that that law was
> "unconstitutional," then you need to cite the court record wherein that law was
> declared unconstitutional by Illinois lawmakers, and was expunged from the
> state's laws.
We would hardly expect the Illinois lawmakers to strike down a
law they themselves passed. It would more likely be struck
down by the state Supreme Court.
There are lots of laws on the books which are
unconstitutional. It doesn't require a challenge to make them
so. All that's required is for them to contradict the
Constitution. For instance, the U.S. Constitution says
Amendment IV (1791) The right of the people to be secure
in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or
things to be seized.
Yet Congress has created the IRS and authorized it to do
exactly this. They can require a person or business to endure
an audit, provide the IRS examiners with workspace, and devote
their own time to the exercise for free; and demand to examine
every document on the premises. If you don't comply, if you
require them to produce a search warrant first, you can be
fined and/or do time in jail. Does it take any genius to know
this is unconstitutional? It will take some brave soul to
force the issue, take it to the Supreme Court to get the law
struck down, but until that happens, the law is there, and
it's unconstitutional.
I'm not necessarily opposed to the IRS in principle; the
government cannot run on pretend money, and many people will
not pay their taxes unless forced to. Also, they have
brought criminals to justice that could not be caught any
other way [criminals tend to not pay taxes or report income].
Note that once a law is struck down by the Supreme Court, it's
no longer unconstitutional. It's nonexistent. Only laws
which have NOT been struck down YET can be unconstitutional.
We've been over this several times, Randy. I think there must
be some reason why you don't seem able to learn this. I know!
It's because you are a Clueless AOL Lamer. Maybe you were not
aware, but AOL stands for "Internet Filtering System". It
gathers up all the idiots who cannot figure out how to click
on a link, (or how to cancel their AOL service) and herds them
all together and gives them "content" to dazzle them so they
don't notice they're only seeing about 5% of the internet (and
the internet only sees about 0.01% of them.)
If you didn't know you were on AOL, check your email address.
> However, because I'm such a nice guy, I'm going to give you a hint that will
> hopefully steer you in the direction of the truth. Answer the following
> question for yourself:
>
> In 1846, why did Brigham Young decide to move the Mormons to Utah, rather than
> Oregon or California, which were other potential abodes which had been
> suggested to him?
Because God had decided that the Rocky Mountains was the
place they should move. What great "truth" are you going
to dump on us now that I've revealed this new surprise,
which has been known since long before the time of Christ?
Wood
Woody Brison
> Randy asked Woody:
>
> >> After you have provided that documentation, then please inform us as to
> why, If
> >> Joseph Smith's relationship with Maria Lawrence, or any of his other
> "plural
> >> wives" was a legal marriage, did Smith desperately try to keep the
> knowledge of
> >> those relationships secret from the public, as well as from his own legal
> wife,
> >> Emma Hale?
>
> Woody replied:
>
>
> >Simple. Bigots like yourself would have whipped the
> >people up and torn him apart.
>
> Dear ARMekites,
> I hope I'm not the only one who espied Woody's hopelessly flawed logic here, to
> wit:
Well, if we're talking about wits, then, let's see if
we can spot a wee bit of logic error in YOUR post?
>...Woody asserts that Joseph Smith's polygamy practice was not illegal,
Um, with caveats, yes.
>... and
> that his "plural marriages" to such women as Maria Lawrence were open and
> above-board.
When did I ever assert that? You lie.
Anybody spot the beginnings of a logic error?
> And yet, Woody opines that Smith kep his "plural marriages" secret because if
> the public knew about them, then "bigots like yourself would have whipped the
> people up and torn him apart."
Correct. Dual horns of a dilemma. But one of the
horns is imaginary.
> So, I'd like Woody to ask himself why "bigots" would do such a thing, if
> Smith's plural marriages were legal and proper, as he asserts.
The marriages were proper. God told Joseph to contract
them and gave him the authority. Since God created the
whole world and owns the whole world, he can do whatever
he wants.
The marriages were not open. They were done in secret.
That's pretty much known, no big deal; God commanded
Joseph to keep them secret.
As far as legal, we've been over that I've explained it
to you a dozen times or so; no point in seeing if you'll
suddently understand that point.
Why would igots would do such a thing? Well, because
they are stupid, I guess.
> If polygamy had been legal and proper, and if anyone had "persecuted" Smith for
> practicing it, then all Smith would have had to do is bring legal charges
> against such "persecutors" for violating his rights of religious freedom.
Nonsense, the LDS were run out of Missouri for their
religion. They appealed to the courts, to the governor,
to the Congress, to the President; all turned the cold
shoulder. They had purchased property and improved it;
their persecutors got the property and the courts agreed
that was /right/. So, could Joseph rely on the courts
to redress wrongs? No.
You seem to make this nonsense up so quick and easy,
maybe you should take a little more time at it? then
it wouldn't be so absurd?
> But Smith didn't do that. Rather, vehemently denied being a polygamist,
You have YET to offer a single bit if valid evidence
that he actively denied it, and now, to bolster this
lack of evidence, you are changing to "vehemently".
Y'know, I think I've poked enough holes in your funny
foam today, I've got better things to do, later, kid.
Wood
Lee Paulson
I'd say something is legal if conforms to established law. It does not
matter whether the Supreme Court has ruled upon the law--states have many
laws that the Supreme Court has declined to rule on for an assortment of
reasons.
You individually might think a law is unconstitutional. You have the right,
as did Joseph Smith, Jr., to ask other courts, including the Supreme Court,
to rule. Did Joseph do that? You do not have the right to ignore laws just
because you think they're wrong.
So Joseph was a bigamist. Bigamy was illegal in Illinois. Why would you
dispute that? Is it because it might make him look bad? I truly don't
understand your why you would argue this.
TheJordan6
>Date: 8/27/2002 8:00 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20020827200052...@mb-mw.aol.com>
I don't see why you think this discussion is one-sided. I am providing the
historical documentation on the subject so that readers can understand the
context of the situation.
Anthony, this quote gives me a good opportunity to point out the deceitful
revisionism which pervades the "History of the Church." Where your quote
appears to have Joseph Smith publicly endorsing polygamy, the quote was in fact
altered from the original after Joseph Smith's death, to make his remarks
appear to say the opposite of the original. LDS historian Richard van Wagoner
notes:
"On 5 October 1843 Smith made his most pointed denunciation of plural marriage.
Williard Richards, keeper of Smith's personal journal, recorded on this date:
'instruction to try those who were preaching teaching or [crossed out in the
original: 'practicing'] the doctrine of plurality of wives on this Law. Joseph
forbids it, and the practice thereof.---No man shall have but one wife.'
"When incorporating Joseph Smith's journal into the History of the Church,
Apostle George A. Smith, a cousin, altered this passage to reflect later Mormon
thinking: 'Gave instructions to try those persons who were preaching,
teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives; for, according to
the law, I hold the keys of this power in the last days; for there is never one
on earth at a time on whom the power and keys are conferred; and I have
constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord
directs otherwise.' "
("Mormon Polygamy: A History," pp. 63, 70.)
In other words, Joseph Smith vehemently denied teaching or practicing polygamy
during his lifetime. But after the Mormons settled in Utah, and began teaching
and practicing polygamy openly, church leaders merely altered his words in the
HoC to make them appear approving of polygamy. Church leaders made numerous
such revisions in order to "clean up" contradictions in events and statements.
Interestingly, that quote is the only statement existent, (apart from the
"revelation on celestial marriage" itself, which was not admitted to until
1852) wherein Smith appeared to approve of polygamy. But the quote was
altered, and it as well as all other public statements Smith made concerning
polygamy were to deny and prohibit its practice.
>Saturday, 23.--Day warmer. Rode out with Clayton to endeavor to raise money
>to
>furnish the hands in the Pinery with supplies. Visited the Temple and public
>works
>
>Also called with William Clayton and Alexander Neibaur at Dr. Foster's. He
>was
>gone to Appanoose, and Mrs. Foster was at Mr. Gilman's.
>
>I here extract from William Clayton's journal:-- President Smith's Interview
>With Mrs. Foster.
>
>We went down there and saw her, [Mrs. Foster]. President Joseph asked Sister
>Foster if she ever in her life knew him guilty of an immoral or indecent act,
>She answered, "No." He then explained his reasons for asking; which were, he
>had been informed that Dr. Foster had stated that Joseph made propositions to
>his wife calculated to lead her astray from the path of virtue; and then
>asked
>if ever he had used any indecent or insulting language to her. She answered,
>"Never." He further asked if he ever preached anything like the "plurality of
>wife" doctrine to her other than what he had preached in public? She said,
>"No." He asked her if he ever proposed to have illicit intercourse with her,
>and especially when he took dinner during the doctor's absence. She said,
>"No."
>After some further conversation on the subject, we left. Mrs. Gillman was
>present all the time. President Joseph and Neibaur then went on foot to the
>farm.
This quote illustrates Smith's skill at the art of "plausible deniability." To
put the incident in context:
At that time, Smith had proposed "plural marriage" to the wives of several high
church leaders, including those of Heber C. Kimball, Orson Pratt, Orson Hyde,
and William Law---but NOT to Robert Foster's wife. So, when Dr. & Mrs. Foster
appeared before Smith, Smith made an "end run" around Foster's accusations by
addressing his wife, who had no personal knowledge of Smith's indecent
proposals.
But Dr. Foster had been personally privy to Smith's "plausible denials" of
polygamy since the mid-1842 John C. Bennett schism. It was Smith's continued
denials of polygamy, and character assassination against those who sought to
expose it that soured Foster on Smith. In an attempt to minimize the potential
damage Law and Foster might cause by exposing Smith publicly, Smith had them
excommunicated on false charges of "oppressing the poor, counterfeiting, theft,
conspiracy to murder, seduction, and adultery." Upon that, Law, Foster, the
Higbee brothers, Austin Cowles & Co, published the "Nauvoo Expositor."
To read their affidavits concerning Smith's secret polygamy practice, go to
http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/exposit3.htm
(Incidentally, none of the quotes you furnish serve to answer the questions I
asked you above about Smith's denials of polygamy.)
>What I would like to know, is how accurate was William Law's testimony
>concerning the situation.
Again from historian van Wagoner:
"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."
(ibid., pp. 64-65.)
You'd do well to read Law's recollections of the times at
http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/lawint2.htm
>Regardless tho, those people who brought about charges against Joseph Smith
>are
>guilty of breaking the covenants they made to God - which makes them false
>swearers.
To the contrary, their motive was to maintain the "covenants" they had made as
members of the church they had joined---the one which explicitly prohibited the
practice of polygamy. As Law & Co. stated in the "Nauvoo Expositor":
"We are earnestly seeking to explode the vicious principles of Joseph Smith,
and those who practice the same abominations and whoredoms; which we verily
know are not accordant and consonant with the principles of Jesus Christ and
the Apostles; and for that purpose, and with that end in view, with a eye
single to the glory of God, we have dared to gird on the armor, and with God at
our head, we most solemnly and sincerely declare that the sword of truth shall
not depart from the thigh, nor the buckler from the arm, until we can enjoy
those glorious privileges which nature's God and our country's laws have
guarantied to us--freedom of speech, the liberty of the press, and the right to
worship God as seemeth us good.--We are aware, however, that we are hazarding
every earthly blessing, particularly property, and probably life itself, in
striking this blow at tyranny and oppression: yet notwithstanding, we most
solemnly declare that no man, or set of men combined, shall with impunity,
violate obligations as sacred as many which have been violated, unless reason,
justice and virtue have become ashamed and sought the haunts of the grave,
though our lives be the forfeiture.
Many of us have sought a reformation in the church, without a public exposition
of the enormities of crimes practiced by its leaders, thinking that if they
would hearken to council, and shew fruit meet for repentance; it would be as
acceptable with God, as though they were exposed to public gaze,
"For the private path, the secret acts of men,
If noble, far the noblest of their lives."
but our petitions were treated with contempt; and in many cases the petitioner
spurned from their presence, and particularly by Joseph, who would state that
if he had sinned, and was guilty of the charges we would charge him with, he
would not make acknowledgment, but would rather be damned; for it would detract
from his dignity, and would consequently ruin and prove the overthrow of the
Church. We would ask him on the other hand, if the overthrow of the Church was
not inevitable, to which he often responded, that we would all go to Hell
together, and covert it into a heaven, by casting the Devil out; and says he,
Hell is by no means the place this world of fools suppose it to be, but on the
contrary, it is quite an agreeable place: to which we would now reply, he can
enjoy it if he is determined not to desist from his evil ways; but as for us,
and ours, we will serve the Lord our God!
It is absurd for men to assert that all is well, while wicked and corrupt men
are seeking our destruction, by a profession of sacred things; for all is not
well, while whoredoms and all manner of abominations are practiced under the
cloak of religion."
The LDS Church which Law & Co. had joined explicitly prohibited the practice of
polygamy, as canonized in the 1835 D&C, Section 109. Smith's "revelation on
celestial marriage" contradicted the church's canonized rules of marriage, and
Law & Co. knew that its practice would likely split or destroy the church.
Therefore, their motive was to force Smith to step down as church president,
and form a caretaker committee to ban polygamy and reform the church back to
its original doctrines.
>Their hearts were bent upon the death of Joseph Smith - which
>makes
>them corrupt.
>
>Anthony
That is another charge for which there is no evidence. None of the 'Nauvoo
Expositor' publishers were among those who were suspected or tried for the
Smiths' murders. The accusations that they were "bent upon the death of Joseph
Smith" were likely invented by Smith and his pro-polygamous cohorts to further
assassinate their characters and make them look like the "bad guys." Again
from van Wagoner:
"Fabricated stories designed to protect the
individuals are seen.....Sidney Rigdon in the 18 June 1845 'Messenger
and Advocate' reported that Parley P. Pratt, in speaking of the means by which
church leaders should sustain Smith, advised that 'we must lie to protect
brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.' Not only were church leaders willing
to violate the law to promote polygamy, they did not hesitate to blacken the
character of individuals who threatened to expose the secret practice of plural
marriage. Sarah Pratt was not the only woman to suffer from this policy. The
27 August 1842 'Wasp,' for example, branded Martha H. Brotherton a 'mean
harlot,' and Nancy Rigdon suffered the same treatment after she opposed Smith's
polygamous proposals.....Jane Law, wife of Smith's counselor William Law, was
also blacklisted for rejecting Smith's polyandrous proposal." ("Mormon
Polygamy: A History," Richard van Wagoner, pp. 38-39.)
If Law & Co. had wanted Smith dead, they had ample opportunity to accomplish
it. Furthermore, shortly before his murder, Smith offered to reconcile with
Law and re-install him in his position as counselor in the First Presidency.
Law replied that he "could not be bought." IOW, if Law had been planning
Smith's murder, then Smith would certainly not have offered to reinstate him as
his counselor. Also, it should go without saying that Smith's offer to
reinstate Law means that the charges for which Law had been excommunicated were
merely invented in order to slander his character and reduce his influence on
church members.
Smith's vehement denials of the polygamy practice shows him to be the liar,
rather the "Expositor" publishers.
In Law's interview which I directed you to above, he stated his wish that Smith
could have lived to stand trial for his crimes and deceitfulness, because if
that had happened, Smith's duplicity could have been exposed to the nation.
But Smith's death made him a martyr in his pro-polygamous followers' eyes, and
they continued to deny polygamy until 1852, when they were settled in Utah.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 8/27/2002 10:59 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20020827225951...@mb-da.aol.com>
>
>>Anthony, I didn't see any answers in your response to the questions I asked
>>you. Would you like to try it again?
>>
>>Randy J.
>
>How many times would you like me to answer the same question with the same
>answer?
Your answers were not responsive to my questions.
>Or perhaps you would like to quote more stuff that I have already read and
>then
>ask me the same questions to get the same answers......
You have yet to give any cogent answers.
>Or perhaps you just think I am your puppet and want me to jump thru your
>hoops.....
Nope, my questions are designed to make you think, not to jump through hoops.
>My answer remains that Joseph Smith was accurate in his portrayal of Law and
>Co. They were a pack of howling wolves bent on the death of Joseph Smith;
>they
>had broken their covenants with God, and their hearts and minds had been
>given
>over to Satan for the persecution of the Saints.
I've covered this issue in another post.
>I could not care any less about whether Joseph Smith had 1 wife, 7 wives, or
>more, and if he lied or told the truth about it.
If you don't care whether or not Smith lied about his polygamous status, then
why do you care about any lies his accusers may have told?
Do you hold Smith's opponents to a higher standard of honesty than you do the
"prophet of God?"
If you concede that Smith lied about polygamy, then how do you know he didn't
lie about all of his other claims?
According to Mormon theology, who is the "father of lies?"
What does the Book of Mormon say will happen to liars?
>Law and Co. motives were not righteous by any means, and in hypocrisy did
>they
>bring charges against Joseph Smith.
>
>Anthony
Covered in another post.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 8/29/2002 1:20 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <f36171a3.02082...@posting.google.com>
>
>thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote in message
>news:<20020828210550...@mb-cf.aol.com>...
>> >From: wwbr...@lds.net (Woody Brison...
>> >"Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote...
>> >
>> >> Woody, was bigamy legal in Illinois in 1844?
>> >>
>> >> I don't mean did Joseph Smith Jr. say God told him to practice it. Was
>it
>> >> legal in Illinois in 1844?
>>
>> >Yes and no. Did the legislature make a law forbidding
>> >it at some time around then? Yes, so I have heard.
>> >
>> >Was that law constitutional? No.
>> >
>> >So, define "legal".
>>
>> Woody, your assertion that the Illinois state law prohibiting bigamy was
>> unconstitutional is merely your OPINION. To prove your assertion, you're
>going
>> to have to support it with some documentable facts. You need to document
>that
>> the Mormons filed a legal challenge to Illinois' bigamy laws on the basis
>of
>> "religious freedom" (as you have alleged),
>I have never alleged this, I cannot imagine any good reason
>for you to say I did. Either you are a liar, or incapable of
>processing information; either way, no one should believe your
>rubbish.
"There was at some point an anti-bigamy law passed
in Illinois, contrary to the State Constitution,
which echoed the U.S. Constitution in forbidding
religious interference by the government. (Marriage
as a religious ceremony is quite legal and binding.)
Joseph considered that being commanded by God, his
duty was to obey regardless of the unwise laws of
the state legislature, contrary to the Constitution."
---Woody Brison, 8/27/02
When you wrote "forbidding religious interference by the government," it means
the same thing as stating that you believe that the Mormons were practicing
polygamy in Illinois under the aegis of "religious freedom," which is what I
wrote above.
If you are too stupid to understand what you yourself wrote, don't call me a
liar to hide your stupidity.
>>...and cite the court record detailing
>> the outcome of such a challenge. If you're asserting that that law was
>> "unconstitutional," then you need to cite the court record wherein that law
>was
>> declared unconstitutional by Illinois lawmakers, and was expunged from the
>> state's laws.
>We would hardly expect the Illinois lawmakers to strike down a
>law they themselves passed. It would more likely be struck
>down by the state Supreme Court.
If that's what you believe, then to support your position, you're going to have
to document where the 1833 Illinois anti-bigamy law was struck down. Merely
asserting that the Mormons disagreed with the laws, and therefore saw fit to
disobey them, doesn't prove your case.
>There are lots of laws on the books which are
>unconstitutional.
Doofus, if a law is on the books, it's constitutional until it's changed.
It doesn't require a challenge to make them
>so. All that's required is for them to contradict the
>Constitution.
Wrong, sport. For a law to be declared unconstitutional, it must be challenged
and overturned. You don't get to simply wave your hand, declare that laws you
don't like are "unconstitutional," and proceed to disobey them.
>For instance, the U.S. Constitution says
>
> Amendment IV (1791) The right of the people to be secure
> in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
> unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
> and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
> supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly
> describing the place to be searched, and the persons or
> things to be seized.
>
>Yet Congress has created the IRS and authorized it to do
>exactly this. They can require a person or business to endure
>an audit, provide the IRS examiners with workspace, and devote
>their own time to the exercise for free; and demand to examine
>every document on the premises. If you don't comply, if you
>require them to produce a search warrant first, you can be
>fined and/or do time in jail. Does it take any genius to know
>this is unconstitutional? It will take some brave soul to
>force the issue, take it to the Supreme Court to get the law
>struck down, but until that happens, the law is there, and
>it's unconstitutional.
>
>I'm not necessarily opposed to the IRS in principle; the
>government cannot run on pretend money, and many people will
>not pay their taxes unless forced to. Also, they have
>brought criminals to justice that could not be caught any
>other way [criminals tend to not pay taxes or report income].
The key terms in your analogy above are "unreasonable searches and seizures"
and "probable cause." If the IRS, or any other government agency, searches or
seizes any property improperly or without due cause, they are subject to
repercussions.
And where you opine that
"brave souls should force the issue," what you are incapable of understanding
is that Joseph Smith and his fellow polygamists were not "brave souls" who
challenged Illinois' marriage laws; they merely disobeyed them in secret, and
denied that they were doing so.
Also, your IRS analogy has absolutely nothing in common with this discussion
about legal marriages. The state of marriage is a legal contract whose
issuance is relegated to the states, not to the federal government. Marriage
licenses are legal documents issued by states just like drivers' licenses,
business licenses, and others. States enact laws to define what constitutes a
legal marriage. Illinois' 1833 anti-bigamy law was not enacted because of the
Mormons; even you should know that the Mormons didn't migrate to Illinois until
1838. Illinois' anti-bigamy law was enacted as a matter of course, just as
other states enacted similar laws. All U. S. states' marriage and anti-bigamy
laws are based on English common law. Legal marriage by definition consists of
one man and one woman. It has never been otherwise, in any state. In fact,
anti-gay advocates have used that legal definition of marriage in recent times
to prevent legal gay marriage. If they so desire, gays can enter into a
"commitment ceremony," or something similar, but it's not a legal marriage,
because a legal marriage must consist of one man and one woman. If it were not
so, then anyone could claim to be "married" to whomever or whatever they so
desired. One woman could marry ten men, a father could marry his daughter, a
Utahn could marry his entire flock of sheep, etc.
To repeat: the Mormons' 19th-century polygamous relationships were not legal
marriages, at any time, in any state. More than a year ago, I cited to you the
divorce case of Brigham Young versus Ann Eliza Webb. Webb sued for alimony,
but Young successfully argued that their relationship was not a legal marriage,
but rather an "ecclesiastical affair." Even though that case makes it obvious
that even Brigham Young admitted that Mormon polygamous unions were not legal
marriages, you are ignoring the facts of history in order to futilely argue
your case that Joseph Smith's plural marriages were legal marriages.
>Note that once a law is struck down by the Supreme Court, it's
>no longer unconstitutional. It's nonexistent. Only laws
>which have NOT been struck down YET can be unconstitutional.
All I can do is repeat myself, Woody: If you're asserting that the 1833
Illinois anti-bigamy laws didn't apply to the Mormons, or were
"unconsitutional," then you're going to have to cite the case law which
documents your position. Merely stating it doesn't cut the mustard.
>We've been over this several times, Randy. I think there must
>be some reason why you don't seem able to learn this. I know!
>It's because you are a Clueless AOL Lamer. Maybe you were not
>aware, but AOL stands for "Internet Filtering System". It
>gathers up all the idiots who cannot figure out how to click
>on a link, (or how to cancel their AOL service) and herds them
>all together and gives them "content" to dazzle them so they
>don't notice they're only seeing about 5% of the internet (and
>the internet only sees about 0.01% of them.)
>
>If you didn't know you were on AOL, check your email address.
You're right, Woody. I'm too stupid to be able to click on a link. Would you
mind helping me out by clicking on a link yourself, and finding where the 1833
Illinois anti-bigamy law was struck down?
Oh, by the way: My feeble brain earned me $2,565 this week. What did your
brain do for you this week, Woody?
>> However, because I'm such a nice guy, I'm going to give you a hint that
>will
>> hopefully steer you in the direction of the truth. Answer the following
>> question for yourself:
>>
>> In 1846, why did Brigham Young decide to move the Mormons to Utah, rather
>than
>> Oregon or California, which were other potential abodes which had been
>> suggested to him?
>Because God had decided that the Rocky Mountains was the
>place they should move.
That's certainly the "faith-promoting" reason. But the REAL reason was that
Brigham Young thought that desolate, unwanted Utah would be a place where the
Mormons could practice polygamy without fear of prosecution. Oregon and
California were already becoming too populated by non-Mormons to be able to
begin a polygamous empire there. But Young's idea was dashed when Utah became
U. S. territory less than one year after the Mormons settled there. When that
occurred, those Mormons---who were American citizens---once again became
subject to U. S. common law, including marriage laws. Neither the short-lived
unauthorized "State of Deseret", nor the federally-created Utah Territory
governments proposed or enacted any legislation which allowed for marriage
between a man and multiple women. Therefore, all 19th-century Mormon
polygamous relationships were extralegal, just as modern fundamentalist Mormon
polygamists' relationships are today.
>What great "truth" are you going
>to dump on us now that I've revealed this new surprise,
>which has been known since long before the time of Christ?
>
>Wood
The "great truth" is that there are always two versions of Mormon history: The
Mormon version, and the truth.
Randy J.
Cheap Suit
God bless that "Continuing revelation".
A.Melon
Cheap Suit <chea...@dangerous1.com> wrote:
{well over 100 quoted lines before we read...}
> God bless that "Continuing revelation".
Crikey you're a pain, aren't you? Another one for the twit
filter... I can only hope that many others follow the example
and refuse to read your postings until you grasp the concept
that there is no need to keep the text from the four previous
messages in your five word response. (Close to a record I might
add - very few people leave so much stuff in the response.) I
never thought I'd have to add the string '> >>>' to a filter...
TheJordan6
Hey, they don't call it the Doctorin' & Coverups for nuttin'. :-)
Randy J.
Cheap Suit
A.Melon wrote:
> In article <3D701C8B...@dangerous1.com>
> Cheap Suit <chea...@dangerous1.com> wrote:
>
> {well over 100 quoted lines before we read...}
>
>
>>God bless that "Continuing revelation".
>
>
> Crikey you're a pain, aren't you?
Yeah.
--
clif...@netdoor.com
And which Supreme Court rendered that decision, Wood ?
>So, define "legal".
That which is according to the law.
>Wood
clif...@netdoor.com
That would be implode,actually.
AnthonyPaul
>Date: 8/30/02 8:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20020830200046...@mb-fh.aol.com>
Other than a pissing contest between you and Woody, there hasn't really been
much of a discussion yet.
I found your commentary to be rather off-topic to begin with; but since the
thread has pretty much become dead and an eyesore, this will give me a chance
to study up on a weaker topic of mine and hopefully get some use out of this -
so in advance (or belated?) - thanx.
---------------
---------------------
One man's "deceitful revisionism" is another man's "insightful clarification".
Regarding the doctrine of plural wives, the Book of Mormon reads - Jacob
2:27-30, "Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord:
For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines
he shall have none; for I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And
whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or
cursed be the land for their sakes. For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts,
raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken
unto these things."
Think of it as a footnote within the context of the passage, instead of set
apart from the passage. From what I can gather, "History of the Church" was
not used for missionary work, but rather as literature for the Saints to enjoy.
----------------------------
>
>
>"On 5 October 1843 Smith made his most pointed denunciation of plural
marriage. Williard Richards, keeper of Smith's personal journal, recorded on
this date: 'instruction to try those who were preaching teaching or [crossed
out in the original: 'practicing'] the doctrine of plurality of wives on this
Law. Joseph forbids it, and the practice thereof.---No man shall have but one
wife.' "When incorporating Joseph Smith's journal into the History of the
Church, Apostle George A. Smith, a cousin, altered this passage to reflect
later Mormon thinking: 'Gave instructions to try those persons who were
preaching, teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives; for,
according to the law, I hold the keys of this power in the last days; for there
is never one on earth at a time on whom the power and keys are conferred; and I
have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord
directs otherwise.' " ("Mormon Polygamy: A History," pp. 63, 70.)
>
>
>In other words, Joseph Smith vehemently denied teaching or practicing polygamy
during his lifetime. But after the Mormons settled in Utah, and began teaching
and practicing polygamy openly, church leaders merely altered his words in the
HoC to make them appear approving of polygamy. Church leaders made numerous
such revisions in order to "clean up" contradictions in events and statements.
Interestingly, that quote is the only statement existent, (apart from the
"revelation on celestial marriage" itself, which was not admitted to until
1852) wherein Smith appeared to approve of polygamy. But the quote was
altered, and it as well as all other public statements Smith made concerning
polygamy were to deny and prohibit its practice.
>
>
-------------------
From: http://www.lds.npl.com/link/?887849368
"Text Files of History of the Church"
"Scans of the c1902 text of History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints are available here (with some additions to vol. 6). There are seven
files, each consisting of one volume of the History. This history was produced
by assignment from Church leaders at the beginning of the 20th century. The
History editor was B. H. Roberts, a prominent LDS leader. Roberts' assignment
was to take the manuscript history produced by Joseph Smith (1805-1844) and his
clerks between 1838 and 1857 and publish it together with explanatory notes.
The history was written as though dictated by Joseph Smith, however he dictated
only a small portion of it. The bulk of the manuscript was based on Church
records, Church newspaper excerpts and journals of Joseph Smith kept by various
men who recorded his activities as well as the diary entries of men who were
with Joseph Smith at various times and places or who performed Church
missionary efforts, or other tasks of historical importance. The first six
volumes of the history cover the life of Joseph Smith, while volume seven
concerns the period of time from the death of Joseph Smith (1844) through 1847
and part of 1848. The purpose of volume seven was to cover various matters
about and resulting from Joseph Smith's death as well as the important problem
of who would succeed him as the leader of the Church. The manuscript history
was completed only up to 1838 when Joseph Smith was killed. The bulk of the
manuscript history text was written following his death.
The seven files below are scans of the published history. They are merely text
files and so Roberts' footnotes are omitted until the end of each file. There
is no way to link the footnotes to their proper place in the text without
converting the files to hypertext web documents. Rather than do this, we are
working on a new history - see below. Many of Roberts' notes are incomplete,
obsolete or contain errors. The text of the history itself often needs further
explanation from modern research and reference to the original documents on
which it is based. In the meantime, while work on a new history proceeds, we
offer these text files.
Each file is about one megabyte in length."
------------------
-------------------
Thanks, that gives me a little more insight into the following:
"Whereupon, the Prophet goes up on the stand, and, after preaching about
everything else he could think of in the world, at last hints at the idea of
the law of redemption, makes a bare hint at the law of sealing, and it produced
such a tremendous excitement that, as soon as he had got his dinner half eaten,
he had to go back to the stand, and unpreach all that he had preached, and left
the people to guess at the matter. While he was thus preaching he turned to
the men sitting in the stand, and who were the men who should have backed him
up, for instance, to our good old President Marks, William and Wilson Law, and
father Cowles, and a number of other individuals about Nauvoo, for this
occurred when the Twelve were in the Eastern portions of the United States, and
said, "If I were to reveal the things that God has revealed to me, if I were to
reveal to this people the doctrines that I know are for their exaltation, these
men would spill my blood." This shows the improvement that had been, the
advancement that had been made, and the light that had been attained. He also
said, that there were men and women in that congregation who imagined
themselves almost perfect, and who would oppose and reject the principles of
exaltation, and would never fully realize their mistake until the morning of
the resurrection. I was not there, and did not hear the discourse; but persons
were there who could write two or three words of a sentence, and I profess to
be good enough at guessing, to tell what the balance was." (an excerpt of a
discourse given by George A. Smith, March 18, 1855; JoD v.2).
It is apparent that the practice of polygamy within the early Church was not as
pervasive as some sources seem to indicate (or implicate).
From your link, I see that there were testimonies regarding what later became
D&C 132; but what I would like to see are the actual charges (or is that them?)
regarding the matter. Cowles is the only one here that mentions anything about
polygamy being practiced in the Church, but fails to mention by who and if they
were authorized to do so.
---------------------
>
>
>(Incidentally, none of the quotes you furnish serve to answer the questions I
asked you above about Smith's denials of polygamy.)
>
>
-----------------
Yet, an answer to a question that hasn't been asked remains an answer
nonetheless :)
Do you have more information regarding these matters? Perferably something
that isn't so much hearsay as the "William Law interview".
------------------
-------------------
Thanx for the read.
-------------------
>
>
>>Regardless tho, those people who brought about charges against Joseph Smith
are guilty of breaking the covenants they made to God - which makes them false
swearers.
>
>To the contrary, their motive was to maintain the "covenants" they had made as
members of the church they had joined---the one which explicitly prohibited the
practice of polygamy. As Law & Co. stated in the "Nauvoo Expositor":
>
>
----------------------
Then they should have actually read their professed scriptures to understand
that the Lord will command polygamy and/or rescind it as He sees fit. But then
again, the Israelites bickered against Moses too .... and any other prophet
which the Lord sent among them.
The covenants we make are to the Lord, to abide by His commandments; they are
not covenants made to a Church or another man.
It is stated in the law of Moses "Thou shalt not kill"; yet God commanded
Abraham to kill his son Isaac.
James 2:20-23, "But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is
dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac
his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by
works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith,
Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was
called the Friend of God."
And we cannot forget that Moses wrote down the commandments from God; yet
afterwards went and killed (or had ordered to be killed) how many?
My point being the same as in the epistle of James; that we can say that we
will do all that the Lord will command of us, or we can actually go forth and
do the things that the Lord has commanded of us. (Humming: I will go, I will
do, the things the Lord commands.)
----------------------
------------------
And as the "new holy prophet" has spoken, so shall it be done...... Luther
would have been proud I guess.
------------------
>
>
>>Their hearts were bent upon the death of Joseph Smith - which makes them
corrupt.
>>
>>Anthony
>
>
>That is another charge for which there is no evidence. None of the 'Nauvoo
Expositor' publishers were among those who were suspected or tried for the
Smiths' murders. The accusations that they were "bent upon the death of Joseph
Smith" were likely invented by Smith and his pro-polygamous cohorts to further
assassinate their characters and make them look like the "bad guys." Again
from van Wagoner:
>
>
-----------------------
"My heart was burning. I wanted to tread upon the viper." - William Law
interview.
And again (same interview):
Asked: "Had you any idea that there was a sort of conspiracy to kill Joseph in
jail?"
W. Law replied: "No. I had no idea, no idea. I had been ruined by that man;
all my property was gone; all my dearest illusions destroyed, and through my
connection with him I got a black spot on my life, which will pain me to the
very last minute of my existence. But I tell you [The old gentlemen buried his
head in his hands and when he removed them, his eyes were wet.] I tell you, no,
if I had had any idea of any such scheme, I would have taken steps to stop it.
I have always considered the killing of Joseph Smith a wrong action. It is my
opinion that he deserved his fate fully, much more than thousands of men who
paid the penalty of their crime to Judge Lynch--but I would have preferred that
he should have been tried by court and sent to the Penitentiary."
Law and Co. sought to destroy the Church, perhaps JHJackson was a bit more
physical (or blunt) in his desires, but their overall intent remains the same -
if only by different means.
Anthony
------------------------
AnthonyPaul
>>Where Joseph Smith asserted that "I can prove them all [his accusers]
perjurers," what was Joseph Smith's actual response to the affidavits and
indictments which accused him of polygamy and adultery? Did Smith take his
accusers to court, and file charges of slander against them, as he boasted that
he could?
>>
>>Randy J.
June 4, 1844 - "I was in council with Elders John Taylor, Hyrum Smith, Willard
Richards, Almon W. Babbitt, Lucien Woodworth, and William W. Phelps on the
propriety of prosecuting the Laws and Fosters for perjury, slander, &c...."
(History of the Church, vol. 6, page 427).
June 7 - the Expositor was published.
June 10 - the printing press was destroyed.
(June 7th - 14th seems to have been taken up with the Expositor happenings)
June 15 - Two brethren came from Lima, and said that
Colonel Levi Williams had demanded the arms belonging to the Mormons in
that neighborhood. They wished my advice on the subject. I told them that
when they gave up their arms, to give up their lives with them as dearly
as possible.
June 17- Joseph and others arrested by Joel S Wiles in regards to a "riot" of
the 10th and later discharged at 2pm.
June 18- City under martial law. The Warsaw edition of the 17th was read.
Pretty much, most of the time seems to have been spent on more urgent issues
than trying to press charges of slander and perjury and whatnot.
Joseph was killed on June 27, 1844 at about 5 pm (D&C 135:1).
There are undoubtedly others that can be more conversant about the actual
transpirings of events from back then, including yourself. As for myself, I
ain't to good with history regardless of the dates - and if I recall correctly,
my son is turning 5 in September; as long as I can remember the important
dates, then hopefully I will do alright these days :)
Anthony
Woody Brison
(Get Rid Of Slimy girlS, Calvin and Hobbes' treehouse
club where they would entertain themselves on dull summer
days by seeing how funny of insults they could throw at
each other.
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote in message news:<20020830212146...@mb-fh.aol.com>...
> >From: wwbr...@lds.net (Woody Brison)
> >thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote...
> >> >From: wwbr...@lds.net (Woody Brison...
> >> >"Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote...
> >> >
> >> >> Woody, was bigamy legal in Illinois in 1844?
>
What you wrote was,
"You need to document that the Mormons filed a legal challenge
to Illinois' bigamy laws on the basis of "religious freedom"
(as you have alleged),"
I did not allege that the Mormons filed any legal challenge.
Your quote of me does not contain this.
Your claim that I alledged this is false.
Your attempt to save face has failed.
Your face looks better with the egg on it tho.
> If you are too stupid to understand what you yourself wrote, don't call me a
> liar to hide your stupidity.
I am not calling you a liar to hide MY stupidity.
If I assume you are a liar, it kind of hides the embarrassing
fact of YOUR stupidity.
It's embarrassing for all of us human beings to know that we
have you among us, a person of such colossally stupid
dimensions that they wouldn't fit in the Marriott Center.
Still waiting with baited breath to see if you will ever
respond to any of those extensive corrections I listed of
your extensive rubbish.
> >>...and cite the court record detailing
> >> the outcome of such a challenge. If you're asserting that that law was
> >> "unconstitutional," then you need to cite the court record wherein that law
> was
> >> declared unconstitutional by Illinois lawmakers, and was expunged from the
> >> state's laws.
>
>
> >We would hardly expect the Illinois lawmakers to strike down a
> >law they themselves passed. It would more likely be struck
> >down by the state Supreme Court.
>
> If that's what you believe, then to support your position, you're going to have
> to document where the 1833 Illinois anti-bigamy law was struck down. Merely
> asserting that the Mormons disagreed with the laws, and therefore saw fit to
> disobey them, doesn't prove your case.
Actually, it's not even certain that a law made by the Illinois
State legislature would have any effect in the almost-independent-
nation of Nauvoo, U.S.A. The charter they granted the city was
so broad that Nauvoo didn't basically owe anybody any obedience
but themselves. Did the anti-bigamy law apply in Nauvoo? I
wonder.
Great questions, worthy of legal wranglings for many decades.
But they don't really accomplish anything. Legality is what
you can get in court, if you're arrested.
Did anybody arrest Joseph Smith for bigamy? No.
He was arrested for riot, and three different courts all
dismissed it.
He was arrested for treason, but the scumbags knew they
had no case; all these were just a maneuvrer to get him
out of Nauvoo, away from that protection, to kill him.
It was a mockery of any legal justice. The judge who
held him in Carthage was commander of the militia who
didn't protect him. None of this has any relation to
any rational determination of "legal".
I'll say it again, it's an antimormon ploy to confuse
"legal" with "moral".
If you could show the Prophet was immoral, now that would
tell us he's a false prophet.
But trying to show he's done something technically
illegal perhaps, is a long way from showing he's immoral.
> >There are lots of laws on the books which are
> >unconstitutional.
>
> Doofus, if a law is on the books, it's constitutional until it's changed.
Let's see, this would be YOUR OPINIONOSITY, I gather.
Remind me, if I ever have any legal troubles, not to hire
Jordan & Self, Attorneys at Law.
> It doesn't require a challenge to make them
> >so. All that's required is for them to contradict the
> >Constitution.
>
> Wrong, sport. For a law to be declared unconstitutional, it must be challenged
> and overturned.
Another ploy; to confuse DECLARED with IS.
Ah Declare! You really can churn these preposterosities
out at will, with no limit.
Do you run on batteries? Everruddies?
>... You don't get to simply wave your hand, declare that laws you
> don't like are "unconstitutional," and proceed to disobey them.
OH YES YOU DO, if you are prepared to take the consequences.
That's the principle method of getting laws struck down;
someone has the courage (and the funds to hire the lawyers)
to take it thru the courts.
The Federal Government subject to "repercussions"? This is
more interesting than all the rest of your funny foam, I
think. Is it like reverberations from percussion?
> And where you opine that
> "brave souls should force the issue," what you are incapable of understanding
> is that Joseph Smith and his fellow polygamists were not "brave souls" who
> challenged Illinois' marriage laws; they merely disobeyed them in secret, and
> denied that they were doing so.
Not hard for a coward like yourself to say that Joseph Smith
was not brave, but he actually exhibited bravery; turned himself
in for conscience' sake, knowing it would kill him, for instance.
You, on the other hand, are so brave you are willing to make
stuff up and post it to usenet.
But, not quite brave enough to actually answer responses that
are made to your posts -- many responses, over much time.
I feel like saying, Coward! Coward! COWARD! COWARD! COWARD!
How DARE you say that Joseph was not a brave man!
But, it would be a waste of breath, better to save it for
something else.
He being commanded by God not to reveal this higher law to
the public, could not do so.
It might have been easier, but he was a brave man and took
the harder way.
> Also, your IRS analogy has absolutely nothing in common with this discussion
> about legal marriages.
Opines our legal expert here, alth it's obvious, to anyone
with a brain, that it is quite relevant.
>... The state of marriage is a legal contract whose
> issuance is relegated to the states, not to the federal government.
Yawn, the states are set up like the nation, with a constitution,
two houses of legislature, an executive branch, a judicial branch,
and lesser laws which are supposed to harmonize with the
constitution. Your weak attempt here at self-rescue is
funny. You're trying to throw yourself a rope.
>... Marriage
> licenses are legal documents issued by states just like drivers' licenses,
> business licenses, and others. States enact laws to define what constitutes a
> legal marriage. Illinois' 1833 anti-bigamy law was not enacted because of the
> Mormons; even you should know that the Mormons didn't migrate to Illinois until
> 1838. Illinois' anti-bigamy law was enacted as a matter of course, just as
> other states enacted similar laws. All U. S. states' marriage and anti-bigamy
> laws are based on English common law.
And English common law is based on Roman law, which is based
on older laws, which were based on the laws of God. Were you
aware of this? Mankind got our laws originally from God.
>...Legal marriage by definition consists of
> one man and one woman. It has never been otherwise, in any state. In fact,
> anti-gay advocates have used that legal definition of marriage in recent times
> to prevent legal gay marriage. If they so desire, gays can enter into a
> "commitment ceremony," or something similar, but it's not a legal marriage,
> because a legal marriage must consist of one man and one woman. If it were not
> so, then anyone could claim to be "married" to whomever or whatever they so
> desired. One woman could marry ten men, a father could marry his daughter, a
> Utahn could marry his entire flock of sheep, etc.
You can marry ten men, your daughter, and your sheep if you
want, and the limp wrist laws today probably won't stop you,
but 112 years ago, the government was in the business of
telling people how to run their private lives, what their
religion could believe, and if they didn't do it they would
forfeit their propery to the poor unfortunate government
officials who would reluctantly take it.
> To repeat: the Mormons' 19th-century polygamous relationships were not legal
> marriages, at any time, in any state. More than a year ago, I cited to you the
> divorce case of Brigham Young versus Ann Eliza Webb. Webb sued for alimony,
> but Young successfully argued that their relationship was not a legal marriage,
> but rather an "ecclesiastical affair." Even though that case makes it obvious
> that even Brigham Young admitted that Mormon polygamous unions were not legal
> marriages, you are ignoring the facts of history in order to futilely argue
> your case that Joseph Smith's plural marriages were legal marriages.
I remember that. She tried to sue him for half the value
of Utah. Judge didn't buy it. Conclusion: Brigham Young
was a secret criminal, Randy wins, does not have to feel
he's wrong, hooray!
We went over all that. If you really want to know my
opinion on it, go look me up in the google archives. I'm
not going to waste my time trying to educate you on yet
another thing you will never understand, because you don't
want to understand it, and derive justification from the
fact that nobody can make you understand it.
> >Note that once a law is struck down by the Supreme Court, it's
> >no longer unconstitutional. It's nonexistent. Only laws
> >which have NOT been struck down YET can be unconstitutional.
>
> All I can do is repeat myself, Woody:
I've noticed that!
>... If you're asserting that the 1833
> Illinois anti-bigamy laws didn't apply to the Mormons, or were
> "unconsitutional," then you're going to have to cite the case law which
> documents your position. Merely stating it doesn't cut the mustard.
Nauvoo Charter, for a starter, but since the case didn't
come up in court, how you gonna prove anything about it
one way or another? I can tell you that a law that is
clearly unconstitutional is clearly unconstitutional, but
if you don't want to believe it you can just hem and haw.
No one can even make you admit the moon is round.
> >We've been over this several times, Randy. I think there must
> >be some reason why you don't seem able to learn this. I know!
> >It's because you are a Clueless AOL Lamer. Maybe you were not
> >aware, but AOL stands for "Internet Filtering System". It
> >gathers up all the idiots who cannot figure out how to click
> >on a link, (or how to cancel their AOL service) and herds them
> >all together and gives them "content" to dazzle them so they
> >don't notice they're only seeing about 5% of the internet (and
> >the internet only sees about 0.01% of them.)
> >
> >If you didn't know you were on AOL, check your email address.
>
> You're right, Woody. I'm too stupid to be able to click on a link.
Yes.
>... Would you
> mind helping me out by clicking on a link yourself, and finding where the 1833
> Illinois anti-bigamy law was struck down?
>
> Oh, by the way: My feeble brain earned me $2,565 this week. What did your
> brain do for you this week, Woody?
Wow, that should pay for the space in the trailer park. What
are you going to do when next year comes and it's due again?
Can't grow another brain.
> >> However, because I'm such a nice guy, I'm going to give you a hint that
> will
> >> hopefully steer you in the direction of the truth. Answer the following
> >> question for yourself:
> >>
> >> In 1846, why did Brigham Young decide to move the Mormons to Utah, rather
> than
> >> Oregon or California, which were other potential abodes which had been
> >> suggested to him?
>
>
> >Because God had decided that the Rocky Mountains was the
> >place they should move.
>
> That's certainly the "faith-promoting" reason. But the REAL reason was that
> Brigham Young thought that desolate, unwanted Utah would be a place where the
> Mormons could practice polygamy without fear of prosecution. Oregon and
> California were already becoming too populated by non-Mormons to be able to
> begin a polygamous empire there. But Young's idea was dashed when Utah became
> U. S. territory less than one year after the Mormons settled there. When that
> occurred, those Mormons---who were American citizens---once again became
> subject to U. S. common law, including marriage laws. Neither the short-lived
> unauthorized "State of Deseret", nor the federally-created Utah Territory
> governments proposed or enacted any legislation which allowed for marriage
> between a man and multiple women. Therefore, all 19th-century Mormon
> polygamous relationships were extralegal, just as modern fundamentalist Mormon
> polygamists' relationships are today.
This is interesting, but hardly accurate. The United States
had no federal law against polygamy. There was no law making
it illegal in a territory. This was verified when the lawyers
in San Fran combed the books to see if they could find anything
to pin on Parley Pratt, as documented in a SF Chronicle letter
which Pratt copies in his autobiography. I've got the letter
online at http://web.lds.net/pages/wwbrison/pppratt.htm#100
Second, the Congress had to pass a law to make polygamy illegal.
Before that, which was 1880's IIRC, it was not illegal; why else
did they pass the law? We've been thru all this several times,
and you've never given us any rebuttal on these two facts. Just
frosty silence. Why is that?
So there went the majority of your puffery right there. You
can really squirt out a paragraph when you get riled, but the
trick is making it true and having it be rational.
As for Deseret being authorized, it was authorized on the
basis of the popular mandate, on land nobody else claimed,
so this is just more of your funny foam.
As for the LDS being citizens, they were run out of the
United States for their religious convictions. If I were
to judge this matter, I would ask why the rest of the country
did not forfeit their citizenship when they turned the cold
shoulder on them?
As for why the LDS went to Utah, they can have deep convictions,
risk their lives and even give them up, some of them, in order
to move themselves to a new land, for reasons which they have
well understood and repeatedly expressed; but it's useless.
When Rantin' Randy comes along in 2002 he'll tell us the REAL
reasons.
> >What great "truth" are you going
> >to dump on us now that I've revealed this new surprise,
> >which has been known since long before the time of Christ?
>
> The "great truth" is that there are always two versions of Mormon history: The
> Mormon version, and the truth.
And they are the same. Is that a splendid thing or what?
Wood
TheJordan6
this response in order to focus on the facts:
Good heavens, man. Are you as dense in real life as you are on ARM?
Your above defense was that the Mormons believed they could practice polygamy
as a "religious ceremony", ("commanded by God,") contrary to state anti-bigamy
laws. That means the same thing as what I wrote above: that the Mormons
practiced polygamy under the aegis of "religious freedom."
What I am endeavoring to make you understand is that if you are using the
"religious ceremony" argument, then you need to document where Joseph Smith or
any other polygamous Mormons brought a challenge to the state anti-bigamy laws,
or sought an exemption from obedience to those laws. No one has the legal
right to simply declare that "God" told them to disobey duly enacted laws, and
then proceed to disobey them without going through proper legal processes.
<snip bullshit>
>> >We would hardly expect the Illinois lawmakers to strike down a
>> >law they themselves passed. It would more likely be struck
>> >down by the state Supreme Court.
>> If that's what you believe, then to support your position, you're going to
>have
>> to document where the 1833 Illinois anti-bigamy law was struck down.
>Merely
>> asserting that the Mormons disagreed with the laws, and therefore saw fit
>to
>> disobey them, doesn't prove your case.
>Actually, it's not even certain that a law made by the Illinois
>State legislature would have any effect in the almost-independent-
>nation of Nauvoo, U.S.A.
False. Nauvoo was not an "almost-independent-nation" by any stretch of the
imagination. It was an incorporated city in Hancock County, Illinois, and was
subject to state and federal laws just like any other city.
>The charter they granted the city was
>so broad that Nauvoo didn't basically owe anybody any obedience
>but themselves.
And therein lies the foundation of your utter cluelessness. The Nauvoo City
Charter gave its founders broad powers only in the areas of municipal
management and local courts. It did *****NOT***** grant any powers to ignore,
contradict, or override laws of state or federal governments. The Nauvoo City
Charter, Section 11, stated (caps mine for emphasis):
"The City Council shall have power and authority to make, ordain, establish,
and execute, all such ordinances, NOT REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES, OR OF THIS STATE, as they may deem necessary for the peace,
benefit, good order, regulation, convenience, and cleanliness of said
city....."
Here is the effective portion of the 1833 Illinois law which prohibited bigamy:
"Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or husbands at one and the same
time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive. If any persons
within the state, being married, or who shall hereafter marry, do at any time
marry any person or persons, the former husband or wife being alive, the person
so offended shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine, not exceeding
one thousand dollars, and imprisoned in the penitentiary, not exceeding two
years."
Below are two citations from LDS documents which define the church's
relationship to civil governments and laws:
D&C 58:21 (August 1, 1831)
"Let no man break the laws of the land, for
he that keepeth the laws of God
hath no need to break the laws of the land."
And also the 12th Article of Faith:
"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and
magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."
Since Joseph Smith's secret polygamy practice was against state law and the LDS
church's own published rules which acknowledged obeisance to such laws, then
polygamy was illegal and improper from whichever direction you approach it.
>Did the anti-bigamy law apply in Nauvoo? I
>wonder.
The only reason you "wonder" about it is because you're an ignorant fanatic who
spends all of your time indoctrinating yourself in apologetic blather, rather
than in learning any actual history.
>Great questions, worthy of legal wranglings for many decades.
>But they don't really accomplish anything. Legality is what
>you can get in court, if you're arrested.
>
>Did anybody arrest Joseph Smith for bigamy? No.
<groan> Woody, I've provided the cite many times which describes the
situation. One more time (caps mine for emphasis):
Joseph Smith's entry in the "History of the Church", vol. 6, pg. 405 (May 25,
1844), reads:
"Saturday, 25 -- At home, KEEPING OUT OF THE WAY OF EXPECTED WRITS FROM
CARTHAGE. Towards
evening, Edward Hunter and William Marks, of the grand jury returned from
Carthage; also Marshal
John P. Greene and Almon W. Babbitt, who informed me there were TWO INDICTMENTS
FOUND AGAINST ME, one charging me with false swearing on the testimony of
Joseph H. Jackson
and
Robert D. Foster,
AND ONE CHARGING ME OF POLYGAMY, or something else, on the testimony of
William Law....."
As I've quoted from LDS historian Todd Compton, William Law had filed charges
against Smith for adultery and polygamy at Carthage, which was the Hancock
county seat. Smith's remark "keeping out of the way of expected writs" meant
that he was hiding in Nauvoo, avoiding arrest on those charges. That's why, in
his speech the following day, he asserted that the charges were false, and he
denied having "seven wives."
Nowhere did Smith argue that his polygamy practice was legal, and at no time
did he mount any legal challenges to the indictments against him. To the
contrary, his actions in avoiding arrest and denying that he was a polygamist
indicate consciousness of being in violation of the law.
So, the reason nobody arrested Smith for bigamy is because he hid from lawmen
and denied his guilt before his followers.
<snip material which is irrelevant to the polygamy issue>
>But trying to show he's done something technically
>illegal perhaps, is a long way from showing he's immoral.
I've already documented that polygamy was illegal. Here is the documentation
which shows that it was immoral (caps mine for emphasis):
"According to the custom of all civilized nations, marriage is regulated by
LAWS and ceremonies; therefore we believe, that all marriages in this church of
Christ of Latter Day Saints, should be solemnized in a PUBLIC MEETING, OR
FEAST;....The clerk of every church should keep a record of ALL MARRIAGES,
solemnized in his branch. ALL LEGAL CONTRACTS OF MARRIAGE made before a person
is baptized into this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled.
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."
(Doctrine and Covenants, Section C9, 1835 edition. Note: Joseph Smith headed
the committee which approved the material in the 1835 D&C for publication.)
Joseph Smith personally re-affirmed the 1835 D&C article on marriage by
stating:
"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 the right to marry again." (May 1, 1838, "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph
Smith", page 119).
When Smith secretly attempted to introduce his polygamy practice, which was
against both state law and church law, that action was most certainly
immoral---at least, in the eyes of those of who understand the meaning of the
word "immoral."
>> >There are lots of laws on the books which are
>> >unconstitutional.
>> Doofus, if a law is on the books, it's constitutional until it's changed.
>
>Let's see, this would be YOUR OPINIONOSITY, I gather.
<groan> No, Woody, it's a matter of basic fact. Just what exactly do you
think the word "constitutional" MEANS?
>> It doesn't require a challenge to make them
>> >so. All that's required is for them to contradict the
>> >Constitution.
>> Wrong, sport. For a law to be declared unconstitutional, it must be
>challenged
>> and overturned.
>Another ploy; to confuse DECLARED with IS.
>
>Ah Declare! You really can churn these preposterosities
>out at will, with no limit.
Woody, it appears that you are utterly ignorant of even the most basic facts
and rules about the U. S. legal system. No citizen or group has the authority
or right to merely declare that a law with which they disagree is
"unconstitutional." They must bring a legal challenge to such a law, and it
must go through the legal process until decided one way or the other. An
example would be the recent judgment that the phrase "under God" in the pledge
of allegiance is unconstitutional. That judgment was rendered because a
citizen brought a legal challenge to the phrase, on the basis that it violated
the establishment of religion clause in the Constitution.
By the same token, if Joseph Smith & Co. had wanted to make polygamy "legal,"
then they should have mounted a public legal challenge to the Illinois
anti-bigamy law. But they didn't. To the contrary, they denied being
polygamists.
>>... You don't get to simply wave your hand, declare that laws you
>> don't like are "unconstitutional," and proceed to disobey them.
>OH YES YOU DO, if you are prepared to take the consequences.
>That's the principle method of getting laws struck down;
>someone has the courage (and the funds to hire the lawyers)
>to take it thru the courts.
Thanks for making my point, Woody. Joseph Smith & Co. didn't take their
polygamy case through the courts; to the contrary, they simply publicly denied
that they were polygamists, and they called those who said they were
polygamists liars and false accusers.
<snip silly IRS analogy>
>> The key terms in your analogy above are "unreasonable searches and
>seizures"
>> and "probable cause." If the IRS, or any other government agency, searches
>or
>> seizes any property improperly or without due cause, they are subject to
>> repercussions.
>The Federal Government subject to "repercussions"?
Yes, Woody. And there are repercussions against the federal government for
their wrong actions all the time.
>This is
>more interesting than all the rest of your funny foam, I
>think. Is it like reverberations from percussion?
Idiot.
>> And where you opine that
>> "brave souls should force the issue," what you are incapable of
>understanding
>> is that Joseph Smith and his fellow polygamists were not "brave souls" who
>> challenged Illinois' marriage laws; they merely disobeyed them in secret,
>and
>> denied that they were doing so.
>Not hard for a coward like yourself to say that Joseph Smith
>was not brave, but he actually exhibited bravery; turned himself
>in for conscience' sake, knowing it would kill him, for instance.
To repeat: Smith only returned to Nauvoo because his wife and associates
accused him of cowardice and desertion. And Smith's actions in Carthage Jail
indicate that he had no intention of dying that day. And your response does
not address the fact that Smith was no "brave soul" when he denied being a
polygamist, which is the subject here.
<snip more irrelevant blather>
>> Also, your IRS analogy has absolutely nothing in common with this
>discussion
>> about legal marriages.
>Opines our legal expert here, altho it's obvious, to anyone
>with a brain, that it is quite relevant.
It's not just my opinion, Woody. I give the reasons below:
>>... The state of marriage is a legal contract whose
>> issuance is relegated to the states, not to the federal government.
>Yawn, the states are set up like the nation, with a constitution,
>two houses of legislature,
Bingo, Woody. That's the first rational thing you've written. The state of
Illinois has a constitution and a legislature. In 1833, that legislature
passed an anti-bigamy law, and it was made a part of the state constitution.
>an executive branch, a judicial branch,
>and lesser laws which are supposed to harmonize with the
>constitution. Your weak attempt here at self-rescue is
>funny. You're trying to throw yourself a rope.
That's funny, I'm the one here who is quoting the anti-bigamy law from the
Illinois constitution. But you are calling my documentation "self-rescue."
Tell us, Woody, do you have any rebuttal to the documentation other than your
opinions?
>>... Marriage
>> licenses are legal documents issued by states just like drivers' licenses,
>> business licenses, and others. States enact laws to define what
>constitutes a
>> legal marriage. Illinois' 1833 anti-bigamy law was not enacted because of
>the
>> Mormons; even you should know that the Mormons didn't migrate to Illinois
>until
>> 1838. Illinois' anti-bigamy law was enacted as a matter of course, just as
>> other states enacted similar laws. All U. S. states' marriage and
>anti-bigamy
>> laws are based on English common law.
>And English common law is based on Roman law, which is based
>on older laws, which were based on the laws of God. Were you
>aware of this? Mankind got our laws originally from God.
Hmmmm, I see no rebuttals to my documentation here either. Just more
irrelevant babble.
>>...Legal marriage by definition consists of
>> one man and one woman. It has never been otherwise, in any state. In
>fact,
>> anti-gay advocates have used that legal definition of marriage in recent
>times
>> to prevent legal gay marriage. If they so desire, gays can enter into a
>> "commitment ceremony," or something similar, but it's not a legal marriage,
>> because a legal marriage must consist of one man and one woman. If it were
>not
>> so, then anyone could claim to be "married" to whomever or whatever they so
>> desired. One woman could marry ten men,
>a father could marry his daughter, a
>> Utahn could marry his entire flock of sheep, etc.
>You can marry ten men, your daughter, and your sheep if you
>want,
No you can't, Woody. "Marriage" is a legal term with a legal meaning.
>and the limp wrist laws today probably won't stop you,
Yes they can, Woody. In fact, the LDS Church recently supported a motion in
California to keep gay marriages illegal. Reports say that your church spent
millions of dollars in that effort.
>but 112 years ago, the government was in the business of
>telling people how to run their private lives, what their
>religion could believe, and if they didn't do it they would
>forfeit their propery to the poor unfortunate government
>officials who would reluctantly take it.
No government, either state or federal, tried to tell the Mormons what to do in
their private lives or what to believe in the 19th century. The only thing
those governments wanted the Mormons to do was to comply with laws which are
established for the good of ALL Americans, such as marriage laws.
>> To repeat: the Mormons' 19th-century polygamous relationships were not
>legal
>> marriages, at any time, in any state. More than a year ago, I cited to you
>the
>> divorce case of Brigham Young versus Ann Eliza Webb. Webb sued for
>alimony,
>> but Young successfully argued that their relationship was not a legal
>marriage,
>> but rather an "ecclesiastical affair." Even though that case makes it
>obvious
>> that even Brigham Young admitted that Mormon polygamous unions were not
>legal
>> marriages, you are ignoring the facts of history in order to futilely argue
>> your case that Joseph Smith's plural marriages were legal marriages.
>I remember that. She tried to sue him for half the value
>of Utah. Judge didn't buy it.
The amount of the alimony is irrelevant to the issue of the legality of the
relationship.
>Conclusion: Brigham Young
>was a secret criminal, Randy wins, does not have to feel
>he's wrong, hooray!
I've never "felt wrong" in the first place, Woody. It is you who is terribly
wrong, and you are apparently unrehabilitatable.
>We went over all that. If you really want to know my
>opinion on it, go look me up in the google archives.
Your opinion and 50 cents will buy you a cup of Postum. We're not interested
in your opinions, Woody, we're interested in F-A-C-T-S. And the fact is that
Brigham Young admitted that his "plural marriages" were not legal marriages, in
order to win his divorce case against Ann Eliza Webb. And that fact negates
your futile assertion that Mormon "plural marriages" were legal marriages.
I've also noted in the past how the 1997 LDS lesson manual "The Teachings
of...Brigham Young", in the biographical overview of his life, only lists his
two legal wives, and completely omits any mention of his 55+- "plural wives."
That omission is church leaders' unsopken admission that Young's "plural wives"
were not legal wives.
(Of course, modern LDS church leaders are trying like hell to omit mention any
mention of 19th-century polygamy at all, because they are embarrassed at the
questions its discussion raises, such as this discussion here does.)
> I'm
>not going to waste my time trying to educate you on yet
>another thing you will never understand, because you don't
>want to understand it, and derive justification from the
>fact that nobody can make you understand it.
Perhaps the reason I cannot understand what you are writing is that you haven't
educated me on anything.
>> >Note that once a law is struck down by the Supreme Court, it's
>> >no longer unconstitutional. It's nonexistent. Only laws
>> >which have NOT been struck down YET can be unconstitutional.
>> All I can do is repeat myself, Woody:
>I've noticed that!
If you weren't so dense, I wouldn't need to repeat things.
>>... If you're asserting that the 1833
>> Illinois anti-bigamy laws didn't apply to the Mormons, or were
>> "unconsitutional," then you're going to have to cite the case law which
>> documents your position. Merely stating it doesn't cut the mustard.
>Nauvoo Charter, for a starter,
Covered above.
>but since the case didn't
>come up in court, how you gonna prove anything about it
>one way or another?
The case didn't come up in court because Joseph Smith didn't mount a legal
challenge to the Illinois anti-bigamy law. Rather, he denied being a
polygamist, and called his accusers liars. But the fact that no legal
challenge was made to the Illinois anti-bigamy law did not give Smith & Co. the
right to secretly practice polygamy in violation of that law.
> I can tell you that a law that is
>clearly unconstitutional is clearly unconstitutional, but
>if you don't want to believe it you can just hem and haw.
>No one can even make you admit the moon is round.
One more time, Wooden-head: A "law," by definition, is constitutional, until
challenged and declared UNconstitutional via the legal process. To support
your assertion that the 1833 Illinois anti-bigamy law was "unconstitutional,"
you're going to have to cite the case law wherein it was declared so----which
is what I asked you to do in the first place. If you can't cite the case, then
all your blowing and blathering is for naught.
>> >We've been over this several times, Randy. I think there must
>> >be some reason why you don't seem able to learn this. I know!
>> >It's because you are a Clueless AOL Lamer. Maybe you were not
>> >aware, but AOL stands for "Internet Filtering System". It
>> >gathers up all the idiots who cannot figure out how to click
>> >on a link, (or how to cancel their AOL service) and herds them
>> >all together and gives them "content" to dazzle them so they
>> >don't notice they're only seeing about 5% of the internet (and
>> >the internet only sees about 0.01% of them.)
>> >
>> >If you didn't know you were on AOL, check your email address.
>>
>> You're right, Woody. I'm too stupid to be able to click on a link.
>
>Yes.
>>... Would you
>> mind helping me out by clicking on a link yourself, and finding where the
>1833
>> Illinois anti-bigamy law was struck down?
Dang, Woody. No response to this?
>> Oh, by the way: My feeble brain earned me $2,565 this week. What did your
>> brain do for you this week, Woody?
>Wow, that should pay for the space in the trailer park. What
>are you going to do when next year comes and it's due again?
>Can't grow another brain.
Now we see what your brain did for you this week.
One more time, Woody: The Mormons in Utah were subject to common laws of the
states. It's the same as if a U. S. citizen of today who was legally married,
moved to Puerto Rico (a U. S. territory) and attempted to marry someone else
without obtaining a legal divorce from their existing spouse. If they atempted
to do so, and were found out, they could be charged with bigamy.
>This was verified when the lawyers
>in San Fran combed the books to see if they could find anything
>to pin on Parley Pratt, as documented in a SF Chronicle letter
>which Pratt copies in his autobiography. I've got the letter
>online at http://web.lds.net/pages/wwbrison/pppratt.htm#100
I'm quite familiar with Pratt's apologetics. Pratt's arguments are refuted by
the facts of Brigham Young's divorce suit against Ann Elizw Webb: The Mormons'
"plural marriages" were merely "ecclesiastical affairs," and not legal, civil
marriages.
>Second, the Congress had to pass a law to make polygamy illegal.
Congress had to pass a law to specifically address the Mormon practice of
polygamy, but polygamy (or bigamy) was already illegal under U. S. common laws.
>Before that, which was 1880's IIRC, it was not illegal; why else
>did they pass the law?
The first law Congress passed which was directed specifically at Mormon
polygamy was the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, in 1862. The Mormons continued to
violate that specific federal law for another forty years. The Mormons argued
the "religious freedom" angle (as you do), but the Morrill Act was upheld in
the Reynolds case of 1879.
"On 6 January 1879, in a case involving the late President Young's secretary,
George Reynolds, the high court [Supreme Court] ruled that every government has
a right to determine the form of marriage within its jurisdiction and that the
laws enacted against the practice of plural marriage were constitutional. As a
result of that decision Elder Reynolds was sent to prison."---("My Kingdom
Shall Roll Forth," pub. by the LDS Church, 1979.)
In 1882, the Edmunds Act, which provided further definitions and punishments
for "unlawful cohabitation," was signed into law.
>We've been thru all this several times,
>and you've never given us any rebuttal on these two facts. Just
>frosty silence. Why is that?
To the contrary, I've documented all of this numerous times.
>So there went the majority of your puffery right there. You
>can really squirt out a paragraph when you get riled, but the
>trick is making it true and having it be rational.
>
>As for Deseret being authorized, it was authorized on the
>basis of the popular mandate, on land nobody else claimed,
>so this is just more of your funny foam.
The Utah area became U. S. property after the Mexican War in 1848. U. S.
territories don't have the authority to form their own governments or make
their own laws. That's why the "State of Deseret" was never a legal entity,
and made no laws concerning marriage or anything else.
>As for the LDS being citizens, they were run out of the
>United States for their religious convictions.
Nope, they voluntarily chose to leave the U. S. because they would not obey U.
S. laws. Brigham Young's intention was to create a theocratic dictatorship,
independent of U. S. laws.
> If I were
>to judge this matter, I would ask why the rest of the country
>did not forfeit their citizenship when they turned the cold
>shoulder on them?
You only ask such a silly question because of your abject ignorance of the
history.
>As for why the LDS went to Utah, they can have deep convictions,
>risk their lives and even give them up, some of them, in order
>to move themselves to a new land, for reasons which they have
>well understood and repeatedly expressed; but it's useless.
>When Rantin' Randy comes along in 2002 he'll tell us the REAL
>reasons.
I've been telling you the real reasons for five years now.
>> >What great "truth" are you going
>> >to dump on us now that I've revealed this new surprise,
>> >which has been known since long before the time of Christ?
>> The "great truth" is that there are always two versions of Mormon history:
>The
>> Mormon version, and the truth.
>And they are the same. Is that a splendid thing or what?
>
>Wood
Nope, the two are opposites, as amply demonstrated by your ignorant assertions
in this thread.
Randy j.
R.L. Measures
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
> Woody, I'm snipping out most of your insufferable blowing and blathering in
> this response in order to focus on the facts:
>
€ the evidence shows that Joseph only legally married one woman - Emma
Hale. The rest of the ''marriages'' (46) were not legal. They were
basically pretend marriages - mostly for the purpose of fornication with
teenbabes. owever, there is no evidence that Joseph coupled with anyone
under the ripe old age of 14. Thus, Joseph could not have been convicted
of bigamy in a court of law.
--
Rich, 805-386-3734, www.vcnet.com/measures (radio)
www.vcnet.com/measures/library.html (org. religion)
Iosepa Hawai'i Loa
>>It should be noted that the affidavits and indictments Smith was
>>referring to were those which charged him with adultery and polygamy.
It should be noted that Joseph Smith did *NOT* have sexual relationships
outside the bounds of marriage (that we know of).
>>His remarks in this
>>speech were
>>merely the last in a long line of denials that he was practicing
>>polygamy.
He was denying adultery, not polygamy. Polygamy was still legal at the
time, so he could not be indicted for it.
> He
>>called his accusers "corrupt" and "false swearers," but history has
>>proven that
>>Smith himself was the liar.
>>
>>Randy J.
>>
> This is my currect understanding, unless someone can convince me
> otherwise. G
Once Brother Joseph was dead, he no longer had to deal with the devils of
corrupt and false witnesses. I think this pretty much sums up the
quoted portion of his speach.
Iosepa Hawai'i Loa
--
: Ua Mau Ke Ea O Ka 'Aina I Ka Pono
: The Life/Sovereignty of the Land is Perpetuated in Righteousness
Iosepa Hawai'i Loa
> Joseph Smith was referring to the affidavits and indictments which had
> been sworn against him for charges of adultery and polygamy.
>
> Was Joseph Smith telling the truth when he called those who charged him
> with adultery and poygamy "corrupt" and "false swearers?"
>
> Surely even a Mormon can answer that one.
>
> Randy J.
Sorry, but polygamy was not against the law, therefore the indictments
could legally only covered adultery, of which Brother Joseph was
innocent. He had multiple families, but he was married (not just common
law, either) to the mothers of all his children.
TheJordan6
>Date: 9/2/2002 1:02 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3d72f0f3$1...@news5.nntpserver.com>
>
>On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 17:41:27 -0600, TheJordan6 wrote:
>
>> Joseph Smith was referring to the affidavits and indictments which had
>> been sworn against him for charges of adultery and polygamy.
>>
>> Was Joseph Smith telling the truth when he called those who charged him
>> with adultery and poygamy "corrupt" and "false swearers?"
>>
>> Surely even a Mormon can answer that one.
>>
>> Randy J.
>Sorry, but polygamy was not against the law, therefore the indictments
>could legally only cover adultery, of which Brother Joseph was
>innocent.
"Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or husbands at one and the same
time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive. If any persons
within the state, being married, or who shall hereafter marry, do at any time
marry any person or persons, the former husband or wife being alive, the person
so offended shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine, not exceeding
one thousand dollars, and imprisoned in the penitentiary, not exceeding two
years."
---"Revised Laws of Illinois," 1833.
Joseph Smith's entry in his history for May 25, 1844 reads in part:
"Saturday, 25 -- At home, keeping out of the way of expected writs from
Carthage. Towards evening, Edward Hunter and William Marks, of the grand jury
returned from Carthage; also Marshal John P. Greene and Almon W. Babbitt, who
informed me there were two
indictments found against
me, one charging me with false swearing on the testimony of Joseph H. Jackson
and Robert D. Foster, and one charging me of polygamy, or something else, on
the testimony of William Law....."
LDS historian Todd Compton (a contributing author on the FARMS website)
comments on this incident:
"The marriage to the Lawrence sisters became public knowledge when William Law,
Joseph's second counselor in the First Presidency, became alienated from the
Prophet. Law, who had known the Lawrence family since their conversion in
Canada, chose the marriage of Smith and Maria Lawrence as a test case with
which to prosecute Smith for adultery. On May 23 he filed suit against the
Mormon leader in Hancock Count Circuit Court, at Carthage, charging that Smith
had been living with Maria Lawrence 'in an open state of adultery' from October
12, 1843, to the day of the suit. In response, Smith flatly denied polygamy in
a speech delivered on May 26: 'What a thing it is for a man to be accused of
committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can find only one.' As
polygamy was illegal under US law,
Smith had little choice but to openly repudiate the practice. But as is often
the case with secret policies that are denied publicly, Smith's credibility
would later suffer. Realistically he must have understood that thirty-three or
more marriages could not be kept a secret forever, and that when they became
known the gulf between his public statements and private practice would come
back to haunt him."
("In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith," pp. 476-477.)
>He had multiple families, but he was married (not just common
>law, either) to the mothers of all his children.
>
>Iosepa Hawai'i Loa
Please provide documentation which shows that Joseph Smith was legally married
(not just common law married) to any of his secret "plural wives."
Please document the LDS church's canonized, published rules concerning adultery
and marriage which were in force during Joseph Smith's administration.
Please document for us the legal marriage status of the following women during
the period of Joseph Smith's polygamy practice in Nauvoo 1840-44:
Lucinda Morgan Harris
Zina Huntington Jacobs
Prescindia Huntington Buell
Sylvia Sessions Lyon
Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner
Patty Bartlett Sessions
Marinda Johnson Hyde
Elizabeth Davis Durfee
Sarah Kingsley Cleveland
Ruth Vose Sayers
Elvira Ann Cowles Holmes
Leonora Taylor
Jane Law
Please list the names of all children Joseph Smith sired by any of his "plural
wives." Please list the legal marital status of their mothers.
Randy J.
grouch
>Once Brother Joseph was dead, he no longer had to deal with the devils of
>corrupt and false witnesses. I think this pretty much sums up the
>quoted portion of his speach.
>
>Iosepa Hawai'i Loa
>
evidence one holds. History declares that all organized religion at one time
or another, enter into deviate sexual practices, especially the leaders.
Mormonism is no worse nor better than the others. If one wants to be told how
to live and how to think, organized religion is the way to go. G
R.L. Measures
rgro...@wmconnect.comfooey (grouch) wrote:
**
- ³The sex drive itself gave organized religion an opportunity to amass
what was indisputably the greatest power ever lodged in human hands.² -
Rabbi Abraham Feinberg
Lee Paulson
"Iosepa Hawai'i Loa" <ios...@wingetsolutions.com> wrote in message
news:3d72f007$1...@news5.nntpserver.com...
> On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:36:16 -0600, grouch wrote:
>
>
> >>His remarks in this
> >>speech were
> >>merely the last in a long line of denials that he was practicing
> >>polygamy.
>
> He was denying adultery, not polygamy. Polygamy was still legal at the
> time, so he could not be indicted for it.
>
> > He
snip
Polygamy was not legal at the time. Where did you get that idea?
grouch
>- ³The sex drive itself gave organized religion an opportunity to amass
>what was indisputably the greatest power ever lodged in human hands.² -
>Rabbi Abraham Feinberg
>
credibility on his statement. G
grouch
>Polygamy was not legal at the time. Where did you get that idea?
I think the 'idea' salves' his concience and supports his view, truth not
withstanding. G
TheJordan6
>Date: 9/3/2002 11:19 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20020903111946...@mb-mp.wmconnect.com>
>
>>
>>Polygamy was not legal at the time. Where did you get that idea?
>
>I think the 'idea' salves' his concience and supports his view, truth not
>withstanding. G
The basic mental activity of Mormon apologists is to maintain an attitude of
intellectual denial of documented facts.
Randy J.
grouch
>intellectual denial of documented facts.
>
>
>Randy J.
>
Fool Speck
>
>
> >>It should be noted that the affidavits and indictments Smith was
> >>referring to were those which charged him with adultery and polygamy.
>
> It should be noted that Joseph Smith did *NOT* have sexual relationships
> outside the bounds of marriage (that we know of).
>
> >>His remarks in this
> >>speech were
> >>merely the last in a long line of denials that he was practicing
> >>polygamy.
>
> He was denying adultery, not polygamy. Polygamy was still legal at the
> time, so he could not be indicted for it.
You could not be more wrong about this. There was a law passed long
before the Mormons settled in Nauvoo Illinois. An anti-bigamy or
anti-polygamy law was enacted on February 12, 1833 in the State of
Illinois. There were anti-bigamy laws as well in the states of Ohio
and Missouri that were passed previously to Mormons settling there.
> Once Brother Joseph was dead, he no longer had to deal with the devils of
> corrupt and false witnesses. I think this pretty much sums up the
> quoted portion of his speach.
Actually history, even limited to Mormon publications, has proven
beyond any shadow of a doubt that Joseph Smith lied repeatedly. Are
you familiar with what was D&C 101 in Joseph's time? It condemned
polygamy straight out, and remained in the D&C until 1872. Joseph
further denied this in an editorial he wrote in the _Times and
Seasons_.
(from a post by Jackie Chan:)
Joseph Smith himself signed off on the proceedings, never objected to
the Article on Marriage, and as a matter of fact, openly cited this
strongly worded monogamist Article in the official LDS journal he
published, as "the rule of the church on this important matter":
"Inasmuch as the public mind has been unjustly abused through the
fallacy of Dr. Bennett's letters, we make an extract on the subject of
marriage, showing the rule of the church on this important matter. The
extract is from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and is the only
rule
allowed by the church. 'All legal contracts of marriage made before a
person is baptized into this church, should be held sacred and
fulfilled. 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.'" (Joseph
Smith, editorial, Times and Seasons, Vol. 3. No. 21. Nauvoo, Illinois,
Sept. 1, 1842. Whole No. 57., p.909)
Times and Seasons page 939, Vol. III
We have given the above rule of marriage as the only one practiced in
this church, to show that Dr. J. C. Bennett's "secret wife system" is
a matter of his own manufacture; and further to disabuse the public
ear, and shew [show] that the said Bennett and his misanthropic friend
Origen Bachelor, are perpetrating a foul and infamous slander upon an
innocent people, and need but be known to be hated and despise. In
support of this position, we present the following certificates:-
We the undersigned members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints and residents of the city of Nauvoo, persons of families do
hereby certify and declare that we know of no other rule or system of
marriage than the one published from the Book of Doctrine and
Covenants, and we give this certificate to show that Dr. J. C.
Bennett's "secret wife system"
(page 939)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
is a creature of his own make as we know of no such society in this
place nor never did.
S. Bennett, N. K. Whitney,
George Miller, Albert Pettey,
Alpheus Cutler, Elias Higbee,
Reynolds Cahoon, John Taylor,
Wilson Law, E. Robinson,
W. Woodruff, Aaron Johnson.
We the undersigned members of the ladies' relief society, and married
females do certify and declare that we know of no system of marriage
being practised [practiced] in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter
Day Saints save the one contained in the Book of Doctrine and
Covenants, and we give this certificate to the public to show that J.
C. Bennett's "secret wife system" is a disclosure of his own make.
Emma Smith, President,
Elizabeth Ann Whitney, Counsellor [Counselor],
Sarah M. Cleveland, Counsellor [Counselor],
Eliza R. Snow, Secretary,
Mary C. Miller, Catharine Pettey,
Lois Cutler, Sarah Higbee,
Thirza Cahoon, Phebe Woodruff
Ann Hunter, Leonora Taylor,
Jane Law, Sarah Hillman,
Sophia R. Marks, Rosannah Marks,
Polly Z. Johnson, Angeline Robinson,
Abigail Works.
--- Steve Lowther
AnthonyPaul
>Date: 9/3/02 7:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <al2824$1lurtm$1...@ID-146277.news.dfncis.de>
There were no "federal" laws against polygamy until the Morrill Act (1862).
Anthony
TheJordan6
>Date: 9/2/2002 12:58 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3d72f007$1...@news5.nntpserver.com>
>
>On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:36:16 -0600, grouch wrote:
>
>
>>>It should be noted that the affidavits and indictments Smith was
>>>referring to were those which charged him with adultery and polygamy.
>
>It should be noted that Joseph Smith did *NOT* have sexual relationships
>outside the bounds of marriage (that we know of).
Perhaps you could support this assertion by listing
a) Joseph Smith's legal marriage status
b) the names of Joseph Smith's known "plural wives" and
c) their legal marriage status on the date of their "marriage" to Smith.
>>>His remarks in this
>>>speech were
>>>merely the last in a long line of denials that he was practicing
>>>polygamy.
>He was denying adultery, not polygamy.
Smith denied teaching or practicing polygamy, and/or non-monogamous
relationships by any other name many times.
>Polygamy was still legal at the
>time, so he could not be indicted for it.
Polygamy (a.k.a. bigamy) was illegal in the state of Illinois where Joseph
Smith resided, and he was indicted on charges of polygamy and adultery in May
1844.
Randy J.
grouch
>Polygamy (a.k.a. bigamy) was illegal in the state of Illinois where Joseph
>Smith resided, and he was indicted on charges of polygamy and adultery in May
>1844.
>
>Randy J.
All the twisting and turning and playing games with words cannot change the
fact that Joseph Smith entered into some very animalistic sexual practices,
which such practices will, (if we are to believe the LDS), continue in Heaven.
LOL. Stick to your guns, Randy, you have history backing you up. G
Lee Paulson
"AnthonyPaul" <antho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020903165411...@mb-mr.aol.com...
Please reconsider, Anthony.
States regulate marriage. Polygamy was illegal in Illinois at the time.
R.L. Measures
rgro...@wmconnect.comfooey (grouch) wrote:
€ Feinberg was able to see the invisible workings of inculcation like few
others.
R.L. Measures
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
€ behold the invisible cornerstone of the Mormonite religion.
AnthonyPaul
>Message-id: <al4q0g$1mtoaa$1...@ID-146277.news.dfncis.de>
There is nothing to reconsider.
Where would a person get the idea that polygamy was not illegal back in 1844?
Perhaps all they are familiar with is the 1862 Morrill Act or the Edmund Act
which came at a later date.
Anthony