WaPo: Hey, did you hear what that Mormon militia did 150 years ago?

posted at 6:05 pm on May 21, 2012 by Allahpundit

The best part of this story is their pretext for running it, the supposedly real possibility that something that happened between Mormons and Christians 150 years ago might cause Romney to lose … Arkansas. The same state where Obama’s struggling to win the Democratic primary.

I’ve seen some impressive concern-trolling in my day, but concern-trolling and Mormon-baiting in the same piece is bravura stuff. Alternate headline: “Mitt Romney, terrorist spawn?”

On Sept. 11, 1857, a wagon train from this part of Arkansas met with a gruesome fate in Utah, where most of the travelers were slaughtered by a Mormon militia in an episode known as the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Hundreds of the victims’ descendants still populate these hills and commemorate the killings, which they have come to call “the first 9/11.”

“There have been Fancher family reunions for 150 years, and the massacre comes up at every one of them,” said Scott Fancher, 58, who traces his lineage back to 26 members of the wagon train, which was known as the Fancher-Baker party. “The more whiskey we drunk, the more resentful we got.”

There aren’t many places in America more likely to be suspicious of Mormonism — and potentially more problematic for Mitt Romney, who is seeking to become the country’s first Mormon president. Not only do many here retain a personal antipathy toward the religion and its followers, but they also tend to be Christian evangelicals, many of whom view Mormonism as a cult.

And yet, there is scant evidence that Romney’s religion is making much difference in how voters here are thinking about the presidential election and whether they are willing to back the former Massachusetts governor.

I take it back. Apparently the story’s about how there isn’t a possibility of Romney losing the state, in which case I guess the “news angle” here, such as it is, is that maybe there should be a possibility given how terrible the incident with the militia was. All we need now is a segment tomorrow on MSNBC about how “people are talking” about the 1857 Mormon militia raid and this latest distraction-of-the-day dumpster-dive news cycle will be complete.

Go read John Nolte on the Rev. Wright double standard and Guy Benson on why Axelrod is so comfortable in saying that Romney’s faith should be off-limits. Of course it’s off-limits for the campaign: The media will make an issue of Romney’s faith on the campaign’s behalf by treating it as “news.” Exit question: Am I right in thinking that WaPo resorts to this sort of decades-old (or centuries-old, in this case) character attack on Republicans more often than, say, the NYT does? That’s not to absolve the Times — the 2008 hit piece on McCain and his non-affair with a lobbyist is legendary — but my sense is that it happens more often with WaPo. They obsessed over Bob McDonnell’s master’s thesis, they hit Perry for the rock with the racial slur on property his family didn’t even own, they went after Romney a few weeks ago for forcibly cutting a kid’s hair 50 years ago, and now they’re exploring whether Romney will be somehow held culpable for the “Mormon 9/11″ from the 19th century or whatever. I have no way of quantifying how many pieces WaPo has run like this versus how many the Times has run, but my hunch is that you’ll find more from the former than the latter. Maybe Newsbusters or the MRC or some other media watchdog has stats.

Update: Meanwhile, it’s starting to look like Obama’s Super PAC might not hold on to that Bill Maher check for much longer:

Maher, a major donor to a super PAC backing Obama, had tweeted “Why even listen to #MittRomney on foreign policy? His entire FP experience is 2 yrs trying to brow-beat Frenchmen into joining his cult.” The former Massachusetts governor spent two years in France as a missionary.

“Attacking a candidate’s religion is out of bounds, and our campaign will not engage in it, and we don’t think others should either,” campaign spokeswoman Lis Smith told Yahoo News by email.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

The Washington Post has their Priorities Straight

ravenhairedmaid on May 22, 2012 at 7:43 AM

Slavery?

We don’t need a report on how fast the “New Overseers” in the Democratic Party cracked the whip and got the Mayor of Newark to dance like they wanted after his Sunday news show comments.

MNHawk on May 22, 2012 at 7:30 AM

Oh you are probably talking about that “Extermination Order” which was merely an attempt to kill all the Mormons. Many people, outside of DOJ and ATF, may think that was extreme but it was actually just a cleansing operation. Firearms were to be used only on the targeted Mormons so it was actually much less dangerous than “Fast and Furious” which we aren’t even investigating today.

IlikedAUH2O on May 22, 2012 at 8:06 AM

Then there’s that little murder of Joseph Smith by Illinois officials. No doubt Obama’s fault, for those with the mental capacity of a Washington Post reader.

MNHawk on May 22, 2012 at 8:31 AM

I wonder if WaPo will mention the Harry dinger Reid is also a Mormon. I wonder if they will attack Harry just like they are attacking Mitten.

watertown on May 22, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Like a dirty grey blanket, the smell of Obama’s desperation covers the land.

swinia sutki on May 22, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Hey, did you hear what Sen. Barack Obama did in 2007?

Remember this?

We’ve never gotten a satisfactory answer as to WHY US Taxpayers PAID for Barack Obama to travel to Kenya and campaign with Raila Odinga–a cousin in the Luo Tribe–who then directed a massacre against his opponents in the Kikuyu tribe when he lost he election.

Why was our US Senator Barack Obama campaigning for Raila Odinga–a MUSLIM who campaigned for Sharia Law in Kenya–and why did US taxpayers PAY FOR IT?

I remember this story well during the primary; it was never covered by mainstream media much and there were no answers offered as to WHY OBAMA USED US TAXPAYER MONEY TO CAMPAIGN FOR A MUSLIM CANDIDATE WHO even used “CHANGE” as his campaign theme, stating he supported SHARIA LAW in Kenya.

http://www.military-money-matters.com/obama-and-odinga.html#axzz1vbLz4gF4

mountainaires on May 22, 2012 at 9:09 AM

I’ve seen some impressive concern-trolling in my day, but concern-trolling and Mormon-baiting in the same piece is bravura stuff. Alternate headline: “Mitt Romney, terrorist spawn?”

Well, it’s one way to keep attention off of the nation-building with Islam, I guess. Oh, and the nation-destructing stuff, too, with Islam.

Lourdes on May 22, 2012 at 9:42 AM

I wrote the writer, I won’t call her a reporter. No response. I usually get, at least, a “Shut up,” they explained.

gitarfan on May 22, 2012 at 9:44 AM

I wrote the “reporter”. I expressed sympathy that she would have something as ugly and senseless as this hit piece in her resume.

claudius on May 22, 2012 at 10:05 AM

I know all about Moutain Meadow. It’s one of the worst episodes in the history of the American West. It has nothing to do with Romney and I would hope the Romney spokesmen would take this opportunity to talk about Obama’s cousin, the one Obama supported for President of Kenya. Here’s a summary of Odinga’s career, a man Obama knew and endorsed, and I’m very sure that if someone did a bit of research they could unearth some more interesting stuff:

On December 27th, 2007, when Raila Odinga lost the presidential election to Mwai Kibaki, he claimed the vote was rigged, whereupon his tribal followers went on murderous rampages, such as in the town of Eldoret, where on New Years Day dozens of Christians were burned to death in a church set on fire. Throughout Kenya, hundreds of people have been politically murdered in the last few days.

Islam had picked Raila to win.

The Evangelical Alliance of Kenya has posted on its website a photograph copy of a Memorandum of Understanding, dated and signed on August 29, 2007, between Raila Odinga and Shiekh Abdullah Abdi, chairman of the National Muslim Leaders Forum of Kenya.

Here is a summary on the agreement which was signed:

* It pledges the support of Kenyan Moslems for Raila’s election. In return, as President of Kenya, Raila agrees to 14 actions, listed a) through n) on page two.

* Within 6 months re-write the Constitution of Kenya to recognize Shariah as the only true law sanctioned by the Holy Quran for Muslim declared regions.

* Within one year facilitate the establishment of a Shariah court in every Kenyan divisional headquarters. [Note: everywhere in Kenya, not just in "Muslim declared regions."]

* Popularize Islam, the only true religion… by ordering every primary school in Kenya in the regions to conduct daily Madrassa classes.

* Impose a total ban on open-air gospel crusades by worshippers of the cross…

* Outlaw gospel programs… on KBC, the National Broadcaster.

* Impose a total ban on the public consumption of alcoholic beverages…

* Impose an immediate ban on women’s public dressing styles that are considered immoral and offensive to the Muslim faith…

Obama’s involvement in Kenyan politics, whether tribal or religious, is bothersome.

Especially if it is both.

Then, On January 2nd, 2008, in classic Marxist tradition, Odinga, accused President Mwai Kibaki of stealing the Dec. 27 election, and rallied his Luo followers in western Kenya, demanding a new election.

Kibaki “must step down or there must be a re-election — in this I will not be compromised. You cannot steal my cow, and I catch you red-handed, and then expect me to share the milk because the cow is mine.”

More than 1,000 people, mostly Kikuyu Christians, have been killed and 300,000 forced from their homes by Odinga’s followers.

Portia46 on May 22, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Mitt Romney was born in 1947. Why should he be “blamed” (or even associated with) something some renegade Mormons did 90 years before he was born?

As much as Elizabeth Warren should be blamed for her great-great-great-grandfather killing Cherokees in Tennessee.

Do people blame Marco Rubio (born in 1971) for what his fellow Cuban Fidel Castro did in 1959?

Do people blame Margaret Thatcher or Winston Churchill for what the British did to Americans between 1773 and 1812?

It’s also a known fact that Barack Obama Sr. (the current President’s father, about whom he dreamed for 400+ pages) tried to overthrow the elected Kenyan government, during Barack Obama Jr.’s lifetime.

No person has any control over what his/her ancestors, or those of the same religion, have done before his/her birth. Let’s compare what Mitt Romney and Barack Obama Jr. have done thermselves during their adult lifetimes.

Steve Z on May 22, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Speaking of bullies (the unfruitful claim from Obama, Axelrod et al), why in the h e double l aren’t Republicans using that meme to address the prime means of persuasion of the Obama Administration: bullying; using the full power of the federal government to attack an average American couple building their dream home; to tell banks they either take TARP or go out of business; to silence Tea Party activists via the IRS; to create enemy lists and turn the names over to the main stream media to pillory and destroy personally and financially; to silence all conservative speech via the White House’s attempt to actually close Fox News and Obama’s master puppetier’s efforts to shut Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin down.

A haircut compared to a total attack on all opposition? Are you kidding me? Why oh why aren’t Republicans fighting back on this? Pushing a little girl down is nothing compared to the total attack on the First Amendment.

Portia46 on May 22, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Romney is going to win this election if this is all they have got.

William Eaton on May 22, 2012 at 10:29 AM

5.5 months to go and Wapo is already talking about the Mountain Meadows Massacre? I wasn’t expecting to see this trotted out until right around 9/11. I shudder to think of what October is going to look like.

Kataklysmic on May 22, 2012 at 10:31 AM

There is is real problem that America has in general to excuse away it’s own intolerance and bigotry to “religion” and the FREEDOM our founding fathers based it’s foundation on.

If this election is going to be an attack on the LDS/Morman faith than it would also in fact be an attack on ALL faith entirely. I would hope that we are all in fact ready for that.

Arkansas was not the only historical example of fights to the death where “Christian” believers regardless of church body association have clashed… it is a HUMANKIND issue that religion gets blamed for.

Man will always be his own worse enemy. Check the historical massacre of Mormons on our own country’s soil in Missouri… A very sad and dark example of how our own government went after it’s own citizenry solely based on it’s fear and hatred. Not that I am promoting the LDS church but if you wish to take a bit of time to educate yourself and at least look at what has really happened and has been recorded.

ActinUpinTexas on May 22, 2012 at 10:39 AM

I shudder to think of what October is going to look like.

Kataklysmic on May 22, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Temple ceremony. Brigham and Joseph in their own words. That’s why this has to fail worse than Superman in a room full of naked women.

Odinga. Rather like the Obama accusation of polygamy practiced by Romney ancestors he never met. Obama MET the polygamists in his family and wrote a book celebrating his polygamist father.

Portia46 on May 22, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Man will always be his own worse enemy. Check the historical massacre of Mormons on our own country’s soil in Missouri… A very sad and dark example of how our own government went after it’s own citizenry solely based on it’s fear and hatred. Not that I am promoting the LDS church but if you wish to take a bit of time to educate yourself and at least look at what has really happened and has been recorded.

ActinUpinTexas on May 22, 2012 at 10:39 AM

May I suggest you not defend via Missouri? There really is two sides to this story and you could easily lose. The Mormon victim thing cannot be defended without a whole bunch of stuff you do not want to talk about coming out. The residents of Jackson County thought they were the victims. Stick to Odinga and the very defensible fact that Romney had nothing whatsoever to do with any of it.

His religion gives him joy and the structure for a good life based on family, church and country. Leave it at that. Turn the argument onto Obama not Missourians (a state we need for goodness sake)

Portia46 on May 22, 2012 at 10:49 AM

The memory and concern about the Mountain Meadows Massacre is still very much in the memories of people living in the area: I have relatives in Cortez, CO.

The Mormon mindset encourages those memories, being aggressive recruiters for their cause. More to the point, they have a well earned reputation for clannishness to the point of ignoring legitimate claims of any outside their group. It is not the history but the now that is important.

My relatives have friend who are Mormons, would be hard not too with so many around. It is necessary to establish ground rules about personal conversion efforts, the faith lacking any respect for other views short of strong action on ones part.

Mormonism recruits like any revealed religion: your special and nothing is your fault.

Denver Bob on May 22, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Denver Bob on May 22, 2012 at 11:29 AM

It’s a problem all right. I’ve said that Mormonism isn’t a nuclear bomb, it’s more like landmines spread all over the internet. They get into the weeds defending the indefensible and they lose every time. The trick in debate is to turn the argument and that doesn’t work if you’ve got a personal agenda.

Portia46 on May 22, 2012 at 11:44 AM

I don’t think WaPo worries about truth or lies; just about whatever will support what they choose to believe; and what they hope to encourage others to believe. I’m an independent, and while discussing this WaPo article last night, the unanimous feeling was “WTF, WaPo?” rofloao

dahni on May 22, 2012 at 11:48 AM

I am waiting for the WAPO article about African tribal wars 150 years ago, and witch doctors using baby parts for magic spells

Difference is the world is still having problems with witch doctors and missing babies, but Mormon militias are few and far between

entagor on May 22, 2012 at 12:35 PM

On Sept. 11, 1857, …

That’s when I should have just stopped reading this article. It’s only a sign of desperation if they have to dredge up something that happened over a century ago.

heretic on May 22, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Darron Smith’s article about black people and BYU is bullcrap. Several black mormons have spoken up and said he is wrong. Brandon Davies was reinstated to the BYU basketball team and will graduate next year. Regarding the Mountain Meadows Massacre Mitt Romney is a small part of the story since the murder of his great great grandfather in Arkansas is was precipitated it. Parley P Pratt was one of the most beloved Mormon leaders at that time and he was shot numerous times and then left to die out in the plains of northeastern Arkansas. When that group came through Utah some of them bragged that they had participated in his killing. There were also rumors that the group had poisoned some local water wells. The actual Massacre took place because John D Lee did not want any witnesses of some of the killing he and the other group of Mormons had done before. Brigham Young DID NOT order the massacre as he was 250 miles away at the time. The church has put out a book with its version of what happened. It is called “massacre at mountain meadow”. Lots of things contributed to the massacre happening and it was not a matter of Brigham Young saying “go kill those settlers” it is a complicated story.

rushlimbang on May 22, 2012 at 2:18 PM

I will also add that the reason Parley P Pratt was killed is because he was traveling to go pick up a woman who had converted to Mormonism and became one of his plural wives. The killer was her estranged husband who felt that he had turned her against him. He had been known for beating her while the two of them lived in San Francisco.

http://jared.pratt-family.org/parley_histories/parley-death-stephen-pratt.html

rushlimbang on May 22, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Next stop on the WaPo Wayback time machine should be about 250 years ago or around 1760 or so.
Interesting what they might find on Romney.

Jabberwock on May 22, 2012 at 2:40 PM

And since when are people in the US “legaly and fairly” lynched or punished at all for simply being “legally and fairly” jailed?

The actual quote was that he was “illegally and unfairly lynched” AFTER being “legally and fairly jailed.”

Lynching is a crime, because the person lynched was not properly convicted in a fair trial. The lack of a trial means that we will never be able to answer the question of guilt or innocence.

After Joseph Smith was assasinated, the case ofthe burning down the Expositor went to court and all the accused wre aquitted of any and all wrong doing.

You mean, after Joseph Smith was lynched, and the prime suspect dead, the state was not able to prove he had been guilty? Does this prove innocence, or was it the result of the destruction of evidence? We’ll never know now.

The LDS Church then became in a strong position to sue the state of Illinois for damages. Governor Ford broke his promise to Joseph Smith offering him him personal protection while in jail but instead left with many of his troops immediately after Smith was “legally and fairly” jailed. The LDS Church could have also sued for damages to its properties by the mobs but instead chose not to pursue any legal action against the state. This was in hopes to pursue peace with the state. The mormons soon after went into self exile and the Nauvoo Temple was burned to the ground.

I can plainly see who is doing the “whitewashing” here.

Darren on May 22, 2012 at 12:22 AM

Yes, you’re whitewashing. By claiming that it was about nothing but religious persecution, you whitewash the role the early Mormons had in this. There’s no real argument about the fact that Joseph Smith was lynched. But there is also historical evidence of violence from the Mormons, and of overheated rhetoric from Joseph Smith himself.

tom on May 22, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Joseph Smith was not lynched. He was shot. Are you saying the destroying of a printing press is grounds to murder him? Also Joseph Smith stopped a massacre of the entire town of Nauvoo by volutarlily surrending himself to the Illinois authorities. He could have gone on the lam and escaped but in order to keep the peace he surrendured.

rushlimbang on May 22, 2012 at 3:38 PM

didn’t allow blacks in priesthood till 1978. what took them so long? just sayin!

gemini on May 21, 2012 at 6:52 PM

What took the Southern Baptists till 1995 to renounce racism?

http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amresolution.asp?id=899

Gunlock Bill on May 22, 2012 at 3:50 PM

plus Mormons did not join the KKK they were hated by the KKK and some were even murdered. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53871772-78/south-mormon-mormons-standing.html.csp

rushlimbang on May 22, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Joseph Smith was not lynched. He was shot. Are you saying the destroying of a printing press is grounds to murder him? Also Joseph Smith stopped a massacre of the entire town of Nauvoo by volutarlily surrending himself to the Illinois authorities. He could have gone on the lam and escaped but in order to keep the peace he surrendured.

rushlimbang on May 22, 2012 at 3:38 PM

He was shot when they were trying to lynch him. Who is saying the lynching was justified? Is any lynching justified?

Jail was justified, because he was accused of a crime. Lynching was not justified. Prison would have been justified if he had been convicted, but he was killed by a lynch mob, so the trial and conviction never happened.

tom on May 22, 2012 at 4:52 PM

. . . so the trial and conviction never happened.

tom on May 22, 2012 at 4:52 PM

In America you are innocent until proven guilty. You seem to be presuming guilt, when you shouldn’t be.

Gunlock Bill on May 22, 2012 at 5:08 PM

rushlimbang on May 22, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Your version won’t hold up any more than the costumes the Mormons wore to blame it on the Indians.

You may start your research here if you really want to learn about it: http://utlm.org/topicalindexb.htm#Mountain%20Meadows%20Massacre

If you want to see a movie about it, try “September Dawn”. They’ve included a love story that didn’t happen and took some liberties about the location of the temple for the temple ceremony, but it tells what happened quite accurately.

Portia46 on May 22, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Joseph Smith was not lynched. He was shot. Are you saying the destroying of a printing press is grounds to murder him? Also Joseph Smith stopped a massacre of the entire town of Nauvoo by volutarlily surrending himself to the Illinois authorities. He could have gone on the lam and escaped but in order to keep the peace he surrendured.

rushlimbang on May 22, 2012 at 3:38 PM

The printing press was destroyed because they were printing the truth about the practice of polygamy. Smith was also accused of treason and his heroic coming back? Not quite. You can start learning about this here: http://utlm.org/topicalindexc.htm#Death

Seriously, the information I’ve furnished is just the start. The original documents are all available on the internet. Mitt Romney had nothing to do with either event and you gain nothing politcally by insisting on spreading information that can so easily be disputed.

Portia46 on May 22, 2012 at 5:17 PM

September Dawn is a pile of crap. I am aware that there are several versions of the story. Many of them are biased. Brigham Young was not some wild crazy man. Mark Twain who was no Mormon lover was impressed with him and so was Richard Burton. (Burton translated the Kama Sutra and Arabian Nights snuck into Mecca knew 20 languages and once asked Brigham Young in Salt Lake if he could become a Mormon but Brigham told him no because he wasn’t sincere)

Jon Voight who was in September Dawn has endorsed Romney anyway.

rushlimbang on May 22, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Pick a link from someplace other than an anti mormon website.

rushlimbang on May 22, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Smith was also accused of treason

With all due respect, even that does not justify mob murder. The Founding Fathers made it very difficult to convict someone of treason for a reason. It is specified in the Constitution that two witnesses must testify under oath to the same overt act or there must be a confession in open court. Neither, to my knowledge, which when comes to Mormonism is admittedly scant, ever happened with regard to Joseph Smith.

Even if he were guilty, his killers would be no less guilty of murdering him than Jack Ruby was of assassinating Lee Harvey Oswald.

Resist We Much on May 22, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Mitt Romney escaped the vetting, . . .

sartana on May 22, 2012 at 2:15 AM

WOW!!!!!

You really ARE dumber than you look.

Gunlock Bill on May 22, 2012 at 5:32 PM

You may start your research here if you really want to learn about it: http://utlm.org/topicalindexb.htm#Mountain%20Meadows%20Massacre

Portia46 on May 22, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Oh, sure. Go to a well known Mormon hate site for information about Mormons.

Got it.

Oh, and while your are there, be sure to donate to the hatred.

Gunlock Bill on May 22, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Next stop on the WaPo Wayback time machine should be about 250 years ago or around 1760 or so.
Interesting what they might find on Romney.

Jabberwock on May 22, 2012 at 2:40 PM

I hear if you trace Mitt’s ancestry back far enough he is related to a murderer named Cain.

Kataklysmic on May 22, 2012 at 5:37 PM

If you want to see a movie about it, try “September Dawn”. They’ve included a love story that didn’t happen and took some liberties about the location of the temple for the temple ceremony, but it tells what happened quite accurately.

Portia46 on May 22, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Oh, PLEEEZE! From some reviews.

‘September Dawn,’ written by an evangelical Christian, may be the worst historical drama ever made.
. . .
‘September Dawn’ presents a ham-fisted cautionary tale of religious fanaticism that would have been hooted out of even 19th-century theaters as melodrama of the most lurid kind. — Chris Kaltenbach, Baltimore Sun

Yet the clunky, heavily skewed means by which this tale is presented is nothing short of egregious, with its Mormon characters demonized with such laughable gusto, and its Christian victims cast in such a holy, noble light, that the project quickly feels less like an attempt at historical truth-telling than like shameless anti-Mormon propaganda.

LOL!!!!!

Gunlock Bill on May 22, 2012 at 5:45 PM

LOL!!!!!

Gunlock Bill on May 22, 2012 at 5:45 PM

You can cherry pick reviews all you want.

Mark Twain was a young reporter at the time and he went to Utah to investigate the Mountain Meadow murders – and he completely agreed as to Brigham Young’s involvement in it and to the coverup!

And the only guy the Mormon’s would ever convict of the massacre even admitted that Young was involved.

And – not to forget – Mountain Meadows was the worst massacre of civilians on American soil until it was eclipsed by …

9-11

HondaV65 on May 22, 2012 at 5:50 PM

I hear if you trace Mitt’s ancestry back far enough he is related to a murderer named Cain.

Kataklysmic on May 22, 2012 at 5:37 PM

Can you even provide evidence that Cain ever existed?

No – you can’t.

Sarcasm fail for the win.

HondaV65 on May 22, 2012 at 5:52 PM

tom on May 22, 2012 at 3:24 PM

The actual quote was that he was “illegally and unfairly lynched” AFTER being “legally and fairly jailed.”

Joseph Smith was NEVER lynched after being incarcerated at Carthage Jail.

However, threats of mob violence increased. In Warsaw and Carthage, newspapers called for extermination of the Mormons. On June 18, Joseph Smith mobilized his troops to protect Nauvoo. When Illinois governor Thomas Ford apparently sided with the opposition and ordered the Church leaders to stand trial again on the same charges, this time in Carthage, Joseph and Hyrum first considered appealing to U.S. President John Tyler, but then decided instead to cross the Mississippi and escape to the West. Pressured by family and friends who felt abandoned and who believed Joseph to be nearly invincible, he agreed to return and surrender; but he prophesied that he would be going “like a lamb to the slaughter” and would be “murdered in cold blood” (HC 6:555, 559). Joseph urged Hyrum to save himself and succeed him as prophet, but Hyrum refused and accompanied his brother to Carthage.

Despite his promises of protection and a fair trial, Governor Ford allowed the Smiths to be imprisoned by their enemies without bail and without a hearing on a wholly new charge of treason for having declared martial law in Nauvoo. Stating that he had to “satisfy the people,” the Governor ignored clear warnings of danger and disbanded most of the troops. He then left the hostile Carthage Greys to guard the jail and took the most dependable troops with him to Nauvoo.

During the governor’s absence, a mob of between one hundred and two hundred armed men—many of them from the disbanded Warsaw militia—gathered in late afternoon, blackened their faces with mud and gunpowder, and then stormed the jail. In less than two minutes, they overcame feigned resistance from the Greys, rushed upstairs, and fired through the closed door. Hyrum, shot first, died instantly. John Taylor, an apostle, tried to escape out a window and was shot five times, but survived to later become the Church’s third President. Only Willard Richards, another apostle, survived unharmed. Trying to go out the window to deflect attention from the two survivors inside, Joseph Smith was hit in the chest and collarbone with two shots from the open doorway and two more from outside the window. His final words as he fell to the ground outside the jail were, “O Lord, my God!” (HC 6:618). As rumors spread that the Mormons were coming, the mob dispersed.

Martyrdom of Joseph Smith

You mean, after Joseph Smith was lynched, and the prime suspect dead, the state was not able to prove he had been guilty? Does this prove innocence, or was it the result of the destruction of evidence? We’ll never know now.

No, sir. It went to trail and nobody came to testify against Joseph Smith or the LDS Church. Joseph Smith was notthe only figure involved in burning down the Expositor. It was declareda public niussance by the Nauvoo Council, which was within their full rights and authroity to do, and ordered its destruction. As Lieutenant General of the Nauvoo Legion, a title granted to Joseph Smith not by the Mormons but by the Illinois Legislators, carried out said orders as part of his duty. There were more than a few involved in burning down the Expositor yet all were acquitted in court. One main reason nobody showed up to testify is that peope fled fearing Mormon reatliation which, of course, never happened. Being acquitted of all wrong doing, the LDS Church could have very easily won in the courts if they sure the state of Illinois for damages, including Governor ford not keeping his word to provide his personal protection for Joseph Smith and for damages upon their own properties from the mobs which the state of Illinois ignored.

Yes, you’re whitewashing. By claiming that it was about nothing but religious persecution, you whitewash the role the early Mormons had in this.

That’s not entirely correct. The Expositor was dedicated to “exposing” joseph smith as a fraud/fallen prophet and was owned and lead by ex-Mormons, some of which have alreay called for the execution of Joseph Smith. This type of rhetoric oucrred previously in Missourri which lead tothe massacre at Haun’s Mill as well as to Governor Boggs issue the “Extermination Order” which authorized the state militia to execute all Mormons on sight if they did not leave the state. This was a primary concern the Nauvoo Council held when the Expositor began running its presses.

Yes, burning it down was illegal though I would argue that according tothe laws at the time, the illegality was civil, not criminal. By the time Joseph Smith turned himself in, the charge of treason was added to Joseph Smith not for the Expositor but for declaring martial law in the City of Nauvoo. The declaration was also well within Joseph Smith’s and the Nauvoo Council’s rights and authority to do.

My apologies for misreading your previous quote on “illegally and unfairly lynched” though even though you properly aknowledged the illegality and immorality of lynching (had he been lynched), trying to connect that with the legality of imprisioning him I found disingenuous

Darren on May 22, 2012 at 5:55 PM

HondaV65 on May 22, 2012 at 5:52 PM

It was meant as a joke.

Kataklysmic on May 22, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Let me put this in context for the idiots.

A man’s view of history IS relevant when choosing a President.

Obama’s view of Vietnam was important to a lot of people – too bad the press really never got the story out there – but it was (or should have been) a relevant story.

Ron Paul’s view of WWII was relevant.

Mitt Romney is a Mormon – and the Mormon’s covered the Mountain Meadows Massacre up for over a 100 years and continue to be less than forthcoming with what happened there.

So – it’s relevant to hear Willy McDole’s opinion on that massacre – and the coverup. What’s his opinion on that? Is it colored by BLIND FAITH in his church’s casual treatment of the atrocity?

We DO KNOW that Willy McDole SAYS he didn’t agree with the church’s position on blacks – and when they changed that position he heard about it over the radio of his car while driving down a lonely highway. He promptly, according to him, pulled over to the side of the road and wept tears of joy.

He thought his church was wrong on blacks – ask him the question … does he think his church was wrong about the massacre and the coverup?

Simple enough – and it IS relevant. Because if you can’t investigate this yourself and come to the concrete conclusion that the entire church was involved in that massacre all the way to the top – then you’re a man who’s blinded by blind faith in a fake religion.

Simple really.

HondaV65 on May 22, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Mark Twain was a young reporter at the time and he went to Utah to investigate the Mountain Meadow murders – and he completely agreed as to Brigham Young’s involvement in it and to the coverup!

HondaV65 on May 22, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Here, Honda;

And finally, this train was rich, very rich in cattle, horses, mules, and other property — and how could the Mormons consistently keep up their coveted resemblance to the
Israelitish tribes and not seize the “spoil” of an enemy when the Lord had so manifestly “delivered it into their hand”?

THE MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE

copyright 1871, The American Publishing Company
copyright 1899 by Samuel L. Clemens
From Mark Twain’s *Roughing It*

Mark Twain was a huge religeous bigot against ALL Christianity. Why would you cite him as anything credible in laying blame upon Brigham Young, who is noted to have issued an order to leave the fancher Party alone but which message unfortunately did not arrive in time?

Darren on May 22, 2012 at 6:02 PM

So – it’s relevant to hear Willy McDole’s opinion on that massacre – and the coverup. What’s his opinion on that? Is it colored by BLIND FAITH in his church’s casual treatment of the atrocity?

HondaV65 on May 22, 2012 at 5:59 PM

From the Wapo story that this post is based on:

“That was a terrible, awful act carried out by members of my faith,” he [Romney] told the Associated Press. “There are bad people in any church, and it’s true of members of my church, too.”

Kataklysmic on May 22, 2012 at 6:06 PM

He thought his church was wrong on blacks – ask him the question … does he think his church was wrong about the massacre and the coverup?

Simple really.

HondaV65 on May 22, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Why don’t you start by asking Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) first?

He is, after all, a Mormon and older than Mitt Romney.

Resist We Much on May 22, 2012 at 6:06 PM

And – not to forget – Mountain Meadows was the worst massacre of civilians on American soil until it was eclipsed by …

9-11

Really? You must not have heard much about what the indians did to Texans. They did not merely kill them they roasted and skinned them alive. Also the guy the federal government sent to “take care” of Brigham Young and the Mormons was nicknamed “squaw Killer Kearney” for the Indians he had massacred in Kansas. Kearney didn’t get his chance to attack Salt Lake because his troops were ambushed by the Mormons in Wyoming and were routed (but not massacred) they did not have the ability to attack because they lost all their equipment.

rushlimbang on May 22, 2012 at 6:10 PM

So something before Romney (or even Reid, another Mormon) was born, we bring this stuff up?

Let’s talk about the atrocities of Africans selling other Africans into slavery as a part of Obama’s past.

ProfShadow on May 22, 2012 at 6:14 PM

Honda;

Mitt Romney is a Mormon – and the Mormon’s covered the Mountain Meadows Massacre up for over a 100 years and continue to be less than forthcoming with what happened there.

Really? Please correct my math:

The attacks culminated on September 11, 1857 with the mass slaughter of the emigrant party by the Iron County district of the Utah Territorial Militia and some local Native Americans.

That’s 1857.

The Utah War delayed any investigation by the U.S. federal government until 1859, when Jacob Forney,[18] and U.S. Army Brevet Major James Henry Carleton conducted investigations.

That’s two years later and the reason for the delay was not the mormons but because the federal government chose to sed in the troops to a squash (yet another) untrue insurrection by the Mormons. In other words, the gross misplacement of federal resources caused the delay, not the Mormons.

He issued a report in May 1859, addressed to the U.S. Assistant Adjutant-General, setting forth his findings. Jacob Forney, Superintendent of Indian Affairs for Utah, also conducted an investigation that included visiting the region in the summer of 1859 and retrieved many of the surviving children of massacre victims who had been housed with Mormon families, and gathered them in preparation of transporting them to their relatives in Arkansas.

That’s still two years later and where do you get the vibe that the Mormons were not cooperating?

A federal judge brought into the territory after the Utah War, Judge John Cradlebaugh, in March 1859 convened a grand jury in Provo, concerning the massacre, but the jury declined any indictments.

This is still the same year and this sounds like a like a legal procedure to me. How was this delayed or covered? Because the jury “declained indicments”? must have been those mormon jurists, I guess.

Further investigations, cut short by the American Civil War in 1861,[25] again proceeded in 1871 when prosecutors obtained the affidavit of militia member Phillip Klingensmith.

This is now four years later and the investigation was cut off by the Mormons not cooperating? Nope. It was the Civil War. Unless you can show that the Mormons caused the Civil War in order to delay the investigation, you cannot lay blame for this upon the Mormons.

During the 1870s Lee,[27] Dame, Philip Klingensmith and two others (Ellott Willden and George Adair, Jr.) were indicted and arrested while warrants were obtained to pursue the arrests of four others (Haight, Higbee, William C. Stewart and Samuel Jukes) who had gone into hiding. Klingensmith escaped prosecution by agreeing to testify.[28] Brigham Young removed some participants including Haight and Lee from the LDS church in 1870. The U.S. posted bounties of $500 each for the capture of Haight, Higbee and Stewart, while prosecutors chose not to pursue their cases against Dame, Willden and Adair.

This is soon after the Civil War ended and investigation could resume. It is now about 14 years after the massacre happened.

Lee’s first trial began on July 23, 1875 in Beaver, before a jury of eight Mormons and four non-Mormons.[29] This trial led to a hung jury on August 5, 1875. Lee’s second trial began September 13, 1876, before an all-Mormon jury. The prosecution called Daniel Wells, Laban Morrill, Joel White, Samuel Knight, Samuel McMurdy, Nephi Johnson, and Jacob Hamblin.[30] Lee also stipulated, against advice of counsel, that the prosecution be allowed to re-use the depositions of Young and Smith from the previous trial.[31] Lee called no witnesses in his defense.[32] This time, Lee was convicted.

Final trial and conviction for the Mountain Meadow Massacre happened about 19 years after the massacre. So, being off by more than 80 years, how, do you propose the Mormons covered up the Mountain Meadows Massacre?

Darren on May 22, 2012 at 6:16 PM

For instance, in 1862, there was the Minnesota Uprising in which Sioux killed some 600 whites, largely precipitated by corruption in the Indian Agency there. Whites were terrorized and 38 Indians were hanged. The cavalry forces at Ft. Phil Kearney in Wyoming suffered a loss of more than 80 men at the hand of Red Cloud’s warriors. In between, settlers were raided, killed, and mutilated; Pony Express and stage stations robbed; etc

OH. I guess a massacre isn’t a massacre unless it is done by white people.

rushlimbang on May 22, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Oops, here’s my wiki source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre

Darren on May 22, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Really? You must not have heard much about what the indians did to Texans. They did not merely kill them they roasted and skinned them alive. Also the guy the federal government sent to “take care” of Brigham Young and the Mormons was nicknamed “squaw Killer Kearney” for the Indians he had massacred in Kansas.

rushlimbang on May 22, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Ewwwww, but, good point.

Darren on May 22, 2012 at 6:19 PM

There were very good reasons for covering up mountain meadow at the time. The Federal government was sending troops to salt lake. If you were in the same situation you would have done the same.

rushlimbang on May 22, 2012 at 6:20 PM

There were very good reasons for covering up mountain meadow at the time. The Federal government was sending troops to salt lake. If you were in the same situation you would have done the same.

It was the very presence of the troops in Utah to fight the Mormons which initially delayed the Mountain Meadows Massacre. No cover up from the Mormons as far as I can tell.

Darren on May 22, 2012 at 6:32 PM

You may start your research here if you really want to learn about it: http://utlm.org/topicalindexb.htm#Mountain%20Meadows%20Massacre

Portia46 on May 22, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Oh, sure. Go to a well known Mormon hate site for information about Mormons.

Got it.

Oh, and while your are there, be sure to donate to the hatred.

Gunlock Bill on May 22, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Why, that would make as much sense as going to a Mormon web site to research whether the founder of the religion had any warts.

IOW, it’s to be expected that Mormon web sites and Mormons in general will defend Joseph Smith. Identifying everyone critical of Joseph Smith as anti-Mormon and therefore biased just amounts to declaring that no criticism is allowed.

Joseph Smith had a number of brushes with the law, which continued until the day he died.

The easy answer has always been, “Well, it was just religious persecution.” And if anyone questions that, “Well, you’re just a religious bigot.” And if you document your case with links, “Well, those are from anti-Mormon web sites.” Well, you sure couldn’t document anything like that from Mormon web sites!

tom on May 22, 2012 at 7:43 PM

Missouri and Illinois were not very good neighborhoods back then. You can not look at any of those incidents through the prism of our modern world of law and order. Law and order did not exist back then and violence was the order of the day. Abraham Lincoln was given order to kill off a whole tribe of indians when he was in the militia back during that time period. Luckily he ended up not having to do it but still he tried.

rushlimbang on May 22, 2012 at 7:57 PM

That’s not entirely correct. The Expositor was dedicated to “exposing” joseph smith as a fraud/fallen prophet and was owned and lead by ex-Mormons, some of which have alreay called for the execution of Joseph Smith. This type of rhetoric oucrred previously in Missourri which lead tothe massacre at Haun’s Mill as well as to Governor Boggs issue the “Extermination Order” which authorized the state militia to execute all Mormons on sight if they did not leave the state. This was a primary concern the Nauvoo Council held when the Expositor began running its presses.

Yes, burning it down was illegal though I would argue that according tothe laws at the time, the illegality was civil, not criminal. By the time Joseph Smith turned himself in, the charge of treason was added to Joseph Smith not for the Expositor but for declaring martial law in the City of Nauvoo. The declaration was also well within Joseph Smith’s and the Nauvoo Council’s rights and authority to do.

My apologies for misreading your previous quote on “illegally and unfairly lynched” though even though you properly aknowledged the illegality and immorality of lynching (had he been lynched), trying to connect that with the legality of imprisioning him I found disingenuous

Darren on May 22, 2012 at 5:55 PM

So a printing press printed stories from former Mormons criticizing Joseph Smith for his polygamy and claiming that he had in fact attempted to convince their wives to have sex with him in a polyandrous marriage by convincing them it was in fact a celestial marriage. Presumably, as former Mormons, these men were not motivated by religious bigotry.

Several of Smith’s disaffected associates at Nauvoo and Hancock County, Illinois, joined together to publish a newspaper called the Nauvoo Expositor. Its first and only issue was published June 7, 1844.[2] Some of these associates had alleged that Smith tried to marry their wives. About eight of Smith’s wives were also married to other men (four were Mormon men in good standing, who in a few cases acted as a witness in Smith’s marriage to his wife) at the time they married Smith. Typically, these women continued to live with their first husband, not Smith. Some accounts say Smith may have had sexual relations with some of his other wives, and one wife later in her life stated that he fathered children by one or two of his wives.[3]

The bulk of the paper was devoted to three main criticisms of Smith: (1) The opinion that Smith had once been a true prophet, but had fallen by advocating polygamy, Exaltation, and other controversial doctrines; (2) the opinion that Smith, as both Mayor of Nauvoo and President of the Church, held too much power, which was further consolidated by the overwhelmingly Mormon make-up of Nauvoo’s courts and city council, who intended establishing a theocracy via the Council of Fifty; and (3) the belief that Smith had corrupted women by forcing, coercing or introducing them into plural marriage.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Joseph_Smith
)
And Joseph Smith responded to this by burning the printing press that dared to criticize him.

Now, it is in fact true that Joseph Smith was mayor of Nauvoo at the time. But since Nauvoo was a town that was essentially founded and created out of his followers, it’s hardly surprising that he was able to claim the lead of it. It appears he had made a lot of political connections in Illinois, and as the representative of a substantial number of voters, he was given an unprecedented amount of power for a small-town mayor.

It also appears that he overestimated his invincibility.

I did not set out to defend the famed “Mormon Extermination Order” or the attempted lynching of Joseph Smith, nor do I defend them.

I set out to debunk the easy but false assertion that all of this was simply religious persecution. Clearly, Joseph Smith was no innocent.

I remind you that about eight of Joseph Smith’s wives were in fact married to other men, some of whom were witnesses to Smith’s marriage. Clearly, this was more than just the revival of polygamy, since these wives continued to be married to their original husbands as well as to Joseph Smith.

tom on May 22, 2012 at 8:17 PM

Interestingly there is not a single descendant of Joseph Smith that is not from his Wife Emma and it is not as if they haven’t been looking. Every single time they have checked it was someone other than Joseph Smith’s child. We know he wasn’t infertile because he had numerous children with Emma. I am not saying he did not have sex with them but I sort of doubt that sex was his purpose. After all Joseph regularly had himself sealed to men and I don’t think he was gay. A lot of the stories told about Joseph were sometimes 50 years after the fact. Other people had reason for lying. This does not mean I think that all of what they said is untrue but that a lot of times it is hard to decide what the truth actually is. http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/DNA.htm

rushlimbang on May 22, 2012 at 8:52 PM

Joseph Smith’s stated reason for destroying the press was not to protect himself but to preserve public safety. After all he was the Mayor of the town. The newspaper was being spread around the entire area and was stirring up those who were already predisposed to hate the Mormons. This was their pretense for violence. They were upset because they felt the Mormons had too much political power since they voted in blocks. It was not strictly about the personal actions of Joseph Smith that caused the people in the surrounding area to get into a state of frenzy.

rushlimbang on May 22, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Joseph Smith’s stated reason for destroying the press was not to protect himself but to preserve public safety. After all he was the Mayor of the town. The newspaper was being spread around the entire area and was stirring up those who were already predisposed to hate the Mormons. This was their pretense for violence. They were upset because they felt the Mormons had too much political power since they voted in blocks. It was not strictly about the personal actions of Joseph Smith that caused the people in the surrounding area to get into a state of frenzy.

rushlimbang on May 22, 2012 at 9:00 PM

I’m sure it was a selfless act meant only to preserve public safety, and had absolutely nothing to do with the criticism of Joseph Smith for marrying up to 48 wives, some of whom were already married to other men.

Anyone who says otherwise is a bigot.

tom on May 22, 2012 at 9:15 PM

So a printing press printed stories from former Mormons criticizing Joseph Smith for his polygamy and claiming that he had in fact attempted to convince their wives to have sex with him in a polyandrous marriage by convincing them it was in fact a celestial marriage.

tom on May 22, 2012 at 8:17 PM

Which right there is libelous to the tee. There is no evidence whatsoever that Joseph Smith had sexual relations with anyone except Emma Smith. you cannot site me one single letter, first-hand claim, claim from immediate family whom which Joseph Smith was polygamously married to, no journal entry, regarding any affair, no claim from Emma Smith, etc. not one. The besty you’ll get are claims made after Joseph Smith’s life ended, some of which were long after it ended. But as for the claims of sexuality, read the DNA results of children Joseph Smith has been accused of fathering. Except for a few cases where the DNA results render inconclusive, the record is universally on Smith’s side:

Joseph Smith/Polygamy/Children of polygamous marriages

It is stories like that which lead to Haun’s Massacre and the Extermination Order, sir. This was a top concern for the Nauvoo Legislative body.

I set out to debunk the easy but false assertion that all of this was simply religious persecution. Clearly, Joseph Smith was no innocent.

What was he found guilty of? Nothing. and as I said, burning down the press was arguably illegal. Not criminally illegal; but civilly. Yes, he was ordered to jail due to his action and for legally declaring martial law in the state of Illinois but this still does not change the act that the Expositor and its libelous papers were based on religeous persecution of the type which lead to Mormons being killed, raped, and pillaged.

I remind you that about eight of Joseph Smith’s wives were in fact married to other men, some of whom were witnesses to Smith’s marriage.

And which was a marriage in the conventional sense we think of it today?

Darren on May 22, 2012 at 10:37 PM

tom;

Utah Lighthouse Ministry ‘s sole purpose of existence is to denounce the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints, its leaders, and faithful members. It is a source of much widespread rumors, accusations, and unproven claims as well as clais easily disproven. I woudld not use them asa source of truth about the Mormons anymore than I would cite a crack user for promoting good health habbits.

Darren on May 22, 2012 at 10:40 PM

with the criticism of Joseph Smith for marrying up to 48 wives

Name them all, if you could, please.

Darren on May 22, 2012 at 10:40 PM

John C. Bennett and Francis Higsbee were both part of the Expositor to “expose” Joseph Smith’s “fraud” and show himto be a fallen prophet.

As soon as Bennett began dating “a young lady, one of our citizens” (undoubtedly Eliza Snow), Joseph and Emma became alarmed. In order to protect the young woman and the Church, and to be sure of the facts, Joseph sent Bishop George Miller to Ohio to discover the truth about Bennett’s marital status. On March 2, 1841, Bishop Miller wrote a letter to Joseph, which must have almost devastated the Prophet. The letter revealed:

By your request I have made inquiries into the history of John Cook Bennett…. It was soon manifest that he was a superficial character, always uneasy, and moved from place to place … it is not presumed that less than twenty towns has been his place of residence at different times; he has the vanity to believe he is the smartest man in the nation; and if he cannot at once be placed at the head of the heap, he soon seeks a situation; he is always ready to fall in with whatever is popular; by the use of his recommendations he has been able to push himself into places and situations entirely beyond his abilities; he has been a prominent personage in and about colleges and universities, but had soon vanished; and the next thing his friends hear of him he is off in some other direction; at one time he was a promine[n]t Campbellite preacher.

During many years his poor, but confiding wife, followed him from place to place, with no suspicion of his unfaithfulness to her; at length however, he became so bold in his departures, that it was evident to all around that he was a sore offender, and his wife left him under satisfactory evidence of his adulterous connections…. Mrs. Bennett now lives with her father; has two children living, and has buried one or two…. [I]t has been Dr. Bennett’s wish that his wife should get a bill of divorcement, but as yet she has not; nor does my informant know that she contemplates doing so; in fine, he is an imposter, and unworthy of the confidence of all good men…. [W]e withhold the names of our informants, and other correspondents; but hold ourselves in readiness, at all times, to substantiate by abundant testimony, all that has been asserted, if required, as the documents are all on hand. George Miller.(ibid., 842; RLDS History of the Church 2:591–592)

(snip)

Joseph continued:

Bennet said Higbee pointed out the spot where he had seduced a girl, and that he had seduced another. I did not believe it, I felt hurt, and labored with Higbee about it; he swore with uplifted hands, that he had lied about the matter. I went and told the girl’s parents [Elder and Mrs. Rigdon], when Higbee and Bennet made affidavits and both perjured themselves, they swore false about me so as to blind the family [by saying that Francis was innocent and Joseph was lying]. I brought Francis M. Higbee before Brigham Young, Hyrum Smith and others; Bennet was present, when they both acknowledged that they had done these things, and asked us to forgive them. I got vexed, my feelings had been hurt; Higbee has been guilty of adulterous communication, perjury, &c.; which I am able to prove by men who heard them confess it.(ibid. 5 [May 15, 1844]: 539)

Quaint.

Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy
Volume I

Here’s this (bold mine):

The Nauvoo Expositor was the newspaper voice of apostates determined to destroy the Prophet Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the spring of 1844. During the last few months of Joseph Smith’s life, an opposition party of disgruntled members, apostates, and excommunicants coalesced into a dissenting church. The principals claimed to believe in the Book of Mormon and the restoration of the gospel, but rejected what they termed Nauvoo innovations, notably plural marriage. Claiming that Joseph was a fallen prophet, the dissenters set out, through the Expositor, to expose the Prophet’s supposed false teachings and abominations. They held secret meetings, made plans, and took oaths to topple the Church and kill Joseph Smith. The publication of the newspaper was crucial to their stratagem.

When the press for the Expositor arrived in Nauvoo on May 7, 1844, it stirred great excitement among Mormons and non-Mormons alike, but there was no immediate interference. Within three days the owners, all leaders of the opposition movement, issued a broadside prospectus for their newspaper. One month later, on June 7, the first and only issue of the Nauvoo Expositor appeared and caused an immediate furor in the community. Nauvoo residents were incensed at what they saw as its sensational, yellow-journalistic claims about Nauvoo religion, politics, and morality. They were also struck with sharp foreboding. Francis Higbee, one of the proprietors of the newspaper, set an ominous tone when he described Joseph Smith as “the biggest villain that goes unhung.”

Quaint.

Nauvoo Expositor

And this:

Within a very short time it was revealed that Higbee’s determination to sue for damages had grown out of events that had transpired in 1842, two years earlier. In the summer of 1842 members of the Church’s High Council had investigated the “spiritual wifery” which was being practiced by Francis M. Higbee, Doctor John C. Bennett, and others. Testimony was given before the Council that Higbee had seduced at least six women, and that he had contracted a venereal disease from a prostitute, a French woman who had come to Nauvoo from the neighboring town of Warsaw. When faced with these charges, Higbee confessed that he was guilty of the crimes, and he promised to repent, and reform, and lead an honorable life

On having Joseph smith Senior arrested:

After hearing the foregoing evidence in support of said petition, it is considered and ordained by the court; 1st, That the said Joseph Smith, Senior, be discharged from the said arrest and imprisonment, complained of in said petition, on the illegality of the writ, upon which he was arrested, as well as upon the writ of the case, and that he go hence without day. Secondly, Francis M. Higbee’s character having been so fully shown, as infamous, the court is convinced that this suit was instituted through malice, private pique and corruption; and ought not to be countenanced; and it is ordained by the court that said Francis M. Higbee pay the co

Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy
Vision Articles

Quaint.

Darren on May 22, 2012 at 11:23 PM

Yep, I’d say those Mormons still bear a grudge against this country, alright. And from what I’ve seen here and in the comments at other sites, it seems they’re inculcated with these views from a young age.

It sure does matter that Romney was taught to hold a grudge against the US and its Christian people.

It’s why he hates Conservatives so much.

sartana on May 23, 2012 at 12:28 AM

Yep, I’d say those Mormons still bear a grudge against this country, alright. And from what I’ve seen here and in the comments at other sites, it seems they’re inculcated with these views from a young age.

It sure does matter that Romney was taught to hold a grudge against the US and its Christian people.

It’s why he hates Conservatives so much.

sartana on May 23, 2012 at 12:28 AM

Just vote obama and quit whining already.

Mitch Rapp on May 23, 2012 at 1:18 AM

So a printing press printed stories from former Mormons criticizing Joseph Smith for his polygamy and claiming that he had in fact attempted to convince their wives to have sex with him in a polyandrous marriage by convincing them it was in fact a celestial marriage.

tom on May 22, 2012 at 8:17 PM

Which right there is libelous to the tee. There is no evidence whatsoever that Joseph Smith had sexual relations with anyone except Emma Smith. you cannot site me one single letter, first-hand claim, claim from immediate family whom which Joseph Smith was polygamously married to, no journal entry, regarding any affair, no claim from Emma Smith, etc. not one. The besty you’ll get are claims made after Joseph Smith’s life ended, some of which were long after it ended.

It’s not libelous if it’s true. Start with the list of 34 wives at http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/ Not only are the names of 34 wives listed there, but so are their ages, their stories, and the husbands that some of them were married to while also being married to Joseph Smith.

Frankly, I don’t know why you would make such a nonsensical claim since Mormon sacred scriptures contain the very revelation in The Doctrine and Covenants in which Joseph Smith claims it was revealed to him that God the Father wanted him to marry more than one woman, and that Emma Smith, his first wife, was commanded to receive them also as wives of Joseph Smith with her.

Are we to believe that God revealed this to Joseph Smith, but that he refused to obey?

See also http://www.i4m.com/think/history/joseph_smith_sex.htm

It is stories like that which lead to Haun’s Massacre and the Extermination Order, sir. This was a top concern for the Nauvoo Legislative body.

Which is why they burned the press that printed the stories of those husbands who rejected Mormonism because of Joseph Smith’s new doctrine of polygamy, though it appears he had been practicing it for years before he dared reveal the doctrine publicly.

I set out to debunk the easy but false assertion that all of this was simply religious persecution. Clearly, Joseph Smith was no innocent.

What was he found guilty of? Nothing. and as I said, burning down the press was arguably illegal. Not criminally illegal; but civilly. Yes, he was ordered to jail due to his action and for legally declaring martial law in the state of Illinois but this still does not change the act that the Expositor and its libelous papers were based on religeous persecution of the type which lead to Mormons being killed, raped, and pillaged.

Yes, it was illegal. Even if not illegal, it would still not be justified to burn the printing press of your adversaries. You can assert that it was libelous, but these were claims made by former followers of Joseph Smith. And there is a lot of historical evidence that he had multiple wives, so your claim of libel is not well supported.

I remind you that about eight of Joseph Smith’s wives were in fact married to other men, some of whom were witnesses to Smith’s marriage.

And which was a marriage in the conventional sense we think of it today?

Darren on May 22, 2012 at 10:37 PM

So they weren’t actually marriages, even though Mormonism teaches that marriages are eternal?

Complex plural marriages

Joseph Smith and polyandry—Joseph Smith was sealed to women who were married to men who were still living. Some of these men were even active members of the Church. (Link)
Zina and Henry Jacobs (Link)

The above is from an attempt to defend Smith’s polygamy, but at least they acknowledge the fact of what you call libel. http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy

tom on May 23, 2012 at 2:07 AM

tom;

Utah Lighthouse Ministry ‘s sole purpose of existence is to denounce the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints, its leaders, and faithful members. It is a source of much widespread rumors, accusations, and unproven claims as well as clais easily disproven. I woudld not use them asa source of truth about the Mormons anymore than I would cite a crack user for promoting good health habbits.

Darren on May 22, 2012 at 10:40 PM

The problem you have is that Mormon sources are just as likely to be unreliable due to their desire to defend Joseph Smith and Mormon doctrines. If you want the truth about Mormon doctrine and history, you’re going to absolutely need more than Mormon sources.

tom on May 23, 2012 at 2:12 AM

with the criticism of Joseph Smith for marrying up to 48 wives

Name them all, if you could, please.

Darren on May 22, 2012 at 10:40 PM

Very hard to do, since some of them remained married to other husbands even while married to Joseph Smith. Also, many of the relationships were kept secret to hide them from Emma Smith before Joseph Smith finally published his revelation of polygamy.

As recorded at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Latter_Day_Saint_polygamy

Poor documentation has led to estimates of the number of Smith’s wives ranging from 0 to 33[68] to 48

But I can point you to a list of 34 of them — that is, Emma Smith, his first wife, and 33 others.
http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/

tom on May 23, 2012 at 2:25 AM

Darren on May 22, 2012 at 11:23 PM

One long post trying to discredit all the accusers. But I note they were Mormons in good standing until they broke with Joseph Smith over the subject of polygamy.

tom on May 23, 2012 at 2:29 AM

Tom;

They were in good fellowship with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints until it was learned of their own immorality. After being ecommunicated, they banned together to oppose Joseph Smith who lead the charge towards their excommunication. From the get go there was a major conflict of interest in the Bennett/Higsbee efforts to”expose” Joseph Smith after Joseph Smith folowed up on what would be their excommunication from the LDS Church.

By the way there is ZERO evidence of Joseph Smith doing any such thing like Benett or Higsbee.

Darren on May 23, 2012 at 9:10 AM

One long post trying to discredit all the accusers. But I note they were Mormons in good standing until they broke with Joseph Smith over the subject of polygamy.

I’d say these men were in good standing with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints until their own immorality was learned. Joseph Smith was the primary instigator to have their immorality revealed and which lead to their excommunication. Bennett and Higsby then banned together to write against Joseph Smith as a “fraud”. This in and of itself is a conflict of interest and the manner which Bennet and Higsby sought to defame Smith is precisely what lead to Mormons getting murdered legally and illegally as well as by having their live banefully affected. This was Nauvoo’s top concern regarding the Expositor.

And did you catch the part where Higsbee called for the hanging of Joseph Smith? That’s not a liability?

But I can point you to a list of 34 of them — that is, Emma Smith, his first wife, and 33 others.
http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/

Not exactly 48, eh? week argument of him being ‘accused” of 48 wives.

Very hard to do, since some of them remained married to other husbands even while married to Joseph Smith. Also, many of the relationships were kept secret to hide them from Emma Smith before Joseph Smith finally published his revelation of polygamy.

Not hard to do at all. These were not kept secret forever. There was a time which Smith refused to publicly acknowledge them since he feared the backlash. Since you’re saying that this lead (indirectly) to his death, why would you hold this against him? I mean, which is it. Is your contempt mainly against Smith for hiding information or those who killed him after that information was revealed? (This is all along your line of argument, not mine).

The problem you have is that Mormon sources are just as likely to be unreliable due to their desire to defend Joseph Smith and Mormon doctrines. If you want the truth about Mormon doctrine and history, you’re going to absolutely need more than Mormon sources.

tom on May 23, 2012 at 2:12 AM

My main problem is that there are those whose dedication is to defame Mormonism and I constantly witness no discrimination among readers to decide if their sources are reliable or not. Lighthouse Ministry’s accusations have many times proven fallacious, unsupportive, and only superficially reviewed by its members. Just because one opposes Mormonism does not make one “anti-Mormon” but I do expect the opposition to be open, scholarly, and most of all, honest. Lighthouse Ministry fails on all three accounts. And if you hjsutify using them then why not justify propogating anti medical research organizations? There are those who bash the medical industry as a big scandal after all. How much credibility do you give to these organizations. After all, if you *must* read into anti-Mormon propaganda, then why not anti-medical propaganda? If the end is t “know the truth” then surely you *must* research anti-medical literature to “know” for yourself, right?

The above is from an attempt to defend Smith’s polygamy, but at least they acknowledge the fact of what you call libel. http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy

Ummm, no, sir. That’s not what I “acknowledge” as libel. Here’s what I acknowledge as libel (bold mine):

So a printing press printed stories from former Mormons criticizing Joseph Smith for his polygamy and claiming that he had in fact attempted to convince their wives to have sex with him in a polyandrous marriage by convincing them it was in fact a celestial marriage.

tom on May 22, 2012 at 8:17 PM

First off, who made this accusation and who were their wives? Second of all, you cannot go to print and label someone as an adulterer without support. If this was said about you or I, both you and I would stand on solid ground to sue for liability. Especially if damages resulted in such a libelous report. And, to repeat myself, this type of press lead directly to Mormons being murdered by mobs and by state militia and otherwise damaged their personal lives and property. This was purely libel and nothing less.

Here was my question (as you cited):

And which was a marriage in the conventional sense we think of it today?

Darren on May 22, 2012 at 10:37 PM

And here was your answer:

So they weren’t actually marriages, even though Mormonism teaches that marriages are eternal?

tom on May 23, 2012 at 2:07 AM

So, are these “conventional marriages as we think of today” even though the traditional last words of a wedding ceremony are “until death do you part”? Celestial marriages are conventional today in that when two are sealed together for time and eternity, these are mainstream marriages here on earth but the question is if these were conventional marriages for Joseph Smith; not anyone else. If you say “yes” than what is your evidence? If you say “no”, then we have no argument.

Yes, it was illegal. Even if not illegal, it would still not be justified to burn the printing press of your adversaries.

tom on May 23, 2012 at 2:07 AM

Let me repeat that I take little issue with you over the illegality of burning down the Expositor. I simply say it was civilly illegal; not criminal. The Expositor should have sued and should have been recompensed by the City of Nauvoo; nothing more. And this was hardly a case of “burn[ing] the printing press of your adversaries”. Let me repeat that what the Expositor was doing had already resulted in Mormons being killed by mobs and by state militia. Those who would have been affected by their press reports took action.

It is stories like that which lead to Haun’s Massacre and the Extermination Order, sir. This was a top concern for the Nauvoo Legislative body.

Which is why they burned the press that printed the stories of those husbands who rejected Mormonism because of Joseph Smith’s new doctrine of polygamy, though it appears he had been practicing it for years before he dared reveal the doctrine publicly.

tom on May 23, 2012 at 2:07 AM

EXACTLY! The Mormons did not want to suffer another massacre.

It is true that Joseph Smith did not publicize polygamy out of fear of the backlash. Since you’re arguing that his polygamous activities lead, howbeit indirectly, to his death, which do you now have more disagreement with? Joseph for not making the information public or those who killed him after making that information public? This is along the lines of your arguments, not mine.

Frankly, I don’t know why you would make such a nonsensical claim since Mormon sacred scriptures contain the very revelation in The Doctrine and Covenants in which Joseph Smith claims it was revealed to him that God the Father wanted him to marry more than one woman, and that Emma Smith, his first wife, was commanded to receive them also as wives of Joseph Smith with her.

If you wanna talk doctrine, we can. Right now we’re talking history.

Darren on May 23, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Yep, I’d say those Mormons still bear a grudge against this country, alright. And from what I’ve seen here and in the comments at other sites, it seems they’re inculcated with these views from a young age.

It sure does matter that Romney was taught to hold a grudge against the US and its Christian people.

It’s why he hates Conservatives so much.

sartana on May 23, 2012 at 12:28 AM

Hey, AZZHAT!!!

In the early 1940′s there was a small town of Mormons in southwestern Utah with a population of 105. Of that 105, 21 joined the Armed Forces of the United States during WWII. That is a full 20% of the population.

Plus one of the Medal of Honor recipients for action in Pearl Harbor on Dec 7, 1941 was a Mormon. It was awarded posthumously.

So take your anti-Mormon shite and shove it up your you know what.

Gunlock Bill on May 23, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Plus did you know that the record for the LONGEST march in UNITED STATES MILITARY HISTORY is held by the MORMON Battalion?

Gunlock Bill on May 23, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Why, that would make as much sense as going to a Mormon web site to research whether the founder of the religion had any warts.

- – - – -

Latter-day Saints do not believe that prophets and apostles are incapable of error, despite being called of God and receiving revelation. Joseph Smith himself taught that ‘a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such’.[2] The Church has always taught that its leaders are human and subject to failings as are all mortals. Only Jesus was perfect, as explained in this statement from the First Presidency:

The position is not assumed that the men of the New Dispensation —its prophets, apostles, presidencies, and other leaders—are without faults or infallible, rather they are treated as men of like passions with their fellow men.”[3]

Lu Dalton, writing in the Church’s periodical for women, explained:

We consider God, and him alone, infallible; therefore his revealed word to us cannot be doubted, though we may be in doubt some times about the knowledge which we obtain from human sources, and occasionally be obliged to admit that something which we had considered to be a fact, was really only a theory.[4]

Other authors have long taught the same thing:

1887 B. H. Roberts, Letter written November 4, 1887, London, Millennial Star 49. 48 (November 28, 1887): 760-763; a portion of which reads: “Relative to these sermons [Journal of Discourses] I must tell you they represent the individual views of the speakers, and the Church is not responsible for their teachings. Our authorized Church works are the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. In the Church very wide latitude is given to individual belief and opinion, each man being responsible for his views and not the Church; the Church is only responsible for that which she sanctions and approves through the formal actions of her councils. So it may be that errors will be found in the sermons of men, and that in their over zeal unwise expressions will escape them, for all of which the Church is not responsible” (762)

1889 Charles W. Penrose, Editorial: Judge Anderson and ‘Blood Atonement,’ Deseret Weekly 39. 25 (December 14, 1889): 772a-773c. [Editor is Charles W. Penrose; in his response to the lengthy statement by Judge Anderson, he quotes from the same pamphlet which the Judge had quoted from: Blood Atonement, by Elder Charles W. Penrose, published in 1884; Penrose quotes a statement which the Judge had not] “’The law of God is paramount. When men give their views upon any doctrine, the value of those views is as the value of the man. If he is a wise man, a man of understanding, of experience and authority, such views are of great weight with the community; but they are not paramount, nor equal to the revealed law of God’” (773ab)

- – - –

Joseph Smith had a number of brushes with the law, which continued until the day he died.

For what it is worth, so did Jesus.

So?

The easy answer has always been, “Well, it was just religious persecution.” And if anyone questions that, “Well, you’re just a religious bigot.” And if you document your case with links, “Well, those are from anti-Mormon web sites.” Well, you sure couldn’t document anything like that from Mormon web sites!

tom on May 22, 2012 at 7:43 PM

Those sites are set up to make money from the unsuspecting/gullible sheep. Honesty and reason are too often discarded in achieving their goal of making money.

Gunlock Bill on May 23, 2012 at 11:16 AM

It sure does matter that Romney was taught to hold a grudge against the US and its Christian people.

It’s why he hates Conservatives so much.

sartana on May 23, 2012 at 12:28 AM

Here, Mitch. Watch Mitt Romney’s commencement spech at liberty University.

Where did Romney hate on Christians and conservatives?

Would you like a Reverend Wright video to accompany?

Darren on May 23, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Where did Romney hate on Christians and conservatives?

Would you like a Reverend Wright video to accompany?

Darren on May 23, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Don’t waste your breath. Satan-a is just like innertube tough guy hondav65. they don’t want to vote for romney because he is a mormon but they try to blame it on his conservatism or patriotism

Mitch Rapp on May 23, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Mark Twain was a young reporter at the time and he went to Utah to investigate the Mountain Meadow murders – and he completely agreed as to Brigham Young’s involvement in it and to the coverup!

So, in the absence of evidence, let alone proof, opinion trumps all.

Got it.

And the only guy the Mormon’s would ever convict of the massacre even admitted that Young was involved.

Again, in the absence of evidence, let alone proof, mere claims of the guilty trump all.

And – not to forget – Mountain Meadows was the worst massacre of civilians on American soil until it was eclipsed by …

9-11

HondaV65 on May 22, 2012 at 5:50 PM

So?

Gunlock Bill on May 23, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Don’t waste your breath. Satan-a is just like innertube tough guy hondav65. they don’t want to vote for romney because he is a mormon but they try to blame it on his conservatism or patriotism

Mitch Rapp on May 23, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Oops, I credited Sartana’s post to you. You merely responded to it by teling him to vote for Obama. Sorry. And, yes, you’re correct. just vote for Obama.

Sartana;

As per my post to Mitch:

Here, Mitch. Watch Mitt Romney’s commencement spech at liberty University.

Where did Romney hate on Christians and conservatives?

Would you like a Reverend Wright video to accompany?

Have fun viewing.

Darren on May 23, 2012 at 12:19 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT2HAluw63Q

There, Sartana.

Darren on May 23, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Tom;

They were in good fellowship with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints until it was learned of their own immorality. After being ecommunicated, they banned together to oppose Joseph Smith who lead the charge towards their excommunication. From the get go there was a major conflict of interest in the Bennett/Higsbee efforts to”expose” Joseph Smith after Joseph Smith folowed up on what would be their excommunication from the LDS Church.

By the way there is ZERO evidence of Joseph Smith doing any such thing like Benett or Higsbee.

Darren on May 23, 2012 at 9:10 AM

“Members in good standing” is a huge understatement. Dr. Bennett in particular was one of Joseph Smith’s closest confidants, and held the rank of Major General of the Nauvoo militia, second only to Joseph Smith’s own rank of Lieutenant General.

As for there being “ZERO evidence” of Joseph Smith doing anything similar, look back at the list of wives I previously posted, and which the LDS organization admits to. Several of those were from years before Joseph Smith claimed a revelation allowing polygamy.

In short, Joseph Smith excommunicated Dr. Bennett for doing the exact same things he was doing: trying to convince faithful Mormon women that having sex with him was not a sin, but a “celestial marriage” blessed by God.

Then Dr. Bennett turned on him and attacked him in the Nauvoo Expositor.

Then Joseph Smith had the Nauvoo Expositor printing press burned.

Then Joseph Smith declared martial law.

Then Joseph Smith was arrested and put in jail in nearby Carthage.

Then a mob of people — probably expecting Smith to be bailed out by his political cronies trying to lock up the Mormon vote — stormed the jail to lynch him.

Then Joseph Smith fought back with revolvers smuggled in to him.

And then he died.

tom on May 23, 2012 at 7:34 PM

But I can point you to a list of 34 of them — that is, Emma Smith, his first wife, and 33 others.
http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/

Not exactly 48, eh? week argument of him being ‘accused” of 48 wives.

You have no shame, if you think the difference between 33 and 48 wives is some sort of defense.

There are 33 well-documented ones. There’s evidence of more, though harder to document. Some researchers have put the number as high as 60.

Ummm, no, sir. That’s not what I “acknowledge” as libel. Here’s what I acknowledge as libel (bold mine):

So a printing press printed stories from former Mormons criticizing Joseph Smith for his polygamy and claiming that he had in fact attempted to convince their wives to have sex with him in a polyandrous marriage by convincing them it was in fact a celestial marriage.

tom on May 22, 2012 at 8:17 PM

First off, who made this accusation and who were their wives? Second of all, you cannot go to print and label someone as an adulterer without support. If this was said about you or I, both you and I would stand on solid ground to sue for liability. Especially if damages resulted in such a libelous report. And, to repeat myself, this type of press lead directly to Mormons being murdered by mobs and by state militia and otherwise damaged their personal lives and property. This was purely libel and nothing less.

Well, I’m sure there was zero evidence of it.

Oh, wait
http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/

On that page alone are listed eleven wives of Joseph Smith who were married to another man at the same time, and the names of the husbands. Many of them faithful Mormon followers who convinced themselves it was all right because Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and had a revelation from the Almighty.

The saddest case was of Henry Jacobs, a faithful Mormon who fell in love with a woman who married him, who then wound up married to Joseph Smith anyway. But at least Joseph Smith was willing to share her with Henry Jacobs. When Joseph Smith died, Brigham Young claimed all his wives, told Henry Jacobs in a public speech that he needed to “step out of another man’s shoes” because Zina was now Brigham Young’s wife, and then promptly sent him away from his wife on a mission trip to England. There are records of the heart-rending letters that Henry Jacobs wrote to his wife afterwards, but he was not allowed to have her again.

tom on May 23, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Here was my question (as you cited):

And which was a marriage in the conventional sense we think of it today?

Darren on May 22, 2012 at 10:37 PM

And here was your answer:

So they weren’t actually marriages, even though Mormonism teaches that marriages are eternal?

tom on May 23, 2012 at 2:07 AM

So, are these “conventional marriages as we think of today” even though the traditional last words of a wedding ceremony are “until death do you part”? Celestial marriages are conventional today in that when two are sealed together for time and eternity, these are mainstream marriages here on earth but the question is if these were conventional marriages for Joseph Smith; not anyone else. If you say “yes” than what is your evidence? If you say “no”, then we have no argument.

Did these marriages involve a man and a woman who consummated their marriage? There’s your answer.

Now, some women did seal themselves to Joseph Smith by proxy in a ceremony after he was dead. I’m perfectly willing to concede that those were not actual marriages, since the bridegroom was, you know, DEAD. But for the others, if the marriage was consummated between a man and a woman, then it doesn’t make much difference what religious ritual you wrap around it, it’s still a marriage.

You can maintain as long as you want that these were marriages without sex, but don’t expect anyone else to believe it.

tom on May 23, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Joseph Smith had a number of brushes with the law, which continued until the day he died.

For what it is worth, so did Jesus.

So?

What brushes did Jesus have with the law?

None.

The only time he was ever put on trial, Pilate specifically said he found no fault with him.

The easy answer has always been, “Well, it was just religious persecution.” And if anyone questions that, “Well, you’re just a religious bigot.” And if you document your case with links, “Well, those are from anti-Mormon web sites.” Well, you sure couldn’t document anything like that from Mormon web sites!

tom on May 22, 2012 at 7:43 PM

Those sites are set up to make money from the unsuspecting/gullible sheep. Honesty and reason are too often discarded in achieving their goal of making money.

Gunlock Bill on May 23, 2012 at 11:16 AM

More of the same. Sites critical of Joseph Smith are always either bigoted or cynically making money off the bigoted.

tom on May 23, 2012 at 8:04 PM

As for there being “ZERO evidence” of Joseph Smith doing anything similar, look back at the list of wives I previously posted, and which the LDS organization admits to. Several of those were from years before Joseph Smith claimed a revelation allowing polygamy.

tom on May 23, 2012 at 7:34 PM

NO EVIDENCE OF SEXUAL ACTIVITY. NONE. Bennett and Higsbee both admitted to immorality. Period.

In short, Joseph Smith excommunicated Dr. Bennett for doing the exact same things he was doing

That, sir, is libelous. What *act* of immorality did Joseph Smith partake in? You cannot cite me a single one. Not a one, sir. You’re bearing false witness against him now. polygamy does not equate adultery. polyandry does not equate adultery unless there is sexual relations. Which sexual relation have you shown me? None. I’ve shown you two. That’s a significant difference.

Then a mob of people — probably expecting Smith to be bailed out by his political cronies trying to lock up the Mormon vote — stormed the jail to lynch him.

What are you talking about? What political cronies? The two major political parties went to the Mormons hand in foot to give them goodies to lock up their vote. neither Smith nor that Mormons sought and such favorable treatment. Smith did not have “political cronies”. He had the state’s largest militia but what did they do? Nothing. That’s telling. Stop implying Smith’s corruption without evidence. It’s shallow. All i can tell from you is that you’re a shallow person regarding your view of Mormonism.

You have no shame, if you think the difference between 33 and 48 wives is some sort of defense.

LOL. I think you speak about things without knowing them as I cited you doing twice before in this very post. That as my point.

Some researchers have put the number as high as 60.

And I’m sure if you dedicate yourself to research you yourself could double that number. Go for it. But you’ll still come up empty as to sexual relations with polygamous wives.

On that page alone are listed eleven wives of Joseph Smith who were married to another man at the same time, and the names of the husbands. Many of them faithful Mormon followers who convinced themselves it was all right because Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and had a revelation from the Almighty.

No sexual relations yet I see.

Many of them faithful Mormon followers who convinced themselves it was all right because Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and had a revelation from the Almighty.
The saddest case was of Henry Jacobs, a faithful Mormon who fell in love with a woman who married him, who then wound up married to Joseph Smith anyway. But at least Joseph Smith was willing to share her with Henry Jacobs.

HERE’S a good take on why Zina married Joseph Smith:

I don’t have time today to analyze each of these possible reasons, but suffice it to say that there is strong evidence that each is incorrect. I believe that a much stronger case can be made for the concept that Zina was not being obedient or subservient to mortal leaders, but to her God.
This may seem a subtle difference, but it is a critical one. One can be convinced that a man is a prophet of God, and then choose to follow that prophet–whatever he says–based on that conviction. Events in Zina’s life do not show her to be that type of person, however. She did not apply a single, blanket spiritual confirmation to all her decisions; instead she sought individual confirmation for large decisions, of which the sealing to Joseph was undoubtedly one.

For instance, Zina reports that when she and Henry were courting, Joseph proposed to her on three separate occasions. On each occasion she turned him down. Zina did this even though she had received a testimony of Joseph’s prophetic call well before this time. Todd Compton points this testimony out:

Zina accepted Joseph as a prophet whose words were infallible revelations direct from God. Her older brother, Dimick, Smith’s close associate, probably also encouraged her to marry the Mormon leader, so it is remarkable that while she was an impressionable nineteen-year-old, she would refuse his suit.

In what could be an unwitting choice of words, Compton points out the basic quandary–and a distinction apparently lost on many authors, including him. If Zina truly did see Joseph’s words as “infallible revelations direct from God,” why would she have refused his propositions when she was convinced he was a prophet? If Zina practiced plural marriage simply out of obedience to the prophet, then it makes no sense that she would have thrice turned down Joseph and instead married Henry. Indeed, Zina recounted in one of her autobiographies that

when I heard that God had revealed the law of Celestial marriage that we would have the privilege of associating in family relationships in the worlds to come, I searched the scriptures and by humble prayer to my Heavenly Father I obtained a testimony for myself that God had required that order to be established in his Church.

In her late-life interview with John W. Wight of the RLDS Church, Zina was asked if she could provide the date of her marriage to Joseph. Her answer, while not germane to Wight’s question, gave a glimpse into why, in retrospect, Zina had been sealed to Joseph:

Q. “Can you give us the date of that marriage with Joseph Smith?”
A. “No, sir, I could not.”
Q. “Not even the year?”
A. “No, I do not remember. It was something too sacred to be talked about; it was more to me than life or death. I never breathed it for years. I will tell you the facts. I had dreams–I am no dreamer but I had dreams that I could not account for. I know this is the work of the Lord; it was revealed to me, even when young. Things were presented to my mind that I could not account for. When Joseph Smith revealed this order [Celestial marriage] I knew what it meant; the Lord was preparing my mind to receive it.”

Zina’s answer on this occasion is consistent with the view that she received revelation from God–in the form of dreams, separate and distinct from her testimony of the prophet–that convinced her of the truthfulness of polygamy. Once received, Zina fearlessly acted on this revelation, consistent with her commitment to be obedient to her God.

Zina acted for herself only upon confirmation by the Lord. In no way was she, nor Henry, coerced into this marriage and in no way did it split them in their conventional marriage status.

Then there is the take on marrying Brigham Young:

As to why her marrying Young would not be a Leverite marriage:

There is one problem with the concept of levirate marriage, particularly in the case of Zina. Henry was apparently “a worthy church brother,” and already married to Zina. Could not his marriage to her have been viewed as fulfilling any levirate law? Apparently not, if the fact that Zina married Brigham is accepted as prima facie evidence to the contrary. Joseph had asked the Twelve to look after his plural wives, and Henry was not one of the Twelve. Further, when Zina was given the choice of which of the Twelve she would marry in Joseph’s stead, she chose Brigham. While such a choice may be anathema to modern observers, it is apparently a choice made by Zina, accepted by Brigham, and approved by Henry.

That makes sense to me and it is important to note that Henry witnessed and almost definitely approved of Zina’s sealing to Brigham Young. So, what of their conventional marriage together (Zina and Brigham Young)?

Here’s probably the origin of the source you recited to me regarding how sad that situation was:

There is no doubt that the marriage of Henry and Zina dissolved at Mt. Pisgah; it was here for a very short time–just a matter of days–that they last lived together. Some authors and most critics see the dissolution of Henry and Zina’s marriage as a matter of imposing priesthood authority in the marital relationship, basing their conclusion–incorrectly, I believe–on a singular report that Brigham Young either commanded Henry to leave or made the leaving easier by calling him on a mission.

Today’s commonly accepted story traces its roots to one first told by William Hall and later by T.B.H. Stenhouse. Fawn Brodie recounted as history a story in Hall’s anti-Mormon book that Brigham forced Henry and Zina apart. This story was picked up and uncritically repeated a generation later by several other authors.

Here’s what you said happened and a good rebuttal to it. I’ll place in bold the pertinent parts for this post:

At a place called, by the Mormons, Pisgah, in Iowa, as they were passing through to Council Bluffs, Brigham Young spoke in this wise, in the hearing of hundreds: He said it was time for men who were walking in other men’s shoes to step out of them. “Brother Jacobs,” he says, “the woman you claim for a wife does not belong to you. She is the spiritual wife of brother Joseph, sealed up to him. I am his proxy, and she, in this behalf, with her children, are my property. You can go where you please, and get another, but be sure to get one of your own kindred spirit.”

The immediate problem with such a statement is that there is no contemporary corroboration for it. Hall states that Brigham’s statement was made in the hearing of hundreds of people, yet there are no other diaries that indicate such a statement or, indeed, any statement from Brigham to Henry. The statement itself would need to have been made sometime between Henry’s arrival at Mt. Pisgah (May 18) and his departure on his mission (approximately June 1).

For instance, Patty Bartlett Sessions, who was a detailed journal writer, arrived at Mt. Pisgah in the same company as the Jacobs’ and left Mt. Pisgah on June 2, 1846. None of her diary entries for the period refer to any such statement by Brigham Young, and it is safe to assume that she would have been among the “hundreds” referenced by William Hall. In fact, Sessions continues to refer to Zina as either “Zina Jacobs” or “sister Jacobs” as late as June 3, 1847, which reference would seem unlikely if she had heard Brigham claim Zina (and her children) as his property and exile Henry.

The diary of William Huntington records only one semi-public and one fully public meeting between May 18 and the first of June. There was a prayer meeting for selected individuals held on May 31, and a meeting in the grove near Huntington’s house on June 1 that turned into a “special conference” at which “considerable business” was done. There is, however, no record in his diary of any denouncing of his son-in-law by Brigham.

Can you cite anything to back up Hall’s claim? Certainly not T.B.H. Stenhouse as the article points out.

Not only does the article show strong doubt as to your expression of what happened between Smith, young, and the Jacobs, but it also shows through letters that before Zina moved to Winter Quarters, where Brigham young lived, she, through a letter, had already considered herself divorced from Henry and that Henry even remarried before Zina even made it to Winter Quarters. This all points to a mutual understanding between Henry and Zina that their marriage was no longer in force or valid. That neither party considered married to the other. There is no record of divorce and some good reasons are pointed out. A) The Nauvoo charter was revoked effectively revoking its local government; and B) The government in Iowa was small and not able to accommodate the large numbers of Saints moving through there and C) There is no set rules for divorce in the wild frontier which would be the state the Saints were in after leaving Illinois. But one thing is clear is that neither Henry, nor Zina, had any animosity towards each other despite no longer considering themselves to be married and that Henry always retained a great love and respect for Brigham Young.

Darren on May 24, 2012 at 12:56 AM

Did these marriages involve a man and a woman who consummated their marriage? There’s your answer.

tom on May 23, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Exactly my point. As far as *anyone knows*, they were not marriages which ended up being consumated. Thank you for getting to the point.

But for the others, if the marriage was consummated between a man and a woman, then it doesn’t make much difference what religious ritual you wrap around it, it’s still a marriage.

You can maintain as long as you want that these were marriages without sex, but don’t expect anyone else to believe it.

My main point to you is that there is NO EVIDENCE of sexual relations. You my believe it or not, but there is no evidnece or said evidence most assuredly been produced long before now and you’d be citing them here. Like your citation between Zina, henry, and Brigham in your apparent attempt to stir up drama.
___________________________________________________________

What brushes did Jesus have with the law?

None.

Not with Roman law but he did with Jewish law. I think Gunlock’s main point that despite the legal accusations, he was innocent.

Darren on May 24, 2012 at 1:03 AM

As for there being “ZERO evidence” of Joseph Smith doing anything similar, look back at the list of wives I previously posted, and which the LDS organization admits to. Several of those were from years before Joseph Smith claimed a revelation allowing polygamy.

tom on May 23, 2012 at 7:34 PM

NO EVIDENCE OF SEXUAL ACTIVITY. NONE. Bennett and Higsbee both admitted to immorality. Period.

Joseph Smith was caught in the barn with Fanny Alger in 1833 by his own wife, Emma Smith. This was well before he announced a revelation of plural marriage. Is there any evidence at all that you won’t stonewall and call “ZERO EVIDENCE?”

In short, Joseph Smith excommunicated Dr. Bennett for doing the exact same things he was doing

That, sir, is libelous. What *act* of immorality did Joseph Smith partake in? You cannot cite me a single one. Not a one, sir. You’re bearing false witness against him now. polygamy does not equate adultery. polyandry does not equate adultery unless there is sexual relations. Which sexual relation have you shown me? None. I’ve shown you two. That’s a significant difference.

Nothing libelous about it. Both attempted to convince other women to have sexual relations with them. The real difference between the two was that you accept Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, and believe his revelation of plural marriage was from God, and therefore what he did was not actually wrong.

So did he excommunicate Bennett for immorality, or to protect himself from accusations of sharing Bennett’s immorality?

Then a mob of people — probably expecting Smith to be bailed out by his political cronies trying to lock up the Mormon vote — stormed the jail to lynch him.

What are you talking about? What political cronies? The two major political parties went to the Mormons hand in foot to give them goodies to lock up their vote. neither Smith nor that Mormons sought and such favorable treatment. Smith did not have “political cronies”.

You’re making my point for me. The two major political parties went to the Mormons hat in hand to lock up their vote. Obviously, there was a reasonable suspicion that political influence would be used to bail Joseph Smith out of his troubles.

He had the state’s largest militia but what did they do? Nothing. That’s telling.

As I recall, they had tried that approach in Missouri, and been driven out in response.

Stop implying Smith’s corruption without evidence. It’s shallow. All i can tell from you is that you’re a shallow person regarding your view of Mormonism.

Your denial of the evidence doesn’t make it vanish. Joseph Smith didn’t just try to reinstate polygamy. He invented a whole new version of polygamy that involved marrying women who were still married to other men — and not to “Gentile” men or unbelievers, but to faithful Mormon men — and declaring that God did not just permit polygamy but required it. In the case of Zina Jacobs, he claimed that an angel of God with flaming sword required him to take her to wife, while she was married to Henry Jacobs and several months pregnant with his child!

I don’t mean to imply Joseph Smith was corrupt. I think it’s well past time to say it plainly. The only way to conclude anything else is to believe that God redefined morality through Joseph Smith’s revelation. No non-Mormon will accept such a claim.

God says something different about polygamy. Jesus himself said that God made us male and female. The early church required that preachers and deacons be the husband of one wife. Polygamy, like divorce, was tolerated because of the hardness of people’s hearts. Yet Joseph Smith elevated plural marriages to a command enforced by angels with flaming swords.

David had hundreds of wives, even though God had warned against kings multiplying to themselves wives. Solomon famously had a thousand wives. Yet you cannot find a single person in the Old Testament who shared a wife with another husband. It took Joseph Smith to have this innovation.

Joseph Smith made a mockery of marriage, and it was this single thing rather than religious prejudice or bigotry which disgusted his neighbors and ultimately cost him his life.

You have no shame, if you think the difference between 33 and 48 wives is some sort of defense.

LOL. I think you speak about things without knowing them as I cited you doing twice before in this very post. That as my point.

And I think you should quit worrying about me and open your eyes to what is staring you in the face. I said that Joseph Smith had up to 48 wives. That in itself implies “as many as” 48 wives. You demanded names of all. I pointed to names of 33 well-documented wives. Rather than admit that 33 should be enough to establish that Joseph Smith was a polygamist, you imply not being able to name the other 15 proves he’s not guilty.

Even LDS historians admit that Joseph Smith communicated his doctrine of plural marriage for a while secretly, person to person, rather than declaring it publicly. Clearly during this time he would have been keeping it quiet. Emma Smith was one of the last to accept plural marriages, and he spent years hiding those relationships from her. During this time, he lied repeatedly and claimed accusations of polygamy were false, while secretly engaging in it.

Which is why you earlier posted to a link that Joseph Smith fought against polygamy. Of course he did, before he went public with the doctrine of plural marriages. But even while “fighting against it,” he practiced it.

tom on May 24, 2012 at 3:12 AM

Not only does the article show strong doubt as to your expression of what happened between Smith, young, and the Jacobs, but it also shows through letters that before Zina moved to Winter Quarters, where Brigham young lived, she, through a letter, had already considered herself divorced from Henry and that Henry even remarried before Zina even made it to Winter Quarters. This all points to a mutual understanding between Henry and Zina that their marriage was no longer in force or valid. That neither party considered married to the other. There is no record of divorce and some good reasons are pointed out. A) The Nauvoo charter was revoked effectively revoking its local government; and B) The government in Iowa was small and not able to accommodate the large numbers of Saints moving through there and C) There is no set rules for divorce in the wild frontier which would be the state the Saints were in after leaving Illinois. But one thing is clear is that neither Henry, nor Zina, had any animosity towards each other despite no longer considering themselves to be married and that Henry always retained a great love and respect for Brigham Young.

Darren on May 24, 2012 at 12:56 AM

Hall recounted the story from his own personal experience. It’s also consistent with the historical record, which shows that Zina was married to Henry Jacobs, and that Joseph Smith required her to marry him, but that she continued to be married to her husband. On Joseph Smith’s death, she was claimed by Brigham Young, and he was sent away on mission work.

There is no dispute historically that Zina was married to Henry Jacobs, or that it was recorded that she was then married to Joseph Smith, or that she was ultimately claimed by Brigham Young, even though she was already married to Henry Jacobs, and that she ultimately lived with Brigham Young and had a child by him.

That’s a lot of corroboration.

Here is Jesus on the subject of marriage: (Math 19:-6)

Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh?
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

But those who claimed to be holy men of God in the Mormon church tore apart husband and wife and claimed the wife for themselves. The big difference between Joseph Smith and Brigham Young in this instance is that Joseph Smith was willing to share Zina with her actual husband.

Yes, of course Zina was convinced she was obeying God. But who was telling her that doing this was obeying God? Joseph Smith, then Brigham Young.

As for the continued assertion that there’s no evidence those marriages were consummated, the stated purpose of plural marriage was to raise more children. This could only be done through sexual activity, which was just happens to be part of marriage.

Don’t make a fool of yourself by claiming that these were marriages without sex. That was not part of the doctrine of plural marriages, and I think you know that very well. As Eliza Snow, once of Joseph Smith’s wives, reportedly said, “I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that.”

[Joseph Smith III] said, ˜I am informed that Eliza Snow was a virgin at the time of her death. I in turn said, ˜Brother Heber C. Kimball, I am informed, asked her the question if she was not a virgin although married to Joseph Smith and afterwards to Brigham Young, when she replied in a private gathering, I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that”

tom on May 24, 2012 at 3:44 AM

What brushes did Jesus have with the law?

None.

Not with Roman law but he did with Jewish law. I think Gunlock’s main point that despite the legal accusations, he was innocent.

Darren on May 24, 2012 at 1:03 AM

Not with Jewish law, either. At the crucifixion, the Jews had no prior record of lawbreaking by Jesus, no “brushes with the law.” They had to manufacture evidence on the spot.

There is simply no comparison to Joseph Smith, who dabbled in the occult and was brought in for trial for the practice of “peep” stones to find buried treasure. Where Jesus was ordered to be crucified by a man who said, “I find no fault in him,” and willingly went to his death, offering forgiveness to his killers, we see Joseph Smith dragged out of a jail after burning the printing press of his enemies, shooting his attackers with smuggled revolvers.

tom on May 24, 2012 at 3:53 AM

Joseph Smith was caught in the barn with Fanny Alger in 1833 by his own wife, Emma Smith.

tom on May 24, 2012 at 3:12 AM

Interesting approach. Present a bald assertion, no evidence or proof of foul deeds, and let innuendo do your work.

If you had any thing stronger, you would use it. But alas, you don’t.

So, go ahead, and keep up with your innuendos, it is all you’ve got.

Gunlock Bill on May 24, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Joseph Smith was caught in the barn with Fanny Alger in 1833 by his own wife, Emma Smith. This was well before he announced a revelation of plural marriage. Is there any evidence at all that you won’t stonewall and call “ZERO EVIDENCE?”

tom on May 24, 2012 at 3:12 AM

You say so with absoluteness. Here you go (bold mine):

The bulk of the evidence seems to show that Fanny and Joseph were regarded as married, even by hostile witnesses. It seems likely that their involvement became more widely known when someone (perhaps Parrish?) spied on Joseph and Fanny, and other church leaders then became involved. We can say little with confidence of the circumstances surrounding their discovery and nothing of Emma’s knowledge (or lack thereof) beforehand, though she almost certainly became hostile if she did not start out that way. I suspect that the bare bones tale to which Johnson alludes—perhaps no better than gossip itself—is the kernel around which McLellin and the Webbs embroidered exaggeration, drama, and even outright fabrication. The evidence for a pregnancy is weak.

There are two letters by McLellin to Joseph Smith III. The first letter tells Smith III that his father (the Prophet Joseph Smith Jr.) may have engaged in plural marriage. At this point there is no known record from Emma Smith acknowledging this practice. The letter also asked for Smith III to ask his mother f this was true. In the second letter McLellin urged Smith II to confirm the plural marriages of his father simply by asking his mother if it was true. The cited article’s author cites the following:

McLellin recounted a story that he attributed to Frederick G. Williams, an excommunicated member of the First Presidency. McLellin claimed that Joseph had been caught in immoral behavior with a “Miss Hill” in late 1832. According to McLellin, Emma called Williams, Oliver Cowdery, and Sidney Rigdon to help settle the matter. McLellin insists that “she told me this story was true!!”

McLellin also reported a tale he had heard about Joseph and Fanny Alger. He claimed that Fanny and Joseph were in the barn and Emma “looked through a crack and saw the transaction!!! She told me this story too was verily true.” In this letter, McLellin upped the ante, adding disturbing details that he claims Emma verified in 1847. He wanted Joseph III to confront his mother about at least two women with whom he claims the Prophet was involved.

This “being caught in the barn” is what you were referring to, yes? Now, here remember that after Joseph’s death, there is no known record of Emma Smith speaking of polygamy. If she knew so much with absoluteness, then she never spoke of it thus McLellin’s admonishment to Smith III to confront her on the polygamy issue.

From a newspaper article McLellin wrote, te article’s author points out Mclellin’s contradiction. He spoke about Emma Smith confirming to him that she saw two polygamous marriage performed in the barn but that McLellin spoke of the second time as the “first authenticated time”. That’s a contradiction. That’s a sign of a story told not based upon facts.

And here’s something the author points out which you yourself have pretty much pointed out previously:

McLellin insisted that Emma Smith confirmed these tales in 1847. Yet this is a strange occurrence—there is virtually no other record of Emma admitting, following Joseph’s death, that he even taught plural marriage.

If McLellin is telling the truth then we should conclude that she told him of the polygamous instances but nobody else? Even after Joseph Smith’s death?

Here’s what happened with McLellin:

To begin to answer this, we must briefly revisit McLellin’s history in and out of the church. McLellin was baptized 20 August 1831 and was ordained an elder four days later. On 25 October he received a revelation via Joseph Smith in which he was warned: “Commit not adultery—a temptation with which thou hast been troubled.” McLellin did not take this advice and was excommunicated in December 1832 for spending time with “a certain harlot” while on a mission.

Rebaptized in 1833, he was ordained an apostle on 15 February 1835. His problems continued. He was disfellowshipped in 1835 for writing a letter that “cast . . . censure upon the [first] presidency.” Reinstated on 25 September 1835, he attended the Kirtland Temple dedication but had lost confidence in the church leadership by August 1836. At his 11 May 1838 excommunication hearing, “he said he had no confidence in the presidency of the Church; consequently, he had quit praying and keeping the commandments of the Lord, and indulged himself in his sinful lusts. It was from what he had heard that he believed the presidency had got out of the way, and not from anything that he had seen himself.”

He seems to have been in and out of the LDS Church a lot and each time augmenting ire against the leadership of the Church. In his ire:

It seems that McLellin had difficulty with adulterous behavior. He also frequently disagreed with church leaders and did not hesitate to criticize them publicly. His penchant for believing and acting on secondhand information—as in the report about “Miss Hill” from Frederick G. Williams—was already apparent, since he attacked the First Presidency for what he had heard, not for what he personally had witnessed.

There’s your witness for the polygamous act “caught in the barn”. Believe what you may but McLellin isn’t very credible in my estimation.

But here’s more to his credibility:

McLellin’s later life found him bouncing from one Mormon splinter group to another. He gave early support to James J. Strang but later distanced himself when it became clear that he would not get a leadership position. In a public debate with Strang, McLellin denied ever having been friendly with Strang or well-disposed toward his claims. In response, Strang produced three letters written by McLellin, which he proceeded to read. The letters “ended the debate quickly, and McLellin never mentioned these matters again, even in his own publications. . . . In their debate Strang exploited the content of those letters to demonstrate that McLellin’s verbal and other published statements were at total variance with the reality suggested in the letters.” Clearly, then, McLellin was perfectly willing to fib to others in furtherance of his religious goals. He lied about conversations he had had with Strang only to have his own letters prove his duplicity.

Remember, McLellin is the man, perhaps the sole man, in whom Emma Smith confided her deepest troubles? I for one really don’t think so.

And here’s even more:

. Following his excommunication, McLellin played an active role in mobbing and robbing the Saints. Joseph was taken to Liberty Jail, and Emma returned home to find that she had been robbed of everything. A contemporary journal records that McLellin “went into brother Joseph’s house and commenced searching over his things . . . [and] took all his [jewelry] out of Joseph’s box and took a lot of his cloths [sic] and in fact, plundered the house and took the things off.” When Emma asked McLellin why he did this, McLellin replied, “Because I can.”

A thief is not a good witness against the character of the person he thieved from I’d say.

It gets better though:

McLellin’s offenses against Joseph extended beyond robbing his family:

While Joseph was in prison at Richmond, Missouri, McLellin, who was a large and active man, went to the sheriff and asked for the privilege of flogging the Prophet. Permission was granted on condition that Joseph would fight. The sheriff made known to Joseph McLellin’s earnest request, to which Joseph consented, if his irons were taken off. McLellin then refused to fight unless he could have a club, to which Joseph was perfectly willing; but the sheriff would not allow them to fight on such unequal terms.

LOL. Joseph would have whooped McLellin.

After all this Emma Smith entrusted her deepest fear of betrayal to…McLellin? Please. You trust McLellin’s account? Go right ahead and pronounce here and now tha McLellin told the truth. Please do. I’ll listen.

While her husband froze in Liberty Jail, Emma had to worry about her children going cold because McLellin had stolen their bedding.

Quaint.

Chauncey G. Webb wasa nother witnes to Joseph being “caught in the barn”. Yetthe author of the article notes of the assumption that Agler was pregnant by Joseph smith:

Webb was in a position to know about Fanny’s pregnancy, so why does he tell us nothing else? Why do we hear no tragic tale about the despoiled maiden’s child being stillborn or the heartrending scene of the mother required to give up the Prophet’s bastard offspring for someone else to raise in secret? Either scenario would have suited the tone and tastes of the late-nineteenth-century exposé in which Webb’s words appeared. The opportunities for him to use his “knowledge” are legion, and yet Webb simply teases his audience with a sly hint and drops the matter.

I ask, if pregnancy occurred, why didn’t Webb simply disclose that “fact” unless, of course, he was making things up about Smith?

Darren on May 24, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Nothing libelous about it. Both attempted to convince other women to have sexual relations with them.

tom on May 24, 2012 at 3:12 AM

Now, you’re lying, sir. Were you to accuse me of any sch thing wit no evidence I’d sue your butt. Is this libel allowed on Hot Air? You present no evidence to back your claim against Joseph Smith. I, however, presented you with knowledge of first-hand confessions regarding adultery/fornication and you equate Smith with those who admitted their sexual immorality? As they say at Hot Air, “Dude!”

So did he excommunicate Bennett for immorality, or to protect himself from accusations of sharing Bennett’s immorality?

I answered that. Bennet was immoral, Joseph was not. Nor could you cite me anything to make that cnclsion. There’s nothing out there to conclude tha Joseph Smith had any sexual relations with anyone except for Emma Smith. I’ve looked long and hard for evidence and have come up with nothing.

You’re making my point for me. The two major political parties went to the Mormons hat in hand to lock up their vote. Obviously, there was a reasonable suspicion that political influence would be used to bail Joseph Smith out of his troubles.

I made no point for you. You said Joseph Smith had “political cronies”. Having political allies is not the same as “political cronies”. Having a “crony” implies building a friendship or trust over time. Mormons were not even in Illinois long enough to have made “political cronies” let alone rely upon them to free Joseph Smith from prison. And if the governor of Illinois was the one imprisoned Smith, what good would having political cronies be? The mere fact that Joseph was not released shows as direct evidence that Smith had no “political cronies” on his side. I’m glad to have “proven your point”.

As I recall, they had tried that approach in Missouri, and been driven out in response.

You recall incorrectly. The Mormons were driven out for their opposition to slavery, declaration that blacks had a soul, and for their strange doctrines. People also feared the power the Mormons would wield in Missouri. Not that the Mormons did wield any such power, but it was still feared.

Your denial of the evidence doesn’t make it vanish.

Sir, your failure to provide evidence shows there is no evidence to produce.

In the case of Zina Jacobs, he claimed that an angel of God with flaming sword required him to take her to wife, while she was married to Henry Jacobs and several months pregnant with his child!

You’re correct. And Zina lived with whom after they were sealed? Also, did you note that at least twice Zina refused be sealed Joseph Smith until she herself received divine confirmation from God, in other words, that the word of God revealed to her directly the truthfulness of Joseph Smith? Furthermore, you previous expressed doubt about believing that Joseph Smith received revelation to practice polygamy and refused to do it. The account you just shared regarding the angel with a sword drawn, was the result of Smith’s original refusal to practice plural marriage. It was then that the angle said (paraphrasing) “practice plural marriage or be destroyed”. So, which version is it now? Joseph refused initially or that he made up stories to “get what he wanted” with women?

God says something different about polygamy. Jesus himself said that God made us male and female. The early church required that preachers and deacons be the husband of one wife. Polygamy, like divorce, was tolerated because of the hardness of people’s hearts. Yet Joseph Smith elevated plural marriages to a command enforced by angels with flaming swords.

Joseph Smith restored the gospel of old from the Old Testament Times to the New Testament times. Plural marriage was part of this restoration. Polygamy was indeed practiced in Old Testament times and we know not why or why it stopped. No doubt God revealed something somewhere to have it put to an end but what, where, and when that was I do not think anyone knows. Jesus taught that in Him the woman is not without the man nor is the man without the woman. He also taught that what is bound on earth is bound in heaven. The truths behind this were lost but now restored. Believe what you will, I know what I believe and I have had many spiritual confirmations, directly from God, to verify these truths.

Yet you cannot find a single person in the Old Testament who shared a wife with another husband. ,

.

That much is true which is one reason I emphatically point out the non sexual relations between Smith and other women. These marriages were not conventional marriages you cite, even from the Bible. These were eternal sealings, nothing more.

Joseph Smith made a mockery of marriage, and it was this single thing rather than religious prejudice or bigotry which disgusted his neighbors and ultimately cost him his life.

Joseph Smith solidified marriage way beyond anything man could do. He restored knowledge of eternal marriage and by and large Mormons do better tan the general public in their marriages. His faithfulness to God is what cost his life by the ungodly. And you have not, nor can you, name those who went after Joseph Smith for the honor of their wives. What husband was in the crowd which killed Joseph Smith? Whose wife did Joseph steal? Name names sir lest you continue in your futile libelous rendition of Joseph Smith.

Rather than admit that 33 should be enough to establish that Joseph Smith was a polygamist, you imply not being able to name the other 15 proves he’s not guilty.

LOL. I never denied any such thing. Yes, Joseph Smith was a polygamist. I only took issue as to the nature of the polygamy and to point out that you speak of things which you do not know about. You chose “48” because that’s the highest number against Smith and thus could do the most damage to his character. I asked you to name names only to point out that this accusation is unfounded and yet you cited it. You then pointed to “60”.

Even LDS historians admit that Joseph Smith communicated his doctrine of plural marriage for a while secretly, person to person, rather than declaring it publicly.</blockquote.

As I agreed with.

Which is why you earlier posted to a link that Joseph Smith fought against polygamy. Of course he did, before he went public with the doctrine of plural marriages. But even while “fighting against it,” he practiced it.

I pointed to it because it showed the immorality of two of the Expositor writers/owners. It was in their own selfish interest to “expose’ Joseph Smith. That’s all.

Hall recounted the story from his own personal experience. It’s also consistent with the historical record, which shows that Zina was married to Henry Jacobs, and that Joseph Smith required her to marry him, but that she continued to be married to her husband. On Joseph Smith’s death, she was claimed by Brigham Young, and he was sent away on mission work.

Young did not “claim” Zina. She lived with Henry after she was sealed to Young in Henry’s presence. She clearly conclude that she and Henry were no longer together long before she went to live with Young and by the time she made it there, Henry himself had remarried.

Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Nobody put Zina’s marriage asunder except Zina and Henry.

But those who claimed to be holy men of God in the Mormon church tore apart husband and wife and claimed the wife for themselves.

Fallacious

The big difference between Joseph Smith and Brigham Young in this instance is that Joseph Smith was willing to share Zina with her actual husband.

There was no difference between Smith and young regarding Zina until Zina decided she was no longer married to Henry. “sharing” requires “having” and nobody but Henry “had” Zina until Zina and Henry regarded their marriage no longer valid. You’re tryingto create a love triangle where none existed.

Yes, of course Zina was convinced she was obeying God. But who was telling her that doing this was obeying God? Joseph Smith, then Brigham Young.

Zina refused Joseph Smith at least TWICE. She conceded only after God told her directly what she should do.

As for the continued assertion that there’s no evidence those marriages were consummated, the stated purpose of plural marriage was to raise more children.

Really? I thought it was for exaltation as the Doctrine and Covenants says. And didn’t you refer to that book regarding polygamy? Why yes, yes you did. Again you speak about things you do not know about.

Don’t make a fool of yourself by claiming that these were marriages without sex. That was not part of the doctrine of plural marriages, and I think you know that very well.

Wow. Now you assert doctrines which do not exist and that I know they exist even though they do not.

Quaint.

In the Book of Mormon in Jacob 2 we read of *one* reason the Lord may command plural marriage. That reason is to raise children but that is not the “doctrine of plural marriage”. In Doctrine and Covenants Section 132 we read of the purpose of plural wives wit respect to “multiplying and replenishing the earth” in the context of a wife belonging ot one man and “none else”. When a woman, therefore, belonged to someone else, this commandment seems to have no affect. However, there is the reasons given for exaltation for establishing “celestial marriage”, which does not inherently mea “plural marriage”. That’s the doctrine, sir. Why would you want to dictated to me what LDS doctrines say other than to be…”quaint”?

Darren on May 24, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Not with Jewish law, either. At the crucifixion, the Jews had no prior record of lawbreaking by Jesus, no “brushes with the law.” They had to manufacture evidence on the spot.

There are numerous times when Jesus was accused of violating Jewish law. Ultimately the Jewish leaders used Roman authority to get what they wanted, which was to kill the Jesus. Despite being accused Jesus never violated any law. That wasthe main point.

There is simply no comparison to Joseph Smith, who dabbled in the occult and was brought in for trial for the practice of “peep” stones to find buried treasure.

LOL. Is the Urim and Thummim an occult object as well? I’ll grant you that Joseph misused the seer stone to find treasure and he learned that when he did it was of no use.

Where Jesus was ordered to be crucified by a man who said, “I find no fault in him,” and willingly went to his death, offering forgiveness to his killers, we see Joseph Smith dragged out of a jail after burning the printing press of his enemies, shooting his attackers with smuggled revolvers.

I guess St. Peter was no servant of Christ neither. Sad. :>(

Darren on May 24, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Nothing libelous about it. Both attempted to convince other women to have sexual relations with them.

tom on May 24, 2012 at 3:12 AM

Now, you’re lying, sir. Were you to accuse me of any sch thing wit no evidence I’d sue your butt. Is this libel allowed on Hot Air? You present no evidence to back your claim against Joseph Smith. I, however, presented you with knowledge of first-hand confessions regarding adultery/fornication and you equate Smith with those who admitted their sexual immorality

? As they say at Hot Air, “Dude!”
…..
Darren on May 24, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Seriously, give up on the whole attempt to accuse me of libel. The record is clear that Joseph Smith was not just a polygamist, but polyandrous as well, at first in secret while lying about it publicly, and then finally admitting it.

Now, you can continue to believe that these were not real marriages if you want, and that there was no actual sex involved. Those of us who are not sold on Joseph Smith’s claims will probably accept the far simpler and more likely explanation that his multiple marriages included sex, especially since he was already known to have lied about his plural marriages while practicing them.

But don’t run around accusing me of libel because you’re not capable of admitting the evidence.

Try reading, “The Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith,” a biography of Emma Smith written by two Mormon scholars. They show clearly the struggle that Emma Smith had with Joseph Smith’s doctrine of plural marriages. She spent years denying that he did any such thing, and then he had a revelation that she was to accept it as an ordinance.

I’ve spent considerable time addressing these questions, only to be accused of bad faith, ignorance, shallowness, sensationalism, lying, and libel.

Enough. The evidence that Joseph Smith was, in fact, a polygamist, is extensive, and is admitted by the LDS organization. You can try to justify that if you want, but don’t accuse me of lying because I reject your justifications.

tom on May 24, 2012 at 1:33 PM

tom;

Here’s my conclusion. Yes. Joseph Smith practriced polygamy. Yes, he practice ployandry. I do not doubt this. I do not deny this. I agree with both. The only context which I took issue is the nature of his plural marriages. They were not sexual and nor can you provide edivence to support your claim that they were. You have relied upon cirumstantial evidence, conjecture, and a false presenatation of LDS doctrine. You also presented forth testimony of Joseph Smith being caught in compromising situations but such testimonies are easily shown as bias and unreliable.

Yes, Joseph Smith denied it and then admitted it. That is true. I explaied theresons I think he hid the practice. I think he feared the backlash and you even purport that the backlash killed him. If so, wy is Joseph Smith held in contempt from you for hidingthe truth when the revelation ofthat truth is what killed him (according to your argument). You seemto take conflicting sides o this issue.

Those of us who are not sold on Joseph Smith’s claims will probably accept the far simpler and more likely explanation that his multiple marriages included sex, especially since he was already known to have lied about his plural marriages while practicing them.

You may take that positon if youthink it is correct but you still cannot provide any evidence that they were sexual in nature. NONE.

But don’t run around accusing me of libel because you’re not capable of admitting the evidence.

I adressed the evidence well I think and continue to claim libel from you. You accuse without evidence.

They show clearly the struggle that Emma Smith had with Joseph Smith’s doctrine of plural marriages. She spent years denying that he did any such thing, and then he had a revelation that she was to accept it as an ordinance.

OK.

I’ve spent considerable time addressing these questions, only to be accused of bad faith, ignorance, shallowness, sensationalism, lying, and libel.

Your accusations without support, especially cedible support, is what brings you to these accusations from me.

I think weve run our course and this page will soon move off of Hot Air’s front page. At that point I rarely if ever return to post.

Take care and God bless. We’ll meet again, I’m sure.

Darren on May 24, 2012 at 2:06 PM

tom,

What a shame that you (and others) impugn the character of the dead without proof. Speculation, exaggeration, and innuendo flavored by a filthy mind make for ultra thin soup.

Gunlock Bill on May 24, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4