Saints: The Standard of Truth Reviewed

[fetchface]

I just read and reviewed Saints: The Standard of Truth so that you don't have to.

https://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/ ... iewed.html

You're welcome.

[Palerider]

I just read and reviewed Saints: The Standard of Truth so that you don't have to.

https://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/ ... iewed.html

You're welcome.

Excellent review. Church leadership are like an abused spouse. They cannot stop themselves from defending the heinous man who keeps beating, lying to and defrauding them. Really sad.

One critique. I know you're angered by this stuff. So am I. The F bomb doesn't strengthen your position and a sensitive Mormon looking for truth would probably be put off by it.

Just sayin'

[Ghost]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the book. I always enjoy your Web log posts. I'm about halfway through the book, myself.

[RubinHighlander]

You'll get just enough from this book so that you can think you know what's really going on, but you don't.

Nice work here. I'll have to side with Palerider on cleaning up the language and emotional expressions, it would add more credibility. I know how hard it is to keep those words and feelings at bay when talking about this subject matter. I'm guilty of doing this just last night when I was out when friends. Two of them are NOMs, one is not. I think the beers loosened me up too much and I was just letting it fly; I feel kind of bad. I had an opportunity to express somethings in a way that might allow the TBM to think a bit, but instead he probably just saw me as a bitter old exmo.

[deacon blues]

I liked the review. I agree that the book really put William Law through the ringer. If he was still alive he could sue them for defamation of character. Maybe some of his descendants might. The sources the book uses to accuse Law of adultery are especially lame- Joseph and Hyrum. In the same Nauvoo City Council meeting where Hyrum accuses of adultery, Hyrum also lies about polygamy, saying the polygamy revelation was "meant for former times" and not the present. So how would Hyrum defend his five wives in the present?
The sad thing is they rely on Joseph and Hyrum to tell the truth, except when they use "carefully worded denials."
I noticed they stayed away from Sarah Pratt. It would be harder to twist her story, than William Law's story.

[fetchface]

Oh, I didn't write this for Mormons. I wrote it for myself, and then I thought you guys might enjoy it. I don't plan on sharing it on Facebook or anything.

I did put basically the same text in my Goodreads review of the book, but I edited out the cussin'. I do have Mormon Goodreads friends so I thought I'd be slightly "nicer" there.

The more time that goes by with me out of the church, the less patience I have to come up with some super-soft tone way to say that Joseph was a scumbag. I'm too busy having a good life. I hammered this out in 5% of the time that my other blog posts took. It felt good to just barf out the poison I swallowed reading that book.

[Palerider]

I liked the review. I agree that the book really put William Law through the ringer. If he was still alive he could sue them for defamation of character. Maybe some of his descendants might. The sources the book uses to accuse Law of adultery are especially lame- Joseph and Hyrum. In the same Nauvoo City Council meeting where Hyrum accuses of adultery, Hyrum also lies about polygamy, saying the polygamy revelation was "meant for former times" and not the present. So how would Hyrum defend his five wives in the present?
The sad thing is they rely on Joseph and Hyrum to tell the truth, except when they use "carefully worded denials."
I noticed they stayed away from Sarah Pratt. It would be harder to twist her story, than William Law's story.

deacon:

Not to highjack this thread, but have you ever read any actual accounts from Joseph or Hyrum as to why they lied?

It seems to me that the church has some lame excuses for why Joseph had to lie about polygamy but I've never read anything documented from him as to why he had to lie.

It seems if the church wants to "assume" it was because the general church membership wasn't ready for it (polygamy doctrine), why couldn't someone else assume it was for a different reason??

Like being a coward and not wanting to get caught playing a nasty game.

[fetchface]

It seems to me that the church has some lame excuses for why Joseph had to lie about polygamy but I've never read anything documented from him as to why he had to lie.

As far as I can tell, the church never admits that he lied. The church makes the argument that the denials were carefully worded and it is implied that this makes it not a lie. I would be okay if they argued that he lied for a higher moral purpose, but I don't think that is what the church is arguing.

As far as I know, this apologetic comes straight from Brian Hales. I have a strong suspicion that he wrote the polygamy essays (they just mirror the arguments in his books perfectly) and I think he was probably involved in this book as well. Hales goes to great effort to cast Joseph's denials as truthful but they do not pass the tests in the Gospel Principles manual. It is a very ethically compromised argument and it shows how afraid Hales and the brethren are to admit the slightest fault in Joseph Smith. They are deathly afraid of doing that, which is why I was gobsmacked when they admitted that he smoked and drank and approved of the Danite actions in Missouri. Of course, the book did its best to minimize the actions in Missouri so a Mormon who reads this book will think that is no big deal.

[Palerider]

It seems to me that the church has some lame excuses for why Joseph had to lie about polygamy but I've never read anything documented from him as to why he had to lie.

As far as I can tell, the church never admits that he lied. The church makes the argument that the denials were carefully worded and it is implied that this makes it not a lie. I would be okay if they argued that he lied for a higher moral purpose, but I don't think that is what the church is arguing.

As far as I know, this apologetic comes straight from Brian Hales. I have a strong suspicion that he wrote the polygamy essays (they just mirror the arguments in his books perfectly) and I think he was probably involved in this book as well. Hales goes to great effort to cast Joseph's denials as truthful but they do not pass the tests in the Gospel Principles manual. It is a very ethically compromised argument and it shows how afraid Hales and the brethren are to admit the slightest fault in Joseph Smith. They are deathly afraid of doing that, which is why I was gobsmacked when they admitted that he smoked and drank and approved of the Danite actions in Missouri. Of course, the book did its best to minimize the actions in Missouri so a Mormon who reads this book will think that is no big deal.

To all you general authorities and apologists out there living in cowardly denial:

JOSEPH SMITH LIED ABOUT POLYGAMY.

"Carefully worded denials" is nothing more than a euphemism for the word "lying".

You're not fooling anyone but yourselves.

Joseph lied. Period.

You all need to get real....

Ask yourselves this question:

Did Joseph give a clear and honest description of his activities or was he deceptive in his answers regarding plural marriage?

Now see if you can still look yourselves in the mirror and say you're honest men and women. Or are you as honest with yourselves as Joseph was with his people?

[jfro18]

Besides Saints always making Joseph out to be a perfect person, my favorite tactic that they use is wrapping the difficult stuff around other faith promoting stories.

I'm only up to chapter 31, but a few times now they'll have a tough issue like Fanny or the failed bank, etc... and they'll have a paragraph of some individual's inspirational story, a paragraph to introduce Joseph's screw-up, a paragraph of the faith promoting, another of Joseph's screw-up, etc.

It really helps to break up the reader from focusing too much on any one issue because they ping-pong so much.

I have to believe that given the six years of approvals before Saints was released that this not an unintentional tactic.

[RubinHighlander]

Did Joseph give a clear and honest description of his activities or was he deceptive in his answers regarding plural marriage?

The song "Praise to the Man" just popped into my head. Since my faith transition this past several years I never really thought much about that song. But now, looking back at all the things I've learned about JS, the true nature of him and the Smith family, as well as all the other leaders of that church, hearing those words and that tune in my head makes me feel angry and sick inside. How the hell did I ever sing that song with any fervor, had any hero worship for JS; what a kick in the balls! I mean, just at the face value of it, it's super pious, putting JS equal to or above Jesus. How many times did you hear that quote that JS did more for humanity than any other man, save Jesus Christ. Those words and this song have never sounded or felt so very wrong to me as they do now!

I'm glad I can't see the SLC temple or COB HQ from my office here downtown, but I'm still giving them the finger right now!

No praise to the man who deceived his wife and lied to young girls and women to convince them into having sex with him
Who used the magical world view to deceive people into thinking he could find them buried treasure
Who read and borrowed several contemporary sources to make up a book of scripture and try to sell it for money
Who made up stories of heavenly visitations to suite his need to be a leader, live off others for gain and feed his narcissism
Who plagiarized another man's bible commentary and pass it off as his own power of translation to fix mistakes in the KJB
No praise to the corporation that continues to perpetuate his lies for their own power and financial gain!

I don't have time or inclination to reword this into an properly phrased and rhyming song; I leave to that folks like weird Alma.

[deacon blues]

It seems to me that the church has some lame excuses for why Joseph had to lie about polygamy but I've never read anything documented from him as to why he had to lie.

As far as I can tell, the church never admits that he lied. The church makes the argument that the denials were carefully worded and it is implied that this makes it not a lie. I would be okay if they argued that he lied for a higher moral purpose, but I don't think that is what the church is arguing.

As far as I know, this apologetic comes straight from Brian Hales. I have a strong suspicion that he wrote the polygamy essays (they just mirror the arguments in his books perfectly) and I think he was probably involved in this book as well. Hales goes to great effort to cast Joseph's denials as truthful but they do not pass the tests in the Gospel Principles manual. It is a very ethically compromised argument and it shows how afraid Hales and the brethren are to admit the slightest fault in Joseph Smith. They are deathly afraid of doing that, which is why I was gobsmacked when they admitted that he smoked and drank and approved of the Danite actions in Missouri. Of course, the book did its best to minimize the actions in Missouri so a Mormon who reads this book will think that is no big deal.

To all you general authorities and apologists out there living in cowardly denial:

JOSEPH SMITH LIED ABOUT POLYGAMY.

"Carefully worded denials" is nothing more than a euphemism for the word "lying".

You're not fooling anyone but yourselves.

Joseph lied. Period.

You all need to get real....

Ask yourselves this question:

Did Joseph give a clear and honest description of his activities or was he deceptive in his answers regarding plural marriage?

Now see if you can still look yourselves in the mirror and say you're honest men and women. Or are you as honest with yourselves as Joseph was with his people?

I think Joseph's lies are the smoking gun, as least as much as the BOA. The BOA itself (Abraham 2:22-25) has God that telling Abraham to lie about his wife Sariah. This is the closest thing to a "inspired" explanation for the lying/carefully worded denials. I haven't seen the Church use it for justification though. Probably because the BOA is such a can of worms anyway. Try getting your TBM friends to read it all the way through with you sometime.

I think if Joseph really had faith he would have told God, "OK, I'll practice polygamy openly: live, divorce, or die." Instead the one who gets threatened to be destroyed is Emma.

[jfro18]

I think Joseph's lies are the smoking gun, as least as much as the BOA. The BOA itself (Abraham 2:22-25) has God that telling Abraham to lie about his wife Sariah. This is the closest thing to an explanation for the lying/carefully worded denials. I haven't seen the Church use it for justification though. Probably because the BOA is such a can of worms anyway. Try getting your TBM friends to read it all the way through with you sometime.

I think if Joseph really had faith he would have told God, "OK, I'll practice polygamy openly: live, divorce, or die." Instead the one who gets threatened to be destroyed is Emma.

The TBM response to this is and will always be "Joseph knew if he practiced it openly they would kill him. He was just trying to prevent Missouri from happening again."

It's absolute nonsense, of course, but that's always going to be the response once you get them to admit that Joseph lied about polygamy.

[Corsair]

The sad thing is they rely on Joseph and Hyrum to tell the truth, except when they use "carefully worded denials."

May I carefully direct the LDS church a much more famous "carefully worded denial:"

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

I don't think it is a stretch to assume that that majority of American Latter-day Saints did not vote for Bill Clinton and did not appreciate his carefully worded denials.

The "spiritually correct" explanation of Joseph Smith's carefully worded denials were that they were to protect the saints (and Joseph) from the obvious reprisals from having a difficult doctrine like plural marriage revealed. This is functionally equivalent to the political storm that defined that last half of the Clinton presidency.