NOM

http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2010/ ... y.html?m=1

I'm sure you guys have seen this theory out there before. What do you think about it? What's the likelihood that early church history was entirely recast when BY took over? The whole change from the book of commandments to the doctrine and covenants is fascinating to me. And from what I've read about the entrance of D&C 132 into the church - all seems a little weird...

George Miller on the old NOM board completely disassembled that argument.

I think it's extremely unlikely. It comes from people who want to preserve their notion of the righteousness and godly role of Joseph, who pick and choose the data to meet their preconceptions. They seem to feel that somehow if they can convince themselves, and maybe others, that Joseph wasn't guilty of polygamy then they can revere him. Unfortunately, that's just one of his faults.

Even the essays acknowledge he married dozens of women and had sexual relationships with at least some of them.

Pretty sure I read about it in the Nauvoo Expositor.

The desire to rewrite history in order to bolster a faith tradition only falsifies that faith tradition.

I owe a lot to Rock for helping me to navigate my faith transition, and to see that there was something wrong with the corporate church. He's still a hero to me.

But yeah, his love of Joseph is a tad much for me at this stage, and this argument and the book he cites is not the best. Just look for the Fanny Alger story, and it's simply as if the woman didn't exist; how can you have an entire 3 volumes devoted to Joseph and his "fight" against polygamy, and not one mention of Fanny Alger anywhere? I'd love to see someone actually explain Fanny away, either those who reject that Joseph practiced polygamy, or accept it as doctrine. Any way you slice it, Fanny's a problem.

It was a short phase for me, personally. I went from "oh crap, the church does things and teaches doctrines that don't sit well with me" to "maybe the church just lost sight of the fundamentals" to "maybe JSJ was still a prophet but BY wasn't" to "maybe JSJ was a fallen prophet or something" to "okay, JSJ was a scumbag too" and then I was like "OK. I can leave the church now."

https://www.yearofpolygamy.com/year-of- ... -part-one/

TBH I haven't listened to the podcast episode above or its second part.

However, Lyndsay Hanson Park clearlyfeels that Joseph was a polygamist and there is no evidence that stands up to scrutiny, to the contrary.

Whether or not he did or did not is almost immaterial to me. BoA shows he couldn't do what he said, everything else is all detail - unless you believe in a trickster God:

God: Aha Redjay, I outwitted you!

Redjay: Yes, you're omniscient.

Here is a short list of people who believe that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy:

• Richard Bushman - Faithful LDS historian and author of "Rough Stone Rolling"
• Brian Hales - Faithing LDS author of three volumes about Joseph Smith's polygamy
• Todd Compton - Faith LDS author of "In Sacred Loneliness"
• Jan Shipps - non-LDS scholar specializing in LDS history
• John Hamer - Community of Christ historian
• Whoever authored the "Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo" essay
• Effectively everyone at FairMormon
• Denver Snuffer - claims to have seen Jesus, effectively caused a small LDS schism
• Gerald and Sandra Tanner - Notorious anti-Mormons OR surprisingly kind Christians at Utah Lighthouse Ministry
• Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith - Polygamous LDS prophets who knew Joseph Smith personally

I think you will be hard pressed to find any scholar within the LDS church that holds the view that Joseph fought polygamy. Each of these people may have a different spin on the nature of Joseph's plural marriages, but they all agree that Joseph made marriage or sealing covenants with at at least 33 women beyond Emma Hales.

There is one line of apologetics that I find particularly disturbing, which requires throwing Brigham under the bus to save Joseph. Some of Joseph's wives, who were re-married to Brigham Young and Heber Kimball after Joseph's death, testified in the temple lot case that they were indeed married to Joseph and had slept with him. One even admitted to "carnal intercourse," which was pretty saucy language for the time. Some apologists would have us believe that these women were coerced by Brigham Young to lie about their relationship with Joseph. I can't understand how in the world someone would think they're defending the good name of the church by insisting that the second prophet forced women to make false claims that they had sex with the first prophet, just to justify his own abused by trying to make Joseph look as vile as himself. If this is truly what they believe aren't they pretty much admitting that the church died with Joseph and was taken over by an impostor?

By the way, the very worst apologetic of all time was the guy (cant' remember who - some internet apologist) who claimed that "carnal intercourse" was really just dinner table vernacular for "please pass the meat."

Joseph's polygamy is considerably better documented than the First Vision, the restoration of the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods, and getting the sealing keys from Elijah. For all of these events, we have either just Joseph's or just Joseph and Oliver's testimony. For Joseph's polygamy we have many contemporary documents and many testimonies from a plethora of sources.

It isn't too surprising that people who want to believe in all that other stuff without any evidence are willing to reject the idea of Joseph practicing polygamy even with the mountains of evidence that indicate he did.

Hagoth wrote:If this is truly what they believe aren't they pretty much admitting that the church died with Joseph and was taken over by an impostor?

That's pretty much the point of Rock Waterman and others like him who pursue this strategy. It's a Hail Mary last ditch effort to rescue Joseph as a righteous prophet while accepting that the modern church and everything after must be abandoned.

You have to be really selective in your evidence to make it work. You have to purposefully ignore much that we know and understand, including about the nature of Joseph's and Brigham's characters.

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:57 am Joseph's polygamy is considerably better documented than the First Vision, the restoration of the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods, and getting the sealing keys from Elijah. For all of these events, we have either just Joseph's or just Joseph and Oliver's testimony. For Joseph's polygamy we have many contemporary documents and many testimonies from a plethora of sources.

I fight this all the time with my TBM friend (that I have disclosed to) he isn't willing to apply the same criterion across the board, just cherry picks tidbits here and there to make it work in his mind... It's actually super frustrating to try to have a rational conversation.

dogbite wrote: ↑Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:20 pm George Miller on the old NOM board completely disassembled that argument.

dogbite - is that information available/viewable at all? Thanks everyone for the response. This idea is one that some of TBM family members have clutched onto for maintaining faith in JS.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:34 am If this is truly what they believe aren't they pretty much admitting that the church died with Joseph and was taken over by an impostor?

If this narrative were the "truth", it does not speak well of God's plans. The Great Apostasy just ended and after 14 years of the One True Church it collapses yet again with a train wreck of plural marriage weighed down with this new lack of revelation. This is what the Snufferites largely feel and I imagine that the FLDS agree, but for different reasons.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:34 am By the way, the very worst apologetic of all time was the guy (cant' remember who - some internet apologist) who claimed that "carnal intercourse" was really just dinner table vernacular for "please pass the meat."

This glorious exchange is from Meg Stout in an amazing comment on Runtu's website. She proposes that the "carnal intercourse" referred to between Emily Partridge on the night after her marriage to Joseph Smith was actually just passing some meat during dinner. Literally "meat commerce" rather than what literally the rest of the humanity would have assumed after a marriage.

ap1054 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:33 am

dogbite wrote: ↑Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:20 pm George Miller on the old NOM board completely disassembled that argument.

dogbite - is that information available/viewable at all? Thanks everyone for the response. This idea is one that some of TBM family members have clutched onto for maintaining faith in JS.

Not to my knowledge. Unless someone archived it.

How is it that simply pointing to the essays on lds.org aren't enough for those that still try to question whether he practiced polygamy or not? Isn't that the source for all truth, light, and knowledge? The church is admitting to Joseph's polygamy (though in a small corner of the website that can be difficult to find). I'm not saying they won't just read the essay and latch onto the church's excuses for it, but that should be more than enough to get anyone still questioning to admit it. I'm pretty sure nothing gets put on lds.org without Q15 approval.

IT_Veteran wrote:How is it that simply pointing to the essays on lds.org aren't enough for those that still try to question whether he practiced polygamy or not? Isn't that the source for all truth, light, and knowledge? The church is admitting to Joseph's polygamy (though in a small corner of the website that can be difficult to find). I'm not saying they won't just read the essay and latch onto the church's excuses for it, but that should be more than enough to get anyone still questioning to admit it. I'm pretty sure nothing gets put on lds.org without Q15 approval.

Many of those who take this approach are fringe offshoots. They retain a belief in Joseph's prophetic calling but don't believe in the modern Brighamite church or the prophetic calling of Nelson. As such they don't give any probative value to the essays. There are some who are still traditional TBMs who are harder to explain. Some of them just formed their beliefs when the church was trying to ignore Joseph's polygamy and have stuck with that. And some don't know about the essays because the church really hasn't done much to publicize them.

Jeffret wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:23 pm

IT_Veteran wrote:How is it that simply pointing to the essays on lds.org aren't enough for those that still try to question whether he practiced polygamy or not? Isn't that the source for all truth, light, and knowledge? The church is admitting to Joseph's polygamy (though in a small corner of the website that can be difficult to find). I'm not saying they won't just read the essay and latch onto the church's excuses for it, but that should be more than enough to get anyone still questioning to admit it. I'm pretty sure nothing gets put on lds.org without Q15 approval.

Many of those who take this approach are fringe offshoots. They retain a belief in Joseph's prophetic calling but don't believe in the modern Brighamite church or the prophetic calling of Nelson. As such they don't give any probative value to the essays. There are some who are still traditional TBMs who are harder to explain. Some of them just formed their beliefs when the church was trying to ignore Joseph's polygamy and have stuck with that. And some don't know about the essays because the church really hasn't done much to publicize them.

Fair enough. I can certainly understand the position of those that follow offshoots of the church, as I have very little trust in anything published by the church nowadays either. For someone that is TBM and chooses not to believe the word of lds.org though, I find that a little surprising.

IT_Veteran wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:46 pm For someone that is TBM and chooses not to believe the word of lds.org though, I find that a little surprising.

I have seen a rise in a group that calls themselves "progressive" or "liberal" mormons that follow this line of thinking. They are willing to go a little deeper in the the facts but then start the mental gymnastics when things get tough. For example from by "liberal" TBM friend:

Joseph Smith was a profit of a new dispensation so God talked to him all the time. He was quirky because he had to be to get the job done. Anything you don't like just chalk it up to his being "quirky" and the rest was like true profit stuff. Brigham was the only dude who could have gotten the saints to salt lake zion-ness, so it had to be him, but got really had to take Brigham with a grain of salt and then when they go to zion he kind of turned the cold shoulder on old Brigham. The next profits only really received revelation when God just can't help himself anymore and his frustration at human ineptitude pushes him past his apathy and he blasts out a short burst of inspiration for a quick course correction. After that he just pops some corn and watches the train wreck for a while, doing a lot of pointing and laughing. He does all this cause he loves us and wants us to have our agency, (unless you are a 14 year old bride to be, thats TOTALLY different).

Ok I admit, i am paraphrasing a bit in that quote... but to my mind this line of thought doesn't make a lick of sense.