Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: Cold-Dodger ( )
Date: December 04, 2014 08:41AM

Just read it for the first time. I don't know how many times I've called it a pack of lies on my mission and in arguments with "antis". Just assumed if the church said it was lies, it was lies. They're not lies...

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: AmIDarkNow? ( )
Date: December 04, 2014 09:40AM

Guess how many checks one sends to the church once they learn what you just did? The hierarchy lets the "anti-Mormon lies" that the faithful spread as truth are just as good as cash in the bank. Ignorance is your own fault in the eyes of the church as it watches, knows and allows it for their own gain.

Cha Ching$ Lets go shopping!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Cold-Dodger ( )
Date: December 04, 2014 09:51AM

I lol'd at your reponse. It's true. I've been had. Eh, I've already shed my tears. Now I just shake my head that I had it so bad for so long.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: escapedfromzion -not signed in ( )
Date: December 04, 2014 10:05AM

I only recently read the Nauvoo Expositor, too. I was most surprised to learn that it was published by a former member of the First Presidency who Was still faithful, not by an anti-Mormon outsider who didn't understand the religion.

William Law was 2nd Counselor to JS. He got upset about JS's unethical politics, illegal activities and attempts at taking Law's own wife as a plural wife. When Law complained, he's got excommunicated.

I totally understand why Law would publish the Expositor after that. It was a courageous act of defiance for the good of his community, family and religion.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: darkshadow ( )
Date: December 04, 2014 01:34PM

Here is the link to William laws on and only interview about his experiences after he published the expositor.

http://www.salamandersociety.com/library/william_law_interview.pdf

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: blueorchid ( )
Date: December 04, 2014 02:41PM

It all comes back to the expositor. There's a reason why we never discussed that in Sunday School.

All of your information about William Law should be the next essay and that would wrap things up nicely.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: dinah ( )
Date: December 04, 2014 02:29PM

Pretty sick stuff, isn't it?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: dinah ( )
Date: December 04, 2014 02:51PM

I'm confused though. I followed darkshadow's link and read it all. I thought William Law said somewhere else that Joseph had propositioned the Laws with swinging. Does anyone know about that?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: MyTempleNameIsJoan ( )
Date: December 04, 2014 03:26PM

No, not swinging persay. JS or Emma didn't use the word swinging in this context with the Laws. Non-mormons used the words swinging - mormons didn't. This explains why the term wasn't familiar to mormons. example: My nevermo ggrandmother, born in the late 1800's, she used the word swinging to describe the mormons.

When Emma asked for William Law, Law used the word 'substitute'.
That's why William didn't connect with the idea of swinging or polygamy with Emma. I doubt the Laws were even familiar with the word polyandry. Whether William switched the word substitute to protect his wife's reputation or whether Emma used the word Substitute is unclear, but the results are the same. Law didn't go for it.

When Joe asked for Jane Law that was a different story.
That's when, according to the 3rd letter, Jane denounced Joe and smeared him. Joe was upset and smeared her back and cut them off.

40 years afterward Dr Law writes 3 letters in response to a man named Dr Wyl who was researching and writing articles mentioning the Laws. Law spent yrs distancing himself and I suspect that clearing his wife's reputation was the only reason he came out of hiding and wrote the letters decades later.

The 1st letter Dr Law claims that there was no proposition by the Smiths. He seems pretty adamant about it.

He approaches the topic as an error, "Your informants, however, may, now and then, have drawn a little on their imagination, may have reached false conclusions in some instances judged from circumstances and not from facts; doing injustice, perhaps, to the innocent. Where testimony conflicts it is sometimes very difficult to form conclusions. Mormon history is rather a mixed up affair. I would call your attention to one or two little mistakes concerning myself. "


His next paragraph covers his wife while he tries to take the main hit.

Law writes, " On page 108 you speak of "swapping wives," and state that you have it from one who knows. Now let me say to you that I never heard of it till I read it in your book. Your informant must have been deceived or willfully lied to you. Joseph Smith never proposed anything of the kind to me or to my wife; both he and Emma knew our sentiments in relation to spiritual wives and polygamy; knew that we were immoveably [sic] opposed to polygamy in any and every form; that we were so subsequent events proved. The story may have grown out of the fact that Joseph offered to furnish his wife, Emma, with a substitute for him, by way of compensation for his neglect of her, on condition that she would forever stop her opposition to polygamy and permit him to enjoy his young wives in peace and keep some of them in her house and to be well treated."


He knew about polygamy in any and every form, but not about the polyandry format? nope, not according to his diary or 3rd letter that pushed him toward the Nauvoo Expositor.

That's why I think he was confused about the word swinging and was desperate to cover for his wife's reputation after Dr. Wyl's article was published.

By the 3rd letter his memory comes back and he describes the events without getting very detailed, but detailed enough to know it's all coming back to him.
By the 3rd letter it was clear to me that Law omitted a lot of details to protect his wife who had died 4 yrs earlier.

He says that his wife's reputation, and his brothers reputation, meant everything to him and he'd defend them with his life. Law writes, "You would not wonder then that the reputation and memory of such a wife and such a brother, should be as dear to me as life itself."


When you get to the 3rd letter you can tell that Smith proposed to Jane Law and the Laws were crazed. It's quite different from the 1st letter when Law tries to claim that him or his wife were never involved. Law writes, "We have lived down a great measure the disgrace following our unfortunate association with the Mormons. We committed a great error, but no crime. This is my consolation, that we only erred in judgment."

Also, the 1st letter shows that the Laws didn't know about the real mormon underbelly at first. This also explains how non-mormons or other mormons like Law might give favorable reviews of mormons. It was very secret.
When the secrecy was up the Nauvoo Expositor was too.

The Journal of discourses wrote a story that smeared both the Law's names as adulterers.
How could they be adulterers when they exposed it in the Expositor? Law gets a lot of respect from me in his attempt to protect his wife by saying, no my wife was not a swinger, etc, etc, etc.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/04/2014 03:33PM by MyTempleNameIsJoan.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: dinah ( )
Date: December 04, 2014 03:28PM

I see. Thanks for that explanation.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Hold Your Tapirs ( )
Date: December 04, 2014 03:27PM

There is a Mormon Stories podcast with Grant Palmer where this is discussed.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: MyTempleNameIsJoan ( )
Date: December 04, 2014 03:38PM

The swinging part wasn't discussed in a way that made sense in relation to Law's letters and again to his diary. I read through the podcast commentary and noticed a comment stating that according to Law's letters, Law and his wife weren't propositioned by Smith.

I read them myself and sure enough noticed law saying contradicting stuff, like he didn't know about swinging, that his wife wasn't propositioned but it may have originated from him being propositioned as a substitute -- not swinging or polygamy.
He stays clear of using those words in the same breath with his wife.

Yeah, I got to the 2nd and 3rd letter and discovered why. He was devoted to Jane Law, who died 4 yrs earlier, and would do anything to protect her repuation. Having spent 40 yrs distancing himself from mormonism he wasn't going to have his wife's name mentioned as a swinger in Dr Wyl's article. He stated that he would write these letters and then go back to distancing himself.

The podcast didn't mention it in a way that tied up loose ends. I researched the comment post and got more clarification.

I'd bet my house that my explanation correctly explains the Law letter situation.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 12/04/2014 05:00PM by MyTempleNameIsJoan.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: dinah ( )
Date: December 04, 2014 07:39PM

Funny what those footnotes will teach you.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: donbagley ( )
Date: December 04, 2014 03:00PM

A Mormon guy online told me that the destruction of the Expositior for slander may have been justified, but he personally hadn't read it.

I let him know that it was easily available on line, and there was no reason for not reading it other than having been told not to.

crickets...

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: redpill ( )
Date: December 04, 2014 03:02PM

The expositor was a big piece of the puzzle for me as to the true nature of Joseph Smith and his ultimate destruction. It is a far cry from what I was taught by the church.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: MyTempleNameIsJoan ( )
Date: December 04, 2014 03:45PM

I had a discussion about Law with an lds apologist who claimed that the Journal of Discourses showed that Law and his brother were adulterers.

I read the JoD record.
My response was:
If they were adulters why did Law push for the Expositor?
Why would I beleive the words of an lds written text past or present?

Even today the lds writers prove that they re-write history from their own slant. It's what they've always done.
The Journal of Discourses review of Law convinces me that the mormon writers were liars to defame a man's reputation for exposing them.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: blueorchid ( )
Date: December 04, 2014 03:58PM

"Why would I beleive the words of an lds written text past or present?"

Exactly. They even rewrite their "inspired" conference talks before they publish them. Clear proof they weren't guided by the spirit or even common sense.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/04/2014 03:59PM by blueorchid.

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Screen Name: 
Your Email (optional): 
Subject: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 **     **        **  ********  **    **  **     ** 
 **     **        **  **        ***   **  **     ** 
 **     **        **  **        ****  **  **     ** 
 *********        **  ******    ** ** **  ********* 
 **     **  **    **  **        **  ****  **     ** 
 **     **  **    **  **        **   ***  **     ** 
 **     **   ******   **        **    **  **     **