I told a TBM (true believing Mormon, for those of you visiting from Alpha Centauri) a few days ago: "Joseph Smith married his own foster daughters, and mothers and their own daughters, which is a capital crime in the law of Moses".

His response:

"I don't believe you. I call you out as a LIAR unless you can produce marriage certificates to prove it. Besides, we are Latter-day Saints, we don't follow the Law of Moses but the Law of the Gospel."

All I could think was "double-face palm".

Do you see the parallel?

"I didn't do it but if I did, it wasn't a crime."

"JS didn't do it, but if he did it wasn't a crime."

Legal sophistry: defenses in the alternative. It bespeaks an uncertainty, a fear that JS really is guilty of the charges you leveled.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2019 07:26PM by Lot's Wife.

Some TBMs still maintain that Joseph Smith never "did it" with Fanny Alger, although William McLellin, former Mormon apostle, claimed that Emma Smith told him that she "saw" Joseph and Fanny having sex in the barn, through a crack in the barn wall (most barns back then had spaces between the wood sides). Oliver Crowdery was "disfellowshipped" (excommunicated) for the same claim. Fanny had a baby out of wedlock she named Orrison Smith, which was only in one U.S. census. Meaning that, the baby died before it was a year old. Why did Fanny name her kid "Smith" when she didn't later marry a Smith? Also, Fanny's brother later asked her "Did you have an affair with Joseph Smith?" and Fanny said, "I will not answer". Strange reply for an innocent woman (got that from Wikipedia under "Fanny Alger"). TBMs will "wave" away all of it, with the wave of a magical hand.

TBMs will "grasp at straws" because that's all they have to hang on to. Or, they go into complete and utter denial. See that many times too. Rare it is for TBMs to face the music. If they do, they "out": in mind if not also in body.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you see the parallel?
>
> "I didn't do it but if I did, it wasn't a crime."
>
>
> "JS didn't do it, but if he did it wasn't a
> crime."
>
> Legal sophistry: defenses in the alternative. It
> bespeaks an uncertainty, a fear that JS really is
> guilty of the charges you leveled.

You are absolutely right.

And if you are not right, you should be.

"If it ain't true, it oughta be."

:-)

Has a marriage certificate ever been produced for Joseph & Emma?



Anyway, here are church-approved sources for some of Smith's multiple marriages -

Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, pp. 489-90:

"I can positively state, on indisputable evidence, that Joseph Smith was the author, under God, of the revelation on plural marriage. On this subject, we have the affidavit of William Clayton, private secretary of Joseph Smith, that he wrote the revelation as it was given through the lips of the prophet and that he himself sealed to Joseph Smith as a plural wife, Lucy Walker, at Joseph Smith's own residence, on May 1, 1843. This lady is still living, in Salt Lake City, and is willing to testify at any moment to this fact. Following are some of the names of young ladies who were sealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, as testified to under oath by themselves — this during the lifetime of the prophet: Eliza R. Snow, Sarah Ann Whitney, Helen Mary Kimball, Fanny Young (sister to Brigham Young), and Rhoda Richards (sister to Willard Richards who was with the prophet at his martyrdom in Carthage jail). All these noble women have testified, under oath, giving names and dates, that they were sealed during his lifetime, to the Prophet Joseph Smith. These facts have been published in Jenson's Historical Record, and in the Deseret News, in years past; and I know, by the established and virtuous character of these noble women, that their testimonies are true.

"A careful reading of the revelation on plural marriage should convince any honest man that it was never written by Brigham Young, as it contains references to Joseph Smith himself, and his family, which would be utterly nonsensical and useless if written by President Young. The fact is, we have the affidavit of Joseph C. Kingsbury, certifying that he copied the original manuscript of the revelation within three days after the date on which it was written. I knew Joseph C. Kingsbury well. Furthermore, the revelation was read by Hyrum Smith to a majority of the members of the High Council, in Nauvoo, at about the time it was given, to which fact we have the sworn statements of the members of the High Council. (Improvement Era, Vol. 5, October, 1902, p. 988)"


John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, p. 341:

"2. A number of men, who in their lives showed themselves honest, have testified that they actually performed the ceremonies that united Joseph Smith to plural wives. Among these were Joseph B. Noble, Hyrum Smith, James Adams, Newell K. Whitney, Willard Richards, and others. Several of these men lived long after the Prophet's death and always declared that they officiated in marrying the Prophet to a plural wife, giving place, date, and the witnesses present.

"3. Many of the women who were thus sealed to Joseph Smith lived long after his death. They declared that they lived with the Prophet as husband and wives. These women were of unblemished character, gentle and lovely in their lives who spoke with loving respect of their martyr husband. They substantiated in detail the statements of those who performed the ceremonies."


Orson F. Whitney, Life of Heber C. Kimball, pp. 418-19:

"After the death of the Prophet Joseph, who had also taken many wives, most of his widows were married, for time, to Brigham, Heber and others of the martyr's brethren. The wives of the Prophet who wedded Heber C. Kimball were Sarah Ann Whitney, eldest daughter of Bishop Newell K. Whitney; Lucy Walker, Prescindia Huntington, Sarah Lawrence, Mary Houston, Martha McBride, Sylvia P. Sessions, Nancy Maria Winchester and Sarah Scott."


Benjamin Johnson My Life's Review (1947), pp. 96-97:

"This occurrence is referred to in the life of Joseph Smith as 'Spending the evening in giving counsel to Brother Johnson and wife.' At this time I knew that the Prophet had as his wives, Louisa Beeman, Eliza R. Snow, Maria and Sarah Lawrence, Sisters Lyon and Dibble, one or two of Bishop Partridge's daughters, and some of C. P. Lott's daughters, together with my own two sisters…"


Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol. 3, SMITH, JOSEPH:

"The Prophet faced a dilemma as he began to restore long-lost divine principles… As early as 1841, he introduced plural marriage, a necessary part of the restoration of the ancient order of things, to members of the Twelve and a few others. Although he had understood the principle since 1831 and apparently had married one plural wife several years earlier, he married his first recorded plural wife, Louisa Beaman, in 1841. During his remaining years, he married at least twenty-seven others."


Dean C. Jessee, BYU Studies, Vol. 19, No. 4, p. 476:

"The death of Joseph Smith created a situation that not only increased Brigham Young's ecclesiastical responsibilities but also added to his domestic concerns as well. Susa Young Gates explains that following the Prophet's death her father went to Joseph's widowed plural wives and 'told them that he and his brethren stood ready to offer themselves to them as husbands' in accordance with the tradition of ancient Israel whereby posterity for a dead brother might be born in this life and that 'the widows might choose for themselves.' Subsequently, eight of Joseph's plural wives (Olive Andrews, Emily D. Partridge, Louisa Beaman, Mary Elizabeth Rollins, Rhoda Richards, Olive G. Frost, Zina D. Huntington, and Eliza R. Snow) were married to Brigham Young for the remainder of their mortal lives…"

Not even Jeff Bezos can get that kind of a deal.

You must produce marriage certificates for a TBM to believe that Joseph Smith married young girls, but a TBM believes that the Book of Mormon was translated from gold plates that no one can see because an angel took them. Makes perfect sense.

To Anonymous Muser. Great job in compilation. That would have taken me at least a few days to gather up.

To wanttobex,

There is a former Mormon in Brazil named Mauricio Berger, who has metal plates that are gold in color (probably brass certainly not gold),and etched with "Book of Mormon" characters. He claimed Moroni gave him the plates, on some Hill in Brazil. Forgot the name of the Hill. Anyway, he even has a photograph of the Angel Moroni, who is glowing. Joseph Frederick Smith, great-grandson of Joseph Smith, has seen the "gold plates" as have others, and they took numerous photographs, including one wth Joseph F. Smith holding the plates, which he said were about 80 pounds. They looked pretty heavy. Joseph F. Smith is about 85 years old, and was the grandson of Alexander Smith, son of Joseph and Emma. Joseph F. Smith and Mauricio Berger are forming a new Church on April 6th, 2019. Name of new Church not certain yet. Apostles will be called. About 400 people already interested in joining it.
Berger (who does not speak English) claims to have translated a portin of the "sealed portion" and that will be published, in English and Portuguese, on April 6th, 2019, on the Internet at thecauseofzion.org and presented to the First General Conference of the new Church, which will be held in or near Independence, Missouri, in April. Then in May Joseph F. Smith is going to Salt Lake City and holding a Press Conference with the "sealed portion" translation but, sadly, the gold plates stay with Mauricio in Brazil.

I've seen lots of photos of the gold plates. Mauricio really had to spend a long time on them. Lots of effort to reproduce them, but also he has a "Laban's sword" and "Urim and Thummim" and I've seen photos of the sword. Looks like an old Egyptian or Chinese sword. Of course, after showing "12 witnesses" the gold plates, and taking photographs, Mauricio was commanded to keep the plates from the public, so no experts will be allowed to examine them.


want2bx Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You must produce marriage certificates for a TBM
> to believe that Joseph Smith married young girls,
> but a TBM believes that the Book of Mormon was
> translated from gold plates that no one can see
> because an angel took them. Makes perfect sense.

According to such TBMs (who want the memory of Joseph Smith to be untainted by the sordidness of sexual polygamy), Joseph Smith did not do any of the things with his brides that Brigham Young did with his brides.

Most of the big reveals about what Joseph Smith did in plural marriage (which many TBMs refuse to accept) were pushed and promoted heavily under Brigham Young, when Brigham Young labored mightily (and successfully) to bring polygamy out into the open. Under Brigham Young, the faithful polygamists did everything that the TBMs refuse to believe that Joseph Smith ever would have done--and they did so while claiming that their practices were based on truths revealed by Joseph Smith.

Brigham Young endorsed it all.

Brigham Young was the immediate successor to Joseph Smith as President, Prophet, Revelator and Seer and all-around leader guy.

Brigham Young was the leader of the polygamist LSD Church for thirty years.

Now, there were other offshoots that did not follow Brigham Young's polygamist church. They rejected the sordidness of polygamy.

Now question to the TBM: Are you a member of an organization that traces back to one of those anti-polygamy offshoots? OR are you a member of the polygamist church led by Brigham Young, who embraced and endorsed every sordid polygamist practice that you REFUSE to attribute to Joseph Smith? If so, why????

Brigham had to bring polygamy out into the open. He was one of several contenders as Joseph's successor, and while he had a strong political base it wasn't clear who was going to emerge as the new prophet.

By publicizing plural marriage, Young established a new standard: Joseph had issued secret revelations and created a brotherhood of polygamists who were party to the new order. Those polygamists comprised the bulk of senior church leaders, with Brigham and Heber at the top with their scores of wives. By gradually exposing the existence of that conspiracy, Brigham forced the lesser leaders to declare themselves. Rejecting Young increasingly appeared to be rejecting Joseph and polygamy, leaving the defectors looking like anti-Mormon adulterers.

This is basic conspiratorial politics. Stalin did the same thing. At first he did not seem Lenin's most promising lieutenant, so while quietly discomfiting his rivals he also compiled and published what became the definitive body of Leninist thought. Rebelling against Stalin looked like rejecting Lenin and hence the Bolshevism as a whole.

Both Young and Stalin tied themselves clearly and publicly to their predecessors' more extreme doctrines and came to be associated with them. That was a major source of legitimacy in their respective succession struggles.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Brigham had to bring polygamy out into the open.


NO!

Brigham Young did NOT have to bring polygamy out in the open!

You work so hard to appear to be analytical and academic. You make certain assertions while you also completely FAIL to make the most basic premises to your prove assertions.

Brigham Young did NOT have to bring MORmON polygamy out into the open.

Brigham Young did NOT have to practice MORmON polygamy.

Brigham Young did NOT have to take over as much of Joseph Smith's church that remained in tact as possible.

The MORmONS remaining in THE (MORmON) church after Joseph Smith's ( very fitting) end did NOT have to move to Zion Utah under Brigham Young's direction.

The idea that any of those things had to happen or had to be done are MORmON assumptions.

Brigham Young could have done NOTHING.

Brigham Young could have left THE (MORmON) church and never looked back.

Brigham Young CHOSE to persist in practicing MORmON polygamy.


Brigham Young CHOSE to try to take over the largest remaining faction of Joseph Smith's Book of MORmON scam based church.

As Brigham Young made those choices and stuck to them, those choices then dictated or directed Brigham Young in making certain other choices and taking certain other courses of action.

Brigham Young CHOSE to lead his faction of MORmONISM to MORmON Zion Utah.

Then there is the issue of consequences.

Brigham Young's CHOICE to move to Utah was a MAJOR HINDRANCE to preaching and promoting the MORmON Gospel to others.

Brigham Young's CHOICE to continue with MORmON polygamy was a MAJOR HINDRANCE to preaching and promoting the MORmON Gospel to others, especially as the MORmON practice of MORmON polygamy was openly acknowledged .......just as polygamy remains a MAJOR HINDRANCE AND IMPEDIMENT to MORmON church growth even today, even though MORmONS insist they no longer indulge in the practice ( even though they really do, even with a CURRENT polygamist president/PRofit / "Prophet" for any one really paying attention)

APPARENTLY, judging by Brigham Young's CHOICES and OBSERVABLE ATTENDANT ACTIONS, Brigham Young's REAL PRIORITY was NOT promoting and growing the MORmON gospel in its most basic and original Book of MORmON (NON Polygamous) form as much as it was in persisting in practicing MORmON polygamy and in personal empire building in a context/ location where Brigham Young was; A. most likely to succeed with exclusive authority and B. to survive longer than Joseph Smith had while so fully giving in to gratuitous toxic human indulgence of every kind.

IF Brigham Young had really cared about promoting THE book of MORmON church above all else, then he could have dumped MORmON polygamy and stayed in the USA to maintain more complete contact with civilization in order to use that contact to promote The Book of MORmON church instead of wasting so much MORmON time and MORmON energy and so many MORmON lives to move off to frontier isolation that would be more accommodating to his survival while persisting in PERVERT Joe Smith style wife collecting /harem building and concentrated self indulging self elevating tyranny.


Brigham Young did NOT have to do anything. (!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

What Brigham Young CHOSE to do and then did do can be very revealing.

smirkorama Wrote:

-----------------
> NO!
>
> Brigham Young did NOT have to bring polygamy out
> in the open!

I'm having trouble understanding the value of your objection here given that below you wend your circuitous way to my conclusion that Brigham wanted to dominate the church and create his own personal empire.

Watch. . .


----------------
> You work so hard to appear to be analytical and
> academic. You make certain assertions while you
> also completely FAIL to make the most basic
> premises to your prove assertions.

It isn't hard for me to appear "analytical and academic." That's my job; that's my training. I'm sure it seems to some excessively disciplined and logical, but I couldn't give a rhodent's posterior about that. Logic and analytical discipline are a pretty good guide to answers, more dependable surely than febrile trips down the rabbit hole in search of facts that stand above in the light of day.


--------------------
> Brigham Young did NOT have to bring MORmON
> polygamy out into the open.
>
> Brigham Young did NOT have to practice MORmON
> polygamy.
>
> Brigham Young did NOT have to take over as much of
> Joseph Smith's church that remained in tact as
> possible.
>
> The MORmONS remaining in THE (MORmON) church after
> Joseph Smith's ( very fitting) end did NOT have
> to move to Zion Utah under Brigham Young's
> direction.

> The idea that any of those things had to happen or
> had to be done are MORmON assumptions.
>
> Brigham Young could have done NOTHING.
>
> Brigham Young could have left THE (MORmON) church
> and never looked back.
>
> Brigham Young CHOSE to persist in practicing
> MORmON polygamy.

Excellent. You note that, like all of us, Brigham had options available. He might have become a hermit, or converted to Islam and become a Sufi mystic; he could have gone back to New York and resumed making furniture for Lincoln cabinet members or have gone abroad to worship among the lilies of the fields. But guess what? He never did that. From a decade before Joseph's death, Brigham's goal--naturally understood by everyone (well, almost everyone) here on RfM--was to grab as much power as he could within Smith's religion. Since he continued that process for years before Smith's death and persisted in it thereafter, it is obvious that he had made his choice long ago and remained committed to it.

So all that nonsense about the options confronting Young at Smith's death isn't relevant. Your expatiation is like Hamlet's rehearsal of all sorts of uncertainties, the logic of an immature mind. Brigham Young was no Hamlet: He was more Richard III, set on his path and implementing it decades before others knew what was going on. To say that Young wasn't fully committed to the succession and might go off to join the distant Lotus Easters is as inaccurate as it is silly.


------------------
>
> Brigham Young CHOSE to try to take over the
> largest remaining faction of Joseph Smith's Book
> of MORmON scam based church.
>
> As Brigham Young made those choices and stuck to
> them, those choices then dictated or directed
> Brigham Young in making certain other choices and
> taking certain other courses of action.
>
> Brigham Young CHOSE to lead his faction of
> MORmONISM to MORmON Zion Utah.

You see? Here, after a lot of perspiration, you reach and endorse my premise.


-------------------
> Then there is the issue of consequences.
>
> Brigham Young's CHOICE to move to Utah was a MAJOR
> HINDRANCE to preaching and promoting the MORmON
> Gospel to others.
>
> Brigham Young's CHOICE to continue with MORmON
> polygamy was a MAJOR HINDRANCE to preaching and
> promoting the MORmON Gospel to others, especially
> as the MORmON practice of MORmON polygamy was
> openly acknowledged .......just as polygamy
> remains a MAJOR HINDRANCE AND IMPEDIMENT to MORmON
> church growth even today, even though MORmONS
> insist they no longer indulge in the practice (
> even though they really do, even with a CURRENT
> polygamist president/PRofit / "Prophet" for any
> one really paying attention)
>
> APPARENTLY, judging by Brigham Young's CHOICES and
> OBSERVABLE ATTENDANT ACTIONS, Brigham Young's REAL
> PRIORITY was NOT promoting and growing the MORmON
> gospel in its most basic and original Book of
> MORmON (NON Polygamous) form as much as it was in
> persisting in practicing MORmON polygamy and in
> personal empire building in a context/ location
> where Brigham Young was; A. most likely to succeed
> with exclusive authority and B. to survive longer
> than Joseph Smith had while so fully giving in to
> gratuitous toxic human indulgence of every kind.
>
> IF Brigham Young had really cared about promoting
> THE book of MORmON church above all else, then he
> could have dumped MORmON polygamy and stayed in
> the USA to maintain more complete contact with
> civilization in order to use that contact to
> promote The Book of MORmON church instead of
> wasting so much MORmON time and MORmON energy and
> so many MORmON lives to move off to frontier
> isolation that would be more accommodating to his
> survival while persisting in PERVERT Joe Smith
> style wife collecting /harem building and
> concentrated self indulging self elevating
> tyranny.
>
>
> Brigham Young did NOT have to do anything.
> (!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
>
> What Brigham Young CHOSE to do and then did do can
> be very revealing.

That's your point? That Brigham chose to do it? This is where my eyes are sorely tempted to roll, for you have taken us through a tour of the obvious and concluded that Young opted for power, which was my premise. It was on that premise, now endorsed by you, that I explained Young's tactical moves.

But seriously, if my writing seems too academic and analytical for you, too lacking in spells of wanton Capitalization and Parkinsonian punctuation; and if febrile excitement is the mark of truth, then knock yourself out. Rant away. But at some point it may be worth asking if that renunciation of objective analysis, that impulsive grasping for arguments, that love of overwrought sentiment doesn't look a lot like Mormon ontology.

Now there's something to ponderize!!!!!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2019 04:36AM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> smirkorama Wrote:
>
> -----------------
> > NO!
> >
> > Brigham Young did NOT have to bring polygamy
> out
> > in the open!
>
> I'm having trouble understanding

just as a broken clock is occasionally correct, so are you!

> the value of your
> objection here given that below you wend your
> circuitous way to my conclusion that Brigham
> wanted to dominate the church and create his own
> personal empire.

and WHERE exactly did you actually state that conclusion of yours?

> Watch. . .
>
>
> ----------------
> > You work so hard to appear to be analytical and
> > academic. You make certain assertions while you
> > also completely FAIL to make the most basic
> > premises to your prove assertions.



> It isn't hard for me to appear "analytical and
> academic."

I NEVER (NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!) said that you appear analytical and academic. I said that you try very hard to appear analytical and academic and that you FAIL in your attempt, which means that you do NOT appear analytical and academic. Which is much different than appearing analytical and academic.

A capable and honest and accurate analyst would be quite able to acknowledge the reality that I never said your commentary appeared to analytical and academic.

Instead of doing that, as your deficiency has been exposed, you chose to operate so much like the MORmON church and insist that your deficiency must be some one else's doing.


> That's my job;

If you are actually getting paid for your ramshackle "analysis" then you do have some measure of success ......as a thief, because your style of analysis would ONLY get you fired / rejected in circles were actual analytical competency is a required.


> that's my training.

Your training is not much, because training is intended to develop and instill capability, which you do NOT have. Or is this just your "job" in a "publicized" sense?


> I'm sure it seems to some excessively disciplined
> and logical,

just one more thing that you are wrong about, because your commentary really seems disjointed and pointless Much more so rather than "excessively disciplined and logical"

Stop giving yourself so much completely unwarranted credit.

> but I couldn't give a rhodent's
> posterior about that.

Yah, it's blatantly obvious that you do not really care about really being disciplined and being veritably logical.

> Logic and analytical
> discipline are a pretty good guide to answers,

and they are something that you do NOT have charge of

> more dependable surely than febrile trips down the
> rabbit hole in search of facts that stand above in
> the light of day.

well then WHY do you keep going down your rabbit hole ??


>
> --------------------
> > Brigham Young did NOT have to bring MORmON
> > polygamy out into the open.
> >
> > Brigham Young did NOT have to practice MORmON
> > polygamy.
> >
> > Brigham Young did NOT have to take over as much
> of
> > Joseph Smith's church that remained in tact as
> > possible.
> >
> > The MORmONS remaining in THE (MORmON) church
> after
> > Joseph Smith's ( very fitting) end did NOT
> have
> > to move to Zion Utah under Brigham Young's
> > direction.
>
> > The idea that any of those things had to happen
> or
> > had to be done are MORmON assumptions.
> >
> > Brigham Young could have done NOTHING.
> >
> > Brigham Young could have left THE (MORmON)
> church
> > and never looked back.
> >
> > Brigham Young CHOSE to persist in practicing
> > MORmON polygamy.
>
> Excellent. You note that, like all of us, Brigham
> had options available.

and just like your (phantom) statement of your conclusion that does NOT appear or exist in your original post, there is NOT any mention from you in your original post about Brigham Young having alternative options, especially the option to just quit.

> He might have become a
> hermit, or converted to Islam and become a Sufi
> mystic; he could have gone back to New York and
> resumed making furniture for Lincoln cabinet
> members or have gone abroad to worship among the
> lilies of the fields. But guess what? He never
> did that. From a decade before Joseph's death,
> Brigham's goal--naturally understood by everyone
> (well, almost everyone) here on RfM--was to grab
> as much power as he could within Smith's religion.
> Since he continued that process for years before
> Smith's death and persisted in it thereafter, it
> is obvious that he had made his choice long ago
> and remained committed to it.

OHHHHHH, NOWWWWWWW, you are getting to churn up a bunch of rhetoric about Young having alternative options, ........Are these supposed to quantum appear in your original post ? to make you fully (retroactively) justified ......what was someone saying about your extreme difficulty in dealing with time lines/ linear time?

>
> So all that nonsense about the options confronting
> Young at Smith's death isn't relevant.

It damn sure is relevant, so UNLIKE much of the highly problematic screed that you come up with/ concoct. .

> Your
> expatiation is like Hamlet's rehearsal of all
> sorts of uncertainties, the logic of an immature
> mind. Brigham Young was no Hamlet: He was more
> Richard III, set on his path and implementing it
> decades before others knew what was going on. To
> say that Young wasn't fully committed to the
> succession and might go off to join the distant
> Lotus Easters is as inaccurate as it is silly.
>


You talking about silliness as someone else's fault !!! meta irony!!! AKA hypocrisy.

You continually indulge in the notion that because something did happen, that there is no way that it could NOT have happened, which is crap logic, and it is also the kind of "logic" that MORmON leaders love to indulge in. ala a statement that "there is no way that anyone could have prevented this temple from being built" AFTER the "this" temple had been built. or "There is no way that any harm could ever come the prophet, as the Lord protects His prophet" a statement that is incontrovertibly correct .....right up until the prophet somehow ends up deceased.

Brigham Young would love telling people that there was No Way that the LDS could have been prevented from settling in Utah because it was god's will, AFTER the MORmONS had settled in Utah. or that there was no way that the practice of polygamy would ever end since it was so truly god's will ...

So Contrary to what MORmONS love to believe after the fact, the back of the MORmON exodus to Utah could have been broken stopping that exodus, just as Brigham Young's back could have been broken. Just because those things did not happen does NOT mean that they could not have happened. Just as because the MORmONS did make it to Utah, does NOT mean that it could not have been prevented.



Far from the utter certainty of supposedly fulfilling God's will that religious leaders love to invoke to prod their followers along in doing things really for the benefit of the e leader, Brigham Young was constantly gauging his prospects as he attempted to pull off his MORmON exodus. The option to stay in the USA is NEVER meaningless as it always existed and was exercised by a majority of MORmON members.....but you did not mention that, but you will still expect credit for it anyway too. Maybe you really are in tune with Brigham Young's (treacherous) ways!!!!

Being able to identify how things evolved by identifying critical junctures, points in time (by date), distinctions when certain things /certain details change from being critical/ indispensable to being meaningless or benign is a crucial capability for historical analysis. In high contrast, a Lot's Wife style approach to "analysis" means making gratuitously sensational and /or gratuitously over simplified statements posed as insights, and then wildly time sliding until coming across something that can appear to make the original statement seem valid, with out any regard for chronological constraints/ implications/ preclusion. LW's (MORmON style) response to inspection of her assertions /analysis that shows them to be terminally flawed is to get (hopefully) preemptively ticked off. Then indulge in MORmON style fault projection on the person who dared to be a critic. When that fails to work, then blabbering away about MORmON "ontology" and "ponderization" is the prescription.

The fact is that by the time that BY finally publicized the practice of MORmON polygamy in 1852, it was so pervasive by then that it could no longer be kept a secret anyway. Young finally outed and publicized polygamy so he could pose AS IF the issue was really still with in his control so he could pretend to still be in total control. The hedge for polygamy that Young was really counting on by then was being in frontier Utah away from forces of more civilized locals that might have interfered with the practice, being in Utah an outcome that had come about due to decisions and actions that Brigham had made many years in advance.

The really interesting question is: what would have happened if Brigham Young had only ended up with 50 people who were willing to go to Utah with him. The pickin's would have been much slimmer, and Young probably would have been a lot less motivated, which would go to show that Young's determination was really quite qualified and dependent and quite conditional, NOT so unassailable and completely independent and so unbreakable. It is interesting to speculate about what it would have taken to break Brigham Young's will on going to Utah and having his own personal empire. MORmONS love to insist that Young's will never was broken. But the reality of the illness that finally killed Young says much differently.

> ------------------
> >
> > Brigham Young CHOSE to try to take over the
> > largest remaining faction of Joseph Smith's
> Book
> > of MORmON scam based church.
> >
> > As Brigham Young made those choices and stuck
> to
> > them, those choices then dictated or directed
> > Brigham Young in making certain other choices
> and
> > taking certain other courses of action.
> >
> > Brigham Young CHOSE to lead his faction of
> > MORmONISM to MORmON Zion Utah.
>
> You see? Here, after a lot of perspiration, you
> reach and endorse my premise.

a premise that is somehow patently yours, even though you never actually explicitly previously stated it in this exchange

>
>
> -------------------
> > Then there is the issue of consequences.
> >
> > Brigham Young's CHOICE to move to Utah was a
> MAJOR
> > HINDRANCE to preaching and promoting the MORmON
> > Gospel to others.
> >
> > Brigham Young's CHOICE to continue with MORmON
> > polygamy was a MAJOR HINDRANCE to preaching and
> > promoting the MORmON Gospel to others,
> especially
> > as the MORmON practice of MORmON polygamy was
> > openly acknowledged .......just as polygamy
> > remains a MAJOR HINDRANCE AND IMPEDIMENT to
> MORmON
> > church growth even today, even though MORmONS
> > insist they no longer indulge in the practice (
> > even though they really do, even with a CURRENT
>
> > polygamist president/PRofit / "Prophet" for any
> > one really paying attention)
> >
> > APPARENTLY, judging by Brigham Young's CHOICES
> and
> > OBSERVABLE ATTENDANT ACTIONS, Brigham Young's
> REAL
> > PRIORITY was NOT promoting and growing the
> MORmON
> > gospel in its most basic and original Book of
> > MORmON (NON Polygamous) form as much as it was
> in
> > persisting in practicing MORmON polygamy and in
> > personal empire building in a context/ location
> > where Brigham Young was; A. most likely to
> succeed
> > with exclusive authority and B. to survive
> longer
> > than Joseph Smith had while so fully giving in
> to
> > gratuitous toxic human indulgence of every kind.
>
> >
> > IF Brigham Young had really cared about
> promoting
> > THE book of MORmON church above all else, then
> he
> > could have dumped MORmON polygamy and stayed in
> > the USA to maintain more complete contact with
> > civilization in order to use that contact to
> > promote The Book of MORmON church instead of
> > wasting so much MORmON time and MORmON energy
> and
> > so many MORmON lives to move off to frontier
> > isolation that would be more accommodating to
> his
> > survival while persisting in PERVERT Joe Smith
> > style wife collecting /harem building and
> > concentrated self indulging self elevating
> > tyranny.
> >
> >
> > Brigham Young did NOT have to do anything.
> > (!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!
> > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
> >
> > What Brigham Young CHOSE to do and then did do
> can
> > be very revealing.
>
> That's your point?

Yah! see I actually mention my points!!! in high contrast to you, who does NOT bother to actually mention your points, but you expect to receive credit for them anyway.



> That Brigham chose to do it?
> This is where my eyes are sorely tempted to roll,
> for you have taken us through a tour of the
> obvious and concluded that Young opted for power,
> which was my premise. It was on that premise, now
> endorsed by you, that I explained Young's tactical
> moves.
>
> But seriously, if my writing seems too academic
> and analytical for you, too lacking in spells of
> wanton Capitalization and Parkinsonian
> punctuation; and if febrile excitement is the mark
> of truth, then knock yourself out. Rant away.

you must mean "academic and analytical" in a Lot's Wife way/ sense,

>
> But at some point it may be worth asking if that
> renunciation of objective analysis, that impulsive
> grasping for arguments, that love of overwrought
> sentiment doesn't look a lot like Mormon
> ontology.


In one instance you subtend and abbreviate detail to the point of confounding and raw omissions but expect credit anyway, and in the next instance you attempt to remedy your previous shortcomings by being superfluous with fanciful note of things that are really irrelevant.

I have already shown how you are the one operating like the MORmON Church, care to "publicize" that?

It's NOT my fault that your commentary is so consistently so flawed and so easy to dismantle.

Its not my fault that any capable analyst/ academic can/ could so easily carve up your tripe commentaries just like using a nitro methane fueled chainsaw on Thanksgiving turkey.

Tell everyone again all about how Brigham Young was "publicizing" MORmON polygamy before 1847!

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> Brigham had to bring polygamy out into the open.
> He was one of several contenders as Joseph's
> successor, and while he had a strong political
> base it wasn't clear who was going to emerge as
> the new prophet.
>

I already know about the extreme difficulty that you have in dealing with historical timelines/ chronology, so in the interest of clarity and clarifying, it needs to be noted and pointed out that the second sentence of your first paragraph of would indicate the period of time from when Joseph Smith was killed to the point when Brigham Young finally did succeed Joseph Smith in leading the largest group of MORmON members that remained in the MORmON church.

> By publicizing plural marriage, Young established
> a new standard:

Hold on! Hold On! Hold On!

Brigham Young did not "publicize" as in openly acknowledge the practice of MORmON polygamy to the public, as in (going by your statement made just 2 sentences prior) "bring polygamy into the open" until 1852 which would be half a decade/ 5 years after the point when Brigham Young's accumulation of power with in MORmONISM peaked as Brigham Young finally did manage to succeed Joseph Smith which is decidedly marked by Brigham Young being able to begin the (his!!!) MORmON exodus. At that point Brigham Young had the maximum conceivable amount of standing/authority with in the community of remaining MORmON members.

> Joseph had issued secret
> revelations and created a brotherhood of
> polygamists who were party to the new order.

WHOA! WHOA! WHOA!

You speak of Joseph Smith actions in a past tense. Joseph Smith was killed in June of 1844. So you just did a sudden back slide of at least 8 years to be in the time frame when Joe Smith was doing anything as a living person.

> Those polygamists comprised the bulk of senior
> church leaders, with Brigham and Heber at the top
> with their scores of wives.

You specifically mention the Pre 1844 action of Joseph Smith in creating polygamy in secret, you directly follow up with specific mention of Smith's created polygamy brotherhood also serving as the top leadership of Smith's Church, you directly go further to specifically mention Young and Kimball as two of those top leaders prior to 1844, trailing right on the main statement of that same sentence you just throw in mention of Young's and Kimball's scores of wives, AS IF they are critical components of the operation ......when those "scores" of plural wives of Young and Kimball did not exist as of June 1844, not even close.

> By gradually exposing
> the existence of that conspiracy,

how can a polygamy (really adultery/ debauchery/ a sex scandal be gradually exposed in a quasi Christian community ......kind of like gradually setting off a bomb.


> Brigham forced

and HOW was Brigham Young compelling those MORmON members into doing anything?

> the lesser leaders to declare themselves.

to declare themselves as WHAT? and to WHO?, and for WHAT purpose?


> Rejecting Young increasingly appeared to be
> rejecting Joseph and polygamy,

> leaving the
> defectors looking like anti-Mormon adulterers.

Back to the opening of your commentary

> Brigham had to bring polygamy out into the open.
> He was one of several contenders as Joseph's
> successor, and while he had a strong political
> base it wasn't clear who was going to emerge as
> the new prophet.
>
> By publicizing plural marriage

These words of yours define "publicizing" polygamy as a way/ means for Brigham Young to assimilate power with in the MORmON community, when actually "publicizing" polygamy is NOT what Brigham was really doing prior to 1852 or 1847.

Brigham NEVER "publicized" the practice of MORmON polygamy until 1852 which would have been half a decade past the point when, according to you, that "publicizing" move would have any potential to benefit Young in his power struggle to take over the largest remaining fragment of the MORmON church.

So, (without one of your magical time meldings) The gross oversimplifications and/or outright misrepresentations that you are presenting as such a brilliant and dazzling insight into the means of Brigham's take over of the largest remaining fragment of the MORmON church is NOT what really happened.

I appreciate your spending days figuring out how you were going to approach my post. It's unfortunate that you were not more successful given the relatively high proportion of your intellectual and other resources you evidently spent in the process.

Let me see if I can simplify this to the point where you can grasp it. JS introduced polygamy at an earlier date. He then spread it aggressively in the Nauvoo period. The secret was kept among a relatively small group of people who happened to comprise most of the church leadership. When he died, there were several rival claimants for the presidency, to use an anachronistic term, including many who were not in the plural marriage community.

From late 1843 and early 1844 Young, and to a lesser extent Kimball, gradually expanded the circle of cogniscenti. That process enhanced the prestige of the two and of others who were living JS's "secret" law of celestial marriage. As the issue grew more prominent in LDS congregations, pressure mounted on the polygamists, and eventually the non-polygamists who came to learn of the principle, to either reject the principle and indirectly throw JS under the bus; or to treat the principle as the crowning achievement of JS and the restoration. Young used that pressure to circle his wagons as it were, garnering the loyalty of a large number of powerful lieutenants. His efforts tipped the balance in his favor and against the other contenders, for when some of those rivals tried to arrange open debate they discovered that the decision had largely already been made. It's a subtle point, but really not that subtle.

Eventually, as your febrile research has revealed, the secret was publicized not just in the Nauvoo community but globally when Orson Pratt (you knew that, right?) published it in England. That killed the proselytizing effort in that country, but it consolidated Young's and Kimball's prestige in the main Mormon communities. Again, it was analogous to the inner-sanctum process Stalin used, followed by his wider publication through the Works of Lenin, in the years before the clear successor to the latter could arise.

The argument is easy enough to understand if one is not blinded by personal animus of some sort. I do find it curious, however, that you would claim that I present it as "a brilliant and dazzling insight." Perhaps you have to tell yourself that in order to justify the time and enthusiasm you obviously employed in your attempt to debunk it. It's really a simple narrative, though, and easy for most people to follow. But for anyone with eyes to see, your inability to grasp the point and your strange attribution of motives on my part indicate that for you something else is going on.

There are psychotherapists who can help with that, experts who teach people how to put aside ego and resentment and focus on what is actually said. Perhaps you should explore such options.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2019 05:48AM by Lot's Wife.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36B-c58_WPo

I never would have paid any attention to the "lies" that "anti MORmONS" tell about THE (MORmON) church except that I knew that Gordon BS HinckLIEy was lying about the history and doctUrine of THE (MORmON) church, and I also knew that Brigham Young had killed more FAR MORE MORmONS with his insistence on moving the MORmON flock to Utah than all the mobs ever did.

Patty Bartlett Sessions and her daughter Sylvia Sessions Lyons.

Both related to me. It is a well documented union. Patty's own diaries that have been spared the flames of the mormon purge contains the details.

I'll try and find my copy this weekend.

LDS Inc rises or falls on the BoM. If it really was a history of Nephites, then who JS exchanged bodily fluids with proves, at most, that he was a fallen prophet. The church he founded could still be true yada yada yada. You know the drill.

In fact, the BoM is fiction beyond any reasonable doubt. Joseph's claims about the book, and the content of the book both can be scientifically investigated. The number of scientists who have concluded, based on current evidence, that the BoM is really onto something, and explains the origins of Native Americans, is exactly zero. Not for lack of trying, either.

The BoM is a con job. Not even a very good one. Who JS was or was not boinking does not alter that conclusion in the least.

Who actually wrote the BoM, while an interesting question, also has no relevance to the fact that it is fiction and is a con job. If there were other authors, it just means more than one person was in on the con. OK. It's still a con.

The fruits of that foundational con are all corrupted because of it. That is why people like Dallin Oaks end up making intellectually and ethically ridiculous statements like "research is not the answer". Research exposes the con that is Mormonism.

That's the whole point! There are no marriage certificates! Calling plural marriage a directive from God is just a phony way of committing adultary and pretending it isn't adultery.It leaves no paper trail. If he had married them all legally it would have been bigamy and he would have gone to jail immediately. Cunning old dog.

Ask to see JS's ordination certificate.

No matter the facts, Mormons believe whatever suits them.

I'd bet he accepts that Joseph was married to Emma.

I'd bet he can't produce a marriage certificate for that.

There are two things I like about Mormonism: it's face.