Posted on 12/29/2007 8:34:35 AM PST by greyfoxx39
Lying for the Lord continued, as excerpted from an essay written by Ken Clark for MormonThink. Ken worked for the Church Education System (CES) of the LDS Church for 27 years. He also served as a bishop; a calling he enjoyed as much as full time instructor and Coordinator for the Church Education System.
+++10. Joseph Smith and the Mormons’ official publications remove all references to Joseph Smith’s con artist activity referred to as money digging or treasure seeking. Documents discovered in 1971 by Dr. Wesley Walters in Norwich, New York, verify that Joseph Smith was a "glass looker" and that he was arrested, tried and found guilty by a justice of the peace in Bainbridge, New York, in 1826.
Dr. Francis W. Kirkham, refusing to believe charges that Joseph Smith was a con man, who bilked people out of money with promises to find buried treasure through use of a peep stone in a hat said, “if such a court record confession could be identified and proved, then it follows that his believers must deny his claimed divine guidance which led them to follow him.... How could he be a prophet of God, the leader of the Restored Church to these tens of thousands, if he had been the superstitious fraud which 'the pages from a book' declared he confessed to be? (A New Witness For Christ In America, vol. 1, pp.385-87 and pp.486-87; and The Changing World of Mormonism, Chapter 4, “Joseph Smith and Money Digging. See also Shadow or Reality? pp 35-36).
Hugh Nibley, famous dissembling LDS apologist also stated, “"...if this court record is authentic it is the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith." Dr. Nibley's book also states that if the authenticity of the court record could be established it would be "the most devastating blow to Smith ever delivered" (Hugh Nibley, The Mythmakers p. 142).
In the court record Joseph Smith confessed that "for three years" prior to 1826 he had used a peep stone placed in his hat to find treasures or lost property, placing his money-digging activities from 1823 to 1826. Mormon histories indicate that a heavenly messenger revealed the presence of gold plates on September 21, 1823. Joseph Smith was engaged in money-digging (conning the gullible out of their money) at the very time the messenger told him of the gold plates and he was still involved in these practices for at least three of the four years after God was supposed to be preparing him to receive the gold plates for the Book of Mormon. These facts seem to undermine the credibility of Mormonism’s first prophet and founder. (Dan Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, Signature Books, 2004, pp. 80-86) Extensive efforts to cover up this embarrassing segment of their history and origins by apologists are ongoing.
+++11. The church teaches members and investigators that Joseph Smith used a sacred instrument mentioned in the Old Testament called the Urim and Thummim to translate gold plates Smith claimed to possess. This is not true. In an 1885 interview, Zenas H. Gurley, then the editor of the RLDS Saints’ Herald, asked David Whitmer if Joseph Smith had used his peep stone to translate the plates. Whitmer replied that Smith gave the Interpreters back to an angel and used a peep stone or “Seers Stone” to translate the Book of Mormon; one that he had found while digging a well. It looks like a rock with no magical properties, though Smith claimed otherwise. Smith claimed it gave him the ability to see buried treasure, receive revelations, and translate ancient records. This helps clarify some confusion caused by the church’s refusal to be forthright.
Joseph first announced the discovery of gold plates with strange engravings, and claimed he was also given special spectacles called "Interpreters." However, after Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages of the Book of Mormon translation, Smith claimed that the angel Moroni took back both the plates and the Interpreters as punishment. He claimed that the angel later returned the gold plates, but not the Interpreters. He used his special rock placed in a hat, pulled over his face, elbows resting on his knees, dictating to a scribe to produce the present-day Book of Mormon. To see actual photographs of Smith’s favorite, magical, peep stones, see pages 324-325 of D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, Revised and Enlarged, Signature Books, SLC, 1998.)
William W. Phelps suggested in 1833 that perhaps the seer stones were the Urim and Thummim of the Old Testament (The Evening and Morning Star, Jan. 1833). This lent more credibility to Smith’s story. The term was never used by Joseph or anyone else before. Historians for the church rewrote the historical accounts to make it appear that from the beginning, the Interpreters or Smith’s peep stone were referred to as the Urim and Thummim. This is more tasteful in the minds of some than referring to the instruments used to translate the Book of Mormon as “the peep stone Joseph found while digging a well.”
LDS historian B.H. Roberts wrote, "The Seer Stone referred to here was a chocolate-colored, somewhat egg-shaped stone which the Prophet found while digging a well in company with his brother Hyrum,... It possessed the qualities of Urim and Thummim, since by means of it — as described above — as well by means of the Interpreters found with the Nephite record, Joseph was able to translate the characters engraven on the plates." (Comprehensive History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, vol. 1, page 129)
+++12. Official Mormon histories are not forthcoming about the statement by three and eight witnesses respectively, who claim to have seen the gold plates and handled them. The official histories fail to inform interested students of Mormon origins that in both cases, their experience was one that took place in their imaginations or as they called it, “spiritual eyes,” “eyes of our understanding,” “a supernatural vision,” or “visions of the mind.”
Martin Harris (one of the 3 witnesses) testified publicly on March 25, 1838 that none of the signatories to the Book of Mormon saw or handled the actual physical plates.” He also indicated that Joseph had prepared an affidavit beforehand and asked the witnesses to sign it, but because they had not seen a physical object, only a vision of them, some hesitated to sign; but were finally persuaded by Joseph. David Whitmer also told Zenas Gurley Jr. on January 14, 1885 when asked if the witnesses actually touched “the real metal,” “We did not.” The witnesses handled “the plates” in vision rather than actual physical plates, according to Whitmer. (Grant Palmer, An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins, Chapter 6.) There are other significant problems with the story of the 3 and 8 witnesses described by Palmer.
The witnesses did not all see the plates or angel at the same time as the church leads people to believe. The plates were seen in two groups of four not all eight together as popularized in church paintings. (Deseret Evening News, 6 August 1878, Letter to the editor from P. Wilhelm Poulson, M.D., typed transcript, p. 2) Only David Whitmer and perhaps Oliver Cowdery saw the angel together. Martin Harris removed himself from the group and did not see the angel until some three days later. (Anthony Metcalf, Ten Years Before the Mast, n.d., microfilm copy, p. 70-71) Info From: http://www.exmormon.org/file9.htm
+++13. The LDS Church misrepresents the method by which Joseph Smith authored the Book of Mormon. Quite unlike the explanations and images offered to members in official church publications, Joseph Smith never had any “gold plates” in view when “translating,” nor did he use an Old Testament instrument called the Urim and Thummim. His “translation” method was the same used to earn money to locate subterranean treasure for money. He put his favorite peep stone in a hat, pulled the hat over his face, and rested his elbows on his knees, to read the English words and sentences that God caused to appear on the stone, according to Smith’s faithful scribes. He never used the plates and according to eye-witnesses, they were never in view, in the same room or often never in the vicinity of the house. (Emma Smith, The Saints' Herald, May 19, 1888, p.310; and Saints' Herald, November 15, 1962, p.16. Martin Harris, Historical Record, by Andrew Jensen, p.216. David Whitmer, An Address To All Believers In Christ, p.12)
This may explain why nothing ancient appears in a book that is supposed to be of ancient origin, or why faulty King James texts appear in the book, and why virtually nothing described in the book about the ancient inhabitants of America is correct. Despite Apostle Russell M. Nelson’s talk in conference admitting that Joseph used the stone-in-the-hat method to translate the Book of Mormon, he failed to give salient details such as the fact that the plates were often never in the same room as Smith; and he never consulted the plates during his supposed translation. This begs the question which the church still avoids: Why all the fuss about a set of golden plates – including death to anyone who saw them without permission - if he never used them or needed them? (Russell M. Nelson, "Adapted from an address given 25 June 1992 at a seminar for new mission presidents, Missionary Training Center, Provo, Utah", can be found at http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_russellmnelson.html#pub_-777766216)
Polygamy instigated an almost constant stream of untruths, lies, prevarications; in order to protect the leaders of the church who introduced the practice. Following are instances where lying became a common institutional practice. Some have sought to excuse the leaders and members’ dishonesty, praising them for their dedication to a principle they believed was revealed from God – a higher law. This form of apologetic logic would also praise those who strap bombs to their bodies or fly airplanes into skyscrapers for their extreme dedication to religious beliefs.
+++14. Joseph Smith’s first recorded secret experimentation with adultery began with a 19 year-old named Fanny Ward Alger who worked in the Smith home in 1835 as a maidservant. William E. McLellin, Mormon apostle, indicated that Emma Smith “looked through a crack and saw the transaction” in the barn. (Richard Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History, 2nd Edition, Signature Books, 1989, pages 4-11) This marked a beginning to a long history of prevarication and deception about polygamy. It also led to a severe rift between Oliver Cowdery and Joseph. Cowdery referred to the Fanny Alger affair as “A dirty, nasty, filthy affair.” Church leaders attempt to evade linking Smith with adultery by calling it an authorized “plural marriage.” Todd Compton, author of In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, 2nd edition, notes that in February or March of 1833, when Joseph was 27 and Fanny Alger 17, he had sexual relations with her. After Emma found out about Joseph’s secret love affair, she turned Fanny out of their house, where she had been working as a servant. (pages 34-36)
+++15. The LDS Church fails to adequately explain why they once believed in monogamy as God’s marriage arrangement and then later did an about-face, adopting polygamy as God’s recommended form or marriage. Rumors about the Fanny Alger affair as well as another affair between Vienna Jacques and Joseph, who lived in his family for awhile, led to an “Article on Marriage” that was penned by William W. Phelps. It was presented to the general assembly of the church on August 17, 1835. It was included in the Doctrine and Covenants as scripture binding on the church where it remained until 1876. It acknowledged that the church (Joseph Smith) had been “reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy” and declared that “we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman but one husband. . . “Joseph was out of town when the Article was read and accepted by the church membership. (Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippets Avery, Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, Prophet’s Wife, “Elect Lady,” Polygamy’s Foe, Doubleday & Co. Garden City, NY, 1984, p. 67)
+++16. In Nauvoo, Illinois (1842-1844) Joseph established an institutionalized system of lying, so that leaders of the church could publicly deny the practice of polygamy, while living it privately—to enable them to deceive members and nonmembers alike with a clear conscience. An article from the 1886 Deseret News listed the code words and the rationale for their use. When accused of practicing “polygamy” Joseph and Hyrum denied it because it was different than “celestial marriage” and “a plurality of wives.” Polygamy was after all, a doctrine of men and the devil. God gave the doctrine of “celestial marriage”. In Joseph’s mind, the two were entirely different. Other code words were, “eternal marriage,” “the divine order of marriage,” “Holy order of marriage,” “living up to your privileges,” “new and everlasting covenant,” and “a different view of things.” If accusers did not frame their accusations in exactly the right terminology, the leaders felt justified in prevaricating. In fact, even if the accusers had framed their words perfectly, leaders still felt justified in lying. Their view was that it was more important to live the higher law of loyalty to the Prophet, than to expose the truth to Gentiles. (Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippets Avery, Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, p. 113. See also B. Carmon Hardy, Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage, University of Illinois Press, 1992, p. 365)
+++17. Vienna Jacques of Nauvoo heard rumors about “spiritual wifery.” She asked Emma to inquire of Joseph if the rumors were true, that “spiritual wifery” was a doctrine of the church. Emma asked. Vienna reported, “he, [Joseph] had told her [Emma] to tell the sisters of the society . . . “the whole idea was absolutely false and the doctrine an evil and unlawful thing.” Joseph was in fact secretly practicing plural marriage at the time. (Mormon Enigma, p. 114)
+++Contrary to the traditional belief that a first wife must give her consent in order for her husband to take another wife, Emma was unaware of nearly all of Joseph’s “marriages” to other women. For example, Eliza Snow, the secretary to Emma in the Relief Society organization, as well as Sarah Cleveland, Emma’s counselor, who was legally married to John Cleveland, were married to Joseph, though Emma knew nothing about the marriages. According to Newell and Avery, “To live as a secret wife to a friend’s husband demanded evasion, subterfuge, and deception.” (Mormon Enigma, p. 119)
+++Joseph Smith secretly married 17 year old Sarah Ann Whitney in August 1842 without Emma’s knowledge or consent. He wrote to Sarah and warned the Whitney’s, who approved of the marriage, “The only thing to be careful of, is to find out when Emma comes, then you can not be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safety. . . Burn this letter as soon as you read it.” (Mormon Enigma, p. 125) +++The Times and Seasons, August 1842 published a defense of Joseph and quoted the D&C. “ . . . We declare that we believe, that one should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, We know of no other rule or system of marriage.” The purpose of the article was to deny that Joseph had taught John C. Bennett the concept of spiritual wifery, after Bennett seduced several women in Nauvoo. The fact is that many of those who signed the article were practicing polygamy. Joseph indeed had taught Bennett the principle, and they all knew it. (Mormon Enigma, p. 128) In fact, Mormons used the term spiritual wife before and after their exodus to Salt Lake. By denying that Bennett had been taught the concept of false practice of spiritual wifery, but not the true concept of eternal marriage church leaders felt justified. It’s a weak defense and constitutes prevarication. (B. Carmon Hardy, Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage, University of Illinois Press, 1992, p. 365)
+++Joseph deceived Emma again when he married two other women (probably Martha McBride Knight and Ruth Vose Sayers) without her knowledge or consent in the winter of 1842-43. (Mormon Enigma, p. 134 and note 13)
+++Joseph secretly proposed to 19-year-old Nancy Rigdon in Nauvoo. He wanted to take her as a plural wife. She declined, so Joseph dictated a letter and sent it to her. In it he tried to convince her that it was God’s will to practice polygamy. Part of the letter read, “That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another . . . . Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.” Nancy showed the letter to her father, Sydney Rigdon. When Sydney questioned Joseph about it, he denied the whole affair. Joseph admitted to it only when Sydney showed Joseph the letter he had dictated and sent to Nancy. (Mormon Enigma, p. 119, and Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy, p. 32-33)
+++On March 4, 1843 Joseph deceived Emma when he secretly married 19 year old Emily Partridge. She was urged to keep the marriage a secret and said, “Of course I would keep his secret.” At some point, Emma weakened and gave Joseph, Emily and Eliza Partridge as plural wives. It is unclear whether or not she understood that the marriages would be consummated. Joseph participated in the ceremony, but neglected to tell Emma that he had already secretly married the two sisters some time before. (Mormon Enigma, p. 138)
+++On May 1, 1843, Joseph deceived Emma and others when he married 17 year old Lucy Walker while Emma was in St. Louis. Lucy admitted that Emma was not present and she did not consent to the marriage; “she did not know anything about it at all.” (Mormon Enigma, p.139)
+++Without Emma’s knowledge or consent, Joseph secretly “slept” with young Emily Partridge according to her own testimony under oath. She testified that she “roomed” with Joseph while Emma was somewhere else in the house on the night of their second marriage. It is likely that Emma did not understand that Joseph would have sexual relations with the two sisters Emma presented to him. (Mormon Enigma, p. 144)
+++According to Benjamin F. Johnson, living in Ramus, Illinois, on May 16, 1843 Joseph shared a room with the “daughter [Eliza] of the late Bishop Partridge.” This was without the knowledge or consent of Emma. (Mormon Enigma, p. 145)
+++Joseph deceived Emma again when he approached 14 year old Vilate Kimball and her parents without her knowledge and consent. She agreed to marry Joseph because he told her that it “will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation and that . . . of your fathers household and all of your kindred.” She continued, “I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward.” She later admitted that she may have been deceived by her parents as well as Joseph. She stated, “I would have never been sealed to Joseph, had I known it was anything more than a ceremony.” (Mormon Enigma, pp. 146-147)
+++Joseph’s polygamous activities were unknown to the vast majority of the saints in Nauvoo. He publicly denied that he ever practiced plural marriage, showing the ability to consciously mislead his devoted followers without remorse. (Mormon Enigma, p. 147, and Mormon Polygamy, pp. 20-21) When Joseph was confronted about being married to other wives in Nauvoo he protested, “What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one.” In fact, he was sealed to dozens of women at the time. (Solemn Covenant, p. 365)
+++Cyrus Walker defended Joseph in court after being arrested. In exchange, Joseph promised to deliver “the Mormon vote” to Cyrus (a Whig) when he ran for Congress. Later however, Joseph reneged on his promise by stating that Hyrum had received a revelation to vote for the opposition party (Mr. Hoge, a Democrat). Joseph stated that Hyrum had never received a false revelation, and in essence directed the church to vote for the candidate that Hyrum supported instead of Cyrus Walker. Joseph betrayed Cyrus and he did not forget it. Cyrus and others in the party (the Whigs) vowed to drive the Mormons out of the state. (Mormon Enigma, p. 148, 151. also An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton, George D. Smith editor, Signature Books, 1995, p. 114)
+++Joseph privately told William Clayton to keep a particular plural wife but that some of the membership would be troubled about it if they found out, since most of the saints believed Joseph’s repeated denials that plural marriage was being practiced by the Mormons. Joseph cautioned Clayton that if “they raise trouble about it and bring you before me I will give you an awful scourging and probably cut you off from the church and then I will baptize you and set you ahead as good as ever.” (An Intimate Chronicle, p. 122)
+++Official Mormon histories fail to inform readers of the competition to get as many plural wives as one could. William Clayton, close associate of Joseph Smith wrote on August 11, 1843 that with regard to marrying additional wives, Joseph told him, “You have a right to get all you can.” (An Intimate Chronicle, p. 115)
+++After receiving a promise from Joseph that he would cease the practice of polygamy (a lie), Emma began to reaffirm the traditional standards of Christian marriage—one husband and one wife—as stated in the Doctrine & Covenants in Relief Society meetings. Joseph secretly confided to some he had no intention of keeping his promise to Emma. (Mormon Enigma, p. 175) William Clayton recorded in his journal that “Joseph told me that since E[mma] came back from St. Louis she had resisted the P[riesthood] in toto and he had to tell her he would relinquish all for her sake. . . .He however told me he should not relinquish anything.” (An Intimate Chronicle p. 117; Emma had apparently threatened Joseph with divorce and in order to keep her, Joseph lied.
+++In August 1843, Emma discovered that sixteen-year-old Flora Woodworth possessed a gold watch given to her by Joseph. She realized the implications and demanded that Flora give him the watch. He reprimanded her, but Emma refused to be quiet in the carriage ride home. William Clayton said, that Joseph had to employ “harsh measures” to stop her complaining about his lies and activities. (Mormon Enigma, p. 159) It raises the question of whether or not Joseph employed physical force in addition to lies to keep Emma “in line.” (An Intimate Chronicle, p. 118)
+++The official history of the church states that the Relief Society was disbanded in 1844 shortly after being organized, “due to the various calamities that befell the saints.” Those writing the official history as well as the leaders of the church knew it was actually disbanded because Emma Smith was a vigorous opponent of polygamy. (Mormon Enigma, p. 175) Joseph’s public discourses and written ones (a letter from the presidency and an article entitled, “The Voice of Innocence,” (written by W. W. Phelps with Joseph’s supervision) denied that polygamy was part of the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints. These documents were read in Relief Society meetings in Nauvoo as the standard by which saints should conduct themselves. Joseph needed to silence Emma and take away her forum. She quoted his denials as evidence that polygamy was not a true principle and not practiced by Smith. (Mormon Enigma, p. 175)
+++Official Mormon histories, knowing of the marital arrangements, have withheld information about Joseph’s polygamous marriages—namely that nearly a dozen of his first polygamous wives were legally married to other men at the time of their marriage to Joseph (polyandry). They have never admitted that Joseph practiced polyandry. (Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, Signature Books, 1997 Introduction)
+++Official Mormon histories may deceive readers by failing to point out that at times Joseph exercised poor judgment, to say it most kindly, in choosing his friends and other church leaders. William Clayton’s journal entry for May 16, 1843 records the following: “President J[oseph] said that the way he knew in whom to confide, God told him in whom he might place confidence.” Many of Joseph’s closest associates brought damage to him and the church. John C. Bennett of Nauvoo was a classic example, yet Mormon histories reject the opportunity to fully investigate these inconsistencies, choosing instead to portray Joseph as the noble prophet who could discern the feelings of peoples’ hearts. (Intimate Chronicle p. 102)
+++Official Mormon histories have publicized plural marriages as being as normal and as full of affection as monogamous marriages. Some may have been. However, Zina Diantha Huntington, when interviewed by a journalist from the New York World, in 1869, drew a distinction between romantic love and plural marriage. Commenting on women who were unhappy in their polygamous marriages, she said they “expect too much attention from the husband and . . . become sullen and morose. . .” She insisted that the successful polygamous wife, “must regard her husband with indifference, and with no other feeling than that of reverence, for love we regard as a false sentiment; a feeling which should have no existence in polygamy.” Lucy Walker, who had been sealed for time to Heber C. Kimball, after the death of Joseph Smith said, “There was not any love in the union between myself and Kimball, and it is my business entirely whether there was any courtship or not. . . It was the principle of plural marriage that we were trying to establish, a great and glorious true principle.” (In Sacred Loneliness, pp. 108, 466-467)
+++Joseph lied about lying when the Expositor was published in Nauvoo, accusing him of lying. During the city council debate over some allegations made in the Expositor, Joseph declared that he had not kept the doctrine of polygamy secret but had taught it openly. William Clayton recorded that Emma told him “it was the secret things which had cost Joseph and Hyrum their lives.” (Solemn Covenant, p. 367)
+++Lying became such an integral practice with the Latter-day Saints, church leaders instructed members how to lie about polygamy, according to the testimony of members given under oath. (Solemn Covenant, p. 365)
+++Loyalty was more important than honesty in the early church. Joseph’s instruction to the Twelve in 1839 was that above all else, “do not betray your Friend.” He frequently reminded members that they should honor friendships above all else even to death. While the Danites were active in Missouri (1838) Justus Morse described how he and others were directed to help out a friend by lying—to “do it with such positiveness and assurance that no one would question our testimony.” The greatest of evils according to Joseph in an 1839 address to the 12 were “sinning against the Holy Ghost and proving a traitor to the brethren.” Smith confided that he deceived the saints by keeping secrets from them because they were “little children” unable to “bear all things now.” Joseph counseled the Relief Society Sisters not to be overzealous in their search for wrongdoing and to be charitable toward the accused, after counseling them to seek out evil-doers months earlier. Stories about adultery and spiritual wifery especially aggravated him. (Solemn Covenant, pp.365-366)
+++In a well-publicized debate between John Taylor and a Protestant minister in 1850, John Taylor denied that the church practiced polygamy. In fact, at the time, he was the husband of multiple wives. (Solemn Covenant, p. 367) In a public discussion in Boulogne-Sur-Mer, France, he claimed, “ . . . I shall content myself by reading our views of chastity and marriage, from a work published by us, containing some of the articles of our Faith. "Doctrine and Covenants," page 330 ... Inasmuch as this Church of Jesus Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again (Tract published by John Taylor in 1850, p.8; found in Orson Pratt's Works, 1851 edition. Found in The Changing World of Mormonism, p. 261-262).
+++Orson Pratt admitted that when called upon to defend the practice of polygamy, he deliberately misled his listeners regarding the practice of polygamy. He did not consider this to be lying. It was done to protect a law higher than man’s misguided laws. (Solemn Covenant, p. 367)
+++Charles W. Penrose admitted that after Joseph’s death, certain facts about him were purposely withheld from church publications “for prudential reasons.” Expediency became more important than honesty; deception was accepted as a necessary tool, while grass roots members were commanded to be honest. (Solemn Covenant, p. 367)
+++At the Mountain Meadows Massacre in 1857, 120 innocent men, women and children as young as eight years, in an Arkansas wagon train party were murdered by Mormons. Amasa Lyman and George A. Smith, Mormon apostles, accused members who wanted to honestly testify to the facts of the case of seeking “to betray and expose their brethren into the hands of their enemies.” (Solemn Covenant, p. 367) Members were threatened if they “betrayed” those who took part in the murders. (Will Bagley, The Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows, pp. 157, 176-177
+++Lying was so prevalent as an institutionalized tactic among church members during the 1860’s-1880’s, that John D. Hicks alleged that when “polygamists were prohibited from voting, the Mormons promptly swore that they were not polygamists; when those who taught polygamy were discriminated against, everybody immediately became silent on the subject; and when members of organizations which advocated polygamy were denied the ballot, they withdrew. . . from the Mormon Church,” to become eligible to vote (Solemn Covenant, p. 368)
+++Mormon “children in theocratic, territorial and polygamous Utah were taught to lie about family relationships, their parents’ whereabouts, and even their own last names.” (Solemn Covenant, p. 368)
+++In a letter to President John Taylor in 1887, Charles W. Penrose expressed concern that “the endless subterfuges and prevarications which our present condition impose . . . threaten to make our rising generation a race of deceivers.” (Solemn Covenant, p. 368)
+++While lobbying on behalf of the First Presidency in Washington, in 1887, for statehood for Utah, Franklin S. Richards and John T. Caine prevaricated consistently with such statements as, polygamy was a “dead issue” in Utah and it wouldn’t be revived. They attempted to explain away the church’s position on polygamy by saying that plurality was not a commandment and that “celestial” and “plural” marriages were not the same thing. This was wholly untrue yet their conduct received approval from the First Presidency. Apostle John Taylor admitted to church members in Nephi, Utah that the statements made in Washington were a “d----d lie.” (Solemn Covenant, p. 369)
+++When explaining whether recommends were being issued to members to marry polygamously, one church authority said that “he no longer gave recommends for marrying plural wives but gave them for obtaining whatever blessings the Lord might bestow." He used these code words to subtly affirm that indeed recommends for plural marriage were still being issued, after assuring the American public that they were no longer being issued. (Solemn Covenant, p. 370)
+++The Manifesto of 1890 was in fact another attempt to dupe the U.S. government and to some extent, the church members into believing that the LDS church intended to comply with the mandate of the government to abandon the practice of polygamy. Members at that time generally fell into two groups: those who believed that the leaders only pretended to give in to government pressure to obtain statehood, and those who believed that the Manifesto was necessary as a hedge against discovery of the true facts about polygamy in Utah. Church leaders believed that if once given statehood, Utah could write polygamy into the state constitution as legal. They believed in a strict interpretation of states’ rights. (Solemn Covenant, p. 370)
+++Thomas J. Rosser was a missionary in Wales in 1908. He asked his mission president Charles W. Penrose, if the Manifesto was a revelation from God. Penrose answered, “Brethren, I will answer that question, if you will keep it under your hats. I Charles W. Penrose wrote the manifesto with the assistance of Frank J. Cannon and John White. . . Wilford Woodruff signed it to beat the devil at his own game.” The Manifesto, authored by Penrose, was submitted to a committee – Judges Charles S. Zane, C.S. Varian, and O.W. Powers, (nonmembers). The wording was changed slightly and the document was recopied by a clerk named Green. (Samuel Taylor, The Rocky Mountain Empire, New York, NY, MacMillan, 1978, p. 35) Members are led to believe that the Manifesto was a sacred communication from God to church president Wilford Woodruff.
+++In 1903 Wiley Nebeker of Afton, Wyoming wrote to apostle John Henry Smith complaining that the church made use of deceit and duplicity to further the practice of polygamy, while assuring the government that leaders no longer condoned the practice. He wrote, “To be plain, while I am fully converted to the belief that this is a true principle, I am not converted to the idea that the Lord justifies deceit and falsehood.” He did not believe saints ought to be forced into “apologizing to our own consciences.” In response, apostle Smith perpetuated the dishonesty by spreading more disinformation. Rather than address the central issue of lying, Smith told Nebeker that the doctrine was true but no longer being practiced. This was a calculated lie. (Solemn Covenant, p. 371)
+++Florence, a daughter of Anthony W. Ivins asked her mother why her father seemed so upset following a meeting of the apostles and the First Presidency. Her mother told her that President Smith had said something in the meeting that greatly disturbed her father. President Smith said, he “would lie any day to save [his] . . . brother.” Florence said that it was her opinion that her father was troubled over the remark for the rest of his life. (Solemn Covenant, p. 372)
+++Because the practice of deceit was discussed in the leading councils of the church, leaders were counseled not to write notes from meetings in their personal diaries. President Joseph F. Smith was afraid that someone might read the diaries of George Q. Cannon and Abraham H. Cannon and use the information against the church. The leaders were told not to keep a private record of what transpired in the meetings at all. To this day, the church steadfastly refuses to allow researchers to examine the diary of George Q. Cannon because of damaging evidence, indicating that Church leaders did engage in institutionalized, systematic deceit. (Solemn Covenant, p. 372)
+++After the Manifesto, it appears that at least 250 plural marriages were performed, despite repeated denials on the part of the church leadership that plural marriage continued as an official doctrine and practice. The church’s propaganda is so effective that church members today are still more likely than not to believe that the Manifesto was a good faith effort on the part of church leaders to cease the practice of polygamy. John Henry Smith is alleged to have remarked that the Manifesto was only “a trick to beat the devil at his own game.” Smith viewed lying for the Lord as justified and honorable. (Reed Smoot Case, vol. 4, p.13. Solemn Covenant, p. 392)
+++During the 1890s the church tried to answer the criticism of opponents that a theocracy existed in Utah and church leaders controlled all elections. Leaders instructed members to pretend to align with different political parties. George Q. Cannon was asked about the degree of honesty in this strategy. He said that the potential political gains that could be achieved made sincerity irrelevant in this case. (Solemn Covenant, p. 372) The church motto seems to have been, “act sincere even if you don’t mean it.”
+++Matthias F. Cowley stated in a hearing before the Quorum of the Twleve in 1911 that he had been chastised for asking for permission to pre-date post-1890 plural marriages to make them appear to have occurred before the Manifesto. He said he was trying to illustrate the “training I have had from those over me,” which was to simply act with duplicity without asking for permission in order to preserve the concept of plausible deniability. Ironically, after claiming that he had been taught to lie by previous leaders, he also claimed “I am not dishonest and not a liar and have always been true to the work and to the brethren. . . We have always been taught that when the brethren were in a tight place that it would not be amiss to lie to help them out.” He quoted a member of the First Presidency who had taught him that “he [the member of the First Presidency] would lie like hell to help the brethren.” (Solemn Covenant, p. 373)
+++Despite consistent denials that church leaders demanded complete and blind obedience, as well as the cloak of infallibility, members were told that when confronted with doubt, they should always subordinate their judgment to that of their priesthood leaders. Leaders indeed dictated matters from the most trivial to the most profound and far reaching. In fact, men refusing to go on missions were once told that they should anticipate relinquishing their wives for refusing to obey the Brethren. This is at odds with the claim by modern leaders and apologists that members of the LDS Church have always been admonished to exercise their own agency and think for themselves. (Solemn Covenant, p. 373) The same tension exists currently between one’s individual agency and the church’s demands for obedience, loyalty and conformity.
+++Though members were occasionally told to exercise their individual moral conscience and beware of blind obedience to their leaders, most often in common practice they were ordered not to question the judgment of their leaders. Brigham Young put it this way, “sheep must follow the Shepherd, not the shepherd the sheep.” (Solemn Covenant, p. 374)
+++Modern leaders of the church have used general conference as a platform to condemn the practice of situational ethics. Yet Joseph Smith’s letter to Nancy Rigdon sent to convince her to become a plural wife is the epitome of situational ethics. It said, “That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another . . .. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire . . .. But in obedience there is joy and peace unspotted.” Mormons often translate teachings about unquestioning obedience, and treating leaders as infallible into: “You don’t question things. If the church says it, you don’t say yes or no, you go along.” This principle and practice tends to relegate honesty to a lower priority than blind obedience to Church leaders. (Solemn Covenant, p. 374. Mormon Polygamy, p. 32)
+++Henry S. Tanner explained that when he was forced to lie to protect himself or the church then the word he spoke (lies he told to civil authorities under oath) had no binding power. He believed that the Mormons would be regarded by God as having made no promises nor be accountable for lies told to protect the church. Tanner and others blamed the government for making them lie. It was elevated from degraded communication to a religious duty. (Solemn Covenant, p. 374-375)
+++Carl A. Badger, who was not a member, acted as a friend and counselor to the church during the Smoot hearings. During those hearings it was discovered that the church leaders had lied and deceived the federal government about its intentions to rid the church of polygamy. He concluded that the church had decided that some things were more important than honesty. He said that the result was moral confusion. George D. Kirby, writing in the Improvement Era in 1910, admitted as much when he answered charges that Mormons were deceitful. He wrote that there might be “truth in the charges.” (Solemn Covenant, p. 376)
+++United States Senators participating in the Smoot hearings where church leaders repeatedly and systematically lied under oath, determined that the decision to lie to protect polygamy and church leaders’ practice of it, ultimately led to charges of casuistry, secrecy, and moral contradiction. Many concluded that Mormon leaders consistently stood for honesty as long as their own affairs were not involved – when it was convenient. A gentile expressed it this way, “When any of us [non-members] sin . . . we sin for our own sakes.” But when a saint lied, it was done “for Christ’s sake.” (Solemn Covenant, p. 376)
+++The Salt Lake Tribune was at odds with the church in the late 19th century because of polygamy and the Church’s control of civil government. Adding to the disgust of Tribune editors was that the church claimed to be the Lord’s special vessel of truth, but so often refused to honor it. Tribune editors rejected the claim that institutionalized lying and deception was necessary to protect the Lord’s church. The paper claimed something hard to refute, that it was impossible “for a Mormon Elder to be a new polygamist without at the same time being a liar.” Of course, church leaders, compounded the problem by claiming that they had always been honest. (Solemn Covenant, p. 377)
To be continued ... and there's so much more!
"Mormons were inventive in their ability to distort the truth to preserve polygamy and feel that they were still being honest. Carmon B. Hardy has written..."
Who said I was talking about you?
Choosing the candidate I see as most able to advance my conservative values, however, is not selling my soul. It’s pragmatism in the pursuit of conservatism - an art at which we are woefully inept, as a movement.
Pragmatism? Didn't you state you are a RM? That would be a much more convincing argument if you were being pragmatic about Guiliani or Huck, who are every bit as "conservative" as Mitt....somehow, your being a returned missionary for the mormon church and "pragmatically" supporting Mitt just doesn't wash.
AHEM! Didn't you start your post by saying, "There you go again, mixing politics and religion."...why, yes, you did!
JR, do you think this sounds "pragmatic"?
“That’s an interesting take, considering their disdain for the cross, about the Blood of Christ.”
Yes, I attended the Mormon church for a few years. They didn’t talk about the blood of Christ. But they did have communion with bread and water.
Once I became a Christian, I thought back on that. Why did they use water instead of grape juice or wine, symbolic of the blood of Christ?
There is only one answer spiritually. They didn’t recognize the blood of Christ.
This is the mark of a non-Christian cult.
Yet, they want to be considered Christian.
I doth protest.
If MR(not to mention the goal of every mormon to spread the LDS gospel(or nearly)and to make LDS mainstream) gets the nomination...Just wait and see all the stuff that comes out on this religion...
The kind of stuff that LDS members are not allowed to discuss with the world....It will be a shock to the mainstream for sure!
A hayday for the MSM...
I am a Mormon. I am a Romney supporter. The two facts are not related - though I will admit to having to put in some effort to making sure they stayed that way.
The reason I like Romney - as I’ve said many times, and which you’ve evidently ignored - is that, amongst the choices of Giuliani, McCain, Huckabee, and Romney, I consider Romney to be the most conservative and the most capable of victory in November. That is all open to debate, but it is my opinion. If you ask me to explain the logic behind this opinion, I’ll be happy to.
Your accusations of my supporting Mitt because of his faith, however, are unfounded. Coming from you, such an accusation is mere projection.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
“Thou shalt not commit adultery” Exodus 20:14
V20 And Moses said unto the people, fear not for God is come to prove you and that His fear may be before your faces, that ye SIN not
God called adultery sin then and he hasnt changed his mind...
God is the same yesterday, today and forever...
Man calls it “sealing” and other such nonsense...God calls it adutery and SIN..
On your main point, I disagree that a prophet can’t have personal opinions on things God has not revealed to him about. And examples can be found in the list you and I have generated. Peter was wrong about not eating with gentiles and had to be corrected. Elijah was too pessimistic about the faith of Israel and had to be corrected. James and John were wrong, and had to be corrected. And so on.
Why, yes, when I was mormon, I was one of the "Molly mormon" sheeple that knew nothing about the history of the mormon church...I was a good little unquestioning sheep, obeying my leaders and husband.
BUT, even back then there were libraries and books that led me to become interested in the larger issues, of which curiosity regarding the use of bread and water were certainly not what I consider to this day, a larger issue.
I wish for you that it was, but the RNC has no interest in running a high maintainence candidate. Having to fight large parts of the base as well as the opposition is just not in the big plan.
A few years back, some of the LDS churches here in town started to rename themselves Community of Christ. It seems the process to become mainstream has been going on for a while.
Go, Fred!
~”Once I became a Christian, I thought back on that. Why did they use water instead of grape juice or wine, symbolic of the blood of Christ?
There is only one answer spiritually. They didn’t recognize the blood of Christ.
This is the mark of a non-Christian cult.”~
You’re making assumptions from a position of ignorance. That answer is very simple:
2 For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins.
D&C 27:2
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/27/2#2
If we did so in the right spirit, we could use Oreos and egg nog for the sacrament. We use water and bread because they are convenient.
If you think we don’t recognize the blood of Christ, then you didn’t pay much attention in all those years you attended.
Exactly my point...
When the prophets of God disobeyed they were punished by God...
They did not have God’s blessing to have their own “opinions” which went against God..
So when Brigham Young claimed that there were people living on other planets etc and his other outrageous nonswense ...did God punish him??? Whoops “correct” him??? and how????
~”A few years back, some of the LDS churches here in town started to rename themselves Community of Christ.”~
Those would have been the RLDS churches. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has done no such thing, anywhere.
You mean, projection like
1 + 1 = 2?
“Luke fled at a crucial time, instead of standing beside the Savior.” Luke was not a disciple, son. He was a physician who traveled with Paul. Read his intro to Theophilus at the start of Acts. Read it carefully ... if you have questions I’ll be happy to assist you.
My first encounter with LDS was when I was wearing a cross..Total animosity towards me for wearing it. I live in a heavily populated LDS area. I know this sounds mean. I swear on my cross that is what happened. As a Christian I would not be appalled by much, accept that.
You expect me to accept the D&C as a legitimate answer for why Mormons don’t use the fruit of the grape in their sacraments? And that because of inconvenience? LOL!
Show me scripture from the Bible.
Is the LDS preparing all their male gods-becoming to be ready to hang on the cross to pay for the sins of the people on their planet(s), if they are going to be a gods over their own worlds, and totally equal to God in every way?
After reading the intro to Acts, go back and read the beginning of Luke’s Gospel. The two documents were not written and sent at the same time, though the spacing was not likely to have been very great between the two letters.
I believe you.
If he states something as his own opinion, why is there a need to correct him? You have a fanciful idea of what it means to be a prophet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.