RfMer "randyj" Strips the Bark Off a Forked-Tongue TBM on LDS Polygamy Lies

  • user warning: Table './exmo_08072012/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_filter WHERE cid = '2:bb024e35463ec4efd8ef824be370f73f' in /home/exmormon/public_html/d6/drupal/includes/cache.inc on line 27.
  • user warning: Table './exmo_08072012/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: UPDATE cache_filter SET data = '<p>steve benson Dec. 2014</p>\n<p>Enjoy. It\'s a beautiful sight to behold:</p>\n<p>\"Fellow Ex-Mo\'s, get a load of the spin-doctoring, convoluted thinking, and mental gymnastics employed below to apologize for early Mormon leaders\' denials of polygamy.</p>\n<p>\"Randy [J.] wrote:</p>\n<p>\"\'Until 1852, the official policy of the Utah LDS church concerning \"plural marriage\" was to deny that they practiced it, and condemn all those who accused them of practicing it.\'</p>\n<p>\"[Mormon apologist] Guy Briggs wrote:</p>\n<p>\"\'And what was it that happened in 1852 to change things? Oh yes, it was that little thing about presenting it in General Conference for the sustaining vote of the membership, making it official Church doctrine. That\'s it.\'</p>\n<p>\"Randy [J.} wrote:</p>\n<p>\"\'The subject under discussion here is whether or not early Mormon leaders denied or lied about teaching or practicing polygamy before 1852. Since you concede that LDS leaders first publicly admitted the practice of polygamy in 1852, you are by default conceding that they denied or lied about it before 1852. Also, since you admit that polygamy wasn\'t \'sustained\' by the membership until 1852, you concede that all polygamy practiced before that date was illicit and unapproved--since that is the same standard you use for such items as the \'Adam-God\' doctrine.</p>\n<p>\"\'In other words, the corporate Church didn\'t practice polygamy until then, although someof the leaders did.</p>\n<p>\"\'Although most Nauvoo-era polygamists were leaders, some others just happened to be in Joseph Smith\'s circle of people whom he thought would go along with the illegal, immoral practice. As William Law said in his 1887 interview with Wilhelm von Wymetal:</p>\n<p>\"\'In what manner would Joseph succeed to keep you and others from knowing what was going on behind the curtain?\'</p>\n<p>\"\'Marks, Yves, I and some others had, for a long time, no idea of the depravity that was going on. This was simply the result of a very smart system adopted by the prophet and his intimate friends like Brigham Young, Kimball and others. They first tried a man to see whether they could make a criminal tool out of him. When they felt that he would not be the stuff to make a criminal of, they kept him outside the inner<br />\ncircle and used him to show him up as an example of their religion, as a good, virtuous, universally respected brother.\'</p>\n<p>\"In other words, since polygamy was illegal in Illinois, and directly contradicted LDS policy, those who accepted Smith\'s secret, illegal, immoral practice (such as Young and Kimball) were of an immoral or criminal bent. But Law, Marks, and<br />\nothers---the honest, moral men who opposed polygamy--- are ironically viewed today as \'sinners\' by Mobots like yourself.</p>\n<p>\"Law, a prominent Nauvoo businessman, was solidly devoted to Smith until mid-1843. During the Bennett scandal, he quickly came to Smith\'s defense, reassuring the Saints that Church leaders did not condone \'spiritual wifery\' or any such behavior. Smith held his counselor in such high esteem that he included him in the first small group of male initiates to the endowment ceremony in May 1842. And Law rendered much moral and financial support to a discouraged Smith when Missouri officials were attempting to extradite him on the Boggs case.</p>\n<p>\"\'By early 1843, however, Law began to waver in his commitment to Smith. Initial difficulties between the two centered on business matters. . . .But a deeper source of the Laws\' disaffection was their detestation of polygamy. In an 1887 interview William explained that Hyrum Smith had shown him the \"revelation on celestial marriage\" in the fall of 1843. \"Hyrum gave it to me in his office,\" Law said, and \"told me to take it home and read it. . . . He and Jane \"were just turned upside down by it\" . . . William took the document directly to the prophet and commented that it was in contradiction to the Doctrine and Covenants. Smith noted that the section on marriage in the Doctrine and Covenants was \"given when the Church was in its infancy, when they were babes, and had to be fed on milk, but now they were strong and must have some meat. He seemed much disappointed in my not receiving the revelation,\" William wrote. \"He was very anxious that I would accept the doctrine and sustain him in it. He used many arguments at various times in its favor.\' (\"Mormon Polygamy: A History,\" Richard van Wagoner, pp. 64-65)</p>\n<p>\"Thus we see that Smith kept his own counselor in the First Presidency in the dark about polygamy, even allowing Law to naively file an 1842 affidavit swearing that Bennett, rather than Smith, was the originator of \'spiritual wifery.\' And because Law opposed Smith\'s illegal, immoral, secret, contradictory polygamy practice, Smith assassinated his character and excommunicated him in absentia; and Law, the honest man in the case, has become the \'bad guy\' to Mobots like yourself.</p>\n<p>\"The above passage also shows that Smith acknowledged the authority of theArticle on Marriage,\' as published in the 1835 D&amp;C, but Smith treated it as \'milk\' doctrine that was to be replaced by the \'meat\' of polygamy. The fact that Smith acknowledged the efficacy of the \'Article on Marriage\' refutes the fallacious assertion which you and Woody Brison have repeated, that Smith did not approve of the \'Article on Marriage,\' which specifically prohibited polygamy.</p>\n<p>\"Official Church doctrine was monogamy, as stated in the Book of Commandments.</p>\n<p>\"And that fact of history makes Smith\'s secret polygamy practice contradictory to \'official Church doctrine.\' You, more than any other Mobot on ARM, have repeatedly stated that no teaching or practice is \"official\" unless it is agreed on by the First Presidency and the Q12, and approved by the sustaining vote of the Church members. But your above silly remark tries to justify Smith\'s attempt to have one \"approved\" standard of behavior for public consumption, and an opposite, secret, \'unapproved\' standard of behavior for the benefit of a few elite leaders. Those of us who live on Planet Sane call that \'hypocrisy.\'</p>\n<p>\"\'. . . [N]either shall anything be appointed unto any of this Church contrary to the Church covenants. For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the Church . . . \' (D&amp;C 28:12-13.) Smith\'s secret polygamy practice<br />\ncontradicted his own \'revelations,\' and your support of his secret, contradictory practice makes you as hypocritical as he was.</p>\n<p>\"Since neither Smith\'s polygamy practice, nor his \'revelation on celestial marriage\' were approved by the First Presidency or the Twelve, (or even known about by many of them), nor sustained by the Church membership at any time during Smith\'s life, his secret teaching and practice of it ran directly against the principles of \'common consent\' that supposedly governs Mormon policy.</p>\n<p>\"At various times, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon and William Law were Joseph Smith\'s counselors in the First Presidency; and William Marks was the Nauvoo Stake and High Council President, which at that time, was the governing body<br />\nof the Church, rather than the Quorum of the 12. Since all of those men were strongly against polygamy, Smith\'s secret polygamy practice ran counter to the laws and orders of the Church which he himself established. As I\'ve documented for you many times, when Smith tried to have his \'revelation on celestial marriage\' sustained by the High Council on August 12, 1843, his attempt was defeated:</p>\n<p>\"\'In early 1843 Austin [Cowles] . . . .played an important role when a storm of opposition confronted Joseph Smith in the summer. On July 16 Smith preached, denouncing internal traitors, and Willard Richards, writing to Brigham Young,<br />\nguessed that the church president was referring to William Marks, Austin Cowles and Parley P. Pratt. These men--the Nauvoo Stake President, his First Counselor, and an eloquent Apostle--would be a serious obstacle to Smith, despite his charismatic authority and ecclesiastical position, especially when one considers the dominance of central stake leadership in early Mormonism.</p>\n<p>\"\'Soon William Law, a counselor in the First Presidency, would be another formidable opponent.</p>\n<p>\"\'Their opposition became public when Hyrum Smith read the revelation on polygamy, presently LDS Doctrine and Covenants 132, to the Nauvoo High Council on August 12. Three of the leading Brethren opposed it: William Marks, Austin<br />\nCowles and Leonard Soby. Considering the secrecy of polygamy, it is remarkable that Hyrum would announce it even to the high council. It is also remarkable that Marks, Cowles and Soby would openly reject it. This was awatershed moment in Latter-Day Saint history.</p>\n<p>\"\'Undoubtedly, Austin soon saw that he could not function as a Church leader while he and Marks were opposing one of Joseph Smith\'s revelations so bluntly and completely. On September 12, according to the High Council minutes, \"President Austin Cowles resigned his seat in the Council as Counselor to President Marks which was accepted by the Council.\" Ebenezer Robinson later wrote that Austin \"was far more outspoken and energetic in his opposition to that doctrine [polygamy] than almost any other man in Nauvoo.\" After resigning his presidency, he \'was looked upon as a seceder and no longer held a prominent place in the Church, although morally and religiously speaking he was one of the best men in the place.\" . . . Toward the end of April 1844, the anti-polygamy dissenters began organizing a new church. William Law was appointed President and selected Austin Cowles as his First Counselor. Not surprisingly, Austin was \"cut off\" from the main LDS Church for apostasy soon thereafter, on May 18. He then helped write the fateful first and only issue of the \"Nauvoo Expositor,\" the paper which so infuriated Smith with its criticisms of him and public discussion of polygamy. It appeared on June 7, with an anti-polygamy affidavit by Cowles on the second page. The destruction of the \"Expositor\" press, engineered by Smith, set off a chain of events that<br />\nled to his martyrdom.\' (\"In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith,\" pp. 549-50)</p>\n<p>\"The Nauvoo High Council\'s failure to sustain the \'revelation on celestial marriage\' should have brought an end to the practice, if the LDS Church operated according to its stated rules of order; but to the contrary, Smith retaliated against those who refused to sustain his heinous practice by having his pro-polygamous minions swear false accusations against them, assassinating their characters, and excommunicating them in absentia. These actions of Smith\'s show that the rule of \'common consent\' in the LDS Church is a sham, and that Joseph Smith alone held absolute power.</p>\n<p>\"Like Law and Marks, Austin Cowles had his character assassinated, and was accused of sexual sins, simply because he opposed Smith\'s secret sexual practices. And to this day, Mobots like Woody Brison believe that those men were all libertines, because Woody believes the demonstrable liar Joseph Smith, rather than the men who sought to expose the liar.</p>\n<p>\"Also, in both Taylor\'s speech and the Section CI, \"polygamy\" is also linked to \'fornication.\' Any first-year programming student can tell you that if any of the conditions of the IF are false then the whole statement is false.</p>\n<p>\"You\'re a liar. Taylor SPECIFICALL DENIED ANY AND ALL SORTS OF NON-MONOGAMOUS MARRIAGE SYSTEMS [emphasis added] in his debate:</p>\n<p>\"\'We are accused here of polygamy . . . and actions the most indelicate, obscene and disgusting, such that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived. These things are too outrageous to admit of belief; . . . 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,\" p. 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 the case of death, . . . \"\' (tract published by John Taylor in England, in 1850, p. 8; published in \"Orson Pratt\'s Works,\" 1851 edition)</p>\n<p>\"If you weren\'t a dishonest spin-doctor, you would realize that Taylor quoted from the \'Article on Marriage\' to support his lie: \'we believe that one man should have ONE WIFE, and one woman but ONE HUSBAND, EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF<br />\nDEATH\' [emphasis added]. Taylor did not qualify his statement with \'fornication,\' as you deceitfuly attempt to do; he stated uncategorically that his Church\'s published rules allowed for only one wife, unless she died.</p>\n<p>\"Taylor\'s \'inspiration\' for such deceit was obviously Joseph Smith\'s lie of May 6, 1838: \'Do the Mormons believe in having more wives than one? No, not at the same time. But they believe that if their companion dies, they have a right to marry again.\' (\"Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith,\" p. 119)</p>\n<p>\"The same verbiage was used to deny polygamy again in the \'Times and Seasons,\' vol. 6, p. 894 (May 1, 1845): \'As to the charge of polygamy, I will quote from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, which is the subscribed faith of the church and is strictly enforced. Article of Marriage, sec. 91, par. 4, says, \"Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have but one wife except in the case of death when either is at liberty to marry again.\"\'</p>\n<p>\"Thus we see that the \'Article on Marriage\' was nothing more than a smokescreen--an \'official policy\' that was used to hide the secret, opposite practice of polygamy. . . .</p>\n<p>\"Church leaders, Taylor included, did not believe that plural marriage was fornication. Adultery either, for that matter.</p>\n<p>\"Both the laws of the state of Illinois and the published laws of the LDS Church stated that plural marriage was fornication and prohibited. If plural marriage, and thus fornication, was not illicit and immoral, neither Taylor nor any other Mormon leaders would have had to lie about it.</p>\n<p>\"The argument might be made that they were mistaken--but they certainly weren\'t lying about the fornication part.</p>\n<p>\"Since plural marriage was illegal in Illinois and Taylor was secretly practicing polygamy at the time, and Mormon plural marriage included sexual relations, then plural marriage was indeed illegal fornication. What they BELIEVED [original emphasis] is irrelevant, just as Osama bin Ladin\'s \'belief\' that he is led by God is irrelevant to the issue of whether his activities are illegal and immoral.</p>\n<p>\"Lying is when one deliberately makes a statement one knows is untrue.</p>\n<p>\"Since Taylor quoted from the \"Article on Marriage\" in his debate, which specifically forbade more than one living wife, while he was simultaneously a \'husband\' to seven living \'plural wives,\' his statement was indeed a lie.</p>\n<p>\"Thus, the \'IF (polygamy AND fornication)\' statement [original emphasis] tests false--because \'fornication\' was false (at least, in their minds) regardless of whether polygamy was true or not.</p>\n<p>\"What was \'in their minds\' is irrelevant. If they had sex with their \'plural wives,\' they were fornicators and adulterers, according to the laws of Illinois and of the LDS Church. If they didn\'t think so, they wouldn\'t have lied about it.</p>\n<p>\"As quoted by Steve:</p>\n<p>\"\'We [that is, the Church] are accused here of polygamy,... AND [emphasis mine] actions the most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting, such that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived.\'</p>\n<p>\"In other words, enemies of the Church were spreading lies about plural marriage.</p>\n<p>\"False. People who got wind of polygamy, such as Law, Marks, Cowles, etc., were disgusted by it, and sought to expose the TRUTH [original emphasis] about it. The liars were Smith, Taylor and other polygamists, as the documentation clearly shows.</p>\n<p>\"They weren\'t content to just tell the truth - that certain of the leaders were practicing it--they felt the need to embellish and distort the truth.</p>\n<p>\"Here is your latest attempt to \'spin\' the case away from the Mormons who were lying, and focus on \'embellishments and distortions\' of those who exposed it:</p>\n<p>\"Since Mormons such as Smith and Taylor were obviously blatantly lying about polygamy, why do you have any problem with \'embellishments and distortions\' of their opponents? Do you hold the exposers of polygamy to a higher moral standard than you hold the \'prophets of God?\' No need to answer, you\'ve shown many times over the years that the answer is \'yes.\'</p>\n<p>\"Girls being imported from the farthest reaches of the Eastern Hemisphere, communities of communal wives, \'Cloistered Saints\' or \"Saints of the Black Veil.\' Leaders of the Church had every right to deny these \'actions most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting\' because they were untrue.</p>\n<p>\"Your attempt to shift the conversation on to perceived \'embellishments\' does not wash away Smith\'s or Taylor\'s bald-faced denials of ANY SORT OF NON-MONOGAMOUS MARRIAGE SYSTEMS. What you cannot get through your brick-wall skull is that Mormon leaders, until 1852, CATEGORICALLY DENIED ANY AND ALL TYPES of marriage relationships EXCEPT for monogamy. THAT IS THE ISSUE. Your repeated drumming up of perceived \'embellishments\' and \'distortions\' of anti-polygamists pale in comparison to the bald-faced lies of Mormon leaders. [original emphasis]</p>\n<p>\"You are apparently too dense to realize that Joseph Smith\'s categorical denial of polygamy on May 6, 1838, occurred six years before your perceived \'embellishments\' and \'distortions\' of the \'Expositor\' in 1844; and Taylor\'s categorical denial of polygamy in 1850 was six years AFTER the \'Expositor,\' and half a world away, in England. Thus, Smith\'s and Taylor\'s denials of polygamy could not possibly have been due to your perceived \"embellishments\" and \'distortions\' of Bennett, Law, etc.</p>\n<p>\"In fact, one of the earliest allegations that Smith was secretly advocating a \'community of wives\' came not from\'\"anti-Mormons,\' but from \'Gold Plate witness\' and Church historian John Whitmer, in 1838, which Smith denied even then.</p>\n<p>\"Mormon converts in England had heard the rumors about Nauvoo polygamy, but the apostles like Taylor, who were overseeing the missionary work there, steadfastly reassured them that the rumors were false. Then, in 1852, when the main body of Mormons had settled in Utah, seemingly safe from prosecution, they reversed themselves and publicly admitted polygamy;</p>\n<p>\"That reversal caused thousands of European Mormons to leave the Church because they were disgusted at having been lied to by Church leaders for years. I recommend you read Fannie Stenhouse\'s \'Tell It All\' to see how LDS Church leaders\' lies affected Mormon success in Europe for years.</p>\n<p>\"But did they have the duty to reveal all that they knew?</p>\n<p>\"There is a difference between not revealing all you know and stating the opposite of what you know to be truth. That is what Smith and Taylor did, and it is called \'lying.\' If, when Smith or Taylor were asked about polygamy, they replied \'no comment,\' that would fall in the category of \'not revealing all you know.\' But they specifically denied teaching or practicing anything other than monogamy, and that was a lie.</p>\n<p>\"I think that\'s the real question here. In court, the witness is sworn to tell \'the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.\' Does that mean that a Doctor is obligated to reveal \'the whole truth\' about his patient? No, it does<br />\nnot. Does that mean an attorney is obligated to reveal \'the whole truth\' about his client? Again, no. Must a wife reveal the \'whole truth\' about her husband and testify against him? Still no. Does the witness have the obligation to tell the\'\"whole truth\' if it incriminates him? No, and the right is constitutionally protected.</p>\n<p>\"In your examples, if someone is asked a question, and they decline to answer, that is their right and no can call them a liar if they don\'t respond, In other words, \'pleading the Fifth.\' In contrast, Smith and Taylor were asked specifically<br />\nabout whether they practiced polygamy, and they gave answers that were contrary to the truth. And that, Oh, Brickwall, is called \'lying.\' Your inability to perceive that distinction tells us as much about the level of your own morality and honesty as this entire subject tells us about Smith\'s and Taylor\'s.</p>\n<p>\"Or how about Peter, James and John, descending the Mount of Transfiguration when Christ instructed them to \' . . . tell the vision to no man, until the Son of Man be risen from the dead. . . .?\' Did they have the obligation to reveal the experience in direct disobedience to the Saviour\'s command?</p>\n<p>\"What an utterly invalid analogy. For your analogy to have any relevance whatsoever to the issue under discussion, Jesus and the apostles would have had to be involved in some illegal activity that they didn\'t want revealed, the apostles would have to be asked specifically the question you pose, and the apostles would have to give a response that was contrary to the truth. That story doesn\'t relate at all to the specific questions asked of Smith and Taylor, or excuse their false responses.</p>\n<p>\"And, since later Mormon leaders have admitted that early Mormons lied about polygamy, your spin-doctoring for them is moot.</p>\n<p>\"Best Regards, Guy.</p>\n<p>\"Randy J.\"<br />\n__________</p>\n<p>Take a much-deserved bow, Randy J.!</p>\n<p>:)</p>\n<hr />\n<p>AmIDarkNow?</p>\n<p>Re: RfMer \"randyj\" Strips the Bark Off a Forked-Tongue TBM on LDS Polygamy Lies</p>\n<p>The justifications for the lying is literally maddening.</p>\n<p>But you cornered him at every turn. No way out of the lie.</p>\n<p>Checkmate Brickwall!</p>\n<hr />\n<p>blueorchid<br />\nRe: RfMer \"randyj\" Strips the Bark Off a Forked-Tongue TBM on LDS Polygamy Lies<br />\nThat was fantastic.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>Lightworker<br />\nRe: RfMer \"randyj\" Strips the Bark Off a Forked-Tongue TBM on LDS Polygamy Lies</p>\n<p>How did J Smith and B Young support their wives financially ? There was a suggestion that they had their hands in the till and BY owed the church hundreds of thousands of dollars, which came up when the surviving wives were lining up for their inheritance.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>No Mo<br />\nRe: RfMer \"randyj\" Strips the Bark Off a Forked-Tongue TBM on LDS Polygamy Lies</p>\n<p>Where did this exchange take place? It was a little hard to follow with the use of quotation marks.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>Tal Bachman<br />\nRe: RfMer \"randyj\" Strips the Bark Off a Forked-Tongue TBM on LDS Polygamy Lies<br />\nLike a WWE Smackdown...</p>\n<hr />\n<p>randyj<br />\nNo Mo, here\'s a clearer version of the dialogue...</p>\n<p><a href=\"http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon010.htm\" title=\"http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon010.htm\">http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon010.htm</a></p>\n<p>This debate was on the alt.religion.mormon newsgroup around 2002. The TBM Guy Briggs\' comments begin with an &gt;arrow, and my responses have no arrows.</p>\n<p>That conversation began when Guy asserted that John Taylor didn\'t lie about polygamy in his 1850 debate in France. Guy had already stated that Taylor was his favorite church president, so that\'s why Guy was willing to sacrifice his own credibility to protect the reputation of one of the Lord\'s anointed.</p>\n<p>Guy\'s arguments were like those of a sleazy lawyer who makes ridiculous, outlandish statements when defending an obviously guilty client.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>randyj<br />\nThanks, Tal. Your compliments mean a lot to me...</p>\n<p>...considering that they\'re coming from such a creative, intelligent, international pop star.</p>\n<p>In fact, I think I\'ll print out your compliment and stick it on my fridge, so I can show it to my wife when she tells me to wash the dishes or perform some other menial task which is beneath my lofty status.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>randyj<br />\nThanks, Roslyn. I don\'t know that I\'m all that impressive.....</p>\n<p>I just cite the facts and use basic common sense. It\'s not much of an effort to win a debate against someone who\'s wrong on the basic facts.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>donbagley<br />\nRe: RfMer \"randyj\" Strips the Bark Off a Forked-Tongue TBM on LDS Polygamy Lies</p>\n<p>randyj, that is some fine persuasive thinking and writing. Your vivid account of historical events was a pleasure to read.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>randyj<br />\nThanks, Don, but giving credit where it\'s due...</p>\n<p>It\'s the researchers like Fawn Brodie, the Tanners, Richard van Wagoner, and Todd Compton (the latter two whom I quoted in that post) who did the work and published the info. All I did was cite the correct info in response to Guy Briggs\' false assertions. That conversation was more of a testament to how brainwashed and ignorant TBMs are, than an indication of any great reasoning prowess on my part. :-)</p>\n<hr />\n<p>steve benson<br />\nFacts are a necessary bulwark to common sense . . .</p>\n<p>Facts make common sense more persuasive, especially since, as the old saying goes, the problem with common sense is that it ain\'t all that common.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>steve benson<br />\nThat\'s the source I used. Its quote marks were a bit problematic as well<br />\n. . . but I did the best I could to sort them all out. :)</p>\n<p>Meanwhile, RJ, you provided the killer substance. Great job!</p>\n<hr />\n<p>randyj<br />\nExodus, that post of mine was in a thread.....</p>\n<p>...which had about 500 responses from both TBMs and us evil anti-Mormons. If you want to read through them, here\'s the part of the thread where I begin demolishing Guy Briggs\' defense of John Taylor:</p>\n<p>https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.religion.mormon/XbKL2r982dg[426-450-false]</p>\n<p>The ARM archives are difficult to wade through, so I hope this link is correct.</p>\n<p>As I just skimmed through some of those posts, I realized that three other contributors---Steve Lowther, Don Marchant, and Xan Du---came to the 2002 Exmormon Foundation conference where I spoke. It was fun to meet some of my fellow TBM-baiters.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>randyj<br />\nI learned early on in debating this stuff with TBMs.....</p>\n<p>...that I had to have every tiny factoid right, or the Mobots would jump on you and say \"Neneer neneer neneer! You\'re wrong about that tiny, insignificant factoid, therefore you have no credibility whatsoever!\" (Never mind that they don\'t hold all the wacky, discredited statements of church leaders to the same standard.)</p>\n<p>As I said in my 2002 Exmo conference speech:</p>\n<p>\"I made it my goal to study Mormonism to the point that there were no issues that I couldn\'t address, no question I couldn\'t offer comment on, and no claims of apologists that I couldn\'t refute with documentation from legitimate scholarly sources. Having satisfied myself that Mormonism was a fraud, I decided to devote the same level of time and energy into exposing it that I had put into advocating it. Minus paying 10% of my income for life for the privilege of doing so, that is.\"</p>\n<p>In other words, I really didn\'t put any more time, effort, or money into learning and disseminating the true history of Mormonism than I had in advocating Mormonism when I was a TBM. If I put say, 15 hours a week into church work, I put the same amount of time into studying the other side of things. So, you can give me attaboys if you want, but I really haven\'t done anything special. I just bought books, read them, bookmarked important passages, and cited them in relevant posts.</p>\n<p>If I have any particular talent, it\'s for remembering where I read stuff so I can refer back to it when the call arises.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>randyj<br />\nHere\'s my follow-up response to Guy Briggs...</p>\n<p>Since this debate has generated some interest, I pored through the ARM archives and found my follow-up response. I hadn\'t read this stuff for more than a decade, until today.</p>\n<p>Randy wrote:</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Until 1852, the official policy of the Utah LDS church<br />\n&gt;&gt;&gt; concerning \"plural marriage\" was to deny that they<br />\n&gt;&gt;&gt; practiced it, and condemn all those who accused them of<br />\n&gt;&gt;&gt; practicing it.</p>\n<p>Guy Briggs wrote:</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt;&gt; And what was it that happened in 1852 to change things? Oh<br />\n&gt;&gt; yes, it was that little thing about presenting it in<br />\n&gt;&gt; General Conference for the sustaining vote of the<br />\n&gt;&gt; membership, making it official Church doctrine. That\'s it.</p>\n<p>Randy wrote:</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt; The subject under discussion here is whether or not early<br />\n&gt; Mormon leaders denied or lied about teaching or practicing<br />\n&gt; polygamy before 1852.</p>\n<p>Guy Briggs wrote:</p>\n<p>&gt;Actually, one leader in particular - John Taylor.</p>\n<p>Randy\'s response:</p>\n<p>Although Steve Lowther\'s original point concerned Taylor\'s 1850 denial of<br />\npolygamy, the purpose of my responses and documentation is to show that<br />\nTaylor\'s 1850 prevarication merely followed the pattern of all LDS leaders,<br />\nincluding Joseph Smith, to lie about and/or deny the teaching and practice of<br />\npolygamy, until they reversed themselves and admitted it in 1852.</p>\n<p>Guy Briggs wrote:</p>\n<p>&gt;IIRC, the statement in question was made in 1839, some two years before Joseph</p>\n<p>&gt;Smith taught the principle to John Taylor and 3-4 years before Taylor<br />\nentered into any plural marriages himself.</p>\n<p>Randy\'s response:</p>\n<p>This response indicates that you are either</p>\n<p>a) too ignorant of the incident in question to offer any intelligent comments<br />\non the subject, or</p>\n<p>b) you are basing your invalid assertion on false information published by<br />\nMormon apologists, or</p>\n<p>c) You know the true facts, but you are deliberately lying to defend Mormonism<br />\nat the expense of your personal integrity.</p>\n<p>The incident under discussion did not take place in 1839, as you falsely<br />\nassert, but in 1850, in France, during Taylor\'s second mission there, when he<br />\nhimself was fully informed of, and fully immersed in, the secret polygamy<br />\npractice.</p>\n<p>From <a href=\"http://smithinstitute.byu.edu/register/t_v.html:\" title=\"http://smithinstitute.byu.edu/register/t_v.html:\">http://smithinstitute.byu.edu/register/t_v.html:</a></p>\n<p>\"Taylor, John. Son of James Taylor and Agnes Taylor. Born 1 November 1808 in<br />\nMilnthorpe, Westmoreland County, England. Joined Methodist Church about 1823;<br />\nsubsequently appointed preacher. Emigrated to Toronto, Canada, 1828-29. Married<br />\nLeonora Cannon (born 1796 at Isle of Man) 28 January 1833 in Toronto. Four<br />\nchildren: George John, Mary Ann, Joseph James, and Leonora Agnes. Baptized 9<br />\nMay 1836 by Parley P. Pratt, and ordained elder shortly thereafter. Visited<br />\nKirtland March 1837. Ordained high priest 21 August 1837. Appointed by<br />\nrevelation 8 July 1838 to be ordained apostle. Moved to Missouri in fall of<br />\n1838. Ordained apostle 19 December 1838 in Far West, Missouri. Located<br />\ntemporarily in Quincy, Illinois, 1839. Accompanied others of Twelve to Far<br />\nWest, Missouri, 26 April 1838. Located family at Montrose, Iowa, 1839. Mission<br />\nto England 1839-41. Left Montrose 8 August 1839. Arrived Liverpool 11 January<br />\n1840. Left Liverpool for United States 20 April 1841. Arrived in Nauvoo 1 July<br />\n1841. Elected member of Nauvoo City Council and Nauvoo Legion, and regent of<br />\nNauvoo University. Appointed associate editor of the Times and Seasons 3<br />\nFebruary 1842. Initiated into Masonry 22 April 1842. Editor-in-chief of Times<br />\nand Seasons 1842-1846. Editor and proprietor of Nauvoo Neighbor May<br />\n1843-October 1845. Received endowment 28 September 1843. Sealed to Elizabeth<br />\nKaighin 12 December 1843. Three children: Josephine, Thomas Edward, and Arthur<br />\nBruce. Sealed to Jane Ballantyne 25 February 1844. Three children: Richard<br />\nJames, Annie Maria, and David John. Member of Council of Fifty 10 March 1844.<br />\nAccompanied Prophet to Carthage Jail June 1844. Received four balls into body<br />\nfrom guns of mob 27 June 1844. Sealed to Mary Ann Oakley April 1845. Five<br />\nchildren: Henry Edgar, Mary Elizabeth, Brigham John, Ida Oakley, and Ezra<br />\nOakley. Nauvoo Temple sealing to Leonora Cannon 7 January 1846. Nauvoo Temple<br />\nsealing to Elizabeth Kaighin (born 1811 in Isle of Man) 14 January 1846. Nauvoo<br />\nTemple sealing to Jane Ballantyne (born 1813 in Scotland) 14 January 1846.<br />\nNauvoo Temple sealing to Mary Ann Oakley (born 1826 in New York) 14 January<br />\n1846. Nauvoo Temple sealing to Mary Rainsbottom (born 1826 in England) 23<br />\nJanuary 1846. Nauvoo Temple sealing for time to Lydia Dibble 30 January 1846.<br />\nLeft Nauvoo for West in spring of 1846. To Winter Quarters 1846. Mission to<br />\nEngland 1846-47. Arrived in England 3 October 1846. Sealed to Sophia Whitaker<br />\n(born 1825 in England) 23 April 1847 at Winter Quarters. Seven children:<br />\nHarriet Ann Whitaker, James Whitaker, Hyrum Whitaker, John Whitaker, Helena<br />\nWhitaker, Moses Whitaker, and Frederick Whitaker. To Salt Lake Valley in fall<br />\nof 1847. Sealed to Harriet Whitaker (born 1825 in England) 4 December 1847 in<br />\nSalt Lake Valley. Three children: Sophia Elizabeth, William Whitaker, and John.<br />\nElected associate judge of provisional State of Deseret 12 March 1849. Called<br />\non mission to France October 1849. Arrived in Liverpool 27 May 1850. Arrived in<br />\nBoulogne, France, 18 June 1850. Left England for United States 6 March 1852.<br />\nArrived in Salt Lake City 20 August 1852.\"</p>\n<p>Note that BYU\'s official biography of Taylor names the seven women to whom he was \"sealed\", all before 1850, as well as children born of those relationships, indicating that they were sexual in nature, making them polygamy in very deed.<br />\n(Other historians claim that Taylor actually had 15 plural wives by 1850.) The bio also documents Taylor\'s arrival in Boulogne, France, on June 18, 1850, to begin his second European mission.</p>\n<p>I have recommended several times that readers who are interested in learning the facts about Taylor\'s and other Mormon leaders prevarications on this issue, should read Fannie Stenhouse\'s \"Tell It All,\" to obtain a first-hand account of the events in their historical context. Since you are apparently not willing<br />\nto read it for yourself, I\'ll provide the relevant excerpts, beginning from<br />\npage 97 of her autobiography, with a conversation with a friend, Mary Burton:</p>\n<p>\"Sister Stenhouse, do you know the meaning of the word Polygamy!\" \"Why, what a<br />\nfunny question to ask me, child!\" I exclaimed. \"Child, you call me, Sister<br />\nStenhouse, but I\'m not a child at least not quite a child-I shall be fifteen<br />\nnext birthday.\" \"Well dear,\" I said, \"I did not mean to offend you; and I call<br />\nyou \'child\' because I love you; but you asked me such a strange question and<br />\nused such a strange word. \"This was quite true, for at that time the word<br />\nPolygamy was as seldom used as the word \'polyandry,\' or any other word<br />\nsignifying a state of things with which we have nothing to do.\"I\'m not<br />\noffended,\" she said, \"only people have a way of treating me as if I were only<br />\nsuch a very little girl: -I suppose I look so.\" She certainly did look so, and<br />\nI suppose she read my thoughts. Womanhood, by and by, brought to her more of<br />\nreality both in face and figure as well as in the terrible facts of life; but<br />\nat that time the term \"little fairy,\" which I have so often used respecting<br />\nher, seemed the most appropriate. The meaning of that terrible word \"Polygamy\"<br />\nshe understood, in later years, fully as well as I did. \"Well dear,\" I said,<br />\n\"Why did you ask me that strange question?\" \"You must promise not to be angry<br />\nwith me if I tell you,\" she answered, \"and yet I think you ought to know.\" I<br />\nreadily promised-what could I have refused her?-and she said: \"The other day<br />\ntwo of the Sisters were at our house-I may not tell you their names for fear of<br />\nmaking mischief and they were talking together between themselves and did not<br />\nnotice that I was present-or else they didn\'t care. And I heard one of them<br />\ntell the other that she had heard secretly that in Zion men were allowed to<br />\nhave many wives, and she used that word \"Polygamy\" very often, and said that<br />\nwas what the world called it.\" \"Well, Mary dear,\" I replied, \"that is no great<br />\nsecret. We have all heard that said before. Wicked people who hate the Gospel<br />\nsay that, and a great deal more, in order to bring scandal upon the Church; but<br />\nof course it isn\'t true.\" \"Ah, but I haven\'t told you all,\" she said, \"the<br />\nsisters had a long talk about it and they explained who they heard it from, and<br />\nit was from no one outside the Church; and then one of them said that Elder<br />\nStenhouse had heard all about it and knew it was true, only of course he did<br />\nnot talk about such things yet; but that the time would come when everyone<br />\nwould acknowledge it, and all the Saints would have many wives. I was<br />\nfrightened when I heard this, and very angry-for I thought of you-and I spoke<br />\nto her and said itwas all untrue and I\'d ask Elder Stenhouse; and they scolded<br />\nme very much for saying so, and said it was very wicked for a child to listen,<br />\nand that was why I did not like you to call me \'child.\" \'\"Well darling,\" I<br />\nsaid, \"I\'ll not offend you any more in that way-and it was very good of you to<br />\ntell me anything you thought I ought to know.\" Then I kissed her, and<br />\ncontinued: \"But, after all, I don\'t think it\'s of any consequence. It\'s the<br />\nold scandal, just as in the early days they said wicked things of Christ and<br />\nHis apostles. Elder Stenhouse knows all that people say, but he has told me<br />\nagain and again that there is not a word of truth in it, and I believe him.\"<br />\n\"You think so, Sister Stenhouse,\" she replied, \"and I suppose I ought to think<br />\nso too, but if it\'s all false how did people first begin to think of it?<br />\nPeople don\'t say that theMormons are murderers or thieves, because we have<br />\ngiven them no reason to think so. Then why should they think of such an<br />\nunheard-of thing as Polygamy- surely there must have been some reason. Don\'t<br />\nyou think so?\" \"No, dear,\" I answered, \" Elder Stenhouse says that some very<br />\nwicked men have sometimes joined the Church, and have done all manner of<br />\nshocking things, so that they had to be cut off, and then they went about<br />\ntrying to make other people believe that the Mormons were as wicked as they<br />\nwere. There was John C. Bennett who lived a frightful life at Nauvoo, and then<br />\ntried to make out that Joseph Smith was as bad as he was. And Marsh, the<br />\npresident of the twelve apostles, and Orson Hyde, when they apostatised not<br />\nonly said bad things of Joseph, but took affidavit and swore solemnly before<br />\nthe magistrates that the prophet had been guilty of the\'most fearful crimes.\"<br />\nI kissed her again, and she said, \"Well, perhaps you are right\"; but I could<br />\nsee that in her heart she was not convinced. Then we talked of ourselves and<br />\nall that interested us, and she told me all her childish hopes and ambitions;<br />\nand to me young as I was myself-it was pleasant to listen to her innocent<br />\nprattle. She promised to come and see me when Elder Stenhouse had gone and I<br />\nshould be left alone; and when we got back to the rest of the party we were as<br />\nfirm friends as if we had known each other a lifetime. At midnight, Saturday,<br />\nJune I5th, I850, the steamer left Southampton for Havre-de-Grace, bearing on<br />\nboard the first two Mormon Missionaries to Italy-one of them was my<br />\nhusband.....</p>\n<p>[Note that Stenhouse affirms that Mormon leaders claimed that rumors of<br />\npolygamy were \"lies\" spread by \"wicked people\" and apostates. These efforts to<br />\nblame rumors of polygamy on other people puts Mormon leaders beyond the realm<br />\nof merely withholding facts, and installs them into the category of deliberate<br />\ndeception.]</p>\n<p>Although Polygamy was utterly denied by the Missionaries in Europe, yet long<br />\nbefore it was openly avowed a great deal was written and said on the subject.<br />\nJoseph Smith, whatever he said and did in private, always denied it in public,<br />\nand after his death the leaders of the Church followed his example. In some<br />\nway, however, an idea had got abroad that the Mormons were somewhat unsound<br />\nrespecting the marriage question. Still the elders stoutly denied the charge,<br />\nand the more they were accused the more strenuous became their denials. At a<br />\npublic discussion at Boulogne-sur-mer in France, the Apostle John Taylor, in<br />\nreply to the accusations of Polygamy which were brought against him, said: \"We<br />\nare accused here of actions the most indelicate and disgusting, such as none<br />\nbut a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived. These things were too<br />\noutrageous to admit of belief....... I shall content myself with quoting our<br />\nviews of chastity and marriage from a work published by us, containing some of<br />\nour articles of faith-Doctrine and Covenants.\" He then proceeded to quote from<br />\nthe Book of Doctrine and Covenants such passages as the following: \"Marriage<br />\nis ordained by God unto man; wherefore it is lawful that he should have one<br />\nwife, and they twain should be one flesh. [p. 218]. He quoted many other<br />\nthings also, among which might be enumerated the following: \"Thou shalt love<br />\nthy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her, and none else.\" He<br />\nquoted also many other passages of Scripture which had reference to the<br />\nsubject;-each powerful to put aside even the idea of polygamy; and each equally<br />\npowerful as an argument against polygamy itself. Let the reader here note the<br />\nvalue of what Mormons say when their faith is called in question:-See and<br />\njudge: Brother Taylor, who spoke at that meeting, and utterly denied polygamy,<br />\nhad himself---at that very moment when he so atrociously perjured himself and<br />\nwhen he swore that no Mormon had more than one wife---five wives living in Salt<br />\nLake City: One of his friends there present had two wives; and the other was<br />\nmarried to a mother and her own daughter! Any conclusion, any expression of<br />\ndisgust at these abominations and deliberate perjuries, I leave to the<br />\nreader.\".....</p>\n<p>In the beginning of June a General Conference of the branches of the Church in<br />\nBritain was held in London. The Apostles and foreign Missionaries were present,<br />\nand my husband and I were also there. We had speeches and prayers. The<br />\nbusiness of the Conference occupied but very few minutes, for no measure was<br />\nquestioned. Among the Mormons there are no opinions, no discussion. The<br />\npresiding head has made out his programme before he comes to the conference; he<br />\nknows what he wants to do, and no one ever questions him. He may perhaps for<br />\nform\'s sake invite the brethren to speak on any point he introduces; but when<br />\nhe has furnished the clew to his wishes, the Elders who speak only spend their<br />\ntime in arguments in favor of his measures. At the Conference of which I speak<br />\nthe reports of the native elders were very cheering to us. Throughout England<br />\nand Wales they had been most successful in adding members to the Church.<br />\nMormonism was then most successfully preached in Britain. There were more<br />\nMormons there than in all Utah Territory: there were fifty Conferences, with<br />\nover seven hundred organised \"Branches,\" and more than six thousand men<br />\nordained to the priesthood. That peculiar influence which the Mormons call<br />\n\"the Spirit,\" of which I have spoken, elsewhere, was spoken of by the Elders as<br />\nbeing a common experience everywhere. During all that Conference, I listened<br />\ncarefully for a word from the lips of any of the speakers which might indicate<br />\nin any way that Polygamy was part of the Mormon faith; but not a whisper, not a<br />\nhint was uttered. I naturally concluded that the Elders, whose doubtful<br />\nexpressions at Southampton had so troubled my mind, were misinformed or unsafe<br />\nmen. Still I could not altogether banish my apprehension of coming evil; but<br />\nso bound to secresy were those who did know of Polygamy being practiced in<br />\nUtah, that there was not one who would admit it, and even my own husband\'s lips<br />\nwere sealed to me. He did not deny it, but he would not talk about it, and did<br />\neverything he could to banish the thought from my mind.</p>\n<p>Stenhouse then quotes a later letter from her friend Mary Burton:</p>\n<p>Since you went, I have grown quite an old woman. You used to call me:\' little<br />\nfairy,\" but, Sister Stenhouse, I am much bigger now. I am now a good deal over<br />\nfifteen, and people say that I am getting to be quite a woman. I might tell<br />\nyou some other pretty things that are said about me, but I\'m afraid you\'d say<br />\nit was all vanity of vanities. If you stay away much longer you won\'t<br />\nrecognise me when we meet again. And now I want to tell you something that<br />\ninterests you as much as me. I have not been able to discover anything more<br />\nwith certainty about those hateful things of which I told you, although the<br />\nword Polygamy seems to me to become every day much more familiar in people\'s<br />\nconversation. Elder Shrewsbury tells me that there is not a word of truth in<br />\nit, and he has had a good deal of conversation upon that subject with the<br />\napostles who are here, and also with a man named Curtis E. Bolton-an Elder from<br />\nthe Salt Lake; and they all positively declare that it is a foul slander upon<br />\nthe Saints of the Most High. So you see that all our unhappiness was for<br />\nnought. Our Saviour said we should be blessed when all men spoke evil of us<br />\nfalsely for His name\'s sake; and the wicked scandal which has been raised<br />\nagainst our religion has had a tendency to strengthen my faith, which you know<br />\nwas rather wavering. And yet do you know, Sister Stenhouse, that even while I<br />\nam writing to you in this strain, I am weak enough to allow doubts and fears to<br />\ncreep into my heart when I think of the conduct of some of the American<br />\nbrethren. They appear to me, for married men, to act so very imprudently; and<br />\nto call their conduct \'imprudent\' is really treating it with the greatest<br />\nleniency, for I have often been quite shocked at the way in which some of the<br />\nbrethren and sisters acted.</p>\n<p>I read this letter carefully through, and I sat down and thought of dear Mary<br />\nBurton, and felt deeply sorry that she should be placed in a situation<br />\nsurrounded by so many temptations. To myself the letter brought a sad<br />\nconfirmation of all my fears. There was something painful in the thought. Had<br />\npolygamy been openly avowed as a Mormon doctrine I should never have joined the<br />\nChurch. But now, what could I do?<br />\nI was now more than ever anxious about Polygamy. From much thinking on that<br />\nsubject, it had become the haunting spectre of my existence, and I dreaded what<br />\nevery day might bring forth. The news which my husband brought with him by no<br />\nmeans reassured me. He told me that he had heard in England from the American<br />\nElders that there was a general expectation among the Saints in Utah that at<br />\nthe October Conference in Salt Lake City, Brigham Young would publish to the<br />\nworld that Polygamy was a doctrine of the Mormon Church. After all the<br />\nprevarications and denials then of the Apostles and Elders, Polygamy among the<br />\nSaints was really a fact. As the truth became clearer to my mind, I thought I<br />\nshould lose my senses;-the very foundations of my faith were shaken, and not<br />\nonly did I feel a personal repugnance to the unholy doctrine, but I began to<br />\nrealise that the men to whom I had listened with such profound respect and had<br />\nregarded as the representatives of God, had been guilty of the most deliberate<br />\nand unblushing falsehood, and I began to ask myself whether if they could do<br />\nthis in order to carry out their purpose in one particular, might they not be<br />\nguilty of deception upon other points? Who could I trust now? For ten years<br />\nthe Mormon Prophets and Apostles had been living in Polygamy at home, while<br />\nabroad they vehemently denied it and spoke of it as a deadly sin. This was a<br />\npainful awakening to me; we had all of us been betrayed; I lost confidence in<br />\nman, and even began to question within myself whether I could even trust in<br />\nGod. There was no argument between Mr. Stenhouse and myself. It would have<br />\nbeen worse than useless, for it was not his doing, and he assured me that he<br />\nhad as great a repugnance to the doctrine as I had. He had at first only<br />\nhinted that it might eventually be acknowledged by the leaders of the Church,<br />\nbut it was a matter of too deeply a personal character for me to keep silence,<br />\nand I did not rest until he had told me all.....</p>\n<p>After discovering that the previously-denied \"revelation on celestial<br />\nmarriage\" was indeed a reality, Stenhouse then quotes from a letter from<br />\nanother Mormon friend, one Madame Baliff:</p>\n<p>...... I am very miserable, Sister Stenhouse, and furiously indigonant. I<br />\nlittle thought when I last wrote to you that I should have such news to tell;<br />\nbut I suppose you know it all without my saying a word. How we all felt when<br />\nwe first learned that Polygamy was true, no words of mine can describe; we<br />\nhardly dared look one another in the face. Let me tell you how it was. One<br />\nnight, quite late, Elder Shrewsbury came round in a hurry, and asked to see me.<br />\nI went down into the parlour to meet him, and Mrs. Elsworth came down also,<br />\nand remained until he went away. Elder Shrewsbury looked very strange that<br />\nnight, just like a man who had been doing something wrong and was ashamed of<br />\nit-and well he might feel so. He began by talking to Mrs. Elsworth about the<br />\nweather, and when they had both said all they could think of on that<br />\ninteresting and original subject, we all three sat silent for some time. Elder<br />\nShrewsbury at last spoke. He excused himself for coming so late, but he said<br />\nhe had only just received some important news, and could not rest until he had<br />\nseen us. He had been round at the Conference-house, and had there seen a good<br />\nmany of the Elders. They were all talking earnestly upon the same subject, for<br />\nthat day they had received not only letters from the Apostle at Liverpool, but<br />\nalso copies of the Millennial Star, with the Revelation in it, which I suppose<br />\nyou have seen. Of course it was impossible for them to doubt any longer, but<br />\nmost of them felt it was a cruel blow. Elder Shrewsbury said they looked at<br />\none another, but did not dare to speak. Nearly all of them had been anxiously<br />\ntrying to get rid of the false scandal, as they supposed the accusation of<br />\nPolygamy to be; and in public in their sermons, and in private to all the weak<br />\nbrethren, they had over and over again solemnly declared that Polygamy was<br />\nunheard of among the Saints, that it was a Gentile lie; and they had proved<br />\nfrom the Bible, and from the Book of Mormon, that a doctrine so sinful could<br />\nnever be believed or practiced by God\'s people. Now, all this would be thrown<br />\nin their teeth. Those who hated Mormonism would revile them for it, and, worse<br />\nstill, the Saints themselves would despise and doubt them for the lies which<br />\nmany of them had innocently told. Who could tell where all this would end?<br />\nWhen they were found to have been deceived in a matter like Polygamy, about<br />\nwhich it was so easy to arrive at facts and certainty, who would trust them<br />\nconcerning other doctrines which depended upon their veracity and testimony<br />\nalone? Then, too, there was worse to be said about the American Elders and<br />\nApostles. Who could believe that Orson Pratt or Lorenzo Snow knew nothing of<br />\nPolygamy? And yet they denied it in the most solemn way. And, oh, Sister<br />\nStenhouse, think of the Apostle Taylor calling God to witness his truth when he<br />\nproved from the Book of Covenants that there was no such thing as Polygamy: and<br />\nall the while he had himself five wives in Salt Lake City! Oh, my! This is<br />\ndreadful. Whether the doctrine is true or not, I can never believe that God<br />\nwould forgive all that abominable lying about it. But I was telling you of<br />\nthat evening. Elder Shrewsbury told us all this, but he spoke slowly and<br />\ndisjointedly, like a man whose mind is troubled. He said he hardly knew what<br />\nhe was doing. Then he gave Mrs. Elsworth a copy of the Star, and he asked me,<br />\ntoo, to read the Revelation carefully before I condemned it. \"If the<br />\nRevelation, as you call it, allows Polygamy,\" I exclaimed, \"it is a lie, and I<br />\nhate and despise it, and you, and Mormonism, and all!\" I was quite in a fury,<br />\nand I did feel as if I hated him then.</p>\n<p>Stenhouse then relates an example of the effect the \"revelation\" had on naive,<br />\ntrusting, European converts:</p>\n<p>T\'was fortunate for the Swiss Mission that the new converts in general could<br />\nnot read any language but their own, and thus were ignorant of the deceptions<br />\nwhich the American Elders had practiced upon the people. Monsieur Petitpierre,<br />\nthe Protestant minister, who thought that the Revelation ought to be<br />\n\"prayerfully considered,\" was the only one who understood English, and his<br />\nknowledge was very limited. His wife did not at all coincide with him about<br />\nthe prayerful consideration of Polygamy; she disposed of the subject without<br />\nany prayer at all, and it is to be regretted that in this respect the whole<br />\nbody of the Mormon women did not follow her example.</p>\n<p>Stenhouse then relates how Mormon leaders\' lies and reversal of position on<br />\npolygamy negatively affected church growth in Europe:</p>\n<p>The Pastor over the London and adjoining Conferences was the son of one of the<br />\nchief Apostles in Utah-a young man, whose good nature was far better than his<br />\nreligion. He visited us very frequently, and used to bring with him the<br />\ndistinguished American Elders who might be visiting the metropolis. I have no<br />\ndoubt that they were sincere in their desire to do me good, but it was not kind<br />\nattentions that I then needed, it was the removal of the cause of my sorrows.<br />\nThey tried to persuade me that it was all \"the work of the Lord;\" but I could<br />\nnot see it in that light, and very often in reply to their consolations I said<br />\nvery hard things of Polygamy and the leaders of the Church, whose conduct I<br />\nconsidered sinful. And in this I did not stand alone, for I soon found that<br />\nthe President of the Conference-Elder Marsden-had been in the same position for<br />\nyears, and his wife was \"quite through\" with Mormonism. In fact, so great had<br />\nbeen the distrust occasioned by Polygamy, that in the report ending June 30th,<br />\nI853, it was stated that from the whole British Church-which then numbered very<br />\nnearly thirty-one thousand souls-seventeen hundred and seventy-six had been<br />\nexcommunicated for apostasy! Of those who remained faithful I cannot give a<br />\nmuch more cheering account. The Elders who visited President Marsden made as<br />\ndamaging reports of the condition of the Saints as their worst enemies could<br />\ndesire. All that my young friend, Mary Burton, had told me did not equal the<br />\ntruth of what I saw for myself. No one had any confidence now in what the<br />\nElders said;-how could they be trusted after so many years of deception?</p>\n<p>End quotes. Stenhouse shows that Mormon leaders effectively maintained a<br />\npattern of deceit before the entire European continent, including some 31,000<br />\nconverts to Mormonism for years, and that nearly 1,800 of them abandoned<br />\nMormonism because of those lies. Obviously, that culture of deceit caused a<br />\nmajor shock wave in Mormon efforts in Europe. Thus, Guy, your attempts to<br />\nshow that Taylor\'s remarks were not lies are trounced by the documented facts<br />\nof history.</p>\n<p>In addition, I have repeated several times another denial of polygamy from the<br />\n\"Times and Seasons\", vol. 6, pg. 894 (May 1, 1845):<br />\n\"As to the charge of polygamy, I will quote from the Book of Doctrine and<br />\nCovenants, which is the subscribed faith of the church and is strictly<br />\nenforced. Article of Marriage, sec. 91, par. 4, says, \"Inasmuch as this church<br />\nof Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we<br />\ndeclare that we believe that one man should have but one husband except in the<br />\ncase of death when either is at liberty to marry again.\" Sec. 12, par. 7.<br />\n\"Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart and shall cleave unto her and NONE<br />\nELSE.\" In ancient till God cleanses the earth, and restores the government of<br />\nhis says, \"know this that, in (the last days of perilous times shall come), for<br />\nmen shall be TRAITORS, FALSE ACCUSERS, INCONTINENT, fierce despiser of those<br />\nthat are good. No wonder then that apostates rage, or that the fulness of<br />\ntruth revealed again should bring a storm of persecution.\"</p>\n<p>As the BYU bio of Taylor quoted above shows, Taylor was the editor of the<br />\n\"Times and Seasons.\" Thus, the 1846 denial of polygamy, and its attempt to<br />\nsaddle rumors of it onto \"false accusers,\" was likely penned by Taylor himself.<br />\nThat demonstrates two facts: One, Taylor was an \"equal opportunity liar,\" who<br />\nspread falsehoods about polygamy on two continents, America and Europe; and<br />\ntwo, your deceitful attempt to claim that Taylor\'s denial of polygamy came in<br />\n1839, before he was aware of the practice, is further trounced by the fact that<br />\nhe continued to deny polygamy in the official church newspaper in 1846.</p>\n<p>In other words, Guy---your credibility on this subject is non-existent.</p>\n<p>Late LDS Apostle John A. Widtsoe admitted that church leaders lied about<br />\npolygamy in the Nauvoo era: \"Authentic history says that plural marriage<br />\noriginated with Joseph Smith the Prophet. And so it did. The apparent denials<br />\nby Church leaders in Nauvoo days that the Church practised polygamy were<br />\ncorrect.\" (Evidences and Reconciliations, p. 344.)</p>\n<p>Seeing as how Widtsoe conceded that early Mormon leaders denied practicing<br />\npolygamy (which equated to lying), it\'s futile for modern Mopologists like Guy<br />\nBriggs to still try to claim that they did not. At some point, the rational<br />\nmind just has to accept the facts and concede the issue. Guy, here is an<br />\nexcellent opportunity to show the forum whether or not you possess a rational<br />\nmind.</p>\n<p>Randy J.</p>\n<p>^<br />\nRe: RfMer \"randyj\" Strips the Bark Off a Forked-Tongue TBM on LDS Polygamy Lies&nbsp;</p>\n<p>randyj<br />\nAnd here\'s a response to another Exmo...<br />\n.....in which I detail more of the historical background while refuting Guy Briggs\' argument that John Taylor\'s denial was only referring to \"lies\" published by people like John C. Bennett.</p>\n<p>Steve Lowther wrote:</p>\n<p>&gt;In addition, the denials of polygamy of section 101 predated Bennett\'s<br />\n&gt;book by many years. So rumors of polygamy and the denials were in<br />\n&gt;place well before Bennett arrived on the scene.</p>\n<p>Steve, I don\'t have the several hours at present that it would take to give<br />\nthis point its proper treatment, but briefly, Bennett published his book<br />\n\"History of the Saints\" in 1842. The main reason for Bennett\'s split from<br />\nSmith is that they both wanted 19-year-old Nancy Rigdon as a \"plural wife.\"<br />\nNancy spilled the beans of Smith\'s proposition to her father Sidney, who<br />\nconfronted Smith with it. Smith at first attempted to call Nancy a liar and<br />\ndeny the proposition, but Sidney brought out the \"doctrinal letter\" Smith had<br />\nwritten to Nancy in which he attempted to explain his reasons for wanting her<br />\n(\"Whatever God commands is right\" etc.), so Smith was forced to admit to his<br />\nactions, and he apologized privatley to the Rigdons. (This was the first<br />\nSidney had even heard of polygamy, and he was shocked.) A few months later,<br />\nwhen Bennett had completely broken from Smith, he published his book and<br />\nincluded the text of Smith\'s \"doctrinal letter\" to Nancy. Smith responded by<br />\nputting a notice in the \"Times and Seasons\" denying that he had authored the<br />\nletter, and that he had nothing to do with the polygamy practice, and that it<br />\nwas all Bennett\'s doing. Smith had to categorically deny polygamy because the<br />\nimpact of Bennett\'s book could have brought down his empire at that time.<br />\nSmith\'s, and other polygamous Mormons\' oft-repeated tactic was to spin charges<br />\nagainst them onto those who made the charges; in addition to claiming that<br />\nBennett had originated polygamy, Nancy Rigdon was called a \"common whore,\" and<br />\nMartha Brotherton, whom Brigham Young had propositioned, and who published her<br />\naccount of Young\'s indecent proposal to her, was similarly trashed as being of<br />\nill repute.</p>\n<p>Not a single denial of polygamy during that time, nor in fact any during<br />\nSmith\'s lifetime, made any distinction between Smith\'s polygamy practice and an<br />\nalleged separate, different system practiced by Bennett. At that time,<br />\npolygamy, and indeed any and all forms of non-monogamous marriage systems, were<br />\ncategorically denied, because of the impact of Bennett\'s 1842 book. After<br />\nSmith\'s death, other Mormon polygamous leaders invented the idea that there<br />\nwere two separate systems---Smith\'s \"approved\" and \"revealed\" one, and<br />\nBennett\'s supposedly \"unapproved\" or \"renegade\" one, in order to distance Smith<br />\nand the church from Bennett. In truth, if there was any difference between<br />\nwhat Smith and Bennett were doing, it was that Smith claimed his system to be a<br />\n\"revelation,\" whereas Bennett knew very well that polygamy was merely Smith\'s<br />\nmethod of getting naughty nookie while maintaining an image of being a \"church<br />\nleader,\" so Bennett didn\'t bother with the religious dogma while<br />\npropositioning his women.</p>\n<p>By inventing the idea that Bennett\'s system was \"renegade\" and therefore<br />\nimproper, Mormon apologists have effectively deluded rank-and-file Mormons that<br />\nSmith never denied practicing polygamy, but that he only denied Bennett\'s<br />\nallegedly \"improper\" system. And that is why Mormons like Guy Briggs believe<br />\nand write what they do. They are simply the victims of deceitful<br />\nspin-doctoring by Mormon leaders and apologists; they believe the<br />\nspin-doctoring, instead of simply reading the history for themselves and<br />\ncomprehending that the spin-doctoring is a lie.</p>\n<p>So although Bennett\'s book predated Taylor\'s categorical denial of polygamy by<br />\neight years, history shows that Smith &amp; Co. had consistently denied polygamy,<br />\nin all forms, by whichever term you wish to call it, since he first began the<br />\npractice in earnest about 1839. That is why I occasionally write that instead<br />\nof having Mormons like Guy defend the denials, it\'s in fact easier to have them<br />\ncite official sources where Smith or any other leaders publicly taught,<br />\nadvocated, or supported polygamy (by whichever term they wished to call it).<br />\nThe problem with that is there are no such public statements supporting<br />\npolygamy (by any term) before Young had Pratt first publicly admit to it in<br />\n1852. Every single official public statement concerning polygamy before that<br />\ndate was made to categorically deny the practice, and to consistently support<br />\nmonogamous marriage systems only.</p>\n<p>Randy J.</p>\n<p>randyj<br />\nAnd my next re-rebuttal to Guy Briggs...<br />\nGuy had quoted some apologetics from BH Roberts to try to make his argument that John Taylor\'s denials of polygamy referred only to \"lies\" published by John C. Bennett.</p>\n<p>Steve Lowther wrote:</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt; I accept that I mistakenly said that John Taylor was on a mission to England<br />\nwhen I stated that he participated in that debate in France. He was, duh, on a<br />\nmission to France.</p>\n<p>Guy Briggs wrote:</p>\n<p>&gt;My own research leads me to the same conclusion, and I apologise for<br />\nany accusations I may have made vis-a-vis a 1839 statement being presented as<br />\nan 1850 statement. I was mistaken. It happens from time to time.</p>\n<p>Randy replied:</p>\n<p>We can all make mistakes. I made a minor one about it being Taylor\'s \"second<br />\nmission\" as well (even though I gave the correct information, in the same post,<br />\nfrom BYU\'s website.) But the difference is that my mistake was trivial and<br />\ndidn\'t affect my argument, whereas your entire argument was based on the false<br />\npremise that Taylor made his denial in 1839, before he was informed as to<br />\npolygamy. As I documented from Fanny Stenhouse\'s first-hand experience,<br />\nTaylor\'s denial was in France in 1850, and it was merely one instance of the<br />\nofficial church policy to categorically deny polygamy before 1852.</p>\n<p>Incidentally, even if Taylor\'s remarks had been made in 1839, based on personal<br />\nignorance of the polygamy practice, that would further reflect poorly on Smith,<br />\nbecause it would be another example of Smith keeping a high church leader in<br />\nthe dark about polygamy, just as he had done with William Law and others. That<br />\nwould have meant that Taylor, a major church leader, would be making a public<br />\nstatement attesting to something that Joseph Smith knew was not the truth (just<br />\nas Law swore his 1842 affidavit against Bennett based on Smith\'s word that<br />\nBennett was the instigator of polygamy). That scenario is similar to the day<br />\nwhen Bill Clinton\'s entire cabinet stood on the White House porch and expressed<br />\ntheir belief that Clinton had told them the truth when he denied his<br />\nrelationship with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton allowed his cabinet members to<br />\ntestify to what he knew was the opposite of the truth. And Smith allowed Law<br />\nto do the same, which makes Smith not just a liar, but a very sleazy one, in<br />\nletting a naive subordinate cover for his lies.</p>\n<p>Steve wrote:</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt;However, when such importance to a minute, immaterial detail is being grossly<br />\nblown out of proportion, it is an obvious consequence of a desperate defense.<br />\nNo minutia is too insignificant when reason and facts are not on one\'s side.</p>\n<p>Randy replied:</p>\n<p>Exactly. Guy\'s tactic is nothing more than obfuscation---focus on minor errors<br />\nor minutae, and try to change the subject away from the larger issues. As I\'ve<br />\nwritten before, that style of debate might work on naive teenage Mormon<br />\nseminary students, but it doesn\'t make it past intelligent adults. The sad<br />\nthing is that Guy thinks he can get by with it here.</p>\n<p>Guy wrote:</p>\n<p>&gt;I was, however, right about what Taylor was denying.</p>\n<p>No, YOU ARE NOT RIGHT, Guy.</p>\n<p>&gt; It was NOT polygamy, per se.</p>\n<p>Yes, IT WAS, Guy. For the umpteenth time:</p>\n<p>\"I shall content myself by reading our views of chastity and marriage, from a<br />\nwork published by us containing some of the articles of our Faith. \'Doctrine<br />\nand Covenants,\' page 330... Inasmuch as this Church of Jesus Christ has been<br />\nreproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we<br />\nbelieve that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband,<br />\nexcept in the case of death,...\"\' (tract published by John Taylor in<br />\nEngland, in 1850, page 8; published in \"Orson Pratt\'s Works,\" 1851 edition).</p>\n<p>As is plain to any rational observer, Taylor CATEGORICALLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY<br />\ndeclared that his church believed in having only one living husband or wife;<br />\nand he made that statement specifically BECAUSE of rumors of \"the CRIMES of<br />\nfornication and POLYGAMY.\" YOU assert that Taylor\'s denial \"was not about<br />\npolygamy, per se,\" when Taylor in fact denied the practice of polygamy BY USING<br />\nTHAT VERY TERM.</p>\n<p>&gt;It was the lies written in Bennett\'s book.</p>\n<p>No, it WAS NOT, Guy. Smith had successfully discredited Bennett (in the eyes<br />\nof the public) in 1842, eight years before Taylor\'s remark, by categorically<br />\ndenying polygamy and blaming the entire practice on Bennett. When William Law<br />\nhad Smith indicted on charges of \"adultery and polygamy\" in May of 1844, Smith<br />\nAGAIN denied practicing polygamy, even using that denial to justify destroying<br />\nLaw &amp; Co.\'s \"Expositor\" press. After the Smiths\' murders, when the church<br />\nbegan to fragment roughly between polygamists and non-polygamists, the<br />\nnon-polygamists began to \"spill the beans\" again about polygamy, and<br />\npro-polygamous church leaders AGAIN denied it, even calling the anti-polygamist<br />\nSidney Rigdon a liar:</p>\n<p>\"Despite his long-standing opposition to polygamy, and published condemnations<br />\nof the practice, Rigdon would be accused of introducing the system within his<br />\ndeclining congregation. Apostle Parley P. Pratt turned Rigdon\'s accusations<br />\nagainst him in a 1 July 1845 letter in the British \'MIllenial Star,\' warning<br />\nthe Saints to \'beware of seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils, as first<br />\nintroduced by John C. Bennett, under the name of spiritual wife<br />\ndoctrine\'.....Apostle John Taylor, editor of the 15 November 1844 \'Times and<br />\nSeasons,\' published a letter from \'An Old Man of Israel\' which denounced the<br />\n\'sham quotations of Sidney Rigdon and his clique, under the \'dreadful splendor\'<br />\nof \'spiritual wifery\' which is brought into the account as graciously as if the<br />\nlaw of the land allowed a man a plurality of wives.\' There is no solid<br />\nevidence that Rigdon ever advocated polygamy.\" (Richard van Wagoner, \"Mormon<br />\nPolygamy: A History, p. 73.)</p>\n<p>(Note that Taylor\'s November 1844 remark, written under a pseudonym,<br />\nrecognized that the law of the land did not allow \"a man a plurality of wives,\"<br />\nwhich was six years earlier than his 1850 categorical denial of polygamy in<br />\nFrance, thus demonstrating that his 1850 denial was not an isolated or<br />\nout-of-character statement, but was to the contrary, merely one instance of an<br />\nofficial policy of categorical denial of polygamy.)</p>\n<p>And also:</p>\n<p>\"Most of the stories against the Mormons have been propagated by apostates and<br />\ntraitors, (who have been generally cut off from the church for their crimes.)<br />\nThey publish their lies, and straightway they are believed, and hawked about as<br />\nawful disclosures, and received by community with trembling and holy horror.<br />\nSidney Rigdon, I see by the papers, has made an exposition of Mormonism,<br />\ncharging Joseph Smith and the Mormons with polygamy, &amp;c. It does not require a<br />\nvery sagacious mind to fathom Mr. Rigdon\'s motive for doing.\" (Times and<br />\nSeasons, vol. 6, p. 894 (May 1, 1845.)</p>\n<p>Note that this article states \"charging Joseph Smith and the Mormons with<br />\nPOLYGAMY.\" As Rigdon was well aware that it was Smith, not Bennett, who had<br />\nstarted polygamy, Pratt\'s and Taylor\'s implication that Rigdon was the victim<br />\nof \"lies\" by Bennett was meritless. As Rigdon himself wrote in his \"Messenger<br />\nand Advocate\" in 1845:</p>\n<p>\"This system was introduced by the Smiths sometime before thier death, and was<br />\nthe thing which put them in the power of their enemies, and was the immediate<br />\ncause of their death.\"</p>\n<p>Thus we see that Pratt\'s and Taylor\'s slandering of Rigdon was merely another<br />\nexample of polygamous Mormon leaders\' oft-employed deceitful tactic of defaming<br />\nall those who attempted to expose polygamy.</p>\n<p>Guy Briggs quoted B. H. Roberts\' attempt to spin-doctor the issue:</p>\n<p>&gt;\"The doctrine of plural marriage both by those who<br />\nwithout authorization and, prematurely, undertook to<br />\nteach it, and those who bitterly denounced it, was<br />\nnot properly apprehended either by such advocates or<br />\nsuch denunciators. Plural marriage as taught by the<br />\nProphet was not the \'polygamy\' of the orient, with<br />\nits attendant despotism and harems; nor the \'bigamy\'<br />\nof western civilization, banned by the law of all the<br />\nwestern nations, including our own, and in which the<br />\nelement of deception was always present by keeping<br />\nthe fact of the first and perhaps other marriages<br />\nsecret, thus betraying its victims to unsuspected<br />\ndisgrace and humiliation. And hence, because these<br />\noverzealous advocates, and ill informed denunciators<br />\nnever truly represented the doctrine of the revelation<br />\non marriage, the denial of their misstatements of the<br />\ndoctrine and its practice was not regarded by the<br />\nleading elders of the church as a denial of the<br />\ndoctrine of the revelation given to the Prophet;&gt;</p>\n<p>Here we can plainly see Roberts\' spin-doctoring: Taylor\'s 1850 (and 1844)<br />\ndenials were not a \"denial of misstatements of the doctrine and its practice\";<br />\nrather, Taylor\'s remarks SPECIFICALLY, UNEQUIVOCALLY, AND UNCATEGORICALLY<br />\ndenied ANY AND ALL FORMS OF MARRIAGE other than \"one wife or one husband.\"<br />\nNOWHERE in Taylor\'s remarks did he infer that he, or the church he represented,<br />\ntaught or practiced a \"correct\" version of polygamy that had been \"misstated\"<br />\nby \"ill-informed denunciators\", to use Roberts\' term. Taylor unequivocally<br />\ndenied \"polygamy\" by that very name, and he quoted from the \"Article on<br />\nMarriage,\" which specifically prohibited polygamy, to support his lie.</p>\n<p>&gt;and while this may be considered a refinement in<br />\npresentation that the world will not allow, it<br />\nnevertheless represents a distinction that was real<br />\nto those who were struggling with a difficult<br />\nproposition, and accounts for the seeming denials<br />\nreferred to in the text above; as also later seeming<br />\ndenials made by John Taylor, in a public discussion<br />\nwith three ministers at Boulogne-sur-mer, France, 1850<br />\n(Public Discussion in France, included in Orson<br />\nPratt\'s Works, 1851 edition, England. Also Life of<br />\nJohn Taylor, ch, xxiv); and by Parley P. Pratt in<br />\nEngland, 1845 (Millennial Star, vol. vi, p. 22).</p>\n<p>At least, I hope this fact from Roberts will help you see that Taylor\'s denial<br />\nwas in 1850, not 1839, and that Fanny Stenhouse\'s book, which you refuse to<br />\nread because it is in your words \"anti-Mormon\", was telling the truth.</p>\n<p>&gt;BOTH ELDERS PRATT AND TAYLOR IN THEIR DENIALS WERE<br />\nREFERRING TO THE CHARGES MADE BY JOHN C. BENNETT AND<br />\nOTHER APOSTATES. Pratt says, in his denial: \'Beware<br />\nof seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, as first<br />\nintroduced by John C. Bennett under the name of \'the<br />\nspiritual wife doctrine.\' ... It is but another name<br />\nfor whoredom, wicked and unlawful connection and every<br />\nkind of confusion, corruption and abomination. ... The<br />\nspiritual wife doctrine of J. C. Bennett and numerous<br />\nother apostates, is as foreign from the real<br />\nprinciples of the church as the devil is from God, or<br />\nas sectarianism is from Christianity.\" (Ibid.)<br />\n-- Roberts, B.H., _Comprehensive<br />\nHistory of the Church_, V.2,<br />\nCh.45, p.104</p>\n<p>What the spin-doctor Roberts didn\'t tell us is that Pratt\'s letter mentioning<br />\nBennett was in a letter attacking Rigdon; and as I\'ve explained above, Rigdon<br />\nknew very well that Smith instigated polygamy, and he was privy to the details<br />\nof the Smith/Bennett breakup---it was because of Smith\'s attempt on Rigdon\'s<br />\ndaughter Nancy. Therefore, Pratt\'s assertion that Rigdon had somehow fallen<br />\nvictim to lies about polygamy told by Bennett is invalid, and that makes<br />\nRoberts\' spin-doctoring invalid in turn.</p>\n<p>What you need to realize is that people like Roberts are apologists first, and<br />\nhistorians second. His \"History of the Church\" was written not for the sake of<br />\naccurate documentations of facts, but for the purpose of making Mormonism and<br />\nits leaders look as good as possible. His editorial comments on historical<br />\nevents such as you have posted here clearly shows that.</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt;John Taylor lied. No ifs ands or buts.</p>\n<p>&gt;John Taylor denied the lies printed by Bennett. If there was a<br />\nlittle less snippage going on around here, that would have been plain.</p>\n<p>&gt;bestRegards, Guy.</p>\n<p>It\'s obvious that Taylor didn\'t \"deny the lies printed by Bennett,\" for reasons<br />\nI\'ve explained in detail above. But I\'m sure you, in your infinite non-wisdom,<br />\nwill respond to this with the same type of invalid, incorrect material which<br />\nhas just been refuted.</p>\n<p>Randy J.</p>\n<p>randyj<br />\nGuy Briggs didn\'t believe that Smith had sex with plural wives...<br />\nIn this same thread, Guy had repeated the common apologetic assertion: \"If Smith had sex with the women, where\'s the evidence for children?\" On that issue, he wrote:</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt; You guys will assume the worst of Smith no matter what the facts<br />\n&gt;&gt; are. Or lack of facts thereof.</p>\n<p>Ex-Mormon Steve Lowther replied:</p>\n<p>&gt;And what can we say about YOUR assumptions, Guy? Ever state anything<br />\n&gt;about JS that acknowledged any major weakness? If the critics can at<br />\n&gt;least occasionally point out some of his good points, why don\'t you<br />\n&gt;acknowledge at least occasionally some of his bad points?<br />\n&gt;<br />\n&gt;Steve Lowther</p>\n<p>Randy responded:</p>\n<p>The hilarious thing about Guy\'s argument is that Smith\'s having sex with and<br />\nfathering children by his \"plural wives\" wasn\'t a \"bad point\" to 19th-century<br />\nUtah Mormons. The very reason there is so much historical documentation of<br />\nSmith\'s sexual relationships is because when Joseph Smith lll became president<br />\nof the \"Reorganite\" movement---after his mother Emma had told him his entire<br />\nlife that Brigham Young was the instigator of polygamy, rather than his<br />\nfather---Smith lll went to Utah to interview and collect affidavits from his<br />\nfather\'s former associates and \"plural wives,\" who willingly gave their<br />\ntestimonies regarding Smith\'s sexual habits. Some of them repeated those<br />\ntestimonies in the \"Temple Lot Case.\"</p>\n<p>The reason that Pollyannas like Guy wish to believe that Smith\'s \"plural<br />\nmarriages\" were platonic is because since the LDS church was forced to end<br />\npolygamy in 1906, it has engaged in a quiet but effective campaign to omit all<br />\nmention of Smith\'s extra-marital sex, and to re-make him into an image that<br />\nis more palatable to today\'s strictly-monogamous mainstream Mormonism. That<br />\ncampaign is well-demonstrated by, among other things, a) the fewer and fewer<br />\nmentions of polygamy in \"Ensign\" articles (compare the volume of mention of<br />\nhistorical articles which discuss Smith\'s polygamy from 1970 to 1985 against<br />\nthose from 1985-present) and b) the conspicuous absence of any mention of<br />\nBrigham Young\'s \"plural wives,\" or polygamy at all, in the 1997 lesson manual<br />\n\"The Teachings of Brigham Young.\"</p>\n<p>Guy\'s attitude is the product of 100 years of revisionist history disseminated<br />\nby Mormon leaders and writers. It\'s all part of the campaign to re-make Joseph<br />\nSmith into a demi-God for Mormons to worship. As time passes, Smith will<br />\nbecome more and more of a Jesus-like figure that mainstream Mormons will<br />\nactually openly worship (rather than just pretending not to, as they do now).</p>\n<p>The only problem with that is, as time passes, more and more Mormons will come<br />\nto know the real Joseph Smith, and they will leave the LDS Church because of<br />\nit. That means that at some point in the future, the only Mormons who are left<br />\nwill be people like Guy and Woody---blind fanatical worshippers of Smith.</p>\n<p>Randy J.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>randyj<br />\nGuy\'s lies continue...</p>\n<p>Guy, I\'m going to snip your latest mountain of drivel and obfuscation to get<br />\nback to the subject.</p>\n<p>Guy wrote:</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt;&gt; I was, however, right about what Taylor was denying.</p>\n<p>Randy wrote:</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt; No, YOU ARE NOT RIGHT, Guy.</p>\n<p>&gt; I am loathe to send the Tanner\'s 20 of my hard-earned dollars, but I\'ve<br />\ndecided to do it - just so I can show you how wrong you are. We\'ll read that<br />\npamphlet and see just what it was Taylor was denying.</p>\n<p>You don\'t have to send the Tanners a dime, Guy. Don Marchant has already<br />\noffered to send you the relevant pages of the pamphlet, and over two weeks ago,<br />\nI sent you documentation from a first-hand contemporary source, Fanny<br />\nStenhouse, who wrote of events that occurred in 1850. Stenhouse\'s book makes<br />\nit clear that European Mormons were lied to for years by American leaders about<br />\npolygamy. They weren\'t upset about \"misinformation\" written by Bennett, or<br />\nCaswall, or anyone else; they were upset about the outright denials of polygamy<br />\nfrom their own church leaders.</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt;&gt; It was NOT polygamy, per se.</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt; Yes, IT WAS, Guy. For the umpteenth time:</p>\n<p>&gt; &gt;\"I shall content myself by reading our views of chastity and marriage, from<br />\na work published by us containing some of the articles of our Faith. \'Doctrine<br />\nand Covenants,\' page 330... Inasmuch as this Church of Jesus Christ has been<br />\nreproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that<br />\nwe believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband,<br />\nexcept in the case of death,...\"\' (tract published by John Taylor in England,<br />\nin 1850, page 8;<br />\npublished in \"Orson Pratt\'s Works,\" 1851 edition).</p>\n<p>&gt;Nice snippage. But no matter how much you torture them, the words<br />\nare not going to break down and say what you want them to say.</p>\n<p>As I wrote earlier, any rational person can understand what Taylor is saying.<br />\nYour rsponse is an admission that you are not rational. The words say what<br />\nthey say. I haven\'t \"tortured\" them nor \"snipped\" them. Taylor prefaced his<br />\nremarks by saying that he was going to read his church\'s policy from the D&amp;C,<br />\nand then he did so. Anyone can read the \"Article on Marriage\" from the 1835<br />\nD&amp;C (of which Taylor was referring) to see that my quotation of Taylor is<br />\naccurate and reflected current LDS doctrine and policy.</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt;As is plain to any rational observer, Taylor CATEGORICALLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY<br />\ndeclared that his church believed in having only one living husband or wife;<br />\nand he made that statement specifically BECAUSE of rumors of \"the CRIME of<br />\nfornication and POLYGAMY.\" YOU assert that Taylor\'s denial \"was not about<br />\npolygamy, per se,\" when Taylor in fact denied<br />\nthe practice of polygamy BY USING THAT VERY TERM.</p>\n<p>&gt;And just before that, in the part you so conveniently snipped, he<br />\nspeaks of not only polygamy but also other evils: pools of wives that<br />\ncould be checked out for the night like a library book, seraglios,<br />\npromiscuous intercourse, in short - evils so despicable and depraved<br />\nthat he couldn\'t even enumerate them.</p>\n<p>And exactly how does that negate his denial of the \"crime of fornication and<br />\npolygamy?\" In your twisted mind, was it \"okay\" for Taylor to categorically<br />\ndeny polygamy, and assert that his church taught practiced monogamy only, just<br />\nbecause Bennett, Caswall, or anyone else, made other accusations as well?</p>\n<p>&gt;So he contented himself with reading Sec. CI from the Book of Commandments -<br />\nofficial Church doctrine at the time.</p>\n<p>And here, dear readers, we have a further demonstration of Guy Briggs\'<br />\nirrationality: He admits that Taylor correctly quoted the \"Article on<br />\nMarriage\", which specifically prohibited polygamy, and allowed for only one<br />\nliving wife at a time---while also knowing full well that Taylor was a<br />\npolygamist at the time!<br />\nGuy, a couple of weeks ago, you stated that \"it\'s only a lie if the person<br />\nmaking the statement knows it\'s a lie at the time.\" Since you know that Taylor<br />\nwas a polygamist in 1850, and he stated in 1850 that his church believed in<br />\nhaving only one living wife at a time, you concede that Taylor was lying.</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt;&gt; It was the lies written in Bennett\'s book.</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt; No, it WAS NOT, Guy.</p>\n<p>&gt; What is this, proof by assertion?</p>\n<p>No, Guy. It\'s proof by documentation. If you believe that Taylor\'s statement<br />\ndid not constitute deceit, then you will have to show us from his statement<br />\nwhere he admitted to any marriage systems other than monogamy.</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt;Smith had successfully discredited Bennett (in the eyes of the public) in<br />\n1842, eight years before Taylor\'s remark, by categorically denying polygamy and<br />\nblaming the entire practice on Bennett.</p>\n<p>&gt;That was half a world away. This was in France, Randy, and Taylor\'s<br />\ninterlocutors were repeating the charges in Bennett\'s book.</p>\n<p>It DOESN\'T MATTER what \"Taylor\'s interlutors were repeating.\" Taylor denied<br />\nthat his church taught or practiced any marriage systems other than monogamy.<br />\nIf Taylor had been anywhere close to honest, he should have responded with<br />\nsomething like: \"Gentlemen, a very bad man named John C. Bennett unfortunately<br />\njoined our church in America. Our founding prophet, Joseph Smith, had received<br />\na revelation from God commanding him to practice the ancient order of plural<br />\nmarriage. Mr. Bennett twisted this commandment to his own ends, taking<br />\nadvantage of women and having improper relations with them, telling them that<br />\nJoseph had approved it. Mr. Bennett\'s practice was not the proper form of<br />\nplural marriage that the prophet Joseph had taught, and Mr. Bennett was cut off<br />\nfrom the church for his actions. The true, revealed practice of plural<br />\nmarriage has not been given to the whole church as yet. At this time, only a<br />\nfew are practicing it, and I am one of those.\"</p>\n<p>But Taylor didn\'t say anything like that. He gave no hint of approval of<br />\npolygamy, in any form, by any term. He categorically denied that his church<br />\ntaught or practiced anything other than monogamy. What Bennett, Caswall, or<br />\nanyone else wrote did not influence Taylor\'s categorical denial of polygamy in<br />\nany form, by any term. You are merely using Bennett and Caswall as strawmen to<br />\njustify Taylor\'s lies.</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt; When William Law had Smith indicted on charges of \"adultery and polygamy\" in<br />\nMay of 1844, Smith AGAIN denied practicing polygamy, even using that denial to<br />\njustify destroying Law &amp; Co.\'s \"Expositor\" press.</p>\n<p>&gt;Back to Smith again. How predictable!</p>\n<p><sigh> As Smith was the instigator of polygamy, he was also the instigator of<br />\nthe culture of lies and deceit concerning it. Law &amp; Co. weren\'t \"influenced\"<br />\nby Bennett\'s or Caswall\'s writings; they saw and heard Smith\'s lies first-hand.<br />\nI repeat Smith\'s denials to show you that Taylor\'s lies were merely part of a<br />\npattern of deceit that continued until 1852.</sigh></p>\n<p>&gt;&gt; \"Most of the stories against the Mormons have been propagated by apostates<br />\nand traitors, (who have been generally cut off from the church for their<br />\ncrimes.)</p>\n<p>&gt;Y\'know, Randy, that seems like a pretty reasonable statement, at<br />\nleast on the face of it. I doubt that apostates and traitors would be<br />\npublishing faith-promoting stuff.</p>\n<p>This statement of Pratt\'s was referring to Sidney Rigdon, as shown below.<br />\nRigdon wasn\'t \"cut off from the church for crimes\"; rather, he was cut off<br />\nbecause he refused to support Brigham Young. Rigdon was privy to the details<br />\nof polygamy ever since Smith\'s attempt on his daughter Nancy in 1842; Pratt\'s<br />\nand Taylor\'s attack on him was designed as a pre-emptive strike in case Rigdon<br />\nexposed all the Mormon \"secrets.\"</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt; They publish their lies, ...</p>\n<p>&gt; I hate to be the one to tell you this, Randy, but not all of the stuff<br />\nwritten by apostates and traitors is true. It has been my experience that<br />\nnon-Mormons don\'t generally get it right even when they\'re really trying.<br />\nSadly and all too often, they\'re not really trying to get it right.</p>\n<p>I have no problem admitting that some \"apostates and traitors\" from Mormonism<br />\nhaven\'t told the truth 100% of the time. But what we\'re discussing here is the<br />\nlies of Mormon leaders like John Taylor. The problem is that YOU are not<br />\nwilling to admit to yourself that Mormon leaders lied, because you know that if<br />\nyou do, that you\'ll be forced to admit that their \"moral authority\" is no<br />\ngreater than that of the \"apostates and traitors.\" That is why you put your<br />\nbrain into \"denial mode\" when discussing Mormon leaders\' lies.</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt; ... and straightway they are believed, and hawked about as awful<br />\ndisclosures, and received by community with trembling and holy horror.</p>\n<p>&gt;Doesn\'t that make sense? There\'s a hated minority in the area and somebody<br />\ncomes out with a \"tell all\" book about them - and who should<br />\nknow better than one who has been part of the hated minority? The problem, of<br />\ncourse, is that the bitter, old, ex-Mormon now has carte blance to tell any<br />\nlurid tale he feels like telling, because it will automatically be believed.</p>\n<p>The \"little problem\" with this statement is that when people wrote the<br />\n\"tell-all\" books, Mormon leaders categorically denied polygamy in any form, by<br />\nany term; therefore, the moral authority of Mormon leaders is no greater than<br />\nthat of the \"tell-all book\" authors. If Mormon leaders had been honest and<br />\nforthcoming from the outset, the \"tell-all books\" would have no effect. Honest<br />\npeople don\'t need to worry about \"tell-all\" books.</p>\n<p>&gt;Case in point: How many times did Rich regale us with tales of the \"Chambered<br />\nSisters of Charity\" before I was able to get him to read the<br />\nfootnote in Brodie\'s book that said they were most likely a figment of<br />\nBennett\'s fertile imagination?</p>\n<p>Speaking of Mormons lying, I\'ve corrected you on this misquoting of Brodie<br />\nbefore. Brodie wrote nothing of the sort. For those who don\'t have Brodie\'s<br />\nbook, she opined: \"It is impossible to judge the accuracy of Bennett\'s stories<br />\nexcept where they are supported by more reliable data. There is no other<br />\nreference to Cyprian Saints, Chambered Sisters of Charity, or Cloistered Saints<br />\nin any available document. YET THE CLOISTERED SAINTS ROUGHLY CORRESPONDED TO<br />\nTHE SYSTEM OF PLURAL WIVES JOSEPH HAD SET UP. Whether the others were<br />\nBennett\'s own secret ramifications of the plural-wife system or whether he made<br />\nthem up out of whole cloth to make his expose\' as lurid as possible CANNOT BE<br />\nASCERTAINED.\" (p. 315.)</p>\n<p>Brodie did not write anything akin to \"a figmentation of Bennett\'s<br />\nimagination.\" She wrote \"cannot be ascertained,\" meaing there is no<br />\nindependent corroboration to support it (sorta like Joseph Smith\'s \"First<br />\nVision,\" Guy.)</p>\n<p>&gt;We /still/ have to deny Bennett\'s stuff!</p>\n<p>As I\'ve repeated to your dull mind several times, like a first-grade teacher<br />\nwould have to, Bennett was Smith\'s most intimate aide for 14 months, during the<br />\nperiod when many of the apostles were off on missions (while Smith was seducing<br />\ntheir wives), and Smith was setting up his polygamous system along with his<br />\nMasonic-inspired \"endowment.\" Bennett was a Master Mason, and was intimately<br />\nacquainted enough with the organizations of \"secret societies\" that his<br />\nsuggestions could have been of help to Smith. After Bennett and Smith split<br />\nover Nancy Rigdon, and Bennett elected to write his expose\', it didn\'t make<br />\nsense for him to invent fake titles for Smith\'s categories of \"plural wives\";<br />\nBennett had enough on Smith with polygamy alone. Therefore, it\'s likely that<br />\nthe categories Bennett described were his and Smith\'s early terms for their<br />\nintended system. When Bennett\'s letters and subsequent book were published,<br />\nSmith denied polygamy in any form, by any terms. If Smith had been honest, he<br />\nwould have countered Bennett\'s writings with \"That isn\'t the correct system of<br />\nplural marriage at all! HERE is the CORRECT system\" yada yada yada. To the<br />\ncontrary, Smith categorically denied any marriage systems other than monogamy,<br />\nand he ALSO used the \"Article on Marriage\" to support his lie.<br />\nAfter Bennett published his writings, Smith couldn\'t very well go on using the<br />\nsame terminology that he and Bennett had dreamed up together, because everyone<br />\nhe shared the terms with would know that Bennett was telling the truth. So<br />\nSmith likely dumped the terms, and their intricate categories, in favor of his<br />\n\"Anointed Quorum.\"</p>\n<p>Bottom line---whatever alleged \"distortions\" Bennett wrote are moot in light of<br />\nSmith\'s categorical denials of any form of polygamy.</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt;.. Sidney Rigdon, I see by the papers, has made an exposition of Mormonism,<br />\ncharging Joseph Smith and the Mormons with polygamy, &amp;c. It does not require a<br />\nvery sagacious mind to fathom Mr. Rigdon\'s motive for doing.\" (Times and<br />\nSeasons, vol. 6, p. 894 (May 1, 1845.)</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt;Note that this article states \"charging Joseph Smith and the Mormons with<br />\nPOLYGAMY.\"</p>\n<p>&gt;Erm, it reads \"polygamy, etc.\" does it not?</p>\n<p>That\'s right, Einstein. \"Polygamy\" is what Pratt and Taylor were secretly<br />\npracticing, and \"polygamy\" is what was specifically forbidden by the D&amp;C, and<br />\n\"polygamy\" is what Taylor denied in 1850.</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt; As Rigdon was well aware that it was Smith, not Bennett, who had started<br />\npolygamy, Pratt\'s and Taylor\'s implication that Rigdon was the victim of \"lies\"<br />\nby Bennett was meritless. As Rigdon himself wrote in his \"Messenger and<br />\nAdvocate\" in 1845:</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt; \"This system was introduced by the Smiths sometime before their death, and<br />\nwas the thing which put them in the power of their enemies, and was the<br />\nimmediate cause of their death.\"</p>\n<p>&gt;And all this time I thought it was the destruction of the<br />\n_Expositor_ press and the calling up of the Nauvoo Legion!</p>\n<p>That\'s right, Sherlock, and all of that was brought about by William Law\'s<br />\nfiling charges of adultery and polygamy against Smith, which Smith denied on<br />\nMay 25, and Smith ordered the \'Expositor\' press destroyed on June 7, which led<br />\nto his death.<br />\nBut your attempt to deflect the point of Rigdon\'s statement being duly noted,<br />\nI\'ll bring us back to the subject: Pratt\'s and Taylor\'s attack on Rigdon was<br />\nanother example of Mormon leaders lying about polygamy. Since Rigdon was fully<br />\naware that it was Smith, not Bennett, who began polygamy, your argument that<br />\nMormon leaders\' denials of polygamy were the product of Bennett\'s or Law &amp;<br />\nCo\'s. \"distortions\" is without merit. Pratt and Taylor were merely repeating<br />\nthe same line of deceit and character assassination on Rigdon that Smith &amp; Co.<br />\nhad used on Bennett, Nancy Rigdon, Sarah Pratt, etc., years earlier. In light<br />\nof that, Mormon leaders\' moral authority is no greater than that of the<br />\n\"apostates\" and \"traitors\" that brainwashees like you use as strawmen to<br />\ndeflect attention away from Mormon leaders\' lies.</p>\n<p>Randy J.</p>\n<p>randyj<br />\nThe facts about Joseph Smith, John Bennett, and Nancy Rigdon...<br />\nGuy Briggs quoted B. H. Roberts\' attempt to spin-doctor the issue:</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt; \"The doctrine of plural marriage both by those who<br />\n&gt;&gt; without authorization and, prematurely, undertook to<br />\n&gt;&gt; teach it, and those who bitterly denounced it, was<br />\n&gt;&gt; not properly apprehended either by such advocates or<br />\n&gt;&gt; such denunciators. Plural marriage as taught by the<br />\n&gt;&gt; Prophet was not the \'polygamy\' of the orient, with<br />\n&gt;&gt; its attendant despotism and harems; nor the \'bigamy\'<br />\n&gt;&gt; of western civilization, banned by the law of all the<br />\n&gt;&gt; western nations, including our own, and in which the<br />\n&gt;&gt; element of deception was always present by keeping<br />\n&gt;&gt; the fact of the first and perhaps other marriages<br />\n&gt;&gt; secret, thus betraying its victims to unsuspected<br />\n&gt;&gt; disgrace and humiliation. And hence, because these<br />\n&gt;&gt; overzealous advocates, and ill informed denunciators<br />\n&gt;&gt; never truly represented the doctrine of the revelation<br />\n&gt;&gt; on marriage, the denial of their misstatements of the<br />\n&gt;&gt; doctrine and its practice was not regarded by the<br />\n&gt;&gt; leading elders of the church as a denial of the<br />\n&gt;&gt; doctrine of the revelation given to the Prophet;</p>\n<p>Randy wrote:</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt;Here we can plainly see Roberts\' spin-doctoring: Taylor\'s 1850 (and 1844)<br />\ndenials were not a \"denial of misstatements of the doctrine and its practice\";</p>\n<p>Guy Briggs wrote:</p>\n<p>&gt;Au contraire, messy ami. The French had read Bennett\'s book, based<br />\nsome of the debate on it, and Taylor was denying the lies Bennett had<br />\npublished.</p>\n<p>Guy, for you to \"make your case,\" you\'re going to have to show from Taylor\'s<br />\nremarks where he admitted to an \"approved\" or \"proper\" form of polygamy. He<br />\ndenied polygamy in toto, not just the \"lies Bennett had published.\" And since<br />\nhe was at that time a polygamist, his denial was a lie.</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt; ... rather, Taylor\'s remarks SPECIFICALLY, UNEQUIVOCALLY, AND<br />\nUNCATEGORICALLY denied ANY AND ALL FORMS OF MARRIAGE other than \"one wife or<br />\none husband.\" NOWHERE in Taylor\'s remarks did he infer that he, or the church<br />\nhe represented, taught or practiced a \"correct\" version of polygamy that had<br />\nbeen \"misstated\" by \"ill-informed denunciators\", to use<br />\nRoberts\' term.</p>\n<p>&gt;Taylor couldn\'t even bring himself to repeat some of Bennett\'s lies, instead<br />\nreferring to them as \"actions the most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting,<br />\nsuch that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived.\" He<br />\ncalled them \"too outrageous to admit of belief.\"</p>\n<p>As usual, you are in intellectual denial of the rest of what Taylor actually<br />\nsaid. One more time, caps mine for emphasis:</p>\n<p>\"As to the charge of POLYGAMY, I will quote from the Book of Doctrine and<br />\nCovenants, which is the subscribed faith of the church AND IS STRICTLY<br />\nENFORCED. Article of Marriage, sec. 91, par. 4, says, \'Inasmuch as this church<br />\nof Christ has been reproached with THE CRIME OF FORNICATION AND POLYGAMY, we<br />\ndeclare that we believe that one man should have but one husband except in the<br />\ncase of death when either is at liberty to marry again.\' \"</p>\n<p>Note that Taylor referred to \"the charge of polygamy,\" which my Webster\'s<br />\ndefines as \"the state or practice of having more than one spouse at a time.\"<br />\nPolygamy is what the Mormons were being accused of, polygamy is what Taylor was<br />\nsecretly practicing, and polygamy is what Taylor referred to as a \"crime.\"<br />\nNOWHERE in his speech did he state, or even hint, of a \"correct\" or \"approved\"<br />\nform of polygamous marriage, whether practiced in public or private. His<br />\nremark was intended to give the impression that neither he or his church<br />\npracticed polygamy in any form, by any term. That is what we sane people call<br />\na \"lie.\"</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt;Taylor unequivocally denied \"polygamy\" by that very name, and he quoted from<br />\nthe \"Article on Marriage,\" which specifically prohibited polygamy, to support<br />\nhis lie.</p>\n<p>&gt; In essence, he said, \"Rather than soil myself by by repeating<br />\nBennett\'s lies,</p>\n<p>Taylor didn\'t mention \"Bennett\'s lies.\" He denied \"the charge of polygamy\" and<br />\n\"the crime of fornication and polygamy.\" If you want to contend that Taylor<br />\nwas only refuting \"Bennett\'s lies,\" then you will have to show where Taylor<br />\nadvocated a \"correct\" or \"approved\" form of polygamy, to show his audience a<br />\ndifference between what Bennett wrote and what Taylor and the Mormons were<br />\npracticing. If you can\'t do that, you have no case.</p>\n<p>&gt;I\'ll merely rehearse our official doctrine on the subject.\"</p>\n<p>And that, by default, means that his secret polygamy practice was contrary to<br />\nthe official doctrine of his church. And seeing as how he was at that time a<br />\npolygamist, his referring to the D&amp;C constituted an intent to deceive his<br />\naudience into believing that neither he or his church taught or practiced<br />\npolygamy. He used his \"scriptures\" to cover his lie.</p>\n<p>More B. H. Roberts:</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt;and while this may be considered a refinement in<br />\n&gt;&gt; presentation that the world will not allow, it<br />\n&gt;&gt; nevertheless represents a distinction that was real<br />\n&gt;&gt; to those who were struggling with a difficult<br />\n&gt;&gt; proposition, and accounts for the seeming denials<br />\n&gt;&gt; referred to in the text above; as also later seeming<br />\n&gt;&gt; denials made by John Taylor, in a public discussion<br />\n&gt;&gt; with three ministers at Boulogne-sur-mer, France, 1850<br />\n&gt;&gt; (Public Discussion in France, included in Orson<br />\n&gt;&gt; Pratt\'s Works, 1851 edition, England. Also Life of<br />\n&gt;&gt; John Taylor, ch, xxiv); and by Parley P. Pratt in<br />\n&gt;&gt; England, 1845 (Millennial Star, vol. vi, p. 22).</p>\n<p>Randy wrote:</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt; At least, I hope this fact from Roberts will help you see that Taylor\'s<br />\ndenial was in 1850, not 1839, and that Fanny Stenhouse\'s book, which you refuse<br />\nto read because it is in your words \"anti-Mormon\", was telling the truth.</p>\n<p>&gt;Already admitted the mistake, 1839 vs. 1850.</p>\n<p>But you still haven\'t admitted the other supporting point: Stenhouse\'s book,<br />\nincluding correspondence between her and her Mormon friends, as well as<br />\naccounts of church conferences and statements of leaders from America, make it<br />\nobvious that Taylor wasn\'t referring only to \"Bennett\'s lies,\" but was in fact<br />\nmerely one instance in a consistent policy to deny polygamy in toto. 1,800<br />\nEuropean Mormons didn\'t apostasize because of \"Bennett\'s lies\" of 1842; they<br />\napostasized because of Taylor\'s and other Mormon leaders\' categorical denial of<br />\npolygamy since its inception, and their 180 degree turnabout of 1852.</p>\n<p>You are dishonestly trying to posit Taylor\'s denial as being an isolated case<br />\nwhich can be explained away by spin-doctoring and wordsmithing. What you<br />\ncannot grasp is that Taylor\'s denial of polygamy IN TOTO was only one instance<br />\nof a consistent policy of denial until 1852.</p>\n<p>I still remember reading Dale Broadhurst\'s account of his Mormon ancestors\'<br />\nexperience with this issue (if I remember the account correctly): Dale wrote<br />\nthat his ancestors had heard the rumors of the polygamy practice while<br />\ntraveling to Utah on the plains. They asked a church leader at Council Bluffs<br />\n(IIRC, Alpheus Cutler) if the rumors were true; Cutler assured them that they<br />\nwere not, and they continued on to Utah. When they arrived, they found that<br />\ntheir fellow Mormons were living openly in polygamy, and they turned around and<br />\nwent back east. Dale\'s ancestors weren\'t victims of \"Bennett\'s lies\"; they<br />\nwere victims of church leaders\' lies.</p>\n<p>More B. H. Roberts:</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt;BOTH ELDERS PRATT AND TAYLOR IN THEIR DENIALS WERE<br />\n&gt;&gt; REFERRING TO THE CHARGES MADE BY JOHN C. BENNETT AND<br />\n&gt;&gt; OTHER APOSTATES. Pratt says, in his denial: \'Beware<br />\n&gt;&gt; of seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, as first<br />\n&gt;&gt; introduced by John C. Bennett under the name of \'the<br />\n&gt;&gt; spiritual wife doctrine.\' ... It is but another name<br />\n&gt;&gt; for whoredom, wicked and unlawful connection and every<br />\n&gt;&gt; kind of confusion, corruption and abomination. ... The<br />\n&gt;&gt; spiritual wife doctrine of J. C. Bennett and numerous<br />\n&gt;&gt; other apostates, is as foreign from the real<br />\n&gt;&gt; principles of the church as the devil is from God, or<br />\n&gt;&gt; as sectarianism is from Christianity.\" (Ibid.)<br />\n&gt;&gt; -- Roberts, B.H., _Comprehensive<br />\n&gt;&gt; History of the Church_, V.2,<br />\n&gt;&gt; Ch.45, p.104</p>\n<p>Randy wrote:</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt; What the spin-doctor Roberts didn\'t tell us is that Pratt\'s letter<br />\nmentioning Bennett was in a letter attacking Rigdon; and as I\'ve explained<br />\nabove, Rigdon knew very well that Smith instigated polygamy, and he was privy<br />\nto the details of the Smith/Bennett breakup---it was because of Smith\'s attempt<br />\non Rigdon\'s daughter Nancy.</p>\n<p>&gt;Alleged attempt. As I see it, Smith was just cleaning up Bennett\'s mess.</p>\n<p>I\'ve tried to \"clean up\" your confusion on that issue in another post, not that<br />\nI hold any delusions that my attempts will \"take.\"</p>\n<p>&gt;And you\'re still putting everything under the general heading of<br />\n\"polygamy\"</p>\n<p>\"The general heading of polygamy\" is exactly what Taylor denied practicing; he<br />\ntermed it a \"crime\" and said that its prohibition was \"strictly enforced.\"</p>\n<p>&gt;without regard to what Bennett had told Rigdon, what Smith had told Rigdon,<br />\nand Rigdon simply assumed.</p>\n<p>Rigdon didn\'t \"assume\" anything. He was a first-hand eyewitness to Smith\'s<br />\nattempt on his daughter Nancy. Rigdon knew that Smith, not Bennett, was the<br />\ninstigator of polygamy, therefore Roberts\' comments on Pratt\'s and Taylor\'s<br />\nattack on Rigdon were invalid, and clearly designed to spin-doctor the denials.</p>\n<p>&gt;This was a witch\'s brew of tail of lizard, eye of newt, wing of bat, poisons,<br />\nherbs and spices - and you\'re calling it \"soup\".<br />\n&gt;That makes it very black and white, very cut and dried, when you\'re<br />\nattacking the Church.</p>\n<p>If you think that \"documenting lies of Mormon leaders\" equals \"attacking the<br />\nchurch,\" then I\'m guilty as charged.</p>\n<p>&gt;Bennett exposed polygamy. The _Expositor_ exposed polygamy. Rigdon already<br />\nknew about polygamy. Pratt denied polygamy.<br />\nTaylor denied polygamy.</p>\n<p>Hmmm, all this time, you\'ve been asserting that all Taylor denied was<br />\n\"Bennett\'s lies,\" but now you\'re stating that \"Taylor denied polygamy.\" Does<br />\nthat mean you\'ve conceded the issue?</p>\n<p>&gt;But the fact of the matter is that there are a myriad of shades and colours to<br />\nanybody who will open their eyes to see.</p>\n<p>Lies do indeed come in all shades and colors. The lies of Mormon leaders<br />\nregarding polygamy were whoppers, and those lies of 150 years ago still affect<br />\nthe LDS Church today.</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt;Therefore, Pratt\'s assertion that Rigdon had somehow fallen victim to lies<br />\nabout polygamy told by Bennett is invalid,</p>\n<p>&gt;And you can prove what Bennett had said to Rigdon WRT to polygamy ... how?</p>\n<p>I\'ve already covered that in another post. The fact that Rigdon was not the<br />\nvictim of \"Bennett\'s lies\" is made obvious by the details of the confrontation<br />\nbetween Rigdon, Smith, Nancy and George W. Robinson. That occurred in 1842, so<br />\nPratt\'s and Taylor\'s 1845 claim that Rigdon was influenced by \"doctrines of<br />\ndevils, as first introduced by John C. Bennett,\" was a false assertion made for<br />\nthe sole purpose of discrediting Rigdon; just one example of Mormon leaders\'<br />\n\"lying for the Lord.\"</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt; ... and that makes Roberts\' spin-doctoring invalid in turn.</p>\n<p>&gt;You can choose to ignore it if you wish. I\'m more interested in the truth.<br />\nThe whole truth. Nothing but the truth.</p>\n<p><chuckle> After reading your drivel for four years, it\'s obvious that you can\'t<br />\nhandle the truth.</chuckle></p>\n<p>&gt;&gt; What you need to realize is that people like Roberts are apologists first,<br />\nand historians second.</p>\n<p>&gt;Translation: All Mormons are liars.</p>\n<p>Not all; just the ones who have been shown the facts but continue to maintain<br />\nthe fiction.</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt; His \"History of the Church\" was written not for the sake of accurate<br />\ndocumentation of facts, but for the purpose of making Mormonism and its leaders<br />\nlook as good as possible. His editorial comments on historical events such as<br />\nyou have posted here clearly shows that.</p>\n<p>&gt;What it proves it it\'s a more complex issue than you want us to<br />\nbelieve.</p>\n<p>Not at all. A lie is a lie is a lie.</p>\n<p>&gt;Keep everybody ignorant of the facts and you can attack the Church with a<br />\nblanket statement about polygamy.</p>\n<p>Taylor\'s statement was a blanket denial of \"the CRIME of polygamy.\" He did not<br />\nqualify his denial with an exposition of any form of \"correct\" polygamy, and<br />\nhis failure to do so constituted an intent to deceive. And them\'s the facts.</p>\n<p>&gt;Nobody has to do any thinking that way.</p>\n<p>It is Mormons who are told that the thinking has already been done for them. I<br />\ncertainly hope you have someone to do yours for you.</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; John Taylor lied. No ifs ands or buts.</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt;&gt;John Taylor denied the lies printed by Bennett. If there was a little less<br />\nsnippage going on around here, that would have been plain.</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt; It\'s obvious that Taylor didn\'t \"deny the lies printed by Bennett,\" for<br />\nreasons I\'ve explained in detail above.</p>\n<p>&gt;You be sellin\' pretty hard. I still ain\'t buying.</p>\n<p>That\'s because you long ago lost the ability to discern truth from lies.<br />\nThat\'s what mind-controlling cults do to peoples\' brains.</p>\n<p>Randy J.</p>\n<p>randyj<br />\nMore facts about Joseph Smith, John Bennett, and Nancy Rigdon...<br />\nRandy wrote:</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt;The main reason for Bennett\'s split from Smith is that they both wanted<br />\n19-year-old Nancy Rigdon as a \"plural wife.\" Nancy spilled the beans of<br />\nSmith\'s proposition to her father Sidney, who confronted Smith with it.</p>\n<p>Guy Briggs wrote:</p>\n<p>&gt;Randy, if you can I\'d like you to set aside the emotion,</p>\n<p>Who\'s emotional? I\'m discussing facts of history.</p>\n<p>&gt;all of your loathing of anything LdS, and put on your logical cap. Can you do<br />\nthat?</p>\n<p>Yes, I can, and I do so with every post. My above remark to which you are<br />\nresponding is exactly what happened, as is clear from numerous contemporary<br />\nhistorical sources. You are mistaking your lack of education for a lack of<br />\nlogic on my part.</p>\n<p>&gt;In your long harangue</p>\n<p>\"Long harangue\" a.k.a. \"posting of documented facts from respected, scholarly<br />\nsources?\"</p>\n<p>&gt;of 22-Dec-01, this thread, (citing Compton, I think - it wasn\'t clear) you<br />\nwrote:</p>\n<p>&gt;\"Their opposition became public when Hyrum Smith read the revelation on<br />\npolygamy, presently LDS Doctrine and Covenants 132, to the Nauvoo High Council<br />\non August 12. Three of the leading brethren opposed it: William Marks, Austin<br />\nCowles, and Leonard Soby. Considering the secrecy of polygamy, it is<br />\nremarkable that Hyrum would announce it even to the high council. It is also<br />\nremarkable that Marks, Cowles, and Soby would openly reject it. This was a<br />\nwatershed moment in Latter-Day Saint history.\"</p>\n<p>&gt;This \"watershed moment\" was sometime /after/ the Nancy Rigdon business, was it<br />\nnot?</p>\n<p>Yes, a little over a year later, during which time Smith continued to deny<br />\npracticing polygamy.</p>\n<p>&gt;If the announcement of plural marriage to the Nauvoo High Council was such a<br />\nshocker in August 1843 ... if prior to that time it was kept from all but the<br />\nmost loyal and trustworthy ... why, oh why, was Smith talking about plural<br />\nmarriage to the fiery Nancy<br />\nRigdon, knowing that he would almost surely have to talk to Sidney Rigdon about<br />\nit as well?</p>\n<p>Because Joseph Smith didn\'t always think with his brain; late in life, he<br />\nthought primarily with his penis. At the height of his power and his \"secret<br />\nwife\" practice, his success in persuading a number of women into becoming his<br />\n\"spiritual wives\" made him overconfident and careless. He began to use the<br />\n\"shotgun\" method of proposing to just about any woman who captured his fancy.<br />\nHe and his polygamous minions employed a system of loyalty to each other,<br />\nwhereby any woman who rejected Smith\'s advances, or any man who opposed<br />\npolygamy, would have their reputations slandered publicly. As Smith was both<br />\nthe president of the church and the mayor, and he controlled the press, he and<br />\nhis supporters believed that they could successfully spin all exposes\' of their<br />\nsecret polygamy practice onto their accusers. But Smith\'s defenses failed him<br />\nwith Nancy Rigdon. He made the mistake of writing her a \"doctrinal letter\", as<br />\nan attempt to talk her into polygamy. The indignant Nancy showed the letter<br />\nto Sidney. When Smith attempted to deny that he had written the letter, Rigdon<br />\nbrought it out, and Smith was forced to admit that he was the author, but then<br />\nhe tried to cover himself with his oft-used excuse that he was only \"testing<br />\nNancy\'s virtue.\" Although deeply troubled by Smith\'s attempt on Nancy, the<br />\nRigdons chose not to publicize the incident, for the sake of preventing a<br />\npublic scandal, and also because Rigdon may have feared that if he exposed<br />\nSmith\'s secrets, that Smith would expose Rigdon\'s, which might bring down both<br />\nmen and the church along with them.</p>\n<p>Smith had no intention of talking to Rigdon about polygamy, as he knew Rigdon<br />\nwouldn\'t have gone along with it. As William Law recounted, Smith disclosed<br />\npolygamy only to those whom he believed or hoped would accept it, or at least<br />\nwouldn\'t spill the beans about it.</p>\n<p>&gt;Y\'see, Randy, despite all the antiMormon spin-doctoring about how Smith and<br />\nBennett /both/ wanted sex with Nancy,</p>\n<p>The evidence suggests that Bennett was actually interested in marrying Nancy,<br />\nbut he couldn\'t because he was still legally married to his estranged wife in<br />\nIndiana. Bennett had known Sidney Rigdon years before in Ohio, where they were<br />\nboth Campbellite preachers. Bennett was on pleasant social terms with the<br />\nRigdons in Nauvoo, as evidenced by the fact that when Bennett and Smith split,<br />\nBennett secretly boarded with Sidney\'s son-in-law, George W. Robinson, while<br />\ngathering further information and affidavits concerning polygamy and other<br />\nsecret Mormon activities to compile his expose\'. It was Smith\'s attempt on<br />\nNancy that helped to shake Sidney\'s loyalty to Smith, and he eventually took a<br />\n\"leave of absence\" from his church position and moved back to Pittsburgh until<br />\nafter Smith\'s death.</p>\n<p>&gt;I think the simple truth is that Bennett tried to seduce Nancy, she wanted<br />\nnothing to do<br />\nwith it, and blew the whistle.</p>\n<p>Instead of \"thinking,\" perhaps you should just study the actual history on the<br />\nsubject, so that you wouldn\'t be so utterly wrong in your opinions.</p>\n<p>&gt;Smith was then forced to step in and explain the revelation on plural<br />\nmarriage, explaining it with the \"whatever God commands...\" letter.</p>\n<p>What you\'re forgetting, or too stupid to realize, is that Smith *DENIED*<br />\nwriting that letter:</p>\n<p>\"BENNETT\'S LETTERS.---We have read the fifth and sixth letters of Dr.<br />\nBennett...The sixth letter is what purports to be a copy of a letter from<br />\nJoseph Smith to Miss Nancy Rigdon, without date, name, or proof.....we hope the<br />\ncommunity are not yet quite so far from a common course of justice and<br />\npropriety as to take Bennett\'s word for the truth.....JOSEPH SMITH IS NOT THE<br />\nAUTHOR.\" (The \"Wasp,\" August 27, 1842.)</p>\n<p>The fact that Smith denied authoring the letter refutes your entire line of<br />\n\'reasoning\'. If Smith had not made the attempt on Nancy, he wouldn\'t have had<br />\nto deny writing the letter. The fact that the letter made it into the \"History<br />\nof the Church\" after Smith\'s death means that Mormon leaders admit that Smith<br />\nauthored it. And the fact that that letter is one of your favorite examples of<br />\nSmith\'s \"inspiration\", in light of the circumstances for which it was written,<br />\ntells us how completely deluded you are.</p>\n<p>&gt;This scenario is much more plausible, IMHO, because it doesn\'t have the<br />\nlogical hole of Smith risking confrontation with Sydney Rigdon - at a time when<br />\nthe principle of plural marriage was not public.</p>\n<p>You don\'t have to envision any \"scenarios,\" nor posit any \"logical holes\" to<br />\nfind out what happened. All you have to do is study the actual historical<br />\naccounts to learn who said and did what. Rigdon\'s son-in-law, George W.<br />\nRobinson, wrote James Arlington Bennett of NYC the facts of the incident:</p>\n<p>\"Smith sent for Miss Ridgon to come to the house of Mrs. Hyde, who lived in the<br />\nunder rooms of the printing-office. Miss Rigdon, inquired of the messenger who<br />\ncame for her what was wanting, and the only reply was, that Smith wanted to see<br />\nher. General Bennett came to Miss Rigdon, and cautioned her, and advised her<br />\nnot to place too much reliance on REVELATION; but did not enlighten her on the<br />\nobject of Smith, but advised her to go down to Mrs. Hyde\'s, and see Smith. She<br />\naccordingly went, and Smith took her into another room, and LOCKED THE DOOR,<br />\nand then stated to her that he had had an affection for her for several years,<br />\nand wished that she should be his; that the Lord was well pleased with this<br />\nmatter, for he had got a REVELATION on the subject, and God had given him all<br />\nthe blessings of Jacob, &amp;c. &amp;c., and that there was no sin in it whatever; but,<br />\nif she had any scruples of conscience about the matter, he would marry her<br />\nPRIVATELY, and enjoined her to secrecy, &amp;c. &amp;c. She repulsed him, and was about<br />\nto raise the neighbors if he did not unlock the door and let her out; and she<br />\nleft him with disgust, and came home and told her father of the transaction;<br />\nupon which Smith was sent for. He came. She told the tale in the presence of<br />\nall the family, and to Smith\'s face. I was present. Smith attempted to deny it<br />\nat first, and face her down with the lie; but she told the facts with so much<br />\nearnestness, and THE FACT OF A LETTER BEING PRESENT, WHICH HE HAD CAUSED TO BE<br />\nWRITTEN TO HER, ON THE SAME SUBJECT, the day after the attempt made on her<br />\nvirtue, breathing the same spirit, and which he had fondly hoped was DESTROYED,<br />\n-- all came with such force that he would not withstand the testimony; and he<br />\nthen and there acknowledge that every word of Miss Rigdon\'s testimony was true.<br />\nNow for his excuse, which he made for such a base attempt, and for using the<br />\nname of the Lord in vain, on that occasion. HE WISHED TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER SHE<br />\nWAS VIRTUOUS OR NOT, AND TOOK THAT COURSE TO LEARN THE FACTS!!! I would say,<br />\nsir, that I have reason to believe General Bennett\'s story in his disclosures<br />\nof Smith\'s rascality; although I am not a witness to ALL of the facts, yet I am<br />\nto SOME. I liked to have forgotten to state that the affair with Miss Rigdon<br />\nwas the CAUSE of Smith\'s coming out so on Bennett, he having suspicions that<br />\nBENNETT HAD CAUTIONED HER ON THE MATTER -- and he was further afraid that<br />\nBennett would make disclosures of OTHER MATTERS.\"</p>\n<p>Robinson\'s account was backed up by Oliver Olney, another Mormon who was<br />\ndisgusted by Smith\'s polygamy practice and its inherent deceit:</p>\n<p>\"LA HARPE, HANCOCK CO., September 10, 1842.<br />\n\"Editor of the Sangamo Journal:</p>\n<p>\"Dear Sir, --<br />\n\"I wish to make, through the medium of your paper, a public withdrawal from the<br />\nChurch of Latter Day Saints, as I cannot longer consent to remain a member of<br />\nsaid Church while polygamy, lasciviousness, and adultery, are practised [sic]<br />\nby some of its leaders. That crimes of the deepest dye are tolerated and<br />\npractised [sic] by them, cannot be doubted.<br />\n\"I have heard the circimstances of Smith\'s attack upon Miss Rigdon, from the<br />\nfamily as well as herself; and knowing her to be a young lady who sustains a<br />\ngood moral character, and also of undoubted veracity, I must place implicit<br />\nconfidence in her statement, the foul insinuations of that miserable little<br />\ninsect, \'The Wasp,\' to the contrary notwithstanding.<br />\n\"And having a personal knowledge of Smith\'s lying at different times in the<br />\nname of the Lord, I cannot for a moment doubt but he did so in the case above<br />\nalluded to.....<br />\n\"I know that Miss Rigdon has been greatly mortified by being obtruded before<br />\nthe public; nevertheless, it was unavoidable on her part, and if Smith succeeds<br />\nin extricating himself from the awful dilemma in which he has placed himself,<br />\nby obtaining her certificate to the contrary, then I am much mistaken in the<br />\ncharacter of Miss Rigdon. It is true that Mr. Ridgon has endeavored to allay<br />\nthe excitement upon this subject, and has evaded a direct answer to the public,<br />\nas far as he could consistently with truth; but the part which is true he has<br />\nleft untouched. The fact of Smith\'s wishing to marry Miss Rigdon as a spiritual<br />\nwife, of his attack upon her virtue, his teachings about his having the<br />\nblessings of Jacob, &amp;c. &amp;c., as stated in General Bennett\'s letters, ARE TRUE;<br />\nand if I am called upon to prove it, I SHALL DO IT, to the satisfaction of the<br />\npublic, and to the chagrin and mortification of Smith and others. The letter<br />\npublished purporting to be from Smith to Miss Rigdon, was not in Smith\'s<br />\nhand-writing, but in the hand-writing of Dr. Willard Richards, who officiated<br />\nnot only as scribe, but post boy, for the Prophet, and WHO DID say that he<br />\nwrote the letter as dictated by Joseph Smith, and said Joseph Smith did say, on<br />\na certain occasion, that he did direct said Richards to write a letter to Miss<br />\nNancy Rigdon; and I now say I stand ready to prove these allegations by as<br />\nrespectable WITNESSES as can be produced in Hancock county.....\"</p>\n<p>LDS historian Richard van Wagoner adds that Nancy\'s brother John W. Rigdon also<br />\ntestified to the facts of the incident:</p>\n<p>\"Nancy\'s brother John, recounting the incident years later in an affidavit,<br />\nremembered that \'Nancy refused him, saying if she ever got married she would<br />\nmarry a single man or none at all, and took her bonnet and went home, leaving<br />\nJoseph.\' Nancy withheld details of the situation from her family until a day<br />\nor two later, when a letter from Smith was delivered by Smith\'s personal<br />\nsecretary, Willard Richards. \'Happiness is the object and design of our<br />\nexistence,\' the letter began. \'That which is wrong under one circumstance, may<br />\nbe, and often is, right under another.\' The letter went on to teach that<br />\n\'whatever God commands is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see<br />\nthe reason thereof till long after the events transpire.....\'<br />\n\"Nancy showed Smith\'s letter to her father and told him of the incident at the<br />\nHyde residence. Rigdon demanded an audience with Smith. George W. Robinson<br />\nreported that when Smith came to Rigdon\'s home, the enraged father asked for an<br />\nexplanation.....[After which the confrontation of which Robinson wrote, quoted<br />\nabove, ensued.] \"Much later, John Rigdon elaborated that \'Nancy was one of<br />\nthose excitable women and she went into the room and said Joseph Smith you are<br />\ntelling that which is not true you did make such a proposition to me and you<br />\nknow it.\'<br />\n\"Robinson wrote that Smith, after acknowledging the incident, claimed he had<br />\npropositioned Nancy because he \'wished to ascertain whether she was virtuous or<br />\nnot, and took that course to learn the facts!\' But the Rigdon family would not<br />\naccept such an explanation. They were persuaded that the rumors about the<br />\nprophet\'s polygamy doctrine had been confirmed. The issue continued to be a<br />\nserious source of contention between the two church leaders until Smith\'s death<br />\nin 1844. According to John Rigdon, Sidney told the family that Smith \'could<br />\nnever be sealed to one of his daughters with his consent as he did not believe<br />\nin the doctrine.\' Rigdon preferred to keep his difficulties with Smith<br />\nprivate, but Bennett\'s detailed disclosures made this impossible.<br />\n\"A Mormon newspaper, \'The Wasp,\' printed on July 20 a number of sworn<br />\nstatements by prominent Nauvoo citizens affirming Joseph Smith\'s \'high moral<br />\ncharacter\' and declaring him not guilty of any of Bennett\'s published<br />\naccusations. Orson Pratt would not sign the letter, nor would Sidney Rigdon or<br />\nGeorge W. Robinson.\"<br />\n(\"Mormon Polygamy: A History,\" pp. 32-33.)</p>\n<p>(Pratt refused to sign the letter attesting to Smith\'s \'high moral character\'<br />\nbecause he was still stinging from Smith\'s attempt on his wife Sarah.)</p>\n<p>Smith and his polygamous goons then began a smear campaign against his<br />\nopponents. Both Sarah Pratt and Nancy Rigdon were accused of having intimate<br />\nrelations with John C. Bennett (a favorite character assassination technique of<br />\nSmith was to link two or more of his accusers together in a common \'sin.\').</p>\n<p>\"Sidney Rigdon in the 18 June 1845 \'Messenger and Advocate\' reported that<br />\nParley P. Pratt, in speaking of the means by which church leaders should<br />\nsustain Smith, advised that \'we must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our<br />\nduty to do so.\' Not only were church leaders willing to violate the law to<br />\npromote polygamy, they did not hesitate to blacken the character of individuals<br />\nwho threatened to expose the secret practice of plural marriage.....<br />\n\"The 27 August 1842 \'Wasp,\' for example, branded Martha H. Brotherton a \'mean<br />\nharlot,\' and Nancy Rigdon suffered the same treatment after she opposed Smith\'s<br />\npolygamous proposals. Stephen Markham, a close friend of Smith,<br />\ncertified.....that he saw Nancy Rigdon in a compromising situation with<br />\nBennett....George W. Robinson, on Nancy\'s behalf, countered with a sworn<br />\nstatement on 3 September 1842 that Markham was lying.....Sidney Rigdon also<br />\nswore out a refutation and employed an attorney to sue Markham.....<br />\n\"After Joseph Smith\'s death in 1844, Orson Hyde attempted to further blacken<br />\nNancy Rigdon\'s character in order to tarnish her father\'s claim to church<br />\nleadership. Her conduct was \'notorious in this city,\' Hyde charged; she was<br />\n\'regarded generally, little, if any better, than a public prostitute.\' \"<br />\n(ibid., pp. 38-39.)</p>\n<p>The affidavits of Robinson, Olney, and Sidney Rigdon can be read in full at<br />\nDale Broadhurst\'s website at<br />\n<a href=\"http://www.lavazone2.com/dbroadhu/IL/sang1842.htm#0923\" title=\"http://www.lavazone2.com/dbroadhu/IL/sang1842.htm#0923\">http://www.lavazone2.com/dbroadhu/IL/sang1842.htm#0923</a>.</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt;At that time, polygamy, and indeed any and all forms of non-monogamous<br />\nmarriage systems, were categorically denied, because of the impact of Bennett\'s<br />\n1842 book.</p>\n<p>&gt;They were being categorically denied long before that.</p>\n<p>That\'s true, but in this particular post, we are discussing the<br />\nSmith/Bennett/Rigdon breakup. But since the overall subject is Mormon leaders\'<br />\ndenials of polygamy, your above statement is your concession that Mormon<br />\nleaders lied about polygamy, so you\'ve lost your case.</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt;After Smith\'s death, other Mormon polygamous leaders invented the idea that<br />\nthere were two separate systems---Smith\'s \"approved\" and \"revealed\" one, and<br />\nBennett\'s supposedly \"unapproved\" or \"renegade\" one, in order to distance Smith<br />\nand the church from Bennett.</p>\n<p>&gt;This is John C. Bennett we\'re talking about, isn\'t it?</p>\n<p>No, we are talking about \"other Mormon polygamous leaders\" who \"invented the<br />\nidea that there were two separate systems\" in an attempt to draw a distinction<br />\nbetween Smith and Bennett. Until 1852, Mormon leaders CATEGORICALLY DENIED ANY<br />\nAND ALL FORMS OF NON-MONOGAMOUS MARRIAGE, and blamed reports of polygamy on<br />\n\"apostates\" such as Bennett, Law &amp; Co., etc.:</p>\n<p>\"We know of NO OTHER RULE OR SYSTEM OF MARRIAGE OTHER THAN THE ONE PUBLISHED<br />\nFROM THE BOOK OF DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS, and we give this certificate to show<br />\nthat Dr. J. C. Bennett\'s secret wife system is a creature of his own make as we<br />\nknow of NO SUCH SOCIETY in this place nor never did.\"<br />\n(Times and Seasons, vol. lll, October 21, 1842.)</p>\n<p>But *AFTER* they reversed course, and admitted polygamy in 1852, it was<br />\nnecessary to counter Bennett\'s (and Law &amp; Co.\'s) exposes\' by asserting that<br />\nSmith practiced a \"right\" system and Bennett practiced a \"wrong\" one.</p>\n<p>&gt;The guy that Brodie called an unreliable witness to say the least\"? The one,<br />\nof whom she wrote:</p>\n<p>&gt;\"Had John C. Bennett been editor of the _Nauvoo Expositor_, it would have been<br />\na lurid sheet.\"</p>\n<p>Guy, you\'re a hoot. You\'re quoting Brodie (whom you\'ve categorically<br />\ndiscredited) to compare Bennett (whom you\'ve also categorically discredited) to<br />\nthe \'Expositor\' (which you\'ve also categorically discredited.)</p>\n<p>Rather than relying on Brodie (although only when you think she wrote something<br />\nyou like), why don\'t you just study the actual accounts of WHO said and did<br />\nWHAT? I can quote favorable opinions regarding Bennett from such Mormons as<br />\nTodd Compton and Reed Durham. We can sit here and quote everybody\'s opinion of<br />\neverybody else on the planet, if that\'s what floats your boat. But rather than<br />\nwasting time quoting people\'s opinions, we could instead simply acknowledge<br />\nthat Mormon leaders\' admission of polygamy in 1852, after lying about it for<br />\nyears, makes your criticism of Bennett moot.</p>\n<p>&gt;The very one of whom the _Quincy Whig_ wrote, \"We can hardly put reliance on<br />\nthe statements of Bennett, they disclose so much wickedness.\"</p>\n<p>And why did the \'Whig\' editors believe that? Because they believed Smith\'s<br />\nNauvoo propaganda machine that categorically denied polygamy. Local<br />\nnon-Mormons simply refused to believe that an allegedly \"Christian\" sect could<br />\nbe as depraved as Bennett laid out. But the later admission of polygamy, as<br />\nwell as the details of Smith\'s sexual relationships, after having denied it for<br />\nyears, makes the criticism of Bennett moot. Bennett is nothing more than a<br />\nstrawman which you throw up to deflect attention away from the lies of<br />\npolygamous Mormon leaders.</p>\n<p>&gt;The one who the _New York Herald_ called \"obscene and licentious in the<br />\nhighest degree\"?</p>\n<p>Same response as above.</p>\n<p>&gt;The one who the _Illinois State Register_ called \"obscene, immoral and vulgar\"<br />\nand went so far as to accuse Joseph Duncan, a Whig politician, of printing<br />\nthousands of copies at his own expense and cried shame upon such \"panderers of<br />\nlicentiousness and moral depravity\".</p>\n<p>Same response as above.</p>\n<p>&gt;That Bennett?</p>\n<p>Yep, that Bennett. Since you\'ve conceded that Mormon leaders \"categorically<br />\ndenied\" polygamy even before Bennett came to town, your remarks concerning his<br />\ncredibility are moot.</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt;And that is why Mormons like Guy Briggs believe and write what they do. They<br />\nare simply the victims of deceitful spin-doctoring by Mormon leaders and<br />\napologists;</p>\n<p>&gt;Fawn Brodie, the _Quincy Whig_, the _New York Herald_, and the<br />\n_Illinois State Register_ are Mormon spin doctors?</p>\n<p>No, but they, like you, believed the Mormon propaganda machine, instead of the<br />\nfacts.</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt;So although Bennett\'s book predated Taylor\'s categorical denial of polygamy<br />\nby eight years,</p>\n<p>&gt;You\'re going to have to settle on a date, Randy. Taylor\'s statement was either<br />\n1839 or 1850. It can\'t be both. It can\'t be 1850 when you\'re trying to prove<br />\nTaylor a liar (he was practicing plural marriage by then) and 1839 when you\'re<br />\ntrying to prove that Bennett\'s book had no influence on Taylor.</p>\n<p>&gt;bestRegards, Guy.</p>\n<p><chuckle> *I* have never stated that Taylor\'s denial was in 1839. I have<br />\nposted his 1850 denial in a series of quotes many times over the last couple of<br />\nyears on ARM. I have never NOT known that Taylor\'s denial was in 1850. It was<br />\nYOU who mistakenly wrote that Taylor\'s denial was in 1839, based on your<br />\nmisreading of Xan\'s citation---a mistake you could have avoided if you had read<br />\nthe BYU bio of Taylor, or if you had paid even passing attention to the<br />\nvoluminous quotations I provided from Fanny Stenhouse.</chuckle></p>\n<p>*I* have never stated that \"Bennett\'s book had no influence on Taylor.\" OF<br />\nCOURSE Bennett\'s book had influence on Taylor, Smith, and every other<br />\npolygamous Mormon. Bennett\'s book, and related incidents detailed above, were<br />\nthe main catalysts that bade polygamous Mormons to develop and perfect their<br />\nculture of deceit and character asassinations regarding to protect their<br />\nillicit, secret practice. But Bennett\'s writings cannot be used to excuse<br />\nMormon leaders\' categorical denials of polygamy in any form, by any term, until<br />\n1852.</p>\n<p>\"The law of the land and the rules of the church do not allow one man to have<br />\nmore than one wife alive at once.\" (Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 715,<br />\nNovember 15, 1844.)</p>\n<p>Wanna guess who was the editor of the \"Times and Seasons\" in November 1844,<br />\nGuy?</p>\n<p>Randy J.</p>\n<p>randyj<br />\nJohn Taylor\'s lies: the final chapter...<br />\nGuy Briggs had repeatedly asserted that we evil anti-Mormons were snipping portions out of John Taylor\'s remarks to make falsely make it appear that Taylor lied about practicing polygamy. In this post, I refute those assertions and point out eight specific lies of Taylor.</p>\n<p>Randy wrote:</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Taylor\'s 1850 (and 1844) denials were not a \"denial of misstatements of the<br />\ndoctrine and its practice\";</p>\n<p>Guy Briggs wrote:</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt;&gt;Au contraire, messy ami. The French had read Bennett\'s book, based some of<br />\nthe debate on it, and Taylor was denying the lies Bennett had published.</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt;Guy, for you to \"make your case,\" you\'re going to have to show from Taylor\'s<br />\nremarks where he admitted to an \"approved\" or \"proper\" form of polygamy. He<br />\ndenied polygamy in toto, not just the \"lies Bennett had published.\" And since<br />\nhe was at that time a polygamist, his denial was a lie.</p>\n<p>Guy wrote:</p>\n<p>&gt; I took delivery of a parcel from Utah Lighthouse Ministry yesterday<br />\nafternoon.</p>\n<p>This statement does not address or refute my remarks just above it in the<br />\nleast. Your failure to address them further illustrates your intellectual<br />\ndishonesty.</p>\n<p>&gt;As I now have the document in question - the complete pamphlet, not just<br />\nsnippets of it - I can better answer you. This was the account of a public<br />\ndebate with 3 protestant ministers on the prosecution, Taylor on the defense:</p>\n<p>&gt;\"I again arise with pleasure, but am somewhat<br />\nsurprised to hear the remarks made by Mr. Robertson.<br />\nHe states that he cannot prove a negative, and that<br />\nhe is not bound to prove Joseph Smith was a bad man.<br />\nI understand that he challenged me - that in that<br />\nchallenge he represents Joseph as a daring impostor.<br />\nI know nothing of Mr. Smith that is not good; he<br />\nought to prove his assertions or not make them. I am<br />\nnot the challenger; I am on the defence. Am I to be<br />\nbrought here to answer charges, and then become my<br />\nown accuser? Let them bring forth evidence and I am<br />\nprepared to rebut it.\"</p>\n<p>&gt;IOW, the format of the debate was answering the charges of the accusers -<br />\nthat\'s exactly what Taylor did.</p>\n<p>Wrong. If Taylor had merely stated something like \"Bennett\'s and Caswall\'s<br />\nwritings are a pack of lies,\" and ended his remarks there, he could have left<br />\nhimself \"wriggle room\" for you to assert that he didn\'t lie. But when Taylor<br />\nwent beyond referring to Bennett or Caswall, and he specifically denied<br />\nteaching or practicing any form of non-monagomous marriage systems, he clearly<br />\nentered the realm of deception.</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; ... rather, Taylor\'s remarks SPECIFICALLY, UNEQUIVOCALLY, AND<br />\nUNCATEGORICALLY denied ANY AND ALL FORMS OF MARRIAGE other than \"one wife or<br />\none husband.\" NOWHERE in Taylor\'s remarks did he infer that he, or the church<br />\nhe represented, taught or practiced a \"correct\" version of polygamy that had<br />\nbeen \"misstated\" by \"ill-informed denunciators\", to use Roberts\' term.</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt;&gt;Taylor couldn\'t even bring himself to repeat some of Bennett\'s lies, instead<br />\nreferring to them as \"actions themost indelicate, obscene, and disgusting, such<br />\nthat none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived.\" He called<br />\nthem \"too outrageous to admit of belief.\"</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt;As usual, you are in intellectual denial of the rest of what Taylor actually<br />\nsaid.</p>\n<p>&gt;No. I\'m trying to show what Taylor actually said, not your editorial of it.</p>\n<p>Where is \"my editorial\" in the following statement of Taylor\'s?</p>\n<p>\"All legal contracts of marriage made before a<br />\nperson is baptised into this church should be held<br />\nsacred and fulfiled. Inasmuch as this Church of<br />\nChrist has been reproached with the crime of<br />\nfornication, and polygamy: we declare that we<br />\nbelieve, that one man should have one wife; and one<br />\nwoman, but one husband, except in case of death when<br />\neither is at liberty to marry again.\"</p>\n<p>Those are Taylor\'s exact words, as you have quoted from his pamphlet below.<br />\nHow do Bennett\'s or Caswall\'s allegations wipe out this statement of Taylor\'s,<br />\nwherein he characterized polygamy as a \"crime,\" and emphatically declared that<br />\nthe only form of marriage his church allowed was one husband or one wife?</p>\n<p>&gt;And now that I have the pamphlet as printed, you have no more wriggle room.</p>\n<p>The only \"wriggle room\" that needs to be talked about in this thread is inside<br />\nof the straitjacket you should be wearing.</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt;One more time, caps mine for emphasis:</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt;\"As to the charge of POLYGAMY, I will quote from the Book of Doctrine and<br />\nCovenants, which is the subscribed faith of the church AND IS STRICTLY<br />\nENFORCED. Article of Marriage, sec. 91, par. 4, says, \'Inasmuch as this church<br />\nof Christ has been reproached with THE CRIME OF FORNICATION AND POLYGAMY, we<br />\ndeclare that we believe that one man should have but one husband except in the<br />\ncase of death when either is at liberty to marry again.\' \"</p>\n<p>&gt;Randy, I read the whole pamphlet front to back yesterday afternoon. About 50<br />\npages worth. I\'m at a loss to find what you have cited above. Perhaps you<br />\ncould point me in the right direction? Was it on Day 1, Day 2 or Day 3?</p>\n<p>Guy, everybody on this forum (except you, apparently) understands that ellipses<br />\nare used to omit portions not directly relevant to the subject at hand, to<br />\navoid having to quote reams and reams of material. You yourself have repeated<br />\nthe same words of Taylor\'s below as what I quoted above.</p>\n<p>&gt;Until then, here\'s what Taylor ACTUALLY said. I laughed out loud when I<br />\nrealized that all I had to do to get to the truth was find the words to replace<br />\nthe ellipses, and restore the words that the antiMormons had snipped.</p>\n<p>Guy, WE KNOW THAT TAYLOR\'S REMARKS WERE SNIPPED. Now PLEASE TELL US HOW THOSE<br />\nSNIPPED WORDS CANCEL OUT TAYLOR\'S BLANKET DENIAL OF POLYGAMY.</p>\n<p>&gt;<reporter: (in=\"\" hushed=\"\" tones)=\"\" thanks,=\"\" walter.=\"\" i=\"\" am=\"\" here=\"\" at=\"\" the=\"\" site=\"\" of=\"\" debate=\"\" between=\"\" john=\"\" taylor=\"\" and=\"\" three=\"\" protestant=\"\" ministers.=\"\" james=\"\" robertson=\"\" has=\"\" just=\"\" spoken,=\"\" reported=\"\" bold=\"\" audacious=\"\" pretensions=\"\" these=\"\" so-called=\"\" latter-day=\"\" saints.=\"\" mr.=\"\" attempted=\"\" to=\"\" stop=\"\" from=\"\" reading=\"\" a=\"\" speech=\"\" -=\"\" that=\"\" he=\"\" did=\"\" not=\"\" consider=\"\" it=\"\" proper.=\"\" chairman=\"\" agreed,=\"\" but=\"\" read=\"\" most=\"\" anyway.=\"\" quoted=\"\" testimony=\"\" bennett=\"\" caswell,=\"\" claimed=\"\" joseph=\"\" smith=\"\" kept=\"\" seraglio=\"\" \"sisters=\"\" white=\"\" veil,\"=\"\" green=\"\" veil;\"=\"\" body=\"\" men=\"\" known=\"\" as=\"\" \"danites\"=\"\" or=\"\" \"destroying=\"\" angels\"=\"\" had=\"\" caused=\"\" hostility=\"\" americans=\"\" mormonite=\"\" body,=\"\" gov.=\"\" boggs=\"\" been=\"\" assassinated=\"\" by=\"\" this=\"\" body.=\"\" stands=\"\" approaches=\"\" dais.=\"\" hush=\"\" falls=\"\" over=\"\" crowd.=\"\"></reporter:></p>\n<p>&gt;\"It would seem from the remarks of Mr. Robertson, that<br />\nhe also attaches a great deal of importance to the<br />\nstatements of Mr. Caswell and John C. Bennett, of<br />\ncourse, for want of better testimony. I have already<br />\nreferred to their characters, I have already stated<br />\nthat I proved Mr. Caswell to have told one lie, and a<br />\nman that will tell one falsehood to injure an innocent<br />\npeople will tell five hundred, if necessary, for the<br />\nsame object.</p>\n<p>Seeing as how Taylor himself told lies in this very speech in which he<br />\ncriticized Bennett and Caswall, Taylor had no greater moral authority than did<br />\nthey.</p>\n<p>&gt;\"I have also spoken of John C. Bennett\'s character;<br />\nperhaps these gentlement suppose that great importance<br />\nis to be attached to Mr. Caswell\'s statement because<br />\nhe is a reverend gentleman; but reverend gentlemen can<br />\ntell falsehoods, when it answers their purpose, as<br />\nwell as others. I will presently show some of their<br />\nproceedings. We have had a terrible account about the<br />\nmurder of Governor Boggs, I suppose given by Mr.<br />\nCaswell. Ex-governor Boggs is now living in<br />\nCalifornia, at the gold mines. (Laughter.) But I<br />\nsuppose he must be dead, because a reverend gentleman<br />\nsaid so.</p>\n<p>After Boggs was shot, it was assumed that he would die because of the extent of<br />\nhis injuries. In fact, Porter Rockwell was back in Nauvoo eight days after the<br />\nshooting, and upon his return, the Nauvoo papers reported that Boggs had been<br />\n\"shot and killed.\" The fact that other parties erroneously reported that<br />\nBoggs had died does not wash away the evidence that suggests that Joseph Smith<br />\npaid Rockwell to kill Boggs.</p>\n<p>&gt;Mr. Robertson has told us of a certain<br />\neditor, who was afraid to pollute his paper with<br />\nremarks made by some of the gentlemen before referred<br />\nto. It certainly would have been more to the credit<br />\nof the persons concerned, notwithstanding they had<br />\nno regard for the truth, if they had a little more<br />\nregard for delicacy; and with all due deference, I<br />\nmust say, that men of the calling and profession of<br />\nmy opponents, would have displayed a little more<br />\ntaste, if they had posessed a little more of that<br />\ndelicacy of feeling which actuated the editor. We are<br />\naccused here of polygamy, and actions the most<br />\nindelicate, obscene, and disgusting, such as none but<br />\na corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived.</p>\n<p>Note Taylor\'s characterization of polygamy in negative terms, as something to<br />\nbe \"accused of.\" This shows Taylor\'s intention to depict polygamy as being<br />\nimmoral or improper. As Taylor was a polygamist at the time, this is his Lie<br />\nNo. 1.</p>\n<p>&gt;These things are too outrageous to admit belief;<br />\ntherefore leaving the sisters of the \'White Veil,\'<br />\nthe \'Black Veil,\' and all the other veils, with those<br />\ngentlemen to dispose of, together with their authors,<br />\nas they think best, I shall content myself by reading<br />\nour views of chastity and marriage, from a work<br />\npublished by us, containing some of the articles of<br />\nour Faith. \'Doctrine and Covenants,\' page 330.</p>\n<p>Here Taylor covers his church\'s secret polygamy practice by referring to their<br />\nofficial publication which prohibited it. This is Taylor\'s Lie No. 2.</p>\n<p>&gt;\"1. According to the custom of all civilised nations,<br />\nmarriage is regulated by laws and ceremonies;</p>\n<p>The Mormons\' \"plural marriages\" were done in secret, in violation of the law,<br />\nso this is Taylor\'s Lie No. 3.</p>\n<p>&gt; therefore we believe that all marriages in this<br />\nChurch of Jesus Christ, of Latter-day Saints, should<br />\nbe solemnized in a public meeting, or feast, prepared<br />\nfor that purpose:</p>\n<p>Note Taylor\'s assertion that \"ALL MARRIAGES.....should be solemnized...in<br />\npublic.\" As Mormon \"plural marriages\" were done in secret, often behind locked<br />\ndoors, and shrouded in deceit, this is Taylor\'s Lie No. 4.</p>\n<p>&gt;and that the solemnization should<br />\nbe performed by a presiding High Priest, High Priest,<br />\nBishop, Elder, or Priest, not even prohibiting those<br />\npersons who are desirous to get married, of being<br />\nmarried by other authority. We believe that it is not<br />\nright to prohibit members of this church from<br />\nmarrying out of the church, if it be their<br />\ndetermination so to do, but such persons will be<br />\nconsidered weak in the faith of our Lord and Savior<br />\nJesus Christ.</p>\n<p>&gt; \"2. Marriage should be celebrated with prayer and<br />\nthanksgiving; and at the solemnization, the persons<br />\nto be married, standing together, the man on the<br />\nright, and the woman on the left, shall be addressed,<br />\nby the person officiating, as he shall be directed by<br />\nthe Holy Spirit; and if there be no legal objections,<br />\nhe shall say, calling each by their names: \'You both<br />\nmutually agree to be each other\'s companion, husband<br />\nand wife, observing the legal rights belonging to<br />\nthis condition; that is, keeping yourselves wholly<br />\nfor each other, and from all others, during your<br />\nlives.\'</p>\n<p>As the Mormons\' secret polygamous system included having sex with persons other<br />\nthan one\'s legal \"companion\", this is Taylor\'s Lie No. 5.</p>\n<p>&gt;And when they have answered \'Yes,\' he shall<br />\npronounce them \'husband and wife\' in the name of the<br />\nLord Jesus Christ, and by virtue of the laws of the<br />\ncountry and authority vested in him: \'may God add his<br />\nblessings keep you to fulfill your covenants from<br />\nhenceforth and forever. Amen.\'</p>\n<p>&gt;\"3. The clerk of every church should keep a record of<br />\nall marriages, solemnized in his branch.</p>\n<p>Since Mormon \"plural marriages\" were done in secret, and records of them kept<br />\nin secret, this is Taylor\'s Lie No. 6.</p>\n<p>&gt;\"4. All legal contracts of marriage made before a<br />\nperson is baptised into this church should be held<br />\nsacred and fulfiled.</p>\n<p>As Mormon \"plural marriages\" violated the law, and Joseph Smith and other<br />\nMormon leaders made a mockery of legal marriage contracts by \"plural marrying\"<br />\nthe wives of other men, this is Taylor\'s Lie No. 7.</p>\n<p>&gt;Inasmuch as this Church of<br />\nChrist has been reproached with the crime of<br />\nfornication, and polygamy:</p>\n<p>Note that Taylor characterizes polygamy as a \"crime\", along with fornication.</p>\n<p>&gt;we declare that we<br />\nbelieve, that one man should have one wife; and one<br />\nwoman, but one husband, except in case of death when<br />\neither is at liberty to marry again.</p>\n<p>As Taylor obviously knew the Mormons had a secret marriage system which allowed<br />\nmore than one wife, this is Taylor\'s Lie No. 8.</p>\n<p>&gt;It is not right<br />\nto persuade a woman to be baptised contrary to the<br />\nwill of her husband, neither is it lawful to<br />\ninfluence them to embrace any religious faith, or be<br />\nbaptised, or leave their parents without their<br />\nconsent, is unlawful and unjust. We believe that<br />\nhusbands, parents and masters who exercise control<br />\nover their wives, children, and servants and prevent<br />\nthem from embracing the truth, will have to answer<br />\nfor that sin.\"</p>\n<p>This portion you quoted is irrelevant. That\'s why people use ellipses, Guy.<br />\nBut you have our thanks for posting Taylor\'s complete remarks; they show just<br />\nhow offensive and blatant a liar he truly was.</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt;Note that Taylor referred to \"the charge of polygamy,\"</p>\n<p>&gt;Note that when restored to its original form, Taylor referred to specific of<br />\nBennett\'s allegations: Saints of the White Veil and Saints of the Green Veil.</p>\n<p>Please tell us how that cancels out Taylor\'s eight lies which I have documented<br />\nabove.</p>\n<p>Since polygamy, in actual practice, was essentially the same thing that Bennett<br />\nhad alleged---a secret system by which Mormon men could \"plural marry\", and<br />\nhave sex with, women to whom they were not legally married---the issue of the<br />\nterms Bennett used to describe that practice, in light of Taylor\'s blanket<br />\ndenial of polygamy, is nothing more than a red herring.</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt; ... which my Webster\'s defines as \"the state or practice of having more than<br />\none spouse at a time.\" Polygamy is what the Mormons were being accused of,<br />\npolygamy is what Taylor was secretly practicing, and polygamy is what Taylor<br />\nreferred to as a \"crime.\"</p>\n<p>&gt;Actually, he referred to \"fornication &amp; polygamy\" as a crime.</p>\n<p>Which they were. If they were not crimes, then William Law could not have<br />\nfiled charges against Joseph Smith for \"adultery and polygamy\", Smith would not<br />\nhave denied being guilty of the charges, and Taylor would not have had to lie<br />\nabout polygamy in 1850.</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt;NOWHERE in his speech did he state, or even hint, of a \"correct\" or<br />\n\"approved\" form of polygamous marriage, whether practiced in public or private.</p>\n<p>&gt;Nor did he have to in order to answer his accusers.</p>\n<p>But he *DID* choose to answer his accusers, and in doing so, he told at least<br />\neight lies, which I have pointed out above. His remarks were clearly intended<br />\nto give listeners the impression that the Mormons practiced no marriage systems<br />\nother than monogamy.</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt;His remark was intended to give the impression that neither he or his church<br />\npracticed polygamy in any form, by any term.</p>\n<p>&gt;His remarks were intended to convey the FACT that there was no such societies<br />\nas \"Saints of the White Veil,\" \"Saints of the Green Veil,\" or saints of any<br />\nother color of veil. In fact, that\'s pretty much how the snipped portion reads.</p>\n<p>If Taylor had stopped there, you might have a ghost of an argument.<br />\nYour lifelong inculcation in Mormonism, along with your deep-seated dishonesty,<br />\nprevents you from perceiving Taylor\'s lies. Whatever Bennett wrote does not<br />\nforgive Taylor\'s blanket denials of any marriage systems other than monogamy.<br />\nAgain I state that the only way Taylor\'s remarks could not be viewed as<br />\ndeceitful is if he had admitted to, and described the \"correct\" form of his<br />\nchurch\'s polygamy practice, to counter what he asserted were \"Bennett\'s lies.\"<br />\nHis failure to admit to polygamy in any form, by any term, constituted<br />\ndeception.</p>\n<p>&gt;&gt;That is what we sane people call a \"lie.\"</p>\n<p>&gt;What do you \"sane people\" call it when you must snip more than 50% of the<br />\nwords in order to make it appear that Taylor was speaking \"SPECIFICALLY,<br />\nUNEQUIVOCALLY, AND UNCATEGORICALLY\" of polygamy?</p>\n<p>Once again, the snipped portions do not cancel out Taylor\'s specific,<br />\nunequivocal, uncategorical denial of any marriage systems other than monogamy.<br />\nYour failure to understand this, while continuing to inject the red herring of<br />\n\"Bennett\'s lies,\" demonstrates your incorrigible intellectual dishonesty. All<br />\nyou are accomplishing in this thread is showcasing the convoluted reasoning and<br />\nmental gymnastics for which Mormon apologists are infamous.</p>\n<p>Randy J.</p>\n<p>Refresher<br />\nRe: RfMer \"randyj\" Strips the Bark Off a Forked-Tongue TBM on LDS Polygamy Lies<br />\n\"And, since later Mormon leaders have admitted that early Mormons lied about polygamy, your spin-doctoring for them is moot.\"</p>\n<p>loved it.<br />\nThey\'ve been caught in a web of lies. Truth is vindicated after all.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>Refresher<br />\nRe: RfMer \"randyj\" Strips the Bark Off a Forked-Tongue TBM on LDS Polygamy Lies<br />\n\"In fact, one of the earliest allegations that Smith was secretly advocating a \'community of wives\' came not from\'\"anti-Mormons,\' but from \'Gold Plate witness\' and Church historian John Whitmer, in 1838, which Smith denied even then.</p>\n<p>\"Mormon converts in England had heard the rumors about Nauvoo polygamy, but the apostles like Taylor, who were overseeing the missionary work there, steadfastly reassured them that the rumors were false. Then, in 1852, when the main body of Mormons had settled in Utah, seemingly safe from prosecution, they reversed themselves and publicly admitted polygamy;</p>\n<p>\"That reversal caused thousands of European Mormons to leave the Church because they were disgusted at having been lied to by Church leaders for years. I recommend you read Fannie Stenhouse\'s \'Tell It All\' to see how LDS Church leaders\' lies affected Mormon success in Europe for years.\"</p>\n<p>I heard / read L-d$ talking heads refer to an early mormon event when they say that the current mormon organization has not experienced such high volume of apostacy since early mormon organization.</p>\n<p>I didn\'t know what early mormon event they were talking about.</p>\n<p>This must be the early mormon event to which they are referring?</p>\n<p>I\'m not a swearing person but right now I want to swear!<br />\nThose dirty devils know enough about mormon history to make an exact historical comparison. Those dirty devils know the history and hide the truth and details in present day just as they did then.</p>\n<p>I\'ve gotta go. The emotional level just hit me. The magnitude of their lies knows no limit, past and present.</p>\n<p>the lying dirty uggggh.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>generationofvipers<br />\nRe: RfMer \"randyj\" Strips the Bark Off a Forked-Tongue TBM on LDS Polygamy Lies<br />\nThis is a great resource!</p>\n<p>I am saving it to my documents collection for future reference.</p>\n<p>Thanks for doing all the heavy lifting!</p>\n<p>\"Recovery from Mormonism - www.exmormon.org\"</p>\n', created = 1490631999, expire = 1490718399, headers = '', serialized = 0 WHERE cid = '2:bb024e35463ec4efd8ef824be370f73f' in /home/exmormon/public_html/d6/drupal/includes/cache.inc on line 112.

steve benson Dec. 2014

Enjoy. It's a beautiful sight to behold:

"Fellow Ex-Mo's, get a load of the spin-doctoring, convoluted thinking, and mental gymnastics employed below to apologize for early Mormon leaders' denials of polygamy.

"Randy [J.] wrote:

"'Until 1852, the official policy of the Utah LDS church concerning "plural marriage" was to deny that they practiced it, and condemn all those who accused them of practicing it.'

"[Mormon apologist] Guy Briggs wrote:

"'And what was it that happened in 1852 to change things? Oh yes, it was that little thing about presenting it in General Conference for the sustaining vote of the membership, making it official Church doctrine. That's it.'

"Randy [J.} wrote:

"'The subject under discussion here is whether or not early Mormon leaders denied or lied about teaching or practicing polygamy before 1852. Since you concede that LDS leaders first publicly admitted the practice of polygamy in 1852, you are by default conceding that they denied or lied about it before 1852. Also, since you admit that polygamy wasn't 'sustained' by the membership until 1852, you concede that all polygamy practiced before that date was illicit and unapproved--since that is the same standard you use for such items as the 'Adam-God' doctrine.

"'In other words, the corporate Church didn't practice polygamy until then, although someof the leaders did.

"'Although most Nauvoo-era polygamists were leaders, some others just happened to be in Joseph Smith's circle of people whom he thought would go along with the illegal, immoral practice. As William Law said in his 1887 interview with Wilhelm von Wymetal:

"'In what manner would Joseph succeed to keep you and others from knowing what was going on behind the curtain?'

"'Marks, Yves, I and some others had, for a long time, no idea of the depravity that was going on. This was simply the result of a very smart system adopted by the prophet and his intimate friends like Brigham Young, Kimball and others. They first tried a man to see whether they could make a criminal tool out of him. When they felt that he would not be the stuff to make a criminal of, they kept him outside the inner
circle and used him to show him up as an example of their religion, as a good, virtuous, universally respected brother.'

"In other words, since polygamy was illegal in Illinois, and directly contradicted LDS policy, those who accepted Smith's secret, illegal, immoral practice (such as Young and Kimball) were of an immoral or criminal bent. But Law, Marks, and
others---the honest, moral men who opposed polygamy--- are ironically viewed today as 'sinners' by Mobots like yourself.

"Law, a prominent Nauvoo businessman, was solidly devoted to Smith until mid-1843. During the Bennett scandal, he quickly came to Smith's defense, reassuring the Saints that Church leaders did not condone 'spiritual wifery' or any such behavior. Smith held his counselor in such high esteem that he included him in the first small group of male initiates to the endowment ceremony in May 1842. And Law rendered much moral and financial support to a discouraged Smith when Missouri officials were attempting to extradite him on the Boggs case.

"'By early 1843, however, Law began to waver in his commitment to Smith. Initial difficulties between the two centered on business matters. . . .But a deeper source of the Laws' disaffection was their detestation of polygamy. In an 1887 interview William explained that Hyrum Smith had shown him the "revelation on celestial marriage" in the fall of 1843. "Hyrum gave it to me in his office," Law said, and "told me to take it home and read it. . . . He and Jane "were just turned upside down by it" . . . William took the document directly to the prophet and commented that it was in contradiction to the Doctrine and Covenants. Smith noted that the section on marriage in the Doctrine and Covenants was "given when the Church was in its infancy, when they were babes, and had to be fed on milk, but now they were strong and must have some meat. He seemed much disappointed in my not receiving the revelation," William wrote. "He was very anxious that I would accept the doctrine and sustain him in it. He used many arguments at various times in its favor.' ("Mormon Polygamy: A History," Richard van Wagoner, pp. 64-65)

"Thus we see that Smith kept his own counselor in the First Presidency in the dark about polygamy, even allowing Law to naively file an 1842 affidavit swearing that Bennett, rather than Smith, was the originator of 'spiritual wifery.' And because Law opposed Smith's illegal, immoral, secret, contradictory polygamy practice, Smith assassinated his character and excommunicated him in absentia; and Law, the honest man in the case, has become the 'bad guy' to Mobots like yourself.

"The above passage also shows that Smith acknowledged the authority of theArticle on Marriage,' as published in the 1835 D&C, but Smith treated it as 'milk' doctrine that was to be replaced by the 'meat' of polygamy. The fact that Smith acknowledged the efficacy of the 'Article on Marriage' refutes the fallacious assertion which you and Woody Brison have repeated, that Smith did not approve of the 'Article on Marriage,' which specifically prohibited polygamy.

"Official Church doctrine was monogamy, as stated in the Book of Commandments.

"And that fact of history makes Smith's secret polygamy practice contradictory to 'official Church doctrine.' You, more than any other Mobot on ARM, have repeatedly stated that no teaching or practice is "official" unless it is agreed on by the First Presidency and the Q12, and approved by the sustaining vote of the Church members. But your above silly remark tries to justify Smith's attempt to have one "approved" standard of behavior for public consumption, and an opposite, secret, 'unapproved' standard of behavior for the benefit of a few elite leaders. Those of us who live on Planet Sane call that 'hypocrisy.'

"'. . . [N]either shall anything be appointed unto any of this Church contrary to the Church covenants. For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the Church . . . ' (D&C 28:12-13.) Smith's secret polygamy practice
contradicted his own 'revelations,' and your support of his secret, contradictory practice makes you as hypocritical as he was.

"Since neither Smith's polygamy practice, nor his 'revelation on celestial marriage' were approved by the First Presidency or the Twelve, (or even known about by many of them), nor sustained by the Church membership at any time during Smith's life, his secret teaching and practice of it ran directly against the principles of 'common consent' that supposedly governs Mormon policy.

"At various times, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon and William Law were Joseph Smith's counselors in the First Presidency; and William Marks was the Nauvoo Stake and High Council President, which at that time, was the governing body
of the Church, rather than the Quorum of the 12. Since all of those men were strongly against polygamy, Smith's secret polygamy practice ran counter to the laws and orders of the Church which he himself established. As I've documented for you many times, when Smith tried to have his 'revelation on celestial marriage' sustained by the High Council on August 12, 1843, his attempt was defeated:

"'In early 1843 Austin [Cowles] . . . .played an important role when a storm of opposition confronted Joseph Smith in the summer. On July 16 Smith preached, denouncing internal traitors, and Willard Richards, writing to Brigham Young,
guessed that the church president was referring to William Marks, Austin Cowles and Parley P. Pratt. These men--the Nauvoo Stake President, his First Counselor, and an eloquent Apostle--would be a serious obstacle to Smith, despite his charismatic authority and ecclesiastical position, especially when one considers the dominance of central stake leadership in early Mormonism.

"'Soon William Law, a counselor in the First Presidency, would be another formidable opponent.

"'Their opposition became public when Hyrum Smith read the revelation on polygamy, presently LDS Doctrine and Covenants 132, to the Nauvoo High Council on August 12. Three of the leading Brethren opposed it: William Marks, Austin
Cowles and Leonard Soby. Considering the secrecy of polygamy, it is remarkable that Hyrum would announce it even to the high council. It is also remarkable that Marks, Cowles and Soby would openly reject it. This was awatershed moment in Latter-Day Saint history.

"'Undoubtedly, Austin soon saw that he could not function as a Church leader while he and Marks were opposing one of Joseph Smith's revelations so bluntly and completely. On September 12, according to the High Council minutes, "President Austin Cowles resigned his seat in the Council as Counselor to President Marks which was accepted by the Council." Ebenezer Robinson later wrote that Austin "was far more outspoken and energetic in his opposition to that doctrine [polygamy] than almost any other man in Nauvoo." After resigning his presidency, he 'was looked upon as a seceder and no longer held a prominent place in the Church, although morally and religiously speaking he was one of the best men in the place." . . . Toward the end of April 1844, the anti-polygamy dissenters began organizing a new church. William Law was appointed President and selected Austin Cowles as his First Counselor. Not surprisingly, Austin was "cut off" from the main LDS Church for apostasy soon thereafter, on May 18. He then helped write the fateful first and only issue of the "Nauvoo Expositor," the paper which so infuriated Smith with its criticisms of him and public discussion of polygamy. It appeared on June 7, with an anti-polygamy affidavit by Cowles on the second page. The destruction of the "Expositor" press, engineered by Smith, set off a chain of events that
led to his martyrdom.' ("In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith," pp. 549-50)

"The Nauvoo High Council's failure to sustain the 'revelation on celestial marriage' should have brought an end to the practice, if the LDS Church operated according to its stated rules of order; but to the contrary, Smith retaliated against those who refused to sustain his heinous practice by having his pro-polygamous minions swear false accusations against them, assassinating their characters, and excommunicating them in absentia. These actions of Smith's show that the rule of 'common consent' in the LDS Church is a sham, and that Joseph Smith alone held absolute power.

"Like Law and Marks, Austin Cowles had his character assassinated, and was accused of sexual sins, simply because he opposed Smith's secret sexual practices. And to this day, Mobots like Woody Brison believe that those men were all libertines, because Woody believes the demonstrable liar Joseph Smith, rather than the men who sought to expose the liar.

"Also, in both Taylor's speech and the Section CI, "polygamy" is also linked to 'fornication.' Any first-year programming student can tell you that if any of the conditions of the IF are false then the whole statement is false.

"You're a liar. Taylor SPECIFICALL DENIED ANY AND ALL SORTS OF NON-MONOGAMOUS MARRIAGE SYSTEMS [emphasis added] in his debate:

"'We are accused here of polygamy . . . and actions the most indelicate, obscene and disgusting, such that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived. These things are too outrageous to admit of belief; . . . 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," p. 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 the case of death, . . . "' (tract published by John Taylor in England, in 1850, p. 8; published in "Orson Pratt's Works," 1851 edition)

"If you weren't a dishonest spin-doctor, you would realize that Taylor quoted from the 'Article on Marriage' to support his lie: 'we believe that one man should have ONE WIFE, and one woman but ONE HUSBAND, EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF
DEATH' [emphasis added]. Taylor did not qualify his statement with 'fornication,' as you deceitfuly attempt to do; he stated uncategorically that his Church's published rules allowed for only one wife, unless she died.

"Taylor's 'inspiration' for such deceit was obviously Joseph Smith's lie of May 6, 1838: 'Do the Mormons believe in having more wives than one? No, not at the same time. But they believe that if their companion dies, they have a right to marry again.' ("Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith," p. 119)

"The same verbiage was used to deny polygamy again in the 'Times and Seasons,' vol. 6, p. 894 (May 1, 1845): 'As to the charge of polygamy, I will quote from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, which is the subscribed faith of the church and is strictly enforced. Article of Marriage, sec. 91, par. 4, says, "Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have but one wife except in the case of death when either is at liberty to marry again."'

"Thus we see that the 'Article on Marriage' was nothing more than a smokescreen--an 'official policy' that was used to hide the secret, opposite practice of polygamy. . . .

"Church leaders, Taylor included, did not believe that plural marriage was fornication. Adultery either, for that matter.

"Both the laws of the state of Illinois and the published laws of the LDS Church stated that plural marriage was fornication and prohibited. If plural marriage, and thus fornication, was not illicit and immoral, neither Taylor nor any other Mormon leaders would have had to lie about it.

"The argument might be made that they were mistaken--but they certainly weren't lying about the fornication part.

"Since plural marriage was illegal in Illinois and Taylor was secretly practicing polygamy at the time, and Mormon plural marriage included sexual relations, then plural marriage was indeed illegal fornication. What they BELIEVED [original emphasis] is irrelevant, just as Osama bin Ladin's 'belief' that he is led by God is irrelevant to the issue of whether his activities are illegal and immoral.

"Lying is when one deliberately makes a statement one knows is untrue.

"Since Taylor quoted from the "Article on Marriage" in his debate, which specifically forbade more than one living wife, while he was simultaneously a 'husband' to seven living 'plural wives,' his statement was indeed a lie.

"Thus, the 'IF (polygamy AND fornication)' statement [original emphasis] tests false--because 'fornication' was false (at least, in their minds) regardless of whether polygamy was true or not.

"What was 'in their minds' is irrelevant. If they had sex with their 'plural wives,' they were fornicators and adulterers, according to the laws of Illinois and of the LDS Church. If they didn't think so, they wouldn't have lied about it.

"As quoted by Steve:

"'We [that is, the Church] are accused here of polygamy,... AND [emphasis mine] actions the most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting, such that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived.'

"In other words, enemies of the Church were spreading lies about plural marriage.

"False. People who got wind of polygamy, such as Law, Marks, Cowles, etc., were disgusted by it, and sought to expose the TRUTH [original emphasis] about it. The liars were Smith, Taylor and other polygamists, as the documentation clearly shows.

"They weren't content to just tell the truth - that certain of the leaders were practicing it--they felt the need to embellish and distort the truth.

"Here is your latest attempt to 'spin' the case away from the Mormons who were lying, and focus on 'embellishments and distortions' of those who exposed it:

"Since Mormons such as Smith and Taylor were obviously blatantly lying about polygamy, why do you have any problem with 'embellishments and distortions' of their opponents? Do you hold the exposers of polygamy to a higher moral standard than you hold the 'prophets of God?' No need to answer, you've shown many times over the years that the answer is 'yes.'

"Girls being imported from the farthest reaches of the Eastern Hemisphere, communities of communal wives, 'Cloistered Saints' or "Saints of the Black Veil.' Leaders of the Church had every right to deny these 'actions most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting' because they were untrue.

"Your attempt to shift the conversation on to perceived 'embellishments' does not wash away Smith's or Taylor's bald-faced denials of ANY SORT OF NON-MONOGAMOUS MARRIAGE SYSTEMS. What you cannot get through your brick-wall skull is that Mormon leaders, until 1852, CATEGORICALLY DENIED ANY AND ALL TYPES of marriage relationships EXCEPT for monogamy. THAT IS THE ISSUE. Your repeated drumming up of perceived 'embellishments' and 'distortions' of anti-polygamists pale in comparison to the bald-faced lies of Mormon leaders. [original emphasis]

"You are apparently too dense to realize that Joseph Smith's categorical denial of polygamy on May 6, 1838, occurred six years before your perceived 'embellishments' and 'distortions' of the 'Expositor' in 1844; and Taylor's categorical denial of polygamy in 1850 was six years AFTER the 'Expositor,' and half a world away, in England. Thus, Smith's and Taylor's denials of polygamy could not possibly have been due to your perceived "embellishments" and 'distortions' of Bennett, Law, etc.

"In fact, one of the earliest allegations that Smith was secretly advocating a 'community of wives' came not from'"anti-Mormons,' but from 'Gold Plate witness' and Church historian John Whitmer, in 1838, which Smith denied even then.

"Mormon converts in England had heard the rumors about Nauvoo polygamy, but the apostles like Taylor, who were overseeing the missionary work there, steadfastly reassured them that the rumors were false. Then, in 1852, when the main body of Mormons had settled in Utah, seemingly safe from prosecution, they reversed themselves and publicly admitted polygamy;

"That reversal caused thousands of European Mormons to leave the Church because they were disgusted at having been lied to by Church leaders for years. I recommend you read Fannie Stenhouse's 'Tell It All' to see how LDS Church leaders' lies affected Mormon success in Europe for years.

"But did they have the duty to reveal all that they knew?

"There is a difference between not revealing all you know and stating the opposite of what you know to be truth. That is what Smith and Taylor did, and it is called 'lying.' If, when Smith or Taylor were asked about polygamy, they replied 'no comment,' that would fall in the category of 'not revealing all you know.' But they specifically denied teaching or practicing anything other than monogamy, and that was a lie.

"I think that's the real question here. In court, the witness is sworn to tell 'the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.' Does that mean that a Doctor is obligated to reveal 'the whole truth' about his patient? No, it does
not. Does that mean an attorney is obligated to reveal 'the whole truth' about his client? Again, no. Must a wife reveal the 'whole truth' about her husband and testify against him? Still no. Does the witness have the obligation to tell the'"whole truth' if it incriminates him? No, and the right is constitutionally protected.

"In your examples, if someone is asked a question, and they decline to answer, that is their right and no can call them a liar if they don't respond, In other words, 'pleading the Fifth.' In contrast, Smith and Taylor were asked specifically
about whether they practiced polygamy, and they gave answers that were contrary to the truth. And that, Oh, Brickwall, is called 'lying.' Your inability to perceive that distinction tells us as much about the level of your own morality and honesty as this entire subject tells us about Smith's and Taylor's.

"Or how about Peter, James and John, descending the Mount of Transfiguration when Christ instructed them to ' . . . tell the vision to no man, until the Son of Man be risen from the dead. . . .?' Did they have the obligation to reveal the experience in direct disobedience to the Saviour's command?

"What an utterly invalid analogy. For your analogy to have any relevance whatsoever to the issue under discussion, Jesus and the apostles would have had to be involved in some illegal activity that they didn't want revealed, the apostles would have to be asked specifically the question you pose, and the apostles would have to give a response that was contrary to the truth. That story doesn't relate at all to the specific questions asked of Smith and Taylor, or excuse their false responses.

"And, since later Mormon leaders have admitted that early Mormons lied about polygamy, your spin-doctoring for them is moot.

"Best Regards, Guy.

"Randy J."
__________

Take a much-deserved bow, Randy J.!

:)


AmIDarkNow?

Re: RfMer "randyj" Strips the Bark Off a Forked-Tongue TBM on LDS Polygamy Lies

The justifications for the lying is literally maddening.

But you cornered him at every turn. No way out of the lie.

Checkmate Brickwall!


blueorchid
Re: RfMer "randyj" Strips the Bark Off a Forked-Tongue TBM on LDS Polygamy Lies
That was fantastic.


Lightworker
Re: RfMer "randyj" Strips the Bark Off a Forked-Tongue TBM on LDS Polygamy Lies

How did J Smith and B Young support their wives financially ? There was a suggestion that they had their hands in the till and BY owed the church hundreds of thousands of dollars, which came up when the surviving wives were lining up for their inheritance.


No Mo
Re: RfMer "randyj" Strips the Bark Off a Forked-Tongue TBM on LDS Polygamy Lies

Where did this exchange take place? It was a little hard to follow with the use of quotation marks.


Tal Bachman
Re: RfMer "randyj" Strips the Bark Off a Forked-Tongue TBM on LDS Polygamy Lies
Like a WWE Smackdown...


randyj
No Mo, here's a clearer version of the dialogue...

http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon010.htm

This debate was on the alt.religion.mormon newsgroup around 2002. The TBM Guy Briggs' comments begin with an >arrow, and my responses have no arrows.

That conversation began when Guy asserted that John Taylor didn't lie about polygamy in his 1850 debate in France. Guy had already stated that Taylor was his favorite church president, so that's why Guy was willing to sacrifice his own credibility to protect the reputation of one of the Lord's anointed.

Guy's arguments were like those of a sleazy lawyer who makes ridiculous, outlandish statements when defending an obviously guilty client.


randyj
Thanks, Tal. Your compliments mean a lot to me...

...considering that they're coming from such a creative, intelligent, international pop star.

In fact, I think I'll print out your compliment and stick it on my fridge, so I can show it to my wife when she tells me to wash the dishes or perform some other menial task which is beneath my lofty status.


randyj
Thanks, Roslyn. I don't know that I'm all that impressive.....

I just cite the facts and use basic common sense. It's not much of an effort to win a debate against someone who's wrong on the basic facts.


donbagley
Re: RfMer "randyj" Strips the Bark Off a Forked-Tongue TBM on LDS Polygamy Lies

randyj, that is some fine persuasive thinking and writing. Your vivid account of historical events was a pleasure to read.


randyj
Thanks, Don, but giving credit where it's due...

It's the researchers like Fawn Brodie, the Tanners, Richard van Wagoner, and Todd Compton (the latter two whom I quoted in that post) who did the work and published the info. All I did was cite the correct info in response to Guy Briggs' false assertions. That conversation was more of a testament to how brainwashed and ignorant TBMs are, than an indication of any great reasoning prowess on my part. :-)


steve benson
Facts are a necessary bulwark to common sense . . .

Facts make common sense more persuasive, especially since, as the old saying goes, the problem with common sense is that it ain't all that common.


steve benson
That's the source I used. Its quote marks were a bit problematic as well
. . . but I did the best I could to sort them all out. :)

Meanwhile, RJ, you provided the killer substance. Great job!


randyj
Exodus, that post of mine was in a thread.....

...which had about 500 responses from both TBMs and us evil anti-Mormons. If you want to read through them, here's the part of the thread where I begin demolishing Guy Briggs' defense of John Taylor:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.religion.mormon/XbKL2r982dg[426-450-false]

The ARM archives are difficult to wade through, so I hope this link is correct.

As I just skimmed through some of those posts, I realized that three other contributors---Steve Lowther, Don Marchant, and Xan Du---came to the 2002 Exmormon Foundation conference where I spoke. It was fun to meet some of my fellow TBM-baiters.


randyj
I learned early on in debating this stuff with TBMs.....

...that I had to have every tiny factoid right, or the Mobots would jump on you and say "Neneer neneer neneer! You're wrong about that tiny, insignificant factoid, therefore you have no credibility whatsoever!" (Never mind that they don't hold all the wacky, discredited statements of church leaders to the same standard.)

As I said in my 2002 Exmo conference speech:

"I made it my goal to study Mormonism to the point that there were no issues that I couldn't address, no question I couldn't offer comment on, and no claims of apologists that I couldn't refute with documentation from legitimate scholarly sources. Having satisfied myself that Mormonism was a fraud, I decided to devote the same level of time and energy into exposing it that I had put into advocating it. Minus paying 10% of my income for life for the privilege of doing so, that is."

In other words, I really didn't put any more time, effort, or money into learning and disseminating the true history of Mormonism than I had in advocating Mormonism when I was a TBM. If I put say, 15 hours a week into church work, I put the same amount of time into studying the other side of things. So, you can give me attaboys if you want, but I really haven't done anything special. I just bought books, read them, bookmarked important passages, and cited them in relevant posts.

If I have any particular talent, it's for remembering where I read stuff so I can refer back to it when the call arises.


randyj
Here's my follow-up response to Guy Briggs...

Since this debate has generated some interest, I pored through the ARM archives and found my follow-up response. I hadn't read this stuff for more than a decade, until today.

Randy wrote:

>>>> Until 1852, the official policy of the Utah LDS church
>>> concerning "plural marriage" was to deny that they
>>> practiced it, and condemn all those who accused them of
>>> practicing it.

Guy Briggs wrote:

>>> And what was it that happened in 1852 to change things? Oh
>> yes, it was that little thing about presenting it in
>> General Conference for the sustaining vote of the
>> membership, making it official Church doctrine. That's it.

Randy wrote:

>> The subject under discussion here is whether or not early
> Mormon leaders denied or lied about teaching or practicing
> polygamy before 1852.

Guy Briggs wrote:

>Actually, one leader in particular - John Taylor.

Randy's response:

Although Steve Lowther's original point concerned Taylor's 1850 denial of
polygamy, the purpose of my responses and documentation is to show that
Taylor's 1850 prevarication merely followed the pattern of all LDS leaders,
including Joseph Smith, to lie about and/or deny the teaching and practice of
polygamy, until they reversed themselves and admitted it in 1852.

Guy Briggs wrote:

>IIRC, the statement in question was made in 1839, some two years before Joseph

>Smith taught the principle to John Taylor and 3-4 years before Taylor
entered into any plural marriages himself.

Randy's response:

This response indicates that you are either

a) too ignorant of the incident in question to offer any intelligent comments
on the subject, or

b) you are basing your invalid assertion on false information published by
Mormon apologists, or

c) You know the true facts, but you are deliberately lying to defend Mormonism
at the expense of your personal integrity.

The incident under discussion did not take place in 1839, as you falsely
assert, but in 1850, in France, during Taylor's second mission there, when he
himself was fully informed of, and fully immersed in, the secret polygamy
practice.

From http://smithinstitute.byu.edu/register/t_v.html:

"Taylor, John. Son of James Taylor and Agnes Taylor. Born 1 November 1808 in
Milnthorpe, Westmoreland County, England. Joined Methodist Church about 1823;
subsequently appointed preacher. Emigrated to Toronto, Canada, 1828-29. Married
Leonora Cannon (born 1796 at Isle of Man) 28 January 1833 in Toronto. Four
children: George John, Mary Ann, Joseph James, and Leonora Agnes. Baptized 9
May 1836 by Parley P. Pratt, and ordained elder shortly thereafter. Visited
Kirtland March 1837. Ordained high priest 21 August 1837. Appointed by
revelation 8 July 1838 to be ordained apostle. Moved to Missouri in fall of
1838. Ordained apostle 19 December 1838 in Far West, Missouri. Located
temporarily in Quincy, Illinois, 1839. Accompanied others of Twelve to Far
West, Missouri, 26 April 1838. Located family at Montrose, Iowa, 1839. Mission
to England 1839-41. Left Montrose 8 August 1839. Arrived Liverpool 11 January
1840. Left Liverpool for United States 20 April 1841. Arrived in Nauvoo 1 July
1841. Elected member of Nauvoo City Council and Nauvoo Legion, and regent of
Nauvoo University. Appointed associate editor of the Times and Seasons 3
February 1842. Initiated into Masonry 22 April 1842. Editor-in-chief of Times
and Seasons 1842-1846. Editor and proprietor of Nauvoo Neighbor May
1843-October 1845. Received endowment 28 September 1843. Sealed to Elizabeth
Kaighin 12 December 1843. Three children: Josephine, Thomas Edward, and Arthur
Bruce. Sealed to Jane Ballantyne 25 February 1844. Three children: Richard
James, Annie Maria, and David John. Member of Council of Fifty 10 March 1844.
Accompanied Prophet to Carthage Jail June 1844. Received four balls into body
from guns of mob 27 June 1844. Sealed to Mary Ann Oakley April 1845. Five
children: Henry Edgar, Mary Elizabeth, Brigham John, Ida Oakley, and Ezra
Oakley. Nauvoo Temple sealing to Leonora Cannon 7 January 1846. Nauvoo Temple
sealing to Elizabeth Kaighin (born 1811 in Isle of Man) 14 January 1846. Nauvoo
Temple sealing to Jane Ballantyne (born 1813 in Scotland) 14 January 1846.
Nauvoo Temple sealing to Mary Ann Oakley (born 1826 in New York) 14 January
1846. Nauvoo Temple sealing to Mary Rainsbottom (born 1826 in England) 23
January 1846. Nauvoo Temple sealing for time to Lydia Dibble 30 January 1846.
Left Nauvoo for West in spring of 1846. To Winter Quarters 1846. Mission to
England 1846-47. Arrived in England 3 October 1846. Sealed to Sophia Whitaker
(born 1825 in England) 23 April 1847 at Winter Quarters. Seven children:
Harriet Ann Whitaker, James Whitaker, Hyrum Whitaker, John Whitaker, Helena
Whitaker, Moses Whitaker, and Frederick Whitaker. To Salt Lake Valley in fall
of 1847. Sealed to Harriet Whitaker (born 1825 in England) 4 December 1847 in
Salt Lake Valley. Three children: Sophia Elizabeth, William Whitaker, and John.
Elected associate judge of provisional State of Deseret 12 March 1849. Called
on mission to France October 1849. Arrived in Liverpool 27 May 1850. Arrived in
Boulogne, France, 18 June 1850. Left England for United States 6 March 1852.
Arrived in Salt Lake City 20 August 1852."

Note that BYU's official biography of Taylor names the seven women to whom he was "sealed", all before 1850, as well as children born of those relationships, indicating that they were sexual in nature, making them polygamy in very deed.
(Other historians claim that Taylor actually had 15 plural wives by 1850.) The bio also documents Taylor's arrival in Boulogne, France, on June 18, 1850, to begin his second European mission.

I have recommended several times that readers who are interested in learning the facts about Taylor's and other Mormon leaders prevarications on this issue, should read Fannie Stenhouse's "Tell It All," to obtain a first-hand account of the events in their historical context. Since you are apparently not willing
to read it for yourself, I'll provide the relevant excerpts, beginning from
page 97 of her autobiography, with a conversation with a friend, Mary Burton:

"Sister Stenhouse, do you know the meaning of the word Polygamy!" "Why, what a
funny question to ask me, child!" I exclaimed. "Child, you call me, Sister
Stenhouse, but I'm not a child at least not quite a child-I shall be fifteen
next birthday." "Well dear," I said, "I did not mean to offend you; and I call
you 'child' because I love you; but you asked me such a strange question and
used such a strange word. "This was quite true, for at that time the word
Polygamy was as seldom used as the word 'polyandry,' or any other word
signifying a state of things with which we have nothing to do."I'm not
offended," she said, "only people have a way of treating me as if I were only
such a very little girl: -I suppose I look so." She certainly did look so, and
I suppose she read my thoughts. Womanhood, by and by, brought to her more of
reality both in face and figure as well as in the terrible facts of life; but
at that time the term "little fairy," which I have so often used respecting
her, seemed the most appropriate. The meaning of that terrible word "Polygamy"
she understood, in later years, fully as well as I did. "Well dear," I said,
"Why did you ask me that strange question?" "You must promise not to be angry
with me if I tell you," she answered, "and yet I think you ought to know." I
readily promised-what could I have refused her?-and she said: "The other day
two of the Sisters were at our house-I may not tell you their names for fear of
making mischief and they were talking together between themselves and did not
notice that I was present-or else they didn't care. And I heard one of them
tell the other that she had heard secretly that in Zion men were allowed to
have many wives, and she used that word "Polygamy" very often, and said that
was what the world called it." "Well, Mary dear," I replied, "that is no great
secret. We have all heard that said before. Wicked people who hate the Gospel
say that, and a great deal more, in order to bring scandal upon the Church; but
of course it isn't true." "Ah, but I haven't told you all," she said, "the
sisters had a long talk about it and they explained who they heard it from, and
it was from no one outside the Church; and then one of them said that Elder
Stenhouse had heard all about it and knew it was true, only of course he did
not talk about such things yet; but that the time would come when everyone
would acknowledge it, and all the Saints would have many wives. I was
frightened when I heard this, and very angry-for I thought of you-and I spoke
to her and said itwas all untrue and I'd ask Elder Stenhouse; and they scolded
me very much for saying so, and said it was very wicked for a child to listen,
and that was why I did not like you to call me 'child." '"Well darling," I
said, "I'll not offend you any more in that way-and it was very good of you to
tell me anything you thought I ought to know." Then I kissed her, and
continued: "But, after all, I don't think it's of any consequence. It's the
old scandal, just as in the early days they said wicked things of Christ and
His apostles. Elder Stenhouse knows all that people say, but he has told me
again and again that there is not a word of truth in it, and I believe him."
"You think so, Sister Stenhouse," she replied, "and I suppose I ought to think
so too, but if it's all false how did people first begin to think of it?
People don't say that theMormons are murderers or thieves, because we have
given them no reason to think so. Then why should they think of such an
unheard-of thing as Polygamy- surely there must have been some reason. Don't
you think so?" "No, dear," I answered, " Elder Stenhouse says that some very
wicked men have sometimes joined the Church, and have done all manner of
shocking things, so that they had to be cut off, and then they went about
trying to make other people believe that the Mormons were as wicked as they
were. There was John C. Bennett who lived a frightful life at Nauvoo, and then
tried to make out that Joseph Smith was as bad as he was. And Marsh, the
president of the twelve apostles, and Orson Hyde, when they apostatised not
only said bad things of Joseph, but took affidavit and swore solemnly before
the magistrates that the prophet had been guilty of the'most fearful crimes."
I kissed her again, and she said, "Well, perhaps you are right"; but I could
see that in her heart she was not convinced. Then we talked of ourselves and
all that interested us, and she told me all her childish hopes and ambitions;
and to me young as I was myself-it was pleasant to listen to her innocent
prattle. She promised to come and see me when Elder Stenhouse had gone and I
should be left alone; and when we got back to the rest of the party we were as
firm friends as if we had known each other a lifetime. At midnight, Saturday,
June I5th, I850, the steamer left Southampton for Havre-de-Grace, bearing on
board the first two Mormon Missionaries to Italy-one of them was my
husband.....

[Note that Stenhouse affirms that Mormon leaders claimed that rumors of
polygamy were "lies" spread by "wicked people" and apostates. These efforts to
blame rumors of polygamy on other people puts Mormon leaders beyond the realm
of merely withholding facts, and installs them into the category of deliberate
deception.]

Although Polygamy was utterly denied by the Missionaries in Europe, yet long
before it was openly avowed a great deal was written and said on the subject.
Joseph Smith, whatever he said and did in private, always denied it in public,
and after his death the leaders of the Church followed his example. In some
way, however, an idea had got abroad that the Mormons were somewhat unsound
respecting the marriage question. Still the elders stoutly denied the charge,
and the more they were accused the more strenuous became their denials. At a
public discussion at Boulogne-sur-mer in France, the Apostle John Taylor, in
reply to the accusations of Polygamy which were brought against him, said: "We
are accused here of actions the most indelicate and disgusting, such as none
but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived. These things were too
outrageous to admit of belief....... I shall content myself with quoting our
views of chastity and marriage from a work published by us, containing some of
our articles of faith-Doctrine and Covenants." He then proceeded to quote from
the Book of Doctrine and Covenants such passages as the following: "Marriage
is ordained by God unto man; wherefore it is lawful that he should have one
wife, and they twain should be one flesh. [p. 218]. He quoted many other
things also, among which might be enumerated the following: "Thou shalt love
thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her, and none else." He
quoted also many other passages of Scripture which had reference to the
subject;-each powerful to put aside even the idea of polygamy; and each equally
powerful as an argument against polygamy itself. Let the reader here note the
value of what Mormons say when their faith is called in question:-See and
judge: Brother Taylor, who spoke at that meeting, and utterly denied polygamy,
had himself---at that very moment when he so atrociously perjured himself and
when he swore that no Mormon had more than one wife---five wives living in Salt
Lake City: One of his friends there present had two wives; and the other was
married to a mother and her own daughter! Any conclusion, any expression of
disgust at these abominations and deliberate perjuries, I leave to the
reader.".....

In the beginning of June a General Conference of the branches of the Church in
Britain was held in London. The Apostles and foreign Missionaries were present,
and my husband and I were also there. We had speeches and prayers. The
business of the Conference occupied but very few minutes, for no measure was
questioned. Among the Mormons there are no opinions, no discussion. The
presiding head has made out his programme before he comes to the conference; he
knows what he wants to do, and no one ever questions him. He may perhaps for
form's sake invite the brethren to speak on any point he introduces; but when
he has furnished the clew to his wishes, the Elders who speak only spend their
time in arguments in favor of his measures. At the Conference of which I speak
the reports of the native elders were very cheering to us. Throughout England
and Wales they had been most successful in adding members to the Church.
Mormonism was then most successfully preached in Britain. There were more
Mormons there than in all Utah Territory: there were fifty Conferences, with
over seven hundred organised "Branches," and more than six thousand men
ordained to the priesthood. That peculiar influence which the Mormons call
"the Spirit," of which I have spoken, elsewhere, was spoken of by the Elders as
being a common experience everywhere. During all that Conference, I listened
carefully for a word from the lips of any of the speakers which might indicate
in any way that Polygamy was part of the Mormon faith; but not a whisper, not a
hint was uttered. I naturally concluded that the Elders, whose doubtful
expressions at Southampton had so troubled my mind, were misinformed or unsafe
men. Still I could not altogether banish my apprehension of coming evil; but
so bound to secresy were those who did know of Polygamy being practiced in
Utah, that there was not one who would admit it, and even my own husband's lips
were sealed to me. He did not deny it, but he would not talk about it, and did
everything he could to banish the thought from my mind.

Stenhouse then quotes a later letter from her friend Mary Burton:

Since you went, I have grown quite an old woman. You used to call me:' little
fairy," but, Sister Stenhouse, I am much bigger now. I am now a good deal over
fifteen, and people say that I am getting to be quite a woman. I might tell
you some other pretty things that are said about me, but I'm afraid you'd say
it was all vanity of vanities. If you stay away much longer you won't
recognise me when we meet again. And now I want to tell you something that
interests you as much as me. I have not been able to discover anything more
with certainty about those hateful things of which I told you, although the
word Polygamy seems to me to become every day much more familiar in people's
conversation. Elder Shrewsbury tells me that there is not a word of truth in
it, and he has had a good deal of conversation upon that subject with the
apostles who are here, and also with a man named Curtis E. Bolton-an Elder from
the Salt Lake; and they all positively declare that it is a foul slander upon
the Saints of the Most High. So you see that all our unhappiness was for
nought. Our Saviour said we should be blessed when all men spoke evil of us
falsely for His name's sake; and the wicked scandal which has been raised
against our religion has had a tendency to strengthen my faith, which you know
was rather wavering. And yet do you know, Sister Stenhouse, that even while I
am writing to you in this strain, I am weak enough to allow doubts and fears to
creep into my heart when I think of the conduct of some of the American
brethren. They appear to me, for married men, to act so very imprudently; and
to call their conduct 'imprudent' is really treating it with the greatest
leniency, for I have often been quite shocked at the way in which some of the
brethren and sisters acted.

I read this letter carefully through, and I sat down and thought of dear Mary
Burton, and felt deeply sorry that she should be placed in a situation
surrounded by so many temptations. To myself the letter brought a sad
confirmation of all my fears. There was something painful in the thought. Had
polygamy been openly avowed as a Mormon doctrine I should never have joined the
Church. But now, what could I do?
I was now more than ever anxious about Polygamy. From much thinking on that
subject, it had become the haunting spectre of my existence, and I dreaded what
every day might bring forth. The news which my husband brought with him by no
means reassured me. He told me that he had heard in England from the American
Elders that there was a general expectation among the Saints in Utah that at
the October Conference in Salt Lake City, Brigham Young would publish to the
world that Polygamy was a doctrine of the Mormon Church. After all the
prevarications and denials then of the Apostles and Elders, Polygamy among the
Saints was really a fact. As the truth became clearer to my mind, I thought I
should lose my senses;-the very foundations of my faith were shaken, and not
only did I feel a personal repugnance to the unholy doctrine, but I began to
realise that the men to whom I had listened with such profound respect and had
regarded as the representatives of God, had been guilty of the most deliberate
and unblushing falsehood, and I began to ask myself whether if they could do
this in order to carry out their purpose in one particular, might they not be
guilty of deception upon other points? Who could I trust now? For ten years
the Mormon Prophets and Apostles had been living in Polygamy at home, while
abroad they vehemently denied it and spoke of it as a deadly sin. This was a
painful awakening to me; we had all of us been betrayed; I lost confidence in
man, and even began to question within myself whether I could even trust in
God. There was no argument between Mr. Stenhouse and myself. It would have
been worse than useless, for it was not his doing, and he assured me that he
had as great a repugnance to the doctrine as I had. He had at first only
hinted that it might eventually be acknowledged by the leaders of the Church,
but it was a matter of too deeply a personal character for me to keep silence,
and I did not rest until he had told me all.....

After discovering that the previously-denied "revelation on celestial
marriage" was indeed a reality, Stenhouse then quotes from a letter from
another Mormon friend, one Madame Baliff:

...... I am very miserable, Sister Stenhouse, and furiously indigonant. I
little thought when I last wrote to you that I should have such news to tell;
but I suppose you know it all without my saying a word. How we all felt when
we first learned that Polygamy was true, no words of mine can describe; we
hardly dared look one another in the face. Let me tell you how it was. One
night, quite late, Elder Shrewsbury came round in a hurry, and asked to see me.
I went down into the parlour to meet him, and Mrs. Elsworth came down also,
and remained until he went away. Elder Shrewsbury looked very strange that
night, just like a man who had been doing something wrong and was ashamed of
it-and well he might feel so. He began by talking to Mrs. Elsworth about the
weather, and when they had both said all they could think of on that
interesting and original subject, we all three sat silent for some time. Elder
Shrewsbury at last spoke. He excused himself for coming so late, but he said
he had only just received some important news, and could not rest until he had
seen us. He had been round at the Conference-house, and had there seen a good
many of the Elders. They were all talking earnestly upon the same subject, for
that day they had received not only letters from the Apostle at Liverpool, but
also copies of the Millennial Star, with the Revelation in it, which I suppose
you have seen. Of course it was impossible for them to doubt any longer, but
most of them felt it was a cruel blow. Elder Shrewsbury said they looked at
one another, but did not dare to speak. Nearly all of them had been anxiously
trying to get rid of the false scandal, as they supposed the accusation of
Polygamy to be; and in public in their sermons, and in private to all the weak
brethren, they had over and over again solemnly declared that Polygamy was
unheard of among the Saints, that it was a Gentile lie; and they had proved
from the Bible, and from the Book of Mormon, that a doctrine so sinful could
never be believed or practiced by God's people. Now, all this would be thrown
in their teeth. Those who hated Mormonism would revile them for it, and, worse
still, the Saints themselves would despise and doubt them for the lies which
many of them had innocently told. Who could tell where all this would end?
When they were found to have been deceived in a matter like Polygamy, about
which it was so easy to arrive at facts and certainty, who would trust them
concerning other doctrines which depended upon their veracity and testimony
alone? Then, too, there was worse to be said about the American Elders and
Apostles. Who could believe that Orson Pratt or Lorenzo Snow knew nothing of
Polygamy? And yet they denied it in the most solemn way. And, oh, Sister
Stenhouse, think of the Apostle Taylor calling God to witness his truth when he
proved from the Book of Covenants that there was no such thing as Polygamy: and
all the while he had himself five wives in Salt Lake City! Oh, my! This is
dreadful. Whether the doctrine is true or not, I can never believe that God
would forgive all that abominable lying about it. But I was telling you of
that evening. Elder Shrewsbury told us all this, but he spoke slowly and
disjointedly, like a man whose mind is troubled. He said he hardly knew what
he was doing. Then he gave Mrs. Elsworth a copy of the Star, and he asked me,
too, to read the Revelation carefully before I condemned it. "If the
Revelation, as you call it, allows Polygamy," I exclaimed, "it is a lie, and I
hate and despise it, and you, and Mormonism, and all!" I was quite in a fury,
and I did feel as if I hated him then.

Stenhouse then relates an example of the effect the "revelation" had on naive,
trusting, European converts:

T'was fortunate for the Swiss Mission that the new converts in general could
not read any language but their own, and thus were ignorant of the deceptions
which the American Elders had practiced upon the people. Monsieur Petitpierre,
the Protestant minister, who thought that the Revelation ought to be
"prayerfully considered," was the only one who understood English, and his
knowledge was very limited. His wife did not at all coincide with him about
the prayerful consideration of Polygamy; she disposed of the subject without
any prayer at all, and it is to be regretted that in this respect the whole
body of the Mormon women did not follow her example.

Stenhouse then relates how Mormon leaders' lies and reversal of position on
polygamy negatively affected church growth in Europe:

The Pastor over the London and adjoining Conferences was the son of one of the
chief Apostles in Utah-a young man, whose good nature was far better than his
religion. He visited us very frequently, and used to bring with him the
distinguished American Elders who might be visiting the metropolis. I have no
doubt that they were sincere in their desire to do me good, but it was not kind
attentions that I then needed, it was the removal of the cause of my sorrows.
They tried to persuade me that it was all "the work of the Lord;" but I could
not see it in that light, and very often in reply to their consolations I said
very hard things of Polygamy and the leaders of the Church, whose conduct I
considered sinful. And in this I did not stand alone, for I soon found that
the President of the Conference-Elder Marsden-had been in the same position for
years, and his wife was "quite through" with Mormonism. In fact, so great had
been the distrust occasioned by Polygamy, that in the report ending June 30th,
I853, it was stated that from the whole British Church-which then numbered very
nearly thirty-one thousand souls-seventeen hundred and seventy-six had been
excommunicated for apostasy! Of those who remained faithful I cannot give a
much more cheering account. The Elders who visited President Marsden made as
damaging reports of the condition of the Saints as their worst enemies could
desire. All that my young friend, Mary Burton, had told me did not equal the
truth of what I saw for myself. No one had any confidence now in what the
Elders said;-how could they be trusted after so many years of deception?

End quotes. Stenhouse shows that Mormon leaders effectively maintained a
pattern of deceit before the entire European continent, including some 31,000
converts to Mormonism for years, and that nearly 1,800 of them abandoned
Mormonism because of those lies. Obviously, that culture of deceit caused a
major shock wave in Mormon efforts in Europe. Thus, Guy, your attempts to
show that Taylor's remarks were not lies are trounced by the documented facts
of history.

In addition, I have repeated several times another denial of polygamy from the
"Times and Seasons", vol. 6, pg. 894 (May 1, 1845):
"As to the charge of polygamy, I will quote from the Book of Doctrine and
Covenants, which is the subscribed faith of the church and is strictly
enforced. Article of Marriage, sec. 91, par. 4, says, "Inasmuch as this church
of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we
declare that we believe that one man should have but one husband except in the
case of death when either is at liberty to marry again." Sec. 12, par. 7.
"Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart and shall cleave unto her and NONE
ELSE." In ancient till God cleanses the earth, and restores the government of
his says, "know this that, in (the last days of perilous times shall come), for
men shall be TRAITORS, FALSE ACCUSERS, INCONTINENT, fierce despiser of those
that are good. No wonder then that apostates rage, or that the fulness of
truth revealed again should bring a storm of persecution."

As the BYU bio of Taylor quoted above shows, Taylor was the editor of the
"Times and Seasons." Thus, the 1846 denial of polygamy, and its attempt to
saddle rumors of it onto "false accusers," was likely penned by Taylor himself.
That demonstrates two facts: One, Taylor was an "equal opportunity liar," who
spread falsehoods about polygamy on two continents, America and Europe; and
two, your deceitful attempt to claim that Taylor's denial of polygamy came in
1839, before he was aware of the practice, is further trounced by the fact that
he continued to deny polygamy in the official church newspaper in 1846.

In other words, Guy---your credibility on this subject is non-existent.

Late LDS Apostle John A. Widtsoe admitted that church leaders lied about
polygamy in the Nauvoo era: "Authentic history says that plural marriage
originated with Joseph Smith the Prophet. And so it did. The apparent denials
by Church leaders in Nauvoo days that the Church practised polygamy were
correct." (Evidences and Reconciliations, p. 344.)

Seeing as how Widtsoe conceded that early Mormon leaders denied practicing
polygamy (which equated to lying), it's futile for modern Mopologists like Guy
Briggs to still try to claim that they did not. At some point, the rational
mind just has to accept the facts and concede the issue. Guy, here is an
excellent opportunity to show the forum whether or not you possess a rational
mind.

Randy J.

^
Re: RfMer "randyj" Strips the Bark Off a Forked-Tongue TBM on LDS Polygamy Lies 

randyj
And here's a response to another Exmo...
.....in which I detail more of the historical background while refuting Guy Briggs' argument that John Taylor's denial was only referring to "lies" published by people like John C. Bennett.

Steve Lowther wrote:

>In addition, the denials of polygamy of section 101 predated Bennett's
>book by many years. So rumors of polygamy and the denials were in
>place well before Bennett arrived on the scene.

Steve, I don't have the several hours at present that it would take to give
this point its proper treatment, but briefly, Bennett published his book
"History of the Saints" in 1842. The main reason for Bennett's split from
Smith is that they both wanted 19-year-old Nancy Rigdon as a "plural wife."
Nancy spilled the beans of Smith's proposition to her father Sidney, who
confronted Smith with it. Smith at first attempted to call Nancy a liar and
deny the proposition, but Sidney brought out the "doctrinal letter" Smith had
written to Nancy in which he attempted to explain his reasons for wanting her
("Whatever God commands is right" etc.), so Smith was forced to admit to his
actions, and he apologized privatley to the Rigdons. (This was the first
Sidney had even heard of polygamy, and he was shocked.) A few months later,
when Bennett had completely broken from Smith, he published his book and
included the text of Smith's "doctrinal letter" to Nancy. Smith responded by
putting a notice in the "Times and Seasons" denying that he had authored the
letter, and that he had nothing to do with the polygamy practice, and that it
was all Bennett's doing. Smith had to categorically deny polygamy because the
impact of Bennett's book could have brought down his empire at that time.
Smith's, and other polygamous Mormons' oft-repeated tactic was to spin charges
against them onto those who made the charges; in addition to claiming that
Bennett had originated polygamy, Nancy Rigdon was called a "common whore," and
Martha Brotherton, whom Brigham Young had propositioned, and who published her
account of Young's indecent proposal to her, was similarly trashed as being of
ill repute.

Not a single denial of polygamy during that time, nor in fact any during
Smith's lifetime, made any distinction between Smith's polygamy practice and an
alleged separate, different system practiced by Bennett. At that time,
polygamy, and indeed any and all forms of non-monogamous marriage systems, were
categorically denied, because of the impact of Bennett's 1842 book. After
Smith's death, other Mormon polygamous leaders invented the idea that there
were two separate systems---Smith's "approved" and "revealed" one, and
Bennett's supposedly "unapproved" or "renegade" one, in order to distance Smith
and the church from Bennett. In truth, if there was any difference between
what Smith and Bennett were doing, it was that Smith claimed his system to be a
"revelation," whereas Bennett knew very well that polygamy was merely Smith's
method of getting naughty nookie while maintaining an image of being a "church
leader," so Bennett didn't bother with the religious dogma while
propositioning his women.

By inventing the idea that Bennett's system was "renegade" and therefore
improper, Mormon apologists have effectively deluded rank-and-file Mormons that
Smith never denied practicing polygamy, but that he only denied Bennett's
allegedly "improper" system. And that is why Mormons like Guy Briggs believe
and write what they do. They are simply the victims of deceitful
spin-doctoring by Mormon leaders and apologists; they believe the
spin-doctoring, instead of simply reading the history for themselves and
comprehending that the spin-doctoring is a lie.

So although Bennett's book predated Taylor's categorical denial of polygamy by
eight years, history shows that Smith & Co. had consistently denied polygamy,
in all forms, by whichever term you wish to call it, since he first began the
practice in earnest about 1839. That is why I occasionally write that instead
of having Mormons like Guy defend the denials, it's in fact easier to have them
cite official sources where Smith or any other leaders publicly taught,
advocated, or supported polygamy (by whichever term they wished to call it).
The problem with that is there are no such public statements supporting
polygamy (by any term) before Young had Pratt first publicly admit to it in
1852. Every single official public statement concerning polygamy before that
date was made to categorically deny the practice, and to consistently support
monogamous marriage systems only.

Randy J.

randyj
And my next re-rebuttal to Guy Briggs...
Guy had quoted some apologetics from BH Roberts to try to make his argument that John Taylor's denials of polygamy referred only to "lies" published by John C. Bennett.

Steve Lowther wrote:

>> I accept that I mistakenly said that John Taylor was on a mission to England
when I stated that he participated in that debate in France. He was, duh, on a
mission to France.

Guy Briggs wrote:

>My own research leads me to the same conclusion, and I apologise for
any accusations I may have made vis-a-vis a 1839 statement being presented as
an 1850 statement. I was mistaken. It happens from time to time.

Randy replied:

We can all make mistakes. I made a minor one about it being Taylor's "second
mission" as well (even though I gave the correct information, in the same post,
from BYU's website.) But the difference is that my mistake was trivial and
didn't affect my argument, whereas your entire argument was based on the false
premise that Taylor made his denial in 1839, before he was informed as to
polygamy. As I documented from Fanny Stenhouse's first-hand experience,
Taylor's denial was in France in 1850, and it was merely one instance of the
official church policy to categorically deny polygamy before 1852.

Incidentally, even if Taylor's remarks had been made in 1839, based on personal
ignorance of the polygamy practice, that would further reflect poorly on Smith,
because it would be another example of Smith keeping a high church leader in
the dark about polygamy, just as he had done with William Law and others. That
would have meant that Taylor, a major church leader, would be making a public
statement attesting to something that Joseph Smith knew was not the truth (just
as Law swore his 1842 affidavit against Bennett based on Smith's word that
Bennett was the instigator of polygamy). That scenario is similar to the day
when Bill Clinton's entire cabinet stood on the White House porch and expressed
their belief that Clinton had told them the truth when he denied his
relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton allowed his cabinet members to
testify to what he knew was the opposite of the truth. And Smith allowed Law
to do the same, which makes Smith not just a liar, but a very sleazy one, in
letting a naive subordinate cover for his lies.

Steve wrote:

>>However, when such importance to a minute, immaterial detail is being grossly
blown out of proportion, it is an obvious consequence of a desperate defense.
No minutia is too insignificant when reason and facts are not on one's side.

Randy replied:

Exactly. Guy's tactic is nothing more than obfuscation---focus on minor errors
or minutae, and try to change the subject away from the larger issues. As I've
written before, that style of debate might work on naive teenage Mormon
seminary students, but it doesn't make it past intelligent adults. The sad
thing is that Guy thinks he can get by with it here.

Guy wrote:

>I was, however, right about what Taylor was denying.

No, YOU ARE NOT RIGHT, Guy.

> It was NOT polygamy, per se.

Yes, IT WAS, Guy. For the umpteenth time:

"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 the case of death,..."' (tract published by John Taylor in
England, in 1850, page 8; published in "Orson Pratt's Works," 1851 edition).

As is plain to any rational observer, Taylor CATEGORICALLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY
declared that his church believed in having only one living husband or wife;
and he made that statement specifically BECAUSE of rumors of "the CRIMES of
fornication and POLYGAMY." YOU assert that Taylor's denial "was not about
polygamy, per se," when Taylor in fact denied the practice of polygamy BY USING
THAT VERY TERM.

>It was the lies written in Bennett's book.

No, it WAS NOT, Guy. Smith had successfully discredited Bennett (in the eyes
of the public) in 1842, eight years before Taylor's remark, by categorically
denying polygamy and blaming the entire practice on Bennett. When William Law
had Smith indicted on charges of "adultery and polygamy" in May of 1844, Smith
AGAIN denied practicing polygamy, even using that denial to justify destroying
Law & Co.'s "Expositor" press. After the Smiths' murders, when the church
began to fragment roughly between polygamists and non-polygamists, the
non-polygamists began to "spill the beans" again about polygamy, and
pro-polygamous church leaders AGAIN denied it, even calling the anti-polygamist
Sidney Rigdon a liar:

"Despite his long-standing opposition to polygamy, and published condemnations
of the practice, Rigdon would be accused of introducing the system within his
declining congregation. Apostle Parley P. Pratt turned Rigdon's accusations
against him in a 1 July 1845 letter in the British 'MIllenial Star,' warning
the Saints to 'beware of seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils, as first
introduced by John C. Bennett, under the name of spiritual wife
doctrine'.....Apostle John Taylor, editor of the 15 November 1844 'Times and
Seasons,' published a letter from 'An Old Man of Israel' which denounced the
'sham quotations of Sidney Rigdon and his clique, under the 'dreadful splendor'
of 'spiritual wifery' which is brought into the account as graciously as if the
law of the land allowed a man a plurality of wives.' There is no solid
evidence that Rigdon ever advocated polygamy." (Richard van Wagoner, "Mormon
Polygamy: A History, p. 73.)

(Note that Taylor's November 1844 remark, written under a pseudonym,
recognized that the law of the land did not allow "a man a plurality of wives,"
which was six years earlier than his 1850 categorical denial of polygamy in
France, thus demonstrating that his 1850 denial was not an isolated or
out-of-character statement, but was to the contrary, merely one instance of an
official policy of categorical denial of polygamy.)

And also:

"Most of the stories against the Mormons have been propagated by apostates and
traitors, (who have been generally cut off from the church for their crimes.)
They publish their lies, and straightway they are believed, and hawked about as
awful disclosures, and received by community with trembling and holy horror.
Sidney Rigdon, I see by the papers, has made an exposition of Mormonism,
charging Joseph Smith and the Mormons with polygamy, &c. It does not require a
very sagacious mind to fathom Mr. Rigdon's motive for doing." (Times and
Seasons, vol. 6, p. 894 (May 1, 1845.)

Note that this article states "charging Joseph Smith and the Mormons with
POLYGAMY." As Rigdon was well aware that it was Smith, not Bennett, who had
started polygamy, Pratt's and Taylor's implication that Rigdon was the victim
of "lies" by Bennett was meritless. As Rigdon himself wrote in his "Messenger
and Advocate" in 1845:

"This system was introduced by the Smiths sometime before thier death, and was
the thing which put them in the power of their enemies, and was the immediate
cause of their death."

Thus we see that Pratt's and Taylor's slandering of Rigdon was merely another
example of polygamous Mormon leaders' oft-employed deceitful tactic of defaming
all those who attempted to expose polygamy.

Guy Briggs quoted B. H. Roberts' attempt to spin-doctor the issue:

>"The doctrine of plural marriage both by those who
without authorization and, prematurely, undertook to
teach it, and those who bitterly denounced it, was
not properly apprehended either by such advocates or
such denunciators. Plural marriage as taught by the
Prophet was not the 'polygamy' of the orient, with
its attendant despotism and harems; nor the 'bigamy'
of western civilization, banned by the law of all the
western nations, including our own, and in which the
element of deception was always present by keeping
the fact of the first and perhaps other marriages
secret, thus betraying its victims to unsuspected
disgrace and humiliation. And hence, because these
overzealous advocates, and ill informed denunciators
never truly represented the doctrine of the revelation
on marriage, the denial of their misstatements of the
doctrine and its practice was not regarded by the
leading elders of the church as a denial of the
doctrine of the revelation given to the Prophet;>

Here we can plainly see Roberts' spin-doctoring: Taylor's 1850 (and 1844)
denials were not a "denial of misstatements of the doctrine and its practice";
rather, Taylor's remarks SPECIFICALLY, UNEQUIVOCALLY, AND UNCATEGORICALLY
denied ANY AND ALL FORMS OF MARRIAGE other than "one wife or one husband."
NOWHERE in Taylor's remarks did he infer that he, or the church he represented,
taught or practiced a "correct" version of polygamy that had been "misstated"
by "ill-informed denunciators", to use Roberts' term. Taylor unequivocally
denied "polygamy" by that very name, and he quoted from the "Article on
Marriage," which specifically prohibited polygamy, to support his lie.

>and while this may be considered a refinement in
presentation that the world will not allow, it
nevertheless represents a distinction that was real
to those who were struggling with a difficult
proposition, and accounts for the seeming denials
referred to in the text above; as also later seeming
denials made by John Taylor, in a public discussion
with three ministers at Boulogne-sur-mer, France, 1850
(Public Discussion in France, included in Orson
Pratt's Works, 1851 edition, England. Also Life of
John Taylor, ch, xxiv); and by Parley P. Pratt in
England, 1845 (Millennial Star, vol. vi, p. 22).

At least, I hope this fact from Roberts will help you see that Taylor's denial
was in 1850, not 1839, and that Fanny Stenhouse's book, which you refuse to
read because it is in your words "anti-Mormon", was telling the truth.

>BOTH ELDERS PRATT AND TAYLOR IN THEIR DENIALS WERE
REFERRING TO THE CHARGES MADE BY JOHN C. BENNETT AND
OTHER APOSTATES. Pratt says, in his denial: 'Beware
of seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, as first
introduced by John C. Bennett under the name of 'the
spiritual wife doctrine.' ... It is but another name
for whoredom, wicked and unlawful connection and every
kind of confusion, corruption and abomination. ... The
spiritual wife doctrine of J. C. Bennett and numerous
other apostates, is as foreign from the real
principles of the church as the devil is from God, or
as sectarianism is from Christianity." (Ibid.)
-- Roberts, B.H., _Comprehensive
History of the Church_, V.2,
Ch.45, p.104

What the spin-doctor Roberts didn't tell us is that Pratt's letter mentioning
Bennett was in a letter attacking Rigdon; and as I've explained above, Rigdon
knew very well that Smith instigated polygamy, and he was privy to the details
of the Smith/Bennett breakup---it was because of Smith's attempt on Rigdon's
daughter Nancy. Therefore, Pratt's assertion that Rigdon had somehow fallen
victim to lies about polygamy told by Bennett is invalid, and that makes
Roberts' spin-doctoring invalid in turn.

What you need to realize is that people like Roberts are apologists first, and
historians second. His "History of the Church" was written not for the sake of
accurate documentations of facts, but for the purpose of making Mormonism and
its leaders look as good as possible. His editorial comments on historical
events such as you have posted here clearly shows that.

>>John Taylor lied. No ifs ands or buts.

>John Taylor denied the lies printed by Bennett. If there was a
little less snippage going on around here, that would have been plain.

>bestRegards, Guy.

It's obvious that Taylor didn't "deny the lies printed by Bennett," for reasons
I've explained in detail above. But I'm sure you, in your infinite non-wisdom,
will respond to this with the same type of invalid, incorrect material which
has just been refuted.

Randy J.

randyj
Guy Briggs didn't believe that Smith had sex with plural wives...
In this same thread, Guy had repeated the common apologetic assertion: "If Smith had sex with the women, where's the evidence for children?" On that issue, he wrote:

>> You guys will assume the worst of Smith no matter what the facts
>> are. Or lack of facts thereof.

Ex-Mormon Steve Lowther replied:

>And what can we say about YOUR assumptions, Guy? Ever state anything
>about JS that acknowledged any major weakness? If the critics can at
>least occasionally point out some of his good points, why don't you
>acknowledge at least occasionally some of his bad points?
>
>Steve Lowther

Randy responded:

The hilarious thing about Guy's argument is that Smith's having sex with and
fathering children by his "plural wives" wasn't a "bad point" to 19th-century
Utah Mormons. The very reason there is so much historical documentation of
Smith's sexual relationships is because when Joseph Smith lll became president
of the "Reorganite" movement---after his mother Emma had told him his entire
life that Brigham Young was the instigator of polygamy, rather than his
father---Smith lll went to Utah to interview and collect affidavits from his
father's former associates and "plural wives," who willingly gave their
testimonies regarding Smith's sexual habits. Some of them repeated those
testimonies in the "Temple Lot Case."

The reason that Pollyannas like Guy wish to believe that Smith's "plural
marriages" were platonic is because since the LDS church was forced to end
polygamy in 1906, it has engaged in a quiet but effective campaign to omit all
mention of Smith's extra-marital sex, and to re-make him into an image that
is more palatable to today's strictly-monogamous mainstream Mormonism. That
campaign is well-demonstrated by, among other things, a) the fewer and fewer
mentions of polygamy in "Ensign" articles (compare the volume of mention of
historical articles which discuss Smith's polygamy from 1970 to 1985 against
those from 1985-present) and b) the conspicuous absence of any mention of
Brigham Young's "plural wives," or polygamy at all, in the 1997 lesson manual
"The Teachings of Brigham Young."

Guy's attitude is the product of 100 years of revisionist history disseminated
by Mormon leaders and writers. It's all part of the campaign to re-make Joseph
Smith into a demi-God for Mormons to worship. As time passes, Smith will
become more and more of a Jesus-like figure that mainstream Mormons will
actually openly worship (rather than just pretending not to, as they do now).

The only problem with that is, as time passes, more and more Mormons will come
to know the real Joseph Smith, and they will leave the LDS Church because of
it. That means that at some point in the future, the only Mormons who are left
will be people like Guy and Woody---blind fanatical worshippers of Smith.

Randy J.


randyj
Guy's lies continue...

Guy, I'm going to snip your latest mountain of drivel and obfuscation to get
back to the subject.

Guy wrote:

>>> I was, however, right about what Taylor was denying.

Randy wrote:

>> No, YOU ARE NOT RIGHT, Guy.

> I am loathe to send the Tanner's 20 of my hard-earned dollars, but I've
decided to do it - just so I can show you how wrong you are. We'll read that
pamphlet and see just what it was Taylor was denying.

You don't have to send the Tanners a dime, Guy. Don Marchant has already
offered to send you the relevant pages of the pamphlet, and over two weeks ago,
I sent you documentation from a first-hand contemporary source, Fanny
Stenhouse, who wrote of events that occurred in 1850. Stenhouse's book makes
it clear that European Mormons were lied to for years by American leaders about
polygamy. They weren't upset about "misinformation" written by Bennett, or
Caswall, or anyone else; they were upset about the outright denials of polygamy
from their own church leaders.

>>> It was NOT polygamy, per se.

>> Yes, IT WAS, Guy. For the umpteenth time:

> >"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 the case of death,..."' (tract published by John Taylor in England,
in 1850, page 8;
published in "Orson Pratt's Works," 1851 edition).

>Nice snippage. But no matter how much you torture them, the words
are not going to break down and say what you want them to say.

As I wrote earlier, any rational person can understand what Taylor is saying.
Your rsponse is an admission that you are not rational. The words say what
they say. I haven't "tortured" them nor "snipped" them. Taylor prefaced his
remarks by saying that he was going to read his church's policy from the D&C,
and then he did so. Anyone can read the "Article on Marriage" from the 1835
D&C (of which Taylor was referring) to see that my quotation of Taylor is
accurate and reflected current LDS doctrine and policy.

>>As is plain to any rational observer, Taylor CATEGORICALLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY
declared that his church believed in having only one living husband or wife;
and he made that statement specifically BECAUSE of rumors of "the CRIME of
fornication and POLYGAMY." YOU assert that Taylor's denial "was not about
polygamy, per se," when Taylor in fact denied
the practice of polygamy BY USING THAT VERY TERM.

>And just before that, in the part you so conveniently snipped, he
speaks of not only polygamy but also other evils: pools of wives that
could be checked out for the night like a library book, seraglios,
promiscuous intercourse, in short - evils so despicable and depraved
that he couldn't even enumerate them.

And exactly how does that negate his denial of the "crime of fornication and
polygamy?" In your twisted mind, was it "okay" for Taylor to categorically
deny polygamy, and assert that his church taught practiced monogamy only, just
because Bennett, Caswall, or anyone else, made other accusations as well?

>So he contented himself with reading Sec. CI from the Book of Commandments -
official Church doctrine at the time.

And here, dear readers, we have a further demonstration of Guy Briggs'
irrationality: He admits that Taylor correctly quoted the "Article on
Marriage", which specifically prohibited polygamy, and allowed for only one
living wife at a time---while also knowing full well that Taylor was a
polygamist at the time!
Guy, a couple of weeks ago, you stated that "it's only a lie if the person
making the statement knows it's a lie at the time." Since you know that Taylor
was a polygamist in 1850, and he stated in 1850 that his church believed in
having only one living wife at a time, you concede that Taylor was lying.

>>> It was the lies written in Bennett's book.

>> No, it WAS NOT, Guy.

> What is this, proof by assertion?

No, Guy. It's proof by documentation. If you believe that Taylor's statement
did not constitute deceit, then you will have to show us from his statement
where he admitted to any marriage systems other than monogamy.

>>Smith had successfully discredited Bennett (in the eyes of the public) in
1842, eight years before Taylor's remark, by categorically denying polygamy and
blaming the entire practice on Bennett.

>That was half a world away. This was in France, Randy, and Taylor's
interlocutors were repeating the charges in Bennett's book.

It DOESN'T MATTER what "Taylor's interlutors were repeating." Taylor denied
that his church taught or practiced any marriage systems other than monogamy.
If Taylor had been anywhere close to honest, he should have responded with
something like: "Gentlemen, a very bad man named John C. Bennett unfortunately
joined our church in America. Our founding prophet, Joseph Smith, had received
a revelation from God commanding him to practice the ancient order of plural
marriage. Mr. Bennett twisted this commandment to his own ends, taking
advantage of women and having improper relations with them, telling them that
Joseph had approved it. Mr. Bennett's practice was not the proper form of
plural marriage that the prophet Joseph had taught, and Mr. Bennett was cut off
from the church for his actions. The true, revealed practice of plural
marriage has not been given to the whole church as yet. At this time, only a
few are practicing it, and I am one of those."

But Taylor didn't say anything like that. He gave no hint of approval of
polygamy, in any form, by any term. He categorically denied that his church
taught or practiced anything other than monogamy. What Bennett, Caswall, or
anyone else wrote did not influence Taylor's categorical denial of polygamy in
any form, by any term. You are merely using Bennett and Caswall as strawmen to
justify Taylor's lies.

>> When William Law had Smith indicted on charges of "adultery and polygamy" in
May of 1844, Smith AGAIN denied practicing polygamy, even using that denial to
justify destroying Law & Co.'s "Expositor" press.

>Back to Smith again. How predictable!

As Smith was the instigator of polygamy, he was also the instigator of
the culture of lies and deceit concerning it. Law & Co. weren't "influenced"
by Bennett's or Caswall's writings; they saw and heard Smith's lies first-hand.
I repeat Smith's denials to show you that Taylor's lies were merely part of a
pattern of deceit that continued until 1852.

>> "Most of the stories against the Mormons have been propagated by apostates
and traitors, (who have been generally cut off from the church for their
crimes.)

>Y'know, Randy, that seems like a pretty reasonable statement, at
least on the face of it. I doubt that apostates and traitors would be
publishing faith-promoting stuff.

This statement of Pratt's was referring to Sidney Rigdon, as shown below.
Rigdon wasn't "cut off from the church for crimes"; rather, he was cut off
because he refused to support Brigham Young. Rigdon was privy to the details
of polygamy ever since Smith's attempt on his daughter Nancy in 1842; Pratt's
and Taylor's attack on him was designed as a pre-emptive strike in case Rigdon
exposed all the Mormon "secrets."

>> They publish their lies, ...

> I hate to be the one to tell you this, Randy, but not all of the stuff
written by apostates and traitors is true. It has been my experience that
non-Mormons don't generally get it right even when they're really trying.
Sadly and all too often, they're not really trying to get it right.

I have no problem admitting that some "apostates and traitors" from Mormonism
haven't told the truth 100% of the time. But what we're discussing here is the
lies of Mormon leaders like John Taylor. The problem is that YOU are not
willing to admit to yourself that Mormon leaders lied, because you know that if
you do, that you'll be forced to admit that their "moral authority" is no
greater than that of the "apostates and traitors." That is why you put your
brain into "denial mode" when discussing Mormon leaders' lies.

>> ... and straightway they are believed, and hawked about as awful
disclosures, and received by community with trembling and holy horror.

>Doesn't that make sense? There's a hated minority in the area and somebody
comes out with a "tell all" book about them - and who should
know better than one who has been part of the hated minority? The problem, of
course, is that the bitter, old, ex-Mormon now has carte blance to tell any
lurid tale he feels like telling, because it will automatically be believed.

The "little problem" with this statement is that when people wrote the
"tell-all" books, Mormon leaders categorically denied polygamy in any form, by
any term; therefore, the moral authority of Mormon leaders is no greater than
that of the "tell-all book" authors. If Mormon leaders had been honest and
forthcoming from the outset, the "tell-all books" would have no effect. Honest
people don't need to worry about "tell-all" books.

>Case in point: How many times did Rich regale us with tales of the "Chambered
Sisters of Charity" before I was able to get him to read the
footnote in Brodie's book that said they were most likely a figment of
Bennett's fertile imagination?

Speaking of Mormons lying, I've corrected you on this misquoting of Brodie
before. Brodie wrote nothing of the sort. For those who don't have Brodie's
book, she opined: "It is impossible to judge the accuracy of Bennett's stories
except where they are supported by more reliable data. There is no other
reference to Cyprian Saints, Chambered Sisters of Charity, or Cloistered Saints
in any available document. YET THE CLOISTERED SAINTS ROUGHLY CORRESPONDED TO
THE SYSTEM OF PLURAL WIVES JOSEPH HAD SET UP. Whether the others were
Bennett's own secret ramifications of the plural-wife system or whether he made
them up out of whole cloth to make his expose' as lurid as possible CANNOT BE
ASCERTAINED." (p. 315.)

Brodie did not write anything akin to "a figmentation of Bennett's
imagination." She wrote "cannot be ascertained," meaing there is no
independent corroboration to support it (sorta like Joseph Smith's "First
Vision," Guy.)

>We /still/ have to deny Bennett's stuff!

As I've repeated to your dull mind several times, like a first-grade teacher
would have to, Bennett was Smith's most intimate aide for 14 months, during the
period when many of the apostles were off on missions (while Smith was seducing
their wives), and Smith was setting up his polygamous system along with his
Masonic-inspired "endowment." Bennett was a Master Mason, and was intimately
acquainted enough with the organizations of "secret societies" that his
suggestions could have been of help to Smith. After Bennett and Smith split
over Nancy Rigdon, and Bennett elected to write his expose', it didn't make
sense for him to invent fake titles for Smith's categories of "plural wives";
Bennett had enough on Smith with polygamy alone. Therefore, it's likely that
the categories Bennett described were his and Smith's early terms for their
intended system. When Bennett's letters and subsequent book were published,
Smith denied polygamy in any form, by any terms. If Smith had been honest, he
would have countered Bennett's writings with "That isn't the correct system of
plural marriage at all! HERE is the CORRECT system" yada yada yada. To the
contrary, Smith categorically denied any marriage systems other than monogamy,
and he ALSO used the "Article on Marriage" to support his lie.
After Bennett published his writings, Smith couldn't very well go on using the
same terminology that he and Bennett had dreamed up together, because everyone
he shared the terms with would know that Bennett was telling the truth. So
Smith likely dumped the terms, and their intricate categories, in favor of his
"Anointed Quorum."

Bottom line---whatever alleged "distortions" Bennett wrote are moot in light of
Smith's categorical denials of any form of polygamy.

>>.. Sidney Rigdon, I see by the papers, has made an exposition of Mormonism,
charging Joseph Smith and the Mormons with polygamy, &c. It does not require a
very sagacious mind to fathom Mr. Rigdon's motive for doing." (Times and
Seasons, vol. 6, p. 894 (May 1, 1845.)

>>Note that this article states "charging Joseph Smith and the Mormons with
POLYGAMY."

>Erm, it reads "polygamy, etc." does it not?

That's right, Einstein. "Polygamy" is what Pratt and Taylor were secretly
practicing, and "polygamy" is what was specifically forbidden by the D&C, and
"polygamy" is what Taylor denied in 1850.

>> As Rigdon was well aware that it was Smith, not Bennett, who had started
polygamy, Pratt's and Taylor's implication that Rigdon was the victim of "lies"
by Bennett was meritless. As Rigdon himself wrote in his "Messenger and
Advocate" in 1845:

>> "This system was introduced by the Smiths sometime before their death, and
was the thing which put them in the power of their enemies, and was the
immediate cause of their death."

>And all this time I thought it was the destruction of the
_Expositor_ press and the calling up of the Nauvoo Legion!

That's right, Sherlock, and all of that was brought about by William Law's
filing charges of adultery and polygamy against Smith, which Smith denied on
May 25, and Smith ordered the 'Expositor' press destroyed on June 7, which led
to his death.
But your attempt to deflect the point of Rigdon's statement being duly noted,
I'll bring us back to the subject: Pratt's and Taylor's attack on Rigdon was
another example of Mormon leaders lying about polygamy. Since Rigdon was fully
aware that it was Smith, not Bennett, who began polygamy, your argument that
Mormon leaders' denials of polygamy were the product of Bennett's or Law &
Co's. "distortions" is without merit. Pratt and Taylor were merely repeating
the same line of deceit and character assassination on Rigdon that Smith & Co.
had used on Bennett, Nancy Rigdon, Sarah Pratt, etc., years earlier. In light
of that, Mormon leaders' moral authority is no greater than that of the
"apostates" and "traitors" that brainwashees like you use as strawmen to
deflect attention away from Mormon leaders' lies.

Randy J.

randyj
The facts about Joseph Smith, John Bennett, and Nancy Rigdon...
Guy Briggs quoted B. H. Roberts' attempt to spin-doctor the issue:

>> "The doctrine of plural marriage both by those who
>> without authorization and, prematurely, undertook to
>> teach it, and those who bitterly denounced it, was
>> not properly apprehended either by such advocates or
>> such denunciators. Plural marriage as taught by the
>> Prophet was not the 'polygamy' of the orient, with
>> its attendant despotism and harems; nor the 'bigamy'
>> of western civilization, banned by the law of all the
>> western nations, including our own, and in which the
>> element of deception was always present by keeping
>> the fact of the first and perhaps other marriages
>> secret, thus betraying its victims to unsuspected
>> disgrace and humiliation. And hence, because these
>> overzealous advocates, and ill informed denunciators
>> never truly represented the doctrine of the revelation
>> on marriage, the denial of their misstatements of the
>> doctrine and its practice was not regarded by the
>> leading elders of the church as a denial of the
>> doctrine of the revelation given to the Prophet;

Randy wrote:

>>Here we can plainly see Roberts' spin-doctoring: Taylor's 1850 (and 1844)
denials were not a "denial of misstatements of the doctrine and its practice";

Guy Briggs wrote:

>Au contraire, messy ami. The French had read Bennett's book, based
some of the debate on it, and Taylor was denying the lies Bennett had
published.

Guy, for you to "make your case," you're going to have to show from Taylor's
remarks where he admitted to an "approved" or "proper" form of polygamy. He
denied polygamy in toto, not just the "lies Bennett had published." And since
he was at that time a polygamist, his denial was a lie.

>> ... rather, Taylor's remarks SPECIFICALLY, UNEQUIVOCALLY, AND
UNCATEGORICALLY denied ANY AND ALL FORMS OF MARRIAGE other than "one wife or
one husband." NOWHERE in Taylor's remarks did he infer that he, or the church
he represented, taught or practiced a "correct" version of polygamy that had
been "misstated" by "ill-informed denunciators", to use
Roberts' term.

>Taylor couldn't even bring himself to repeat some of Bennett's lies, instead
referring to them as "actions the most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting,
such that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived." He
called them "too outrageous to admit of belief."

As usual, you are in intellectual denial of the rest of what Taylor actually
said. One more time, caps mine for emphasis:

"As to the charge of POLYGAMY, I will quote from the Book of Doctrine and
Covenants, which is the subscribed faith of the church AND IS STRICTLY
ENFORCED. Article of Marriage, sec. 91, par. 4, says, 'Inasmuch as this church
of Christ has been reproached with THE CRIME OF FORNICATION AND POLYGAMY, we
declare that we believe that one man should have but one husband except in the
case of death when either is at liberty to marry again.' "

Note that Taylor referred to "the charge of polygamy," which my Webster's
defines as "the state or practice of having more than one spouse at a time."
Polygamy is what the Mormons were being accused of, polygamy is what Taylor was
secretly practicing, and polygamy is what Taylor referred to as a "crime."
NOWHERE in his speech did he state, or even hint, of a "correct" or "approved"
form of polygamous marriage, whether practiced in public or private. His
remark was intended to give the impression that neither he or his church
practiced polygamy in any form, by any term. That is what we sane people call
a "lie."

>>Taylor unequivocally denied "polygamy" by that very name, and he quoted from
the "Article on Marriage," which specifically prohibited polygamy, to support
his lie.

> In essence, he said, "Rather than soil myself by by repeating
Bennett's lies,

Taylor didn't mention "Bennett's lies." He denied "the charge of polygamy" and
"the crime of fornication and polygamy." If you want to contend that Taylor
was only refuting "Bennett's lies," then you will have to show where Taylor
advocated a "correct" or "approved" form of polygamy, to show his audience a
difference between what Bennett wrote and what Taylor and the Mormons were
practicing. If you can't do that, you have no case.

>I'll merely rehearse our official doctrine on the subject."

And that, by default, means that his secret polygamy practice was contrary to
the official doctrine of his church. And seeing as how he was at that time a
polygamist, his referring to the D&C constituted an intent to deceive his
audience into believing that neither he or his church taught or practiced
polygamy. He used his "scriptures" to cover his lie.

More B. H. Roberts:

>>and while this may be considered a refinement in
>> presentation that the world will not allow, it
>> nevertheless represents a distinction that was real
>> to those who were struggling with a difficult
>> proposition, and accounts for the seeming denials
>> referred to in the text above; as also later seeming
>> denials made by John Taylor, in a public discussion
>> with three ministers at Boulogne-sur-mer, France, 1850
>> (Public Discussion in France, included in Orson
>> Pratt's Works, 1851 edition, England. Also Life of
>> John Taylor, ch, xxiv); and by Parley P. Pratt in
>> England, 1845 (Millennial Star, vol. vi, p. 22).

Randy wrote:

>> At least, I hope this fact from Roberts will help you see that Taylor's
denial was in 1850, not 1839, and that Fanny Stenhouse's book, which you refuse
to read because it is in your words "anti-Mormon", was telling the truth.

>Already admitted the mistake, 1839 vs. 1850.

But you still haven't admitted the other supporting point: Stenhouse's book,
including correspondence between her and her Mormon friends, as well as
accounts of church conferences and statements of leaders from America, make it
obvious that Taylor wasn't referring only to "Bennett's lies," but was in fact
merely one instance in a consistent policy to deny polygamy in toto. 1,800
European Mormons didn't apostasize because of "Bennett's lies" of 1842; they
apostasized because of Taylor's and other Mormon leaders' categorical denial of
polygamy since its inception, and their 180 degree turnabout of 1852.

You are dishonestly trying to posit Taylor's denial as being an isolated case
which can be explained away by spin-doctoring and wordsmithing. What you
cannot grasp is that Taylor's denial of polygamy IN TOTO was only one instance
of a consistent policy of denial until 1852.

I still remember reading Dale Broadhurst's account of his Mormon ancestors'
experience with this issue (if I remember the account correctly): Dale wrote
that his ancestors had heard the rumors of the polygamy practice while
traveling to Utah on the plains. They asked a church leader at Council Bluffs
(IIRC, Alpheus Cutler) if the rumors were true; Cutler assured them that they
were not, and they continued on to Utah. When they arrived, they found that
their fellow Mormons were living openly in polygamy, and they turned around and
went back east. Dale's ancestors weren't victims of "Bennett's lies"; they
were victims of church leaders' lies.

More B. H. Roberts:

>>BOTH ELDERS PRATT AND TAYLOR IN THEIR DENIALS WERE
>> REFERRING TO THE CHARGES MADE BY JOHN C. BENNETT AND
>> OTHER APOSTATES. Pratt says, in his denial: 'Beware
>> of seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, as first
>> introduced by John C. Bennett under the name of 'the
>> spiritual wife doctrine.' ... It is but another name
>> for whoredom, wicked and unlawful connection and every
>> kind of confusion, corruption and abomination. ... The
>> spiritual wife doctrine of J. C. Bennett and numerous
>> other apostates, is as foreign from the real
>> principles of the church as the devil is from God, or
>> as sectarianism is from Christianity." (Ibid.)
>> -- Roberts, B.H., _Comprehensive
>> History of the Church_, V.2,
>> Ch.45, p.104

Randy wrote:

>> What the spin-doctor Roberts didn't tell us is that Pratt's letter
mentioning Bennett was in a letter attacking Rigdon; and as I've explained
above, Rigdon knew very well that Smith instigated polygamy, and he was privy
to the details of the Smith/Bennett breakup---it was because of Smith's attempt
on Rigdon's daughter Nancy.

>Alleged attempt. As I see it, Smith was just cleaning up Bennett's mess.

I've tried to "clean up" your confusion on that issue in another post, not that
I hold any delusions that my attempts will "take."

>And you're still putting everything under the general heading of
"polygamy"

"The general heading of polygamy" is exactly what Taylor denied practicing; he
termed it a "crime" and said that its prohibition was "strictly enforced."

>without regard to what Bennett had told Rigdon, what Smith had told Rigdon,
and Rigdon simply assumed.

Rigdon didn't "assume" anything. He was a first-hand eyewitness to Smith's
attempt on his daughter Nancy. Rigdon knew that Smith, not Bennett, was the
instigator of polygamy, therefore Roberts' comments on Pratt's and Taylor's
attack on Rigdon were invalid, and clearly designed to spin-doctor the denials.

>This was a witch's brew of tail of lizard, eye of newt, wing of bat, poisons,
herbs and spices - and you're calling it "soup".
>That makes it very black and white, very cut and dried, when you're
attacking the Church.

If you think that "documenting lies of Mormon leaders" equals "attacking the
church," then I'm guilty as charged.

>Bennett exposed polygamy. The _Expositor_ exposed polygamy. Rigdon already
knew about polygamy. Pratt denied polygamy.
Taylor denied polygamy.

Hmmm, all this time, you've been asserting that all Taylor denied was
"Bennett's lies," but now you're stating that "Taylor denied polygamy." Does
that mean you've conceded the issue?

>But the fact of the matter is that there are a myriad of shades and colours to
anybody who will open their eyes to see.

Lies do indeed come in all shades and colors. The lies of Mormon leaders
regarding polygamy were whoppers, and those lies of 150 years ago still affect
the LDS Church today.

>>Therefore, Pratt's assertion that Rigdon had somehow fallen victim to lies
about polygamy told by Bennett is invalid,

>And you can prove what Bennett had said to Rigdon WRT to polygamy ... how?

I've already covered that in another post. The fact that Rigdon was not the
victim of "Bennett's lies" is made obvious by the details of the confrontation
between Rigdon, Smith, Nancy and George W. Robinson. That occurred in 1842, so
Pratt's and Taylor's 1845 claim that Rigdon was influenced by "doctrines of
devils, as first introduced by John C. Bennett," was a false assertion made for
the sole purpose of discrediting Rigdon; just one example of Mormon leaders'
"lying for the Lord."

>> ... and that makes Roberts' spin-doctoring invalid in turn.

>You can choose to ignore it if you wish. I'm more interested in the truth.
The whole truth. Nothing but the truth.

After reading your drivel for four years, it's obvious that you can't
handle the truth.

>> What you need to realize is that people like Roberts are apologists first,
and historians second.

>Translation: All Mormons are liars.

Not all; just the ones who have been shown the facts but continue to maintain
the fiction.

>> His "History of the Church" was written not for the sake of accurate
documentation of facts, but for the purpose of making Mormonism and its leaders
look as good as possible. His editorial comments on historical events such as
you have posted here clearly shows that.

>What it proves it it's a more complex issue than you want us to
believe.

Not at all. A lie is a lie is a lie.

>Keep everybody ignorant of the facts and you can attack the Church with a
blanket statement about polygamy.

Taylor's statement was a blanket denial of "the CRIME of polygamy." He did not
qualify his denial with an exposition of any form of "correct" polygamy, and
his failure to do so constituted an intent to deceive. And them's the facts.

>Nobody has to do any thinking that way.

It is Mormons who are told that the thinking has already been done for them. I
certainly hope you have someone to do yours for you.

>>>> John Taylor lied. No ifs ands or buts.

>>>John Taylor denied the lies printed by Bennett. If there was a little less
snippage going on around here, that would have been plain.

>> It's obvious that Taylor didn't "deny the lies printed by Bennett," for
reasons I've explained in detail above.

>You be sellin' pretty hard. I still ain't buying.

That's because you long ago lost the ability to discern truth from lies.
That's what mind-controlling cults do to peoples' brains.

Randy J.

randyj
More facts about Joseph Smith, John Bennett, and Nancy Rigdon...
Randy wrote:

>>The main reason for Bennett's split from Smith is that they both wanted
19-year-old Nancy Rigdon as a "plural wife." Nancy spilled the beans of
Smith's proposition to her father Sidney, who confronted Smith with it.

Guy Briggs wrote:

>Randy, if you can I'd like you to set aside the emotion,

Who's emotional? I'm discussing facts of history.

>all of your loathing of anything LdS, and put on your logical cap. Can you do
that?

Yes, I can, and I do so with every post. My above remark to which you are
responding is exactly what happened, as is clear from numerous contemporary
historical sources. You are mistaking your lack of education for a lack of
logic on my part.

>In your long harangue

"Long harangue" a.k.a. "posting of documented facts from respected, scholarly
sources?"

>of 22-Dec-01, this thread, (citing Compton, I think - it wasn't clear) you
wrote:

>"Their opposition became public when Hyrum Smith read the revelation on
polygamy, presently LDS Doctrine and Covenants 132, to the Nauvoo High Council
on August 12. Three of the leading brethren opposed it: William Marks, Austin
Cowles, and Leonard Soby. Considering the secrecy of polygamy, it is
remarkable that Hyrum would announce it even to the high council. It is also
remarkable that Marks, Cowles, and Soby would openly reject it. This was a
watershed moment in Latter-Day Saint history."

>This "watershed moment" was sometime /after/ the Nancy Rigdon business, was it
not?

Yes, a little over a year later, during which time Smith continued to deny
practicing polygamy.

>If the announcement of plural marriage to the Nauvoo High Council was such a
shocker in August 1843 ... if prior to that time it was kept from all but the
most loyal and trustworthy ... why, oh why, was Smith talking about plural
marriage to the fiery Nancy
Rigdon, knowing that he would almost surely have to talk to Sidney Rigdon about
it as well?

Because Joseph Smith didn't always think with his brain; late in life, he
thought primarily with his penis. At the height of his power and his "secret
wife" practice, his success in persuading a number of women into becoming his
"spiritual wives" made him overconfident and careless. He began to use the
"shotgun" method of proposing to just about any woman who captured his fancy.
He and his polygamous minions employed a system of loyalty to each other,
whereby any woman who rejected Smith's advances, or any man who opposed
polygamy, would have their reputations slandered publicly. As Smith was both
the president of the church and the mayor, and he controlled the press, he and
his supporters believed that they could successfully spin all exposes' of their
secret polygamy practice onto their accusers. But Smith's defenses failed him
with Nancy Rigdon. He made the mistake of writing her a "doctrinal letter", as
an attempt to talk her into polygamy. The indignant Nancy showed the letter
to Sidney. When Smith attempted to deny that he had written the letter, Rigdon
brought it out, and Smith was forced to admit that he was the author, but then
he tried to cover himself with his oft-used excuse that he was only "testing
Nancy's virtue." Although deeply troubled by Smith's attempt on Nancy, the
Rigdons chose not to publicize the incident, for the sake of preventing a
public scandal, and also because Rigdon may have feared that if he exposed
Smith's secrets, that Smith would expose Rigdon's, which might bring down both
men and the church along with them.

Smith had no intention of talking to Rigdon about polygamy, as he knew Rigdon
wouldn't have gone along with it. As William Law recounted, Smith disclosed
polygamy only to those whom he believed or hoped would accept it, or at least
wouldn't spill the beans about it.

>Y'see, Randy, despite all the antiMormon spin-doctoring about how Smith and
Bennett /both/ wanted sex with Nancy,

The evidence suggests that Bennett was actually interested in marrying Nancy,
but he couldn't because he was still legally married to his estranged wife in
Indiana. Bennett had known Sidney Rigdon years before in Ohio, where they were
both Campbellite preachers. Bennett was on pleasant social terms with the
Rigdons in Nauvoo, as evidenced by the fact that when Bennett and Smith split,
Bennett secretly boarded with Sidney's son-in-law, George W. Robinson, while
gathering further information and affidavits concerning polygamy and other
secret Mormon activities to compile his expose'. It was Smith's attempt on
Nancy that helped to shake Sidney's loyalty to Smith, and he eventually took a
"leave of absence" from his church position and moved back to Pittsburgh until
after Smith's death.

>I think the simple truth is that Bennett tried to seduce Nancy, she wanted
nothing to do
with it, and blew the whistle.

Instead of "thinking," perhaps you should just study the actual history on the
subject, so that you wouldn't be so utterly wrong in your opinions.

>Smith was then forced to step in and explain the revelation on plural
marriage, explaining it with the "whatever God commands..." letter.

What you're forgetting, or too stupid to realize, is that Smith *DENIED*
writing that letter:

"BENNETT'S LETTERS.---We have read the fifth and sixth letters of Dr.
Bennett...The sixth letter is what purports to be a copy of a letter from
Joseph Smith to Miss Nancy Rigdon, without date, name, or proof.....we hope the
community are not yet quite so far from a common course of justice and
propriety as to take Bennett's word for the truth.....JOSEPH SMITH IS NOT THE
AUTHOR." (The "Wasp," August 27, 1842.)

The fact that Smith denied authoring the letter refutes your entire line of
'reasoning'. If Smith had not made the attempt on Nancy, he wouldn't have had
to deny writing the letter. The fact that the letter made it into the "History
of the Church" after Smith's death means that Mormon leaders admit that Smith
authored it. And the fact that that letter is one of your favorite examples of
Smith's "inspiration", in light of the circumstances for which it was written,
tells us how completely deluded you are.

>This scenario is much more plausible, IMHO, because it doesn't have the
logical hole of Smith risking confrontation with Sydney Rigdon - at a time when
the principle of plural marriage was not public.

You don't have to envision any "scenarios," nor posit any "logical holes" to
find out what happened. All you have to do is study the actual historical
accounts to learn who said and did what. Rigdon's son-in-law, George W.
Robinson, wrote James Arlington Bennett of NYC the facts of the incident:

"Smith sent for Miss Ridgon to come to the house of Mrs. Hyde, who lived in the
under rooms of the printing-office. Miss Rigdon, inquired of the messenger who
came for her what was wanting, and the only reply was, that Smith wanted to see
her. General Bennett came to Miss Rigdon, and cautioned her, and advised her
not to place too much reliance on REVELATION; but did not enlighten her on the
object of Smith, but advised her to go down to Mrs. Hyde's, and see Smith. She
accordingly went, and Smith took her into another room, and LOCKED THE DOOR,
and then stated to her that he had had an affection for her for several years,
and wished that she should be his; that the Lord was well pleased with this
matter, for he had got a REVELATION on the subject, and God had given him all
the blessings of Jacob, &c. &c., and that there was no sin in it whatever; but,
if she had any scruples of conscience about the matter, he would marry her
PRIVATELY, and enjoined her to secrecy, &c. &c. She repulsed him, and was about
to raise the neighbors if he did not unlock the door and let her out; and she
left him with disgust, and came home and told her father of the transaction;
upon which Smith was sent for. He came. She told the tale in the presence of
all the family, and to Smith's face. I was present. Smith attempted to deny it
at first, and face her down with the lie; but she told the facts with so much
earnestness, and THE FACT OF A LETTER BEING PRESENT, WHICH HE HAD CAUSED TO BE
WRITTEN TO HER, ON THE SAME SUBJECT, the day after the attempt made on her
virtue, breathing the same spirit, and which he had fondly hoped was DESTROYED,
-- all came with such force that he would not withstand the testimony; and he
then and there acknowledge that every word of Miss Rigdon's testimony was true.
Now for his excuse, which he made for such a base attempt, and for using the
name of the Lord in vain, on that occasion. HE WISHED TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER SHE
WAS VIRTUOUS OR NOT, AND TOOK THAT COURSE TO LEARN THE FACTS!!! I would say,
sir, that I have reason to believe General Bennett's story in his disclosures
of Smith's rascality; although I am not a witness to ALL of the facts, yet I am
to SOME. I liked to have forgotten to state that the affair with Miss Rigdon
was the CAUSE of Smith's coming out so on Bennett, he having suspicions that
BENNETT HAD CAUTIONED HER ON THE MATTER -- and he was further afraid that
Bennett would make disclosures of OTHER MATTERS."

Robinson's account was backed up by Oliver Olney, another Mormon who was
disgusted by Smith's polygamy practice and its inherent deceit:

"LA HARPE, HANCOCK CO., September 10, 1842.
"Editor of the Sangamo Journal:

"Dear Sir, --
"I wish to make, through the medium of your paper, a public withdrawal from the
Church of Latter Day Saints, as I cannot longer consent to remain a member of
said Church while polygamy, lasciviousness, and adultery, are practised [sic]
by some of its leaders. That crimes of the deepest dye are tolerated and
practised [sic] by them, cannot be doubted.
"I have heard the circimstances of Smith's attack upon Miss Rigdon, from the
family as well as herself; and knowing her to be a young lady who sustains a
good moral character, and also of undoubted veracity, I must place implicit
confidence in her statement, the foul insinuations of that miserable little
insect, 'The Wasp,' to the contrary notwithstanding.
"And having a personal knowledge of Smith's lying at different times in the
name of the Lord, I cannot for a moment doubt but he did so in the case above
alluded to.....
"I know that Miss Rigdon has been greatly mortified by being obtruded before
the public; nevertheless, it was unavoidable on her part, and if Smith succeeds
in extricating himself from the awful dilemma in which he has placed himself,
by obtaining her certificate to the contrary, then I am much mistaken in the
character of Miss Rigdon. It is true that Mr. Ridgon has endeavored to allay
the excitement upon this subject, and has evaded a direct answer to the public,
as far as he could consistently with truth; but the part which is true he has
left untouched. The fact of Smith's wishing to marry Miss Rigdon as a spiritual
wife, of his attack upon her virtue, his teachings about his having the
blessings of Jacob, &c. &c., as stated in General Bennett's letters, ARE TRUE;
and if I am called upon to prove it, I SHALL DO IT, to the satisfaction of the
public, and to the chagrin and mortification of Smith and others. The letter
published purporting to be from Smith to Miss Rigdon, was not in Smith's
hand-writing, but in the hand-writing of Dr. Willard Richards, who officiated
not only as scribe, but post boy, for the Prophet, and WHO DID say that he
wrote the letter as dictated by Joseph Smith, and said Joseph Smith did say, on
a certain occasion, that he did direct said Richards to write a letter to Miss
Nancy Rigdon; and I now say I stand ready to prove these allegations by as
respectable WITNESSES as can be produced in Hancock county....."

LDS historian Richard van Wagoner adds that Nancy's brother John W. Rigdon also
testified to the facts of the incident:

"Nancy's brother John, recounting the incident years later in an affidavit,
remembered that 'Nancy refused him, saying if she ever got married she would
marry a single man or none at all, and took her bonnet and went home, leaving
Joseph.' Nancy withheld details of the situation from her family until a day
or two later, when a letter from Smith was delivered by Smith's personal
secretary, Willard Richards. 'Happiness is the object and design of our
existence,' the letter began. 'That which is wrong under one circumstance, may
be, and often is, right under another.' The letter went on to teach that
'whatever God commands is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see
the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.....'
"Nancy showed Smith's letter to her father and told him of the incident at the
Hyde residence. Rigdon demanded an audience with Smith. George W. Robinson
reported that when Smith came to Rigdon's home, the enraged father asked for an
explanation.....[After which the confrontation of which Robinson wrote, quoted
above, ensued.] "Much later, John Rigdon elaborated that 'Nancy was one of
those excitable women and she went into the room and said Joseph Smith you are
telling that which is not true you did make such a proposition to me and you
know it.'
"Robinson wrote that Smith, after acknowledging the incident, claimed he had
propositioned Nancy because he 'wished to ascertain whether she was virtuous or
not, and took that course to learn the facts!' But the Rigdon family would not
accept such an explanation. They were persuaded that the rumors about the
prophet's polygamy doctrine had been confirmed. The issue continued to be a
serious source of contention between the two church leaders until Smith's death
in 1844. According to John Rigdon, Sidney told the family that Smith 'could
never be sealed to one of his daughters with his consent as he did not believe
in the doctrine.' Rigdon preferred to keep his difficulties with Smith
private, but Bennett's detailed disclosures made this impossible.
"A Mormon newspaper, 'The Wasp,' printed on July 20 a number of sworn
statements by prominent Nauvoo citizens affirming Joseph Smith's 'high moral
character' and declaring him not guilty of any of Bennett's published
accusations. Orson Pratt would not sign the letter, nor would Sidney Rigdon or
George W. Robinson."
("Mormon Polygamy: A History," pp. 32-33.)

(Pratt refused to sign the letter attesting to Smith's 'high moral character'
because he was still stinging from Smith's attempt on his wife Sarah.)

Smith and his polygamous goons then began a smear campaign against his
opponents. Both Sarah Pratt and Nancy Rigdon were accused of having intimate
relations with John C. Bennett (a favorite character assassination technique of
Smith was to link two or more of his accusers together in a common 'sin.').

"Sidney Rigdon in the 18 June 1845 'Messenger and Advocate' reported that
Parley P. Pratt, in speaking of the means by which church leaders should
sustain Smith, advised that 'we must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our
duty to do so.' Not only were church leaders willing to violate the law to
promote polygamy, they did not hesitate to blacken the character of individuals
who threatened to expose the secret practice of plural marriage.....
"The 27 August 1842 'Wasp,' for example, branded Martha H. Brotherton a 'mean
harlot,' and Nancy Rigdon suffered the same treatment after she opposed Smith's
polygamous proposals. Stephen Markham, a close friend of Smith,
certified.....that he saw Nancy Rigdon in a compromising situation with
Bennett....George W. Robinson, on Nancy's behalf, countered with a sworn
statement on 3 September 1842 that Markham was lying.....Sidney Rigdon also
swore out a refutation and employed an attorney to sue Markham.....
"After Joseph Smith's death in 1844, Orson Hyde attempted to further blacken
Nancy Rigdon's character in order to tarnish her father's claim to church
leadership. Her conduct was 'notorious in this city,' Hyde charged; she was
'regarded generally, little, if any better, than a public prostitute.' "
(ibid., pp. 38-39.)

The affidavits of Robinson, Olney, and Sidney Rigdon can be read in full at
Dale Broadhurst's website at
http://www.lavazone2.com/dbroadhu/IL/sang1842.htm#0923.

>>At that time, polygamy, and indeed any and all forms of non-monogamous
marriage systems, were categorically denied, because of the impact of Bennett's
1842 book.

>They were being categorically denied long before that.

That's true, but in this particular post, we are discussing the
Smith/Bennett/Rigdon breakup. But since the overall subject is Mormon leaders'
denials of polygamy, your above statement is your concession that Mormon
leaders lied about polygamy, so you've lost your case.

>>After Smith's death, other Mormon polygamous leaders invented the idea that
there were two separate systems---Smith's "approved" and "revealed" one, and
Bennett's supposedly "unapproved" or "renegade" one, in order to distance Smith
and the church from Bennett.

>This is John C. Bennett we're talking about, isn't it?

No, we are talking about "other Mormon polygamous leaders" who "invented the
idea that there were two separate systems" in an attempt to draw a distinction
between Smith and Bennett. Until 1852, Mormon leaders CATEGORICALLY DENIED ANY
AND ALL FORMS OF NON-MONOGAMOUS MARRIAGE, and blamed reports of polygamy on
"apostates" such as Bennett, Law & Co., etc.:

"We know of NO OTHER RULE OR SYSTEM OF MARRIAGE OTHER THAN THE ONE PUBLISHED
FROM THE BOOK OF DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS, and we give this certificate to show
that Dr. J. C. Bennett's secret wife system is a creature of his own make as we
know of NO SUCH SOCIETY in this place nor never did."
(Times and Seasons, vol. lll, October 21, 1842.)

But *AFTER* they reversed course, and admitted polygamy in 1852, it was
necessary to counter Bennett's (and Law & Co.'s) exposes' by asserting that
Smith practiced a "right" system and Bennett practiced a "wrong" one.

>The guy that Brodie called an unreliable witness to say the least"? The one,
of whom she wrote:

>"Had John C. Bennett been editor of the _Nauvoo Expositor_, it would have been
a lurid sheet."

Guy, you're a hoot. You're quoting Brodie (whom you've categorically
discredited) to compare Bennett (whom you've also categorically discredited) to
the 'Expositor' (which you've also categorically discredited.)

Rather than relying on Brodie (although only when you think she wrote something
you like), why don't you just study the actual accounts of WHO said and did
WHAT? I can quote favorable opinions regarding Bennett from such Mormons as
Todd Compton and Reed Durham. We can sit here and quote everybody's opinion of
everybody else on the planet, if that's what floats your boat. But rather than
wasting time quoting people's opinions, we could instead simply acknowledge
that Mormon leaders' admission of polygamy in 1852, after lying about it for
years, makes your criticism of Bennett moot.

>The very one of whom the _Quincy Whig_ wrote, "We can hardly put reliance on
the statements of Bennett, they disclose so much wickedness."

And why did the 'Whig' editors believe that? Because they believed Smith's
Nauvoo propaganda machine that categorically denied polygamy. Local
non-Mormons simply refused to believe that an allegedly "Christian" sect could
be as depraved as Bennett laid out. But the later admission of polygamy, as
well as the details of Smith's sexual relationships, after having denied it for
years, makes the criticism of Bennett moot. Bennett is nothing more than a
strawman which you throw up to deflect attention away from the lies of
polygamous Mormon leaders.

>The one who the _New York Herald_ called "obscene and licentious in the
highest degree"?

Same response as above.

>The one who the _Illinois State Register_ called "obscene, immoral and vulgar"
and went so far as to accuse Joseph Duncan, a Whig politician, of printing
thousands of copies at his own expense and cried shame upon such "panderers of
licentiousness and moral depravity".

Same response as above.

>That Bennett?

Yep, that Bennett. Since you've conceded that Mormon leaders "categorically
denied" polygamy even before Bennett came to town, your remarks concerning his
credibility are moot.

>>And that is why Mormons like Guy Briggs believe and write what they do. They
are simply the victims of deceitful spin-doctoring by Mormon leaders and
apologists;

>Fawn Brodie, the _Quincy Whig_, the _New York Herald_, and the
_Illinois State Register_ are Mormon spin doctors?

No, but they, like you, believed the Mormon propaganda machine, instead of the
facts.

>>So although Bennett's book predated Taylor's categorical denial of polygamy
by eight years,

>You're going to have to settle on a date, Randy. Taylor's statement was either
1839 or 1850. It can't be both. It can't be 1850 when you're trying to prove
Taylor a liar (he was practicing plural marriage by then) and 1839 when you're
trying to prove that Bennett's book had no influence on Taylor.

>bestRegards, Guy.

*I* have never stated that Taylor's denial was in 1839. I have
posted his 1850 denial in a series of quotes many times over the last couple of
years on ARM. I have never NOT known that Taylor's denial was in 1850. It was
YOU who mistakenly wrote that Taylor's denial was in 1839, based on your
misreading of Xan's citation---a mistake you could have avoided if you had read
the BYU bio of Taylor, or if you had paid even passing attention to the
voluminous quotations I provided from Fanny Stenhouse.

*I* have never stated that "Bennett's book had no influence on Taylor." OF
COURSE Bennett's book had influence on Taylor, Smith, and every other
polygamous Mormon. Bennett's book, and related incidents detailed above, were
the main catalysts that bade polygamous Mormons to develop and perfect their
culture of deceit and character asassinations regarding to protect their
illicit, secret practice. But Bennett's writings cannot be used to excuse
Mormon leaders' categorical denials of polygamy in any form, by any term, until
1852.

"The law of the land and the rules of the church do not allow one man to have
more than one wife alive at once." (Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 715,
November 15, 1844.)

Wanna guess who was the editor of the "Times and Seasons" in November 1844,
Guy?

Randy J.

randyj
John Taylor's lies: the final chapter...
Guy Briggs had repeatedly asserted that we evil anti-Mormons were snipping portions out of John Taylor's remarks to make falsely make it appear that Taylor lied about practicing polygamy. In this post, I refute those assertions and point out eight specific lies of Taylor.

Randy wrote:

>>>>Taylor's 1850 (and 1844) denials were not a "denial of misstatements of the
doctrine and its practice";

Guy Briggs wrote:

>>>Au contraire, messy ami. The French had read Bennett's book, based some of
the debate on it, and Taylor was denying the lies Bennett had published.

>>Guy, for you to "make your case," you're going to have to show from Taylor's
remarks where he admitted to an "approved" or "proper" form of polygamy. He
denied polygamy in toto, not just the "lies Bennett had published." And since
he was at that time a polygamist, his denial was a lie.

Guy wrote:

> I took delivery of a parcel from Utah Lighthouse Ministry yesterday
afternoon.

This statement does not address or refute my remarks just above it in the
least. Your failure to address them further illustrates your intellectual
dishonesty.

>As I now have the document in question - the complete pamphlet, not just
snippets of it - I can better answer you. This was the account of a public
debate with 3 protestant ministers on the prosecution, Taylor on the defense:

>"I again arise with pleasure, but am somewhat
surprised to hear the remarks made by Mr. Robertson.
He states that he cannot prove a negative, and that
he is not bound to prove Joseph Smith was a bad man.
I understand that he challenged me - that in that
challenge he represents Joseph as a daring impostor.
I know nothing of Mr. Smith that is not good; he
ought to prove his assertions or not make them. I am
not the challenger; I am on the defence. Am I to be
brought here to answer charges, and then become my
own accuser? Let them bring forth evidence and I am
prepared to rebut it."

>IOW, the format of the debate was answering the charges of the accusers -
that's exactly what Taylor did.

Wrong. If Taylor had merely stated something like "Bennett's and Caswall's
writings are a pack of lies," and ended his remarks there, he could have left
himself "wriggle room" for you to assert that he didn't lie. But when Taylor
went beyond referring to Bennett or Caswall, and he specifically denied
teaching or practicing any form of non-monagomous marriage systems, he clearly
entered the realm of deception.

>>>> ... rather, Taylor's remarks SPECIFICALLY, UNEQUIVOCALLY, AND
UNCATEGORICALLY denied ANY AND ALL FORMS OF MARRIAGE other than "one wife or
one husband." NOWHERE in Taylor's remarks did he infer that he, or the church
he represented, taught or practiced a "correct" version of polygamy that had
been "misstated" by "ill-informed denunciators", to use Roberts' term.

>>>Taylor couldn't even bring himself to repeat some of Bennett's lies, instead
referring to them as "actions themost indelicate, obscene, and disgusting, such
that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived." He called
them "too outrageous to admit of belief."

>>As usual, you are in intellectual denial of the rest of what Taylor actually
said.

>No. I'm trying to show what Taylor actually said, not your editorial of it.

Where is "my editorial" in the following statement of Taylor's?

"All legal contracts of marriage made before a
person is baptised into this church should be held
sacred and fulfiled. Inasmuch as this Church of
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."

Those are Taylor's exact words, as you have quoted from his pamphlet below.
How do Bennett's or Caswall's allegations wipe out this statement of Taylor's,
wherein he characterized polygamy as a "crime," and emphatically declared that
the only form of marriage his church allowed was one husband or one wife?

>And now that I have the pamphlet as printed, you have no more wriggle room.

The only "wriggle room" that needs to be talked about in this thread is inside
of the straitjacket you should be wearing.

>>One more time, caps mine for emphasis:

>>"As to the charge of POLYGAMY, I will quote from the Book of Doctrine and
Covenants, which is the subscribed faith of the church AND IS STRICTLY
ENFORCED. Article of Marriage, sec. 91, par. 4, says, 'Inasmuch as this church
of Christ has been reproached with THE CRIME OF FORNICATION AND POLYGAMY, we
declare that we believe that one man should have but one husband except in the
case of death when either is at liberty to marry again.' "

>Randy, I read the whole pamphlet front to back yesterday afternoon. About 50
pages worth. I'm at a loss to find what you have cited above. Perhaps you
could point me in the right direction? Was it on Day 1, Day 2 or Day 3?

Guy, everybody on this forum (except you, apparently) understands that ellipses
are used to omit portions not directly relevant to the subject at hand, to
avoid having to quote reams and reams of material. You yourself have repeated
the same words of Taylor's below as what I quoted above.

>Until then, here's what Taylor ACTUALLY said. I laughed out loud when I
realized that all I had to do to get to the truth was find the words to replace
the ellipses, and restore the words that the antiMormons had snipped.

Guy, WE KNOW THAT TAYLOR'S REMARKS WERE SNIPPED. Now PLEASE TELL US HOW THOSE
SNIPPED WORDS CANCEL OUT TAYLOR'S BLANKET DENIAL OF POLYGAMY.

>

>"It would seem from the remarks of Mr. Robertson, that
he also attaches a great deal of importance to the
statements of Mr. Caswell and John C. Bennett, of
course, for want of better testimony. I have already
referred to their characters, I have already stated
that I proved Mr. Caswell to have told one lie, and a
man that will tell one falsehood to injure an innocent
people will tell five hundred, if necessary, for the
same object.

Seeing as how Taylor himself told lies in this very speech in which he
criticized Bennett and Caswall, Taylor had no greater moral authority than did
they.

>"I have also spoken of John C. Bennett's character;
perhaps these gentlement suppose that great importance
is to be attached to Mr. Caswell's statement because
he is a reverend gentleman; but reverend gentlemen can
tell falsehoods, when it answers their purpose, as
well as others. I will presently show some of their
proceedings. We have had a terrible account about the
murder of Governor Boggs, I suppose given by Mr.
Caswell. Ex-governor Boggs is now living in
California, at the gold mines. (Laughter.) But I
suppose he must be dead, because a reverend gentleman
said so.

After Boggs was shot, it was assumed that he would die because of the extent of
his injuries. In fact, Porter Rockwell was back in Nauvoo eight days after the
shooting, and upon his return, the Nauvoo papers reported that Boggs had been
"shot and killed." The fact that other parties erroneously reported that
Boggs had died does not wash away the evidence that suggests that Joseph Smith
paid Rockwell to kill Boggs.

>Mr. Robertson has told us of a certain
editor, who was afraid to pollute his paper with
remarks made by some of the gentlemen before referred
to. It certainly would have been more to the credit
of the persons concerned, notwithstanding they had
no regard for the truth, if they had a little more
regard for delicacy; and with all due deference, I
must say, that men of the calling and profession of
my opponents, would have displayed a little more
taste, if they had posessed a little more of that
delicacy of feeling which actuated the editor. We are
accused here of polygamy, and actions the most
indelicate, obscene, and disgusting, such as none but
a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived.

Note Taylor's characterization of polygamy in negative terms, as something to
be "accused of." This shows Taylor's intention to depict polygamy as being
immoral or improper. As Taylor was a polygamist at the time, this is his Lie
No. 1.

>These things are too outrageous to admit belief;
therefore leaving the sisters of the 'White Veil,'
the 'Black Veil,' and all the other veils, with those
gentlemen to dispose of, together with their authors,
as they think best, 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.

Here Taylor covers his church's secret polygamy practice by referring to their
official publication which prohibited it. This is Taylor's Lie No. 2.

>"1. According to the custom of all civilised nations,
marriage is regulated by laws and ceremonies;

The Mormons' "plural marriages" were done in secret, in violation of the law,
so this is Taylor's Lie No. 3.

> therefore we believe that all marriages in this
Church of Jesus Christ, of Latter-day Saints, should
be solemnized in a public meeting, or feast, prepared
for that purpose:

Note Taylor's assertion that "ALL MARRIAGES.....should be solemnized...in
public." As Mormon "plural marriages" were done in secret, often behind locked
doors, and shrouded in deceit, this is Taylor's Lie No. 4.

>and that the solemnization should
be performed by a presiding High Priest, High Priest,
Bishop, Elder, or Priest, not even prohibiting those
persons who are desirous to get married, of being
married by other authority. We believe that it is not
right to prohibit members of this church from
marrying out of the church, if it be their
determination so to do, but such persons will be
considered weak in the faith of our Lord and Savior
Jesus Christ.

> "2. Marriage should be celebrated with prayer and
thanksgiving; and at the solemnization, the persons
to be married, standing together, the man on the
right, and the woman on the left, shall be addressed,
by the person officiating, as he shall be directed by
the Holy Spirit; and if there be no legal objections,
he shall say, calling each by their names: 'You both
mutually agree to be each other's companion, husband
and wife, observing the legal rights belonging to
this condition; that is, keeping yourselves wholly
for each other, and from all others, during your
lives.'

As the Mormons' secret polygamous system included having sex with persons other
than one's legal "companion", this is Taylor's Lie No. 5.

>And when they have answered 'Yes,' he shall
pronounce them 'husband and wife' in the name of the
Lord Jesus Christ, and by virtue of the laws of the
country and authority vested in him: 'may God add his
blessings keep you to fulfill your covenants from
henceforth and forever. Amen.'

>"3. The clerk of every church should keep a record of
all marriages, solemnized in his branch.

Since Mormon "plural marriages" were done in secret, and records of them kept
in secret, this is Taylor's Lie No. 6.

>"4. All legal contracts of marriage made before a
person is baptised into this church should be held
sacred and fulfiled.

As Mormon "plural marriages" violated the law, and Joseph Smith and other
Mormon leaders made a mockery of legal marriage contracts by "plural marrying"
the wives of other men, this is Taylor's Lie No. 7.

>Inasmuch as this Church of
Christ has been reproached with the crime of
fornication, and polygamy:

Note that Taylor characterizes polygamy as a "crime", along with fornication.

>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.

As Taylor obviously knew the Mormons had a secret marriage system which allowed
more than one wife, this is Taylor's Lie No. 8.

>It is not right
to persuade a woman to be baptised contrary to the
will of her husband, neither is it lawful to
influence them to embrace any religious faith, or be
baptised, or leave their parents without their
consent, is unlawful and unjust. We believe that
husbands, parents and masters who exercise control
over their wives, children, and servants and prevent
them from embracing the truth, will have to answer
for that sin."

This portion you quoted is irrelevant. That's why people use ellipses, Guy.
But you have our thanks for posting Taylor's complete remarks; they show just
how offensive and blatant a liar he truly was.

>>Note that Taylor referred to "the charge of polygamy,"

>Note that when restored to its original form, Taylor referred to specific of
Bennett's allegations: Saints of the White Veil and Saints of the Green Veil.

Please tell us how that cancels out Taylor's eight lies which I have documented
above.

Since polygamy, in actual practice, was essentially the same thing that Bennett
had alleged---a secret system by which Mormon men could "plural marry", and
have sex with, women to whom they were not legally married---the issue of the
terms Bennett used to describe that practice, in light of Taylor's blanket
denial of polygamy, is nothing more than a red herring.

>> ... which my Webster's defines as "the state or practice of having more than
one spouse at a time." Polygamy is what the Mormons were being accused of,
polygamy is what Taylor was secretly practicing, and polygamy is what Taylor
referred to as a "crime."

>Actually, he referred to "fornication & polygamy" as a crime.

Which they were. If they were not crimes, then William Law could not have
filed charges against Joseph Smith for "adultery and polygamy", Smith would not
have denied being guilty of the charges, and Taylor would not have had to lie
about polygamy in 1850.

>>NOWHERE in his speech did he state, or even hint, of a "correct" or
"approved" form of polygamous marriage, whether practiced in public or private.

>Nor did he have to in order to answer his accusers.

But he *DID* choose to answer his accusers, and in doing so, he told at least
eight lies, which I have pointed out above. His remarks were clearly intended
to give listeners the impression that the Mormons practiced no marriage systems
other than monogamy.

>>His remark was intended to give the impression that neither he or his church
practiced polygamy in any form, by any term.

>His remarks were intended to convey the FACT that there was no such societies
as "Saints of the White Veil," "Saints of the Green Veil," or saints of any
other color of veil. In fact, that's pretty much how the snipped portion reads.

If Taylor had stopped there, you might have a ghost of an argument.
Your lifelong inculcation in Mormonism, along with your deep-seated dishonesty,
prevents you from perceiving Taylor's lies. Whatever Bennett wrote does not
forgive Taylor's blanket denials of any marriage systems other than monogamy.
Again I state that the only way Taylor's remarks could not be viewed as
deceitful is if he had admitted to, and described the "correct" form of his
church's polygamy practice, to counter what he asserted were "Bennett's lies."
His failure to admit to polygamy in any form, by any term, constituted
deception.

>>That is what we sane people call a "lie."

>What do you "sane people" call it when you must snip more than 50% of the
words in order to make it appear that Taylor was speaking "SPECIFICALLY,
UNEQUIVOCALLY, AND UNCATEGORICALLY" of polygamy?

Once again, the snipped portions do not cancel out Taylor's specific,
unequivocal, uncategorical denial of any marriage systems other than monogamy.
Your failure to understand this, while continuing to inject the red herring of
"Bennett's lies," demonstrates your incorrigible intellectual dishonesty. All
you are accomplishing in this thread is showcasing the convoluted reasoning and
mental gymnastics for which Mormon apologists are infamous.

Randy J.

Refresher
Re: RfMer "randyj" Strips the Bark Off a Forked-Tongue TBM on LDS Polygamy Lies
"And, since later Mormon leaders have admitted that early Mormons lied about polygamy, your spin-doctoring for them is moot."

loved it.
They've been caught in a web of lies. Truth is vindicated after all.


Refresher
Re: RfMer "randyj" Strips the Bark Off a Forked-Tongue TBM on LDS Polygamy Lies
"In fact, one of the earliest allegations that Smith was secretly advocating a 'community of wives' came not from'"anti-Mormons,' but from 'Gold Plate witness' and Church historian John Whitmer, in 1838, which Smith denied even then.

"Mormon converts in England had heard the rumors about Nauvoo polygamy, but the apostles like Taylor, who were overseeing the missionary work there, steadfastly reassured them that the rumors were false. Then, in 1852, when the main body of Mormons had settled in Utah, seemingly safe from prosecution, they reversed themselves and publicly admitted polygamy;

"That reversal caused thousands of European Mormons to leave the Church because they were disgusted at having been lied to by Church leaders for years. I recommend you read Fannie Stenhouse's 'Tell It All' to see how LDS Church leaders' lies affected Mormon success in Europe for years."

I heard / read L-d$ talking heads refer to an early mormon event when they say that the current mormon organization has not experienced such high volume of apostacy since early mormon organization.

I didn't know what early mormon event they were talking about.

This must be the early mormon event to which they are referring?

I'm not a swearing person but right now I want to swear!
Those dirty devils know enough about mormon history to make an exact historical comparison. Those dirty devils know the history and hide the truth and details in present day just as they did then.

I've gotta go. The emotional level just hit me. The magnitude of their lies knows no limit, past and present.

the lying dirty uggggh.


generationofvipers
Re: RfMer "randyj" Strips the Bark Off a Forked-Tongue TBM on LDS Polygamy Lies
This is a great resource!

I am saving it to my documents collection for future reference.

Thanks for doing all the heavy lifting!

"Recovery from Mormonism - www.exmormon.org"