tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post4953293470724123753..comments2024-03-13T12:52:19.391-07:00Comments on Pure Mormonism: Why Mormon History Is Not What They SayAlan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comBlogger217125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-19384415607650986862013-12-05T11:09:44.997-08:002013-12-05T11:09:44.997-08:00TuNeCedeMalis Occam's Razor doesn't seem t...TuNeCedeMalis Occam's Razor doesn't seem to apply here to me. To quote Wikipedia, "In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic (general guiding rule or an observation) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models." So I would argue that Occam's razor is NOT intended as a method of deciding which theory is true, but rather a guide for people to help form their own theories.<br><br>There is actual science that can and has been applied to this problem though (indirectly). I know of 5 children speculated to be children of Joseph Smith from polygamous marriages that had DNA test to determine if they were Joseph Smith's children. All 5 were determined to NOT be Joseph Smith's children. I think it's fair to assume that the 5 tested represented some of the most likely polygamous children (that were possible to check), which would suggest that there are few if any likely children of Joseph Smith from polygamous marriages. I think it's fair to say that it is unlikely that Joseph Smith had any children from polygamous marriages. And I think it's fair to say that speculation about Joseph Smith having children with polygamous wives went well beyond the truth.<br><br>In comparison, to Joseph's zero (proven) children from the claimed 27+ polygamous wives, Joseph had 9 children with Emma (5 stillborn, died immediately, or died in childhood, while 4 lived to adulthood).<br><br>Keep in mind this is before birth control (didn't even have the rhythm method). <br><br>So for me, the assumptions I have to accept to to believe the Joseph Smith practiced polygamy seem much harder to swallow than the assumptions I'd have to accept to believe he actually had polygamous wives.<br><br>I think how Joseph Smith becomes a polygamist in the minds of most people is they assume that there's some truth to both sides, or that there's always some truth to allegations. In my experience I haven't found that to be the case. What I've found is people who lie, count on people believing there's some truth to what they're saying, whether or not their story adds up.<br><br>If people were forced to choose between believing Smith married all the wives that are claimed, and had sexual relations with all of them that were claimed, or choosing to believe Smith didn't have plural wives, then I think most of them would say it's more likely he didn't practice plural marriage at all. So I would say that the belief that Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage rests heavily if not solely on the idea that allegations carry SOME truth. There certainly isn't any scientific evidence to support it.<br><br>(For the record, I couldn't care less whether he practiced polygamy or not)bjalder26http://www.blogger.com/profile/10130790542420287596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-13424222965542176652013-10-15T21:24:34.016-07:002013-10-15T21:24:34.016-07:00Greg,All families are eternal, no matter what reli...Greg,<br><br>All families are eternal, no matter what religion they were or no religion at all, and even no matter if they were righteous or wicked. There is no such thing as or need of 'sealings or endowments for that matter. Study Brigham Young more til you come to realize he as one of the worst false prophets who ever lived.<br><br>You are right, we knew each other, especially our family members, and had strong relationships way before we came to earth. We had probably billions of years to create relationships and chose who we want to be with on our very vital short time on earth. For they will be able to help us make it back or we help them make it back. <br><br>I believe we chose who our parents, children & spouse would be on earth and what premortal friends we would want around us during our life too, and God has a way, (because of his great foreknowledge of what we would do down here) of bringing us together with our spouse and friends.<br><br>When Christ taught that there is no such thing as divorce, you really begin to understand who important & eternal marriage and our spouse is. If it's impossible to ever be separated from our spouse, then God must of helped us get with the right person who we fell in love with in our premortal life. For surely, if we chose our parents and children we surely chose the even more important person, our spouse. But we knew our spouse may not be righteous on earth or even want to stay with us, but they will just have to repent and return and make it all up to us in the next life.<br><br>Though family members will always love & care for each other, that does'nt mean they will all end up in the same kingdom. But we can visit each other like we do in this life. Of course children will not live with parents, each couple will have their own place. <br><br>If neither spouse was righteous, then they will still be spouses and live together in love in a lower kingdom. They just won't have the power to continue to create children & worlds. Love never ends, marriage never ends, we will always be the spouse of our spouse. <br><br>If at least 1 spouse is righteous and keeps their marriage vows to the other, instead of finding someone new to live with on earth, the scriptures teach we can save our unrighteous spouse, so they can live with us in the Celestial Kingdom and where we can continue to have children in the eternities. <br><br>True love is the most powerful thing there is, it is the power to save souls.<br><br>We come to earth to learn how to have true love, especially for our spouse, so we can save them and our children if need be, so we can bring them to the Celesial Kingdom with us.<br><br>Unfortunately few even believe in having 'true unconditional Christlike love' in marriage today, let alone possess it.Anon 23noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-36264251658251472802013-10-15T20:11:11.192-07:002013-10-15T20:11:11.192-07:00Greg, How nice to have a man see polygamy logicall...Greg, <br><br>How nice to have a man see polygamy logically and through a woman's eyes. For many women have already learned that polygamy would make 'heaven' a worse 'hell' then being single in the real 'hell. It's far better to be single then to have to live polygamy and be one of many. It's 'true exclusive love' or nothing. <br><br>True 'exclusive' love for a spouse (the kind even polygamous men pridefully demand from their wives but don't believe they have to give in return) is God's requirement for husbands too. Marriage is only worth it when men have this kind of love for their 1 wife. <br><br>I think the easiest way to see how wrong polygamy is, is to put it to the Golden Rule Test, as we are asked to do with every doctrine. For where is there a man who would want to live alone all his life with his houseful of kids, doing all the chores, meals, gardening, farm work, etc & sleeping alone and just maybe get to see his wife once in a while, if he's lucky, when she isn't off being wined & dined by one of her many husbands in hawaii or Europe for a few years.<br><br>For remember that many early church leaders often chose one of their wives to take on missions with them, unless he left them all home and went to look for new ones.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-34114147321388829072013-10-15T11:33:35.236-07:002013-10-15T11:33:35.236-07:00I have always had issues with the idea of the eter...I have always had issues with the idea of the eternal family. Seems kind of infantile. We were all adult so to speak before we came here and probably had lots of friends, relationships and important spirits in our lives. So we come to earth and become part of a family and maybe have our own family and hopefully form some really close and rewarding relationships with them.<br>So far so good, right. Now we die and go back to the relationships we had before and renew them. Would they be as important as they once were or would they have faded in significance? I doubt that as they could have already existed for millions or billions of years(in earthly terms) And as for our relationships formed here would they be as important or more important than those we had previously?<br>As an adult and still raising kids I look forward to the time when my kids will be grown and independent and hopefully self-sufficient. I don't want to have to live with them again down the road nor do I want to ever live with my parents again. I love them all and enjoy their company but I don't want to live with them for eternity. If I become a god what would prevent me from thinking of them as my family and by acting as if they are? And vice versa?<br>The idea that only by doing some ritual in a temple to make that possible is not logical. Am I going to get my memory of them wiped? Am i going to be forbidden to associate with or communicate with them or they with me if we are in different kingdoms and if so why?<br>I get the concept that if we are all scattered about in different kingdoms we wouldn't be able to see each other as much as if we were all in the same place but we would still think of each other as family and in terms of proximity it doesn't seem like things would be a whole lot different that they are now. And why couldn't we still communicate somehow? The ones in the higher kingdoms could easily come don to the lower and on down so all could get together as desired. <br>I really don't get the whole benefit of the eternal family concept. Don't understand why we never get the logistics of these things 'revealed' to us.<br>Greg Shttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01583545885401871178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-60597755382686284532013-10-15T11:02:55.337-07:002013-10-15T11:02:55.337-07:00Great post Alan. I read this book a week ago and a...Great post Alan. I read this book a week ago and am now reading part two. Have been a member all my life and served a mission in South Korea. Over last 4 to 5 years I have done much studying of a broad range of subjects. Now consider myself a Voluntaryist/Anarchist and believe the Electrical theory of the Universe is the most probable one out there. I like you haven't seen all the evidence out there regarding JS and polygamy but I like the logic in the JS Fought Polygamy book. It tastes good to me. I don't give a lot of credibility to the accounts of the women who many years later said they had married him, sworn or not.<br>I have gone through a legal trial where I sued the city for a false arrest and learned much to my surprise how the 'justice' system works and how many people lie under oath. I spent a lot of money, time and effort combating those lies and once they are out there they are really hard to overcome. Because of that experience I have a small understanding of what JS had to deal with. <br>Anyway my question is if polygamy was a revelation from God and instituted to further his work how did it do? What were the good 'fruits' it bore?<br>I personally can't come up with any, can you?<br>It ripped apart the church, ripped apart marriages and families and made liars out of the saints and caused even more enmity between them and their neighbors and government. Might even have been the cause of JS being murdered. And if it was such good doctrine and was in fact the Lord's doctrine why isn't it still being practiced? Why did the church almost get destroyed by the state over it? In fact, it caused the church to become subject to the state and bowing to its authority ever since. <br>What other doctrine has had so many negative effects on the spread of the gospel? The only one I can think of which is even close is the ridiculous blacks are inferior/less worthy/less righteous false doctrine. And in my opinion both of those can be laid right at the feet of Brigham Young and his racism and prejudices.<br>The idea that women upon attaining exaltation would submit to being one of many wives is ridiculous to me. What is the benefit to them? Why would a goddess agree to such a thing? Polygamy is a man's idea not a woman's.<br>Greg Shttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01583545885401871178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-81247870615597839062013-09-07T17:32:35.356-07:002013-09-07T17:32:35.356-07:00Given 'human nature' & seeing the way ...Given 'human nature' & seeing the way LDS members & leaders today act and blindly believe & repeat whatever falsehoods they are told, I totally see how hundreds would have lied or unknowingly pasted on rumors & hearsay about Joseph living polygamy. Only a rare righteous person back then would have 'known or believed' the truth about Joseph's innocence. All others would have believed whatever the current gossip was. But this is not 'simple' to see it seems.<br><br>So I believe that the 'simple' answer is that Joseph & Emma told the truth, that true prophets don't lie & abuse their wife & run around after other women, let alone teenagers (shocker). <br><br>And since, as Joseph even taught, everyone then & today will be deceived, except a rare few, so of course people framed & lied about Joseph (for multiple reasons) or they went along with & repeated vile rumors about him, for that is human nature.<br><br>Most people like the sound of & more easily follow & fall for 'imperfect' prophets then for true nearly perfect prophets. So of course, more people would like a prophet who practice polygamy, just look at all the 'so called 'good & wonderful' members today who want & choose to believe in such prophets who would do such vile things. They choose to follow blindly and not think about it, for that just easier. Same back then.<br><br>To think that most member's testimony about Joseph would have been 'right' is not in line with human nature nor is it normal for society or church members & leaders. People are usually wrong in their assessment of others, especially righteous people & true prophets.<br><br>So, it is more likely that hundreds lied and passed on false stories, and that very few knew & told the real truth, that Joseph was innocent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-6358622699370733772013-09-07T10:14:47.875-07:002013-09-07T10:14:47.875-07:00You don't the over persistent fool, JBL. This ...You don't the over persistent fool, JBL. This platform confuses a lot of folks, as once the comment count exceeds 200, readers are required to load a second and sometimes third page, and that notification is not only difficult to see, but it sometimes takes forever to work.<br><br>Anyway, I'm the one feeling foolish for having overlooked that one key word you kindly pointed out. I have edited the piece to conform to your findings.Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-67576982680679597792013-09-07T00:23:06.285-07:002013-09-07T00:23:06.285-07:00My apologies...I have never seen my post displayed...My apologies...I have never seen my post displayed and so tried again tonight as it still had not shown up and now I look the over persistent fool. Please feel free to delete the multitude to the one you wish to keep if that is possible.JBLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-51747947799107361802013-09-07T00:19:22.329-07:002013-09-07T00:19:22.329-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administra...This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.JBLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-75670446685014774132013-09-06T15:19:25.602-07:002013-09-06T15:19:25.602-07:00The Relief Society was never formally disbanded. F...The Relief Society was never formally disbanded. Following the murders of Hyrum and Joseph, they simply curtailed meeting together because of the calamitous environment and chaos in and around Nauvoo. There weren't regular Sunday church meetings going on then, either.<br><br>The rumor that Joseph had disbanded the Relief Society to spite Emma was started decades later by John Taylor, and reported as fact by the authors of Mormon Enigma. Brigham, Taylor, et al were constantly getting their digs in about Emma for the simple reason that she was calling them liars and usurpers. The official history says the opposite of what Taylor reported.<br><br>Brigham Young did put the Relief Society on hiatus for a few years while the Saints were busy crossing the plains. I don't know if those who stayed behind continued associating as a women's auxilliary or not. There continued to be active branches of the church all across Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, and Ohio, etc, but I don't know if the Relief Society continued in those brances. It was more of a Nauvoo society than something that spread throughout the church.<br><br> As Emma had been the president of the Nauvoo RS, following the murder of her husband she did not seem inclined to continue life as before. So I don't know what happened to the society outside of the Utah church. <br><br>Those of us who grew up in the Church were taught that Emma's recollections were unreliable. I am finding now that her statements are a lot more reliable than those in Utah constantly tried to undermine her. It must have really rankled the Brighamite wing that not one member of the Smith family recognized their authority.Rock Watermannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-70357119867990729972013-09-06T14:22:30.446-07:002013-09-06T14:22:30.446-07:00JBL, Thank you for catching that omission. I did i...JBL, <br>Thank you for catching that omission. I did indeed misread the quote, not catching the use of "It was not ONLY the voice" of Joseph Smith. My clumsy reading of it had Pratt saying "it was NOT the voice..." I will make the necessary correction to the post.<br><br>However, none of this undermines the conclusion of the piece, which is that when recounting the incident two and a half decades later, Orson Pratt was bearing false witness to the congregation in Salt Lake City. On no less than two occasions (1869 and 1877), Hyde testified of witnessing this miraculous transformation IN PERSON, when in reality he was not in Nauvoo the day Brigham Young gave his speech, and did not arrive until five days after it was all over.<br><br>As Van Wagoner delicately put it, Hyde was "prone to exaggerate, particularly when undermining the claims of his archenemy, Sidney Rigdon."Rock Watermannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-69964330622471893142013-09-05T20:01:48.429-07:002013-09-05T20:01:48.429-07:00As far as having nothing to worry about in your wr...As far as having nothing to worry about in your writing style that is perhaps true, however, I would put a bit of effort in checking your quotes. You have an entire tangent of this document based on having left one word out of Orson's comments as they are actually recorded in the Journal of Discourses.<br><br>Above you state:<br><br>"Some of the most prominent church leaders got caught up in the illusion. “His words went through me like electricity," testified apostle Orson Hyde in 1869, “It was not the voice of Joseph Smith but there were the features, the gestures, and even the stature of Joseph before us in the person of Brigham.”<br><br>However the one word which is missing is the word "only" which kind of undermines some of your conclusions as exampled below.<br><br>The words that Orson Hyde actually spoke were:<br><br>“or is it really the voice of Joseph Smith ?“ This is my testimony; it was not ONLY the voice of Joseph, but there were the features, the gestures and even the stature of Joseph before us in the person of Brigham...Everyone in the congregation—everyone who was inspired by the Spirit of the Lord—felt it They knew it. They realized it.(Journal of Discourses on page 181 vol 13 in a talk titled "The Right To Lead the Church", by Orson Hyde.)JBLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-46947239535149516292013-09-05T11:01:40.694-07:002013-09-05T11:01:40.694-07:00Can anyone revise the history of the Relief Societ...Can anyone revise the history of the Relief Society shutting down in 1844 for me? I've assumed for years that Joseph disbanded it because Emma kept trying to root out polygamy and he got a little nervous about getting caught.<br><br>Now it sounds like Emma and the Relief Society were doing exactly what Joseph wanted. <br><br>Who, then, disbanded the Relief Society if not Joseph? Or is the assumption that it disbanded prior to Joseph's death not accurate?<br><br><br><br>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-17366198047857647082013-08-26T22:26:17.371-07:002013-08-26T22:26:17.371-07:00Anonymous 4:27, Great logic! Congrats. But even if...Anonymous 4:27, <br><br>Great logic! Congrats. But even if he didn't lie I believe we should still all leave the Church, for it's not the same Church that Joseph started. But one started by & upheld today by false prophets, which Joseph said we would be damned if we fell for & supported them. <br><br>And very few people put it together that if Joseph really did live polygamy then the Church is in even a 'worse' place then if he told the truth and didn't live polygamy. For then not only Brigham was a false prophet but Joseph Smith too! <br><br>It seems to me, based on far more than just his words, but his sacrifices & behavior too, that Joseph did tell the truth and he was completely innocent of polygamy. He spoke & acted like a true prophet would.AVnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-83591573237541295082013-08-26T19:06:00.846-07:002013-08-26T19:06:00.846-07:00Anonymous at 8:02, in my view, the Fanny Alger sto...Anonymous at 8:02, in my view, the Fanny Alger story is the least likely to have any veracity, as there were no witnesses present to the alleged incident. According to the story, Emma came upon Joseph and Fanny in the barn. There was no one else present, so who started that story? Joseph denied the rumors, Emma denied the rumors, and Fanny Alger is not known to either confirm or deny the story.<br><br>Oliver cowdery is often trotted out as evidence of the story's veracity because he is said to have commented on it, but he was a witness to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, not to some tryst in a barn. He might have been a credible witness had he been there at the time, but he heard it second hand just like everyone else.<br><br>A reader sent to the Huntington Library where that original Cowdery letter resides and sent me photocopies of the pages, and guess what? It wasn't even written by Oliver Cowdery. It purports to be a copy of a letter Cowdery wrote, in the handwriting of a pastor of some church. The reference to the dirty, nasty affair could be in reference to the gossip. What would Cowdery (or the good reverend) know about any affair involving Joseph Smith?<br><br>This story seems to have gone into wide circulation by Eliza Webb, former wife of Brigham Young who went East and performed on stage telling stories of her life in Brigham's harem. She said the Fanny Alger story was a story she had heard from some of the other wives. I don't know it's provenance, but we have to ask ourselves: if Joseph didn't spread it, and Emma didn't spread it, and Fanny Alger didn't spread it, who was on hand who started the rumor of this dirty filthy nasty affair?<br><br>Musta been a ghost.Alan Rock Watermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04971243364867111868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-35207507187153761562013-08-25T04:27:30.214-07:002013-08-25T04:27:30.214-07:00If Joseph Smith did teach/practice polygamy, then ...If Joseph Smith did teach/practice polygamy, then I'm leaving the church. The truthfulness of the church hinges completely on the veracity of Smith's claims. If he taught/practiced polygamy, then based on his public statements to the contrary and his denunciations of anything like unto it, Joseph Smith is a duplicitous deceiver and a hypocrite. Therefore, all of his claims are suspect, and likely part of a continuing fraud.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-57762373899102890482013-08-22T08:02:06.119-07:002013-08-22T08:02:06.119-07:00Alan,Thank you so much for all your research, and ...Alan,<br>Thank you so much for all your research, and your clear writing style that presents the information. I am on a quest for Truth just like everyone else. I am an active member of the church. I think the overwhelming evidence does support that Joseph Smith was never involved with Polygamy. One thing I can't piece together is Fanny Alger (The first alleged wife of Joseph Smith). In all the stuff I have read, she seems to be the most likely that there was some sort of affair going on. What are your thoughts on this? Thanks so much for your blog. I love the open minded perspective!<br>Gilbertmomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-75061243711731087452013-08-20T08:40:10.300-07:002013-08-20T08:40:10.300-07:00Your research sounds interesting Anonymous. I wou...Your research sounds interesting Anonymous. I would love for someone to start such a blog. I don't have the slightest how to do it. It would be great though. Hopefully soon someone will, for I think there are many people who believe Joseph was innocent and have studied it on their own and have found further interesting insights they could share. I love the Price's work. <br><br>Rock's blog here is wonderful & is working well for bringing people to the light about polygamy and being able to discuss such things.Anon 23noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-53540812962007655032013-08-19T22:33:10.836-07:002013-08-19T22:33:10.836-07:00I'm in NJ, but I was thinking of some type of ...I'm in NJ, but I was thinking of some type of web-based crowd-sourcing project, in which people could share and synthesize their ideas on this. The Prices' research "Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy" is excellent and there are ideas scattered across different blogs and what not. But, it would be interesting to get an idea of just how many like-minded people there are on this issue, especially within the LDS, and to list/discuss issues that nobody seems to have noticed yet. For example, I have found many prophetic scriptures that appear consistent in very detailed ways with this cancer in the LDS church. I would even go a bit further that many of today's problems can be traced to contorting the gospel to fit this polygamy fraud---there is a discernible cascade pattern of silly doctrines and practices.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-28436907489115849762013-08-18T13:18:10.463-07:002013-08-18T13:18:10.463-07:00Anonymous 3:31,I also think a forum or support gro...Anonymous 3:31,<br><br>I also think a forum or support group would be great, for people who believe Joseph was innocent of polygamy.<br><br>Maybe those who live in different states could get together. I know a number of people around me who don't believe Joseph lived polygamy.<br><br>What state are you in? Maybe people could start getting together to discuss this very interesting subject.Anon 23noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-18927055696449869702013-08-16T15:31:38.814-07:002013-08-16T15:31:38.814-07:00Somebody needs to organize a forum for people who ...Somebody needs to organize a forum for people who believe Joseph Smith was not guilty of polygamy. I searched for such a group on google, but could not find one. It seems like there may be very many of us who are looking for such a group and find blogs like this one along the way. It's nice to find this blog and see that others understand the conspiracy against Joseph. I wish there were a way to find/establish the larger community of like-minded people who believe in the original restoration and defend Joseph Smith against this defamation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-65563933665071775852013-08-15T09:21:59.925-07:002013-08-15T09:21:59.925-07:00Good for you Anonymous, you should be outraged and...Good for you Anonymous, you should be outraged and disgusted with this evil cover-up. Unfortunately most people who find out about all this just want to still go along thinking the Church is still somehow true and good despite how evil & corrupt it's leaders, past or present, were & are. <br><br>It would be great if enough members forced the Church to reveal the truth about all this, but it still wouldn't mean the Church could ever have any legitimate claim to being the 'true' church. The present LDS Church is no more true than any of the FLDS or RLDS branches or any other Christian Church in America.<br><br>There is no 'true' Church today, they are all in apostasy. We can only do the best we can on our own, with the scriptures Joseph gave us and our own personal revelation from the Holy Ghost, which can teach us the truth of all things far better than any prophet ever could.<br><br>I believe we should give our tithes and offerings directly to the poor and fatherless around us, thus insuring that it really gets to where it should. <br><br>I don't think we get any brownie points from God giving the unrighteous leaders of the Church our tithing, while 'hoping' they will do right with it. If LDS Leaders were 'righteous' they would tell the truth about Church history, not perpetuate lies.Anon 23noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-47272948644223825972013-08-14T12:06:22.817-07:002013-08-14T12:06:22.817-07:00Don't forget, Joseph Smith had appointed Benne...Don't forget, Joseph Smith had appointed Bennett as a close adviser after only a short time with the Saints because of his help during a difficult time, and it was not very long before Bennett betrayed Joseph and was kicked out. Bennett was a scoundrel. In 1842, Bennett wrote a scathing expose of Joseph Smith, entitled History of the Saints, accusing Smith and his church of crimes such as treason, conspiracy to commit murder, prostitution, and adultery. This was well-known among the Saints, and undoubtedly Strang knew about those incidents as much as anybody. The fact that Rigdon and Bennett ended up associated with Strang officially in 1846-1847 does not mean they were *introduced* to each other then. They had to known of each other before then, and were only openly associated in looking to consolidate power in the aftermath of Joseph's death.<br><br>Even if Strang was somehow just a serendipitous opportunist after-the-fact, Bennett certainly had an agenda and was very skillful at manipulating people. He created forgeries for Rigdon, he had ties with Law, and Law was tied to Cowles, Foster, Higbee. All who accused Joseph, and then were cut off by Brigham and co. without trial to prevent Joseph from exposing the lies.<br><br>I don't put a lot of trust in people who attacked Joseph for polygamy, who themselves ended up teaching and/or practicing polygamy. By definition, Joseph was their enemy and vice versa. All of Strang, Bennett, and Rigdon either taught or practiced polygamy at some point. They are worked together in the power grab after Joseph's death. Brigham and the polygamy apostles did their power grab. It was vultures picking at the remains of the church they had destroyed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-2662397879717004082013-08-14T10:50:08.063-07:002013-08-14T10:50:08.063-07:00I need to add that according to the biography of B...I need to add that according to the biography of Bennett, by 1847 Strang had booted Bennett out of his church. I really don't believe that Strang and Bennett were all that close.Bart Burkhttp://www3.nd.edu/~bburk1/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1342380624800894371.post-39219283073330102632013-08-14T10:43:25.294-07:002013-08-14T10:43:25.294-07:00According to Bennett's biography, "The Sa...According to Bennett's biography, "The Saintly Scoundrel", Bennett didn't have any significant contact with Strang's movement or Strang until 1846. Strang's movement was already established before Bennett even became involved in it. The Strangite movement began in 1844-1845.Bart Burkhttp://www3.nd.edu/~bburk1/noreply@blogger.com