The Nauvoo Expositor

Here are a couple of very interesting facts about the whole Nauvoo Expositor fiasco.

1. The 15 resolutions the Expositor made against Joseph Smith were true. In fact, it's very difficult to find the "vicious lies" Joseph accused it of spreading.

2. Joseph Smith's order to destroy the Expositor printing press was a clear violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution - you know, the one guaranteeing the freedom of speech and of the press? That one. In other words, what Joseph and his followers did was strictly criminal (as was their practice of polygamy, by the way).

How are members supposed to justify Joseph's behavior? Where is God in all of this? What if I seriously doubt God had anything to do with any of this whole affair?

Emma and Camille

We might ask ourselves why exactly Emma stayed with Joseph if he was such a scoundrel. Surely she would have had enough self-respect to walk away from such an unfaithful husband, right?

Reading this commentary on why Camille Cosby might have stayed with Bill reminded me once again of Emma's position as a victim. Like Camille, she was married to a rising star, a man she loved and trusted. As her husband's public respect and power grew, so did her incentive to stay by his side. With so many speaking so highly of her husband, why would she believe the few dissenting voices? How can you stop loving and supporting someone who means the whole world to you?

Is it possible for a disgusting person to do amazing things like teach, entertain, and make thousands of people feel special? Do disgusting and criminal behaviors somehow undermine the good things someone does? Are we supposed to let men like Joseph Smith and Bill Cosby off the hook despite they're abuses?

Full trust

 
One very frustrating aspects of LDS culture is the tendency to fully trust someone based on whether or not he or she is an active, believing member of the LDS Church. At the same time Mormons first impulse is to distrust  non-members. Never mind that there is no clear dividing line keeping only awesome, trustworthy people in the Church. Never mind that the Church has no monopoly on trustworthy individuals. But many members, especially in areas with higher LDS populations, practice this type of judgment despite their better judgment. Why is that? How do you escape it? Is it just a matter of group recognition and solidarity or is it something more?

Freedom of speech

Anti-Christs are so awful!

Utah Mormons these days have rekindled their love for the U.S. Constitution. Their favorite part is the freedom to impose religion on everyone within a given geographic area. Their least favorite part is the freedom of others to speak their mind. Maybe that's because The Book of Mormon has a wonderfully un-patriotic story about a man, Korihor, being arrested for teaching against religious prophecies. Basically the believers were getting upset that this Korihor guy was actually convincing people to stop believing so they had him arrested and his case ended up in the Nephite Supreme Court, where it was discovered that Korihor was "possessed of a lying spirit." In the end God was his judge and God struck Korihor dumb for the rest of his few remaining days, which he lived out as a beggar. So be careful what you say, people of the Free World! Just because you can and want to say something doesn't mean you should.

"Give me a sign, yo!"

This story might sound a bit harsh (or just plain stupid) to anyone who didn't grow up with it, but bear in mind that Jehovah-Jesus was very harsh about these sorts of things. He instituted thought crime in no unclear terms. If you've thought it and wanted it, you've committed the sin. Mysterious as it is, that's God's way.

Today the Church doesn't worry as much about what you think so much as what you say. For some it's better to sit and learn in silence rather than open your mouth and share.

You don't determine what Mormonism is, the Church does. The Church sets the terms for everyone. Deal with it.

Maria Lawrence (Smith) Young Babbitt - wife #26

Maria Lawrence (December 18, 1823 - ca. 1846) and her sister Sarah were left orphans at the respective ages of 16 and 19 after moving with their parents from Canada to Nauvoo. Joseph Smith became their legal guardian and the sisters lived with the Smiths alongside Emily and Eliza Partridge. Like the Partridge sisters, Sarah and Maria were drawn into polygamy with Joseph Smith with Emma's consent. They continued living with the Smiths until Joseph's assassination, caused in part by William Law's accusation that Maria was one of Joseph's secret wives.

Joseph, of course, publicly denied practicing polygamy.

Maria and Sarah tried unsuccessfully to get their parents property back from the Smiths.

Her next husband was Brigham Young, but that relationship was short lived and followed by a marriage to one Col. Babbitt. Maria died young at 22.

Sarah Lawrence (Smith) Kimball Mount - wife #25

Sarah Lawrence (May 13, 1826 - ca. 1890) and her sister Maria (December 18, 1823) were left orphans at the respective ages of 16 and 19 after moving with their parents from Canada to Nauvoo. Joseph Smith became their legal guardian and the sisters lived with the Smiths alongside Emily and Eliza Partridge. Like the Partridge sisters, Sarah and Maria were drawn into polygamy with Joseph Smith with Emma's consent. They continued living with the Smiths until Joseph's assassination.

Sarah was married to Heber Kimball, had four children, but divorced him less than a decade later. She later married Joseph Mount and started denying any connection to Joseph Smith and Heber Kimball. Her life ended in California.

Johnny "Gone Rotten" Dehlin & Kate "Machine Gun" Kelly

Well members of the LDS Church can now officially hate John Dehlin and Kate Kelly, two horrible people advocating for the fair treatment of gays and women in the Church, because just a few days ago they were both informed via post that their heads are going to roll! That's right! Excommunication, that most glorious of loving practices!

Sorry, John and Kate, but we will not tolerate your evil liberal ways. We hope you have fun getting shit on by your family and community from here on out because you now wear the sign of the Beast on your brow. Or maybe try repenting or something. Show us how sorry you are. We love that shit!

And for all you assholes out there who actually like what John and Kate have done, REPENT YE MOTHERFUCKERS, FOR THE CHURCH OF GOD IS PISSED! You have now been given a fair warning with the examples of John and Kate that love and compassion are not enough. The same goes for you followers of brother Waterman, too! (Sister Colvin, you might be next!) Mend your ways or you might be next! (Unless you don't have enough people listening to you, in that case let all your crazy out whenever you feel like it.)

In efforts to clarify the situation the Church has released an explanation of sorts. I just have a few questions about this press release. Did John and Kate really do this to themselves or isn't it really the Church doing the excommunicating? When can we expect our leaders to clarify John and Kate's false teachings? What exactly have they said that is so horribly incongruous with LDS doctrine? And is the "door" really and truly "always open" to people who are excommunicated? I thought there was policy that getting excommunicated twice locks that door for the rest of your mortal existence. Dieter, can you help us with any of these questions and doubts? 

Truly this is God's work, I solemnly declare, in the name of Greasy J, amen.

Sarah Ann Whitney (Smith) Kingsbury Kimball - wife #16

Sarah Whitney (March 22, 1825 - September 4, 1873) was only seventeen when her father, Newel K. Whitney, officiated her marriage to Joseph Smith. Newel, who was a close friend of Joseph, was even given a revelation (through Joseph, naturally) that this marriage was a wonderful idea - it would bring earthly blessings and seal the Whitney family's place in the Celestial Kingdom!

Let me emphasize this point: Newel and his wife Elizabeth secretly married their eldest (but still teenaged) daughter to a man 20 years her senior in exchange for a golden ticket to heaven.

People, if this sounds like a huge, manipulative con to you, let me say right now that there's nothing wrong with you. This arrangement looks shady and disgusting, and don't you doubt it!

It gets even shadier still. In mid-August Joseph, hiding from the law, tells Sarah and her parents that it is "the will of God that you should comfort me now" only to follow up with a warning to watch out for Emma, who, according Joseph, was dangerous. Joseph, on the other hand, was just a sick bastard (but at least he followed the divine mandate to marry a virgin).

The shadiness of this arrangement continues. Joseph then arranged a faux-marriage between Sarah and Joseph Kingsbury. I can only assume this was so it would be easier for Joseph to drop by on Sarah without creating suspicion. Very classy stuff. Very holy.

Joseph was killed less than two years later, at which point Sarah's marriage to Kingbury was disolved and Sarah went on to marry Heber Kimball, with whom she had seven children: David, David Orson, David Heber, Newel, Horace, Sarah, and Joshua. Her life ended in Utah before the age of 50.

A change of tune

Before Section 132 was included in The Doctrine & Covenants in 1876 there was another section that addressed polygamy specifically. It was Section 101 verse 4 (later Section 109), now edited out. It explicitly called polygamy a crime, denied its practice in the Church, and clarified that a man should have only one wife and a woman should have only one husband.

Apologists rest their defense of Joseph Smith's and early leaders' practice of polygamy despite scripture commanding against it on the fact that polygamy was not generally practiced in the Church, and/or that Oliver Cowdery wrote the now removed Section 101 as a statement of belief that was then approved by the ignorant masses of General Conference and not a revelation to the prophet. So why didn't Joseph repeal it, like, ever? Or at least modify it?

Why didn't the Church redact Section 132 in 1995 when it released the very monogamous-sounding Family proclamation? Or why didn't the Church at least include a more obvious polygamous family option in the proclamation so as to be true to its current doctrine? It all seems a little dishonest.

Call it sanctioned by God, call it evil, ignore it, either way it's coming back to hit you.

Fiery salamanders and slippery treasures

I heard about the Mark Hofmann forgeries only a few years ago when a sibling mentioned them to me in passing. I didn't look up Hofmann or read anything about the forgeries right away because, as juicy as it all was, I expected nothing less from our modern prophets, seers, and revelators.

Page 1 of the "Salamander Letter"

In a nutshell, Hofmann was an amazing forger who produced a number of documents relating to early LDS Church history. These forged documents compromised the Church's position of authority to such an extent that Gordon Hinckley, who was serving as a councilor to Spencer Kimball, got directly involved in the purchasing and hiding of the Hofmann forgeries. There's plenty of literature out there on topic (like this, this, or this) if you'd like all the nefarious details.

We can all agree that Mark Hofmann did terrible things and hurt a lot of people - killing two - but his story should find its way onto everyone's lists of doubts because of how badly the Church handled him. First off the Church showed zero power of discernment with regards to Hofmann's evil intents. The Church showed zero power of discernment with regard to the content of invented documents. Instead, the Church's behavior indicates that top leaders find the existence of such documents entirely plausible. The Church proved that it was willing to spend hundreds of thousands of (early 1980s) dollars to control compromising documents. And top leadership was more than eager to keep the content of the forgeries a secret from the general Church membership and the world in what can only be described as outright deception.

How could our prophets, seers, and revelators be so naive? How could they be so shady? Why should we trust the Church's whitewashed version of history when it's obvious that they themselves do not? Isn't it cause for concern when our top leaders are so preoccupied with an potential expose of early Mormon insanity? It's frankly incriminating.

Respect the office

BYU's decision to invite the then Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney to give the commencement speech in April 2007 really came as a blow. It had since been proven that Cheney had fed the US and the UK bad intelligence with regards to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. His deception and war mongering has resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths (reporting about a good portion of the casualties has been suppressed) and long term resentment across the globe. The man once known mainly for accidentally shooting his friend in the face in a hunting accident became one of the most despicable men in the world and probably should have been tried for war crimes.

Why would the largest and most well known Mormon campus endorse such a disgusting and controversial person? People did complain. Students, faculty, and community protested (you can read and hear about the protesting here and here), but BYU kept Cheney.

Why? What were the justifications for inviting such a controversial figure? The height and nobility of his office. At least that's the most common justification flying around campus. It's an honor to have someone - anyone - holding the office of Vice President of the USA visiting the campus and we should all respect that office even if we cannot respect the man!

It's the vilest, most nonsensical horseshit I've heard. What if Cheney had been caught having sex with men in airports, would the Church have continued to endorse him? What if Cheney had been convicted of molesting a couple of nieces, would we still ask him over? What if we had discovered that Cheney was secretly a Neo-Nazi? What if he had caused the killings of thousands of innocent people and sent many of our friends and family overseas to fight, kill, and be killed? Oh, wait.

Would Jesus have invited Cheney to give the commencement speech? Doubtful. Would Jesus have shrugged off all the deaths caused by Cheney's lies? Doubtful. Would Jesus respect Cheney merely on the basis of his office? No fucking way. Why was my church doing this? What was I a part of?