Whose story is it? Part 3

The Nauvoo Expositor is relied on by Brighamite apologists as “proof” of the practice of polygamy by Joseph Smith. However, that assumes the accusers are truthful and Joseph was a liar. That is a remarkable assumption to make.

Chauncey Higbee was excommunicated from the church in 1842. William Law, Wilson Law and Robert Foster were excommunicated in mid-April 1844. Francis Higbee and Charles Ivins were excommunicated on 18 May 1844. Charles Foster and Sylvester Emmons were not church members.

In a meeting of the Nauvoo City Council on 8 June 1844, Hyrum Smith stated “that Wm. Law when sick said he had been guilty of adultery etc. and he was not fit to live or die, had sinned against his own soul.” (Spelling corrected, JSP Documents Vol. 15, p. 164.) William Law’s credibility is important to the Brighamite apologists because he was in the church presidency.

Francis Higbee suffered from a sexually transmitted disease (STD). He confessed this to Hyrum Smith, who reported to the Nauvoo City Council that “he confessed to him [Hyrum] that he had the Pox.” (Id.) The term “Pox” is explained in footnote 131: “Higbee had reportedly acquired a sexually transmitted disease.”

Another witness who was sworn in to testify truthfully reported that both Wilson and William Law were involved in counterfeit money printing. That witness (Mr. Washington Peck) testified that it “would be death of witness if he ever went to Joseph or any one to tell” about the counterfeiting. (Id., p. 165.) Death threats from these counterfeiters kept Joseph from knowing the Laws were among the perpetrators.

Mayor Joseph Smith told the City Council that William Law was offended by the Voice of Innocence from Nauvoo (which denounced plural wives, promiscuity or adultery) that was published in the Nauvoo Neighbor newspaper. This was “the bone of contention” between him and Joseph. (Id., pp. 172-173.) It offended William Law, but was published by his wife with Joseph’s support.

Wilson Law was caught sexually compromised, “caught …with the girl on the floor –at Mr. Hawes—in the night.” (Id., p. 192.) This was a daughter of Thomas Smith who had recently arrived in Nauvoo from Lancashire, England. “Wilson had seduced her.” (Id., Minutes of Nauvoo City Council, 10 June 1844 p. 192.)

Warren Smith swore that Francis Higbee asked him to join in the counterfeiting as his partner.

After these meetings the Nauvoo City Council passed an Ordinance based on their review of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. This states, in part, “injuries affecting a man’s reputation or good name are, first, by malicious, scandalous, and slanderous words tending to his damage and derogation. As if a man, maliciously and falsely, utter any slander or false tale of another: which may either endanger him in law, by impeaching him of some heinous crime, as to fay that a man hath poisoned another, or is perjured; or which may exclude him from society, as to charge him with having an infectious disease ; or which may impair or hurt his trade or livelihood,” (Private Wrongs, Book III, Chapter 8, part 5.) Based on their understanding of the law, the Nauvoo Expositor statements were determined by the Nauvoo City Council to constitute a nuisance and justify removal to prevent any further injury.

The Nauvoo City Ordinance identified the Expositor’s accusations as “publishing lies, false statements, coloring the truth, slandering men, women, children, societies and countries.” (Id., Ordinance 10 June 1844, p. 208.) The ordinance would only apply against a false statement, and not a statement that could be proven to be true. If, therefore, the Nauvoo Expositor publishers could prove the truth of their claims, it would not be slander, nor a nuisance, nor a violation of the ordinance.

Joseph Smith and the Nauvoo City Council believed the publishers of the Nauvoo Expositor were the worst sort of unprincipled, corrupt, dishonest men. As Mayor of Nauvoo Joseph stated in a Proclamation dated June 16, 1844: “Our city is infested with a set of blacklegs, counterfeiters and debauchers, and the proprietors of this press were of that class.” (Id., p. 295.)

So there we have another choice to make about Joseph’s story: On the one hand we have Joseph Smith saying that these sexually depraved, criminal counterfeiters, seducers and liars are spreading falsehoods of the worst sort. In the circumstances, I think there is reason to consider his position carefully. Why would he be bringing people before church courts to investigate sexual improprieties if he was involved in them? Why would he denounce spiritual wives and preach against adultery, fornication, and polygamy if he was involved? Why would he accuse the Nauvoo Expositor of slander if the accusations could be proven true?

But on the other hand, we have the Brighamite apologists trusting and relying on sexually diseased, criminally involved, seducers and liars to tell their version of the story.

How should this conflict be decided? Perhaps the Lord’s voice about Joseph ought to help guide our decision: “The ends of the earth shall inquire after your name, and fools shall have you in derision, and hell shall rage against you, while the pure in heart, and the wise, and the noble, and the virtuous shall seek counsel, and authority, and blessings constantly from under your hand. And your people shall never be turned against you by the testimony of traitors, and although their influence shall cast you into trouble, and into bars and walls, you shall be had in honor.” (T&C 139:7.)

Whose story is it? Part 2

There are many Brighamite apologists that have been stirred into responding to the growing chorus of researchers who now realize teaching plural wives did not begin with Joseph Smith. The Brighamite apologists think that the history, as they recount it, makes the matter clear that it was Joseph, and not a cabal of Brigham Young, Heber Kimball, Wilford Woodruff, and others (including William Clayton the journalist) who conspired to point the finger at Joseph, while Joseph was an opponent of their sinful, illegal and immoral conduct.

There is a bit of a tempest currently underway on YouTube, various podcasts, and discussion boards both damning and defending Joseph Smith over these false charges. This ugly subject is part of the story of Joseph Smith, and therefore we should try to get it right.

I’ve read the biographies and autobiographies of the earliest Latter-day Saint leaders. I’ve also read the many histories addressing this subject, from D. Michael Quinn to Todd Compton to Jerald and Sandra Tanner. I’ve read all volumes of Brian Hales account, and visited his website. I’ve listened to the conferences, seminars, symposiums and presentations that dispute what the Brighamite apologists call derisively “polygamy deniers.” I have read every volume of the Joseph Smith Papers publication, including all the Historical Introductions and footnotes. To the extent that material is available to investigate the events, I have sought it out and evaluated it.

For decades I too believed Joseph Smith initiated the taking of plural wives. I think that is far from being proven to be true, and on balance it appears that Joseph Smith was not only opposed to this adulterous foolishness, but that he took great effort to make his opposition known to the Latter-day Saints. He helped his wife, Emma, publish an extensive public opposing tract titled The Voice of Innocence from Nauvoo. Joseph Smith brought church court proceedings to expose those who were involved, to try to root it out from Nauvoo. (I own a copy of the Nauvoo City and High Council Minutes and I’ve read them all.)

Many of the current Brighamite apologists rely on histories and biographies that are not informed by the extensive historical material that has become available in the last 20 years. They assume, arrogantly and wrongly, that Joseph Smith’s responsibility has been “proven” and cannot be questioned. They’re wrong.

This issue is not going to be swept aside by the dismissive Brighamite apologists. In fact, the defenders of Joseph Smith’s character are just getting started. In the next few years an extensive library of every relevant source will be gathered and published to allow easy access to the historical materials that bear on this controversy.

Listening to the Brighamite apologists cite to John C. Bennett makes me wonder why they would ever mention the man. Should John C. Bennett get to tell part of Joseph Smith’s story? Get to be believed in anything he has to say about Joseph?

Bennett was married, abandoned his wife and children, and pretended to be an unmarried single man when he came to Illinois to help the bedraggled Latter-day Saints, who had just been forcibly expelled from Missouri. He helped usher the Nauvoo City Charter through the Illinois Legislature. He earned the gratitude of the Nauvoo people for his efforts on their behalf.

However, Bennett claimed everything he did for Nauvoo and the Latter-day Saints was done as an elaborate deception on his part. In his book, The History of the Saints or, An Expose’ of Joe Smith and Mormonism (I own a copy and have read it) he claims:

I find that it is almost universally the opinion of those who have heard of me in the eastern part of the United States, that I united myself to the Mormons from a conviction of the truth of their doctrines, and that I was, at least for some time, a convert to their pretended religion. This, however, is a very gross error. I never believed in them or their doctrines. This is, and indeed was, from the first, well known to my friends and acquaintances in the western country, who were well aware of my reasons for connecting myself with the Prophet; which reasons I will now proceed to state.It at length occurred to me that the surest and speediest way to overthrow the Imposter, and expose his iniquity to the world, would be to profess myself a convert to his doctrines, and join him at the seat of his dominion. …and that the course I was resolved to pursue would enable me to get behind the curtain, and behold at my leisure, the secret wires of the fabric, and likewise those who moved them. …I was obliged to make a pretence of belief in their religion does not alter the case. That pretence was unavoidable in the part I was acting, and it should not be condemned like a hypocrisy towards a Christian church. (Emphasis in original, spelling as original.)

So (according to him) he was a liar, but only to the “Mormons” and not to good Christian folks.

In the Times and Seasons, June 15, 1842 edition (I own all 6 hardbound volumes of the paper and have read them all) this announcement was made: “NOTICE The subscribers, members of the First Presidency of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, withdraw the hand of fellowship from General John C. Bennett, as a christian he having been labored with from time to time to persuade him to amend his conduct, apparently to no good effect. Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, Wm. Law” which is then concurred in by the Twelve and three Bishops.

William Law (also one who is frequently cited by Brighamite apologists) added in his article in that same edition titled MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING, this: “when the wicked creep in amongst us for evil, to trample upon the most holy and virtuous precepts, and find our moral and religious laws too strict for them, they cry out delusion, false prophets, speculation, oppression, illegal ordinances, usurpation of power, treason against the government, etc. …You have dared to pass an ordinance against fornicators, and adulterers[.]”

(William Law was a secret adulterer, and Joseph Smith would refuse to seal his marriage because of his adultery. But that’s another matter.) Here, he notes that the Nauvoo City Council with Joseph Smith’s encouragement and support passed an ordinance prohibiting and criminalizing fornication and adultery. What an odd thing to do if you are secretly up to it! Who criminalizes their own behavior?!

John C. Bennett signed an affidavit under a sworn oath to tell the truth, that stated: “he never was taught any thing in the least contrary to the strictest principles of the Gospel, or of virtue, or of the laws of God, or man, under any circumstances, or upon any occasion, directly or indirectly, in word or deed, by Joseph Smith; and that he never knew the said Smith to countenance any improper conduct whatever, either in public or private; and that he never did teach to me in private that an illegal illicit intercourse with females was, under any circumstances, justifiable, and that I never knew him so to teach others.”

Then 14 men recount this exchange between John C. Bennett and Joseph Smith in a Nauvoo City Council meeting: “Joseph Smith then asked: Will you please state definitely whether you know any thing against my character either in public or private?” “Gen. Bennett answered: I do not; in all my intercourse with Gen. Smith, in public and in private, he has been strictly virtuous.”

Assuming the Brighamite apologists want to use Bennett to tell part of Joseph Smith’s story, why not include his statement under oath that Bennett never knew Joseph Smith to countenance any improper conduct whatever, in public or private? Why not include that Bennett swore under oath that Joseph Smith never did teach him or any others in private that illegal illicit intercourse with females was under any circumstances justifiable?

I’m guessing the answer is: It would make Brigham Young responsible for introducing it and falsely attributing it to Joseph Smith. And the Brighamite apologists are not content to just damn Brigham Young. They absolutely insist on lumping Joseph Smith in with Brigham Young. Even though Brigham Young fathered 56 children with 16 of his wives, and Joseph Smith fathered 9 children only with his one wife, Emma Smith.

Even if you reject the role of Joseph Smith as God’s prophet, you still ought to be willing to allow him the privilege of telling his own story. Supplement it, challenge it, or reject it, but at least let him tell it. When he does, he defended virtue, showed tolerance and kindness to his enemies, bore with insults, false accusations, imprisonment and ultimately his murder for what he believed and taught. I wrote A Man Without Doubt to help others understand his heart and mind.

Who owns the story of Joseph Smith?

Whose story is it?

To whom does a person’s life-story belong? Does the person who lived that life get to tell it, or does someone else get to tell it instead? If someone else, then who? And what basis should be used?

Joseph Smith was told by the angel Nephi (I’m letting Joseph identify the angel’s name) that his “name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.” So right there in September 1823 an otherworldly messenger (as an angel presumably has some reliability) says there will be contradictory versions of Joseph Smith among all who discuss him in the future.

Does Joseph Smith get priority in providing us an account of his life? If we won’t let him account for himself, then do we defer to those who were close to him, and sympathetic to him? People who believed him to be a good man, so that they give us a good report? Or those who were ostensibly close to him, but who turned out to be two-faced and actually his enemies? People who believed him to be a bad man, so that they give us an evil report?

What about those who were not particularly close to him, but who had strong negative opinions of him? And what of an admitted liar, like John C. Bennett, who said he lied to get close to Joseph and always intended to be a deceiver? He gave an evil report of Joseph, but if he admits he lied to get his story, is his story to be trusted? Do we defer to liars if they provide an evil report we want to believe?

What about people who were contemporary, but not particularly close to Joseph? Do we let them tell Joseph’s story? And how persuaded should we be if they don’t bother to give any particularly important account until 5 years after Joseph died? What if they waited 10 years? What if they waited 20? 30? What if they tell a story 60 years after Joseph’s death that they attribute to their deceased father who purportedly told them something about Joseph some decades earlier? Most of Joseph’s many histories are based on these belated, often fabricated, accounts.

There has been a great, overwhelming, assumed to be irrefutable narrative about Joseph Smith that practically every institutional source has now agreed to accept. But that narrative contradicts the way Joseph Smith told his story. Does the guy who lived it get a say in how his life is explained?

If Joseph gets to say a word or two about himself, then when he wrote about his life in 1838 the following (after he had been brought before the High Council at Far West on a charge by Oliver Cowdery that he committed adultery), how seriously should we consider these words in deciding whether to give a good or evil account of the man:

I was left to all kinds of temptations, and mingling with society, I frequently fell into many foolish errors and displayed the weakness of youth and the foibles of human nature, which, I am sorry to say, led me into divers temptations offensive in the sight of God.
In making this confession, no one need suppose me guilty of any great or malignant sins, a disposition to commit such was never in my nature. But I was guilty of levity, and sometimes associated with jovial company, etc., not consistent with that character which ought to be maintained by one who was called of God, as I had been. But this will not seem very strange to anyone who recollects my youth and is acquainted with my native cheery temperament.

He says we do not need to suppose he was ever guilty of “any great or malignant sins”–like adultery, dishonesty, sedition, treason, or any number of falsehoods then in circulation. Joseph said that “a disposition to commit such was never in [his] nature.” Does he get to tell us that and we reject it? He’s saying what is in his heart, his personality, his inner soul. Should that matter?

When Joseph explained the religion he believed and taught to an inquiring newspaper editor in 1842, he said: “We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men[.]” Should we believe that about Joseph’s beliefs? If so, how should that affect the story we tell about the man?

While in prison in 1839 the voice of God spoke to Joseph and said this to him: “The ends of the earth shall inquire after your name, and fools shall have you in derision, and hell shall rage against you, while the pure in heart, and the wise, and the noble, and the virtuous shall seek counsel, and authority, and blessings constantly from under your hand. And your people shall never be turned against you by the testimony of traitors, and although their influence shall cast you into trouble, and into bars and walls, you shall be had in honor.” This again is an account of Joseph’s life spoken from an otherworldly source (presumably God is a reliable source to consider when deciding whether to speak good or evil of Joseph). How much weight should be given to this statement/prophecy/counsel?

Can anyone that would be regarded as “pure in heart” believe an evil report about Joseph? Would they not prefer to see purity in Joseph, if they are likewise pure? Can anyone that would be regarded as “wise and noble” believe an evil report about Joseph? Would they not prefer to see wisdom and nobility in Joseph, if they are likewise wise and noble? Can a “virtuous” person believe an evil report about Joseph? Would they not prefer to see virtuousness in him if they are likewise virtuous?

Can someone who believes in lying, deceiving, and misleading even their wife believe in “being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all”? Did Joseph actually believe in the religion he gave his life for?

I’m certain [and I do mean CERTAIN] that Joseph Smith was a virtuous man, and not a liar and deceiver. That is not to say that those who have provided accounts that tell of him being dishonest, manipulative, untrustworthy, promiscuous, egomaniacal, and, well, evil have not been considered by me in making my decision about the man. But I’ve let Joseph account for himself first, as a priority in deciding his goodness or evilness. He has been consistent in everything that can be tracked back directly and intimately to him.

I’ve also considered the scriptures as part of deciding Joseph’s story. The Book of Mormon, Isaiah, and modern revelation have a great deal to say about his life. So, too, has the JST account of Genesis had something to add about Joseph’s story.

I’ve considered the self-interests of the publishers of the Joseph Smith Papers and contrasted their “Historical Introductions” and footnotes with the content of the letters, journals, histories, and documents. They often (and I do mean OFTEN) contradict the very document with their Introductions and footnotes. They strain, distort, and outright misstate content to justify an institutional narrative that they need to retain power and influence.

Well, God put it best: Fools hold Joseph in derision. Hell rages against him. But I see in him virtue, nobility and purity. God expects that from someone that God would trust, as He did Joseph. Although he made “many foolish errors” the greatest was perhaps his tendency to attribute the same trustworthiness and honesty that was in his heart to his unworthy associates. That has allowed a great deal of the evil spoken about Joseph to gain acceptance.

Joseph Smith is like a religious Rorschach inkblot test: The beholder sees something that tells us about themselves. Tells us far more about themselves than about Joseph.

War in Israel

The war now underway brings back to mind the revelation in T&C 165:

Did not Ishmael and Isaac mourn together and bury their father Abraham? Was not their father’s blood precious unto them both? Does not the blood of Abraham run in both Isaac and Ishmael? Does not the blood of Abraham run in both Esau and Jacob?
Let Ishmael today find the blood of his father, Abraham, precious still. Let Isaac likewise today find the blood of his father, Abraham, precious again. For Abraham’s sake, let all the brothers who descend from Abraham now mourn when Abraham’s blood is spilled by any of his descendants.
If Abraham’s sons do not find his blood to be precious still, there remains nothing between them but the shedding of Abraham’s blood. For all his sons who fail to find Abraham’s blood to be precious will be held to account by God, who will judge between the sons of Isaac and the sons of Ishmael, the sons of Esau and the sons of Jacob, for father Abraham’s sake, with whom God covenanted.
The sons of Abraham will not be permitted to continue this disregard of their common father’s blood without provoking God, who will soon judge between Abraham’s sons.

Scripture Question/Answer

A question was sent to me that resulted in a lengthy discussion among members of the scriptures committee. Many of the revelations in the T&C are preceded with the introduction, i.e. Verily thus says the Lord. The question was about the beginning language in T&C 82, which has a lengthy introduction followed by the words, Verily, this is the word of the Lord. It appears that the first paragraph of that section was composed as an introduction to a revelation that begins in paragraph 2. That being the case, the revelation is about the Kirtland Temple, which was then under construction, rather than a temple that was never built in Missouri. This would mean the location of the New Jerusalem is not fixed, but changeable. Other revelations (and history) show that at one point Kirtland was the expected site, later Independence, Missouri, then Far West, then conditionally to Nauvoo, Illinois, and finally an undefined place to be set by future revelation.
The words in the first paragraph of Section 82 appear to have been added by Joseph to the actual words of Christ to give the provenance of the revelation, just as Abinadi did before delivering his message: Thus saith the Lord, and thus hath he commanded me, saying… At the time of publishing the scriptures it was decided to leave these words in the text, even if they were an introduction by Joseph.
Our review concluded that there are three sections that have somewhat lengthy introductions, and well over 20 sections commencing with an introduction in the form of “thus saith the Lord.”
We found nothing in the early documents to show that these were added later or ever identified as an introduction. Joseph had a pattern of introducing revelations with a brief introduction as part of the wording of the revelation. For example,
Section 111 begins, The word of the Lord came unto me saying
Section 112 begins, Verily thus says the Lord unto me, his servant Joseph Smith Jr
Additionally, a large fraction of the revelations begins in a voice that is not the Lord’s in the first person and then shifts to the Lord’s voice. For example, revelations will use the third-person to describe “his church,” “his people,” and “his prophets” and then shift to the first person, “I said,” “I have,” “I now.” Since the task of the scriptures committee was to render the revelations just as Joseph presented and corrected them, we included his introductions in the same manner he prepared them for publication.
One section that clearly has an introduction by Joseph that may not be part of the actual revelation is T&C Section 89: A word of wisdom for the benefit of the saints in these last days and also the Saints in Zion to be sent greeting, not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation & the word of wisdom shewing forth the order & will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints, given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak & the weakest of all saints who are or can be called saints— This is then followed by: Behold verily thus saith the Lord
Evidence that this introduction was not part of the original revelation is that rather than “of the Saints in these last days,” the copy of this in Revelation Book 2 reads, “of the council of high Priests assembled in Kirtland and Church.”
We have determined to leave the scriptures the way they are and provide this explanation to explain Joseph’s practice to introduce the revelations he received, rather than italicize, bracket, or remove introductory language. That allows you, the reader, to consider the wording and determine for yourself the subtleties and construct of language.
Remember, the language is nuanced, and there are many segues or transitions in the scriptures, particularly in the T&C. In some places, the Lord Himself refers to “The Lord” as if speaking in third-person—and then uses “I” in speaking of Himself. Joseph’s segues reveal his understanding of the Lord’s will, and then seamlessly transition to the Lord’s explicit words and instruction. Keep in mind, the Lord both conveyed ideas that required Joseph to put them into words, and also made direct statements that Joseph would quote. Either way the content is reliable and accurate.

April 2024 Conference

The conference organizers have asked that I put this announcement up about next April’s conference:

Due to a number of factors and influences, the April 2024 Eclipse Conference that had been scheduled for the Kirtland, Ohio area has been moved to the Upstate New York area. The dates of the conference remain April 6-8, 2024 with the event beginning Saturday afternoon and concluding Monday late afternoon with the eclipse. While the details are still being finalized, we can inform you that the activities will mainly take place in the cradle of the restoration.  The closest international airport would be Rochester, New York, with Syracuse also an option.  Given the eclipse activity, lodging should be acquired as soon as possible, if you plan on attending the conference. The event website is found at remnanteclipseconference.com.

I’ve been asked to speak and agreed to do so. Seven years ago I gave a talk, The Holy Order. That was near the time of the Solar Eclipse that crossed North America in 2017. The working title for the talk for next April’s conference is “The Holy Order, Part 2.” I’ve been working on the first draft of it for over a month and think the upcoming second Solar Eclipse that will also cross North America is a suitable occasion for the talk. Anyone who plans to attend should be familiar with the material in the first Holy Order talk, as it will not repeat the information. It will build upon the first part.

The two eclipses cross the United States from coast to coast, forming a great “X” in their pathways.

Desolating Sickness

“And in that generation shall the times of the gentiles be fulfilled. And there shall be men standing in that generation that shall not pass until they shall see an overflowing scourge, for a desolating sickness shall cover the land. But my disciples shall stand in holy places and shall not be moved; but among the wicked, men shall lift up their voices, and curse God, and die.” T&C 31:7–March 7, 1831.

It has been nearly two centuries since that prophecy. Fortunately, the United States has had an effective public health system that has eliminated polio, smallpox, malaria and other diseases that have decimated other populations. In his book, Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies,
Jared M. Diamond describes the desolation of the Americas by smallpox when European settlers arrived. That single disease destroyed the Aztec empire, killing an estimated 40% in a single year. The Inca empire was likewise decimated by the same disease. Jared Diamond estimates that 20 million Great Plains natives of North America were killed by smallpox.

Inoculations and public health programs eliminated smallpox and there are only two repositories of the virus stored in the United States at the Center for Disease Control, and in Russia at the State Centre for Research on Virology and Biotechnology. If it is turned into a bioweapon it could result in a significant number of deaths.

Polio is also a disease that was eradicated from the United States. However, last year a case of polio was found in New York.

Dengue fever is a tropical disease that has not typically been a problem in the United States. However, this year cases have been reported in Texas, Florida, Arizona and Hawaii.

Malaria has also returned to Texas and Florida. And there is a local outbreak of leprosy also in Florida. There was a time when the United States guarded public health by requiring a physical examination of those entering the country from places known to potentially carry diseases, and to treat them before they were released into the general population. Today that is a thing of the past.

People are entering the United States from every part of the world. They are being bused from the border states to other locations throughout the nation.

We have been warned since 1831 about a coming desolating sickness to cover the land. However, with an effective national health infrastructure that made the prophecy seem unlikely to ever be fulfilled. It is increasingly more likely that neglect of wise precautions will make it inevitable. When the times of the gentiles has been fulfilled, that single generation of people will witness it happen.

The silver lining to the prophecy is that the Lord’s disciples will have holy places and will not be moved by the desolation.

Collapse of Society

In the Book of Mormon there is a description of events that led to the failure and collapse of the Nephite society. There was a long prelude of decreasing faithfulness, loss of faith, and increased focus on material wealth. But the final collapse happened quickly. Here is the description from Helaman 3:1:

“seeing the people in a state of such awful wickedness, and those Gaddianton robbers filling the judgment seats, having usurped the power and authority of the land, laying aside the commandments of God and not in the least aright before him, doing no justice unto the children of men, condemning the righteous because of their righteousness, letting the guilty and the wicked go unpunished because of their money; and moreover, to be held in office at the head of government, to rule and do according to their wills, that they might get gain and glory of the world; and moreover, that they might the more easy commit adultery, and steal, and kill, and do according to their own wills — now this great iniquity had come upon the Nephites in the space of not many years —”

The judicial system and government positions were targeted by wicked office-holders. When they gained authority, they decided to uphold friends and suppress others. It did not matter that the wicked were allowed to go unpunished. What mattered more was to punish the righteous in order to prevent them from interfering with the goal of control.

They intended to impose their self-will as government policy. That way the government would not interfere with their indulgence, adultery, theft, killing and perversity.

Once they succeeded, the result was predictable destruction. The Book of Mormon tells an interesting tale, and ought to serve as a warning to us. In fact, it was intended specifically to be a warning to us. The Book of Mormon was written to inform us that once we inherited the land, we were to submit to God’s purpose for the land. As the text cautions us:

“And now we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land, that it is a land of promise, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God or they shall be swept off when the fullness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fullness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity. For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands. Wherefore, he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off, for it is the everlasting decree of God. And it is not until the fullness of iniquity among the children of the land that they are swept off. And this cometh unto you, O ye gentiles, that ye may know the decrees of God, that ye may repent and not continue in your iniquities until the fullness be come, that ye may not bring down the fullness of the wrath of God upon you as the inhabitants of the land hath hitherto done. Behold, this is a choice land; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under Heaven if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who has been manifested by the things which we have written.” NC Ether 1:7

There are always ambitious, wicked men and women who seek for positions in government so they can wield power over others. That sort of person has succeeded on this land (the Americas) before. When they have, the society they rule in wickedness has been destroyed. This lesson and warning has been given to us in a book claiming to be a “gift from God” in order to allow us to repent rather than remaining in our iniquities. The condition required is that we serve, or obey, Jesus Christ. It is His land we occupy. We are merely guests.

Because the United States elects its government, our votes matter. As the Proverbs remind us: “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; but when the wicked bears rule, the people mourn.” Here, we collectively get the government we collectively deserve.

Reforming any government begins by reforming the people of the nation. The solution to almost all of society’s problems can be found through repentance and obedience to God. It is never too late to repent. Except, of course, once our society becomes ripe in iniquity.

Finding Truth is Challenging

It is challenging to find the truth. It should be. We should have the very gates of hell beckoning us into a false path more or less continually, so that we become skilled in determining truth from error. If we do not face constant invites into error, then we cannot polish our skill at prizing the truth.

William Marks was the Nauvoo Stake President from 1839 to 1844. He was in that position when Joseph and Hyrum were murdered. Commenting on the uproar involving plural wives and Joseph Smith, William Marks explained Joseph Smith said the following to him:

‘We are a ruined people.’ I asked, how so? He said: ‘This doctrine of polygamy or Spiritual wife system, that has been taught and practiced among us, will prove our destruction and overthrow. I have been deceived,’ said he, ‘in reference to its practice; it is wrong; it is a curse to mankind, and we shall have to leave the United States soon, unless it can be put down, and its practice stopped in the church. Now’ said he, “Brother Marks, you have not received this doctrine, and how glad I am. I want you to go into the high council, and I will have charges preferred against all who practice this doctrine, and I want you to try them by the laws of the church, and cut them off, if they will not repent, and cease the practice of this doctrine; and’ said he, ‘I will go into the stand, and preach against it, with all my might, and in this way we may rid the church of this damnable heresy.’

This is a well-known quote. Based on what I now understand about this topic, when Joseph said, “I have been deceived in reference to its practice” it is evident to me now that he was deceived by leading church authorities who were trying to practice it in secret.

I also believe that when Joseph said polygamy “will prove our destruction and overthrow” he was not talking about the 1840s. I believe it was a prophecy being fulfilled today; right now. It is the topic that will destroy and overthrow the LDS church.

It will overthrow the LDS church because they teach that Joseph Smith lied publicly to hide his adultery. Make no mistake, under the then-existing laws, the practice was adultery. It was a crime. Therefore, the LDS church is claiming it was founded by a criminal, who lied publicly. It just does not fit the moral character expected of us by God.

Testimonies are being destroyed and confidence in the restoration is being lost because of this lie connecting Joseph Smith to something he fought, denounced, and said would lead to hell.

Here is a link to a new presentation that everyone ought to consider. It is less than an hour, and lays the matter out clearly: Joseph Smith was not the author of D&C 132

The thing about liars is that they lie. Joseph Smith did not lie about this part of his history. But the LDS church did, and has consistently lied about numerous other matters involving their history. Their lies are causing an out-migration that seems to be accelerating. That is something tragic for them, for society, for Utah, Idaho, Arizona and California. Latter-day Saints make good citizens and good neighbors. When disaffected members depart, they often become far less benign. All of society is harmed.

I wish the LDS leaders would see what is happening and tell a more truthful account of their history. Joseph Smith does not deserve to have them claim to be his greatest legacy. They are Brigham Young’s and not Joseph’s.

Produced a “perfect abortion”

As I mentioned in an earlier post (June 24, 2018), after the experiences in the early common-stock companies, and in community efforts in Kirtland, Ohio, Independence, and Far West, Missouri, Joseph Smith ended any attempts at consecration. In a council meeting on March 6, 1840 in Montrose, Iowa Territory, he announced to the church the Lord rescinded consecration:

“He said that the Law of consecration could not be kept here, & that it was the will of the Lord that we should desist from trying to keep it, & if persisted in it would produce a perfect abortion, & that he assumed the whole responsibility of not keeping it untill proposed by himself.” (JS Papers, Documents Vol. 7, p. 215, emphasis added, all spelling as in original.)

Despite this counsel, when the lumber mission in Black River Falls, Wisconsin was operated, the church members determined they would have all things in common. The purpose of their mission was to provide lumber for use in building the Nauvoo Temple and Nauvoo House. Their experience is described in a letter written February 15, 1844:

“Since we have been here lumbering we have had many difficulties to encounter, but the main hindrance to our Successful opperations was the feeding, clothing and transporting of a great many lazy, idle men who have not produced any thing by their pretended labor, and thus eating up all that the diligent and honest could produce by their unceasing application to labor & we have not yet got entirely clear of such like persons.” (JS Papers, Documents Vol. 14, p. 180, all spelling as in original.)

From a common-sense point of view, during Joseph Smith’s lifetime the believers never got beyond the early start-up steps of building a community. Never. Not in any of the communities established by those early believers.

That outcome is always inevitable because there are always losses with any start-up venture. Years of losses precede any “excess” being produced. When there are losses from beginning operations, it is extraordinarily unwise to increase losses by adding unproductive people whose needs exceed their ability to contribute to the already needy community. That adds to the likelihood of complete community collapse and failure.

Common sense would suggest that the early inevitable losses be incurred by those who can bear them, and that only after the community has succeeded in producing an excess can those who need assistance be helped with the produced excess.

The ultimate objective of the ‘pine mission’ was to produce a completed Nauvoo Temple and Nauvoo House. Neither were completed. There was an earlier promise for Zion in Jackson County, Missouri. That earlier promise was forfeited because the saints polluted the ground: “Behold, I say unto you, there were jarrings, and contentions, and envyings, and strifes, and lustful and covetous desires among them; therefore, by these things they polluted their inheritances.” (T&C 101:2.) Accordingly, their enemies were allowed power over them, and they were driven away, ultimately out of Missouri altogether.

The later promise made by the Lord in Nauvoo was that the Lord would not allow the Jackson County failure to be repeated. The Lord would intervene and prevent them from being driven out. But it was conditioned on their conduct: “But if they will not hearken to my voice, nor unto the voice of these men whom I have appointed, they shall not be blessed, because they pollute my holy grounds, and my holy ordinances and charters, and my holy words which I give unto them. And it shall come to pass that if you build a house unto my name and do not do the things that I say, I will not perform the oath which I make unto you, neither fulfill the promises which you expect at my hands, says the Lord. For instead of blessings, you, by your own works, bring cursings, wrath, indignation, and judgments upon your own heads, by your follies and by all your abominations which you practice before me, says the Lord.” (T&C 141:14.)

Not only was the effort to build the Nauvoo Temple a ‘perfect abortion’ so too was the effort to bring the people back to God’s presence. Their abominations increased: lying, adultery, dishonesty, and false accusations directed at both Joseph Smith and his brother, Hyrum.

They were asked to “build a house unto my name for the Most High to dwell therein. For there is not place found on the earth that he may come and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he has taken away, even the fullness of the Priesthood.” (T&C 141:10.) That return of the fullness didn’t happen. Hasn’t happened. And if we are given a commandment to build a temple for the Most High to dwell in, it will be a privilege not a burden. It should be greeted as an opportunity, not as an unwelcome responsibility.

For us, worrying about consecrating, and gathering, and some dreamy future filled with excess enjoyed by a group-effort is not only naive, it is a devilish mirage that omits the sacrifices, labor, grueling hard work to be done in a fallen world that will first be required to reclaim and redeem the land. Eden will not return until the effects on nature have been remedied by faithful husbandmen cultivating the earth. She “will yield [her] increase, and you will flourish upon the mountains and upon the hills,” (T&C 158:14) but only after she again “may rest, and righteousness for a season abide upon [her] face.” (NC Gen. 4:20.) Righteousness upon the face of the earth will precede her ‘yielding her increase’ for the righteous. That will be up to those who are on the earth’s mountains and hills.

So far, the ‘perfect abortion’ of the early saints does not appear to be reversed. But it can be. We can, by our heed and diligence give place in our hearts to a kindly God asking us to incline our hearts toward Him, and allow His words to cleanse the inner man. We won’t have a redeemed earth until we first have redeemed people living upon her. THAT is the present work. It is internal to each of us.

Just like the earth in its fallen state, our hearts and minds are filled with briars, weeds, noxious plants, troubling insects, and predatory animals within. Cleansing the inner vessel comes first.

Sunstone Prices

I got an email reminding me that the Sunstone ticket cost of $75.00 per day can be lessened if you plan to attend only a single session. For that, you can pay $20.00 at the door and attend that single session.

Sunstone does not pay me, as a presenter, for my talk. (I don’t know if there are others who are paid to present at Sunstone.)