A Church Court is convened. A man is accused of committing adultery and fathering a child with another man’s wife. One of the presiding elders speaks to those assembled about the offender and says that,
“This matter was bro[ugh]t before Council … [and] his Priesthood was required to be laid down until he came here—… she was living in his house –we deemed it improper for her to be there [and] he sent her away to a retired place—she was delivered of a child—she is again living in his house … he wishes to retain his fellowship in the Church. He says he has [spoken to her husband] & he is satisfied.”
The accused adulterer apologizes to those who are presiding over the Disciplinary Court and says,
“I am come purposefully if possible to get the matter settled & atone for the wrong I [ha]ve done. I [ha]ve neglected to lay it before you before this… all I can do is beg for mercy—I became acquainted with the girl, & the consequences [a]r[e] as they [a]r[e]— …I am come here to atone for the wrong I [h]av[e] done.”
The accused then states,
“I never heard any conversation to say it was right to go to bed to a woman if not found out—I was aware the thing was wrong.”
The accused then adds that he,
“was familiar with the first frigging—that was done in his [the accused adulterer’s] house with his mother in law—by [the leader of the church].”
Even with this apparent example by the leader of the church, the accused concludes,
“I knew at the time I was doing wrong [by committing adultery with another man’s wife]. I never [h]av[e] taken anybody [else’s actions] as a[n] excuse[—] I never plighted my faith on [that leader of the church’s] transactions.” (Source: Misc Minutes, Brigham Young Collection, d 1234, CHL, Sept. 2, 1850, restricted; excerpts transcribed by D. Michael Quinn, bx 3 fd 2, Quinn Collection, Yale Library.)
“Frigging” is 19th century slang for having sexual relations. In other words, the accused adulterer here, claimed that what he did with another man’s wife (commit adultery) was wrong, and that he never based his faith on what he saw the leader of the Church doing (even if it was the same thing).
Is this account troubling? It should be, because the leader of the church referred to in the account is Joseph Smith. The woman mentioned by the accused (Joseph E. Johnson) was his mother-in-law, Mary Heron Snider. Mary at the time was married to another man, John Snider. According to Brian Hales:
“John Snider, died in Salt Lake City in 1875, having served valiantly in the Church. The notice of his death read: ‘Deceased was a veteran in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, having been connected with it in the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith and ever since. He was a man much respected, being true to his convictions of right.’ Two weeks later, Apostle John Taylor penned a second obituary, which stated: ‘He [John Snider] gathered to Utah in 1851, where he has since continued a steadfast, faithful and honorable member in the Church… Having been well acquainted with him for upwards of forty years, I thought it proper to give the above short statement.’”
In response to a presentation on Polygamy given by Brian Hales at a F.A.I.R. Conference in 2012, D. Michael Quinn wrote:
“Using a slang vulgarity for sexual intercourse her [Mary Heron Snider’s] son-in-law Joseph E. Johnson privately told a group of devout Mormons in 1850: ‘He was familiar with the first frigging that was done in his house with his mother in law by Joseph.’ Johnson said this during a council meeting that was deciding whether to excommunicate him for impregnating one of Apostle Lorenzo Snow’s plural wives whom Johnson now wanted to marry. She loved him, not the apostle. A Church court in Kanesville, Iowa, had already decided that ‘his priesthood was required to be laid down [i.e., he was disfellowshipped] until he came here’ to Salt Lake City. I cannot take seriously the suggestion by Hales that this Church court’s official minutes misquoted Johnson’s words. First, by any reasonable logic, who would assume that any LDS clerk introduced a crudely sexual term into a non-sexual remark or into a remark that only implied sex? Second, by 1850, the LDS Church’s clerks routinely used stenographic shorthand to accurately record such meetings, especially when Brigham Young participated (as he did in this one).” (Source: The Sexual Side of Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, D. Michael Quinn, 2013, pp. 21-22 expanded/finialized version)
Even Brian Hales admits that he believes the Joseph E. Johnson account:
“I think he’s telling the truth. I believe it. I’m willing to make this assumption. But, the next assumptions you are willing to make are very important. Because if you assume there was no plural sealing, that Joseph is just involved with Mary Heron, without any kind of a marriage, then it’s adultery. If you want to assume there was a plural sealing and that she was also having conjugal relations with her legal husband, then it’s sexual polyandry and this is what Michael Quinn is promoting and believes happened.” (Source: Joseph Smith’s Sexual Polyandry and the Emperor’s New Clothes: On Closer Inspection, What Do We Find?, F.A.I.R. Conference, 2012, emphasis mine. )
According to Quinn, Joseph Johnson was not an uninformed novice about Smith’s polygamy. He was aware that two of his sisters (Delcena in 1842, then Almera in 1843) were his polygamous wives, and that Joseph Smith unsuccessfully asked the Johnson’s 16-year-old daughter Esther to become his wife in the spring of 1843 (Quinn, pg. 22).
Though some were surprised by Johnson’s account of what Joseph had done with Mary Snider, it did not seem to phase Brigham Young and other leaders at all. According to Quinn:
“…this pioneer-defender of Joseph Smith expressed no criticism for what Joseph E. Johnson had said about the Prophet’s ‘frigging.’ Instead, Brigham merely chastised Johnson for his adulterous conduct, and instructed the Church court to rebaptize him. Aside from being temporarily disfellowshipped in Iowa, he received no punishment from the Church court over which Brigham presided in Utah.“ (ibid, pg. 23, emphasis mine.)
Why would Joseph Smith be having sex with the wife of another, faithful Mormon? And why would Joseph E. Johnson bring this fact up in a church court where he claims that he knows adultery is wrong, and that he would never “plight his faith” on “Joseph [Smith’s] transactions”? This indicates that Johnson knew that Joseph was having sex with Johnson’s mother-in-law in a way that Johnson linked with his own adultery. As Brian Hales wrote:
[An interpretation of the evidence] “…also acknowledges the existence of sexual relations between Joseph and Mary and assumes the two were sealed in a plural marriage making Mary Heron Joseph Smith’s thirty-fifth plural spouse. It also assumes that at that time, Mary was also experiencing conjugal relations with her legal husband, John Snider, thus creating a sexual polyandry situation. This version also describes the Prophet as an adulterer and a hypocrite because he taught that sexual polyandry was adultery (D&C 132:63). D. Michael Quinn apparently concurred, writing in his notes (now housed at Yale University): ‘If the statements about Joseph Smith in this trial are accurate, and they do not seem to be disputed with respect to the impropriety of circulating them, then JOSEPH SMITH HAD SEXUAL INTERCOURSE (AND PRESUMABLY PLURAL MARRIAGE) WITH MARY HERON SNIDER.’” (emphasis in original)
Hales attempts to downplay this as adultery by trying to claim that since Mary and John Snider did not have any children after 1828 (when their son John was born), their marriage was therefore sexless, and this scenario somehow gave Joseph Smith the right to claim her as a wife and have sex with her; and that she only stayed married to John Snider to create what Hales calls a “front husband.”
Yet, Mary traveled to Salt Lake City with John Snider in 1847, where she died in 1852 (still his wife). Also, John and Mary had a daughter Julia who was born in 1833. Still, because there were no other children after 1833, is that reason enough to make the assumption that the marriage was sexless and therefore Joseph was justified in having sex with another man’s wife?
Or that the rightful husband was not having sex with her, and was only a “front” or prop husband? She simply could have had health issues, or complications from her last pregnancy that made it difficult for her to conceive, or any number of other reasons. What legitimate reason could there ever be for a “front husband”?
Why would these “front husbands” agree to such a thing? One argument that is often used by those who claim that these are legitimate marriages is that there is no record of them having “complained” about it; and that the husbands simply stopped having relations with their wives to allow Joseph to do so, therefore, what Joseph did was not adultery or polyandry, but a legitimate marriage approved by God, who approved of this deception by everyone involved.
Would you consider what Joseph Smith did with Mary Snider adultery or a legitimate marriage? We will further discuss this issue in Part II.
It’s a case of Joseph Smith was a prophet and anything he did was fine. There’s always a way of rationalizing sinful behavior. If a person is totally sold on Joseph Smith as a prophet, they wouldn’t be able to accept his sexual misdeeds.
The faithful Mormon will deny that any of it happened. Then when it’s apparent that it did happen, instead of calling it what it is, an excuse is found. Joseph Smith acted out sexually and was totally out of control by the time of his death. He was clever enough to invent the concept of celestial marriage in order to justify his deviant behavior.
William Law paid the price for calling Smith on it. From all accounts Law was a decent man, Smith was not. The troubling thing is the degree people will go to excuse sin in order to maintain there emotional equilibrium.
My third sentence doesn’t sound right to me. Maybe it should be “would” instead of “wouldn’t”. At-any-rate, it does take courage and a deep conviction of right and wrong to call into question and condemn the behavior of someone who is seen as a “prophet”.
The other thing we have going here is the effect that the behavior of Smith had on those who followed him. They went along with it, endorsed it, excused it and in many cases started doing it themselves. There’s the real danger in out-sourcing your moral decision making to another person. But here’s the deal. What we are talking about are the “deeds of the flesh”. For many, sin is fun and if you can get sin to not be sin in your own mind, you have a perfect license to follow your own lusts.
Smith had a problem with sexual sin from the get go. Becoming a prophet allowed him access to a pool of women who were easily seduced by him based on his status.
Let’s face it folks. Where do leaders most often go down the road to destruction? It’s always abuse of power, or money or sex. Smith had all three and it eventually led to his destruction.
Here’s a podcast with Grant Palmer that discusses the topic at hand. It’s worth the time it takes to listen.
Adultery, of course. What’s most stunning in this article to me was that he (Smith) apparently had people who saw him and did the exact same things. What did they lack that he had? Threat of death by flaming sword for failure to act.
The way that Mormon leaders introduced and then taught about polygamy is a great example
of why Mormonism is a man made religion . Prophets like Joseph Smith can do what ever they
want because once people have been manipulated into submitting to them , then to question
the behavior / teachings they introduce is to invite trouble , namely , God’s anger .
Men like Joseph Smith / Brigham Young and other latter days ( ” Mormon “) prophets provide
a example how sincere people can be fooled into following and accepting what ever these
prophets introduce is ” new light ” from God . Warren Jeffs and even David Koresh are extreme
cases but nonetheless sincere people accepted their lies in a similar manner .
The Mormon people were manipulated by latter days false prophets , and the introduction of
polygamy makes that abundantly clear .
First, was Mary Snider a virgin when she was with Joseph?
I guess not, since she was married with children fathered by her legal husband John Snider.
Second, did Emma Smith know about Joseph sleeping with Mary Snider and did she give her consent for them to be married/sealed to each other?
I highly doubt Emma was aware of any of this.
According to D&C 132, Joseph and Mary Snider committed adultery. Period. This isn’t rocket science. Joseph Smith was a sexual deviant and it’s interesting to me how LDS Mormons are so disgusted with Warren Jeffs when he is only acting the way their founding prophet acted. He’s only carrying on what the first 4 or 5 LDS prophets “revealed” and practiced themselves.
Joseph Smith committed adultery with over three dozen women and he caused those women to commit adultery as well. No amount of mental gymnastics will ever justify this.
I keep going back and forth on whether or not Emma knew about Joseph’s affairs. I’m pretty sure she knew about all of them, but just kept quiet to keep up appearances that everything was well in Zion. In my opinion I think she was in on the whole scam from the get go. Occasionally it seems the wives of joseph would get uppity, or once in a while Joseph would be a little TOO open about his relationships with them. When that would happen, Emma was first in line to push someone down the stairs, or scream and lock herself in a room or something.
Listen to the podcast of Grant Palmer I posted above. You’ll get your answer. You have to get a little ways into it before it’s addressed.
Emma was just jealous. She caught Jo with Fanny Alger. She knew about his fooling around. From “Mormon Polygamy, A History”:
From Clayton’s diaries,
The kind feelings wouldn’t last. What is interesting, is that at one point they did enter into some kind of “agreement”:
Once, to get back at him, she said she that if Jo could “indulge himself” then she could too:
Jo was even suspicious of Clayton at one point (concerning Emma). Clayton writes,
You see the kinds of arguments that Smith used here. HE could save them. Just listen to Jo, and all will be well and he would save them all. He was spouting this in 1841, (see OP above) when he said he would take them all to heaven as his “backload”.
Emma was a mixed bag. She was jealous, went along with it for awhile, then saw that Jo was not going to stop with only a few men’s wives and young women, he was going to keep doing it. Take this entry by Clayton,
You see, Clayton’s (now) plural wife, Margaret Moon, had been engaged to Aaron Farr, who was absent on a proselytizing mission for the Mormon church. Clayton writes,
Problem was, she was ALREADY married to Clayton, on April 27, 1843, and they never bothered to inform her fiance. This is the kind of deception that was practiced by Jo and those involved with polygamy. And they talked these gullible women into it, telling them that their “salvation” and the salvation of their families DEPENDED on them obeying “the prophet”. Notice the date of this entry:
It wasn’t until JULY, that Smith then penned the polygamy “revelation”:
Here, we see Clayton troubled by all of it, concerning Margaret Moon:
Clayton was STILL questioning this even after he had gone ahead and done it.
grindael asks the question: ” Would you consider what Joseph Smith did with Mary Snider
adultery or a legitimate marriage ? ”
At the time this took place what was the official church law on marriage that was sustained by
the LDS church body as binding doctrine/practice ? Was’nt it one man and one woman ?
What Joseph Smith did with this issue ( marriage ) , as well as other important doctrines ,
should’nt surprise anyone . Mormon leaders could’nt make up their minds about God in
their teachings and this wandering continued with their teaching/practicing about other
issues — like marriage .
The Mormon people deserved better then , and today . Mk 13:22-23
Bottom line : the New Testament gospel is available for all who are drawn to follow Jesus .
His apostles taught the truth about salvation ( and marriage ) , no need to get detoured by
religious leaders arising in the latter days who wander away from what Jesus apostles taught ,
and cleverly convince people to follow them —- 2 Tim 4: 3,4
It’s pretty clear that what modern day Mormonism presents in terms of Joseph Smith the “prophet” is a clear distortion of the truth. I wouldn’t even call it a distortion. It’s an out right lie and fraud is being committed by those in leadership who know better.
I read one response to the presentation by Grant Palmer regarding Joseph Smith’s indecent proposal to William and Jane Law and the TBM said that Smith was simply “testing” the Laws like God had tested Abraham. How disgusting is that?
But it’s a clear indication of how deep in the delusion some folks get. There’s always some type of explanation to sweep away the truth so that the fantasy might continue.
We’re not talking here about whether the BoM, BoA etc. are true or not although they clearly are not, we’re talking about the sin of adultery and how those who followed Smith were influenced by (his adultery). With the women, they were seduced into having sex with someone they believed to be a prophet. With some men, they followed Smith head long into his debauchery and their own spiritual destruction.
What would Mormons do today if they learned that their prophet Thomas Monson was engaging in illicit sexual behavior with female members of the LDS sect?
My guess is that there are any number of Mormons who would find a way to excuse the behavior. Some, taking their cue from the leader, would begin doing it themselves. And still others, while clinging to their belief in Mormonism, would none the less lose confidence in the “prophet” and the church. This later bunch would be accused of failing the test of faith put before them.
There are christian churches that are rocked from time to time by sex scandals. In fact it may seems that it’s an epidemic. Generally the perpetrators of such behavior use their positions of power and authority to gain control over their prey.
Joseph Smith was one of a few religious leaders who tie their illicit sexual behavior to the doctrine of their church. In Smith’s case, his cover for his adultery was a high calling that would allow the practitioner to reach the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom where he would become a god. Smith let other men into the act and in a strange way made it a mainstream activity.
Here’s a good video of Malcom X exposing Elijah Muhammad’s adultery. A four minute video. It’s amazing how this sort of thing keeps repeating itself even with different religions.
Here is what one commentator wrote in the comments section under the video I posted above:
“It is amazing to me to know that many people see Malcolm as a great man and a great leader truth be told Malcolm and Farrakhan could have been great men and leaders if they would have followed their leader and teacher the hon Elijah Muhammad. But no both men have the same problem they want to be Elijah someone that Allah did not want them to be that is what got Malcolm killed. Wanting to be something he was not”
Do you see it? Malcom X was the bad guy for exposing the leader’s sin of adultery. “X” was the problem for revealing what was going on.
Listen folks. It doesn’t matter if it’s Mormonism as practiced by the LDS or FLDS or the Black Muslims or whatever the group who venerates a “leader”. People get diluted to the point where all reason and truth are pushed aside to follow the anointed leader.
Remember how Ralph tells us that he would kill or steal if told directly, face-to-face, by the LDS prophet to do it? That’s scary stuff and makes me wonder if Ralph would give his wife to the prophet if the prophet told him face-to-face to do it. One of David Koresh’s followers did just that.
The point is that Mormons need to have the courage to face the truth of what it is their founding “prophet” did. It’s well documented and there’s no excuse for his behavior. What these TBMs have isn’t faith. It’s fanaticism and it’s dangerous.
A nice little cut and paste job done in this article. If anyone was willing to go to the source material they would see that the writer’s (Hales) comments/conclusions are gutted to show that he supports the idea the evidence indicates that JS committed adultery. From the first article mentioned he clearly states in the beginning –
This means that if there was a temple marriage and sealing done then according to the scriptures in the LDS church (and this is the perspective one needs to look at) any earthly covenants previously performed – eg marriage – is null and void. Thus leaving JS as her one and only husband, in which he did not commit adultery if there were any conjugal visits.
From the other article this should be the quote, not what is given above –
(bold mine) This article gave 4 different interpretations of the data, NOT one as the abbreviated quote above tends to indicate. It also indicates that it is NOT an interpretation that he supports. Here is the abbreviated conclusion from that article giving all FOUR conclusions of the data that Hales gives –
As you can read he also states clearly that the only evidence of a possible relationship between JS and Mary Snider is from this one man’s testimony. In both articles, Hales does question this man’s testimony as to whether he was making this up or not. The part above stating that he agrees the testimony is true is actually saying that he believes that the word ‘frigging’ was used in the testimony and not added in by someone else – again if one wants to read through the full articles above by Hales they will see this.
Please note – at this point in time I am not condoning nor condemning JS and his polygamy, I am saying that the article above clearly misrepresents what Hales is saying in his articles that are referenced within the above.
Pingback: “What Many People Called Sin Is Not Sin” Part II | Mormon Coffee
I don’t know where you are getting your ideas from, but they could not be more wrong. First, I gave the link to Hales’ article so that anyone can read it for themselves. Second, the THIRD interpretation is one interpretation of the evidence that Hales gives. I never said in the article that Hales agrees with that INTERPRETATION, only that he BELIEVES Johnson’s account, which he clearly states. In fact, the quote you use says that it is impossible to conclusively identify the nature of Joseph Smith’s relationship with Mary, IF any special relationship ever existed. There is, in FACT, NO EVIDENCE at all that anything occurred between Mary Heron Snider and Smith EXCEPT a “frigging” based on what Johnson says, and apparently accepted by Brigham Young and all the others as actually happening. Thus, all the other scenarios that Hales brings up are only his speculation. The actual FACT is that Johnson testified that he saw Jo and Mary “frigging”, and he gave it in the context of his own adultery.
I was totally factual in saying that there was a certain interpretation given by Hales. I even say that “Hales attempts to downplay this as adultery…”, so anyone who actually read my article with comprehension and without an obvious bias would know that Hales does not believe that Joseph committed adultery.
The article does not misrepresent at all what Hales wrote.
Once again we see a LDS Mormon do everything but discuss the actual topic. Ralph, why don’t you defend Joseph Smith’s behavior or tell us why his polygamy/polyandry is so important to Mormon exaltation instead of attacking the person bringing the information. This is all Mormons seem to do. Attack the person bringing to light anything about Mormonism. Try and discredit them at all costs instead of actually engaging in meaningful dialog.
If Mormonism is the truth then why aren’t Mormons shouting it all from the roof tops? Why aren’t they trying to openly save our souls? Why is it all secret? Why don’t LDS missionaries lay it all out for us when they knock on our doors? Why aren’t the missionaries telling us polygamy is practiced by their god? Come on Mormons, enlighten the world about polygamy’s role in Mormon eternity!
Sorry for the rant but I’m just so tired of all the cover up, side stepping and whitewash!
Kate , you’ve earned the right to ” rant ” . You were detoured for so many years by latter days
false prophets in S.L.C. into accepting their counterfeit gospel . But now you’re free in Jesus .
Adultery ? Smith’s clandestine lifestyle of pursuing other women and marrying them , would
that be adultery ? His church body would have said ” yes” . Polygamy violated official church
law on marriage and so Joseph himself agreed publically that polygamy was an iniquity like
adultery . But that’s what he stated in PUBLIC and so his flock blindly continued their
submission to him .
Sorry for the late reply but I work nights and can only really access the computer on my nights off which are 2 nights per 9 – ie I work 7 nights and have 2 off.
In your article you are using Hales work to support your opinion of JS as having an adulterous relationship with Mary. I am saying that his writings do not support this at all. In fact you actually state in your last post to me what he wrote (and I quoted) – “ There is, in FACT, NO EVIDENCE at all that anything occurred between Mary Heron Snider and Smith EXCEPT a “frigging” based on what Johnson says”. Those are your words. So you are making something out of nothing as there is no evidence that anything occurred.
Hales words, as I quoted earlier, are “ Some reviewers might assert that the discussion of the Joseph Smith-Mary Heron relationship should be included with the polyandrous sexuality accounts. However, including it there requires acceptance of the assumption that both the Joseph E. Johnson’s account is true and that a plural sealing occurred between Joseph and Mary, neither of which is reliably documented. Classifying Joseph E. Johnson’s comment with the other available ambiguous historical data seems wise until additional explanatory historical evidence is found.” So this also indicates that the trial is not reliably documented.
As far as your assertion that Hales believes Johnson’s account because it was ”apparently accepted by Brigham Young and all the others as actually happening” is not true. Hales states that ” D. Michael Quinn apparently concurred, writing in his notes (now housed at Yale University): “If the statements about Joseph Smith in this trial are accurate, and they do not seem to be disputed with respect to the impropriety of circulating them, then JOSEPH SMITH HAD SEXUAL INTERCOURSE (AND PRESUMABLY PLURAL MARRIAGE) WITH MARY HERON SNIDER” – in other words Hales said that someone else (ie Quinn) is the one who believes Johnson’s account. Hales calls it into question a number of times in his 2 articles – see the quote in the paragraph above for one example and your last post to me for another.
Bottom line – you are using someone’s work to support your own when it clearly states that he does not support what you are saying and calls into question the only evidence you have based your argument on.
Once again, You are completely wrong. I already said that Hales doesn’t believe that Smith committed adultery. But he DOES believe that the account is accurate, and gives A scenario as to what it COULD BE. I agree with PART of THAT scenario. It is all very simple and adequately explained by me, except for people who are purposefully swatting at gnats. Here is exactly what Hales said,
Fact is, THERE WAS NO PLURAL SEALING. That is why I agree with this scenario. Hales produces NO EVIDENCE at all that there was. I say right in my article (as I have explained already very adequately) that Hales DOES NOT BELIEVE that Jo committed adultery. But he does believe the account of the “frigging”. And since there is NO EVIDENCE that there was ANY KIND OF MARRIAGE, or SEALING, even after Jo’s death, then that is strong evidence that it was not a marriage and hence, adultery. Quinn assumes a marriage also, therefore he calls it sexual polyandry. Coupled with THE REST OF THE STATEMENTS IN THE ARTICLE WHICH YOU ARE IGNORING, it makes a very good case for adultery, especially with Jo being willing to LIE about what he did constantly and justify adultery for years.
Every Historian has the right to interpret the evidence as he sees it, and use others research to do so. I don’t agree with Quinn’s assessment either, but he also, does not agree with Hales about the sexual polyandry. (Hales doesn’t believe it, Quinn does and shows evidence, and Hales has to literally jump through hoops by saying that the marriage was sexless which he has no way to ever prove). I believe it was adultery with no marriage at all, something ALL THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS. I advise you to read Quinn’s paper before you make judgements about what my conclusions are. You are only seeing one side of it, the side you WANT to see. And once again, you are focusing on one small part of the article and nitpicking it to death. This is also the MO of people like you, to divert the conversation away from the actual EVIDENCE.
But that is typical of you Ralph.
History is not a perfect science – look at when there’s a crime. There can be five witnesses who saw the whole thing and the police officers will get five different descriptions of the event. Thus being said I would remind you of two important lessons from the Bible: How much the Lord loved King David and how important of a prophet/spiritual leader of the Old Testament he was, yet he was far from perfect, even an adulterer. And second: Ye that are without sin cast the first stone. Perhaps you should spend less time casting stones at Joseph Smith and more time on your knees.
Thanks for the comments, but you are mistaken about David, and Smith. Here’s why. After David did what he did with Uriah, the Lord cursed him. He was no longer the “spiritual leader” of Israel, he lost his place. Jesus was only born through his line because of a former promise. All of this because of what David did. When confronted by Nathan the prophet, David admitted his sin. In punishment, Bathsheba’s child died and David was cursed with the promise of a rebellion from within his own house. Bathsheba and David soon conceived a second son, Solomon. The sword never left David’s house. His own sons were murderers and were murdered. Solomon became an abomination. It was the prophets like Nathan and Samuel that were the spiritual leaders of Israel, not David, though in his early years he was a righteous King. Of course History is not a perfect science. But evidence is evidence. You have not contradicted any of the evidence I have presented, instead, you have simply tried to divert the issue and cast doubts. And it is not “throwing stones” to report what other people said and experienced in relation to Smith. It always seems to be the self righteous people, that claim that others aren’t praying. Perhaps you should read the Bible more and maybe you would know what you are talking about. Instead of dying a martyr, Smith died in a gun fight because he was charged with treason and adultery and unfortunately, his own megalomania set the stage for what happened to him at Carthage. He had himself ordained “King”, but was no King and like David, perhaps he paid the price for the sins he claimed weren’t really sins.