- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’ve always been interesting in the history of some of the early “apostates” and wonder just how truthful/accurate our manuals and history is in regards to their leaving the church, and what the “rest of the story” is that we never get taught in SS. Certainly we have been less than 100% honest, which is not the point of this post necessarily, but we have not really been fair when discussing these early saint’s history. I read a real interesting thread on another site tonight about William Law and the Navouo Expositor. I have never read it before now. There seemed to be a lot of discussion that WL was not an apostate at all – but was more of a NOM than anything, and even claimed to believe in the BOM and Book of Commandments in the Expositor article that culminated in the press being destroyed and JS and HS being killed. Some of the things that WL was complaining about with the church was the doctrine of plural marriage, plural gods and second anniontings. Many of the issues he had, sound very similar to ones we have on this type of board. I guess what I’m thinking, it sounds like WL was perhaps similar to many of us in that he cared deeply for the church and it appears that his angst was mostly geared towards wanting the church to correct it’s course before it imploded in on itself and harmed more people. It sounds very similar to what is happening on these kind of sites, and perhaps the whole proposition 8 fiasco. Here is an excerpt from the opening post, if anyone wants to tackle the issue in a positive manner I suppose.
Quote:I read the front page of the Nauvoo Expositor today, and was a bit surprised that it wasn’t some bitter anti-mormon rant. As a matter of fact, most of what they say sounds perfectly reasonable. They weren’t even anti-mormon, since they still held the Book of Mormon and Book of Commandments as true doctrines of the Lord.
William Law and company took issue with a number of changes in the church they felt were not doctrinal. They first attempted to change things back in private, and after failing, decided to take their case public. They resolved 15 things, several of which seem to be complaints that have continued til today. If I were to classify the writer’s of the Expositor in today’s terms, then I might call them NOM and not anti.
http://solomonspalding.com/docs/exposit1.htm This is a summary of the resolutions:
1: Claim that the excommunication of William Law and others were not held in accordance with church law, and thus not valid. Also, the time and date of the trial was changed without informing the accused, thus not allowing for a defense.
2: Joseph and Hyram Smith are denounced as apostates for teaching false doctrines: Plurailty of Gods, Second Annointings, and Plurality of Wives.
3: Opposition to combining church and state. The specifically condemn The political power of Joseph Smith.
4: Joseph Smith and the church unnecessarily acted in hostility towards the state of Missouri.
5: Declare that all members of the church should be accountable to the laws of the land.
6: That Joseph Smith was unlawfully involved in the financial affairs of the church, which by revelation were meant for the Bishop.
7: That the members of the church refrain from attendance of “houses of revelling and dancing; dram-shops and theatres;”
8: That the scriptures be the sole and immutable source of doctrine. (Including the Book of Commandments and Book of Mormon)
9: That the doctrine requiring people to gather so quickly to one place, was created to allow Joseph Smith and the church to sell them land at inflated prices.
10: That the money collected by agents of the church from church members were not spent as expected, but used for speculative ventures and investments.
11: That secret societies and combinations taken under oath are anti-christian.
12: That Christ is the only one who will be acknowledged as King over the Church.
13: That all believers vindicate the true doctrines of Christ in the Bible, Book of Mormon, & Book of Covenants, and thus reject all heresies.
14: That all missionaries who currently have license to preach, should come back home to have those licenses renewed, to insure they are not teaching the heresies in resolution two.
15: That they will refuse to use weapons or any other physical means to defend themselves.
_________________
Yes, I have a lot of respect for William Law as a person. I think he was always trying to do what he felt was right. I read one interview he gave later in life and I think he represented his position very well. The only point I want to clarify is about people on sites such as this who want to correct the church. I realize there are people everywhere that would personally do things differently than they see others doing — but I wanted to clarify that StayLDS.com does not sponsor or support any type of grass-roots efforts to effect change in the church. We may voice personal opinions from time to time, but they are without any intention of building a following for a specific cause like the Expositor publishers were trying to do.
…Now back to the regularly scheduled program…
I think some of the claims are reasonable; some are not; some are ludicrous. Of course, that’s only my own opinion. I would say William Law absolutely was an apostate, based on some of the 15 claims. However, whether he was an apostate prior to his excommunication is a different question. Someone can be a heretic while still believing some things – even if they don’t have to believe everything to be a faithful member. There’s a fine line, and I know how tricky it is trying to draw it (and how it fluctuates with individuals), but by the time the above claims were published, I’d say there’s no doubt Brother Law was an apostate in the classic sense of the word.
I think this is a great example of how messy and unclear history can be.
Old-Timer wrote:…I would say William Law absolutely was an apostate…Someone really can be an apostate while still believing some things – even if they don’t have to believe everything to be a faithful member. There’s a fine line, and I know how tricky it is trying to draw it…
cwald wrote:I’ve always been interesting in the history of some of the early “apostates” and wonder just how truthful/accurate our manuals and history is in regards to their leaving the church, and what the “rest of the story” is that we never get taught in SS. Certainly we have been less than 100% honest, which is not the point of this post necessarily, but we have not really been fair when discussing these early saint’s history.
…Many of the issues he had, sound very similar to ones we have on this type of board. I guess what I’m thinking, it sounds like
WL was perhaps similar to many of us in that he cared deeply for the church and it appears that his angst was mostly geared towards wanting the church to correct it’s coursebefore it imploded in on itself and harmed more people.
Looking at the purported reasons why Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer were excommunicated I get the impression that it was mostly just because they disagreed with Joseph Smith and many TBMs would probably sympathize with them if they really knew the reasons behind it. To this day you can still be excommunicated simply for openly disagreeing with Church leaders or doubting their authority. Well how do we know that what they say is accurate or even remotely reasonable? I guess we are supposed to believe them just because they said so. Now what happens if they are wrong for whatever reason? Who will ever get through to them and help them see the error of their ways? That’s right, absolutely no one can really be counted on to correct them when they are wrong unless you think God really approved of the official racial discrimination policy until 1978.
I understand that people generally don’t like to be criticized and if they have the power to crack down on their critics and punish them in some way it would be difficult to resist the temptation to do so in many cases. In the past I think it was easier for the Church to discredit and ignore critics within the Church by excommunicating and shunning them but now I think this will just add fuel to the fire in many cases by giving them more publicity and making them look like a martyr. I just don’t think the Church will be able to hide from some of these criticisms anymore as easily as they did in the past with the internet and more books about Mormonism and “cults” widely available in bookstores or libraries in Utah.
I really don’t want to encourage rebellion and anarchy just for the sake of defiance; I would just like to see a little more open discourse so that problems can be discussed and dealt with in an honest way. How can we expect leaders to use any real judgment or common sense when they don’t really have to listen to any criticisms or alternative suggestions? At this point, they are basically surrounded by people that always agree with them no matter what and praise them for basically doing nothing more than mostly just repeating the same old traditions they have inherited. Times change but it looks like they have always been very slow to adapt to changing circumstances. Ignoring problems is no solution, it only prolongs the agony and makes others run into the same issues later and then they have to deal with it.
Quote:At this point, they are basically surrounded by people that always agree with them no matter what and praise them for basically doing nothing more than mostly just repeating the same old traditions they have inherited.
Again, I think you judge them through a specific prescription, DA. I just don’t think this description is accurate.
Of course, just like yours, mine is a personal opinion – but I do think you tend to eggagerate differences and minimize commonality, fwiw.
I don’t think you can ever completely capture a situation that people are in with a statement. It’s a sliding scale. Statements can help apply color to the situation (when based on fact) – to help people start to understand a part of the dynamics – but to fully understand you need to look at all aspects of all sides. For example my impression is yes the church leaders probably get agreement from those around them much of the time. I certainly don’t think they all agree all of the time. I think different topics probably have different levels of consensus. If we try to paint people into a corner using broad generalizations our brush strokes are as likely to inhibit our own freedom on the subject. That’s my opinion anyway.
The first time I had ever read anything about the destruction of the Expositor through William Law’s perspective was several years ago when I came across the website wivesofjosephsmith.org I had no idea before this that so much of the supposed mob violence was mostly to do with people disgusted with polygamy. William Law had been an avid supporter of JS in the beginning who publicly defended his character. Learning that JS was indeed practicing polygamy seemed to be more than Law could accept, as his actions would later show. I don’t condone Law’s agenda, but I certainly don’t view him as the bad guy anymore. I really feel for him.
http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/2425-SarahandMariaLawrence.htm Just to be clear, I also don’t view Brother Law as a bad man – and I certainly don’t condemn him for his beliefs and opposition. “Apostate” is very different than “bad guy” – and after his excommunication, at least, he certainly fits the traditional definition of apostate. Right or wrong, good or bad, justifiable or not – those are open to interesting debate. Apostate – not really much to debate, imo.
Old-Timer wrote:Apostate – not really much to debate, imo.
Well, let’s define what “apostate” means then. What is an apostate? What is a “mormon apostate?” Is there a difference? Was Law an apostate before he was “unjustly” excommunicated or just after wards?
What is different from what we are doing here, and on boards such as NOM, that is different than what Law did with his newspaper? What specific issues did Law makes in the OP that makes him more of an “apostate” than we are? (I don’t think we are apostates – but my family sure does, and that is my point about Law. Are we sure he should be classified as such?) We “criticize” the church, we “criticize” the church leaders, we “criticize” the doctrine and dogma and history, and we openly express that we wish/want/pray/work for change within the church, and folks like me say we need change sooner rather than later. Yes? I ask this honestly, Am I AN APOSTATE? I mean Orson makes a good point, we don’t have a campaign here to openly fight against the church, but we talk all the time about the mistakes the church and it’s leaders have/are making and what kind of things we can do affect change at the local level.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not arguing the fact, I’m just wondering what StayLDSers define the term to mean, and where they consider the line to be drawn in the sand.
PS – I’m thinking that Law would have loved this kind of site by-the-way. If only the internet had come along 180 earlier!
I will address the excellent question about the difference between what happens here and what William Law did in a separate post, but first the overall question about his claims – from just my own point of view: “Apostasy” (relative to Mormonism) =
Quote:the total rejection of (Mormonism) by a baptized person who, having at one time professed the (Mormon) faith, publicly rejects it. It is distinguished from heresy, which is limited to the rejection of one or more (Mormon) doctrines by one who maintains an overall adherence to Jesus Christ (and/or, in this case, Joseph Smith as the founder of the religion).
Given that definition:
1: Claim that the excommunication of William Law and others were not held in accordance with church law, and thus not valid. Also, the time and date of the trial was changed without informing the accused, thus not allowing for a defense.Not apostate – not necessarily heretical. Merely a factual claim.
2: Joseph and Hyrum Smith are denounced as apostates for teaching false doctrines: Plurality of Gods, Second Annointings, and Plurality of Wives.Apostate and Heretical – in the attack on two specific leaders, including the founder, and in denying what “The Church” was teaching.
3: Opposition to combining church and state. The specifically condemn the political power of Joseph Smith.Heretical, perhaps, but not apostate – except in combination with the overall call to remove Joseph as an apostate.
4: Joseph Smith and the church unnecessarily acted in hostility towards the state of Missouri.Not apostate or heretical – but absolutely skewed by Law’s extreme pacifism. In his view, there was NO “hostility” that was justified at all.
5: Declare that all members of the church should be accountable to the laws of the land.Seemingly innocuous, but specifically pointed at polygamy, so could be seen as heretical; almost surely pointed at Joseph, so could be seen as apostate.
6: That Joseph Smith was unlawfully involved in the financial affairs of the church, which by revelation were meant for the Bishop.Not apostate – perhaps heretical. Probably neither – but only a difference of opinion. “Unlawfully”? Bad word choice, probably.
7: That the members of the church refrain from attendance of “houses of revelling and dancing; dram-shops and theatres;”Not apostate or heretical – but extreme and completely implausible.
8: That the scriptures be the sole and immutable source of doctrine. (Including the Book of Commandments and Book of Mormon)Apostate at the core, given the use of “immutable” and the exclusion of on-going revelation through a Prophet. This is nothing but slightly expanded Protestantism and was intended to remove Joseph from a position of prophet, seer and revelator.
9: That the doctrine requiring people to gather so quickly to one place, was created to allow Joseph Smith and the church to sell them land at inflated prices.Not apostate, perhaps, but certainly inflammatory and accusatory. Again, factually debatable.
10: That the money collected by agents of the church from church members were not spent as expected, but used for speculative ventures and investments.Not apostate or heretical, but speculative also. Obviously refers to the bank collapse – and “as expected” is way too ambiguous.
11: That secret societies and combinations taken under oath are anti-christian.Apostate and heretical – since it attacks the very concept of the endowment and those who initiated the temple ordinances both as anti-Christian.
12: That Christ is the only one who will be acknowledged as King over the Church.Not apostate in nature, but directed at Joseph, so iffy in intent.
13: That all believers vindicate the true doctrines of Christ in the Bible, Book of Mormon, & Book of Covenants, and thus reject all heresies.Apostate and Heretical, for the same reason as #8.
14: That all missionaries who currently have license to preach, should come back home to have those licenses renewed, to insure they are not teaching the heresies in resolution two.Apostate and Heretical, for the same reason as #2.
15: That they will refuse to use weapons or any other physical means to defend themselves.Not apostate or heretical, but extreme pacifism that had no hope of being accepted.
There is no doubt in my mind that William Law was an apostate and heretic by the classic definitions, since his primary focus was the removal of its founder from the leadership of the Church, as well as the changing of specific doctrines and practices with which he disagreed. He wanted to replace Joseph and lead the Church, and he wanted his ideas to be the accepted doctrine. He was willing to try to force the issue publicly, through direct confrontation. I’m not saying he was a bad guy, but I think it’s hard to argue that he wasn’t both a heretic and an apostate.
He probably could have stayed in the Church without much problem if he’d only been a heretic, since there was disagreement over lots of things among the members and leaders even in his day – but the direct attacks on Joseph (and Hyrum) that form the foundation of his apostasy made it impossible to avoid excommunication, imo.
I have no doubt he would NOT be at ease or happy here, since we don’t share his ultimate apostate aims – even if we are heretics with regard to some things. I’m pretty sure he would be much happier at the more extreme and negative sites out there than he would be here.
It is interesting to compare the approaches of William Law and Sidney Rigdon. Both opposed polygamy. Yet Rigdon was a private critic, while Law was a public critic. In spite of Rigdon’s serious misgivings about polygamy, he was able to work with Joseph good enough that he even tried to mediate between Joseph and William Law. Rigdon was pretty upset that Joseph proposed to his daughter, Nancy Rigdon, yet was still an ardent supporter of Joseph. In fact, he went to establish residency in Pennsylvania and ran as Joseph’s Vice Presidential running mate. Just prior to leaving for Pennsylvania, Rigdon tried to dissuade Law from publishing the Expositor. He was in Pennsylvania when he learned Joseph was killed. (I did a post on the Expositor: http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/05/10/the-nauvoo-expositor-a-different-perspective/ http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/03/27/sidney-joseph-a-strained-friendship-part-4/ So, I think it’s a big reason why the church frowns on public criticism. It can be argued that public criticism helped get Joseph killed. Private criticism, exhibited by Sidney Rigdon, on the other hand, was tolerated (and even encouraged to some extent.) Of course, it’s easier to get fed up like William Law than act patiently like Sidney Rigdon. Michael Quinn does make some references that Joseph was tiring of polygamy, and may have abandoned it soon. I wonder if Law had been more patient, perhaps he would have seen the abandonment of polygamy that he sought.
Okay Ray, I can’t argue with your analysis of the Expositor. MH – good take on the comparison of Rigdon and Law. I will read your links tomorrow. I got to hit the sack tonight. Been a long day.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.