BrianHales wrote:I agree that Augusta Cobb was a colorful individual. In her last will and testament (recorded on February 21, 1848) she declared:
Quote:
“That the last will and Testament of the said Augusta is to be sealed to Joseph Smith Jun. deceased. for Eternity. Believing it to be the will of God and being Actuated from a sense of duty towards Him, as well as from a free and unbiassed choice. ___ And I do declare in the presance of God and these witnesses that I chose Him above all others, if it is not my privelige to be sealed to Jesus Christ, __ __ __If it should hereafter appear that it is my privelige to be sealed to Him I should prefer Him to any other.” Augusta sincerely desired to be sealed to Jesus Christ, but if not him, then Joseph Smith was her second choice. She was a bit eccentric as her letters bare out. (I’m grateful to Connell for sharing them with me.)
This really doen’t tell us anymore than we already know. Augusta Adams Cobb was a bit more than eccentric, she was already an adulteress, having been found guilty of that with Brigham Young. That is what she remonstrates about to Brigham Young.
BrianHales wrote:Now regarding her February 4, 1862 letter to Brigham Young. She expresses disappointment that she couldn’t have been one of Joseph’s wives. While we don’t know exactly what Brigham told her, it seems likely that he was afraid she might choose the Prophet over him and requested that she not be alone or, according to Augusta, he would “certainly over come me” and that by being so “over come,” she might “have raised up a Son or a King.” That is, in this context being overcome would result in pregnancy. Critics sometimes affirm that being “overcome” is adultery and so this reference is promoted as evidence Joseph Smith was an adulterer.
The evidence really speaks for itself. She claims that Brigham Young made her promise that she would not see Smith alone. Why? Because Young claims she would be “overcome” by him. Cobb claims that if he did, he would be “the first man” to do so. So what does that mean? We all know. In her early letters she is quite infatuated with Brigham Young. What happened between the two of them? Young then told her she never had to deal with a prophet of the Lord. So what is meant here? Cobb answers, by saying – suppose he “overcame me” and I should BY THAT MEANS have raised up a Son or King…. Who would have been the wiser? The wiser about what? Being sealed? That is not what she meant. She then mentions Catherine Lewis who testified about her adulterous relationship with Brigham Young. So this is clearly Cobb claiming that no one would have “been the wiser” if she did the same with Joseph Smith. She then claims: “And I should have been sealed to him and all would have been right.” Clearly indicating that the sealing would ratify the behavior.
BrianHales wrote:Frankly, I’m grateful to “grindael” for not omitting the last sentence, which sometimes is done. It declares plainly that Augusta would have married Joseph Smith: “I should have been Sealed to him and all would have been right.” She wishes in 1848 she would have been Joseph Smith’s plural wife, rather than Brigham’s. An alternate interpretation that Augusta longed for an adulterous relationship with the Prophet, but based upon her piety, this seems less plausible.
Why would I omit the last sentence? I don’t omit things. It isn’t honest. What “piety” are you talking about? Her adulterous relationship with Young? George J. Adams testified at her trial that she claimed,
“In the fall of 1844 after her return from Nauvoo to Boston, Mrs. Cobb said she loved Brigham Young better than she did Mr. Cobb, and, live or die, she was going to live with him at all hazards. This was in the course of a conversation in which she used extravagant language in favor of Mr. Young and against Mr. Cobb. Mrs. Cobb went out again to Nauvoo, the second time, and lived with Mr. Young, and their living together and their conduct, was the subject of conversation in the society and out of the society. The subject of conversation, to which I have alluded, was that persons had a right to live together in unlawful intercourse, and Mrs. Cobb avowed her belief in this doctrine, and said it was right.
She also said (he claimed), “I never will forsake brother Young, come life or come death. She said that the doctrine taught by Brigham Young was a glorious doctrine; for if she did not love her husband, it gave her a man she did love" . Catherine Lewis also testified that these things were true.
Even IF this was all innocent, (which it was not)it went against the laws of the church which stated,
ADDRESS FROM THE FIRST PRESIDENCY.
Nauvoo. [November 1842]
To our well beloved brother, Parley P. Pratt, and to the elders of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in England, and scattered abroad throughout all Europe, and to the Saints,Greeting:
Whereas, in times past persons have been permitted to gather with the Saints at Nauvoo, in North America—such as husbands leaving their wives and children behind; also, such as wives leaving their husbands and children behind; and such as women leaving their husbands, and such as husbands leaving their wives who have no children, and some because their companions are unbelievers. All this kind of proceeding we consider to be erroneous and for want of proper information. And the same should be taught to all the Saints, and not suffer families to be broken up on any account whatever if it be possible to avoid it. Suffer no man to leave his wife because she is an unbeliever, nor any woman to leave her husband because he is an unbeliever. These things are an evil and must be forbidden by the authorities of the church, or they will come under condemnation; for the gathering is not in haste nor by flight, ut to prepare all things before you, and you know not but the unbeliever may be converted and the Lord heal him; but let the believers exercise faith in God, and the unbelieving husband shall be sanctified by the believing wife; and the unbelieving wife by the believing husband, and families are preserved and saved from a great evil which we have seen verified before our eyes.
Behold this is a wicked generation, full of lyings, and deceit, and craftiness; and the children of the wicked are wiser than the children of light; that is, they are more crafty; and it seems that it has been the case in all ages of the world. And the man who leaves his wife and travels to a foreign nation, has his mind overpowered with darkness, and Satan deceives him and flatters him with the graces of the harlot, and before he is aware he is disgraced forever: and greater is the danger for the woman that leaves her husband. The evils resulting from such proceedings are of such a nature as to oblige us to cut them off from the church. … And we also forbid that a woman leave her husband because he is an unbeliever. We also forbid that a man shall leave his wife because she is an unbeliever. If he be a bad man (i. e. the unbeliever) there is a law to remedy that evil. And if she be a bad woman, there is law to remedy that evil. And if the law divorce them, then they are at liberty; otherwise they are bound as long as they two shall live, and it is not our prerogative to go beyond this; if we do it, it will be at the expense of our reputation.
These things we have written in plainness, and we desire that they should be publicly known, and request this to be published in the [Millennial] STAR.
May the Lord bestow his blessing upon all the Saints richly, and hasten the gathering, and bring about the fulness of the everlasting covenant are the prayers of your brethren.
Written by Hyrum Smith, patriarch, by the order of Joseph Smith, president over the whole church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. HYRUM SMITH. (Millennial Star 3 [November 1842]: 115; emphasis added).
This clearly shows that Brigham Young violated the direct commandment of the First Presidency of the Church and that Joseph Smith was complicit in it, since he “married” them. Cobb was not a wicked man, far from it and even if he was, the First Presidency Message clearly states to leave it in the hands of the law. Brigham Young and Augusta Cobb did not do so.
BrianHales wrote:But what about Brigham’s reported warning that she might be “over come” by a “prophet of God”? Well we know of other women who rejected Joseph Smith’s personal proposals.
We also know of many who did not. What does this have to do with Young warning her off of Smith? It just goes to show that Brigham Young ascribed Smith’s “power” over women to his prophetic calling.
BrianHales wrote:Unsurprisingly, the women were not “over come” by him or his offer. For example, Sarah Granger Kimball recalled:
Quote:
Early in 1842, Joseph Smith taught me the principle of marriage for eternity, and the doctrine of plural marriage. He said that in teaching this he realized that he jeopardized his life; but God had revealed it to him many years before as a privilege with blessings, now God had revealed it again and instructed him to teach with commandment, as the Church could travel (progress) no further without the introduction of this principle. I asked him to teach it to some one else. He looked at me reprovingly and said, “Will you tell me who to teach it to? God required me to teach it to you, and leave you with the responsibility of believing or disbelieving.” He said, "I will not cease to pray for you, and if you will seek unto God in prayer, you will not be led into temptation."
Yes and Hiram Kimball her husband didn’t like it much. Smith wrote this “revelation” to him,
19 May 1842
"Verily thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant Joseph, by the voice of my Spirit, Hiram Kimball has been insinuating evil, and forming evil opinions against you, with others; and if he continue in them, he and they shall be accursed, for I am the Lord thy God, and will stand by thee and bless thee. Amen. (History of the Church 5:12).
BrianHales wrote:After this described snub, Sarah Kimball sent Joseph Smith on his way. His response was to encourage her and to pray for her.
So? Did she come out publicly against Smith? No. She kept his secret so he had no reason to retaliate against her as he did with others. Of course, Hiram Kimball later joined the Church, but he still didn’t like what Joseph proposed to his wife at the time. By June of 1842 he was appointed assistant adjutant general in the Nauvoo Legion and became a City Alderman.
There is nothing remarkable about this. It happens to people all the time. How would it be to be reproved by the most powerful man in Nauvoo when your wife was a firm believer in that man? Joseph talked many into believing in him and his doctrines.
BrianHales wrote:Cordelia C. Morley recounted a similar situation: "In the spring of forty-four, plural marriage was introduced to me by my parents from Joseph Smith, asking their consent and a request to me to be his wife. Imagine if you can my feelings, to be a plural wife, something I never thought I ever could. I knew nothing of such religion and could not accept it. Neither did I." However, Cordelia had second thoughts and was sealed to the Prophet after his death.
Again, so? We know many women were repulsed by polygamy which was called “an abomination” by the Relief Society in 1842. Joseph was a martyr after his death to them, so her changing her mind and wanting to be sealed to him is not surprising. Even Joseph claimed to Nancy Rigdon that some of his doctrines would be considered abominable but that this was ok cause “God said so”.
BrianHales wrote:So are Augusta Cobb’s words evidence that Joseph Smith was an adulterer? I guess we each get to decide. For me, when I discover that this is the best evidence the critics can muster, then I’m nonplussed.
Not sure what you mean by nonplussed. It actually means, “to render utterly perplexed; puzzle completely, a state of utter perplexity.” In other words, speechless. Here is how the Oxford Dictionary defines it,
In standard use, nonplussed means ‘surprised and confused’: the hostility of the new neighbor’s refusal left Mrs. Walker nonplussed.
But there is another definition that is not considered part of Standard English. Is that what you are speaking of?:
In North American English, a new use has developed in recent years, meaning ‘unperturbed’—more or less the opposite of its traditional meaning: hoping to disguise his confusion, he tried to appear nonplussed. This new use probably arose on the assumption that non- was the normal negative prefix and must therefore have a negative meaning. It is not considered part of standard English.
BrianHales wrote:But if he or others are trying to make a case against Joseph Smith regarding plural marriage, then I’ve just done them a great service. I have just finished uploading my entire polygamy database to MormonPolygamyDocuments.org. If you can find evidence of adultery or hypocrisy regarding Joseph Smith’s decisions with plural marriage, then please share them. If you think I’ve left something out or missed something, then I’m all the more interested.
There is lots of evidence of adultery and hypocrisy there. I will be sharing that evidence soon.
BrianHales wrote:One disclaimer though, I didn’t upload the Augusta Cobb materials Connell O-Donovan generously share with me several years ago. But it sounds like he is willing to share them with others so you may want to contact him directly for those materials if you are interested.
I’m not in any hurry. I’ll wait until he publishes. But he has sure shared some interesting material so far.
BrianHales wrote:And of course we will be waiting to respond to antagonistic claims, ever wondering if anything new will ever be presented. I’ve looked at all the available evidence associated with this topic and am still a firm believer.
Who is “we”? And it is a tired apologist argument that there is “nothing new” in terms of Mormonism. The Joseph Johnson trial minutes were “new” when Quinn revealed them. There are lots of “new” things that may be old hat to some, but not to many others. The new polygamy essays at lds.org attest to that.
As for “antagonistic” claims, reading the evidence differently than you implies open hostility? Of course it does. If you don’t believe that Smith was a prophet, you must be hostile. Perhaps you should watch the labels Brian, as you constantly claim you don’t use them.