In March 1842 Joseph Smith wrote to the Relief Society, [ref]Eliza Snow was apparently not aware of the exact contents of the letter until months after March 1842. She copied the contents of the letter into the 1842 Relief Society Minute Book after September 28, 1842, see http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book/83. A possible reason for her exclusion from the reading of the letter could be the fact that she was unmarried and a close neighbor of Dr. Bennett, clearly one of the chief “iniquitous characters.”[/ref] asking the women to “be trusted with some important matters that ought actually to belong to them to see to, which men have been under the necessity of seeing to…”
Joseph and the others who signed the letter wished the women’s help to “prevent iniquitous characters from carrying their iniquity into effect…”
There were men claiming to “have authority from Joseph, or the First Presidency, or any other Presidency of the Church; and thus, with a lie in their mouth, deceive and debauch the innocent,…”
Joseph maintained that “no such authority ever has, ever can, or ever will be given to any man, and if any man has been guilty of any such thing, let him be treated with utter contempt, and let the curse of God fall on his head, and let him be turned out of Society as unworthy of a place among men, & denounced as the blackest & the most unprincipled wretch; and finally let him be damned!”
“you are authoriz’d on the very first intimation of the kind, to denounce them as such, & shun them as the flying fiery serpent, whether they are prophets, Seers, or revelators; Patriarchs, twelve Apostles, Elders, Priests, Mayers, Generals, City Councillors, Aldermen, Marshalls, Police, Lord Mayors or the Devil, are alike culpable & shall be damned for such evil practices; and if you yourselves adhere to anything of the kind, you also shall be damned.”
The Case of the MTC President
In recent days a recording has emerged in which a woman who had been ill-treated posed as a reporter to interview Joseph L. Bishop, President of the Provo Missionary Training Center from 1983-1986. Since I live in a dark pit of not paying attention to the news, I would not normally have known this occurred. However Saturday someone else who was in the MTC in 1984 sent me a link to a UK Daily Mail article about the MTC President. And Sunday/Monday I was video-chatting with a daughter who was complaining about the story.
In case you have also been living in a dark pit of not knowing, the MTC President reportedly asked the woman in 1984 to expose her chest for his viewing, then attempted to further remove clothing. The woman did bare her chest, but resisted further liberties.
Here’s what I wish. I wish it had been me that Joseph L. Bishop had invited to do inappropriate things. Because he would not have remained President of the MTC if he had tried that on me. A sister missionary in those days had to be within spitting distance of 21 to be in the MTC to begin with, and by 21 I certainly knew how to tell a creepy man how to keep his hands and eyes away from me.
It might have helped that at age 21 I wasn’t entirely sure I believed in the LDS Church, much though I adore it today. So at that point I would not have been in the least bit cowed by anyone in authority. And I had connections that would have been able to help me expose Joseph L. Bishop’s inappropriate requests or actions, had I been the one with whom he had tried inappropriate things.
I served my mission in Italy, where I encountered Italian men of the day. Many were charming. But I was propositioned on several occasions. Most of these were moderately friendly interactions and I merely informed the men that I was not interested in having sex with them.
But there was the fellow who decided to feel me up on a bus. I grabbed his hands, dragged him from the bus, then yelled at him on the sidewalk.
There was the other fellow who decided he wanted to have sex on the boat we would both be boarding en route to Sardinia. When I declined, he suggested we make out, moving in to embrace me and running his hands up and down my sides. I informed him that any moment two tall missionaries would be arriving, and he’d better be gone before they saw what he was doing. He left before I had to start getting violent (and before the two tall missionaries ever knew they might have to do something).
Later in life I had a fellow ask me to have sex with him when he was holding a knife. My answer was no.
It appears the young woman who did inappropriate things at the request of Joseph L. Bishop may have attempted to approach the police, but may not have been believed. And I get that. When I called the police and told them my first husband had beaten me, they failed to do anything about it. Later I went to a local magistrate and found out the police had been wrong to ignore my complaint.
So here I am, a woman who was the same age as the woman complaining about Joseph L. Bishop. I too was in the Provo MTC in 1984. Though I never had any reason to remember Joseph L. Bishop, I have also been ignored by police. I have been asked to do inappropriate things I did not wish to do. I have been touched in ways I did not wish to be touched.
So while I am not the woman to whom this incident reportedly occurred, I feel I have some standing to speak about this matter.
What I Did
I said “NO!!!”
I responded with physical action and verbal chastisement.
When I didn’t get satisfaction from the police, I kept talking, and eventually got the ear of someone who could take action, had that been a priority for me by that point (it wasn’t).
I’ve moved on.
What I wish
I wish the woman who has been scarred by this incident to find appropriate healing.
I wish Joseph L. Bishop an opportunity to make such recompense as is appropriate.
I wish current Church practices and policies to align with best practices for preventing abuse, which would include denying abusers a chance to be in a position of power over their target victims.
Most of all, I wish all involved would look to the saving power of Christ. And it might help to be reminded of the damnation in store for any who don’t take such things seriously. As the #metoo stuff illustrates, damnation and hellfire need not wait until a divine being gets around to meting out justice.
For Those Who Think Joseph Smith was a Creep
Sometimes people who don’t know me and my research will read a blog post I’ve written. If they don’t know me, they will try to tell me how messed up Joseph Smith was, bedding teenage girls and marrying other men’s wives.
I have very good reason for disagreeing with any of you who find Joseph Smith to be a moral degenerate.
Like I did with the man on the bus, I’m liable to grab your virtual hands, drag you out, and give you chapter and verse about why you are incorrect to be so certain of your disdain. If you catch me in a bad mood, I may add why I find you to be ignorant of math, science, and history for being so gullible.
I would utter a corollary threat to any who might try to tell my why Joseph’s example justifies their creepiness. But I don’t think any fundamentalists have been [insert adjective] enough to comment on what I am saying. That said, any who were to be so stupid as to comment on why their creepiness is justified will deserve an appropriate response.
It is sad when those who have been trusted with authority abuse their trust. It is sad when those who have suffered abuse fail to be heard. Fortunately, in the current case the Church has been up front about accepting the evidence of two witnesses. There were probably others who suffered the indignity of the predator and either were not believed or remained silent, fearing they would be accused of tempting a ‘good’ man beyond his limit. It is important to remember where the fault belongs, first in the predator, second in the authorities who failed to support the abused, and last in those who failed to teach those who went so far as to remove their shirts that they should not let authority trump integrity.
Abusers should face both criminal charges and Church disciplinary action. neither can happen when reports of bad behavior are ignored. Until very recently the legal and Church authorities ignored reports regarding this man’s behavior, as a result the opportunity to bring criminal charges has expired. It will be interesting to see (although we might not actually get to hear of the outcome) how the Church disciplinary process will deal with this case.
I stated that I had connections. The bishop of my youth was a four star general who, with his delightful wife, had particularly taken me under their wing. I also have an aunt who was tight with leaders of the Utah NOW organization.
As for leaders ignoring bad behavior for too long, John Dehlin’s former Stake President didn’t bother correcting his increasingly apostate activity. John has been pleased to assert that this “understanding” was appropriate and would tout the high level attempts to bring him back to the fold as proof that he, Dehlin, had the ear of highest Church leadership. And wasn’t there an accusation that John Dehlin had been inappropriate with his own female employees?
So there are all kinds of time when a leader has erred on the side of “love” and let a wolf remain in the fold of the sheep. And there are similarly times when a leader has erred on the side of “justice” and evicted those who had not committed sins commensurate with such punishment.
As to the opportunity to bring criminal charges expiring, that reportedly occurred in 1988. Thirty years ago. I understand the tape was made public by MormonLeaks without the permission of the woman, which is its own sort of inappropriate.
And for anyone who is at a loss for how to discuss such things with their young ones, this is the exchange on the topic I just had with my daughter who is a missionary (being able to use chat during P-days is awesome):
Me: There’s been some weirdness this past week about a fellow who was MTC President when I was a missionary. He reportedly did wrong things. I hope I raised you to know that you are God’s child, and as such have no need to “obey” wrongful requests from anyone.
Her: yeah, i heard the briefest thing about that. it’s too bad that people do bad stuff, but you have raised me well 🙂
“Because he would not have remained President of the MTC if he had tried that on me. ”
I think you need to research more. For instance, when one of the victims reported her assault to her bishop, he, knowns to her, refused to report it to anyone else higher in authority because he found her accusations too farfetched to be believed, and unreasonable to believe that an MTC president could do that.
jks – I cited who my connections were. Had my 4-star general former bishop not been willing to assist with the ecclesiastical stuff, I would have reached out to my National Organization of Women-connected aunt (who isn’t Mormon).
I do admit that I’m curious how the woman (or women) involved came to allow themselves to be alone in a room with someone who had no legitimate requirement to interview them one-on-one. At least the night I spent alone on a ship cabin with my Zone Leader had a vague rationale (and I was rattled by the “let’s have sex on the boat” fellow, so wasn’t eager to question the strange situation and end up bunking on the public floors). As soon as I got off the boat and commented on the situation to my companion, she alerted me to the oddness of the situation and we immediately called the Mission President.
For better or worse, I would have had no problem physically attacking a man who attempted physical coercion (I had practice physically responding to attempts on my person prior to becoming a missionary). And as I said, I have no problem saying “NO!!!!” when people ask me to do wrongful things.
Then again, I had no problem arguing with senior executives when I myself didn’t yet have a college degree. So while you may be right that many women would have had a hard time getting the situation handled, I submit that you don’t know me, and therefore are incorrect to presume that I could have been so easily dismissed.
I forgot to mention that I had attended the Exponent II ten year reunion prior to going on my mission, so I had that community I could have reached out to, had I failed to achieve an appropriate response from my local Church hierarchy.
Awesome Post, Meg! I wonder what all went into you becoming such a force to be reckoned with; and what experiences other had who are less forceful. The Church works differently for different people, I guess. But we should consciously make efforts to raise our daughters (and sons for that matter) to realize that they can say “no”; and if they are not believed by one person they are free to go to others.
I think the charitable view of the woman, young at the time, was that she had been cowed–through repeated assaults by her step-father–into submitting to male abuse from a young age. The opposite of Meg’s training. I don’t know the psychology of it but I can imagine what kind of inner inertia of the will that might cause. She has apparently, as demonstrated by her latest actions, grown out of that, and is now herself a force to be reckoned with! She got it on tape.
I love this post, but I think it is important to remember that abusers won’t attack someone like you. They seek those that will not fight or speak out. They test the waters to figure out how vulnerable or weak a potential victim is. Then they groom them before they get inappropriate. They don’t just spring this kind of inappropriate request on a random person who may very well fight back and scream and shout and seek justice loudly.
Meg, not all women raised in the church are as beautiful, intelligent, talented, charming, and headstrong as you. 😉
In fact, some women raised in Utah would say that there are places in Utah, including Provo, where girls are treated as second class human beings, and are indoctrinated to be subservient.
Based on the “management by intimidation” culture that I observed at the MTC in that time-frame, I can understand how a female missionary could be intimidated and cowed into both the abuse, and into not reporting it.
Predators can detect low self-esteem, and choose people exhibiting it to be their victims. Abuse then further exacerbates low self-esteem. Without counseling and treatment, survivors can continue to give off “victim vibes” the rest of their lives, thereby attracting more abusers. Sort of like how a pitiful wounded-rabbit call brings out predators and makes them salivate.
So the fact that she made further abuse claims against others post-MTC actually fits the pattern of real abuse.
I remember that MTC president. I thought he was an arrogant, manipulative, condescending, confrontational, Nephite-diseased jerk, treating the entire audience of missionaries as if they were all misbehaving like the worst ones.
If I could have figured out how to get access to his superior, I would have complained. But how would I have been received if I had called the Missionary dept in SLC and told the switchboard operator: “I’m elder so-and-so at the MTC, and I have a complaint about the MTC mission president” ?
And if every BP at the MTC came across as a condescending, arrogant, overbearing a-hole, I expected their superiors in the missionary dept in SLC to be cut from the same cloth.
To a recent convert from the midwest, the management style of my branch pres, the mtc pres, and the speaking style of every BP who spoke at the weekly devotionals, they ALL appeared as overbearing rectal orifices compared to the bishops and stake presidents I listened to and interacted with back home.
And if they were ALL that way at the MTC, and the church being true, then that must be the way that the Brethren (and the Lord) wanted it.
You guys who grew up in the church, especially in Utah, were likely used to that attitude. That was the water you swam in your entire life. But it was a shock to me as an outsider, and as an adult convert.
That was not the right way to treat volunteers. If a volunteer refuses to obey the rules of service (those particular high-spirited elders who were always breaking rules/cutting up, etc.) , then the proper thing would have been to say “Thank you, but if you’re not going to obey the rules, your service is no longer needed.”
Arrogant condescension, brow-beating and emotional bullying is not the right example to set when trying to elicit compliance. Young people will merely duplicate that behavior when they are eventually in positions of authority themselves.
I totally believe the accuser. The official climate of intimidation was the perfect hiding spot for a predator who needed to bully a girl into submission and cow her into silence. And Bishop was a textbook emotional bully.
I remember his manipulative and condescending attitude at the welcoming ceremony my first day. I also remember thinking that if I hadn’t had a testimony going in, I would have turned around and left right then.
I was, and am not, a sophsticated person. But I do usually get a certain gut feel when I’m being manipulated.
A testimony also means you grit your teeth and soldier on past something you don’t understand or agree with. “I’m just a young adult. He’s fully grown. This is the OFFICIAL MTC. He’s in charge. He’s called of God. He reports to General Authorities.” So I over-rode my gut feel, and soldiered on.
The consistency of the emotional browbeating from all the Branch president speakers at the weekly things leads me to believe that the GAs intentionally stressed the missionaries to filter out ones who shouldn’t have been there, or to elicit confessions of prior unresolved sin.
But it backfired. The heavy-handed management style generated more rebellion among the rowdies, and fostered distrust among the timid. Well, duh. They didn’t see that coming?
My best guess is that it really was a management error that either fostered or allowed that climate of bullying and intimidation to be the order of the day at the MTC.
Now to be clear, the bullying wasn’t in what they said, it was how they said it. And it was not in the classrooms from the teachers. It was from all the ecclesiastical leadership. In a nutshell, they made the gospel feel like a lie. They said the right gospel words, but the spirit they said them with was all wrong.
I totally believe that Joseph Smith Jr. restored God’s only true church, and that Russell M Nelson is Joseph Smith’s legitimate successor. And, I also now fully grok the term “ecclesiastical abuse” as has sometimes been applied to priesthood leaders in Utah.
It’s just as Mormon wrote: “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.”
Yeah, the church is still true. But I still have a hard time trusting Utah, or Utah-style Mormons.
I sincerely hope that the church also revamped the behind-the-scenes missionary dept, MTC management style, and mission leadership when they raised the bar for missionaries. Based on your comments from Bryan’s service as an MTC branch pres, I conclude that they have.
I was in the MTC in summer 1983, when president Bishop took over from Pres. Joe J. Christensen. I had no direct interactions with him, but listened to him speak several times and generally liked him.
This news is surprising and sad.
JRL, the thing is that I have been attacked and folks have attempted to pressure me into yielding sex against my will. So it isn’t accurate to suggest that there is some kind of magic some women possess that makes them immune to abuse.
anonforthisoneplease, I don’t doubt the accuser’s account. Nor do I doubt Catherine Laur Fuller’s account. I have a lot of respect for the manner in which Catherine Laur Fuller stood up to much more significant suasion than faced by the female missionary in 1984. Catherine told her truth and was believed by those who heard her.
You indicate you were in the MTC as a male missionary in 1984 – I take it as a reasonable assumption that you were in your teens or early twenties? I was there in the last weeks of being 20 years old as a female missionary, one who had attended BYU for three years prior to becoming a missionary. I was going to Italy, and my Branch President was a gem. I honestly don’t recall the devotional speakers.
As for the culture, eventually they shifted to a paradigm where the bar was raised, rather than attempting to shoehorn unwilling, unconverted youth into service their families wished to see them perform.
Bryan was a teacher at the MTC, never a branch president. He often speaks of the electric atmosphere at the MTC the day it was announced that priesthood ordination was now open to all worthy males.
The missionary department is managed by people. And if one constructs a steelman to understand why they do the things that they do, one can understand why certain decisions make sense to them.
I appreciate the current practice/policy of restricting priesthood and certain aspects of ministry to men. But one unfortunate side effect is that male transgressors are understood by the men who minister, where women are too often not understood. Joseph L. Bishop and the anonymous woman/women involved in the current situation illustrate an instance of this unfortunate side effect of current practice/policy.
My wife Saturday morning wanted to share with me the quote below from the Teachings of the President of the Church: Joseph Smith. She was unaware of the matter with the MTC president; it was just something that impressed her, and as she wrote to our son, “I think it is interesting that even in the days of the early Saints that Joseph Smith was dealing with a very mixed audience.”.
For what it’s worth, Joseph’s comments about adulterers was made in the grove in Nauvoo on 10 April 1842, less than two weeks after his letter to the Relief Society, and after lambasting the General Conference audience that anyone would believe the Church itself taught it was appropriate to coerce women to participate in illicit intercourse, as had been rumored at that time, a rumor Martha Brotherton would later document in an affidavit. In the case of Martha Brotherton, there is reason to suspect her version was slightly altered to attack Joseph rather than Hyrum.
I was in the MTC Nov/80 – Jan/81 and, unlike Anon, felt like the BP’s and Pres. C were all great leaders. I tried to read all the transcript between Sister Doe and Brother Bishop. Unless she was going foreign, I’m not sure why she was in the MTC that long unless she was having “problems” from the start. Child out of wedlock before her mission? Systemic sexual abuse by stepfather? I can see where she was not your run of the mill missionary. I was impressed that every time she tried to get him to admit he attempted to rape her, he pushed back and said “No, I didn’t.” I kept waiting for her to ask: If that’s not the way you remembered things, what is your recollection of what happened in the basement? It seems like once she appears to be agitated and dropping the F word, he does his best to calm her down and agree with her (and after she admits she threatened to kill him back in 2010.) All in all, a sad state of affairs leaving me to wonder still what really happened with Sister Doe, and what really happened during other parts of Bishop’s church service. If you crack open the brains of church leaders (local and general) I think you would find they are ordinary men, struggling with impure thoughts and feelings just like anyone else. It’s when those thoughts are allowed to sit and fester that eventually lead to actions. I know we mostly address behaviors, but my feeling is that more needs to be done to understand how the sweet little boy that is helpful to his mother goes on to become a male who takes advantage of girls and women. If we could figure out the patterns of unhealthy sexual progression we might be able to nip the harassment problem in the bud.
“If we could figure out the patterns of unhealthy sexual progression we might be able to nip the harassment problem in the bud.”
Although the world generally doesn’t and won’t admit it, it is my observation that it is well understood by those who are honest professionals that pornography is the source of much of the sexual perversion we see today. Sure, there have always been sexual pervs and deviancy, but the #Metoo movement is but a symptom of a larger and unhealthy societal problem. No small wonder after decades of access to porn and minimalizing its effects, that all of a sudden we are crying bloody harrassment and abuse. Even the very elect will get caught in its vile trap.
The irony is that so long as society continues to consume pornography to the tune of billions of dollars annually, the #Metoo fervor, while important to acknowledge, will have done little to create change in societal behaviors. We are putting a band-aid on a monstrous wound while the porn industry rolls along unscathed and chews up new and old victims in its wake. No wonder our prophets and apostles have long warned members to avoid pornography like the plague.
I think a contributing factor to Bishop’s behavior and the apparently inadequate response is the fact that so many have:
1) Been taught that Joseph was a great guy (I agree)
2) Learned that Joseph had many wives (I agree with many covenants)
3) That Joseph’s interactions were appropriately sexual with these women (meh)
4) That Joseph did this without informing Emma (I disagree)
5) That Emma was a terrible woman who tried to stop Joseph (I disagree)
6) That we are to avoid evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed (read D&C 121:34-40)
Whether Bishop believed he were incapable of serious sin by virtue of his position, that incorrect belief clearly impacted the woman and those to whom she reported the incident.
Pathetic. You justify Joseph Smith who engaged in predatory relationships and slandering of any woman who crossed him but then claim to care about those issues today, really? You apparently are willing to cover a multitude of sins for Brother Joseph. I’m sure you would have enjoyed joining his harem if you had the chance. There’s a reason Brigham Young warned young women about being alone with Brother Joseph.
You’ve got the reports wrong in your post. Only Joseph Bishop claims he asked her to expose her breasts and that she complied. The woman’s account is very different and was that he ripped her clothes and raped her. So you’re misrepresenting her account. Given what we know her account is more credible.
You can claim that you would have acted differently, but you weren’t subjected to years of child abuse like this woman was. It’s likely Bishop targeted her specifically for that reason.
I’m curious where you get your history, specifically your claim that Brigham warned young women against being alone with Joseph? The letter I include above was signed by Brigham, but the first signator is Joseph Smith.
For someone who claims to believe the women’s version, you are ignoring the many statements by women asserting Bennett or his followers pressured them to have sex. The only accounts that portray Joseph as a predator arise from Bannett or at his behest (e.g. Martha Brotherton’s July 1842 affidavit, which features Joseph as senior advocate versus the Apr 1842 rebuttal, which mentions Hyrum rather than Joseph). Many of these women’s statements were published in Nauvoo newspapers and are backed up by copies of original documents available in university archives, the originals slated to be digitized and made available by the LDS archives in the near future. So you have no valid excuse for ignoring these women.
You are also ignorant of the scientific factors that make the claims of Bennett and Sarah Pratt unlikely. DNA refutes long-held presumptions that Joseph engendered the children conceive by women he covenants with. Nauvoo individual were ignorant of bacteria, so the claim the Mississippi was full of aborted fetuses is ludicrous. And the claim the one should presume infertility produced the extant paucity of children born to Nauvoo Mormons credibly participating in plural marriages doesn’t make sense in light of the 20% statistic proponents cite, much less the fact the a 20% reversal in infertility would only apply to the 6% of women statistically deemed infertile, which transforms the claimed 20% to 1%.
But I suspect your information regarding Joseph Smith is based on gullible credence rather than first person review of original sources.
If someone had ripped off my clothing and raped me, I definitely would not be quiet.
While I did not suffer invasive sexual abuse, you are wrong to assume I don’t know physical and emotional abuse.
Not all reports are equally credible. Whatever the woman stated occurred, I don’t see you making the assertion she wished her story leaked.
I don’t really get the point of this rambling post. That abuse like this wouldn’t happen if the victims we’re more like you? That’s pretty bold and egotistic. As far as Joseph Smith, you don’t agree that he kept his “celestial marriages” with plenty of other women, many underage and coerced by their parents, secret from Emma? That’s just a fact. Whether there is concrete evidence of actual sexual misbehavior/abuse seems beside the point. Joseph was extremely dishonest, predatory and manipulative.
You claim your position as proven fact when it is not.
Now you and others may want to argue that your claim is at least plausible. All you need to do is ignore information.
I challenge you to read my book, Reluctant Polygamist. Then once you’re in possession of information, feel free to re-engage in credible debate. The book explains how one can contact me.
You do realize that the church’s own position disagrees with you?
https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng
“Emma likely did not know about all of Joseph’s sealings.”
He also loudly denounced polygamy publicly while practicing it privately. Actions speak louder than words.
Hi JoeMob,
Brian Hales and others who likely contributed to the Gospel Topic essays regarding plural marriage, as well as those who reviewed the essays back in 2013-2014, were not aware of my research. As recently as 2016 Brian Hales hadn’t bothered actually reading my book (when I gave him a copy at MHA he was surprised to see that I had an index and footnotes). When I approached the Interpreter folks about my research, they hadn’t bothered looking at it since someone had glanced at my blog posts and provided some comments (several of the comments are things demonstrably align with my position, as in the case of the paternity of Josephine Lyon and my proposal that Eliza Snow’s poetry had been altered). The mainstream researchers who contributed to the Gospel Topics essays typically think Emma was lying when she gave her final interview regarding Joseph Smith, in which she denied Joseph had any wife other than herself. I think she was motivated to use a specialized definition of the term “wife” that is more consistent with “no other woman than me ever conceived a child by Joseph, hence I am his only wife.” The reasons I give for her statement are:
1) William Smith, a nasty piece of work, had recently become a part of the RLDS community and Emma wished to trump anything William might try to claim.
2) Emma likely believed her youngest son, David, had become mentally unwell as a result of learning about Joseph’s teachings regarding plural marriage.
3) Emma likely was aware how disturbed Joseph III and Alex had become when they were told she had participated in the ceremonies where Joseph covenanted with other women.
No one in Nauvoo who had learned about plural marriage from Joseph actually called it polygamy during Joseph’s lifetime. Therefore the hypocrisy you wish to attribute to Joseph isn’t consistent with the documented history.
You realize you are saying “The Church I despise, which you ludicrously defend, doesn’t agree with you.” And I’m saying that they were wrong, but the Church is true, perhaps even more luminously true than many have been willing to allow.
At any rate, read the book or don’t. I don’t much care. But I don’t find your assertions from ignorance to be persuasive.
As much of a sensitive topic that this is for you, these accusations are fake news fabricated from the anti-Mormon brigade, which comes as no surprise. Read this for perspective:
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-investigations/2018/03/24/amid-quiet-life-chandler-explosive-sexual-assault-allegations-hit-mormon-leader/449975002/
I have read thoroughly and heard the tapes—it is so cleverly twisted, it makes me deeply saddened how someone could actually fake this and live with themselves. I had a close family who was abused, so I should know, and this behavior sickens me. This is crafty falsified vitriol from the mouth of the devil himself.
Interesting that the unidentified accuser served a mission to the Washington DC area and accused someone of rape there, an accusation she or her people now admit was false.
It would be a delicious irony if the charges against Bishop were ever proven to be false. Alas, there are those who will believe the charges no matter what. Just as there are those who will believe evil of Joseph Smith no matter what, even though that position makes no sense when one studies the subject.