MG, you seem to be saying that you doubt the angel with the sword scenario. Is this true?
It gets much worse for MG. In addition to many others, we have prophets Heber J. Grant, Joseph F. Smith and Lorenzo Snow all testifying to the angel with a sword story. I really do feel sorry for MG. It appears this is a bridge too far for him and might break his shelf. He is dying on this hill. It's not fun to watch. I too was once where MG is now.
I think that these men found themselves engaged in a sincere effort to affirm the legitimacy and divine source of plural marriage as revealed through Joseph Smith. But I don't think they had any direct 'witness' to first hand or contemporary witnesses because there weren't any. Only past tense accounts given decades later for various reasons and motivations.
It's interesting, to say the least, that NONE of these accounts were given contemporaneously to the purported event.
Wang, we are not in the same boat. I travel my own road and journey of faith. I do understand that some of these issues were too much for you and that YOUR shelf broke. You alone are responsible for that.
The way the story has been passed along and amplified and possibly embellished...I'm a bit skeptical of. No first hand contemporary witness. No journal entry. Just the witnesses speaking decades down the road.
An angel with a flaming sword actually threatened Joseph with destruction/death? That's a hard one to swallow at face value. There may have been something that happened with a divine messenger. A personal interview and strong counsel. That I would be more comfortable with.
But a threat that would essentially supercede Joseph's agency? I don't think so.
Regards,
MG
Once again, I agree with you. You really can't trust anything Church leaders have said about the restoration. That the account is included in the Church's modern apologetic--on its own website--is even worse, wouldn't you agree?
Agreed. I also had no idea that MG also didn't believe in the First Vision, since there were no contemporary accounts. We only have conflicting accounts written over a decade after the "fact."
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."
It gets much worse for MG. In addition to many others, we have prophets Heber J. Grant, Joseph F. Smith and Lorenzo Snow all testifying to the angel with a sword story. I really do feel sorry for MG. It appears this is a bridge too far for him and might break his shelf. He is dying on this hill. It's not fun to watch. I too was once where MG is now.
I think that these men found themselves engaged in a sincere effort to affirm the legitimacy and divine source of plural marriage as revealed through Joseph Smith. But I don't think they had any direct 'witness' to first hand or contemporary witnesses because there weren't any. Only past tense accounts given decades later for various reasons and motivations.
It's interesting, to say the least, that NONE of these accounts were given contemporaneously to the purported event.
Wang, we are not in the same boat. I travel my own road and journey of faith. I do understand that some of these issues were too much for you and that YOUR shelf broke. You alone are responsible for that.
Regards,
MG
MG, not true. Read the first hand account/testimony of Joseph F. Smith.
In addition, there are at least 5 other first hand accounts. Do your research man! Don't be a lazy learner.
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."
I'm not asking about whether we are prone, as human beings, to relying on and respecting authority in our 'tribes'. I'm also not asking whether this human behavior is rather common. Nor whether you were involved - I mean, really‽‽
Instead of answering specific questions about specific people, or specific groups of people, with vague generalities about humans, please try again, and answer the specific questions I asked:
Did you mean to imply that, because "Wilford Woodruff said nothing until AFTER Heber C.", Wilford may have been simply supporting Heber's lie - that is, he had no prior knowledge of the story about the sword.
Were Heber and possibly Wilford the only church leaders not always known to tell the truth", or "known to embellish and at times leave out important information when giving narratives/accounts."?
Have any of the present-day GAs been "not always known to tell the truth", or "known to embellish and at times leave out important information when giving narratives/accounts."?
Hi malkie, I think I did answer your questions. We, along with church authorities, are in a sense members of a 'tribe', yes? Including those that came before us. And the problem is, we don't have access to and/or are not privy to all of the information needed to make an accurate assessment.
But as I said, we DO know what humans are prone to do.We are then responsible...as individuals...to determine the truth inasmuch as we are able to do so. At times we give each other the benefit of a doubt. That, in and of itself, is very hard to do at times.
Would you agree?
Regards,
MG
I'm going to attempt to candidly interpret MG's vague concessions about human nature, when asked about church leaders, both specifically by name, and more generally as a group. Interpreted remarks are in bold italics.
Did you [MG} mean to imply that, because "Wilford Woodruff said nothing until AFTER Heber C.", Wilford may have been simply supporting Heber's lie - that is, he had no prior knowledge of the story about the sword. Yes, indeed - there's not a lot of wiggle room to interpret my [MG's] remarks. I [MG} think it's likely that Heber lied, and Wilford covered for him.
Were Heber and possibly Wilford the only church leaders not always known to tell the truth", or "known to embellish and at times leave out important information when giving narratives/accounts."? It doesn't seem likely that Heber and possibly Wilford the only church leaders to lie, especially when under pressure. Other church leaders are likely to have lied also (they were not always known to tell the truth), and to have embellished or omitted important information.
Have any of the present-day GAs been "not always known to tell the truth", or "known to embellish and at times leave out important information when giving narratives/accounts."? Given that former church leaders have lied, perhaps especially when under pressure, it seems unlikely that modern church leaders are any different. This gives rise to the well-known "lying for the lord". Modern church leaders are no more reliable and truthful than earlier ones.
Would you agree? Or are you going to "TTOC"?
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
Once again, I agree with you. You really can't trust anything Church leaders have said about the restoration. That the account is included in the Church's modern apologetic--on its own website--is even worse, wouldn't you agree?
Agreed. I also had no idea that MG also didn't believe in the First Vision, since there were no contemporary accounts. We only have conflicting accounts written over a decade after the "fact."
MG believes the first vision, as it has since been revised--It's just that he's trying to reconcile the whole "free agency' thing. How could Joseph have the agency to reject polygamy when God threatened to destroy him if he rejected it? Am I right, MG?
I have to hand it to you, MG. The modern church is willing to throw 'free agency' under the bus to defend God and polygamy. But you're standing your ground. Good for you.
Once again, I agree with you. You really can't trust anything Church leaders have said about the restoration. That the account is included in the Church's modern apologetic--on its own website--is even worse, wouldn't you agree?
Agreed. I also had no idea that MG also didn't believe in the First Vision, since there were no contemporary accounts. We only have conflicting accounts written over a decade after the "fact."
I do believe in the First Vision. As you know there are various accounts including a couple that are quite early in Joseph's career. One of them in his own hand.
I think that these men found themselves engaged in a sincere effort to affirm the legitimacy and divine source of plural marriage as revealed through Joseph Smith. But I don't think they had any direct 'witness' to first hand or contemporary witnesses because there weren't any. Only past tense accounts given decades later for various reasons and motivations.
It's interesting, to say the least, that NONE of these accounts were given contemporaneously to the purported event.
Wang, we are not in the same boat. I travel my own road and journey of faith. I do understand that some of these issues were too much for you and that YOUR shelf broke. You alone are responsible for that.
Regards,
MG
MG, not true. Read the first hand account/testimony of Joseph F. Smith.
In addition, there are at least 5 other first hand accounts. Do your research man! Don't be a lazy learner.
None of the accounts were given until decades after the fact.
Agreed. I also had no idea that MG also didn't believe in the First Vision, since there were no contemporary accounts. We only have conflicting accounts written over a decade after the "fact."
I do believe in the First Vision. As you know there are various accounts including a couple that are quite early in Joseph's career. One of them in his own hand.
Regards,
MG
The earliest account in Joseph's own hand was over a decade later.
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."
