Godly Concession and the Restoration Contract

[_Gadianton]

I've been curious and annoyed over the upcoming summer camp hosted by the Maxwell Institute with the intent to spin-doctor the negative elements of Joseph's life. I contacted a friend who knew someone that is a "shoe-in" for one of those 12 positions. He and a couple colleagues are collaborating on a few preliminary papers. Some of these documents have been distributed rather freely, and my friend was able to secure one. he shared it with me, and I'm going to sneak a portion of it here. It may stir up some controversy, but because this could have happened anyway, I don't feel too bad about it. I might even be able to get more...

This is from a paper called, "Godly Concession and the Restoration Contract"

...and so from the above we must confess the institutions of God are at any time constrained by the actions of mankind. The actions of men, including the servants of the Lord, constrain the Lord's hand. The Law of Moses is a typical example, a lesser law given to Israel until a time where they'd be ready for the higher law of faith. A different kind institutional compromise is a concession, where the Lord sanctifies a decision of his people reluctantly. When the Children of Israel desired a King, the reign of Judges ended with the Lord's approval despite his misgivings. In either case, the only difference in the institution is that one is proactive and another reactive, both to accommodate a people not able to do more.

As an irrevocable law decreed in heaven stands the Restoration of All Things. This restoration includes God's holy institutions as they really came to be, not as they should have happened in a world without a fall. For in such a world, there would be no need of a restoration at all. We know that the Restoration includes some awkward practices, what might seem to our sensibilities like "baggage". For instance, Doctrine and Covenants rhetoric alludes to the tribe of Levi offering animal sacrifices as part of the Restoration and the plans for the New Jerusalem Temple included sacrificial facilities. These institutions may seem vestigial, but the restoration demands their (at least temporary) reinstatement.

The doctrine of restoration we argue has been understated in relation to Joseph Smith's role. His position as a king could have in fact reflected his person instantiating the postexilic reign of kings. But his role of restorer might help to explain some of the even more important, peculiar and alarming actions of Joseph Smith, specifically in relation to polygamy, which practiced for a limited time may well have been a vestigial component of the restoration itself. Critics delight in evidence that has come forth implicating Joseph Smith in secret adulterous relationships with the wives of his brethren. However, when properly understood, these actions may in fact have been divinely ordained to serve the ends of the Restoration.

We do not know the nature of the Lord's approval of David taking multiple wives. We do know, however, that it was ordained of God. But David went too far,

"39 David's wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

-D&C 132:39"

We think it's likely that the severity of David's actions toward Uriah stem from the precedent he set in his covenants with the Lord, for the Lord allowed him to act before striking him from grace. Thus, the principle of polygamy may include an unfortunate element of treachery that must be restored, at least in a limited vestigial sense. David sent his countryman Uriah to battle and took Uriah's wife as his own. Joseph Smith sent his brethren on missions and secretly took their wives as his. It is likely unimportant whether Joseph Smith was acting knowingly in this matter or whether he was unwitting. It is quite possible that he pleaded with the Lord not to carry out the adulterous acts and that the Lord threatened him to proceed with consummation. At any rate, Joseph fulfilled his role as restorer of the De facto institution of polygamy. And unlike David, Joseph did not act in sin, but in perfect accordance with his sometimes unfortunate, unwanted roll of restorer as the Lord needed. As we come to understand how closely Joseph's actions parallel Scripture traditions, we catch a better glimpse of the often overlooked scope of his calling, including those elements which may seem at first glance, counter-intuitive. When properly understood, Joseph's sanctity leaps from the pages in ways hitherto unappreciated.

[_karl61]

I think they need to include the thoughts " other men's wives and daughters" in their writings. I think they need to also write that there is almost no evidence that Joseph gave any of those women a second thought when Emma gave them the boot - his only thought was of his next conquest.

[_skippy the dead]

I guess you can justify just about anything if you put your mind to it.

[_Imwashingmypirate]

[quote="Gadianton"]I've been curious and annoyed over the upcoming summer camp hosted by the Maxwell Institute with the intent to spin-doctor the negative elements of Joseph's life. I contacted a friend who knew someone that is a "shoe-in" for one of those 12 positions. He and a couple colleagues are collaborating on a few preliminary papers. Some of these documents have been distributed rather freely, and my friend was able to secure one. he shared it with me, and I'm going to sneak a portion of it here. It may stir up some controversy, but because this could have happened anyway, I don't feel too bad about it. I might even be able to get more...

This is from a paper called, "Godly Concession and the Restoration Contract"

...and so from the above we must confess the institutions of God are at any time constrained by the actions of mankind. The actions of men, including the servants of the Lord, constrain the Lord's hand. If the lord is almightily powerful then NO man can constrain his hand. Would this then imply that man has power over the lord? The Law of Moses is a typical example, a lesser law given to Israel until a time where they'd be ready for the higher law of faith. A different kind institutional compromise is a concession, where the Lord sanctifies a decision of his people reluctantly. When the Children of Israel desired a King, the reign of Judges ended with the Lord's approval despite his misgivings. In either case, the only difference in the institution is that one is proactive and another reactive, both to accommodate a people not able to do more.

As an irrevocable law decreed in heaven stands the Restoration of All Things. This restoration includes God's holy institutions as they really came to be, not as they should have happened in a world without a fall. For in such a world, there would be no need of a restoration at all. We know that the Restoration includes some awkward practices, what might seem to our sensibilities like "baggage". For instance, Doctrine and Covenants rhetoric alludes to the tribe of Levi offering animal sacrifices as part of the Restoration and the plans for the New Jerusalem Temple included sacrificial facilities. These institutions may seem vestigial, but the restoration demands their (at least temporary) reinstatement.

The doctrine of restoration we argue has been understated in relation to Joseph Smith's role. His position as a king could have in fact reflected his person instantiating the postexilic reign of kings. But his role of restorer might help to explain some of the even more important, peculiar and alarming actions of Joseph Smith, specifically in relation to polygamy, which practiced for a limited time may well have been a vestigial component of the restoration itself. Critics delight in evidence that has come forth implicating Joseph Smith in secret adulterous relationships with the wives of his brethren. However, when properly understood, these actions may in fact have been divinely ordained to serve the ends of the Restoration. HA. Ha , ha HAHAHA
We do not know the nature of the Lord ............ I would reply to the rest but this thing is bugging me. It pops back up when I try to write at the bottom and so I keep having to pull it back down for it just to go back up again.

[MODERATOR NOTE: Imwashingmypirate, please do not type "HAHAHA" (or any other exclamation) using too many characters in a row. It makes the thread take up more horizontal width than a typical monitor screen (since there's nowhere for the software to insert a soft return), thus forcing everyone to use their horizontal scroll bar to view each line.]

[_The Dude]

So any seemingly "bad fruit" of Joseph Smith can be rationalized as a restorative act as long as we find a parallel in the Old Testament?

Even if Joseph Smith never thought of this excuse himself??

Are Maxwell scholars allowed to pen doctrines like this?

[_the road to hana]

Still shaking my head at this:

Thus, the principle of polygamy may include an unfortunate element of treachery that must be restored, at least in a
limited vestigial sense.

and this:

Joseph Smith sent his brethren on missions and secretly took their wives as his. It is likely unimportant whether Joseph Smith was
acting knowingly in this matter or whether he was unwitting.

It is quite possible that he pleaded with the Lord not to carry out the adulterous acts and that the Lord threatened him to proceed with
consummation.

At any rate, Joseph fulfilled his role as restorer of the De facto institution of polygamy. And unlike David, Joseph did not act in sin, but in perfect
accordance with his sometimes unfortunate, unwanted roll of restorer as the Lord needed.

As we come to understand how closely Joseph's actions parallel Scripture traditions, we catch a better glimpse of the often overlooked scope of
his calling, including those elements which may seem at first glance, counter-intuitive.

When properly understood, Joseph's sanctity leaps from the pages in ways hitherto unappreciated.

I can't even say in this forum, let alone polite company, what I think of either of these excerpts. Somewhere, somebody
absolutely has to have red flags going off in their head. If not, I really fear for the people who buy this.

[_truth dancer]

These guys need to step back and look at what they are doing.

They seriously need to take a break, ask themselves if it is in any remote sense a good thing to try to find ways to justify and rationalize cruel and disgusting behavior.

Would these scholar/apologists think it appropriate to do this sort of excuse making for anyone else other than Joseph Smith?

I've said it before.... blaming God for the horrors of various men disgusts me.

~dancer~

[_Imwashingmypirate]

"Joseph Smith sent his brethren on missions and secretly took their wives as his. It is likely unimportant whether Joseph Smith was
acting knowingly in this matter or whether he was unwitting.
It is quite possible that he pleaded with the Lord not to carry out the adulterous acts and that the Lord threatened him to proceed with
consummation.
At any rate, Joseph fulfilled his role as restorer of the De facto institution of polygamy. And unlike David, Joseph did not act in sin, but in perfect
accordance with his sometimes unfortunate, unwanted roll of restorer as the Lord needed.
As we come to understand how closely Joseph's actions parallel Scripture traditions, we catch a better glimpse of the often overlooked scope of
his calling, including those elements which may seem at first glance, counter-intuitive.
When properly understood, Joseph's sanctity leaps from the pages in ways hitherto unappreciated."


"It is quite possible that he pleaded with the Lord not to carry out the adulterous acts and that the Lord threatened him to proceed with
consummation. "
This cannot be serious. Honestly, are people trying to make Joseph Smith look better than GOD??????

"unwanted roll [role] " MY ARSE!!! What man wouldn't want a hundred wives to do as he pleases. Come on.

[_the road to hana]

Charity, I know Shades doesn't mind cross-posting, but aren't there rules against that sort of thing on MADB?

[_truth dancer]

Hi TRTH,

I can't even say in this forum, let alone polite company, what I think of either of these excerpts. Somewhere, somebody
absolutely has to have red flags going off in their head. If not, I really fear for the people who buy this.

Yeah... I'm speechless. (Doesn't happen very often... smile).

Just when I think the excuse making can't get any worse, it does. I don't even know how these guys can come up with this sort of thing.

It truly boggles the mind, and leaves me feeling sick.

~dancer~