Godly Concession and the Restoration Contract

[_the road to hana]

Well, this is the kind of thing you get when you have millions of well-meaning believers who are doing the best they can to explain and understand their faith. They've chosen to believe it, they are presented with some problematic facts, and so they spend time working out ways to "reframe" the issues, come up with explanations like in the OP, and otherwise mitigate the problems and leave a veneer of plausibility. This is what it's about. And you better believe that there are people like this in every single religion on Earth. This is how it works. Religion isn't just an idea, it's also a practice, and a mindset, of real, living people, and these people spend a lot of time working out the kinks and whatnot.

I didn't know sex was such a problematical problem.

In a religion that won't even let members date until they're 16, and demands absolute chastity of its members outside the confines of marriage (which is regarded as between one man and one woman), and would excommunicate any member who had sex with someone not their spouse, or someone else's spouse, and puts the fear of God into kittens everywhere for the idle hands of those who enjoy their own bodies, you didn't think sex was a problem?

Making what Joseph Smith did somehow palatable is the problem.

[_Sethbag]

I didn't know sex was such a problematical problem.

It's not that "sex" as a dry, isolated topic is so problematical. What's problematical is the notion that God had to "restore" such things as David sending Uriah the Hittite off to be killed in battle to cover up the fact that David was banging his wife, by having Joseph Smith send guys off on missions and bang their wives while they were gone.

That kind of literalistic "we really do have to see a restoration of every little thing that happened in the Old Testament" attitude is what's really scary.

I suppose if Joseph Smith had had teenaged daughters he would have had to have gotten drunk and banged them to "restore" the whole Lot and his daughters thing, right?

And let's not forget that if a mob came upon Joseph, he might as well have handed over one of his plural wives to be raped by the mob, in order to restore the whole Levite mob behavior from Judges chapter 19.

Give me a freaking break. The whole notion that Joseph Smith's debaucheries can be justified as his unwilling submission to the demands of the Father to "restore" ancient knavery for the sake of completeness, is completely and totally bankrupt, morally offensive, and incomprehensible except as a feeble attempt at mitigating what are otherwise very damning facts about Joseph Smith.

And the last line quoted, that in light of these reframings Joseph Smith's "sanctity" is seen to "[leap] from the pages in ways hitherto unappreciated."

Oh. My. God.

[_the road to hana]

I agree with The Dude: Charity did the right thing by cross-posting it at MA&D. They need to (finally) know that the critics are right, that Joseph really did consummate his plural marriages.

I was just engaging in some good natured ribbing for her having done that, since no doubt had anyone else posted it there, particularly anyone identified as "a critic," (well, with the possible exceptions of The Dude or Uncle Dale), they would have been reprimanded, thread shut down, reminded of the rules and possibly shown the door. I happen to agree with The Dude that rules against cross-posting on MADB are outdated. Pointing out the difference in policy between that board and this just highlights the hypocrisy of moderation there. Charity is given a pass for something that other posters couldn't do.

It's noteworthy that so few people have actually chosen to respond once she posted it. They seemed momentarily speechless.

And yes, it's lovely and delightful that Charity posted it over there (even edited). In so doing, she was an unwitting pawn.

[_Roger Morrison]

... What's problematical is the notion that God had to "restore" such things as David sending Uriah the Hittite off to be killed in battle to cover up the fact that David was banging his wife, by having Joseph Smith send guys off on missions and bang their wives while they were gone.

That kind of literalistic "we really do have to see a restoration of every little thing that happened in the Old Testament" attitude is what's really scary.

I suppose if Joseph Smith had had teenaged daughters he would have had to have gotten drunk and banged them to "restore" the whole Lot and his daughters thing, right?

And let's not forget that if a mob came upon Joseph, he might as well have handed over one of his plural wives to be raped by the mob, in order to restore the whole Levite mob behavior from Judges chapter 19.

Give me a freaking break. The whole notion that Joseph Smith's debaucheries can be justified as his unwilling submission to the demands of the Father to "restore" ancient knavery for the sake of completeness, is completely and totally bankrupt, morally offensive, and incomprehensible except as a feeble attempt at mitigating what are otherwise very damning facts about Joseph Smith.

And the last line quoted, that in light of these reframings Joseph Smith's "sanctity" is seen to "[leap] from the pages in ways hitherto unappreciated."

Oh. My. God.

I'm in full and total agreement! The absurdity of this whole supposition re "The Restoration" and Joseph Smith's needful role in this piece of fiction, beats anything ever imagined by any SiFi writer through out the history of literature.

IF/WHEN this hits PBR or any media branch, it could out-do "Harry Potter", and open the flood gates of reality so long locked by the "keys-of-lds-priestcraft"! This cloud has a "silver lining"... Let the celebrations begin!! Happy Roger

[_the road to hana]

By the way, anyone check recently to see where her thread is? Buried on page 2 with only three responses. If it weren't for The Dude's helpful recipe addition, it probably wouldn't even be that high on the posting roster.

They're letting it die a slow death on the board but discussing it behind the scenes. Not even Peterson, Hamblin or dare I say it Pahoran have weighed in. Julie is nowhere in sight. They might be letting it stand, but they're hoping it will vanish onto the back pages.

[_beastie]

1. It is part of the crediblity thing to know the source.

2. I left out part because I didn't want it to be too long. I hate long cut and paste things myself, and didn't want to subject others to the same kind of thing.

1. I just want to be clear on what you're saying.

Do you agree with this statement? A clear yes or no would be helpful.

"I, Charity, cannot form an opinion on the content of this paper without knowing the source."

2. Oh, yes, those couple of sentences would have made it "too long". LOL! If the Tanners had ellipsed what you ellipsed on your thread, you'd be screaming bloody murder. In other words - those sentences have a lot to do with the primary idea of the paper.

[_Maxrep]

I helped Charity out over on MAD by posting the full rough draft for her. By the way, how does one use bold html over there if you wanted a word or paragraph to appear in bold test?

I thought it was [bold] bold words[bold/] ?

[_truth dancer]

I thought it was [bold] bold words[bold/] ?

the second bold is actually..... [/bold]

:-)

~dancer~

[_Runtu]

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?

I'm speechless. What a piece of work, indeed.

[_The Nehor]

I didn't know sex was such a problematical problem.

It's not that "sex" as a dry, isolated topic is so problematical. What's problematical is the notion that God had to "restore" such things as David sending Uriah the Hittite off to be killed in battle to cover up the fact that David was banging his wife, by having Joseph Smith send guys off on missions and bang their wives while they were gone.

That kind of literalistic "we really do have to see a restoration of every little thing that happened in the Old Testament" attitude is what's really scary.

I suppose if Joseph Smith had had teenaged daughters he would have had to have gotten drunk and banged them to "restore" the whole Lot and his daughters thing, right?

And let's not forget that if a mob came upon Joseph, he might as well have handed over one of his plural wives to be raped by the mob, in order to restore the whole Levite mob behavior from Judges chapter 19.

Give me a freaking break. The whole notion that Joseph Smith's debaucheries can be justified as his unwilling submission to the demands of the Father to "restore" ancient knavery for the sake of completeness, is completely and totally bankrupt, morally offensive, and incomprehensible except as a feeble attempt at mitigating what are otherwise very damning facts about Joseph Smith.

And the last line quoted, that in light of these reframings Joseph Smith's "sanctity" is seen to "[leap] from the pages in ways hitherto unappreciated."

Oh. My. God.

That kind of Restoration must exist solely in the minds of these people. Unless they're expecting someone to rip their slave wife into 12 pieces and send them throughout the Church and for a mass abduction of women like what happened with Benjamin then they're barking up wrong tree. God needs to restore all the faults of every dispensation????? If I believed that I would be terrified.