Godly Concession and the Restoration Contract

[_Yoda]

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

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

:-)

~dancer~

The commands are:

[b]bold words[/b]

[_Runtu]

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.

I'm really gratified that you recognize this chunk of BS for what it is. I knew I liked you.

[_Maxrep]

Though there is nothing wrong with the articles title, "Godly Concession and the Restoration contract", what about using a more concise name?

"The Immaculate Concession"

[_Sethbag]

Or "Concession to Madness".

If this article, or potential article, proves anything, it is that some people really can and do willingly surrender their mind to an idea so completely that they are capable of thinking of anything, and justifying and defending it, if that idea seems to require it, even if in every other aspect of their lives, they are rational, intelligent, honest people.

I bet the people who wrote this proto-article have no trouble believing that OJ Simpson really did do it. But they can't imagine that Joseph Smith "did it" too. Oh no. In Joseph Smith's case, it was really the Columbian drug lords who must have done it, metaphorically speaking.

[_Gadianton]

by the way, I read Charity's post on MAD. I never said that I read the "seminar", this is one preliminary exercise that probably was already being worked on before the announcement, and from how the conversation went, it's just one of those guys who's planning on being there. the other two i don't recognize at all, but I'd wager a number of the apologists on FAIR/MAD know the one and might even have read this. oh, i do have some of their other stuff, not as "juicy", and a couple of papers are just handouts, for a fireside or something. if i get word that this has gone online in other capacity, i'll provide names or just link to the full doc.

[_beastie]

Since when do believers have the right to question the morals of God?

[_Lincoln]

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...

On the first reading, I was sure this had to be a parody. But apparently not. Sheesh, where to begin? I'm just shocked at the extreme lengths apologists will use to cover-up and lie. It really is quite amazing.

I'm not sure I ever heard about the animal sacrifice chamber planned for the Independence Missouri temple. Will PETA be okay with that one? I think not. But who am I to judge. Also, I'm glad to learn about the restoration of the Lord's baggage. What a beautiful Christian concept, the Lord's baggage. I was hoping this would be addressed by the Church someday. I mean, how is a recent convert, or a seasoned member for that matter, expected to accept polyandry unless we know that the restoration included the restoration of the Lord's baggage too? Doesn't that make perfect sense? It really does. So all the Old Testament gunk about prophets lying about their wife, hiding in a whale to shirk their responsibilities, spilling on the ground, destroying entire cities with the Ark of the Covenant, all that deception and violence had to restored to Joseph Smith too. Right? Of course. Which explains his really random sexual and violent behavior, he was just fulfilling prophecy. He wasn't a callous charlatan. He was following the Lord's wonderful directives every step of the way. It warms my heart to know that the Lord's holy baggage was also restored to Joseph Smith, and his extra-marital unions, the Danites, and the concept of blood atonement were simply a restoration of Old Testament garbage, which had to be restored in modern times, to prove that Christ's true church of restored baggage is on the church today.

[_huckelberry]

Ah come on Gadianton, its a parady, no?

It does seem to be pretty thick with the academic paper talk. Its pretty convincing. But its such a fat pitch.

I mean the idea of Gods law in the Old Testament existing in a state of concession to barbaric social arrangements of the time is a fancy way of saying what most any believer has to believe in some way with the Old Testament. My views of the Old Testament rely on some version of that idea. But why in the world would one, we, God, want to go back to that limitation?

The times had a barbaric edge.

In my view Gods starting condecesion to the times only makes sense if the point was for people to use their efforts to get beyond the barbaric limitations of the past.

How could restoraton make any sense at all in that story? Oh my! we are making progress, better get back to the bad old ways? No, that does not sound reasonable.

Usually the LDS speech about restoration is centered on restarting authority. I think that idea is safer than some automatic recreation of all the past with its failures stupities and failures. But consider, does not the limited idea contain the obsurdity of the full meal deal? If the original concession is to be foundation for our efforts to learn and grow why bypass that with a reversion to the old in any form?

The article must be by an antimormon. Its is too well aimed.

[_Gadianton]

So all the Old Testament gunk about prophets lying about their wife, hiding in a whale to shirk their responsibilities, spilling on the ground, destroying entire cities with the Ark of the Covenant, all that deception and violence had to restored to Joseph Smith too. Right? Of course. Which explains his really random sexual and violent behavior, he was just fulfilling prophecy. He wasn't a callous charlatan. He was following the Lord's wonderful directives every step of the way.

LOL! No kidding. While you'd think it could justify anything, I don't think they are saying every single facet of the Old Testament had to be reinacted by Joseph Smith. But whatever smith did that was bad, they'd probably be able to find something.

[_Gadianton]

Ah come on Gadianton, its a parady, no?

??? But I'd bet $20 against it being presented at the MI thing. Can you really see BYU's religious faculty entertaining that, at least in this extreme form? The other handouts etc. I have don't lead me to believe this is the usual stuff. My guess is that it's experimental in some way and the one recognizable author isn't gearing up to be the next provacative guy on the list for excommunication. I could find out more but my friend has no idea I post online or the depth of my falling away from the church, he knows family etc., so, got to tread carefully.

It does seem to be pretty thick with the academic paper talk. Its pretty convincing. But its such a fat pitch.

I mean the idea of Gods law in the Old Testament existing in a state of concession to barbaric social arrangements of the time is a fancy way of saying what most any believer has to believe in some way with the Old Testament. My views of the Old Testament rely on some version of that idea. But why in the world would one, we, God, want to go back to that limitation?

I doubt that anyone wants to go back to that stuff, as has been asked of apologists before, what would you do if Joseph Smith had approached your daughter? It's all a matter of trying to spin-doctor. But I have to point out one thing. If any believer is forced to believe that about the Old Testament, why wouldn't they be forced to believe the same thing about Smith?

How could restoraton make any sense at all in that story? Oh my! we are making progress, better get back to the bad old ways? No, that does not sound reasonable.

I agree, which is why I recommend science and atheism. hehe.

Usually the LDS speech about restoration is centered on restarting authority. I think that idea is safer than some automatic recreation of all the past with its failures stupities and failures. But consider, does not the limited idea contain the obsurdity of the full meal deal? If the original concession is to be foundation for our efforts to learn and grow why bypass that with a reversion to the old in any form?

That's true. Did you read the link CKSalmon directed us to though? Had Joseph Smith been a self-denying Saintly guy, then such avenues would be better left unlooked at i'm surel;