for Will Schryver, or other TBMs

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_truth dancer
_Emeritus
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm

Post by _truth dancer »

Well it all comes down to this:

Does one's personal revelation Trump revelation from the prophet/Stk President?

Should one obey the leaders or follow one's personal inspiration when they conflict?

How does one know if a prophet (or other leader) is actually receiving revelation or inspiration, when the prophets themselves cannot tell and have been wrong on many an occasion?

How can one trust one's own revelation/inspiration when even the prophets are misled and often confused as to what is or is not revelation/inspiration from the divine?

On the one hand leaders will tell members to obey the prophet, to follow the teachings of the church, that the prophet is the mouthpiece of God on earth, "whether my voice or the voice of my prophets it is the same", etc. etc. etc. OTOH, apologists state that one is entitled to their own personal revelation/inspiration. OTOH, these same apologists state that if your personal revelation/inspiration does not confirm the prophets teachings/doctrine then you are sinning, asking the wrong question, not asking with real intent or some such thing. OTOH, these same folks tell us that prophets are fallible and make mistakes. OTOH, the leaders do not seem to share the fact that what they think they KNOW, may in fact be wrong. OTOH, if your personal revelation/inspiration confirms that a prophet is making a mistake then you are getting your thoughts from Satan and must pray harder to know that the prophets are right. OTOH, prophets may be wrong. OTOH, prophets are the mouthpiece of God.

It is all a big miss, IMHO.

:-)

~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Re: for Will Schryver, or other TBMs

Post by _asbestosman »

Sethbag wrote:You just contradicted every Mormon whose ever defended the idea that the Prophets can sometimes make mistakes and utter their opinions, even when they thought they were relaying revelation from God, by saying that each person is entitled to their own, personal revelation of what the Prophet has said. Now you're saying that a person is not entitled to receive personal revelation if it contradicts the Prophet?

Which is it, Abman? When the Prophet speaks, has the thinking been done? Or are you entitled to receive a heads up from God when the Prophet is just uttering his own personal opinion?

You are entitled to a confirmation of what the prophet says. I don't see anywhere that says laypeople are entitled to a heads up when the prophet is uttering his personal opinion. What we have is the assurance that he will not lead the church astray.

You are entitled to personal revelation, but it will not contradict those above you in the "LDS Revelation Flowchart". The current prophet and apostles demand monogamy and marital fidelity. It isn't a personal thing--it is a churchwide commandment.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
_William Schryver
_Emeritus
Posts: 1671
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:58 pm

Post by _William Schryver »

Sethbag:

If it doesn't throw up a giant red flag in a person's mind that the same "channels" through which revelation is received in the Church, ie: Joseph Smith the Prophet, is also the same guy who is being given permission from God to sleep with dozens of other women, there's something wrong with that person. I can hardly imagine a greater, more obvious, and more egregious conflict of interest.

"I'm the Prophet of God. Only I have the authority to receive revelations. And I just got one now [in my pants], which says that the Lord has given you to me, and after the performance, by Brigham Young, of a farcical, secret ceremony, the Lord has commanded me to take you to Brother Benjamin Johnson's house and have sex with you. But you mustn't tell anyone about this, and you must deny it if asked, because it's our little secret."

Sometimes you can be so dramatic! And . . . . . . . creative.

I know Joseph certainly consummated several of his plural marriages, but I hadn't previously known that his conquests numbered into the dozens! Wow! He was quite the man! Do we know all their names? How many times did he bed each of them? Was he a just a "one night stand" kind of guy, or did he continue to romance them all until the end of his life? Which were his favorites? Did any of them complain afterwards, or was it as good for them as it was for him?

Oh, and why exactly do you perceive an "egregious conflict of interest" in all of this? I didn't quite get that part. On the one hand, the revelator brings forth the doctrine of eternal marriage -- and that is presumably a valid expression of his prophetic calling. But as soon as he adds the word "plural" to the equation, then it's not revelation anymore? Am I understanding your complaint correctly? If not, perhaps you could elaborate a little further.
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...
_truth dancer
_Emeritus
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm

Post by _truth dancer »

I know Joseph certainly consummated several of his plural marriages, but I hadn't previously known that his conquests numbered into the dozens! Wow! He was quite the man! Do we know all their names? How many times did he bed each of them? Was he a just a "one night stand" kind of guy, or did he continue to romance them all until the end of his life? Which were his favorites? Did any of them complain afterwards, or was it as good for them as it was for him?


You sound like a bishop trying to figure out if a guy should be xed. ;-)

Personally I do not care about the details. The fact is Joseph Smith slept with women who were not his wife, lied about it, coerced and manipulated girls and women to be his, took other men's wives for his own, and blamed God for his dalliances.

~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
_Sethbag
_Emeritus
Posts: 6855
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:52 am

Post by _Sethbag »

William Schryver wrote:Sethbag:

If it doesn't throw up a giant red flag in a person's mind that the same "channels" through which revelation is received in the Church, ie: Joseph Smith the Prophet, is also the same guy who is being given permission from God to sleep with dozens of other women, there's something wrong with that person. I can hardly imagine a greater, more obvious, and more egregious conflict of interest.

"I'm the Prophet of God. Only I have the authority to receive revelations. And I just got one now [in my pants], which says that the Lord has given you to me, and after the performance, by Brigham Young, of a farcical, secret ceremony, the Lord has commanded me to take you to Brother Benjamin Johnson's house and have sex with you. But you mustn't tell anyone about this, and you must deny it if asked, because it's our little secret."

Sometimes you can be so dramatic! And . . . . . . . creative.

I think if you go from dry "he consummated the marriages" talk to actually envisioning it, it helps to bring across the creepiness of the whole thing. It's like that Images of the Restoration drawing of Joseph Smith seducing that one woman. It makes it all the creepier to know that that woman is not Emma, and that Emma's probably at home, at that time, tending her children, and wondering why the hell Joseph isn't home yet - he'd been called away on "urgent business" or whatever lies he was in the habit of telling her to disguise where he'd been and keep the secret.
I know Joseph certainly consummated several of his plural marriages, but I hadn't previously known that his conquests numbered into the dozens!

Yes, dozens. I didn't say hundreds, or even scores. Just dozens. I don't recall how many Compton says he "married", but it was at least into the 30s or 40s, and the number conceded by the apologists is at least in the 30s. Doesn't that count as "dozens" to you?
Wow! He was quite the man!

He was quite the cad.

Do we know all their names?

I doubt we shall ever know all their names. Some secrets were kept better than others. If William Law's comments and others' comments are to be given any credit at all, there were probably quite a few "plural wives" we may never actually know about. But quite a few are known. Look them up. Here's at least a partial list:

Emma Hale (note: actual wife, with whom Joseph eloped against her father's will. By the way, notice that he started out as an a**hole right from the begining)
Fanny Alger
Lucinda Morgan Harris
Louisa Beaman
Zina Huntington Jacobs
Presendia Huntington Buell
Agnes Coolbrith
Sylvia Sessions Lyon
Mary Rollins Lightner
Patty Bartlett Sessions
Marinda Johnson Hyde
Elizabeth Davis Durfee
Sarah Kingsley Cleveland
Delcena Johnson
Eliza R. Snow
Sarah Ann Whitney
Martha McBride Knight
Ruth Vose Sayers
Flora Ann Woodworth
Emily Dow Partridge
Eliza Maria Partridge
Almera Johnson
Lucy Walker
Sarah Lawrence
Maria Lawrence
Helen Mar Kimball
Hanna Ells
Elvira Cowles Holmes
Rhoda Richards
Desdemona Fullmer
Olive Frost
Melissa Lott
Nancy Winchester
Fanny Young

How many times did he bed each of them? Was he a just a "one night stand" kind of guy, or did he continue to romance them all until the end of his life? Which were his favorites? Did any of them complain afterwards, or was it as good for them as it was for him?

Don't know. I think it's pretty obvious from the sheer quantity of women Joseph wooed and "wedded" in secret, farcical, extra-legal ceremonies, and over what period of time, that he couldn't possibly have done all that much more with them than one-night stands. You do the math and tell me, Will, how much love and tenderness, and how many times the Prophet Joseph was able to spend the night with each of his several dozen wives in the space of just two or three years?

Oh, and why exactly do you perceive an "egregious conflict of interest" in all of this? I didn't quite get that part. On the one hand, the revelator brings forth the doctrine of eternal marriage -- and that is presumably a valid expression of his prophetic calling. But as soon as he adds the word "plural" to the equation, then it's not revelation anymore? Am I understanding your complaint correctly? If not, perhaps you could elaborate a little further.

You're not understanding the complaint properly. It's an egregious conflict of interest because the very guy bringing forth the revelation that all these women are supposed to wed an already-married man, happens to be that very man. He was The Prophet. He approached them with revelation for them. That revelation was that they should give in to undergoing secret marriage ceremonies and then have sex with... him. It's too self-serving. It's too obvious. How you can not perceive a conflict of interest in the fact that the same guy receiving all the revelation just happens to be the very guy allowed, by this revelation that he produced himself, to sleep with all these extra women. Will, this is not rocket science here. You're a smart guy. Figure it out.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
_SatanWasSetUp
_Emeritus
Posts: 1183
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:40 pm

Post by _SatanWasSetUp »

William Schryver wrote:I know Joseph certainly consummated several of his plural marriages, but I hadn't previously known that his conquests numbered into the dozens! Wow! He was quite the man! Do we know all their names? How many times did he bed each of them? Was he a just a "one night stand" kind of guy, or did he continue to romance them all until the end of his life? Which were his favorites? Did any of them complain afterwards, or was it as good for them as it was for him?


If he consummated his plural marriages, why does it make a difference how many there were? If it was okay for him to consummate one plural marriage, it should be okay for him to consummate a dozen plural marriages. Why would he have sex with some of his wives (presumably the hot ones) and withold intimacy from others? (probably the old ugly ones) That's more cruel than screwing them all.
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley

"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

If he consummated his plural marriages, why does it make a difference how many there were? If it was okay for him to consummate one plural marriage, it should be okay for him to consummate a dozen plural marriages. Why would he have sex with some of his wives (presumably the hot ones) and withold intimacy from others? (probably the old ugly ones) That's more cruel than screwing them all.


Apologists usually admit that Joseph Smith would have had the right to have sex with any of his wives. But that doesn't stop them from picking at this nit, because they really can't stand the idea of him having sex with other men's wives, either, no matter what his right may have been.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Post by _bcspace »

Will, or any other TBM, if you were in a Bishopric or a Stake Presidency, and someone under your jurisdiction confessed to pre-marital sex, but said it was OK because they'd received a revelation from God that it was OK in that person's particular circumstances, would you be OK with that? How would you react?


I would ex them.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Post by _bcspace »

Apologists usually admit that Joseph Smith would have had the right to have sex with any of his wives. But that doesn't stop them from picking at this nit, because they really can't stand the idea of him having sex with other men's wives, either, no matter what his right may have been.


Using the logic of the aforementioned letter, I would have no problem either way.

"This principle will justly apply to all of God's dealings with His children. Everything that God gives us is lawful and right; and it is proper that we should enjoy His gifts and blessings whenever and wherever He is disposed to bestow; but if we should seize upon those same blessings and enjoyments without law, without revelation, without commandment, those blessings and enjoyments would prove cursings and vexations in the end, and we should have to lie down in sorrow and wailings of everlasting regret.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

"This principle will justly apply to all of God's dealings with His children. Everything that God gives us is lawful and right; and it is proper that we should enjoy His gifts and blessings whenever and wherever He is disposed to bestow; but if we should seize upon those same blessings and enjoyments without law, without revelation, without commandment, those blessings and enjoyments would prove cursings and vexations in the end, and we should have to lie down in sorrow and wailings of everlasting regret.


Well, it certainly was a *blessing and gift* that Joseph Smith, basically, got to have sex with whatever consenting woman he wanted to with God's A-Ok - married or not.

Given the historically ambiguous and unreliable nature of revelation overall, it seems to me that no LDS person - even leaders - has the right to tell another that his/her revelation isn't true. Obviously leaders haven't done a great job discerning between revelation and their personal opinions in the past, so if "God" tells someone else to enjoy these same gifts and blessings that he bestowed upon Joseph Smith, LDS cannot rightfully judge.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
Post Reply