Joseph Smith Megathread

[Guest]

I am going to give you a small quiz. Let us see what the outcome is.

Please choose the most correct answers:

1. Who is responsible for your being raised a Mormon?

a. My mother
b. My father
c. Myself
d. Casper the Mormon Holy Ghost®
e. My ecclesiastical leaders

C.

2. Who is responsible for you being an RM?

a. My mother
b. My father
c. Myself
d. Casper the Mormon Holy Ghost®
e. My ecclesiastical leaders

C.

3. Who is responsible for you getting married in the Mormon temple?

a. My mother
b. My father
c. Myself
d. Casper the Mormon Holy Ghost®
e. My horny TBM 19 girlfriend

C.

4. Who is responsible for foisting Mormonism on your children?

a. My mother
b. My father
c. Myself
d. Casper the Mormon Holy Ghost®
e. My demanding TBM thirty-something wife

None of the above. Nothing was "foisted."

I can see now why they removed the Lectures on Faith from the canon. It wasn't because it taught that God the Father was a being of spirit only and the Holy Ghost was not a being; rather it was so some Mormon's could ignore the idea (and truthful one I submit) that religion is based on parental/other people's teachings.

Lecture Second:35 - Let this class mark particularly that the testimony which these men had of the existence of a God, was the testimony of man; for previous to the time that any of Adam's posterity had obtained a manifestation of God to themselves, Adam their common father had testified unto them of the existence of God, and of his eternal power and Godhead.

...

Q. Had any others of the human family, beside Adam, a knowledge of the existence of God, in the first instance, by any other means than human testimony?
A. They had not. For previous to the time that they could have power to obtain a manifestation for themselves, the all-important fact had been communicated to them by their common father: and so, from father to child, the knowledge was communicated as extensively, as the knowledge of his existence was known; for it was by this means, in the first instance, that men had a knowledge of his existence. (2:35, 36.)

Simon, I hope you see that your statements above undermine the entire premise of priesthood authority and the need for a restoration that underlies Joseph Smith's point in this lecture.

[_honorentheos]

[Will Schryver] plans to prove "conclusively" that it was impossible for Joseph Smith to have sex with those women. He will argue that Joseph Smith was homosexual.

Unfortunately, Schryver doesn't see how this creates more problems than it solves.

You know what? That's a GREAT analogy for what he did with the KEP.

I agree. Kevin defined the entire matter perfectly here. +10

[_Simon Belmont]

In your opinion why does the church continue to "illustrate a teaching" with a completely inaccurate portrayal?

First, no one has demonstrated that it is a "completely inaccurate" portrayal. Second, the Church is entitled to choose the best ways to teach their members important points.

Really? I mean really?
What do you make of the fact that very few of the scholars actually use terminology that a TBM would consider a testimony?

Definitely not what you make it out to be.

Very few use the phrase "I know" to express their belief. Very few use anything to infer any belief in TSM being a prophet of God. Yet in church our children are brainwashed with exercises such as "Repeat after me; I know Thomas S. Monson is a prophet of God."

It is formal writing, not speaking from a puplit. Further, a random sample of 10 testimonies shows that more than have use the phrase "I know."

Furthermore, why is it problematic for you that some people say "I know" and some people express their belief differently.

Your favorite phrases seem to be: "who cares" and "it is not an issue".
The fact that these problems are not issues to you or that you do not care is staggering to me.

The fact that you make mountains out of every little insignificant molehill supports my believe that you just need something to hate in order to feel good about yourself. Conveniently, the Church can be your whipping post.

[_honorentheos]

...the Church is entitled to choose the best ways to teach their members important points.

Isn't this another way of saying you support the church in exercising message control? Isn't message control just another form of lying if, in fact, it favors positive points over damaging ones?

Try using a similar approach as the church uses for your next temple recommend interview. I suspect most already do, out of necessity for their psychological health, but seriously consider how much one could potentially not disclose to one's bishop or stake president in the interest of focusing on the more gospel-related events of your life.

I would crib a concept from Voltaire that reflects this idea and how it influenced my leaving the church. Once one stops taking the teachings and measures of the church to judge one's self and one's fellow man and instead turns it one the church itself, one will not only find it lacking (which is fair enough to grant) but unrepentant as well. It also helps that one can come to realize that all of the good the church really brings to one's life is not owned by the church or it's underlying teachings. It's a parasite on what could be a more healthy branch without it. I suppose that, like leaching, it can help heal where needed. But one should not then consider the life support of the leach as the true purpose of one's own life.

[_Jersey Girl]

You think that's strange you should see what I am going to do to my wife when she get's the kids to sleep upstairs. It will not be rated PG. I'll fill you in later.

Martin Crane in Frasier

Sex is supposed to be something private between you and the person that you're doing it to.

Geez, what is wrong with men anyway?

[/derail]

[_Simon Belmont]

I didn't say that there aren't. And I hardly think that differences of opinion on Ross's artwork and influence are objectionable in quite the same sense as, say, polygamy or Blood Atonement.

The issues that many perceive as damning, are actually not, when viewed in proper context. I do not doubt that some leaders said some nasty things, but there is no such thing as an organization without a blemish.

To illustrate how damning Blood Atonement was, please list one person who was reported to have been "blood atoned." This, of course, cannot be a murder made by church members (like the MMM) unless it can specifically be said that the reason for the murder was "blood atonement."

"[N]Old Testament actually harmful" in what sense?

Not harmful in the sense that abiding by the teachings one grows up with in the church does not harm that person in any way.

Though I admit that some parents can be butt-heads, forcing their interpretations and oppressing their children, which is not the fault of the children. But it is not the Church's fault.

By your logic, your wife could be fooling around behind your back, having sex with multiple partners, and so long as she didn't pass along a life-threatening disease to you, it'd all be fine and dandy, since it wasn't "actually harmful."

False analogy. It would obviously be harmful to me emotionally.

[_Simon Belmont]

Simon -

I don't particularly care for mega-threads

You are welcome, by all means, to bypass this one if it is not to your liking.

In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel, at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites and came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem, about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites, of the descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country.
I suspect that most participants on both this and the MAD board can understand why this would be controversial.

It is not entirely accurate.

What makes this even more interesting is that, other than this section, the entire letter was quoted for use in the manual as one of it’s lessons.

Okay.

My question, to those who are critical of the view that the church whitewashes it history, is what makes this acceptable to you?

It is not entirely accurate. We have learned a great deal about the origins of ancient America since the first printing, and definitely since the first letter.

Is it because the entire letter is available in other places, for example online where I found the above?

Members are encouraged to increase their knowledge of Church history through other resources than the lesson manuals on their own. For example, we discussed this in institute, there are many helpful guides and books at Deseret Book.

Is it that the missing material, potentially questioning whether or not Joseph Smith viewed all native americans as being lamanites, is not important to the gospel overall?

Yup.

If whitewashing is too strong a word, do you see at least some active attempt to hide something here, or is this just prudent editing on the part of the church?

Of course I do. I see an attempt to include only those things pertinent to the lesson, and to bringing people closer to Jesus Christ. This is what church is for.

[_Kishkumen]

This, of course, cannot be a murder made by church members (like the MMM) unless it can specifically be said that the reason for the murder was "blood atonement."

Yes, because of course people shouldn't be held accountable for their violent rhetoric in the name of religion that inspires others to murderous zealotry.

Really?

But it is not the Church's fault.

In the minds of some folk, nothing ever is.

[_honorentheos]

There is a lot of repetition here, so I'll only quote once with one follow-up question -

My question, to those who are critical of the view that the church whitewashes it history, is what makes this acceptable to you?

It is not entirely accurate. We have learned a great deal about the origins of ancient America since the first printing, and definitely since the first letter.

I suppose one could view it that way. But the question was if you found this acceptable behavior? Would you view it as acceptable in an individual toward whom you held no other bias? Would you act this way in good conscious your self?

[_honorentheos]

This, of course, cannot be a murder made by church members (like the MMM) unless it can specifically be said that the reason for the murder was "blood atonement."

Yes, because of course people shouldn't be held accountable for their violent rhetoric in the name of religion that inspires others to murderous zealotry.

Really?

But it is not the Church's fault.

In the minds of some folk, nothing ever is.

What I find most damning in Simon's response is that President Young clearly describes the justice of blood atonement, claims he knows of instances of it happening, and approves in his recorded speeched on the matter. To quote John D Lee's recorded account of such an instance is unnecessary at that point. Simon may say this one occurrence is not called for by the church but was just the actions of the same men who committed the MMM. But regardless of the specifics, whether we are able to call up an account that meets SB's request or not is irrelevant. President Young either lied when he said he knew of many men who were atoned for in this manner when he also demonstrated he approved of such "putting away" activities, or he is telling the truth. It's damning either way (Prophet = Paul H Dunn, or Prophet = witness of said blood atonement and the church's approval).