Joseph Smith Megathread

[_Kishkumen]

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.

Frankly, I have very little patience with folks who seek to minimize drastically the culpability of LDS leaders of this period. Indeed, I think the better course would be to own up to the fact that Brigham Young et al. were culpable, and then move on. Of course, I am not one of those folks who thinks that every past misdeed of the LDS Church damns the organization in the present. Nor do I think apologists should run around looking to respond to every silly attempt to blacken the reputation of the LDS Church, no matter how old the history.

The problem for apologists is that their credibility suffers the harder they work to deny even the most obvious problems. It is when they seek to exculpate men like Brigham Young from every error that they cross the line from apologetic to Mopologetic.

[_honorentheos]

Agreed. I think part of the problem was implied by Simon earlier in this thread - he views this as an attack on HIS faith. While personal attacks of an individual's faith frequently do occur on the mo-boards including here, Simon is confusing the attacks on the object of his faith with an attack on his faith as evidenced in this example.

That he feels inclined to defend the object of his faith rather than reconsider whether such faith is justified is, frankly, his problem. But such should not be used as an excuse to claim critics have no right to continue to point out the failings of the church and the improbability that it is what it claims to be.

I find it odd, frankly, that a person can start a "mega thread" on the issues with Joseph Smith and not feel somewhere in their soul a whisper that asks, "Why exactly am I even needing to start a thread on a person who claimed to be a prophet that excuses numerous issues including fraud, adultery, willful deceit, and undermines any probability of the LDS faith being true if such claims are even remotely valid?" Thus my Escher reference earlier.

[_Willy Law]

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.

Wow, Simon you could not be more wrong. This statement is completely false. Please reference the statement below from the Brigham Young Manual as well as the Church News article "Use Proper Sources."
Then please tell me how you construe this to me that "Members are encouraged to increase their knowledge of Church history through other resources than the lesson manuals"
You are really showing your true colors as an internet Mormon.



From the article:
http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/58411/Use-proper-sources.html

"Why," she asked, "are you trying to boil down information? An inspired Church-writing committee has already done that for you."

The committee's work, the daughter continued, has been approved by the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency. It has been translated into dozens of languages and sent around the world. It corresponds with the lessons and information taught at the same time to other auxiliaries and quorums in the Church.

Now the woman looked confused.

"Everything you need — and more — is in your manual," the daughter said....

Following the advice of her daughter, the woman above turned off her computer, shut the dozens of books open on her dining room table and picked up her manual and scriptures. The frustration she had previously experienced disappeared. She knew the material was doctrinally accurate. She knew its source was valid. She knew it had been approved by the men called to lead the Lord's work on the earth today and that it was what they wanted her to teach....
Elder Dallin H. Oaks said in his October 1999 general conference address that as he traveled the Church he had been pleased and impressed with how Relief Society and priesthood lessons were presented and received.

"However," he added, "I have sometimes observed teachers who gave the designated chapter no more than a casual mention and then presented a lesson and invited discussion on other materials of the teacher's choice. That is not acceptable.

"...the sources [of the extracts from Young's sermons] will not be readily available to most members. These original sources are not necessary to have in order to effectively study or teach from this book. Members need not purchase additional references and commentaries to study or teach these chapters. The text provided in this book, accompanied by the scriptures [the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price], is sufficient for instruction."

[/quote]

[_harmony]

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.

Obviously it would not be harmful to you emotionally, since you wouldn't know about it.

Which part of "behind your back" didn't you understand?

Good grief.

[_Simon Belmont]

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?

They most definitely should. I was asking for a reference to someone who has actually been "blood atoned." Context, Rev. Kishkumen.

[_Simon Belmont]

Good grief.

Ah, harmony, always chiming in with your little quips.

How cute.

[_Simon Belmont]

Frankly, I have very little patience with folks who seek to minimize drastically the culpability of LDS leaders of this period.

I have said it before, and I will say it now: there are some definite dark spots in Latter-day Saint history -- African-Americans and the priesthood would be one.

I also know that there are many hurtful, racist, and incorrect statements made by Church leaders of the past; especially true in the Journal of Discourses.

Humans are only human, and to hold them accountable for being perfect is to damn all of humanity for the struggles that we face. Brigham Young was a mortal man, as was Joseph Smith, as was Spencer Kimball. Let us not condemn an entire Church for the writings, sayings, or actions of mortal men.

Indeed, I think the better course would be to own up to the fact that Brigham Young et al. were culpable, and then move on.

I have, and try to continue to do so.

Of course, I am not one of those folks who thinks that every past misdeed of the LDS Church damns the organization in the present.

Indeed. Most reasonable Rev. Kishkumen.

[_Doctor Scratch]

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'm not sure what you mean, and moreover, "damning" is your term---not mine. It's not clear just what "context" would help justify, say, Zelph, or Joseph Smith's "courtship" of Helen Mar Kimball, or the Adam-God doctrine, or BY's teachings about the conception of Jesus, or the destruction of the printing press.

To illustrate how damning Blood Atonement was, please list one person who was reported to have been "blood atoned."

There's no reason for me to do that. The simple fact that BY preached the doctrine from the pulpit is enough to cite it as "objectionable." That said, I would think that Jean Baptiste, the beheaded "grave robber," probably counts as an instance of someone who was "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."

What, some *other* sorts of murders by Church members are acceptable? What are you talking about here, Simon? The point here is that advocacy of murder on the part of Church leaders is highly objectionable. I get that you want to equate this with criticism of Bob Ross's paintings, but it just doesn't equate. Not by a long shot.

"[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.

If you include, "don't read 'anti' material," then I suppose you're right---at least in part. The Church never, ever presents embarrassing history in the sorts of scenarios you're describing, so I guess you're right insofar as no one is likely to be emotionally wounded by finding out about ugly/embarrassing history.

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.

Many people who wind up leaving the Church after reading encountering the "meat" state in no uncertain terms that they were harmed emotionally. The analogy is perfectly apt, Simon.

[_harmony]

Frankly, I have very little patience with folks who seek to minimize drastically the culpability of LDS leaders of this period.

I have said it before, and I will say it now: there are some definite dark spots in Latter-day Saint history -- African-Americans and the priesthood would be one.

Mostly, folks don't canonize their mistakes. We can thank Brigham for canonizing Joseph's.

I also know that there are many hurtful, racist, and incorrect statements made by Church leaders of the past; especially true in the Journal of Discourses.

I think you missed the ones just last spring.

Humans are only human, and to hold them accountable for being perfect is to damn all of humanity for the struggles that we face. Brigham Young was a mortal man, as was Joseph Smith, as was Spencer Kimball. Let us not condemn an entire Church for the writings, sayings, or actions of mortal men.

When a man claims to speak for God, it kinda puts him off the human scale, Simon. Perfect isn't too much to ask of God, is it?

Personally, I'm much more interested in the misdeeds of our present leadership, one in particular.

[_Simon Belmont]

I'm not sure what you mean, and moreover, "damning" is your term---not mine. It's not clear just what "context" would help justify, say, Zelph, or Joseph Smith's "courtship" of Helen Mar Kimball, or the Adam-God doctrine, or BY's teachings about the conception of Jesus, or the destruction of the printing press.

You see, I have a problem when critics continually bring these things up, even though they have been resolved.

Just one example: there is no evidence that the relationship with Kimball was ever consummated. Further, she felt protected and blessed to be a plural wife.

I am not advocating polygamy for this time, but in its own time it was often not what critics made it out to be.

There's no reason for me to do that. The simple fact that BY preached the doctrine from the pulpit is enough to cite it as "objectionable."

It is, indeed, objectionable. Brigham Young preached a lot of things from the pulpit -- some good, some objectionable.

That said, I would think that Jean Baptiste, the beheaded "grave robber," probably counts as an instance of someone who was "blood atoned."

You can't be serious.

What, some *other* sorts of murders by Church members are acceptable?

They are not acceptable, but they are not instances of blood atonement.

What are you talking about here, Simon?

I do not think that was very honest of you Scratch. I specifically asked that you point out one person who was blood atoned, then I said that other murders by church members do not count (as blood atonement). You knew this, yet misrepresented me anyway.

If you include, "don't read 'anti' material," then I suppose you're right---at least in part.

I include "don't read mis-representative trash"

The Church never, ever presents embarrassing history in the sorts of scenarios you're describing,

Please point out an organization that does.
Also, please state why it is necessary that they teach every little insignificant bit of history to come unto Christ.

Many people who wind up leaving the Church after reading encountering the "meat" state in no uncertain terms that they were harmed emotionally. The analogy is perfectly apt, Simon.

The "meat" that apostates encounter is almost always half-truths, misquotations, and other misrepresentations.

Then they blame the Church for "duping" them this whole time, when it was always their choice. Astounding!