Joseph Smith Megathread

[_hobo1512]

quote="AtticusFinch"]


Ah....with yet another pro-LDS site...again, not very objective.

And I do not post from anti-LDS sites. I post the truth, unwashed by LDS holy oil and unadorned with LDS Satanic panties[/quote]

The historical context is the historical context. It is just the way it is. But critics never mention it. Much better to ignore it and strike away at the LDS church.

I don't wear any Satanic panties nor do I use Holy oil. However, I have used holy water in the catholic church. Does that count as Satanic too?[/quote]

lol...nice try. If you had truly used holy water, your flesh would have burned.[/quote]

I'm sure he used it in that imaginary church, with the imaginary nuns and priests that he talks about.

I'm not completely sure, but I think he's the only one that can see them.

[_Simon Belmont]

Simon, Do you believe section 132 to be the words of Jesus Christ as Joseph claims them to be?

Bump for Simon

Honestly, Willy Law, what do you think my answer is going to be?
Of course I believe sec. 132 is revealed scripture.

[_Willy Law]

Honestly, Willy Law, what do you think my answer is going to be?
Of course I believe sec. 132 is revealed scripture.

So you believe Jesus Christ actually said these words?

52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.
53 For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things; for he hath been faithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him.
54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.

And these are the words of our savior Jesus Christ

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

Does it really seem more likely that those are the words of Jesus Christ instructing Joseph to have his way with virgins and for Emma to accept it? Or Joseph making a revelation up to get Emma to accept polygamy?

I honestly cannot understand how anyone can honestly say that Section 132 contains the words of Jesus Christ.

[_Joseph]

why me wrote:
"What is often overlooked is the context behind MMM. First, the newspapers in california were calling for the extermination of the Mormons. And he saints were afraid of mobs heading to Utah to do the job. This was known in Utah. Then, we have just a few years earlier, the burning of Mormon homes in Missouri and in Nauvoo. Plus, many LDS were killed by the mobs. Then, we have the LDS heading west to live in safety and in security but the damage from the past was done. MMM was a psychological reaction to the persecution of the saints and the threat from california. It was wrong but understandable when the context is considered".

----------------------------

By your reasoning the MyLai massacre and Hitlers murdering the Jews is excusable. Sorry guy but that dog won't hunt!

[_honorentheos]

- I ask if Brigham Young lied when he said the following:

"I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins." - Sermon by President Brigham Young, delivered in the Mormon Tabernacle, February 8, 1857; printed in the Deseret News, February 18, 1857; also reprinted in the Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pages 219-220

There are instances; but not in Brigham Young's time. For example Laban in the Book of Mormon was slain for a righteous cause.

Do we really, really need to find specific examples where BY had someone's throat cut and their blood drained into their grave and their clothes sent back to their wife for washing as described by John D Lee or can you to acknowledge that BY gives both permission to so act and states he is aware of such actions having occurred?

Where does he give permission? He was a preacher who said what was on his mind, and sometimes those things were not official doctrine but his own interpretation. Again, he was only a man.

Simon -

So you are saying Brigham spoke as a man when he said these things? In other words, he did not speak the truth? Read the JoD quotes that I linked to. Brigham is not speaking allegorically here and it is dishonest to say anything that BY said in Utah could be considered the words of a preach rather than the leader of the church and the secular affairs of the people. He is stating that to take a life as atonement for serious sin is just and right. He is giving his ecclesiastical as well as legal blessing. It's in the quotes linked to.

Unless, perhaps, you have evidence otherwise?

[_Simon Belmont]

With all due respect, you aren't thinking clearly about what has been stated. You stated that we are all to blame for "feeling duped".

We're not talking about choices, Simon, we're talking about the feelings associated with those choices.

Yes, and since our choices are up to us, the responsibility of resulting feelings fall squarely on our shoulders.

The type of feelings that some ex-Mo's have when they discover things were not all they were led to believe about Joseph Smith and his practices.

It is our responsibility to not take everything that is spoon fed to us at face value. Do you think that I, for example, simply accepted every romanticized tale of Paul Revere and the revolutionary time period? No! I studied it more, I found out everything I could. It was not all pretty, but I do not blame America for any ill feelings I have towards how our independence came about.

As I see it, people become members of the LDS church in one of two ways. They were either born into it as part of their cultural underpinnings or they came into it as converts.

They become members by having a spiritual confirmation that the Book of Mormon is true, usually.

When a child who is BIC leaves their mother's womb and is brought up in a specific culture, in this case, one that is tied directly to a set series religious doctrines and beliefs, they have NO choice over what they are groomed to believe as a child.

None.

At some point, we all do. I agree that as a child, we simply do what our parents teach us to do. But consider this: how much impact would scholarly study of Joseph Smith have on a 1 - 10 year old child? It does not matter that we do what our parent's do as children, we are in their care and they are supposed to do the best job they know how.

The teen, even if they were aware of the discrepancies between the milk vs meat or between what has been taught and what is yet to be discovered, is in no position to rebel against the parents religious ideologies.

At these early stages of life, controversial things in the History of the Church do not "harm" them.

In my observation, the first point of departure in religious thought and belief takes place during the period of the mission. What was anticipated as a journey of inspiration becomes something else.

In some, quite rare cases, this is true.

Points of departure from religious thought and belief also take place at other predicatable points.

In the college years when the child's access to information and peers who hold opposing viewpoints or information not previously learned.

What you seem to be forgetting here is that, while this happens to the majority of people, not everyone leaves the Church when they are away at college. I didn't, and it is not like I went to BYU.

When an LDS navigates the years from childhood to college, to marriage, they become caught up in the religious system that takes much of their daily schedule. Add to that the arrival of babies in need of attention, and you have a busy young couple struggling to keep afloat, religiously, financially, academically, professionally and socially.

When that same person reaches perhaps their 30's which is where I see the highest prevalance of "apostacy", discovers that what they have been taught isn't the whole story, a grief process begins.

Why? Any intelligent person in their late teens and early twenties understands that the world does not operate in sugar-coated stories like our elementary school history books, or our Sunday school classes. The history of any church, or of any organization should not come as a surprise to anyone. Nothing on this entire planet is perfect... nothing. That doesn't mean imperfection is harmful.

They grieve for their relationships, their sense of self confidence, the time they spent involved in something that wasn't presented in it's entirety and they are often told that the information was available the entire time, that it was their responsibility for researching the very church that presumed to be a source of authority in their lives.

But it was available the whole time. As I said, I learned much of these controversial parts of History from seminary and institute class. The time spent involved in the Church is not harmful if one decides to disagree with it later. It wasn't harmful to me, it wasn't harmful to anyone I know, and it wasn't harmful to the entire faculty and student body of BYU and LDSBC, and it wasn't harmful to the bloggers on MST. So how can it be objectively harmful if it is harmful only to those who have a grudge with the Church?

In short, they are sad, depressed and later, pissed as hell.

As you probably are aware, I am very sensitive to people suffering from depression and anxiety. I do not invalidate these emotions, but I believe they are misplaced when they are directed at a voluntary organization.

When someone like you coldly and cavalierly blathers about choices without any indication of human compassion or perspective taking regarding your former church brothers and sisters in front of my eyes and on my screen, I have to wonder where the Christianity really is in your church.

I do not speak for the Church. I speak for me, and my intention is not to be cold and non-compassionate. I am perfectly fine to let people who feel they need to, grieve and be sad. But do not attack the church for something it did not do. That is when these feelings become destructive.

I have been present on LDS related boards for nearly 11 years. If I were of a mind to, I could rattle off a long list of posters who at the time, were questioning, doubting, grieving, and confused, who corresponded with me regarding their upheaval. They were worried about the future of their families, their marriages, their social ties and ability to conduct business under the stigma of apostacy.

And yet, no one would even know or care if they were apostates if they simply did not attack the Church for something they voluntarily participated in. I feel bad that there is sorrow, anger, and grief when someone decides that they disagree with the history of the Church, but it is not honorable to lash out at the Church, as if they were forced at gunpoint to remain members.

I like to think that they sought me out, a never mo, because I was a "safe" sounding board for their thoughts and ideas. Never once, did I preach to them about God or ever try to convert them to my own religion. I met them where they were at and partnered with them as a sounding board. Some of them are on this board.

I applaud your concern and compassion. Could you find it in your heart to see my point of view as well?

By the way, being a "never-mo" what drove you to seek out and participate on Mormon boards?

In short, that is what you should be doing, Simon, instead of giving superficial lip service in the form of criticism to their conflicts. They are real people with real lives, loves and concerns.

Yet they are allowed to criticize my beliefs. Do you see the double standard here?

I'm not seeing a heartbeat in you, Simon.

Perhaps you can find it in your heart to see where I am coming from.

Who were you on ZLMB?

[_Simon Belmont]

...

Newsflash: JoD is not doctrine.

[_honorentheos]

"It was wrong but understandable when the context is considered".

You know, I can not say that MMM is understandable in any circumstances. We can define better the reasons why it happened in the hope that it will not be repeated. But we can not find sufficient cause to make it "understandable". Hawn's Mill was wrong. Most everything that occurred by both sides during the Mormon Wars was wrong. MMM was wrong. I say this with family on my mother's side(including a great-great-great grandmother) that died from exposure when driven out of their homes in winter.

I do not feel to dishonor them by saying that any atrocity committed later in the false name of revenge was for them.

It was done because men lost touch with their better angels. It's a lesson we could more readily take to heart today when we hear so many calling out about persecution and a return to frontier politics. There are betters ways to show one has come to understand MMM than by trying to excuse it to any degree.

[_honorentheos]

...

Newsflash: JoD is not doctrine.

News flash - it's about history not doctrine. Read your own post.

[_honorentheos]

With all due respect, you aren't thinking clearly about what has been stated. You stated that we are all to blame for "feeling duped".

We're not talking about choices, Simon, we're talking about the feelings associated with those choices.

Yes, and since our choices are up to us, the responsibility of resulting feelings fall squarely on our shoulders.

The irony of this is it is only true to a point. I didn't choose to be LDS, and I didn't choose to accept as truth things that were never taught to me.

That it is not standard in the church to allow people to exercises their agency is very much part of the point. What you excuse as "focusing on the gospel" is just message control in an attempt to prevent people from doing as you suggest above. That's all, really.

The Wentworth Letter lesson I cited is a very good example. To quote the entire letter except a small part that might cause (gasp) adults to have to think and make a choice - God forbid! Better to focus on "the milk toast gospel". Good times, there.