Only Official Doctrine Can Defend Official Doctrine

[_stemelbow]

Nobody said anything about "perfect" obedience. We are talking about systematic, consistent disobedience.

Well then you better make a case for it. All you have offered is one questionable example regarding polygamy. I say questionable because you haven't shown, conclusively, that he did what D&C 121 warns against. You have theorized that he probably did.

There is also precedent in the Mormon narrative for Joseph Smith losing the power of God for unrighteousness. He lost the ability to translate the golden plates for a time because he was not righteous.

And somehow this means in your view that any faulting by him is in God's mind wrong enough to punish him by taking priesthood power? Its God's determination not your's.

If:

(1) he was sinning; and

(2) he was covering it up;

then he was covering up his sins.

I'm granting for your sake that he sinned. But his sinning was not that which he covered up, according to your argument. It wasn't that he practiced polygamy, which he covered up that was his sin. It was that, at least in yoru mind, that he was supposed to ask Emma, for instance, and supposedly didn't. If that is true, then its between he and God. Perhaps they worked somethign out. You simply wouldn't know.

Repentance means confessing and forsaking one's sins. Joseph Smith neither confessed nor forsook his practicing plural marriage contrary to the Lord's commandments, literally up to his dying day. By definition, we would have to know if he repented, since confession is the start of the repentance process.

By definition we wouldn't have to really know anything, because in essence we don't. Its God's decision as to whether he confessed sufficiently and forsake sufficiently. Its not our decision. He very well could have worked it out with God. And, we can't deny that there is a possibility for an exception here. Perhaps Joseph had to have exceptions until polygamy was accepted by others. It seems to me you are trying to force your opinion into God's head.

If Joseph Smith lost the keys to the priesthood, then the modern LDS Church cannot legitimately claim to have the priesthood keys now---considering that the LDS Church claims its leaders have the priesthood keys through Joseph Smith.

Well you haven't made a case for his. And losing the priesthood personally does not equate, necessarily, to losing the keys. You simply don't know either way.

[_stemelbow]

Just as long as you establish a possibility as plausible or probable then you're fine. :)

Have you seen pictures of me? I'm fine anyway.

[_Darth J]

Would you encourage an apologist to take this approach? Why or why not?

I would not encourage it. The first sign for me would be that such an approach relies on statements made pre-1978. I mean what you did here is probably not far off from what others tried to do around 1978. In my eyes understanding evolves a little over time, and in time and evolution ideas to express the why of things or the how of things becomes more and more reasonable. Inevitably this leads to periods of time when speculation may lead to misunderstanding, or direct the conversation in the wrong direction. For instance, Mike Reed's recent presentation, as I understand it, showed that people, at least some, were familiar with the notion that ancient people engraved words onto metal plates. If his argument holds up then notion that Joseph Smith couldn't have known it becomes moot, because whether he did or not doesn't matter as much as whether he could have.

Among the many revelations the Lord has given to His prophets post-1978 that expand our understanding of why the priesthood ban was in place prior to 1978 (that is, expand it beyond what the Church taught for over a hundred years about the lineage of Cain), which is your favorite?

[_stemelbow]

Among the many revelations the Lord has given to His prophets post-1978 that expand our understanding of why the priesthood ban was in place prior to 1978 (that is, expand it beyond what the Church taught for over a hundred years about the lineage of Cain), which is your favorite?

You're really trying, huh? I didn't claim anything resembling that which is in your question, DJ. Sorry.

[_Darth J]

Among the many revelations the Lord has given to His prophets post-1978 that expand our understanding of why the priesthood ban was in place prior to 1978 (that is, expand it beyond what the Church taught for over a hundred years about the lineage of Cain), which is your favorite?

You're really trying, huh? I didn't claim anything resembling that which is in your question, DJ. Sorry.

So what is the source of this "understanding" since 1978 to which you allude?

[_just me]

Doctrine & Covenants tells us that the Church lost the fulness of the priesthood prior to, or around the time they first settled in Nauvoo. It's right there in the canon.

D&C 124:28 For there is not a place found on earth that he may come to and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath taken away, even the fulness of the priesthood.

[_stemelbow]

So what is the source of this "understanding" since 1978 to which you allude?

Did you read my post? I mentioned the source. As it is I think there remain questions and concerns regarding this issue anyway.

[_stemelbow]

Doctrine & Covenants tells us that the Church lost the fulness of the priesthood prior to, or around the time they first settled in Nauvoo. It's right there in the canon.

D&C 124:28 For there is not a place found on earth that he may come to and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath taken away, even the fulness of the priesthood.

This was in respect to the need for a new temple to be built in which the fulness of the priesthood could finally be restored in its fullness.

[_Darth J]

So what is the source of this "understanding" since 1978 to which you allude?

Did you read my post? I mentioned the source. As it is I think there remain questions and concerns regarding this issue anyway.

Here is your statement. Please underline where you indicate your source:

I would not encourage it. The first sign for me would be that such an approach relies on statements made pre-1978. I mean what you did here is probably not far off from what others tried to do around 1978. In my eyes understanding evolves a little over time, and in time and evolution ideas to express the why of things or the how of things becomes more and more reasonable. Inevitably this leads to periods of time when speculation may lead to misunderstanding, or direct the conversation in the wrong direction. For instance, Mike Reed's recent presentation, as I understand it, showed that people, at least some, were familiar with the notion that ancient people engraved words onto metal plates. If his argument holds up then notion that Joseph Smith couldn't have known it becomes moot, because whether he did or not doesn't matter as much as whether he could have.

Or is it that you claim that Mike Reed's recent presentation about 19th century knowledge of ancient writing on metal plates has enhanced our understanding of the curse of Cain?

[_just me]

This was in respect to the need for a new temple to be built in which the fulness of the priesthood could finally be restored in its fullness.

Which temple was never complete. The consequence was that the church was rejected along with her dead.

The fact remains that Joseph did not have the fulness of the priesthood when he began practicing polygamy (or whatever he was doing).