Only Official Doctrine Can Defend Official Doctrine

[_Darth J]

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.

Pointing out the incontrovertible fact that Joseph Smith publicly lied about practicing plural marriage and largely hid it from Emma is not "theorizing." You also seem to be equivocating between one category of violating the commandments and one instance of violating it. Joseph Smith continuously violated the conditions of D&C 132 up to the day he died, and continued trying to cover it up from Emma, the Nauvoo City council, the general public, and the members of the Church except for his inner circle.

D&C 121:37 also indicates that the heavens withdraw when we seek to gratify our vain ambition. If methodically disregarding the Lord's terms for practicing plural marriage is not a vain ambition, then nothing ever could be. Joseph Smith repeatedly and systematically violating the conditions of D&C 132 proves that his motives were something other than obedience to the Lord's commandments---in other words, it was a vain ambition that he was seeking to gratify.

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.

Why did God take away Joseph's power to translate?

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 your mind, that he was supposed to ask Emma, for instance, and supposedly didn't.

There is no "supposedly." It is not a matter of opinion that Joseph Smith largely hid the scope of his practice of plural marriage from Emma. Nor is it a matter of opinion whether D&C 132 says that the consent of the first wife must be sought.

If that is true, then its between he and God. Perhaps they worked somethign out. You simply wouldn't know.

See: Argument from ignorance

And if the LDS Church claims that I should accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, then his qualifications to be a prophet and to exercise the office of prophet is no longer a private matter between him and God.

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

By definition of what?

we wouldn't have to really know anything, because in essence we don't.

See: Argument from ignorance

Its God's decision as to whether he confessed sufficiently and forsake sufficiently. Its not our decision.

Is there some point prior to June 27, 1844 that you are aware of when Joseph Smith stopped having polyandrous relationships, stopped having plural wives who were not virgins, retroactively sought Emma's consent for all of his many wives (he partly did this with the Partridge sisters, without disclosing that he had already married them), and multiplied and replenished the earth with his plural wives?

It is our decision whether to accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, and his qualifications of office are highly relevant to that 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.

Stemelbow, do you believe that Joseph Smith had a homosexual relationship with Brigham Young? Why or why not?

Are you willing to exhaust all possible scenarios that you can imagine and allow for endless possibilities that Joseph Smith was Brigham Young's gay lover? Why or why not?

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.

Did Sidney Rigdon continue to have the keys to the priesthood after Brigham Young took charge of the largest body of the Church? If not, why not? If yes, then how do you justify fealty to the LDS Church instead of another branch of Mormonism?

You simply don't know either way.

Oh, so you don't know either way whether Thomas S. Monson has priesthood keys today as Joseph Smith's successor.

[_stemelbow]

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.

[_stemelbow]

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).

Well then, why presume the priesthood must have been taken away?

[_schreech]

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.

I am guessing you are not....i wish i could lol....

[_stemelbow]

quote="Darth J"]Pointing out the incontrovertible fact that Joseph Smith publicly lied about practicing plural marriage and largely hid it from Emma is not "theorizing."[/quote]

I’m reminded of past attempted conversations with you. Let’s go back to D&C 121 then.

That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to acover our bsins, or to gratify our cpride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or ddominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens ewithdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

You must be saying that Joseph publically lying about practicing polygamy is covering his sin, right? Tell me what you think is meant by covering his sins? What if, per chance, God Himself, in His wisdom, told Joseph to hide polygamy as best as possible? You see, you’re stuck arguing, it seems to me, in favor of defining the mind of God and the life of Joseph Smith, absolutely when all we can really do is make certain assumptions—Joseph lying was seen by God as problematic. You don’t’ know that. Perhaps God required it.

You also seem to be equivocating between one category of violating the commandments and one instance of violating it. Joseph Smith continuously violated the conditions of D&C 132 up to the day he died, and continued trying to cover it up from Emma, the Nauvoo City council, the general public, and the members of the Church except for his inner circle.

Section 132 then:

And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse aanother, 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.

From this passage and I presume others following you have presumed that the “if” is a requirement, as in Joseph was not allowed to espouse anyone but a virgin. That’s not necessarily the case. The section also ends with a “as pertaining to this law, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will reveal more unto you, hereafter; therefore, let this suffice for the present.” I really don’t think this is helping your case. You are trying to back Joseph into a corner taking away any possible defenses he could reasonably have. You simply don’t know.

D&C 121:37 also indicates that the heavens withdraw when we seek to gratify our vain ambition. If methodically disregarding the Lord's terms for practicing plural marriage is not a vain ambition, then nothing ever could be. Joseph Smith repeatedly and systematically violating the conditions of D&C 132 proves that his motives were something other than obedience to the Lord's commandments---in other words, it was a vain ambition that he was seeking to gratify.

I think you are wrong about “vain ambition” here in assigning it to Joseph. I don’t see how it could be considered. What you think Joseph disregarded the Lord’s terms for practicing plural marriage, then that is your assessment. Its not necessarily the case at all. The Lord did not suggest that whole of the terms are found in D&C 132. And, even if, there is no reason to think Joseph disregarded any of the terms. Does it really say what you think it says? I don’t’ think so.

Why did God take away Joseph's power to translate?

As memory serves it had to do with a fight he and his wife had. It appears he spoke harshly to his wife.

There is no "supposedly." It is not a matter of opinion that Joseph Smith largely hid the scope of his practice of plural marriage from Emma. Nor is it a matter of opinion whether D&C 132 says that the consent of the first wife must be sought.

Here is, I think what you had in mind in saying Emma’s consent must be sought “if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse aanother, and the first give her consent”. If Emma did not give her consent, then you have a point. I’m not saying there is any reason to think she did. I’m just curious if this is what God saw as methodical disregard for his commandments or not? I don’t know. Do you?

And if the LDS Church claims that I should accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, then his qualifications to be a prophet and to exercise the office of prophet is no longer a private matter between him and God.

I disagree. But, as it is, I’m happy to report if you don’t want to accept him as a prophet I see that as a reasonable position to take and have no reason at all to try and sway you.

Is there some point prior to June 27, 1844 that you are aware of when Joseph Smith stopped having polyandrous relationships, stopped having plural wives who were not virgins, retroactively sought Emma's consent for all of his many wives (he partly did this with the Partridge sisters, without disclosing that he had already married them), and multiplied and replenished the earth with his plural wives?

I really don’t think Joseph saw D&C 132 as an exhaustive list of the qualifications for plural marriage, if he did not, then perhaps neither did God.

Stemelbow, do you believe that Joseph Smith had a homosexual relationship with Brigham Young? Why or why not?

Are you willing to exhaust all possible scenarios that you can imagine and allow for endless possibilities that Joseph Smith was Brigham Young's gay lover? Why or why not?

Well do you have faith that Joseph did have a homosexual relation with Brigham Young? I mean I do have faith that Joseph was a prophet, and the LDS Church is true. This is the point I comment on critiques, attempting to show that there are other possibilities then the conclusion reached in the critique. Otherwise I don’t see this as analogous as you imagine it to be.

[_Buffalo]

You must be saying that Joseph publically lying about practicing polygamy is covering his sin, right? Tell me what you think is meant by covering his sins? What if, per chance, God Himself, in His wisdom, told Joseph to hide polygamy as best as possible?

Yes Stem, but it doesn't matter. Official church doctrine is that lying is wrong, full stop. Even leaving out parts that make you look bad count as lying. Don't believe me?

http://LDS.org/manual/gospel-principles ... y?lang=eng

That Trump's your theory about what God might have told Joseph. Because it's official doctrine.

Lying is intentionally deceiving others. Bearing false witness is one form of lying. The Lord gave this commandment to the children of Israel: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (Exodus 20:16). Jesus also taught this when He was on earth (see Matthew 19:18). There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

The Lord is not pleased with such dishonesty, and we will have to account for our lies. Satan would have us believe it is all right to lie. He says, “Yea, lie a little; … there is no harm in this” (2 Nephi 28:8). Satan encourages us to justify our lies to ourselves. Honest people will recognize Satan’s temptations and will speak the whole truth, even if it seems to be to their disadvantage.

[_Darth J]

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.

Your "source" is your own vague, unsubstantiated platitude with no reference to fact?

Stemelbow, do you feel that arbitrarily believing in various things without proof is a virtue? Why or why not?

[_Themis]

Stemelbow, do you feel that arbitrarily believing in various things without proof is a virtue? Why or why not?

I see stem is going full blown with the possibility game again.

[_schreech]

You must be saying that Joseph publically lying about practicing polygamy is covering his sin, right? Tell me what you think is meant by covering his sins? What if, per chance, God Himself, in His wisdom, told Joseph to hide polygamy as best as possible? You see, you’re stuck arguing, it seems to me, in favor of defining the mind of God and the life of Joseph Smith, absolutely when all we can really do is make certain assumptions—Joseph lying was seen by God as problematic. You don’t’ know that. Perhaps God required it.

So, your best defense is that elohim told Joseph to lie?....and you are ok with that? So your god commands people to sin?

So, according to your warped view of god, its possible that the lafferty brothers were commanded to kill their sister in law and her baby??

They said that god, "in his wisdom", told them to do it...If you disagree, "you’re stuck arguing, it seems to me, in favor of defining the mind of god and the life of the (lafferty brothers), absolutely when all we can really do is make certain assumptions—(The murders committed by the lafferty brothers) were seen by God as problematic. You don’t’ know that. Perhaps god(/loki/tom cruise) required it."...see what i did there?

I seriously can't believe some of the things you people come up with to defend your need to believe in the Mormon church....Its like you blew a whining gasket and now have turned to complete nonsense to defend your beliefs...Sad....

[_Darth J]

I’m reminded of past attempted conversations with you. Let’s go back to D&C 121 then.

That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to acover our bsins, or to gratify our cpride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or ddominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens ewithdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

You must be saying that Joseph publically lying about practicing polygamy is covering his sin, right? Tell me what you think is meant by covering his sins? What if, per chance, God Himself, in His wisdom, told Joseph to hide polygamy as best as possible? You see, you’re stuck arguing, it seems to me, in favor of defining the mind of God and the life of Joseph Smith, absolutely when all we can really do is make certain assumptions—Joseph lying was seen by God as problematic. You don’t’ know that. Perhaps God required it.

See:Argument from silence; Argument from ignorance

Section 132 then:

And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse aanother, 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.

From this passage and I presume others following you have presumed that the “if” is a requirement, as in Joseph was not allowed to espouse anyone but a virgin. That’s not necessarily the case. The section also ends with a “as pertaining to this law, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will reveal more unto you, hereafter; therefore, let this suffice for the present.” I really don’t think this is helping your case. You are trying to back Joseph into a corner taking away any possible defenses he could reasonably have. You simply don’t know.

For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.

D&C 132:5

See also: Argument from ignorance; Special pleading

D&C 121:37 also indicates that the heavens withdraw when we seek to gratify our vain ambition. If methodically disregarding the Lord's terms for practicing plural marriage is not a vain ambition, then nothing ever could be. Joseph Smith repeatedly and systematically violating the conditions of D&C 132 proves that his motives were something other than obedience to the Lord's commandments---in other words, it was a vain ambition that he was seeking to gratify.

I think you are wrong about “vain ambition” here in assigning it to Joseph. I don’t see how it could be considered. What you think Joseph disregarded the Lord’s terms for practicing plural marriage, then that is your assessment. Its not necessarily the case at all. The Lord did not suggest that whole of the terms are found in D&C 132.

Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.

D&C 132:3

See also: Argument from ignorance; Special pleading;Argument from silence

And, even if, there is no reason to think Joseph disregarded any of the terms. Does it really say what you think it says? I don’t’ think so.

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.

63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

D&C 132

Why did God take away Joseph's power to translate?

As memory serves it had to do with a fight he and his wife had. It appears he spoke harshly to his wife.

Oh, you mean he lost the power of God because of the way he treated his wife?

There is no "supposedly." It is not a matter of opinion that Joseph Smith largely hid the scope of his practice of plural marriage from Emma. Nor is it a matter of opinion whether D&C 132 says that the consent of the first wife must be sought.

Here is, I think what you had in mind in saying Emma’s consent must be sought “if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse aanother, and the first give her consent”. If Emma did not give her consent, then you have a point. I’m not saying there is any reason to think she did. I’m just curious if this is what God saw as methodical disregard for his commandments or not? I don’t know. Do you?

Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.

D&C 132:3

For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.

D&C 132:5

And if the LDS Church claims that I should accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, then his qualifications to be a prophet and to exercise the office of prophet is no longer a private matter between him and God.

I disagree. But, as it is, I’m happy to report if you don’t want to accept him as a prophet I see that as a reasonable position to take and have no reason at all to try and sway you.

If the way that Joseph Smith acted with respect to commandments he personally received from the Lord is not germane as to whether one should believe that he was a prophet, then what possibly could be? (I mean, it certainly is not the case that Joseph Smith is a prophet no matter what he did, because we're not a cult.)

Is there some point prior to June 27, 1844 that you are aware of when Joseph Smith stopped having polyandrous relationships, stopped having plural wives who were not virgins, retroactively sought Emma's consent for all of his many wives (he partly did this with the Partridge sisters, without disclosing that he had already married them), and multiplied and replenished the earth with his plural wives?[/quote]

I really don’t think Joseph saw D&C 132 as an exhaustive list of the qualifications for plural marriage, if he did not, then perhaps neither did God. [/quote]

See: Argument from ignorance; Special pleading;Argument from silence

Stemelbow, do you believe that Joseph Smith had a homosexual relationship with Brigham Young? Why or why not?

Are you willing to exhaust all possible scenarios that you can imagine and allow for endless possibilities that Joseph Smith was Brigham Young's gay lover? Why or why not?

Well do you have faith that Joseph did have a homosexual relation with Brigham Young? I mean I do have faith that Joseph was a prophet, and the LDS Church is true. This is the point I comment on critiques, attempting to show that there are other possibilities then the conclusion reached in the critique. Otherwise I don’t see this as analogous as you imagine it to be.

So what you're saying is that we arrive at the conclusory premise of faith in some proposition first, and then we construct a wall of self-serving assumptions, ad hoc speculation, arguing from ignorance, and impermeability to fact to preserve that conclusory premise.