Darth J wrote:1. Joseph Smith could not have been practicing polygamy in accordance with the Lord's commands prior to 1843, because he had not yet received the revelation giving him the terms and conditions. You are not helping him by emphasizing this obvious fact. You are digging him in deeper.
Let's consider two separate types of revelation to show that your theory here may not apply: First, revelation given through the prophet for the Church. That would be something like D&C 132. Second, revelation given to Joseph Smith for his own life. This type of revelation may not be recorded anywhere. As it is it is for Joseph himself. So if Joseph heard the news from God that he must start taking upon himself other wives pre-1843 we can assume it was commanded of him via personal revelation. Or we can be critical and pessimistic and assume that Joseph did not receive such revelation. Its our individual choice here.
2. Joseph Smith did not follow the conditions the Lord requires for plural marriage after he purportedly received the revelation we know as D&C 132.
We can scrutinize this till our face turns blue, i suppose. In the end you may be right. But that really is beside the question of whether Joseph Smith could be a prophet and still have sinned. Your argument here would have to be that since Joseph Smith didn’t follow certain instructions given in D&C 132 then he couldn’t have been a prophet. I don’t see a reason to buy into that. For me its obvious people can still sin and be a prophet.
3. Taking a single clause from one verse in D&C 132 out of context to suggest that Joseph Smith would be "justified in his transgressions" is an abysmally unreasonable reading of that verse. It is irreconcilable with the preceding verse, with rest of that section, the rest of the Doctrine and Covenants, and certain parts of the faith-promoting narrative (i.e., Joseph Smith temporarily lost the power to translate the golden plates because he disobeyed the Lord). It also requires D&C 3 and D&C 121 to be false when those sections unequivocally state that even a person who is called of God and ordained to the priesthood will lose their authority and power if they sin.
I just can’t agree with your far more hard-lined and legalistic reading of these passages, DJ. I wish I could so we wouldn’t quibble about these details, but I can’t. There is no indication in D&C 3 nor in D&C 121 that suggest that if a person sins they will lose their authority and power. You are reading these too literally. You need to open up a little and realize each and every person sins, so it can’t be that restrictive. It simply can’t be for believers. It wouldn’t make sense when applied to reality.
[quote=”RV”] Stem you are a piece of work.[/quote]
A piece of magnificent artwork, according to those who see me regularly.
You say you want to have a meaningful discussion on Mormonism yet you are unable to hold any position for longer than a couple of posts when it comes under scrutiny, any position except... the church is true.
I'm going to have to avoid this thread because its a disaster that gives me urges to smash my head against my monitor repeatedly... almost every time you reply by contradicting your previously stated position and tell everyone that they misunderstand you. You are the Mormon version of Marg... a name I utter at great risk per chance she is now summoned to this thread. Mormon marg... good lord you are obtuse.
Well, I’m glad to see that the critics here are very willing to turn these discussions into why they can’t stand LDS posters. It’s a favorable practice here. Its too bad you’re jumping on board being new and all. A bit discouraging. Ah well. Let’s see what we can do to make this place better for you, so you don’t practice violence on yourself. One piece of advice: Don’t take this all too seriously. My goodness you’re not going to convince me with vitriol.
stem-Yellow cats don't exist... never seen one
-30 minutes later after stem forgets what he said-
me-Hey, you sat that yellow cat in the alley? It's yellow isn't it?
stem-Why yes I see that yellow cat. Well of course its yellow silly are you blind?
me-That means yellow cats exist... you were wrong when you stated earlier that yellow cats don't exist
stem-I suppose you could say its yellow, though that is debatable. Still I don't think yellow cats exist
me-It's not debatable, the cat is sitting right there in front of us, the cat is yellow and you just said it was yellow.
stem-you misunderstand me. I said it could be yellow and I also I never said yellow cats don't exist.
me-qoute "yellow cats don't exist"
stem-They don't
What an odd and deceptive caricature you have formed in your head. I think if you settle down a little and listen to replies you wouldn’t be so prone to the hostility and deceptions. Just my take. Take it for what its worth.
[quote=”keithb”] Stem,
A few related questions:
Does any amount of faith on the part of believers in the flat earth theory change the fact that the earth is round?
This was a silly exercise if you ask me. While religion in general may be akin to a flat earth position, its not to me. This is the point I raised in the OP—critics don’t seem to try and get the other position quite often. The same may go the other way too.
I suspect that your answers about the flat earth theory would mimic my answers about the truth claims of the Mormon church.
That’s silly, if you ask me. There are thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of truth claims made by the Church. Your communication here amounts to, you’ll reject every single one as adamantly as you do a flat earth proposition. No wonder why conversations struggle to take off here so much.
Assuming your metric for truth is that the claims of the Mormon church reflect events verifiable in the real world (like the spherical earth model), then I think that the objective evidence strongly points to the church being false. No amount of faith and manipulation of facts really makes that reality disappear.
That’s fine that’s a subjective personal decision. The point is, I’d be with ya if there was no faith, if I did not hold strongly to the notion of faith as evidence. Its discouraging people don’t seem to get that.
I readily acknowledge my personal experiences that make up my faith in goblins can be viewed by many in a variety of ways. I'm aware that any explanation I offer concerning my experiences can easily be thought to be nothing more than my own interpretation that may not be factual. That's cool. I'm not here to justify my faith in goblins , as I said. I'm just here to discuss the issues of goblins , acknowledging often that there are problems with the claims of the goblins . In some cases I feel the goblins can be wrong and yet my faith still hold merit. And in other cases I feel justified in thinking my faith provides evidence of issues we aren't fully informed on. The issue I have is if the critics position is to be taken seriously the critic must prove its claims--that is if the claim truly is goblins are proven false
That was very disingenuous. Ah well…it highlights my point in the OP quite nicely, even if you did so unwittingly.
[quote=”chap”] I have already demonstrated to stemelbow that those parts of his position bolded above are false.[/quote]
For you they are false, but for others not so much.
'How on earth can any sane and well-informed person believe in a religion so obviously made up on the fly as a response to the specific cultural, religious and social circumstances of early 19th C. East Coast America, as well as to the evolving personal circumstances of an unscrupulous religious entrepreneur?'
The answer is in the overwhelming majority of cases 'My parents taught it to me when I was a kid too young to know better'. That's why stemelbow feels 'faith' in the CoJCoLDS, and not in Wahhabi Islam or Mahayana Buddhism. What he thinks of as 'evidence' of the truth of his belief is simply evidence of what his Mom and Dad taught him as a kid.
But somehow I am not expecting stemelbow to show any signs of having read this: he will just repeat his claim that critics are obliged to produce an ineluctable demonstration of the falsity of his belief system, because that is what he can cope with. The rest is water off a duck's back.
Chap, once you come to the realization that faith is individual quite often, even if its passed down in families too, you will have a better understanding and a better grasp of those whom you attempt to discuss with. There are plenty of people of faith who did not have parents of faith. There are plenty of people who were raised in families of faith, but do not hold faith anymore. Its time to expand your mind a little. Open up somewhat. I think as much as anyone whose responded on this thread you are the closest to that spot.