What if Joseph Smith confessed to adultery

[_zeezrom]

Your run of the mill adultery does not involve religious excuses but, rather excuses of passion, selfishness, reckless behavior, and desperation.

What we see in Joseph Smith is less excusable.

[_Runtu]

Culturally, I'd agree. It's not like the ancients had any use for women but the obvious.

God-given though... never.

I guess it depends on whether you believe the Old Testament is the word of God or not. Personally, I believe that every thing that humans touch is inherently imperfect and flawed, which is why I'm not an inerrantist or a Biblical literalist. For millenia people have been justifying their own behavior and desires by passing them off as scripture.

[_harmony]

Culturally, I'd agree. It's not like the ancients had any use for women but the obvious.

God-given though... never.

I guess it depends on whether you believe the Old Testament is the word of God or not. Personally, I believe that every thing that humans touch is inherently imperfect and flawed, which is why I'm not an inerrantist or a Biblical literalist. For millenia people have been justifying their own behavior and desires by passing them off as scripture.

Scripture is kinda like history: he who writes it down tells the story... and the story need not worry about accuracy. History according to the American Indian tribes is much different than any version I learned in school. Scripture is no different. No doubt the Egyptians had an entirely different viewpoint than the Isrealites did.

The agenda is plain throughout the Old Testament, just as the LDS agenda is plain to see.

[Guest]

The agenda is plain throughout the Old Testament, just as the LDS agenda is plain to see.

I'm glad the LDS Church has the same agenda as the Bible. Both New Testament and Old Testament. But we certainly have established that a christian must accept the notion that God authorizes plural marriage from time to time.

[cacheman]

Scripture is kinda like history: he who writes it down tells the story... and the story need not worry about accuracy. History according to the American Indian tribes is much different than any version I learned in school. Scripture is no different. No doubt the Egyptians had an entirely different viewpoint than the Isrealites did.

The agenda is plain throughout the Old Testament, just as the LDS agenda is plain to see.

To quote La Historia Oficial: "Y si los que escriben la historia son asesinos?"

In that film a teacher is asking her students what they can tell her about certain past military leaders. One student keeps replying, "He was a murderer."

She says, "That can't be, because it's in the history."

He asks what, "What if the history has been written by murderers?"

[_harmony]

To quote La Historia Oficial: "Y si los que escriban la historia son asesinos?"

In that film a teacher is asking her students what they can tell her about certain past military leaders. One student keeps replying, "He was a murderer."

She says, "That can't be, because it's in the history."

He asks what, "What if the history has been written by murderers?"

Exactly. And scripture is written by men with an agenda. And we can see by the result whether or not their agenda was God's agenda or their own.

[_sock puppet]

Your run of the mill adultery does not involve religious excuses but, rather excuses of passion, selfishness, reckless behavior, and desperation.

What we see in Joseph Smith is less excusable.

So, run of the mill adulterers are more honest than JSJr. Indeed.

[_Brackite]

If you claim to be a Christian He did. 2 Samuel 12:7-8 for example.

Very nice. Read through vs. 11 for an additional example.

The Book of Mormon is more correct than the Bible is on this topic.

Jacob 2:23-24:

23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

[_moksha]

So no matter what you think of Joseph Smith, a positive doctrine on and probably practice of plural marriage is one of the things that identifies the true Church.

Do you suppose this is the reason many people associate the LDS Church today as still being a polygamist church?

[_ludwigm]

And we have Nathan's word on it.

I suggest to read "The King David Report" of Stefan Heym. It is a fiction only, but the writer handles the official version (Bible...) and all the ifs and maybes one can imagine about the great king. The characters are vivid, not the flat ones of scriptures, which are cut from grey paper...


From amazon.com:

In "The King David Report," Heym has retold the old biblical/legendary/historical story of King David. The main character, who personifies the author, is Ethan of Ezra, a wise, truthful man who has been entrusted by King Solomon to write the official version of King David's life and deeds. Ethan is the intellectual who must face the conflicts of time and who is tormented by the limitations which are set to his writing the truth, who soon realizes that learned men are an annoyance to the people and a bother to the servants of the King. To what extent should he expose the truth of King David's life, who setting aside his political glory can also be accused of being a murderer, adulterer, and a machiavellic leader? How does history deal with a King whose only purpose was power, who only loved himself, whose God was made exclusive to himself and justified his crimes in the name of the Holy One? Ethan soon realizes that the outlaw will cover his tracks rather than leave behind accounts of his exploits, and a high price is to be paid by those who are willing to bring forth the truth.

How are we to deal with historical undesirable matter? Tell it all, tell it with discretion, or don't tell it. Heym's intention is to extrapolate the story of King David to events taken place in our recent history, something that comes out quite easily for the reader.

Please read the underlined sentences twice...