Josephine Sessions

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Josephine Sessions

Post by _Themis »

DonBradley wrote:Personally, I find it disturbing that someone would have other men's wives sealed to him, even without sexuality.

That there were problems with how Joseph Smith practiced polygamy should be as clear to modern readers as it was to Joseph himself, and to God as quoted in his revelations.

His revelation on polygamy refers to his "sins" and "transgressions" and to his "trespasses against" Emma (D&C 132:50,56,60). Why should Latter-day Saints feel any more compelled to defend every bit of Joseph's behavior with respect to polygamy any more than the revelation supporting it does??

Don


The great thing about starting your own religion is that you get to make and break all the rules you want.
42
_Yoda

Re: Josephine Sessions

Post by _Yoda »

DonBradley wrote:Personally, I find it disturbing that someone would have other men's wives sealed to him, even without sexuality.

That there were problems with how Joseph Smith practiced polygamy should be as clear to modern readers as it was to Joseph himself, and to God as quoted in his revelations.

His revelation on polygamy refers to his "sins" and "transgressions" and to his "trespasses against" Emma (D&C 132:50,56,60). Why should Latter-day Saints feel any more compelled to defend every bit of Joseph's behavior with respect to polygamy any more than the revelation supporting it does??

Don

That is an interesting take, Don. So, in your view, is D&C 132 as much of a reprimand to Joseph for taking wives behind Emma's back as it was to Emma for not accepting the plural marriage principle?
_DrW
_Emeritus
Posts: 7222
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Josephine Sessions

Post by _DrW »

DonBradley wrote:Personally, I find it disturbing that someone would have other men's wives sealed to him, even without sexuality.

That there were problems with how Joseph Smith practiced polygamy should be as clear to modern readers as it was to Joseph himself, and to God as quoted in his revelations.

His revelation on polygamy refers to his "sins" and "transgressions" and to his "trespasses against" Emma (D&C 132:50,56,60). Why should Latter-day Saints feel any more compelled to defend every bit of Joseph's behavior with respect to polygamy any more than the revelation supporting it does??

Don

Since Joseph Smith was clearly making up these "revelations" to suit his needs at the moment as he went along, why would anybody feel obliged to support him at all?

On another thread, there are some comments on D&C 124 wherein Joseph Smith, speaking as the Lord, instructs others as to the financing of Nauvoo House.

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29712

In the light of what we know now about Joseph Smith, these passages are hilarious. Here is a short sample:

Joseph Smith speaking as the Lord in D&C 124 wrote: 56 And now I say unto you, as pertaining to my boarding house which I have commanded you to build for the boarding of strangers, let it be built unto my name, and let my name be named upon it, and let my servant Joseph and his house have place therein, from generation to generation.

57 For this anointing have I put upon his head, that his blessing shall also be put upon the head of his posterity after him.

58 And as I said unto Abraham concerning the kindreds of the earth, even so I say unto my servant Joseph: In thee and in thy seed shall the kindred of the earth be blessed.

59 Therefore, let my servant Joseph and his seed after him have place in that house, from generation to generation, forever and ever, saith the Lord.

Joseph Smith obviously wanted to close the stock deal for the Nauvoo House, because his celestial sales pitch runs for more than 50 verses and contains excruciating detail from the Lord (in verses 64-68 as noted by Dr. Shades) as to exactly how the financing of Nauvoo house was to be done.

As to the prophetic accuracy of Joseph Smith, his seed did not "have place in that house from generation to generation, forever and ever", did it?

In fact, Foster and Law ended up precipitating events that lead directly to Smith's death in a sordid jailhouse shoot out.

Joseph Smith speaking as the Lord in D&C 124 wrote:115 And again, verily I say unto you, if my servant Robert D. Foster will obey my voice, let him build a house for my servant Joseph, according to the contract which he has made with him, as the door shall be open to him from time to time.

116 And let him repent of all his folly, and clothe himself with charity; and cease to do evil, and lay aside all his hard speeches;

117 And pay stock also into the hands of the quorum of the Nauvoo House, for himself and for his generation after him, from generation to generation;

118 And hearken unto the counsel of my servants Joseph, and Hyrum, and William Law, and unto the authorities which I have called to lay the foundation of Zion; and it shall be well with him forever and ever. Even so. Amen.


Given that William Law and Foster both left the Church and that Foster eventually became the publisher of the Nauvoo Expositor, this "revelation" doesn't say much for Joseph Smith's prophetic powers.

In fact, as was observed by Wayfarer on the other thread, Section 124 is a fascinating look into an early Ponzi scheme concocted by Joseph Smith.
Last edited by Guest on Sun Jun 02, 2013 2:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."

DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
_tagriffy
_Emeritus
Posts: 179
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 2:52 am

Re: Josephine Sessions

Post by _tagriffy »

tagriffy wrote:
café crema wrote: Mormon marital history resembles day time talk television.


tagriffy wrote:So they were human? For shame! :rolleyes:


café crema wrote:So you won't be teaching your kids to not behave like the guests on MP, that theirs is an acceptable lifestyle that should be respected.


I would, as Joseph Smith said, teach them correct principles. But I would also recognize that they will still have to grow, still have to experiment, still have make their own mistakes. If their lives got as messy as a guest on MP, I would simply be there for them.
Timothy A. Griffy
http://tagriffy.blogspot.com/

Be the kind of person your dog thinks you are.
_tagriffy
_Emeritus
Posts: 179
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 2:52 am

Re: Josephine Sessions

Post by _tagriffy »

DrW wrote:Since Joseph Smith was clearly making up these "revelations" to suit his needs at the moment as he went along, why would anybody feel obliged to support him at all?


Point of view. Joseph could have been making it up as he went along, as you say. Or he could have been struggling to make sense of what was happening to and around him just like the rest of us. If the broad strokes of his answers fit an individuals needs, then that is reason enough to feel obliged to support him.
Timothy A. Griffy
http://tagriffy.blogspot.com/

Be the kind of person your dog thinks you are.
_SteelHead
_Emeritus
Posts: 8261
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 1:40 am

Re: Josephine Sessions

Post by _SteelHead »

Obliged to support him.... Why in the world should I feel obligated to support him?
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin
_Yoda

Re: Josephine Sessions

Post by _Yoda »

Tagriffy wrote:Point of view. Joseph could have been making it up as he went along, as you say. Or he could have been struggling to make sense of what was happening to and around him just like the rest of us. If the broad strokes of his answers fit an individuals needs, then that is reason enough to feel obliged to support him.


So it is just an interesting coincidence that a large majority of these "broad strokes" tend to benefit Joseph's individual needs. :wink:
_SteelHead
_Emeritus
Posts: 8261
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 1:40 am

Re: Josephine Sessions

Post by _SteelHead »

Yoda wrote:
Tagriffy wrote:Point of view. Joseph could have been making it up as he went along, as you say. Or he could have been struggling to make sense of what was happening to and around him just like the rest of us. If the broad strokes of his answers fit an individuals needs, then that is reason enough to feel obliged to support him.


So it is just an interesting coincidence that a large majority of these "broad strokes" tend to benefit Joseph's individual needs. :wink:


Funny that.

I still can't understand how anyone feels I should be obligated to support sneaking around behind a spouses back. If god really did mandate it, then he is not a deity I have any respect for.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin
_tagriffy
_Emeritus
Posts: 179
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 2:52 am

Re: Josephine Sessions

Post by _tagriffy »

SteelHead wrote:Obliged to support him.... Why in the world should I feel obligated to support him?


You shouldn't, unless the answers he gave fill your individual needs.
Timothy A. Griffy
http://tagriffy.blogspot.com/

Be the kind of person your dog thinks you are.
_SteelHead
_Emeritus
Posts: 8261
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 1:40 am

Re: Josephine Sessions

Post by _SteelHead »

Ah, so for example if I needed a good excuse for tom catting around, I could point to Joseph Smith and say I was just following his example.... possibly throw in something about an angel with a flaming sword?

I could see somebody saying that to fulfill their need.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin
Post Reply