Josephine Sessions

[_Yoda]

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.

Can I get a HUGE AMEN!!!!

[_tagriffy]

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.

You could say that. I'd probably put it in terms of matching spiritual experiences, but YMMV of course.

[_tagriffy]

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.

Since when does supporting someone mean agreeing with everything they said or did?

[_Yoda]

What does YMMV mean?

[_tagriffy]

"Your mileage may vary."

[_Yoda]

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.

Since when does supporting someone mean agreeing with everything they said or did?

I think that Joseph Smith did some very good things during his life. However, the whole polygamy issue, in my view, was a huge sin on the part of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and all of the other LDS prophets who supported it as the Lord's word. I realize that there were some saints who honestly thought they were following God's law by practicing polygamy and I have the utmost respect for them. Anyone, however, who knew the truth, and were caught up in the power grab of it all will have plenty to answer for at the Judgement Bar.

[_beastie]

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

Pun intended?

[_Yoda]

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

Pun intended?

LOL! Why not?

[_DrW]

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.

tagriffy,

Here are a few questions for you.

As you look at the "revealed scriptures" of the LDS Church and consider the fact that the Book of Abraham is an documented fraud and that Joseph Smith lied about both the provenance of the papyri and and his ability to translate them, the fact that the Book of Mormon is a proven fraud with regard to its claimed historicity, the self-serving "revelations" in the D&C, such as the one described above, along with the glaring inconsistencies and contradictions among the these canonized scriptures, and then consider the several contradictory versions of the first vision and all of the other embarrassing inconsistencies within Mormon history, what does the weight of evidence say to you about the veracity of Joseph Smith's foundational truth claims?

When you compare the mindset and behavior of Joseph Smith to that of Warren Jeffs, does your enthusiasm for Joseph Smith and revulsion at Warren Jeffs not strike you as a bit incongruous?

Would you publicly defend Warren Jeffs for following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young?

If not, why not?

[_tagriffy]

tagriffy,

Here are a few questions for you.

As you look at the "revealed scriptures" of the LDS Church and consider the fact that the Book of Abraham is an documented fraud and that Joseph Smith lied about both the provenance of the papyri and and his ability to translate them, the fact that the Book of Mormon is a proven fraud with regard to its claimed historicity, the self-serving "revelations" in the D&C, such as the one described above, along with the glaring inconsistencies and contradictions among the these canonized scriptures, and then consider the several contradictory versions of the first vision and all of the other embarrassing inconsistencies within Mormon history, what does the weight of evidence say to you about the veracity of Joseph Smith's foundational truth claims?

You are mistaking me for someone who believes in propositional revelation. I don't, so these questions as they are posed are largely irrelevant from my point of view. The only relevancy questions about the origins of Scripture have for me is in regard to interpreting the documents. I don't care that Moses didn't write the Torah. I don't care that Isaiah is a composite document of at least three authors. I don't care Jonah is fiction. I don't care that "Matthew" and "Luke" composed their documents using "Mark" and "Q." I don't care that the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon are Joseph's compositions. The only relevant question for me is whether God speaks to me through them. Everything else is just details.

When you compare the mindset and behavior of Joseph Smith to that of Warren Jeffs, does your enthusiasm for Joseph Smith and revulsion at Warren Jeffs not strike you as a bit incongruous?

Would you publically defend Warren Jeffs for following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young?

If not, why not?

Wait a minute here. Who said I was enthusiastic about everything Joseph Smith said or did? For that matter, who said I was revulsed by Warren Jeffs? You're assuming facts not in evidence.

First, I don't know enough about the individual cases of Smith, Young, and Jeffs. I do not know how their cases compare and contrast. I do not know how closely Jeffs was following in the footsteps of Smith and Young. Therefore, either defending or condemning Jeffs for following in their footsteps would be a hasty judgment. I avoid making hasty judgments.

Second, if, after due consideration of the facts and circumstances, Smith's behavior is worthy of condemnation, you will find me among the first to do so. Insofar as Jeffs' behavior follows in Smith's footsteps, you will find that my defense or condemnation will be based on consistent principles. You may or may not agree with those principles, but that is beside the point. If I were to condemn Jeffs for something I don't also condemn Smith for, it would be based on what I would consider substantial differences between the cases. If you had new light to shed, I would take that into consideration.

Finally, I am the final authority on what I choose to believe, what I choose to reject, and the reasons I use to do so. I have absolutely no problems with accepting Smith's good ideas and rejecting his bad ones. So when you ask about the weight of the evidence says, I would respond that it is up to each individual to make those determinations.