Botched Rescue in Boise

[_honorentheos]

MG,

I'm curious what you think are the five most meaningful revelations or demonstrations of spiritual vitality from the LDS church in the last 10 years?

Also, how is it the snuffer followers are wrong to criticize the legitimacy of the LDS church's current leadership but the leadership is not wrong to describe those like Snuffer as false prophets? When the answer to this question is because of authority for authority's sake and not because they are earning that respect I'd say it speaks for itself as to who is arguing for static, dry and safe and who is arguing for vital, juicy experiences.

Now, I also feel it's critical to put this all in perspective: The authority both sides are arguing over originates from a man who without question was cheating on his wife and lying to her about it; and who had no qualms in wielding said authority to protect his moral failings. So. In the eye of this beholder the question of authority is a MacGuffin. It doesn't really matter.

[_honorentheos]

Honorentheos wins the interwebz for the day.

Tough call. How about jointly with Symmachus (in another thread).

Symmachus is in a class of his/her own. I would bow out and let him/her have the laurel.

[_Kishkumen]

I have to agree that the foundational authority in the LDS Church is very shaky, historically speaking. If you examine the texts in the context of historical events, it is nigh impossible to come away from the exercise with anything resembling what the LDS Church claims. I think it is understandable why someone would credit Joseph Smith with authority based on his production of the Book of Mormon. Even if one puts the issue of moral probity aside, which Brigham Young quite explicitly did (as documented in his own words), and also set aside the claim of miraculous secret ordinations, which are unverifiable, then some claim to authority might be said to reside in the production of the foundational scripture of the movement. Such authority, however is not transferable. Instead, Brigham Young's authority derived from his ability to lead the Q12 in preserving and spreading polygamy and the temple cultus, two things that went hand in hand. The apostles did so primarily because they were very invested in those things. If they could not seize control and implicate more members in these practices, they would be in big trouble. So they seized control and constructed an argument for possessing the authority. That was the basis of Brighamite Mormonism.

[_mentalgymnast]

MG,

I'm curious what you think are the five most meaningful revelations or demonstrations of spiritual vitality from the LDS church in the last 10 years?

In my previous post I listed three resources to look at for 'spiritual gifts'. It would be those gifts demonstrated in the lives of those that are disciples of Christ that bring "spiritual vitality" to the LDS Church. Spiritual vitality is the 'spirit' that allows for temple work, for ordinances of salvation, for administering the Sacrament in remembrance of what Christ did on the cross and His atonement.

What is it in particular that you are looking for? Spiritual vitality is manifest in the lives of real people. Their adherence to gospel principles and obedience to the commandments. Their continued support of the local units and serving therein. The continued contributions of tithes and fast offerings to build the kingdom and help the poor and disenfranchised.

Also, how is it the snuffer followers are wrong to criticize the legitimacy of the LDS church's current leadership but the leadership is not wrong to describe those like Snuffer as false prophets?

It obviously comes down to whether or not you accept the leaders of the CofJCofLDS as being the Lord's representatives to carry out the work of His kingdom or not. Pretty much what was preached by Elder Oaks and Elder Turley up in Idaho recently.

When the answer to this question is because of authority for authority's sake and not because they are earning that respect I'd say it speaks for itself as to who is arguing for static, dry and safe and who is arguing for vital, juicy experiences.

I suppose that like I said before, it's in the eye of the beholder as to whether or not the GA's deserve the "respect" that you refer to.

Now, I also feel it's critical to put this all in perspective: The authority both sides are arguing over originates from a man who without question was cheating on his wife and lying to her about it; and who had no qualms in wielding said authority to protect his moral failings. So. In the eye of this beholder the question of authority is a MacGuffin. It doesn't really matter.

Joseph Smith was not a perfect man. We know that for a fact. He was a complicated man. The question all comes down to whether or not God's church is here on the earth. I don't see where "authority" is a MacGuffin in this instance. It is either in the church or it is not. It's not a sideshow or non-essential or a prop. It is at the very core of the church's claims.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

I have to agree that the foundational authority in the LDS Church is very shaky, historically speaking. If you examine the texts in the context of historical events, it is nigh impossible to come away from the exercise with anything resembling what the LDS Church claims. I think it is understandable why someone would credit Joseph Smith with authority based on his production of the Book of Mormon. Even if one puts the issue of moral probity aside, which Brigham Young quite explicitly did (as documented in his own words), and also set aside the claim of miraculous secret ordinations, which are unverifiable, then some claim to authority might be said to reside in the production of the foundational scripture of the movement. Such authority, however is not transferable. Instead, Brigham Young's authority derived from his ability to lead the Q12 in preserving and spreading polygamy and the temple cultus, two things that went hand in hand. The apostles did so primarily because they were very invested in those things. If they could not seize control and implicate more members in these practices, they would be in big trouble. So they seized control and constructed an argument for possessing the authority. That was the basis of Brighamite Mormonism.

OTOH, we may look at the transference of keys to Brigham Young as being the Lord's pattern set up in Nauvoo. Sure, the "temple cultus" played an important part in the 'program'. Sure, the temple does result in folks being more fully invested in their religion/covenants. No argument there.

http://prophetjosephsmith.org/index/lif ... ood_twelve

Regards,
MG

[_honorentheos]

MG,

I'm curious what you think are the five most meaningful revelations or demonstrations of spiritual vitality from the LDS church in the last 10 years?

In my previous post I listed three resources to look at for 'spiritual gifts'. It would be those gifts demonstrated in the lives of those that are disciples of Christ that bring "spiritual vitality" to the LDS Church. Spiritual vitality is the 'spirit' that allows for temple work, for ordinances of salvation, for administering the Sacrament in remembrance of what Christ did on the cross and His atonement.

What is it in particular that you are looking for?

Come on, man. I think you know exactly what I mean. Five things that demonstrate the spiritual vitality of the Church shouldn't be too hard to come up with given they are citing their exclusive right to some form of authority that others lack.

Spiritual vitality is manifest in the lives of real people. Their adherence to gospel principles and obedience to the commandments. Their continued support of the local units and serving therein. The continued contributions of tithes and fast offerings to build the kingdom and help the poor and disenfranchised.

So obeying is the sign of vitality in the membership? That is pretty bleak if true.

Also, how is it the snuffer followers are wrong to criticize the legitimacy of the LDS church's current leadership but the leadership is not wrong to describe those like Snuffer as false prophets?

It obviously comes down to whether or not you accept the leaders of the CofJCofLDS as being the Lord's representatives to carry out the work of His kingdom or not. Pretty much what was preached by Elder Oaks and Elder Turley up in Idaho recently.

The question is WHY you should accept the leaders of the Salt Lake branch of Mormonism. In all seriousness. Why?

Now, I also feel it's critical to put this all in perspective: The authority both sides are arguing over originates from a man who without question was cheating on his wife and lying to her about it; and who had no qualms in wielding said authority to protect his moral failings. So. In the eye of this beholder the question of authority is a MacGuffin. It doesn't really matter.

Joseph Smith was not a perfect man. We know that for a fact. He was a complicated man. The question all comes down to whether or not God's church is here on the earth. I don't see where "authority" is a MacGuffin in this instance. It is either in the church or it is not. It's not a sideshow or non-essential or a prop. It is at the very core of the church's claims.

Regards,
MG

I don't think Joseph's issues with extra-martial relationships is really all that complicated. The complication comes from trying to reconcile that behavior and motives with the belief he was godly. If his actions wouldn't be considered godly when carried out by others, I think it's fair to acknowledge he wasn't a godly person.

As for authority being a MacGuffin here. Let's replace it with, say, Joseph's seer stones instead of his priesthood authority. Is there anything really meaningful being argued over that would be different if we assumed the seer stones were what matters as far as legitimizing who is his spiritual heir? Or, maybe, his Nauvoo legion sword. Once imbued with meaning by the narrative, does it really make a difference what it is we are talking about? What makes it meaningless isn't it's role in the narrative. It just has no real purpose outside of the narrative.

[_sock puppet]

Joseph Smith was not a perfect man. * * *
Regards,
MG

That might be the understatement of the year. He was flawed more than most men.

I'm betting you, MG, do not have 40+ extra women on the side, as to most you have lied to your wife about. I'm betting you've never bedded a babe on promises that she and her family will get into heaven for allowing you to have your way with her. I'm betting you've never sent one of your subordinates out of town so you could bed his wife in his absence.

I'm betting you, MG, have worked honestly, and not at the expense of others' labors. I'm betting you've not made a dime off of divining some mystical knowledge of hidden treasure or the like. I'm betting you, MG, have not claimed ancient writings are something they're not.

I'm betting you, MG, if you've held any civic office have not abused it to deprive others of their rights of free speech. I'm betting, MG, you've never plotted the murder of anyone, much less of the governor of a state in which you used to reside.

But "Praise to the man who communes with Jehovah." I think Jehovah ought to be a bit more selective in whom he chooses to befriend and commune.

[_I have a question]

Joseph Smith was not a perfect man. * * *
Regards,
MG

That might be the understatement of the year. He was flawed more than most men.

I'm betting you, MG, do not have 40+ extra women on the side, as to most you have lied to your wife about. I'm betting you've never bedded a babe on promises that she and her family will get into heaven for allowing you to have your way with her. I'm betting you've never sent one of your subordinates out of town so you could bed his wife in his absence.

I'm betting you, MG, have worked honestly, and not at the expense of others' labors. I'm betting you've not made a dime off of divining some mystical knowledge of hidden treasure or the like. I'm betting you, MG, have not claimed ancient writings are something they're not.

I'm betting you, MG, if you've held any civic office have not abused it to deprive others of their rights of free speech. I'm betting, MG, you've never plotted the murder of anyone, much less of the governor of a state in which you used to reside.

But "Praise to the man who communes with Jehovah." I think Jehovah ought to be a bit more selective in whom he chooses to befriend and commune.

I think the "The good Joseph did offsets the bed..." defence is utterly untenable.
Who else would be given that level of latitude? Jesus? Had Jesus slept around and charged people for turning water into wine would you still see Him as the Saviour? The excusing of Joseph's abhorrent sexual predation and financial deceit would not be tolerated in any walk of life. And if doing good offsets the bad in a Prophet, how can anyone see Warren Jeffs in a different light to Joseph Smith? Their behaviours are one and the same.

[_mentalgymnast]

Joseph Smith was not a perfect man. * * *
Regards,
MG

That might be the understatement of the year. He was flawed more than most men.

I'm betting you, MG, do not have 40+ extra women on the side, as to most you have lied to your wife about. I'm betting you've never bedded a babe on promises that she and her family will get into heaven for allowing you to have your way with her. I'm betting you've never sent one of your subordinates out of town so you could bed his wife in his absence.

I'm betting you, MG, have worked honestly, and not at the expense of others' labors. I'm betting you've not made a dime off of divining some mystical knowledge of hidden treasure or the like. I'm betting you, MG, have not claimed ancient writings are something they're not.

I'm betting you, MG, if you've held any civic office have not abused it to deprive others of their rights of free speech. I'm betting, MG, you've never plotted the murder of anyone, much less of the governor of a state in which you used to reside.

But "Praise to the man who communes with Jehovah." I think Jehovah ought to be a bit more selective in whom he chooses to befriend and commune.

Granted, it would be nice if we could sit down with 'Brother' Joseph and ask him the hard questions. But we can't. We have people like the Hales and the Bushmans and a myriad of other folks, pro and con, that have tried to decipher just WHO was Joseph. When all is said and done all we have are the fruits of what he did. The Church as it is today. We look at its fruits. We look at its works. We look at its people. We look at its theology. We look at its message of salvation and exaltation. We look at its teachings concerning Christ/God. We look at the Book of Mormon. Etc. We then determine whether or not what we see on the ground has the potential of be of God...or not. Different folks, i.e., Truman Madsen vs. Grant Palmer are going to come to different conclusions in regards to Joseph Smith. He will always be somewhat of an enigma. There seems to be no way around that. We also have to consider the filters of history and how we reconstruct the narrative of someone that lived generations ago. Who are you going to believe, John C. Bennett or Parley P. Pratt? Pomeroy Tucker or B.H. Roberts? Those women who had major issues with polygamy or those that didn't? Those that followed the prophet or those that apostatized and may have had a vendetta against him?

There are two sides to the coin. I tend, as I've said before, to look at the whole thing with more of a macro view than a micro view. It is very difficult to get a handle on every micro detail in full focus as we look backwards in time. But we can look at the macro view and look at the narrative of Judeo-Christian history. Salvation. God as creator. The Afterlife. Moral directives. Etc...and then determine whether or not, in the market place of ideas, the LDS Church has anything to offer in regards to 'truth'. I think there are plausible reasons to look at the church as being a divine institution with men running the show from day to day.

But I'm the first to admit that I don't know this to be a fact. It's faith. But not blind. And as I've already mentioned, ad nauseum, I see the Book of Mormon as being the linch pin to the whole thing. The Book of Mormon still stands the test of time although, granted, it does have unanswered questions surrounding it. But that seems to be the way faith works. There are reasons to believe and there are reasons to not. It does become a choice. And it's not easy.

Regards,
MG

[_Chap]

I see the Book of Mormon as being the linch pin to the whole thing. The Book of Mormon still stands the test of time although, granted, it does have unanswered questions surrounding it.

The Book of Mormon came into a world in which many of its ideas were popularly thought to be plausible, indeed commonplace - the Indians as the lost tribes of Israel, and so on, the great civilization of the Mound Builders, and so on. Now it is entirely on its own in espousing such notions, and there is hardly an educated person outside Mormon circles who would not find its claims simply laughable ("I beleeeeeve - that ancient Jews built boats and sailed to America!" is good for a belly laugh on Broadway). In that sense it has utterly failed the test of time.

The only unanswered question nowadays about the Book of Mormon is whether there are any normal educated people not brought up as Mormons who don't find the Book of Mormon an obvious fiction,