YouTuber Alyssa Grenfell Has Cost The Church 2.4 Million Dollars

[malkie]

Based on MG's answers/non-answers to fairly direct questions:

• Given{MG's] extensive use of conjecture and suppositions - in other words, non-factuals, or "hypotheticals" - is it OK for other people, including me, to also use them? Or do you still hold that as a valid criticism?
  No, it is not valid to criticise someone for using hypotheticals. In fact, but sides of the critic/defender line use them. They are an almost indispensable part of many fruitful discussions, often teasing out the details of one side's position, by isolation parts of an argument, or by forcing the consideration of alternatives and consequences. For example: "If a creator-god exits ...", or "If you study the life of Jesus ...", or If 6 Was 9. Note: some would argue that the contrafactual in this last example demands use of the subjunctive. If this describes you, feel free to start another thread
• Could Joseph not have been sealed to Emma before he took and was sealed to plural "wives"?
  I've seen nothing to suggest that it would not have been possible for Joseph to choose to be sealed to Emma (whom he put first in many other situations)
• Can you say clearly what Joseph and Fanny were doing in the barn that caused Oliver to talk about the incident as "a dirty, nasty, filthy affair"?
  All of the evidence points to Joseph having been caught 𝙞𝙣 𝙛𝙡𝙖𝙜𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙚 with Fanny - that is, in the act of sexual intercourse.
• Do you know whether the late sealing to Emma (after 20+ plural "wives") was Joseph's idea, or that of Emma?
  In spite of MG suggesting that it was because Emma was upset, there appears to be no actual evidence of that being the reason. Since Joseph forced Emma to comply with other demands related to polygamy, it's reasonable to assume that this was his decision, and not hers. I'm not sure (correct me if there is actual evidence) that Emma knew about the first such sealings, and so could not have deliberately delayed her sealing to Joseph to avoid being first, any more than she could have insisted on being first.
• Do "She would likely have refused." and "Without a doubt." have the same meaning, so that you do not have to choose one or the other?
  Are you kidding? "? "She would likely have refused." means that there is a doubt.
• Was Joseph guilty, under the civil law, of fornication/adultery with his plural "wives"?
  Since it has been agreed that Joseph had a sexual relationship with at least some of his plural "wives", and that polygamy was illegal in the jurisdiction(s) in which the "marriages" took place, then it follows that Joseph was guilty, under the civil law, of fornication/adultery with his plural "wives".
• Do you think that how her sealing to Joseph affected Helen's youth is justified by [MG's] description of her later life as "full"?
  Regardless of how full a life Helen eventually had, her youth was clearly devastated by her sealing to Joseph. That the sealing took place without her fully-informed consent is also clearly abusive.
• Do you know of any other occasion on which a Mormon prophet has promised someone "your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father’s household & all of your kindred"?
  No.
• Look out!! Hypothetical ahead!! Is that the kind of promise a true prophet is entitled to make, "this step" being entering into celestial marriage with the prophet?
  I have to say that, for [malkie], it all seems rather self serving, and the promise seems rather broad.
  This kind of promise appears to have been made only to persuade a girl/woman to submit to plural "marriage" to Joseph Smith - and perhaps only in the case of Helen Mar Kimball.
  Given that it violated Helen's free will, and forced her to sacrifice herself to Joseph's desires, it does not appear to be the kind of promise a true prophet is entitled to make.

Overall as I look at your response it becomes rather obvious that the risks of conflating divine mandate with personal desire can lead to outcomes that are other than what might expect/hope them to be. Agency, consent, and prophetic authority were in their infancy/adolescent stage in the beginnings of the restoration. As time went on, and as I've said at other times, evolution seems to play a part in almost every aspect of what occurs in the world. Including human development and progress. Including what happens through the revelatory processes and the 'moving parts' that are whirling and turning around as time moves on and lessons are learned.

With Helen Mar Kimball agency was compromised. What we would not call 'informed consent' was not a thing in the way that it is now. Joseph and others viewed the promised 'spiritual blessings' as trumping any 'temporal' inconvenience or hardship. This seemed to happen over and over again. Secrets were kept in order to maintain what was thought to be the command of God while at the same time technically obeying the current laws of the land.

As time moved along it became rather obvious that there were 'theological tensions' between what the scriptures seemed to teach and what was actually being done/practiced 'on the ground', so to speak. Changes were made in order to come into alignment to the theological and cultural influences that the leaders/members became more 'aware' of and then were able to clearly see where they may have strayed on one point or another even though the basic principles (teach them correct principles) may have been valid or influenced/revealed from God.

Today as we look back, we can see some of the imperfect implementation of principles and divine knowledge that were revealed to the early Saints. They, again, were in their infancy/adolescent phase of church/gospel/theological development. We have continued to receive further light and knowledge and now have a better understanding of the interplay between agency, transparency, accountability, and how to 'hear' the influence/voice of the Holy Ghost. The fact that nowadays there is consensus and/or common consent among General Authorities before anything is pronounced as doctrinal change is significant. We still have hiccups such as the unfortunate confusion that resulted a few years ago with the whole thing with gay parents and their children. Even then, I'm sure lessons were learned at the highest levels in regard to how to listen to and hear God's word relative to hearing one's 'own voice' or the 'community voice'.

Thanks for providing this post. You put some time and thought into it, and it caused me to do a bit more introspection on some of these things that straddle the line between black and white positive knowledge.

Regards,
MG

Thanks, MG, for your reply. I would have preferred it if you had provided responses to the various questions, but in the end I'm reasonably satisfied.

Let me pick out one comment, though, from your reply - just one that caught my eye:

What we would [not] call 'informed consent' was not a thing in the way that it is now.

I disagree!!

OK, it may not have been called by that name. But surely you're not suggesting that the idea of manipulatively taking away the agency of another (Helen) is something new. Isn't agency a fundamental "feature" of Mormonism? Isn't the taking away of agency supposedly what the whole "war in heaven" was all about?

in my opinion Joseph knew very well what he was doing to Helen, and put his selfish desires above any consideration of her fundamental rights. For me, that he pulled a bait-and-switch on Helen's father (first asking Heber for Vilate) only compounds the iniquity.

[I Have Questions]

Maybe Joseph was unfamiliar with the following movement…

the American Female Moral Reform Society, an evangelical group founded in New York in 1834 to rescue the city’s prostitutes. As soon as the moral reformers learned about Norman’s attack on Ballard, they linked it to the campaign they had been waging since the 1830s to criminalize seduction.

One should never underestimate MG’s inability to fact check his baseless assertions.

[MG 2.0]

Overall as I look at your response it becomes rather obvious that the risks of conflating divine mandate with personal desire can lead to outcomes that are other than what might expect/hope them to be. Agency, consent, and prophetic authority were in their infancy/adolescent stage in the beginnings of the restoration. As time went on, and as I've said at other times, evolution seems to play a part in almost every aspect of what occurs in the world. Including human development and progress. Including what happens through the revelatory processes and the 'moving parts' that are whirling and turning around as time moves on and lessons are learned.

With Helen Mar Kimball agency was compromised. What we would not call 'informed consent' was not a thing in the way that it is now. Joseph and others viewed the promised 'spiritual blessings' as trumping any 'temporal' inconvenience or hardship. This seemed to happen over and over again. Secrets were kept in order to maintain what was thought to be the command of God while at the same time technically obeying the current laws of the land.

As time moved along it became rather obvious that there were 'theological tensions' between what the scriptures seemed to teach and what was actually being done/practiced 'on the ground', so to speak. Changes were made in order to come into alignment to the theological and cultural influences that the leaders/members became more 'aware' of and then were able to clearly see where they may have strayed on one point or another even though the basic principles (teach them correct principles) may have been valid or influenced/revealed from God.

Today as we look back, we can see some of the imperfect implementation of principles and divine knowledge that were revealed to the early Saints. They, again, were in their infancy/adolescent phase of church/gospel/theological development. We have continued to receive further light and knowledge and now have a better understanding of the interplay between agency, transparency, accountability, and how to 'hear' the influence/voice of the Holy Ghost. The fact that nowadays there is consensus and/or common consent among General Authorities before anything is pronounced as doctrinal change is significant. We still have hiccups such as the unfortunate confusion that resulted a few years ago with the whole thing with gay parents and their children. Even then, I'm sure lessons were learned at the highest levels in regard to how to listen to and hear God's word relative to hearing one's 'own voice' or the 'community voice'.

Thanks for providing this post. You put some time and thought into it, and it caused me to do a bit more introspection on some of these things that straddle the line between black and white positive knowledge.

Regards,
MG

Thanks, MG, for your reply. I would have preferred it if you had provided responses to the various questions, but in the end I'm reasonably satisfied.

Let me pick out one comment, though, from your reply - just one that caught my eye:

What we would [not] call 'informed consent' was not a thing in the way that it is now.

I disagree!!

OK, it may not have been called by that name. But surely you're not suggesting that the idea of manipulatively taking away the agency of another (Helen) is something new. Isn't agency a fundamental "feature" of Mormonism? Isn't the taking away of agency supposedly what the whole "war in heaven" was all about?

in my opinion Joseph knew very well what he was doing to Helen, and put his selfish desires above any consideration of her fundamental rights. For me, that he pulled a bait-and-switch on Helen's father (first asking Heber for Vilate) only compounds the iniquity.

I think I will stick with what I said earlier:

Joseph and others viewed the promised 'spiritual blessings' as trumping any 'temporal' inconvenience or hardship. This seemed to happen over and over again. Secrets were kept in order to maintain what was thought to be the command of God while at the same time technically obeying the current laws of the land.

There are other examples of where early brethren felt that God's law/will trumped the law of the land and/or what culturally might have been considered either inappropriate/appropriate or in the 'gray area'. In addition, we are placing our modern sensibilities as an overlay on top of what may or may not have happened in its entirety. We should always keep in mind that we don't know the full story and that various witnesses saw things differently at the time.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

...There are other examples of where early brethren felt that God's law/will trumped the law of the land and/or what culturally might have been considered either inappropriate/appropriate or in the 'gray area'. In addition, we are placing our modern sensibilities as an overlay on top of what may or may not have happened in its entirety. We should always keep in mind that we don't know the full story and that various witnesses saw things differently at the time....

This is just complete BS. But, it keeps the sheep in their cults.

[I Have Questions]

There are other examples of where early brethren felt that God's law/will trumped the law of the land and/or what culturally might have been considered either inappropriate/appropriate or in the 'gray area'.

What are some of those examples?

How does that position sit alongside “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” You are putting forward the idea that it’s “We sometimes believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. Other times, not so much.”

[Moksha]

MG, Was Joseph's promise to offer exaltation to all of Heber Kimball's posterity in exchange for the hand of young Helen Marr Kimball in marriage doctrinally sound?

Pimping her out in exchange for Heavenly benefits does not sound like a virtuous activity for Smith, Kimball, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[malkie]

MG, Was Joseph's promise to offer exaltation to all of Heber Kimball's posterity in exchange for the hand of young Helen Marr Kimball in marriage doctrinally sound?

Pimping her out in exchange for Heavenly benefits does not sound like a virtuous activity for Smith, Kimball, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

A related question I asked MG is:

Do you know of any other occasion on which a Mormon prophet has promised someone "your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father’s household & all of your kindred"?

Absent an answer from MG, I replied, on his behalf, "No." MG did not say that he disagreed with my answer.
It appears to have been a one-off offer, and, for me, has an air of expediency.

[MG 2.0]

A related question I asked MG is:

Do you know of any other occasion on which a Mormon prophet has promised someone "your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father’s household & all of your kindred"?

Absent an answer from MG, I replied, on his behalf, "No." MG did not say that he disagreed with my answer.
It appears to have been a one-off offer, and, for me, has an air of expediency.

This is an example, again, of prioritizing perceived divine mandates over legal and ethical norms. It's a tough one to wrap your mind around, granted. Our modern sensibilities, especially around consent and agency, undoubtedly clash with historical practices in and out of the church. One thing for sure, if there is a judgement, Joseph will be judged accordingly according to the light and knowledge that he had at the time and whether or not he exercised his agency appropriately. I'm not the one making that call.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

A related question I asked MG is:
Absent an answer from MG, I replied, on his behalf, "No." MG did not say that he disagreed with my answer.
It appears to have been a one-off offer, and, for me, has an air of expediency.

This is an example, again, of prioritizing perceived divine mandates over legal and ethical norms. It's a tough one to wrap your mind around, granted. Our modern sensibilities, especially around consent and agency, undoubtedly clash with historical practices in and out of the church. One thing for sure, if there is a judgement, Joseph will be judged accordingly according to the light and knowledge that he had at the time and whether or not he exercised his agency appropriately. I'm not the one making that call.

Regards,
MG

The problem, as I mentioned in another thread, is that the prioritization is purely arbitrary - whether you consider modern or historical practices. For the FLDS, the LDS church is apostate, and Jeffs etc. act according to what, apparently, they sincerely believe is divine mandate. Do you support them in doing so?

[Marcus]

...This is an example, again, of prioritizing perceived divine mandates over legal and ethical norms. It's a tough one to wrap your mind around, granted. Our modern sensibilities, especially around consent and agency, undoubtedly clash with historical practices in and out of the church. One thing for sure, if there is a judgement, Joseph will be judged accordingly according to the light and knowledge that he had at the time and whether or not he exercised his agency appropriately. I'm not the one making that call...

Mg's excuses are disturbingly close to the justifications used by those who do things like hijack planes to crash into the World Towers. Justifying evil because you "just believe" is horrifying.