God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Fence Sitter]

Whatever sin/transgressions (there's a difference) he may have committed are between him and his Savior/God.

And also between millions of people who diligently and sincerely study Joseph's history to find out for themselves if Mormonism it true, and whether to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in tithing and sacrifice their time, talents and resources. Right, Fibber?

When someone claims to speak for God in telling others how they should behave, that person’s own behavior becomes a legitimate concern for everyone.

[MG 2.0]

And also between millions of people who diligently and sincerely study Joseph's history to find out for themselves if Mormonism it true, and whether to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in tithing and sacrifice their time, talents and resources. Right, Fibber?

When someone claims to speak for God in telling others how they should behave, that person’s own behavior becomes a legitimate concern for everyone.

Hi Fence Sitter. I agree that a prophets’ behavior is relevant, but only within a framework that recognizes all humans (including prophets) as fallen. It is my position and I have stated it a number of times in the past, that moral failures do not automatically invalidate their calling or their claims to speak for God. There are two key questions:

1. Whether God actually called them.
2. Whether their teachings and fruits overall point to Christ.

I suppose you are aware that you are 'smuggling' in a standard (perfection or near‑perfection) that no biblical prophet met. And yet we consider them prophets. Every religious leader even in modern times who ever claimed to speak for God also failed in some ways. If your rule is that any serious failure invalidates their message, you have essentially ruled out Christianity as a whole.

Are you willing to do that?

At the end of the day the question is not ‘Was Joseph flawless?’ but ‘Is God big enough to work through Joseph’s flaws?’ If the answer is yes, that is what ‘writing straight with crooked lines’ might look like.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

It is my position and I have stated it a number of times in the past, that moral failures do not automatically invalidate their calling or their claims to speak for God.

Wow! Moral failures can cause members to be excommunicated or lose their temple recommend, but MG thinks Prophet's can get away with immorality as far as he and God are concerned. That's incredible. But also imperative for MG - because he knows the people he calls Prophets have done immoral things (see SEC vs LDS Church and Ensign Peak).

[Limnor]

The “straight” part refers to God’s intent and ultimate aim (to bring about maximal good consistent with real agency), while the “crooked lines” are the actual contingent, fallen, often incompetent or even vicious human paths that get taken along the way.

I don't think there are many people who know the history of Joseph Smith that will give him a 'free pass' to sin. Whatever sin/transgressions (there's a difference) he may have committed are between him and his Savior/God.

Regards,
MG

That still doesn’t answer the question. I’m not asking whether God can bring good out of human failure, or whether Joseph’s sins are ultimately judged by God. I’m asking why Joseph invoked God to authorize secrecy and deception in the first place—and your response doesn’t answer that.

Is the sin of falsely representing God also between Joseph and God?

[Limnor]

At the end of the day the question is not ‘Was Joseph flawless?’ but ‘Is God big enough to work through Joseph’s flaws?’ If the answer is yes, that is what ‘writing straight with crooked lines’ might look like.

Regards,
MG

That’s not the question. It’s about whether false invocation of God to cover personal sins is disqualifying or merely unfortunate.

[MG 2.0]

The “straight” part refers to God’s intent and ultimate aim (to bring about maximal good consistent with real agency), while the “crooked lines” are the actual contingent, fallen, often incompetent or even vicious human paths that get taken along the way.

I don't think there are many people who know the history of Joseph Smith that will give him a 'free pass' to sin. Whatever sin/transgressions (there's a difference) he may have committed are between him and his Savior/God.

Regards,
MG

That still doesn’t answer the question. I’m not asking whether God can bring good out of human failure, or whether Joseph’s sins are ultimately judged by God. I’m asking why Joseph invoked God to authorize secrecy and deception in the first place—and your response doesn’t answer that.

Is the sin of falsely representing God also between Joseph and God?

Even if Joseph believed that he had been commanded of God to practice the law of plural marriage, both for time and for eternity, there would have been the natural fears he would have experienced under the pressures that resulted from the practice.

No one is saying that he implemented and carried out the command perfectly.

Fear is a powerful motivator.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

Even if Joseph believed that he had been commanded of God to practice the law of plural marriage, both for time and for eternity, there would have been the natural fears he would have experienced under the pressures that resulted from the practice.

No one is saying that he implemented and carried out the command perfectly.

Fear is a powerful motivator.

Regards,
MG

Saying “even if he believed” dodges whether invoking God was true or false.

Also, fear of what, exactly? Legal exposure, loss of authority, public rejection? Because in every case, fear explains why he might lie—but it doesn’t explain why invoking God to justify that lie wouldn’t count as falsely using God.

[MG 2.0]

Even if Joseph believed that he had been commanded of God to practice the law of plural marriage, both for time and for eternity, there would have been the natural fears he would have experienced under the pressures that resulted from the practice.

No one is saying that he implemented and carried out the command perfectly.

Fear is a powerful motivator.

Regards,
MG

Saying “even if he believed” dodges whether invoking God was true or false.

Also, fear of what, exactly? Legal exposure, loss of authority, public rejection? Because in every case, fear explains why he might lie—but it doesn’t explain why invoking God to justify that lie wouldn’t count as falsely using God.

I suppose I wasn’t clear enough. Joseph believed God had commanded that he take more than one wife. When he invoked God he was doing so knowing that he had been commanded by God.

Is that clear enough for you?

And yes, there may have been a number of fears that he had. I suppose he is the only one that could answer to that.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

Saying “even if he believed” dodges whether invoking God was true or false.

Also, fear of what, exactly? Legal exposure, loss of authority, public rejection? Because in every case, fear explains why he might lie—but it doesn’t explain why invoking God to justify that lie wouldn’t count as falsely using God.

I suppose I wasn’t clear enough. Joseph believed God had commanded that he take more than one wife. When he invoked God he was doing so knowing that he had been commanded by God.

Is that clear enough for you?

And yes, there may have been a number of fears that he had. I suppose he is the only one that could answer to that.

Regards,
MG

No it’s not clear enough, because it doesn’t answer the specific question.

Even granting that Joseph believed God commanded plural marriage, he still publicly denied practicing it, privately practiced it, and invoked God to require secrecy.

That’s the issue.

So your defense that Joseph believed he was commanded by God might explain why he thought he was right, but it doesn’t explain why he told people things he knew were false or why God was invoked to enforce that deception.

Extra credit exasperation point: you were the one that mentioned fear—then when I asked “fear of what?” you said essentially heck if I know. It was your point my man, why bring it up if you aren’t going to follow it?

[MG 2.0]

I suppose I wasn’t clear enough. Joseph believed God had commanded that he take more than one wife. When he invoked God he was doing so knowing that he had been commanded by God.

Is that clear enough for you?

And yes, there may have been a number of fears that he had. I suppose he is the only one that could answer to that.

Regards,
MG

No it’s not clear enough, because it doesn’t answer the specific question.

Even granting that Joseph believed God commanded plural marriage, he still publicly denied practicing it, privately practiced it, and invoked God to require secrecy.

That’s the issue.

So your defense that Joseph believed he was commanded by God might explain why he thought he was right, but it doesn’t explain why he told people things he knew were false or why God was invoked to enforce that deception.

Extra credit exasperation point: you were the one that mentioned fear—then when I asked “fear of what?” you said essentially heck if I know. It was your point my man, why bring it up if you aren’t going to follow it?

I did as far as I could without stepping on Joseph’s toes. We’re going in circles at this point. I’ve given my arguments and taken the time to answer your questions.

My experience is that critics are never satisfied…even to the point of beating a dead horse. That’s where we’re at.

Regards,
MG