God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Limnor]

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

Saying you can only go “as far as you can without stepping on Joseph’s toes” is actually the point. Am I right to understand that the question of false invocation of God is off-limits and that Joseph can lie about that because he is exempt?

[Gadianton]

Gadianton, 'crooked' refers to human perception and messy histories, not to God acting unjustly or deceitfully. God’s will and purposes remains straight, but are achieved through fallible agents and contingent events. He allows the chips to fall where they may (agency) but is able to bring about His purposes just the same.

You seem to have been taken by the Tolkien exposition and want to Make Mormonism = LOTR. Let's tidy up your response a bit. crooked = fallible human perception, fallible human created history, fallible human agents, and presumably, undesirable events caused by fallible humans.

There is significant ambiguity in your OP title. Does it mean "God can write straight with crooked lines that God also writes" or does it mean "God can straighten the crooked lines written by others" ?

The Book of Mormon says that weaknesses can become strengths. That seems to mean that fallible men can bring about God's purposes despite their weaknesses. This doesn't help Joseph Smith and polygamy. If you want to argue that Joseph Smith lied about polygamy as a revelation from God, or that God needed his talents and worked with him despite his libido, then fine -- you're pinning polygamy on Joseph Smith's sin. Or you can say that history is murky, and one day we'll see that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with polygamy. However, if your position is that God commanded Joseph Smith to practice polygamy, including marrying other men's wives and young girls, then God himself is the author of crooked lines.

Commanding men to give their wives and daughters to the prophet for reasons that included sex is an insane pseudo-Abrahamic test that goes way beyond simple faith in Christ and repentance.

[MG 2.0]

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

Saying you can only go “as far as you can without stepping on Joseph’s toes” is actually the point. Am I right to understand that the question of false invocation of God is off-limits and that Joseph can lie about that because he is exempt?

Two things Limnor and then I’d like to take a breather.

1. I feel that I’ve already answered your question regarding “false invocation of God.”

2. Secondly I believe I’ve already answered the question of whether or not Joseph is “exempt” or accountable for any of his sins/transgressions.

This is what I’m referring to when I say, “Beating a dead horse.”

Later.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I’m going to step out again for a bit. Not running away, just taking a break.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

Two things Limnor and then I’d like to take a breather.

1. I feel that I’ve already answered your question regarding “false invocation of God.”

2. Secondly I believe I’ve already answered the question of whether or not Joseph is “exempt” or accountable for any of his sins/transgressions.

This is what I’m referring to when I say, “Beating a dead horse.”

Later.

Regards,
MG

I understand that you feel like you’ve answered those questions. I’m saying that the answers you’ve given don’t address the specific question I asked.

Taking a break is fine with me—I think we’ve accomplished something. We’ve clarified where the disagreement actually lies.

[Limnor]

I’m going to step out again for a bit. Not running away, just taking a break.

Regards,
MG

Disagreement isn’t running away, and taking a break doesn’t change the disagreement. All good.

[Limnor]

Gadianton, 'crooked' refers to human perception and messy histories, not to God acting unjustly or deceitfully. God’s will and purposes remains straight, but are achieved through fallible agents and contingent events. He allows the chips to fall where they may (agency) but is able to bring about His purposes just the same.

You seem to have been taken by the Tolkien exposition and want to Make Mormonism = LOTR. Let's tidy up your response a bit. crooked = fallible human perception, fallible human created history, fallible human agents, and presumably, undesirable events caused by fallible humans.

There is significant ambiguity in your OP title. Does it mean "God can write straight with crooked lines that God also writes" or does it mean "God can straighten the crooked lines written by others" ?

The Book of Mormon says that weaknesses can become strengths. That seems to mean that fallible men can bring about God's purposes despite their weaknesses. This doesn't help Joseph Smith and polygamy. If you want to argue that Joseph Smith lied about polygamy as a revelation from God, or that God needed his talents and worked with him despite his libido, then fine -- you're pinning polygamy on Joseph Smith's sin. Or you can say that history is murky, and one day we'll see that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with polygamy. However, if your position is that God commanded Joseph Smith to practice polygamy, including marrying other men's wives and young girls, then God himself is the author of crooked lines.

Commanding men to give their wives and daughters to the prophet for reasons that included sex is an insane pseudo-Abrahamic test that goes way beyond simple faith in Christ and repentance.

I think this is spot on. Weaknesses becoming strengths is one thing, but invoking God to authorize secrecy, deception, or actions that would otherwise be condemned is another.

[Philo Sofee]

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

Saying you can only go “as far as you can without stepping on Joseph’s toes” is actually the point. Am I right to understand that the question of false invocation of God is off-limits and that Joseph can lie about that because he is exempt?

Yes, Joseph Smith is always held exempt from consequences of God's moral laws. A prophet is only a mere man and human, but he is exempt from punishment that all others are held accountable for. That is the essence of Mormonism on Joseph Smith. Sure he made little kind of sort of errors, but he is above the law and is not to be held accountable for that which anyone else in the entire world would be excommunicated for. This has consistently been MG's stance, and it stinks like smell on sh*t for its abject hypocrisy.

[Philo Sofee]

Gadianton, 'crooked' refers to human perception and messy histories, not to God acting unjustly or deceitfully. God’s will and purposes remains straight, but are achieved through fallible agents and contingent events. He allows the chips to fall where they may (agency) but is able to bring about His purposes just the same.

You seem to have been taken by the Tolkien exposition and want to Make Mormonism = LOTR. Let's tidy up your response a bit. crooked = fallible human perception, fallible human created history, fallible human agents, and presumably, undesirable events caused by fallible humans.

There is significant ambiguity in your OP title. Does it mean "God can write straight with crooked lines that God also writes" or does it mean "God can straighten the crooked lines written by others" ?

The Book of Mormon says that weaknesses can become strengths. That seems to mean that fallible men can bring about God's purposes despite their weaknesses. This doesn't help Joseph Smith and polygamy. If you want to argue that Joseph Smith lied about polygamy as a revelation from God, or that God needed his talents and worked with him despite his libido, then fine -- you're pinning polygamy on Joseph Smith's sin. Or you can say that history is murky, and one day we'll see that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with polygamy. However, if your position is that God commanded Joseph Smith to practice polygamy, including marrying other men's wives and young girls, then God himself is the author of crooked lines.

Commanding men to give their wives and daughters to the prophet for reasons that included sex is an insane pseudo-Abrahamic test that goes way beyond simple faith in Christ and repentance.

It's worse than that. Joseph sent husbands into foreign countries on missions "for the Lord" to spread His "Gospel" while he then secretly married their wives and daughters.... and if the women rebuffed the prophet.......then SLANDER and VILE false accusations flew out many dozens per moment to try and intimidate them, but at least Sarah Pratt was more of a man than Joseph was and stood up to him.....but yeah, straight honorable lines and such.......

[Philo Sofee]

MG:
Secondly I believe I’ve already answered the question of whether or not Joseph is “exempt” or accountable for any of his sins/transgressions.

You've always, A-L-W-A-Y-S- arrived at the conclusion that he is exempt and innocent, since, of course, that is the only answer you can live with. It's the wrong answer, but it allows you to maintain a "testimony" of whatever for whichever however you hope.......because it's not just about Joseph Smith here, it is about what kind of God he foisted upon the people, and that one terrifies you when the devil is in the details and is brought out. We have seen this for years.......YEARS.