Limnor wrote: If, in my hypothesis, the inner circle who knew the true origins of the Book of Mormon—and, by extension, that Alvin’s death is reflected in the story of Abinadi—then the question of what kept everyone aligned with Smith as central could be “was it mutual guilt and fear of exposure?”
I’d think for that level of influence to repeat would require something at least equal to the initial “secret combination”, if accurate, that bound them all together in the first place.
In general, clubhouse cults are famous for self-deconstruction. I've mentioned that Netflix movie "A Gray State" before. Here's a guy into exposing conspiracies and government overreach and became obsessed with making a movie about totalitarianism. His obsession betrayed his fascination, and he ended up as a tyrant in his own home and killing his family.
It would be unsurprising if all the "secret combination" fascination betrayed a deeper longing to participate in such mysterious things.
"if you can't admire Joe Biden as a person then it's probably, you got a problem." -- Lindsey Graham
It would be unsurprising if all the "secret combination" fascination betrayed a deeper longing to participate in such mysterious things.
An interesting hypothetical would be to look at the characters as reflecting internal opposition or a struggle.
For example. Alma and Korihor could reflect the internal conflict of a single person, captured in the story as Joseph embracing prophetic authority a while struggling—and eventually failing—to suppress the temptation to use that calling for power or gain.
Given all the inconsistencies with Book of Mormon and D&C pronouncements, particularly during the Nauvoo period, imagine the mental gymnastics going on in the Brethren's minds to try to achieve some semblance of cognitive consonance. Polygamy, the way practiced with Joe Smith in particular and not being to raise up a righteous seed--no seed--and without firts wife's (Emma's) approval. Condemnation in Book of Mormon of secret combinations, yet Mormon leadership in Nauvoo was rife with such combinations, to name just a few.
"There will come a time when the rich own all the media, and it will be impossible for the public to make an informed opinion." Albert Einstein, ~1949 "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire
Given all the inconsistencies with Book of Mormon and D&C pronouncements, particularly during the Nauvoo period, imagine the mental gymnastics going on in the Brethren's minds to try to achieve some semblance of cognitive consonance. Polygamy, the way practiced with Joe Smith in particular and not being to raise up a righteous seed--no seed--and without firts wife's (Emma's) approval. Condemnation in Book of Mormon of secret combinations, yet Mormon leadership in Nauvoo was rife with such combinations, to name just a few.
My view is that Nauvoo wasn’t really the beginning of those innovations as much as the culmination of the conflict represented in the Book of Mormon.
If the Book of Mormon originated between about 1823 and 1829 and reflects the lives and arguments of its earliest inner circle, then the seeds of later Nauvoo theology and authority were planted in the book itself.
I realize this approach is different than conventional historical scholarship. On another thread, IHQ asked if DCP’s arguments influenced a poster’s thinking. I’d answer in the affirmative, particularly those thoughts that claim there were earlier theological seeds in the Book of Mormon. I think a reverse engineering of those seeds would reveal plural marriage, temple rites, priesthood, kingship, and other “condemned” practices were being suppressed in the book, but later emerged as accepted doctrine.
Given all the inconsistencies with Book of Mormon and D&C pronouncements, particularly during the Nauvoo period, imagine the mental gymnastics going on in the Brethren's minds to try to achieve some semblance of cognitive consonance. Polygamy, the way practiced with Joe Smith in particular and not being to raise up a righteous seed--no seed--and without firts wife's (Emma's) approval. Condemnation in Book of Mormon of secret combinations, yet Mormon leadership in Nauvoo was rife with such combinations, to name just a few.
My view is that Nauvoo wasn’t really the beginning of those innovations as much as the culmination of the conflict represented in the Book of Mormon.
If the Book of Mormon originated between about 1823 and 1829 and reflects the lives and arguments of its earliest inner circle, then the seeds of later Nauvoo theology and authority were planted in the book itself.
I realize this approach is different than conventional historical scholarship. On another thread, IHQ asked if DCP’s arguments influenced a poster’s thinking. I’d answer in the affirmative, particularly those thoughts that claim there were earlier theological seeds in the Book of Mormon. I think a reverse engineering of those seeds would reveal plural marriage, temple rites, priesthood, kingship, and other “condemned” practices were being suppressed in the book, but later emerged as accepted doctrine.
If you are correct, then the Article on Marriage (1835) was just a smoke screen (a lie to cover up the actual Mormon thinking on polygamy), as were numerous denials over the years. Even as late as early March 1844 (3 1/2 months before the Carthage murders), the Women's Relief Society published a diatribe denouncing polygamy and denying that Mormons were engaged in it. On 5.26.1844, just a month and a day before those murders, Joseph Smith claimed he could only "find" one wife, despite allegations that he had many.
As for secret combinations, there was a definite denouncement of such in the Book of Mormon, which you place as originated 1823-29. So if the seeds of secret combinations date back to 1823-29 when the Book of Mormon was being generated, was that denouncement also a lie to cover up Joseph Smith's true intentions with regards to such combinations?
I'm not disputing your theory, just pointing out the systemic duplicity by the Mormons if your theory is accurate.
"There will come a time when the rich own all the media, and it will be impossible for the public to make an informed opinion." Albert Einstein, ~1949 "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire
If you are correct, then the Article on Marriage (1835) was just a smoke screen (a lie to cover up the actual Mormon thinking on polygamy), as were numerous denials over the years. Even as late as early March 1844 (3 1/2 months before the Carthage murders), the Women's Relief Society published a diatribe denouncing polygamy and denying that Mormons were engaged in it. On 5.26.1844, just a month and a day before those murders, Joseph Smith claimed he could only "find" one wife, despite allegations that he had many.
As for secret combinations, there was a definite denouncement of such in the Book of Mormon, which you place as originated 1823-29. So if the seeds of secret combinations date back to 1823-29 when the Book of Mormon was being generated, was that denouncement also a lie to cover up Joseph Smith's true intentions with regards to such combinations?
I'm not disputing your theory, just pointing out the systemic duplicity by the Mormons if your theory is accurate.
That’s close my thinking, though I see it more as a working hypothesis than a settled conclusion.
Rather than a single author writing a consistent message, I see the Book of Mormon, in part, as capturing the political rivalries of competing factions.
So the book’s repeated condemnations of things Joseph later practiced were political expedience to consolidate power. Once authority was gained, the same practices could be posited as legitimate when exercised under direction of the Prophet. So yes, I think those denouncements were a smoke screen.
The clearest example—and from my perspective a smoking gun bit of evidence to support this approach—is Ammon’s blatant use of “guile” in Alma 18 to sustain an audience. “Guile” is apparently sanctioned in the scripture, so one should expect adherents to employ it.
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
LDS gather in groups of 2 or more in Jesus' name. So, Jesus will be there, according to Matthew 18:20. Sounds like the basic requirement for a church to be Christian. So the rest of the Christian world, while sure of their stripes of Christianity, should respect the LDS as a Christian church.
On the other hand, the LDS church claims to be the one and only "true" church. If Jesus will be wherever two or more are gathered in his name, the LDS do not have an exclusive with Jesus. So the LDS should drop this silly trope claiming to be the only true church.
Perhaps it would be more Christ-like if both the LDS and the other Christian world would stop with this nonsense--in both directions. After all, Jesus will be wherever at least 2 people are gathered in his name.
Aren't you cherry picking scripture out of context, sock?
That's kind of like saying Harry Potter was an idiot because Hermione said so in Stone instead of reading the whole cannon. You wouldn't do that, would you?
LIGHT HAS A NAME
We only get stronger when we are lifting something that is heavier than what we are used to. ~ KF
LDS gather in groups of 2 or more in Jesus' name. So, Jesus will be there, according to Matthew 18:20. Sounds like the basic requirement for a church to be Christian. So the rest of the Christian world, while sure of their stripes of Christianity, should respect the LDS as a Christian church.
On the other hand, the LDS church claims to be the one and only "true" church. If Jesus will be wherever two or more are gathered in his name, the LDS do not have an exclusive with Jesus. So the LDS should drop this silly trope claiming to be the only true church.
Perhaps it would be more Christ-like if both the LDS and the other Christian world would stop with this nonsense--in both directions. After all, Jesus will be wherever at least 2 people are gathered in his name.
Aren't you cherry picking scripture out of context, sock?
That's kind of like saying Harry Potter was an idiot because Hermione said so in Stone instead of reading the whole cannon. You wouldn't do that, would you?
What is scripture? Copies of reported first-century Christian literature, second- or third-hand information at best. This is why the Book of Mormon could have been so great with direct quotes from Jesus; instead, we get second- or third-hand information of reported first-century Christian literature, errors and all.
Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.
Aren't you cherry picking scripture out of context, sock?
That's kind of like saying Harry Potter was an idiot because Hermione said so in Stone instead of reading the whole cannon. You wouldn't do that, would you?
What is scripture? Copies of reported first-century Christian literature, second- or third-hand information at best. This is why the Book of Mormon could have been so great with direct quotes from Jesus; instead, we get second- or third-hand information of reported first-century Christian literature, errors and all.
What is scripture? It's the foundational text of one's religion. That's why sock quoted Matthew 18:20 which is presumably the foundational text for both Christianity and Mormonism.
If you want to start a new thread about the absence of extant Biblical scripts, be my guest.
LIGHT HAS A NAME
We only get stronger when we are lifting something that is heavier than what we are used to. ~ KF
I think a lot of times, we are gathered in our own name, rather than in Jesus’ name.
"Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them." Psalm 139:16 ESV
