Joseph Smith Megathread

[_Themis]

In the 1830's, Joseph was known to be sealed to one person. In the early 1840's, from 1841 to 1843 he was sealed to many women. Why? Because he became a horny toad? Probably not. He was a man in a hurry that is for sure. Something was driving him to be sealed to as many as possible. And I am sure that it was not his sex drive. He did what he thought he had to do.

So does this mean you don't think he had sex with any of his wives other then Emma? by the way he is listed as having at least 2 during the 1830'3, although one is considered by some to be an affair.

And as the apologist argument goes, his sealings were more about Kinship with families than about sex. And he acted accordingly. And many of the women received powerful witnesses as to the truthfulness of the principle.

No one is arguing he didn't have other reasons for introducing polygamy, but sex is certainly an important one. Family was very important to him, so eternal families is an idea that would have appealed to him.

[_AtticusFinch]

Joseph Smith is the greatest Fraud that America has produced. He revolutionized treasure seeking, bringing it to new directions. He wrote the Book of Mormon and the book of abraham, he using the material of others and folling millions. He developed his own doctrine for christianity, he brought it to a more Satanic concept with his detailed concept of god once being a sinful man and following Satan's temptation that we could become gods. Plus, the whole idea of the restoration was horrible as it made Jesus irrelvant, weak, dishonest and cruel.

And then, we must consider what he also accomplished in his short 38 years. He founded failed banks. Was a false prophet of a false church, and he ran for the priesidency until he was shot while in jail for violating the US Constitution. And he organized communities and was a much feared by the people who he threatened to destroy. No religious American thinker has ever match Joseph's success as a fraud, though Jim Jones might have if he had not decided to kill everyone. He was a fraud and most unbiased people would agree with me.

He is an fraud. And I am also a fraud.

[_harmony]

AtticusFinch: Do not modify another's post without permission and/or without announcing the changes

[_Jersey Girl]

Why? Why do they have only themselves to blame for feeling duped?

because Simon can;t bear blaming the false prophet mhe worships for all his lies

Was I talking to you?

Gotta love that feisty New Jersey-ness.

Yeah, it's part of my charm. Let's talk and I'll put on my professional hat while we do it.

We have ourselves to blame for all of the choices we make in life, Jersey Girl. I've made some whopping mistakes, and I would venture a guess that you have too. It's part of life, and we are responsible for ourselves. It is too easy to blame our parents or our church for our own mistakes.

Not that the Church is a mistake, mind you.

With all due respect, you aren't thinking clearly about what has been stated. You stated that we are all to blame for "feeling duped".

We're not talking about choices, Simon, we're talking about the feelings associated with those choices. The type of feelings that some ex-Mo's have when they discover things were not all they were led to believe about Joseph Smith and his practices.

As I see it, people become members of the LDS church in one of two ways. They were either born into it as part of their cultural underpinnings or they came into it as converts.

When a child who is BIC leaves their mother's womb and is brought up in a specific culture, in this case, one that is tied directly to a set series religious doctrines and beliefs, they have NO choice over what they are groomed to believe as a child.

None.

They adopt the religious culture of their parents on whom they are dependent in a variety of ways. A child knows only what they are taught by the authority figures, parents, to whom they are bonded and dependent on.

Due to the stages of their cognitive development, a child is incapable of thinking/choosing based on higher order reasoning and will remain incapable of it until they are, at least, in their teens when formal operations cognition (look it up) begins to allow it.

At that point they are still dependent on their parents for a variety of things among which are food, shelter, schooling, health care, and finances. They have already become conditioned to be dependent on the church as the social system of which they are a part.

The teen, even if they were aware of the discrepancies between the milk vs meat or between what has been taught and what is yet to be discovered, is in no position to rebel against the parents religious ideologies.

In my observation, the first point of departure in religious thought and belief takes place during the period of the mission. What was anticipated as a journey of inspiration becomes something else.

Points of departure from religious thought and belief also take place at other predicatable points.

In the college years when the child's access to information and peers who hold opposing viewpoints or information not previously learned.

When an LDS navigates the years from childhood to college, to marriage, they become caught up in the religious system that takes much of their daily schedule. Add to that the arrival of babies in need of attention, and you have a busy young couple struggling to keep afloat, religiously, financially, academically, professionally and socially.

When that same person reaches perhaps their 30's which is where I see the highest prevalance of "apostacy", discovers that what they have been taught isn't the whole story, a grief process begins.

They grieve for their relationships, their sense of self confidence, the time they spent involved in something that wasn't presented in it's entirety and they are often told that the information was available the entire time, that it was their responsibility for researching the very church that presumed to be a source of authority in their lives.

In short, they are sad, depressed and later, pissed as hell.

When someone like you coldly and cavalierly blathers about choices without any indication of human compassion or perspective taking regarding your former church brothers and sisters in front of my eyes and on my screen, I have to wonder where the Christianity really is in your church.

And in you.

I have been present on LDS related boards for nearly 11 years. If I were of a mind to, I could rattle off a long list of posters who at the time, were questioning, doubting, grieving, and confused, who corresponded with me regarding their upheaval. They were worried about the future of their families, their marriages, their social ties and ability to conduct business under the stigma of apostacy.

I like to think that they sought me out, a never mo, because I was a "safe" sounding board for their thoughts and ideas. Never once, did I preach to them about God or ever try to convert them to my own religion. I met them where they were at and partnered with them as a sounding board. Some of them are on this board.

In short, that is what you should be doing, Simon, instead of giving superficial lip service in the form of criticism to their conflicts. They are real people with real lives, loves and concerns.

I'm not seeing a heartbeat in you, Simon.

[_why me]

Joseph was an amazing man, unique just like many other great men or women. He was a great borrower of others ideas. My concern has always been whether he was telling the truth about talking to God and such. unfortunately the evidence does not support his or the church's claims today, but Joseph did some amazing things, although others have as well. by the way the Book of Mormon never really did introduce any new doctrines.

Lets just say that he was a fraudster. The Book of Mormon was a tremendous feat so tremendous that people well over a hundred years later, the book is still being discussed and dissected. And debated. Quite a feat for a moneydigger farmboy.

Then we have a new understanding of the preexistence and the understanding that god was of flesh and bone. And then we have a heavenly mother. And then we have the restoration complete with heavenly visitations. Quite amazing really.

[_Kishkumen]

Indeed, I think the better course would be to own up to the fact that Brigham Young et al. were culpable, and then move on.

I have, and try to continue to do so.

Then I say "Huzzah" to you, professor Belmont. This is one of the reasons why you are on the faculty of Cassius University where so many others, including the authors of the recent book, Massacre at Mountain Meadows, might not find the institution to their liking.

Theologically speaking, the LDS prophets, no matter how highly one thinks of them, are not the Lord Jesus Christ. One should neither expect them to be beyond the limitations of mortal nature, nor should one seek to cultivate an unrealistic image of them.

I give Brigham Young due credit for being a man of great capacities and achievements, but I think the fairest reading of his role in the events surrounding the MMM, is that he miscalculated in a number of ways that created an atmosphere in which it would have been very fortunate if nothing had gone horribly awry.

Unfortunately, something did go horribly awry. And while I think it is the wishful or overly zealous thinking of those who don't particularly like the Church to place Brigham's finger on the trigger, it is no better to seek to minimize his role in creating an explosive environment to the point that his is but a minor peccadillo.

[_why me]

Then I say "Huzzah" to you, professor Belmont. This is one of the reasons why you are on the faculty of Cassius University where so many others, including the authors of the recent book, Massacre at Mountain Meadows, might not find the institution to their liking.

Theologically speaking, the LDS prophets, no matter how highly one thinks of them, are not the Lord Jesus Christ. One should neither expect them to be beyond the limitations of mortal nature, nor should one seek to cultivate an unrealistic image of them.

I give Brigham Young due credit for being a man of great capacities and achievements, but I think the fairest reading of his role in the events surrounding the MMM, is that he miscalculated in a number of ways that created an atmosphere in which it would have been very fortunate if nothing had gone horribly awry.

Unfortunately, something did go horribly awry. And while I think it is the wishful or overly zealous thinking of those who don't particularly like the Church to place Brigham's finger on the trigger, it is no better to seek to minimize his role in creating an explosive environment to the point that his is but a minor peccadillo.

What is often overlooked is the context behind MMM. First, the newspapers in california were calling for the extermination of the Mormons. And he saints were afraid of mobs heading to Utah to do the job. This was known in Utah. Then, we have just a few years earlier, the burning of Mormon homes in Missouri and in Nauvoo. Plus, many LDS were killed by the mobs. Then, we have the LDS heading west to live in safety and in security but the damage from the past was done. MMM was a psychological reaction to the persecution of the saints and the threat from california. It was wrong but understandable when the context is considered.

[_Willy Law]

What is often overlooked is the context behind MMM. First, the newspapers in california were calling for the extermination of the Mormons. And he saints were afraid of mobs heading to Utah to do the job. This was known in Utah. Then, we have just a few years earlier, the burning of Mormon homes in Missouri and in Nauvoo. Plus, many LDS were killed by the mobs. Then, we have the LDS heading west to live in safety and in security but the damage from the past was done. MMM was a psychological reaction to the persecution of the saints and the threat from california. It was wrong but understandable when the context is considered.

Understandable? Oh great another MMM apologist.
You realize you sound like every Muslim defending the attack on 9/11 right?

[_Kishkumen]

What is often overlooked is the context behind MMM. First, the newspapers in california were calling for the extermination of the Mormons. And he saints were afraid of mobs heading to Utah to do the job. This was known in Utah. Then, we have just a few years earlier, the burning of Mormon homes in Missouri and in Nauvoo. Plus, many LDS were killed by the mobs. Then, we have the LDS heading west to live in safety and in security but the damage from the past was done. MMM was a psychological reaction to the persecution of the saints and the threat from california. It was wrong but understandable when the context is considered.

Interesting points, why me. Which, again, raises the question: why can't people simply admit that Brigham Young and other high leaders of the time acted in such a way that it was more likely a tragedy like MMM might result? Are we to expect that he was so perfect under the pressure of this situation, that he played Gandhi-esque peacemaker? Is it really fair to let the rough-cut fellows of Iron County take a fall as though they were renegade vengeance-seekers run amok? I don't think so.

[_AtticusFinch]

AtticusFinch: Do not modify another's post without permission and/or without announcing the changes

sorry....I thought the fact the post came from me was announcement enough.

Just needed the his post true and accurate