Charity's view of how a prophet receives revelation

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

charity wrote:And for the crude among you, Joseph was ASKING about plural marriage in the Old Testament when he was given the answer. Just shows you better be careful what you ask about.


Oh, I didn't realize this. Is this the way LDS understand the revelation of polygamy came about? Is this what Joseph himself states happened?
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Oh, I didn't realize this. Is this the way LDS understand the revelation of polygamy came about? Is this what Joseph himself states happened?


Yes. Supposedly he was pondering the Old Testament, the part wherein the prophets of old practiced polygamy, and prayed about it.

The dating of this revelation has been problematic, however. The revelation (called section 132 in the Doctrine and Covenants) is dated at 1843. However, research into the wives of Joseph Smith demonstrated his first plural wife (unless she was simply an affair, which some people like oliver cowdery believed) was Fanny Alger, who was with Joseph around 1833. So now apologists believe he actually received the revelation earlier than 1843, but just shared it in 1843.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

beastie wrote:
Oh, I didn't realize this. Is this the way LDS understand the revelation of polygamy came about? Is this what Joseph himself states happened?


Yes. Supposedly he was pondering the Old Testament, the part wherein the prophets of old practiced polygamy, and prayed about it.

The dating of this revelation has been problematic, however. The revelation (called section 132 in the Doctrine and Covenants) is dated at 1843. However, research into the wives of Joseph Smith demonstrated his first plural wife (unless she was simply an affair, which some people like oliver cowdery believed) was Fanny Alger, who was with Joseph around 1833. So now apologists believe he actually received the revelation earlier than 1843, but just shared it in 1843.


Yes, I was aware of a bit of an issue with the time line and Fanny Alger. I wonder why apologists speculate that he held onto a revelation for some time period before sharing it? Did Joseph state that he received it before 1843 or is that just hopeful thinking on the part of apologists? Did he often wait before revealing revelations? Or was this an anomaly?

~edited~ I feel silly for not knowing this. Obviously my reading comprehension has plummeted lately. :(
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Yes, I was aware of a bit of an issue with the time line and Fanny Alger. I wonder why apologists speculate that he held onto a revelation for some time period before sharing it? Did Joseph state that he received it before 1843 or is that just hopeful thinking on the part of apologists? Did he often wait before revealing revelations? Or was this an anomaly?

~edited~ I feel silly for not knowing this. Obviously my reading comprehension has plummeted lately. :(


You shouldn't feel silly for being confused about what statements Joseph Smith may have made about polygamy. The fact is he hardly spoke about it at all, aside from to make public denials. As far as I know, Joseph Smith never made any statement that would explain why he held back on sharing the revelation, or even if he really did receive it earlier than 1843. He never publicly acknowledged any of his polygamous relationships, and I don't recall any private acknowledgment of his "marriage" to Fanny. Both the idea of his being married to Fanny AND having received the revelation far earlier than 1843 are later constructs of apologists. At the time period, those who knew about Fanny viewed it as an affair. Joseph Smith just didn't talk about it at all.

Apologists speculate that he held back on because the people weren't "ready" for it that early. Of course, very few people were "ready" for it in 1843, since during Joseph Smith' lifetime, the idea of polygamy was only circulated among the leaders of the church, and not among the general population, many of whom had no idea that the church leaders were practicing polygamy at all. This is why the Nauvoo Expositor was such a big deal, it was going to blow the lid off the secret and tell the general membership of the church. Joseph and the other leaders had been vigorously denying the practice or theory of polygamy, and didn't want it exposed. So Joseph ordered it destroyed, starting the chain of events that led to his death.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Honestly, beastie for someone as sharp as you, you say the dumbest things. Oh, wait. Was that sarcastic? I have trouble picking out sarcasm on message boards. The MA&D board at least lets us have a wide variety of smilies to help out.

So the answer is NO. Joseph asked a question and got a whole load of an answer. Just like he went into the grove to ask a simple question, "Which church do I join?" and got the entire restoration of the gospel.

LIke I said, be careful with what you ask.


Yes, I was being sarcastic. I realize you have difficulty recognizing sarcasm.

Yes, be careful what you ask for, or God may "tell" you something that you really, really, really wanted to hear. Just like he seemed to always do with Joseph.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Hi beastie,

I just wanted to add to something that you said because Moniker seems to be interested in details right now.

This is why the Nauvoo Expositor was such a big deal, it was going to blow the lid off the secret and tell the general membership of the church. Joseph and the other leaders had been vigorously denying the practice or theory of polygamy, and didn't want it exposed. So Joseph ordered it destroyed, starting the chain of events that led to his death.


He had the printing press itself destroyed.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

He had the printing press itself destroyed.


Yes, that's what I meant by "it" - sorry to be unclear with that.

And, by the way, destroying a printing press was still seen as a very big deal back then. Believers tend to minimize the shock of that, but when I did a little background work in the history of destroying printing presses in the US, it was obvious that when it did occur, it was viewed as shocking, and resulted in a strong reaction in the public.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_charity
_Emeritus
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:30 pm

Post by _charity »

Jersey Girl wrote:Hi beastie,

I just wanted to add to something that you said because Moniker seems to be interested in details right now.

This is why the Nauvoo Expositor was such a big deal, it was going to blow the lid off the secret and tell the general membership of the church. Joseph and the other leaders had been vigorously denying the practice or theory of polygamy, and didn't want it exposed. So Joseph ordered it destroyed, starting the chain of events that led to his death.


He had the printing press itself destroyed.


Please be accurate. The Nauvoo City Council ordered the press destroyed.
_Scottie
_Emeritus
Posts: 4166
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:54 pm

Post by _Scottie »

charity wrote:There was an article in the New Era within the last year. It quoted Elder Eyring describing the process. The assigned apostle goes into a room with a computer and a sheaf of missionary application, and one by one gets inspiration as exactly where that missionary should go. He said something aobut how the strength of the witness would be startling except for the fact that it happens over and over again.


I had a friend who was a twin. According to him, they put their papers in together and, I can't remember exactly where they were sent, but it was something like Tacoma and Tahiti. REALLY close together in the phoneitcal order.
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman

I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
_ludwigm
_Emeritus
Posts: 10158
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:07 am

Post by _ludwigm »

charity wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:
... So Joseph ordered it destroyed, starting the chain of events that led to his death.

He had the printing press itself destroyed.

Please be accurate. The Nauvoo City Council ordered the press destroyed.


The Nauvoo City Council had a leader, a certain Mr Joseph Smith.
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco
- To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
Post Reply