[Shawn]

I appreciate your responses Ray and Way. I need sleep.

[Shawn]

Old-Timer wrote:

Finally, be very careful of your tone here. I really do appreciate your participation, and I want it to continue, but you sometimes tend toward dismissal and disdain and condescension in your choice of words. That’s not how we operate here.

I’m sorry for that. I get riled up sometimes.

Please allow me to bring this up: the Mission states “It is fine to voice institutional concerns; it is not acceptable to disparage or criticize individual leaders – or to condemn ‘The Church’ itself.” In this thread, I have seen the following purported about Joseph Smith:

1. He was guilty of practicing unrighteous dominion

2. He was an “alpha-male narcissist”

3. He used polygamy to cover us his adultery

Is that not disparaging or criticizing an individual leader?

[Shawn]

Kumahito wrote:

Just wondering recently if there is a “doctrine” on excommunication, or if it’s just policy. Section 20:80 states that:

Quote:

Any member of the church of Christ transgressing, or being overtaken in fault, shall be dealt with as the scriptures direct.

There’s also Mosiah 26. Here’s a quick summary:

Book of Mormon wrote:

6 For it came to pass that they did deceive many with their flattering words, who were in the church, and did cause them to commit many sins; therefore it became expedient that those who committed sin, that were in the church, should be admonished by the church.

13 And now the spirit of Alma was again troubled; and he went and inquired of the Lord what he should do concerning this matter, for he feared that he should do wrong in the sight of God.

29 Therefore I say unto you, Go; and whosoever transgresseth against me, him shall ye judge according to the sins which he has committed; and if he confess his sins before thee and me, and repenteth in the sincerity of his heart, him shall ye forgive, and I will forgive him also.

32 Now I say unto you, Go; and whosoever will not repent of his sins the same shall not be numbered among my people; and this shall be observed from this time forward.

34 And it came to pass that Alma went and judged those that had been taken in iniquity, according to the word of the Lord.

35 And whosoever repented of their sins and did confess them, them he did number among the people of the church;

36 And those that would not confess their sins and repent of their iniquity, the same were not numbered among the people of the church, and their names were blotted out.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/26?lang=eng

[Shawn]

bridget_night wrote:

Thank you all for your comments. I really enjoy reading them. Particularly because I also belong to an lds ex-gay type forum that is bashing this article and the lds bishop and people who wrote the new lds acceptance project phamplet. Here is the link to it: http://familyproject.sfsu.edu/LDS-booklet To read it you do have to put in your email address and zip code. It is excellent and written by strong lds scientists and doctors, yet these ex-gay lds forums bash these men. Ticks me off.

Try this link: http://familyproject.sfsu.edu/files/FAP%20LDS%20Booklet%20pst.pdf

I believe you wont have to enter email and zip.

[Shawn]

cwald wrote:

President Thomas Monson: “I have received further light and knowledge by the spirit, by revelation, that our current stance on homosexuality is wrong and needs to be modified…we will now change the conversation to be….”……

I see what you mean, cwald. I think it’s very unlikely, but I won’t say it’s impossible.

[Shawn]

wayfarer wrote:

Dude. Whitewashing the prophet is dishonest, and causes people to go nuts when they learn the truth.

Taylor’s and Young’s statements are idolatrous, by quite the formal definition of idolatry.

And as for innocent blood… He destroyed a press that published the truth of his polygamy, then fought back in the cell with a smuggled-in Ethan Allen pepper box double action revolver. It was the 1844 equivalent of an Uzi. “Innocent blood” is a bit of an hyperbole.

We are trying to deal with the fact that Joseph was human and full of defects, yet still a prophet. I, for one am not going to ignore the facts. And I will accept his prophetic power as I do all other prophets of scripture. Truth is the ultimate aim of the gospel.

Classic rationalization. This is not limited to the discussion of historical facts. The negative characteristics are the focus and are being blown out of proportion and analyzed harshly.

Praising a man is not the same as worshiping him.

Are you saying that having a press destroyed is worthy of the death penalty? If so, did the mob have the authority to carry out the alleged sentence? And if a man is being attacked by a giant mob, he can’t defend himself and maintain his innocence? I think that is a sick way to look at it.

[Shawn]

Old-Timer wrote:

I say again, if you want an interesting experience, read D&C 121 (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/121?lang=eng) as a free-standing and isolated revelation. Iow, read it only for what it says within its verses – independent of anything else. Read verses 1-6 and think about what Joseph is asking of the Lord (essentially to exercise unrighteous dominion); read verses 7-10 and think about what the Lord says in response (essentially, “Chill out and realize you’re not at that point yet.”); skip to the end and read verses 33-46 and think about those verses as a direct response to verses 1-6. Look at verse 37 and the use of “us” and “we” – then look at verse 39 and the use of “sad experience” and “almost all men”. Then, extend that understanding to other issues that might have been similar in nature – not alike in “topic” but similar in being the result of an exercise of unrighteous dominion.

Please actually do this. Don’t just read this comment; read the actual chapter as I’ve laid out here. It might be enlightening and help show the complex, wonderfully / terribly human that constituted Joseph, the man, and Joseph, the prophet.

Ray, think you owe me a response after my reading that and replying.

[Shawn]

cwald wrote:

I hear what you are saying Shawn, and I think you make so valid points, and I have no issue with your opinion.

Let me redirect the conversation a bit…if I may, and ask you, and my SP and my SP brother who have regular spies listening in to keep tabs on me…

DOES IT MATTER? Does it matter if Wayfarer believes the JS was a scoundrel AND a prophet? Does it matter if cwald does not really think JS was this wonderful, glorious person that I learned about in Primary? But just a guy, a prophet perhaps, that restored some pretty good concept, but made some horrible mistakes and took advantage of his power and position, and like myself and many others…had a thing for the ladies? The only difference is he had the power and charisma to get them…where I certainly could not. (I’m lucky to have jwald — I married up.)

Can I still be a mormon, and be in good standing, and worship with the faithful on a week to week basis with my unorthodox belief and difference of opinion?

To me, that is the issue?

The character of Joseph does seem to matter to those who insist on continually criticizing it. It may be evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed. Millions shall know Brother Joseph again, and I hope to be one of them. I don’t want to meet him and have a recollection of talking trash about him. Calling him a scoundrel or any such thing is not a result of the discovery of knowledge. It is a CHOICE. Some are probably using the “binocular trick,” a cognitive distortion wherewith one magnifies negatives attributes and minimizes positive ones. Some here have chosen to judge Joseph harshly. It is sad that those people cannot enjoy a better association with him. You are missing out.

I’m with Brother Brigham, who said ““I feel like shouting Hallelujah, all the time, when I think that I ever knew Joseph Smith, the Prophet whom the Lord raised up and ordained, and to whom he gave keys and power to build up the Kingdom of God on earth and sustain it.” And “I can truly say, that I invariably found him to be all that any people could require a true prophet to be, and that a better man could not be, though he had his weaknesses; and what man has ever lived upon this earth who had none?”

I’m also with John Taylor, who was there when Joseph died:

Quote:

…the reader in every nation will be reminded that the Book of Mormon, and this book of Doctrine and Covenants of the church, cost the best blood of the nineteenth century to bring them forth for the salvation of a ruined world;…They lived for glory; they died for glory; and glory is their eternal reward. From age to age shall their names go down to posterity as gems for the sanctified.

They were innocent of any crime, as they had often been proved before, and were only confined in jail by the conspiracy of traitors and wicked men; and their innocent blood on the floor of Carthage jail is a broad seal affixed to “Mormonism” that cannot be rejected by any court on earth, and their innocent blood on the escutcheon of the State of Illinois, with the broken faith of the State as pledged by the governor, is a witness to the truth of the everlasting gospel that all the world cannot impeach; and their innocent blood on the banner of liberty, and on the magna charta of the United States, is an ambassador for the religion of Jesus Christ, that will touch the hearts of honest men among all nations; and their innocent blood, with the innocent blood of all the martyrs under the altar that John saw, will cry unto the Lord of Hosts till he avenges that blood on the earth. Amen.

You can still be a Mormon, of course. But what good does it do anyone to criticize Joseph Smith?

[Shawn]

What I see here is using a few quotes and stories to paint Joseph Smith negatively. It doesn’t matter if you called him a prophet in addition to a narcissist. It is still condemning him. Narcissists believe they are superior to others and don’t care about others’ feelings. They express disdain for those they consider to be inferior. He was confident and had charisma, but calling him a narcissist is going too far.

Quote:

Dr. John M. Bernhisel, related his impressions of Joseph Smith to Illinois Governor Ford in 1844. He wrote:

Having been a boarder in General Smith’s family for more than nine months, and having therefore had abundant opportunities of contemplating his character and observing his conduct, I have concluded to give you a few of my “impressions” of him.

General Joseph Smith is naturally a man of strong mental powers, and is possessed of much energy and decision of character, great penetration, and a profound knowledge of human nature. He is a man of calm judgment, enlarged views, and is eminently distinguished by his love of justice. He is kind and obliging, generous and benevolent, sociable and cheerful, and is possessed of a mind of a contemplative and reactive character. He is honest, frank, fearless and independent, and as free from dissimulation as any man to be found.

But it is in the gentle charities of domestic life, as the tender and affectionate husband and parent, the warm and sympathizing friend, that the prominent traits of his character are revealed, and his heart is felt to be keenly alive to the kindest and softest emotions of which human nature is susceptible; and I feel assured that his family and friends formed one of the greatest consolations to him while the vials of wrath were poured upon his head, while his footsteps were pursued by malice and envy, and reproach and slander were strewn in his path, as well as during numerous and cruel persecutions, and severe and protracted sufferings in chains and loathsome prisons, for worshiping God according to the dictates of his own conscience.

Quote:

Peter H. Burnett, a former Governor of California and attorney for Joseph wrote:

You could see at a glance that his education was very limited. He was an awkward and vehement speaker. In conversation he was slow, and used too many words to express his ideas, and would not generally go directly to a point. But, with all these drawbacks, he was much more than an ordinary man. He possessed the most indomitable perseverance, was a good judge of men, and deemed himself born to command, and he did command. His views were so strange and striking, and his manner was so earnest, and apparently so candid, that you could not but be interested. There was a kind, familiar look about him, that pleased you. He was very courteous in discussion, readily admitting what he did not intend to controvert, and would not oppose you abruptly, but had due deference to your feelings. He had the capacity for discussing a subject in different aspects, and for proposing many original views, even of ordinary matters. His illustrations were his own. He had great influence over others. As an evidence of this I will state that on Thursday, just before I left to return to Liberty [Missouri], I saw him out among the crowd, conversing freely with every one, and seeming to be perfectly at ease. In the short space of five days he had managed so to mollify his enemies that he could go unprotected among them without the slightest danger.

Quote:

A New York Herald writer said he was “one of the most accomplished and powerful chiefs of the age.” He then described him as follows:

Joseph Smith, the president of the church, prophet, seer, and revelator, is thirty-six years of age, six feet high in pumps, weighing two hundred and twelve pounds. He is a man of the highest order of talent and great independence of character–firm in his integrity–and devoted to his religion; . . as a public speaker he is bold, powerful, and convincing; . . as a leader, wise and prudent, yet fearless as a military commander; brave and determined as a citizen, worthy, affable, and kind; bland in his manners, and of noble bearing.

[Shawn]

Old-Timer wrote:

I say again, if you want an interesting experience, read D&C 121 (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/121?lang=eng) as a free-standing and isolated revelation. Iow, read it only for what it says within its verses – independent of anything else. Read verses 1-6 and think about what Joseph is asking of the Lord (essentially to exercise unrighteous dominion);

Okay, I read it just the way you explained. I don’t see how asking the Lord “Let thine anger be kindled against our enemies; and, in the fury of thine heart, with thy sword avenge us of our wrongs” is asking to exercise unrighteous dominion. Do you mean Joseph Smith asked the Lord to exercise unrighteous dominion? Either way, I did not get that from those verses at all.

Quote:

read verses 7-10 and think about what the Lord says in response (essentially, “Chill out and realize you’re not at that point yet.”);

This is straight forward. The Lord told Joseph to be at peace, endure it well, and that he is not yet as Job because and still has friends who do not accuse him of transgression.

Quote:

skip to the end and read verses 33-46 and think about those verses as a direct response to verses 1-6. Look at verse 37 and the use of “us” and “we” – then look at verse 39 and the use of “sad experience” and “almost all men”. Then, extend that understanding to other issues that might have been similar in nature – not alike in “topic” but similar in being the result of an exercise of unrighteous dominion.

If I read verses 33-46 as a direct response to verses 1-6, it seems that Joseph, among others, is guilty of or needs to be cautious about:

1. Heart being set upon the world

2. Aspiring to the honors of men

3. Covering sins

4. Gratifying pride or vain ambitions

5. Exercising control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men

Is that what you are trying to show me?

After reading the section as you laid it out, I read it in its entirety and see it in a different light. In verses 26-27, there is a transition from God’s response to the words of Joseph as he prophecies (the heading of the section say “Prayer and prophecies written by Joseph Smith). Verses 34-40 begins and ends speaking about many being called, but few chosen. I highlighted the words “they,” “their,” and “he” in all of them. Besides noticing the use of “us” and “we” in verse 37, I highlighted the use of “our” and “that” (as in “that man”).

Quote:

34 Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?

35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—

36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.

39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

Sure, the words “us” and “we” and “our” are used in verse 37. It’s just a way of speaking. Ultimately, Joseph is NOT saying that his own heart was set upon the world, that he was covering his own sins (wasn’t he quite good at confessing them?), etc. Reading the entire section, it’s easy to see that verses 33-46 are NOT a direct response to verses 1-6.

It does not appear that Joseph himself is being condemned or warned. Consider these verses:

Quote:

11 And they who do charge thee with transgression, their hope shall be blasted, and their prospects shall melt away as the hoar frost melteth before the burning rays of the rising sun;

16 Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them.

17 But those who cry transgression do it because they are the servants of sin, and are the children of disobedience themselves.

18 And those who swear falsely against my servants, that they might bring them into bondage and death—

19 Wo unto them; because they have offended my little ones they shall be severed from the ordinances of mine house.

[Shawn]

cwald wrote:

Are you familar with the 14 F’s of the prophet?

Yes, I actually read it yesterday (wasn’t the first time).

I should clarify what I mean by “I don’t see how any homosexual activity could be condoned in light of all that has been said about it.” I am thinking of all scriptures, like Adam and Eve and references to man lying with man. I am thinking of the temple ordinances, the proclamation on the family (I see it as official even though it has not been voted on by the whole membership), Heavenly Father and Mother, the law of chastity, etc. I wonder what alterations could be made without altering core theology.

[Shawn]

Old-Timer wrote:

Frankly, I think there are multiple ways the Church could continue to alter its stance on homosexuality without having to alter its core theology in the slightest. I admit, that’s one area where my beliefs are radically heterodox, but I really do believe it.

What alterations could be made? I don’t see how any homosexual activity could be condoned in light of all that has been said about it.

[Shawn]

Roy wrote:

If God commanded Joseph to marry specific women and God also gave Joseph the power to essentially anull civil marriages at will or the perspective that since these marriages weren’t sealed they weren’t true marriages anyway – then it wouldn’t matter if there was a sexual component to these marriages because there could be no “adultury with wives who belonged to him.” Unfortunately those two variables (what God commanded and what power God gave) are not knowable through our reasoning process, it is a matter of faith and spiritual confirmation. I respect that. :thumbup:

I think it matters because Joseph Smith has been painted as a sex fiend. Maybe that argument is cockamamie.

[Shawn]

wayfarer wrote:

i personally detest the appeal to occam’s razor, but the JS approach to polyandry/polygamy doesn’t make any sense.

Which is the more simple, and therefore the more plausible argument:

1. God commanded Joseph Smith to marry specific young teenagers, but when Joseph ‘dragged his feet’, he later commanded him to marry married women, thus causing a ‘test’ well beyond anything anyone could really handle, and creating a system that eventually brought about the near destruction of the church.

2. Joseph Smith let power get to his head and being an alpha-male narcissist, felt he could do anything he wanted and have any woman he wanted, and therefore used “Polygamy” as a cover-up for marital infidelity.

personally, I feel that Polygamy was one big screw-up. Literally.

cwald wrote:

#2

Come on cwald, he was NOT an “alpha-male narcissist”. Many sources speak of his kindness and service. Joseph Smith is simply judged harshly.

[Shawn]

wayfarer wrote:

Your post, above, reflects a different meaning of the “Middle Way” than what I mean with the term. When you use the term with initial caps as I use it, it implies a special, proactive life of being centered on the Way (center = 中 middle), and in my usage, it has nothing at all to do with fence sitting nor mediocrity.

One does not default to the Middle Way. It is deliberately chosen and actively lived day by day. it includes a contemplative discipline:

– to achieve balance and avoid extremes of emotion,

– to find middle ground in our discourse with others,

– to recognize we are in the middle of our eternal lives of progression and are therefore a work in progress, and

– to open-mindedly seek for the truth at the heart of all things.

I suppose I really don’t understand it then.

wayfarer wrote:

is this the way of rubbish? i do not think so. I am active LDS, serve in the temple regularly, take my calling quite seriously when I have one, and have a testimony — a witness to what I know to be true, and am not sitting on the fence: i am not saddled with doubt. And while I find falsehood and deception in some of church history and practice, it does not diminish my testimony of the things i have found to be true.

Your way is certainly not rubbish. I was actually just trying to be clever by being self-conflicting. In one paragraph I call it rubbish, and then confess that I lived the Middle Way in the next paragraph. I’m sorry for any misunderstanding. I do not see the Middle Way as a permanent solution, but I could be wrong.

wayfarer wrote:

I embrace questioning as part of the Way of eternal progress. I reject apologetics, for I feel that truth needs no defense, and partisan polemics are not part of the Middle Way. Contention on one hand and unquestioning compliance on the other do not foster harmony.

I see your point here. But I actually think that many people can use an opposite argument when finding “anti” stuff. I think many apologetic explanations shed useful light on history as well.

wayfarer wrote:

I am convinced by long experience that once someone has left the cave of being an unquestioning TBM, it is unlikely that s/he can return to it and stay there. I know you have made a commitment to return, and I hope it works out for you. A quarter of a century ago, i did the same, at curiously the same age as you, and with many of the same experiences…only i was also dealing with active addiction. I wish you the very best of luck and without any degree of condescension, can assure you from my own experience that it doesn’t work for everybody. If it works for you, please continue with my heartfelt blessing.

I am thinking about this. Thank you.

[Author]

Posts