God said what to do but not how to do it.

This is a statement that I have heard many times in regards to polygamy. It has always bothered me. To me it is similar to God telling Adam and Eve to “multiply and replenish” but failing to mention anything about marriage and just left them to figure it out on their own.

I was about to say, “Well that wasn’t the first dad that shied away from having the birds and the bees talk with the kiddos.”, but then again – maybe it WAS the FIRST!

I think one weakness is that it supposes a God or Father/Son who care more about establishing a church than spreading a gospel of Golden Rule love.

(I’m completely on board for inspired humans still feeling their way.)

How much collateral damage is God willing to tolerate before he gives them guidance on this point?

I think it’s interesting that we tend to accept a God the Father who breaks eggs, or “lets” us break eggs, to make the omelet. (Sorry, better words are not coming to me right now.) But we usually don’t talk about Jesus being the moving force behind something like polygamy. We don’t suggest a perfect, loving Christ, who showed unusual regard for women, saying, This is going to be heartbreak and disaster for quite a few, but if that’s your best idea to get this done…. Because we portray Christ as The One who cares about the one.

What if this individual needed to be somewhat misleading and overconfident in order to inspire others to follow his lead? How much of that is good leadership and getting things done vs. how much of that is unethical?

Part of the thought behind this is that Joseph seems to be willing to speak in the name of God to inspire confidence in his followers. He did this with specific missionary calls, he did this in directing the sale of the BoM copyright, he did this during the Kirtland banking episode, He did this in the assembly of Zion’s camp, He did this with the discovery of the “Zelph” bones, He appears to have done this in creating the LDS endowment.

(the Zion’s camp incident is interesting because I remember reading in RSR that at one point JS wrote [in his journal or a letter home] that it was becoming clear that the camp would not be successful in retaking the lands in Missouri. This despite having assurances of success in revelations. Thankfully JS disassembled the group rather than stubbornly leading them headlong into a bloodbath.)

So it appears that Joseph would at times step out onto a limb and claim divine revelation to bolster his footing with his followers. Maybe he did this a lot.

OTOH, JS does not appear to be a cynical and calculating fraud. He does seem to believe in his own divine mission. Thus perhaps God gave him an assignment early on, or at least Joseph believed as much, setting the whole thing in motion but not really following up.

Believing in his own mission does not actually necessitate prior heavenly visitations. People revise their memory of prior events all the time. It’s possible to trick yourself into believing you’ve experienced something that never actually happened.

The argument that JS must necessarily have had heavenly manifestations because he believed in his mission to some degree doesn’t really work.

I personally do not think the theory requires visitations, only that JS had experiences that led him to believe deeply in his role and mission as a latter day prophet.

I am considering this as a potentially defensible position for someone that wants to stay faithful to the LDS church but really does not have good explanations for many things (historical, doctrinal, and otherwise) that appear to not be from God.

[Admin Note]: We have hashed and rehashed and re-rehashed polygamy here over the years, and it always ends up in the same general spot – so let me summarize that spot in order to focus the conversation more broadly on the idea of commandments being given without an instruction manual. Here is the summary:

Almost nobody here believes polygamy was commanded, especially as it came to be structured under Brigham Young in Utah. Quite a few here loathe it. Some feel something stronger than loathing. That hasn’t changed since the site began and probably won’t change in the future. So . . .

Let’s not make this one more post about polygamy. The issue of commands without directions is an excellent one, so let’s talk about that and what it means with regard to staying LDS.

Another point is that God didn’t seem to mind giving JS detailed instructions in many mundane matters. There’s even a whole section of the D&C that is a Q&A with the Almighty. I tell you if I had a Q&A with the creator of the universe I’d ask something besides what the eyes and wings are of the beasts in Revelations represent.

For the theory to work, we would need to understand all or virtually all of the D&C revelations to be man made. According to the theory JS would have felt authorized as a prophet to speak in the name of God or put words into the mouths of Moses and Abraham. Almost like a Vicar of Christ or authorized earthly representative – Joseph is making decisions on matters and he fully expects God to ratify those decisions. Even if they turn out to be in error, God can make them work for the ultimate good.

My DW believes something similar. For her everything comes down to the priesthood. If the church has it then they hold the keys to the ordinances of Salvation. It does not matter if BY was racist or sexist as long as he had and passed on the priesthood keys in an unbroken chain. It does not matter if the BoM is historical as long as the priesthood exists. It would not strictly matter WW had secretly authorized plural marriage even after the manifesto, Nor would it matter in the grand scheme of things if tithing monies were used to finance the City Creek Center Mall.

If a priest blesses the sacrament or performs a baptism unworthily then that priest is under condemnation but the ordinance is still valid.

In our church we place heavy emphasis on receipt of priesthood authority by the laying on of hands and this trumps personal worthiness.

Maybe Joseph felt that his divine commission trumped everything else.

4 Blessed art thou, Nephi, for those things which thou hast done; for I have beheld how thou hast with unwearyingness declared the word, which I have given unto thee, unto this people. And thou hast not feared them, and hast not sought thine own life, but hast sought my will, and to keep my commandments.

5 And now, because thou hast done this with such unwearyingness, behold, I will bless thee forever; and I will make thee mighty in word and in deed, in faith and in works; yea, even that all things shall be done unto thee according to thy word, for thou shalt not ask that which is contrary to my will.

Maybe these verses are autobiographical. Maybe Joseph felt that because he was on a divine mission from God that everything that he had to do in order to complete that mission (like invent and produce new scripture) would also have divine sanction. Maybe he felt that all these “things shall be done unto thee according to [his own] word.”

Maybe these verses are autobiographical. Maybe Joseph felt that because he was on a divine mission from God that everything that he had to do in order to complete that mission (like invent and produce new scripture) would also have divine sanction. Maybe he felt that all these “things shall be done unto thee according to [his own] word.”

Roy,

Your ideas reflect some of my own thinking. I believe that we often construct God in some image of ourselves. If you are an individual who wants and desires justice in an unjust world, God becomes a judge visiting His wrath on the unrighteous. If you tend towards a more compassionate view of the world, you might conceptualize God as a loving Father, warm and caring. I’m no historian but what little I have read and heard does indicate to me that the Church under Joseph Smith was different than the Church under Brigham Young. That MAY have been partially due to the different natures of the men involved. God provides an outline and we fill in the gaps. What do we fill the gaps with? Ourselves (meaning our predispositions, biases, and beliefs.)

My current perspective on the Church is that organizationally it desires to maintain control over its subsidiaries (wards and stakes) and desires limited input from those subsidiaries. It’s a very top-down structure. Ergo, God becomes a micro-manager for many; He oversees every little detail that takes place in each ward, stake, and organization. But that may simply be a reflection of the personalities of those who run the Church.

I have a hard time believing that God dictates every step we take and every decision we make. I believe that God has given us principles to live by and leaves it up to us to figure things out. (Title of this discussion: God said what to do but not how to do it). But of course, that conceptualization may be nothing more than a reflection of who I am.