Acknowledgement of 1831 Revelation of Polygamy?

[Anonymous]

Shawn wrote:

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.

He was certainly far more complicated than his opponents give him credit for. And contradictory too.#

Anyway, I don’t believe in the “alpha male” crap, that’s for dogs. Anyone who uses that is usually self-describing and a psychopath, without the redeeming features that JS had otherwise.

[Anonymous]

SamBee wrote:

Anyway, I don’t believe in the “alpha male” crap, that’s for dogs. Anyone who uses that is usually self-describing and a psychopath, without the redeeming features that JS had otherwise.

Hmmm. A gauntlet has been cast down.

I submit that Joseph was both prophet and alpha-male narcissist.

Am I a self identifying? Probably. But I think I am right about JS.

He was obsessed about not sharing power. He destroyed everyone who came close to sharing leadership with him.

His language is absolutely narcissistic: his self identified superlatives are beyond comparison.

Yet, many really great leaders are or were pathological narcissists. David had his issues both with sex as well as grandiosity. Hard to tell about Solomon, but he was there as well. Curiously, they both had an alpha-male appetite for women, to their undoing.

Joseph Smith’s narcissism was a driving factor to his organizing and restoring the revelatory aspect of Christianity that was driven out of the Christian church with the creeds and beyond. He was charismatic beyond anyone of his generation.

Sometimes it takes a narcissist to be a prophet! I am convinced he was both, and therefore I take his words seriously, but not all.

I am willing to fully embrace both his flaws and prophetic power. They were both there in abundance.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Shawn wrote:

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. ….

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?

[Anonymous]

If there is one critical skill needed for staying LDS, it is the ability to find truth amidst flawed institutions and people.

Observing that a prophet or leader is a narcissist does not condemn them. Great leaders often have immense ego drive — it’s what makes them great. Also, as JS noted, ego-driven personal authority can be a great temptation to abuse power as fused with that immense ego.

I work with two seriously diseased egos who have NPD. they are quite good at what they do. They make great things happen. They also leave a huge wake of destruction on occasion. NPD has its benefits.

NPD is indicated by having five or more of eleven traits as laid out in DSM-IV. lack of empathy is one of them, but only one. JS had eight or nine of the others.

And BY was a narcissist too, but in quite a different way than JS. His lack of empathy was legendary. Yet, as emperor of Deseret, he forged the critical mass necessary to assure the survival of the church.

Each man was needed in his time.

[Anonymous]

While I appreciate the comparisons that are often made to JS and other biblical prophets, primarily showing their flaws as a way of accounting for JS’s (all of God’s prophets were flawed, all of God’s prophets were just men, many were egotistical, womanizers, etc.) I wonder if the comparison really gets us anywhere when Christ is supposed to have ushered in the new law. Since Christ there have been no prophets but those claimed by the church, right? Or other self-proclaimed ones and those who follow them. But, and here is the main point, the New Testament doesn’t tell of any. JS should be judged by not by the standards of the OT but of the NT. If he is like the prophets of the OT then he missed the point about Christ’s coming, didn’t he?

[Anonymous]

curt wrote:

While I appreciate the comparisons that are often made to JS and other biblical prophets, primarily showing their flaws as a way of accounting for JS’s (all of God’s prophets were flawed, all of God’s prophets were just men, many were egotistical, womanizers, etc.) I wonder if the comparison really gets us anywhere when Christ is supposed to have ushered in the new law. Since Christ there have been no prophets but those claimed by the church, right? Or other self-proclaimed ones and those who follow them. But, and here is the main point, the New Testament doesn’t tell of any. JS should be judged by not by the standards of the OT but of the NT. If he is like the prophets of the OT then he missed the point about Christ’s coming, didn’t he?

Well, not quite. The church in the fourth century did it’s share of whitewashing the texts so as to lock in the prevailing dogma found to be acceptable. While the church sees the creeds as apostate, the problem was exactly as it ia today– so many speculative statements were flying around that they desired to lock in “official doctrine”– hence the creeds.

But if you accept that Paul was an apostle, you also have to accept his statement in Galatians 1 that he didn’t receive the gospel by any man, but rather, by direct revelation of Jesus Christ. This happened well after Christ “ushered in the new law.”.

Likewise St. John the divine was (supposedly) a revelator, in revealing the apocalypse. Apparently, apocalyptic writing…prophetic and revelatory as it is, was quite common in the first and second century, so in the third and fourth, the church had to put the screws down on it. The wild and wooley primitive church matured, stifling all that creative insight and speculation into the divine. It became administrative, dogmatic, and political, stifling dissent and heterodoxy whenever it cropped up. Sound familiar?

I sense from your definition of “new law” that there would no longer be the need of prophecy and new scripture (ongoing revelation). Is this what you think? If so, then how do we explain Paul? He had the gift of prophecy and revelation, dictated what became scripture, and was ordained an apostle. He spoke of church structure including prophets and apostles– which in fact existed in the years he was active nearly a generation (20-30 years) after christ was crucified. What event or aspect of the “new law” made the writings of the NT the definitive seal of the prophets?

Where is the revelation saying that god would no longer require prophets and revelators?

It doesn’t exist. If we accept Paul, we have to accept the fact that revelation continued as part of the New Law, and if we accept the Apocalypse (John’s Revelation), then we must accept the fact that prophecy was also part of the New Law. How can anyone argue otherwise? What is the shutdown event of the heavens?

I am going to submit to you that the Roman Catholic church accepts that revelation continues. They have not closed canon, but recognize that the pope continues through his divine office and through inspiration, to reveal God’s will to the church. The terminology is different, but the function is the same. Their heritage is very much connected to the history of the Church. Have all the popes been picture of righteous perfection? Uhhhh…no. They have had their share of power-grabbing narcissistic egomaniacs. The tradition of defective leadership goes to the very beginning.

Read galatians 2, for example. Paul is calling the First Presidency of Cephas (Peter), James (the Just), and John (Zebedee) “so-called” pillars. He calls Peter out for hypocrisy. He shows a bit of arrogance in all this. And, his self-hatred in Romans shows deep issues at a psychological level. Paul was deeply flawed (by his own admission) and human, his speculations inconsistent, yet he was an apostle and revelator.

Origin was probably the greatest of the scholars after the initial apostles. He was so personally tormented that he castrated himself to overcome his sexual desire (reading Paul to justify it). This is not normal behavior, yet Eusebius and Augustine were deeply influenced by Origin. A lot of current catholic and LDS doctrine is found in Origin. His writings would be scripture, if it weren’t for his anathemitization by Justinian for believing in premortal existence and the plan of salvation. After 525, his writings were banned and systematically destroyed.

No. There is no New Law that rids the church of prophets and flawed leadership. Nothing other than the inherent nature of maturing churches to lock down orthodoxy and stifle dissent. JS founded a cult quite similar to the primitive Christian cult — warts and all. And now, like the primitive church, it is having a hard time coming to grips with its history. The more things change, the more they stay the same. If the LDS church did 1/10th the practices and leadership foibles of the original church over time, in today’s media and PR environment, it would look far worse than the church looks today.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

If the LDS church did 1/10th the practices and leadership foibles of the original church over time, in today’s media and PR environment, it would look far worse than the church looks today.

It would be dead by now, imo.

Creating a new counter-cultural movement is one thing; maintaining that movement over time and solidifying its continued existence is another thing entirely. Counter-cultures don’t last long as counter-cultures. They either evolve into accepted sub-cultures, take over as the new culture or disappear. The early Mormon movement absolutely was a counter-culture – but it began to die as a counter-culture in Joseph’s lifetime, and that death was final by the early 1900’s.

We all see the “good old days” through rose-colored glasses to some degree. I’m not trying to defend everything about the evolution of the Church. I think everyone who has participated here for a while knows that. However, I think it’s critical to understand some core principles of organizational change management and societal evolution to understand why the LDS Church simply has had to change in some major ways in order to continue to exist – and that understanding also can influence one’s vision of how some of the top leadership are trying to swing the pendulum back in ways that will work without capsizing the ship by swinging it too wildly in ways that won’t work. We don’t have to agree with every attempt to do so, but it’s important to understand the fundamental need to do so – and that understanding is hard to reach in the middle of an emotional faith crisis.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

Shawn wrote:

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

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Shawn wrote:

…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.

The way I look at it is Joseph clearly admitted he made mistakes and was imperfect. In my opinion he was inclined to let others off the hook, he said about his life “If I had not experienced what I have, I could not have believed it myself.” It seems he was not about to blame those who could not believe his incredible claims. I like to think enough about him to believe he would be as charitable towards those who may judge him harshly. I could imagine him saying “I probably deserve that judgement” …especially in an afterlife when we imagine understanding is enhanced and charity increased. Personally I also hope to follow the council of Jesus and be charitable toward those who will be critical of me. I hope to understand the mindset of those in the moment of their criticism to the degree that my forgiveness is not only automatic, but accompanied by a sorrow that my imperfections could assist them in that path to any degree.

I hold Joseph with enough esteem that I project at a minimum aspirations equal to my own upon him. Thus I cannot feel any condemnation coming from him toward those who may judge him harshly.

[Anonymous]

Shawn wrote:

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

Thank you for this acknowledgement Shawn. I hope if we ever sit together in SS, we can share fellowship, and worship together, even though we have differing opinion on some aspects of the gospel

Let me also add, I don’t think people, here at least, go out of there way to criticize JS. What happens, is some people learn the white washed history of JS for 40 years, and when they find out the truth, they get ticked and spiral into a faith crisis. Perhaps if the church was a little more open and honest about JS and his dealings (printing press, polyandry with other mens wives, polygamy with young gals and his narcissistic demeanor etc etc) it wouldn’t have to be such a big deal. finding it out on my own after 40 years in the church…yeah…I feel a little betrayed…and the perceived cover-up is worse than the crime, to me.

fwiw – I don’t see Wayfarer, or myself, or Ray, the others here (except for maybe Curt 🙂 ) really going out of our way to criticize the prophet. I just see some folks accepting the evidence, admitting what the church tries to teach us that prophets are not perfect people, and still trying to find a way to accept the guy as a prophet and restorer of some pretty good divine principles.

[Author]

Posts