- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Its Rob4Hope….back. Needed a break…a real one. Now I need to just talk and let the words rush out……..(don’t look at the grammer here folks…I’m just spewing)…
AND BY ALL MEANS ADMINS,…Yank this if needed….
I finished the Bushman book “Rough Stone Rolling”. Learned a bunch of stuff I had no idea of. The biggest thing that struck me was how hurt Emma must have been. The other thing that really caught me off guard was how the men treated the women with regards to this whole plural marriage thing. I think Bushman played it down actually,…and I did read some of the stuff said by Brian Hales about “not sexual relationships” (which I don’t buy quite frankly)….but from what I understand, looks like there is nothing definitive about that part of the marriages anyway. So, its conjecture either way.
This reading has presented me with some very contradictory information. I had no idea John C. Bennett was a cunning impostor like he ended up being, nor why JS would have called such a man “by revelation”. We have this idea that everything is “by revelation”…and I can see no way that is even possible in this situation.
I remember listening to JS talks given by Truman Madsen, and in those, he referred to William Law as a “son of perdition”. This book from Bushman taught a very different perspective on William (who appeared faithful until the very end there). The plural marriage thing came along, and whole thing blew up. There were lies going on, people not told about the doctrine, public denial of the whole to the basic congregation, and behind the scenes in the dark, proposals, marriages, and rondevous happening. Emma, the WIFE OF THE PROPHET would watch Joseph careful and freak out if he was gone for any length of time, wondering if he were with another woman.
How horrible. She was torn and hurt over and over,…and as far as section 132 is concerned, she would be destroyed if she didn’t do what she was told. Its like her feelings were not even considered. And this all came from God?…..
The discussion about JS making a plea for the marriage hand of Orson Pratt’s wife, her refusal, Orson leaving the church for a time, and when his wife publicly denounced that any such proposal was made, being reinstated. There were so many of those things happening, how can you not take Orson’s wife story seriously when she said JS proposed to her?
The massive financial debt that came up over and over? Nauvoo being in horrible debt because of land speculation and bills having to be renegotiated over and over?
Oliver Cowdry being forced out?…and why that really happened? I feel lied to about that historical omission that the current church kept from me.
What was written in the Nauvoo Expositor, and the allegations of plural marriage (which was illegal at the time) and how that all was handled? Apparently JS felt that public denouncing plural marriage by calling it different names or whatever justified what he was practicing. I am blown away.
I remember a VERY good liar person who once said: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman: Ms. Lewinsky”. And everyone was like….hunh? And the justification was no sexual intercourse as Clinton defined it? So, how was JS defining marriage? He was not involved in spiritual wifery…or whatever? Why is this so different from what Clinton was doing?
I confess I think the comparison of JS to Bill Clinton is offensive to most people, including me. BUT, the point is there appears to be lies said, and when I think of someone lying, the #1 person who comes to my mind is Clinton. And here I am reading this book and seeing public denouncing of plural marriage, when in the back ground it was happening all along, and for almost a decade? And, there was some spiritual reason for this massive smoke screen of deceit?
Lying for the Lord?
And God wants this?…and condones this?…and justifies this?
At some point, you just are repulsed.
OK…end of RANT!
I needed to read this book.
As I look inside, well….I see no other option than agnostic for me. And, I understand more than ever how and why many have gone to this agnostic place.
My peace with the LDS can only be based on the good things they do NOW (and there are some). I can support the good things, will NOT support those things that are not good….and work to coexist. I reject the doctrine as being divine. I can’t feel it any other way.
This Bushman book was written by a good LDS man, from the perspective of being as neutral and objective as possible.
And I needed to write this post. Its not very positive, but it feels cathartic to write it out. Pull it if needed.
I think it’s normal to feel that way. It was only in the last few years, after many years of paying tithing under one set of doctrinal pretenses that I learned about these things. That was when I read the Bushman book cover to cover. I felt kind of betrayed by the correlated materials as well as the short history of the church written by the Church (Truth Restored). That book wrote off JS’s final arrest as “a trumped up charge”, when actually, he ordered the destruction of a printing press — the Expositor. There were a lot of incredulous things that went on in the early days of the church. I am actually quite surprised the church survived the plural marriage and debt problems, but it did. After I read rough stone rolling, there were a few things that startled me, like when JS was in hiding and had people come to comfort him he advised them “not to tell Emma”.
Fannie Alger really got me — she was 14 and attractive, from all that is written, and I wonder if JS’s indiscretion with her spawned the plural marriage doctrine. If you’re married, then intercourse with the women is OK right? And then, to realize it actually spawns more Mormons, accelerating internal growth (raising up seed unto the Lord), it gets even more attractive. Make it so that only the righteous can practice it, and then you have doctrine that seems highly credible in a religion that considers itself led by a prophet, particularly since plural marriage was practiced in the Old Testament. I honestly think JS used his imagination to get himself out of a moral bind and it worked to keep him in the prophet’s chair.
I think you need to let it settle on you for a while. It becomes a much easier life when you approach the church with a healthy skepticism about its claims. No longer do you feel bound to do every little thing that comes out of general conference or the local priesthood meeting, or from the brain of the new stake leader with ideas about how to improve the stake. I actually feel a bit relieved now that I have chosen the path of near agnosticism about the church given the incredulity of the early days, and behavior from JS that I find a bit incompatible with a prophet.
I don’t know what your family situation is like, and if you are surrounded by TBM’s but one needs to consider their feelings and reactions to your agonsticism. I would just let this settle on you for a while, post here, and come to a new understanding and new relationship with the church as a result. One that brings you peace. It can be done!!
‘
Consider reading Armand Mauss’ book
http://www.amazon.com/Shifting-Borders-Tattered-Passport-Intellectual/dp/1607812045/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1464141965&sr=8-2&keywords=Armand+Mauss Some of his passages will help you understand balance in your relationship with the church as you forge a new one. Mauss is a master of agreeing while disagreeing at the same time. In spite of rocking the boat, participating in Sunstone and Dialogue, and other “off the correlated grid” activities, and being somewhat contrarion at times, he manged to keep himself in good standing with the church — in spite of being hauled in by SP’s on several different occasions.
In the short term, I would not share what you’re feeling with anyone locally. Feelings may be a bit raw right now — just let them settle…
I think the evidence leans towards JS sleeping with some of the women and leans towards him not with others. I can bring that Armand Mauss’ book when I come next month if you want to read it.
And yes – I too am repulsed by how women were treated – Emma especially. It is hard not to look at is as a victim of emotional abuse, being cheated on, and being lied to.
This might be a tangent and it’s all speculation. I’ll be sure to give people plenty of ammo to tear down the point I want to make. :thumbup: I wonder (speculation, ammo) how Joseph Smith viewed the prophetic role. I think the traditional view is that god speaks to man, man communicates the will of god to the masses. Does it always work that way?
Is the authorship of Doctrine and Covenants 132 still up for debate (more ammo)? Let’s assume that section 132 was revealed through JS. Looking at the first verse:
Quote:Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein
I, the Lord, justified my servantsAbraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines— Emphasis added.
The lord justifying his servants’ actions. Isn’t that an interesting concept? In other words Abraham was a prophet, Abraham did something of his own volition, and the lord later decided that he’d ratify Abraham’s action. That might be splitting hairs or reading something into the narrative that isn’t there but the revelation could have just as easily been something like “my servants were justified because I the lord told them to have many wives and concubines.”
Heleman 10:6-10 wrote:Behold, thou art Nephi, and I am God. Behold, I declare it unto thee in the presence of mine angels, that ye shall have power over this people, and shall smite the earth with famine, and with pestilence, and destruction, according to the wickedness of this people. Behold, I give unto you power, that whatsoever ye shall seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven; and thus shall ye have power among this people. And thus, if ye shall say unto this temple it shall be rent in twain, it shall be done. And if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou cast down and become smooth, it shall be done. And behold, if ye shall say that God shall smite this people, it shall come to pass.
It sounds like god has got Nephi’s back. God isn’t commanding Nephi to tell the mountain to smooth out, but if Nephi wants to do that, god will justify his servant and level the mountain. There’s also language in these verses that are typically associated with the eternal marriage doctrines, maybe part of a theme or pattern of beliefs?
Whenever this particular power is discussed people are quick to point out that such a power would only be given to someone that would never ask for something that is against the will of god.
Doctrine and Covenants 88:64-65 wrote:Whatsoever ye ask the Father in my name it shall be given unto you, that is expedient for you; And if ye ask anything that is not expedient for you, it shall turn unto your condemnation.
There does appear to be a by-law. That and I suppose condemnation doesn’t have to have a quick turnaround time.
All I’m saying is that maybe JS had a nuanced view of the role of a prophet. Maybe it isn’t always god telling man exactly what to do (D&C 58:26-29), maybe an aspect of being prophet is leading the people in a certain direction with the faith that the lord has their back (as far as experimenting with the word), and using the fruits to determine whether to continue the practice for the long haul.
nibbler wrote:All I’m saying is that maybe JS had a nuanced view of the role of a prophet. Maybe it isn’t always god telling man exactly what to do (D&C 58:26-29), maybe an aspect of being prophet is leading the people in a certain direction with the faith that the lord has their back (as far as experimenting with the word), and using the fruits to determine whether to continue the practice for the long haul.
I think that’s exactly it. I think that Joseph thought all of his thoughts were “of God” and therefore he always spoke the mind and will of the Lord (from his perspective). And I think Joseph thought that part of his calling was to lead the church pretty much in the way he saw fit. There are vestiges of that line of thinking in the modern church – don’t refuse callings, follow the prophet, whom the Lord calls the Lord qualifies, etc.
I think I read something out there about JS actually turning against plural marriage later in his life and thinking it was a mistake? It was in a post-mormon type site,…and I can’t find it. I’m sure it is probably just conjecture or false info,…but it was intriguing.
Is there anything out there that maybe indicates JS ended up not thinking plural marriage was a good idea?
rob4hope1 wrote:Is there anything out there that maybe indicates JS ended up not thinking plural marriage was a good idea?
You mean outside Emma’s reaction?
rob4hope1 wrote:I think I read something out there about JS actually turning against plural marriage later in his life and thinking it was a mistake?
It was in a post-mormon type site,…and I can’t find it. I’m sure it is probably just conjecture or false info,…but it was intriguing.
That sounds like something off of Rock Waterman’s blog.
There’s this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Smith-Fought-Polygamy-Polygamous/dp/1891353055/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Smith-Fought-Polygamy-Polygamous/dp/1891353055/ I haven’t read it. I believe the author takes the position that JS didn’t practice polygamy
at allso you know the size of the grain of salt going in. rob4hope1 wrote:Is there anything out there that maybe indicates JS ended up not thinking plural marriage was a good idea?
What’s the end game? I’m just curious.
nibbler wrote:
What’s the end game? I’m just curious.No real end game….just trying to gather as much information as I can. Basically I’m driven by curiosity actually…
Ah, curiosity. It’s a good thing to have. LOL…. Got me going Nibbler…
OK,…I’m gunna start “An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins”…Grant Palmer now.
rob4hope1 wrote:Is there anything out there that maybe indicates JS ended up not thinking plural marriage was a good idea?
Quote:Stake President William Marks: In July 1853, Stake President Marks wrote that he met with the prophet shortly before his martyrdom. Smith said: “We are a ruined people…this doctrine of polygamy, or Spiritual-wife System, …taught and practiced among us, will prove our destruction and overthrow. I have been deceived…it is wrong; it is a curse to mankind, and we shall have to leave the United States soon, unless it can be put down, and its practice stopped in the Church.” Marks said Smith ordered him to go to the high council: “I will have charges preferred against all who practice this doctrine; and I want you to try them by the laws of the Church, and cut them off, if they will not repent, and cease the practice of this doctrine … I will go into the stand and preach against it with all my might, and in this way, we may rid the Church of this damnable heresy.” But Smith was killed shortly after; When Marks related what Smith had said, his testimony “was pronounced false by the Twelve and disbelieved.”
(Quinn p. 147-8,
http://signaturebooks.com/2010/10/excerpt-mormon-polygamy/ This is FairMormons rebuttal:
Quote:The evidence for this claim is scant. Marks’ report was late, and Joseph continued to propose plural sealings, and approve and teach plural marriage for others until at least May 1844. (He was killed June 1844.) Furthermore, the mechanism that Marks claimed Joseph wanted to use–a high council investigation of all those practicing plural marriage–would not have been wise or necessary. Publicity toward plural marriage could only bring more persecution, and Joseph had privately taught and approved all those engaged in plural marriage: he thus would have had no need for a public investigation to determine who Nauvoo’s practicing polygamists were. Joseph would also have been unlikely to instruct Marks to excommunicate practicing polygamists, since they had all entered into plural marriage solely because Joseph had instructed them to do so.
It is worth mentioning that William Marks was against polygamy and was involved in the RLDS movement. He had motive to claim that JS had a change of heart near the end.
For me reading RSR by Bro. Bushman was a big eye opener about the function of prophets. I was struck that JS did not know what the future would hold and did not know what to do. I had largely accepted that current LDS prophets do not sit down and talk face to face with Jesus – but this was JS, the prophet of the restoration. He had churned out reams of revelations in the first person voice of God, but then he also made critical miscalculations and then seemed left to himself on how to recover. I found myself wondering why JS couldn’t just ask God what had gone wrong or what the next step was supposed to be. Individuals in the early days of the church could ask for and receive a revelation addressed to them personally. Why could JS not receive good answers to the urgent issues that faced the church in that day.
Roy wrote:rob4hope1 wrote:Is there anything out there that maybe indicates JS ended up not thinking plural marriage was a good idea?
Quote:Stake President William Marks: In July 1853, Stake President Marks wrote that he met with the prophet shortly before his martyrdom. Smith said: “We are a ruined people…this doctrine of polygamy, or Spiritual-wife System, …taught and practiced among us, will prove our destruction and overthrow. I have been deceived…it is wrong; it is a curse to mankind, and we shall have to leave the United States soon, unless it can be put down, and its practice stopped in the Church.” Marks said Smith ordered him to go to the high council: “I will have charges preferred against all who practice this doctrine; and I want you to try them by the laws of the Church, and cut them off, if they will not repent, and cease the practice of this doctrine … I will go into the stand and preach against it with all my might, and in this way, we may rid the Church of this damnable heresy.” But Smith was killed shortly after; When Marks related what Smith had said, his testimony “was pronounced false by the Twelve and disbelieved.”
(Quinn p. 147-8,
http://signaturebooks.com/2010/10/excerpt-mormon-polygamy/ This is FairMormons rebuttal:
Quote:The evidence for this claim is scant. Marks’ report was late, and Joseph continued to propose plural sealings, and approve and teach plural marriage for others until at least May 1844. (He was killed June 1844.) Furthermore, the mechanism that Marks claimed Joseph wanted to use–a high council investigation of all those practicing plural marriage–would not have been wise or necessary. Publicity toward plural marriage could only bring more persecution, and Joseph had privately taught and approved all those engaged in plural marriage: he thus would have had no need for a public investigation to determine who Nauvoo’s practicing polygamists were. Joseph would also have been unlikely to instruct Marks to excommunicate practicing polygamists, since they had all entered into plural marriage solely because Joseph had instructed them to do so.
It is worth mentioning that William Marks was against polygamy and was involved in the RLDS movement. He had motive to claim that JS had a change of heart near the end.
For me reading RSR by Bro. Bushman was a big eye opener about the function of prophets. I was struck that JS did not know what the future would hold and did not know what to do. I had largely accepted that current LDS prophets do not sit down and talk face to face with Jesus – but this was JS, the prophet of the restoration. He had churned out reams of revelations in the first person voice of God, but then he also made critical miscalculations and then seemed left to himself on how to recover. I found myself wondering why JS couldn’t just ask God what had gone wrong or what the next step was supposed to be. Individuals in the early days of the church could ask for and receive a revelation addressed to them personally. Why could JS not receive good answers to the urgent issues that faced the church in that day.
Yeh Roy…you got it. That was the very quote.
I wonder about all of this stuff. And, this is a VERY interesting idea here.
I recall that when JS sent the copy-right to Canada (I think that was the story) and it all failed, didn’t he ask God about this–and wasn’t the answer: “Some revelations are from God, some from men, and some from the devil.” If that is the case, and clearly in this case THE PROPHET was led by a false revelation, then how can we be so sure that everything after this was exclusively from God?
In large measure, that is one the main discussion points of this site.
This whole idea about revelations coming from multiple sources opens up a whole interesting and possibly freeing discussion about what really comes from God and what doesn’t. I’ve heard so many stories about “I heard a voice”. And yet, how in the world do you know the source of that voice?–your mind, your television you didn’t know was on, your dead uncle who is a jokester and likes to mess with you, some devil from the 3rd hell of perditions frozen ice, or God?
Just food for thought here…
Welcome back, Rob! And thanks for posting that quote from William Marks, Roy. I hadn’t heard of that before.
Quote:Smith said: “We are a ruined people…this doctrine of polygamy, or Spiritual-wife System, …taught and practiced among us, will prove our destruction and overthrow. I have been deceived…it is wrong; it is a curse to mankind, and we shall have to leave the United States soon, unless it can be put down, and its practice stopped in the Church.”
Whether JS ever said those words or not is up for debate, but polygamy has alway been one of the biggest issues for me to overcome in my faith crisis. But it is now one of many things that deeply trouble me about the church.I’ve started reading Rough Stone Rolling a couple times, but got bogged down about 1/3 of the way through and never finished it. I’m just going to have to plow through and finish it some day.
RSR is my favorite book. It changes your view of things. I think that is good to do. FaithfulSkeptic wrote:ve started reading Rough Stone Rolling a couple times, but got bogged down about 1/3 of the way through and never finished it. I’m just going to have to plow through and finish it some day.
haha…ya…sometimes it is like the Isaiah chapters in the BOM…skip over and start a later chapter just to keep going through it. It can be a tiring read, pretty thick.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.