- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Got some flack from a few apologists who argued that my shaken hands and drawn swords episode was absurd and not congruent with the facts. I just released a part 2 as a premium episode that addresses the reason they give. Here they are in text so you can chime in 1.) Many folks in the church right now are struggling with 132. Not because of polygamy but because of the details of polygamy. While apologists keep defending that Joseph did indeed follow the rules God lays out in 132, I think many members would disagree and are struggling to see it. simply saying apologists see it and hence it is right seems to ignore that just because apologists/others do doesn’t make it so. There are differences of opinion. While I respect many of the apologists I don’t find it the best answer.
2.) Man in the white robe leads Lehi to the dark and dreary wasteland and then Lehi rather than depend on the angel that took him there, seems to decide to abandon that path and instead seeks out God dirrectly. While the man in the white robe being good is a valid assumption, the man not being good seems more logical to me and neither assumption changes our testimony of Lehi as a prophet or the Book of Mormon as scripture. In other words both views are valid and neither diminshes faith, hence without further light and knowledge both are permitted a seat at the table of faithful discourse
3.) Just because the dream involves a deceiving spirit does not limit the dream as unable to come from God. No more than Satan’s interference in the first vision limits Joseph vision as being not from God.
4.) apologists dismiss the Adam God revelation from Brigham simply because it does not affect salvation. I agree it doesn’t, yet it is huge in terms of precedent of dismissing what a past prophet claimed certainty and divine knowledge of a revealed truth. apologists can brush it aside as not important for one reason, but I will push its importance for a whole host of others.
5.) it is claimed without 132 we don’t have sealings and eternal nature of families and yet we have sealing keys that come from Elisha in Kirtland and we have other pieces of this puzzle in other places. Also 132 is not one revelation but several placed into one section. This if we throw out part we must throw out all of 132 and if we do that we lose key doctrines in the plan of salvation.
6.) Mary E R Lightner’s quote that “Joseph knowingly understood that the angel with the sword was a good angel” is the best defense against this theory by apologists but with her as the only witness and her account coming quite late in age (late 80’s) and time passed (62 years after the event), one can easily wonder if multiple events are being conflated into one story. that said this is the best rebuttal point against what I have said. The issue is apologists are also dismissing sources when they come really late and seem to not be substantiated by other witnesses.
7.) To offer others who had a testimony of polygamy as a defense, one will also have to deal with instances where others had a testimony and were wrong. (the brethren on race theories, others who had a testimony of adam-god, others who followed the Wooleys into fundamentalism, Heaven’s Gate, Jim Jones, etc… having others who feel led to support a teaching does not demand it be accepted as truth in a scholarly approach
8.) to argue that we must accept 132 because it is in the voice of the Lord is also a strong rebuttal point, though not as strong as one might think as LDS.ORG and Fair both acknowledge that angels can deliver divine messages as if spoken by the Lord himself – “Divine Investiture”
https://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/10/i-have-a-question?lang=eng http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/Elohim_and_Jehovah “Sometimes it seems as if God the Father is speaking and then it seems to be Christ. Even angels speak as if they were Christ.” (SeeRev. 22:8–9, 12–16.)
9.) If Joseph was deceived apologists insinuate that this makes him less of prophet. I disagree as that’s making an assumption and one that is not a fact but a point of view. Is Brigham less of a prophet because he was mistaken about Adam God – self proclaimed revelation, how about the brethren in the 40’s because they were mistaken about race theories as Doctrine? This argument is weak and also opens a can of worms.
10.) apologists say truth is lost when we let go of hard things. Yet we have let go of any hard things in our faith (race theories, Adam God, Blood atonement, and there are bunches and bunches. Hard things are not necessarily from God. Again this is a opinion that to let go of ANY hard thing is faith diminishing. I know of hundreds of people who would disagree and have found increased faith as the Church has let go of old teachings and doctrines that were uncomfortable.
11.) To say many disagreed with the Adam God would be to open a can of worms as outside of Orson Pratt I am unaware of many leaders who felt Brigham was wrong as Heber Kimball and Wilford Woodruff also were certain he was right.
I think a big issue in Mormonism is to not allow various line of thought and to force people to eat the whole elephant or leave. Mormonism is so full of paradoxes, contradictions, and complexities, that to impose one view as absolutely right and all others must succumb to it leaves little room for for many.
I have had leaders tell me I had to wear a white shirt, had to interpret tithing as they do, interpret the WOW as they do, that resurrected beings will be white, that I must accept that Joseph never got anything wrong doctrinally while also allowing Brigham to get several doctrines wrong, to follow leaders even when they are wrong, to interpret “true and living” church as they do, and many others… hundreds and hundreds of imposed beliefs and yet I stand here to say the church whether it knows it or not is more flexible than all this nonsense.
This rigid mormonism doesn’t work for me and others. We need room. Nothing about the suggested option I speak of in the episode forces one to see the Church as not true or Joseph as a fallen prophet or worse a fraud…. It doesn’t. It does force us to see prophets as more fallible and see revelation as more open to error but in reality isn’t that already proven with other issues in Church history. It is messy. In the messiness you can’t tell people believe it all or leave…. rather in the messiness people need room to think it through and hold onto that which is good. Prove the principles of polygamy are good and you will easily win them to your side. Personally I struggle to see the way the brethren talked about and treated their wives as having God’s approval. So until I can make it fit, I set much of 132 on a shelf and worry about other things I know are true or at least good.
What happens if a demon possessing someone else shakes your hand? Beyond the defense of the “option” you are getting pushback on, I am glad (and fully agree) that the issue is that the option should be an “allowable” opinion to hold. I think you are spot on with the issue being, “do we want to dictate EVERY opinion we must have as member and limit our membership?” Even if some opinions are a bit off, if they are I would hope over time the spirit could work with us and correct our thinking. It reminds me of a podcast I heard where someone’s dad was a GA. She said he was called into a situation where somehow a stripper had been baptized and she was still in the same occupation after she was baptized. The ward was in turmoil over what to do. The GA thought about and his advice was: do nothing. Most everyone was shocked. He told them to just love her. They generally did and within a few weeks ON HER OWN she decided she needed to change her occupation and she did. Problem solved. I think if they would have tried to push her hard and tell her she had to stop, she
couldhave just said, “I am out of here.” Instead she was allowed to grow on her own. I really feel that SHE grew more from doing it on her own and I bet the ward learned to be a bit less judgmental after seeing this. DBMormon wrote:10.) apologists say truth is lost when we let go of hard things. Yet we have let go of any hard things in our faith (race theories, Adam God, Blood atonement, and there are bunches and bunches. Hard things are not necessarily from God. Again this is a opinion that to let go of ANY hard thing is faith diminishing. I know of hundreds of people who would disagree and have found increased faith as the Church has let go of old teachings and doctrines that were uncomfortable.
This reminds me of the old oaths & penalties from the temple endowment. My old intsitute instructor was big on the symbolism of these. They had some interesting parralels to some of the group covenants going on in the old testement (I remember reading that the priest sprinkled animal blood upon the assembled Isrealites as part of their covenant making). So I had some background in not necessarily taking these literally. OTOH, I also know that these were borrowed wholesale from Masonry and could on the face of them be offensive, cultlike, eye-opening to a pretty substantial majority of first time temple goers.
They were definately not essential to the process and I believe the church made the right call in having the penalties cut from the endowment.
You make some very good points Bill. I wrestled with the question of if could have been commanded by God years ago. I settled into focusing on the fruits. It becomes difficult for me to see good fruits of polygamy when it started with public denials of a secret illegal practice. The momentum never turned, to the end it has difficulties. I just listened to this podcast. DBMormon wrote:9.) If Joseph was deceived apologists insinuate that this makes him less of prophet. I disagree as that’s making an assumption and one that is not a fact but a point of view. Is Brigham less of a prophet because he was mistaken about Adam God – self proclaimed revelation, how about the brethren in the 40’s because they were mistaken about race theories as Doctrine? This argument is weak and also opens a can of worms.
I think the main problem for the apologists that are giving you a hard time is the following:
IF the angel with the drawn sword is an angel of darkness that dictated section 132 through deception, THEN JS bought the deception and spends the next decade slowly and tentatively introducing the church to what might reasonably be viewed as organized adultery. He reportedly sometimes used very coercive methods to get some women to comply.
It makes it hard to understand how JS can be a prophet and at the same time be so wrong about what God wants. In all the revelations that JS supposedly received from the time of Fanny Alger up until the martyrdom – was there never a moment where God could have interjected that he commands strict monogamy?
It also throws into serious question the idea of “the prophet will never lead us astray.” For some the idea that a Prophet of God (while on his personal initiative and not actually acting as God’s mouthpiece) could lead his followers to commit deep sins is unfathomable.
Add to that quandary the fact that prophets succeeding JS taught polygamy as almost the defining element of the church for almost an additional 50 years and we might start to question who it is actually running the show. Just how far can the church of God become corrupted before it is no longer the church of God?
On the other hand the church did eventually right itself. If we take the long and evolving view of the restoration as a continuing process we can espouse the view that God is leading us to a better way just as fast as we are prepared to go there. Prophets can still lead the people – but sometimes they lead them through a very circuitous route of 40 years in the wilderness before we are ready to give up our false assumptions and traditions. Has a very OT feel to it.
The view of the angel with the flaming sword being an angel of darkness IMO would be most helpful for people that love modern Mormonism but just have such a terrible feeling about polygamy. As you have shown, it offers a third alternative between the all or nothing approach.
I actually find this “3rd alternative” less credible but as you point out it needs to have a seat at the table for those who are prone to be helped by it Wow. This is a fantastic discussion. Do you think that one of the keys to all this anguish about polygamy is overestimation of the seriousness of sexual sin? What if the reason sexual sin is bad is not because it is so bad inherently, but because it is such a distraction from the real work of the Gospel? And then of course because it hurts tender feelings. Willhewonder wrote:
Wow. This is a fantastic discussion. Do you think that one of the keys to all this anguish about polygamy is overestimation of the seriousness of sexual sin? What if the reason sexual sin is bad is not because it is so bad inherently, but because it is such a distraction from the real work of the Gospel? And then of course because it hurts tender feelings.
I think that sexual sin second only to murder scripture is a misinterpretation and not at all what Alma was talking about.
Willhewonder wrote:What if the reason sexual sin is bad is not because it is so bad inherently, but because it is such a distraction from the real work of the Gospel?
Well sex probably causes more people to scream, “Oh God!” more than most sermons.😮 “I think that sexual sin second only to murder scripture is a misinterpretation and not at all what Alma was talking about.” DJ You maybe right about that, but I would need to parse through the words like I’ve seen Ray do before I can weigh in on it. However, I note a couple of otherwise great inconsistencies on the subject:
1) There is relatively little made of sexual sin for those about to be newly baptized compared to existing members, and 2) We understand that the work has been done for most of our founding fathers, many of whom were known for extramarital sexual activity.
LookingHard wrote:
Willhewonder wrote:What if the reason sexual sin is bad is not because it is so bad inherently, but because it is such a distraction from the real work of the Gospel?
Well sex probably causes more people to scream, “Oh God!” more than most sermons.😮
😆 I think we overemphasize sex in deciding whether polygamy is wrong. We underemphasize lack of emotional intimacy, loneliness, and treating women like property. Reuben wrote:
I think we overemphasize sex in deciding whether polygamy is wrong. We underemphasize lack of emotional intimacy, loneliness, and treating women like property.
Points that are well made in Annie Clark Tanner’s autobiography, “A Mormon Mother”. Eleanor Roosevelt said she could never read it without weeping.Willhewonder wrote:
“I think that sexual sin second only to murder scripture is a misinterpretation and not at all what Alma was talking about.” DJYou maybe right about that, but I would need to parse through the words like I’ve seen Ray do before I can weigh in on it. However, I note a couple of otherwise great inconsistencies on the subject:
1) There is relatively little made of sexual sin for those about to be newly baptized compared to existing members, and 2) We understand that the work has been done for most of our founding fathers, many of whom were known for extramarital sexual activity.
Not much parsing is required. Read this and tell me what you think the sin was.
Quote:And now, my son, I have somewhat more to say unto thee than what I said unto thy brother; for behold, have ye not observed the steadiness of thy brother, his faithfulness, and his diligence in keeping the commandments of God? Behold, has he not set a good example for thee?
For thou didst not give so much heed unto my words as did thy brother, among the people of the Zoramites. Now this is what I have against thee; thou didst go on unto boasting in thy strength and thy wisdom.
And this is not all, my son. Thou didst do that which was grievous unto me; for thou didst forsake the ministry.
Thou shouldst have tended to the ministry wherewith thou wast entrusted.
Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?
For behold, if ye deny the Holy Ghost when it once has had place in you, and ye know that ye deny it, behold, this is a sin which is unpardonable; yea, and whosoever murdereth against the light and knowledge of God, it is not easy for him to obtain forgiveness; yea, I say unto you, my son, that it is not easy for him to obtain a forgiveness.
And now, my son, I would to God that ye had not been guilty of so great a crime. I would not dwell upon your crimes, to harrow up your soul, if it were not for your good.
But behold, ye cannot hide your crimes from God; and except ye repent they will stand as a testimony against you at the last day.
Now my son, I would that ye should repent and forsake your sins; for except ye do this ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God. Oh, remember, and take it upon you, and cross yourself in these things.
And I command you to take it upon you to counsel with your elder brothers in your undertakings; for behold, thou art in thy youth, and ye stand in need to be nourished by your brothers. And give heed to their counsel.
And now the Spirit of the Lord doth say unto me: Command thy children to do good, lest they lead away the hearts of many people to destruction; therefore I command you, my son, in the fear of God, that ye refrain from your iniquities;
That ye turn to the Lord with all your mind, might, and strength; that ye lead away the hearts of no more to do wickedly; but rather return unto them, and acknowledge your faults and that wrong which ye have done.
Seek not after riches nor the vain things of this world; for behold, you cannot carry them with you.
Of course that’s Alma 39 with the references to Isabel removed, which many will claim is the key to the chapter. On the other hand, we do that all the time – conveniently leave out portions of scripture or isolate lines or verses that prove our point. And it could still be interpreted differently than I interpret it. But it sounds to me like the real sin may have been abandoning the ministry. That said, I also don’t thin abandoning the ministry is a sin so serious it’s next to murder. Lastly, I’m not sure God grades sins, I think that’s a human thing. Our basic theology holds that we can’t return to God if we have sinned at all (but that Christ paid for the sins of we believe in him or repent or whatever depending on your point of view). “God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance” is oft repeated, but if taken literally stealing a stick of gum from your grandmother is no worse or better than any other sin.
Oh, and I agree about sexual sin and those being baptized. A couple could have “lived in sin” for 20 years but could be baptized the day they get legally married – unless they happen to be gay.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.