- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
To me, if something is not verifiable in scripture (especially the Bible) then it’s suspect. I do recognize that what might be right for one person may not be right for another, and I do recognize that we tend to try to apply modern ideals and morals to things that happened at earlier times where there were different ideals and morals. Still, killing a drunk guy for “records” when Nephi could have just absconded with the records and been done with it – I’m just not sure I buy God would do that. I certainly can buy Nephi justifying it in that way, just as earlier Christians justified the Crusades. I think part of the discussion includes context around divine command. These commands from God don’t come through in a vacuum. Sometimes we analyze them that way…focused on that one thing and if God said it, we have to choose to obey or not. But when God is giving commandments…they aren’t typically coming from left field out of nowhere in a vacuum.
That is when Bushman’s research is helpful. To see what is going on around the events of church history shed some light on it.
Doesn’t change my opinion on polygamy. Just helps me better look for how God works with prophets.
I think it is out of context to talk about Nephi chopping off drunk heads as if God just said out of nowhere…”hey…go kill this guy…this is your test. And in 2016, these same random commandments will apply.” Context changes the commandments God is giving, and whether we choose to obey them or not.
DarkJedi wrote:To me, if something is not verifiable in scripture (especially the Bible) then it’s suspect. I do recognize that what might be right for one person may not be right for another, and I do recognize that we tend to try to apply modern ideals and morals to things that happened at earlier times where there were different ideals and morals.
I agree with DJ.
Because I accept that side of the argument, I also am open to the fact that some things in the scriptures do not justify or make it right for today…like Abraham having multiple wives…doesn’t mean God wants me to. The bible can be used to justify good or bad. We still have to find out what is the good, using all tools at our disposal…including our intellect and experience and reasoning. Because of that…I will at times disagree with the prophets. That may be dangerous for me. But…safe isn’t always the best.
I agree in that I don’t buy that God would do that, or direct his children to do those types of things. I think these scriptural stories are various men’s ways of teaching a concept and justifying their own morality by attributing it to God. When we get people to do things because we make them believe “God” wants it, we can get them to do some pretty horrific things. People can do some pretty horrific things just because a human authority asks them to (e.g., holocaust, Stanley Milgram’s obedience to authority experiments, Phil Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Study, or Abu Ghraib), so when they think GOD asks something of them, the level of potential egregious behavior is raised even higher. I accept that others feel differently, and that some might believe God is the machine behind much of what happens in the world–good and bad–in order to accomplish his designs. I just don’t accept or like the idea of using God to justify actions that clearly hurt people unless it’s obviously in defense (but then you’re already justified by basic laws of most societies). I suspect that most of the wars throughout the history of humankind were justified by the belief that God was behind them. My understanding of Christ’s ministry was that he wanted people to stop that. (And I always found it odd that the God of the Old Testament–Jehovah–and the God/Jesus in the D&C acted and spoke so differently than did the guy in the NT Gospels. I used to think maybe the difference was related to actually being mortal, but then I decided it’s more about the messenger than the source. We’re getting “God’s will” interpreted for us by people with agendas… but that’s probably better for another thread).
ydeve wrote:And whichever choice we make, there will always be many people out there who are certain that we’re abandoning God.
Like!
nibbler wrote:I’m probably alone in this but I thought Bushman was very selective about where he applied details.
You are not alone. I remember reading something about Joseph saying that Black people were cursed as descendants of Cain/Ham and I remember thinking at the time the RSR had said that JS did not support that idea. I went and pulled out my copy and it read something to the effect of “with the exception of one lapse, JS never went there theologically.” The statement was certainly true. JS did not go on and on about the subject or talk about it often as BY seems to have done, but if JS only espoused the curse of Cain theory on one documented occasion and then never spoke of it again – would not this one documented occasion be evidence for the mind of JS on the matter, rather than all the times that JS did not speak on the matter as evidence that his mind was not made up?
It was just that the way that the sentence was phrased made me think at the time that the curse of Cain stuff was completely brought into Mormonism by BY when that was not exactly the case.
I also read Bro. Bushman himself say that he wishes that he had not omitted information on the young ages of a number of the plural wives of JS.
I believe that Bro. Bushman is an apologist in the same way that we at StayLDS are apologist. He walks and models a path for how he personally makes the church work for him despite knowing the issues.
nibbler…do you think Bushman’s book had a purpose to bring readers to a certain conclusion about Joseph Smith? Cnsl1 wrote:When we get people to do things because we make them believe “God” wants it, we can get them to do some pretty horrific things.
I believe that is the definition of “antichrist”. Right?Cnsl1…do you think there has been more “bad” done in the world in the name of God than there has been “good”? Should we throw out the baby with the bathwater?
Cnsl1 wrote:I just don’t accept or like the idea of using God to justify actions that clearly hurt people
This is a good point. But…is there a difference based on intent? I would say Korihor is an example of someone trying justify actions with ideas (of course…he was not using God’s justification but the opposite…but the same idea is at play). He knew what he was doing, and was using ideas to justify what he knew was wrong. People can use God in that way. And that is wrong.
Is it different when a person is trying to do what they think is right…and says God told them to do it. That isn’t justification. It isn’t really the same thing. Right? Or…how do you see it?
For example…is there a difference between these two things:
1) Joseph Smith is unsatisfied in his marriage, and starting to feel power feeding his ego, and wants young brides to feed his desire…and therefore gives “revelations” to start to justify polygamy;
vs.
2) Joseph is reading the Old Testament, and wants to know about concubines and how that is allowed, and feels God telling him to restore all things…if it was good for the prophet Abraham, Joseph should also restore this principle. He doesn’t know how to do it….but he feels strongly God is telling him to live this law.
The outcome is 33 wives, some young women, some cover up at times, some manipulation to Emma, some mistakes, some repentance, some adoption in the sealing process, etc..
Does that outcome matter if it is rooted in #1 vs. #2?
Heber wrote: Quote:But…is there a difference based on intent?
I don’t think intent did anything to change the hurt. Why do you think we (the church as a whole, leaders, apologists,etc.) can’t just let intent take the way,way,waybackseat to result? It’s still there as an issue, but the church treats it like the only one. The conversation revolves around Joseph. When someone goes to God and asks for inspiration and revelation, and then follows what they feel is an inspired path, I look for one very specific thing. Who is sacrificing and who is benefiting. The answer to that tells me many things. It mirrors the old “Follow The Money” adage. If someone feels inspired to dedicate their time, talents, and their resources to a specific cause, I can respect and honor that. When that same person gives up nothing, but feels inspired to tell me that I should donate MY all to their cause, then I am suspicious.
Applying that to JS: if JS had felt inspired to promote polygamy, but never personally participated himself, he would have more credibility. If he had married Emma to other men to bring about pure spiritual sealings, it would be easier to believe that the practice was not about purely sexual relationships. If the marriages and sealings were to elderly widows and the infirm, JS would come across as a saint.
Unfortunately, the ages, the numbers, and the secrecy of the marriages all make it appear more self-serving than inspired.
If JS was trying to bring back all the things found in the OT, he could’ve started with dietary laws, laws about not mixing
textiles, and sabbath observation. Why jump straight to polygamy unless it was an attempt at self-justification.
ap, excellent observation. I never considered that before. This will change the way I look at other issues that come up. Thank you. Heber13 wrote:
Cnsl1…do you think there has been more “bad” done in the world in the name of God than there has been “good”? Should we throw out the baby with the bathwater?(reply) That’s a good question. I’m not suggesting throwing out anything good done in the name of God, I’m just questioning the goofy stuff, the things that just do not seem like good things to do. The stuff that most sane, rational people would frown on and say… “no, I don’t think that’s a good thing right there.”
Heber13 wrote:
Cnsl1 wrote:I just don’t accept or like the idea of using God to justify actions that clearly hurt people
This is a good point. But…is there a difference based on intent? I would say Korihor is an example of someone trying justify actions with ideas (of course…he was not using God’s justification but the opposite…but the same idea is at play). He knew what he was doing, and was using ideas to justify what he knew was wrong. People can use God in that way. And that is wrong.
Is it different when a person is trying to do what they think is right…and says God told them to do it. That isn’t justification. It isn’t really the same thing. Right? Or…how do you see it?
(REPLY) I see it as a type of mental illness, frankly. I believe that most people doing awful things in the name of God really think they are fulfilling or performing God’s will. I do not doubt their fervor or faith. I just think there is some craziness involved.
Heber13 wrote:
For example…is there a difference between these two things:1) Joseph Smith is unsatisfied in his marriage, and starting to feel power feeding his ego, and wants young brides to feed his desire…and therefore gives “revelations” to start to justify polygamy;
vs.
2) Joseph is reading the Old Testament, and wants to know about concubines and how that is allowed, and feels God telling him to restore all things…if it was good for the prophet Abraham, Joseph should also restore this principle. He doesn’t know how to do it….but he feels strongly God is telling him to live this law.
The outcome is 33 wives, some young women, some cover up at times, some manipulation to Emma, some mistakes, some repentance, some adoption in the sealing process, etc..
Does that outcome matter if it is rooted in #1 vs. #2?
Well, obviously it seems worse if Joseph concocted the revelation to fulfill sexual and power needs and told everyone it was of God, but to the lives of those negatively affected by these policies, the motivation probably doesn’t matter. Actually, it’s probably worse for a woman caught in the mess to believe God is asking her to do something she might find repulsive, rather than find out it was just a horny dude with a power trip. It’s easier to realign with God when you find out you’ve been duped, rather than force an alignment that goes completely against everything you feel is right. Just my thoughts.
For what it’s worth, I don’t know what Joseph’s motivation was. I see evidence either way.
And I apologize that I don’t know how to answer within quoted text.
Bushman does present a lot of problematic things, but he seems to excuse Joseph Smith too much and ultimately lead the reader toward belief. This is from the “Marriage” section of chapter 25 of Rough Stone Rolling: Quote:Before the marriage revelation, women were in the shadows in Joseph’s theology, implied but rarely recognized.
Now they moved to the center…. The marriage revelation redressed the balance of the political and the familial, shifting emphasis from the corporate to the personal. While
women gained by this shift, the revelation also relieved the loneliness and burden of male autonomy. Men would not become gods alone. Through the continuation of seed, husbands and wives passed by the angels and became gods together—and only together. Women—in partnership, not as individuals—were at last represented in Joseph’s theology…. The marriage revelation culminated the emergence of family theology.
More than any previous revelation, this one put family first…. The revelation was about bonding, not dominance; its concern was to preserve familyinto eternity.
He seems to argue that the revelation on polygamy somehow benefited women and made families stronger.By the way, I have Rough Stone Rolling in text format, so I can post any part of it if anyone is interested. I won’t post all of it, of course.
This is also from the “Marriage” section of chapter 25 of Rough Stone Rolling:
Quote:We might expect that Joseph, the kind of dominant man who is thought to have strong libidinal urges, would betray his sexual drive in his talk and manner. Bred outside the rising genteel culture, he was not inhibited by Victorian prudery. But references to sexual pleasure are infrequent. Years later, William Law, Joseph’s counselor in the First Presidency, said he was shocked once to hear Joseph say one of his wives “afforded him great pleasure.” That report is one of the few, and
the fact that it shocked Law suggests such comments were infrequent.
Bushman left out something important. Here is a more complete quote from William Law taken fromThe Law Interview, Salt Lake Daily Tribune, 31 July 1887:
Quote:Joseph was very free in his talk about his women. He told me one day of a certain girl and remarked, that she had given him more pleasure than any girl he had ever enjoyed. I told him it was horrible to talk like this.
The same man Bushman quotes to support the idea that “such comments were infrequent” actually said “Joseph was very free in his talk about his women.”Bushman is a believer. It is that simple. Yes, the post raises an important point about dangerous ideas – but it cuts across all lines: religious, political, social, familial, etc.
People justify what they want to do and/or believe they are supposed to do. We do it here. The key is attempting to recognize and acknowledge it and being open to changing our views in light of what we accept as evidence.
When divine command trumps all very good men– faithful, intelligent, believing men – feel bound to defend the past and can’t distance themselves from the polygamous option because Joseph said God commanded it. Otherwise, I really think these same men would look at the situation with more empathy for their wives, apply the Golden Rule and guarantee monogamy*. The Bushmans are a case in point, and I say that with respect. *not referring to widowers remarrying. That’s different.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.