- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I think if it was proven that he ate children and invented the atom bomb, then I’d start to have doubts. Quote:Yes, indeed – Ouch! But I was asking for trouble when I asked the question. To add a little context we were literally driving to the Mountain Meadow Massacre site and I was explaining to my children why it happened and I said that we ourselves are responsible for our decisions and that we cannot “blame” our decisions on our leaders. She got a little angry and said at least we have to pray about instructions we don’t agree with. So it probably was a a little tit-for-tat, but I think if the prophet or one of the 12 asked her (and she knows Pres Monson and a couple of the 12) that she might consider it.
It’s interesting how there is always a personal back story to these discussions.
Quote:Joseph Smith, when he was good, gave the world some really good inspiring things.
When Joseph Smith wasn’t good, he hurt people, set up a precedents and institutions that caused irreparable harm to some people.
He did both of those things. People who want to prove he was good or evil both have mountains of evidence with which to make their point.
I feel like a simpleton on this site a lot of the time, but, I’m desperate…. So, we all sin. Does “When Joseph Smith wasn’t good…” also apply to doctrine-making, as you seem to imply? What then about Joseph saying, “I never told you I was perfect, but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught.” (I’m not asking whether he
thoughtpolygamy, for instance, was right at the time. I guess I’ll assume he did.) Ann, I think we have to make those decisions for ourselves, individually, and be OK with different people reaching different conclusions. I want to say that I’ve never had the impression that I could reach my own conclusions. That’s kind of true, but I’m also having to admit to myself that I’ve been complacent and lazy. Roadrunner wrote:mackay11 wrote:Roadrunner wrote:If it were proven that JS’s marriages to already married women were consummated it might be the proverbial final straw.
I recently asked my wife (a lovely, caring, good person, but also a TBM and an RM) if the bishop or the prophet told her she was supposed to marry them while still married to me. She said “possibly” and that she’d have to pray about it. It made me a little depressed but also jealous that I don’t have that kind of faith.
Ouch! Even the Bishop? Having been a Branch Pres (Bishop lite) that kind of trust is scary.
Yes, indeed – Ouch! But I was asking for trouble when I asked the question. To add a little context we were literally driving to the Mountain Meadow Massacre site and I was explaining to my children why it happened and I said that we ourselves are responsible for our decisions and that we cannot “blame” our decisions on our leaders. She got a little angry and said at least we have to pray about instructions we don’t agree with. So it probably was a a little tit-for-tat, but I think if the prophet or one of the 12 asked her (and she knows Pres Monson and a couple of the 12) that she might consider it.
You’re a better man than I. That response from my wife would be a deal breaker for me…
Ann wrote:Quote:Joseph Smith, when he was good, gave the world some really good inspiring things.
When Joseph Smith wasn’t good, he hurt people, set up a precedents and institutions that caused irreparable harm to some people.
He did both of those things. People who want to prove he was good or evil both have mountains of evidence with which to make their point.
I feel like a simpleton on this site a lot of the time, but, I’m desperate…. So, we all sin. Does “When Joseph Smith wasn’t good…” also apply to doctrine-making, as you seem to imply? What then about Joseph saying, “I never told you I was perfect, but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught.” (I’m not asking whether he
thoughtpolygamy, for instance, was right at the time. I guess I’ll assume he did.) The only bits of Joseph’s revelation you are held to in church is the canonised stuff. The rest was part of the process of pondering, exploration and consideration. The front page of staylds has a great article on what’s doctrine and how it’s reached.
There’s no ‘floating quill’ for our prophets. Joseph, like the leaders after him, had to work hard to consolidate and distil revelation. Even Alma has moments of speculation, but we don’t villify him for it. Alma 40:20 ‘I give it as my opinion that…’ – in fact the whole chapter is pretty unspecific, but he still has a go at answering his wavering sons concern.
As a side note I think this whole chapter is a great model for dealing with people, like me, who are having faith crises.
Corianton, his son, has a doctrinal question that’s been troubling him. Alma doesn’t instantly dismiss it as a sign of faithlessness. He doesn’t know all the answer (which I think is why some people in the church bat away difficult questions, they don’t like to admit to themselves that they don’t actually know). Instead he spends time sharing his views and genuine concern for his sons doubts.
I will read that tomorrow. Thanks! I’m not seeing the page you’re referring to. Could you point it out to me?
While looking I found the “Acknowledgement of 1831 Revelation of Polygamy?” thread. I thought it was a model discussion and I learned a lot.
Roadrunner wrote:Yes, indeed – Ouch! But I was asking for trouble when I asked the question. To add a little context we were literally driving to the Mountain Meadow Massacre site and I was explaining to my children why it happened and I said that we ourselves are responsible for our decisions and that we cannot “blame” our decisions on our leaders. She got a little angry and said at least we have to pray about instructions we don’t agree with. So it probably was a a little tit-for-tat, but I think if the prophet or one of the 12 asked her (and she knows Pres Monson and a couple of the 12) that she might consider it.
Hang on, she’s saying that the drones of MMM should have prayed about whether to slaughter a couple 100 innocent passers by?
Sometimes No, is just the best answer.
SamBee wrote:I think if it was proven that he ate children and invented the atom bomb, then I’d start to have doubts.
Funniest thing I heard all day… Except for the talk I heard at sacrament.
🙄 almostgone wrote:SamBee wrote:I think if it was proven that he ate children and invented the atom bomb, then I’d start to have doubts.
Funniest thing I heard all day… Except for the talk I heard at sacrament.
🙄 😆 I think it would take something extreme for me to “go beyond the limits”. I suspect JS was a bit of a “chancer” (like other prophets, by the way), but I have seen enough evidence elsewhere to suggest that he was a mix of good and bad like the rest of us. I sincerely think that if he was completely evil, then less folk would have followed him, or a Jonestown situation would have resulted.
Regarding the massacres, I agree, they are horrible, but I do not believe that the violence was one way. One atrocity spurred another… for every MMM, there is a Haun’s Mill Massacre, which meant that they probably felt that they were fighting fire with fire, and believed that they risked actual extinction…
mackay11 wrote:Hang on, she’s saying that the drones of MMM should have prayed about whether to slaughter a couple 100 innocent passers by?
Sometimes No, is just the best answer.
Ann wrote:I want to say that I’ve never had the impression that I could reach my own conclusions.
mackay11, I absolutely agree that “no” is sometimes the best answer.
However, I also completely understand it when members say that unquestioned obedience is the expectation. My mission president often expected blind obedience unless you were a missionary he trusted. One bishop angrily reprimanded me in ward council because I disagreed with him (politely I might add). Our own scriptures are full of examples, even Nephi killed someone because he was told to and didn’t want to.
I’m straying from the point of the original post. Right now I accept JS as a highly flawed prophet who gave us a church that has many good things today. The good is what I try to focus on, and living a productive life and raising good kids who have a decent chance of being happy (while teaching them about the ‘weird stuff’). When I think about some aspects of church history, I struggle, but I haven’t heard anything yet that makes me believe JS didn’t himself believe.
Roadrunner wrote:
One bishop angrily reprimanded me in ward council because I disagreed with him (politely I might add). Our own scriptures are full of examples, even Nephi killed someone because he was told to and didn’t want to.I’m straying from the point of the original post. Right now I accept JS as a highly flawed prophet who gave us a church that has many good things today. The good is what I try to focus on, and living a productive life and raising good kids who have a decent chance of being happy (while teaching them about the ‘weird stuff’). When I think about some aspects of church history, I struggle, but I haven’t heard anything yet that makes me believe JS didn’t himself believe.
Your Bishop: maybe you should have showed him Webster definition of a council: “an assembly or meeting for consultation, advice, or discussion.” But he sounds like the kind of guy who wouldn’t take it to well!
Nephi: good point. It’s funny how we set different standards for people who lived 180 years ago rather than 2600 years ago. If Joseph or Brigham had dumped one of his wives and kids in the Utah desert to die and then tried to sacrifice another kid on an altar we’d be enraged, but set it further back in history and no one in the Judeo-Christian world has any issue with Abraham’s ethics.
Weird stuff: We often expect Joseph/Brigham to act like we would, even though 180 years ago, there were different standards, challenges, cultures. My brilliant Bishop from my youth would watch 15s (R-rated movies in UK). Imagine the reaction from a Joseph or Brigham if they sat down to watch it with us (“don’t worry, just fast forward the sex scenes if they get too steamy”). Different eras different expectations of behaviour.
Joseph wasn’t taken to court for being a treasure hunter/glass looker… He was taken to court because they thought he wasn’t very good at it and wanted their money back. Their culture considered (good) glass-lookers to be an acceptable trade. We can’t apply our standards to their era.
And I agree. Even if some of Joseph’s choices were misguided, I only sincerity in his motives. I don’t see an active fraud.
mackay11 wrote:Joseph wasn’t taken to court for being a treasure hunter/glass looker… He was taken to court because they thought he wasn’t very good at it and wanted their money back. Their culture considered (good) glass-lookers to be an acceptable trade.
***LIKE***
:clap: “What do you mean the riches we were searching for are spiritual in nature?!?!? Fellas, get the rope!”😆 Roy wrote:mackay11 wrote:Joseph wasn’t taken to court for being a treasure hunter/glass looker… He was taken to court because they thought he wasn’t very good at it and wanted their money back. Their culture considered (good) glass-lookers to be an acceptable trade.
***LIKE***
:clap: “What do you mean the riches we were searching for are spiritual in nature?!?!? Fellas, get the rope!”😆 ***Like*** back atcha
😆 – sat on the metro getting stares as I chuckle to myself.I’ll see if I can dig up some court quotes on it. It does make for some pretty funny reading (once you’ve got over the 21st C shock that he was a 19th C magician). His stone later became a prized possession of other saints because glass looking/divination rods were ok then and not ‘devilish’
Another example:
Me: Hi Joseph, this is my 9yo daughter
Joseph: She’s wearing a skirt above her knees. You evil parent.
But… Can I look her up in 5 years?
Me: Whaaaat…?
Cultural context is key to acceptability. I know we find it repulsive today, but older men married teenagers in 19th C and it didn’t make them a paedo!
Stuff I do today would be considered outrageous to a 1950s non-mormon… Never mind 200 years difference.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.