- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
What I meant in my comment was that it seems strange he would think something that prophets did anciently should be brought back, especially since that happened before Christ. He didn’t seem to pray if he should bring back stonings or animal sacrifice. The story that Joseph was reading scriptures and saw that practice and thought he should pray about it doesn’t make sense. And frankly, now that I’ve typed that, why was it a principal that had to be restored? It certainly seems like a part of the old law that was done away with Christ. (although I don’t believe God commanded it even then, the scriptures do not present that idea). It’s a good question, journeygirl. But we should remember, Joseph was doing this very thing about all topics, trying to bring back things he found in the bible that caught his attention. He was trying to “translate” the bible, and was heavy into lots of things, and it was definitely part of the restorationist movement, restoring things. He had a lot of things on his mind, especially more so as his office of prophet became more developed, defined, and expected by others. He was also a product of his time and environment. So some things were being discussed in his day, like where Native Americans came from, and some things were not, such as animal sacrifice. It makes me wonder why he was thinking about this, but I do see questions did come as he read the bible (see James 1:5 or D&C 113). As stated in D&C 91, Joseph was trying to find out what things in the bible were true, and what were of men.
Prophets take questions to the Lord, and seek revelation on it. That is the pattern I see with prophets. So the process goes through mortals and what they are thinking about.
But it seems to be in line with other revelations…he was wondering about it, and sought an answer from the Lord. Just as Brigham Young did about the Adam-God theory…which we don’t accept as truth in the church.
I think there’s at least some evidence that Joseph Smith did consider restoring animal sacrifice. What exactly he had in mind is anyone’s guess. I may have shared this before, if so sorry for the repetition.
D&C 13 wrote:Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.
There’s commentary under “What Is Meant by the Sons of Levi Offering an Offering of Righteousness unto the Lord?” in the institute Doctrine and Covenants student manual:
http://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-10-to-20/section-13-the-restoration-of-the-aaronic-priesthood ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/sections-10-to-20/section-13-the-restoration-of-the-aaronic-priesthood
Joseph Smith wrote:It is generally supposed that sacrifice was entirely done away when the Great Sacrifice [i.e.,] the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus was offered up, and that there will be no necessity for the ordinance of sacrifice in the future; but those who assert this are certainly not acquainted with the duties, privileges and authority of the Priesthood, or with the Prophets.
The offering of sacrifice has ever been connected and forms a part of the duties of the Priesthood. It began with the Priesthood, and will be continued until after the coming of Christ, from generation to generation. …
These sacrifices, as well as every ordinance belonging to the Priesthood, will, when the Temple of the Lord shall be built, and the sons of Levi be purified, be fully restored and attended to in all their powers, ramifications, and blessings. This ever did and ever will exist when the powers of the Melchizedek Priesthood are sufficiently manifest; else how can the restitution of all things spoken of by the Holy Prophets be brought to pass. It is not to be understood that the law of Moses will be established again with all its rites and variety of ceremonies; this has never been spoken of by the prophets; but those things which existed prior to Moses’ day, namely, sacrifice, will be continued.
I don’t mean to get into the debate over animal sacrifice but this is another piece of the puzzle that may show that JS considered lots of things in his goal to completely restore the ancient church(es).
I am convinced that Joseph believed deeply in the concept of restoration – and he believed deeply in the Bible – and he believed deeply in visions – and he was invested deeply in trying to understand everything that hit him – and he was willing and eager to explore anything and everything, both mentally and in practical terms. It’s really hard, if not impossible, for most people to understand people who are like that – truly visionary people, no matter the nature of their visions. It also is really hard for most people to accept that truly visionary people are all over the map and have a hard time distinguishing between really good things and really bad things. For them, it’s about the exploration and the newness of discovery MUCH more than about stability or avoidance of mistakes. They would rather try something and fail than never try at all. They also tend to be supremely confident, which makes it harder for them to self-analyze and recognize their own bad ideas as being bad ideas.
As I’ve said in other threads, I see the statement that Joseph’s name would be had for good and evil differently than most members. I really like that statement, and I see it as “prophetic” and “revelatory” – since I believe it was the earliest statement we have that Joseph would do great and terrible things. I also think he HAD to be that type of person (someone who could make terrible mistakes) in order to do what he did overall – that part of his mission, if you will, couldn’t have happened if he had been a “tamer” more “normal” person.
Finally, truly charismatic, visionary people are polarizing. People tend to love or hate them, with few people who know them being indifferent – and that is as much about most people not being able to see and accept complexity and, instead, wanting easy categories and black-and-white answers.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:why not worry about world conflict, hunger, poverty, disease, moral failings of men, or any other great problem facing mankind.
Those things did occupy his mind. It’s neither fair nor accurate to make it an either/or conflict, no matter how one feels about polygamy.
I respectfully disagree. I find the argument to be a fair and accurate representation of my point of view. I’ve already stated that I think Joseph Smith was a charlatan. Look if God came out of Heaven and said, “Nope, I really did tell him to institute polygamy, and that a flaming sword was hanging over his head (or the heads of the young women he coerced into it)…” Then I’d probably believe it (and lose a lot of respect for whoever we call God).
But, I don’t believe it. I don’t believe that God ordered it. I don’t believe polygamy fits with who and what I believe God to be. I don’t believe it ever was doctrinal. Given what we do know about the practice, the original Church explanation of the revelation concerning polygamy and the new and everlasting covenant somehow springing out of deep doctrinal study and concern over what allowed Abraham to practice polygamy is extremely self serving. I think it is fair and accurate to question the motivations of what I believe to be a vile and non-doctrinal practice, especially with all the other self serving statements and half-truths put out by the Church.
Who here has said they believe God ordered polygamy? Man in the Arena wrote:I think the Salt Lake Tribune piece is extremely thoughtful and should be listened to by Church leaders. What harm would it do for the church to acknowledge that Joseph and other leaders made a mistake when it comes to polygamy? I don’t think it would diminish faith, but it might do a good deal to restore faith.
I think Church leaders don’t want to admit or even seriously consider the possibility that previous leaders could have been wrong about this mostly because of the idea that prophets will never lead the Church astray plus D&C 132 specifically talks about it as if it came from God. Especially in the case of Joseph Smith I think it would be very painful for some of these leaders to face the idea that they have basically dedicated their entire lives to a cause based on what Joseph Smith started if he could have simply been making most if not all of it up as he went along. So my guess is that many of them basically rationalize and make excuses to maintain faith in Joseph Smith at all costs. For example, if God could command Abraham to sacrifice his son mostly to test if he would be obedient then why couldn’t he command Joseph Smith to marry other men’s wives? The general idea is that God decides what is right not us so we supposedly just need to be patient and continue to have faith and we don’t need to understand why God does things or allows things to happen the way he supposedly has already.
Old-Timer wrote:Who here has said they believe God ordered polygamy?
These essays claim that God commanded polygamy. That’s the main problem here; basically many Church members and investigators are simply not going to believe this story but the Church apparently expects them to just accept this explanation if they have serious questions about this embarrassing history. Well if many Church members don’t really trust past and present Church leaders in the case of polygamy then why should they trust them in the case of current supposed commandments like tithing and the WoW? Basically Joseph Smith’s documented external behavior really doesn’t look all that different from Warren Jeffs and the like. You can try to claim that it is more complicated than that and he was just misunderstood but he really was a legitimate visionary prophet in spite of all the cases he acted like he knew what he was talking about when it turned out that he really didn’t but that’s just not what many people are going to see when/if they find out about some of the issues like polyandry, the Book of Abraham discrepancies, treasure hunting, etc.
I get that, DA – but the comment made it sound like the disagreement was with something written here. If that was not the case, I apologize.
Ray, all I meant to imply was that I believe it to be fair to question the motivations of Joseph concerning the practice of polygamy, especially in light of official statements put out by the Church. I don’t mean to be contentious, although it may have come off that way (it’s a hot button issue for me- sorry). I also didn’t mean to imply that Joseph also never did any good or that he may never have been inspired by God in one way or another. To the contrary, I believe he was a very flawed man- who I may never understand or be able to reconcile the good with the bad. I apologize. I believe a certain way that may be not in line with current church teachings and have chosen to reconcile incongruencies in such a way to allow me to hopefully be able to move past flawed beginnings in favor of a way that allows me to find God in my own life while realizing the institutions/correlated teachings of the Church are flawed as well. I am still trying to figure out what the Church means to me and why I stay. I know I’m not the only one in this boat, but I apologize if I offended you Ray. Thanks for doing what you do on this site. This may be the only place besides talking to my wife quietly at night where I can speak to other people about how I’m feeling. Thanks for your efforts in uplifting others.
Man in the Arena wrote:Ray, all I meant to imply was that I believe it to be fair to question the motivations of Joseph concerning the practice of polygamy, especially in light of official statements put out by the Church. I don’t mean to be contentious, although it may have come off that way (it’s a hot button issue for me- sorry). I also didn’t mean to imply that Joseph also never did any good or that he may never have been inspired by God in one way or another. To the contrary, I believe he was a very flawed man- who I may never understand or be able to reconcile the good with the bad.
I apologize. I believe a certain way that may be not in line with current church teachings and have chosen to reconcile incongruencies in such a way to allow me to hopefully be able to move past flawed beginnings in favor of a way that allows me to find God in my own life while realizing the institutions/correlated teachings of the Church are flawed as well. I am still trying to figure out what the Church means to me and why I stay. I know I’m not the only one in this boat, but I apologize if I offended you Ray. Thanks for doing what you do on this site. This may be the only place besides talking to my wife quietly at night where I can speak to other people about how I’m feeling. Thanks for your efforts in uplifting others.
That is the greatest value of this place – being able to express your thoughts, doubts, and questions safely. So by all means, come here and do so – but our little community likes it if we get mutual respect without sweeping generalizations.
FWIW, while polygamy is not particularly my issue, I don’t believe the stuff about the angel and the sword, either, and there are other things I don’t believe that Joseph Smith said and did. I do believe in the First Vision, however.
It’s cool, Man in the Arena. Really, I wasn’t offended; I just misread the comment. It happens to all of us at one time or another.
Man in the Arena, I think you’re safe to share your thoughts, and even frustrations, here. It’s all good. I agree with a lot of your thoughts and I don’t understand or like things that have been said around polygamy.
Today seems to have been a bit of a media explosion for the Church, having news stories of the plural marriage essays making front page news in many major news outlets. The Church seems to have responded by this article in the newsroom of LDS.org. http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-provides-context-gospel-topics-pages ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-provides-context-gospel-topics-pages I guess I was a little surprised that those outside of Utah or areas with higher LDS membership would care enough to make it a national news story, but I suppose many find polygamy fascinating (usually in a train-wreck kind of a way), so these essays would make for good attention-grabbing headlines.
My husband hadn’t heard about the two latest essays before today, and only found out about them when he saw the story about them on CNN (which I was rather shocked by – he was aware of the other essays right when they came out, and I figured he just didn’t say anything about them to me because he knows it is a sensitive issue for me).
Anyway, I was just wondering what people thought about these news stories, and what it means for the Church. Will it just get people riled up for a few minutes, but not have much impact overall, or will it have a more lasting negative impact on people’s perception of the Church? Will these news stories create more conversations with those who are not members, asking the missionaries and members about these issues? I am also concerned for the missionaries – I hope that they have been informed about these essays, and given some guidance about how to deal with any questions regarding them. I can only imagine how awful it could be for a missionary who was not aware of these nitty-gritty details, to be questioned about them, and then realize that the church had released an official essay without telling the missionaries about it. Does anyone know any missionaries personally, and how the missions are dealing with these essays (the polygamy ones in particular, but really any of the essays)? I am also wondering if the average member is aware of these essays and their contents? I live in “Mormonville” and it seems really hit or miss when I ask people about it if they are aware – sorry, I know this last part has been discussed here before, but maybe with more national recognition, this has or will change?
I realize that I may just be blowing this out of proportion, because polygamy is an extremely hard issue for me. This essay felt like a punch in the gut because it reaffirmed that the Church’s official position is that plural marriage was good and commanded by God, and that the angel with the flaming sword was legit in the eyes of the Church, and that my views on the subject are very obviously outside of the Church’s view. I do not accept that plural marriage was of God in any way, and feel it was probably instituted by Joseph Smith in his zeal for the “restoration of all things”, and his desire for the human race to be sealed together as a family, and an incomplete understanding of exactly how to do this, while coming from a very male-centric perspective. I try not to come from the perspective that it was just a power-trip, sex-drive thing (but realistically, those probably played into it in some way, even if subconsciously, I just don’t want to believe that was the main or only motivation) . I definitely recognize that these essays were a HUGE step for the Church in historical transparency, and willingness to be upfront about an difficult subject with uncomfortable details, and that is truly amazing, but I’m still having a hard time with them.
I can only address my son in South America as far as missionaries are concerned. He knows about the essays because I have told him about them. He tells me polygamy is a non-issue there, and he did read one of the two newest essays last week. I would be interested to know what missionaries here are told about them.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.