- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
cwald wrote:
You crazy idealist….
🙂 (Been reading some of these threads today like ,Article on J.Brooks on Meridian Magazine)
It hasn’t even been 18 months since the 14 Fs of the Prophet was reread into the church record TWICE during one GC. Coupled with Oaks Two Lines of Communication talk the same day….
Until the prophets stand up in GC and repudiates the 14 Fs and the concepts taught within it, you may as well forget all this idealism. But, that is just my opinion.
indeed, at times, i see things through a set of glasses…i observe the same thing… oct 2010 conf at times was disturbingly defensive and offensive. why do you think that happened?
I think the leaders were shocked at the level of the backlash over Prop 8 – and especially that it seemed to be focused so exclusively on us. (I don’t think they were shocked at the reaction itself – just the level and the nearly exclusive focus.) Statistically, the main reason for the result was that black Democrats turned out in record numbers and voted over-whelmingly against gay marriage, but Mormons took practically all of the blame due to the money raised. (which was less than the other side raised, ironically, and essentially evened the financial playing field) I think that tsunami of focused anger (including the near riot outside the temple), coupled with the knowledge that many CA Mormons didn’t like the pressure that was applied, caused much of the GC reaction. I think it was two 70’s who, in their surprise, over-reacted in defending the Church, so to speak.
Quote:“wayfarer” – i observe the same thing… oct 2010 conf at times was disturbingly defensive and offensive. why do you think that happened?
I don’t know.
btw – being called an idealists, is pretty well a good thing…even coming from me.
cwald wrote:wayfarer wrote:i observe the same thing… oct 2010 conf at times was disturbingly defensive and offensive. why do you think that happened?
I don’t know.btw – being called an idealists, is pretty well a good thing…even coming from me.
You left a bracket off your last /quote tag…I know that being an idealist is not necessarily an insult. in this case, I’m more of a dreamer…it’s unlikely that we would ever teach in church about Joseph Smith’s proposals to his various wives, in that the source is often highly uncorrelated material. (now there’s an understatement for you). I’m not sure that the Nancy Rigdon conversation original source is outside of Bennett’s screed, which makes it somewhat suspect. Don’t know for sure, though, because i don’t spend a lot of time with it.
idealism is perhaps another thing than being a dreamer. to desire the ideal is to express that such a thing actually exists. in this sense, all TBMs worship and desire to become like a specific ideal: the notion of a perfect, all powerful, all knowing, all good god. And true believers ascribe to their leaders the closest thing on this earth to that ideal. thus, to teach that our highest leaders and the founders of the faith had pecadillos or even grave flaws is to deny the ideal that a prophet is the most holy person on earth.
My point of teaching the Nancy R and Helen Mar story is therefore counter-idealism — by embracing the humanity and flaws of joseph smith it places a requirement on our own relationship with god and the need to seek personal revelation at all times. We do not look to the prophet and live, but rather, the ‘ideal’ of the Christ and live, and to him only. Prophets are valid and relevant only to the extent that their teachings bring us to that ideal. They, themselves, are nothing, and for JS to prop himself up through the polygamy manipulation denies the real message of Christ.
imo.
wayfarer wrote:We do not look to the prophet and live, but rather, the ‘ideal’ of the Christ and live, and to him only. Prophets are valid and relevant only to the extent that their teachings bring us to that ideal.
I don’t have much to add, I just have to acknowledge this statement is so very well said. Thanks wayfarer.
:thumbup: Mike wrote:Wasn’t SR passed over being the Senior member of the 12?
Wasn’t BY elected by popular vote to lead the Saints & then declared himself as Prophet?
I don’t think SR was ever seen as a member as the quorum of the 12. In Kirtland the first presidency was organized first, then the 12 later. At the time the Kirtland high council may have been seen as a leading council above the 12. Since the FP did not come out of the 12 it would not dissolve back into the 12, thus SR was not the senior member.
(Tangent) This reminds me of a comment in a recent PH/RS lesson on the order of succession, quoting George Albert Smith I think: “What happened when Joseph Smith died? …his counselors did not say they were the President.” While technically true, SR did claim he was supposed to lead the church. This is very well known in the church. If I was with the group putting together this manual I would have tried to make the point that this quote doesn’t reflect well on GA Smith, as it distorts the truth of what really happened. (End Tangent)
Yes, BY was sustained by (and followed by) the majority of members.
Wayfarer, I think you are an idealist, not because you want to teach about Nancy and Helen, but because you believe you can get away from correlation and there is any possibility that you can teach about Nancy and Helen, and that the membership and church leaders would care, think about the implications or even want to to know about it…and that you wouldn’t get some kind of church consequence or discipline for doing so in the first place. Count me in the camp Cwald. I do think good people drift toward demonstrable truth, as slow as it may be. I do think members are by and large good people. I think we can point to evidence of this drift and I think it will continue, if not accelerate. That doens’t say that there won’t also be back-sliding and some harsh defensive actions around the traditional sanitized stories. 1. Can we justify Joseph Smith’s actions in this case — to use the promise of exaltation or threat of damnation to induce a young woman to become the prophet’s wife? In my opinion no. But I also think that the Bathsheba incident with David was almost rape. If the King wants to bed you and you’re a peasant girl…either you say yes and live or no and get exiled or die.
2. If the prophet asked you to do something you knew was wrong, would you do it? Why or why not?
As onery as I am..yes I’d do it, but I’d do it to such an extreme that it would freak him out…really badly. i.e,…had I been Nancy, I’d said lets do this thing, but said wait we got to get the bananas, chocolate sauce and two other men and four other women dressed as pagens and an artist so we can be painted. Or something so outlandish that it would have freaked him out.
3. Does the word of the prophet absolve you from inquiring for yourself whether something is true? No, we should always ask.
4. What responsibility do you have when you are told by the spirit that the teaching you are being taught is contrary to god’s will? If the spirit told me it was wrong, I wouldn’t do it. Meh really if I felt it was wrong I wouldn’t do it…I wouldn’t need confirmation from the spirit, I don’t now.
5. Is it possible for a man to be called of god as a prophet yet do some things that are completely contrary to god’s will? Yes, they are mortal
6. Does the fact that Joseph Smith had serious human failings make him something less than a prophet of god? It makes him human, just like all the other prophets. Noah was a naked passed out drunk prophet… I like they are more human than we suppose them to be, makes me feel better about myself knowing they are just as flawed.
Orson wrote:Count me in the camp Cwald. …
Oh, I do.
🙂 cwald wrote:Wayfarer, I think you are an idealist, not because you want to teach about Nancy and Helen, but because you believe you can get away from correlation and there is any possibility that you can teach about Nancy and Helen, and that the membership and church leaders would care, think about the implications or even want to to know about it…and that you wouldn’t get some kind of church consequence or discipline for doing so in the first place.
crazy yes, stupid no. I think I know the limits. i still think ‘dreamer’ applies more than ‘idealist’, but that’s a semantic nit.Arwen wrote:we got to get the bananas, chocolate sauce and two other men and four other women dressed as pagens and an artist so we can be painted. Or something so outlandish that it would have freaked him out.
😆 …ya, I think in the Victorian environment back then…that would definitely been a surprise response.😆 Arwen wrote:Can we justify Joseph Smith’s actions in this case –? …In my opinion no.
So, what if God told Joseph to do this, and not to act on it until the women had confirmation through revelation it was from God? Is that a possibility? Could Joseph be in a conundrum of being told to do something he didn’t want to do, but felt he needed to obey?Heber13 wrote:Arwen wrote:Can we justify Joseph Smith’s actions in this case –? …In my opinion no.
So, what if God told Joseph to do this, and not to act on it until the women had confirmation through revelation it was from God?Is that a possibility? Could Joseph be in a conundrum of being told to do something he didn’t want to do, but felt he needed to obey? No. Not in my world. But nice try anyway.
🙂 Heber13 wrote:Arwen wrote:Can we justify Joseph Smith’s actions in this case –? …In my opinion no.
So, what if God told Joseph to do this, and not to act on it until the women had confirmation through revelation it was from God? Is that a possibility? Could Joseph be in a conundrum of being told to do something he didn’t want to do, but felt he needed to obey?We can come up with any explanation we please. Who’s to tell us that we’re wrong? I used to try being creative in that way, but I just can’t any longer. For now, I can rarely achieve peace except by accepting the simplest and most logical explanation and moving on from there.
I was waiting for cwald to say something about cwald wrote:Could Joseph be in a conundrum of being told to do something he didn’t want to do
…I’ll have you know I couldn’t keep a straight face while typing that.
:lolno: I’m open to the possibility Joseph thought what he was doing was what God wanted him to…but he sure didn’t seem to be doing it begrudgingly.
doug wrote:I can rarely achieve peace except by accepting the simplest and most logical explanation and moving on from there.
I like that, doug. That works for me too. The thing is, it doesn’t have to be any more than that. It is what it is: problematic…yep, deal-breaker for me…nope.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.