Trying to make sense of Joseph Smith

[Anonymous]

jmb275 wrote:

HiJolly wrote:

In my opinion, this is not philosophical or theological, but the practical reality. We can fret and worry about methodologies and such, but what *works*?

Yes, following the fruit is just fine, but each religious leader has their own ideas of what the fruit is.

So, what was the fruit that these three men were going for, in your view? I think the point is not what these three *thought* the fruit was, respectively, but what actually transpired in the movements they were in. And there is a clear difference in that, by any standard (LoL — unless you’re Sam Harris…).

As an aside, last year I read Sam’s “The End of Faith” (–surprise! He likes mystics!) and Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” and Christopher Hitchens’ “God is Not Great”. It was a lot of fun. I enjoyed learning their points of view, and contrasting that with my own.

jmb275 wrote:

It seems you have equated the fruit in the LDS church with the fruit from Jesus. I am perfectly happy to, and want to follow Christ’s teachings. They are the ultimate fruit that works. But as “just me” has pointed out the contradictions of doctrines and practices in the LDS church are stunning. This is the method that I’m questioning.

I’ve failed to be stunned. People are people, none are perfect. Life goes on, and I think in the aggregate things are improving all over.

If there really are problems (and I do see some), what’s to be done? Nothing much. If someone was messed up for believing ‘bad’ things, it’s OK. If they seek truth, they will find it. We ALL misunderstand things and get messed up. The Lord leads us humbly and ably to the realization of our error. I think this must be the the core difference betweeen us. I trust God, and see this process of learning truths and “unlearning” errors, a focus of God’s plan for us. I’m not sure you do, even though we both believe there is a God. From what you’ve said, you seem to have an issue in how God communicates His will to us, is that right?

jmb275 wrote:

HiJolly wrote:

We all get to choose, no mind control there. You, I would think, are a great case in point. Sure, some people just go with whatever. We’ll always have people like that. We’re not like that, though. So who are you worried about?

This is the common Mormon view of freedom. That since we have our ultimate agency there is no mind control, or coercion. To me, this ignores loads and loads of psychological, cultural, social, and circumstantial evidence to the contrary.

NO, I’m not ignoring these things, I’m saying that they are not a problem, ultimately. Sure they exist. I don’t see the problem, though.

jmb275 wrote:

We could say the same thing about Jim Jones’ followers, that there was no mind control, and they had their agency. Coercion is far more subtle than holding a gun to someone’s head. And, no, I am a terrible example. I was one of them. I was TBM my entire life, believing in the literalness of all kinds of things, from garments literally protecting me to priesthood blessings curing the sick. This isn’t evidence of anything.

Just curious – did that harm you? What’s the problem with believing garments protect you? An over confidence causing someone to throw themselves in front of a bullet? Heh. The disillusionment of someone doing this could be painful, in both mental and physical ways, but that correction is ultimately a good thing, regardless, IMO.

Do you suppose it possible that the belief may actually prove effectual in reality? Since I actually saw positive effects from wearing garments (for someone caught in an explosion), I have to count myself a believer in it, and for the life of me I can’t see a negative in it. Mind you, I don’t *have* to believe in it. But since I have personal positive evidence, I feel ok with *choosing* to believe it. Is that the result of manipulation? If so, why should that bother me?

All this goes back to what I said in my previous post. We all are just trying to get along in this life. Christ said to test out things in the living of them. If things don’t pan out, then we drop the belief and move on to another. I see you as having mentally constructed a problem that has no basis in life, or at least, is no more a problem that other things we can’t control, like being born into an abusive family or living in a country controlled by religious or governmental extremists, who kill or torture people frequently and sometimes without provocation. No doubt these are terrible things.

How do we deal with that? Maybe it all boils down to the “problem of evil”. Surprisingly , that’s what caused Bart Ehrman to lose faith in God, and not all the problems with the Bible that he found in the course of his profession.

Getting back to coersion and psychological control, and not that you’ve said this, but I think it is such a cop-out to argue that phsychological effects are “just in the mind”. There is a connection to reality, as anyone studying the placibo effect can attest to. So what’s the beef? Is it in the intent and purposes of the ‘cult’ leaders, as you have suggested? If so, I think it is clear that Joseph’s intent has by this time been validated by it’s fruits, as benign, if not godly, IMO.

jmb275 wrote:

We might as well say that since some people have left fundamentalist Mormon compounds that this is evidence there is no cult-like mind control. The argument just doesn’t hold up.

As you can already no doubt see, I’m not making that argument. What do you think caused those who left, to leave? How did they manage it?

jmb275 wrote:

The big difference that I see is that our “ends” in the LDS church are better than those of Jim Jones group. But there are many similarities in the methods used. Have you looked into the methods of mind control used by cults?

A bit. I have tried to understand the mindset, techniques etc. of the cult-fighting groups, esp. the deprogramming types. I used to think they were good people. Now I think there are some sincere people in those groups, but it’s more complicated. Not all are what I would consider ‘good’.

jmb275 wrote:

As for submitting our wills, it has been my personal experience that this is more an exercise in psychology (a very useful one I admit), rather than a prescribed act the object of which is God, or worse, a church.

I agree. Just such exercises (and more) are required to obtain the Second Comforter. I’m good with that.

jmb275 wrote:

What I mean is that, it is the method that is important, not the end. Since I have stopped submitting my will to the God as prescribed by the leaders of the church, and now submit my will to say, my family’s well being, or the God I believe in, the results have been the same for me. Maybe we are agreeing on this point.

I don’t know. Maybe. As I’ve said before, while I don’t *know* that there is a God that is anthropomorphic, everything I believe in seems to point to Him/Her as such, or, that they/He can BE such, for me. As well as being, or having an aspect that is, transcendent, or at least, less well defined. I”m working on solidifying my view, without selling out to any outside influence as I do so. Evidence of experience is the only thing, though, that will lead me to *knowledge*.

HiJolly

[Anonymous]

D&C 58:21 Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land. (given in August 1831)

So, in order to believe that polygamy is a commandment from God we have to believe that this statement from God is a lie.

I would much rather believe that JS made a mistake than make God a liar. Much less mental gymnastics, too.

[Anonymous]

just me,

I wonder (cause I don’t know)… was there a law against polygamy in 1831 or during that time period? What about when they went to Utah, was that governed by US laws as a territory or were there any federal laws that made it illegal?

I can’t remember the history of the law to be able to answer your question.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

just me,

I wonder (cause I don’t know)… was there a law against polygamy in 1831 or during that time period? What about when they went to Utah, was that governed by US laws as a territory or were there any federal laws that made it illegal?

I can’t remember the history of the law to be able to answer your question.

Insofar as memory serves, there were laws against polygamy (bigamy) in Illinois at least. Also, in Mexico *before* the Church set up the polyamist colonies. I have heard arguments that Joseph (in the case of Illinois) interpreted it to not include religious sealings, but…

I think if we look to the Bible we find a lot of ambiguity in terms of what God says/does concerning lies.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_kgs/22/22-23#22

I think Joseph did some lies, but I find it hard to condemn him for it.

HiJolly

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

just me,

I wonder (cause I don’t know)… was there a law against polygamy in 1831 or during that time period? What about when they went to Utah, was that governed by US laws as a territory or were there any federal laws that made it illegal?

I can’t remember the history of the law to be able to answer your question.

Well, as early as 1833 in Illinois. I’m not sure about the country or Missouri.

BUT, isn’t God omniscient? So, to me it is irrelevent.

I could do some checking around, though.

I do think it is also interesting that JS was never “sealed” to anyone in an actual temple of God.

Oh, I also want to add that my purpose is NOT to condemn JS or any of our forefather dudes. My whole point is that in order to fully understand God we must figure out what comes from him.

I think JS was an amazing man—despite some of his actions.

[Anonymous]

Whether there was a law against polygamy or not, it was certainly against the social mores of the time, which is why it inspired so much condemnation. There probably weren’t laws against identity theft back then either, but I think everyone of that day would find it morally reprehensible.

[Anonymous]

mormonheretic wrote:

There probably weren’t laws against identity theft back then either, but I think everyone of that day would find it morally reprehensible.

Are you then saying that polygamy is morally reprehensible? In all instances? In any era?

[Anonymous]

Personally, I don’t think polygamy is reprehensible no matter what. For one example, if someone truly comes to love and bond with more than one spouse in this life (take a young widow or widower who remarries as the prime example), I absolutely can see a polygamist relationship in the hereafter that would be nowhere close to reprehensible – especially if sexual activity as we know it now is not part of the relationship.

I also can imagine a situation where one woman loved two men – and both men loved that same woman. If they decided, as consenting adults, to marry in an arrangement that gave her two husbands, I can’t call if reprehensible. Not my cup of clam chowder, but not reprehensible. I could give other examples, but those are obvious ones to me.

Also, I have a REALLY hard time with people who accept gay marriage as fine and dandy for consenting adults but not polygamy. I understand totally the reasoning people use to say that, and this isn’t the thread to go into details, but, for me, that dog don’t hunt.

[Anonymous]

I’m glad Ray answered swimordie’s question before I got to it. At first I was going to say, ‘yes’, but in light of his comments, I would say that polygamy is reprehensible in ‘most’ (nearly all) circumstances. My position on polygamy is far from orthodox, and I fully admit that. Perhaps there are some exceptions as Ray mentions. But I just don’t believe polygamy is an inspired doctrine. Perhaps reprehensible is a little harsher word than I would normally choose to characterize polygamy, but it’s not too far off either.

I know that Joseph was trying to claim he was restoring biblical polygamy. But in my view, biblical polygamy was wrong, and Joseph didn’t practice it the same way Abraham, Jacob, David, or Solomon did, so I question this restoration of the biblical practice. Certainly Abraham never seems to have claimed that God commanded him to take Hagar–Sarah proposed Abraham take Hagar as a wife. Jacob was tricked into marrying Leah. David and Solomon married women for political alliances, and it certainly was not in any sort of spiritual sealings that Joseph Smith claimed. In fact, the prophets like Nathan condemned the practice of marrying outside the Jewish faith, because it would turn their hearts away from Jehovah (which it did.)

On the other hand, Hagar had 2 angelic visits, so God certainly didn’t reject her for participating in the practice. But I guess that polygamy is never really seen as a necessary part of salvation in the Bible as Joseph claimed in section 132. I don’t have a problem with the sealing ordinance in the temple, but I think that polygamy was a corruption. All the spiritual extra-marital sealings to Joseph seem a bit odd to me, and just don’t pass the smell test, IMO. I believe God wants us to be primarily monogamists. Perhaps if we want to be in a group marriage due to spouses’ dying, and if it is consensual, I guess that’s ok. (If my wife died first, I do not believe she would ever consent to being in a group marriage even if I remarried.) But I just don’t believe that it is required to get into the highest order of the Celestial Kingdom.

[Anonymous]

MH wrote:

On the other hand, Hagar had 2 angelic visits, so God certainly didn’t reject her for participating in the practice. But I guess that polygamy is never really seen as a necessary part of salvation in the Bible as Joseph claimed in section 132. I don’t have a problem with the sealing ordinance in the temple, but I think that polygamy was a corruption.

I think I agree with you on this…and have accepted temple marriage is a necessary part of salvation, but not polygamy.

But I keep coming back to figuring out JS. Why would he feel he needed to do this? Why would he be so subject to the flesh if he could withstand beatings and tar and feathering while still loving others, yet became manipulative and subject to the flesh in this regard?

Did he sell the gold plates for money, or display them for fame? No.

Did he impress girls with peepstones to get a chance for some different kind of “peeping”? No.

It seems to me, that his nature was more to follow what felt God told him, even if it wasn’t popular. “I knew it and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it”

He may have made mistakes or misunderstood the imperfect medium of revelation, but it seems inconsistent of his nature to become whoremongering, powerhungry, or psychotic. IMO. And so I go back to the option that polygamy could be acceptable to God, and like the law of consecration, could be lived if people have the right heart to do away with worldy desires, but since we aren’t asked to live it now, and can’t understand the principle without experiencing it, we cannot make sense of Joseph in the framework of the topic of polygamy because we are too far removed from it.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Also, I have a REALLY hard time with people who accept gay marriage as fine and dandy for consenting adults but not polygamy. I understand totally the reasoning people use to say that, and this isn’t the thread to go into details, but, for me, that dog don’t hunt.

swimordie wrote:

mormonheretic wrote:There probably weren’t laws against identity theft back then either, but I think everyone of that day would find it morally reprehensible.

Are you then saying that polygamy is morally reprehensible? In all instances? In any era?

Ray, I was using the terminology of the statement to ask the question. That doesn’t mean that I feel that polygamy is morally reprehensible. I was asking mh if he thought that polygamy is morally reprehensible.

For the record, as a flaming libertarian, I’m all for whatever 2,3,10 consenting adults want to do together. Just don’t call me late to dinner.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Just don’t call me late to dinner.

Amen!! That is reprehensible. 😮

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

I think I agree with you on this…and have accepted temple marriage is a necessary part of salvation, but not polygamy.

But I keep coming back to figuring out JS. Why would he feel he needed to do this? Why would he be so subject to the flesh if he could withstand beatings and tar and feathering while still loving others, yet became manipulative and subject to the flesh in this regard?

Did he sell the gold plates for money, or display them for fame? No.

Did he impress girls with peepstones to get a chance for some different kind of “peeping”? No.

I don’t believe the church believes temple marriage is required for salvation. It is believed to be required for EXALTATION. There is a significant difference. Or maybe you just meant the “plan of salvation.” Eh, sorry if I read too much into that, but it is a common misconception.

There are indications that JS struggled with “the fear of man.” Some of the things he said while in Nauvoo seem to indicate he was struggling with pride, too.

The secret combinations…oops…societies that were being created indicate a problem, too IMO. Oaths, penalties, secret acts are all things warned about in the LDS scriptures.

OK, and a LOL for your last question!

[Anonymous]

“Certainly Abraham never seems to have claimed that God commanded him to take Hagar–Sarah proposed Abraham take Hagar as a wife. “

(sorry, I can’t figure out the quote thing)

With respect mormonheretic…Section 132 verse 34 reads: “God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife.”

I guess my question would be: What is God commanding Abraham to do here if it’s not to take Hagar as a plural wife? Maybe I’m reading it wrong.

As a fundamentalist, I of course am biting my tongue through this part of the thread. It’s not my objective, nor would it serve any usefull purpose, to engage in any polygamy vs anti-polygamy exchanges. That wouldn’t be in the spirit of helping others who may be having doubts about the gospel. However, I don’t see how anyone can read Section 131 2-4 (which speaks of the conditions of exaltation) and then read Section 132 and not see that the New and Everlasting covenant IS celestial plural marriage. I was a member of the mainstream Church for many years and remember the explanations (I even remember teaching lessons on it as an EQP) but I honestly never read it open-mindedly. It can hit you like a ton of bricks when you read it objectively.

Of course, one is free to believe that Joseph Smith erred and that Section 132 is not a true revelation.

As always..

My opinion only..

Mileage may vary.

[Anonymous]

I just wanted to correct a previous post of mine. D&C 132 was not published in the scriptures until 1876-more than 30 years after the death of JS.

[Author]

Posts