Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Yesterday's Anti-Mormon Lies are Today's Church Teachings


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

As am I.  But there's good fruit or people that comes from all sorts of betrayal, sin (adultery or fornication) and even from evil (rape).

This is a weak argument to use as evidence that polygamy or how Joseph lived it came from God, IMO.

Not really using it that way.  Just showing that the fruit of polygamy wasn't all bad.

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, JulieM said:

And yet she left the church which is interesting (and complicated too of course).

Thanks for the sources and quotes, bluebell.  

Emma was an amazing woman.  I hope Joseph is worthy of that kind of love and forgiveness in the eternities.  I hope he chooses to be with her too.  She truly loved him.   In return, I believe he treated her unfairly and with betrayal.  However, I believe he did love her.

I don't think she left the church, she just chose not to go with them.  

If we esteem her as much as we claim then I think we should honor her by treating her husband with respect.  I have a friend who went thru some hard times with her husband and even at their hardest she would not allow anyone to speak ill of him.  She knew who her husband was and she knew that his bad choices did not define him and she would instantly dislike anyone who tried to make them define him.  I wouldn't be surprised if Emma feels the same.  

This was written by Emma's great great granddaughter as she recounts the end of Emma's life-

Emma lived almost thirty-five years after the martyrdom of her Prophet-husband. She died 30 April 1879 in her seventy-fifth year. In her last years she was greatly loved, and in the last hours of her life she was attended by her family: Louis Bidamon, Julia, Joseph III, 26 and Alexander. According to Alexander, Emma seemed to sink away, but then she raised up and stretched out her hand, calling, “Joseph! Joseph!” Falling back on Alexander’s arm, she clasped her hands on her bosom, and her spirit was gone. Both Alexander and Joseph thought she was calling for her son Joseph, but later, Alexander learned more about the incident. Sister Elizabeth Revel, Emma’s nurse, explained that a few days earlier Emma had told her that Joseph came to her in a vision and said, “Emma, come with me, it is time for you to come with me.” “As Emma related it, she said, ‘I put on my bonnet and my shawl and went with him; I did not think that it was anything unusual. I went with him into a mansion, and he showed me through the different apartments of that beautiful mansion.’ And one room was the nursery. In that nursery was a babe in the cradle. She said, ‘I knew my babe, my Don Carlos that was taken from me.’ She sprang forward, caught the child up in her arms, and wept with joy over the child. When Emma recovered herself sufficient she turned to Joseph and said, ‘Joseph, where are the rest of my children.’ He said to her, ‘Emma, be patient and you shall have all of your children.’ Then she saw standing by his side a personage of light, even the Lord Jesus Christ.” 

Edited by bluebell
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I agree. Of course those Prophets would have been born (most likely) with or without polygamy being involved.

 

But would they have ended up in the same place?  Are our destinies that planned out?

Link to comment
1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I don't think she left the church, she just chose not to go with them. 

For Emma I think the biggest question is did she keep her covenants?
If she kept her covenants then whether she went with the Church to Utah doesn't matter.

She had a hard life and was a truly noble and good woman.  But I don't know just how faithful she was to the gospel and her covenants.

Link to comment
Just now, JLHPROF said:

For Emma I think the biggest question is did she keep her covenants?
If she kept her covenants then whether she went with the Church to Utah doesn't matter.

She had a hard life and was a truly noble and good woman.  But I don't know just how faithful she was to the gospel and her covenants.

I don't either, but according to the historical record ( ;) ) she believed that she was acceptable to the Lord-

"Her son Alexander later reported that a few days before her death, Emma had a vision that disclosed her acceptance by the Lord."

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, JulieM said:

As am I.  But there's good fruit or people that come from all sorts of betrayal, sin (adultery or fornication) and even from evil (rape).

This is a weak argument to use as evidence that polygamy or how Joseph lived it came from God, IMO.

I agree.  Plus, these individuals aren't a result of "polygamy" they are a result of individual man-woman marriages as I am so often told here.

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Of course those Prophets would have been born (most likely) with or without polygamy being involved.

Certainly, but no doubt the faithful practice of plural marriage altered the lives and characters of their parents, which subsequently shaped the lives and the characters of these men. Remember, according to Jacob, the aim of authorised polygamy is not merely to raise up seed but to raise up seed unto the Lord.

I can personally think of no better way of accomplishing that aim than ensuring that children are born into homes where the parents know how to obtain personal revelation and then faithfully follow it.

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Emma's own words testify of this.  She lived the historical record him and still believed he was a prophet.

Indeed. The fact that some of Joseph's contemporaries walked away from him whilst many others faithfully followed him reinforces how all historical data, regardless of its age, can honestly and rationally be slotted into very different and often competing narratives. And if the data don't determine the narrative, what does? Often personal experience in the presence, preference, etc.

For Latter-day Saints, this is precisely why personal revelation has to be key. As Joseph himself explained near the end of his life, 'I don't blame anyone for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I could not have believed it myself'.

Link to comment
52 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It really can't.  

Emma's own words testify of this.  She lived the historical record him and still believed he was a prophet.  She knows more about him than you or i can even pretend to know, and she still believed it.  

That doesn't mean he was or wasn't, it just shows that trying to decide spiritual truths based on the historical record is worthless.  People that know way more than you do on what happened and what kind of person JS was believe the probability of him being a prophet is very very high.  

Does that change your opinion any?  I'm guessing not, and it shouldn't because that's not how we learn spiritual truth.  It's not even how we learn the possibility or probability of spiritual truth.  

A person's opinion is not the same as factual evidence.  And you know the ward member I've referred to in this thread? His sixteen year old daughter has all but implied he's the reincarnation of Jesus.

There are facts, aside from opinions of Joseph's loved ones and contemporaries. There are internal inconsistencies even in official church materials establishing his dishonesty and calling into question his acclaimed powers from on High.  (How many times has the BOM been edited?  But, how did the seer stone work? He read from it, then dictated it for transcription, then "once it was correct" on paper a new sentence would appear...thus supposedly there should have been no need for correction.)

There are so many problems with the Restoration story that point to dishonesty on Joseph's part in that story.  That's makes his other problems with honesty all the more troubling. It's a pattern that emerges.

I don't believe God requires us to prioritize feelings over rationality. I believe God and the scriptures point to seeking the Spirit in conjunction with rationality. It's about faith making knowledge perfect, it's not about faith making fantasy acceptable. President Hinkley and many other church presidents have said as much.

In all this, the biggest compass for me is and must be the character of Jesus, who tells us that the truth will set us free.

Edited by Meadowchik
Link to comment
22 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Certainly, but no doubt the faithful practice of plural marriage altered the lives and characters of their parents, which subsequently shaped the lives and the characters of these men. Remember, according to Jacob, the aim of authorised polygamy is not merely to raise up seed but to raise up seed unto the Lord.

I can personally think of no better way of accomplishing that aim than ensuring that children are born into homes where the parents know how to obtain personal revelation and then faithfully follow it.

I have read many personal histories of those who lived polygamy.  I have found that most didn't want that life for their children and many even begged their daughters not to marry into polygamous marriages.  So, I'm not sure how accurate your portrayal is above.

I know there were many who lived it faithfully (and some who even made it work and liked it).  But I believe most wouldn't have wanted it for their children or grandchildren.  These are just my feelings from what I've read.  

Even Vilate Kimball didn't want it for Helen and she had a strong testimony of the principle.

Edited by JulieM
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Even Vilate Kimball didn't want it for Helen and she had a string testimony of the principle.

Now imagine the impact of having a mother who (a) knows how to call down revelation from heaven when faced with difficult circumstances and then (b) faithfully obeys what the Lord has revealed to her personally even when it's a hard thing.

That's precisely how one raises up seed unto the Lord.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment
3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 


Perhaps my investigator comparison was flawed, but the principle I consider to be valid.  Emma having rejected a thing of God with eternal consequence Joseph was under no obligation to continue laying sacred things before her and allowing her to trample them.  Pearls before swine.
 

Great, then he could have divorced Emma rather than sneaking around behind her back. She had the right to know if her husband was marrying additional women. 

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Now imagine the impact of having a mother who (a) knows how to call down revelation from heaven when faced with difficult circumstances and then (b) faithfully obeys what the Lord has revealed to her personally even when it's a hard thing.

That's precisely how one raises up seed unto the Lord.

I disagree.  Not even close, IMO.

As a Mother, I would never ever allow my 14 year old daughter to marry a man in his late 30's who already had dozens of wives.  Sorry, but that's not from God.  

I don't need that to be confirmed but my own personal inspiration or calling down revelation from heaven tells me that.

Edited by JulieM
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I disagree.  Not even close, IMO.

As a Mother, I would never ever allow my 14 year old daughter to marry a man in his late 30's who already had dozens of wives.  Sorry, but that's not from God.  

I don't need that to be confirmed but my own personal inspiration tells me that.

;)Probably what you need JulieM is an angel with a flaming sword!  That is called revelation!  It sounds like a woman who did not participate in polygamy back then was a failure to her children. 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

;)Probably what you need JulieM is an angel with a flaming sword!  That is called revelation!  It sounds like a woman who did not participate in polygamy back then was a failure to her children. 

Yup! :rolleyes:

If that story was supposed to be faith promoting from God, it certainly backfired for the most part.  I think it has destroyed more testimonies than almost any other church history fact and for sure is one of the most disturbing stories from Joseph's history.

 

Edited by JulieM
Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Gray said:

Great, then he could have divorced Emma rather than sneaking around behind her back. She had the right to know if her husband was marrying additional women.

"When a man married a wife, he took her for better or worse and had no right to ill use her; a man that would mistreat a woman in order to get her to leave him would find himself alone in the worlds to come. He said he knew of no law to give a man in polygamy a divorce."  Brigham Young

Link to comment
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I think we are looking at different fruits.

Here are some of my favorite fruits of polygamy:
Spencer_W._Kimball3.JPG

Joseph_Fielding_Smith.jpg

henry-b-eyring-large.jpg

 

Were they raised in polygamist homes? They're the descendants of polygamists (I am too), not really the direct "fruits" of it, right? I'm sure I have ancestors who were raped, and I wouldn't use my eventual birth to justify it (I know it's a terrible analogy). 

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

"When a man married a wife, he took her for better or worse and had no right to ill use her; a man that would mistreat a woman in order to get her to leave him would find himself alone in the worlds to come. He said he knew of no law to give a man in polygamy a divorce."  Brigham Young

Sure there is. Look to the law of Moses. But Brigham Young's statement really doesn't have bearing on what Joseph was doing. There was no law to justify polygamy in Joseph's lifetime to begin with. 

Here's the significant scripture, if you really need one, that should tell you that Joseph didn't do right by Emma:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/121.37 

Quote

 37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

 42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile

A wife has the right to know if her husband is stepping out on her. Using the priesthood as a cover for that doesn't work. 

Edited by Gray
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Calm said:

What I get from Meadowchik is in the past she understood that Joseph had lied, but it was an abstract understanding that allowed for the possibility of a good man making a mistake and even receiving revelations in other areas of his life.

  Now she has had experience with someone who she sees as having lied in the same way Joseph did and the up close and personal type of experience where she could not only see the spreading harm he caused through his deception, but also the ultimate source of the pain in her view, the man behind those kinds of lies.  And that type of man is not what she had once imagined Joseph to be, but is how she sees Joseph now.  She has finally seen a living duck and what actually happens when it quacks, so now she knows what was happening when Joseph the duck quacked long ago.

So now she believes the kind of man who tells lies in the same fashion that Joseph did cannot also be a prophet.  Instead it is much more likely if someone tells those types of lies, they are pathological and dangerous liars who don't care for others, only themselves.

l hope she corrects me if I am wrong.

Her forgiving the man who abused her family doesn't change the type of man he is, nor would it remove her identication of Joseph with this man since Joseph's behaviour wouldn't change either.

Thank you, Calm. I really appreciate your trying to see my point of view. It pains me that as friends,--because I consider you my friend--that my recent views might give you pain. I'm sorry for that. But I hope God will help us all along, anyway, despite our divergences.

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Calm said:

What I get from Meadowchik is in the past she understood that Joseph had lied, but it was an abstract understanding that allowed for the possibility of a good man making a mistake and even receiving revelations in other areas of his life.

  Now she has had experience with someone who she sees as having lied in the same way Joseph did and the up close and personal type of experience where she could not only see the spreading harm he caused through his deception, but also the ultimate source of the pain in her view, the man behind those kinds of lies.  And that type of man is not what she had once imagined Joseph to be, but is how she sees Joseph now.  She has finally seen a living duck and what actually happens when it quacks, so now she knows what was happening when Joseph the duck quacked long ago.

So now she believes the kind of man who tells lies in the same fashion that Joseph did cannot also be a prophet.  Instead it is much more likely if someone tells those types of lies, they are pathological and dangerous liars who don't care for others, only themselves.

l hope she corrects me if I am wrong.

Her forgiving the man who abused her family doesn't change the type of man he is, nor would it remove her identication of Joseph with this man since Joseph's behaviour wouldn't change either.

That is how I see what she is saying too, and I hold a lot of latitude for what it means to “know.”

My experience with forgiveness is that it changes my perceptions (including what I “know”) about others and how they (and my conclusions about them) affect me. It changes how I lump types of people together, if I do at all. I have also seen that forgiveness, spirituality and prayers help the forgiven (and others) change as well, whether directly or indirectly, whether sooner or later.

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Calm said:

What I get from Meadowchik is in the past she understood that Joseph had lied, but it was an abstract understanding that allowed for the possibility of a good man making a mistake and even receiving revelations in other areas of his life.

  Now she has had experience with someone who she sees as having lied in the same way Joseph did and the up close and personal type of experience where she could not only see the spreading harm he caused through his deception, how people were completely fooled by him, but also the ultimate source of the pain in her view, the man behind those kinds of lies.  And that type of man is not what she had once imagined Joseph to be, but is how she sees Joseph now.

She has finally seen a living duck and what actually happens when it quacks, so now she knows what was happening when Joseph the duck quacked long ago.  She already knew the duck was a duck (a particular type of liar), she just hadn't seen a duck in motion.  Now that she has, she sees it as likely all ducks of that particular type act that way for the same reason.

So now she believes the kind of man who tells lies in the same fashion that Joseph did cannot also be a prophet.  Instead it is much more likely if someone tells those types of lies, they are pathological and dangerous liars who don't care for others, only themselves.

l hope she corrects me if I am wrong.

Her forgiving the man who abused her family doesn't change the type of man he is, nor would it remove her identication of Joseph with this man since Joseph's behaviour wouldn't change either.

One of your best and most understanding post I have ever seen.  Empathy and understanding for others is so huge here. Thanks,Calm.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

A person's opinion is not the same as factual evidence.  And you know the ward member I've referred to in this thread? His sixteen year old daughter has all but implied he's the reincarnation of Jesus.

There are facts, aside from opinions of Joseph's loved ones and contemporaries. There are internal inconsistencies even in official church materials establishing his dishonesty and calling into question his acclaimed powers from on High.  (How many times has the BOM been edited?  But, how did the seer stone work? He read from it, then dictated it for transcription, then "once it was correct" on paper a new sentence would appear...thus supposedly there should have been no need for correction.)

There are so many problems with the Restoration story that point to dishonesty on Joseph's part in that story.  That's makes his other problems with honesty all the more troubling. It's a pattern that emerges.

I don't believe God requires us to prioritize feelings over rationality. I believe God and the scriptures point to seeking the Spirit in conjunction with rationality. It's about faith making knowledge perfect, it's not about faith making fantasy acceptable. President Hinkley and many other church presidents have said as much.

In all this, the biggest compass for me is and must be the character of Jesus, who tells us that the truth will set us free.

The problem is that rationality is completely subjective. What is rational to you is irrational to another, and vice versa. 

What is rational and what isn't is based on  personal opinion not fact.

 

 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...