Calm

I doubt it if we are talking about her then beliefs and the current doctrines and not about her being given a chance to learn the development and reasons for the changes. Same with the Restored Church though. Neither are excellent matches for how doctrine was understood in Joseph’s time, which I assume is the set of beliefs Emma most likely possessed, whether she accepted up to Kirtland and no further or she also accepted some, many or all at some time of the innovations of Nauvoo. But I don’t see that as a negative, but to be expected. Change to me is a sign of possible continuing revelation, which to me is an essential sign of God’s Church. I think how much trust would depend in part on the time of the references. By 1879, it seems she is willing to present the history in ways that most appeal to her, which to me makes anything she says problematic. If she is willing to alter stuff on plural marriage, why not other stuff. But that doesn’t mean to me we should automatically label earlier material as untrustworthy. We should be looking at factors likely contributing to her choice to misrepresent, go with the more ideal image, seeing when they occurred and look at the rest of what she in the time/context, compare those to what we know elsewhere to see how we might use her comments with care. She died in April, 1879. Interview was in early February. Do we know anything about the state of her health, both physical or mental? She wouldn’t be the first senior who truly believed her own version of history in the last years of her life, even with that version obviously being wrong (My grandmother, for example, insisted her husband’s name was Leroy and Roy was his nickname even when confronted, Leroy was the middle name of one of her sons, arrived at by combining her name that started with Le with Roy most likely). Sometimes dementia is obvious, but lots of times seniors are very convincing that they are representing things correctly.

I don’t view either as persecution, the death threats were one or two times expressions of anger from guys (my memory says three, but the third guy might have just labeled me an apostate, fifth columnist without the threat…has been too long and the details are blurring) who struggled in life with insecurity as far as I could tell and I was threatening to cut off one of the places that contributed to their sense of self because of their refusal to abide by that board’s rules. They saw their defense of the church as justifying breaking the rules (that board worked hard to treat members and nonmembers alike due to the owners and original posters’ experiences of biases treatment on other websites). I don’t think the threats would have been as disturbing if it happened now when such things are way more common and drastic. The threats were pretty mild, not particularly graphic and iirc leaned more to telling me I was deserving of death without going into detail of how it would occur. Mild stuff from what I have since read about. At the time I couldn’t conceive as someone saying even that just as a way to vent. I saw them as deeply mentally disturbed and therefore unpredictable (because I knew so little of what they were thinking and nothing of real life behaviors). Now I can unfortunately see that adults can indulge in such behavior without consideration for the other quite easily and without much dysfunction besides selfcenterness and lack of empathy. As far as my husband, it was basic office politics. I have my doubts the other professor or the assistant dean even believed the accusation or at least cared about it as there was no request or follow through for an investigation (the female professor was a hypocrite if she thought it was a valid accusation since she obviously didn’t put effort into or concern herself with respecting the women around her from their accounts) knowing my husband even a little and were more likely just using it as an excuse to justify office skullduggery (the mini dean did some other underhanded stuff that looked good on paper and he got his promotion, moved out and left behind a somewhat decimated department), in the process killing my husband’s joy in his job. Thankfully another university came calling shortly after and worked hard to get him to come there and that reinvigorated his love of teaching and his work (except for publishing osiers, he always disliked that part, though I think he found the actual research fun). That was a very hard year for my husband. He’s a very easygoing, likable, charitable guy who likes people himself. Very non critical (a little too noncritical in fact). Having someone attack him in that way really threw him (though he downplays it now, I remember his pain well).

Because she fought for them, correct? In part, because she did not want them to be in Brigham’s control from what I understand, but also as an inheritance for her and Joseph’s children…

So what do they conclude she saw these teachings as since it seems at times she rejected them as revelation?

Arrogance would be a better word here I am guessing. Someone with no pride wouldn’t talk back or stick up for themselves, compromise all the time, etc. Pride can be healthy, arrogance is the dysfunctional form of pride, imo. Self-respect, self confidence, dignity, high self esteem are positive forms of pride. I view Emma as having pride, great pride in some things…it helped her find value in the sacrifices she chose to make and were demanded of her by circumstances. I would say she respected/had pride in herself, Joseph, their relationship, their family, God, and Joseph’s mission.

Good question, especially if this just isn’t AI interpretation but what they said in the video: “the central aim is to treat Emma as a full person”. (Can’t give you rep points yet)

Good point, but mentally I need context because when I read it’s a conversation with the author for me and with nonfiction it matters to me that I visualize the person semi accurately (unless it’s a textbook or something else that’s generic rather than original thought. So I prefer to get some bio even though I recognize there are several valid reasons for anonymity (privacy and potential of threats and even action) and was anonymous myself in not sharing my name at the request of my daughter even if I shared location and lots of personal details (I did receive some hate mail as a mod on another board, including one suggesting I was going to die and go to hell in the near future which really disturbed me at the time as I met him in real life, but apparently he was leaving it up to God to exercise justice on his behalf). It’s not even just church leaders. There are crazies among members (my hate mail was from members) and nonmembers. It can also affect jobs as I have read people saying they refuse to hire LDS. My husband, a professor, lost a position he was to be appointed to because another professor who wanted the job told the assistant dean my husband wasn’t appropriate because he saw women as less being Mormon. That professor was awful to the secretaries according to the secretaries who worked with my husband as they told me she would bully any one under her and kiss butt of those over her while my husband was their favorite boss as he was the only one who treated them with respect all the time, like equals (which has been my experience with him as well). They even wrote a letter to the assistant dean in support of my husband for the job, but no go.

I agree as well. I don’t see anything in our doctrine that prevents that. There’s references to if prophets err, it will be made known…implying they will err, which sounds like “man-made” to me. Could just be policies, but logical to me it also includes doctrine that is a result of misinterpreted revelation or possibly filling in the gaps the wrong way.

Thanks for the back story, good to hear (also sad given LDS aggressively arguing with him).

Timing…Moroni buried them around 421 AD, he got them around 385 AD, the year the Nephites civilization was destroyed and all but a few wiped out. (Remnants were being hunted) (this was actually not needed, but somehow my brain randomly jumped where you covered timing in your post and I did not do my usual rereading of a post before posting as the skipping over parts is not unusual. Mormon 6 Moroni 10:

glitch

If you look at what you quoted, it does not say he buried them with the rest of the plates. Joseph certainly didn’t find other plates with the BoM plates. Given the Lamanites were hunting for any survivors to kill them, why would he stay in the same area? The plates were said to be about 40-60 lbs. That’s not too heavy for someone used to combat and long treks. US soldiers carry 72 lbs when marching apparently and my guess is Moroni was fitter, having most likely lived a much more physical life than many Americans do in childhood. https://sk.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/encyclopedia-of-military-science/chpt/combat-load#_

It’s probable gopher was making a joke. If he read the original post it made it clear. They were commenting on a problem with the title. I responded in the same vein.

Cool

If you don’t want it, God won’t force it on you.

I actually think that’s a perfect response. Very in context. Very insightful I would even say when you think about it.

Would love to hear from those who believe in Satan and his devils tempting us how they see this happening, how they tell when it happens to them. I am serious, not mocking. I think it’s a possible explanation and it was the one I grew up with at church (one topic of our faith that didn’t get discussion at home) and definitely expected and visualized, but it just doesn’t feel orderly, ‘right’ in the way God’s actions in my life feel very solid, fitting….puzzle pieces that actually fit. I have sensed the presence of evil in my life once and it scared me big time***, but I never felt a sense of someone trying to tempt me to do wrong outside of those I could see and touch or thoughts that seemed alien to me while I have felt pretty constantly a caring presence I identify as God that makes me feel very secure. ***My guess is I was somehow aware of a peeping tom who was later caught in the neighborhood (not that night, several weeks or months later). The bushes by one of the windows of the basement I was staying in were flattened, but not broken as if an adult size body laid on them looking through the window…but I admit they might have grown that way for some odd reason.

Btw, I am not trying to convince anyone Satan doesn’t exist, do whatever works to keep you making good choices, but I know of those who do not view the existence of Satan as reasonable (who tempted Lucifer to become evil if he is the author of all that is evil?) . I find it more intelligent, rather than dump the idea of temptation, to view ourselves to being prone to fill the role of Satan ourselves, in essence we become Satan tempting ourselves and tempting others to increase our sense of power and glory, just as Lucifer did when he gave into his own evil desires becoming. I think it’s detrimental to dismiss the belief that we aren’t influenced by actual evil. I also believe there were those who rebelled against God in the preexistence. Certainly could have had a leader who was a son of the morning. I lean against the idea that those beings devote their entire existence to trying to tempt others, that we are surrounded by hordes of these trying to possess us, etc. Open to the possibility it’s more than an allegory for our mixed up, screwed up internal state, but don’t see it as required to explain reality. And it doesn’t come across as the act of a loving and reasonable God to me even if “opposition” is necessary for growth. Evil appeals to the natural man in many ways, covetous feelings are probably the biggest source of evil in the world imo and that comes from desiring what others have, including power, and believing we have a right to ‘have it all’ no matter what harm it brings to others (the ultimate arrogance imo). Some rather than working with each other so all can achieve ‘having it all’ in oneness with God, those who choose to listen to the temptations work only for themselves ultimately, even if they hitch themselves to others temporarily as short cuts to power or wealth. I think the world would be a much better place if we all got in the habit of asking ourselves first “am I harming anyone by pursuing this desire?”. PS: interestingly enough, as soon as I posted this post, the only two songs out of 20 referring to the devil came up (shuffled, but it’s not that long of a playlist as it’s only songs with a strong, consistent drum beat for distracting me from RLS sensations, so not saying it’s spooky odd, just fun odd). Both portray a devil to taken very seriously, even if internal. And isn’t Satan portrayed as whispering in our ear? What dialogue is more persuasive than our own destructive self talk? The first was Dance with the Devil by Breaking Benjamin, an allegory for the “destructive cycle of addiction”. It has some perfect lyrics, imo. ”I believe in you I can show you that I can see right through All your empty lies I won't stay long In this world so wrong… Feeling your cold dead eyes Stealing the life of mine.” Second was Awaken from League of Legends. According to AI: “It shows that life is fragile, forcing people to make hard choices when fate hangs in the balance”. (Lifeless description, but works) “The night beckons while you dream A life never lives in peace As you stand upon the edge Woven by a single thread And fate may fall down upon you While the devil is knocking Right at your door So all you restless Each night you hear the drums of war Awaken, awaken The voice begins to call you while you hunger A taste of destiny you're searching for Awaken, awaken The fight is at your door, take up the cause.” I find these portrayals as more intimidating, more arresting than the temple portrayals where honestly Satan came across as more self dramatizing blowhard to me. (Props to the actors who did their best with the context, they can’t do complicated subtle portrayals under such circumstances). I know how hard it is to ignore my self doubts and rationalizations while I find it pretty easy to dismiss others’ criticisms and flattery for the most part (except criticism from loved ones, but I never considered Satan in that category as he hasn’t earned it).

If the author of all evil is the natural man (not only the physical, but spiritual and emotional) that is part of our nature, the part we are taught we must overcome (Mosiah 3:19 iirc), seems to work fine in my view.

He is just following your logic.

I find this to be quite sensible.

Except I am not saying there is no devil, I am saying we all have parts of us that are devilish. I am for personal accountability of the evil we do, not blaming evil on someone else. I don’t believe scriptures are meant to be history books, but rather teach us about ourselves and God.

I would add one more, the Gospel Principles manual as it provides a very easy to read coverage of our doctrine, the closest thing we have to a catechism or manual for systematic theology. This edition trimmed some excess speculation imo and is more dependent on scripture for support than in the past. Still uses quotes from leaders, but not as much.

Thought some might be interested in this. I came across it due to Church Historian Press email (see link for their article below) that mentioned Spencer McBride’s short presentation analyzing the pamphlet. I was hoping they would include that, but unless I am blind it wasn’t listed. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/general-smiths-views-of-the-powers-and-policy-of-the-government-of-the-united-states-circa-26-january-7-february-1844 https://www.churchhistorianspress.org/article/newsletter/2026-july Here is a podcast McBride did on a related subject: https://mi.byu.edu/podcasts/maxwell-institute-podcast-132-joseph-smith-for-president-with-spencer-mcbride Here is a text of a nonLDS interview with McBride for his book: And a couple of positive reviews of his book (it’s been out for several years, I am just putting this up because I can’t find his analysis of the pamphlet recently done. I am assuming it is thoroughly discussed in his 2022 book): https://kirkcenter.org/reviews/of-prophets-and-presidents/ https://lawliberty.org/book-review/religious-liberty-put-to-the-test/ And found a different individual’s thesis on JS and religious liberty from Claremont:

Okay, that’s weird. Have those been confirmed as valid yet?