The Roof Falls In On Martha

[Scott Lloyd]

The reality, of course, is that he has chosen a set of authorities to follow, and he deviates not one iota from the line they lay down.

[Baeth_Ku]

What Baeth-Ku seems to neglect in the above pontification is the fact that, within the context and arena of civil government, democratic principles as exemplified by the Constitution of the United States are both doctrinal and scriptural in Mormonism. See D&C 98:5-6; D&C 101:77,80; D&C 109:54.

Congratulations, Scott. Given the opportunity to be polite in your difference of opinion, you chose to get a dig in by calling my comments a "pontification" instead. I am really impressed. Keep up the good work. With friends, or fellow LDS, like these . . .

And by the way, I am completely aware of the scriptures to which you refer, and the implications of said scriptures, but I challenge you to explain to me how that changes the fact that the ideals of divine, or divinely-appointed, monarchy and patriarchy are preferred over democracy in Mormonism. The Book of Mormon is clear that in Nephite society, democratic principles were considered a necessity given the lack of divine monarchy. I also wonder why, if what you say is a refutation of my point, Joseph Smith had himself crowned King of the Kingdom of God or Brigham Young did not establish a government in Deseret that was founded on the United States constitution.

When Christ returns, do we look forward to Him coming as our King? or president-elect?

[Mark Beesley]

Baeth_Ku wrote:

When Christ returns, do we look forward to Him coming as our King? or president-elect?

It couldn't be as president-elect. Look at the bozo the electors in this country elected the last two elections!!!

[Programmer]

...

I also wonder why,..., Joseph Smith had himself crowned King of the Kingdom of God or Brigham Young did not establish a government in Deseret that was founded on the United States constitution.

When Christ returns, do we look forward to Him coming as our King? or president-elect?

Joseph Smith had himself crowned huh?? That's a tall tale worthy of a Tanner, or a Beck!! I suppose your sources include descriptions of the coronation ceremony?

What a load of garbage! I haven't even heard that one before from anti-mormons before.

Concerning Brigham Young:

If that's how much you know about early Utah history, you then have a big gap of ignorance to fill:

Brigham Young touched upon his love of the constitution in about every sermon I ever read. So maybe a trip to the discourses of Brigham Young may be in order for you.

[Scott Lloyd]

What Baeth-Ku seems to neglect in the above pontification is the fact that, within the context and arena of civil government, democratic principles as exemplified by the Constitution of the United States are both doctrinal and scriptural in Mormonism. See D&C 98:5-6; D&C 101:77,80; D&C 109:54.

Congratulations, Scott. Given the opportunity to be polite in your difference opinion, you chose to get a dig in by calling my comments a "pontification" instead. I am really impressed. Keep up the good work. With friends, or fellow LDS, like these . . .

I am tempted, fallible and mortal as I am, to use terms such as "pontification" in relation to prounouncements that fail to take cognizance of such easily accessed and understood information as the scriptural references I cited. The fact that you were already "completely aware" of these does not improve the picture any, I'm afraid.

And by the way, I am completely aware of the scriptures to which you refer, and the implications of said scriptures, but I challenge you to explain to me how that changes the fact that the ideals of divine, or divinely-appointed, monarchy and patriarchy are not  preferred over democracy in Mormonism. The Book of Mormon is clear that in Nephite society, democratic principles were considered a necessity given the lack of divine monarchy. I also wonder why, if what you say is a refutation of my point, Joseph Smith had himself crowned King of the Kingdom of God or Brigham Young did not establish a government in Deseret that was founded on the United States constitution.

When Christ returns, do we look forward to Him coming as our King? or president-elect?

The answer, whether you recognize it or not, is present within the content of your response above. "When Christ returns" indeed. Only then, when He comes to reign Whose right it is to rain, will a monarchy be in order. Until that time, we are to "befriend" constitutional forms of government and law that support principles "of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges" and that sustain the moral agency of mankind. "And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this cometh of evil" (see scriptural passages previously cited, especially D&C 98:7).

As for Joseph having himself crowned king, this was in relation to an experimental, prototype administration of the sort that might be in place after Christ does come. And beyond serving as something of a committee for his campaign for U.S. presidency, it had no immediate relevancy or intent in a civil-government context.

As for Brigham Young's "form of government," it was borne of expediency in the very early days of the Great Basin settlement because of inordinate delay on the part of the federal government to grant statehood, which was the first desire of the Latter-day Saints, or even to establish an effective and efficient territorial government.

[Baeth_Ku]

Joseph Smith had himself crowned huh??      That's a tall tale worthy of a Tanner, or a Beck!! I suppose your sources include descriptions of the coronation ceremony?

What a load of garbage! I haven't even heard that one before from anti-mormons before.

Well, I don't hold what you have heard or not to be a reliable measure of the factual nature of a piece of information.

Brigham Young touched upon his love of the constitution in about every sermon I ever read. So maybe a trip to the discourses of Brigham Young may be in order for you.

You are probably right. I can imagine that a trip to those discourses would be valuable to me for many reasons. Since Brigham pretty much ruled Utah for decades, I think it is fair to say that one might at least question the Mormon dedication to democracy at the time. I have always thought that our LDS ideal was theocracy, or divine monarchy, and I would like to see how it is that divine democracy is preferred to this model in the authoritative statements of our leaders.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Here is the one and only paragraph from Greg's review that contains that phrase, quoted in its entirety:

At

[Baeth_Ku]

I am tempted, fallible and mortal as I am, to use terms such as "pontification" in relation to prounouncements that fail to take cognizance of such easily accessed and understood information as the scriptural references I cited. The fact that you were already "completely aware" of these does not improve the picture any, I'm afraid.

And I have yet to see how what you say proves me ignorant or incorrect, so pardon me if I continue to differ from you on a point that is not an a priori given.

As for Joseph having himself crowned king, this was in relation to an experimental, prototype administration of the sort that might be in place after Christ does come. And beyond serving as something of a committee for his campaign for U.S. presidency, it had no immediate relevancy or intent in a civil-government context.

As for Brigham Young's "form of government," it was borne of expediency in the very early days of the Great Basin settlement because of inordinate delay on the part of the federal government to grant statehood, which was the first desire of the Latter-day Saints, or even to establish an effective and efficient territorial government.

I would think that the institutions of God would be held up as the ideal, and I think that they in fact are. I don't agree with you that these ideals are situational. Either one is privileged or the other. If the ultimate goal is the rule of the Son of God as King of this planet, then I would say that divine, or divinely-appointed monarchy, is preferred over democracy.

The fact that several Presidents of the Church were crowned, as was Joseph, leads me to think that this was a little more than just an experiment. If you prefer to call these things experiements or the results of expediencies, that's cool. But, I fail to see how I rate as a pontificator of empty words if I see a consistent favoring of centralized authority and divine monarchy in the practices and ideals of Mormonism. I too believe that the Constitution was inspired, and I have no desire to be ruled over by an earthly king. But I will admit that the ideal according to the teachings of my faith is theocracy.

[Programmer]

Joseph Smith had himself crowned huh??      That's a tall tale worthy of a Tanner, or a Beck!! I suppose your sources include descriptions of the coronation ceremony?

What a load of garbage! I haven't even heard that one before from anti-mormons before.

Well, I don't hold what you have heard or not to be a reliable measure of the factual nature of a piece of information.

And neither I you. But at least I don't expose myself by making false assertions without backing them up with references!!! Where's your's?

Brigham Young touched upon his love of the constitution in about every sermon I ever read. So maybe a trip to the discourses of Brigham Young may be in order for you.

You are probably right. I can imagine that a trip to those discourses would be valuable to me for many reasons. Since Brigham pretty much ruled Utah for decades, I think it is fair to say that one might at least question the Mormon dedication to democracy at the time. I have always thought that our LDS ideal was theocracy, or divine monarchy, and I would like to see how it is that divine democracy is preferred to this model in the authoritative statements of our leaders.

Scott Lloyd has answered that ridiculous assertion earlier.

[gtaggart]

Scott and Programmer,

Excuse me, but I'm having trouble understanding the reason for the tone of your recent replies to Baeth Ku. Have I missed something?

[Scott Lloyd]

I am tempted, fallible and mortal as I am, to use terms such as "pontification" in relation to prounouncements that fail to take cognizance of such easily accessed and understood information as the scriptural references I cited. The fact that you were already "completely aware" of these does not improve the picture any, I'm afraid.

And I have yet to see how what you say proves me ignorant or incorrect, so pardon me if I continue to differ from you on a point that is not an a priori given.

As for Joseph having himself crowned king, this was in relation to an experimental, prototype administration of the sort that might be in place after Christ does come. And beyond serving as something of a committee for his campaign for U.S. presidency, it had no immediate relevancy or intent in a civil-government context.

As for Brigham Young's "form of government," it was borne of expediency in the very early days of the Great Basin settlement because of inordinate delay on the part of the federal government to grant statehood, which was the first desire of the Latter-day Saints, or even to establish an effective and efficient territorial government.

I would think that the institutions of God would be held up as the ideal, and I think that they in fact are. I don't agree with you that these ideals are situational. Either one is privileged or the other. If the ultimate goal is the rule of the Son of God as King of this planet, then I would say that divine, or divinely-appointed monarchy, is preferred over democracy.

The fact that several Presidents of the Church were crowned, as was Joseph, leads me to think that this was a little more than just an experiment. If you prefer to call these things experiements or the results of expediencies, that's cool. But, I fail to see how I rate as a pontificator of empty words if I see a consistent favoring of centralized authority and divine monarchy in the practices and ideals of Mormonism. I too believe that the Constitution was inspired, and I have no desire to be ruled over by an earthly king. But I will admit that the ideal according to the teachings of my faith is theocracy.

Bottom line is that we prefer a monarchy only if Christ is at the head (a true theocracy). Otherwise, a constitutional republic that safeguards human rights and moral agency is our preferred form of government. It's written in our scriptures.

[Rollo Tomasi]

The reality, of course, is that he has chosen a set of authorities to follow, and he deviates not one iota from the line they lay down.

This is news to me.

As an example, notice, please, the reverential way in which he tries to conjure by the sacred name of D. Michael Quinn. 

Not reverential, just respectful, the same was I try to treat everyone, regardless of Church status, title, or even membership.

Of course, the fact that The Mighty Quinn doesn't try to tell him what the Lord requires of him may have something to do with it.

The only thing that Quinn "sells" is his books, which I've enjoyed very much. I look to Quinn for his historical research only, not to tell me what "the Lord requires of [me]."

Rollo apparently sees himself, or at least wishes to pose, as the Splendidly Independent Thinker, who rides into town sittin' tall in the saddle (presumably sending all the lily-livered "apologist" types scurrying for cover) ....

Nah, more like "Rollo the Apologist Slayer."

Another example of the gap between perception and reality.

I have never denied suffering from delusions of grandeur.

[Sput]

"Rollo the Apologist Slayer." wink.gif

Rawr!

Sorry couldnt resist. Can he have that set as his title under his name.

[Rollo Tomasi]

For what it's worth, "The Lord's University" is in quotes because that's the title of the chapter in her book where the other quotes illustrating Rule 17 came from. I frequently refer to BYU as The Lord's University.

My apologies for misconstruing your reference.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Perhaps Rollo failed to grasp this because he, himself, seems to be unclear on the proper use of quotation marks, a fact in evidence on those frequent occasions when he puts them around words that are not quotations of anyone or anything in particular -- except, perhaps, a quotation of himself from a straw man of his own contriving.

Nice personal attack. Let's at least try to keep this derailed thread on topic.

[Rollo Tomasi]

It couldn't be as president-elect. Look at the bozo the electors in this country elected the last two elections!!!

I am happy to report that ... you and I finally agree on something!!!!

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott and Programmer,

Excuse me, but I'm having trouble understanding the reason for the tone of your recent replies to Baeth Ku. Have I missed something?

Speaking for myself, I read Baeth Ku as saying that we as Latter-day Saints are not really comfortable with democracy as a form of government. This seemed strange to me since the Doctrine and Covenants reflects not just a tolerance but a reverence for the Constitution of the United States.

I thought I expressed myself accordingly. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

[USU78]

(gtaggart @ Nov 8 2005, 12:44 PM)For what it's worth, "The Lord's University" is in quotes because that's the title of the chapter in her book where the other quotes illustrating Rule 17 came from. I frequently refer to BYU as The Lord's University.

USU "Do I really have to explain?" 78

[Rollo Tomasi]

Joseph Smith had himself crowned huh?? That's a tall tale worthy of a Tanner, or a Beck!! I suppose your sources include descriptions of the coronation ceremony?

What a load of garbage! I haven't even heard that one before from anti-mormons before.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but William Clayton (JS's clerk) recorded that on April 11, 1844, the Council of Fifty chose Joseph "as our Prophet, Priest and King by Hosannas." (D. Michael Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, p. 124).

William Marks later stated that "Joseph suffered himself to be ordained a king, to reign over the house of Israel forever." (Id.).

[gtaggart]

(gtaggart @ Nov 8 2005, 12:44 PM)For what it's worth, "The Lord's University" is in quotes because that's the title of the chapter in her book where the other quotes illustrating Rule 17 came from. I frequently refer to BYU as The Lord's University.

USU "Do I really have to explain?" 78

Apparently, I do. And at least for me, so do you. The point of your post is a bit obscure, but then I attended The Lord's University.

[USU78]

Joseph Smith had himself crowned huh??      That's a tall tale worthy of a Tanner, or a Beck!! I suppose your sources include descriptions of the coronation ceremony?

What a load of garbage! I haven't even heard that one before from anti-mormons before.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but William Clayton (JS's clerk) recorded that on April 11, 1844, the Council of Fifty chose Joseph "as our Prophet, Priest and King by Hosannas." (D. Michael Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, p. 124).

William Marks later stated that "Joseph suffered himself to be ordained a king, to reign over the house of Israel forever." (Id.).

What, pray, does Melchizedek mean?

[Baeth_Ku]

Bottom line is that we prefer a monarchy only if Christ is at the head (a true theocracy). Otherwise, a constitutional republic that safeguard human rights and moral agency is our preferred form of government. It's written in our scriptures.

I find this statement absolutely consistent with contemporary LDS doctrine. I won't argue with you there. There are, however, other ways of considering the issue, and while the one I sketched here is different, it is neither anti-Mormon nor devoid of factual basis. There is evidence of the principle of theocracy being actuated on some basis in the crowning of Presidents of the Church as kings of the Kingdom of God on earth. "Written in the scriptures" has never really sufficed to explain any problem. There is always interpretation. And, I don't accuse you of calling me anti-Mormon, but I am a little surprised at the apparently adversarial tone our discussion has taken from the moment you first responded to me.

When I first made my comment, I was trying to show that there are other plausible responses to Mormonism than those offered as the official position, the apologist position, etc. While these views are often dismissed, they are not ridiculous because they do not accord with contemporary LDS doctrine. I get the sense that the position I articulated here was dismissed, not because of a dearth of evidence, but on the basis that I was perceived to be misrepresenting the Church in some way. I apologize if I gave the impression of misrepresenting the Church. I don't believe I did. I will endeavor to be more careful in the future. My comments were not on official doctrine or policy, but in the way of cultural trends and cultural and social history. I think we continue to talk past each other. It wouldn't be the first time.

[Rollo Tomasi]

As for Joseph having himself crowned king, this was in relation to an experimental, prototype administration of the sort that might be in place after Christ does come. And beyond serving as something of a committee for his campaign for U.S. presidency, it had no immediate relevancy or intent in a civil-government context.

Sorry to burst your bubble, as well, but John Taylor was likewise ordained a "king" by the Council of Fifty on February 4, 1885, some 41 years after Joseph's presidential campaign (Quinn, Origins of Power, p. 124).

[USU78]

(gtaggart @ Nov 8 2005, 12:44 PM)For what it's worth, "The Lord's University" is in quotes because that's the title of the chapter in her book where the other quotes illustrating Rule 17 came from. I frequently refer to BYU as The Lord's University.

USU "Do I really have to explain?" 78

Apparently, I do.

This: "I frequently refer to BYU as The Lord's University." is the problem.

Not everybody cares much at all about what I affectionately refer to as the parochial stench. Others care deeply. Others, good Church members and FAIR warriors, haven't much use at all for that miserable excuse for an imposition upon the good taxpayers of Provo, may it rot.

Calling it "The L---'s University" is an insult to every other University.

Knock it off.

[Scott Lloyd]

Bottom line is that we prefer a monarchy only if Christ is at the head (a true theocracy). Otherwise, a constitutional republic that safeguard human rights and moral agency is our preferred form of government. It's written in our scriptures.

I find this statement absolutely consistent with contemporary LDS doctrine. I won't argue with you there. There are, however, other ways of considering the issue, and while the one I sketched here is different, it is neither anti-Mormon nor devoid of factual basis. There is evidence of the principle of theocracy being actuated on some basis in the crowning of Presidents of the Church as kings of the Kingdom of God on earth. "Written in the scriptures" has never really sufficed to explain any problem. There is always interpretation. And, I don't accuse you of calling me anti-Mormon, but I am a little surprised at the apparently adversarial tone our discussion has taken from the moment you first responded to me.

When I first made my comment, I was trying to show that there are other plausible responses to Mormonism than those offered as the official position, the apologist position, etc. While these views are often dismissed, they are not ridiculous because they do not accord with contemporary LDS doctrine. I get the sense that the position I articulated here was dismissed, not because of a dearth of evidence, but on the basis that I was perceived to be misrepresenting the Church in some way. I apologize if I gave the impression of misrepresenting the Church. I don't believe I did. I will endeavor to be more careful in the future. My comments were not on official doctrine or policy, but in the way of cultural trends and cultural and social history. I think we continue to talk past each other. It wouldn't be the first time.

OK, thanks for the clarification.

I don't mean to cast you as an antagonist; we already have far too many as it is.