The Great Church History Cover-up

[Redefined]

[quote name='jwhitlock' date='24 October 2009 - 12:03 PM' timestamp='1256403830' post='1208741048'

Anyone who sets him or herself up as god, or the final arbiter of truth, is invariably wrong. The difference between us is that I understand where the source of truth lies. Your comparison is invalid.

[Zakuska]

I'm wondering then why the scriptures in D&C 132 about multiplying and replenishing the earth?. . . if it can be concluded that he possibly took wives in order to fulfill the commandment from the Lord. Then why would anyone think that he didn't. . . and say there is no proof he ever did therefore no one can say. Wouldn't the position be, he was commanded of the Lord to take wives for this purpose?

We say there is no proof because... there is no proof. And those who had signed afidavits turned out not to be. Something isn't right there. Were they tying to pull a publicity stunt connecting themselves so intimately with the prophet? It speaks to the motives of the women for making the claim.

And lets not forget Jacob 2:30.

1. Jacob 2: 30 30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

Its very logical to come to that conclusion. However, no hard evidence to back it up but heresay.

[Redefined]

Is there a reason to believe that Joseph's actions with his wives has any bearing on the Gospel?

Does it change the need for faith in Christ?

Does it excuse the Lord's request that we Repent and be Baptized?

Does it somehow invalidate the laying on of the hands for the Holy Ghost?

Does it change the fact that Jesus rose from the dead? Does it change anything about Him?

Does it make the Book of Mormon any less true? Does it make miracles less real?

The answer to all these questions is a resounding: NO!

Exactly! So why is everyone saying that "no one can know" instead of "well, it seems he might have since God did lay it out in the scriptures as a purpose for polygamy"?

[Redefined]

We say there is no proof because... there is no proof. And those who had signed afidavits turned out not to be. Something isn't right there. Were they tying to pull a publicity stunt connecting themselves so intimately with the prophet? It speaks to the motives of the women for making the claim.

And lets not forget Jacob 2:30.

1. Jacob 2: 30 30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

Its very logical to come to that conclusion. However, no hard evidence to back it up but heresay.

So everyone else can be judged for intentions and motives, but not Joseph Smith?

[jwhitlock]

And you're failing to see that our statements equal each other out. I'm saying Your "spirit" is just as invalid for me as my "logic" is just as invalid to you. (I could have used the word "spirit" there too, I could use any other word I wanted, because it is invalid to assert your truth as my truth.)

Please quote me correctly.

No one has ever said or claimed or asserted or inferred that what I understand through the Spirit is binding on you. That's a common misrepresentation that enemies of the Church try to foist on us.

I've never met anyone yet who has been anywhere close to fully and consistently correct on what they understand through their own intellect, logic, or reasoning. I've met plenty of very intelligent people who have differed widely on the conclusions they draw given the same evidence.

The point is that while someone may misunderstand what the Spirit teaches them, the Spirit itself is a consistent source of truth.

People relying on intellect, logic, or reasoning alone are not consistent in how they understand things, nor are they reliable as a guide or source to others.

[Zakuska]

Redefined,

I see what you're getting at and I supose you are right.

Does it have any baring on the truth claims of the church or Josephs calling as a prophet?

That would be strecthing it.

[Redefined]

Redefined,

I see what you're getting at and I supose you are right.

Does it have any baring on the truth claims of the church or Josephs calling as a prophet?

That would be strecthing it.

No, it shouldn't to a LDS members that feel the "spirit" trumps all when it comes to truth. This "spirit" cannot be used as evidence, because anyone could claim "spirit". . . if this were the case. . . and then it gets into the bickering of well my spirit is right and yours is wrong. . . etc, etc.

But if Joseph Smith had less than noble intentions, it becomes, well, what else might he have lied about. OUTSIDE the bounds of the "spirit".

Added. . . Also I think it might make a difference to many members if they felt that Joseph Smith absolutely had sexual relationships. . . otherwise it wouldn't be defended as if it should never be assumed he did.

[WalkerW]

The idea that Joseph's sexual appetite was the reason for polygamy rather than revelation is strained, in my mind, when we realize that this wasn't just multiple sexual partners being collected. This was multiple families. Multiple wives that had to be attended to, cared for, and supported.

Putting aside this point that oversimplifications like "Joseph was a pervert" gloss over, many of the women participating in plural marriage had revelations and visions themselves confirming the principle. If Joseph had been alone in his revelation, the alternative motive might hold more weight. When you add the testimony of the women (the supposed victims), it becomes less convincing.

Granted, there were participants who did not support it and who wrote critically of it. This is true in anything.

[Redefined]

The idea that Joseph's sexual appetite was the reason for polygamy rather than revelation is strained, in my mind, when we realize that this wasn't just multiple sexual partners being collected. This was multiple families. Multiple wives that had to be attended to, cared for, and supported.

Putting aside this point that oversimplifications like "Joseph was a pervert" gloss over, many of the women participating in plural marriage had revelations and visions themselves confirming the principle. If Joseph had been alone in his revelation, the alternative motive might hold more weight. When you add the testimony of the women (the supposed victims), it becomes less convincing.

Granted, there were participants who did not support it and who wrote critically of it. This is true in anything.

I'm sure you wouldn't find a lack of women lined up to be married to President Monson if polygamy were brought back into practise. Their willingness to follow commandments speaks nothing of Joseph Smith's possible intentions.

[WalkerW]

Their willingness to follow commandments speaks nothing of Joseph Smith's possible intentions.

Yet, that is not what I said. I specifically said "revelations" and "visions."

This is exactly what Joseph Smith claimed. He said it was revelatory and from God. Plenty of women backed this up by also claiming that they had personally received a revelation or vision from God on the principle of polygamy.

In other words, this wasn't just blind obedience.

[Zakuska]

But if Joseph Smith had less than noble intentions, it becomes, well, what else might he have lied about. OUTSIDE the bounds of the "spirit".

This is a pretty slipery slope. You sure you want to go there?

What else did Peter Lie about? He told a cousin of the man he asulted to the face that he wasn't in the Garden with Jesus.

Any thing Joseph Smith did wrong, the Bible can do wrong better, and yet it is consider true by many.

The "spirit" is the only thing that can be relied on for truth, otherwise we are into the argument of the arm of fesh.

[Redefined]

Yet, that is not what I said. I specifically said "revelations" and "visions."

This is exactly what Joseph Smith claimed. He said it was revelatory and from God. Plenty of women backed this up by also claiming that they had personally received a revelation or vision from God on the principle of polygamy.

In other words, this wasn't just blind obedience.

So again, we will take a believers "testimony" to prove that these things were of God. If I were a faithful believer of a church, and the prophet of that church recieved a commandment of God to enter into Polygamy, if that prophet came to me and asked me to be one of his polygamous wives, why would I assume that this wasn't God's will? Anything contrary would be of the Devil.

[Redefined]

This is a pretty slipery slope. You sure you want to go there?

What else did Peter Lie about? He told a cousin of the man he asulted to the face that he wasn't in the Garden with Jesus.

Any thing Joseph Smith did wrong, the Bible can do wrong better, and yet it is consider true by many.

The "spirit" is the only thing that can be relied on for truth, otherwise we are into the argument of the arm of fesh.

Preaching to the chior. . . I'm not a bible believer.

[WalkerW]

So again, we will take a believers "testimony" to prove that these things were of God.

We take the personal, written accounts into consideration, yes. This is how history is researched. As Dr. Richard Bauckham said, "An irreducible feature of testimony as a form of human utterance is that it asks to be trusted. This need not mean that it asks to be trusted uncritically, but it does mean that testimony should not be treated as credible only to the extent that it can be independently verified. There can be good reasons for trusting or distrusting a witness, but these are precisely reasons for trusting or distrusting. Trusting testimony is not an irrational act of faith that leaves critical rationality aside; it is, on the contrary, the rationally appropriate way of responding to authentic testimony...all history, like all knowledge, relies on testimony...We need to recognize that, historically speaking, testimony is a unique and uniquely valuable means of access to historical reality." (from Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: the Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2006)

Your appeal to Joseph Smith's motive is, frankly, lacking in historical evidence. What we do know is that Joseph Smith claimed it was a revelation. Many women, many of which had been originally hostile to the idea, also claimed to have a revelation or vision confirming the truthfulness. Their attitudes changed and they accepted the practice, despite the difficulties of it.

why would I assume that this wasn't God's will?

Where did I say anything about these women "assuming" it was God's will? I said they had personal visions. Let me make that more clear: PERSONAL visions.

You really need to deal with what is actually said and presented instead of the fictitious points brought up in the conversation inside your head.

[Zakuska]

Preaching to the chior. . . I'm not a bible believer.

Yes.. you mentioned that before.

But riddle me this... since everyone lies who do you trust? Thats a pretty dismal world you have built for yourself there.

[Redefined]

We take the personal, written accounts into consideration, yes. This is how history is researched. As Dr. Richard Bauckham said, "An irreducible feature of testimony as a form of human utterance is that it asks to be trusted. This need not mean that it asks to be trusted uncritically, but it does mean that testimony should not be treated as credible only to the extent that it can be independently verified. There can be good reasons for trusting or distrusting a witness, but these are precisely reasons for trusting or distrusting. Trusting testimony is not an irrational act of faith that leaves critical rationality aside; it is, on the contrary, the rationally appropriate way of responding to authentic testimony...all history, like all knowledge, relies on testimony...We need to recognize that, historically speaking, testimony is a unique and uniquely valuable means of access to historical reality." (from Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: the Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2006)

Your appeal to Joseph Smith's motive is, frankly, lacking in historical evidence. What we do know is that Joseph Smith claimed it was a revelation. Many women, many of which had been originally hostile to the idea, also claimed to have a revelation or vision confirming the truthfulness. Their attitudes changed and they accepted the practice, despite the difficulties of it.

Where did I say anything about these women "assuming" it was God's will? I said they had personal visions. Let me make that more clear: PERSONAL visions.

You really need to deal with what is actually said and presented instead of the fictitious points brought up in the conversation inside your head.

Okay, lets see what their experiences were then. . .

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/

[Zakuska]

I want to revisit this...

I'm wondering then why the scriptures in D&C 132 about multiplying and replenishing the earth?. . . if it can be concluded that he possibly took wives in order to fulfill the commandment from the Lord. Then why would anyone think that he didn't. . . and say there is no proof he ever did therefore no one can say. Wouldn't the position be, he was commanded of the Lord to take wives for this purpose?

The converse must also hold. Why then only children by Emma?

[Redefined]

Yes.. you mentioned that before.

But riddle me this... since everyone lies who do you trust? Thats a pretty dismal world you have built for yourself there.

I tried to PM you. Your box must be full.

I see how this could be dismal from your point of view. But I don't find my world dismal. . . I would say I feel it is refreshing.

Trust NO ONE! J/k

[Zakuska]

Okay, lets see what their experiences were then. . .

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/

How do you know they weren't lieing? Why are their words any stronger than Josephs?

[Redefined]

I want to revisit this...

The converse must also hold. Why then only children by Emma?

Yes, that would be the mystery surrounding the controversy.

[Zakuska]

Yes, that would be the mystery surrounding the controversy.

In other words... the logical falacy we were talking about earlier... the "argument from silence" and no supporting facts just heresay and speculation.

PS. I cleaned some room in my inbox.

[Redefined]

How do you know they weren't lieing? Why are their words any stronger than Josephs?

What I'm hearing you say is that these womens experiences may all be lies, thus we should disregard them.

[Redefined]

In other words... the logical falacy we were talking about earlier... the "argument from silence" and no supporting facts just heresay and speculation.

PS. I cleaned some room in my inbox.

Then it wouldn't even matter to try to say or prove that he didn't have sexual relations in these polygamous marriages.

[Zakuska]

Then it wouldn't even matter to try to say or prove that he didn't have sexual relations in these polygamous marriages.

Nor would it matter to prove that they were, So the argument that polgyamy some how invaidates the truth claims of the church suddenly evaporate.

Unless one takes into account that many prominent prophets in Christ's blood line were in fact Polygamists. That right there shows us Polygamy or not doesn't determine truth.

[Redefined]

Nor would it matter to prove that they were, So the argument that polgyamy some how invaidates the truth claims of the church suddenly evaporate.

Unless one takes into account that many prominent prophets in Christ's blood line were in fact Polygamists. That right there shows us Polygamy or not doesn't determine truth.

I remember addressing all of this already in this thread.