Learning That Joseph Practiced Plural Marriage

[Tacenda]

CASteinman,

I know mormons aren't bad people, they are my family and my friends. But I definitely get the feeling that the people are wonderful but the church is not perfect of which is the opposite of what I've been taught, that the people aren't perfect but the church is.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Tacenda

[ERayR]

I don't think its like a rebellious child to bring things up that are troubling you. But why do you seek them out? Are you becoming addicted to the bad feelings they br

I know mormons aren't bad people, they are my family and my friends. But I definitely get the feeling that the people are wonderful but the church is not perfect of which is the opposite of what I've been taught, that the people aren't perfect but the church is.

Really the people are the church. I know that saying is quoted often but I would and do argue with it. As I said the church is the people and people are not perfect. It may be Gods church but he lets me be part of it and I am not perfect

[CASteinman]

I know mormons aren't bad people, they are my family and my friends. But I definitely get the feeling that the people are wonderful but the church is not perfect of which is the opposite of what I've been taught, that the people aren't perfect but the church is.

The people are not perfect but the Church is -- depending upon what you mean by perfect. Jesus established the Church and gave direction regarding its organization, its powers and its authority. In as much as Jesus did this, it is perfect.

However, in as much as people are involved, it is not. People are not perfect.

Once, Joseph Smith was talking with his clerk. He said "I wish you were a bigger man so I could have some fun with you" -- meaning he wanted to rough house and wrestle -- something that used to be a fun occupation on the frontier (Today we have Sports, video games, TV and the internet). His Clerk said "Well maybe we can have a go of it anyway". And so they started. Almost at once, Joseph turned him awkwardly and broke his leg. He took him home, set and bandaged the leg and took care of him.

Obviously this was a mistake. People do err. But this does not change the fact that Jesus called Joseph.

[why me]

I think that people will choose to believe what they want to believe about this issue, However, once a person believes the critic interpretation, it is not easy to get them out of it. I think that it actually becomes a comfort zone for them because psychology they are leaving the church and they may not want to get into the mindset to come back in. Much easier to go with the critic flow out the door.

I call it bubble bursting. The critics burst the bubble and person falls out of the bubble and lands head first to the ground, gets up, gets a new direction and the away they go.

[why me]

CASteinman,

I know mormons aren't bad people, they are my family and my friends. But I definitely get the feeling that the people are wonderful but the church is not perfect of which is the opposite of what I've been taught, that the people aren't perfect but the church is.

LDS history is not perfect. Too bad it isn't but its history is not perfect because history is made up of imperfect people. They say and do wrong things. But I think that the structure of the church is nicely set up. It seems to work just fine. It is just that people are running it and they are not perfect and never have been.

We can't separate the church from its people. A church is made up of buildings and structures.

[USU78]

IIRC, Ann Eliza Webb Dee Young Denning, who also gave the world that particular libel, predates Conan Doyle.

Regards,

Pahoran

Well shut my mouth and paint me purple! You're right, of course.

Good to hear from you, Mr. Chief Justice.

[thews]

LDS history is not perfect. Too bad it isn't but its history is not perfect because history is made up of imperfect people.

History is based on fact. "Imperfect" people who distort fact introduce distortion. Facts will always be facts.

They say and do wrong things.

Who is "they" in the above?

But I think that the structure of the church is nicely set up. It seems to work just fine. It is just that people are running it and they are not perfect and never have been.

The metric of "perfection" sets the bar as high as it possibly can be set. If I'm not perfect, then how can I expect others to also be perfect? This doesn't discount what is true vs. what is not true. God is perfect and doesn't make mistakes.

We can't separate the church from its people. A church is made up of buildings and structures.

A church is made up of its doctrine. Buildings and structures have nothing to do with doctrine.

Edited July 27, 2012 by thews

[volgadon]

History is based on fact. "Imperfect" people who distort fact introduce distortion. Facts will always be facts.

History is based on interpretation of "facts."

[ERayR]

History is based on fact. "Imperfect" people who distort fact introduce distortion. Facts will always be facts.

Who is "they" in the above?

The metric of "perfection" sets the bar as high as it possibly can be set. If I'm not perfect, then how can I expect others to also be perfect? This doesn't discount what is true vs. what is not true. God is perfect and doesn't make mistakes.

A church is made up of its doctrine. Buildings and structures have nothing to do with doctrine.

History is someones interpretation of events. The event may be fact but the interpretation, maybe not so much.

I am glad you are perfect. Just don't expect it of me. I subscribe to what Joseph Smith said. He said "I told the brethren that if they would not expect me to be perfect then I would not expect it of them".

A church is made up of its doctrine, its people and its buildings and structures.

[Jaybear]

I am glad you are perfect. Just don't expect it of me. I subscribe to what Joseph Smith said. He said "I told the brethren that if they would not expect me to be perfect then I would not expect it of them".

A church is made up of its doctrine, its people and its buildings and structures.

So when Smith secretly introduced polygamy to a select group, contrary to published doctrine, was he following God's commandment, or was this one of this instances where he was acting on his own imperfect impulses.

You claim to accept that Smith was an imperfect human, but how so? He tried too hard. He put too much trust in people. What were his real vices?

[Jaybear]

The people are not perfect but the Church is -- depending upon what you mean by perfect. Jesus established the Church and gave direction regarding its organization, its powers and its authority. In as much

as Jesus did this, it is perfect.

....

Obviously this was a mistake. People do err. But this does not change the fact that Jesus called Joseph.

That sounds more like an accident than a mistake. One with a nice faith promoting spin to boot, getting to work into the story that he was strong, healthy, thoughtful and compassionate.

Are you allowed to say out loud what you consider Smith's most egregious mistake? One that would driven by a raw human emotion such as greed, lust, or anger.

[Deborah]

Are you allowed to say out loud what you consider Smith's most egregious mistake? One that would driven by a raw human emotion such as greed, lust, or anger.

You could say that but since you didn't know him personally you are basing such on someone's interpretation of the historical events.

Since I didn't know him personally I take the word of those who were closest to him, especially at the end, and they saw in him the most compassionate, generous and loyal of men. In fact many of them were willing to go in his place and die for him.

[CASteinman]

So when Smith secretly introduced polygamy to a select group, contrary to published doctrine, was he following God's commandment, or was this one of this instances where he was acting on his own imperfect impulses.

You claim to accept that Smith was an imperfect human, but how so? He tried too hard. He put too much trust in people. What were his real vices?

Don't you think it would be more fruitful to ask anti-Mormons to be critical of the Lord's annointed?

[CASteinman]

That sounds more like an accident than a mistake.

Accident and mistake are essentially synonyms. In any case, it was a mistake for him to have used his force against a smaller man, thus causing the accident.

I am not going to take your bait to accuse the prophet of evil, when he spent is whole adult life trying to help others and to raise the status of mankind.

Edited July 27, 2012 by CASteinman

[Jaybear]

You could say that but since you didn't know him personally you are basing such on someone's interpretation of the historical events.

Another failure to communicate.

I didn't say anything. l asked a question.

I wasn't asking for an objective fact, but a subjective opinion ''what do you consider".

Since I didn't know him personally I take the word of those who were closest to him, especially at the end, and they saw in him the most compassionate, generous and loyal of men. In fact many of them were willing to go in his place and die for him.

Great, though he wasn't technically perfect, he was a nearly perfect, that any flaws aren't worth mentioning. Got it.

Don't you think it would be more fruitful to ask anti-Mormons to be critical of the Lord's annointed?

Not when I am trying to understand what MORMONS mean when they say they don't believe Smith was perfect.

As for speaking critical of the "Lord's annointed", the bible tells us that Adam was kicked out of the Garden for disobedience, than Noah got drunk, Lot slept with his daughters, and David was an adulterer.

Its seems to me the the only prophets who don't like their dirtly laundry to be aired in public for others to learn from are the modern prophets.

[CASteinman]

Not when I am trying to understand what MORMONS mean when they say they don't believe Smith was perfect.

We mean he was a human being. A much better than average human being, but not perfect as God is. Which is not a matter of vice -- a direction and inclination to sin and satan. Its a matter of not being perfect -- a direction and inclination toward Godhood.

[Jaybear]

We mean he was a human being. A much better than average human being, but not perfect as God is. Which is not a matter of vice -- a direction and inclination to sin and satan. Its a matter of not being perfect -- a direction and inclination toward Godhood.

That was not a question. That was an explanation for my question.

My question which remains unanswered, was written to get deeper understanding than the meaningless tripe you just wrote.

Statement such as these, add nothing to the discussion:

"He was not as perfect as God."

"He was a human being."

[CASteinman]

My question which remains unanswered, was written to get deeper understanding than the meaningless tripe you just wrote.

There is no deeper understanding. You will just have to get over the shallowness of the Mormon Population -- or live to be disappointed.

[Deborah]

Its seems to me the the only prophets who don't like their dirtly laundry to be aired in public for others to learn from are the modern prophets.

Obviously another failure of communication.

Joseph Smith was the first to note his faults. Others were aware of them but as Joseph said if you won't judge me for my faults I won't judge you for yours.

I think that the miracle is what he accomplished in spite of his faults.

[ERayR]

So when Smith secretly introduced polygamy to a select group, contrary to published doctrine, was he following God's commandment, or was this one of this instances where he was acting on his own imperfect impulses.

You claim to accept that Smith was an imperfect human, but how so? He tried too hard. He put too much trust in people. What were his real vices?

You know if I could go back 175 -200 years, meet the man and read his mind I could answer that question or better yet if I had your ability to read his mind without going back in time I could answer you. I really don't believe you have those abilities either.

[ERayR]

That sounds more like an accident than a mistake. One with a nice faith promoting spin to boot, getting to work into the story that he was strong, healthy, thoughtful and compassionate.

Are you allowed to say out loud what you consider Smith's most egregious mistake? One that would driven by a raw human emotion such as greed, lust, or anger.

From the vantage point of the comforts and security of now I could probably think of one or two but Joseph Smith did not have that luxury. He had a mission to accomplish with only the resources of frontier America. I will not second guess any thing he did.

[Jaybear]

There is no deeper understanding. You will just have to get over the shallowness of the Mormon Population -- or live to be disappointed.

Your are wrong on both counts.

First, the fact that you are unwilling to answer a straightforward question, suggest to me that you do have a deeper understand of Smith's character, including his flaws.

Someone with a shallow and superficial understanding of Smith would have told me something specific but inane about Smith.

Second, I did not expect you to answer the question, so I was not disappointed.

You know if I could go back 175 -200 years, meet the man and read his mind I could answer that question or better yet if I had your ability to read his mind without going back in time I could answer you. I really don't believe you have those abilities either.

Duh. I was not asking you for a definitive answer. I was asking what you personally believed, given that you accept that Smith was flawed.

BTW, if I were to ask you if when Smith introduced the story of the First Vision in the early 1830s, was he retelling an event which actually occurred, or was he fabricating a story to strengthen his position as a prophet, I am guessing you have no problem answering that question.

From the vantage point of the comforts and security of now I could probably think of one or two but Joseph Smith did not have that luxury. He had a mission to accomplish with only the resources of frontier America. I will not second guess any thing he did.

Why not? Didn't Smith tell you to do just that?

Would I expect the same answer:

[ERayR]

Another failure to communicate.

I didn't say anything. l asked a question.

I wasn't asking for an objective fact, but a subjective opinion ''what do you consider".

Great, though he wasn't technically perfect, he was a nearly perfect, that any flaws aren't worth mentioning. Got it.

Not when I am trying to understand what MORMONS mean when they say they don't believe Smith was perfect.

As for speaking critical of the "Lord's annointed", the bible tells us that Adam was kicked out of the Garden for disobedience, than Noah got drunk, Lot slept with his daughters, and David was an adulterer.

Its seems to me the the only prophets who don't like their dirtly laundry to be aired in public for others to learn from are the modern prophets.

When one goes looking for flaws in another he can surely find them. Why I bet that, with no more evidence than you have against Joseph Smith, I could find an extensive list of your faults. That brings up the question with so many faults of your own to work on . . . ?

[ERayR]

Your are wrong on both counts.

First, the fact that you are unwilling to answer a straightforward question, suggest to me that you do have a deeper understand of Smith's character, including his flaws.

Someone with a shallow and superficial understanding of Smith would have told me something specific but inane about Smith.

Second, I did not expect you to answer the question, so I was not disappointed.

Duh. I was not asking you for a definitive answer. I was asking what you personally believed, given that you accept that Smith was flawed.

BTW, if I were to ask you if when Smith introduced the story of the First Vision in the early 1830s, was he retelling an event which actually occurred, or was he fabricating a story to strengthen his position as a prophet, I am guessing you have no problem answering that question.

Why not? Didn't Smith tell you to do just that?

Would I expect the same answer:

Jaybear, I know you have trouble posting anything of substance and rationally discussing these issues. For those reasons I know that answering your posts and expecting rational discussion is insane, yet I keep tying occasionally but this is enough for now, will try again sometime.

[wenglund]

That was not a question. That was an explanation for my question.

My question which remains unanswered, was written to get deeper understanding than the meaningless tripe you just wrote.

Statement such as these, add nothing to the discussion:

"He was not as perfect as God."

"He was a human being."

Not that this whole subject matter is any of your business, but you of all people aren't in a position to determine for the discussion as a whole what is tripe and what may or may not add anything. If you personally lack the capacity to grasp the reasonably clear quoted sentences above, please don't project your ignorance onto the rest of us. Man up, and just say, "I personally don't understand what you mean by this. Could you help me out?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-