MormonMason Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 Didnt you post something in the looking glass trial threads, that if Joseph lied his entire character should be questioned? Would not the same apply to polygamy?Peter and Paul both lied. David committed adultery and then murder by proxy to hide the evidence so he could take man's wife. Solomon had a thousand wives and concubines, and then became apostate and worshipped other gods besides the Lord, with all that entails. Do we reject all their words on the basis of character? Should we tear out the pages of the Bible containing their words? IF we don't do it for the prophets and apostles of the past, why do it for those of the present?
DavidB Posted October 7, 2012 Posted October 7, 2012 Peter and Paul both lied. David committed adultery and then murder by proxy to hide the evidence so he could take man's wife. Solomon had a thousand wives and concubines, and then became apostate and worshipped other gods besides the Lord, with all that entails. Do we reject all their words on the basis of character? Should we tear out the pages of the Bible containing their words? IF we don't do it for the prophets and apostles of the past, why do it for those of the present?Mason, Usu78 started a thread about jospeh smith going to trial. The particular trial is one from which critics claim Joseph Smith was found guilty. In the thread Usu78 suggested that it is imperative to know if the court proceeding was a trial or meer examination. Usu78 reasoned that it was important to know what happened because depending on the outcome one could (I assume legitimately) question Joseph Smith character for truthfulness - in court procedure essentially once lacking in credibility there is always reason to question credibility.With that back story, Usu78 current position seems at odds with his prior position. In my opinion, character flaws and all, Joseph smith is/was a Prophet and died a true Prophet.
Pahoran Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 I'm including his marriage proposals and his letter to Sarah Ann. I know the Whitney letter is not accepted by most apologists as a "love letter" but I accept it as such.Oh, that's why you called it "his letter to Sarah Ann" instead of "his letter to Sarah Ann's parents."Because that's what it was.Just so you know.Regards,Pahoran
Lamanite Posted October 8, 2012 Author Posted October 8, 2012 Oh, that's why you called it "his letter to Sarah Ann" instead of "his letter to Sarah Ann's parents."Because that's what it was.Just so you know.Regards,PahoranI understand 3 people were identified as intended recipients. Big UP!Lamanite
Calm Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) Sarah was identified as "etc." if I recall correctly. Her not actually being called by name is the main reason I don't see it as a love letter especially when comparing it to some he wrote to Emma.Here is a link to the complete text: http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Whitney_letter Edited October 8, 2012 by calmoriah
Lamanite Posted October 8, 2012 Author Posted October 8, 2012 Sarah was identified as "etc." if I recall correctly. Her not actually being called by name is the main reason I don't see it as a love letter especially when comparing it to some he wrote to Emma.Here is a link to the complete text: http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Whitney_letterI understand your rejection of the letter as a "love letter". Now without looking up your exact request of me, you basically wanted to know why I cared that Joseph lied and I have responded with a very detailed post about how it has enhanced many aspects of my spiritual and intellectual life. Was a reply all you wanted? I doubt very much you could argue against something as subjective as how personal research has or has not benefited my life. I'm curious if you had the opposite experience when researching polygamy and Joseph Smith? That is to say, that for you the circumstances surrounding Joseph's introduction of the doctrine/practice had no positive or negative affect on your spiritual relationship to Joseph or the doctrine of plural marriage.Big UP!Lamanite
Calm Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 I was curious about what it meant to you and I did mean to write more than I have no problem with the idea that JS lied, but I just have an iPad right now and writing long or even thoughtful posts is too hard as I lose my train of thought whole trying to one finger type it all out. So maybe next time this subject comes up, I will get more involved.
Antoni Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 I'd like to thank Lamanite for their postings on their journey through this.I think we need to be gracious to those that need to "thrash out" issues like this, oftern the Lord has a way of working as we go through these experiences, however uncomfortable they are at the time.
KevinG Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 If we relied on our 21st Century sensibilities and far away perspective to judge everyone from the 19th century Abraham Lincoln would be a bigot and most of our own ancestors would be cradle robbers. Lamanite your original beef was that most of us here hadn't evaluated the evidence about Joseph's polygamy. The responses here have shown we are aware of the issues and we have not judged Joseph the same way you have. So what is your beef if we are informed and come to a different conclusion? (and before you level your next accusation I have found the Saints at large are pretty well informed of these things also.)
Lamanite Posted October 8, 2012 Author Posted October 8, 2012 If we relied on our 21st Century sensibilities and far away perspective to judge everyone from the 19th century Abraham Lincoln would be a bigot and most of our own ancestors would be cradle robbers. Lamanite your original beef was that most of us here hadn't evaluated the evidence about Joseph's polygamy. The responses here have shown we are aware of the issues and we have not judged Joseph the same way you have. So what is your beef if we are informed and come to a different conclusion? (and before you level your next accusation I have found the Saints at large are pretty well informed of these things also.)I'm not imposing my modern beliefs onto Joseph. That played out argument is weak. Your post would have been just fine if you hadn't added "the Saints at large are pretty well informed of these things also." LOL. Your telling me that most of the Saints in West Aftrica are well aware of Nauvoo era issues regarding polygamy/polyandry/and alleged dishonesty by the prophet? Give me a break.Should I keep listing isolated countries throughout the world where it is very unlikely that the Saints there have not heard about a great many historical aspects of Mormonism to prove my point. Take Tonga for example. I know personally that there are almost no Tongans aware of these issues, this is based on my own experience as a Tongan and with Tongans. (It has been proven that sound conclusions can often be drawn from a relatively small amount of data and then applied to a larger population.)Or perhaps you have a reference justifying your statement? OK....CFRBig UP!Lamanite 1
Lamanite Posted October 8, 2012 Author Posted October 8, 2012 I was curious about what it meant to you and I did mean to write more than I have no problem with the idea that JS lied, but I just have an iPad right now and writing long or even thoughtful posts is too hard as I lose my train of thought whole trying to one finger type it all out. So maybe next time this subject comes up, I will get more involved.OK Cal. Thanks for your participation.Big UP!Lamanite
KevinG Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) Or perhaps you have a reference justifying your statement? OK....CFRI'm on a time crunch so will a simple Mormon Joseph Smith Polygamy search that receives 601000 results in about .58 seconds on Google be sufficient?The tired played out argument is the one that says Mormons are ignorant of their own history otherwise they would agree with (fill in the blank with your personal complaint or opinion).I ask those who go about trumpeting Joseph's perceived personal failings if they do so to increase the faith of the Saints in Jesus Christ or to detract from it? Edited October 8, 2012 by KevinG
Lamanite Posted October 8, 2012 Author Posted October 8, 2012 I'm on a time crunch so will a simple Mormon Joseph Smith Polygamy search that receives 601000 results in about .58 seconds on Google be sufficient?The tired played out argument is the one that says Mormons are ignorant of their own history otherwise they would agree with (fill in the blank with your personal complaint or opinion).I ask those who go about trumpeting Joseph's perceived personal failings if they do so to increase the faith of the Saints in Jesus Christ or to detract from it?No your Google search doesn't count as a reference. Only a handful of residents in Vava'u Tonga (My native Island) have Internet access, and of that small handful only a small number are Mormons. Now multiply that scenario and extend it into many many many remote areas of the Church and you will find that a great deal of Mormons don't know about this stuff. Then you could also make the same argument for members all over the world who just don't do "Google" searches to study their church or religion. Then the numbers and percentages start to climb. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Also, if you had read any of my recent posts you would have the answer as to how I feel and why I discuss things. Your ethnocentric myopic view is startling.Big UP!Lamanite 1
thesometimesaint Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 Lamanite:The internet just makes research easier. It doesn't prevent anyone with an interest from finding out. There is no excuse for not knowing.
USU78 Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 Didnt you post something in the looking glass trial threads, that if Joseph lied his entire character should be questioned? Would not the same apply to polygamy?Where did he lie?He didn't share with her everything he knew . . . and she was happier things were that way, as far as I've been able to determine.Look . . . she stood as witness in at least 2 of JSJr's sealings that I'm aware of, maybe more. That she later changed her mind after he had already committed to entering into those sealings and went into rages (as reported by nosy neighbors, my great-great grandparents included) put JSJr into an impossible position.Not rubbing her nose in it is not the same as lying to her. Girls don't play fair. What are you supposed to do?And, BTW, only the Sith deal in absolutes.
USU78 Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 Mason, Usu78 started a thread about jospeh smith going to trial. The particular trial is one from which critics claim Joseph Smith was found guilty. In the thread Usu78 suggested that it is imperative to know if the court proceeding was a trial or meer examination. Usu78 reasoned that it was important to know what happened because depending on the outcome one could (I assume legitimately) question Joseph Smith character for truthfulness - in court procedure essentially once lacking in credibility there is always reason to question credibility.With that back story, Usu78 current position seems at odds with his prior position.In my opinion, character flaws and all, Joseph smith is/was a Prophet and died a true Prophet.Are you sure you want to venture onto footholds whose reliability you aren't sure of?{sigh} Very well.In that thread I pointed out several times, because several folks refused to/couldn't get the point, that a conviction for fraud can be used to invalidated the convict's entire testimony in future court proceedings . . . JSJr's "examination," therefore, if it were a preliminary proceeding and not a trial, could never be used as having established anything about his character one way or another. If it were a trial, on the other hand, we then need to look into whether he was actually convicted and what he was convicted of. Ignorant others ignore this not-so-fine distinction and its implications.That thread, therefore, has nothing to do with this one.JSJr was never on trial [at least openly] for bigamy/polygamy. Even if bigamy/polygamy were a felony offense, it's not in the nature of a fraud, at least not necessarily.This thread, therefore, has nothing to do with that one.
KevinG Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 Perhaps we should stop preaching the gospel to all kindred tongues and people until we can provide them with high speed internet access first?Either that or have the missionaries carry copies of Fawn Brodie's book so all converts get "both sides of the story". Eh?
Lamanite Posted October 8, 2012 Author Posted October 8, 2012 Lamanite:The internet just makes research easier. It doesn't prevent anyone with an interest from finding out. There is no excuse for not knowing.HA! Priceless. You're completely out to lunch.Lets say you live here.http://maps.google.com/?ll=-18.5812,-173.98501&spn=0.443231,0.545883&t=h&z=11Let's also say your a native Tongan and only speak the Tongan language. Lets also say you are illiterate (not uncommon). How are supposed to know all this stuff. You're ethnocentric is the worst I've seen yet. You're only capable of imagining a world that looks like your own. Should I go on with examples of internation locations that have a demographic that are non-English speakers and illiterate? Even being a non-English speaker makes it near impossible to research this stuff. Question. How many languages does the Maxwell Institute and F.A.I.R. translate their historical and/or apologetic publications into? LOL--- I thought so. Your bias is sickening.
KevinG Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) http://translate.goo...www.fairlds.orgWill miracles never cease?Yes in 2012 there is no excuse for being "shocked I tell you shocked" that you never heard of (fill in your favorite pet issue). Edited October 8, 2012 by KevinG
Lamanite Posted October 8, 2012 Author Posted October 8, 2012 Perhaps we should stop preaching the gospel to all kindred tongues and people until we can provide them with high speed internet access first?Either that or have the missionaries carry copies of Fawn Brodie's book so all converts get "both sides of the story". Eh? Let me refresh your memory. You said, "I have found the Saints at large are pretty well informed of these things." Making reference to Joseph's alleged dishonesty and Polygamy. You're the one who can't justify this statement. CFR that the Saints "at large are pretty well informed of these things [Joseph Smith dishonesty and Polygamy]." Or you can just admit that they are not and in many cases don't have the ability to come close to familiarizing themselves with these aspects of Church doctrine or history.Finally, I never implied that members need Internet access to receive or access the truths of the gospel. Big UP!Lamanite
Lamanite Posted October 8, 2012 Author Posted October 8, 2012 http://translate.goo...www.fairlds.orgWill miracles never cease?Yes in 2012 there is no excuse for being "shocked I tell you shocked" that you never heard of (fill in your favorite pet issue).Are you intentionally obtuse? NOT EVERY MEMBER HAS ACCESS TO THE INTERNET TO STUDY CHURCH HISTORY AND DOCTRINE!!! This is a good example of why people hate Americans.....we seem incapable at times of seeing the world only through our own circumstances and experience.CFR that the Saints "at large are pretty well informed of these things [Joseph Smith dishonesty and Polygamy]."Big UP!Lamanite
KevinG Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 Let me refresh your memory. You said, "I have found the Saints at large are pretty well informed of these things." Making reference to Joseph's alleged dishonesty and Polygamy. You're the one who can't justify this statement.CFR that the Saints "at large are pretty well informed of these things [Joseph Smith dishonesty and Polygamy]." Or you can just admit that they are not and in many cases don't have the ability to come close to familiarizing themselves with these aspects of Church doctrine or history.Finally, I never implied that members need Internet access to receive or access the truths of the gospel.Big UP!LamaniteI repeat "I have found" (in my slightly and provincial and North America centric experience between wards in Illinois, Utah, South Carolina, Tennessee and Georgia) along with my correspondence with the privileged English speaking and internet accessible people of the world) that by and large they are aware of the issues of polygamy and Joseph's practice of it.If anything lack of information is not an issue as much as people believing things that just ain't so.Modern publications and access to information is much better than it was in the past and for most peoples there is little excuse left for not knowing other than their own disinterest.I restate that it is insulting for you to assume people are misinformed or ignorant of the issues simply because they do not draw the same conclusions you do.
Lamanite Posted October 8, 2012 Author Posted October 8, 2012 http://translate.goo...www.fairlds.orgWill miracles never cease?Yes in 2012 there is no excuse for being "shocked I tell you shocked" that you never heard of (fill in your favorite pet issue).I will also point out that Tongans are not a race that can benefit from Google translate. So you should be shocked that a lot of people have not heard of (fill in your ....blah blah blah.) I'm beginning to see where ideas like manifest destiny came from.... Just sweep aside the riff raff in the name of God! 1
KevinG Posted October 8, 2012 Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) I will also point out that Tongans are not a race that can benefit from Google translate. So you should be shocked that a lot of people have not heard of (fill in your ....blah blah blah.) I'm beginning to see where ideas like manifest destiny came from.... Just sweep aside the riff raff in the name of God!Nonsense. Please calm down and stop the insults. Why don't you prove your accusations before asking others to prove the negative?Please show a survey or study that tells us that Tongans are more ignorant of LDS history than North American Mormons?With the highest percentage of LDS to general population in the world and a history with the church that goes back to the 1800s I'm guessing they aren't as ignorant of our history as you propose.How do suppose Elder Groberg would respond to a letter of concern that the natives of Tonga are not well versed enough in Mormon history about polygamy? Edited October 8, 2012 by KevinG
Lamanite Posted October 8, 2012 Author Posted October 8, 2012 I restate that it is insulting for you to assume people are misinformed or ignorant of the issues simply because they do not draw the same conclusions you do.Are some people misinformed? Absolutely. Are people ignorant because they differ in opinion? Never. Am I surprised that they differ in opinion? Sometimes yes. Is there a lot of information available to a lot of members in today's information age? Absolutely. Does that mean we can assume that, "the Saints at large are pretty well informed of these things". Not in the least. Especially as the Church expands into Africa, South America, the Pacific Islands, Asia et al. where because of socio/economic/education and cultural issues prevent access to Church History and research. I'm not sure how you could argue that reality?Big UP!Lamanite
Recommended Posts