The Misinformation Around Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young

[Kenngo1969]

I think the point she's making is that quote out of context is unfair.

The point she made, said somewhat in jest, is that yes of course we should make allowances for all leaders based on the principle of fallibility.

But sometimes it gets to the stage where the actions of Joseph or Brigham stretch those boundaries so far that some people find it difficult to retain confidence in them.

It's probably not fair. But life isn't either.

And Tacenda, please don't indulge kenngo in the out of context quote.

I'm sure Tacenda is perfectly capable of speaking for herself (if not, how much is she paying you as her spokesman, and can I get a piece of that action?) Otherwise, with due respect, mind your own business, and I'll await a reply from her. Thank you.

[Stone holm]

If two out of that list combine to be the founding fathers of most of that doctrine you talk of then an investigation into their ability to receive, understand and apply that doctrine is entirely relevant to many people. The actions of both of them in their very different and inconsistent applications of the apparent revelation on polygamy suggests to me that at least one of them got it wrong. Which one: Joseph, Brigham, both, neither?

You may say that with 170 years of time passed I'm in no place to pass judgement. I'd say I'm in the only place I can be. 'Here.' So with what else and from where else can I make that appraisal?

I make decisions every day with limited information. It's a natural part of life. I will choose which route to take to work with limited information. I joined the church with limited information. If I moved on to a different faith practice it would be with limited information. There is only one type of perfect knowledge offered: our own experience. The rest is faith and hope based on limited information.

This is exactly what I mean. instead of attacking the doctrine, you attack the person in order to discredit the doctrine. Implication these are messed up people so the doctrine doesn't need to be discussed you can ignore it. Its typical political style character assassination. Marriage sequences seem to be out of whack so let's attack these people, rather than challenge the doctrine.

[Tacenda]

deleted

Edited June 4, 2013 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

I'm sure Tacenda is perfectly capable of speaking for herself (if not, how much is she paying you as her spokesman, and can I get a piece of that action?) Otherwise, with due respect, mind your own business, and I'll await a reply from her. Thank you.

Stormrider said:

Oh come now, let's not rely on the Bible to prove the Book of Mormon or that Joseph was a prophet. I wonder if Paul asked God to shake hands in his great theophany? Or if there really is a still, small voice. Heck, I have never seen anyone raised from the dead and everyone knew at the time that the Christians were all liars; there is no way Jesus was really raised from the dead. Faith is so easily lost; so easily tossed aside because each of us knows the arm of flesh has proved throughout history to be so reliable. The constant barrage of "I don't believe" gets a bit tiresome.

I said:

I believe... I believe!! Stormrider, I know there are those that seem to be a broken record of unbelief, but if JS wasn't so imperfect it'd be easier to trust him. He has told a whopper or two. In fact we don't know if he ever said "just kidding" on the Zelph story, that Canard brought up, and I had that in mind when posting my comment about Joseph using the sword as a leverage. Now I see where Joseph may have learned about it, thanks Why Me. But I will have to read those bible verses in context. I don't believe it happened where God commanded polygamy, especially with a sword. Not that Why Me said that. It really was frowned on, I thought. But apparently God merely allowed it, and there were consequences for living it in the bible.

There, the WHOLE sentence is bolded, and personally doesn't sound so stupid. But be my guest to use it in your sig line. Now if I played the game of cutting peoples sentences in half in posts, who knows what might come of it. Maybe some pretty hilarious sig lines. Do you want me to go find one in your posts now? Because it appeared that that's what you did to mine. Or I could be wrong.

Edited June 4, 2013 by Tacenda

[Kenngo1969]

Duplicate. Erp!

Edited June 4, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

Would you like to answer my question as to whether you hold the other people in your life to the same standard to which you hold Joseph Smith?

You're welcome to use anything I've written here in your sig line, whether in context or out. I have enough of a track record around here that even if you blatantly took something I've written out of context, it would take people all of two seconds dealing with me directly (well, OK: directly via cyberspace) to figure that out. Happy hunting!

Edited June 4, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Tacenda]

Would you like to answer my question as to whether you hold the other people in your life to the same standard to which you hold Joseph Smith?

I used to believe he was pretty dang perfect, especially when people say he is the second most important person next to Christ that ever lived. Which I heard very recently from a church leader, btw.

[Kenngo1969]

With due respect, you keep moving the goal posts. First, we were talking about "perfection"; now, we're talking about "importance." There are plenty of people in the world who are considered important, in one sphere or another, but who are far from perfect, so those two words are hardly synonyms. I'll give you some latitude and assume that you're simply engaging in the imprecise use of language (or that the Church leader to whom you're referring was doing so). No, Joseph Smith wasn't perfect; he himself admitted as much. But yes, I'd say that as an instrument in God's hands in accomplishing the Restoration, Joseph Smith was pretty dang important ... but only insofar as he (through the Restoration) leads people to Christ. If the Restoration doesn't do that, it's useless.

I believe the quote to which you're referring comes from then-Elder John Taylor, who said that "Joseph Smith did more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world than any other man who ever lived in it." (See Doctrine & Covenants 135). Your mileage may vary, but if Joseph Smith really did receive the Aaronic Priesthood under the hands of John the Baptist (and I believe he did); and if he really did receive the Melchizedek Priesthood under the hands of the Ancient Apostles, Peter, James, and John (and I believe he did); and if that Priesthood power is God's authority restored to earth to administer saving ordinances (and I believe it is); then I think the truth of Elder Taylor's statement becomes pretty obvious.

Now, having said that, does that give anyone the right to look down his nose at devout members of other religious traditions? No, of course not. We ought not be too provincial in our possession of that authority. When the non-LDS religiously devout reach The Other Side, will God tell them, "Ohhh, sorry! You were mostly wrong! Here's what you should have done instead"? No, of course not; otherwise, why do Temple work for the departed? Rather, I think He'll tell them, essentially, "You were mostly right. Here are some other things you ought to know." For what I think is a useful approach to people of other faiths vis-à-vis the Restoration, see http://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/toward-interreligious-oneness/.

Bottom line? None of this matters if Joseph Smith, imperfect though he was, was just another guy. I think, if someone gets another person to strain on a few gnats (“Look at all of these awful things Joseph Smith did!” when we see those things “through a glass, darkly”; don’t have all of the facts; see the past as WE are rather than as IT was; et cetera) and swallow a camel (“Ergo, Joseph couldn’t have been a prophet!”) then we’ve lost by conceding ground we never had to concede. Personally, I think if the Lord could’ve used somebody as flawed as Joseph Smith as His Instrument, then maybe there’s actually hope for ME! Whodathunkit?! (Neither the Lord nor Joseph Smith wanted us to put him [Joseph] on TOO high a pedestal—see Doctrine & Covenants 1:25-28). But personally, I’m thankful that the Lord used Joseph Smith to restore all of the wonderful things I have by virtue of having the Gospel of Jesus Christ in my life.

[Calm]

I'll await a reply from her. Thank you.

Perhaps this should be taken to PMs so that Tacenda doesn't have to use her posts to explain and it doesn't have to divert the thread?

[teddyaware]

I used to believe he was pretty dang perfect, especially when people say he is the second most important person next to Christ that ever lived. Which I heard very recently from a church leader, btw.

The actual quote is from D&C 135:3 and reads, in part, as follows:

"Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it."

If Joseph Smith is a true prophet, then, considering all he did to usher in the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times in preparation for the Second Coming of Christ, the above quote does not by any means seem to be an exaggeration. So, speaking theoretically, for the sake of argument, granting Joseph Smith is the prophet he claims to be, who other than he do you believe has done more, save Jesus Christ only, for the salvation of men in this world? In other words, who do you believe holds the number 2 spot?

Edited June 4, 2013 by teddyaware

[Calm]

But apparently God merely allowed it, and there were consequences for living it in the bible.

God commanded it in the case of levirate marriages at the very least.

[canard78]

I take umbrage (I don't take umbrage at very many things, so that should tell you something) at the implication that there's only one conclusion possible if one honestly examines Church history. It's not just an incredible ability to stifle cognitive dissonance that allows someone who conducts such an examination to remain a faithful member of the Church of Jesus Christ. One cannot be a reasonably intelligent member of the Church with a reasonably well-functioning brain and not have questions. Questions are inevitable, but doubt and faith are choices.

I fully agree. Nothing in my post or views says that the only conclusion possible is disbelief.

[Kenngo1969]

The actual quote is from D&C 135:3 and reads, in part, as follows:

"Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it."

If Joseph Smith is a true prophet, then, considering all he did to usher in the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times in preparation for the Second Coming of Christ, the above quote does not by any means seem to be an exaggeration. So, speaking theoretically, for the sake of argument granting Joseph Smith is the prophet he claims to be, who other than he do you believe has done more, save Jesus Christ only, for the salvation of men in this world?

Thanks! I was pretty dang close, considering I was going from memory!

[canard78]

I'm sure Tacenda is perfectly capable of speaking for herself (if not, how much is she paying you as her spokesman, and can I get a piece of that action?) Otherwise, with due respect, mind your own business, and I'll await a reply from her. Thank you.

Tacenda has been limited to 12 posts a day so she or may not choose to get back to you.

But given your request I'll step out of the conversation.

[Kenngo1969]

I fully agree. Nothing in my post or views says that the only conclusion possible is disbelief.

Fair enough. Not with reference to you, specifically (or with reference to anyone else, necessarily), it does seem, though, with many who have ceded their faith/belief to their questions/doubts, that beneath the "live-and-let-live," "Hey-if-being-a-so-called-TBM-floats-your-boat-go-for-it," veneer or façade they try to present on the exterior, there's a subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) undercurrent of condescension: "It's only a matter of time! Will the last person to leave the Church of Jesus Christ turn out the lights?" It does irk me; maybe I see it lurking in corners when it's not actually there ... or maybe sometimes some people really do let their "live-and-let-live" façade slip without realizing it.

Edited June 4, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

Tacenda has been limited to 12 posts a day so she or may not choose to get back to you.

But given your request I'll step out of the conversation.

In retrospect, that was quite harsh. I apologize.

[canard78]

This is exactly what I mean. instead of attacking the doctrine, you attack the person in order to discredit the doctrine. Implication these are messed up people so the doctrine doesn't need to be discussed you can ignore it. Its typical political style character assassination. Marriage sequences seem to be out of whack so let's attack these people, rather than challenge the doctrine.

I can understand why you would consider that to be my motives. They're not, but I'd probably presume the same if I were in your position. I know I did of others in years gone by.

[canard78]

In retrospect, that was quite harsh. I apologize.

No worries.

[ERayR]

But apparently God merely allowed it, and there were consequences for living it in the bible.

And IMNSHO it is totally irrelevant today.

[Stone holm]

I can understand why you would consider that to be my motives. They're not, but I'd probably presume the same if I were in your position. I know I did of others in years gone by.

Did not really intend to impose a motive on you specifically, but have never thought highly of collateral attacks, I find them to be distractions from trying to get a handle on correct doctrine the key to which is not found in the bedroom of leaders or in their personal lives, but rather in their sayings and doctrine. I really could care less about whether a Church leader or a Politician follows the law of chastity, I want to know the policies he or she is promoting and reasons for it. This may involve historical and cultural analysis it does not involve bed checks especially of people long dead. People can say one thing and do another, that does not necessarily mean what they say is wrong. Thomas Jefferson was an ardent advocate for freedom and at the same time a slave owner and apparently bedded his slaves, does that mean everything he said was untrue, certainly not. Socrates was a pediphile does that mean we should ignore his insights? A person can be a strictly chaste and religiously pious individual and still be a political idiot, does that mean we should respect whatever idiocy comes out of his mouth? Absolutely not.

[bcuzbcuz]

“Belief and reality” … ? Usually I’m inclined to “live-and-let-live,” especially with those who struggle, but with all due respect … do you have any idea how condescending this looks to many of your readers?

“That’s right, folks! I’ve seen Reality, and it’s only a matter of time before you benighted, deluded souls will, too! Will the last person to leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints please turn out the lights?”

You and others of your ilk simply can’t imagine anyone looking at the same allegedly-damaging information you’ve seen and coming to a different conclusion, can you? Well, here’s a news flash for you: God doesn’t compel belief! Both belief and doubt are choices! Thank you so much for refraining from damaging our fragile faith, which obviously cannot withstand the TRUTH!

Gimme a break!

You just got a break. Mostly because I didn't know I belonged to an "ilk". I once joined the "Elks" of the Elks of Canada, but I presume you mean something else.

But your right, of course, I shouldn't have used the comparison of belief to reality. I meant belief and delusion. If you go back and exchange where you used "reality" and replace it with "delusion" you'll see how better it fits.

[bcuzbcuz]

Especially if that information serves no purpose other than to impugn the reputation of a leader. It's one thing to discuss history where the purpose is to understand doctrine, or understand a certain policy or tradition, and perhaps to challenge the doctrine, policy or tradition, however, anti-Mormons frequently are only interested in using history to do a character assassination like is common in political debates. That serves no useful purpose and degrades all of us. I am one of the first to launch an attack where I feel someone is not in my opinion making logical doctrinal sense or where I believe cultural bias is being substituted for sound policy regardless of the hierarchical status of the person quoted. But this stuff is just pitching in the dirt and not particularly recent dirt at that.

If you can separate doctrine from the leader who spoke it, you're a better man than me. If you look at the numerous post to this OP you will find that many, many reference their statements within the brackets of classifying Joseph Smith and Brigham Young as prophets. I doubt we would be having this discussion if the same statements were made but some unknown backbencher.

Joseph Smith claimed divine guidance while he declared and acted upon the doctrine of plural marriage. When I was growing up in the church and which you claim is "old dirt", I never had a clue that Joseph Smith took other men's wives or that he married young teenage girls. I had no idea that Brigham Young scolded Zina's husband into finding a woman more suited to his "position". I had no idea that divorce wasn't necessary if a wife merely moved up the social ladder of plural marriage if she had a chance to be an additional wife to a so-called "superior individual" and jumped ship from one marriage to the next.

If this is all "old dirt" to you, more power to you. But for me, I would not accept any such behaviors/doctrine from anyone in this present world and I doubt people standing outside of Mormonism would see it so leniently as the true believers who post here.

[why me]

I used to believe he was pretty dang perfect, especially when people say he is the second most important person next to Christ that ever lived. Which I heard very recently from a church leader, btw.

It makes no difference what a church leader says. What makes the difference is the understanding that Joseph himself thought of himself as imperfect and unrighteous. Such was the horse's mouth. I am pretty sure that all he apostles and even Paul was not perfect. In fact, I do believe that Paul was prone to anger and wrote epistles accordingly as he paced the floor and allowed a scribe to write his letters.

[why me]

The actual quote is from D&C 135:3 and reads, in part, as follows:

"Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it."

If Joseph Smith is a true prophet, then, considering all he did to usher in the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times in preparation for the Second Coming of Christ, the above quote does not by any means seem to be an exaggeration. So, speaking theoretically, for the sake of argument, granting Joseph Smith is the prophet he claims to be, who other than he do you believe has done more, save Jesus Christ only, for the salvation of men in this world? In other words, who do you believe holds the number 2 spot?

But that doesn't make him perfect. We need to take Joseph at his word on this one. In fact, one problem that he faced were people thinking that he should be perfect or above the standard of human behavior.

[bcuzbcuz]

It makes no difference what a church leader says. What makes the difference is the understanding that Joseph himself thought of himself as imperfect and unrighteous. Such was the horse's mouth. I am pretty sure that all he apostles and even Paul was not perfect. In fact, I do believe that Paul was prone to anger and wrote epistles accordingly as he paced the floor and allowed a scribe to write his letters.

If anger is a sign of imperfection and unrighteousness, then God falls into the same category. With all due respect, we're not talking about anger here. The issue is taking another man's wife, while that wife is still married to their original husband. Would you allow/permit/understand/condone such actions by your church leaders nowadays?

Do you not find the child brides of Warren Jeffs and Winston Blackmore offensive and repulsive? Or how these so-called leaders, Jeffs and Blackmore, strip other men's wives from their husbands due to construed improprieties or lack of beliefs?