On Despising Apostate Sanctimony

[JLHPROF]

 

Joseph Smith - "I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves."

 

God - "I send an angel with a drawn sword and threaten destruction."

 

Yep.  Both operate on the natural laws and consequences.  Violate those correct principles and suffer the consequence.  Scriptures are full of that.

 

Correct principle - don't lie to God

Govern yourself - tell God the truth

Don't govern yourself and tell God a big lie - God pulls an Ananias and Sapphira

[thesometimesaint]

Nobody ever had to - agency still existed and always will.

So choosing the blessings of living a higher order of marriage or choosing not to partake is always optional.

 

OK I'll slightly rephrase. Personally I'm glad God has not asked me to practice polygamy in this life. Does that make it better?

[Pahoran]

In your OP you accused her of not being truthful in her account of her Sunday School class.

 

No.  I did not.

 

Your reading is defective.

Try again.

 

 

I don't doubt that she would consider herself a feminist. But "toxic" is an adjective that you've added to describe her.

 

Wrong again.

 

It's an adjective that describes an attribute of her brand of feminism.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

And if Sister Colvin were not a Mormon, she would be immediately dismissed as an "anti-Mormon."

 

Put another way: Ms Colvin is clearly an anti-Mormon: she attacks the Church, allows her commenters free reign to attack the Church, and only censors those who defend the Church.  But her claimed (and frequently mentioned) Church membership is convenient camouflage for her.

 

Why is it unfaithful for a saint to look at the leader of this dispensation and say, "Yep, Brother Joseph got a little carried away with himself with that whole polygamy thing, but he more than made up for it with the restoration of priesthood, sealing ordinances, etc."? Why must JS either be a rogue or the Poppins? Why can't he be just a MAN?

 

Because plural  marriage was a divinely revealed principle.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Put another way: Ms Colvin is clearly an anti-Mormon: she attacks the Church, allows her commenters free reign to attack the Church, and only censors those who defend the Church.  But her claimed (and frequently mentioned) Church membership is convenient camouflage for her.

 

 

Regards,

Pahoran

This is a more sophisticated version of "I am pioneer stock" or "I am a 5th generation Mormon". Same crap though, once you expose it.

Edited November 4, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

Your reading is defective.

What it is is that he thinks he knows what he is talking about when he does not. Defective is probably an apt word.

[Pahoran]

Funny thing about "making a living tearing down the church"; patheos blogers are paid by bloggers.  Pahoran, drawing attention to her, and linking her blog, thereby generating an increase in page visits to this person specific blog,  is helping create revenue for a person who makes a living tearing down the Church. No such thing as bad press, seems applicable to the situation at hand. If not for Pahoran, very few - if anyone here, would know who this person is.

 

Ms Colvin bans and deletes anyone who defends the Church, while allowing free reign to the most fanatical of her fellow anti-Mormons to attack the Church.  Either we allow her propaganda to go unchallenged -- and thus be accepted as "true" by default -- or we challenge it.

 

I choose the latter.

 

But go ahead and enjoy your gloating.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[The Nehor]

If an angel draws his sword and says you must enter into polygamy where is the choosing in that? Seems like ya'd have to, to me.

You could always get sliced in twain by the sword. Still an option. Who wants to live forever anyways?

[The Nehor]

Joseph Smith - "I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves." God - "I send an angel with a drawn sword and threaten destruction."

This just shows Joseph Smith realized his limitations, primarily that he is not God. I wish all church members would realize this vital principle.

[stemelbow]

You could always get sliced in twain by the sword. Still an option. Who wants to live forever anyways?

John and three Nephites

[The Nehor]

John and three Nephites

Yeah, but they get superpowers.

[TOmNossor]

This is mere conjecture and probably says more about me than Brother Joseph, but my suspicion is that JS was a typical 30-something year old man who found himself attracted to other women.  And like most (non-Mormon) men in their 30s, he began to question the entire concept of monogamy.  And as is evident from the First Vision, Joseph was a questioner and didn't just accept the status quo as an explanation for righteousness.  So it seems that he started inquiring of HF about the concept of polygamy and voila, came to the "revelation" that HF endorsed the practice.  And by the way, I'm not disparaging Joseph for letting his desires overcome his power of discernment.

 

In fact, I don't know of a single person of faith who hasn't, at some point, confused desire for revelation.  People receive a confirmation that they should marry someone to whom they are divorced from just a few years later.  We receive a confirmation that we should take a job from which we are fired months later.  It's just one of those things that fallible human beings do.

 

All of that being said, over time, JS' theology around polygamy seems to have expanded to mesh with his theology about the sealing power and his latter marriages were probably more dynastic than romantic, so it wasn't all about the sex.

 

But the fact that EVERY 30-something charismatic religious leader seems to follow this pattern, regardless of belief system or time or place, makes me SUSPECT that JS' original desires were more earthly than, say, celestial.

 

 

Mormonnewb,

I think I might read your post as saying that based on your experience as a 30 something fellow and based on your observation of charismatic leaders other than Joseph Smith, it makes the most sense to you that:

• Joseph's sexual desire lead to considering multiple sexual partners.
• Joseph's previous experience with questioning religious norms made him open to questioning even this.
• And, Joseph, like all of us is susceptible to conflating what we want with what God wills.

Then as Joseph matures, his teachings on plural marriage morph slightly into dynastic teachings.

 

Presumably the early Fanny Alger marriage/affair/incident would be best explained with a strong dose of sexual desire and the latter Nauvoo polygamy would make viewing this as a purely sex thing difficult.

 

 

That is a more considered opinion that many I encounter, and I think it makes better sense of the history than many I encounter.

I think there is a heavy reliance upon your own person experience AND upon the witness of folks you (presumably) and I do not believe are prophets of God.

 

One of the things I frequently suggest, and I think this applicable to early polygamy in isolation, is that if Joseph Smith wanted just wanted sex he could have done a MUCH better job of it than he did.  I presume, this response is muted some by your position that he wanted sex, but he also felt the weight of being a prophet so he couldn't play upon his charisma/authority solely to gratify his desires.

 

What if the moral content of polygamy was zero.  I bring my dislike of polygamy into this question, but what if polygamy was like the color of our tie at church.  Would you still believe it unlikely that God revealed polygamy to Joseph Smith?  It would seem to me that those who take the Bible seriously must believe that the moral content of polygamy is not as clear as one might hope.

 

And, what of the resuming of polygamy in a much more dynastic way?  Was that sourced from God when the original decision was source from Joseph?

 

Also, I am not sure judging Joseph by our sexed-up culture is completely fair.  As I have contemplated other issues in today's society, I have come across the idea that sex exists because God desired to bind/weld/seal together mothers & fathers for the purpose of raising children in a stable home.  This is God's way.  But, I live in a culture that uses sex to sell products, to entertain, and to do many other things it was not meant to do.  Re-visioning sex in what I believe to be God's way has clarified questions that I had regarding various moral issues facing us today.  I would suggest that you and I are a product of a culture 150 years more screwed up (with respect to sex) than was Joseph.  I am not sure judging him by our appetites is totally appropriate (though I have no doubt that sex has been a problem for mankind from long before Joseph's day; just not the SAME problem).

 

And as an addendum to the "sexed-up" culture, while I think there is reason to believe Joseph's desires were not identical to ours today, I think there is greater problem.  Joseph did shake up the theological world of his day with his teachings.  But shaking up the sexual norms of his day would be a much bigger leap than instituting polygamy today.  I am not sure fancying an attractive woman who was not his wife would be anywhere near enough motivation to consider that perhaps this whole monogamy thing was wrong.  Today there is so much sex for pleasure/entertainment and so much "serial monogamy is just fine," it is not a huge leap to polygamy IMO.  But in Joseph's day I think it would be more similar to teaching, "God is not a fan of love, we should seek to conscript those around us through force and power."  Such a re-visioning of one's moral ideals would not be something a prophet of God would take lightly.  I think polygamy was a re-visioning of Joseph's moral compass of similar magnitude and his struggles with it also bear this out.

 

Anyway, thanks for your comments.  Your position IMO is much stronger than the "Joseph was no prophet and he just wanted lots of sex."

Charity, TOm

[Calm]

I have never been thrilled with LDS polygamous past, but it is the idea that the historical record evidences that polygamy was not instituted for the purpose of satisfying Joseph's lusts that has moved me quite a bit......

Well thought out and said as always, TOm...sure wish you posted more.

[Silhouette]

Then why is she in the Church? Teaching classes to young impressionable members? She didn't join the Church of Jim Jones, David Koresh etc. The problem is not her views but her hypocrisy.

Amen.

[cinepro]

What you have reported is plausible as coming spontaneously from a teenager. Note that Ms Colvin tells us that she first gave them her version "about the early practice of Mormon polygamy and how it came about," and only then did she get the jaded, cynical response of, "Yeah right! That’s convenient!"

Understand the difference?

Regards,

Pahoran

 

Honestly, it takes a measure of faith to look at the history of Kirtland and Nauvoo polygamy and find Joseph totally innocent and inspired.  So the question is whether or not I believe there is a class of teenagers somewhere that lacks this measure of faith and instead adopts the easier and more obvious cynical view. 

 

Yes, I can believe such a class exists.  And I don't need to suppose Ms Colvin tilted the story away from faith.  Even a simple reading of the information in the new essays would be enough to do it.

[volgadon]

If an angel draws his sword and says you must enter into polygamy where is the choosing in that? Seems like ya'd have to, to me.

 

As Sartre famously observed, you can always kill yourself (Nehor beat me to the observation). Agency doesn't mean that it is always going to be a choice that you like.

[Nevo]

Anyway, thanks for your comments.  Your position IMO is much stronger than the "Joseph was no prophet and he just wanted lots of sex."

 

Hi TOm,

 

I think you and mormonnewb have both made good points. To be sure, Joseph was not a libertine. I don't think there is any question that he regarded fornication and adultery as grave sins, offensive in the sight of God. And Joseph's God was not someone to be trifled with. Commenting on the cholera epidemic that swept through Zion's Camp, and Joseph's belief that this punishment had been sent by God, Richard Bushman remarks: "No revelation told Joseph that God had sent the cholera. He read his own ideas about Deity into the event.... In the camp's extremity, Joseph seems to have called up a God out of his Puritan past, a God who would destroy His own people if they neglected his commands. This was the God, we must assume, to whom Joseph felt responsible for establishing Zion and preparing his people for exaltation, a God harsh and implacable, inflicting punishment on those who failed" (Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, 246). Joseph's moral scrupulosity is even evident in Section 132, where Joseph is given detailed instructions on the line between "justified" polygamy and adultery (see, vv. 41–44, 61–63), a question that had bothered him.

 

All of that said, I don't think Joseph's libido was a negligible factor in the introduction of polygamy, for the some of the same reasons that mormonnewb mentioned. Joseph was a larger-than-life, charismatic personality. As I once heard Richard Bushman describe it, he filled a room. He had enormous reserves of energy and creativity, was gregarious and expansive, and loved people. He also had great power and influence and tended towards grandiosity at times. Such personalities also tend to have strong sex drives. I see no reason to think that Joseph was an exception to this general rule. Or to reject outright the possibility that Joseph may have sublimated such desires into a "lust for kin" as Bushman called it—a yearning for "familial plenitude."

[rodheadlee]

She would have to answer the question of why she is in the church.  But what are you claiming is her hypocrisy?

hypocrite

[hip-uh-krit] /ˈhɪp ə krɪt/ IPASyllables

• Synonyms
• Examples
• Word Origin

noun

1.

a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

 

 

 

[Gervin]

odheadlee, on 04 Nov 2014 - 1:05 PM, said:

Then why is she in the Church? Teaching classes to young impressionable members? She didn't join the Church of Jim Jones, David Koresh etc. The problem is not her views but her hypocrisy.

 

Amen.

 

It was asked before, but what is she being hypocritical about?

[Gervin]

As Sartre famously observed, you can always kill yourself (Nehor beat me to the observation). Agency doesn't mean that it is always going to be a choice that you like.

And as  Camus famously observed, whether or not to kill yourself is really the only question to ask.

[Gervin]

Either we allow her propaganda to go unchallenged -- and thus be accepted as "true" by default -- or we challenge it.

 

I choose the latter.

 

When and where are you going to engage her in this challenging?

[Pahoran]

When and where are you going to engage her in this challenging?

 

I suggest you read the OP.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[Gervin]

I suggest you read the OP.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

 

You're challenging her "propaganda" by posting your opinions (anonymously?) on a Mormon discussion board?  Not hardly.  

[halconero]

As Sartre famously observed, you can always kill yourself (Nehor beat me to the observation). Agency doesn't mean that it is always going to be a choice that you like.

 

I believe Moses was given a similar choice with regards to the circumcision himself. Choose ye this day doesn't mean that both options are both going to be pleasant.

[Pahoran]

 

You're challenging her "propaganda" by posting your opinions (anonymously?) on a Mormon discussion board?  Not hardly.  

 

 

So where do you suggest I post them, Mr Anonymous Gervin?

 

Regards,

Pahoran