On Despising Apostate Sanctimony

[Pahoran]

 

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

 

 

BTW, do you actually have anything to say about the topic of this thread?  (Asked the thread originator whose patience is wearing thin.)

 

Or do you prefer to keep on derailing?

 

It's just that I like to know, you see.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[rockpond]

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.

I understand the definition of the word.

I'm asking what basis you are using for accusing her of hypocrisy. If you can't back up the statement, perhaps you should consider retracting it.

[Pahoran]

I understand the definition of the word.

I'm asking what basis you are using for accusing her of hypocrisy. If you can't back up the statement, perhaps you should consider retracting it.

 

Rockpond, I realise this is a difficult concept for those of the Dehlinite persuasion to grasp: but, hypothetically speaking, if someone chooses to call him or herself a Mormon, and then preens him or herself on how much smarter he or she is than all the actual believing and practicing Latter-day Saints because he or she has decided to follow the world instead, then he or she is using the "Mormon" label rather carelessly.

 

And if he or she is actively opposing the Church and attacking its truth claims, then his or her actions are rather intentionally contrary to his or her claimed ideals.

 

Not merely falling short -- we all do that -- but intentionally contrary thereto.

 

I think that rather satisfactorily answers the definition of hypocrisy.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[Gervin]

BTW, do you actually have anything to say about the topic of this thread?  (Asked the thread originator whose patience is wearing thin.)

 

Or do you prefer to keep on derailing?

 

It's just that I like to know, you see.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

Yeah, I'm curious how LDS respond to what may appear to them as the hybridization of their faith; the OP is really just a smear and indicates to me that you believe she is a sheep in wolf's clothing and deserving of ridicule and derision.  But others here (LDS) don't see her in that light and are actually sympathetic.  If she's a menace to the church and needs to be shut up, who protects the church?  Not some "challengers" on the internet.  If, on the other hand, there is room under the LDS tent for these types of questions, what do you gain by slamming her?  

[rockpond]

Rockpond, I realise this is a difficult concept for those of the Dehlinite persuasion to grasp: but, hypothetically speaking, if someone chooses to call him or herself a Mormon, and then preens him or herself on how much smarter he or she is than all the actual believing and practicing Latter-day Saints because he or she has decided to follow the world instead, then he or she is using the "Mormon" label rather carelessly.

And if he or she is actively opposing the Church and attacking its truth claims, then his or her actions are rather intentionally contrary to his or her claimed ideals.

Not merely falling short -- we all do that -- but intentionally contrary thereto.

I think that rather satisfactorily answers the definition of hypocrisy.

Regards,

Pahoran

I'm more interested in rodheadlee's response since he made the accusation.  And I am not asking for a hypothetical based on your personal understanding and approval of the title "Mormon".

But I'll respond to you...

Where has Colvin claimed to be smarter than all the other active and believing Latter-day Saints?

As a side note, when you refer to me as being of the "Dehlinite Persuasion" what do you mean by that? I just want to know if I should feel complimented.

Edited November 5, 2014 by rockpond

[mormonnewb]

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."

 

What I have trouble understanding is why believing that JS erred with regards to either the institution or implementation of polygamy is such a hard thing for Mormons to swallow.  My native tribe reveres Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  In fact, I would say that we venerate him as much as the saints venerate JS and perhaps more, because while many Mormons have pictures (or facsimiles thereof) of JS in their homes, I grew up with a bust of MLK in our living room (a bust that would scare the life out of me when I walked past it in the middle of night on the way to the bathroom).

 

Anywho, despite our love and respect for MLK, we are not shaken by his infidelities.  Nor do we commission our brightest intellectuals to write multi-part volumes to create plausible scenarios that his affairs were ordained of God.  We simply say, "That's too bad about those affairs, but I'm sure enjoying all of this equality.  Thanks, Martin!"

 

What would be so wrong about some of the saints taking the same view about JS?  "That's too bad about that whole polygamy thing, but I'm really blessed by all this priesthood and soul-saving ordinances.  Thanks, Joseph!"

 

Why must Joseph be (practically) perfect to be a prophet?  And why is it first-degree apostasy for someone to think it is more likely than not that he wasn't perfect?  Or in the case of the OP, why does such a conclusion make one a sanctimonious apostate?

[tonie]

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.

 

Is it possible to defend the Church without knowingly and willingly generating revenue for critics? Is it possible to defend the Church without causing others to inadvertantly generate revenue for critics?

 

 

But go ahead and enjoy your gloating.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

 

Speaking of this particular woman and gloating, here is what someone else has said:

 

"Congratulations, Darren! She banned me, too. I regard it as a badge of honour."

Edited November 5, 2014 by tonie

[Silhouette]

Rockpond, I realise this is a difficult concept for those of the Dehlinite persuasion to grasp: but, hypothetically speaking, if someone chooses to call him or herself a Mormon, and then preens him or herself on how much smarter he or she is than all the actual believing and practicing Latter-day Saints because he or she has decided to follow the world instead, then he or she is using the "Mormon" label rather carelessly.

And if he or she is actively opposing the Church and attacking its truth claims, then his or her actions are rather intentionally contrary to his or her claimed ideals.

Not merely falling short -- we all do that -- but intentionally contrary thereto.

I think that rather satisfactorily answers the definition of hypocrisy.

Regards,

Pahoran

Well said.

[JLHPROF]

Why must Joseph be (practically) perfect to be a prophet?  And why is it first-degree apostasy for someone to think it is more likely than not that he wasn't perfect?  Or in the case of the OP, why does such a conclusion make one a sanctimonious apostate?

 

Because if Joseph was an unrepentant adulterer from his Kirtland days then EVERYTHING he restored after that, from the sealing keys to the temple endowment, to eternal marriage to an awful lot of theology would be suspect.

 

God does not tolerate sin, and would NOT allow an adulterer into his presence, let alone continue to restore truth through him.

You may be able to accept that Joseph had an adulterous affair with Fanny Alger in 1834 and received the sealing keys from resurrected prophets and was visited by the Savior in 1836, but it simply would not have happened.

And that's the end of Mormonism.

[rodheadlee]

I understand the definition of the word.

I'm asking what basis you are using for accusing her of hypocrisy. If you can't back up the statement, perhaps you should consider retracting it.

It's an opinion, I don't have to retract it. She pretends to love the Church but actively tears it down in her blog, In the OP she tears down the founding Prophet and teaches this to our youth I ask you can good fruit come from a bad tree?  If she believes JS is a bad tree then why is she in the Church?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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've heard this before, but I really can't see how this is true. Given that it was Joseph's practice of polygamy that got him killed, I'm not sure how his follower's would have tolerated anything with less spiritual backing than polygamy. Perhaps you can elucidate? 

 

People often talk about the infrequency of Joseph's relations with his wives as evidence that it wasn't about sex. This may be the case, but given the secrecy and Emma's (and the relief society's) vigilance could be said to be equally responsible for the lack of sex.

[Calm]

But they may have been willing to forgive the common practice of adultery if he had been caught because that was more socially acceptable for men at the time than marrying more than one wife.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

But they may have been willing to forgive the common practice of adultery if he had been caught because that was more socially acceptable for men at the time than marrying more than one wife.

Forgive adultery once? Sure. Forgive it over and over and over again? I doubt it. As JLHPROF has laid out, an unrepentant adulterer could not continue to receive God's revelations. Again, I'm not saying that he instigated polygamy to get some action on the side. I just find the argument "that if Joseph Smith wanted just wanted sex he could have done a MUCH better job of it than he did." lacking. I just don't see it.

[omni]

If no sex was involved and these were simply dynastic in nature, why all the secrecy? There is zero reason for secrecy in purely dynastic sealings. If you are getting sealed to a fourteen year old girl or another man's wife, why not make it perfectly clear to all parties involved (Emma, husbands, parents) that it will not involve relations?

Or better yet, why not completely avoid the very appearance of evil and create your dynastic sealing with the husband or father instead of married women and young girls?

[JLHPROF]

If no sex was involved and these were simply dynastic in nature, why all the secrecy? There is zero reason for secrecy in purely dynastic sealings. If you are getting sealed to a fourteen year old girl or another man's wife, why not make it perfectly clear to all parties involved (Emma, husbands, parents) that it will not involve relations?

Or better yet, why not completely avoid the very appearance of evil and create your dynastic sealing with the husband or father instead of married women and young girls?

 

I believe sex was involved in some (not all - Helen Kimball for instance) of Joseph's plural marriages.  I think to say otherwise is naive.  The last commandment a couple are given in the marriage ceremony is to multiply and replenish the earth.  Joseph would have tried to fulfill that, just as he tried to fulfill all the laws, rites and ordinances of marriage by living plural marriage.

Now, DNA says Joseph was unsuccessful, but considering he probably only roomed with a few of his plural wives and even that only once or twice each, that doesn't mean the attempt wasn't made.

I think we try to differentiate too much between Nauvoo plural marriage and the later Utah plural marriage.  I don't see a distinction except one was in secret and the other was in the open.  I don't believe Joseph's plural marriages in the 1840s were any different than those in the 1850s, 1860s, 1870s, 1880s, and that they were just the same as those in the 1890s and 1900's - secret.  Joseph attempted to live plural marriage just as those who did later in Utah lived it.  He just had to tread more carefully.

 

I think trying to explain away Joseph's plural marriages as different (dynastic, non-sexual, eternity only, sealings - not marriages) is to make us feel better for some reason and has no bearing on what actually happened.

[Tacenda]

Good questions Omni. And I'll add that Section 132 doesn't mention for dynastic reasons. And interesting that the D&C 132 was added shortly after he takes Helen as a wife. Btw, it wasn't common at all to have young wives, look at other members in Smith's family they were older.

[JLHPROF]

Good questions Omni. And I'll add that Section 132 doesn't mention for dynastic reasons. And interesting that the D&C 132 was added shortly after he takes Helen as a wife. Btw, it wasn't common at all to have young wives, look at other members in Smith's family they were older.

 

If you access the temple records in Nauvoo it was actually quite common to have young wives.  There are MANY such marriage performed in Nauvoo.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Polygamy_book/Age_of_wives

 

Joseph's percentage of wives in their teen years was less than the series percentage of teen wives in Kirtland, Nauvoo, or the 1850 U.S. census, even among men his own age. If anything, Joseph married a greater percentage of older women, which suggests that motives other than sexual attraction drove these matches.

 

So tired of this nonsense about Joseph and "young girls".  It's utter B.S.

Edited November 5, 2014 by JLHPROF

[omni]

Good questions Omni. And I'll add that Section 132 doesn't mention for dynastic reasons. And interesting that the D&C 132 was added shortly after he takes Helen as a wife. .

 

Correct, in fact I'm not aware of any scriptural or doctrinal support for dynastic sealings.

[omni]

If you access the temple records in Nauvoo it was actually quite common to have young wives.  There are MANY such marriage performed in Nauvoo.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Polygamy_book/Age_of_wives

 

So tired of this nonsense about Joseph and "young girls".  It's utter B.S.

 

I've stated this before and I will keep repeating it, it is church doctrine that moral standards don't change over time or due to societal acceptance/disapproval.  

 

We will hold to the principles and laws and ordinances of the gospel. If they are misunderstood either innocently or willfully, so be it. We cannot change; we will not change the moral standard. We quickly lose our way when we disobey the laws of God. If we do not protect and foster the family, civilization and our liberties must needs perish. –Boyd K Packer

 

 

It's perfectly acceptable to engage in premarital relations and is in fact practiced by the vast majority of the world's population today. Does that then make it acceptable before God?  Why is it an unchanging moral standard to not get past 2nd base before marriage, talk dirty, wear modest clothing, etc. but when it comes to 38 year old men marrying 14 year old girls it's a moral standard that can change with societal acceptance?

[rockpond]

It's an opinion, I don't have to retract it. She pretends to love the Church but actively tears it down in her blog, In the OP she tears down the founding Prophet and teaches this to our youth I ask you can good fruit come from a bad tree?  If she believes JS is a bad tree then why is she in the Church?

 

So her being a hypocrite and only pretending to love the church is just your opinion.  Got it.  Is that the way we talk about people on these boards?  I thought we'd rise above that here.

 

Do you believe it's possible to love the Church, to believe in the restoration and Joseph Smith's role as prophet while still believing that he was mistaken in his practice of polygamy?

 

I do.

[JLHPROF]

 

  Why is it an unchanging moral standard to not get past 2nd base before marriage, talk dirty, wear modest clothing, etc. but when it comes to 38 year old men marrying 14 year old girls it's a moral standard that can change with societal acceptance?

 

I don't believe it IS a moral standard that changed.  The whole concept of 18 being adult enough to marry is a 20th century societal concept and has no bearing on morality from God whatsoever.

 

Basically - you're getting it backwards.  The moral standard wasn't wrong for the first 5900 years of the earth.  The moral standard for the last 100 years is arbitrary and comes from society, not God.  There is no sin in marrying a 15 year old.  There never has been.

Mary the mother of Christ, who had God's child was about 13 at the time and was engaged to Joseph.  Clearly God had no issue with a married 13 year old giving birth.

 

When we say Joseph did something wrong because morals don't change, what we forget is that our current societal morals ARE the change.

 

Accusing Joseph Smith of violating some moral standard by marrying a 14 year old is 100% B.S.

Edited November 5, 2014 by JLHPROF

[The Nehor]

I've stated this before and I will keep repeating it, it is church doctrine that moral standards don't change over time or due to societal acceptance/disapproval.  

Then Joseph could have married his sister, like the first children of Adam and Eve did. After all, moral standards do not change just because society disapproves of them.

[Nevo]

What would be so wrong about some of the saints taking the same view about JS?  "That's too bad about that whole polygamy thing, but I'm really blessed by all this priesthood and soul-saving ordinances.  Thanks, Joseph!" Why must Joseph be (practically) perfect to be a prophet?

 

Here is some sage counsel from Brother Brigham:

 

I recollect a conversation I had with a priest who was an old friend of ours, before I was personally acquainted with the Prophet Joseph. I clipped every argument he advanced, until at last he came out and began to rail against 'Joe Smith'. . . . I said, hold on, brother Gillmore, here is the doctrine, here is the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the revelations that have come through Joseph Smith the Prophet. I have never seen him, and do not know his private character. The doctrine he teaches is all I know about the matter, bring anything against that if you can. As to anything else I do not care. If he acts like a devil, he has brought forth a doctrine that will save us, if we will abide it. He may get drunk every day of his life, sleep with his neighbor's wife every night, run horses and gamble, I do not care anything about that, for I never embrace any man in my faith. But the doctrine he has produced will save you and me, and the whole world; and if you can find fault with that, find it. He said, 'I have done.'

 

It is the fashion in the world to embrace men in their faith, or a fine meeting house, or a genteel congregation, thinking, 'O, what perfect order, and how pretty they look; how straight they walk to meeting, and how long their faces are during the services; how pretty that deacon looks under the pulpit; the people are so pretty, the meeting house is so nice, that we want to join such a pretty people.' Such feelings will take a people to hell. Embrace a doctrine that will purge sin and iniquity from your hearts, and sanctify you before God, and you are right, no matter how others act. (JD 4:77–78)

 

Where Joseph is concerned, I take the good with the bad. Like many who knew him well, I can truthfully say that he did things that I do not approve of—such as publicly denouncing Sarah Pratt as a "whore from her mother's breast" after she spurned his marriage proposal, faking revelations, abusing his authority, etc.—but I also believe that he was a Prophet of God who produced saving doctrines. And, despite his rough edges, I feel great affection and admiration for the man.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Nevo

[Pahoran]

Yeah, I'm curious how LDS respond to what may appear to them as the hybridization of their faith; the OP is really just a smear

 

No it isn't.  Clearly you don't know what a "smear" is.

 

and indicates to me that you believe she is a sheep in wolf's clothing

A sheep in wolf's clothing? Really?

 

and deserving of ridicule and derision. But others here (LDS) don't see her in that light and are actually sympathetic.

And that's up to them.

 

If she's a menace to the church and needs to be shut up,

Who said anything about shutting her up? I certainly didn't.

You made that up.

Out of whole cloth.

As you do.

I'm simply refuting her calumnies. Something that cannot be done on her blog.

 

Not some "challengers" on the internet. If, on the other hand, there is room under the LDS tent for these types of questions, what do you gain by slamming her?

• She's not asking "questions," she's proselyting for her views; and
• I'm not "slamming her," I'm refuting her calumnies.

Try to get it right.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited November 5, 2014 by Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Is it possible to defend the Church without knowingly and willingly generating revenue for critics? Is it possible to defend the Church without causing others to inadvertantly generate revenue for critics?

 

 

 

Speaking of this particular woman and gloating, here is what someone else has said:

 

"Congratulations, Darren! She banned me, too. I regard it as a badge of honour."

 

Which isn't anything like gloating.

 

But Tonie, I thought you were ignoring me.  Why stop now, when it's doing me so much good?

 

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited November 5, 2014 by Pahoran