Is The Church Ashamed Of The Prophet Joseph Smith?

[Senator]

So they're taking (and reacting to) a keyhole view of Church history, to apply Elder Oaks's analogy.

 

People can stomp their feet and blame the Church, but it's still a keyhole view.

 

It may very well be a keyhole view, one which the chuch actually may have had a part in determining its size.

[Coreyb]

I think you understand what I mean in drawing a distinction between impurity and imperfection.

I don't understand the difference, theologically speaking. Perhaps you could elaborate?

[Scott Lloyd]

You do know that the same can be said of you, don't you? (Having a keyhole view.)

 

What things would you like members to consider when learning that Joseph Smith married other men's wives when these men were active members of the church and could have been sealed to their own wives?

 

Where is Section 132 does it state polyandry of this sort is righteous and commanded by God?

See the link I just gave to JulieM.

 

Here it is again, if you need it.

[Scott Lloyd]

It may very well be a keyhole view, one which the chuch actually may have had a part in determining its size.

Are you saying the Church prevented people from reading and studying on their own?

 

I think you would have a tough time proving that.

[ALarson]

Look at it my statement in context. I meant guilty of wrongdoing in the heinous things people here are accusing him of.

What "heinous things" has Joseph been accused of here?  As far as I've seen, it's been pretty much information from the essays themselves.  Just wondering...

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't understand the difference, theologically speaking. Perhaps you could elaborate?

I mean that committing adultery or engaging in serial killing is worse on the heinousness scale than losing one's temper in an argument.

[ALarson]

See the link I just gave to JulieM.

 

Here it is again, if you need it.

I see nothing there covering polyandry.  

 

Here are my questions again:

 

What things would you like members to consider when learning that Joseph Smith married other men's wives when these men were active members of the church and could have been sealed to their own wives?

 

Where is Section 132 does it state polyandry of this sort is righteous and commanded by God?

[HappyJackWagon]

Do you have a link?

 

Or are you reluctant to disclose that you picked it up from an anti-Mormon website?

You asked for a reference and I provided it. You seem awful needy today.

 

The reference is what matters. But I'll cave to your gentle pursuasion and kind plea for help. http://scottwoodward.org/Talks/html/Smith,%20Joseph/SmithJ_Discourse_21May1843Discourse-2Peter.html

[Scott Lloyd]

What "heinous things" has Joseph been accused of here?  As far as I've seen, it's been pretty much information from the essays themselves.  Just wondering...

Would you like me to give you the link I just shared with JulieM and ALarson?

 

Here it is.

[stemelbow]

I think you understand what I mean in drawing a distinction between impurity and imperfection.

Not at all. If Joseph was pure, it was only because of Christ. If anyone is ever pure, it is because of Christ. Your claim about God needing an pure vessel doesn't work in this, because Christ makes us pure, after (not because of) whatever we do.

Edited April 15, 2015 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

Look at it my statement in context. I meant guilty of wrongdoing in the heinous things people here are accusing him of.

What are those? Are you alluding to my comments about Joseph taking advantage of his authority and position?

 

Being guilty of levity or joviality (see Joseph Smith -- History) is a far different matter than infidelity, deception, gross sexual sin, etc.

And yet deception is a well-attested activity of Joseph a time or two. Indeed, I doubt there is a soul that has ever lived, except Jesus, that has not deceived another.

[Scott Lloyd]

You asked for a reference and I provided it. You seem awful needy today.

 

The reference is what matters. But I'll cave to your gentle pursuasion and kind plea for help. http://scottwoodward.org/Talks/html/Smith,%20Joseph/SmithJ_Discourse_21May1843Discourse-2Peter.html

Thank you.

 

Reading the quote in context, I see it was as I thought. Joseph was acknowledging his own imperfection, not admitting to gross wrongdoing.

 

This reminds me of the incident in which Christ deflected the compliment "good Master," saying one was good, and that was His Father.

 

The difference, of course, is that Christ was indeed perfect.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

Would you like me to give you the link I just shared with JulieM and ALarson?

 

Here it is.

He was accused of marrying teenagers?  Well, that is true isn't it?  

 

Why say that's a heinous accusation?

[Scott Lloyd]

Not at all. If Joseph was pure, it was only because of Christ. If anyone is ever pure, it is because of Christ. Your claim about God needing an impure vessel doesn't work in this, because Christ makes us pure, after (not because of) whatever we do.

One can be pure in intent and obedience without having yet achieved perfection.

[Senator]

Are you saying the Church prevented people from reading and studying on their own?

 

I think you would have a tough time proving that.

Of course not.

 

But it's obvious to me that the church is now aware, that the keyhole view that it offered the membership of its own history, may not have been bored out enough. Hence the very visible presence of the new essays.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Senator

[Scott Lloyd]

He was accused of marrying teenagers?  Well, that is true isn't it?  

 

Why say that's a heinous accusation?

Have you examined the link yet? Do you intend to?

[ALarson]

He was accused of marrying teenagers?  Well, that is true isn't it?  

 

Why say that's a heinous accusation?

 

(I haven't really seen Helen Mar Kimball being discussed here either and that's what your link is referencing.)

Scott, the link you're giving is discussing Helen Mar Kimball....was that what you meant to link to?

 

My question was about polyandry.

Edited April 15, 2015 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

 

He was accused of marrying teenagers?  Well, that is true isn't it?  

 

Why say that's a heinous accusation?

 

(I haven't really seen Helen Mar Kimball being discussed here either and that's what your link is referencing.)

 

That's not all it's referencing.

 

You haven't bothered to read it yet, have you? All you've done is glance at it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Of course not.

 

But it's obvious to me that the church is now aware, that the keyhole view that that it offered the membership of its own history, may not have been bored out enough. Hence the very visible presence of the new essays.

The essays do nothing more than highlight information that was readily available before to those interested enough to seek it.

[stemelbow]

One can be pure in intent and obedience without having yet achieved perfection.

Only by Christ is purity achieved, Scott. or are you disagreeing with that?

[Scott Lloyd]

Only by Christ is purity achieved, Scott. or are you disagreeing with that?

You're arguing semantics.

 

I don't have time for your game playing. Not with the gang attack I'm fending off just now.

[Coreyb]

I mean that committing adultery or engaging in serial killing is worse on the heinousness scale than losing one's temper in an argument.

I think that some sins are worse in that they are more difficult to make restitution for, but all sin makes one impure. If we consult Jesus on the matter I think we will find that both put us in an equally precarious position

21 ¶Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

[ALarson]

That's not all it's referencing.

 

You haven't bothered to read it yet, have you? All you've done is glance at it.

Where does it discuss polyandry on that page?

 

Where does it discuss where polyandry is included in Section 132?  Those are my questions.

 

If that's all you have, I'll take that as you admitting polyandry is not in Section 132 and that Joseph Smith was not commanded to marry other men's wives.

[stemelbow]

You're arguing semantics.

 

I don't have time for your game playing. Not with the gang attack I'm fending off just now.

It's the crux of what we were talking about, that started this whole thing to me. But, you are dealing with a lot of responses, and others are more worth responding to than me, so have at it.

But if it dies down, please take me into consideration. I'm not putting a time limit on whether or not you want to discuss these ideas further.

[ALarson]

The essays do nothing more than highlight information that was readily available before to those interested enough to seek it.

Obviously most member missed the "readily available" information.  Of course it was "out there" if one was willing to dig deep enough, but most haven't done that.  

 

But keep blaming the members if you'd like.  It doesn't change the fact that many are learning the details of Joseph's polygamy and polyandry for the first time when they read the essays.