VideoGameJunkie Posted March 5, 2016 Posted March 5, 2016 The story of the Angel with a drawn sword is even mentioned in the lds essays. Let's just say for a minute that an angel asked Joseph to introduce plural marriage 3 times and on the 3rd time threatened Joseph with destruction if he didn't obey. Isn't that violating Joseph Smith's agency? Isn't it not giving him a choice to turn it down like he wanted to the previous 2 times the angel showed up? If an angel threatened me with destruction if I didn't do something, I would feel I wouldn't have a choice in the matter.
mrmarklin Posted March 5, 2016 Posted March 5, 2016 The destruction in the stated case is spiritual death. We are all under similar condemnation if we don't obey the commandments of the Lord.. we we still have our agency.
Calm Posted March 5, 2016 Posted March 5, 2016 1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said: The story of the Angel with a drawn sword is even mentioned in the lds essays. Let's just say for a minute that an angel asked Joseph to introduce plural marriage 3 times and on the 3rd time threatened Joseph with destruction if he didn't obey. Isn't that violating Joseph Smith's agency? Isn't it not giving him a choice to turn it down like he wanted to the previous 2 times the angel showed up? If an angel threatened me with destruction if I didn't do something, I would feel I wouldn't have a choice in the matter. Agency is making choices based on consequences, not being able to remove those consequences. Joseph had chosen to be prophet when given the opportunity and could have walked away from it a thousand times no doubt, so when God needed him to act in that role in certain ways, his choices by then were yes or no. A crucial role and likely a narrower path than the one we get to travel down, but perhaps it was easier in some ways to know at time so clearly his path. In one sense, as you get closer to God your freedom grows, you have more choices given you...potential for good grows, but also for bad; but since if you are seeking God, you are also seeking the best choice so that kind of narrows the wide field to a strait and narrow path. 3
Calm Posted March 5, 2016 Posted March 5, 2016 Do you want to be like God or don't you? Sometimes his instruction isn't pleasant because we have to face our fears and desires and be willing to laid them on the altar and say "thy Will be done". 3
The Nehor Posted March 5, 2016 Posted March 5, 2016 2 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: The story of the Angel with a drawn sword is even mentioned in the lds essays. Let's just say for a minute that an angel asked Joseph to introduce plural marriage 3 times and on the 3rd time threatened Joseph with destruction if he didn't obey. Isn't that violating Joseph Smith's agency? Isn't it not giving him a choice to turn it down like he wanted to the previous 2 times the angel showed up? If an angel threatened me with destruction if I didn't do something, I would feel I wouldn't have a choice in the matter. Considering the normal prophetic method in the Bible and Book of Mormon where threatening people with destruction is the norm this would mean prophets are the enemies of agency. 1
Ahab Posted March 5, 2016 Posted March 5, 2016 2 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: The story of the Angel with a drawn sword is even mentioned in the lds essays. Let's just say for a minute that an angel asked Joseph to introduce plural marriage 3 times and on the 3rd time threatened Joseph with destruction if he didn't obey. Isn't that violating Joseph Smith's agency? Isn't it not giving him a choice to turn it down like he wanted to the previous 2 times the angel showed up? If an angel threatened me with destruction if I didn't do something, I would feel I wouldn't have a choice in the matter. He could have chosen for the 3rd time to stick to his guns come hell or high water but he didn't like what he believed would have resulted from not obeying God for the 3rd time so he chose that time to do what the angel told him to do and... well, there you have it. He caved and accepted polygamy. It was still his choice either way, though. Satan would probably have denied the 3rd time as well, though, because of his sticktoitivity.
cdowis Posted March 5, 2016 Posted March 5, 2016 (edited) Bottom line: You clearly do not understand free agency. We choose our actions, but not the consequences. Edited March 5, 2016 by cdowis 1
USU78 Posted March 5, 2016 Posted March 5, 2016 10 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: The story of the Angel with a drawn sword is even mentioned in the lds essays. Let's just say for a minute that an angel asked Joseph to introduce plural marriage 3 times and on the 3rd time threatened Joseph with destruction if he didn't obey. Isn't that violating Joseph Smith's agency? Isn't it not giving him a choice to turn it down like he wanted to the previous 2 times the angel showed up? If an angel threatened me with destruction if I didn't do something, I would feel I wouldn't have a choice in the matter. Are you suggesting my great grandfather was a liar when he reported a similar incident concerning the same doctrine? 1
JLHPROF Posted March 5, 2016 Posted March 5, 2016 10 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: The story of the Angel with a drawn sword is even mentioned in the lds essays. Let's just say for a minute that an angel asked Joseph to introduce plural marriage 3 times and on the 3rd time threatened Joseph with destruction if he didn't obey. Isn't that violating Joseph Smith's agency? Isn't it not giving him a choice to turn it down like he wanted to the previous 2 times the angel showed up? If an angel threatened me with destruction if I didn't do something, I would feel I wouldn't have a choice in the matter. As everyone else said, agency doesn't mean no consequences. Joseph did have the choice to turn it down. Lucifer and the 1/3 part had agency. They chose. And God cast them out and ended their progression. Noah had the choice to build the ark. If he hadn't, he could have drowned. Joseph Smith had agency. Live plural marriage or be damned. Agency isn't violated by God giving commandments with blessings for keeping them or cursings for breaking them. Joseph's agency was NOT violated by this command. 2
cdowis Posted March 5, 2016 Posted March 5, 2016 19 minutes ago, USU78 said: Are you suggesting my great grandfather was a liar when he reported a similar incident concerning the same doctrine?. Very interesting footnote to church history. Is there an available link to your ggfather's story?
USU78 Posted March 5, 2016 Posted March 5, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, cdowis said: Very interesting footnote to church history. Is there an available link to your ggfather's story? His journal has never been published, to my knowledge : Charles Oscar Dunn Edited March 5, 2016 by USU78 Son, not father
rpn Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 I think it is the "drawn sword" point that raises the question. What is up with the Lord using that tactic? (But what if the angel was sent on the errand, and decided to do the sword thing as the most effective way --- mortals make the equivalent kinds of mistakes.)
JLHPROF Posted March 6, 2016 Posted March 6, 2016 49 minutes ago, rpn said: I think it is the "drawn sword" point that raises the question. What is up with the Lord using that tactic? (But what if the angel was sent on the errand, and decided to do the sword thing as the most effective way --- mortals make the equivalent kinds of mistakes.) What's up with God sending angels with drawn swords? Hmm...let's see: Genesis 3:24 - So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. Numbers 22:31 -Then the Lord opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the Lord standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face. I Chronicles 21:16 And David lifted up his eyes, and saw the angel of the Lord stand between the earth and the heaven, having a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem. Then David and the elders of Israel, who were clothed in sackcloth, fell upon their faces. Joshua 5: 13 ¶And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries? Revelation 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. History of the Church Vol 2:381 - Also, I saw Elder Brigham Young standing in a strange land, in the far south and west, in a desert place, upon a rock in the midst of about a dozen men of color, who appeared hostile. He was preaching to them in their own tongue, and the angel of God standing above his head, with a drawn Sword in his hand, protecting him, but he did not see it. Yeah, looks like God is just fine with his angels carrying swords.
JLHPROF Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 18 minutes ago, rpn said: Yes, but none of those threatened with the sword.
Gray Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 Yes, death threats would drastically reduce agency to the point of it essentially not existing.
USU78 Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 12 minutes ago, Gray said: Yes, death threats would drastically reduce agency to the point of it essentially not existing. Horsepuckey. There is always agency. You can't choose not to suffer the consequences of your choice, and you can't choose not to suffer expressed or implied punishments for choosing "wrong," but you can choose to submit or refuse to submit notwithstanding the threat. That was the point of Anouilh's Antigone. She chose to perform the burial rites notwithstanding the king's decree of death for anyone who disturbed the corpse of her dead brother. There is freedom in this, suffering the irrational and brutal in order to do what's right ... just as there is freedom in choosing to suffer the consequences of sin. 3
Popular Post USU78 Posted March 7, 2016 Popular Post Posted March 7, 2016 3 minutes ago, Alan said: There was no angel threat. The story is ridiculous. My great-grandfather, the Bishop of College Ward, reports that his wife was childless, and that both he and his wife wanted nothing to do with polygyny. He was advised, not commanded, by his stake president to take a second wife. They talked about it and decided against it. Thereupon he had his vision of the angel with the sword, who commanded him to comply, and offered a carrot: if they would agree, his wife would conceive. They tearfully agreed to do it, and before they got around to choosing a sister-wife, she became pregnant. Tell me my family is ridiculous. 5
JLHPROF Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 50 minutes ago, Alan said: There was no angel threat. The story is ridiculous. Yes, well you also don't believe Joseph was a polygamist, so why would you accept any other piece of history surrounding it.
Jeanne Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 55 minutes ago, Alan said: There was no angel threat. The story is ridiculous. I wanted to say this too..the whole thing is a sad story.
Alan Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 46 minutes ago, USU78 said: My great-grandfather, the Bishop of College Ward, reports that his wife was childless, and that both he and his wife wanted nothing to do with polygyny. He was advised, not commanded, by his stake president to take a second wife. They talked about it and decided against it. Thereupon he had his vision of the angel with the sword, who commanded him to comply, and offered a carrot: if they would agree, his wife would conceive. They tearfully agreed to do it, and before they got around to choosing a sister-wife, she became pregnant. Tell me my family is ridiculous. Yeah...... right. Sorry, don't believe that. Not for one monent.
ALarson Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 1 minute ago, Jeanne said: I wanted to say this too..the whole thing is a sad story. I agree. But, it did work for influencing some women to agree to marry Joseph. So, it was partially effective. I wonder what Emma thought of the story?
will227457 Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 59 minutes ago, Alan said: There was no angel threat. This...there was no angel, allegorical story to get his point across
Jeanne Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) 2 minutes ago, ALarson said: I agree. But, it did work for influencing some women to agree to marry Joseph. So, it was partially effective. I wonder what Emma thought of the story? She probably didn't know whether to laugh or cry. It was effective for Joseph's purposes but how could Emma possibly sit down and discuss this with them honestly? She kept getting hurt all the time..after awhile, it was to her advantage to take possession of some denial just to get through it all. Edited March 7, 2016 by Jeanne
Recommended Posts