ALarson Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Jeanne said: 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? Well, the trouble is, she already knew he'd been with other women prior to hearing the story. It was probably a big eye role for her (to put it mildly). But even then, I think she loved him and tried to believe in him She even approved of a few of his marriages....temporarily. . Edited March 7, 2016 by ALarson
JLHPROF Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 1 hour ago, Gray said: Yes, death threats would drastically reduce agency to the point of it essentially not existing. Again, not how agency works.
Jeanne Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) 11 minutes ago, ALarson said: Well, the trouble is, she already knew he'd been with other women prior to hearing the story. It was probably a big eye role for her (to put it mildly). But even then, I think she loved him and tried to believe in him She even approved of a few of his marriages....temporarily. . I agree. She loved him so much. At some point, peace in a home would have to triumph. Without Joseph so much of the time, she probably made the best of things when she could. Edited March 7, 2016 by Jeanne
Gray Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 22 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Again, not how agency works. com·pul·sion noun 1. the action or state of forcing or being forced to do something; constraint. "the payment was made under compulsion" Compulsion exists, right? 1
JLHPROF Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Gray said: com·pul·sion noun 1. the action or state of forcing or being forced to do something; constraint. "the payment was made under compulsion" Compulsion exists, right? Sure, but agency is not removed by the implementation of a consequence. One can always choose and face the consequence. Edited March 7, 2016 by JLHPROF 1
USU78 Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 49 minutes ago, Alan said: Yeah...... right. Sorry, don't believe that. Not for one monent. That's your privilege. Mine is to believe the contemporaneous report by the man most affected by the event. Angels exist. They perform a function. Lower case a abrahamic tests occurred and continue to occur. 1
stemelbow Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 What would an angel do with a sword? Come down and kill mortals? Seems silly on the face of it. 1
Guest Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 On March 5, 2016 at 0:42 AM, 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. Of course not, he could have chosen death. Some would argue when heavenly visions that gives us commandments, would cost us of salvation, which is far worse than one's moral life. There are other stories in the Bible, BoM and so on that speak of angelic visitations where such warning are giving. Besides, to my mind death would be perfered over polygamy. Even when Bigham was told that he was called to live this commandment, who seeing a man being carried to his grave felt envy for him...so distraught did he feel about polygamy. Others like Oliver Cowdrey left the Church over the issue. Polygamy in the Bible was always a disaster for the most part, if not all parts. God has his reasons, but would rather it never be practiced, as the Book of Jacob strongly condemns the act without God's approval. Had I been Joseph, I would have chosen death...which would be better than breaking my wife's heart.
JLHPROF Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 11 minutes ago, stemelbow said: What would an angel do with a sword? Come down and kill mortals? Seems silly on the face of it. The sword is most likely symbolic of their authority. The angel with the drawn sword would not likely have used the sword to end Joseph's life. But it sure impressed upon Joseph that the angel had the authority and the ability to do so if Joseph refused to follow the Lord.
stemelbow Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 Just now, JLHPROF said: The sword is most likely symbolic of their authority. The angel with the drawn sword would not likely have used the sword to end Joseph's life. But it sure impressed upon Joseph that the angel had the authority and the ability to do so if Joseph refused to follow the Lord. Sounds a little more reasonable. I want to know the production process of swords in the hereafter. Particularly if those swords are handled by those in spirit bodies.
Gray Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 22 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Sure, but agency is not removed by the implementation of a consequence. One can always choose and face the consequence. It's not technically removed - you can technically choose to die. But the agency is reduced to the point where it doesn't meaningfully exist. 1
ALarson Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 16 minutes ago, stemelbow said: What would an angel do with a sword? Come down and kill mortals? Seems silly on the face of it. This is what I was just thinking when reading this thread. Was it an actual sword or was it a spiritual sword? Was it just symbolic or could it inflict real harm to Joseph?
JLHPROF Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 2 minutes ago, Gray said: It's not technically removed - you can technically choose to die. But the agency is reduced to the point where it doesn't meaningfully exist. Then perhaps God doesn't work by agency as much as we like to pretend. Because I can give you dozens of examples of God reducing agency in the same was as Joseph and the drawn sword.
Gray Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) 31 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Then perhaps God doesn't work by agency as much as we like to pretend. Because I can give you dozens of examples of God reducing agency in the same was as Joseph and the drawn sword. Yes, it should make as reevaluate how we might interpret those stories. Edited March 7, 2016 by Gray
JLHPROF Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 2 minutes ago, Gray said: Yes, it should make as reevaluate how we might interpret those stories. I knew you'd say that. But if you don't believe the scriptures to be accurate descriptions of God's application of agency, then at the same time you have to accept that the scriptures may not also be correct in their exaltation of the agency principle. Perhaps agency isn't as important to God if you don't accept scripture. Can't have it both ways. Either scripture is true and God both prizes agency AND is recorded doing things that seem to remove agency (meaning we don't understand the principle correctly). OR the scripture is merely man-made and it is just as likely that God doesn't actually value our agency as it is that the stories of restricted agency are false.
Calm Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 1 hour ago, Gray said: It's not technically removed - you can technically choose to die. But the agency is reduced to the point where it doesn't meaningfully exist. B. b So does someone who faces the choice of running into a burning building to save someone at great risk to their own life or to stay put and be safe have a lot of agency or very little? 1
T-Shirt Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 Why do people have such a problem with the angel with the sword? Is it that you don't believe in angels or is it the sword that makes it so incredible? Would you believe the story if they just got rid of the silly sword thing? Or is the real issue plural marriage that you just can't seem to justify, no matter what? 4
VideoGameJunkie Posted March 8, 2016 Author Posted March 8, 2016 3 minutes ago, T-Shirt said: Why do people have such a problem with the angel with the sword? Is it that you don't believe in angels or is it the sword that makes it so incredible? Would you believe the story if they just got rid of the silly sword thing? Or is the real issue plural marriage that you just can't seem to justify, no matter what? I think a lot of people don't feel an angel would threaten someone with destruction if they didn't take on more wives. 1
JLHPROF Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 26 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: I think a lot of people don't feel an angel would threaten someone with destruction if they didn't take on more wives. A lot of people are wrong then.
cdowis Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 3 hours ago, ALarson said: This is what I was just thinking when reading this thread. Was it an actual sword or was it a spiritual sword? Was it just symbolic or could it inflict real harm to Joseph? Famous last words -->> "Wow, it looks real but maybe it has a very dull blade. Let me check it out."
cinepro Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 I guess on this subject we have to choose who acted more nobly when threatened with "destruction" in the face of polygamy: Joseph or Emma? 2
JLHPROF Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 25 minutes ago, cinepro said: I guess on this subject we have to choose who acted more nobly when threatened with "destruction" in the face of polygamy: Joseph or Emma? Really? Nobility aside, which one did the will of God?
cdowis Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 Both of them, but with differing degrees of reluctance.
Alan Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 13 hours ago, USU78 said: That's your privilege. Mine is to believe the contemporaneous report by the man most affected by the event. Angels exist. They perform a function. Lower case a abrahamic tests occurred and continue to occur. I notice your great-grandmother didn't have the dream. I wonder why?
JLHPROF Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Alan said: I notice your great-grandmother didn't have the dream. I wonder why? Because she wasn't the presiding priesthood authority for the family. Same reason the Relief Society President doesn't get revelation for the Church. I'm sure she could have her own witness though, just like Vilate Kimball. Edited March 8, 2016 by JLHPROF
Recommended Posts