Let's just say the Angel with a drawn sword story is true

[Gray]

19 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I think you are missing the point of the gospel. It is about spiritual death - not physical death. The sword represents the word. Not following the word brings spiritual death or a fall from eternal life. If Joseph chose not to follow the command, I doubt he would have been physically killed. He would have experienced spiritual death and another would have been chosen in his stead. Each has 2 backups in heaven. 

Well, we just can't ignore human psychology because it's theologically inconvenient.

The thing about threats of spiritual death is that they're not imminent and no one can be certain that they're "real" per se. A being threatening you with a flaming sword is altogether different. 

I don't see anything to indicate from the stories that the angel was not threatening physical death, though.  We may choose to reinterpret the story, of course.

Edited March 11, 2016 by Gray

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't see anything to indicate from the stories that the angel was not threatening physical death, though.  We may choose to reinterpret the story, of course.

It seems that's how at least Zina (and others) interpreted it.  Here's her statement 

" [Joseph] sent word to me by my brother, saying, ''Tell Zina I put it off and put it off till an angel with a drawn sword stood by me and told me if I did not establish that principle upon the earth, I would lost my position and my life.'" 

[USU78]

36 minutes ago, Gray said:

Death is a consequence of being alive. But threatening someone with imminent death creates a coercive situation where agency is essentially absent. 

Define "essentially" as employed herein.

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, cdowis said:

Since you are obviously a self-proclaimed expert on the limits of the power of God, perhaps you can help us understand something ==>>

1. What entity was more powerful than God that we no longer practice the United Order and forced Him to change it to Tithing.

2. If you are having difficulty with that one, perhaps an easy question will help you -->> 
to determine whether the church is in apostasy, do we practice polygamy today?  (Really, are you certain?)

Nothing personal, but I don't think you are as clever as you think you are..... but I could be wrong.

I think you are missing my point entirely.

1:  I don't proclaim to be an expert on God and what God can and cannot do, God's power, etc.   That seems more the venue of the believers here who keep saying God wants us or told us to do this, that or some other thing.

2:  To me at least It seems likely that God had nothing to do at all with the establishment or the abandonment of polygamy.  Likely the same with both of your questions above.

 

 

 

[RevTestament]

33 minutes ago, Gray said:

Well, we just can't ignore human psychology because it's theologically inconvenient.

The thing about threats of spiritual death is that they're not imminent and no one can be certain that they're "real" per se. A being threatening you with a flaming sword is altogether different. 

I don't see anything to indicate from the stories that the angel was not threatening physical death, though.  We may choose to reinterpret the story, of course.

Was Emma physically "destroyed?" The church she was responsible for founding will be destroyed. 

I am not "reinterpreting" the story. I am merely interpreting it within the confines of the gospel. If you want to "reinterpret" that to mean the angel was going to chop off his head with the sword, I can't stop you of course.

[canard78]

On 5 March 2016 at 4:30 PM, USU78 said:

Are you suggesting my great grandfather was a liar when he reported a similar incident concerning the same doctrine?

Can you share a bit more detail?

Being related to him doesn't really make it any more credible. 

All of the angel/sword accounts are second hand. It's easy for folk stories to become assumptions over time and in the retelling of it. Not with any intent to deceive but just as a natural function of memories and recalling them. 

[consiglieri]

3 minutes ago, canard78 said:

Can you share a bit more detail?

Being related to him doesn't really make it any more credible. 

All of the angel/sword accounts are second hand. It's easy for folk stories to become assumptions over time and in the retelling of it. Not with any intent to deceive but just as a natural function of memories and recalling them. 

A good example of which would be the story that developed of Brigham Young assuming Joseph Smith's appearance and voice when he spoke to the saints as to why the apostles should take over leadership of the Church during the succession crisis.

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I think you are missing my point entirely.

I don't think so.

 I don't proclaim to be an expert on God and what God can and cannot do, God's power, etc.   That seems more the venue of the believers here who keep saying God wants us or told us to do this, that or some other thing.

To me at least It seems likely that God had nothing to do at all with the establishment or the abandonment of polygamy.  Likely the same with both of your questions above.

OK, thanks for your honesty.  It was simply an attempt to be so very clever while trash talking Mormons and their beliefs.  A polite way of pointing out their deep and profound ignorance of the "real" world.
Will keep that in mind in the future.

 

Edited March 11, 2016 by cdowis

[JLHPROF]

54 minutes ago, canard78 said:

Being related to him doesn't really make it any more credible.

I'm not sure why we are looking for credibility in a discussion of spiritual visions.

How exactly do you prove someone's spiritual witness didn't happen?
If Joseph said an angel appeared with a drawn sword, either it did or it didn't.  This is not something that can be proved as credible or not.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Here’s my logic.  God is good.  For me, a characteristic of  a good God is one who appreciates and acknowledges the fundamental equality of human souls, who values men and women of various races and classes equally and who wants these diverse people to have equal opportunities to lead, inspire, direct, etc.  Because polygyny makes women expendable members of the marriage, because it entails a woman being cut out from parts of her husband’s heart and life in a way that hers is not necessarily cut off from his, it is not a system compatible with the principle of equality.

[Teancum]

28 minutes ago, cdowis said:

OK, thanks for your honesty.  It was simply an attempt to be so very clever while trash talking Mormons and their beliefs.  A polite way of pointing out their deep and profound ignorance of the "real" world.
Will keep that in mind in the future

Mr Dowis, I am still and have been a Mormon all my life.  Clearly I am currently a very skeptical Mormon even though I still participate actively. I don't claim to KNOW what God would or would not do because God has not told me directly and am skeptical of those who claim God tells them what they should be telling others to do.

There are many reasons why that I have talked about here but they are not received well for the most part so I do try to avoid bringing them up.   Suffice it to say there is still much I value in Mormonism, many teachings I really like whether they are from God or not, and many I don't whether from God or not.   The topic of polygamy and polyandry rate right at the top of that I do not like.

[canard78]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm not sure why we are looking for credibility in a discussion of spiritual visions.

How exactly do you prove someone's spiritual witness didn't happen?
If Joseph said an angel appeared with a drawn sword, either it did or it didn't.  This is not something that can be proved as credible or not.

I wasn't talking about Joseph. I'm interested in where the story came from. 

Whether Joseph saw the angel or not is not really something that's testable beyond faith. 

Instead I'm interested in the evidence that he told people he'd seen one. I'm also interested in where the story originates and then evolves. 

So the question I was asking of credibility was about how credible it is that the relative of the poster actually heard Joseph relate the angel experience or whether he's relating a story he heard someone else tell. 

[USU78]

1 hour ago, canard78 said:

Can you share a bit more detail?

Being related to him doesn't really make it any more credible. 

All of the angel/sword accounts are second hand. It's easy for folk stories to become assumptions over time and in the retelling of it. Not with any intent to deceive but just as a natural function of memories and recalling them. 

You need to read more of the thread so I don't have to repeat myself.

Happy hunting!

[USU78]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

A good example of which would be the story that developed of Brigham Young assuming Joseph Smith's appearance and voice when he spoke to the saints as to why the apostles should take over leadership of the Church during the succession crisis.

Sorry to disappoint another nonreader of the entire thread, but this comes from his journal, not some grandchild's remembrance of an overheard conversation 30 years after the events in question and reported 50 years after the events in question.

[Gray]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Was Emma physically "destroyed?" The church she was responsible for founding will be destroyed. 

I am not "reinterpreting" the story. I am merely interpreting it within the confines of the gospel. If you want to "reinterpret" that to mean the angel was going to chop off his head with the sword, I can't stop you of course.

Zina said it said it had to do with Joseph losing his life.

Now obviously angels don't actually appear or cut people down with swords, but that seemed to be the idea that was being conveyed at the time. 

[consiglieri]

18 minutes ago, Gray said:

Zina said it said it had to do with Joseph losing his life.

Now obviously angels don't actually appear or cut people down with swords, but that seemed to be the idea that was being conveyed at the time. 

One wonders what would have been the point of the sword otherwise.

[USU78]

9 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

One wonders what would have been the point of the sword otherwise.

It's not like it's unheard of:  I add Elisha and the unseen army to the lists in other posts, above, of Bliblical instances of angels with swords  ...  as well as the vision of the Logan Temple President of the angels in warrior tack with weapons protecting the Temple.

[consiglieri]

12 minutes ago, USU78 said:

It's not like it's unheard of:  I add Elisha and the unseen army to the lists in other posts, above, of Bliblical instances of angels with swords  ...  as well as the vision of the Logan Temple President of the angels in warrior tack with weapons protecting the Temple.

I could be wrong about this, but sometimes it seems like a full-time job coming up with ways of explaining LDS stories in a manner different from what appears to have been the original intent.

But the machinery cranks into gear only when the commonly accepted understanding of the story falls into disrepute.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

A good example of which would be the story that developed of Brigham Young assuming Joseph Smith's appearance and voice when he spoke to the saints as to why the apostles should take over leadership of the Church during the succession crisis.

That is well-attested by numerous documented first-hand accounts. See Lynne Jorgensen's chapter in John Welch's compilation Opening the Heavens

There have been a number of threads on this topic here on this board over the years. Here is one of them. There are posts on that threat that link to prior ones.

Suffice it to say that your a priori dismissal of the accounts is neither probative nor compelling.

And it is yet another example of a critic of the Church making a reckless claim without taking cognizance of responses that have already been given. You and Mr. Wagon appear to be kindred spirits in this respect.

Edited to add:

Here's an updated link to the BYU Studies article that Lynne Jorgensen's book chapter was based on in Opening the Heavens. Click on the "Read Online Free" link.

Edited March 11, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Zina said it said it had to do with Joseph losing his life.

Now obviously angels don't actually appear or cut people down with swords, but that seemed to be the idea that was being conveyed at the time. 

I am sure the angel intended to be persuasive. Joseph also essentially related that polygamy needed to be accepted to be exalted, but scripture doesn't indicate anything of the sort from a temporal standpoint. What one's impressions are do not necessarily correspond to the truth.

[USU78]

38 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I could be wrong about this, but sometimes it seems like a full-time job coming up with ways of explaining LDS stories in a manner different from what appears to have been the original intent.

But the machinery cranks into gear only when the commonly accepted understanding of the story falls into disrepute.

Ain't in disrepute with any member I've encountered  ...  other than here.

[consiglieri]

27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That is well-attested by numerous documented first-hand accounts. See Lynne Jorgensen's chapter in John Welch's compilation Opening the Heavens

There have been a number of threads on this topic here on this board over the years. Here is one of them. There are posts on that threat that link to prior ones.

Suffice it to say that your a priori dismissal of the accounts is neither probative nor compelling.

And it is yet another example of a critic of the Church making a reckless claim without taking cognizance of responses that have already been given. You and Mr. Wagon appear to be kindred spirits in this respect.

Edited to add:

Here's an updated link to the BYU Studies article that Lynne Jorgensen's book chapter was based on in Opening the Heavens. Click on the "Read Online Free" link.

Did you mention that absolutely none of those "first-hand accounts" were written anywhere near contemporaneous to the event purported to be described?

Or that at least one of them was written by a person who claimed to have been present but actually was in a different state at the time?

Or that absolutely none of the first-hand accounts contemporaneously recorded mention anything miraculous in the proceedings?

Why do apologists tend to leave out such salient facts?

Is it because they hope the other side won't know and their position will seem stronger than it is in reality?

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Did you mention that absolutely none of those "first-hand accounts" were written anywhere near contemporaneous to the event purported to be described?

This is all hashed out in the thread(s) I linked to. Read the thread. And read the Jorgensen article. Then, we can talk.

Quote

Or that at least one of them was written by a person who claimed to have been present but actually was in a different state at the time?

Read the thread. And read the article. Then we'll talk.

Quote

Or that absolutely none of the first-hand accounts contemporaneously recorded mention anything miraculous in the proceedings?

Read the threads. And the article. There is no reason to assume that everyone present had that spiritual experience. Those who recorded the accounts you refer to might not have had it. Or, at the time, they might have thought it too sacred to talk about.

Quote

Why do apologists tend to leave out such salient facts?

Why do you mouth off here without reading what has been linked to?

By the way, here is an earlier thread linked to in the thread that I previously posted. Read them both. You don't know as much as you think you do.

 

 

Edited March 11, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[consiglieri]

27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is all hashed out in the thread(s) I linked to. Read the thread. And read the Jorgensen article. Then, we can talk.

Read the thread. And read the article. Then we'll talk.

Read the threads. And the article. There is no reason to assume that everyone present had that spiritual experience. Those who recorded the accounts you refer to might not have had it. Or, at the time, they might have thought it too sacred to talk about.

Why do you mouth off here without reading what has been linked to?

By the way, here is an earlier thread linked to in the thread that I previously posted. Read them both. You don't know as much as you think you do.

 

 

Before I read any more than I have already on the subject, please make one thing clear.

Are there any claims I made that are disputed by any of the accounts?

I.e., Are there any accounts recorded contemporaneously with the event that mention anything miraculous? 

(It doesn't sound like it because you are hedging on the issue in the part I bolded above.)

If there are any contemporaneously recorded accounts that do mention the transfiguration of Brigham Young into Joseph Smith's face or voice, please just copy and paste it.

I will stand corrected.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Before I read any more than I have already on the subject, please make one thing clear.

Are there any claims I made that are disputed by any of the accounts?

I.e., Are there any accounts recorded contemporaneously with the event that mention anything miraculous? 

(It doesn't sound like it because you are hedging on the issue in the part I bolded above.)

If there are any contemporaneously recorded accounts that do mention the transfiguration of Brigham Young into Joseph Smith's face or voice, please just copy and paste it.

I will stand corrected.

There are reasonable considerations and possibilities as to why accounts weren't recorded until later. Many people don't record significant events in their lives until long after the fact.

In other words, lack of contemporaneously recorded accounts is not as definitive as you seem to claim in your dismissal of the accounts that do exist.

If you refuse to read the Jorgensen article ("mind made up; don't confuse me with facts") just own up to that refusal now, but stop trying to convince us you know more than you actually do.