Do We Know When The Angel With The Sword Appeared To Joseph?

[stemelbow]

Just now, Tacenda said:

Just didn't like that both books were available at one time, but no longer.

I gotcha.  I agree.  It's too bad. 

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

For instance, can you point to any place where Jeanne said anything like "she had no idea what she was talking about when she spoke about JS and her beliefs, that her husband was evil, and that you know better than her about what was really going on."  Because your claim is that she had repeatedly said this.  Just now she just clarified "Her husband wasn't evil" but again you said she's claimed he was repeatedly. 

In all honesty I wouldn't blame her for feeling attacked. 

I already answered this but i'll do so again.  Jeanne (and she's not the only one) has said at different times, in the name of protecting emma and supporting her, that JS was immoral and a con artist, pulled the wool over Emma's eyes, manipulated her (something that Emma couldn't see but Jeanne does), was a bad husband, and wasn't worthy of her.

None of those things are bad to think about JS (i might disagree with them but i don't have a problem that that's how some people see the situation).  

My issue is the idea that we can think those things about JS (both as a man and as a prophet), and Emma's weakness concerning their relationship, and yet still think that we supporting Emma.  I know how i would feel about anyone who said these kinds of things about my husband or our relationship and it probably wouldn't be very friendly.  

Because Emma went to her death bed proclaiming that JS was a prophet, that she loved him and wanted to be with him, and believed mormonism to be everything Joseph said it was, i think we deny her voice and her right to speak for herself when we say bad things about her husband or her marriage and imply that we know more about what kind of a marriage it was and what kind of a man JS was than she does, in the name of being her friend.  

Quote

From what I have seen it appears to me you were unfair to her in your criticisms and whenever that happens the person whose position is being criticized often feels personally attacked. 

I disagreed with her but i don't believe i was unfair, and i've explained myself above.  Sometimes we (and i'm talking about myself as much as anyone else) feel attacked even when the disagreement is 'fair'.

Edited March 2, 2017 by bluebell

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I already answered this but i'll do so again.  Jeanne (and she's not the only one) has said at different times, in the name of protecting emma and supporting her, that JS was immoral and a con artist, pulled the wool over Emma's eyes, manipulated her (something that Emma couldn't see but Jeanne does), was a bad husband, and wasn't worthy of her.

None of those things are bad to think about JS (i might disagree with them but i don't have a problem that that's how some people see the situation).  

My issue is the idea that we can think those things about JS (both as a man and as a prophet), and Emma's weakness concerning their relationship, and yet still think that we supporting Emma.  I know how i would feel about anyone who said these kinds of things about my husband or our relationship and it probably wouldn't be very friendly.  

Because Emma went to her death bed proclaiming that JS was a prophet, that she loved him and wanted to be with him, and believed mormonism to be everything Joseph said it was, i think we deny her voice and her right to speak for herself when we say bad things about her husband or her marriage and imply that we know more about what kind of a marriage it was and what kind of a man JS was than she does in the name of being her friend.  

I disagreed with her but i don't believe i was unfair, and i've explained myself above.  Sometimes we (and i'm talking about myself as much as anyone else) feel attacked even when the disagreement is 'fair'.

Hi bluebell,  I essentially issued a cfr where Jeanne said what you claimed.  I didn't ask for more explanation of why you feel justified in characterizing her position as something she doesn't seem to agree with.  

So when did Jeanne say what you said she repeatedly said?  

[bcuzbcuz]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

There is no way to practice polygamy and monogamy at the same time so that seems like an irrelevant argument.   

I agree with your statement but not your conclusion. Yes, they are mutually exclusive. It's just that Emma had her eyes on monogamy and Joseph had his eyes on other women. Not irrelevant in my opinion.

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I agree with your statement but not your conclusion. Yes, they are mutually exclusive. It's just that Emma had her eyes on monogamy and Joseph had his eyes on other women. Not irrelevant in my opinion.

Or Emma had her eyes on Joseph and Joseph had his eyes on God.
I guess we see what we want to see.

[bsjkki]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't think it was right for JS to lie (at least not to emma) but I'm not going to argue about his motives.  Either way, JS didn't believe that he was guilty of adultery even if he was a polygamist.  

Can you give me a reference for this quote?  I've found one that is similar but it doesn't say 'when i can only find one.'  I'm wondering if you are trying to remember the quote from memory or if i just haven't found the right one yet.

http://ia600300.us.archive.org/7/items/HistoryOfTheChurchOfJesusChristOfLatter-daySaints1902-Volume6/history_of_the_church_vol_6.pdf  pg 411

Edited March 2, 2017 by bsjkki

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Or Emma had her eyes on Joseph and Joseph had his eyes on God.
I guess we see what we want to see.

Or Emma had her eyes on God then Joseph and Joseph had his eyes on something else then God then Emma.  But since we can't really determine intent on this, we might as well not leave the impression that Joseph was purely looking to God first and Emma was not. 

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Hi bluebell,  I essentially issued a cfr where Jeanne said what you claimed.  I didn't ask for more explanation of why you feel justified in characterizing her position as something she doesn't seem to agree with.  

So when did Jeanne say what you said she repeatedly said?  

I set out to do this CFR and actually spent quite a bit of time gathering different quotes going back to last year so far, and then i just decided, this is not a good idea.  I don't want this to become all about Jeanne and i don't want to have a long post devoted solely to her thoughts and beliefs about Joseph Smith and his role as a husband and a prophet.  I feel like it becomes too personal at that point and will do more harm than good.

Given that, i would rather retract.  I disagree with what i perceived to be Jeanne's treatment of Emma because I know from experience with friends that speaking ill of someone's well-loved husband does not make them feel supported, but If i have misunderstood Jeanne, i apologize.

 

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I agree with your statement but not your conclusion. Yes, they are mutually exclusive. It's just that Emma had her eyes on monogamy and Joseph had his eyes on other women. Not irrelevant in my opinion.

Maybe not irrelevant, but definitely a matter of perspective, as JLHProf explained.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I set out to do this CFR and actually spent quite a bit of time gathering different quotes going back to last year so far, and then i just decided, this is not a good idea.  I don't want this to become all about Jeanne and i don't want to have a long post devoted solely to her thoughts and beliefs about Joseph Smith and his role as a husband and a prophet.  I feel like it becomes too personal at that point and will do more harm than good.

Given that, i would rather retract.  I disagree with what i perceived to be Jeanne's treatment of Emma because I know from experience with friends that speaking ill of someone's well-loved husband does not make them feel supported, but If i have misunderstood Jeanne, i apologize.

 

Good move.  Thanks.

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Or Emma had her eyes on God then Joseph and Joseph had his eyes on something else then God then Emma.  But since we can't really determine intent on this, we might as well not leave the impression that Joseph was purely looking to God first and Emma was not.

It's amazing how many thread posts there are judging Joseph's intent, but if anyone suggests Emma had the wrong focus there are objections.
I choose to take them both at their word.
 

[clarkgoble]

There's fair evidence that Emma knew of Fanny Algers. She apparently didn't know of the marriage in 1841. In 1843 she briefly accepted the principle then rejected it again and fought against it. I tend to agree that one could easily read the angelic appearance as a condemnation for how Joseph was doing things (which in the details were also quite against D&C 132). Even if one thinks there was a real revelation behind it all the way Joseph in Nauvoo and then later in Utah most of the church attempted to implement the policy was pretty indefensible (IMO). But we have to distinguish I think between what God commands and how people go about implementing it.

[Calm]

14 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Don't fret, Tacenda.  Who goes to book stores anymore?  Get a copy from Amazon or another online source.  it may end up putting Deseret book out of business at some point, but that'd be their fault. 

Bookstores tend to order older books based on not quality, but if they have been selling.  If no one goes and asks for a book for several months,they can't afford to keep it on the shelves.  If you asked if you could special order it and they refused to do that,that would say something possibly significant.  

Edited March 3, 2017 by Calm

[bcuzbcuz]

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Or Emma had her eyes on Joseph and Joseph had his eyes on God.
I guess we see what we want to see.

I quess we see what we WANT to see. You said it.

[bcuzbcuz]

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It's amazing how many thread posts there are judging Joseph's intent, but if anyone suggests Emma had the wrong focus there are objections.
I choose to take them both at their word.
 

That is certainly your bias and then you have made a choice based on that bias. I recognize the behaviour. I did it myself when I was a TBM. When I gained some perspective to the actions of JS (and I don't think perspective is a strong point of members thoroughly entrenched in the doctrines of the church, all you see are trees) I started to see the forest.

Emma never had a visitation from an angel with a flaming sword. Joseph said he did. (I know you have tried to make the point that although he was threatened with a flaming sword, Joseph still had his free will, but your explanation falls short of the mark)  Joseph has said, "I didn't want to do it (polygamy) but they made me do it."

Joseph's explanations for his behaviour, although they include angelic visitations and heavenly threats, are really quite similar to unrepentant men caught breaking their marriage vows. The unrepentant always try to shift blame away from themselves. (Have you ever listened to the confessions of adulterers? I have). It sounds a lot like, "I broke my vows because she............"

Joseph's explanation was, " I broke my vows because.........." 

[Jeanne]

On 3/2/2017 at 0:48 PM, bluebell said:

I set out to do this CFR and actually spent quite a bit of time gathering different quotes going back to last year so far, and then i just decided, this is not a good idea.  I don't want this to become all about Jeanne and i don't want to have a long post devoted solely to her thoughts and beliefs about Joseph Smith and his role as a husband and a prophet.  I feel like it becomes too personal at that point and will do more harm than good.

Given that, i would rather retract.  I disagree with what i perceived to be Jeanne's treatment of Emma because I know from experience with friends that speaking ill of someone's well-loved husband does not make them feel supported, but If i have misunderstood Jeanne, i apologize.

 

Bluebell, I sent you out a PM but it wouldn't take.  No apology necessary.  I will try and write you again.  Hugs...Jeanne

[JLHPROF]

On Friday, March 03, 2017 at 3:22 AM, bcuzbcuz said:

Joseph's explanation was, " I broke my vows because.........."

No, the recognition was that vows made by God's authority carry more weight than those made by the state.

[Calm]

On 2017-03-03 at 3:22 AM, bcuzbcuz said:

That is certainly your bias and then you have made a choice based on that bias. I recognize the behaviour. I did it myself when I was a TBM. When I gained some perspective to the actions of JS (and I don't think perspective is a strong point of members thoroughly entrenched in the doctrines of the church, all you see are trees) I started to see the forest.

Iow, it is not that you have perspective and they don't, but rather you have your bias and they have theirs so you and they are looking in two different ways and thus seeing two different things.  Is a microscope inherently better than the naked eye?  For seeing somethings, yes; others, no.  Sometimes the most important thing is to see the trees, other times it is the forest.

Edited March 7, 2017 by Calm

[bcuzbcuz]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Iow, it is not that you have perspective and they don't, but rather you have your bias and they have theirs so you and they are looking in two different ways and thus seeing two different things.  Is a microscope inherently better than the naked eye?  For seeing somethings, yes; others, no.  Sometimes the most important thing is to see the trees, other times it is the forest.

Well, apart from mixing metaphors, your comparison of using a microscope as compared to the naked eye still won't help a person see the forest for the trees. You're still stuck amongst the trees, only now you're examining the bark. A telescope wouldn't help that much either. You'd still just be getting a blurred view of the same trees.

I'm saying you have to step out from amongst the trees in order to know if you're standing in a copse or a small clump of trees left in a clear-cut. If your journey is long, then maybe you can stand outside the forest to know that you have spent your life only looking at the trees.

I was responding to the comment that in viewing the statements by Joseph Smith to those of Emma regarding polygamy, that JLHPROF preferred to take both Joseph and Emma "at their word". But their words were contradictory. As a TBM it is not difficult to take JS at his word. That is standard.

To take Emma at her word, you need to stand outside the forest, view it through entirely different glasses. If that isn't possible, then you need to view Emma's words as those from the hurt party in a disclosure of infidelity. She wasn't taking Joseph "at his word". She heard what he was saying, but interpreted them as words from a man trying to justify his disloyal behaviour. Even when shown the written "revelation" she refused to accept Joseph "at his word". Even when Hyrum came to Joseph's defence, Emma only heard Joseph's words but from a different mouth. She still didn't buy it.

You, Calm, have not disclosed your gender in your profile. If you're a woman, imagine hearing from your husband. "God has told me I can take many wives. And I have. I was meaning to tell you earlier, but it all happened so suddenly. God wanted it done right away, otherwise he was going to kill me. So far I've married four women." And that number would rise to above 30.

Or if you're a man, imagine the discussion between you and your wife. She says, "God has threatened to kill me if I didn't marry a whole bunch of men, so I have. So far I've married four men. There will be more. Hope you're not too upset. But remember, God told me to do it."

Is your response going to be, "Well, OK, then. I'm fine with that, as long as it was God who told you to do it."?