What if Joseph didn't practice plural marriage?

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Alan said:

Deceived and mistaken are not the same thing and I'm pretty sure you know that. 

I think they certainly can be.  Many times we make mistakes based on believing the wrong sources or people (salesmen for example) and we’re tricked or deceived and then mistaken with our beliefs.  Mistakes are made for all different reasons and deception can be a cause of being mistaken (not always though).  But if was just an innocent mistake (by the leaders), doesn’t that mean they didn’t do their homework and just are unknowingly mistaken?

Which do you think happened with the leaders and the Nauvoo polygamy essay?

Did the leaders today trust the wrong sources?  Maybe they believe in the sworn statements and believe what the church members wrote and said about Joseph living polygamy (including believing Prophets like Brigham Young).  Wouldn’t that mean you believe the leaders today were deceived if they believe what you say are untruths?  

Edited May 6, 2018 by JulieM

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, Alan said:

Deceived and mistaken are not the same thing and I'm pretty sure you know that. Please desist from putting words in my mouth.

When I said "mistaken" that is exactly what I meant.

In other words, you think you know better than the leaders you believe were called, chosen, anointed, and ordained to be prophets, seers, and revelators?  You don't think that's a problem? 

[Alan]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

So, do you believe they've looked at all of the evidence, records, journals, affidavits, etc., and just come to the wrong conclusions?

No, I don't think they have done that.

[Alan]

29 minutes ago, ttribe said:

In other words, you think you know better than the leaders you believe were called, chosen, anointed, and ordained to be prophets, seers, and revelators?  You don't think that's a problem? 

Well, why not? They obviously believe others know more than they do on the subject or they would have written the essays themselves.

[Jeanne]

7 minutes ago, Alan said:

Well, why not? They obviously believe others know more than they do on the subject or they would have written the essays themselves.

I love this...because in so many ways it rings true!!!  Don't anybody nag me for this comment...I am so smiling!!  It rings true to whatever side of the fence you're on.

Edited May 6, 2018 by Jeanne

[ttribe]

27 minutes ago, Alan said:

Well, why not? They obviously believe others know more than they do on the subject or they would have written the essays themselves.

Funny. Good luck with that.

[Alan]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Funny. Good luck with that.

The fact is I was in a meeting with President Nelson in October 2016 when he told us the essays were coming, that they (the leaders) are not experts in these matters, and that for this reason they had comissioned experts (historians etc) in the field to write them.

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, Alan said:

The fact is I was in a meeting with President Nelson in October 2016 when he told us the essays were coming, that they (the leaders) are not experts in these matters, and that for this reason they had comissioned experts (historians etc) in the field to write them.

Do you think they would have allowed them to be posted if they believed they conflicted with official doctrine or official positions on Church history? 

[Marginal Gains]

14 minutes ago, Alan said:

The fact is I was in a meeting with President Nelson in October 2016 when he told us the essays were coming, that they (the leaders) are not experts in these matters, and that for this reason they had comissioned experts (historians etc) in the field to write them.

The Church started publishing the essays in 2013.

https://mormonessays.com/

Edited May 6, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Alan said:

The fact is I was in a meeting with President Nelson in October 2016 when he told us the essays were coming, that they (the leaders) are not experts in these matters, and that for this reason they had comissioned experts (historians etc) in the field to write them.

And, you’re ok with that?  With the church leaders putting their signature on something for members to believe that they haven’t received a confirmation and testimony of for themselves?

[Alan]

10 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

The Church started publishing the essays in 2013.

https://mormonessays.com/

That's right. He was pointing out there were more to come on some of the issues we raised in the question and answer session.

But the point is he was unable to answer some questions because he didn't know, but assured us the church leadership knew they didn't know and were addressing it through the essays..... if that makes sense.

[Alan]

9 hours ago, JulieM said:

And, you’re ok with that?  With the church leaders putting their signature on something for members to believe that they haven’t received a confirmation and testimony of for themselves?

No, not particularly.

I would much prefer revelation on the the subject.

[Marginal Gains]

12 hours ago, Alan said:

The fact is I was in a meeting with President Nelson in October 2016 when he told us the essays were coming, that they (the leaders) are not experts in these matters, and that for this reason they had comissioned experts (historians etc) in the field to write them.

 

12 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

The Church started publishing the essays in 2013.

https://mormonessays.com/

 

2 hours ago, Alan said:

That's right. He was pointing out there were more to come on some of the issues we raised in the question and answer session.

But the point is he was unable to answer some questions because he didn't know, but assured us the church leadership knew they didn't know and were addressing it through the essays..... if that makes sense.

Which essays have been published after your meeting with President Nelson in October 2016?

[ALarson]

20 hours ago, Alan said:

No, I don't think they have done that.

Do you believe they prayed about what the historians presented to them (in the form of an essay) before they published it as a representation of their beliefs?

Edited May 7, 2018 by ALarson

[Alan]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Do you believe they prayed about what the historians presented to them (in the form of an essay) before they published it as a representation of their beliefs?

I have no idea.

[ttribe]

17 minutes ago, Alan said:

I have no idea.

Let's say they did and they claim they have revelatory reason to believe the essays are accurate; where does that leave you?

[Alan]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Let's say they did and they claim they have revelatory reason to believe the essays are accurate; where does that leave you?

Let's say they didn't and they don't claim they have revelatory reason to believe the essays are accurate; where does that leave you?

[SouthernMo]

Coming late to this thread.  Maybe someone has already shared this, but the Community of Christ believes Joseph Smith did not practice polygamy.  The general belief (as I understand it) is that Brigham Young did, and that a polygamous history for Joseph Smith was inserted to legitimize his claim on the succession in leadership.

http://restorationbookstore.org/jsfp-index.htm

While I can only say what I have read (I haven't turned to original sources myself), it seems that the Community of Christ history is a bit of a stretch.  There would need to be a lot of conspiring and altering of written histories for this to be true.

Does anyone have solid evidence that helps them formulate a perspective?

[ttribe]

14 minutes ago, Alan said:

Let's say they didn't and they don't claim they have revelatory reason to believe the essays are accurate; where does that leave you?

First, I'm not the one claiming revelation in contradiction with official doctrine and history.

Second, I'll let you in on a little secret - I no longer claim belief in any of the Church's truth claims; so, I'm in a completely different category on all of this.

So, really your response is an attempt to dodge the question.  I find that informative in and of itself.

[Alan]

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

First, I'm not the one claiming revelation in contradiction with official doctrine and history.

Second, I'll let you in on a little secret - I no longer claim belief in any of the Church's truth claims; so, I'm in a completely different category on all of this.

So, really your response is an attempt to dodge the question.  I find that informative in and of itself.

Clearly you're not interested in finding the truth in this matter because you've already decided there isn't any. Therefore your question appears insincere at best.

Just mischief making methinks.

 

[ttribe]

12 minutes ago, Alan said:

Clearly you're not interested in finding the truth in this matter because you've already decided there isn't any. Therefore your question appears insincere at best.

Just mischief making methinks.

 

No.  I really want to know how you reconcile that.  It is your prerogative, of course, to dismiss my question, but I really would like to hear what you have to say.  From my perspective, I don't think you've really thought through all the ramifications of your position here.  I've asked you a few questions that you've dodged or tried to evade, now.  That just seems to confirm my suspicions.

[ALarson]

2 hours ago, Alan said:

I have no idea.

So you believe the leaders published something that represents their beliefs,  when they are not sure themselves that Joseph practiced polygamy?  The leaders know that most members will read this essay and believe it contains truths because it came from them (or at least with their approval).  

Do you believe this is occurring with other published teachings are well?

[ALarson]

50 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Coming late to this thread.  Maybe someone has already shared this, but the Community of Christ believes Joseph Smith did not practice polygamy.  The general belief (as I understand it) is that Brigham Young did, and that a polygamous history for Joseph Smith was inserted to legitimize his claim on the succession in leadership.

http://restorationbookstore.org/jsfp-index.htm

While I can only say what I have read (I haven't turned to original sources myself), it seems that the Community of Christ history is a bit of a stretch.  There would need to be a lot of conspiring and altering of written histories for this to be true.

Does anyone have solid evidence that helps them formulate a perspective?

Do you mean "solid evidence" to formulate the perspective that Joseph did not practice polygamy?

If that's what you mean, then the answer is that some who believe this, point to a lack of children born and also that Joseph publicly denied having plural wives.  Other than those two, I can't think of anything else.  And neither one of these is really "solid" evidence, IMO.  Joseph definitely could have lived polygamy and had no children from these unions and he also had reasons for the need to keep his polygamy from some members of the church and from the general public.

Edited May 7, 2018 by ALarson

[Alan]

33 minutes ago, ALarson said:

So you believe the leaders published something that represents their beliefs,  when they are not sure themselves that Joseph practiced polygamy?  The leaders know that most members will read this essay and believe it contains truths because it came from them (or at least with their approval).  

Do you believe this is occurring with other published teachings are well?

Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? When did I say they weren't sure themselves? I'm quite sure they believe as most of the rest of the church does. Why wouldn't they? They have grown up in the same church and religious culture as everyone else. They have probably never questioned the perceived truth.

Or are you claiming some kind of Papal style infallibility in matters of religious faith amongst the leadership? If so, maybe you could tell me who is right about Adam/God or race & priesthood, the current church leadership or a previous one?

In this regard imagine it's the 1860's and Brigham and the rest of the church leadership had an essay written and published to address concerns amongst the membership regarding the identity of God.

See the problem?

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, Alan said:

I'm quite sure they believe as most of the rest of the church does. Why wouldn't they? They have grown up in the same church and religious culture as everyone else. They have probably never questioned the perceived truth.

Well when they were growing up, much of what was in the essay was considered anti or false.  I have to believe the leaders wished a lot of the details in that essay had been able to have been proven false (or that they were anti-Mormon lies as many previously thought).  I can't imagine they didn't look at the sources and have to conclude the truth themselves (especially regarding Fanny Alger and other difficult details included in the essay).  I have to believe that essay wouldn't have been published without them making sure and believing it themselves.

Edited May 7, 2018 by ALarson