Callings given to imperfect human beings

[Ahab]

19 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I think you point out something important here.  I have to say that when I read that definition, it changed my mind about what I said earlier (that coercion was used with Helen Mar Kimball).  I was thinking it meant just persuading or applying some pressure.

But I do see coercion used with the angel and the sword and also in the scriptures to Emma. 

i suppose we just have different ideas about what coercion is, or what it would look like in a particular situation.

If you're not afraid of God at all, or of death at all, and were to see an angel with a sword standing in front of you while telling you to do something and that if you refused to do it he would then kill you, then I would say you should do whatever you feel is right, of course.

And that is the advice I would give to anybody in any situation whatever.

I would not be intimidated by an angel with a sword, and I am not afraid of God doing something bad to me because my intent is to always do his will, or in other words, what I feel is the right thing for me to do regardless of whatever situation I am ever in.

Edited September 5, 2019 by Ahab

[JulieM]

18 hours ago, Ahab said:

i suppose we just have different ideas about what coercion is, or what it would look like in a particular situation.

If you're not afraid of God at all, or of death at all, and were to see an angel with a sword standing in front of you while telling you to do something and that if you refused to do it he would then kill you, then I would say you should do whatever you feel is right, of course.

And that is the advice I would give to anybody in any situation whatever.

I would not be intimidated by an angel with a sword, and I am not afraid of God doing something bad to me because my intent is to always do his will, or in other words, what I feel is the right thing for me to do regardless of whatever situation I am ever in.

I don’t think a person needs to be afraid or intimidated in order for there to be an attempt at coercing them.  

 

[Tacenda]

18 hours ago, Ahab said:

i suppose we just have different ideas about what coercion is, or what it would look like in a particular situation.

If you're not afraid of God at all, or of death at all, and were to see an angel with a sword standing in front of you while telling you to do something and that if you refused to do it he would then kill you, then I would say you should do whatever you feel is right, of course.

And that is the advice I would give to anybody in any situation whatever.

I would not be intimidated by an angel with a sword, and I am not afraid of God doing something bad to me because my intent is to always do his will, or in other words, what I feel is the right thing for me to do regardless of whatever situation I am ever in.

One needs to be careful though, how do we know the angel with a drawn sword is not from the dark side, or a spirit not from God? 

ETA: BTW, why weren't the older members given this lesson, isn't this recent and just for the seminary students?!? https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-seminary-teacher-manual-2014/section-6/lesson-140-doctrine-and-covenants-132-1-2-34-66?lang=eng

Edited September 6, 2019 by Tacenda

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

One needs to be careful though, how do we know the angel with a drawn sword is not from the dark side, or a spirit not from God? 

An evil spirit appearing to Joseph Smith and threatening his life unless he obeys a previously-given commandment from God?  To what end?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

An evil spirit appearing to Joseph Smith and threatening his life unless he obeys a previously-given commandment from God?  To what end?

Thanks,

-Smac

CFR on previously given commandment from God. Or are you talking about the Jacob verses in the BoM. Which btw, would negate JS from going to the Lord in the first place.

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

An evil spirit appearing to Joseph Smith and threatening his life unless he obeys a previously-given commandment from God?  To what end?

I don't believe that God has ever commanded anyone to live polygamy.  And most especially not to use threats of destruction if they didn't marry additional women that may involve deceit and betraying your  loving wife.

Edited September 6, 2019 by ALarson

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

CFR on previously given commandment from God. 

We've been down this path (or discussion) here many times.  There is no record of God ever commanding polygamy prior to when Joseph made his claims (or that don't come from scripture through him).

As I've stated many times, the closest we have is with the Levirate marriages....but polygamy is not specifically commanded there.  Some of those marriages may have involved plural wives (their brother's wife if he'd passed away and their own wife IF they were married).

Edited September 6, 2019 by ALarson

[smac97]

18 hours ago, Ahab said:

i suppose we just have different ideas about what coercion is, or what it would look like in a particular situation.

Yes, that is the conclusion I'm coming to.  Because of my legal training, I view "coercion" as innately bad.  God may command, or punish.  But I don't think we can say that God will coerce.

Consider a situation where God commands someone to take another person's like (Nephi slaying Laban being the most obvious example).  The taking of a human life can be characterized in a number of ways:

• To take a human life.
• To cause another person's death.
• To shed blood.
• To lynch a person.
• To massacre.
• To slay.
• To butcher.
• To off a person.
• To rub out a person.
• To assassinate.
• To execute.
• To kill.
• To murder.
• To commit homicide.
• To commit manslaughter.

These have varying meanings and connotations, even though they all ultimately describe the same act.  But the differences in meaning and nuance and connotation are very significant. 

Audie Murphy on the battlefield did not commit "murder," as such a word is not reasonably applied to by-the-rules-of-war killing during World Ward II. 

Ted Bundy was not "lynched."  He was executed in accordance with the law.

Nephi could be said to have "cause{d} {Laban's} death," or "shed {Laban's} blood," or "sla{in} {Laban}," or "kill{ed} Laban."  But "lynch" or "murder" or some other based-on-having-an-evil-motive descriptor will not work.

For me, "coercion" is a based-on-having-an-evil-motive descriptor.  Therefore I cannot attribute it to God.  Therefore I cannot agree that God coerces us.

18 hours ago, Ahab said:

I would not be intimidated by an angel with a sword, and I am not afraid of God doing something bad to me because my intent is to always do his will, or in other words, what I feel is the right thing for me to do regardless of whatever situation I am ever in.

I think I would be intimidated at an angel with a sword.  

Scared, even.  A lot.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

We've been down this path (or discussion) here many times.  There is no record of God ever commanding polygamy prior to when Joseph made his claims (or that don't come from scripture through him).

As I've stated many times, the closest we have is with the Levirate marriages....but polygamy is not specifically commanded there.  Some of those marriages may have involved plural wives (their brother's wife if he'd passed away and their own wife IF they were married).

Yes we have, been through many threads, that's why I asked for references. I'd be surprised if Smac found something. The Levirate scripture passages definitely don't cut it for me.

[smac97]

On 9/6/2019 at 9:29 AM, Tacenda said:

Quote

An evil spirit appearing to Joseph Smith and threatening his life unless he obeys a previously-given commandment from God?  To what end?

Thanks,

-Smac

CFR on previously given commandment from God.

See here (emphases added):

Quote

When polygamy was introduced into the Latter Day Saint movement is uncertain.

Some scholars believe that Smith transcribed a revelation recommending polygamy on July 17, 1831. This alleged revelation is described in a letter to Brigham Young written in 1861 by an early Mormon convert, William W. Phelps.
...
A note from Phelps in the same document explains how the conversion of the Native Americans coincided with Smith's plan for a new system of marriage:

Quote

About three years after this was given {i.e., about 1834}, I asked brother Joseph, privately, how "we," that were mentioned in the revelation could take wives of the "natives" as we were all married men? He replied instantly "In the same manner that Abraham took Hagar and Keturah; and Jacob took Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpah; by revelation—the saints of the Lord are always directed by revelation.

...
Though the 1831 revelation is cited by Mormon historians, non-Mormon historians, and critics, there are dissenting opinions, and no consensus has been reached.
...
After Smith's death, many early converts, including apostles Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, and Lyman E. Johnson, said that Smith was teaching plural marriage as early as 1831 or 1832. Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner, Smith's ninth wife claimed that Smith had a private conversation with her in 1831 when she was twelve.
...
Pratt reported that Smith told some early members in 1831 and 1832 that plural marriage was a true principle, but that the time to practice it had not yet come.  Johnson also claimed to have heard the doctrine from Smith in 1831. Mosiah Hancock reported that his father Levi W. Hancock was taught about plural marriage in the spring of 1832.  

So the gist of this seems to put revelations about polygamy in the early 1830s.

Next, let's see here (emphases added):

Quote

This article examines some twenty different reminiscences that recount Joseph Smith’s encounters with a sword-bearing angel who commanded him to establish the practice of plural marriage in Nauvoo, Illinois, in the early 1840s (see Appendix).

The historical record indicates that Joseph Smith contracted his first plural marriage in 1835 or 1836 in Kirtland, Ohio, with Fanny Alger.
...
In Illinois, Joseph Smith began to reconsider previous doctrines only partially revealed. His February 16, 1832, revelation spoke of the celestial kingdom and eternal “priests and kings” unto God (see D&C 76:50–70, 92–96), but no details were given concerning the possibility of eternal “priestesses and queens” or eternal marriage.  Neither was polygamy, as he had once practiced in Kirtland, mentioned. As Richard L. Bushman has noted, “After this one unsuccessful attempt” of polygamous marriage with Fanny Alger, Joseph Smith “waited another five years."  The delay showed an uncharacteristic reluctance, hard for one who feared God. . . . Joseph never wrote his personal feelings about plural marriage. . . . Everything on the subject comes from the people around him. But surely he realized that plural marriage would inflict terrible damage, that he ran the risk of wrecking his marriage and alienating his followers.”

Multiple documents support that Joseph Smith was hesitant to revisit the practice of plural marriage in Nauvoo. Helen Mar Kimball Whitney stated that “had it not been for the fear of His {the Lord’s} displeasure, Joseph would have shrunk from the undertaking and would have continued silent, as he did for years.”  She also said that “Joseph put off the dreaded day as long as he dared.”   Lucy Walker reported that Joseph “had his doubts about it for he debated it in his own mind.”

So in the face of multiple anxieties, what might have prompted Joseph Smith to move forward personally and once again marry polygamously and teach others to do likewise? Several writers left accounts from the Nauvoo period that Joseph told of an angel with a sword who threatened him if he did not proceed.

The "Nauvoo period" was from 1839 to 1847, and hence well after the 1831-1832 timeframe in which polygamy was apparently revealed, and also the "early 1833" timeframe in which Joseph Smith purportedly married Fanny Alger.

Per Richard L. Bushman:

Quote

Joseph ordinarily followed the commandments punctiliously, as if disobedience put him at risk.  In the case of plural marriage, he held off for two or three years before marrying Fanny Alger, and then after this one unsuccessful attempt, another five years.  The delay showed an uncharacteristic reluctance, hard for one who feared God. In some of Joseph's revelations the Lord speaks as a friend, but in others with a voice of thunder.   

Joseph waiting "two or three years" before marrying Alger (in early 1833) jibes with the 1831-ish timeframe noted above (Bushman is likely relying on the same historical sources for this). 

The "five years" reference pertains to Lucinda Harris, whom he purportedly married in 1838.  However, "historians Richard Lloyd Anderson and Scott H. Faulring dismiss this claim as being based on 'no solid evidence'" (though Compton, whom Bushman follows, believes this marriage occurred).

Anyway, Hales and Don Bradley surmise that the Angel-with-a-Sword incident (or, if there were multiple such incidents, then one of them) happened around 1843:

Quote

Researcher Don Bradley argues that contemporary evidence for at least some of the elements can be identified. Assistant or Associate President and Church Patriarch Hyrum Smith did not accept the principle of plural marriage until May 26, 1843.   In the weeks just prior, he and others plotted to entrap Nauvoo polygamists, possibly not realizing that Joseph was one of them.  Levi Richards recorded a portion of Hyrum’s May 14 discourse:

Quote

I attended meeting at the temple in the afternoon. Hyrum Smith addressed the people . . . . He said there were many that had a great deal to say about the ancient order of things as Solomon and David having many wives and concubines, but it is an abomination in the sight of God. If an angel from heaven should come and preach such doctrine, some would be sure to see his cloven foot and cloud of darkness over head, though his garments might shine as white as snow. A man might have one wife but concubines he should have none.

Bradley theorizes that this 1843 quotation may have been referring to the same sword-wielding angel, but without mentioning the sword. 

Hales also quotes Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner as providing some somewhat specific dates for the incident:

Quote

Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner reported that the Prophet informed her that the angel came three times, the first visit in 1834: “In 1834 he {Joseph Smith} was commanded to take me for a wife. . . . The angel came to him three times.” She also quoted the Prophet: “The angel came to me three times between the years of 1834 and 1842 and said I was to obey that principle or he would slay me.” If these dates were accurate, the first angelic visit may have prompted the Alger plural marriage, probably in 1835.  It also possible that Joseph’s poignant memories about the fiasco caused by the Alger union dissolution prompted him to dawdle before engaging in further plurality. The chronology further supports the likelihood that sometime before April 5, 1841, when the Prophet was sealed to plural wife Louisa Beaman in Nauvoo, the angel returned for a second visit to admonish Joseph to use the sealing authority and to obey the earlier directives. Joseph F. Smith summarized: “Joseph Smith was commanded to take wives, he hesitated and postponed it, seeing the consequences and the trouble that it would bring and he shrank from the responsibility, but he prayed to the Lord for it to pass as Jesus did, but Jesus had to drink it to the dregs so it was with Joseph Smith, the Lord had revealed it to him, and said now is the time for it to be practiced—but it was not until he had been told he must practice it or be destroyed that he made the attempt.”

In sum, it looks like Joseph may have been repeatedly admonished/threatened to proceed with implementing polygamy.

Moreover, the context of the story makes is obvious that the practice of polygamy had been revealed to Joseph prior to the angelic admonishments.  After all, the story is that the angel threatened him for failing to do something he had previously been commanded to do.

Quote

Or are you talking about the Jacob verses in the BoM. Which btw, would negate JS from going to the Lord in the first place.

Not.  Not talking about Jacob.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 11, 2020 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I don't believe that God has ever commanded anyone to live polygamy. 

That is certainly your prerogative.  But Joseph Smith certainly seemed to be under that impression.

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

And most especially not to use threats of destruction if they didn't marry additional women that may involve deceit and betraying your  loving wife.

I'm not persuaded that Joseph's purported deceit was part of the divine mandate.

However, I remain convinced that God did command Joseph to implement polygamy in the Church, and to practice it.  To reject that is to impute lechery onto Joseph Smith.  And/or delusion.  I can't square either of these characterizations with my understanding of the overall character of Joseph Smith.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Anyway, Hales and Don Bradley surmise that the Angel-with-a-Sword incident (or, if there were multiple such incidents, then one of them) happened around 1843:

And by then, Joseph had already married around 18 wives.  So why would the angel have to appear to him and threaten him at that point? 

I have to wonder if it was just a dream that he had (or nightmare ).

Edited September 6, 2019 by ALarson

[smac97]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

We've been down this path (or discussion) here many times.  There is no record of God ever commanding polygamy prior to when Joseph made his claims (or that don't come from scripture through him).

Yes, there is.  Nathan specifically addressed God's role in David's polygamy first, then Jacob addressed God's predominating role in polygamy much later. 

And these are just from the extant scripture.  Who knows how much light and knowledge has been lost on this issue?

Quote

As I've stated many times, the closest we have is with the Levirate marriages....but polygamy is not specifically commanded there. 

The possibility for just such a "command" to enter into polygamy is explicit in Jacob 2.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 6, 2019 by smac97

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And by then, Joseph had already married 18 wives.  So why would the angel have to appear to him and threaten him at that point? 

Hales addresses this a bit.

Quote

I have to wonder if it was just a dream that he had (or nightmare ).

Mighty hard to argue that Joseph was compos mentis as to the First Vision and many, many other theophanies and revelations, but then suddenly (and apparently repeatedly) non compos mentis when it came to revelations and theophanies about polygamy.

You're really stretching here.  I get that you personally find polygamy icky (frankly, so do I), but I don't think such subjective and presentist sentiments should control our understanding of this issue.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 6, 2019 by smac97

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That is certainly your prerogative.  But Joseph Smith certainly seemed to be under that impression.

I agree that's what he stated.

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

However, I remain convinced that God did command Joseph to implement polygamy in the Church, and to practice it.

I respect your right to believe that and I know others agree with you on this too.

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I can't square either of these characterizations with my understanding of the overall character of Joseph Smith.

And yet, his character doesn't come out looking that clean (or moral) regarding this topic, IMO.  He betrayed Emma and his polygamy involved a great deal of deceit and lies were told.  

I do believe he could have restored the principle without involving himself in all of those behaviors, but he chose not to.  That's why I have issues with what he did and also why I believe this came from man and not from God.  I know we will just have to agree to disagree here.

Edited September 6, 2019 by ALarson

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, there is.  Nathan specifically addressed God's role in David's polygamy first, then Jacob addressed God's role in polygamy much later. 

David was not commanded to live polygamy.  He was given or offered other wives, but he could have refused them.  There was no record of any command or force involved.

Edited September 6, 2019 by ALarson

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hales addresses this a bit.

Mighty hard to argue that Joseph was compos mentis as to the First Vision and many, many other theophanies and revelations, but then suddenly (and apparently repeatedly) non compos mentis when it came to revelations and theophanies about polygamy.

You're really stretching here.  I get that you personally find polygamy icky (frankly, so do I), but I don't think such subjective and presentist sentiments should control our understanding of this issue.

Thanks,

-Smac

I firmly believe that the angel with the drawn sword story is fishy.  Joseph was already living the principle (he had 18 wives at that point) and had restored it....but an angel appeared and threatened him with destruction after he was already willingly living polygamy?  I may believe that if he didn't use this story as a means to convince women to marry him (you have to marry me or I'm going to be destroyed....).  But some fell for it and married him....(just joking a bit about that part, but it did seem to work for him with at least some of the girls or women...)

[smac97]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Quote

Yes, there is.  Nathan specifically addressed God's role in David's polygamy first, then Jacob addressed God's role in polygamy much later. 

David was not commanded to live polygamy. 

You don't know that.

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

He was given or offered other wives, but he could have refused them. 

You don't know that, either.

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

There was no record of any command or force involved.

So your position is that God is in the business of merely suggesting polygamy, but never ever commanding it?  I'd be interested in hearing how you arrived at that conclusion.

Meanwhile, good luck reconciling that conclusion with Jacob 2:30 ("For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.").

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

Just now, smac97 said:

You don't know that.

You don't know that, either.

I stated that there is no record of any command from God or force or threat to David if he refused taking these additional wives.  That's the truth.

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So your position is that God is in the business of merely suggesting polygamy, but never ever commanding it?  

No, I believe that God is indifferent when it comes to polygamy as long as it only involves consenting adults.  But, that wasn't the case with Joseph (especially regarding Emma).

I very definitely do not believe that God would ever force or command any person to live polygamy.  I firmly believe that polygamy is something men choose or want to live (and women too), but that it does not come from God.

It also may be a part of a person's culture and I'm ok with that too (as long as there's no abuse, no child brides, and no deceit or lies involved).

Edited September 6, 2019 by ALarson

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's the truth.

Yeah the last time I chatted with him about it he just said that he thought they were all very cute.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Yeah the last time I chatted with him about it he just said that he thought they were all very cute.

I was referring to there being no record (that we know of).  That's what is true.

Probably could have stated that better  

Edited September 6, 2019 by ALarson

[smac97]

Just now, ALarson said:

I firmly believe that the angel with the drawn sword story is fishy. 

I think there are too many sources for it to dismiss it out-of-hand.

Just now, ALarson said:

Joseph was already living the principle (he had 18 wives at that point) and had restored it....

Hales and Bushman both address this.  Joseph was, it seems, very reluctant to enter into polygamy.  He "dawdled" about it.  The 1833 marriage to Fanny Alger was a debacle.  Years past before he entered into another (1838 or 1841, depending on the historian).  Mary Lightner's remarks (described above) seem particularly interesting on this point.

Just now, ALarson said:

but an angel appeared and threatened him with destruction after he was already willingly living polygamy? 

Oi.  

Read Hales and Bushman, and then come back and try to tell us that Joseph Smith was an enthusiastic and eager and consistent practitioner of polygamy.

Just now, ALarson said:

I may believe that if he didn't use this story as a means to convince women to marry him (you have to marry me or I'm going to be destroyed....). 

And I believe that he was just as reluctant about polygamy as were so many of his contemporaries, so much so that he had to be threatened for his dawdling/disobedience.

I suppose it comes down to one's overall assessment of Joseph Smith.  Your belief imputes lecherous/coercive motives onto Joseph Smith.  My perspective is that he was a product of his times and their prevailing mores on marriage and sexuality, and that he was very reluctant to enter into polygamy.  Lechery and manipulating women into marrying him are not, in my view, fair conclusions to draw about him.

Just now, ALarson said:

But some fell for it and married him....(just joking a bit about that part, but it did seem to work for him with at least some of the girls or women...)

So you are willing to allow others to be repulsed at or reluctant to accept polygamy, but not Joseph?

Um, why is that?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I stated that there is no record of any command from God or force or threat to David if he refused taking these additional wives.  That's the truth.

Sigh.

Jacob 2:30 specifically contemplates God commanding polygamy.  The very word is right there in the text.

That's the truth.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

That is certainly your prerogative.  But Joseph Smith certainly seemed to be under that impression.

I agree that's what he stated.

Ah.  So your position requires Joseph Smith to be both lecherous and profoundly dishonest/coercive (and/or mentally incompetent).

Sorry, but that just doesn't work for me.

16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

However, I remain convinced that God did command Joseph to implement polygamy in the Church, and to practice it.

I respect your right to believe that and I know others agree with you on this too.

Okay.

16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

I can't square either of these characterizations with my understanding of the overall character of Joseph Smith.

And yet, his character doesn't come out looking that clean (or moral) regarding this topic, IMO. 

Oh, I disagree.  His overall character was upright, moral, good, and obedient.

That doesn't eliminate the possiblity of him of committing substantial errors, though.

16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

He betrayed Emma and his polygamy involved a great deal of deceit and lies were told.  

I think you're overstating things here.

16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I do believe he could have restored the principle without involving himself in all of those behaviors, but he chose not to.

Says the armchair quarterback.  In 2019.  "Hindsight is 20/20" and all that.

What he "could" have done really isn't for us to say, I think.  Mormon 9:31 comes to mind: "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."

16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's why I have issues with what he did and also why I believe this came from man and not from God. 

I empathize with you "hav{ing} issues what what he did."  But it's not really our place to judge or condemn him for his mistakes.

And I just can't get on board with your conclusion that polygamy "came from man and not from God."  That's wholesale eisegesis on your part.

16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I know we will just have to agree to disagree here.

Yep. I am glad we can do so cordially.

Thanks,

-Smac