Callings given to imperfect human beings

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

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

 

It would only be an attempt to coerce, then, though.  It wouldn't really work or count as coercion. Just somebody trying to get somebody else to do something and that somebody else responding with something like, "nah, I don't think so, I do not want to do and will not do that."

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

None that are first hand.  They all come from others who claim Joseph told it to them.  So yes, I believe he told the story (and I still think it's fishy  )

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Joseph was, it seems, very reluctant to enter into polygamy.  He "dawdled" about it. 

He already had 18 plural wives at that point!  I wouldn't call that dawdling...lol.

Just how many wives did he need to have before he'd restored the principle?

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

He wasn't dawdling or being disobedient though, IMO.  He had married at least 18 girls or women at that point.  He had also caused a great deal of pain to Emma.  Did that need to continue too?  

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Your belief imputes lecherous/coercive motives onto Joseph Smith.

Not really.  I believe he was a good man.....but a man who did love women.  I honestly think he believed polygamy was of God.  I am just very much opposed to the methods he used, the deceit, the betrayal to Emma and the lies told in order to live it.  

We will most likely not come to agreement here.  I'm fine with what you believe and respect your right to believe as you do.  Each of us has to pray about this and come to our own conclusions and beliefs.  I've done this too.

Edited September 6, 2019 by ALarson

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

Scared, even.  A lot.

Why?  If your intent is to always do what is right and good and you have no fear of death because you know that when you die you will be going to a better place because of your intentions to always do what is right, even if you are wrong but do not know you are wrong, why be afraid of your transition to the other side of the veil?

If anything I'd just ask him to make it quick, please, just because I would rather it not hurt very much or for very long.

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

No. (See my response above).

I'll agree that he was dishonest at times in order to practice polygamy.  But I do not believe he was lecherous or used coercion (threat or force).

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

His overall character was upright, moral, good, and obedient.

Yes, I agree.  I was speaking of his behavior regarding this specific topic.  IMO, his character does not emerge clean when one studies how he went about living polygamy.

 

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But it's not really our place to judge or condemn him for his mistakes.

I haven't done that.  I've only expressed my opinion.  I've also stated that I believe he was a good man and that he most likely believed polygamy was of God.  But that does not mean that I need to agree with the deceit involved or the lies he told to live it.

He was a man.  He made mistakes and was not infallible.  Polygamy was one of those mistakes and came from man's desires and was not commanded by God, IMO.

Edited September 6, 2019 by ALarson

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

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

Indifferent?  How do you square that with Jacob 2 (particularly verse 30)?

Quote

as long as it only involves consenting adults. 

Really?  So you think the Church is wrong to prohibits its members from entering into polygamous reliationships?

I'm curious as to how you reached this conclusion.

Quote

But, that wasn't the case with Joseph (especially regarding Emma).

Actually, it sort of was the case with Emma.  Emma was, like Joseph, inconsistent in her approach to and acceptance of polygamy.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Emma was aware of plural marriage; it is not clear at exactly what point she was made aware, partly due to there being relatively few early sources on the matter. Emma was generally opposed to the practice of plural marriage, and did much to try and thwart it. There were times, however, when Emma gave permission for Joseph's plural marriages, though she soon changed her mind. Emma was troubled by plural marriage, but her difficulties arose partly from her conviction that Joseph was a prophet.
...
Emma never denied Joseph's prophetic calling; she did, however, teach her children that Joseph had never taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and blamed its introduction on Brigham Young. Torn between two certitudes—her conviction of Joseph's prophetic calling, and her hatred of plural marriage—Emma had difficult choices to make for which we ought not to judge her.

But, the critics ought to let all of Emma speak for herself—she had a great trial, but also had great knowledge. That she continued to support Joseph's calling and remain with him, despite her feelings about plural marriage, speaks much of her convictions. As she told Parley P. Pratt years later:

Quote

I believe he [Joseph] was everything he professed to be.

...
Emma's inner conflict was also dramatized in another report:

Quote

Maria Jane Johnston, who lived with Emma as a servant girl, recalled the Prophet's wife looking very downcast one day and telling her that the principle of plural marriage was right and came from Heavenly Father. "What I said I have got [to] repent of," lamented Emma. "The principle is right but I am jealous hearted. Now never tell anybody that you heard me find fault with that [principle;] we have got to humble ourselves and repent of it."

 

I think it is good for us to refrain from judging or condemning Emma for her apparent missteps.

Would that we could extend the same courtesy to Joseph Smith, eh?

Quote

I very definitely do not believe that God would ever force or command any person to live polygamy. 

I find that hard to reconcile with Jacob 2:30, in which a prophet says God "will command {His} people" to practice polygamy at times.

This "God is indifferent when it comes to polygamy" think is way out there for me.  Polygamy is a hugely challenging concept, as evidenced by the fact that we are still constantly debating it 130 years after it stopped.  I've seen no evidence that God is "indifferent" to regulating marriage and sexuality, and quite a bit of evidence to say that He is very concerned with regulating such things.

Quote

I firmly believe that polygamy is something men choose or want to live (and women too), but that it does not come from God.

That's not what Joseph Smith believed, though.  Nor many (most?) of the 19th-century Saints who entered into it (and endured much hardship because of it).

I think your conclusion is very wrong.  And at odds with the substantial historical record left behind by those who, unlike you and me, did practice polygamy.

I think your conclusion is the product of personal dislike and presentism.  I understand that, but I can't accept it as a valid basis for disregarding both scripture and the historical record, both of which militate heavily in against your position.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 6, 2019 by smac97

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

Your belief imputes lecherous/coercive motives onto Joseph Smith.

Not really.  I believe he was a good man.....but a man who did love women. 

Right.  That's lechery.  You are imputing lechery onto Joseph Smith.

I do not think that was part of his character.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I suppose it comes down to one's overall assessment of Joseph Smith.

This seems to be the crux of the matter.  Either we believe Joseph Smith when he said it was a commandment from God or we don't.  Same goes for other doctrines of the restoration.  Too many people seem to want to believe Joseph when they like what he said, while rejecting his words when thing rub against the grain.  Brings to mind this quote

He [the angel] called me by ^aname, and said unto me that he was a ^bmessenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for ^cgood and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1.60?lang=eng

It is interesting that the "all people" who would speak evil of him would also seem to include members of the church that he was commanded to restore.

[Ahab]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

None that are first hand.  They all come from others who claim Joseph told it to them.  So yes, I believe he told the story (and I still think it's fishy  )

I gave you a rep point for this post because I am glad to see you recognize the fact that those are all second hand accounts, hearsay, of what Joseph supposedly said.  I do not believe he said an angel with a sword tried to coerce him into having more than one wife, though and I don't believe he actually had more than one woman that he regarded as his wife, either.  I do not want to derail this thread though so that is all I have to say about that, for now, at this time, in this thread.

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Quote

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

Scared, even.  A lot.

Why? 

I've never experienced a theophany.  They are, I understand, profoundly affecting events.  Joseph was often left physically exhausted by them.

Add to that the idea of the angel carrying a sword, and I would likely think that I was in trouble (as, I think, did Joseph Smith, since the angel-carrying-a-sword think arose because of his reluctance to implement/continue/introduce/teach polygamy).

Quote

If your intent is to always do what is right and good and you have no fear of death

In the abstract, yes.

But the angel-with-a-sword thing was obviously intended to threaten adverse consequences for Joseph's continuing misconduct.  

Quote

because you know that when you die you will be going to a better place because of your intentions to always do what is right, even if you are wrong but do not know you are wrong, why be afraid of your transition to the other side of the veil?

I would likely be afraid of the prospect of that transition being brought about by an angel with a sword.  Such an experience would necessarily have been preceded by me screwing up big time.  

Quote

If anything I'd just ask him to make it quick, please, just because I would rather it not hurt very much or for very long.

I'd rather ask him (or, rather, ask God) for an opportunity to repent of the misconduct that precipitated his arrival and threatening me with a sword.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 6, 2019 by smac97

[mfbukowski]

41 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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

Probably could have stated that better  

No I get it, I was just being a smart alec as usual. 

I was just pondering the veracity of records from that era in general vs "what really happened."

Sorry for butting in.

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Really?  So you think the Church is wrong to prohibits its members from entering into polygamous reliationships?

No, I believe that's what our leaders currently believe and I support them.

 

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Actually, it sort of what.  Emma was, like Joseph, inconsistent in her approach to polygamy.

Yes, I know that she temporarily gave consent at one point, but even that involved more deceit on Joseph's part (Partridge sisters).  However, Emma did not consent to the majority of his marriages and never allowed him to bring wives into their home.  That's what I mean when I say "consenting adults".

 

[ALarson]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Right.  That's lechery.  You are imputing lechery onto Joseph Smith.

I disagree:

Quote

 

lech·er·y

noun

excessive or offensive sexual desire

 

I don't believe that was true (regarding Joseph).  I've stated numerous times that I believe he was a good man and that he most likely believed polygamy came from God.  I do believe he liked the girls & women too....but that doesn't mean that I believe he was lecherous.

[ALarson]

26 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

This seems to be the crux of the matter.  Either we believe Joseph Smith when he said it was a commandment from God or we don't

I don't see those being the only choices here.  We can believe that God did not command Joseph to live polygamy but still believe that's what he believed (that it needed to be restored and was a commandment).

 

28 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Too many people seem to want to believe Joseph when they like what he said, while rejecting his words when thing rub against the grain.

We can disagree with Joseph just as we can disagree at times with our current leaders.  He made mistakes too.  I firmly believe he was wrong about polygamy being a commandment from God, but I believe he most likely thought it was.  

[ALarson]

27 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I gave you a rep point for this post because I am glad to see you recognize the fact that those are all second hand accounts, hearsay, of what Joseph supposedly said.  I do not believe he said an angel with a sword tried to coerce him into having more than one wife, though and I don't believe he actually had more than one woman that he regarded as his wife, either.  I do not want to derail this thread though so that is all I have to say about that, for now, at this time, in this thread.

Interesting.....those may topics for a new thread (if you choose to start one 👍)

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I disagree:

I don't believe that was true (regarding Joseph). 

"I believe he was a good man.....but a man who did love women. "

That's an accusation of lechery.

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I've stated numerous times that I believe he was a good man and that he most likely believed polygamy came from God.  I do believe he liked the girls & women too....

That is an accusation of lechery.

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

but that doesn't mean that I believe he was lecherous.

Yes, it does.

Accusing a married man of fabricating a revelation from God so he could gain sexual access to other women is an accusation of lechery.

Even worse than that.  It's an accusation of priestcraft.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I've never experienced a theophany.  They are, I understand, profoundly affecting events.  Joseph was often left physically exhausted by them.

Add to that the idea of the angel carrying a sword, and I would likely think that I was in trouble (as, I think, did Joseph Smith, since the angel-carrying-a-sword think arose because of his reluctance to implement/continue/introduce/teach polygamy).

Supposedly, yes, that is what Joseph supposedly said and thought. Supposedly he saw an angel with a sword and supposedly he thought he screwed up by supposedly not accepting the idea that having more than one wife was okay with God so supposedly since the angel showed up with the sword that supposedly meant he was in big trouble with God which supposedly caused him to think he was wrong to think God was not okay with a man having more than one wife which supposedly caused Joseph to change his mind and accept the idea that God was okay with a man having more than one wife.

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In the abstract, yes.

But the angel-with-a-sword thing was obviously intended to threaten adverse consequences for Joseph's continuing misconduct.  

Supposedly, yes.

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I would likely be afraid of the prospect of that transition being brought about by an angel with a sword.  Such an experience would necessarily have been preceded by me screwing up big time.  

You might suppose so, mightn't you.  So whenever you see an angel with a sword show up supposedly you're supposed to think that you had reached an incorrect conclusion which supposedly is supposed to make you change your mind, whatever it is that you thought.j

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'd rather ask him (or, rather, ask God) for an opportunity to repent of the misconduct that precipitated his arrival and threatening me with a sword.

Supposing that you needed to repent in the first place, I suppose so.

[Meadowchik]

On 9/5/2019 at 3:53 PM, smac97 said:

I'm fine with discussion.  I'd just like it to be about more than just unsubstantiated personal opinions and feelings.

I disagree.  The scriptures are not full of "explicitly coercive" anything.  I'd explain further, but all you are offering is because-I-say-so assertions.  I'd like to see reasoning and explanation, and data and evidence, in support of your position.  Until then, *** for tat seems apropos.

If you are correct that Christian scritpures are "full of writings and warnings that are explicitly coercive," why is it that you only single out a single line in a single verse in D&C 132 for criticism/condemnation? 

Do you likewise condemn the many other passages that, by your reckoning, are "coercive?"  If not, why not?

No, it's not.  It's a reasoned argument for why scriptural exhortations, in and of themselves, are not coercive.

I disagree.  The only way scriptural verses are "coercive" is if you believe in and accept them.  If you do, then you have consented to be constrained.  You have agreed to submit to the laws and commandments in scripture.

However, if you do not believe in or accept the scriptures, then they have no power or authority over you.  And if they have no power or authority, then there cannot be, and is no, coercion. 

There are two really good pieces of evidence in support of this idea.  First, the Church's own scripture explicitly circumscribes its own authority.  D&C 134:10, which provides:

This is a huge impediment to the validity of your assertion.  The only power or authority that the Church claims to have is to limit or remove an individual's membership in the Church.  On the flipside, the individual has the unfettered right to limit or remove his own membership.  With such a profound constraint on the Church's temporal authority, any claim that its scriptures are "coercive" is difficult to take seriously.

The second piece of evidence for the absence of coercion is . . . you.  You reject D&C 132.  You are not bound by it.  You are free to roam the Internet and rail against it and calumnate against the Church because of it.  And there isn't a lick of danger to you for doing so.  There's nothing remotely brave in you standing up to this purported "coercion" since you and I both know the Church will do exactly nothing to you in consequence of your behavior (except, perhaps, the limited options available per D&C 134:10).

If you want to see what actual religion-based "coercion" looks like, consider Iran's Guidance Patrol.  Or Saudi Arabia's Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.  The men and women of these countries really are coerced into religious observances, because there is an entity that has actual authority and power over them.

Your claim is that a person can

1) choose to join the Church (or not), or
2) remain active in the Church (or not), or
3) agree with D&C 132 (or not), and
4) might face, at worst, a limitation on his/her (voluntary) membership in the Church,

is nevertheless being "coerced," is not workable.

No, they are not.

Merely repeating an unsubstantiated and unreasoned assertion doesn't do anything to advance your position.  If anything, it weakens it.  Here we are, in an adversarial construct.  The playing field is level.  You get to voice and explain your position, and so do I. 

But you aren't explaining.  You are not presenting evidence or reasoning in support of your position.  You are just asserting.  Declaring. Because-I-say-so-ing.

No, it's not.  Polygamy is no more coercive than baptism.

If a person can choose, or decline, to be baptized, it cannot be said that he was "coerced" either way.

If a 19th-century Latter-day Saint could choose, or decline, to enter into polygamy, it cannot be said that he or she was "coerced" either way.

To be sure, there were likely some examples of "coercive" polygamy.  I'm thinking here of a situation involving a woman whose husband did not seek and receive her freely-given consent for him to enter into a second, polygamous marriage.  Such a woman could indeed be said to having been "coerced."

But that is not your argument.  You are saying Mormon polygamy is innately and across-the-board coercive.  Every square inch of it.  Even the men and women who entered into it of their own free will were, somehow, "coerced."  And somehow you, living well over a century later, are somehow in a position to discern that they were coerced.  You somehow claim to speak for them, even to the point where you expect us to disbelieve their own words (describing their volitional acceptance of polygamy) and substitute your say-so instead.  That is quite presumptuous, I think.

You haven't even come close to establishing your premise (that obedience to scriptural commands is inherently coercive).

And presume to speak for them, too.  Even for the men and women who left behind statements speaking of their decisions to enter into polygamy.

Your position requires us to believe that you, living in 2019, are better situated than 19th-century polygamists to address the presence or absence of coercion in 19th-century polygamy. 

Your position requires us to reject their various statements in defense of their decisions to enter into polygamy, and instead adopt your unsubstantiated say-so that they were coerced into it.

Again, that is quite presumptuous.

No, it doesn't.  There is no implied "level of control."  To the contrary, there is an explicit rejection of any "level of control" by the Church except pertaining to limiting/ending an individual's membership in the Church (see D&C 134:10).

You argument strays into La La Land here.  The Church has no authority or power over individuals other than what the individual freely grants to the Church.  And the individual has the unfettered right to reject that authority/power at any time, for any reason or no reason at all.  And the Church can do precisely nothing about that (again, except to exercise the limited options available per D&C 134:10).

It's not just about being comforting.  It's that the Church's doctrines posit that unrepentant disobedience doesn't lead to unending agony in the fires of hell, but rather leads to a lesser kingdom of glory.  For you to characterize this benevolence as "coercion" is absurd.

"Is considered" being the operative phrase here.

A person can choose to accept these things, or not.  A person can submit to the authority of the Church, or not.  A person can obey the commandments of God, or not.  For each of these "or nots," the worst possible consequence is a limitation or termination of the individual's voluntary membership in the Church.  That's the total extent of the Church's power/authority over an individual.  To call that power/authority "coercive" is unreasonable.

Your position.  Polygamy is only "coercive" when the Mormons do it.  That's arbitrary.  Unreasoned.  Unreasonable.

So do I.  But your claim is that all 19th-century Latter-day Saint polygamy was, by definition, "coercive."  That's just not so.

Such is the natural consequence of ethnocentric navel-gazing.  One can feel free to lambaste the Church because if they are nominally a member of the Church.  But such wokeness can only go so far.  Publicly disparaging polygamy in other cultures as innately "coercive" would be (rightly) seen is presentist, presumptuous, ethnocentric, elitist, ignorant, and so on.  So one can avoid this by carving out just the niche that one feels entitled to bash: the 19th-century Church.

I don't claim that.  But here you are nonetheless, characterizing only Mormon polygamy as inherently coercive.

It is unreasonable for you to single out and criticize Mormon polygamy and falsely characterize it as inherently coercive.

It is unreasonable for you to simply assert your unsubstantiated say-so and expect us to be persuaded by it.

Not at all.  I do that all the time.

But I guess we differ in what "discuss subjects" means.  I am interested in reasoned argument and ideas.  I have much less interest in unsupported personal opinions and hang-ups.

Look, I get where you're coming from.  Polygamy is a very tough topic.  But I find your approach to it deeply problematic.  Merely exchanging emotion-based opinions doesn't get us very far.  I have gone to some length to lay out the rationale for my position.  I am sometimes criticized on this board for being too verbose (I'll cop to that, sometimes).  But for difficult topics, I think they need to be hashed out and discussed in a cordial, yet, frank, manner.  That sometimes means going into a lot of detail (and, hence, risking being verbose).  But at least I'm trying to provide something for others to chew on.  

I would like to listen to what you have to say.  But apparently all you have to say is your say-so.  Your emotions.  No reasoning.  No evidence.  No substantiation.  Just railing against a principle you don't like.  Well, rail away.  But you'll understand why I find such emotion-based rhetoric to be unpersuasive.  Worse, relying only on emotion-based rhetoric about difficult and sensitive topics can often hinder and even frustrate meaningful discussion and analysis.

Polygamy is a toughie.  However, its practice in the 19th-century Church is not the first time that the disciples of Jesus have been asked to live out-of-step with their neighbors, including those who are members of the faith.  I recognize that many things the Church of Jesus Christ teaches are difficult for its members and others to accept.  Perhaps this is why He said: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."  Perhaps this is why He also said (several times, actually) : "Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words."  Christ also said: "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."   Christ also said "For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me."  

My dad and I were talking about these things a while back, some of which have been described as the "dark sayings of Jesus."  My dad noted that some people focus on the "sweetness and light" sayings of the Savior, which is probably fine - unless that focus is exclusionary.  Christ had warnings for us, after all.  Such as this: "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you."  And this: "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil."   And this: "Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail."   And this: "For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory."

Polygamy is a difficult topic to address because it was divinely mandated, but sociologically disliked (both then and now).  That there were some elements of deceit in its practice by some makes the matter much more challenging and complex.  Consequently, I have a lot of compassion and empathy for people who are not comfortable with the concept.  I'm not particularly comfortable with it.  I do not understand it.  So much of the Restored Gospel comports with my general, gut-level sense of "right" and "wrong," but polygamy . . . doesn't.

However, neither does animal sacrifice.  Neither does Nephi slaying Laban.  Neither does the slaying of Nehor.  Neither do the deaths described in 2 Kings 2 ("Go up, thou bald head...").  And so on.

There are all sorts of things in play here.  Context matters.  A lot.  Historical context.  Social/cultural context.  Scriptural context.  Gospel context.  So does accuracy in conveyed information.  So do my personal life experiences, as well as the importance of properly characterizing those experiences as finite, blinkered, and not altogether accurate (rather than definitive, perfected and utterly, pristinely correct).

In other words, my sense of unease is not the most reliable moral barometer in the world.  So objectivity helps.  So does resisting the urge to engage in presentism.  So does research.  Lots of research.  And patience.  And humility (at the prospect that my "ick factor" about polygamy and such may be more about me than about the thing I find to be "icky").  And a willingness to re-assess previous assumptions.  But most of all . . . faith.  Lots and lots of faith.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm not being dismissive but I have to laugh a bit. I think we just have different discussion styles. You say I am not presenting a reasonable argument, when in my perspective, I've barely introduced it.  You go verbosity-on-overdrive while I'm thinking about how the engine works.

So, coercion: I agree that from a state of freedom, participation in the church is voluntary. 

But, let me introduce you to a 15 year old kid (not me) who leaves the church because he could feel that the church-driven shame was killing him.  Intellectually and morally, he is  confident in his position. But 20 years later, he still struggles with anxiety over feelings of worthlessness, the worthlessness which was really hammered into him by an insensitive bishop. That belonging was at a psychological level beyond conscious control. So, whether he wants to or not, he feels safety in the Mormon church but also danger, and in his case, the danger outweighs the safety.

Do you understand this context? I am talking about our biologically-wired need for belonging to a group. 

 

Edited September 6, 2019 by Meadowchik

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"I believe he was a good man.....but a man who did love women. "

That's an accusation of lechery.

Not by this definition:  

Quote

lech·er·y

noun

excessive or offensive sexual desire

 

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, it does

I disagree and I'm the one who knows what I believe    

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Accusing a married man of fabricating a revelation from God so he could gain sexual access to other women is an accusation of lechery.

Where did I state I believe he fabricated the revelation?  I have stated that I believe Joseph most likely believed polygamy had been commanded by God.  

 

Edited September 6, 2019 by ALarson

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

Supposedly, yes, that is what Joseph supposedly said and thought.

I think we're getting pretty far afield here.  My point is that a theophany involving a sword-wielding angel would be a pretty scary thing for me.

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

Supposedly he saw an angel with a sword and supposedly he thought he screwed up by supposedly not accepting the idea that having more than one wife was okay with God so supposedly since the angel showed up with the sword that supposedly meant he was in big trouble with God which supposedly caused him to think he was wrong to think God was not okay with a man having more than one wife which supposedly caused Joseph to change his mind and accept the idea that God was okay with a man having more than one wife.

I think you distort the historical record by characterizing it this way.  You are oversimplifying it.  Trying to make it absurd.  And you are doing so by impugning Joseph Smith's character and integrity.  And using sneering sarcasm to boot.

Not very helpful, this.  Or persuasive.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I'm not being dismissive but I have to laugh a bit. I think we just have different discussion styles. You say I am not presenting a reasonable argument, when in my perspective, I've barely introduced it. 

You've had ample opportunity to present argument and evidence.  You haven't done so yet.

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

You go verbosity-on-overdrive while I'm thinking about how the engine works.

Well, I had understood that you already had an idea about "how the engine works."   Are you just thinking up your argument now?  Making it up as you go along?

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

So, coercion: I agree that from a state of freedom, participation in the church is voluntary. 

Okay.

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

But, let me introduce you to a 15 year old kid (not me) who leaves the church because he could feel that the church-driven shame was killing him.  

I'm not quite willing to go along with the "church-driven shame" premise.  That is putting the cart before the horse.

The Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity for the last many years are calm, measured, reverent, well-reasoned, and profoundly doctrinal.  The Church seeks to use persuasion and reasoning and scripture, not "shame," to encourage obedience to the Law of Chastity.

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Intellectually and morally, he is  confident in his position. But 20 years later, he still struggles with anxiety over feelings of worthlessness, the worthlessness which was really hammered into him by an insensitive bishop.

Then the bishop could well have screwed up.  But to attribute this to the entirety of the Church is improper and excessive.

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

That belonging was at a psychological level beyond conscious control. So, whether he wants to or not, he feels safety in the Mormon church but also danger, and in his case, the danger outweighs the safety.

"Danger?"  What does that mean?

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Do you understand this context?

Honestly?  No, I don't.  I'm not being obtuse.  I don't understand.

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I am talking about our biologically-wired need for belonging to a group. 

I get that part.  But we are more than our biology.  We are creatures with the free will, and the ability to reason.  And more than that, we have the access God through personal revelation and prophetic guidance (past and present).

In the main, however, I have no idea what any of this has to do with your claim that 19th-century LDS polygamy was uniquesly and entirely and innately "coercive."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

Just now, smac97 said:

I think we're getting pretty far afield here.  My point is that a theophany involving a sword-wielding angel would be a pretty scary thing for me.

I think you distort the historical record by characterizing it this way.  You are oversimplifying it.  Trying to make it absurd.  And you are doing so by impugning Joseph Smith's character and integrity.  And using sneering sarcasm to boot.

Not very helpful, this.  Or persuasive.

Thanks,

-Smac

As ALarson has already pointed out, which I already knew was true before he said so, all of the accounts that state Joseph said an angel with a sword appeared to convince him that God approved of a man having more than one wife are second hand accounts, hearsay.

I don't accept those accounts and I also don't accept the idea that Joseph needed an angel with a sword to prompt him to think that, yeah, okay, maybe God is okay with a man having more than one wife.

Joseph knew the scriptures well enough to know God had apparently been okay men like Abraham and Isaac and Jacob... having more than one wife, except for David who really screwed up by how he got Bathsheba to be one of his wives, so I think God had a way of showing Joseph how he felt about a man having more than one wife without having to send an angel with a sword to try to convince him.

But that's just how I see things.  You can supposedly think something else, other than what I think about that, and I am okay with that except that I do not agree with you on this issue.

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Ahab said:

As ALarson has already pointed out, which I already knew was true before he said so, all of the accounts that state Joseph said an angel with a sword appeared to convince him that God approved of a man having more than one wife are second hand accounts, hearsay.

Yes.  And?

Quote

I don't accept those accounts

Why?  (I'm quite okay with you not accepting them, but I'm curious as to why you do not.)

Do you likewise reject each and every scripture that quotes God?  All of those are technically hearsay as well.

Hearsay statements need to be taken with a grain of salt, to be sure.  But context matters a lot.  Hearsay has very real limitations in, say, a legal/courtroom context, but may be the best available evidence when discussing a historical issue (like Joseph Smith's polygamy, the sword-wielding angel, etc.).

Quote

and I also don't accept the idea that Joseph needed an angel with a sword to prompt him to think that, yeah, okay, maybe God is okay with a man having more than one wife.

I've never looked at it that way.  To the contrary, Hales and Bushman characterize the situation as Joseph being very reluctant to enter into, or continue to enter into, or teach others about, polygamy.  He was so reluctant, in fact, that he delayed and "dawdled" to the extent that he had to be threatened by a sword-wielding angel to proceed with carrying out this part of his prophetic responsibilities.

The issue wasn't about whether God "is okay with a man having more than one wife."  The issue was whether Joseph was "okay with a man having more than one wife."  Whether he could accept and implement that idea.

Quote

Joseph knew the scriptures well enough to know God had apparently been okay men like Abraham and Isaac and Jacob... having more than one wife, except for David who really screwed up by how he got Bathsheba to be one of his wives, so I think God had a way of showing Joseph how he felt about a man having more than one wife without having to send an angel with a sword to try to convince him.

But that's just how I see things.  You can supposedly think something else, other than what I think about that, and I am okay with that except that I do not agree with you on this issue.

I'm okay with that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 6, 2019 by smac97

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Not by this definition:  

Yes, by that definition.  You are attributing lecherous motives to Joseph Smith.  "I believe he was a good man.....but a man who did love women."

That is an accusation of lechery.  Nothing but.

Are you seriously going to claim that "love women" in the above context is not a reference to illicit sexual relationships?

Quote

Where did I state I believe he fabricated the revelation?  I have stated that I believe Joseph most likely believed polygamy had been commanded by God.  

So he didn't fabricate the revelations he claimed to have received about polygamy?  Then what is your position?  That he was non compos mentis about polygamy?  For years on end?  On that topic and that one alone?

So Joseph was not merely lecherous.  He was lecherous and mentally incompetent.  But only as to polygamy.

That seems to be what your position requires.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 6, 2019 by smac97

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You've had ample opportunity to present argument and evidence.  You haven't done so yet.

Well, I had understood that you already had an idea about "how the engine works."   Are you just thinking up your argument now?  Making it up as you go along?

Okay.

I'm not quite willing to go along with the "church-driven shame" premise.  That is putting the cart before the horse.

The Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity for the last many years are calm, measured, reverent, well-reasoned, and profoundly doctrinal.  The Church seeks to use persuasion and reasoning and scripture, not "shame," to encourage obedience to the Law of Chastity.

Then the bishop could well have screwed up.  But to attribute this to the entirety of the Church is improper and excessive.

"Danger?"  What does that mean?

Honestly?  No, I don't.  I'm not being obtuse.  I don't understand.

I get that part.  But we are more than our biology.  We are creatures with the free will, and the ability to reason.  And more than that, we have the access God through personal revelation and prophetic guidance (past and present).

In the main, however, I have no idea what any of this has to do with your claim that 19th-century LDS polygamy was uniquesly and entirely and innately "coercive."

Thanks,

-Smac

It's not a matter of "making it up" but working out which part you think is unsubstantiated. 

You are, you do realise, operating under your own premises such as

"But we are more than our biology.  We are creatures with the free will, and the ability to reason.  And more than that, we have the access God through personal revelation and prophetic guidance (past and present)."

and

"A person can choose to accept these things, or not.  A person can submit to the authority of the Church, or not.  A person can obey the commandments of God, or not.  For each of these "or nots," the worst possible consequence is a limitation or termination of the individual's voluntary membership in the Church.  That's the total extent of the Church's power/authority over an individual.  To call that power/authority "coercive" is unreasonable."

 

So for you, the church is "voluntary" but also the major conduit to God through prophetic guidance. The church is the major source of truth in life, along with personal revelation, right? 

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, by that definition. 

We are just going to have to disagree on that, I guess.

Many men love women and are definitely NOT lecherous.....so you're wrong regarding what I believe 

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So Joseph was not merely lecherous.  He was lecherous and mentally incompetent.

Wow...you're really making stuff up now, smac.  Where have I stated that Joseph is lecherous (I haven't and don't believe that) or mentally incompetent (I have never stated that and do not believe it's true).

You are completely misrepresenting what I have stated that I believe.  Maybe it's time for you to just step away from this discussion if you're going to continue with these types of false accusations....

 

 

Edited September 6, 2019 by ALarson