How old were you when you first learned JS practiced polyandry?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

Yes, we've been down this road before. IMO examples like Sylvia Sessions and later Zina Huntington Jacobs with Brigham Young leave me personally with little doubt as to what the scope of those relationships were. And in the end, the sexual relationships that I'm almost certain occurred aren't even required for me to find the whole matter disturbing. But you and I come to the same bottom line and I suppose that's what's most important.

Is it disturbing even if God Himself specifically told Joseph Smith to enter into these relationships?

Is it really implicit in your admission that you find this disturbing that you think Joseph Smith got carried away and did this on his own against the wishes of God? If so, how would you characterize Joseph's primary motivation(s)?

Honest misunderstanding?

Animal lust?

Power play?

Other?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by byukarl

It does make me rethink ever taking anything pitched from the pulpit as 100% FACT. Anyone who doesn't explore the truth on their own needs their head examined.

Wanting to explore the truth yourself is healthy. It will see you through many a storm.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Oh brother. (Wake up, Sleeping in EQ, and pay attention here:) Those quotes are obviously about the speculation in this thread (and the salivation in the LDS community), and not specifically about anything in the Bushman book. Unfortunately I don't have your talent for divining what's in a book without reading it. Also, I said in one of my early posts that he is not the first to generate this kind of frothing-at-the-mouth among Mormons. I believe my words were to the effect: "Every generation has a few."



It's no red herring. The speculation in this thread is wildly out of harmony with what's in the D&C, and I'm criticizing it. That's a perfectly legimate position.

Bushman's book may be an absolutely accurate portrayal of the prophet. I simply have no way of knowing until I read it, and even then there is much that I suppose I must take his word on. But the crazy suggestions that it has led to in this thread deserve to be challenged. Mormons are all too eager to accept yet another volume of the "real story" behind the church, and in the process step all over the lessons in the scriptures themselves.

Tex's response to this thread shows how fundamentalist Mormons, just as evangelical Christians desire to be instructed how to think.

In such event, members are told their leaders of are near perfect, saintly men, who would never make a mistake or lead them astray, when in fact the leaders are and were basically good people, with normal passions, strengths and frailties.

It is interesting that a person such as Tex would rely upon scripture to describe the character of people.

First, as I observe there are two or three types of scripture, narrative, directed dogma, and poetic praise, in addition to wisdom literature. Nowhere in any description is any genre devised to provide biographical information, except in the slightest of detail.

Why would any person suppose to know the character of Joseph Smith based on a reading of the Doctrine and Covenants? The D&C is not designed to biographical, but is more akin to a premodern Handbook of General Instructions. It's a dictionary. It's directed dogma, and without the historical underpinnings can be very boring to read.

Second, any Church publication regarding its leaders will be designed to support their authority and credibility. I don't say this is a bad thing, but necessarily the Church will omit anything harmful, unless a lesson can be taught. Why does the Church wisely recommend that leaders not refer to talking about past sins? So other members might not be tempted to justify their own.

By the foregoing process, members necessarily receive a very inaccurate and incomplete picture of who leaders really are. When we discover a Prophet would drink liquor on the golf course, we become shocked. When we discover a Primary President and her Counselor led a gay relationship, we are dismayed. How can this be?

Well, the Lord is more Deistic than we can imagine. Agency is the answer to most of these dilemmas. And I don't believe God immediately removes unrighteous leaders. The Old Testament story of Eli and his sons predating Samuel is an example of that. That illustration is there to show us, God will tolerate signficant misdeeds from his leaders before HE removes them.

The difference between God's organization and any other organization staffed by mankind is that once appointed, the general membership should not take upon itself to remove the leadership.

The danger in hagiographic material is the misplaced worship of leaders who may be just as frail as the people they are asked to lead. Leaders simply display a willingness and skillsets to guide people. That is all. There is no implication of superior morality in leadership skillsets. Just a different skillset. If our worship is to remain of truth and Divinity, we need to remember, no matter what sins our leaders exhibit, their good works remain praiseworthy, but they are not perfect nor gods.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Tex's response to this thread shows how fundamentalist Mormons, just evangelical Christians desire to be instructed how to think.

.....

What I find interesting is how people in this forum as well as historians are willing to make concrete assertions about past events when there is a fair amount of logical extrapolation going on and nary a balancing commentary or viewpoint from Joseph Smith on the matter.

In the absence of an irrefutable understanding of what really happened and why, I think Tex's objections have merit.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

What I find interesting is how people in this forum as well as historians are willing to make concrete assertions about past events when there is a fair amount of logical extrapolation going on and nary a balancing commentary or viewpoint from Joseph Smith on the matter.

In the absence of an irrefutable understanding of what really happened and why, I think Tex's objections have merit.

I'll grant you historians have an occupational hazard, that they exhibit constantly, namely, they are asked to look at evidence and to make conclusions. After a while, they become cocksure of themselves forgetting, it's very messy work.

However, I don't really trust scripture's portrait of any person, because all leaders who were good, were very, very good with no fault. They were mountains of men, could lead buildings on a hop, rescued entire villages while mortally wounded and never experienced discouragement unless they penned some poetic masterpiece. Hogwash. Nobody is that way, and unless I'm reading a myth or something designed for children, I don't need it so simple.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

And in the end, the sexual relationships that I'm almost certain occurred aren't even required for me to find the whole matter disturbing.

Amen to that. The nitpicking and the denial over the sexual part of it seems a little odd to me.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

However, I don't really trust scripture's portrait of any person, because all leaders who were good, were very, very good with no fault. They were mountains of men, could lead buildings on a hop, rescued entire villages while mortally wounded and never experienced discouragement unless they penned some poetic masterpiece. Hogwash. Nobody is that way, and unless I'm reading a myth or something designed for children, I don't need it so simple.

Hogwash, indeed. Golly gee, I can't think of a single religious leader in all the standard works who wasn't portrayed as a Marvel comicbook hero, can you? Give me a break. Have you even read the Bible?

Indy's point is salient, and stated much better than I could've said. There seems to be a wonderful desire to dismiss what the scriptures say as "too mythical" and instead embrace the latest scholarly study du jour as the "true portrayal" of the men.

And those of us who take pause at this approach are accused of being mind-numbed "fundamentalist Mormons" who prefer their leaders white-washed.

That is a load of crap, to put it inartfully.

Moreover, I do NOT consider the D&C the sole source on the character and personality of Joseph Smith. But I do expect that if he were as out of favor with God as the nutty theories earlier discussed in this thread suggested, that there would be some evidence of it the revelations he was receiving on a regular basis from said God.

I repeat what I said earlier: the hypothesis that his persecutions were permitted as divine retribution for a hyperactive sex drive could not be further from what I read in the revelations.

PS. Parenthetically, I'll add this Archaea: it's interesting that you won't trust the D&C sections because they were written by Smith, and you surmise he might have "tempered" them. But you have no problem using Bushman's potential "diluting" of his research as a defense of his work. Cherry-picking a little, are we?

[SeattleUte]

Okay, let's put on our critical thinking caps here, just for a moment.

Muhammad, Joseph Smith, David Koresh, all wound up in orgiastic revelry. Muhammad even defined heaven in terms of an orgy with many virgins. Is that surprising? Do you see a pattern here? (Paul, the true founder of Christianity as we know it, may have been gay, for all his mysogyny.)

Arguably, conscioulsly or subconsciosly, that was always the end game. MikeWaters (our resident shrink, since he chased off OhioBlue), like Freud, has said that ultimately the desire to "get some" and keep some and get more is what drives alpha males or frustrated alpha males to attempt world conquest, found religions, strive for the pinnacle of professions, create great art, or, in the case of sexually frustrated losers, to open fire in crowds of innocents.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Is it disturbing even if God Himself specifically told Joseph Smith to enter into these relationships?

Is it really implicit in your admission that you find this disturbing that you think Joseph Smith got carried away and did this on his own against the wishes of God? If so, how would you characterize Joseph's primary motivation(s)?

Honest misunderstanding?

Animal lust?

Power play?

Other?

I'm saying A) I don't understand polyandry, and it disturbs me but B) I believe Joseph was doing what he was commanded to do.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

Hogwash, indeed. Golly gee, I can't think of a single religious leader in all the standard works who wasn't portrayed as a Marvel comicbook hero, can you? Give me a break. Have you even read the Bible?

Indy's point is salient, and stated much better than I could've said. There seems to be a wonderful desire to dismiss what the scriptures say as "too mythical" and instead embrace the latest scholarly study du jour as the "true portrayal" of the men.

And those of us who take pause at this approach are accused of being mind-numbed "fundamentalist Mormons" who prefer their leaders white-washed.

That is a load of crap, to put it inartfully.

Moreover, I do NOT consider the D&C the sole source on the character and personality of Joseph Smith. But I do expect that if he were as out of favor with God as the nutty theories earlier discussed in this thread suggested, that there would be some evidence of it the revelations he was receiving on a regular basis from said God.

I repeat what I said earlier: the hypothesis that his persecutions were permitted as divine retribution for a hyperactive sex drive could not be further from what I read in the revelations.

PS. Parenthetically, I'll add this Archaea: it's interesting that you won't trust the D&C sections because they were written by Smith, and you surmise he might have "tempered" them. But you have no problem using Bushman's potential "diluting" of his research as a defense of his work. Cherry-picking a little, are we?

Hmmm...

I cite scripture around here more or less constantly. I value it deeply because I've studied it relentlessly and prayed about what I've read. I also value scholarship as it has aided my understandings of most everything, including scripture.

As to Joseph Smith tempering the scriptures, the fact is that he changed them at different times. He deleted sentences, added words, and so on. Compare BC (that is, Book of Commandments) 4:2 with D&C 5:4, BC 9:1 with D&C 10:1, BC 28:6-7 with D&C 27:5, and BC 44:26 with D&C 42:29-30.