My unresolved issues concerning the church

[All-American]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

The exception to which you refer in not that disputed. This is from a FARMS review of the Todd Compton book:

Actually, that very article goes on to detail why that one case was disputed. My guess is that in review, he didn't want to go into the details of the one case at that point.

I was also aware of the Zina Huntington issue pointed out. My take on many of this one, as well as the Adam-God Theory (how did this one miss the issues list?) is that Brigham attempted to correctly perpetuate what ground-breaking doctrine Joseph introduced and went too far. In the cases of the wives of Joseph, Brigham clearly felt the responsibility to take care of Joseph's former estate to the extent that he could do so, even settling some of the Prophet's debts. In the Adam-God theory, Brigham made one step too far down the doctrinal road.

One thing I find interesting throughout all of the discussion of errors of the first generation of the restored Church's leaders is the well recited dictim that God will not allow the prophet to lead the church astray. People view the mistakes of Church leaders as contradictory to that statement. But the quote does not say church leaders would not make mistakes, or even try to lead the church in a direction that ultimately is not the Lord's will. Brigham, his councilors, and 11 of the twelve may have accepted the Adam-God theory, but Orson Pratt did not, and the church, ULTIMATELY, was not led astray. Whatever errors were made did not change the direction to which God was guiding the church.

That's something of an apologist thought, but it makes sense to me, doctrinally. God would want to give as much room for error as is tolerable in order for the leaders of the church to grow, after all.

[Alkili]

Originally Posted by All-American

One thing I find interesting throughout all of the discussion of errors of the first generation of the restored Church's leaders is the well recited dictim that God will not allow the prophet to lead the church astray. People view the mistakes of Church leaders as contradictory to that statement. But the quote does not say church leaders would not make mistakes, or even try to lead the church in a direction that ultimately is not the Lord's will. Brigham, his councilors, and 11 of the twelve may have accepted the Adam-God theory, but Orson Pratt did not, and the church, ULTIMATELY, was not led astray. Whatever errors were made did not change the direction to which God was guiding the church.

That's something of an apologist thought, but it makes sense to me, doctrinally. God would want to give as much room for error as is tolerable in order for the leaders of the church to grow, after all.

Christ's apostles in the New Testiment were not free from error either, look at all of the fighting and discontentment over issues like gentiles being baptized and Circumcison. They also were so caught up in their culture that they misunderstood many of Christ's teachings. Paul and John mark were at odds because mark left his mission early. Error is not something new in Christ's chruch.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Alkili

Paul and John mark were at odds because mark left his mission early. Error is not something new in Christ's chruch.

Kind of like when Utes and Cougars were at odds about Marc Jackson when he came home from his mission early? :wink:

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by All-American

... as well as the Adam-God Theory (how did this one miss the issues list?)

That was one of the all time great threads on this young board. You have to check it out. It may have been the first or 2nd religious post ever on this board.

[All-American]

I checked it out. It was a good one. I can now walk about patting myself on the back for my intellectual superiority and for having maturity enough to handle the tough issues the average member of the church could not.

I don't suffer from pride. I enjoy every minute of it.

[realtall]

Originally Posted by Dan

Joseph Smith and his 33 wives

True, polyandry is really the disconcerting issue. But from Joseph's perspective, he was told certain women were his. Some were currently married to others. He went ahead and made them his but allowed them to live with the first husband "for time". Joseph prbably had sexual relations in some or most of these, I would guess. But we don't know. Some of the polyandrous first husbands knew about Joseph, some did not. The overarching theme is that polygamy was secret then. There was a concept back then that a woman could leave her husband to unite with a man of higher priesthood authority. I know that does not gel with current thought on how marriage should be in the church. These women were willing to be married to Joseph even though they had husbands already. AND it was good cover for Joseph at the time. If the women left their husbands and people started realizing they were spending inordinate amounts of time with Joseph with a possible pregnancy here and there, well, you can imagine the gossiping that would take place and the further problems that would erupt if polyandry was put up for public consumption and verified. it had to be kept on the down low, and Joseph was able to marry them and by staying with their first husbands, much suspicion was alleviated. Once the saints started moving west and what they did did not have to be so secretive, polyandry was dumped and polygyny was the only norm. The flip side is that Joseph could have just been a wicked player with the women. Your faith will help you decide which way you believe.

An interesting take on the situation. What do you mean by 'from Joseph's perspective, he was told certain women were his?' That the Lord specificaly told Joseph that certain women were his even though they were married to someone else?

Originally Posted by Dan

The Salamander Letter

Prophets and presidents of the church are mortal men with weaknesses and all. I think most LDS would admit that if pushed to, but there is a latent idea in the minds of MANY LDS that the prophet is darn near infallible. Think back to how many bad choices Joseph made. The Kirtland bank failure, the many close associates he misread who turned on him. Do not be suprised if leaders of the church are duped here or there. The flip side is that God may have been willing to direct the prophet on the matter but the prophet and/or church is in apostasy themselves. Your faith will help you decide.

Good explanation, Dan. This makes more sense then the shallow, one sentence 'prophets are human too' explanation that I hear so often.
Mountain Meadows Massacre

Originally Posted by Dan

It cannot be pinned on BY. But understanding the circumstances involved sheds light on why it took place. The saints had been driven from place to place for years/decades. Joseph and Hyrum were murdered, as was Parley Pratt. The saints covenanted to avenge the blood of their prophets. The prospect of Johnston's army was looming in Deseret. Everyone was on high alert. The blood atonement concept was in the people's mind. You have a goop of migrants coming through the territory raising a rukus, boasting about the killings of the beloved leaders of the saints, there were fears that the group was poisoning the saints water wells. This was all taking place far from headquarters in southern Utah. The local leaders decided to start avenging some blood. It was an unfortunate event, to say the least. But with all of the pressures and circumstances weighing down at the time, the group of migrants was like a lit match placed under kindling wood.

While it is true that it cannot be pinned on BY, it is still a little suspicious that the local militia(?) had the emigrant company trapped for 4 days before slaughtering them. On the other hand, it could be that the locals took that long to come up with a strategy to get the company out in the open. Its all such a sorry business.

And the 'Missouri Wildcats' explanation put forth by Akili is probably one of the more plausable explanations(or at least one of the factors) for the whole thing.

What a tragic chapter in the history of mormons in the west and the history of America in general.

[realtall]

Originally Posted by homeboy

Dallin Oaks has written on this topic a few times, once in 1979 (wasn't he still president of BYU at that time)?:

Oaks, Dallin H. "The Suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor." Utah Law Review 9 (Winter 1965):862-903.

Oaks, Dallin H., and Marvin S. Hill. Carthage Conspiracy: The Trial of the Accused Assassins of Joseph Smith. Urbana, Ill., 1979.

He argues that when judged by the standards at the time, it wasn't quite so outrageous as it seems now. An apologist approach to be sure, but when you have the president of BYU writing on the topic, it hardly seems to be avoiding the issue.

As for CES, you may be right. It has been so long since I took seminary or institute that I am not a good judge.

Does anyone know where I can find "The Suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor" online - either pdf, word, or html?

Thanks

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by realtall

An interesting take on the situation. What do you mean by 'from Joseph's perspective, he was told certain women were his?' That the Lord specificaly told Joseph that certain women were his even though they were married to someone else?

That's what Joseph told the women. So for those of us who believe that he did what he was commanded to do...

Originally Posted by Concerning Mountain Meadows RealTall

What a tragic chapter in the history of mormons in the west and the history of America in general.

Here's an interesting link on the church's web page. It's in response to Denton's book on the MMM. Read Bushman's letter at the bottom of the page.
http://www.lds.org/newsroom/mistakes...-16767,00.html

[realtall]

Just to be clear, this was how I worded the end of my Addendum:

Originally Posted by realtall

Joseph Smith was jailed in Carthage on trumped up charges?



This one bugs me a little bit but probably isn't one of the main ones. Its the secretive nature of CES, when it comes to historical accuracy, that's really starting to get on my nerves.

Just to be clear, my point was not how many of you had heard of this in your lifetimes through reading or elsewhere. I accept that there are several here who are(apparently) better read on church history than I.

Its that, at least to my way of thinking, the reasons that Joseph was jailed is important at least as historical context. I am mainly concerned with several like things that aren't included in CES curriculums. Someone may have heard it brought it up in seminary but that isn't the same thing.

I don't really think that there is malicous intent in this or anything like that. It just appears that the Church would rather not have to explain it, at least not in a class format.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by realtall

Its that, at least to my way of thinking, the reasons that Joseph was jailed is important at least as historical context. I am mainly concerned with several like things that aren't included in CES curriculums. Someone may have heard it brought it up in seminary but that isn't the same thing.

My memory is fuzzy on this, but I recall seeing a historical picture of the Nauvoo Expositor in my old Seminary manual. I suspect the text explained the significance of the Expositor and the role it played in the death of Joseph Smith (otherwise, why run the picture?). Perhaps since then this has been edited out? I don't know.

What other "likes things" are you refferrng to? (I think I can guess, but don't want to assume.)