Polygamy justification?

[UtahDan]

I agree that many more members take this view, but how long will it take for the church leadership to do the same? They stubbornly held on to BY race views for around 100 years. The topic of the deification of Joseph does not have the same negativity so where will the pressure(for lack of a better word) come from to make that transformation. Those who have already done so are critizied and mocked by the mullah both openly and privately. I would be surprised if it would happen in our generation or our kids generation as well.

Talking about the members and leadership as being totally distinct is like talking about "the government" as something separate from the citizenry. The government is the people, the leadership is the membership. In other words, it is not a matter of the membership finally wearing the leadership down, it is a matter of what is commonly believed in the church changing over time and leaders rising from that group who have that view. Maybe many of them already do.

Also, and it may be where I live, but I don't see this view being derided in public. When we did lesson 13 this year in D&C we read the introductory page of the POGP and I made the comment to my class that while it is true that the papyri have been given a modern translation which does not accord with Joseph's, that we know that Joseph actually did very little if any actual "translating" in the traditional sense but rather that revelation came directly to him in various ways and that this is consistent with the idea that the papyri were a jumping off point for receipt of such. Just about every head in the room nodded along and we moved to the next point. Maybe they all cursed me behind my back and this is the reason I am now going to be teaching seminary rather the gospel doctrine, but I don't think so.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Talking about the members and leadership as being totally distinct is like talking about "the government" as something separate from the citizenry. The government is the people, the leadership is the membership. In other words, it is not a matter of the membership finally wearing the leadership down, it is a matter of what is commonly believed in the church changing over time and leaders rising from that group who have that view. Maybe many of them already do.

That was not my intent to say that the membership would pressure the leadership into change, despite my juxtapositioning of those 2 elements in the sentence. Social pressures outside of the church lead to changing of the priesthood ban, also, IIRC internal pressure in the sense that they wanted to open Africa to prostelyting, which would be rather difficult if <2% of the continents inhabitants could hold the priesthood. I don't see any outward pressures that would give the church leadership(above the level of the stake) need to say or do anything that would diminish the deification of Joseph Smith.

Also, and it may be where I live, but I don't see this view being derided in public. When we did lesson 13 this year in D&C we read the introductory page of the POGP and I made the comment to my class that while it is true that the papyri have been given a modern translation which does not accord with Joseph's, that we know that Joseph actually did very little if any actual "translating" in the traditional sense but rather that revelation came directly to him in various ways and that this is consistent with the idea that the papyri were a jumping off point for receipt of such. Just about every head in the room nodded along and we moved to the next point. Maybe they all cursed me behind my back and this is the reason I am now going to be teaching seminary rather the gospel doctrine, but I don't think so.

I certainly agree that there is little to argue with your POV with this. You either believe or not. Reminds me of the question that begs to be asked when discussing JS's use of the felt hat and the seer stone when translating the BOM. Is that "translating" or "revelating"? And if it is the latter, why are the Golden plates necessary in the first place? When I asked this question of Elder Condie, he stated that the Golden plates were translated as it is typically depicted with JS and Cowdry separated by a sheet. When I pressed him about the accounts of David Whitmer and Emma Smith about the felt hat. He said that he had never heard of such a thing and that the church's official accounting of the translation was how it actually happened.

[ERCougar]

I certainly agree that there is little to argue with your POV with this. You either believe or not. Reminds me of the question that begs to be asked when discussing JS's use of the felt hat and the seer stone when translating the BOM. Is that "translating" or "revelating"? And if it is the latter, why are the Golden plates necessary in the first place? When I asked this question of Elder Condie, he stated that the Golden plates were translated as it is typically depicted with JS and Cowdry separated by a sheet. When I pressed him about the accounts of David Whitmer and Emma Smith about the felt hat. He said that he had never heard of such a thing and that the church's official accounting of the translation was how it actually happened.

Wow...that's pretty discouraging. How do you spend a lifetime of service as a leader of the church and never encounter this issue?

[SeattleUte]

Somebody needs to say that the explanation for the BOA that is most satisfying to Dan is as fully ridiculous as all the others, maybe more so: JS thought he was translating a Book of Abraham rather than funderary documents from 1500 years after Abraham, because God made him think he was translating a book written by the patriarch. I guess it falls on me. It's much more straightforward to just say JS was engaging in a literary fraud here.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I guess it falls on me. It's much more straightforward to just say JS was engaging in a literary fraud here.

Thanks for that.

Tell us again how miracles defy the laws of physics/science and are therefore impossible. We haven't heard that one in a while.

[CardiacCoug]

Somebody needs to say that the explanation for the BOA that is most satisfying to Dan is as fully ridiculous as all the others, maybe more so: JS thought he was translating a Book of Abraham rather than funderary documents from 1500 years after Abraham, because God made him think he was translating a book written by the patriarch. I guess it falls on me. It's much more straightforward to just say JS was engaging in a literary fraud here.

Then I think somebody also needs to say that much of the Bible consists of the exact same type of "literary fraud" -- as I'm sure you will agree.

[SeattleUte]

Thanks for that.

Tell us again how miracles defy the laws of physics/science and are therefore impossible. We haven't heard that one in a while.

Right. You know the Shroud of Turin may in fact have covered Jesus' body. Perhaps God intervened in the carbon dating to make it seem only 800 years old so that we would learn to believe ridiculous things.

This is the Catholic version of Dan's argument. Sorry, I choose to just call the Shroud of Turin a fraud. But I like straight forward, common sense explanations. They didn't expect carbon dating in 1200, and the significance of the Rosetta Stone was not understood in JS's day. But you go ahead and believe the Book of Abraham was "inspired" and those funerary scrolls were just a muse made by God to look much older and different.

EDIT: I'm not debating this any further. It's a fool's errand and really I have a policy against such debates.

[SeattleUte]

Then I think somebody also needs to say that much of the Bible consists of the exact same type of "literary fraud" -- as I'm sure you will agree.

It's more than a little different. The Bible arose from an oral tradition about events within the community and it developed over a very very long period of time. I'm not aware of the Bible following a course similar to the B of A where somebody said, "Here are some scrolls that Abraham [or Adam or Moses, whoever] wrote. I'll translate it." And really what they were purportedly translating having not the remotest conenction to what was allegedly being rendered into the tongue of the day. JS might as well have been translating a Greek tragedy and saying here's what Abraham said. Some people believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Where does it represent itself as that? Honest question.

[All-American]

It's a fool's errand and really I have a policy against such debates.

Ha! HAHA! HAHAHA!!

[SeattleUte]

Ha! HAHA! HAHAHA!!

Look, the Book of Abraham scrolls are what they are. Really, what is there about them for intelligent people to debate?

[All-American]

Look, the Book of Abraham scrolls are what they are. Really, what is there about them for intelligent people to debate?

No, it's not that. I'm just tickled by the thought of how often the fool's errand falls upon you. That may be significant.

[CardiacCoug]

It's more than a little different. The Bible arose from an oral tradition about events within the community and it developed over a very very long period of time. I'm not aware of the Bible following a course similar to the B of A where somebody said, "Here are some scrolls that Abraham [or Adam or Moses, whoever] wrote. I'll translate it." And really what they were purportedly translating having not the remotest conenction to what was allegedly being rendered into the tongue of the day. JS might as well have been translating a Greek tragedy and saying here's what Abraham said. Some people believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Where does it represent itself as that? Honest question.

I agree that it's quite a bit different. But much of the Bible is also technically "literary fraud."

The Epistle to the Hebrews wasn't written by Paul, in all likelihood. This is one of my favorites despite the fact that it is a literary fraud.

The Pastoral Epistles (to Timothy and Titus) are internally purported to have been written by Paul but I think most scholars believe they were written by some else -- so they are also literary fraud.

[SeattleUte]

I agree that it's quite a bit different. But much of the Bible is also technically "literary fraud."

The Epistle to the Hebrews wasn't written by Paul, in all likelihood. This is one of my favorites despite the fact that it is a literary fraud.

The Pastoral Epistles (to Timothy and Titus) are internally purported to have been written by Paul but I think most scholars believe they were written by some else -- so they are also literary fraud.

Agree. Literary fraudsters immitating the Hebrew Bible is a recurring phenomenon in history. It's not that unusual really. Just look at all the apocrypha like the Book of Judas (though I think Indy's a fan of the Book of Judas).

Agree Hebrews is one of the best parts of the NT.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Right. You know the Shroud of Turin may in fact have covered Jesus' body. Perhaps God intervened in the carbon dating to make it seem only 800 years old so that we would learn to believe ridiculous things.

This is the Catholic version of Dan's argument. Sorry, I choose to just call the Shroud of Turin a fraud. But I like straight forward, common sense explanations. They didn't expect carbon dating in 1200, and the significance of the Rosetta Stone was not understood in JS's day. But you go ahead and believe the Book of Abraham was "inspired" and those funerary scrolls were just a muse made by God to look much older and different.

EDIT: I'm not debating this any further. It's a fool's errand and really I have a policy against such debates.

Shroud of Turin?!?

Good call. This is especially effective when you cherry pick your miracles.

[SeattleUte]

Shroud of Turin?!?

Good call. This is especially effective when you cherry pick your miracles.

I think it's funny that you belittle the Shroud of Turin and think the Book of Abraham comes from God. At least the Shroud of Turin is a medieval relic. I assure you that if enough people paid attention the Book of Abraham would be as synonymous with counterfeit religious relics as the Shroud of Turin. Give me a break. Those engravings of Horus and Isis or whatever Egyptian deity it is are right there in your scripture with explanations representing them as Abraham, etc.