Brother Brigham was one interesting cat

[creekster]

Wow, when you put it that way I'm not sure I want to follow those guys!

Nor would you follow anyone else, then, including yourself, because we have all sinned in the eyes of God.

My personal feeling is that most great leaders, or Great Men, as the Brits used to say, tend to have great flaws. I think that is part of our nature, part of our package. The same things that keep most people from reaching for or attaining Greatness are also the things that constrain them from succumbing to their darkest urges. This is a generalization, and as such is not true in many instances, but in a broad sweeping way I think this idea explains a lot of what we see in history. I think Brigham Young, to use this thread's example, was a fascinating but flawed man who was also a talented empire builder without whom the nascent stem of God's restored Kingdom would have been trampled underfoot just as it was taking hold. He was needed at that time and that place to do the things that needed to be done. Very few people from any time or place could have done what he did. I don't think it is coincidence that he was there at that time and place. Just so, I think this is why we see different kinds of men ascending to the president's seat now, at this time and place.

[Bo Diddley]

That's a great perspective, YO.

[Moliere]

Wow, when you put it that way I'm not sure I want to follow those guys!

Tbh, I don’t follow the prophets. I follow Jesus Christ regardless of what people sing in primary


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BigFatMeanie]

A few more examples to supplement YOhio's list:

- Lot, one of the most righteous guys in the OT, offered up his daughters to be gang raped. He then shagged them both.
- Judah thought his daughter-in-law was a hooker and banged her.
- David nailed Bathsheba and had Uriah killed.
- Absalom screwed David's concubines.
- Moses allowed the Israelites to murder the boys and married women and rape the virgins of the Midianites
- People criticize prophets and apostles in this dispensation because of imperfections but the Apostles while Jesus was alive displayed lack of comprehension (Mark 4:13), little faith (4:40), hard hearts (6:52), competitiveness (9:34), possessiveness (9:38), selfish ambition (10:37) and jealousy (10:41).
- Before he was called to be an Apostle, Paul persecuted Christians, tried to trick people into blaspheming, took part in the stoning death of Stephen, arrested men and women and put them in prison or sent them to their deaths.

But if an apostle today even says one intemperate thing, one remark not perfectly calibrated to the sensibilities of the critics, heaven preserve that apostle from the wrath of self-righteous asshats, including many on this board.

[Topper]

Can God work through imperfect vessels to forward his work? If scripture is to be believed, then outside of Christ that is exclusively the case. He worked through liars, adulterers and murderers to forward his work. So what level of imperfection can one accept for one of God’s prophets? Is it okay that Nephi murdered a defenseless drunk, stole valuable artifacts, and kidnapped another man? Moses murdered a slavedriver, but is that what you think of when you consider him a prophet? Do you think of Israel as the man who lied and tricked his blind father into giving him a birthright he didn’t deserve? Or that Abraham slept with a slave and banished her and their offspring to the wilderness?

If Joseph Smith and other prophets, in their wretched human state, were good enough for the Lord then it provides comfort in knowing that I am as well.

Alternatively, it suggests it's all been made up. Yours is the more palatable interpretation no doubt.

[YOhio]

Alternatively, it suggests it's all been made up. Yours is the more palatable interpretation no doubt.

lol. Yes, Topper. It may be that it's all made up. Good point.

[Northwestcoug]

Nor would you follow anyone else, then, including yourself, because we have all sinned in the eyes of God.

My personal feeling is that most great leaders, or Great Men, as the Brits used to say, tend to have great flaws. I think that is part of our nature, part of our package. The same things that keep most people from reaching for or attaining Greatness are also the things that constrain them from succumbing to their darkest urges. This is a generalization, and as such is not true in many instances, but in a broad sweeping way I think this idea explains a lot of what we see in history. I think Brigham Young, to use this thread's example, was a fascinating but flawed man who was also a talented empire builder without whom the nascent stem of God's restored Kingdom would have been trampled underfoot just as it was taking hold. He was needed at that time and that place to do the things that needed to be done. Very few people from any time or place could have done what he did. I don't think it is coincidence that he was there at that time and place. Just so, I think this is why we see different kinds of men ascending to the president's seat now, at this time and place.

A few more examples to supplement YOhio's list:

- Lot, one of the most righteous guys in the OT, offered up his daughters to be gang raped. He then shagged them both.
- Judah thought his daughter-in-law was a hooker and banged her.
- David nailed Bathsheba and had Uriah killed.
- Absalom screwed David's concubines.
- Moses allowed the Israelites to murder the boys and married women and rape the virgins of the Midianites
- People criticize prophets and apostles in this dispensation because of imperfections but the Apostles while Jesus was alive displayed lack of comprehension (Mark 4:13), little faith (4:40), hard hearts (6:52), competitiveness (9:34), possessiveness (9:38), selfish ambition (10:37) and jealousy (10:41).
- Before he was called to be an Apostle, Paul persecuted Christians, tried to trick people into blaspheming, took part in the stoning death of Stephen, arrested men and women and put them in prison or sent them to their deaths.

But if an apostle today even says one intemperate thing, one remark not perfectly calibrated to the sensibilities of the critics, heaven preserve that apostle from the wrath of self-righteous asshats, including many on this board.

I know I might be preaching to the choir about taking a highly nuanced view of the historicity of the scriptures. And let me stress that I can glean important teachings from flawed historical figures with a revisionist eye with the best of them. But some of my beef with BY and early church leaders is not that they were flawed. It's that they took to heart what you and others have said about biblical figures, and turned the literal dial up to 11. They didn't see any need for an allegorical view of the Bible. They really believed in that whole god-sanctioned killing and immorality thing, and then formed a gospel trying to justify it. And yes, their literal interpretations of the bible weren't anything out of the ordinary for their time. Sue me for expecting a little better from them.

I can accept listening to and following flawed church leaders. And I get the importance of humility in oneself it engenders. But seriously, it is time to officially stop trying to put a god-sanctioned sheen on immoral things prophets old and new did. You, me, and the vast majority of members are not nearly as immoral as those guys were.

And repeal section 132!

[Jeff Lebowski]

I know I might be preaching to the choir about taking a highly nuanced view of the historicity of the scriptures. And let me stress that I can glean important teachings from flawed historical figures with a revisionist eye with the best of them. But some of my beef with BY and early church leaders is not that they were flawed. It's that they took to heart what you and others have said about biblical figures, and turned the literal dial up to 11. They didn't see any need for an allegorical view of the Bible. They really believed in that whole god-sanctioned killing and immorality thing, and then formed a gospel trying to justify it. And yes, their literal interpretations of the bible weren't anything out of the ordinary for their time. Sue me for expecting a little better from them.

I can accept listening to and following flawed church leaders. And I get the importance of humility in oneself it engenders. But seriously, it is time to officially stop trying to put a god-sanctioned sheen on immoral things prophets old and new did. You, me, and the vast majority of members are not nearly as immoral as those guys were.

And repeal section 132!

Yeah at the time BY was getting his bearings, half of the country was busy enslaving, raping, and murdering Africans. Just think how morally superior we all are to Thomas Jefferson and George Washington!

[tooblue]

Yeah at the time BY was getting his bearings, half of the country was busy enslaving, raping, and murdering Africans. Just think how morally superior we all are to Thomas Jefferson and George Washington!

^^thumbs-up^^

I really like the PBS special Hamilton's America. In regards to your point above, there is a poignant segment starting at about the 1:00:35 mark, concerning George Washington and his 'flaws.' We are all every bit as "immoral as those guys were," just simply in different ways:

[Northwestcoug]

Yeah at the time BY was getting his bearings, half of the country was busy enslaving, raping, and murdering Africans. Just think how morally superior we all are to Thomas Jefferson and George Washington!

Just to clarify, my remarks were mainly directed towards those bad dudes in the bible and BOM, not today's leaders. We are certainly more moral than those older prophets (both the historical ones and the others who weren't real ). And I think in general we stack up pretty well against BY and others of his time.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Just to clarify, my remarks were mainly directed towards those bad dudes in the bible and BOM, not today's leaders. We are certainly more moral than those older prophets (both the historical ones and the others who weren't real ). And I think in general we stack up pretty well against BY and others of his time.

What defines morality? How you live relative to the standards and mores of your own time? Or how you live relative to the grand sweep of time, both past and future? Is it really fair to use the second standard? Are you confident that nothing you are currently doing will be considered immoral by future generations?

[creekster]

Just to clarify, my remarks were mainly directed towards those bad dudes in the bible and BOM, not today's leaders. We are certainly more moral than those older prophets (both the historical ones and the others who weren't real ). And I think in general we stack up pretty well against BY and others of his time.

Perhaps. I am not sure we are more moral than they were. I think we struggle a lot in our own way. I know I do. Moreover, aren't you the one who a couple of posts ago urged a nuanced and less-literal view of the scriptures? Did Moses really sanction murder and rape? or was that an oral tradition that developed to justify conduct of others and to make a point about the unique nature of the chosen people? Did Lot really do those things with his daughters? Or is it a gripping fireside tale used to make some points. I am not really sure, although probably some of the better scholars here could shed light on that.

[old_gregg]

people are talking past each other here (). the issue is not that prophets are fallible when acting as men. duh--that should be noncontroversial even for the most ardent and orthodox. the problem is that doctrinal concepts (preached and declared as such) are arguably the result of man's fallibility rather than divine revelation. i don't think there's any other way to square 132 or material sections of the journal of discourses, for example. at the point where people are expected to ferret out truth from stuff that's purportedly doctrine, what's the whole point of having prophetic revelation on behalf of the church? sure, the church needs some chief officer by virtue of its hierarchy, but if members have to parse through stuff that's already purportedly the word of god to find what's actually the word of god, i'm not sure that makes sense. the sentiment that we should accept decidedly racist, sexist or other -ist statements because we are also sinners is intellectually lazy and a bunch of hogwash. a racist statement by an 1840s layman is different than a racist statement by a prophet given under the color of revelation.

[old_gregg]

What defines morality? How you live relative to the standards and mores of your own time? Or how you live relative to the grand sweep of time, both past and future? Is it really fair to use the second standard? Are you confident that nothing you are currently doing will be considered immoral by future generations?

hebrews 13:8

[Topper]

lol. Yes, Topper. It may be that it's all made up. Good point.

You laugh but the fact that stories written down centuries later than their purported occurrence show people doing all sorts of things inconsistent with their "declared" principles shows something. Your agreeable interpretation is that Divinity is kind and forgives every sinner his sins. An alternative is that there is nobody to object, a disagreeable proposition here but logically an equally possible interpretation.