Themis wrote:So you cannot say who suggested infallibility, and you have your own particular definition of doctrine.
When someone says because a prophet says something then if they are a prophet the text wouldn't have errors that's to me a de facto infallibility. If I misunderstand those making that argument I'm more than willing to correct myself.
So again you cannot show anyone claiming infallibility?
As for 'my own definition' I simply listed the different ways people use the term. Often in Mormon circles true doctrine is the ultimate teachings were we to have better understanding and more revealed. If you do a quick search on LDS.org you'll find my use is fairly ubiquitous. We see through a glass darkly and our understanding is limited. We attempt to teach only true doctrine but as flawed human beings sometimes we screw up.
I brought up two definitions people use. I am sure there are more variations. It doesn't change the church's position has always been global flood. If you view doctrine as truth, then sure you might argue it is not church doctrine. I go by the common definition.
Maksutov wrote:The purpose is to have your particular family, your dynasty, your "seed" outproduce that of others. Not for the general population of the colony to increase. The idea is to have your family, your tribe dominate in terms of genetics in addition to other sources of power. It assumes greater social coherence will be the result, with a more potent command and control structure. It's feudalistic and elitist, but this is a system wherein Joseph was crowned a king, remember.
Todd Compton's theory in In Sacred Loneliness is that Joseph's polygamy was essentially dynastic. It's been a few years since I read it but I think general consensus is this captures part of what Joseph was doing. The problem is that the dynastic sealings weren't necessarily tied to children. (None of his polygamous wives had children) So the speculative theory is that Joseph thought that for the sealing theology to work everyone had to be sealed in a fashion that they ended up either married or adopted to a family. I think the adoption element became more significant over time and the current theology of the church is much more the idea that eventually all who end up saved then have to be married and sealed into a family. The theory by some is that Joseph had a fragmentary idea of this back in Nauvoo that developed later to be more adoptive.
(I have no particular views on the subject I should say - while the theories are interesting I don't think they have enough evidence for me to believe them)
Joseph employing polygamy was more then just sex, even though it played a big role. Joseph had few to no children because he was trying to hide what he was doing from his wife, the church, and the world. Even other leaders did the same until after Joseph was dead and they were in Utah. Accusations of using abortions to keep some of his girls from having kids was labeled at Joseph.
ClarkGoble wrote:Often in Mormon circles true doctrine is the ultimate teachings were we to have better understanding and more revealed. If you do a quick search on LDS.org you'll find my use is fairly ubiquitous. We see through a glass darkly and our understanding is limited. We attempt to teach only true doctrine but as flawed human beings sometimes we screw up.
If the glass is really so dark, why even talk about revelation? Between prophets that reliably reveal things, and complete lack of revelation at all, is there really any substantial middle ground of fallible prophecy?
Physics Guy wrote:If the glass is really so dark, why even talk about revelation? Between prophets that reliably reveal things, and complete lack of revelation at all, is there really any substantial middle ground of fallible prophecy?
Why make revelation black and white? Again this gets to my talk about infallibility. Revelation comes in different strengths in different circumstances. You suggest there is no middle ground whereas my personal experience and testimony is all about the middle ground. As I've suggested several times (often to derision) it seems this basic premise is why we disagree so much over interpretation. But I arrive at this position not in order to defend texts but simply because that is how my religious experiences proceed.
Themis wrote:Joseph had few to no children because he was trying to hide what he was doing from his wife, the church, and the world. Even other leaders did the same until after Joseph was dead and they were in Utah. Accusations of using abortions to keep some of his girls from having kids was labeled at Joseph.
You'll have to break this out and be more specific. Unprotected sex if done regularly leads to children. We know Joseph wasn't sterile. So unless you are asserting abortions how do you square that circle?
Themis wrote:So again you cannot show anyone claiming infallibility?
Again I can but repeat that if you make an argument where prophethood entails correctness that entails infallibility. Are you saying no one is making that argument? You may not like the label but you haven't demonstrated in the least it doesn't fit.
If your point is merely that the word isn't used by others here I might agree - at least in my discussions. But this then confuses terms with meanings. It is the meaning to which I refer.
I brought up two definitions people use. I am sure there are more variations. It doesn't change the church's position has always been global flood. If you view doctrine as truth, then sure you might argue it is not church doctrine. I go by the common definition.
It's not hard to find counter examples including people like Widstoe who thought rain was good enough. If your position is that the manuals and most GAs assume as global flood then I agree. But then that was never a point I disputed.
Themis wrote:Joseph had few to no children because he was trying to hide what he was doing from his wife, the church, and the world. Even other leaders did the same until after Joseph was dead and they were in Utah. Accusations of using abortions to keep some of his girls from having kids was labeled at Joseph.
You'll have to break this out and be more specific. Unprotected sex if done regularly leads to children. We know Joseph wasn't sterile. So unless you are asserting abortions how do you square that circle?
Joseph wouldn't be having regular sex since he has many wives and is trying to hide it from just about everyone including his wife. More wives less sex with each. Trying to hide means one has to be more careful in get together's, meaning less sex with his wives. Most of his wives were married within a few years of Joseph's death. Accusations of abortions were made by people who knew Joseph, and certainly would explain why no children. Not sure why you are even questioning Joseph having sex when we know other leaders were and then having lots of kids in Utah. You know a number of these wives gave testimony of sex, and we have Joseph and his nasty filthy affair(with a sixteen year old girl living with him and Emma) where Emma supposedly caught them and she was kicked out of the house. What's sad is how some want to protect Joseph here, but would never do such for anyone else.
ClarkGoble wrote:Again I can but repeat that if you make an argument where prophethood entails correctness that entails infallibility. Are you saying no one is making that argument? You may not like the label but you haven't demonstrated in the least it doesn't fit.
If your point is merely that the word isn't used by others here I might agree - at least in my discussions. But this then confuses terms with meanings. It is the meaning to which I refer.
Correctness does not entail infallibility. Correctness is a vague term. I would see if at a minimum as just over 50% correct up to 100%. Infallibility is just a poor apologetic to attack those disagreeing with you.
It's not hard to find counter examples including people like Widstoe who thought rain was good enough. If your position is that the manuals and most GAs assume as global flood then I agree. But then that was never a point I disputed.
The church does not print out a list of all of it's doctrines or position, so one has to look at what the church tells you through it's manuals, church leaders, magazines, etc. If we do we see a consistent position of a global flood. We also see a 1998 article from the church's main magazine, to communicate it's positions, that is written to directly answer this question. That shows a clear position of the church. That is why you could never show another position.
What if Joseph Smith was sterile and Emma's children were from her hookups?
What if Joseph Smith practiced coitus interruptus, or used a condom, or was all about manual, oral or anal?
All kinds of possibilities.
Spin it as you want, the man was a rake, using a position of power to get sex and promising exaltation in exchange. A huge abuse of ecclesiastical authority.
Tell me again, under what sealing power was the barn meat commerce with Fanny authorized?
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.
Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality. ~Bill Hamblin
SteelHead wrote:What if Joseph Smith was sterile and Emma's children were from her hookups?
What if Joseph Smith practiced coitus interruptus, or used a condom, or was all about manual, oral or anal?
All kinds of possibilities.
Spin it as you want, the man was a rake, using a position of power to get sex and promising exaltation in exchange. A huge abuse of ecclesiastical authority.
Tell me again, under what sealing power was the barn meat commerce with Fanny authorized?
He lied about polygamy and his missionaries in England and elsewhere lied about it, too. But the lies started long before. He got better and better at them until he inevitably overreached and crashed. The wages of his sins were death.
