God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Gadianton]

I think you can look at it that way, I mean, during my last bit as a believer I read Rudolf Bultmann a little. But any of these interpretations drop the Old Testament down a notch from the fundamentalist's ideal of "life's instruction manual" to nearly baggage we're forced to carry, and eventually we should wonder if perhaps other religious systems also deserve sympathetic readings. Believe me, I'm far happier for Christians to read Kierkegaard than watch Kenneth Copeland.

I do agree with you that polygamy in the Old Testament was just a norm of the day, and not explicitly commanded. Joseph Smith was obviously steeped in justifying his own hanky panky. His impersonation of God explaining polygamy is odd, that God "gave" additional wives to Bible figures, as if the norms of the 19th century were the same as the norms in 2,000 BC, but God had his reasons for making slight alterations occasionally.

I think it's hard to compare Joseph, basically a cult leader, with the entire Jewish tradition spanning thousands of years. In the broadest terms, I see the Old Testament as tribal. Israel vs. the rest of the world. The authors and redactors were concerned with preserving Israel. Joseph Smith was concerned with preserving Joseph Smith. When God commands Israel to kill those of the out-group, it's like, sure, why not? Can we keep their stuff? That's why Abraham-Isaac stands out, because it's an ambiguous situation for the in-group. Isaac did nothing wrong, and we're going to kill him? Well, other than running from the authorities, cult leaders have little to do than play games with their flock. So Abraham-Isaac is one episode over thousands of years of Jewish history. Whether it's polygamy or viewing the plates, for a cult leader, the entire thing is game-playing, loyalty and faith tests, and finding ways to benefit personally from the flock. For a cult leader, hair-raising moral conundrums are a daily thing rather than the once in a blue moon surprise situation for a tribe that follows its traditions dutifully (authoritarian though they might be) in predictable ways and thus are stable over hundreds of years or longer.

[Gadianton]

Consider the rather 'rocky road' involved in the publication of that section. It may well be that Section 132 in the D&C is the 'showcase example' of God demonstrating, in real time, that He can write straight with crooked lines.

I would love for you to explain, in relation to Joseph’s adultery, what about it was crooked lines, and how section 132 writes it straight. Please be specific.

I second the request.

[malkie]

Joseph, reportedly, was a reluctant polygamist:

An angel came to him [Joseph Smith] and the last time he came with a drawn sword in his hand and told Joseph if he did not go into that principle, he would slay him. Joseph said he talked to him soberly about it, and told him it was an abomination and quoted scripture to him. He said in the Book of Mormon it was an abomination in the eyes of the Lord, and they were to adhere to these things except the Lord speak. … [The Prophet reported that] the angel came to me three times between the years of 1834 and 1842 and said I was to obey that principle or he would slay me.

Joseph Smith’s Polygamy: The Beginnings of Polygamy

What I would like to know, in light of the discussion about whether Mormon god actually commanded Joseph to practice polygamy, is this:
was the angel acting on his own, or was he acting as Mormon god's agent. Which of the two - angel or god - was prepared to kill Joseph if he (Joseph) did not disobey his own conscience. Which of them was interfering with Joseph's agency?

Or,
was the angel sent by Satan?
Perhaps Joseph forgot to check the angel's credentials.

[I Have Questions]

As is par for the course, I will be accused of not having answered questions brought up earlier...questions that I have already approached and answered.

Just not in a way that is satisfactory to the die hard critics. This is to be expected.

I would encourage inquisitive readers to read what I have already written. At some length, I might say.

It is a cardinal and unassailable 'line in the sand' for critics that Joseph Smith's prophetic legacy is irreparably damaged as a result of the practice of polygamy. There is NOTHING that can steer them away from the dogmatic position that they have taken that polygamy was evil...period...end of sentence.

The evidence shows otherwise. I've provided just a snapshot of Mary Rollins and her husband that might cause one to do a 'double take' as they take a birds eye view of the practice in LDS history.

For some, it is this one issue that takes them out of the church and even a belief in God. That's unfortunate, in my view.

I don't want to veer off on polygamy at this point on this thread. Only in conjunction with its relationship with the OP. Which is a valid direction to go.

Perfect issue which, in my opinion, we can see God writing straight with crooked lines. I've already discussed this in greater depth earlier. If others want to build on what HAS been said, that's a worthy project.

Regards,
MG

Deflection, avoidance, and martyr syndrome. MG isn’t going to answer Limnor’s simple question, nor Gad’s simple question, no my simple question. And the reason is two fold. Firstly, he knows the answer completely refutes his opinions. And second, his purpose here is not honest, good faith discussion…he’s just trolling. Here is the troll gloating at how long he’s kept you responding to his trolling…

On the other thread...Page 100!!...I mentioned I need to take a break for now. Back at another time.

Have fun!

Be nice.

Regards,
MG

The parting shots are trolling #101

[I Have Questions]

Consider the rather 'rocky road' involved in the publication of that section. It may well be that Section 132 in the D&C is the 'showcase example' of God demonstrating, in real time, that He can write straight with crooked lines.

I would love for you to explain, in relation to Joseph’s adultery, what about it was crooked lines, and how section 132 writes it straight. Please be specific.

I second the request.

He's never going to answer these questions. You know, and I know, and he knows, that he can’t because to do so crystallises his failure to support his opening assertion.

[I Have Questions]

Joseph, reportedly, was a reluctant polygamist:

An angel came to him [Joseph Smith] and the last time he came with a drawn sword in his hand and told Joseph if he did not go into that principle, he would slay him. Joseph said he talked to him soberly about it, and told him it was an abomination and quoted scripture to him. He said in the Book of Mormon it was an abomination in the eyes of the Lord, and they were to adhere to these things except the Lord speak. … [The Prophet reported that] the angel came to me three times between the years of 1834 and 1842 and said I was to obey that principle or he would slay me.

Joseph Smith’s Polygamy: The Beginnings of Polygamy

What I would like to know, in light of the discussion about whether Mormon god actually commanded Joseph to practice polygamy, is this:
was the angel acting on his own, or was he acting as Mormon god's agent. Which of the two - angel or god - was prepared to kill Joseph if he (Joseph) did not disobey his own conscience. Which of them was interfering with Joseph's agency?

He didn’t seem so reluctant when, aged 26, he sexually propositioned a 12 year old girl.

[I Have Questions]

As is par for the course, I will be accused of not having answered questions brought up earlier...questions that I have already approached and answered.

Just not in a way that is satisfactory to the die hard critics. This is to be expected.

I would encourage inquisitive readers to read what I have already written. At some length, I might say.

It is a cardinal and unassailable 'line in the sand' for critics that Joseph Smith's prophetic legacy is irreparably damaged as a result of the practice of polygamy. There is NOTHING that can steer them away from the dogmatic position that they have taken that polygamy was evil...period...end of sentence.

The evidence shows otherwise. I've provided just a snapshot of Mary Rollins and her husband that might cause one to do a 'double take' as they take a birds eye view of the practice in LDS history.

For some, it is this one issue that takes them out of the church and even a belief in God. That's unfortunate, in my view.

I don't want to veer off on polygamy at this point on this thread. Only in conjunction with its relationship with the OP. Which is a valid direction to go.

Perfect issue which, in my opinion, we can see God writing straight with crooked lines. I've already discussed this in greater depth earlier. If others want to build on what HAS been said, that's a worthy project.

Regards,
MG

I note that you’ve refused to condemn Joseph’s behaviour when, aged 26, he propositioned a 12 year old girl (and that was from an example YOU provided of how God interacts). On that basis we are left to conclude that you’re okay with it.

[Gadianton]

Yes, his temporary parting shots are absolutely meant to troll, as his reminders that his thread has reached 100 pages. However, I do think that there are glimpses of sincerity, although that sincerity is mainly in the form of devotion to his belief that his church can't be wrong. To his credit, he did finally answer the question of whether God played a part in authoring polygamy, and confirmed this is the case. Though that is not much, as he's left it open that "Thus sayeth the Lord" revelations in the D&C don't mean that Mormons are bound to believe God said it. That should mean (as multiple have pointed out) that he's okay with the Church perhaps not being the only true Church on the face of the earth, as perhaps that was Joseph's interpretation more than God chiming in. I don't see him admitting to that possibility.

As I've said earlier, if crookedness is just another word for wickedness then it's not an interesting question. I get the feeling that MG, along with everyone else on this thread except me, believes that this is the case. I don't think that was his original position but he seems to have converted to this position. In that form, it's just a re-hash of the problem of evil. At best, we're taking up a particular kind of wickedness seeking proper classification.

I don't think polygamy is fundamentally evil. I do think that polygamy is fundamentally "crooked". But I don't think that crookedness necessarily entails evil. "Cookedness" to me seems to involve some kind of drastic inconsistency, especially in a context where clarity is what is taught. For instance, one prays about which way to go, the clear prompting of the spirit manifests to two people the same direction, but that direction turns out to be the wrong way. And so then a convoluted lesson ensues that will tear apart the rest of Holland's neat and tiny world if he were to continue to analyze what he's really saying. But does that mean God was evil by teaching them this lesson? I think that needs a further argument. It certainly reveals the possibility that Holland thinks his Church is true, but really the church might be false, and his life in the Church is but a convoluted lesson -- compared to eternity, it is a short distance.

The New Testament could have been very crooked to the participants. When it came to criticizing the Law of Moses, or teaching moral lessons through outsiders, those receiving the lessons were receiving something quite contrary to their expectations. A rabbi getting told that the Law of Moses is essentially bunk is as crooked to me as polygamy getting revealed as the higher law of marriage. We easily agree with the first because it matches up with our expectations about morality. One of the weirdest examples I encountered back in the day, was the stoning of the adulteress. The Law of Moses is clear, stone the adulteress. Nothing crooked about that. But Jesus interrupts and says "let he without sin cast the first stone." He didn't say not to enforce the law, however, he put a psychological check on those all too eager fulfill the law. That is already getting a bit crooked if your frame of reference is pure Law, but the real twist is that the Pharisees self-checked, saw the truth of it and refrained. But Jesus also refrained, and Jesus was without sin. The Law is clear, she should be stoned; Jesus should have thrown the first stone. The New Testament is hardly straightforward, it only seems that way because it matches up in broad strokes with our modern expectations about morality. But it wasn't easy for those at the time of Jesus and that's why he ended up on a cross.

If you believe in God, I kind of think you have to be open to crooked lines, that your world of commitments might not be the true world, and God might shake things up with revelations you aren't ready for.

[Limnor]

For a cult leader, hair-raising moral conundrums are a daily thing rather than the once in a blue moon surprise situation for a tribe that follows its traditions dutifully (authoritarian though they might be) in predictable ways and thus are stable over hundreds of years or longer.

I’m still not fully comfortable with the Amalekite episode, not because the arguments are unclear, but because of my own lived experience. This is one of those places where I think conscience is important—I’d be concerned about any reading that makes the action repeatable or as justification for an acceptable approach to warfare. From that standpoint, moral seams can be used to justify loyalty tests to cult leaders, as you’ve said, and something to be on watch for.

It’s interesting that you mentioned the taking of “stuff” from the conquered in the story because that's what gets Saul in trouble later, and makes the story feel more complex and cautionary than it first appears.

If you’re willing to share, I’d be interested to hear what you consider the best or most honest response you’ve seen to the Amalekite problem, especially since you take the story seriously and don’t excuse the moral issue.

[Limnor]

If you believe in God, I kind of think you have to be open to crooked lines, that your world of commitments might not be the true world, and God might shake things up with revelations you aren't ready for.

I’m not sure we ever settled on a definition, and I think we’ve ranged from crookedness as being the same as evil to just “difficulty.”

I’m currently sitting somewhere near “crookedness is the dissonance that comes from a promise of moral clarity that can only be satisfied by suspension of conscience to remain clear.” I can see how uncomfortable revelation could feel crooked when first introduced, but caution should be applied when crookedness becomes routine instead of rare, or when the lack of resolution becomes the expected condition. So it’s not so much that the line bends or seems crooked, it’s whether that crookedness becomes the norm.

I think you’re right that the gospel initially looked crooked to those living under the Law, but I’m not sure the New Testament leaves that crookedness permanent—Paul in particular spends a lot of time making sense of it rather than continuing the confusion.