? 4 DCP: Will there be changes to the lesson manuals?

[_beastie]

Could Joseph Smith have been a kind of playboy that used his special persona as a religious giant as an angle?
It wouldn't be the first time that the "I'm so spiritual" angle was used to get women.
When Joseph Smith talks or writes about himself, he sounds like an egomaniac to me. Being an egomaniac and thinking that one deserves lots of women seem to go hand in hand.

I'm afraid I just don't have Joseph Smith figured out. I tend to think he was bipolar, but I know I could be wrong. People with bipolar can be incredibly charming and successful (I should know, I married one - unknowingly). And, of course, during their manic or hypo-manic periods they are extremely grandiose and hyper-sexual. People with bipolar who hallucinate often have religiously oriented hallucinations, that often involve them being called to some incredible mission by God or an angel.

I do definitely believe that RfMers are oversimplifying one thing - any charming man who has managed to obtain a great deal of power and influence in his social circle can always, and I mean always, find plenty of very willing sexual partners. While certainly some of Joseph Smith' wives were manipulated and pressured, like Helen Mar - others, I think, were only too happy to find a way to partner with Joseph Smith - like Eliza Snow. So I think his power and charm alone were probably sufficient, outside the "I'm so spiritual" angle (which my ex-husband used to get me). And I do think that is one thing that we can all agree on, no matter how we view Joseph Smith - he was a very charismatic man.

[Guest]

To say there is nothing damaging to the church's truth claims is just another way of saying that there is nothing there that could justify a loss of faith.

Sure, there may be "problems", but nothing that merits losing faith. None of these "problems" have anything to do with the church's truth claims.

It would be nice if you could resist the urge to rewrite what I've said. I said what I said, and I meant what I said.

I didn't say, and I didn't intend to say, that "there is nothing damaging" or that "none of the 'problems' have anything to do with the church's truth claims." I said, and intended to say, that there are "none, in my judgment, that are particularly damaging to the Church's truth claims."

Please notice the word particularly. Please notice the words in my judgment.

I judge that there is nothing in the history of the Church that is lethal to its truth claims, so damaging that continuing to accept those claims is deeply problematic for me. I understand that others judge differently, and I recognize that they are free to do so.

If I thought that its history was fatal to its truth claims, I would not be a believing member of the Church. I am, however, a believing member of the Church, so it shouldn't surprise you that I don't think that its history is fatal to its truth claims.

If P, therefore -Q.
Q, therefore -P.

If you expected me to agree with your take on the history of the Church, disappointment was inevitable.

As for plural marriage, particularly at its origins, I regard it as the single most difficult issue in Church history. However, how one views it is very much a matter of prior assumptions.

Consider a situation in which you hear something about the behavior of X that seems very problematic. If you've already suspected that X is a bad person, and have had a number of negative encounters with him, you will be inclined to believe the worst of this latest report. If, on the other hand, you have had a very long and positive history of trusting relationships with X, you will be disposed to cut him some slack in a situation that is ambiguous but seemingly negative. You might say, for example, "I have known X for thirty years, and have always known him to be a kind and honorable man. I'm sure that, when we know all the facts, there will be a good explanation for this." Of course, such trust is not a blank check. Confidence in other humans is never -- or, at least, should never be -- infinite. X may, in fact, eventually turn out to have been a secret scoundrel, or, at least, to have committed a genuinely evil even if uncharacteristic act. But you tend to give him the benefit of the doubt because of your overall opinion of his character.

This is my view with regard to Joseph Smith. My overall opinion of his character is very positive, though I certainly don't view him as either inerrant or perfect. Thus, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt in the matter of plural marriage. You, by contrast, are not. You are free to hold your opinion. I am, I believe, still free to hold mine. Holding it proves me neither stupid, nor ignorant, nor immoral.

[_Polygamy Porter]

The problem is that some of these women's husbands WERE active, faithful believers.

Again, defenders will deny there was nothing more than a friendly sealing to these married women. I waiting for a clarification from DCP on that. Jgirl has gone silent on this issue.

BY also said that a woman was justified leaving her husband if a man with a higher authority in the church wanted her - you think Mormon men would be ok with that, as well?

True, but remember that while he was the mouth piece of god back then and such statements within the closed society of his theocracy were accepted. But today, since the Mormons failed to take over the US and the world and bring down the king of the world to reign from the new HQ of LDS Inc in Missouri, such statement do not fit within the social norms of the society the Mormon had to shoehorn themselves into.

Therefore, that is one of the many prophetic statement that Brigham made that has been relegated to a mere personal opinion of his. That way it takes it off the dart board so that the clowns at FARMS Fair do not have to defend them.

[_Polygamy Porter]

I do definitely believe that RfMers are oversimplifying one thing - any charming man who has managed to obtain a great deal of power and influence in his social circle can always, and I mean always, find plenty of very willing sexual partners. While certainly some of Joseph Smith' wives were manipulated and pressured, like Helen Mar - others, I think, were only too happy to find a way to partner with Joseph Smith - like Eliza Snow. So I think his power and charm alone were probably sufficient, outside the "I'm so spiritual" angle (which my ex-husband used to get me). And I do think that is one thing that we can all agree on, no matter how we view Joseph Smith - he was a very charismatic man.

Look at Warren Jeffs the FLDS leader and prophet. He has far more followers than Smith did.

Jeffs is the modern day Joseph.

[_Polygamy Porter]

This is my view with regard to Joseph Smith. My overall opinion of his character is very positive, though I certainly don't view him as either inerrant or perfect. Thus, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt in the matter of plural marriage. You, by contrast, are not. You are free to hold your opinion. I am, I believe, still free to hold mine. Holding it proves me neither stupid, nor ignorant, nor immoral.

This spin is similar to Bushman's.

Who cares if he cheated on his wife, lied to his followers, screwed young prepubescent teen aged girls, formed an army against the US, lied about translating some papyrus, scammed money from folks in Kirtland... he did one thing well! He restored the only true and living gospel of Jesus Christ!

[_Daniel Peterson]

The problem is that some of these women's husbands WERE active, faithful believers.

Again, defenders will deny there was nothing more than a friendly sealing to these married women. I waiting for a clarification from DCP on that.

You need wait no more.

I don't know.

It's certainly possible. There has been a pretty concerted search underway for a number of years, now including DNA analysis, to find descendants of Joseph Smith by a woman or women other than Emma. Several promising candidates have long been known, but the results have been uniformly negative. To this point, so far as I'm aware, not a single instance has been identified -- which seems to suggest that images of Joseph as having been engaged in a multi-year sexual romp with numerous women may, in fact, not be true. (That's why certain folks are now testing the hypothesis that John C. Bennett was Joseph's secret abortionist; they have a challenging problem that they feel they need to deal with.)

[_Polygamy Porter]

The problem is that some of these women's husbands WERE active, faithful believers.

Again, defenders will deny there was nothing more than a friendly sealing to these married women. I waiting for a clarification from DCP on that.

You need wait no more.

I don't know.

It's certainly possible. There has been a pretty concerted search underway for a number of years, now including DNA analysis, to find descendants of Joseph Smith by a woman or women other than Emma. Several promising candidates have long been known, but the results have been uniformly negative. To this point, so far as I'm aware, not a single instance has been identified -- which seems to suggest that images of Joseph as having been engaged in a multi-year sexual romp with numerous women may, in fact, not be true. (That's why certain folks are now trying to suggest that John C. Bennett was Joseph's secret abortionist.)

Then why do the experts and defenders still use the terms "plural MARRAIGE" and POLYGAMY if the marriages were not legally recognized and no marital relations occurred? Were these sealings no different than my daughter being sealed to me?

[_beastie]

Daniel -

You answering this question will help me understand your position. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:

The problems within church history are problematic enough to make the loss of faith understandable and reasonable, even if these problems did not result in my personal loss of faith.

Agree/Disagree?

[_beastie]

It makes no sense to suggest that Joseph Smith did not have sexual relationships with his wives, outside of the few who were too old or too young. The entire point of polygamy, according to God, was to raise faithful seed.

Just how do you do that without having sex?

And the reason Joseph Smith probably did not impregnate most of his wives is because they were not having regular sexual relations. He didn't live with them, or have easy access to them. The relationships were furtive and under pressure. It is not uncommon for those type of relationships not to produce children. Plus, he had way too many to have regular sex with any of them, other than his one legal wife - who, by the way, watched him like a hawk.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Daniel -

You answering this question will help me understand your position. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:

The problems within church history are problematic enough to make the loss of faith understandable and reasonable, even if these problems did not result in my personal loss of faith.

Agree/Disagree?

May I write for myself, please?

I understand why some people have found certain issues in the history of the Church problematic for their faith. I disagree with their interpretation and weighting of those issues.

That ought to do it, I think.