PBS: Is Holland 180 degrees out of phase from the old man?

[_Blixa]

Thanks for writing more, harmony. Your views are very interesting to me and illuminate a thread in Mormonism I haven't thought much about.

[_guy sajer]

Joseph avoided talking about the First Vision. That is my opinion as to why the accounts are confusing. When Missionaries went out in the beginning the story started with Moroni's visit. Joseph did tell some family and friends and the story got distorted a lot and the two accounts were confused. The account we have in the PoGP says in the beginning in essence: "I'm tired of dealing with all the warped versions of my story, here's what actually happened."

Not true. In the PofGP, Joseph Smith says that he told locals immediately after it happened, and the context makes it clear that he told him he saw "two personages" something Joseph Smith goes on to say he dared not deny lest he come under condemantion from God.

The PofGP account appears to contradict this standarish apologetic argument.

Other prophets boldly "stood for something," but the 'second only to Jesus" wimps out when under the gun. I don't buy it.

If it were in a context other than Joseph Smith, would you find someone who keeps chaning his story credible?

[_The Nehor]

That's an extremely provocative position, harmony. I mean that more in the sense of "thought-provoking" than attempt at being coy ; ).

The strucuture of authority in Mormonism, or rather the history of its reformulations, is interesting to me. The position you outline: every member can recieve personal revelation and thus spiritually is the equal of church leaders, speaks to what is at least a populist, if not radically democratic, thread in the Smith's thinking. And I don't know that any other LDS president or prophet after him entirely endorsed that position and its possibiities (and I think that Joseph Smith himself didn't at times either).

As an institution, the church really took the form we now know it in under BY---and his rule was authoritarian (whether you want to explain at born of practical necessity in "the wilderness," personal nature, or doctrinal understanding). The massively hierarchical institutional structure of the church (both on earth and apparently extending to the hereafter) displays the contradictions inherent in "Mormon authority:" every man (emphasis on man) has his own bit of the pie, but as much as he rules over that, he too is ruled over by somebody else (who is ruled over by...).

And yet still the idea of personal revelation survives---usually accomodated to the institution (god/the spirit gives witness to "the truth" but only on small personal issues (lost car keys) or to endorse the truth of the GAs), yet sometimes not, as in harmony's postion or Juanita Brooks's ("Its as much my church as it is J. Reuben Clark's).

Yet Brigham said this:

"What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually." (JD 9:150)

"...Now those men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith upon another's sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the celestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods. They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others, but they must be dictated to in every trifle, like a child. They cannot control themselves in the least, but James, Peter, or somebody else must control them. They never can become Gods, nor be crowned as rulers with glory, immortality, and eternal lives. They never can hold sceptres of glory, majesty, and power in the celestial kingdom. Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired with the true independence of heaven, who will go forth boldly in the service of their God, leaving others to do as they please, determined to do right, though all mankind besides should take the opposite course. Will this apply to any of you? Your own hearts can answer." (JD 1:312)

Those who follow Church Leaders may inherit a Kingdom of Glory but they will NOT be exalted. Note the phrase: "True Independence of Heaven". I also have found that at least where I live the strongest members understand this. They also know that the Church only has the teachings for the general plan of salvation and that what you need to do to be exalted will require you to get out and find it. Too many see the Church as the fountain of wisdom and ignore the pure source. They instead drink from waters muddied by men, mostly well-intentioned but fallible. Even if the teacher really understands it the real truths of the Gospel can not be taught by mortals.

[_The Nehor]

Joseph avoided talking about the First Vision. That is my opinion as to why the accounts are confusing. When Missionaries went out in the beginning the story started with Moroni's visit. Joseph did tell some family and friends and the story got distorted a lot and the two accounts were confused. The account we have in the PoGP says in the beginning in essence: "I'm tired of dealing with all the warped versions of my story, here's what actually happened."

Not true. In the PofGP, Joseph Smith says that he told locals immediately after it happened, and the context makes it clear that he told him he saw "two personages" something Joseph Smith goes on to say he dared not deny lest he come under condemantion from God.

The PofGP account appears to contradict this standarish apologetic argument.

Other prophets boldly "stood for something," but the 'second only to Jesus" wimps out when under the gun. I don't buy it.

If it were in a context other than Joseph Smith, would you find someone who keeps chaning his story credible?

It says he told one pastor and then the story got around. I assume this pastor was someone he respected and considered a friend. He never wimped out later. At the time he was not a Prophet he was a teenager with some knowledge and a lot of lessons to learn.