CWK #32: Anti-Mormonism

[Markk]

Kish wrote...I think he was trying to take care of a lot of issues at once. He was trying to build a loyal core of connected families in a dynastic arrangement.

Please explain how that worked, starting with Fanny Alger. Was sealing each other to each other to create a huge eternal family and he as the monarch?

Kish wrote....He was trying to find a way to satisfy his sexual desires in what he saw as a divinely sanctioned arrangement with biblical precedents.

So are you saying he was taking advantage of what he believed was a God given mission to build a eternal dynasty, to satisfy his sexual desires?

What were these biblical precedents IYO?

I think he believed God instructed him to do it. We don’t have to believe that, of course. Simplistic explanations don’t reflect the complexity of the phenomenon itself.

Well, that is assuming it is a complex phenomenon, especially given the history of charismatic men, with power, how have sexual addictions. It is a story as old as time.

Why can't it be as simple as he was just a bad person. Very street smart. Who had a angle for every situation. In my almost 7 decades of life, I have known countless folks like this, although less successful that Joseph, or maybe more successful depending how one looks at it.

Do you believe he actually thinks he saw God and all those angels? And he believed he found the plates? I think that is import to note and discuss if one is going to say that Joseph actually believed God instructed him to do so.

[Markk]

He didn’t canonize it because the revelation came so late and it was a bombshell. It cost him his life. I don’t see what is so mysterious about this. Clearly he was developing a system of higher ordinances in secret before he rolled it all out before the entire church.

Well this would go back to Fanny, right? And why was Emma like the 20th one on the list to get in the club? Clayton said he preached it before it was written by him. I would argue nothing is clear about your assertion. I would also argue it didn't cost him his life, it certainly lent to it and lit the fuse, but the reaper finally caught up with him. I believe his becoming a political force and a threat of the Mormon folks to the non Mormon folks had a huge reason for his death, and maybe even masonry to a smaller degree.

I think the mo better reason he did not canonize it, is that it was meant for Emma, at least as written and canonized. He preached in concept to his victims, but as canonized, it was for Emma. To me that is far more clear.

I believe that he felt he received his exaltation during the first vision along with the sealing power described in the Book of Mormon. He also believed he had the priesthood by birthright. He was just trying to develop a system whereby he could transmit the blessings to others. One mechanism was polygamy. I think it was a very bad decision. A flop. And a hurtful one.

So this assumes that he actually saw God in a vision for one. It assumes the he knew of a sealing power in the Book of Mormon, more than a decade before it was supposedly written.

What Priesthood, and where did he receive that information from?

What blessing was he trying to transmit?

You believe polygamy was a decision and not actually a commandment from God as 132 states?

Kish, these kind of "belief's" of yours in my opinion beg the question I keep asking...."do you believe Joseph was a true prophet of God?" They almost demand you do.

[Kishkumen]

Of course they differ. Speaking of bizarre, this hill you apparently want to die on in the infancy of your podcast is bizarre on steroids. Quit targeting people on a relatively obscure blog that disagree with you.Target the idea not the person. Not a good look . For those following, Sandra Tanner when asked why she dosen't turn this critical eye to her own faith she simply said it dosen't excuse the problems in Mormonism. I get why that can be interpreted as evangelical attacks. I get why this is genre of religion against religion is unsavory and I agree. Vogel, Bill, and Rfm are doing the same thing. They just do it with a curtsey and others do it with Michael Flatley style.

I don’t agree. OK? We have a difference of opinion. Ending a discussion with different opinions isn’t “dying on a hill.” Nor is it bizarre. I brought up Sandra as the nicest person I could think of who does this thing I don’t agree with because it would be easy to say nice things about her. I was not “targeting” her or Markk.

[Dr. Shades]

I’m sure we can both agree that verbal abuse of small children is so baked into the culture that it would be futile to fight it. Does that mean you want it, too, to perpetuate, prosper, and thrive?

If not, what’s the difference?

Shades, I have made it clear numerous times that I do not equate Mormonism and the LDS Church[.]

Perhaps that's why we're not understanding each other. I guess you believe Mormonism can exist as an idea or set of ideas, independent of any organization.

If so, what constitutes "Mormonism" to you, specifically the parts that aren't to be had anywhere else? And of all the parts that aren't found anywhere else, which parts are true and not false, and thus assumedly deserve to prosper, perpetuate, and thrive?

[Markk]

Shades, I have made it clear numerous times that I do not equate Mormonism and the LDS Church[.]

Perhaps that's why we're not understanding each other. I guess you believe Mormonism can exist as an idea or set of ideas, independent of any organization.

If so, what constitutes "Mormonism" to you, specifically the parts that aren't to be had anywhere else? And of all the parts that aren't found anywhere else, which parts are true and not false, and thus assumedly deserve to prosper, perpetuate, and thrive?

This is why I keep asking him if he believes Joseph was a true prophet of God. His understandings are scattered with things such as the 1st vision having to actually of happened in order for other things that he believes might not have been inspired, to have happened.

He says he is clear but he is not giving enough information for it to be clear. I think, while guessing, that he believes Joseph Smith had a real vision and meeting with God, and was more or less commissioned to build some kind of dynastic utopia, sealing everyone with everyone. Whoever he took it too far with polygamy.

I think he believes Mormonism is the original mission of Joseph Smith, including the Book of Mormon being inspired, and that LDS-ism is a polluted branch from the original goals Joseph set out to achieve. But again just guessing, one thing he is not, is clear.

[Moksha]

If reading the Book of Mormon and the Bible keeps Dr. Peterson from committing murder and acts of mayhem, then more power to those books. Let's hope he keeps reading them.

[Kishkumen]

Perhaps that's why we're not understanding each other. I guess you believe Mormonism can exist as an idea or set of ideas, independent of any organization.

If so, what constitutes "Mormonism" to you, specifically the parts that aren't to be had anywhere else? And of all the parts that aren't found anywhere else, which parts are true and not false, and thus assumedly deserve to prosper, perpetuate, and thrive?

As I will discuss in my next episode, for the purposes of the channel, Mormonism is everything that springs from Joseph Smith's religious activities. The purpose of the channel is to cast a wide net and discuss as much of all of it as possible. I am not seeking to define hard boundaries on the channel. I am seeking to have a lot of interesting things to talk about.

But yes, I think that Mormonism is a category in which the LDS fits but is not coextensive with. I don't think it matters whether things in Mormonism can be had elsewhere, so I am not sure why that is important to you. Are you saying that if they are in Mormonism, they must be sought elsewhere because Mormonism is unacceptable as a phenomenon? I am trying to work out your thought process there.

[Kishkumen]

This is why I keep asking him if he believes Joseph was a true prophet of God. His understandings are scattered with things such as the 1st vision having to actually of happened in order for other things that he believes might not have been inspired, to have happened.

He says he is clear but he is not giving enough information for it to be clear. I think, while guessing, that he believes Joseph Smith had a real vision and meeting with God, and was more or less commissioned to build some kind of dynastic utopia, sealing everyone with everyone. Whoever he took it too far with polygamy.

I think he believes Mormonism is the original mission of Joseph Smith, including the Book of Mormon being inspired, and that LDS-ism is a polluted branch from the original goals Joseph set out to achieve. But again just guessing, one thing he is not, is clear.

Again, I don't think simplistic pronouncements of belief capture what people actually feel and do. They are flags to plant on a hill to define our identities in shorthand. If one looks more closely than those asseverations, the picture is usually a lot more complicated than those things allow. I don't feel the need to define myself by "articles of faith" for your satisfaction.

[Markk]

Again, I don't think simplistic pronouncements of belief capture what people actually feel and do. They are flags to plant on a hill to define our identities in shorthand. If one looks more closely than those asseverations, the picture is usually a lot more complicated than those things allow. I don't feel the need to define myself by "articles of faith" for your satisfaction.

Then don't criticize others opinions Kish. You want to say others are wrong and then don't present your own opinions, like I wrote I believe that is weak. I am not asking you for a creed, I am asking you if you believe Joseph was a true prophet or not, which seems to be the case, I see no other option given you cryptic and scattered responses.

[Kishkumen]

Then don't criticize others opinions Kish. You want to say others are wrong and then don't present your own opinions, like I wrote I believe that is weak. I am not asking you for a creed, I am asking you if you believe Joseph was a true prophet or not, which seems to be the case, I see no other option given you cryptic and scattered responses.

Markk, you may want to put words in other people's mouths so that you feel better, but I don't have to play along. I reject your assumptions, and I think you are behaving in a rude, obtuse, and bullying fashion by attributing thoughts and words to me that I have not consented to.

Moreover, I can certainly say that I don't agree with something in a measured tone on the channel. I am allowed to express opinions in my own forum: the channel.