tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-160966302597383081.post1883973304822791165..comments2023-10-02T02:17:35.010-07:00Comments on Wasatch Intercept: Mormon Fundamentalist Theology, And Why I Cannot Abide By ItWasatchIntercepthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04476952963264897864noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-160966302597383081.post-56266970363472058452011-05-05T12:35:46.429-07:002011-05-05T12:35:46.429-07:00Just how crucial did Brigham Young consider the ch...Just how crucial did Brigham Young consider the character of a prophet to be, in contrast to the importance of his message? I recently discovered this statement:<br /><br />"I recollect a conversation I had with a priest who was an old friend of ours, before I was personally acquainted with the Prophet Joseph. I clipped every argument he advanced, until at last he came out and began to rail against "Joe Smith," saying, "that he was a mean man, a liar, money-digger, gambler, and a whore-master;" and he charged him with everything bad, that he could find language to utter. I said, hold on, brother Gillmore, here is the doctrine, here is the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the revelations that have come through Joseph Smith the Prophet. I have never seen him, and do not know his private character. The doctrine he teaches is all I know about the matter, bring anything against that if you can. As to anything else I do not care. If he acts like a devil, he has brought forth a doctrine that will save us, if we will abide it. He may get drunk every day of his life, sleep with his neighbor's wife every night, run horses and gamble, I do not care anything about that, for I never embrace any man in my faith. But the doctrine he has produced will save you and me, and the whole world; and if you can find fault with that, find it. He said, ‘I have done.’"<br />Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, p. 78:WasatchIntercepthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04476952963264897864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-160966302597383081.post-57503370644015464332011-03-29T08:53:42.062-07:002011-03-29T08:53:42.062-07:00-continued from last
Polygamy came to serve a use...-continued from last<br /><br />Polygamy came to serve a useful purpose in pioneer Utah, on that I agree, but if God did indeed reveal it, why did he do so at such a premature time? Do you feel I am missing something when I state that polygamy under Joseph caused only harm?WasatchIntercepthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04476952963264897864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-160966302597383081.post-25649638133621442832011-03-29T08:51:57.369-07:002011-03-29T08:51:57.369-07:00Alma,
I appreciate the thoughtful response in you...Alma,<br /><br />I appreciate the thoughtful response in your email. <br /><br />I think that it's a point well taken that I need to be more careful in looking for evidence of sexual relations, rather than making that assumption, based on the fact that a sealing was performed. Off the top of my head, the Fanny Alger incident comes to mind to support the position that Emma was not the only woman with whom Joseph was intimate, while Heber C. and Vilate Kimball being told that the proposition was only a test deserves serious consideration. (I've had to take a traveling job to dodge a layoff, so the time I have at home with the material I have collected over the years is somewhat limited for the time being). I'm aware that a book called "Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy" is currently receiving some attention, though I haven't had a chance to look over a copy. Would you consider this to be worth taking the time to read, or do you have something better to recommend?<br /><br />I would very much like to hear the discussion between Brigham Young and Bruce R. McConkie on the other side of the veil. Brigham and Orson Pratt never resolved their differences on the nature of God. The question of which man's view reflects the authoritative position of the church today has puzzled me. I really don't think that it can be answered, as the points on which they differed are a hot potato no church authority alive today is willing to pick up. McConkie was the only one I'm aware of in recent times who would, though it's widely recognized that his views, on their own, should not be taken as the Church's official stance. What I have seen indicates to me that he was significantly influenced by Pratt's reasoning.<br /><br />I feel that my position on the calling of a prophet carefully takes into account both what Joseph Smith did, and what he failed to do. God has to have spoken to him. He could not have come up with the Book of Mormon, and the theological innovations that followed it, on his own, or with the assistence of his friends. On the opposite side of the coin, God could have prevented a lot of suffering in Missouri by warning Joseph that Sampson Avard was not to be trusted, to stop Sidney from preaching the Salt Sermon and the Fourth of July Oration, not to visit the home of Justice of the Peace Adam Black with demands that this man sign a declaration of non-hostility, that the attack on Bogart's forces at Crooked River would ultimately have disastrous results for the Mormons (even though they forced the enemy into retreat), and to be more forceful in urging those who wanted to remain at Haun's Mill that they were in imminent peril. God could have...but he didn't.<br /><br />I do indeed believe that a prophet can commit egregious sins, that he will some day have to answer to God for, yet not be removed by God as a prophet. As someone with experience managing personnel entrusted with limited civil authority, you no doubt considered your employee's performance on the job first and foremost, giving a much lower priority to the way they conducted their personal lives after clocking out. The priesthood has been restored, the Book of Mormon is being distributed throughout the world, the church has grown to such a size as to ensure that it can never die out. Joseph successfully accomplished his task, whereas most religious movements originating during the Second Great Awakening have long since failed.<br /><br />If I am an accuser of the brethren, then so are the men who authored the Holy Bible. David was both a king and a prophet. Scripture records that he committed the sin of adultery, and worse. I recall a passage somewhere in the Doctrine and Covenants indicating that he will be called to account, yet he continued as both king and a prophet until his death. Scripture also contains an account where the prophet Elisha used the divine power he received from his predecessor Elijah to cause the gruesome deaths of children who mocked his baldness.<br /><br />continued-WasatchIntercepthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04476952963264897864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-160966302597383081.post-86894372123351246802011-03-22T12:24:28.401-07:002011-03-22T12:24:28.401-07:00Gary,
Did you get my email?
AlmaGary,<br /><br />Did you get my email?<br /><br />AlmaAlma Allredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11724192086426186057noreply@blogger.com